Lessons From Islamic History: Ibn

Taymiyyah and the Synthesis of Takfir

Taqi al Din Ahmed Ibn Taymiyya was born on January 22, 1263 in the ancient
Mesopotamian village of Harran to an Arab father and Kurdish mother. Haran
corresponds roughly to the village of Altinbasak in modern day Turkey. His
father and grandfather were Hanbali scholars and religious teaching was
considered a central part of the family heritage. When he was six years of age
the Mongol invasion reached his village and his family had to flee to
Damascus. This incident left a profound impression on him and may have
influenced some of his most important decisions as a religious jurist.

The excellence of Ibn Taymiyya as a religious scholar was established early in

his life. By the age of 19 he was acknowledged by his peers to be proficient
not only in Hanbali theology but all extant schools of Fiqh. By the age of
twenty-five he had written at least ten theological manuscripts and was
renowned for his fiery brilliance in debate-as well as for his tendency to
antagonize other scholars. Taymiyya was from the outset something of an
enigma. While he remained mostly faithful to Hanbali teaching he did not
confine himself to one school of thought and adopted an eclectic approach to
formulate a theology that he asserted would restore Islam to its “original form”.
His early disagreements with contemporary scholarship revolved around the
issue of the attributes of God and the “createdness” of the world. Taymiyya
preached that God’s attributes were those that the Quran and Ahadith
mentioned and that ascribing attributes other than these amounted to
apostasy. He rejected the philosophical envisioning of God espoused by the
Mutazila that utilized the Aristotelian concept of a “first cause” or “prime
mover” as well as the Mutazilite “theology of reason” which in his opinion was
essentially the replacement of divine laws with man-made ones. He attacked
also the idea espoused by contemporary philosophers like Ibn Sina and al
Farabi that the world “emanated” from God and was one with Him, declaring it
heretical. He saw this idea reflected in the Sufi teaching of “Wahdat-ul-Wajud”
(oneness of existence) which he also labeled heretical. Taymiyya spent much
of his scholarly life attacking Sufi and Shia teachings; while he stopped short
of declaring them non-Muslims he taught that they had introduced “bid’ah” or
innovations in religious matters and thus polluted the original spirit of Islam.
The commonly held notion that he passed “Tafkir” or excommunication from
Islam on Sufis and Shias is erroneous; however, his teachings have been
utilized to justify persecution of these groups.
Taymiyya’s relationship with the Mameluke Turk leadership (under whose
reign he spent his life) was turbulent and ultimately dependent on his
usefulness to them. The first friction came when he was asked to rule on an
accusation of blasphemy against a Christian man in 1293. When his ruling of
a death sentence was overturned by the Governor of Syria who issued a
pardon in return for a repentance and apology, Taymiyya rejected the pardon
and protested with many of his followers. This act of insubordination resulted
in a prison sentence, the first of many punishments Taymiyya was to receive
for his defiance.
A change of fortune arrived however, with the three attempted invasions of
“Bilad al-Sham” (literally “land of Syria”; contained present day Syria with parts
of present day Jordan and Lebanon) by the Mongol Ilkhanid dynasty.
Mahmud Ghazan became the leader of the Ilkhanid dynasty in 1295 after
executing his cousin Baydu Khan. On the encouragement of a Muslim Mongol
Emir who helped him effect the coup, Ghazan converted to Islam. Immediately
after consolidating his rule Ghazan turned his sights on Bilad al-Sham which
the Ilkhanids had been unsuccessfully attacking since the fall of Baghdad in
1258. With his new found status as a Muslim, Ghazan attempted to gain the
support of the people of Damascus and issued a letter to them presenting
himself as the rightful leader of Muslims and describing the Mamluke Sultans
as irreligious and corrupt. Disturbed by reports of troops refusing to fight the
newly converted Mongols the Mamelukes enlisted Ibn Taymiyya’s help. Over
the next few months Ibn Taymiyya issued three “Fatwas” (religious rulings)
regarding the Ilkhanids. Most important of these was the second Fatwa.
Thirty-five pages long, it focused most pertinently on the validity of the Ilkhanid
practice of Islam. Taymiyya began by bemoaning what he claimed was the
undue influence of the “Rafidah” (literally “rejecters”; derogatory moniker for
Shias) on the Ilkhanid leadership. He concluded further that since the
Ilkhanids continued to follow many aspects of “Yasa”-the Mongol pagan tribal
code-even after converting to Islam they were in effect apostates and in his
view, deserving of being put to death. This ruling helped the Mameluke
Sultanate greatly and it was able to lift troop morale and successfully thwart
two major attacks by the Ilkhanids. The second of these was a decisive
defeat of an eighty thousand strong Ilkhanid army aided by crusaders south of
Damascus in 1303 which ended the threat posed by the Mongols to Bilad al-
Sham.

