Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN IBN TAYMIYYAH’S
WRITINGS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
BY
IBRAHEEM MUSA TIJANI
A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for
the degree of Master of Human Sciences
(History and Civilization)
Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and
Human Sciences
International Islamic University Malaysia
AUGUST 2014
ii
ABSTRACT
This research highlights the historical views of Ibn Taymiyyah throughout his
writings; with the aim of establishing whether he possesses authority on the historical
issues he dealt with. The method used in this research, being an exploratory research,
is to explore his intellectual background in the field and also his acquaintance with the
various works and authors of this science. After which, his methods of criticizing
historical narratives is analyzed to further show his consciousness of fabricated and
false narratives attributed to historical incidents. Furthermore, to ascertain whether he
should be included within the ranks of historians, the research compared his historical
views with the “father of history” Ibn KhaldËn from his Muqaddimah. Therefore, the
aim of this exploratory study is not to presuppose Ibn Taymiyyah is like Ibn KhaldËn
in history but grant him acknowledgement for his contribution to the science of
history, which could be applicable to scholars similar to him. The study shows that
Ibn Taymiyyah is well-versed on historical events and their narratives. He was praised
for his knowledge of history and even on historical narratives of Christianity, his
approach was said to be unprecedented. On Greek history, his views are in line with
modern historical discoveries. The findings of the research clearly shows that Ibn
Taymiyyah was not among those who Ibn KhaldËn criticized as scholars or
traditionalists who were not critical of historical text that they narrated from others,
but rather Ibn Taymiyyah himself expressed similar criticisms of narratives that Ibn
KhaldËn, who came after him, also criticized as historically false. In conclusion, Ibn
Taymiyyah stands as a scholar of expertise in historical criticism throughout his
writings.
iv
APPROVAL PAGE
I certify that I have supervised and read this study and that in my opinion, it conforms
to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and
quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (History and
Civilization).
…………………………………..
Arshad Islam
Supervisor
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (History and Civilization).
…………………………………..
Fauziah Fathil
Examiner
This dissertation was submitted to the Department of History and Civilization and is
accepted as a fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Human
Sciences (History and Civilization)
…………………………………..
Arshad Islam
Head, Department of History and
Civilization
This dissertation was submitted to the Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and
Human Science and is accepted as a fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Human Sciences (History and Civilization).
…………………………………..
Ibrahim Mohamed Zein
Dean, Kulliyyah of Islamic
Revealed Knowledge and Human
Science
v
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigation, except
where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently
submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.
Ibraheem Musa Tijani
Signature…………………. Date …..................
vi
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF
FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH
Copyright © 2014 by Ibraheem Musa Tijani. All rights reserved.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN IBN TAYMIYYAH’S
WRITINGS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder except
as provided below.
1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may
be used by others in their writing with due acknowledgement.
2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies (print
or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.
3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrieval system
and supply copies of this unpublished research if requested by other
universities and research libraries.
Affirmed by Ibraheem Musa Tijani
……..……..…………… ……….…………………..
Signature Date
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank my Creator, Allah S.W.T. for bestowing His
bounty upon me and granting me this opportunity. It is only by His grace that I was
able to make it this far in life. He bestows the blessing of knowledge upon whomever
He favors among His creations.
I am grateful to my parents, Sheikh Musa Tijani and Marufah Tijani, for all
they have done. They are my champions when it comes to motivation and comforting
words. I know this journey has been hard on them as it was for me; however, they
never allow such hardship to distract them from helping me to keep my focus. Also, to
my wife, my daughter, sisters and brothers, who always reminded me the importance
of education and were extremely supportive of me throughout my studies.
I would also like to thank my previous supervisor, the late Prof. Dr. Ghassan
Taha Yaseen. I can still remember the enthusiasm he showed towards my topic and
his generous encouragements. May Allah grant him Jannatul Firdous and put light in
his grave. I would also like to thank my current supervisor, the Head of History
Department, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Arshad Islam for his patience and assistance that helped
me through this research. His constant advices and support helped throughout the
course of this thesis. I would also like to express my appreciation to the reviewers of
my proposal at the initial stage, Prof. Dr. Hasan Ibrahim and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hafiz
Zakaria. Their feedback was very useful in determining the structure of this thesis,
especially Dr. Hafiz who helped me with the proposal during the research
methodology course. Prof. Dr. Attuallah Bodgan Kopanski also deserve
acknowledgement for our discussions, although always brief but always encouraging.
I am thankful to the entire History Department.
It is also necessary for me to show gratitude to a very humble man, who plays
a very significant role in my pursuance of a master degree in Malaysia, Dr. Ahmad
Totonji, the co-founder of IIIT. He is indeed a true mentor and supporter in all
manners.
