Introduction

Shaykh al-Islam Imam Taqiuddin Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, was a maker of an age. More than a thousand years after the Hijrah of the Prophet, impurities had become mixed into the clear spring of Prophethood; through prolonged effort, struggle, and spiritual striving, he freed it from that pollution. The fame of his knowledge reached from distant Qayrawan in the Maghrib to Canton in China in the east. The influence of his reformative activities also flooded these regions.

In the seventh and eighth Hijri centuries, Ibn Taymiyyah was the name of an unbroken struggle. He struggled against shirk and bid‘ah. He struggled against injustice and falsehood, oppression and persecution. His fearless and powerful voice made even the hearts of mighty rulers tremble. At the counsel of wicked men, the powerful ruling authority cast him behind iron doors. Even while in prison, he continued writing at great speed. The prison walls could not obstruct the expression of his unadulterated truth. His opponents wanted to burn him to ashes in the fire of hatred. This time, by the king’s order, his books, notebooks, pens, ink, and inkwell were all taken away from him, yet he did not yield. He collected scraps of torn paper and continued writing on them with charcoal. Thus, this fearless soldier of truth continued fighting falsehood until his death.

His sixty-seven-year life was a record of the shameful defeat of falsehood and vanity, injustice and untruth. Ibn Taymiyyah’s sharp pen continues even today to write the story of the defeat of falsehood and vanity.

The Qur’an and the Sunnah are the two principal sources of true knowledge in Islam. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah reconnected all the branches of Islamic knowledge to these two original sources. For this, he employed all his scholarly ability and intellectual power. On this path, he paid no heed whatsoever to the wrathful gaze of any mighty ruler or immensely powerful opponent. His fearless struggle and striving for the truth will continue to give this Ummah vitality until the Day of Resurrection.

A sage like Ibn Taymiyyah is born only once in a thousand years, and does not truly die even in a thousand years.

It would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that no detailed discussion has been written in the Bengali language on the struggle-filled life of this great scholar. I have merely gathered here my published writings on the life and activities of this great thinker under the title “History Unfading in the Soldier’s Struggle.” The Imam’s tajdidi activities deserve a more detailed discussion. But, fearing an increase in the size of the book, I refrained from proceeding in that direction. Nevertheless, a general picture of the Imam’s life and reformative activities has emerged here. I believe that even if the reading public benefits only slightly from it, my labor will have been worthwhile.

I do, however, request the readers that, while reviewing the life and activities of an Islamic reformer, they give full importance to a complete Islamic perspective. Do not regard this merely as a theoretical and informational discussion; rather, try to identify yourselves with the Imam’s activities. Only in this way will it be easier to benefit from this discussion.

Abdul Mannan Talib
180 Shantibagh, Dhaka.

Background: The Muslim World Devastated by the Tatar Invasion

The Muslims’ Terror of the Tatars

In the first half of the seventh Hijri century, the word Tatar was a symbol of fear and terror to the Muslims. After suffering defeat at the hands of the Tatars one after another, the Muslims had come to believe that the Tatars were invincible. There was a proverb in Arabic: “If you are told that the Tatars have been defeated, do not believe it.”

This punishment inflicted by the Tatars upon the Muslims had in fact been decreed for them by Allah. For several hundred years they had been negligent in fulfilling the responsibilities of the Din. They had been running blindly after luxury and worldly greed and desire. Disunity, division, and internal conflict had destroyed the unity of their Din and Ummah. In particular, they had begun walking in the exact opposite direction from the responsibility entrusted to them: establishing justice in the world and uprooting injustice. So what else could be expected for them from Allah except such a terrible punishment?

This punishment upon the Muslims began in 616 AH. It continued without interruption for nearly forty years. It was as though they were being crushed to powder under a steamroller.

In 616 AH, during the reign of Sultan Alauddin Khwarazm Shah, Genghis Khan launched the first attack on the borders of the Islamic state. The historic city of Bukhara was the first victim. Bukhara was reduced to ruins. Not a single person from the city could escape with his life. All the houses were burned to ashes. Then the city of Samarkand was reduced to ashes. All its inhabitants were killed. After that, cities large and small suffered the same fate. Hamadan, Qazvin, Rayy, Zanjan, Merv, Nishapur, and other cities began turning into ruins one after another.

At that time, Khwarazm Shah was the only powerful ruler in the eastern region of the Islamic world. After he lost the power to resist, the other minor rulers could not remain in the field even for a short while. Nevertheless, after Alauddin Khwarazm Shah, his son Jalaluddin Khwarazm Shah continued fighting the Tatars. But his situation eventually reached its extreme. As he suffered successive defeats in battle, his soldiers and friends abandoned him. The Tatars remained on his heels like a shadow. At last, fearing the Tatars, he died on an unknown island with only a few trusted attendants.

Tatar terror had spread among the Muslims so thoroughly that, when a Muslim saw a Tatar, he thought that his Angel of Death had arrived. Often a single Tatar entered an alley and killed a hundred Muslims alone. None of them had the courage even to utter a word against him. Once, a Tatar woman entered a house disguised as a man and began killing everyone one after another. It seemed that all those people had been preparing all that time merely to stretch out their necks and embrace death. Suddenly one man came to his senses and said, “Why, this is a Tatar girl!” With one stroke of his sword, he finished her off.

Here is another incident from a different city. A Tatar entered a house and captured a Muslim. He had no sword, so he brought a stone from inside the house. He placed the Muslim’s head against the stone and ordered, “I am going to bring a sword from the market right now and kill you. You will remain exactly like this. Beware—do not move even slightly.” Saying this, the Tatar went to the market. But the half-dead Muslim, terrified of the Tatar, did not even think of escaping. He kept his head on the chopping block in exactly the same way. After some time, the Tatar returned from the market with a weapon and calmly cut the Muslim’s throat.

This unbelievable fear of the Tatars among the Muslims was a vivid reality of that era. Muslims today will certainly be astonished to hear it. Indeed, even the Muslims of that time, after the Tatar terror had subsided, wondered in amazement what had happened to them. Why had they become living corpses? The truth is that when the fear of Allah disappears from the hearts of Muslims, they begin to fear everything in the world. But when they are fearful only of Allah, then even as ordinary mujahids from a small, underdeveloped country like Afghanistan, they learn to regard with contempt even a superpower of the modern world such as Russia.

The Tatars: A Symbol of Destruction

The Tatars did not stop at killing Muslims and plundering their wealth; they also destroyed mosques, madrasas, and libraries. They were barbaric tribes from Central Asia. They had no connection with learning, civilization, or culture. Thus they gave themselves over to a bestial frenzy to destroy Muslim civilization and culture. Nowhere in the entire history of Islam had Muslims ever faced such a disgraceful situation. The pens of Muslim historians of that age trembled as they described the Tatars’ oppression, tyranny, and devastation. The historian Ibn Athir wrote:

“There is no precedent for such a catastrophe in the history of the world. This event concerns all people, but it concerns Muslims in particular. If someone claims that, from the time of Adam, peace be upon him, until today, no such event has ever occurred in the world, he will certainly not be making a false claim.”

This barbarity showed not the slightest mercy to anyone. They killed women, children, men, and the elderly alike. They pierced the bellies of pregnant women with swords, split them open, and cut into pieces the underdeveloped babies that emerged from their wombs.

At that time, the Tatar fitnah had become a cause of fear not only for Muslims but for people throughout the world. On hearing of the Tatars’ oppression and persecution of Muslims in Asia, the people of Europe also trembled in terror. The Tatars’ barbaric campaign began with Genghis Khan and continued with the speed of a storm for forty years, up to his great-grandson Kublai Khan.

Baghdad, the City of Corpses

The internal enemies who live within the house have always brought ruin upon Islam and the Muslims. Of course, in every country they are identified as enemies of the nation. But the destruction they bring upon Islam and Muslims has no equal. For there is no power in the world capable of defeating the Muslims. Only when their unity and solidarity are destroyed by internal discord and conflict can an external enemy overpower them. And these internal enemies fan the flames of that internal conflict among the Muslims.

These internal enemies are of three kinds. One group is hostile to Islam, one to the Muslims, and one to the country. Although they belong to three categories, there is an astonishing affinity among them. It cannot be said that those who are enemies of Islam are overflowing with love for Muslims and the country. Islam is the center of their attack. They attack Islam indiscriminately and with all their strength, though they sometimes launch scattered attacks against the other two as well. The same is true of the enemies of Muslims and the country. The poet Allama Iqbal, the philosophical interpreter of Islam, also alluded in one of his poems to these three kinds of internal enemies. He said: “Jafar of Bengal, Sadiq of the Deccan—shame upon Din, shame upon the Ummah, shame upon the homeland.” The Bengali traitor Mir Jafar and the Deccani Mir Sadiq were disgraces to the Din of Islam, the Islamic Ummah, and their homeland. In other words, these internal enemies always belong to three categories: enemies of Islam, enemies of the Muslim Ummah, and enemies of the Muslims’ homeland. How can a person living in a Muslim country and among the Muslim Ummah, while harboring extreme hostility toward Islam, possibly be passionately devoted to the Muslim Ummah and the homeland of the Muslims? This is utterly incomprehensible. In reality, if Islam is excluded, the Muslim Ummah and the homeland of the Muslims have no separate existence or importance.

In the history of Islam, these internal enemies have never disappeared. They have appeared in ever-new forms, and they continue to appear. It was they who caused the terrible destruction in Baghdad that day. The event occurred in 656 AH.

The traitors of Baghdad, the central land of the Islamic world of that time, were being led by Ibn al-Alqami, Baghdad’s Shi‘a prime minister, and Nasiruddin Tusi, the Muslim adviser to the Tatar rulers. These traitors spread a vast web of conspiracy to destroy Baghdad. They thought that the barbaric Tatars would attack Baghdad, kill and plunder, and then depart; after that, they themselves would become the sole owners of Baghdad. Moreover, Islam’s superiority was an eyesore to them. Beneath the guise of Muslims, they were in reality hypocrites. Thus the humiliation of Islam, Muslims, and Muslim lands was enough to cool their hearts.

The barbaric Tatar armies were then unstoppable. Destroying Muslim settlements and cities one after another, they roamed the Islamic world spreading terror. At this time, incited by Ibn al-Alqami and Nasiruddin Tusi, the Tatars advanced toward Baghdad. Hulagu Khan, the grandson of Genghis, arrived on the outskirts of Baghdad with his enormous army.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Ibn al-Alqami advised Caliph al-Musta‘sim Billah to make peace with Hulagu. He assured him that Hulagu would leave if given a large amount of gold and gifts. On al-Alqami’s advice, the caliph prepared to go to Hulagu’s camp to finalize the terms of peace. The caliph’s litter reached Hulagu’s encampment. Then, by pressuring the caliph to sign as a witness to the treaty, arrangements were made to bring all the city’s leading men to the Tatar camp. As soon as they arrived, they were all killed before the caliph. In this way, after securing the caliph’s letter, the Tatars brought the powerful and respected men of the city to their camp one after another and slaughtered them brutally.

But the Tatars were afraid to kill the caliph, because they believed in superstition. They had heard that as soon as the caliph’s blood fell upon the earth, some vast destruction would occur. Thus they hesitated. Then Nasiruddin gave them advice by which the caliph would die without a single drop of his blood touching the ground. On Nasiruddin’s advice, they wrapped the caliph in a huge mattress and bound him. Then they killed him by kicking and beating him against the ground.

What was written in Baghdad’s destiny then came to pass. Killing and plunder continued for forty days. After forty days, Baghdad—the greatest city of the contemporary world, a city of dreams, a center of knowledge and learning, and a nursery of civilization and culture—appeared to be a city of ghosts. The city became deserted. On the roads, in the streets, and in the markets, only two or four people could be seen here and there.

As one walked along the roads, heaps of corpses could be seen at intervals. They seemed like small mountains of corpses. Then it rained. The corpses swelled and began to rot. A stench spread throughout the city. Those who had survived were stricken by epidemics. The stench extended beyond Baghdad to the borders of Syria. According to historians, about 1.8 million people were killed in Baghdad at that time. After entering Baghdad, Hulagu ordered the Christians to drink wine publicly and eat pork. It was the month of Ramadan, yet Muslims were forced to drink wine. Wine was poured into the mosques. The call to prayer was banned. Baghdad had been the center of the Islamic world of that time. Since the city had first been settled, this was the first time Baghdad had fallen into the hands of unbelievers. Extreme despair spread throughout the Islamic world. Wherever the story of Baghdad’s destruction reached, the Muslims there began mourning. But they could do nothing. The traitors were active not only in Baghdad but in every country of the Islamic world. Until these traitors were eliminated, there was no possibility of freeing the Islamic world from its crisis.

The Tatars Are Not Invincible

After Baghdad, the Tatars conquered Syria. The roads of Syria flowed with Muslim blood. Heaps of corpses accumulated in towns and villages. The situation was the same everywhere: from Tashkent to Bukhara, from Bukhara to Baghdad, and from Baghdad to Damascus. Nowhere was there a place for Muslims even to lay their heads. Then it was Egypt’s turn. The Egyptians understood clearly that their days were coming to an end and that Allah’s wrath was advancing toward them.

But in the end, the Egyptians produced a surprise. They decided to advance and confront the Tatars. In 658 AH, the Sultan of Egypt, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Saifuddin Qutuz, advanced with his army, placing his trust in Allah. Crossing the Egyptian border, they blocked the Tatars at a place in Syria called Ayn Jalut. The Tatars’ entire record up to that time was shattered. They suffered defeat—their first defeat, and a grievous one. On the other hand, the courage of the Muslims increased a thousandfold. The belief and fear that the Tatars were invincible disappeared from their hearts. They became extraordinarily brave. They drove the Tatars far into the distant regions of Syria. The roads and fields were strewn with Tatar corpses. They began dying at the hands of Muslims like foxes and dogs. Large numbers of Tatars were also taken prisoner.

After this, the Tatars were defeated several more times by the Egyptians. Yet, considering how the Tatar conquests were advancing everywhere with the force of a storm, how much obstruction could Egyptian steadfastness really create? Moreover, at that time the Tatars were the attackers, while the Muslims were fighting defensively. There is no doubt that, in such circumstances, the attacker held the better position. The entire Islamic world had reached the brink of destruction under the Tatars’ storm-like attacks and barbaric persecution. It seemed that the Muslims’ days were numbered. It seemed that Allah had decided to punish this nation for its sins in this very world.

But no—the true followers of Allah’s true Din still existed in the world in great numbers. As a whole, the Muslims had not fulfilled their responsibility toward Allah’s Din at that time. Therefore, as a nation, they had been overtaken by Allah’s wrath. Yet, as a nation, they had not abandoned Allah’s Din, and a part of them was still fulfilling the responsibilities of the Din. The terror of the Tatar invasion therefore urged the Muslims to reconsider their own actions and to live as genuine Muslims and obedient servants of Allah. Thus Allah gave the Muslim Ummah another opportunity to survive in the world. Otherwise, no nation before then had ever faced such destruction and subsequently risen again.

A nation that once gave birth to a new civilization and established its superiority firmly in the world eventually disappeared from history. It never again had the opportunity to reappear in the same form and attain a position of superiority in the world. The civilizations of the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians stand before us. The spread and extent of Aryan civilization in this subcontinent were also historic. But after their destruction, they found refuge only in the pages of the past. Their religions, morality, and customs are all stale today. Although, after thousands of years, the Children of Israel have again established a new state on the shores of the Mediterranean, not even a trace of the Din of Moses, peace be upon him, exists in their present society and civilization. As blind followers of Western society and civilization, they are merely performing the role of an imitation of Western civilization. The same is true of modern India.

But Islam is Allah’s chosen way of life. The elements of social civilization that this way of life will continue to provide until the Day of Resurrection will bring success and establishment beneath the feet of Muslims whenever, wherever in the world, they cling to it. They will be able to live in the world with dignity as the best nation. The Muslims of today’s world are proof of this. It is precisely because they abandoned Islam and tried to absorb Western social customs and values that Muslims today are humiliated everywhere in the world, even though the world’s greatest resources are in their possession. Western thought and values have destroyed their unity and set one against another.

Let us set aside the modern crisis of the Muslims and return once again to the seventh Hijri century. In those days, it was the return to Islam that saved the Muslims. This is proof of Islam’s inexhaustible vitality. As soon as any lifeless or dying nation embraces it, a flood of life awakens in its breast. Its campaign continues until it is established in a position of superiority and honor in the world.

The Tatars Under the Shadow of Islam

How the Muslims revived after being persecuted and crushed by the Tatars for nearly half a century is a startling history. Those who had been trying to exterminate the Muslims to the last member of their families came and joined the ranks of the Muslims themselves. Those who had sworn to erase Islam from the face of the world bowed their heads and accepted the message of Islam. Without condition, they accepted Islam as their sole way of life. The half-civilized and barbaric Tatars of Central Asia eventually bowed before Islam’s superiority. They embraced Islam.

The destruction of the Islamic world in the seventh Hijri century at the hands of the Tatars was not nearly as astonishing as their acceptance of Islam. Given the internal weakness of Muslim society and the Islamic world at that time, it is not particularly surprising that the victory of a vigorous and hardy people like the Tatars became certain. But to come intending to humiliate and destroy Islam and then be conquered by Islam is truly one of the most astonishing events in history. The historian T. W. Arnold, while describing this remarkable event in his famous book *The Preaching of Islam*, wrote:

“But Islam rose again from the ashes of its former splendor. The barbaric Mongols who had subjected the Muslims to every kind of persecution were won over to Islam by Muslim missionaries and preachers. This was extremely difficult for the Muslims. For the missionaries of two other religions had also attempted to convert the Tatars to their faith. At that time, it seemed almost impossible for Islam to contend with Christianity and Buddhism, turn the Mongols away from those two religions, and make them followers of Islam. For the Muslims had suffered most severely at the hands of the Mongols. The great cities that had been centers of Islamic learning and homes of Muslim scholars and learned men had been reduced to ruins by the weapons of the Tatar Mongols. Muslim scholars and jurists had been turned into captives or slaves. The Mongol khans were tolerant toward every religion except Islam. Toward Islam they harbored boundless hatred and hostility. Yet, despite harboring such a fierce attitude toward Islam, the Mongols eventually accepted the religion of the very people whom they had crushed beneath their feet.”

(This became possible through the sincere efforts of a group of scholars, spiritual elders, and righteous Muslim merchants. However, the greatest positive role in this matter was played by highly educated Muslim women whom the Tatars had captured and placed in their harems. These beautiful, well-educated, refined, believing women, remaining in the inner quarters, cultivated their husbands’ inner worlds for Islam and faith.)

The Unchanged Face of the Tatars: Ibn Taymiyyah’s Efforts

Secret Muslim organizations were working in various places to spread Islam among the Tatars. Thus the process of the Tatars’ conversion to Islam never stopped, although its pace was sometimes rapid and sometimes slow. The first Tatar attack on the Muslims took place in 616 AH. It was led by the Tatar chief Genghis Khan himself. The first Tatar emperor embraced Islam in 656 AH. Within only forty years, the Tatars began entering the religion of their former enemies.

But the Tatars were not transformed from head to foot immediately upon accepting Islam. They did not forget all their hostility toward the Muslims and embrace them as friends and brothers. There were certainly exceptions in some places. For example, after accepting Islam, Berke Khan, the first Tatar emperor to embrace Islam, pledged that he would no longer attack the Muslims. But not all Tatar emperors were like him. A revolutionary change did not begin among them immediately upon their acceptance of Islam. For example, Ghazan, the ruler of Iran and Iraq, accepted Islam in 694 AH. Even after embracing Islam, his hostility and campaigns against the Muslims continued. In 699 AH, he prepared to attack Syria. In fact, given the condition of their way of life, it was not at all reasonable to expect any major change in their lives and character within only four or five years of accepting Islam. That is why Ghazan was able to prepare to attack Syria.