The importance of Ibn Taymiyya’s second fatwa cannot be overstated. It was

the first instance of a major religious ruling endorsed by Muslim political
leadership which declared killing an opposing faction of Muslims to be lawful.
It is also the first instance of a Fatwa declaring a group of Muslims to be non-
Muslims due to theological deviation. In the case of the Ilkhanid invasions it is
important to bear in mind that the Mameluke were defenders and not
aggressors in this instance and that the Mongols had since the days of
Genghis Khan repeatedly broken treaties and engaged in unprecedented
slaughter and pillage. There was much at stake. Also important to bear in
mind is Ibn Taymiyya’s personal trauma at the age of six. That the Mongols
were responsible for uprooting his family from their ancestral home and
causing years of hardship would not have been lost on him while issuing this
Fatwa; he even brought this childhood incident up within the text of his second
fatwa.

After a brief period of prominence and elevated status emanating from these
fatwas, Ibn Taymiyya fell out of favor with the Mameluke leadership again. In
1305 he was sent to Cairo and held at the citadel there . Several more
imprisonments followed, primarily around squabbles with Shafi and Sufi
scholars, refusal to compromise on any of his views and an insistence that all
other scholars conform to his teachings. Ibn Taymiyya died while imprisoned
at the Citadel in Damascus; even during this last incarceration he continued to
write prolifically, completing his last book.
The precedent of Ibn Taymiyya’s second fatwa against the Ilkhanid Mongols
has been repeatedly evoked by subsequent religious and political leadership
to justify wars of aggression, sectarian persecution and political intrigue. The
eighteenth century Nejd (present day Saudi Arabis) scholar Mohammad Ibn
Wahab evoked Ibn Taymiya in his teachings. Wahab provided religious
legitimacy to Mohammad Ibn Saud in his conquest of the Arabian peninsula
and parts of modern day Iraq through a formal pact between the two to bring
Islam back to its “purified” form in the region. Wahab utilized Taymiyya’s
attack on Shia and Sufi theology to justify Ibn Saud’s attack on Karbala, the
destruction of Shia and Sufi Mausoleums and relentless persecution of the
two communities that continues to this day in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The writings of twentieth century Egyptian writer Syed Qutb were heavily
influenced by Ibn Taymiyya. Qutb evoked Taymiyya’s second fatwa in making
a case for rebellion against the Nasser regime in Egypt as well as other
corrupt leadership in the Arab world. According to him like the Ilkhanid
Mongols, Arab leadership had renounced the fundamental precepts of Islam
and it was now lawful to overthrow them through force. Within Qutb’s rhetoric
and the brutal suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood by Gemal Abdel Nasser
may lie the explanation as to why pro-democracy movements in the Arab
world have so often donned a religious mantle.

Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zwahiri drew heavily on both Syed Qutb and
Ibn Taymiyya in formulating Al Qaeda’s case against Arab leadership and
what they saw as the Western masters and enablers of this leadership. Both
quoted Taymiyya in their speeches and cited him as an example of theological
correctness and perseverance in the face of persecution.
Mohammad Yusuf, the founder of Boko Haram claimed to subscribe to the
teachings of Ibn Taymiyya. In 2002 when he established the headquarters of
the group in Maiduguri in Eastern Nigeria he ordered the establishment of a
Mosque which he named “Markaz Ibn Taymiyya”.

No other terrorist organization however has quoted Ibn Taymiyya more than
ISIS. In their perfectly maintained online propaganda journal “Dabiq” they
have cited Ibn Taymiyya frequently, using his rulings to justify their own
actions. From the targeting of Shia Muslims and Yazidis to capital
punishments for apostasy ISIS has repeatedly evoked him to justify their
atrocities through their official mouthpiece publication. It is important to note
that there are gross misrepresentations of Ibn Taymiyya’s teachings in ISIS
propaganda. Taymiyya laid out very detailed rules of engagement that
included not harming children, women, the old, the infirm and those who
surrendered. However in Taymiyya’s harsh approach to other sects,
blasphemy and apostasy ISIS has a convenient pool to tap into to justify their
actions to those with little to no knowledge of Islamic theology. As repeated
eye witness accounts have shown, this ignorance is characteristic of the
majority of ISIS recruits.

ISIS has mentioned Ibn Taymiyya in almost every instalment of “Dabiq” and
refer to him as “The Great Sheikh”. For example, in Issue 4 of “Dabiq”he is
referenced as approving of the enslavement of “apostate” women during war
to legitimize the enslavement of Yazidi women. In Issue 8 Taymiyya’s second
fatwa against the Mongols is cited, this time to justify the killing of of those
sects that ISIS deems deviants from Islam and therefore apostates. A quote
from Ibn Taymiyya was also included in the video of Jordanian pilot Muath al-
Kasasbeh being burnt alive.

In the final analysis, the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya became a tragic milestone
in Islamic history when they were used and popularized by the Mameluke
Sultanate in their defense of Bilad al-Sham. This precedent has provided a
religious cover for many a demagogue and destructive leader in pursuit of
power, territory and wealth. Through the dissemination of these teachings and
the veneration of Ibn Taymiyya as a religious jurist they have also inspired
and inflamed the persecution of minority Muslim sects, especially Shias and
Sufis as well as followers of other religions.

The third part of this article will trace extremism through modern times to its
current complex presentation.

Follow Khwaja Khusro Tariq on Twitter: www.twitter.com/khusrokhwaja