Finally, I also wish to thank all my dear friends and colleagues in Jamaica,
Malaysia and elsewhere. Sometimes I was annoyed by them for constantly asking on
the progress of my thesis but I know it was for my own benefit. They all deserve
special acknowledgement here, but the limited space is not enough to name them all
but I pray that Allah S.W.T. reward each and every one of them and grant them
success both in this world and the hereafter.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .................................................................................................................... ii Abstract in Arabic .................................................................................................... iii
Approval Page .......................................................................................................... iv Declaration ............................................................................................................... v Copyright Page ......................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................ 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................ 6 1.3 Research Question .................................................................................. 7 1.4 Objectives of the Study ........................................................................... 7
1.5 Significance of the Study ........................................................................ 8 1.6 Literature Review ................................................................................... 9 1.7 Research Methodology ........................................................................... 14 1.8 Organization of Chapters ........................................................................ 17
CHAPTER TWO: IBN TAYMIYYAH’S CONSCIOUSNESS OF HISTORY18 2.1 Ibn Taymiyyah's Biography .................................................................... 18 2.2 His Intellectual Background ................................................................... 18
2.3 His Acquaintance with Works on History .............................................. 23 2.4 Some of his Writings that Deals with Historical Narratives................... 29
CHAPTER THREE: ISLAMIC HISTORIOGRAPHY IN IBN
TAYMIYYAH’S THOUGHT ............................................................................... 30 3.1 Historiography before Ibn Taymiyyah's Era ........................................... 30
3.2 Historiography at the Time of Ibn Taymiyyah (600–730/ 1205-1335) .. 33 3.3 Ibn Taymiyyah’s Views on Some Major Muslim Historians ................. 37
3.3.1 His Views on Early Historians (80- 230AH /698 – 848 CE) ....... 37
3.3.2 His views on second generation of historians (230- 400AH/ 848-
1018CE) ................................................................................................ 40
3.3.3 His Views on Historians within the Medieval Period (400-
700AH/ 1018- 1318CE) ........................................................................ 41
CHAPTER FOUR: IBN TAYMIYYAH'S CRITICISM OF HISTORICAL
NARRATIVES ....................................................................................................... 44 4.1 His Methodolody .................................................................................... 44
4.2 Ibn Taymiyyah’s Concept of History ..................................................... 54
4.3 Historical Criticism of Incidents Before the Era of Prophet
MuÍammad (Pbuh) ....................................................................................... 56
4.3.1 The Greeks and his view on Dhu al-Qurnain and Alexander
the Great ................................................................................................ 56
4.3.2 Christian: Analyzing his historical refutation of Christianity ...... 59 4.3.3 Other incidents within this period ................................................ 65
4.4. Historical Criticism of Incidents during the Prophet’s Era ................... 66
ix
4.4.1 Ibn Taymiyyah’s Analysis of the Treaty between the Prophet
and the Jews .......................................................................................... 68 4.5 KhulafÉ’ al-RÉshidËn Era: ...................................................................... 70
4.5.1 AbË Bakr: ..................................................................................... 70
4.5.2 ÑUmar: .......................................................................................... 73 4.5.3 ÑUthmÉn ....................................................................................... 75 4.5.4 ÑAlÊ: .............................................................................................. 79
4.6 Ummayad Period: His Historical Refutations ........................................ 80
4.6.1 Ibn Taymiyyah’s view on Masjid al-AqsÉ and the Dome of the
Rock ...................................................................................................... 86
CHAPTER FIVE: IBN TAYMIYYAH AND IBN KHALDÕN, GENERAL
CONCEPT OF HISTORY .................................................................................... 89 5.1 Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn KhaldËn: A Comparison .................................. 89
5.1.1 Views on previous historians ....................................................... 90 5.1.2 Personality criticism ..................................................................... 92
5.1.3 Criticism Based on an Individual’s Merit and Virtue .................. 93 5.1.4 Extravagance in Numbers and Sum ............................................. 94 5.1.5 Errors in Interpretations of Verses with Historical Connotations 95 5.1.6 Exaggeration over Great Men ...................................................... 96
5.2 Ibn Taymiyyah’s Influence on Some Historians .................................... 97
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 101
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 104
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Historiography1 has always been an area for those who refer to themselves as
historians and have written one or more works on history. The case is slightly different
for classical Islamic scholars whose works are filled with various sciences. Whenever
they wrote on a specific topic, such as ÑaqÊdah, fiqh, tafsÊr and so forth, they would
incorporate within such work many other relevant sciences to complement and
strengthen their work. Historical narratives are commonly cited by Muslim scholars
to supplement their works; however, not every scholar went beyond merely narrating
incidents and thoroughly investigated the narrations. Islam, being a religion that has
a strong connection with the past events, encourages historical investigation, which
can be clearly deduced from Qur’Énic historical narratives. The Qur’Én refers to many
historical incidents and stories, while encouraging Muslims to cogitate and investigate
these incidents. Therefore, historiography has always been a major component of the
religion and Muslims intellectual works.2 Prophet MuÍammad (p.b.u.h.) also made
references to many historical incidents. This is why historiography in Islam is a much
wider science that cannot be restricted to only those who refer to themselves as
historians. This is what makes the book, Arabic historical thought in the classical
period, by Tarif Khalidi, so unique, because the author mentioned and showed how
1 I used the word historiography here rather than history because historiography carries a much wider
meaning than history. For a better understanding of the difference between history and historiography,
see A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography, edited by Aviezer Tucker, (West
Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009), 1-4. 2 Zaid Ahmad, “Muslim Philosophy of History” in A Companion to the Philosophy of History and
Historiography, edited by Aviezer Tucker, (West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009), 437-438.