Ibn Taymiyyah Confronts the Tatar Emperor Ghazan

When news of the Tatars’ invasion reached Syria, great fear spread through the various cities of Syria. The Muslims were aware of the devastation caused by the Tatar invasion. Therefore, people began moving from the surrounding cities toward Damascus, the capital. The Muslims of Damascus were no less frightened. But at that time there was present there a mujahid man of faith whose strength of faith was instilling courage in the dispirited Muslims. He was the greatest scholar and mujaddid of the age, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.
News arrived that the king of Egypt was advancing with his vast army to help the Muslims of Damascus. It was as though the city came alive. The Muslims began preparing for battle with renewed enthusiasm. On 27 Rabi al-Awwal, 699 AH, the Sultan of Egypt clashed with Qazan. Despite making every effort and fighting with boundless courage, the Muslims could not save themselves. The Muslims were defeated. The Sultan of Egypt set out for Cairo with his defeated army.
The people of Damascus fell into a grave crisis. The Tatar army would now enter the city as victors. Then into what darkness the future of the citizens would sink, only Allah knew best. Thinking of the Tatar terror, even the leading scholars and prominent people began leaving the city. The Shafi‘i and Maliki judges, other well-known scholars, government officials, leading merchants, and even the governor of the city himself left for Egypt. Among the government employees, only the keeper of the citadel did not leave the city. Some of the populace also abandoned the city. Meanwhile, the prices of goods had risen abnormally. An additional calamity had mounted upon the people of Damascus. The prisoners had broken out of the prison. Day and night they continued looting throughout the city.
Meanwhile, the time for Qazan’s army to enter Damascus was drawing near. The people, caught between two evils, were becoming bewildered and helpless. In this situation, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and the leading men of the city met and reached an urgent decision. They decided that, under Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s leadership, a delegation of the citizens would appear before Qazan’s court and obtain a decree guaranteeing peace and security for the people. On the third of Rabi al-Thani, the envoy of Islam, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, appeared before the mighty Tatar emperor Qazan with his companions. Before Qazan, the Imam continued citing Qur’anic and Prophetic texts concerning justice, fairness, and righteous conduct. His voice gradually became louder and more solemn. As he recited verses and hadiths, he moved closer and closer to Qazan. In the end, there was not even a cubit’s distance between him and Qazan. But the most astonishing matter was that the mighty Qazan showed no annoyance or anger at all. Rather, he listened attentively to everything. It seemed that the Imam had profoundly influenced him. He asked the people, “Who is this scholar? I have never seen such a man before. Never until today has such a courageous and resolute person appeared before my eyes. No one has ever influenced me in this way.”
The people informed him about Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and told him about the Imam’s learning, knowledge, and deeds.
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah said to Qazan: “You claim to be a Muslim. I have learned that qadis, shaykhs, and mu’adhdhins are also with you. Yet despite all this, you have attacked the Muslims. Your forefathers, although unbelievers, hesitated to do such a thing. They kept their promises, whereas you have broken yours. You have not fulfilled what you said. You have wronged the servants of Allah.”
The Chief Judge, Abu al-Abbas, was with the Imam. He wrote: Food was placed before Taymiyyah and his companions at Qazan’s assembly. Everyone began eating, but Ibn Taymiyyah withdrew his hand. When asked why he was not eating, he replied in a firm voice: “This food is not lawful, for it has been prepared from the meat of sheep and goats plundered from poor Muslims. The wood used to prepare it was forcibly taken from the trees of oppressed people.” Qazan asked him to supplicate. He began praying: “O Allah! You know best. If Qazan’s purpose in this war is to raise Your Word and strive in Your path, then help him. But if his purpose is to gain worldly kingship and satisfy greed and desire, then You Yourself deal with him.” The most astonishing thing was that while the Imam prayed, Qazan kept saying, “Amin.”
Qadi Abu al-Abbas also wrote that when the Imam continued delivering his speech, we became terrified and gathered up our clothes, wondering when the executioner’s sword might flash over the Imam and our garments be dyed with his blood. The judge wrote: “On our return from Qazan’s court, we said to the Imam, ‘We will not go with you. You had arranged for all of us to be killed.’ The Imam replied, ‘I will not go with you.’ So we all left him and went away. The Imam set out alone. When the women heard of the Imam’s solitude, they came out of their homes. Many prominent men accompanied him. He returned to the city in royal fashion with three or four hundred devotees. We, however, returned home after losing everything to a band of robbers on the road.”
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah returned from Qazan’s court with great honor. He obtained a written warrant of safety for the citizens and secured the release of the Muslims whom the Tatars had taken captive. He had heard many accounts of Tatar brutality and had witnessed much of it with his own eyes. Yet none of this could disturb him in the least. He felt no fear in speaking face-to-face with the Tatar emperor or in moving freely among the Tatar troops. He used to say, “Only one whose heart has a disease can fear other than Allah.”

The Tatars’ Breach of Their Pledge and Persecution

Even though the Imam had obtained a warrant of safety, the citizens felt no relief. What they feared actually came to pass. Within a few days, the peace in their hearts vanished. The Tatars did not enter the city, it is true, but they remained encamped outside it. Unrestrained looting and killing continued in the suburbs beyond the city walls. Long-established Tatar custom made it seem that their victory could not be complete without killing and plunder. The entire area outside the city appeared to have become a proper battlefield. Armed Tatar soldiers entered the settlements in groups. They entered Muslim homes, tied the heads of households by their hands and feet, and beat them mercilessly to force them to reveal hidden wealth. They seized little boys and girls and dashed them to the ground. With the girls’ ear-splitting screams and pleas, it seemed that peace had departed from the Muslims of Damascus forever.
Because of the Tatars’ encirclement, oppression, and persecution, supplies of daily necessities from the surrounding areas had ceased. As a result, the prices of goods in the markets seemed to catch fire. Even when money was offered, goods could not be obtained. People began dying of starvation. On top of this, the Tatars made an unprecedented demand of the citizens: all the horses and weapons in the city had to be brought and surrendered to them. Whatever cash the citizens had hidden had to be taken from every secret chamber and handed over to them.
They appointed a newly converted Tatar of Turkish descent named Saif al-Din Kubjuk as the city’s new governor and sent him into the city. Kubjuk continued imposing one pressure after another on the citizens. Meanwhile, Tatar domination over the city had been fully established. Only the Arzawash fortress still stood independently with its head held high. Its commander was in no way prepared to submit. The historian Ibn Anisr wrote: It was Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s instruction that gave the commander courage. The Imam had written to him: “Do not lay down your arms as long as even one brick of the fortress remains intact. Under no circumstances open the fortress gates to the Tatars.” The commander followed this instruction until the final moment. Consequently, the Tatars were unable to capture the fortress.
The oppression and persecution by the Tatar troops continued unabated. They captured thousands of Muslim men and women and turned them into slaves and bondwomen. In the Salihiyyah quarter alone, they killed four hundred Muslims and arrested nearly four thousand, turning them into slaves and bondwomen; many of them were from noble families. They plundered many great libraries and sold books worth millions for nominal prices.
Seeing this state of affairs, Ibn Taymiyyah resolved to meet Qazan once more. On the 25th of Rabi al-Thani, he went with his companions to meet Sultan Qazan. But after waiting for two days, he was not allowed to meet the Sultan. Meanwhile, news spread in Damascus that the Tatars now wanted to enter the city. Until then, Tatar soldiers had pitched their tents outside the city walls. Now they would enter the city; on hearing this, the citizens became terrified. Until now, it was as though the tiger had sat watching its prey for amusement; now it seemed ready to pounce upon it. An uproar began in the city. People wanted to leave the city, but where could they go? The Tatars had surrounded it on every side. The Tatars began preparing to conquer the fortress. They dug a trench around it and positioned mangonels to hurl stones at the fortress walls and make breaches. People stopped leaving their homes, because whenever the Tatars saw anyone on the roads, they seized him and forced him to work. They made them dig trenches. Ibn Kathir wrote in his al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah: “The roads became completely deserted. Occasionally one or two people could be seen on them. The number of worshippers in the congregational mosque fell drastically. At the Friday prayer in the Jami‘ Umavi—the central congregational mosque—at most one row would be filled, with perhaps two or four people behind it. Anyone who had to go out for an urgent need would put on Tatar clothing. After completing his task quickly, he would return straight home. Even then, anxiety constantly lingered in his heart: who knew whether he would ever return home again?”
But eventually the Tatars attacked the fortress. Qazan set out toward Iraq with his army, leaving his representative and sixty thousand Tatar soldiers in Syria. As he departed, he said, “I am leaving my representative and army here. I will return next winter. At that time, we will also conquer Egypt along with Syria.”
After Qazan left, the second Tatar amir, Bulay Khan, began looting around Damascus. Within a short time, densely populated areas became desolate. Many Muslim boys and girls were turned into slaves and bondwomen. He also extorted a great deal of money from Damascus. When the situation reached an extreme, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah appeared at Bulay Khan’s camp. He discussed the release of prisoners with him and returned after freeing a large number of captives. The freed people were not only Muslims; many non-Muslims were among them as well. One day, an announcement was made on behalf of the commander of Damascus citadel that an Egyptian army was advancing toward Damascus to aid Syria. The next day, Bulay Khan left the city with his army. Not a single Tatar remained visible in the city. At that time Damascus had no responsible governor or ruler. The city walls had collapsed in places because of the Tatar attack. The commander of Arzawash fortress ordered the citizens to guard the city walls at night instead of sleeping. Along with the people, Ibn Taymiyyah also spent night after night guarding the broken walls.
Even though a large portion of the Tatars had become Muslim by 700 AH, their conflict with the Muslims had not ended, nor was it natural that it should have ended. For seven hundred years after the rise of Islam, Muslim society had reached a condition in which the principles of Islam and the higher virtues of Muslim character had been extensively distorted. As a result, it was not at all easy for a newly Muslim society to feel attracted to them. Therefore, they considered themselves superior to the Muslims. They believed that the Muslims’ present rulers had no right to exercise authority over Muslims. Rather, they thought that authority over the entire Muslim region belonged exclusively to the Tatars. This was evidence of the Tatars’ religious and spiritual incompleteness and immaturity. Their brief rule in Syria also revealed this religious incompleteness and immaturity. At that time the newly Muslim Tatar, Saif al-Din Kubjuk, was the ruler of Damascus. He granted an unrestricted license for the sale of wine in the city. This was the greatest source of state revenue. The use of wine became widespread in the city. Numerous new wine shops were opened, and the city’s non-Muslim residents took the leading role in this activity.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Eradication of Irreligion and Fitnah

After the Tatars left the city, the Muslims saw no reason to leave these sources of sin intact. At the same time, news was being heard that the Egyptian army was coming to aid Damascus. In this situation, the Muslims’ courage increased further. They advanced and attacked the wine shops. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah led this campaign. With a large force of his students and well-wishers, he went throughout the city. Whenever he saw a wine shop, he entered it with his companions. He smashed the wine jars, jugs, pitchers, cups, and barrels and threw them outside. He poured all the wine in the shops into the drains. He explained Islam’s injunctions to the drunkards and thugs found in the shops, made them repent, and punished them when necessary. The Imam’s campaign brought tremendous vitality to the entire city.
In the Tatars’ absence, the Syrians also sought to eradicate another fitnah. This fitnah was located in the borderlands. Certain tribes there were bitterly opposed to Islam and the Muslims. They were primarily Christians and members of the misguided Shi‘i esoteric sects, such as the Batiniyya, Ismailis, Druze, and Nusayris. When the Tatars entered Syria in 699 AH, these misguided tribes gave them full cooperation and succeeded in harming the Muslims as much as possible. When the defeated Muslim army fled across the border after being defeated by the Tatars, they pursued the defeated and demoralized Muslim soldiers, killed many of them, seized their weapons, and took possession of their horses. Previously, they had never submitted to the Muslim army. They had not been prepared to accept Allah’s true religion as described in the Qur’an and Sunnah, nor had they ever been willing to live an Islamic life.
After Syria was freed from its enemies, there was no longer any fear of danger from within. In this situation, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah considered it necessary to subdue these misguided border tribes, the perpetual enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and teach them the religion. At that time, Damascus essentially had no governmental administration. Thus Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and his companions were able to undertake various activities as they saw fit. They heard that Jamal al-Din Aqush, an aide to the Sultan of Egypt, was advancing with some soldiers toward the mountainous border region. The Imam did not consider it proper to let this opportunity pass. He joined Jamal al-Din with a large force of warrior residents and volunteers from the Hauran region. When the misguided tribes heard that the Egyptian Sultan’s aide was present, they came in groups to Ibn Taymiyyah. The Imam made them repent and taught them the true teachings of Islam. This produced much benefit. They promised to return whatever they had previously seized from the Muslim soldiers. A substantial sum was assessed against them on behalf of the Bayt al-Mal for this purpose, and they undertook responsibility for paying it.

The Contemporary Environment: Knowledge and Practice

Imam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah enriched the Islamic world of the seventh and eighth Hijri centuries with an extraordinary vitality. He was born in 661 AH and died in 728 AH. His greatest contribution during his sixty-seven-year life was to create a successful and epoch-making revolution in the thought and conduct of the dying Muslim society. Although the nature of the Tatar invasion changed during his lifetime, its force did not diminish. The devastation caused by the invasion continued unabated. The only difference was that by then the Tatars had become Muslims.
He was born only five years after the destruction of Baghdad and three years after the Tatars entered Damascus. It may therefore naturally be said that, as soon as his intellectual faculties began to awaken, he saw all around him oppressed families devastated by Tatar attacks. The faces of anguished and despairing Muslims profoundly affected his sensitive spirit. At the age of seven, he witnessed the horror of a Tatar invasion with his own eyes. The Tatars attacked his own city, Harran. Like countless other families in the city, his family also set out toward Damascus to escape the Tatars. Along both sides of the road, he witnessed the devastation caused by the Tatar invasion: people, trees, and animals burned by fire; settlements reduced to ashes; nowhere a healthy person except the crippled; and the fields destroyed. In short, it was a horrifying spectacle of destruction. His extraordinary memory preserved these scenes of childhood in the innermost chamber of his recollection. Consequently, he never hesitated later to protest against Tatar oppression. Standing face-to-face with the mighty Tatar emperor Qazan, he was not at all disturbed as he recounted the story of the oppression inflicted by Qazan and his soldiers. Indeed, when necessary, he even took up a sword in his own hand and charged against the tyrannical Tatars.
The widespread disorder and weakness that appeared externally in Muslim society as a result of the Tatar invasion were immense. This became clear in the preceding discussion. We must now examine the condition within Muslim society.

The Decline of Ilm al-Kalam

Ilm al-Kalam arose to confront Greek philosophy. Its aim was to remove the confusion and weakness that the study of Greek philosophy had created in the Muslims’ faith and creed and to restore them to freshness and strength. But gradually the nature and method of philosophy entered into it, and ilm al-kalam became a religious philosophy. Its subject matter, discussions, and methods of argument were all modeled on philosophy. In addition, it contained many irrelevant discussions whose resolution lay beyond the capacity of human reason. It attempted to prove through reason the Essence and Attributes of Allah and many other matters inaccessible to reason. Instead of being content with the explanations of the prophets and messengers, it applied weak and limited human intellect to interpreting these matters. Rather than clarifying them, this effort made them more complicated.
The Qur’an describes Allah’s Essence and Attributes in language so simple and clear that it is not difficult at all for an ordinary person to understand. This method of description is accessible in every age and environment. People possessing every level of intellect can easily learn the essential meaning of these matters from the Qur’an’s method of description. But under the influence of philosophy, ilm al-kalam made this simple matter difficult. It complicated what was clear. Advancing with the aim of removing doubts, it only increased them. Therefore, a large portion of the Muslim ummah never viewed the efforts of ilm al-kalam favorably; rather, it continued to oppose them. Thus, changing this condition required a correct and clear explanation of the Qur’an and Sunnah—an explanation understandable to ordinary people and intellectuals of every class and capable of influencing everyone. Along with his faith in the Qur’an and Sunnah being firm as a mountain, his explanation and arguments concerning the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the Essence and Attributes of Allah would have to be compelling and complete, capable of winning the hearts of listeners and readers from the very outset.

The Audacity of the Christians

Meanwhile, Christianity had also begun a new campaign against Islam. The Christians began a movement to prove the superiority and truth of their religion and to spread propaganda against Islam. Their successive Crusades and the large numbers of European Christians living in Syria, Palestine, and Cyprus gave strength to this audacity against the Muslims and Islam. To engage the Muslims in intellectual confrontation, they attacked the Prophethood of Muhammad and wrote books to establish the superiority of their own religion.
To answer this anti-Islamic Christian propaganda, audacity, and misinformation, there was also a need for a powerful scholar and rational writer. He needed extensive study and vast learning concerning Christianity and other religions. He needed clear knowledge of comparative religion and of the history and development of the corruption of the heavenly scriptures, so that he could prove Islam’s superiority and truth and present Islam’s message to followers of other religions. In the age in which Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was born, the Muslims were confronting countless crises, external and internal, throughout the world. It was not easy for a nation to remain upon the truth for six or six and a half centuries; even a period of one hundred years is considered very long for this purpose. The causes that had previously led to the appearance of prophets and messengers among earlier nations had all arisen among the Muslims after six and a half centuries. But the chain of prophethood had ended. In this situation, mujaddids such as Ibn Taymiyyah took on the responsibility of reviving the religion.

The Batini Fitnah

During the latter half of the seventh Hijri century, the activities of the Batiniyya became widespread among the Muslims. This fitnah arose under the shelter of Greek philosophy in the fourth Hijri century. In the fifth century, Imam al-Ghazali, may Allah have mercy on him, confronted it with all his strength. But he was unable to eradicate the fitnah. Within a century and a half, it again began harming the Muslim ummah with tremendous terror. Within the Batiniyya’s religious beliefs and teachings there was an evil amalgamation of the creed of Iran’s fire worshippers, Plato’s thought, and a terrible political self-interest. Their branches—including the Ismailis, Hashashis, Druze, and Nusayris—were always active against the Muslims. They consistently assisted any external enemy attacking Muslims or Muslim states. Indeed, most of the time, it was their activity and conspiracies that gave external enemies the courage to attack the Muslims.
During the European Christians’ Crusades in Syria and Palestine, they assisted the Crusaders. After the Crusaders conquered Syria, they gave the Batiniyya the position of their trusted agents and friends, rewarding their assistance even at the state level. Later, during the re-conquest of Syria by the militant sultans and under the Ayyubid sultans, they remained continually involved in conspiracies and rebellions. When the Tatars attacked Syria in the eighth century, they openly aided them. As a result, the Muslims suffered terrible losses.
A review of Islamic history shows that the Batiniyya were always engaged in creating religious anarchy and disorder among the Muslims, weakening their confidence in Islam, turning their hearts against Islam, and spreading anti-Islamic beliefs among them. They constantly engaged in espionage to surrender the religious fortress of the Muslims into the hands of the enemy.
In the fifth Hijri century, Imam al-Ghazali, may Allah have mercy on him, confronted this fitnah theoretically. By the eighth century, a theoretical response alone was no longer sufficient. It was also necessary to eradicate and destroy it in practice, thereby freeing the Muslim ummah from its grip forever.

The Spread of Deviant Sufism and Shirk

Another fitnah had spread among the followers of Tasawwuf in this era. Through contact with the thoughts and practices of various peoples at different stages of history, and through their simultaneous estrangement from the original Islamic way of thought and practice, Greek, Illuminationist, Vedantic, and Buddhist nihilist philosophies had entered Muslim society. After centuries of propagation and circulation, these ideas had subtly penetrated various aspects of Islamic creed. It was by no means easy to identify these un-Islamic beliefs and sift them out. Neoplatonism, Yoga, monism, pantheism, defining the limits of apparent and hidden knowledge, the secret transmission of knowledge from one person’s heart to another’s, the belief that a perfect spiritual guide and a majdhub mad with love for Allah need not observe the formalities of the Shariah, and inclination toward polytheistic thoughts and beliefs had infiltrated a large section of the people of Tasawwuf. A current of pure Islamic Tasawwuf had continued from the practices of the Companions and the Tabi‘un. But by the time the eighth Hijri century was reached, such refuse had become mixed into its clear course of practice that a large group of the people of knowledge began to feel honored merely by drinking the water in which this refuse had been washed. Consequently, there is no doubt that a large part of the Muslim populace also fell into this misguidance by following them.

At the same time, because of long association with non-Muslims, Ajami influence, and the negligence of the respected Ulama, many forms of polytheistic beliefs and practices spread among the Muslim people. The pure doctrine of Tawhid was on the verge of being covered over in various respects. Muslims too began to go to extremes regarding Allah’s saints and pious servants, as the non-Muslims did. Not only ordinary Muslims, but many scholars as well, did not hesitate even slightly to appeal to Allah’s deceased pious servants, frequent their shrines to fulfill the desires of their hearts, and supplicate them. Muslims attended the festivals and religious ceremonies of non-Muslims, participated in them, and themselves observed many of their ceremonies.

To wage jihad against all this polytheistic ignorance and to call Muslims with full strength toward pure Tawhid, there was a need for a scholar and mujahid man who clearly understood the difference between Tawhid and shirk, who was fully acquainted with every form of ignorance, and who would not take even a moment to recognize ignorance, whatever form or guise it appeared in; one who had learned and accepted pure Tawhid not from the books of the Ulama, the practices of ignorant Muslims, or the established customs of the age, but directly from the Qur’an and Sunnah and from the practices and way of life of the Companions and Tabi‘un. After knowing the correct creed and practice, he would not care about any ruler’s menacing glare or the mountain-like opposition of vast crowds when proclaiming it.

The Weakness of the Ulama

At the time of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s emergence, the greatest weakness of the Muslim Ummah was also apparent among the Ulama. A kind of inertia and stagnation had taken root among the Ulama and in the religious educational institutions. They considered it forbidden to do anything beyond their own method of fiqh, their madhhab, and the fiqh-based thinking of their own Imam. Rather than judging fiqh in the light of the Qur’an and Hadith, they judged and analyzed the Qur’an and Hadith according to their own fiqh. In matters of disagreement in fiqh, instead of establishing the Qur’an and Hadith as the judge, efforts were made in every circumstance to reconcile the Qur’an and Hadith with it. (Although the Qur’an clearly states: [if you disagree about anything, refer it]—that is, if you disagree about something, [refer it to] the Book of Allah and ???.) Many new problems had arisen in Islamic society, requiring new ijtihad for their resolution. But they did not turn their attention to this. They considered themselves incapable. What was needed in this regard was a scholar possessing deep learning in the Qur’an, Hadith, and fiqh, together with the ability to perform ijtihad.

The Pursuit of Knowledge and the Limitations of the Madhhabs

Islam did not merely permit and encourage the pursuit of knowledge; it also deemed the study of knowledge obligatory for Muslims. Even amid the rise and fall of dynasties, the making and breaking of political power, major political revolutions, and wars, the Muslims’ pursuit of knowledge never ceased. Even during the widespread anarchy and warfare that continued throughout the Islamic world toward the end of the Rightly Guided Caliphate and until the Umayyad dynasty achieved stability, a group of people devoted themselves to learning. The collection of Hadith, Hadith lessons, discussions of fiqh, the composition of books on Hadith and fiqh, Arabic grammar, Sirah, history, and the study and writing of books on psychology and related disciplines continued normally.

