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.

iii

.

.

.

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.