2
all Islamic sciences interlock with each other. Therefore, the difference in the
sciences depends on the period and which science was prevalent in that period.3
More Islamic scholars should be acknowledged for their effort in the science of
history. Although, they might have not written a work solely dedicated to the science
of history, they have, however, contributed to the philosophy of the science, especially
Islamic history, in their various works, especially the prominent scholars, such as
ImÉm AÍmad ibn ×anbal, ImÉm BukhÉrÊ, ImÉm Ibn ×ajar al-ÑAsqalÉnÊ, Ibn al-
Qayyim al-Jawzi, ImÉm al-ShawkÉnÊ, Shah Waliyullah, etc.
Amongst these prominent Islamic scholars who had vast expertise on
numerous subjects, where each work covers various topics and subjects, was
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. Shaykh Kamal al-DÊn Ibn al-ZamlakÉnÊ, who had
debated with Ibn Taymiyyah on more than one occasion, said: "Whenever he [Shaykh
al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah] was questioned on a particular field of knowledge, the one
who witnessed and heard (the answer) concluded that he had no knowledge of
any other field and that no one possessed such knowledge as his knowledge (in
that field)."4 His works covered topics such as ÑaqÊdah5, fiqh6, ÍadÊth7, tafsÊr8,
philosophy9, linguistics10, economics11, etc.12 In Islamic studies there has hardly
3 Tarif Khalidi, Arabic Historical Thought in the Classical Period, (London: Cambridge University
Press, 1994), xii. 4 Ibn NÉsir al-DÊn al-DimashqÊ, Al-Radd al-Waafir ÑalÉ man zaÑama bi anna man sammÉ Ibn Taymiyyah
Shaykh al-IslÉm KÉfir, taÍqÊq Zuhayr al-ShÉwÊsh, (Beirut: Al-Maktab al-IslÉmÊ, 1st edn., 1400 A.H.,),
58. 5 For his view on ÑaqÊdah, see works such as RisÉlah al-FurqÉn bayn al-×aqq wal BÉtil, al-‘AqÊdah al-
WaÎatiyyah, al-RisÉlah al-ÑArshiyah, al-ÑAqÊdah al-×amawiyah al-KubrÉ, RisÉlah al-QaÌÉ wal Qadr,
SharÍ al-ÑAqidah al-AsfaÍÉniyah, al-Tadmuriyyah, al-IstiqÉmah, etc. 6 For his jurisprudential views see his works such as, MajmË al-FatÉwÉ, RisÉlah al-Niya fil ÙahÉrah wa
ØalÉh, RisÉalah al-×alÉl, RisÉlah fil ManÉsik al-×ajj, etc. 7 For his ×adith works, see ArbaÑËn ×adith, al-Kalim ah al-Ùayyib, etc. It should be sufficient here what
Imam al-DhahabÊ (a ÍadÊth scholar) said regarding Ibn Taymiyyah, any ÍadÊth not known to Ibn
Taymiyyah is not a Íadith. 8 For his work on tafsÊr see, TafsÊr SËrah al-IkhlÉs, TafsÊr SËrah al-Kawthar, TafsÊr SËrat al-NÉs, DaqÉiq
al-TafsÊr and many other works. 9 For his works that dealt with philosophy see works such as MaÑarij al-WuÎul, Minhaj al-Sunnah, al-
RisÉlah al-Õbudiyah, al-Rad Ñala al-MantiqiyÊn, al-NabuwwÉt, Dar’ al-TaÑÉrud al-ÑAql wa al-Naql, and
3
been an area in which his name has not been mentioned; whether it is from a positive
or controversial perspective, based on the understanding of the individual on his
opinions and verdicts.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s views in different sciences have become more perspicuous
over time and much elaboration has been placed on his intellectual thoughts and his
contribution to various fields of study. Due to large and voluminous works of Muslim
historians, especially those who stand as giants in Muslim historiography, little room
is allocated for those who did not refer to themselves as historians, though they laid
down in their works numerous and significant historical patterns and concepts,
whether directly or indirectly. Based on that, Ibn Taymiyyah could be considered
within the group of indirect historians or better yet al-Mu’arikh al-Thanawi