By the time the seventh Hijri century was reached, the pursuit of knowledge had become very extensive. The ruling class regularly supported the study of knowledge. The Ayyubid and Mamluk Sultans established large jami‘ahs and dar al-hadiths in Egypt and Syria. Countless students from various parts of the Islamic world came to study at these educational centers and universities. Large libraries also grew alongside these institutions. Vast numbers of books on every discipline and branch of knowledge were collected in these libraries. Scholars, whether students or teachers, could benefit equally from them. Some were so large that they were thought to contain the books of the entire world. Among them, the library of the Jami‘ Kamiliyyah, founded in 621 AH by al-Kamil Muhammad al-Ayyubi, alone contained one hundred thousand books.

During the seventh and eighth Hijri centuries, many great and world-renowned scholars emerged. Such figures as Allamah Taqi al-Din Abu ‘Amr Ibn al-Salah (577–634 AH), Shaykh al-Islam ‘Izz al-Din Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam (578–660 AH), Imam Muhyi al-Din al-Nawawi (631–676 AH), Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id (625–702 AH), Allamah ‘Ala al-Din al-Baji (631–712 AH), Allamah Jamal al-Din Abu al-Hajjaj al-Mizzi (654–742 AH), Hafiz ‘Ilm al-Din al-Barzali (665–739 AH), and Allamah Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi (673–748 AH)—scholars, jurists, traditionists, philosophers, and theologians—gave distinction to this era. The finest books of the age were written by them and by its other leading scholars.

Among the era’s most popular works were Allamah Ibn al-Salah’s Muqaddimah; Shaykh ‘Izz al-Din Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam’s al-Qawa‘id al-Kubra; Imam al-Nawawi’s al-Majmu‘ and Sharh Muslim; Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id’s Kitab al-Imam and Ihkam al-Ahkam Sharh ‘Umdat al-Ahkam; Abu al-Hajjaj al-Mizzi’s Tahdhib al-Kamal; and Allamah al-Dhahabi’s Mizan al-I‘tidal and Tarikh al-Islam.

One point about the learning of this period can be stated clearly: its breadth was considerable, but its depth was far less by comparison. Rather than deep thought and research, there was a greater inclination toward compiling the knowledge of earlier generations and explaining it. They were unable to step outside the four walls of the powerful edifice that the fiqhi madhhabs had by then built. The four madhhabs were verbally accepted as absolute truth, but in practice every follower of a madhhab regarded only his own madhhab as unquestionably true. They hesitated to admit that genuine truth might exist in another madhhab. At most, they believed that the ijtihad of their Imam was entirely true and accurate, though it could possibly contain an error.

This was the followers of the madhhabs’ attitude toward their own and other madhhabs. They considered their own madhhab superior to all other fiqhi madhhabs and believed that Allah’s support stood behind it. They devoted all their abilities, powers, intellect, and writing skills to proving their madhhab true and superior. The way followers of the madhhabs viewed their own madhhab, the high position they assigned it, and the ideas they held about it can easily be inferred from a governmental reform of Sultan al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars. Under the previous administrative arrangement, only a Shafi‘i Qadi al-Qudat (Chief Judge) was appointed in Egypt and Syria. In his place, Sultan Baybars also appointed Qadi al-Qudat from the other three madhhabs, which greatly angered the Shafi‘i scholars. They expressed their displeasure. They wanted Egypt to remain under the authority of a Shafi‘i Qadi al-Qudat alone. They believed that the Shafi‘i madhhab was the oldest in Egypt and that Imam al-Shafi‘i, may Allah have mercy on him, was also buried in its soil. Therefore, they considered the authority of only the Shafi‘i madhhab in that land to be justified. Thus, when power passed from Baybars’s descendants after his death, the Shafi‘i scholars identified this as a divinely imposed punishment for his injustice and unfair treatment of the Shafi‘i madhhab.

Alongside this excess in the field of fiqhi madhhabs, disputes among the theologians were also continuing. The conflict between the Hanbalis and Ash‘aris was particularly intense. Despite their many disagreements, the followers of the fiqhi madhhabs did not diminish their mutual interaction or exchange of knowledge. Indeed, many of them had teacher-student relationships with one another. This allowed room for mutual respect. They debated with each other, but their debates remained limited to proving their own madhhab superior and correct. The dispute between the Hanbalis and Ash‘aris, however, reached the boundary between kufr and Islam. They exerted every effort to expel one another from Islam. When debates about creed were conducted with the grandiloquent terminology of logic and theology, there seemed no way to prevent them from reaching the boundary between Islam and kufr. Gradually, the rulers, elites, and common people all became involved in these debates and began to take considerable pleasure in them.

Meanwhile, the condition of Tasawwuf was even more serious. Numerous un-Islamic ideas, intellectual currents, and methods had entered it. Countless professional, ignorant, and innovating Sufis had established themselves firmly within this path. Along with ordinary people, a large section of the educated class also fell into the trap of hypocritical and un-Islamic Sufis. Thus the religion and faith of the Muslims faced grave danger. One group of philosophers became engrossed in following independent thought, crossing beyond the teachings and boundaries of revelation and prophethood. One faction even tried to make religion an appendage of philosophy. Both groups of philosophers were blind followers of Plato and Aristotle. In these circumstances, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah came forward carrying the radiant torch of faith, knowledge, and practice.

The Political and Social Condition

In the eighth Hijri century, the Muslim Ummah was afflicted by problems both within and without, and it needed a powerful reformer, mujaddid, and mujahid man to rescue it from them. Allah the Exalted sent Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, with all the qualifications needed to guide this troubled and confused Muslim society onto the path of true Islam.

To understand Ibn Taymiyyah’s religious reform activities, it is essential to examine the political conditions of his age. The attacks and devastation of the Tatars have already been described to some extent in this connection. It is now necessary to know something about the political condition of the part of the Islamic world where he was born and where his field of activity extended. Mamluk Sultan rule over Egypt and Syria began thirteen years before Ibn Taymiyyah’s birth. These Mamluk Sultans had been Turkish slaves of al-Malik al-Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub (d. 647 AH), the last Sultan of the dynasty of Sultan Salah al-Din Ayyubi. After they passed the tests of bravery and loyalty, Sultan Najm al-Din Ayyub arranged for them to live in Egypt. After al-Malik al-Salih’s death in 647 AH, Turan Shah killed him, took the throne himself, and assumed the name al-Malik al-Mu‘izz. In 657 AH, Sayf al-Din Qutuz, a slave of ‘Izz al-Din Aybak, seized the throne. This Muslim Sultan was the first to defeat the Tatars, who were considered invincible. The following year, Rukn al-Din Baybars, a second slave of Sultan Najm al-Din Ayyub, killed Sayf al-Din Qutuz and seized the throne. He assumed the title al-Malik al-Zahir. Baybars was an extremely powerful Sultan. He fought the Tatars and the Crusaders simultaneously and defeated both—defeating them repeatedly. His victories over the two great enemies of the Islamic world firmly established his authority among the Muslims.

It was during his rule that Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was born in Syria. When the Imam was fifteen, al-Malik al-Zahir Rukn al-Din Baybars died. The Imam was then passing from adolescence into youth. In childhood he had seen despair and the humiliation of defeat all around him, but as he reached youth, the clouds of despair began to clear. Just as the great Sultan Salah al-Din Ayyubi had broken the stagnation of the despairing Ummah, engaged the Muslims in an all-out jihad against the Crusaders, and created a new wave of vitality throughout the Islamic world, so al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars once again infused life into the heart of the stagnant and dispirited Ummah. An atmosphere of jihad against the Tatars and Crusaders arose everywhere. The historian Ibn Kathir wrote about the Sultan: “Baybars was an intelligent, brave king, possessing lofty and resolute courage. He was never heedless of his enemies and was always engaged in fighting them. He organized and united the scattered and disordered Muslims. Indeed, Allah had sent him in this latter age to help and support Islam and the Muslims and to strengthen them. He was a thorn in the eyes of the Franks, Tatars, and polytheists. He prohibited wine. He expelled the immoral, wicked, thugs, and rogues from the country. Whenever he saw disorder or chaos anywhere in the land, he could not rest until he had removed it.”

Al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars’s kingdom was quite extensive. Its eastern boundary stretched from the Euphrates River, and its southern boundary reached Sudan. Egypt was the central region of this kingdom, and Cairo was its capital. Cairo’s importance had increased further because the Abbasid Caliphs expelled from Baghdad were residing there. Baghdad was still under the Tatars. It remained under non-Muslim rule until the Tatar ruler of Baghdad accepted Islam. The Abbasid Caliphs, although they had lost political authority, retained spiritual authority over the Muslims. From Cairo they continued to exercise that spiritual authority throughout the Islamic world.

There is no doubt that Baybars was a great king. Yet despite his thousand virtues and good deeds, he was an autocratic ruler. Thus, while he fulfilled a great responsibility by restoring the spirit of jihad among the Muslims and forcing Islam’s enemies to suffer humiliating defeats, some incidents of oppression also occurred during his reign because of his autocratic system of government. Nevertheless, his reign may, on the whole, be called an age of Muslim awakening.

After ruling for eighteen years, Malik Baybars died in 676 AH. After his death, hard times began again for the Muslims. Within thirty-three years of his death, nine Sultans occupied the throne of Egypt. The only one among them to display some strength was al-Malik al-Mansur Sayf al-Din Qalawun. In 678 AH, he attacked the Tatars and forced them to suffer a humiliating defeat. He also conducted jihad against the Crusaders. After 185 years, he liberated Tarabulus from the Crusaders. He ruled with great splendor for twelve years. After his death in 689 AH, the throne of Egypt became a plaything in the hands of power-hungry men, and kings were replaced one after another year after year. Finally, in 709 AH, al-Malik al-Mansur’s son, al-Malik al-Nasir Qalawun, seized the throne for the third time. This time his position became secure. He ruled with great authority for thirty-two years.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was in fact a contemporary of this al-Malik al-Nasir Qalawun. It was during his reign that the Imam began his theoretical and reform activities. This Sultan had to a considerable extent restored the era of al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars. Like Baybars, he too possessed many outstanding qualities. He rekindled the spirit of jihad among the Muslims and, by inflicting a humiliating defeat on the Tatars, added a glorious chapter to Islamic history.

The Influence of the Turks and Tatars on Society

In the eighth Hijri century, the society in which Imam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, began his reform activities had undergone many changes in character. The ruling class was Turkish. The Turks considered themselves superior to the Arabs. In every respect they portrayed themselves as distinct from the common people. Their language was Turkish. They used Arabic only in worship and when communicating with the Ulama and the common people.

The Turkish rulers, however, respected scholars and Sufis and followed their advice. They encouraged the establishment of mosques and madrasas. In appointing people to government posts, they did not give preference to any particular lineage or class. Since the ruling class was Turkish, however, Turks naturally came to be appointed to major military and administrative positions. Turks and Tatars were the great landowners and holders of fiefs.

On the other hand, a large portion of the city dwellers were of Tatar descent. In the wars fought by Turkish kings such as Sayf al-Din Qutuz, al-Zahir Baybars, and Nasir al-Din Qalawun against the Tatars, countless Tatars were captured. These Tatars later accepted Islam and settled permanently in Syria and Egypt. According to Egyptian historical accounts, there were very many Tatars in Egypt and Syria during the reign of al-Zahir Baybars. Their customs and practices spread throughout the country. Although they accepted Islam, they retained many of their own customs and practices. They preserved their national characteristics. In fact, historical examples are rare of new Muslims who, after accepting Islam, completely abandoned their former customs, cultural characteristics, and even their beliefs of ignorance, and accepted Islam one hundred percent after discarding everything connected with ignorance. This was, of course, a distinctive quality of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. After accepting Islam, they reconstructed every aspect of their lives, thoughts, beliefs, and conduct according to the commands of Allah and His Messenger. They paid no heed whatsoever to national or tribal characteristics. They did only what Allah and His Messenger commanded. They lived as Allah and His Messenger instructed them to live. Islam and ignorance did not coexist in their lives. There was only Islam—nothing but Islam. Ignorance had departed from them forever. Seeing their condition, one would think that they had been reborn within Islam.

It is not our intention, however, to blame these Tatars and Turks, because complete Islam was absent from the society of the time when they entered Islam. It can only be imagined that a society in which a complete system of Islamic education and practice had not been established would receive newcomers, completely transform their way of life, cause them to abandon all their beliefs, national characteristics, and customs, and spontaneously turn them into pure Muslims. In reality, encountering such a situation was not at all possible. Thus we find that Islam and ignorance coexisted in the lives of these Muslims of Turkish and Tatar descent. The harmful effects and evil consequences of this later became clearly evident in the history of the Islamic world.

The historian al-Maqrizi wrote about the Tatar Muslims: “These Tatars had been educated in Dar al-Islam. They had learned the Qur’an well and had thoroughly learned Islam’s rules and laws. But their lives were a mixture of truth and falsehood. Just as good things were present in them, bad things were present alongside them. They entrusted their religious matters—such as prayer, fasting, zakat, Hajj, awqaf, matters concerning orphans, disputes between husbands and wives, and debt-related disputes—to the Qadi. But in their personal and private affairs they followed Chinggisid customs and traditions and al-Yasah (the Tatar law). They appointed a ruler for themselves called a hajib. These hajibs gave decisions in their daily affairs, kept the powerful subject to discipline and law, and, according to al-siyasah, gave the weak their rights. Likewise, the affairs of major Tatar merchants were adjudicated according to al-siyasah. They settled disputes concerning fiefs and land through this kind of law.”

It was entirely natural that the character, customs, culture, and way of life of these Ajami Muslims of Turkish descent and Tatar converts should influence the old Arab-descended and other Muslim populations. Just as the Crusades brought about a meeting and blending of Asian and European civilizations and cultures, so the Tatars’ victories and defeats alike opened the way for the blending of Muslim and Tatar cultures. As victory and defeat occur on the battlefield, so they occur in the cultural sphere, with each side adopting the influence of the other. The acceptance of this Tatar influence was by no means beneficial to Muslim society. In particular, their attempt, through al-siyasah, to keep personal affairs outside the scope of Islamic rules and regulations merely increased the damage suffered by Muslim society of that period. After the end of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, the basic state administration had begun striving to free itself from the bonds of religion. Seven hundred years of autocratic monarchical rule had advanced the separation of religion and state a long way. At this time, the Tatars’ system of al-siyasah accelerated this separation of religion and state among the Muslims even further. Thus the Tatars’ integration into Muslim society increased Muslim political power on the one hand, but increased their religious damage on the other. Misguidance in Islamic society had grown. To free Islamic society from this misguidance, the need for a mujaddid such as Imam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah had become indispensable.

The First Chapter of the Imam’s Striving Life

A Scholarly Family

The distinguished role Imam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah played in the Islamic revival throughout the Islamic world in the eighth Hijri century was also greatly supported by his family. The entire family may be identified as a scholarly household. The fourth ancestor in his family was his great-grandfather, Muhammad ibn al-Khidr. Muhammad ibn al-Khidr’s mother was named Taymiyyah. She was an extraordinary orator. Her exceptional renown for eloquence soon caused the family to become known everywhere as the Taymiyyah family.

The Imam’s grandfather, Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah, was Allamah Abu al-Barakat Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah, who was counted among the greatest scholars of the Hanbali madhhab. Some have also described him as a mujtahid. Imam Hafiz al-Dhahabi, an authority in the science of Hadith narrators, wrote in his book al-Dhayl: “Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah was born in 590 AH. He first studied under his paternal uncle, the famous preacher and orator Fakhr al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah. He then received advanced education from the scholars and traditionists of Harran and Baghdad. He attained complete knowledge of fiqh. In this field, it may be said that he held the rank of an Imam. His extraordinary intelligence and profound mastery of fiqh were proverbial everywhere. Once, a scholar asked him a scholarly question. He said that the question could be answered in sixty ways. He then gave sixty answers, one after another. He died in 652 AH. His finest book is Muntaha al-Akhbar. In this book he mentioned the Hadiths related to each chapter of fiqh on which the madhhab had been founded.” The great scholar and traditionist of the thirteenth Hijri century, Allamah Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Shawkani, wrote a commentary on this twelve-volume work entitled Nayl al-Awtar, thereby firmly establishing the depth and excellence of its content.

The father of Shaykh al-Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, Shihab al-Din ‘Abd al-Halim Ibn Taymiyyah, was also a great scholar, traditionist, and specialist in Hanbali fiqh. Soon after moving from Harran to Damascus, he began a series of lessons at Damascus’s Jami‘ al-Umawi. This central mosque of Damascus was the gathering place of the country’s leading Ulama, jurists, and traditionists. Therefore, lecturing in the presence of the country’s finest scholars was no simple matter. A distinguishing feature of his lessons was that he taught orally. He did not keep a pile of books before him. Relying entirely on his memory, he cited large works. His reliance on his memory was exceptionally great. At the same time, he was appointed Shaykh al-Hadith at Damascus’s Dar al-Hadith al-Sukkariyyah. He died in 682 AH.

Childhood and Adolescence

The doab region between the Tigris and Euphrates is divided into two parts. The areas in its southern part are called al-Iraq al-Arabi. The cities of Baghdad, Basra and others are included in it. The areas in the northern part are mentioned in ancient Arabic literature as Diyar Bakr, Diyar Rabi‘a and Diyar Mudar. Arab geographers call this area al-Jazirah. To its north lies Armenia, to its south al-Iraq al-Arabi, to its east Kurdistan, and to its west Asia Minor and the Syrian Desert. Ar-Ruha is situated in this region. After traveling approximately eight hours south of Ar-Ruha, one reaches a city called Harran. The ancestors of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah were inhabitants of this city. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was born in this city on 10 Rabi‘ al-Awwal, 661 AH. Earlier, we described the birth of Imam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah and his migration with his family to Damascus in early childhood to escape the Tatars’ attack. At that time, the Imam was only seven years old. The days of the Tatar attack were filled with extreme terror, anxiety and horror. Although people could sell everything they owned, they were not prepared to sell the family library—their scholarly inheritance accumulated over several generations. It is said that even if they had to carry this vast library on their heads, they were determined to take it across the road; this was the resolve of every member of the family. Thus, this scholarly family left aside many household necessities and began loading the books onto carts. Several carts became filled solely with books. Then one problem after another arose: there was a shortage of donkeys and horses to pull the carts. Almost everyone was leaving the country, so everyone needed donkeys and horses to carry their belongings. It was hardly surprising that there would be a severe shortage. Finally, the situation became such that the family’s young men and adolescents began pulling many carts of books instead of donkeys and horses. From time to time, the middle-aged and elderly also helped them. The caravan moved slowly. As a result, they fell behind everyone else. At one point, word came that the Tatars had arrived. The caravan needed to move faster. But a new problem appeared. The wheels of the book carts suddenly stopped. They no longer wanted to move. The cart wheels were very old and were not capable of traveling this far. Nevertheless, by Allah’s mercy they had continued until then. But now, despite a thousand pushes and a hundred efforts to pull them, the wheels would not turn. The whole family began weeping and supplicating Allah. Allah accepted their prayer. The carts began moving again. The caravan proceeded swiftly. When they reached Damascus, the people of Damascus warmly welcomed them. Damascus’s learned community was aware of the scholarly activities of Abu al-Barakat Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah. The reputation of Shihab al-Din Abd al-Halim Ibn Taymiyyah’s knowledge and scholarship was also considerable in Damascus. Within a short time, their father, Abd al-Halim, was entrusted with teaching at Jami‘ Umavi and with a professorship at Dar al-Hadith al-Sukkariyyah. Thus, in the new city and its new surroundings, the Taymiyyah family did not consider themselves strangers at all. Their way of life soon returned to normal. The adolescent Ibn Taymiyyah soon completed memorizing the Noble Qur’an and devoted himself to the study of hadith, fiqh and the Arabic language. At the same time, he began attending various scholarly gatherings with his father. Consequently, alongside his education, the pace of his intellectual study and development also accelerated. Everyone in the Imam’s family possessed extraordinary memory. I have already mentioned his father and grandfather. Yet compared with theirs, the memory of Imam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah was extraordinary. From childhood, his remarkable memory astonished his teachers. In Damascus too, people constantly spoke of his memory. Once, a famous scholar from Aleppo came to Damascus. He heard people talking about the remarkable memory of a boy named Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah. To test whether this was true, he sat in a tailor’s shop on the way to the madrasa. After a while, many boys could be seen coming along the road. The tailor pointed out the boy carrying the large writing tablet under his arm and said that he was Ibn Taymiyyah. The scholar called the boy. He wrote thirteen or fourteen hadith texts—the original narrations—on the boy’s tablet and said, “Read.” The adolescent Ibn Taymiyyah read them once with deep concentration. The scholar picked up the tablet and said, “Now recite them from memory.” Ibn Taymiyyah recited them fluently. The scholar wiped the tablet, wrote a large number of chains of transmission on it, and said, “Read.” When he had finished reading, he told him to recite them from memory. Ibn Taymiyyah again recited the chains fluently. The scholar from Aleppo was astonished. He said, “This boy will accomplish extraordinary things, for in the age into which he has been born, such a memory is unimaginable.”

