The Works
of
ibn Taymiyya
&
ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
Not Much Attention
Was given to their Works!
Bio-bibliographical sources provide yet further support for
the view that Ibn Taymiyya’s influence in
subsequent centuries can easily be exaggerated.
The Damascene scholar Najm al-Din al-Ghazzi wrote a biographical dictionary of Sunni
scholars and notables who died in the tenth
century of the Hijra (1492-1588), a
work that incorporates material from biographical dictionaries by the :
Ottoman scholar: Ahmet Taskropuzade
(d. 1568),
Aleppine scholar: Radi al-Din Ibn
al-Hanbali (d. 1563),
Egyptian scholar: ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha’rani (d. 1565), and
Damascene scholar: Ibn Tulun (d.
1564).
Al-Ghazzi’s compilation has been edited and
thoroughly indexed by Jibra’il Jabbur.
The index
of titles mentioned by al-Ghazzi provides for an interesting contrast with the
index to a contemporary introduction to Islamic religious history such as
Berkey’s The Formation of Islam.
Al-Ghazzi’s text does not mention a single work by
Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
By contrast,
the kalam works of
the kalam works of
al-Taftazani are mentioned ten times; the
semantic rhetorical works of al-Taftazani ten times;
the kalam works of
the kalam works of
al-Jurjani fourteen times; books on logic
thirteen times;
Ibn ‘Arabi’s works seven times; the
Jam’ al-Jawami’ of al-Subki twenty-seven times (mostly along
with the commentary of al-Mahalli); the Shifa’ of al-Qadi ‘Iyad ten times; and
the
Mawahib of al-Qastallani four times. [1]
The more detailed obituaries of scholars in ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti’s well-known chronicle of eighteenth-century
Again, there are no references to the
works of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya,
while the theological works of al-Taftazani,
al-Sanusi, and al-Laqani appear regularly, as does the Shifa’ of al-Qadi ‘Iyad and the Mawahib of al-Qastallani. [2]
The athbat – ie. works listing the books one had a certificate to teach – by prominent seventeenth – and eighteenth-century scholars in the Hijaz tend to reinforce the impression obtained from biographical entries.
The thabat of the Meccan Shafi’i
scholar Ahmad al-Nakhli (d. 1717), for example,
does not mention any works by Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn Qayyim, but mentions the Sharh al-‘Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya of
al-Taftazani and the Jawharat al-Tawhid of al-Laqani, as well as Ibn ‘Arabi’s
Futuhat, al-Mahalli’s commentary on al-Subki’s Jam’ al-Jawami’, al-Shifa’ of
al-Qadi ‘Iyad, and al-Mawahib of al-Qastallani. [3]
The thabat of the Meccan scholar ‘Abdallah ibn Salim al-Basri (d. 1722) likewise does not mention the works of
Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim, while mentioning
the theological works of al-Taftazani,
al-Jurjani, al-Dawani, and al-Laqani, as well as the Shifa’ of al-Qadi ‘Iyad
and the works of Ibn ‘Arabi.[4]
Even the thabat of the Damascene Hanbali
scholar Abu al-Mawahhib al-Hanbali (d. 1714) does not mention the works of Ibn
Taymiyya or Ibn al-Qayyim, while mentioning the theological works of al-Taftazani, al-Sanusi and al-Laqani, as
well as the Mawahib of al-Qastallani, the Shifa’ of al-Qadi ‘Iyad, and the
works of Ibn ‘Arabi.[5]
To be sure, the evidence of the
athbat is not conclusive, partly because they sometimes mention works under a general
description, such as “all the works that
he is certified to teach” or “the
books of the jurists of the school, both earlier and later.”
It is thus not unlikely that some of the mentioned
scholars were acquainted with the works of Ibn Taymiyya
and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
Yet, it is striking that Ibn
‘Arabi, whose
ideas were supposedly dealt a decisive blow by Ibn
Taymiyya, and philosophical theologians such as al-Taftazani and
al-Jurjani, whose field was supposedly marginalized by the victory of traditional
neo-Hanbalis, appear regularly in these athbat while Ibn Taymiyya does not.
The Ottoman scribe and polymath Katip Celebi, author of the well-known bibliographic compilation Kashf al-zunun ‘an asami al-kutub wa al-funun was obviously much better acquainted with the works of Ibn Taymiyya’s critics than with the works of Ibn Taymiyya himself.
For example, he mentioned Ibn Taymiyya’s Minhaj al-sunna, but did not give the incipit,
presumably because he had not actually seen a copy of
the work. Instead, he quoted Ibn Taymiyya’s critic Taqi al-Din al-Subki to the
effect that it was a powerful response to a Shi’i polemical work by Ibn Mukhtar al-Hilli (d. 1326), but also expounded the
heretical views that created things need not have a beginning in time, and that
non-eternal attributes subsist in God.[6]
After mentioning Ibn Taymiyya’s Kitab al-‘arsh, Katip Celebi again did not give an incipit,
but quoted the grammarian and Qur’an commentator Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (d. 1344) as stating that he had seen this
work, and that Ibn Taymiyya had written there
that God is literally seated on the throne, and had
left a place on it for the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) to
sit next to him. [7]
After mentioning Ibn Taymiyya’s work [Iqtida’] al-sirat al-mustaqim, Katip Celebi yet again did
not give an incipit, and merely
wrote that this was the work in
which Ibn Taymiyya, according to Taqi al-Din
al-Hisni, expressed the outrageous view
that the venerable Companion and transmitter of Hadith Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiallahu
‘anh) was an unbeliever.[8]
-----------------
[1] –
Al-Ghazzi, al-Kawakib al-sa’ira,, 3:314-316. Al-Ghazzi mentions one work by Ibn
Taymiyya’s grandfather Majd al-Din ibn Taymiyya (d. 1254) – a handbook on
Hanbali law entitled al-Muharrar.
[2] – ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, ‘Aja’ib al-athar fi al-tarajim wa al-khabar (Cairo
[3] – Ahmad al-Nakhli, Bughyat al-talibin al-mashayikh al-muhaqqiqin al-mu’tamadin (Hyderabad
[4] – Salim ibn ‘Abdallah al-Basri, al-Imdad bi ma’rifat ‘uluww al-isnad (Hyderabad
[5] – Abu al-Mawahib al-Hanbali, Mashyakha, ed. Muhammad Muti’ Hafiz (Damascus & Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1990).
[6] – Hajji Khalifa, Kashf al-zunun, 2:1872.
[7] – Ibid., 2:1438
[8] – Ibid., 2:1078
[2] – ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, ‘Aja’ib al-athar fi al-tarajim wa al-khabar (
[3] – Ahmad al-Nakhli, Bughyat al-talibin al-mashayikh al-muhaqqiqin al-mu’tamadin (
[4] – Salim ibn ‘Abdallah al-Basri, al-Imdad bi ma’rifat ‘uluww al-isnad (
[5] – Abu al-Mawahib al-Hanbali, Mashyakha, ed. Muhammad Muti’ Hafiz (Damascus & Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1990).
[6] – Hajji Khalifa, Kashf al-zunun, 2:1872.
[7] – Ibid., 2:1438
[8] – Ibid., 2:1078
---
THE
WAHABI-TYPE BELIEF WAS THAT OF A FRINGE GROUP IN HIDING THROUGHOUT MOST OF THIS
NATION'S HISTORY
---
Hidden for 400 Years!