(secondary historian) as KhÉlid Elal referred to him and his student, Ibn Qayyim,13
who had also written on historical issues and narratives. He [Ibn Taymiyyah] placed a
large amount of emphasis on historical narratives to counter and refute dubious claims
and practices of different sects and religions. His works also show that he had a very
keen percipience of historical facts and a very vigilant understanding of incorrect
historical information mentioned in various historical works. His knowledge of history
was not restricted to Islamic history but includes “pre-Islamic” history, as can be
discerned from his refutation of some claims of Christianity and some of the
MufassirrËn (Qur’Énic exegesis scholars), who held that Dhul Qurnayn, mentioned
numerous other works. 10 Ibn Taymiyyah mastered linguistics to the extent that he mentioned that al-SÊbawayh, one of the
greatest authorities on Arabic grammar and syntax, made mistakes and highlighted the mistakes, this
report is mentioned in al-KawÉkib al-Duriyyah. Although, this does not mean that he was more
knowledgeable of grammar than l-SÊbawayh. 11 For Ibn Taymiyyah’s economic views see Abdul Azim Islah’s book, Economic concept of Ibn
Taimiyah. 12 Serajul Haque, Imam Ibn Taymiya and his project of reform, (Dhaka: Islamic foundation Bangladesh,
1982). 13 KhÉlid KabÊr Elal, AkhtÉ’ al-Mu’arikh Ibn KhaldËn (Albaldah: DÉr al-ImÉm MÉlik, 2005).
4
in the Qur’Én, was Alexander the Great.14 Al-DhahabÊ, affirmed that Ibn Taymiyyah
had strong command and grasp of history by saying: “his (Ibn Taymiyyah) Arabic
was very strong; his knowledge of history and SÊrah (biography) was astonishingly
amazing…".15 What makes Ibn Taymiyyah’s historical views worth studying is his
remarkable ability to narrate historical incidents from various historical works and
his confident character to deliberate on certain issues that “no historian had mentioned
such and such” or that “majority of historians have agreed on such and such”.
Therefore concluding whether a narration is authentic or fabricated based on his
rational analysis of the information. This can be deduced from his refutation against
the Jews’ factitious scroll.16 This also led him to have personal opinion about some
historians, whom he denounced as unreliable.
Ibn Taymiyyah, full name TaqÊ al-DÊn AÍmad ibn ÑAbd al-×alÊm al-
Taymiyyah, was born o n 661 A.H. / 1263 C.E. He was from a prestigious family of
scholars. During his childhood, his family had to migrate to Damascus to escape from
the Tatars/Mongols who were invading and destroying most of the Muslim world.
This period was also plagued with Muslim disunity, which was even a greater trial
than the Tatars/ Mongols invasion.17 From a very young age his brilliance was mind-
blowing and astonishing. He studied various sciences at a young age, including
mathematics, philosophy and logic. His father was a ×anbalÊ scholar, hence he was
able to master the ×anbalÊ fiqh from an early age and study other madhÉhib (schools
of thought). It is generally accepted that his mastery of various sciences would leave
14 Ibn Taymiyyah, The Criterion between the Allies of the Merciful and the Allies of the Devil,
translated from Arabic by Sa im Morgan, (n.d.), 14. 15 Shams al-Din MuÍammad ibn AÍmad ibn ÑAbd al-hÉdÊ, Al-ÑUqËd al-DariyÊ min ManÉqib Shaykh al-
IslÉam Ibn Taymiyyah, (Bairut: DÉr al-KÉtib al-ArabÊ), 39. 16 Sayyed Abdul Hassan ‘Ali Nadwi, Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: Life and Achievement, (Leicester:
UK Islamic Academy, 2005 C.E./ 1426 A.H.), 115. 17 Juan E. Campo, Encyclopedia of Islam, (New York: Facts on File), 339.