Acquiring Knowledge and Pursuing Scholarship

The foundation of the responsibility undertaken by Imam Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah in the eighth Islamic century for the revival of Islam was his profound scholarship and extraordinary mastery of religious knowledge. In this respect, he may be called unrivaled among the contemporary scholars and learned circles. He acquired this incomparable knowledge through education, practice and study. The prophets and messengers receive knowledge directly from Allah. Therefore, they did not need to turn to any worldly book or teacher. But all other people must acquire knowledge in this world through education and practice. The memory and intelligence granted by Allah merely assist in filling the basket of knowledge.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah entered an educational institution at the age of seven and completed the storehouse of his knowledge by the age of only twenty-two. Alongside the Qur’an, hadith, fiqh and usul, he paid special attention to mastering the Arabic language and literature. He learned hadith from more than two hundred teachers. His greatest attraction was toward Qur’anic tafsir. He himself said that, in order to master knowledge of the Qur’an, he studied more than one hundred tafsir works, both large and small. Because of his study of the Noble Qur’an and his extensive reflection and research into it, Allah Most High opened for him the doors of profound understanding of the Qur’an’s deeper truths. He did not confine his thirst for knowledge to reading tafsir books; rather, he also went to the authors of those books and increased his knowledge through direct discussions with them.

Regarding his study of the Qur’an, he himself said: “Sometimes, in order to understand the inner meaning of a verse, I studied as many as one hundred tafsirs. After studying the tafsir, I would pray to Allah: O Allah, grant me complete knowledge of the meaning of this verse. I would say: O Teacher of Adam and Ibrahim, teach me.” I would go to desolate places and mosques, place my forehead on the ground, and say: “O Giver of knowledge to Ibrahim, grant me knowledge.” Alongside the Qur’an, hadith and fiqh, he also acquired deep scholarship in the science of kalam. At that time, the philosophy and theological principles of Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari were most widely studied in kalam. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and his family followed the Hanbali madhhab, and there was intense disagreement between the Hanbalis and the Ash‘aris. In fact, he studied kalam thoroughly in order to gain accurate knowledge of the opposing philosophy and method of reasoning. As a result, he was able to understand correctly the weaknesses within the science of kalam, the weak methods of reasoning employed by its authors, and even the errors of the Greek philosophers. After studying kalam deeply, he wrote against all its errors and authored a number of works presenting powerful arguments and proofs, to which contemporary writers and philosophers were unable to respond.

In short, our point is that, while properly representing the Qur’an and Sunnah in his age and proving the superiority and truth of Allah’s religion, Ibn Taymiyyah made the extensive preparation necessary to save people from deviation in knowledge and practice. He acquired the ability to confront fully the anarchy that had appeared in the realm of human thought and knowledge in his time. There was no inertia or adulteration anywhere in his knowledge and conduct; everything was clear and pure. It was generally observed that when a person particularly skilled in a field debated him about that field, he returned having gained new knowledge from Ibn Taymiyyah concerning it. One of his famous opponents, the eminent scholar Kamal al-Din al-Zamalkani, said while commenting on his mastery of various branches of knowledge that he had never been seen to lose a debate with anyone. After entering into a debate with someone on any subject, he was seen to defeat even the experts in that subject.

After acquiring knowledge for twenty-two years, he devoted himself to disseminating it. When he was twenty-two, his illustrious father, Shihab al-Din Abd al-Halim Ibn Taymiyyah (682 AH), died. He had been the chief hadith scholar of Damascus’s principal Dar al-Hadith al-Sukkariyyah. His death left the position vacant. The following year, his capable son, Imam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah, filled the position. At the age of twenty-two, he delivered his first hadith lesson. The country’s leading hadith scholars and learned men attended it. The young scholar’s knowledge and scholarship impressed and astonished everyone. A month later, on Friday, he was appointed to teach Qur’anic tafsir in his father’s place at the city’s principal mosque, Jami‘ Umavi. A pulpit was specially built for him. Each week, the popularity of his tafsir continued to grow. In his Qur’anic tafsir, he also described all contemporary problems and their Qur’anic solutions. At the same time, his personal taqwa, firm faith and righteous conduct profoundly influenced the people. At that time, his reputation began to spread in every direction.

The First Campaign Against Wrongdoing

In 693 AH, an unpleasant incident first compelled him to enter the public arena. At that time, people testified concerning a Christian named Asaf that he had uttered offensive words against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. After committing this wrong, he had sought refuge with an Arab. Upon learning this, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and the shaykh of Dar al-Hadith, Zayn al-Din al-Fariqi, went to Governor Izz al-Din Ayub, investigated the incident, and demanded that the offender be punished. The governor summoned the offender. When people saw an Arab arriving with Asaf, they began abusing the Arab. The Arab said, “This Christian is better than you.” Hearing this, the crowd became enraged and began pelting them with stones. Within moments, a great disturbance arose. The governor held the Imam and his companion responsible and threw them into prison.

Influenced by the suddenness of the incident and the dramatic change in circumstances, the Christian embraced Islam. The governor guaranteed his safety. Later, realizing his own mistake, he released the Imam and his companion from prison and apologized to them. The Imam’s popularity increased even further.

An Opposition Coalition of Vested Interests

Toward the end of the seventh Islamic century, opposition to the reform activities begun by Imam Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah gradually began to build among the entrenched vested-interest groups. The Imam called people directly to the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the practices of the Companions and the Tabi‘un. These entrenched interest groups, however, were directing people toward their own fabricated ideas and self-serving practices. The Imam’s popularity among the common people and the scholarly community was rapidly increasing. This pierced the eyes of the vested-interest groups like a thorn. In 698 AH, opposition to the Imam first began from this circle. The opponents attacked not only his ideas but also his character.

The Ibn Taymiyyah family was by no means unknown in Syria. We have already discussed in detail that his family had been well known in Syria’s scholarly circles for three or four generations. His father had firmly established his eminence throughout Syria, especially in Damascus. The Imam himself had also been recognized as a leading scholarly personality. Nevertheless, the opposition attacked his scholarly qualifications, knowledge, beliefs and activities. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a booklet entitled Al-‘Aqidah al-Hamawiyyah al-Kubra in answer to all their questions. In this fifty-page booklet, he presented direct arguments and proofs from the statements and practices of the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the Companions and the Tabi‘un. He pointed out the deviations of Muslim philosophers and theologians influenced by Greek, Roman and Indian philosophy. He properly examined their thoughts and statements that opposed the Qur’an and Sunnah. He strongly criticized their statements contrary to the Shari‘ah.

This booklet seemed to hurl the suppressed rancor of the opposition forcefully into the open. They could not tolerate this forthright expression of truth. The opposing groups united and brought charges against him. They demanded that he appear before the gathering of the Hanafi qadi, Shaykh Jalal al-Din, and defend his writings. Ibn Taymiyyah rejected their proposal. During this dispute, the city’s governor, Amir Sayf al-Din, took the Imam’s side and summoned the opposition. But many of them went into hiding. On Friday, after regularly completing his tafsir at Jami‘ Umavi, the Imam went to the gathering of the qadi, Imam al-Din al-Shafi‘i. A group of the city’s leading scholars also joined him. They all continued asking various questions about the booklet Al-‘Aqidah al-Hamawiyyah. The Imam continued answering their questions. His reasoned replies left everyone speechless. The Imam returned like a victor, and all the opposition’s schemes came to an end. Their opposition also ceased for the time being.

But very few among those who stand against truth and justice possess sincerity. Those who oppose a truth with pure intention and solely for the sake of the religion may eventually recognize their mistake. But the eyes of self-interested and obstinate groups are blindfolded; their hearts and minds are immersed in the rotting mud of a pond. Allah Most High never grants them the ability to understand and accept the truth. Thus, even when the truth is revealed a thousand times, and even when it removes all darkness around them like daylight, the vested-interest groups can never perceive it. Therefore, although opposition to Ibn Taymiyyah temporarily ceased, it continued to gather strength beneath the surface. But precisely at that time, because the Tatar fitnah raised its head in Syria, no faction had the opportunity to come forward against him for a long period.

Forming a Group to Suppress Wrongdoing

After Syria was freed from the Tatar invasion in 702 AH, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah resumed his reform activities. He continued teaching, tafsir and lessons as usual. He again launched campaigns against shirk, bid‘ah and jahiliyyah. In that age, because Muslims lived alongside Christians and Jews, many beliefs and teachings opposed to Islam spread among them. Muslims became involved in many practices that revived the memory of jahiliyyah and resembled, or in fact arose from, the traditions and culture of unbelieving and polytheistic peoples. On the bank of the Nahr Fulut in Damascus stood an altar. Strange miraculous tales were associated with this altar. It had become a fitnah for ignorant and superstitious Muslims. Muslims used to make vows there. In 704 AH, Ibn Taymiyyah appeared there with a group of laborers and stonecutters. With their help, he cut down the altar, threw its pieces into the river, and destroyed this center of shirk and bid‘ah. In this way, the Muslims were freed from a major fitnah.

He began to act fully upon the hadith of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, concerning jihad against wrongdoing. This hadith says: “When any of you sees an act contrary to the Shari‘ah, let him change it by using his strength. Whoever cannot exert force in this way must oppose it and reform it through speech. And whoever cannot even do that must retain opposition to it and hatred of it in his heart. That is the weakest faith.” In accordance with this hadith, whenever he saw an act contrary to the Shari‘ah, he took action against it according to his strength and ability. He built up strong resistance against wrongdoing. He strove to correct it and arrange matters according to the Shari‘ah.

The ruling class was occupied with its administrative responsibilities. It felt no responsibility for reforming and tending to the people’s practices and beliefs. The scholars often hesitated to come forward against clearly unlawful acts. Consequently, Ibn Taymiyyah continued fighting against them alone. For this reason, he formed a group from among his students and supporters. This group always remained with him and assisted him in his various activities. With its help, he tried to regulate the religious life of the people.

At that time, an old man named al-Mujahid Ibrahim ibn al-Qattan was brought before him. The old man was known as a great Sufi dervish. His clothing consisted of a long, ankle-length cloak patched with multicolored pieces, like those worn by faqirs. On his head were the long matted locks of a monk. The nails on his hands were several inches long. His moustache was so long that it covered his entire face. He swore at every turn of phrase. Intoxicants and bhang had become his constant habit. On Ibn Taymiyyah’s orders, his cloak was cut into pieces. His hair was shortened and his moustache trimmed. His nails were cut, and he was made to repent so that he would never again use intoxicants. In this way, he reformed many other misguided people on an individual level and brought them back to the path of religion.

Struggle Against Two Erroneous Doctrines

In the eighth Islamic century, two philosophical doctrines became influential among Muslim Sufis and philosophers. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah had to wage a major struggle against these two erroneous doctrines. They were wahdat al-wujud and hulul and ittihad. In the philosophical terminology of our subcontinent, these two doctrines are called monism and pantheism. Later, these two doctrines also became influential among the Sufis of the subcontinent. The Mujaddid of the second millennium, Hazrat Sayyid Ahmad Sirhindi, had to engage in a fierce struggle against them here. In this connection, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote, citing the book Fusus al-Hikam by Muhyi al-Din Ibn Arabi, the principal exponent of pantheism and monism, who died in 638 AH, that according to Ibn Arabi and his followers, only one being exists in this universe. The existence of creation itself is the existence of the Creator. In this world, they do not acknowledge the Creator and creation as two separate entities. They are unwilling to accept that one is the creator of the other. Rather, according to them, the Creator is creation and creation is the Creator. Thus, in their view, those among the Children of Israel who worshipped the calf were actually worshipping Allah. According to them, Pharaoh’s claim, “I am your supreme lord,” was correct. Criticizing Prophet Nuh, peace be upon him, Ibn Arabi said that his unbelieving people actually worshipped Allah through their worship of idols, and that the flood of his time was in reality a flood of knowledge of the Divine. They were drowned in that flood. Immediately after Ibn Arabi, several other major exponents of this philosophy appeared. Among them were Ibn Sab‘in, Sadr al-Din al-Qunawi, Bali‘ani and Tlemceni. Tlemceni was not content merely to express the doctrine; he also acted according to it in practice. Thus, he and his followers drank wine and committed forbidden acts. For, according to their view, when existence subsists in only one entity, why should there be any distinction between lawful and unlawful? Tlemceni was told, “Your statement is completely contrary to the Qur’an.” He replied, “The Qur’an is full of outright shirk, because it distinguishes between the Lord and the worshippers. By contrast, our statement contains true tawhid.” He also said that their doctrine was proven through kashf.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah considered openly opposing this doctrine of wahdat al-wujud and hulul, influenced by Indian Vedanta and Buddhist annihilationism, to be just as important as armed struggle against the Tatars. In this regard, he carried out a detailed theoretical examination of the pantheistic doctrine of various Christian denominations and all comparable deviations of earlier communities. He then subjected the doctrine of Ibn Arabi and his disciples to a meticulous examination based on the Qur’an and hadith.

His severe criticism of these erroneous doctrines circulated in the name of Islam made Ibn Taymiyyah a thorn in the eyes of the entrenched vested-interest groups. A group of so-called theoreticians also began plotting against him. At one stage, they succeeded in obtaining the government’s support. They incited the contemporary ruler of Egypt against Ibn Taymiyyah. At that time, Syria and Egypt belonged to the same state. The capital was Cairo in Egypt, and Syria was a province of Egypt. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s influence in Syria’s scholarly circles was unrivaled. The provincial government also valued his opinions and activities. He was the apple of the eye of Syria’s Muslim population. Therefore, when the government remained inactive and indifferent toward openly opposing Islam and the Shari‘ah, he would often advance with the help of his disciples and the people, prevent such actions by force, and put a stop to practices contrary to the Shari‘ah.

In the Prisons of Egypt

This was his situation in Syria. But his influence of this kind had not yet spread among the people of Egypt. The central government was also not fully informed about him. Thus, the conspirators easily influenced the government. In one of the months of 705 AH, a special royal decree was issued from Egypt ordering Imam Ibn Taymiyyah to proceed to Cairo. The Imam’s students and friends were alarmed. The governor tried to stop him. He undertook to discuss the matter in detail with the Sultan through letters and envoys and to remove his mistaken ideas. But the Imam did not wish to accept anyone’s favor. Leaving behind everyone’s intense fear and apprehension, he set out for Cairo. He reached Egypt on Friday, 22 Ramadan. After performing the prayer at the citadel’s congregational mosque, he wished to begin a discussion, but he was not permitted to do so. The people were incited against him there. They were told that his thoughts and creed were opposed to Islam; therefore, the people were unwilling to listen to anything he said. On the orders of Qadi Ibn Makhluf al-Maliki, he was detained for several days in the citadel’s tower and then, on the night of Eid, sent to Egypt’s famous Well Prison.

On the night of Eid the following year, 706 AH, the governor and several qadis and jurists attempted to secure the Imam’s release. Some of them made his repentance from his creed a condition. Ibn Taymiyyah completely refused. He was summoned six times to come and speak directly about the matter, but he did not respond. Each time, like Prophet Joseph, he said: “This prison is dearer to me than that to which they are calling me.”

Establishing his own superiority and greatness was not the Imam’s aim; nor was freeing the government from the influence of corrupt scholars. His life’s endeavor was to cleanse the thoughts, creed, beliefs, and actions of Muslims from every impurity of shirk and make them radiant like the light of the morning sun, and to free Allah’s religion from every form of stagnation and confusion and make it living and active. Therefore, he regarded gaining release from prison by staining himself with any disgrace as equivalent to staining the religion itself.

There is no doubt that this feature of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s character provides ample food for thought for today’s scholarly community. To prevent any confusion regarding the religion, he himself renounced personal happiness, comfort, and ease. He was prepared to endure physical and mental torture in the dark cells of prison, but was not prepared for even a moment to tolerate any assault upon the religion.

The Imam’s fellow prisoner was his own brother, Shaykh Sharaf al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah. Shaykh Sharaf al-Din recorded the prison incidents in detail in his work Majmu‘ah ‘Ilmiyyah. From it, we learn of the Imam’s firmness, patience, and steadfast struggle for truth and justice.

One day, the jailer came to him on behalf of Egypt’s deputy sultanate. He wished to discuss the Imam’s release. The Imam told him that although he had been in prison for a long time, he did not know in the slightest what the charge against him was or what crime he had committed. Therefore, if the matter was to be discussed, a delegation of at least four responsible, learned, and eminent officials from the higher levels of government would have to come. He would present his position before them. This would reduce the possibility of his statement reaching the Sultan in a distorted form.

The jailer left, but no delegation came. He returned, this time bringing a man named Ala al-Din Tabrizi. Ala al-Din Tabrizi wanted to obtain an admission of error from him. He had prepared a memorandum of his own and began pressing the Imam to sign it. It contained many false accusations against the Imam and many statements that he had neither made nor believed. In reply, the Imam said, “I have no authority to give a decision in this matter. It concerns Allah, the Messenger, and the entire Muslim community. I have no power to alter Allah’s religion, nor can I turn away from Allah’s religion because of you or anyone else. I cannot commit the evil of attributing any falsehood to Allah’s religion.”

Seeing the government representative press him insistently, the Imam strengthened his resolve further. He warned the representative that such pressure would achieve nothing. Rather, he advised him to abandon this foolish business and attend to any useful task he had. He said, “I have not asked anyone to seek my release from prison.” At that time, the upper door was closed. The Imam asked that it be opened and prepared to leave. He then told the government representative, “I did not initiate any discussion myself. A fatwa was brought to me, people asked me questions, and I answered them. From the perspective of religion and the Shariah, do I have any right to conceal the truth? The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘Whoever is asked about a matter of religion that he knows but conceals it, Allah will place a bridle of fire in his mouth on the Day of Resurrection.’ So, at your urging, should I not give a proper answer to the question of one who seeks the truth?”

After Tabrizi left, the jailer returned. This time he told the Imam that the deputy sultanate wished to know his creed in writing. He asked the Imam to write the points of his creed on a sheet of paper. Ibn Taymiyyah refused to provide anything in writing, saying, “If I write something now, people will say that Ibn Taymiyyah has changed his former creed.” The Imam continued, “I was likewise asked in Damascus to provide my creed in writing, but I did not do so there either. Instead, I presented my written works, in which my thoughts and statements are expressed unambiguously. The governor of Syria also sent these writings to the Sultan by post. I know that they are with the Sultan. Moreover, creed is not something one invents on one’s own. Am I to create a new creed of this kind every day? My creed is what I have already declared and what appears in my writings and books. You have them; examine them.”

The jailer went away and returned once more. This time he said, “At least give us something in writing—say, a letter of pardon, or a pledge that you will not quarrel with anyone.” The Imam replied, “Yes, that could be done. It is not my purpose to hurt anyone or take revenge on anyone. I would like to write a letter of pardon for those who have oppressed and wronged me and treated me unjustly and badly. But in fact there is no custom of giving such things in writing. Therefore, I consider it sufficient to state these words orally.”

After finishing his discussion with the jailer, the Imam returned inside the prison. There he found the prisoners absorbed in various frivolous games to distract themselves. Some were playing cards and others chess. They paid no attention to prayer, and prayers were being missed because of their preoccupation with games. The Imam objected to this. He encouraged the prisoners to pray, presented Allah’s clear commands to them, urged them toward righteous deeds, made them conscious of their sins, and advised them to continually seek forgiveness from Allah for them. Within a short time, the study of religious knowledge among the prisoners began so actively that the entire prison became a madrasa. The prison staff and prisoners came to love Imam Ibn Taymiyyah wholeheartedly. The prison’s scholarly and wholesome atmosphere placed a magical collyrium on the prisoners’ eyes. Matters reached such a point that many prisoners, even after hearing that they had been released, did not wish to leave the prison. They asked to remain a few more days in the service of the Shaykh of Islam.

Four months later, in Safar 707 AH, another effort was made to secure his release. Qadi Badr al-Din Ibn Jama‘ah visited the Imam in prison. Even after a lengthy discussion, he could not persuade the Imam to accept release on the government’s three conditions. Finally, in Rabi‘ al-Awwal, Amir Husam al-Din brought the Imam, on his own responsibility and under oath, before the deputy Sultan. Amir Husam al-Din requested him to remain in Egypt for some time. He undertook to make every effort so that the people of Egypt might properly learn about the Imam’s knowledge and piety and enrich their lives through his beneficent influence.

After His Release from Prison

After being released from prison, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, began mixing more with the ordinary people of Egypt. The Sultan sent him valuable gifts and bestowed a title on him to honor him with royal distinction, but he accepted neither. He saw that he was having to enter into disputes with the government and administration at various levels. It was in no way proper to bind himself to any favor from them. Therefore, he kept himself as far as possible from the influence of the administrative machinery. Secondly, he forgave all those who had been involved in conspiracies against him. He declared plainly that he had no complaint against anyone.

During this period, the influence of monistic philosophy was growing in Egypt. In particular, the celebrated Egyptian Sufi poet Abu al-Faraj, who died in 632 AH, was a strong advocate of this doctrine. Through his efforts, and adorned with poetic beauty, the doctrine was spreading widely among the common people and the Sufi community. A large number of Egypt’s Sufis and shaykhs were influenced by it. From Egypt, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah openly began opposing this doctrine. He identified the monistic philosophical trend as wholly contrary to the Qur’an and Hadith, and as an innovative invention of later Sufis and a rash intrusion into the religion. He praised the creed and practices of Sufis such as Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani and Shaykh ‘Adi ibn Musafir al-Humawi, but continued to criticize severely the Sufis and shaykhs of his own time. In his view, these Sufis and shaykhs were deeply influenced by Greek, Egyptian, and Indian materialist and anti-tawhid philosophies.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s forceful and extensive criticism of these misguided shaykhs and Sufis aroused great anger in Sufi circles. The famous Egyptian shaykh of the Sufi path, Ibn ‘Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari, went to the citadel as the representative of the Sufis and complained about the Imam to the Sultan. The Sultan convened an assembly at the Dar al-‘Adl and ordered a proper investigation of the complaint. Ibn Taymiyyah was summoned to the assembly. The strength and rationality of his argument, the clear evidence from the Qur’an and Hadith, and his captivating eloquence overwhelmed the listeners. Everyone at the gathering was silenced. Consequently, every attempt to take action against him at the state level was suspended.

Although efforts to impose any official punishment on him had ceased, the opposition’s propaganda and suppressed resentment occasionally erupted. The opponents now adopted another method of slandering him. They alleged that the Imam was proclaiming: “It is not permissible to invoke anyone’s name except Allah. Everything must be requested from Allah alone. One may not even appeal to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.” In response to this propaganda, some scholars commented that such thinking was not especially blameworthy, though it would be regarded as a form of discourtesy. But they were not prepared to classify such thinking as unbelief. Thus, the Imam escaped once again.

Even then, the opponents did not fall silent. Every day they engaged in fresh slander. Exasperated by the continuous complaints, accusations, and denunciations, the government presented the Imam with three proposals. He would have to accept certain conditions under any one of the first two; otherwise, the third proposal was that he remain in prison. The Imam preferred remaining in prison. But his students and friends kept urging him to return to Damascus. Under their pressure, he finally began preparing to go to Damascus. On 8 Shawwal 707 AH, he even left the city with his companions, but that same day he was brought back to Egypt from the road. He was told that the government considered it preferable to keep him in prison. Yet the qadis and scholars could not bring any clear accusation against him. They therefore remained uncertain. Observing the mental conflict of the scholars and qadis, the Imam decided that he would voluntarily go to prison himself. But the qadis did not want to send him there, so he was kept under house arrest. Students and scholars could visit him, and discussions continued with him on scholarship and important legal questions. Fatwas were also sought from him on particular matters.

After some time, a unanimous resolution to release the Imam was adopted at a conference of the scholars and jurists. In response, the government released him. The public gave him a grand reception. His popularity increased greatly compared with before. As his recognition among the people grew, so did his influence. And the growth of his influence meant that beliefs opposed to Islam and the Shariah, innovations, and anti-Islamic practices would disappear from among the people. The Muslim public would be able to advance properly along the path of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Thus, amid hostile circumstances, the Imam continued to carry out his work correctly.

At this time, the sudden change in the political situation created still greater obstacles in Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s path. His opponents became aggressive toward him. Nasir al-Din Qalawun was then the Sultan of Egypt and Syria. He was fully aware of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s knowledge, scholarship, piety, sincerity, and courage. The Imam himself had encouraged him to fight the Tatars, and at that time he had personally witnessed the Imam’s courage, intelligence, and sincerity. Thus, he was not generally opposed to the Imam. But in 708 AH, for various reasons, he withdrew from ruling the state, and Rukn al-Din Baybars assumed power. Sultan Baybars’s spiritual mentor and adviser on religious matters was Shaykh Nasr al-Munbaji. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was the principal critic of this shaykh’s creed, beliefs, and practices. On the other hand, the Imam was also regarded as a favorite of the former Sultan. The opponents therefore gained a full opportunity to act against him, and they did not hesitate for a moment to exploit it. As soon as Baybars came to power, orders were issued to send Imam Ibn Taymiyyah to Alexandria and keep him under house arrest there. He was sent to Alexandria toward the end of Safar 709 AH. Alexandria was an ancient center of Sufis and Sufism. It is said that the government also hoped that, at this ancient center of the Sufis, some fanatical and powerful Sufi would finish him off, freeing the government from responsibility for his blood. But this hope of the government was not fulfilled.

The Imam’s Activities in Alexandria

Alexandria was an ancient, heritage-rich Egyptian port and former capital on the shore of the Mediterranean. The number of Sufis advocating monistic philosophy was greatest in this city. The influence of this misguided Sufi philosophy had also spread widely among the people. The city had major propagators of this doctrine. They did not merely introduce shirk and innovations into people’s creed, beliefs, and thoughts; they also influenced their character and conduct in ways opposed to Islam. As a result, the ordinary people’s indifference and contempt toward Islamic law and discipline became pronounced.

Upon reaching Alexandria, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah resolved to remove these defects from the thought and conduct of the Sufis and the people. First, through lessons on the Qur’an and Hadith, he formed a group of students and supporters. Gradually, this group grew in size. Ordinary people began coming to him in crowds. With great enthusiasm, the Imam undertook the purification of the people’s thoughts, while also shaping their conduct and character according to the discipline of the Shariah. He remained in the city for only eight months. In that short period, he shattered all the strength of the opposing camp. A large portion of the ordinary people and educated influential classes escaped the clutches of the Sufis who followed an anti-Islamic philosophy. The Imam led them to repentance. Even an influential leading Sufi repented at his hands.

Regarding the Imam’s success in Alexandria, his younger brother Sharaf al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah, who was staying with him, wrote in a letter addressed to the people of Damascus: “The people of Alexandria have become greatly attracted to my brother and have accorded him high honor. He is always engaged in propagating the Qur’an and Sunnah. Love and respect for the Shaykh have taken a permanent place in everyone’s heart, commoner and notable alike. Almost every group—rulers, judges, jurists, muftis, shaykhs, and mujahids—has become his admirer and devotee. Only ignorant and foolish people remain distant from him.”

Meanwhile, the fall of Sultan Rukn al-Din was drawing near. The former Sultan, Nasir al-Din Qalawun, who had gone into voluntary exile, returned to the political stage after only eleven months. Rukn al-Din resigned from government and left the country. At the same time, his adviser, Shaykh Nasr al-Munbaji, also fell from power. Thus, the clouds of disaster that had gathered over Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s fortunes began to disperse. After Sultan Nasir al-Din Qalawun entered Egypt, his first concern was Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s release. He immediately sent people to arrange for the Imam to be brought from Alexandria. News of the Imam’s departure from Alexandria spread through the city in an instant. People came in groups to bid him farewell. Before the tearful eyes of thousands of students and preachers, the Imam’s caravan set out for Cairo. When he reached Cairo, the Sultan and the delighted inhabitants of the city gave him a grand reception.

Speaking the Truth at the Royal Court

Earlier, the scholars of Egypt and Syria had issued a special regulation concerning the clothing of non-Muslim dhimmis. Particularly after the Crusades, Christian families who had come from Europe had been living in Muslim lands. Many of them were engaged in espionage on behalf of the Christian countries of Europe. On one occasion, a massive fire broke out in Cairo, killing many Muslims and destroying property worth millions of dinars. An investigation later revealed that a group of Christians had deliberately arranged this devastation. Thereafter, the question arose of distinguishing their clothing so that the dhimmis could not infiltrate the Muslims and harm them. In accordance with the fatwa of the respected scholars, the government ordered the dhimmis to wear blue turbans. The dhimmis had obeyed this order until then. Today, the Prime Minister brought before the Sultan a proposal to pass a new law for the dhimmis.

Ibn Taymiyyah was sitting beside the Sultan at the court. Egypt’s foremost qadis, scholars, and jurists were also present. In fact, the court had been convened to honor Ibn Taymiyyah. In his proposal, the Prime Minister suggested that from then on the dhimmis should also wear white turbans like the Muslims, and added that in return they had promised to pay the government an annual tax of seven hundred thousand dinars. They would continue paying all the taxes they currently paid. After the proposal was read, the Sultan looked toward the scholars and jurists and asked their opinion. The leading jurist, ‘Allamah Jamal al-Din al-Malikani, and the other qadis remained silent. Seeing the state of affairs at the court, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah burst into anger. Addressing the Prime Minister, he began questioning him and harshly criticizing government policy. The Sultan urged him not to become angry, but he paid no heed to the Sultan’s request. The scholars present became terrified at his extraordinary boldness, wondering what disaster might occur at any moment in the court.

The Imam turned from the Prime Minister and addressed the Sultan: “It is deeply regrettable that today’s proceedings have begun with a matter destructive to Islam and the Muslims. It is extremely sad that, for the sake of a trivial, temporary gain in this fleeting world, you are advancing the interests of the dhimmis, although this brings no benefit—only harm—to Islam and the people of Islam. Consider once how great a favor Allah has bestowed upon you. A short while ago, you had lost your kingdom; your honor and standing had been completely ruined. By Allah’s grace, you regained everything. Allah humiliated your enemy, and you prevailed over the opposing side. Now you should give thanks to Allah.”

The Sultan was extremely pleased with the Imam’s truthfulness and rejected the Prime Minister’s proposal. As a result, the dhimmis continued to go about outside wearing blue turbans as before.

He Forgave His Enemies

Imam Taqiuddin Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah never cared about the frown of royal authority for the sake of truth. He was the unreserved expression of truth. He followed to the letter the Messenger’s saying, “The best jihad is speaking the word of truth before a tyrannical ruler.” In his sixty-seven years of life, he never bowed his head before injustice. He devoted his life to upholding and establishing what he knew to be true. For this reason, he never even looked to see who was with him, who supported him, or who did not. Throughout his life, he had to fight almost alone for truth and justice.

After returning from Alexandria, a completely unexpected incident took place in the Sultan’s court. I have mentioned this incident earlier. Sultan Nasiruddin Qalawun was, that day, in such a moral position that he was compelled to accept the Imam’s unrestrained expression of truth. Otherwise, the state apparatus was not then at a stage where it could easily accept any decision opposing the government’s decision. But the Imam’s sincere courage made it possible that day. The country’s leading ulema and the foremost judges of the four schools were present at the court. Yet no one spoke. Where there was the greatest need for truth to be expressed clearly, they remained silent. Not only that, a large portion of these scholars had been involved in conspiracies against him. They had participated in the conspiracy to exile him from Cairo and confine him in Alexandria. Their conspiracy had also previously been behind Sultan Nasiruddin’s deposition. The Sultan could not forget this. He began considering strict punitive measures against the scholars and judges.

The Sultan wanted to obtain a fatwa from the Imam to legitimize killing these treacherous judges and scholars. The Sultan said, “They issued a fatwa in favor of the fugitive former Sultan and against me.” He produced that fatwa and showed it to the Imam. He also said, “These are the very people who issued fatwas against you, spread a web of conspiracies, and caused you suffering in many ways.” The Sultan’s purpose was to provoke the Imam. But understanding his intention, the Imam began praising the judges and ulema by mentioning various aspects of their service. He strongly opposed the Sultan’s proposal. He kept explaining to the Sultan that if he killed the country’s greatest scholars, he would be unable to provide any replacements, and the country and nation would then face an extremely grave crisis.

“They have repeatedly conspired to kill you. They have caused you suffering in many ways,” the Sultan said, trying to provoke the Imam.

Regarding myself, I can say this much: I have no complaint against those who have caused me suffering. I have forgiven them. As for those who have sinned against Allah and the Messenger, Allah Himself is sufficient to take retribution for their actions. I never take revenge for my own sake,” the Imam replied firmly.

Thus the Imam repeatedly continued explaining the matter to the Sultan. In the end, the Sultan had to desist. He restrained his anger against the ulema. On that occasion, Egypt was spared a great bloodshed.

The historian Ibn Kathir has quoted a statement by Ibn Makhluf, the Maliki school’s chief judge in Egypt. The judge said: “I have never before seen a person as magnanimous as Ibn Taymiyyah. We had incited the government against him. But when he gained the power to do something against us, he forgave us. Not only that, he pleaded our case before the Sultan.”

After returning from the Sultan’s court, the Imam resumed his old activities. Teaching, preaching, issuing fatwas, and writing books were his initial activities in Cairo. As in Damascus, a large group of students and supporters had formed around him here as well. Hearing of the Imam’s arrival, they gathered around him once again. Indeed, many members of the opposing and conspiratorial groups also came to him to seek forgiveness. The Imam told everyone, “For my part, I have forgiven everyone. I have no complaint against anyone.”

Everyone may be pleased, but the enemies of Allah can never be pleased. A group of the Imam’s staunch opponents could not tolerate the Imam’s growing standing with the Sultan and the country’s eminent scholars. They began to burn inwardly with resentment. They started inciting the people to disgrace the Imam. The Imam had not yet attained in Cairo the standing he had enjoyed among the people of Damascus. Therefore, it was not difficult to turn the Muslim masses here against him by raising questions of faith, doctrine, and the school of law. His opponents used this weapon. On 4 Rajab 711 AH, some criminals attacked him and injured him. The people of the Husayniyyah quarter immediately prepared to take revenge, but the Imam restrained them.

Addressing the assembled people, the Imam said: “First, taking revenge on them is my right. I publicly renounce this right. I have no complaint against them. Second, this may be your right. If you wish to seek my counsel on this matter but are not prepared to follow my words, then you may do whatever you wish; I have nothing more to say. Third, this is Allah’s right, and Allah will exact it if He wills.” At that moment, the call to the Asr prayer was made. The Imam set out for the neighborhood mosque, the congregational mosque of Husayniyyah. The people tried to stop him, but he paid no heed to their objections. Consequently, a large group accompanied him. He returned honorably after performing the prayer at the mosque.

The Final Chapter of the Imam’s Struggle-Filled Life

In 712 AH, news was again heard of a Tatar attack. Their vast army was advancing toward Damascus. Sultan Nasiruddin Qalawun decided to resist the Tatar attack. He set out for Syria with his army, intending to wage jihad. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah also joined the army in support. But when they reached Syria, they heard that the Tatars had withdrawn. The army returned to Egypt, but Imam Ibn Taymiyyah remained in Damascus.

The Dispute over Divorce

After a long seven years, the Imam returned to Damascus. The people of Damascus warmly welcomed him. Thousands came outside the city to greet him. A great many women also took part in the reception. Having been deprived of the opportunity to participate in jihad, the Imam intended to visit Bayt al-Maqdis. After staying in Bayt al-Maqdis for some time, he traveled through several other areas and then returned to Damascus. There he again devoted himself to teaching, the pursuit of knowledge, and reformative work. At this stage, he paid particular attention to discussing fiqh and analyzing its various issues. The Imam and his forefathers followed the Hanbali school. Nevertheless, he discussed legal issues independently and consulted authentic hadith when reaching decisions on various matters. Consequently, he came into disagreement on various issues not only with the Hanbali school but also with other schools. One such disputed issue was whether three pronouncements of divorce in a single sitting constituted three divorces. The four schools and many other imams agreed on this matter, but the Imam opposed them. He had authentic hadith and the opinions of some senior Companions in support of his position. Essentially, this was a fiqhi disagreement, and Islamic jurisprudence allows room for such disagreements. But the narrow-mindedness of the opposing party was unwilling to tolerate even this much. A wave of slander arose against the Imam. He continued his work with concentrated attention.

Islamic fiqh is a living and dynamic institution. Islam is a comprehensive way of life. This way of life will preserve its distinctive character until the Day of Resurrection. The dynamism of fiqh lies at the root of this enduring establishment. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was striving to preserve this dynamism of Islamic fiqh. If Islamic fiqh became stagnant, if the streams of ijtihad and istinbat dried up, and if it could no longer provide proper Islamic solutions to new problems, it would be entirely impossible to preserve Islam in its complete form until the Day of Resurrection. Thus, the Imam’s contribution in this field was extraordinary and unparalleled.

But how can those accustomed to darkness tolerate the dazzling light of broad daylight? Therefore, the opposing party could not tolerate his independent expression of opinion, even while he remained within the bounds of what was permissible. At that time, the issue of oaths linked to divorce was being discussed vigorously. People frequently used the word “divorce” in various matters, especially in transactions. To emphasize something or prove the sincerity of their firm resolve, good intention, and commitment, they would say, “I will certainly do this; otherwise my wife is divorced.” “I will certainly pay you the money on such-and-such a date; otherwise my wife is divorced.” Or, “If I did not buy this commodity for such-and-such a price, then my wife is divorced.” In such statements and commitments, although the speakers had no intention of divorcing, conditional divorce was treated as binding and the rules of divorce were applied. In this way, hundreds of households and families were being ruined. The word was also widely used in political affairs. Since the time of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, it had become customary to use the word “divorce” along with the pledge of allegiance to reinforce loyalty to the government. People would say, “If I abandon allegiance to such-and-such a ruler, my wife is divorced.” This created enormous disorder and complexity in society.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah conducted extensive thought and research on this issue. Ultimately, he regarded it as merely an oath and commitment. He declared that if the commitment were broken, only the expiation for an oath would be required; the wife would in no way become divorced as a result. This fatwa too conflicted with the established law. Consequently, the ulema and judges of various schools opposed him. Pressure was put on him to withdraw the fatwa. The chief judge, Shamsuddin ibn Muslim, met him and requested that he not issue further fatwas concerning oaths linked to divorce. He agreed. Meanwhile, a decree from the Sultan also arrived from Egypt ordering him to refrain from issuing this fatwa. Since there was a possibility of turmoil, disturbance, and disorder, he granted their request. But within a short time, the Imam changed his decision. It seems that he later came to think that, regarding the Shariah, it was not permissible to conceal by government order the true ruling he had recognized in the light of the Quran and Sunnah, and that it was improper to obey such a government order when the government was not a caliphate following the Prophetic method. Thus, some time later, in response to people’s questions, the Imam began issuing fatwas on the matter again.

As a result, the ulema and judges once more became opposed to him. Following their joint petition, the governor ordered that he be confined within the citadel. In accordance with this order, he was imprisoned in 720 AH. This imprisonment, however, lasted only five months. When the Sultan’s order arrived from Egypt, he was released five months after entering prison.

For approximately five and a half years afterward, he encountered no significant obstruction to the pursuit of knowledge. During these five and a half years, he remained engaged in building the faith, beliefs, and character of the Muslim people through teaching, writing, and preaching. During this period, he wrote several new books.

Imprisoned in the Damascus Citadel

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah had reached the final stage of his life. He had been released from prison and had devoted himself to writing books, but his enemies did not allow him to live in peace. They arranged to send him to prison again. How could one whose life was filled with struggle and conflict live a tranquil life? How could he spend the last days of his life unhindered under the rule of injustice and falsehood? More importantly, the eminence he had attained in the contemporary field of knowledge had produced a group of permanent enemies. They were always engaged in conspiracies against him. Their task was to find ways to humiliate him, undermine him, and, by distorting his statements, portray him as an importer of a new Islam, an opponent of the path followed by the great scholars of religion, and a proponent of novel and distorted interpretations of Islam. Unfortunately, such self-serving scholars gather in large numbers around the machinery of government. Some scholars sell their religion and faith for the interests of the state, and, while trimming Islam to meet the government’s demands, they also begin trimming the God-given nature within themselves. Eventually they reach a point at which they can no longer remain in a normal human state; though human in form, they become inhuman. The savage traits of envy, hatred, cruelty, brutality, and mercilessness begin to appear in them. They do not stop after venting their vicious rage against their opponents. They cannot find peace until they have brought their opponents to the utmost point of humiliation.

If an opponent merely presents a correct interpretation of Islam while remaining at a theoretical level, their rage does not flare up quite so fiercely. They somehow tolerate that. But as soon as the opponent goes beyond theory and begins striving to establish true Islam in reality, or undertakes any program for that purpose, their blood begins to boil. They become aggressive, because they believe that the first thing to collapse under its impact will be the palace of their own interests. Before the Muslim masses, their artificial piety and counterfeit Islam will be exposed. They have no room to think beyond their own interests.

Seven hundred years after the Prophethood, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, did not merely present the true form of Islam theoretically by writing a few books and issuing fatwas. Alongside this, he worked to reconstruct the beliefs and convictions of the Muslim people according to this true form of Islam. With his students and supporters, he also built an unstoppable popular force. Through this popular force, he strove to free society from the poisonous vapors of shirk, bidah, and corruption. Through it, he even exerted influence over the government. However, if he had had any plan or program to change the government, we believe that no government would have been sympathetic to him or influenced by him. The government too would then have become hostile toward him. At the scholars’ advice, the government would not merely have imprisoned him; rather, at the government’s prompting and instruction, the scholars would have advised the government to imprison him. Our essential point is that self-serving scholarly circles and governments deviating from the ideal of the Islamic caliphate have always conspired against true Islam. The advocates of true Islam have always been humiliated at their hands. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was humiliated and subdued by them throughout his life. Thus, for the final time, he was confined in the Damascus Citadel on 7 Sha‘ban 726 AH. The Imam accepted the order of confinement with a smile. He spontaneously exclaimed: “I had been waiting for this; it contains great good and an immediate benefit.”

To serve the Imam, his younger brother Zaynuddin ibn Taymiyyah also remained with him in prison with the governor’s permission. After the Imam’s imprisonment, the opposing side also attacked his followers. They launched attacks in various places. They arrested a group of his supporters, mounted them on donkeys, and paraded them through the city. Eventually, after obtaining an order from the chief judge, they arrested another group of supporters and threw them into prison. They were released again a few days later. But the Imam’s foremost disciple, the scholar Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, remained with him.

Although the Imam’s imprisonment brought a wave of joy to a group of demented religious profiteers, the principled scholarly community and ordinary Muslims were deeply grieved and outraged. They regarded it as the victory of bidah over Sunnah and falsehood over truth. Leading scholars from various parts of the country began sending letters to the Sultan in Cairo. They expressed their sincere indignation at the imprisonment of the age’s greatest scholar and Islam’s powerful voice. Here I quote part of the memorandum jointly sent to the Sultan by the scholars of Baghdad alone: “Having heard that Shaykh al-Islam Taqiuddin Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah is being persecuted, the devout, religion-loving people of the eastern lands and Iraq have been deeply distressed, while the opponents of Islam have begun dancing with joy. The self-serving and innovators’ circles have also rejoiced. When the scholars of these regions saw the people of innovation and falsehood clapping with delight at the humiliation and suffering of scholars, they considered it necessary to inform the government of this unwelcome event. Alongside this, they are sending their own response in support of the Shaykh’s fatwa. They have also expressed their attitude here by acknowledging the Shaykh’s learning, knowledge, and scholarship. At the root of all this is nothing but the desire to see the religion honored and goodwill toward the Sultan.”