5
even his arch-rivals dumbfounded. What needs to be understood most about this great
scholar was his dedication to social issues, while in the intellectual arena his solution
for all the diseases that crept up into the Muslim society was a return to the Qur’Én
and Sunnah and the way of the predecessors. This could be among the reasons why
his works vary on various subjects. When he realized the negative effect that
philosophy was having on the Muslim society, he lashed against it with his pen
and wrote treaties against it, while showing all its flaws and mistakes. As for
Christianity, when he realized that the Christians were taking ‘cheap shots’ at Islam
and Prophet MuÍammad (peace be upon him), he wrote against their false claims and
mentioned the fallacies in their religion from various angles, even from a historical
perspective. In this regard, AbËl ×assan al-Nadwi regards Ibn Taymiyyah as the first
Muslim writer to refute and criticize Christianity from a historical perspective.18
On this basis, we could see why he h a d emphasized on certain subjects
more than others, although he clearly showed in all his works that he was not ignorant
of other sciences. The period of Ibn Taymiyyah could be regarded as the
encyclopedic period in which scholars mastered various sciences. Ibn Taymiyyah has
always been acknowledged for possessing a high caliber of intelligence. This is
why, as mentioned above, when he was asked about anything, his response would
bedazzle the questioner, leaving him/her (i.e. the questioner) to believe that such a
field was his (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) speciality. Therefore, with such ability to master
various sciences, his historical views would be scattered across his works on various
issues according to their relevance and importance to the subject being discussed.
Also, being that there were many historians before his time, it could be understood,
naturally, why he would rely generally on what past historians mentioned on any
18 Sayyed, 115.
6
issues, unless he finds a religious or social reason that necessitate clarification on
certain fundamental issue. This could be the raison d'être for his historical piece on the
issue of the death of al-×ussayn called “Ra’s al-×ussayn”.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In every aspect of Islamic sciences, Islamic history has always been acknowledged as
a fundamental and essential knowledge. The Islamic religion is based on the Qur’Én,
Sunnah and ijmāÑ (consensus of the Prophet’s companions) according to majority of
Muslims. Hence, for better interpretation of these fundamental tenets of Islam (i.e.
Qur’Én, Sunnah and ijmāÑ) Islamic scholars always had to refer to the era of the
Prophet MuÍammad (peace be upon him) and his companions to get a more
comprehensive understanding of these primary principles. This makes Islam a
religion or a system that continuously interconnects its past with its current situation.
So within this context, almost every Islamic scholar has a general comprehension of
Islamic history and has mentioned something historical in his/her field of specialty,
whether it be in ÍadÊth, fiqh, tafsÊr, or other Islamic sciences. Therefore, the difference
between classical Muslim scholars, who are referred to as Muslim historians, and
other classical Muslim scholars in the area of historiography, is that the former
dedicated at least one of his works to the field of Islamic history or history in general.
So this is where this research played its role as a possible initiative to bring other
momentous Muslim scholars that have written widely on history in general but did not
leave any work that was dedicated exclusively to the science or philosophy of history.
Hence, this research highlighted the historical views of Ibn Taymiyyah and
compared them with the views of some Muslim historians. It investigated his opinions
on some Muslim historians before him and his contributions to the field. Also, a
7
comparison w a s m a d e between his historical views and that of Ibn KhaldËn
from his Muqaddimah; since Ibn Taymiyyah preceded Ibn KhaldËn by approximately
five years. This research was not very ambitious to assume that Ibn Taymiyyah is
similar to Ibn KhaldËn in the field of history, but rather as a matter of encouraging
historians, especially contemporary Muslim historians, to show respect to other
scholars where respect is due.
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION
This research attempted to answer the following questions;
1. What were Ibn Taymiyyah’s contributions to the science of
historiography?
2. Was Ibn Taymiyyah qualified to give personal historical verdicts and
what were his credentials?
3. Did his views have any major impact on his historian students, such
as Ibn KathÊr, ImÉm al-DhahabÊ and other later historians?
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The aim of this study was to highlight the historical views of Ibn Taymiyyah and
bring his views to the domain of historiography. This would not only open a leeway
for the views of Ibn Taymiyyah in historical studies, but also to other great Islamic
scholars who had contributed in the field of history directly or indirectly, but are not
referred to as historians. This study allowed the views of Ibn Taymiyyah to be
understood from a historiographical perspective and further showed the deep insight
of this perspicacious, brilliant and intellectual reformer. So the objectives of the study
are as follow:
8
1. To explore Ibn Taymiyyah’s interpretation of history and his contribution
to historiography.
2. To investigate the relevance of Ibn Taymiyyah’s historical view and
assess the similarities between his views and the major historians, such as
al-Tabari, al-WÉqidÊ, al-Masudi, Ibn IshÉq and Ibn Khaldun.
3. To highlight the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah in the science of history
and his impact on other historians.
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This research can be a mean of opening doors to classical prominent Muslims
scholars, not recognized as historians, to gain recognition in the science of
historiography. Although this research has focused mainly on Ibn Taymiyyah, the
main objective of the study is to emphasize, if possible, that great classical Muslim
scholars are not restricted to one science or field, nor did they adhere to the rigid
classification of modern sciences. This is among the reasons why classical Muslim
scholars had various titles to their names, such as al-ImÉm al-DhahabÊ al-Mu’arikh
(the historian), al-MuÍadith (the traditionalist), al-Mufasir (the Qur’Én interpreter), al-
Faqih (the Islamic jurist).
Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah seemed like an appropriate choice for such a
research. He has written widely on various topics and in English literature his views
are yet to be fully understood and expounded on. MuÍammad Ansari while discussing
about English literatures written about Ibn Taymiyyah and his views mentioned that:
For various reasons the West has not been able to appreciate lbn
Taymiyyah’s place in Islam. His criticism of AshÑarÊ kalÉm, Greek logic
and philosophy, monistic sufism, Shia doctrines, and Christian faith
have proved great obstacles to appreciating his contribution. His way of
writing has also been to an extent responsible. Most of his writings are
9
short or long verdicts (fatawa) to particular questions, often recurring,
posed to him by different men at different times, rather than planned,
systematic works on particular subjects. This makes the appreciation of
his contribution somewhat difficult. Henri Laoust, a French, was the
first European to take serious notice of Ibn Taymiyyah and his
works. Since the publication of his Essay on the Social and Political
Doctrines of Ibn Taymiyyah (1939), a few articles and books have
appeared on Ibn Taymiyyah's thought, but they are far from giving any
clear idea of his overall contribution to Islam, even less of assessing
his role in its revival and renewal (tajdÊd).19
Be that as it is, any research that aims to give more clarity to the works and
thoughts of Ibn Taymiyyah should be favorably considered, especially in English
literature. Also to reiterate once again the main idea that this research, aims to
insinuate that great classical Muslim scholars should not be viewed rigorously
according to the secularist conceptualization of modern sciences but rather from a
broader perspective. Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah, being an encyclopedic scholar,
would help as an example of such great scholars that should not be restricted to
merely one science. Hence, highlighting the historical information in his writings
would help to show the scholarly broadness of this prominent figure and widen the
scope that would allow the views of other non-historian Muslim scholars of such
caliber to be studied.
1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW
Due to the fact that this great scholar (Ibn Taymiyyah) has written voluminous works
on various topics but did not leave a complete work dedicated to the science of
history, not many authors would consider him as a historian, nor would even consider
his historical reports worthy of being mentioned in the field of history. However,
since the objective of this research was to highlight Ibn Taymiyyah's view of history
19 Muhammad ‘Abdul Haqq Ansari, Ibn Taymiyyah expound on Islam, Selected writings of Shaykh al-
Islam Taqi ad-Din Ibn Taymiyyah on Islamic faith, life and society, (Riyadh: General Administration of
Culture and Publication, 2000), xvii.
10
and his contribution to the science, hence an analysis of his methodology is relevant.
There are various books that highlight his intellectual legacy in difference sciences
and mentioned the possibility for his thoughts to be interpreted from various aspects.
Khalid KabÊr ElÉl, in his book AkhÏÉ’ al-Mu’arikh ibn KhaldËn (Mistakes of
the historian, Ibn KhaldËn)20, does not directly deals with the topic; however he
sheds some light on it. The author scrutinized and gave critical comments on Ibn
KhaldËn’s work, The Muqaddimah21. He tries to emphasize that Ibn KhaldËn’s
thoughts did not all originate from him, but rather he was preceded by various
historians and scholars who shared similar views. He mentioned historians such as Ibn
Hazm, Ibn Katheer, al-DhahabÊ, etc., and also general scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah
and Ibn Qayyim22 as ibn KhaldËn’s predecessors. Although the author did not give
sufficient emphasis on the magnitude of Ibn Taymiyyah’s contribution to
historiography, nor did he elaborate on his historical views, he did mention however
some historical refutation made by Ibn Taymiyyah. The author seemed more
concerned to highlight that Ibn KhaldËn’s thoughts did not all originate from him and
also to show the mistakes of Ibn KhaldËn, so he paid less attention to the thoughts
and views of Ibn Taymiyyah although he mentioned many historical views of Ibn
Taymiyyah. The author also mentioned that although Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim
were not historians per se, they could be accepted as thanawÊ (secondary) historians,
due to their vast works that contained Islamic History. Moreover, while this book
highlights the awareness of Ibn Taymiyyah of historical information and his keen
insight on history, it did not deal with Ibn Taymiyyah’s thoughts as a historian, nor
20 KhÉlid KabÊr Elal, AkhÏÉ’ al-Mu'arikh Ibn KhaldËn (Albaldah: DÉr al-ImÉm MÉlik, 2005). 21 Ibn KhaldËn, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, ed. N.J.Dawood; trans F. Rosenthal
(Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1967) 22 MuÍammad ibn AbË Bakr ibn AyyËb (also known as Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah) (691 AH- 751
A.H./1292-1350 C.E.), he was one of the most famous disciples of Ibn Taymiyyah. He accompanied
and studied from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah until his death, which was for sixteen years.
11
did it expounded much on his historical views.