The Imam’s Activities in Prison

Those who have made establishing truth and justice the aim of their lives do not regard any worldly obstacle as an obstacle. In every environment, favorable or unfavorable, they continue fulfilling their responsibilities. They do not suspend their work and programs and sit idle while waiting for favorable conditions. No prison wall can silence the zeal for action of such warrior-strivers. When one avenue of work closes, they open the door to another.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah followed the same path in the Damascus prison. Because he was imprisoned, the responsibilities he had carried outside—spreading knowledge, reforming society, and building character—were indeed interrupted, but this did not discourage him in the least. In prison, on the one hand he immersed himself in worship and recitation of the Quran, and on the other he devoted himself more intensely to private study and writing. In particular, he began revising and editing his earlier books. At this time, he became especially interested in studying the Quran and elucidating its difficult passages. Perhaps the maturity he had attained in knowledge, together with the undisturbed prison environment and the opportunity to study and research the Quran with focused attention, enabled him to excel in this work.

Gradually, the prison environment became bearable and natural to him. Whatever he wrote there spread outside the prison within a short time, and throughout the country within only a few days. People outside the prison wrote to him asking for fatwas, and he wrote replies from inside and sent them out. Thus, in this situation, both inside and outside the prison became a field of activity for him. Indeed, from within prison he continued expressing his views without anxiety.

At this time, he severely criticized a view held by Abdullah ibn al-Akhnai, a Maliki judge of Egypt. In doing so, he also commented on the judge’s inadequate knowledge of the Shariah and fiqh. This comment provoked the judge’s anger. He flared up like oil on a fire, complained to the Sultan’s court, and vented his resentment by expressing his hostility toward the Imam.

His Books and Writing Materials Were Seized

The Sultan issued an order: all writing materials in the Imam’s possession—paper, pens, inkpots, and anything else used for writing—were to be confiscated. All his books were also to be removed. He was not to be allowed to study or write any longer, and his opinions were under no circumstances to be made public again.

For a writer, critic, and social reformer, there is perhaps no greater punishment than this. Perhaps even the death penalty would have been a hundred times easier for him. In accordance with the government order of 9 Jumada al-Thani 728 AH, all his papers and writing materials were confiscated. They were deposited in the court library, where there were manuscripts of approximately sixty of his books.

The Imam was not discouraged in the least by this repressive policy. He made no complaint or protest to the government. He silently endured everything. After his inkpot, pen, notebooks, and paper had been taken away, he gathered scraps and pieces of paper and stored them. He began writing on them with charcoal. Several booklets written in this manner were found later. They remained unchanged for a long time. Even in this condition of his life, he considered himself engaged in jihad. The Egyptian writer Shaykh Abu Zahra quoted a letter written by the Imam during this period in his book Ibn Taymiyyah. In that letter he said:

“All praise belongs to Allah! I am engaged in a very great jihad in the path of Allah. The jihad here is in no way inferior to our earlier jihad against the Tatar emperor Qazan or against the Jahmiyyah and the pantheists. This is a tremendous favor from Allah upon us and upon the people, but most people are unable to understand its significance.”

Journey to the Hereafter

The Imam’s time had also come to an end. The governor of Damascus came to visit him on his deathbed. In a voice overcome with grief, the governor asked his forgiveness. The Imam replied: “I have no complaint against you. I have forgiven you. I have also forgiven those who opposed me. They had no doubt, nor do they now, about the truth of my statements and actions. I have forgiven the Sultan as well, because he imprisoned me not of his own will but because of the fatwas of the ulema. I have forgiven everyone in this matter. But I can never forgive the person who is an enemy of Allah and His Messenger, who, driven by hostility toward Allah and His Messenger, opposed me and took pleasure in having me imprisoned.”

On 22 Dhu al-Qadah 728 AH, at the age of sixty-seven, he departed this world. The citadel’s muezzin climbed the minaret of the mosque and announced his death. From the high towers surrounding the citadel, the announcement spread in unison in every direction. Immediately, announcements of mourning from the city’s mosques began echoing throughout the air. In an instant, all the city’s joyful tumult fell silent. A shadow of grief descended upon the lanes, highways, verandas, homes, and the faces and eyes of the people. Grieving crowds flowed toward the citadel. Even his enemies forgot their enmity; they too were faint with grief and pain.

The citadel’s main gate was opened. People went in groups to glimpse the Imam’s body and, even if only for a while, ease the grief in their hearts. After the ritual washing, his funeral bier was brought to the city’s largest mosque, the Umayyad Mosque. The long road between the citadel and the Umayyad Mosque became packed with people. To protect the bier from the crowd, soldiers arranged for the body to be brought to the congregational mosque. The Umayyad Mosque was the largest mosque in the Islamic world at that time. It filled completely, as did the field in front, the roads, the surrounding lanes, and the markets. According to historians, no funeral of such magnitude had previously been held anywhere in the Islamic world.

All the city’s shops remained closed that day. Many people fasted, and many forgot to eat. Even while the funeral was being taken to the cemetery, the crowd made it difficult to move. The bier was brought out of the citadel after Fajr. The funeral prayer was performed after Zuhr, and by the time they pushed through the crowd to reach the nearby cemetery, it was time for Asr.

Within a very short time, news of the Imam’s death spread throughout the Islamic world, and absentee funeral prayers were held everywhere.

The Imam’s Renewal Activities

Allah has made His religion known and established among human society through the prophets. For this reason, prophet after prophet came. Each era was marked by its boundaries, and a prophet came within it. Again, several prophets sometimes came together in the same era. In different countries of the world, several prophets continued at the same time to propagate and establish Allah’s religion. Indeed, Allah sometimes sent several prophets together to the same country. He made one of them the helper of another. Thus, it can be seen that in the history of humankind, the chain of prophets was never interrupted—not even for a brief period. Allah did not leave people in darkness without making any decision concerning them. Therefore, alongside human history, the history of the prophets has proceeded along a parallel line. Indeed, it may be said that the prophets themselves moved human history forward.

But after the last Prophet, Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, there is no prophet. However long a period may pass, however many thousands of years may elapse, Allah the Exalted has declared that He will send no further prophet. During this period, He will raise from among the Ummah of Muhammad such truthful, courageous, scholarly mujahid men, possessed of sound knowledge of religion and Shariah, who will truly undertake the responsibility of reviving the religion. In this regard, Imam Abu Dawud narrated a hadith in his book, quoting Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him. It says:
*************ARABIC*************
That is, at the head of every century Allah will create for this Ummah someone who will strengthen and renew its religion for it. Because these truthful servants of Allah undertake the work of tajdid, or revival, of the religion and Shariah of the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, they are called mujaddids. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, was such a mujaddid. In the seventh and eighth Hijri centuries, for the sake of Islamic Shariah, he scraped away with a sharp instrument the layers of dirt and debris that had accumulated over the religion and Shariah during the seven or eight hundred years since the Prophethood. Islam once again shone with its inner radiance. Before him, many other mujaddids had likewise freed Islam from its external impurities. But his work was, it seems, far more comprehensive, clear, and incisive than that of all of them.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s work of renewal may essentially be divided into four parts: (1) reviving the creed of tawhid and creating resistance against polytheistic beliefs, customs, principles, and practices; (2) criticizing philosophy, logic, and kalam, and giving priority to the Qur’an and Sunnah’s viewpoint and method of presenting arguments; (3) criticizing religions, sects, communities, and groups opposed to Islam, and confronting their thoughts, actions, and practices; and (4) reviving knowledge of the Shariah and Islamic thought.

In the Imam’s time, there was no shortage of ulama at home or abroad. There were also many great scholars of worldwide renown. Their large volumes were sufficient proof of the vast extent of their scholarship. Their mastery of hadith, fiqh, tafsir, usul, and kalam was immense. They were probably aware of the trials of the age. Yet no one was seen coming forward to confront them. The history of that period contains no name of any scholar who used even one of the three powers of preaching, writing, and organization. Surrendering to the current of the age, everyone seemed to be drifting along with the herd. This distinction belongs solely to Imam Ibn Taymiyyah. He correctly understood the trials of the age and confronted them with all his strength, restoring Islam to its true form. He freed Islamic society from the stench of shirk and bid‘ah and caused the pure, unhindered stream of true tawhid and risalah to flow forth naturally within it. This, after all, was the work of the prophets, peace be upon them. In this respect, he represented the prophets. The mujaddids of the religion in reality carry out the very responsibility of the prophets.

What kind of society was it that the Imam had undertaken to reform? How much connection did it have with a genuinely Islamic society? This is something that must be properly understood. Through interaction with non-Muslims and various non-Arab peoples, the influence of Ismaili and Batini rulers, and the teachings and practices of a group of ignorant and misguided Sufis, beliefs, thoughts, and actions mixed with shirk began to spread among ordinary Muslims. Like the Jews and Christians, Muslims too became involved in open shirk. Whatever the non-Muslims did when visiting the graves of their great figures, Muslims repeated at the shrines of their own religious elders. They cried out to the occupants of graves and sought their help just as one seeks help from Allah. In his work Al-Radd ‘ala al-Bakri, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote about the activities of such people: Many of them granted the person lying in the grave the rank of Allah and placed the living saint who served that grave in the position of a prophet. They sought help from the dead person to accomplish their intended tasks. They placed that living saint and caretaker in such a high position that whatever he declared lawful became lawful, and whatever he declared unlawful became unlawful. In reality, they removed Allah from His responsibility as God.

Regarding these devotees of shirk and bid‘ah, he wrote in his work Al-Radd ‘ala al-Akhnai: Many people believe that, through the blessing of the shrine of a saint located in a particular neighborhood or settlement, its inhabitants receive sustenance, obtain help, and remain protected from enemy attacks. Through his blessing, the country too is spared enemy attack. Of the person concerning whom they hold such beliefs, they say that he is the protector of such-and-such a city. Thus, Sayyidah Nafisah is the protector of Egypt and Cairo. Such-and-such saints are the protectors of Damascus. Such-and-such others stand guard over Baghdad and other cities. Their belief is that, through the blessing of the graves of those prophets and righteous people, the relevant cities and settlements are protected from calamities. When enemies were attacking Baghdad and Damascus, they went to the shrines of saints and holy men to seek refuge, feeling no need to turn to Allah’s court.

The Effort to Purify Muslims’ Creed from Shirk

Allah is the Creator of the human body of flesh and blood. He also created all the abstract qualities within it. Therefore, no credit for these is due to human beings; all credit belongs solely to Allah. Thus, at the very beginning of the Qur’an, Allah alone is regarded as the possessor of all praise and the ultimate source of all excellence in every matter in the universe. It is said: Alhamdulillah. Whether alive or dead, human beings possess no superiority. The One who is supreme is Allah alone. Allahu Akbar.

But if we discuss the history of human misguidance, we find that from the very beginning people have worshiped other people. This has taken root with respect to both the living and the dead. It has spread in various forms: hero worship, worship of saints, worship of pirs, grave worship, shrine worship, and so on. The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said that Muslims would never engage in manifest shirk or idol worship. Indeed, Muslims have never engaged in manifest shirk. But practices mixed with shirk have spread widely among them. In place of idol worship, a group of Muslims became involved in the worship of saints and graves. Among graves, the shrines of martyrs acquired particular importance. These were called mashhad or shawahid. Because of the worship of saints and mashhads, the honor and importance of mashhads increased in comparison with mosques. People became absorbed in visiting shrines and mashhads. These became the qiblah of ordinary and ignorant Muslims. A network of shrines and mashhads spread through the cities and ports of the Islamic world. Thousands of mashhads and shrines were built overnight. Sultans, kings, and amirs spent money and wealth on them with open hands. Much property was endowed as waqf in their names. Large buildings and domes were constructed over them. A vast group of caretakers, sweepers, and employees arose to look after them. People began traveling to visit them with great pomp. Their caravans looked just like the caravans of pilgrims visiting the House of Allah, and at times they were even larger. Thus, the attention of ordinary Muslims shifted from the mosque to the mashhad. In the seventh and eighth Hijri centuries, the shrine and mashhad, instead of the Ka‘bah, became the center of Muslims’ religious life.

A large portion of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings is devoted to discussing this misguidance of the Muslims of his time. The Imam showed that the Batini, or Fatimid, rulers of Egypt had done the most to establish this fitnah firmly among ignorant and self-interested Muslims. He also showed that the Rafidah and Shi‘ah had, from the beginning, given greater importance to the mashhad than to the mosque. Their spiritual connection with Najaf and Karbala was stronger than with the two Harams, Makkah and Madinah.

Of course, the era of the Fatimid rulers of Egypt had ended before Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was born. But their mental, cultural, and civilizational influence was still active in Muslim society. In Syria especially, the number of Shi‘ah and Ismailis was considerable. Because they lived in the same society, they influenced ordinary Muslims. The contribution of the anti-Islamic current of Sufism was also significant. This misguided Sufi philosophy had placed special importance and sanctity on shrines and mashhads. They held annual gatherings and ‘urs ceremonies at these shrines and mashhads. Referring to these shrines and mashhads, the Imam wrote in his work Al-Radd ‘ala al-Bakri: Many people perform Hajj at graves. Others have written special books about the etiquette and rules of this journey. They named these books, for example, Al-Manasik al-Hajj lil-Mashahid, meaning the rules for performing Hajj at the mashhads. A Shi‘ah scholar, Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn al-Nu‘man, also wrote a book by this name. In it he narrated many hadiths in the name of the Ahl al-Bayt that were actually baseless. Elsewhere in this book the Imam wrote: Many people give priority to performing Hajj at these graves and mashhads over performing Hajj at the Ka‘bah. They say that visiting the shrine of a certain saint three times becomes equivalent to one Hajj at the Ka‘bah.

Thus, in the seventh and eighth Hijri centuries, mosques throughout the Islamic world gradually became deserted, while the splendor and magnificence of shrines and mashhads increased in comparison. Their courtyards were always lively. Often, mosques remained surrounded by darkness at night, while oil lamps and chandeliers burned throughout the night at shrines and mashhads. Sometimes the poor Muslims of a neighborhood could not even find time to look toward the mosque. Their money was spent on the shrines.

At that time, powerful Islamic governments had been established in various countries. Great jurists and hadith scholars were teaching in different madrasas and Islamic educational centers. Yet they did not feel the need to launch any resistance movement against the doctrinal and practical misguidance of ordinary Muslims. Rather, many of them themselves remained doubtful about these beliefs and practices. A study of their writings and fatwas reveals signs of this uncertainty. The proof is provided by the two books Imam Ibn Taymiyyah specifically wrote criticizing the misguided thought of two of the greatest scholars of the age, Ibrahim al-Akhnai and Ya‘qub al-Bakri. In reality, they had not proceeded toward analyzing prevailing ideas, beliefs, and practices directly in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Yet the primary sources of Islam are precisely the Qur’an and Sunnah. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah called upon the scholarly community to return to these sources.

Exposing the Errors of Philosophy and Kalam

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, reconstructed and re-established Islamic creed, freeing it from the influence of polytheistic beliefs. This was his first reformative work, which we discussed earlier. Now I wish to discuss his second reformative work. This consisted of criticizing philosophy, logic, and kalam, and introducing the method of accepting the arguments of the Qur’an and Sunnah in their place. To understand the importance and scope of this work, one must know the position of philosophy and logic in the educated Muslim society of that time. One must first understand the high status that Muslim thinkers and intellectuals had accorded to philosophy and logic.

Although the translation of Greek sciences into Arabic began during the Umayyad period, it assumed vast proportions during the Abbasid period. From the reign of the Abbasid caliph Mansur—probably 136 AH—the translation of Greek philosophy and logic into Arabic began on a large scale. During the reign of Caliph Ma’mun, however, it expanded so greatly that it took the form of a regular movement. Ma’mun himself was so interested in the matter that he requested the Roman emperor to send him the finest works on Greek philosophy. The Roman emperor sent the works of philosophers such as Aflatun (Plato), Aristatalis (Aristotle), Socrates, Galen, Euclid, and Ptolemy. Ma’mun had them translated with great ceremony. Their publication was arranged under royal patronage, and people were encouraged to read them.

As a result, the ideas of the Greek philosophers spread through Muslim society within a short time. Historical study shows that by the end of the fourth Hijri century, almost all the major works of the Greek philosophers had been translated into Arabic. Among Muslim philosophers, however, Aristotle’s works gained the widest circulation. Aristotle became their central figure. What else can this be called but a misfortune for the Muslims—that not one of the Greek philosophers, including Aristotle, whose ideas spread through Muslim society, had any knowledge of the divinely revealed religion and prophethood? Their ideas were in clear conflict with the religion sent by Allah and the heavenly scriptures. They were essentially vehicles of materialist thought and philosophy of life.

At first, the philosophers and thinkers of the Islamic world did not blindly accept Aristotle’s thought and philosophy. They criticized it and did not regard it as beyond error. Many wrote books criticizing it. Wherever the weakness of Greek thought became apparent to them, they criticized it vigorously. The Mu‘tazilah, who had absorbed the greatest influence from Greek philosophy, were also its greatest critics. Among them, the names of Nizam and Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i may be mentioned first. In the third Hijri century, Hasan ibn Musa criticized several important aspects of Aristotle’s logic in his book Kitab al-Ara wa al-Diyanat. In the fourth Hijri century, Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani wrote a book called Daqa’iq. In it he severely criticized Greek philosophy and demonstrated the superiority of Arab philosophy over it. In the fifth Hijri century, the author of Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, the eminent scholar ‘Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani, wrote a book criticizing the thought of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers, and severely criticized their arguments according to the rules of logic. Toward the end of that century, Imam Ghazali, may Allah have mercy on him, made the defects in Greek philosophical thought so clear through his book Tahafut al-Falasifah that tremors continued to be felt in the lofty palace of Greek philosophy for a hundred years. In the sixth century, Abu al-Barakat al-Baghdadi and Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi also launched extensive campaigns against Greek philosophy.

Despite all this, the section of Muslim intellectual society that upheld Greek philosophy and regarded the translation, explanation, analysis, and propagation of Greek philosophy as its responsibility became devoted worshipers of Aristotle’s personality and philosophy. They considered Aristotle’s thought and philosophy above all criticism. With the passage of time, their love, reverence, and allegiance to Aristotle continued to grow. In this regard, special mention may be made of the Muslim philosopher Abu Nasr al-Farabi (339 AH/950 CE), Abu ‘Ali ibn Sina (428 AH), and Ibn Rushd of Spain (595 AH). Ibn Sina was so intoxicated with love for Aristotle that, in his view, although hundreds of years had passed since Aristotle, no one had written anything more or newer about logic than Aristotle had, and no one’s reasoning could stand above his. He was as though the sole standard of truth. Ibn Rushd went even further than Abu ‘Ali Sina. In the terminology of the Sufis, it may be said that regarding Aristotle he had reached the state of fana fi al-shaykh. The renowned writer Lutfi Jum‘ah, quoting one of Ibn Rushd’s biographers in his work Tarikh Falsafat al-Islam fi al-Mashriq wa al-Maghrib, wrote: Ibn Rushd reached an extreme position regarding Aristotle’s superiority and sanctity. He was even prepared to make him a god. He believed that Aristotle had risen far above the human level in intellect and superiority. Had Ibn Rushd supported the doctrine of multiple deities, he would have accepted Aristotle as Rabb al-Arbab—the greatest god of all gods.

In the seventh Hijri century, the greatest advocate of Greek philosophy was Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, also known as al-Muhaqqiq al-Tusi. This was the era of the Tatar invasions. The greater part of the Islamic world was being devastated by these attacks. At the same time, Muslims were experiencing extreme decline in the intellectual sphere. Tusi was a trusted associate of Hulagu Khan, the Tatar emperor who was an enemy of the Muslims. Tusi’s students began teaching and writing books in various places during this period and afterward. Through their efforts, an educational system was established in Iran whose central subjects were philosophy and mantiq, or logic. Some have expressed the view that a refined version of this system was later introduced into the madrasas of Hindustan under the name Dars-i Nizami. Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and his disciples regarded Aristotle as the universal intellect, the all-knowing or perfectly knowing being, and considered his research and investigations definitive. In opposition to Imam al-Razi, they vigorously supported Aristotle’s philosophy and thus gave it new life.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was born ten years before the death of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. When Ibn Taymiyyah entered the intellectual world, philosophy and mantiq reigned everywhere. Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and his disciples were its principal representatives. The language of mantiq and falsafah (philosophy) was then the language of knowledge. The more proficient someone was in mantiq and falsafah, the greater scholar and intellectual he was considered. Hadith scholars and jurists had no importance in this field. Almost all of them had accepted this situation. Where philosophy and logic were openly denying the truth, they considered bowing their heads and proceeding quietly a guarantee of preserving their dignity. In this situation, a firm and fearless critique of philosophy and logic had become essential. It was necessary to prove that Aristotle was not superhuman and that his research and investigations were not conclusive; rather, they could contain errors.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah fulfilled this responsibility. He discharged it so effectively that, seven hundred years later, its influence remains intact throughout the Islamic world. Modern Western philosophy is also rooted in this Greek philosophy. By exposing the errors of Greek philosophy, he opened the way to identifying the defects of modern Western philosophy as well. At the same time, he showed the way to understand the simplicity, appeal, and superiority of Qur’anic rationality.

Proving the Superiority of the Qur’an’s Method of Argumentation

The knowledge that the prophets, peace be upon them, received from Allah cannot be acquired by human effort in any way. Even if the most intelligent person in the world were to think and research about it for a hundred years, after a hundred years he would still be standing exactly where he had stood a hundred years earlier. He would not have advanced even one step. This is no more than what Greek philosophy contributed to the world’s store of knowledge. Greek science, mathematics, geography, astronomy, literature, and other disciplines assisted the progress of human civilization. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, also acknowledged this. He acknowledged that the Arabs and the Islamic world helped the advancement of civilization by studying these fields. But he was astonished when he saw the mountain-like ignorance of the Greek philosophers concerning Allah, the angels, and the Hereafter. In his work Al-Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyin, he wrote:

When Aristotle’s work on Allah, the First Teacher, is analyzed deeply, even an ordinary educated person must be astonished. In the end, he is compelled to conclude that perhaps there is no one in the world more ignorant of the Lord of the Worlds than these Greek philosophers. When people compare the writings of these Greek philosophers about Allah with the teachings of the prophets and messengers, it truly seems as though they are comparing blacksmiths with angels and a village landlord with the Owner and Lord of the entire universe. At least there may be some basis for comparison in the latter case. But those who compare philosophers with prophets are both unjust and ignorant. A village landlord at least maintains order and discipline in the village. In that respect, he has a partial resemblance to the Supreme Lord and King of the universe. But the matter of philosophers and prophets is entirely different. Philosophers cannot even come close to the knowledge acquired by the prophets. Indeed, it may be said that even disbelievers, polytheists, and Jews know much more about Allah than these philosophers.

What is the reason for the ignorance of the Greek philosophers? To analyze its cause, one must examine the ancient history of Greece. For most of its history, the Greek nation is seen as worshiping idols and stars. During that period, their national thought was immersed in extreme imagination, idealism, and mythology. Modern historical analysis has established that idol worship and star worship were widespread throughout ancient Greece. Temples to gods and goddesses had been built everywhere in the country. Thousands of names of deities circulated on people’s lips. The Greek philosophy that, after being translated, adorned the libraries of the Islamic world and then reached Europe through the Muslims was thoroughly colored by this idol worship and star worship. The Greek philosophers adorned this polytheistic thought with the appealing technical vocabulary of philosophy. Because Muslim scholars and intellectuals were unaware of the ancient history of Greece and the religious ideas of the Greek philosophers, they regarded these philosophical discussions as profound wisdom and immersed themselves in researching them. They devoted all their strength, ability, and talent to proving them true and sound. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, however, was able to reach the roots of this Greek philosophy. In connection with his tafsir of Surah al-Ikhlas, he wrote: As far as can be known about the ancient philosophers of Greece, they were rigid polytheists. They were also extremely attracted to magic. They worshiped stars and idols. This was also at the root of their deep interest in astronomy and the constellations.

Those among the Muslims who adopted the philosophy of these people likewise do not prevent people from engaging in shirk and do not regard tawhid as essential. Rather, they consider shirk permissible.

According to Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, among the ancient philosophers of Greece, those who preceded Aristotle possessed considerable knowledge of the unseen—such as Allah, the angels, and the Hereafter—and of religious truths, and they were close to Islam and Allah’s true religion. Explaining this, he said that philosophers who preceded Aristotle, such as Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato, had left Greece and traveled to Syria, Egypt, and other countries where various prophets had been born. They met the companions and followers of David and Solomon, peace be upon them, and acquired knowledge of the unseen world from them. But this was not possible in Aristotle’s case. He never traveled to those countries. He had no portion of the teachings of the prophets. His people worshiped the stars, and he possessed some knowledge related to this. On that basis he founded his own thought and research. Later, his followers blindly followed his path.

Unfortunately, it was Aristotle’s philosophy that spread throughout the Islamic world. Muslim philosophers such as Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, and Suhrawardi studied and propagated this philosophy. They called Aristotle Mu‘allim al-Awwal, or the First Teacher.

Ilm al-kalam arose in response to the confusion of the Muslim philosophers, but Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was not satisfied with its method of presenting arguments either. In the Imam’s view, in order to prove religious and unseen truths, the scholars of kalam adopted philosophical terminology and the philosophers’ method of proving propositions. This method proved largely unsuccessful. Indeed, in many cases it backfired and harmed Islam. He pointed out the weakness of many mutakallimun, or scholars of kalam: in many cases they raised major questions against Islam and presented the doubts raised against Islam in a fairly forceful manner, but their answers were comparatively much weaker and softer. Referring to Imam al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, he wrote in the work Al-Nubuwwat: Imam al-Razi openly acknowledged toward the end of his life that he had reflected deeply on the kalami method and philosophical process of presentation. In the end, he concluded that these methods cure no sick person and quench no thirsty person. He said, “I found the Qur’anic method closer.”

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote that, compared with the intellectual arguments presented by the scholars of kalam and Muslim philosophers concerning Allah’s existence, His essence, and His attributes, the arguments of the Noble Qur’an are far clearer, more transparent, unambiguous, and compelling. Moreover, the new complexities and doubts that philosophers and theologians create through their arguments have no room to arise in the Qur’anic method.

The Response to the Christians

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was carrying out the duty of reviving Islam in the eighth century Hijri. Seven hundred years after prophethood, the nervous weakness that had appeared among the standard-bearers of Islam was by no means insignificant. Two hundred years of Crusader wars, followed by the attacks of the Tatars, had utterly crushed them. Taking advantage of this opportunity and of this vulnerable moment for the Muslims, other religions and ideologies launched powerful attacks against them. Christianity and Christian doctrines in particular began to portray the Tatars’ victories at that time as their own victories. Earlier, we mentioned the rejoicing of the Christian inhabitants of a city when it fell to the Tatars and their anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim activities. For these reasons, Christian doctrine was being forcefully presented before the Muslims at that time. Consequently, cracks began to appear in the walls of many Muslims’ faith and practice.

At the appropriate time, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah began a campaign to cure this disease among the Muslims. Numerous discussions on this subject are scattered throughout his writings. Indeed, he wrote a four-volume book of 1,395 pages on the matter. Its title was Al-Jawab al-Sahih li-man Baddala Din al-Masih (The Correct Response to Those Who Distorted the Religion of Jesus, peace be upon him).

In fact, at that time large numbers of Christians lived in the Islamic lands, particularly in Egypt and Syria. Beyond Syria lay a succession of Christian countries. The Byzantine Empire bordered Syria. From the end of the fifth century Hijri, the Europeans began a series of attacks on Syria and Palestine that continued for the next two hundred years, as a result of which part of Syria was wrested from Muslim control. At the same time, Bayt al-Maqdis remained in Christian hands for ninety years. Later, Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi decisively defeated the Crusader army at the Battle of Hattin and recovered Bayt al-Maqdis. Even after that, however, following the establishment of an independent Christian state on the Syrian coast, the courage of Christian missionaries and rulers increased greatly. They dreamed of bringing all Syria under the banner of Christianity and propagating Christianity throughout the region. Precisely at that time, they began to regard the Muslims’ tragic defeat at the hands of the Tatars as a great opportunity created for them by God. Taking it as a prophecy of their own victory, they began proclaiming everywhere that the religion of Jesus was the true religion and that this true religion had now achieved victory.

At that time, anti-Islamic books began to be imported in great quantities from the Christian world. Through these books, efforts were made to spread confusion about Islam among the Muslims and to prove Christianity to be the only religion of Allah. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah confronted this tribulation on a broad scale. Previously, many Muslim scholars, researchers, and critics had criticized Christianity. However, most of them were not properly acquainted with the history of Christianity. They regarded Christianity as a collection of the words of Jesus, peace be upon him, and events related to him, and thus elevated it to the status of a heavenly or divine religion. As a result, Christianity received far more importance among the Muslims than it deserved. This condition proved extremely harmful to Muslims afflicted with this spiritual disease.

But Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was fully informed about the history of Christianity, the extensive changes and transformations it underwent in the religious centers of Rome and Greece, and its initial development there. He was completely aware that contemporary Christianity was nothing more than a mixture of the teachings of Jesus, peace be upon him, and the polytheistic beliefs, convictions, customs, rituals, and activities associated with the mythical gods and goddesses of the Romans and Greeks. In his book Al-Jawab al-Sahih, he wrote:

The inhabitants of Rome, Greece, and other such countries were actually polytheists and idol worshippers. They made idols of temples and deities and worshipped them. The Christians combined two religions and made them into one religion. One was the religion of the monotheistic prophets, and the other was the religion of the polytheists. One part of their religion consists of the teachings of the prophets, while the other part consists of words and practices taken from the religion of the polytheists. In this way they created a new religion, of which no trace can be found in the words of the prophets.

In this way, he identified the various periods and stages in the evolution and distortion of Christianity. At the same time, he clarified the Muslims’ understanding of the Gospel. Many Muslim scholars mistakenly regard the Gospel as a Book of Allah equal in status to the Noble Qur’an. Consequently, they are easily influenced by the propaganda of Christian missionaries. He therefore discussed this matter clearly as well. He said that, concerning the Gospel now in the hands of the Christians, they themselves admit that it was not written during the time of Jesus, peace be upon him, or at his instruction. After Jesus had ascended to heaven, two of his disciples, Matthew and John, and two others who had not seen Jesus, Mark and Luke, wrote the book as Christians. (There are now questions even as to whether Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, peace be upon him. See the book The Qur’an, the Bible and Science by the French convert to Islam, Dr. Maurice Bucaille.)

He also said that, just as the Messenger’s words, deeds, religion, and beliefs have been preserved for the Muslims through chains of reliable transmitters, the words of the Gospel and the Torah cannot be placed on the same level. Explaining the difference between the Noble Qur’an and the Torah and Gospel, he said: The wording and meaning of the Noble Qur’an have come down from the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, through a reliable chain of transmission. Consensus has been established concerning it, just as it has been concerning the Messenger’s Sunnah, his circumstances, and his events. Their authenticity has been established in various ways.

…The Noble Qur’an is preserved in the breasts of the Muslims. Memorizing the Qur’an does not require reading any written or printed book. God forbid, even if all the books were someday destroyed, there would be no difficulty in memorizing the Qur’an. Conversely, if the book of the Bible were destroyed today for any reason, the Christians would have no alternative repository for its words. For this reason, books of this kind have undergone various changes, both verbal and semantic, over the centuries.

As one major reason for the distortions the Christians introduced into their religion, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah also mentioned that they failed to understand the true meanings of many statements of the prophets, peace be upon them. Consequently, they distorted the original meanings of many words. In this matter, the Jews went a step further than the Christians. He strongly emphasized that, in order to understand the heavenly Books correctly and derive accurate guidance from them, it is essential to understand the words, indications, and terminology of the prophets. Consider, for example, the claim that Jesus, peace be upon him, is the son of God. The disciples said that the Messiah had told them: Surely Allah is my Father and your Father, and my Lord and your Lord. In the Torah, all the Children of Israel have been called the sons of God. The Egyptians were called the sons of Pharaoh. Going even further, the young of animals have been called the children of the owners of those animals. Does that mean that they actually became children born from the wives of the animal owners? Imam Ibn Taymiyyah exposed these errors of the Christians plainly and unmistakably.

The Struggle Against Shi‘ite Doctrine

After the Christians, the Shiites may be placed at the top of the list of the extremist groups within the Muslims against whom Imam Ibn Taymiyyah conducted a struggle. He wrote a separate book against the Shiites’ extremist beliefs and activities. In fact, among the Muslim ummah devastated by the contemporary Tatar invasions and the Crusades, the aggressive propaganda of extremist Shiites was capable of creating enormous chaos. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s objective was to rescue the Muslim ummah from such chaos.

Before discussing Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s activities concerning the Shiites, it is necessary to inform readers about the origin of the Shiite sect and its beliefs. After the end of the Khilafah according to the Prophetic method, the disagreements, disturbances, wars, and conflicts that arose among the Muslims—and whose effects continued fully through the extensive periods of Umayyad and Abbasid rule—gave rise to countless tribulations. Four major tribulations lay at the root of these: Shiism, Kharijism, Murji’ism, and Mu‘tazilism. All later tribulations arose from these four fundamental sources.

Shi‘ah means a group or party; its plural is Shiya‘an. At first, the supporters of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, were called the Shiya‘an of Ali. Later, they came to be called Shiites as a technical term. After the death of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, some members of Banu Hashim and certain other Companions regarded Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, as the most qualified for the caliphate. Some considered him more qualified than the other Companions, especially Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him. Many considered him entitled to the caliphate solely because of his kinship with the Noble Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him. Until the caliphate of Uthman, however, these ideas remained merely thoughts and notions. They had not yet taken the form of a doctrine or creed.

All those who held such thoughts and notions recognized the caliphates of the three preceding caliphs, including Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, and pledged allegiance to them. Nor did they protest against any of their actions.

All those who held such thoughts and notions recognized the caliphates of the three preceding caliphs, including Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, and pledged allegiance to them. Nor did they protest against any of their actions.

These particular ideas assumed the form of a doctrine and creed during and after the Battle of the Camel between Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and Talhah and al-Zubayr, may Allah be pleased with them; the Battle of Siffin between Ali and Mu‘awiyah, may Allah be pleased with them; and the Kharijites’ Battle of Nahrawan. Then the tragic martyrdom of Imam Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him, on the plain of Karbala helped unite the followers of these ideas and bring them forth as a distinct group. At the same time, immediately after the establishment of the caliphate, the Umayyads’ particular form of monarchical rule and tyranny kindled resentment against them in the hearts of ordinary Muslims. Thereafter, during the Abbasid period, the inhuman oppression inflicted upon the descendants of Ali and his supporters aroused sympathy and support for them among ordinary Muslims. All these circumstances gave the aforementioned group an opportunity to put down firm roots and become strong as an organized faction. Kufa was its powerful center.

Allamah Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah, and Abd al-Karim al-Shahrastani in his book Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, have described the Shiites’ distinctive doctrines. Their account may be summarized as follows:

First: The general public has no authority to decide matters concerning the Imamate. Therefore, responsibility for choosing an imam cannot be entrusted to ordinary Muslims. Even if ordinary Muslims choose someone as imam, he will not thereby become an imam. The Imamate is a pillar of the religion and the foundation of Islam. The Prophet could not be negligent in this matter. He could not leave after entrusting the ummah with the responsibility of choosing an imam. Rather, he himself would appoint an imam before departing.

Second: The imam must be ma‘sum, meaning free from the stain of sin. He will be protected from every kind of sin, major or minor. He will make no mistake. Whatever he says or does will be pure truth and absolute correctness.

Third: The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, appointed Ali as imam after himself.

Fourth: After every imam, the next imam must be appointed by the explicit instruction of the preceding imam. This is because the responsibility has been taken away from the entire ummah and placed solely upon the imam.

Fifth: All Shiite sects agreed that the descendants and lineage of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, alone were entitled to the Imamate.

In formulating these doctrines, the Shiites relied upon a type of hadith whose authors were themselves. They transmitted these reports themselves and interpreted them according to their own school. The general Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah know not the slightest thing about these hadiths. Rather, in Ibn Khaldun’s words, most of them are mawdu‘—false, fabricated, and forged. Their transmitters are not free from defects.

But let us return to our earlier discussion. Although most Shiites agreed on the doctrines mentioned above, they later split into various sects because of disagreements on many other matters. Their two major groups, however, are the Imamiyyah and the Zaydiyyah. Those who believe in Ali’s Imamate after the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, and in the succession of Imamate through his descendants belong to the Imamiyyah sect. Those who restrict the Imamate to the descendants of Fatimah, may Allah be pleased with her, are called Zaydis; that is, they relate themselves to Zayd ibn Ali ibn Husayn, the founder of this school.

The various Shiite groups hold different views regarding ordinary Muslims. According to the Shiites who hold the most balanced view among them, Ali is the best of all creation. Those who fought him or harbored hostility and hatred toward him will dwell forever in Hell, and their resurrection will be with the unbelievers and hypocrites. Before Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, may Allah be pleased with them, were made caliphs. According to these Shiites, if Ali had refused to recognize their caliphates and had expressed his inner dissatisfaction with them, they too would have dwelt in Hell—God forbid. But since Ali accepted their leadership, pledged allegiance to them, and prayed behind them, they accepted them in accordance with Ali’s conduct. They were unwilling to recognize any difference between Ali and the Prophet except the rank of prophethood. In every other respect, Ali and the Prophet possessed equal rank.

This was the position of the relatively moderate Shiites. In contrast, the extremist Shiites held that the caliphs who assumed the caliphate before Ali were usurpers, embezzlers, and traitors, while those who made them caliphs were misguided and unjust. They had rejected the Prophet’s testament and deprived the true and rightful imam of his due. One group went further and declared the first three caliphs and those who elected them unbelievers.

The most moderate among them are the Zaydis. They consider Ali superior, but they believe that, even when the superior is present, an inferior person may become imam. They also believe that the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, gave no clear instruction in favor of Ali’s Imamate. Therefore, they recognize the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar. Nevertheless, in their view the imam must be appointed from among the descendants of Fatimah.

In various places throughout his writings, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, refuted these beliefs and activities of the Shiites. On the other hand, he defended the creed of the Sunnah and Ahl al-Sunnah, as well as the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the noble Companions. But as Shiism grew powerful in his age, creating a storm of disgraceful opposition against the Muslims’ fundamental beliefs and against the character of the finest group of Muslims formed by the Messenger—the Companions of the Messenger—slandering them and insulting them, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah became deeply disturbed. He believed that if the finest group of Muslims formed by the Messenger were condemned, the Muslims would have no model before them. Consequently, they would reach the extreme of moral anarchy.

In particular, Ibn al-Mutahhar, a Shiite scholar favored by the Tatar ruler Oljeitu Khudabanda Khan, composed a large book in support of Shiism and the Imamate and against the caliphate and Ahl al-Sunnah, entitled Minhaj al-Karamah fi Ma‘rifat al-Imamah. It rapidly spread among the Muslims. The Shiites made much noise about the book and claimed that no answer could be given to its arguments. The book attempted to prove the Imamate and infallibility of Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt, protested against the caliphates of the three caliphs, and condemned the noble Companions. Great assemblies were held to discuss it, and attempts were made to establish its claims from Qur’anic verses and hadiths. The entire book was filled with theoretical discussions and arguments to such an extent that an ordinary reader found it virtually impossible to hold a view opposed to its claims.

Like the Shiite scholars of the eighth century, the author of this book was a Mu‘tazilite in matters of principles and creed. Thus his attack on the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah proceeded entirely according to the methods of philosophers and theologians. For this reason, even the Muslim intellectual class was influenced by it.

It was beyond the ability of ordinary scholars or writers to answer such a book. Moreover, unfortunately, Shiite scholars in general had proved remarkably fearless in fabricating hadiths and citing these fabricated hadiths as authorities. At the same time, the science of hadith had attained enormous breadth. Hundreds of thousands of hadiths had been compiled in books, and their various collections were scattered throughout the libraries of different cities in the Islamic world. The sciences of al-jarh wa al-ta‘dil and asma’ al-rijal—that is, the knowledge used to examine the reliability and conclusiveness of hadiths—had also expanded. These materials were not collected in a single library in one city. It was therefore by no means easy for one person to verify the authenticity of the hadiths cited in the book. Such a task was possible only for someone who was a master of hadith and the science of transmitters, who knew every hadith book and the names and circumstances of its narrators by heart, and whom an opponent could not deceive through false citations. At the same time, the history of Islam had to lie open before him like an open book, so that he could not be confounded by any labyrinth of history.

In that age, the only scholar who could be named as such an all-encompassing authority was Imam Ibn Taymiyyah. Just as he was learned in philosophy and theology and capable of exposing the flaws in his opponents’ philosophical and rational arguments, he possessed profound mastery of hadith as well. In that age, he was compared to a vast library of hadith. It was commonly said among the learned that if Imam Ibn Taymiyyah said of a hadith that he did not know it, then it was in fact no hadith at all.

He proved from Ibn al-Mutahhar’s book that, by insulting the Companions of the Messenger—the best of all human beings after the prophets, the afdal al-khala’iq ba‘d al-anbiya’—and portraying them as the vilest of Allah’s creation, the Shiite scholar Ibn al-Mutahhar had struck at the very foundation of Islam. This opened the door to attacks upon, criticism of, and atheism toward the Prophethood of Muhammad. In one place in the first volume of this book, he wrote: These Shiites have portrayed those who were the best and most virtuous of all the nations, from the first to the last, after the prophets and messengers, as the vilest and most immoral of all humanity. They have described their major faults and transformed their virtues into vices. In contrast, they have presented as righteous and the best of creation certain self-interested people who attached themselves to Islam merely to pursue their own interests—people among whom there were none more wicked, corrupt, deceitful, faithless, unjust, sinful, or involved in unbelieving acts. In this way, they declared the entire ummah unbelievers or proved them misguided, except for their own small group, which alone they believed to be upon the truth.

In another place in the second volume, he quoted a statement by Imam al-Sha‘bi. Imam al-Sha‘bi said: The Jews and Christians honor their prophets more than the Shiites do. The Jews were asked, “Who are the best people in your community?” They replied, “The companions of Moses, peace be upon him.” The Christians were asked, “Who are the best people in your community?” They replied, “The disciples, that is, the companions, of Jesus, peace be upon him.” The Shiites were asked, “Who are the worst people in your community?” They replied, “The Companions of Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him.” They have insulted these virtuous people.

In another passage of the second volume, while describing one of the Shiites’ habits, he wrote: The perpetual habit of the Shiites is to abandon the congregation of the Muslims, continually cooperate with the Jews, Christians, and polytheists, and cultivate friendship with them. Who can be more misguided than those who hate the foremost members of the Muhajirun and Ansar while befriending hypocrites and unbelievers?