Victor Makari in his book Ibn Taymiyyah ethics: The Social factor23 provides
ideological concepts of Ibn Taymiyyah, although the book did not expound on the
historical views and opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah. The work of Victor Makari has been
acknowledged as an important source in the field study of Ibn Taymiyyah, especially
in the English language. This book gives background information on Ibn Taymiyyah
and also his surrounding and the challenges that he faced. Its main focus is on his
ethical views. It shows how Ibn Taymiyyah derived new opinions and extracted
beneficial and new conclusion from the verses of the Qur’Én, the prophetic saying
of the Prophet MuÍammad (peace be upon him) and statement and opinion from
past predecessors. For Ibn Taymiyyah’s historical interpretation, this book provides
minor details. However, to critically analyze Ibn Taymiyyah’s methods and how they
can be applied in his historical narratives then this book was beneficial.
SaÑd ibn Musa al-Musa, in his book, Min MaÑÉlim Manhaj Ibn Taymiyyah fÊ
MaÑÉlijah QadÉyÉ al-TÉrÊkh min khilÉl KitÉbihi al-fatÉwÉ24, deals directly with the
research topic and gives examples of Ibn Taymiyyah's historical views. Being very
short in size, this book offers only a glimpse into his views without elaborating on
them. It also fails to deduce the values and importance of the historical facts that
Ibn Taymiyyah h a d related in his works. The author also confined and limited
himself to narratives only mentioned in Ibn Taymiyyah's MajmË al-FatawÉ. Although
this work is recognized as his magnum opus because of its size and numerous
verdicts, Ibn Taymiyyah’s historical narratives can, nevertheless be found in many
other works of his, such as MinhÉj al-Sunnah, al-JawÉb al-Sahih li man badala dÊn
23Victor E. Makari, Ibn Tamiyyah's Ethics: The Social Factor (California: Scholars Press, 1983) 24 SaÑd ibn MËsÉ al-MËsÉ, Min MaÑÉlim Manhaj Ibn Taymiyyah fÊ MaÑÉlijah QadÉyÉ al-TÉrÊkh min
khilÉl KitÉbihi al-fatÉwÉ (Riyadh: DÉr al-QasÊm)
12
al-Masih, ‘IqtidÉ’al-ØirÉt al-MustaqÊm, MukhÉlafÉt AsÍÉb al-jahÊm, KitÉb al-Radd
Ñala al-MantiqiyÊn and many others.
Seratul Haque’s book Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and his project of reform is full of
primary sources, and is a very beneficial work. This work was a revised Ph.D. thesis
from the University of London. The author categorizes the book into various sciences
and highlights the books of Ibn Taymiyyah that dealt with that science extensively.
Although the author did not mention history among these sciences, nor did he
mention Ibn Taymiyyah historical views, the book is nevertheless full of rich sources
and materials on Ibn Taymiyyah.
Ataullah Bogdan Kopanski wrote an article entitled “The Giant in Ibn
KhaldËn’s Shadow: Ibn Taymiyyah Exegesis on History and Power”.25 This article
was based on a seminar organized by the Department of History and Civilization,
International Islamic University Malaysia on July 23, 2003. Articles from this seminar
were later compiled and published under the title “Ibn KhaldËn and Muslim
Historiography” edited by Ahmad Ibrahim AbËshouk. The article of Ataulah Bogdan
Kopanski sheds informative light on the topic. Firstly, the author gave a historical
background on both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn KhaldËn focusing on their social and
political environment, and then he delved into some historical views of Ibn
Taymiyyah concentrating mainly on the Caliphate and Imamate. The author
emphasized more on the political views of Ibn Taymiyyah than his historical views.
He highlighted some historical views of Ibn Taymiyyah but did not proceed to
elaborate on these historical issues. Therefore, although the author’s work was
entitled as “Ibn Taymiyyah Exegesis on History and Power”, i t seems t h a t he was
25 Ataullah Bogdan Kopanski, “The Giant in Ibn Khaldun's Shadow: Ibn Taymiyyah Exegesis on
History and Power,” in Ibn Khaldun and Muslim historiography, ed. Ahmad Ibrahim Abushouk, (Kuala
Lumpur: IIUMPress, 2003), 105-25.
13
more focused on Ibn Taymiyyah’s view o f power, especially from a political
perspective. The article also gives claim to the view that Ibn KhaldËn’s historical and
political thoughts are not all uniquely his. The author did highlight how Ibn
Taymiyyah expresses his view of Imamate and Caliphate that was also mentioned in
Ibn KhaldËn’s magnum opus, however, the author did not emphasize adequately the
historical views of Ibn Taymiyyah.
Sayyed AbËl ×asan Ali Nadwi in his book, Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyah:
life and achievement,26 gives a concise view of Ibn Taymiyyah. The book praises Ibn
Taymiyyah’s efforts and his intellectual contribution to the Muslim society. AbËl
×assan touched partially on Ibn Taymiyyah historical views and mentioned that
Ibn Taymiyyah was not ignorant of this science. To quote him verbatimly “Ibn
Taymiyyah was not a student of history. However, his competence in this field too
was acknowledged by a historian of the standing of Shams-ud-din al-Zahabi” and then
he quoted the famous saying of al-DhahabÊ about Ibn Taymiyyah’s remarkable
knowledge of history. In this book he narrated the story of the Jews who produced a
fictitious scroll to the sultan that would exempt them from jizyah. I may add here that
this was the story that led to the idea of this research when I heard it while I was a
student in Medina al-Munawwarah. The author mentioned various aspects of Ibn
Taymiyyah’s intellectual life and the different manner in which he strived for the
religion. In this book, Abul ×assan concluded that Ibn Taymiyyah was the first
Muslim scholar to refute Christianity from a historical perspective.
Abdul Azim Islahi’s book, Economic Concepts of Ibn Taymiyyah, highlights
the different economic concepts that Ibn Taymiyyah dealt with and compared his
views to different Muslim and Western economists. The author dedicated the first 26 This book was originally published in Urdu from the history book of Maulana Sayyed Abul Hassan
Ali Nadwi and translated to English by Muyideen Ahmad.
14
chapter of this book to enlighten the readers about the period in which Ibn
Taymiyyah lived, mentioning the economic, political, social and intellectual aspects of
it. He also gave sufficient details about Ibn Taymiyyah’s life and his intellectual
reform. Although the book mainly emphasizes on the economic views of Ibn
Taymiyyah, the author acknowledges that Ibn Taymiyyah had excellent command on
Islamic history, even though the book also shows that Ibn Taymiyyah had
sufficient command on “pre-Islamic” history. The book is recognized as the first of
its type. Although Ibn Taymiyyah was not an economist, his explanation of
economical issues concludes that he had a solid and unique command of this
science. This could also apply to him in the field of history and other sciences.
Jon Hoover’s book, Ibn Taymiyya’s: theodicy of perpetual optimism,27 was
very convenient for this research. This book is a revised Ph. D thesis entitled “An
Islamic theodicy: Ibn Taymiyya on the wise purpose of God, Human Agency,
problems of Evils and Justice” submitted in 2002 at the University of Birmingham.
Although, the book is mainly devoted to theology, theodicy to be specific, the author
approaches this topic from numerous angles. What makes this work comforting is
that the author mentioned that Ibn Taymiyyah had not left any specific work that was
dedicated solely to this topic, which could make the author approach “user friendly”
for this research. He mentioned that he had to sift through numerous works to
compile the views of Ibn Taymiyyah on the topic. His approach was similar to what
is applied in this research.
1.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research carefully investigates and inquires new facts in this field, which is
27 Jon Hoover, Ibn Taymiyya’s: theodicy of perpetual optimism, (Leiden: Brill, 2007).
15
mainly analytical in approach. The analytical approach of this research is to use the
available data and information and analyze them to deduce a critical evaluation of the
materials.28 This is a qualitative research which aims to examine and analyze the
historical views of Ibn Taymiyyah based on empirical methods.29
Historical methodology, as Geoffrey Rudolph Elton explains, is "the
recognized and tested way of extracting from the sources or the vestiges of the past
the true facts and events of the past and their true meaning and interrelation".30 This
form of historical methodology is used, to some extent, throughout this research
using available materials and critically analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating them.
Then, the data in such sources is collected, organized, verified and validated to give
accurate representation of the historical thoughts of Ibn Taymiyyah, which was
necessary to derive the methodologies that he applies to reach his conclusions and
opinions. This approach made it easier to compare his methods to that of the past
and later historians.
This research relies mainly on materials obtained from libraries. Materials
such as books, journals and articles are at the center of this research. Also due to the
fact that the scholar in discussion has written volumes of works, this research was
confined to works that dealt directly with history and those of his historical narratives
are used to enhance and strengthen his verdicts. Although this is a historical research,
to completely comprehend the scope of Ibn Taymiyyah's view, the research
attempts to build a theoretical creative method31 in order to develop new theories
around the thoughts of Ibn Taymiyyah. Due to the fact that this scholar is not
28 Rajendra Kumar, Research Methodology (New Delhi: APH Publishing corporation, 2008), 6. 29 Ranjit Kumar, Research Methodology: A step-by step guide for beginners. 3rd ed. (California: SAGE
Publications Ltd, 2011), 213. 30 E. Sreedharan, A Manual of Historical Research Methodology (Kerala: SB Press, 2007), 150. 31 Wayne Goddard and Stuart Melville, Research Methodology: An introduction. 2nd ed. (Lansdowne:
Juta & Co. Ltd, 2001), 8.