He then described the Shiites’ role in various national crises. Referring especially to instances in which they cooperated with unbelievers during times of national calamity, he wrote that most of them, in their hearts, were far more devoted to the unbelievers than to opposing them for the sake of the Muslims. Thus, when the Tatars invaded the Islamic world from the east and killed Muslims, the Shiites in Khurasan, Syria, Aleppo, and other regions assisted the enemies. Similarly, when the Christians fought the Muslims in Syria, the Shiites supported them. Thus it can be seen that if a Jewish government were established in Iraq or anywhere else, the Shiites would prove to be its greatest supporting force. They are therefore always prepared to aid unbelievers, polytheists, Jews, and Christians and to support them against the Muslims.

Reconstruction of Islamic Knowledge and Thought

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, was the most outstandingly influential personality in Islamic history. In the course of history, he left such a radiant golden record of truth, justice, knowledge, and intellectual brilliance that it will continue to inspire the ummah to follow the path of truth and justice until the Day of Resurrection. Six and a half centuries after the end of prophethood and the caliphate according to the Prophetic method, he once again enriched Islam and the Islamic ummah with new life.

When a Prophet conveys the call of Islam, it contains neither ambiguity nor incompleteness. After the Prophet’s passing, however, the filth and debris of the surrounding world begin to engulf Islam; Islam gradually becomes obscure, and the impression of incompleteness begins to arise concerning it. Those who, at such a time, cleanse Islam of the filth that has accumulated upon it, make true Islam clear once again, and uproot the notion that Islam is incomplete—those are the genuine scholars and renewers of the faith. Truth and falsehood remain clear to them, like the midday sun. By this we do not mean any direct relationship with Allah or a direct pipeline of knowledge. The Qur’an and Sunnah are sufficient. In matters of truth and knowledge, these two alone are the channels of connection with Allah.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was such a genuine scholar and renewer of the faith. Seven hundred years after the Prophethood, he established Islam once again in its true form, freeing it from all internal and external impurities. In this connection, we have already discussed three of the Imam’s reformative works. His reformative work consisted in reconstructing the knowledge of the Shariah and Islamic thought.

By the Imam’s time, the knowledge of the Shariah had acquired considerable breadth. In particular, great libraries had been established on tafsir, hadith, fiqh, usul al-fiqh, and the science of kalam. Mastery of any one of these disciplines was sufficient for an ordinary student of that age to gain renown. Yet there was no shortage of people learned in several disciplines. Merely reading the book Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyyah al-Kubra will reveal countless scholars who were simultaneously proficient in all the sciences of the Shariah. They could be called the encyclopedias of the Shariah of that age. Nevertheless, despite the enormous extent of study and scholarship in the Shariah, very few scholars possessed profound knowledge. Among that small number, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s name stood at the top.

The Imam possessed an unparalleled memory, which made it extraordinarily easy for him to master every kind of knowledge. Along with this, because of the sharp intelligence granted to him by Allah, he penetrated deeply into every field of learning. Whenever he wrote on a subject, he opened some new horizon in that field. In particular, he opened a new path to acquiring knowledge of the Qur’an and the Shariah.

Tafsir of the Qur’an was one of his special and most beloved subjects of discussion. There is scarcely any book of his in which the subject of Qur’anic tafsir is absent. No book of his can be found in which, after discussing Qur’anic verses in detail, he does not derive proofs and arguments from them. According to his students, if all the discussions on tafsir that he left behind were gathered together, a thirty-volume tafsir of the Qur’an could be completed. But because of his eventful, struggle-filled, and constantly jihad-oriented life, it was not possible to preserve all his manuscripts properly. Even so, through the efforts of people of learning, a considerable number of his works on tafsir have been preserved. Among them, tafsirs of Surah al-Nur, Surah al-Ikhlas, and the Mu‘awwidhatayn have been printed in Egypt. In recent times, discussions on tafsir have been collected from his various books and printed in Bombay under the title Tafsir Ibn Taymiyyah. A book of his on the principles of tafsir, entitled Usul al-Tafsir, is also available.

In hadith, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was regarded as an exemplar in his age. Yet he did not have a separate book devoted exclusively to hadith. Nevertheless, discussions of the principles of hadith, asma al-rijal, al-jarh wa al-ta‘dil, criticism of hadith, and fiqh al-hadith attained such breadth in his writings that, if collected, they could constitute a major work of several volumes. In particular, the kind of research-based discussion found in his books concerning fabricated, false, forged, and invented hadiths is found nowhere else. The greatest amount of discussion on this subject is found in his book Minhaj al-Sunnah, written against the Shi‘ah.

Nor are his discussions of usul al-fiqh insignificant. In this field he possessed the rank of a mujtahid. Although he was fundamentally a follower of the Hanbali school of fiqh, he was not at all reluctant to express his independent opinions. In this regard, his Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah and Iqtida’ al-Sirat al-Mustaqim may be mentioned. His separate work on usul al-fiqh is entitled Minhaj al-Usul ila ‘Ilm al-Usul.

If the Imam’s writings on the science of kalam are brought together, it will be seen that kalam and aqidah occupy forty percent of his entire body of writings. His books on this subject have a distinctive feature: their titles are connected with various cities. That is, the books were named after the cities from which the questions had come. Examples include Sharh Isbahan—Isfahan—Risalah Hamawiyyah, Tadmuriyyah, Wasitiyyah, Kaylamiyyah, Baghdadiyyah, and Azharaiyyah. Reading the Imam’s works on kalam reveals the breadth and vastness of his knowledge.

His contribution to fiqh was no less than that of a mujtahid. Although, by his time, the compilation and arrangement of the fiqh of all the schools had been fully completed, he nevertheless made distinctive contributions in this field. From the perspective of a mujtahid, he examined various legal issues and rulings, analyzed them in the light of the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of the Messenger, ijma, qiyas, and the principles of fiqh, and engaged in ijtihad and istinbat. He tried to bring fiqh opinions and detailed legal questions into conformity with sound hadith. Great compilations of his fatawa have remained in existence and have been printed in many volumes. Recently, a four-volume work of 1,586 pages was published in Egypt under the title Fatawa Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. The Saudi government, on the other hand, published the largest compilation of his fatawa in thirty volumes.

For several hundred years afterward, the Imam’s knowledge exerted a magical influence throughout the Islamic world. Even in the present age, it is difficult to find a great scholar or Islamic thinker completely free from the influence of his learning.

Many systems of thought and doctrines are current in the world. They have arisen on the basis of various ideas, imaginations, arguments, guesses, conjectures, knowledge gained through experience and experimentation, discussion, and debate. Islamic thought and doctrine, on the other hand, are founded upon revelation and Muhammadan prophethood. Whatever the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, conveyed concerning Allah’s Essence and Attributes, His acts, the beginning and end of the universe, humanity’s first arrival in the world and its ultimate destiny, the Resurrection, gathering and resurrection, the results of human deeds, and other supernatural matters connected with religious life—this constitutes Islamic belief, thought, and doctrine.

Apart from Allah’s revelation to the Prophet, there is no second way of knowing these matters. It is impossible to know them through reflection, research, guesswork, or conjecture. Human intellect cannot come even near Allah’s Essence and Attributes. Human beings have no experience in this matter, nor can these things be seen with the eyes. The Qur’an states clearly: “There is nothing like unto Him.” Therefore, in this field, one must rely solely upon knowledge granted by Allah. This knowledge is found only with the Prophets. The hearts of the Prophets are illuminated by this knowledge as though they have witnessed everything directly. There is not even an atom’s weight of doubt in their knowledge. Thus there is no room for expressing the slightest doubt regarding the knowledge of the Prophets.

The Qur’an has stated this matter explicitly:

[Arabic text omitted by the source-node system]

He said, “Do you dispute with me concerning Allah, while He has guided me regarding this matter?” This is a matter as true and clear as the midday sun. In the presence of such radiant truth, no philosophy and no intellectual argument is needed to prove Allah’s Essence and Attributes.

Yet if the history of human intellect is examined, it will be found that for thousands of years people have attempted to analyze these matters through reason, even though humanity itself has acknowledged its incapacity in this field. Philosophers created certain technical terms for discussing these subjects, and they themselves assigned meanings to those terms. Later, Muslim theologians, while attempting to answer the philosophers’ errors, used the philosophers’ own terminology. As a result, in many cases they also accepted the limited meanings of those terms. Indeed, in many cases they discussed Allah’s Essence and Attributes with such certainty that it seemed as though these matters had been acquired through their direct experience, observation, and perception.

They set out carrying the banner of protest against philosophy, but unknowingly joined the ranks of the philosophers and repeated all their arguments and disputations. How beautifully the Qur’an addresses the philosophers:

[Arabic text omitted by the source-node system]

“Have you heard? You disputed about matters of which you had some knowledge. Why, then, do you now dispute about matters of which you have no knowledge? Allah knows, but you do not know.” (Al ‘Imran 3:66)

Because of the stagnation that had appeared in Islamic thought and research during Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s time and throughout the several preceding centuries, the palace of aqidah that the theologians had constructed upon the foundations laid by philosophers to prove Allah’s Essence, tawhid, the Hereafter, and other unseen and supernatural truths came to be regarded as the true foundation of the faith. Apart from a small group of hadith scholars and jurists, everyone regarded the intellectual conclusions of the theologians as the standard of Islamic aqidah. Instead of making the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger the standard of aqidah, they made the books of the theologians their standard. To avoid questions and objections, they subjected Qur’anic verses and hadiths to ta’wil—self-invented interpretations. The influence of philosophy and kalam had become so firmly established over them that they could not even imagine any error in it. Rather, they tried to alter the Qur’an and hadith to fit it.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah severely criticized this mentality. Instead of philosophy, kalam, and speculative reasoning, he built the foundations of Islamic aqidah, thought, and doctrine upon the Qur’an and hadith. In recent times, the most successful book on Islamic aqidah from this perspective was written by Muhammad al-Ghazali of Egypt. His book is entitled Aqidat al-Muslim. It was published in Bengali by the Bangladesh Islamic Foundation under the title Islamic Aqidah.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, strongly protested against granting the intellect unrestricted and infinite power and recognizing it as the authority that decides matters concerning Allah, the Messenger, and the Hereafter. In the true sense, he was the first successful protester in this matter. He was the successful rebel against the recklessness of the intellect.

Earlier, Imam al-Ghazali, may Allah have mercy on him, had written against the philosophical descriptions of matters relating to Allah, severely criticized them, and made lively sport of the reach of the philosophers’ intellects. But he did not raise a powerful voice against the intellect’s claim to unlimited power or against its engaging in profound theoretical discussion of matters concerning which it possessed no sound knowledge.

Using all the authority of his position and scholarship, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah sought to prove that the primary source of belief and of unseen truths is derived from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Reason may strengthen these truths and help prove their validity, but it cannot serve as the foundation of their proof. In the first volume of his book Dar’ Ta‘arud al-‘Aql wa al-Naql, he wrote:

“Reason cannot actually serve as a foundation for proving the Shariah. It has not been endowed with any quality that it did not previously possess, nor has it been adorned with the quality of perfection.”

His position was that reason can perform only the role of identifying and guiding. It can lead people only as far as acknowledging the truthfulness and integrity of the Messenger. Beyond that, it has no authority. Reason can prove that what the Messenger reports is true and that it is obligatory to carry out the commands he has given.

Let us take an example. A visitor came to a city and asked for the city’s mufti. An ordinary townsman showed him the way to the mufti’s house, pointed out the mufti, and said, “This is the city’s mufti and scholar.” If afterward the ordinary townsman and the mufti disagree over a matter, the visitor should accept the mufti’s words and decision. The townsman has no right to insist, “Had I not brought you to the mufti, you would never have found him; therefore you must follow my decision.”

The Imam wrote that, after learning about prophethood, the function of reason is to believe in the Messenger, obey him, accept every one of his commands without entangling oneself in a web of questions, and regard his word as final. The Messenger’s word must likewise be regarded as final concerning unseen and supernatural matters. In his view, ordinary people possess no standing in comparison with Allah’s Messenger. The Messengers are truthful; they always receive accurate information. It is inconceivable that their reports and knowledge could contradict the truth. Those who pit themselves against their reports and knowledge merely to display their own intellectual skill have no end to their ignorance and error.

The mental condition of people influenced by philosophy and rationalism had reached such a stage that they readily accepted any statement of the Shariah that seemed acceptable from the perspective of reason and philosophy. But they could not accept anything that appeared contrary to their self-made arguments and rationalism. The boldest among them openly refused to accept such statements. They would say publicly, “The Shariah must follow reason. This statement contradicts reason; therefore it is unacceptable.” Those who were less bold continued producing interpretation after interpretation of the statements of the Shariah, bringing forth explanations that had not the slightest connection with the original statements.

Considering the mentality of such people, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah made clear that it is essential for a Muslim to believe in the Messenger without conditions. Belief in the Messenger subject to conditions cannot in any way be called faith. He wrote: “It has been definitively established concerning Islam that acknowledging the truthfulness of the Messenger and believing in him with a complete and comprehensive faith, containing no condition, is obligatory. Every report of his must be accepted as true, and every one of his commands must be obeyed. Anything contrary to this is to be regarded as false. A person who accepts as true those statements of the Messenger that fall within the limits of his intellect, but rejects those that conflict with his own opinion and reason, gives precedence to his own reason over the Messenger’s report, and yet continues to claim that he believes the Messenger to be truthful, is in contradiction with himself. And whoever says, ‘I will not accept any statement of the Messenger as true until I judge it by my own knowledge and reason and understand it,’ there is no doubt concerning his unbelief.”

By examining the statements of those who claim the authority of reason, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah proved that the intellectual conclusions erected against the words of the Prophets and Messengers and in opposition to the radiant truths of the Qur’an and Sunnah are, in most cases, mere fantasies and flights of imagination. On deep examination, they prove to be nothing more than castles in the air constructed by reason. He said that the philosophers named their grand conclusions “divine theology” and presented them against the words of the Prophets; yet when judged impartially, no difference can be seen between them and the ravings of a madman.

Nevertheless, the Imam did not fail to give reason its proper status. In his view, the Qur’an repeatedly instructs people to use reason and apply their intellect. Sound and balanced reason cannot conflict with the sound words of the Prophets and Messengers. Describing the result of his deep and extensive study, he said, “I have found no contradiction between reason and the words of the Messenger.” The condition, however, is that reason must be balanced—what the Qur’an calls sound intellect—and the prophetic statement must be authentically preserved without distortion.

On this subject he wrote a four-volume book entitled Bayan Muwaffaqat Sarih al-Ma‘qul li-Sahih al-Manqul. In this book he tried to prove that there is no contradiction between sound, rational intellect and the unaltered words of the Prophets and Messengers. Sound reason has always helped establish the truth of such words.

He asserted with profound conviction that not a single hadith contradicts reason. If any hadith appears to do so, it will be found that hadith scholars have already classified it as da‘if (weak) or mawdu‘ (fabricated). He refused to accept the claim of philosophers and theologians that the foundation of the Qur’an rests merely upon transmitted reports and hearing. He proved that the Qur’an contains the finest arguments and intellectual demonstrations. The Qur’an’s proofs are so decisive that even a thousand arguments brought against them could not refute them.

In short, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah consistently maintained that revelation and prophethood—not reason and argument—are the foundation of belief. He tried to prove this in his various books. Perhaps there is no book of his in which he does not present this position or at least indicate it. In this way, he sought to bring contemporary intellectual thought under the control of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Through this effort, Islamic thought and outlook were strengthened, and they continued to give strength to the ummah for several hundred years afterward.

Final Words

Every talent is distinctive. Yet among talents, there are some that we call timeless. They have transcended their own age, and their imprint has remained indelible even upon later ages. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, was such a talent.

From the first stirrings of youth through the inertia of old age, until the final moment of his life, he continued to fulfill his duty. He never acknowledged failure or incapacity. He was like an unfathomable sea: wave after wave crashed upon it, and still another wave came. An inexhaustible vitality filled his breast. It is astonishing to think that the Imam too was like a sea. The strength of his heart was inexhaustible; it seemed to have no end. Whether at home or abroad, while traveling, on the road, wherever he stayed, or confined in prison, the inexhaustible strength of his mind and activity astonished the world of his time. Ordinary people found their way to his heart. He was the ruler of the kingdom of their hearts.

To what extent was he able to change the course of the age? How successful was he in firmly establishing Islam in its correct form? Was he able to make any change in the state structure? These questions naturally arise in the context of the Imam’s effort to revive Islam. They will help us determine the Imam’s place in Islamic history.

Before discussing the matter in detail, I wish to quote a hadith of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. He said:

[Arabic text omitted by the source-node system]

That is: “My ummah is like rain; it cannot be said whether its beginning is better or its end.” Imam al-Tirmidhi narrated this hadith from Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with him. In light of this hadith, it may be said that all those members of the ummah who led the work of Islamic revival deserve equal credit. Yet, because of differing circumstances and conditions, the work of some was harder than that of others.

What kind of circumstances and conditions did Imam Ibn Taymiyyah confront? In the first half of the seventh Islamic century, before the Imam’s birth, the Tatar invasion had devastated the entire territory of the Islamic world from the Indus River to the Euphrates, except Egypt and Syria. The Muslims who survived in those lands, constantly changing their homes, had almost become a nomadic people. Along with their economic decline, their honor and social standing had also deteriorated. Because the centers of knowledge, education, and culture had been destroyed, they had truly been cast into ruin. Continuous terror, unrest, and disorder had left their national identity bewildered and helpless.

Although conditions began to change somewhat toward the end—that is, the Tatars began moving toward Islam—how much did this lessen the misery of the Muslims? These newly Muslim Tatar rulers were no less steeped in ignorance than the non-Muslim rulers. Under their rule, the moral character of the Muslim populace, the scholarly community, jurists, judges, and shaykhs deteriorated greatly. A portion of the scholars surrendered themselves to the service of tyrants. Yet in Surah al-Qasas, Allah has expressed through the words of Musa, peace be upon him:

[Arabic text omitted by the source-node system]

“My Lord, because of the favor You have bestowed upon me, I will never support any criminal—any tyrant.”

Ijtihad had come to a complete halt; indeed, in one sense it may be said to have become a sin. The fiqh-based schools had each become separate religions. According to Allamah Abul A‘la Mawdudi, the combined force of the uneducated and misguided masses, the worldly and narrow-minded scholars, and the ignorant tyrant ruling class had become so powerful that exposing one’s neck to the knife of this united alliance was scarcely different from embracing death. (Tajdid-e Ihya-e Din, p. 81, sixth edition, Lahore, 1955.)

Against this background, we can judge how great and difficult a task the Imam had undertaken. He did not merely restore the flow of sound and accurate knowledge derived from the Qur’an and hadith; he also adopted the path of ijtihad to solve new problems. His reformative activities may be divided into several categories.

First, he severely criticized Greek philosophy. As a result of his criticism, the mask of knowledge and infallibility fell from the face of Greek philosophy, and all its weaknesses became clearly visible. In fact, largely because of the effect of his criticism, the darkness of this philosophy gradually receded from the field of vision of Western people as well, and although much later, they too became critics of it.

Second, he advanced powerful arguments in support of Islamic beliefs, injunctions, and laws. His arguments and statements carried the true life-force of Islam. Rejecting the Greek method, he established a basis for argument relying upon common knowledge. This was the method closer to the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Third, he did not merely protest against blindly following any particular imam; he also demonstrated ijtihad himself. He gathered proofs from the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the lives of the Companions, and through an independent and fair examination of the disagreements among the various fiqh-based schools, he introduced countless new subjects. As a result, a new path of ijtihad was discovered. Alongside this, he conducted subtle research into the wisdom of the Shariah and the legislative method of the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. His fatawa are an invaluable treasure of the ummah in this regard. For those who have engaged in ijtihad after him and those who will do so in the future, this literature of his will serve as a guide.

Fourth, he waged, in every real sense, a jihad against bid‘ah and polytheistic customs. For this he faced grave dangers, but he paid them no heed. Discussing this subject, Allamah Abul A‘la Mawdudi said most beautifully that all the cloudy streams that had, until then, mingled with the clear spring of Islam were denied refuge by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah. He waged a harsh struggle against every one of them, removed each from the stream, and presented the method of pure Islam separately before the world.

His opponents did not hold back from using any weapon against him. Everything was used against him, from false lawsuits and armed attacks intended to kill him to casting him into royal displeasure and sending him to prison. Yet he passed every trial with patience. Fearlessly, he stood beneath the naked sword of the tyrant ruler. The ruler’s furious gaze could not prevent him for even a moment from speaking the truth.

Can it then be said without hesitation that he was unable to change the course of the age? Not at all. The way Muslims lived in the first half of the eighth century was certainly not the way they had lived in the first half of the seventh. Great changes had taken place in their conduct. They had learned to walk with their heads held high and with dignity. They had found the purpose of their lives. The distinction between Islam and unbelief had become clear before them.

All this was especially the achievement of one servant of Allah, one man of jihad. After his death, the holding of absent funeral prayers for him throughout the Muslim-inhabited world, from Egypt to distant China, proved his immense popularity among Muslims. Nor did he struggle little to establish Islam correctly. He tried to bring about whatever reform was possible within the prevailing state structure. For this purpose, when necessary he took up arms against the ruling power, and at other times he cooperated with it. However, it was not possible for him to attempt a revolutionary transformation of the state structure. He could not even take any step toward advancing in that direction.

Bibliography
1. Tarikh-e Da‘wat-o ‘Azimat, Volumes 1 and 2 — Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi
2. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah — Shaykh Abu Zuhra (Egypt)
3. Tarikh-e Islam — Maulana Akbar Shah Najibabadi
4. The Preaching of Islam — T. W. Arnold
5. Monthly Urdu Digest, Lahore — February 1968
6. Monthly Tarjuman al-Qur’an, Lahore — April 1938
7. Fatawa of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah
8. Tajdid-o Ihya-e Din — Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi
9. Khilafat-o Mulukiyyat — Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi