Talk:Ibn Taymiyyah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The edits I made on this page only involved some spelling corrections ("criticized", "resemblance", "believed", "considered") and a capitalization of the word "Muslims" in one place.

Ibn Taymiyyah and 'al-Nasrani'[edit]

Wanted other folks' second opinions/other sources on this before posting a generalized summary somewhere in the main article:

"(Ibn Taymiyya) was invited in 692/1293 to give a fatwa on a Christian who had been accused of insulting the Prophet. Ibn Taymiyya decreed the death penalty for him."
-"The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives"; Carole Hillenbrand (Routledge, 2000), p. 242

"As early as 1293 Ibn Taymiya came into conflict with local authorities for protesting a sentence, pronounced under religious law, against a Christian accused of having insulted the Prophet."
-"Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions"; Wendy Doniger (Encyclopedia Britannica Inc, 2006), p.492

"The Shafi'i historian Ibn Kathir, in the events of the year 1293/4, treats of the affair of 'Assaf al-Nasrani ("the Christian"), who was reported by witnesses to have cursed the Prophet. Ibn Taymiyah and a companion, al­Faraqi, apparently implicated in the affair for encouraging the assault and battery to which 'Assaf and his bedouin protector were victims, were flogged and put under house arrest. This was the episode behind Ibn Taymiyah's work Kitab al-scrim al-maslul 'ala shatim al­rasul (The Sharp Sword Drawn against the Reviler of the Messenger [of God])."
-; source cited was: Ibn Kathir, Isma'il ibn 'Umar. Al-biddyah wa-al-nihdyah fi al­-ta'rikh. Vol. 14. Cairo, 1937. See pages 135-141.

Any additional info would be appreciated. Thanks. -kh123 March '09


Yet more ethnocentric garbage. So a few radicals have used (with futility) to use his name in their campaigns, does that merit using that in the intro? This is one of the most important Muslim scholars of all time. I doubt the intros of Augustine and Aquinas suggest they advocated the millions that were to die from Christian barbarity through the ages. Although that very act could be argued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Arabic transcription inconsistency?[edit]

The transcription says "Abu al-Abbas", but the Arabic says "Abu Abbas" (without the definite article). AnonMoos 17:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if the Arabic is correct, the whole thing is wrong and should be more like "Abu 'Abbas Taqi Ad-din Ahmad Bin 'abd As-salam Bin 'abd Allah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Taymiya Al-Haran" Nathanm mn 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


How is "Jahmi" spelled in Arabic letters? I can't find the word in my Arabic dictionaries... AnonMoos 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

'Jahm' is spelt jeem-haa-meem (جهم) and jahmiyyah is an attribute to the name of jahm ibn safwan, the first to deny God's atttributes in the islmaic tradition 08:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon attacking article[edit]

An anon is attacking the article, removing most of it and replacing with anti-Ibn Taymiya text. I agree that the article, as it stands, is a mess and very pro-Salafi POV. However, completely removing that POV and replacing it with another is not the best answer. The article needs to be completely rewritten. I'm short on time and I don't speak Arabic. I will try to recruit someone who can translate the article from the Arabic Wikipedia. Zora 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Misguiding information[edit]

The current page that is present on the site did not only include terrible grammar but also generalized that Muslims as a whole accepted and praised Ibn Taymiya's actions and teachings (regarding attributes of Allah). In reality, the Muslim scholars and layperson alike know and agree that Ibn Taymiya was misguided and contradicted the teachings of the Prophet and his companions. The page shows the extreme point of views commonly found amongst the Wahabbis. The new, shorter, and more direct page is not anti Ibn Taymiya but rather states 2 nuetral points: 1.He was very well versed in Hadith and 2. The scholars of his time and ours rejected his teachings that broke the ^ijma (scholarly consensus) of the scholars before him. Furthermore, the newer page is actually a version of the ORIGINAL posting on this website from July of 2003. PLEASE, ANYONE READING THIS, KNOW THAT THE DESCRIPTION YOU WERE JUST READING ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE IS WRITTEN BY THE SAME MISGUIDED MINDS THAT BROUGHT YOU THE TRAGEDY OF 9/11. PLEASE GO BACK TO THE IBN TAYMIYA PAGE AND CLICK ON HISTORY AND THEN CLICK ON THE 22:59, 26 September 2005 VERSION TO GET A MORE ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THIS MAN (or click below).


Yes, anonymous IP, the article as it stands is a mess. However, we can't just erase one POV (Ibn Taymiya is a great scholar) and replace it with another (Ibn Taymiya is a heretic). We need an article that presents both views, and the arguments for each side. When there's a controversy, we need to present enough information for a reader to decide what he/she thinks. We shouldn't tell the reader what to think.

I've asked two Arabic-speaking Wikipedians to translate the Arabic article, which I hope is more even-handed. If not, we need to edit until the article is NPOV. Zora 23:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Will you at least allow me to remove the remarks that include false sweeping generalizations such as "All Muslims believe...?" I am Muslim and I know hundreds of Muslims PERSONALLY who do not believe this. And we wonder why we have such negative stereotypes in the west...

If you are referrring to this statement,
"He is referred to today as "Shaykh-ul-Islam" or Sir - Shaykh of Islam by all muslims."
I would suggest changing it to something like
He is referred to today as "Shaykh-ul-Islam" or Sir - Shaykh of Islam by (fill in the blank with "his followers" or whatever school of thought). nobs 02:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort. This is much less one sided than the previous version. I appreciate your quick response.

Don't bother. You cannot fight the jihadist single-minded devotion to falsehood. They will remove anything that any Muslim will place here to present Ibn Taymiyyah and his Takfirist pile in a true light. You can add anything you like, but it will be removed in a few hours. Wiki editors should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the prophet of the modern and medieval terrorism against fellow Muslims, Christians and Jews, to get this nonsensical glowing review of being a "GREAT" scholar. Any change for the truth will be deleted. I wonder who are the "editors" for these pages: The Ben Laden Co, or the Saudi Wahhabi religious police?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Put placeholder up[edit]

I rewrote the article in what I hope is a more NPOV fashion. It is probably not as good as the article from the Arabic Wiki and if Shafi'i or Mustafaa get that article translated, I'm not going to be at all upset if my version is wiped.

I also made a preliminary attempt to sort out the links. It is evident that the pro-Salafi links vastly outnumber all the others. I think that those links should be trimmed down. I don't have the energy to do that right now. Only the best links should be kept. Zora 05:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed bit re contingent of volunteers[edit]

I slogged through several of the articles on Ibn Taymiya listed in the external links, and only ONE of them mentioned actual warfare against the Mongols. That seemed to a rather excitable Salafi site. The more I thought about it, the more unlikely it seemed that a scholar would be raising and leading a contingent of volunteers. I also found out that he wanted a jihad against the Mongols even though the Ilkhans had converted to Islam, on the grounds that they weren't REAL Muslims. I tweaked the article slightly to remove the claim that he had engaged in violent jihad, and also to clarify that he wanted to declare jihad against fellow Muslims.

If someone can find REAL evidence for Ibn Taymiya's supposed jihadi activities, then we can put it in again. Zora 11:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Question: Would issueing a fatwa be considering "leading a jihad". In literary terms it may certainly be considered so. I will look into sourcing, but it may take a few days. nobs 16:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Ibn Taymiya[edit]

Harran in 1263 was one of Sultanate of Rum city under Mongol threats

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibensis (talkcontribs) 02:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

in spite that Ibn Taymia has been born in Harran , a town in a kurdish region right now , but there is no confidence that he is from kurdish origin , against the situation of Salhuddin . --Unfinishedchaos 11:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Kurdish, Hello, Ibn Taymiyyah was kurdish. I think this must be in Article. Even the arabian/islamic experts told this in the TV many Times. Last time on Channel Iqra. What you think? Greeting.--Prof. Stolzenburg 02:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
He was turkish, I guess somewhere it should be mentioned that he was a turk ethnically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. Another user has also mentioned that it should be mentioned he was Turkish. So far efforts to ascertain his ethnicity have bore no fruit. If you are able to provide a reference, that would be very valuable. Mbcap (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI, while Mamluk's Sham for the Ibn Taimiyas nationality is correct because he spent most his lifetime and died in Sham (Syria) under Bahri Mamluks admin. Some articles will differ in suggest in what country Ibn Taimiyah's came from, some say Mesopotamian, Kurdistan, Turkey, even some suggest Syrian (that make confused with the modern nation). This difference led inaccurate title to ibn Taimiya as between Turkish, Kurdish, Syrian, Levant or Arabic scholar. For sure its city of Harran. Harran in 1263 was a Sultanate of Rum Kurdish city. its may not really important, but its some interesting info to discuss. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 01:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ibn taymiyyah was an Arab from a very famous Arabic family "bani Namir" Fahad15151GO (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


This article refers to Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab as al-Wahhab, which is one of the names of Allah. abd al-Wahhab means "the slave of al-Wahhab". To call someone named ibn abd al-Wahhab as al-Wahhab would be like calling someone named abd Allah as Allah. Furthermore, his name wasn't even abd al-Wahhab, that was his fathers name. He was named Muhammed ibn (son of) abd al-Wahhab.

Good work[edit]

This is actually settling in to be a fairly good article -- most of the recent edits have actually been improvements (which is by no means the case with many articles on similar subjects). AnonMoos 17:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit, Ibn Nasir al-Din[edit]

The article had been worked over by various editors who, I'm guessing, do not speak English as a first language. I copyedited, also removed a few POV statements. I don't like what I read about Ibn Taymiya, but we have to be fair, and that means not labeling him an "innovator".

The one major change I made was in removing the name Ibn Nasir al-Din from the list of his students. Some websites give this name as Taymiya's student, but I have been unable to figure out just WHO he was. Googling produces thousands of references to Ibn Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, but none to just plain Ibn Nasir al-Din. If someone knows who is meant, we can restore his name -- preferably with a sobriquet added -- and create an article for him. Zora 20:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know Ibn Nasir al Din was not a student of ibn Taymiyah. Born the year 777, and died the year 842. His name was Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Muhammad, known popularly as Ibn Nasir al Din. he was a schoalr of the Shafi school. (see hidayat al arifin 1/553) He did however write a rebuttal against Ala'a al Din al Bukhari who after moving to Damascus, aroused the Asharis, attacked the hanbalis, and exaggerated blame against ibn taymiyah, declaring him to be a disbeliever. At this Ibn nasir al din wrote a book (al radd al wafir ala man za'ama Anna ibn taymiyah bi annahu kafir/ trans: a complete rebuttal of he who thought that ibn taymiyah was a disbeliever) in praise of Ibn taymiyah, mentioning those who praised him from his time (i.e. ibn taymiyah) until his. He then sent the book to egypt for the approval of its scholars; gaining a majority of them. At this the ruler gave an order that no one is to rebuke another for his beliefs, and with this the fighting between the two factions subsided. this all occured in the year 835 hegira. (Summarized from Inbaa' al Ghumr of Ibn Hajar 1/586). wilis.azmWilis.azm 08:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't use names of Allah[edit]

If someones name is Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Whahab, don't refer to the man as 'Al-Whahab', beacsue Al-Whahab is one of the names of god, and for instance if you said "Al-Whahab wrote a book deeming such and such a kafir..." Then you would be saying God wrote a book deemign such and such a kafir. Just like "Jeffrey" is one name "Abdul-Whahab" [or abd' al-whahab] is 1 name, if you remove the Abd' it chnages the meaning all together. [i mention this again becasue it seems the last time soemoen mentioend it, it didn't get the poitn across] -cronodevir

It really should be spelled 'Abdul-Wahhab' --Islami 21:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Myth that Ibn Taymiyyah was an anthromophist[edit]

Refuting other Accusations[edit]

Ibn Taymiyya qua Sufi[edit]

7up, As long as the statement "Ibn Taymiya is believed by many of his contemporary admirers to have been a stern critic of Sufism. " is correct, then it should stay. In fact Ibn Taymiya has so many fatwas attributing Sufisim with Fusuq. This is an example of that:

--Islamic 14:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Islami, The fact is that Ibn Taymiyya was critical of many practices of popular Sufism, while he lauded Sufi exemplars such as Abdul Qadir Jilani, which is proven by his book Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb, which he himself wrote. I know this is hard for you to accept, but if you would read a little history instead of simply trying to write it yourself, you would understand that many Sufis throughout history have been very critical of other Sufis and Sufi practices. I have included as a reference G. Makdisi's article 'Ibn Taymiyya: A Sufi of the Qadiriya Order', which can be found in the American Journal of Arabic Studies, 1973. Since this is not located on the internet, where it seems you get all your information from, I would recommend going to a library and actually doing a little research. (7up 14:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

7UP, again, As long as the statement "Ibn Taymiya is believed by many of his contemporary admirers to have been a stern critic of Sufism. " is correct, then it should stay. --Islamic 16:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Islami, This is an encyclopedia article, which rests on fact and not what some people believe. Why don't you start a different page entitled, "What Some People Believe about Ibn Taymiya" and I promise to let you say anything you want. In the meantime, the fact is that Ibn Taymiya did not criticize Sufism "as a discipline," but he "opposed the seemingly pantheist descriptions of certain Sufis, known as 'ittihadiyya.'" See Sh. Hisham Mohammed Kabbani's discussion of this at (7up 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

Ibn Taymiya short comments on Futuh al-Ghayb do not prove your point. And you are wrong again; most of my information are not from the Internet. Ibn Taymiya criticized Sufism in so many places in his books and he attributed it with Fusuq sometimes as I have proved in the link above.

7up, Your edits violate the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. In fact, there is no clear evident that Ibn Taymiya was part of any Tariqa. The policy says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." That applies to your case. You bring up a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority (only few Sufi authors), that contradicts the viewpoint of the majority.

--Islamic 19:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Islami, In fact I have provided ample evidence by way of reference to both on and offline articles that utilize Ibn Taymiya’s own works, which show he was part of the Qadiriyya Sufi order and not opposed to all forms of Sufism, but only particular aspects. Moreover, you have not provided any references for your statements. As for the “majority” that you mention, it is actually a “minority” in terms of current scholarship in the field (opinions of religious minorities, i.e. neo-Salafi thought, does not count as an academic consensus). I have amended this section to clarify these points.

(7up 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

IP added this to the Sufi section of the article page:[edit]

I ask that whoever wrote the above dubious quote about Ibn taymiya to fear Allah and say the truth. This isn't strange since other fabrications were attributed to him.

--AnonMoos 07:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


I rewrote the bit re Ibn Taymiya and Sufism, making it clear that there's a controversy about whether or not he was a Sufi. The article as it stood implied that there was no doubt about it. I tend to believe that he was, but we have to be even-handed, and present those statements as POV, not as truth. Zora 06:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rewrite[edit]

Zora, your rewrite evinces your obvious talent for editing and concise summation.

However, upon thinking over your above statement I have a few things to say. In your well-intended striving to be democratic here, I am afraid that you are actually giving voice to ignorance rather than legitimate contention. Part of this ignorance, is a very general misunderstanding of what Sufism is as such – for it quickly became the grand scapegoat for all problems that faced Muslim society in the colonial period and was portrayed by the Wahhabis and Salafis (who do not represent traditional Islamic scholarship by the way) as the practice of extreme esoteric rites, which were far from the proper understanding of Islam as presented by the Qur’an and hadith literature.

Importantly, however, Sufism does not always manifest as “esotericism,” but is more correctly an interior ethics that prioritizes internal psycho-spiritual awareness and ethical behavior over empty dogmatism. Moreover, it is quite common for classical Sufi masters to refer to Sufism as simply the practice of good manners (adab), for the Prophet Muhammad is recorded in a sound hadith as saying, “I was sent to complete the beautiful character traits (husn al-akhlaq)."

Regarding Ibn Taymiya, Victor Danner has stated, “In the days of Ibn Taymiyyah, it was not unusual for many of the religious scholars to have Sufi masters [...]. Ibn Taymiyyah was no exception to the general rule; he too had his Sufi teacher. But this must not lead us to believe that the Hanbali faqih was something of an esoterist in his own right, for it is clear from his very writings that the contemplative esoterism was not altogether to his liking.” (“The Shadhiliyyah and North African Sufism” in Islamic Spirituality: Manifestations, pp. 37-38).

My point is that there have been plenty of Sufi reformers, like Ibn Taymiya, who were not contemplatives or esoterists, but ascetic moralists. By including the Wahhabi position as a “possible alternative,” and not simply as outright denial of the fact that Ibn Taymiya was very clearly involved with Sufism, you are helping to continue a fundamentalist falacy, as well as sustain erroneous and bigoted understandings of Sufism.

Salafi/Anti-Salafi Links[edit]

Looking over the page, I notice there is a section devoted to anti-Salafi and Salafi links. I think they may be a little out of place in this article. I don't think this is the appropriate place to discuss or debate Salafiyyah. There is a salafi article on that. The argument can be made that you can't discuss Ibn Taymiyyah without discussing Salafiyyah. If we assume that to be true, then definitely the links aren't necessary as it is not supposed to be pro/anti salafi as it is only a tertiary topic relating to the life of ibn Taymiyyah. ZaydHammoudeh 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Works Page[edit]

I want to also add a page listing the works of ibn Taymiyyah. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections. ZaydHammoudeh 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: It is not permissible to make musical instruments. (al-Majmoo', 22/140). And he said: According to the majority of fuqahaa', it is permissible to destroy musical instruments, such as the tanboor [a stringed instrument similar to a mandolin]. This is the view of Maalik and is the more famous of the two views narrated from Ahmad. (al-Majmoo', 28/113). Ibn Abi Shaybah (may Allaah have mercy on him) reported that a man broke a mandolin belonging to another man, and the latter took his case to Shurayh. But Shurayh did not award him any compensation, i.e., he did not make the first man pay the cost of the mandolin, because it was haram and had no value. (al-Musannaf, 5/395).from

Could someone more knowledgable about this topic than I incorporate the above content?Yeago 05:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Add names for searching[edit]

Some other variations of Ibn Taymiya's name in English are:

1) Ibn Taimiyyah (this occurs in the 9/11 Commission Report)

2) Ibn Taimiyah (this occurs in the book: Ibn Taimiyah Life & Achievements by Sayyed Abdul Hasan 'Ali Nadwi)

3) Ibn Taymiyya (this occurs in the book: History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani)

4) Ibn Taymiyah (this occurs in the book: A History of God by Karen Armstrong)

5) Ibn Taymiya (this occurs in the book: Voices of Resurgent Islam edited by John L. Esposito, p. 38 in an article by John O. Voss)


The last huge edit evinced bias material and evangelical intentions. I have taken the important information and distilled it into a managable and readable form. -- User:7up 04:04, 27 July 2006

If the other version was biased, you should work on adding the other view, not replaced it with your POV version! --Islamic 12:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Islami, I don't know what "POV" means, but the previous text is unacceptable as an encyclopedia entry as because of the following: (1) It is way, way, way too long, and too specialized (2) It has inappropriate proselytizing statements such as: "So people please read and pay heed to the words of the noble scholar !!!! This is enough proof for those that are just and who are sincerely seeking the truth ...and Allah knows best." (3) It is written in the style of religious rhetoric such as found in mosque pamphlets (4) It completely overwrote what came before it without due need or explanation.

The current rewrite takes all of the pertinent information provided by the pamphlet-like text and integrates it into an appropriate encyclopedia entry (7up 12:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)).


Striver, why are you referencing an atheism site for basic facts about his life? That's almost grotesque in the context of the current article. AnonMoos 01:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem (not actually Striver, sorry)[edit]

Furthermore, stop changing the statement about Jerusalem to something you guess that he might have said, but which he didn't actually say. I've added a very specific reference to a source for this statment. He also says the same thing somewhere in his collected Fatwas, but I wasn't able to master the numbering and cross-reference system there well enough to enable me to find the right one (all I had to go on was a reference to "Ibn Taymiyya Fatwa 26/118", and my Arabic wasn't good enough to enable me to browse through volume 26 of the printed editions to find the exact one if "26/118" didn't lead me directly to the correct place, which it didn't...). AnonMoos 01:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a reference to what Ibn Taymiya says about visiting Al-Aqsa. He said:
"Visiting Bait al-Maqdis is desirable." (زيارة بيت المقدس مستحبة ). --Islamic 06:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope, unfortunately that's a highly-inadequate summary of Ibn Taymiyyah's overall views towards Jerusalem. He may not have been absolutely opposed to the "Ziyaarah", but he was extremely opposed to making the ziyara be any kind of replacement or substitute for the ħajj, and he opposed any attempt to make Jerusalem rival Mecca and Medina -- he very explicity said that Jerusalem could NOT be called an Islamic ħaram.
Here's a quote from the work قاعدة في زيارة بيت المقدس which I referenced in the "01:18, 23 September 2006" version of the article:
وليس ببيت المقدس مكانا يسمى حرما ولا بتربة الخليل ولا بغير ذلك من البقاع إلا ثلثة أماكن:‏
أحدهما هو حرم مكة شرفها
والثاني حرم النبي صلعم
والثالث وجّ وهو وادٍ بالطائف
Sorry it's not a continuous quote (explanations and parenthetical references are omitted which do not affect the basic meaning), but I can't find my copy of the journal article here, and would have to go back to the university library to make a new copy.
If your Arabic is better than mine, then maybe you could track down Fatwa 26/118, where he reportedly says the same thing (though maybe with a little less certainly on the "Wejj issue"). AnonMoos 16:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks AnonMoos for the explanation. I found the quote in 27/15 at: You are correct on it, but the english wording is very confusing. I agree 100% with you on "he was extremely opposed to making the ziyara be any kind of replacement or substitute for the ħajj" This is the common Sunni view too. On the other side, visiting shrines is a different issue. Not all Sunnies agree with Ibn Taymiya. In fact he was sent to jail for forbidding a travel (Ziyara) to the grave of the prophet (p). I suggest that paragraph to be expanded a little bit to remove the confusion. --Islamic 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem? Im confused and do not understand what you are reffering to. This? If that is the case, i can't recall editing that part, or being involved it. If i was, it must have been some error on my part. Feel free to change the references, i am not attached to it, but figured it was better than a "fact" tag. Peace. --Striver 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
OK sorry, it was actually 04:15, 22 September 2006 who was responsible, my mistake... AnonMoos 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. peace. --Striver 23:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of article[edit]

Ta marbutah (ة) is not generally transcribed as "h" in Wikipedia articles. There's a set of Arabic transcription guidelines which has rules for that sort of thing, but I'm not sure exactly where it's located... AnonMoos 19:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

if you're talking about wiki transliteration/transcription guidelines, you may be referring to WP:AMOS. i guess including "h" on the end would be more accurate, though i am not sure which rendering would be more regarded as the "primary transliteration" (the hits for with and without are almost the same). ITAQALLAH 04:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ibn Taymiy(y)a(h)doesn't really have any one predominent conventional way of writing his name in English (as you pointed out), so that something more like a linguistic transcription should be used. The page you link to rather disappointingly says "Ways of dealing with ta' marbuta are still to be determined"(!), but in fact the majority of article titles on English-language wikipedia don't seem to transcribe ta marbuta. I tried to rename "Ibn Taymiyyah" back to "Ibn Taymiyya", but for some reason it wouldn't let me (maybe because all the redirects are so tangled)... AnonMoos 04:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there are no guidelines about ta marbutah because it's one of the most complicated letters to deal with. In pronunciation it is sometimes a "t" and sometimes an "h", and English speakers can't tell the difference anyway. I think the most accurate way is to keep it as an "h". Pretty much all the academic links use an "h" and spell it Taymiyyah. I suggest keeping the article title as Ibn Taymiyyah. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 04:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Striver: Feel free to use the pic. I have a higher res copy if that would be useful. Brian from

jeay, great! It pays of to ask :) --Striver 10:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
lol, i love your comment to the pic :D --Striver 10:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"Bro, i would like to use your pic on the grave and garbage on a Wikipedia article"."suitably surrounded by weeds and garbage.". "Surreal and somehow comical". [emphasis is mine] I would like to understand what your motive is in writing about Ibn Taymiah if all I see is mockery. I suspect if your writing would be NPOV. Wikipedia is a good place to publish that picture; sorry I did not find good faith according to your comments here. Sdudah 05:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shi'a view[edit]

Some of us are planning to make a Shi'a view of ibn Taymiyyah page(to add to our other 'Shi'a view on' series), with our argument against him and scrutiny of his works. But maybe it should be called 'Criticizm of ibn Taymiyyah' instead.IsaKazimi (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Salafi View[edit]

Somebody had written in the Salafi view of Ibn Taimiya that he was a supporter of sufism and given the reference of a shia site that dosen't even site its name on its page. I am deleting it. If you write against something thart is popularly belived give a proper refrence T A


Added a section on jihad with sources. Frankly, it should have been there before. Ibn Taymiyyah without jihad is like Qutb without jahiliyya. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote from Daniel Benjamin's book here in regard to the ruling on Jews? I'm not familiar with it. Does Benjamin say where he took the ruling from? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"In his writings about the Jews, he argued that their cruelty toward the prophets, their rejection of God's truth in the form of Muhammad's call, their treatment of Jesus, and their untrustworthiness and stinginess effectively invalidated their status as dhimmis. He issued a fatwa overturning an existing Islamic law that prohibited Muslims from cursing or insulting Jewish holy books and instated upon stringent enforcement of the strictures on Jews regarding clothing, holding positions of civil authority and exhibiting their religion publicly. It was fortunate for the Jews of Damascus that ibn Taymiyya was not in power since he urged the death sentence for Jews guilty of some of these infractions." (The Age of Sacred Terror by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, New York : Random House, c2002, p.68)
I was hoping more for a reference from Benjamin in regard to Ibn Taymiyyah's own work. Did he site a book at all? Like, it is from Majmu' al-Fatawa or anything? Benjamin's knowledge is sound, but for something like that i'd hope for a direct reference so we can confirm it. I've seen a lot of mistakes regarding fatawa from Muslim scholars of the past, even from people of Benjamin's caliber. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Benjamin has a whole chapter titled "Ibn Taymiyya and His Children", but no cites for Ibn Taymiyya's work I'm afraid. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No prob Bob. Out of curiosity, what is the chapter about? To the best of my knowledge, he was never married. I'm guessing children is an analogy for something. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh ya. These are his spiritual children, Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, etc.
PS, On further review I take back my comment that "Ibn Taymiyyah without jihad is like Qutb without jahiliyya." Its a big deal to al-Qaeda but I don't see much pre-al-Qaeda comment on it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Those struggling to praise ibn taymiyyah everywhere and now on wikipedia should know that it will be exposed to the world that all those who follow or praise him are extremists and according hadith they will face the same treatment as jews by muslims at the time of mahdi. They are most arrogant people on earth. They pretend to be sunni only for opposition to shia. They are clever and deceptive. let them do whatever. God has already decided the fate of arrogant scholars and their followers as He decided the fate of iblois the great scholar of his time. Zikrullah (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyyah[edit]

Ibn Taymiyyah was great, Masha Allah, may Allah grant him Jannah. Ameen. ☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Jihadism and Terrorism invades the pages of Wiki?[edit]

The prophet of doom and damnation--Ibn Taymiyyah the Takfirist--has come back to this world like the reawakened Dracula to feast on the blood of the innocent Muslims through the hands of his modern follower: the Takfirist terrorist, head cutters and suicide bombers. It is amazing how quickly any criticism of this monster is deleted from the pages of Wikipedia. I do not blame the Wiki supervisors, as even the world superpowers are not able to contain these energetic monsters, bent on shedding rivers of blood to "purify" their crooked world of all rationality, charity and love for fellow human beings.

Not a word is allowed to remain here to illuminate the world to the identity of the ideological guru of the contemporary blood-thirsty killers who pass themselves as Muslims as they march on the beheaded, blown up, stoned bodies of the innocent Muslims. To praise Ibn Taymiyyah and his works--that which were condemned for 600 years by the Muslim scholars as misguided hatred--is not any different than to praise the Mein Kampf of Hitler for its worth and insight. God helps us all and saves us from these harbingers of hatred, death and ignorance. izadyIzady (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- he was definitely ideologically rigid, but he had no particular connection with terrorism or violations of the rules of war during his lifetime, and in fact he conceived his political role to be mainly stiffening the resistance of civilized societies to the depredations of marauding hordes of savage barbarians. The terrorism connection only started to emerge centuries after his death, after much interpretation... AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Shall we rather record the opinions of scholars muslim and non-muslim. One such (muslim) being David Livingstone in his book Terrorism and the Illuminati, talks a little bit about Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the accusations. We shall add him. Faro0485 (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Qazan Khan a "savage barbarian"? A fellow Muslim is a fellow Muslim. A fellow human being is a fellow human being. When one approves and justifies killing another human being because he does not meet one's own standards, is an act of terror. Of all the illustrious Islamic scholars, none has ever overstepped the strict rule by Islam that prohibits condemnation of a fellow believer in the God of Abraham (Jews, Christians and Muslims) as infidels. Only Ibn Taymiyyah commits such an act. In fact, the only reason Ibn Taymiyyah's name survived was due to its use by the other Islamic scholars for warning pupils not go the way of this lost soul who, although he had all the element of a legal scholar, ended up becoming a lost in his own hatred of other men whom he did not approve of. Thankfully, Islam is strong enough to weather this wave of "Taymiyyahism" and shine again as brilliantly as it has for 1400 years as a religion of enlightenment, harmony and peace instead of hatred, prejudice and damnation--what the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah have embraced like their nearly-forgotten teacher. IzadyIzady (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Qazan Khan is amassing an army trying to attack Syria and the Transjordan area does not justify Ibn Taymiyyah struggle against him? The fact that Qazan Khan was killing Muslims scholar and accused them of being "corrupt" whereas he did not do anything towards the Buddhist Monks, who were in that time, famously known as so corrupt that they even collected taxes in the names of their monasteries?
You maliciously "forget" to mention that Qazan Khan IS a savage barbarian who follows the path of his great-great grandfather, Genghis Khan in killing Muslims without any mercy. Thank god Qutuz halt the Mongolian invasion in time. Are you also going to accuse Qutuz as a "terrorist" for fighting the Mongolians? : (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Article seems to be biased[edit]

Article reads like it was written by a fan rather than by an objective neutral observer. I notice the whole section on "Struggle" (Which probably should be titled Jihad) was without references. The article should also mention that he has been named as the original promulgator of the philosophies that drive organizations like Al Queda --Blue Tie (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ibn Arabi[edit]

In the article it says Ibn Taymiyyah branded ibn Arabi a heretic due to him 'being a supporter of the Pharao', however it also says that ibn Arabi was actually misunderstood and that he was not a supporter of the Pharao. The information that ibn Taymiyyah branded ibn Arabi as a heretic not just for this reason, but also for other reasons is completely missing, eg. ibn Arabi stating that the world is eternal. Ibn Taymiyyah's position on ibn Arabi is explained in this source: It should be added in the article because at the moment it looks like ibn Taymiyyah branded him a heretic due to misunderstanding his works which is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

Recently, a large amount of primary sources were added to this article, almost all of them quoting critics of the subject. To be exact, I believe I recognize some of the text here as copy-pasted from things passed around on certain Muslim discussion forums holding theological ideas contrary to those of the subject. Regardless of the intent, we're looking at a number of problems:

  • The content quoted is almost all from Arabic sources. While that's alright, it poses an issue when it's a large amount of content and when it consists of contentious, critical material. I don't have the patience to translate all that myself nor to translate potentially positive, non-critical material in Arabic either.
  • The content doesn't follow common guidelines in terms of spelling, transliteration or word usage.
  • The content is absolutely huge compared to the rest of the article and seems like an issue of WP:UNDUE.
  • The content consists almost entirely of quotes, and Wikipedia is not a series of quotes.
  • The biggest issue: Ibn Taymiyyah has been discussed numerous times in reliable, secondary sources. We can go to places like Brill Publishers and Oxford University Press to find modern, scholarly, objective assesments of his views; we don't need to quote blocks of text directly from other Muslims who considered him a heretic and, obviously, would not be neutral.

Given the above, I will take the initiative and remove the material in question per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and the aformentioned undue weight guideline. If there is material which should be kept, then I think it should be discussed here before putting it in the article due to the controversial and contentious nature of the content. I hope this will lead to a productive discussion which can build this article up; as it is, the article is already somewhat small in relation to the subject's effect on Islamic thought, for better or for worse. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Upon further scrutiny, I'm seeing a lot of "sources" which have been discredited by mainstream scholarship. The "golden advice" of Dhahabi is now known after multiple historical pieces to be a fabrication which Dhahabi didn't write. The books of Hassan Ali Saqqaf aren't taken seriously in the Middle East, as even other critics of Ibn Taymiyyah recognize Saqqaf's academic fraud. Kawthari was a polemical idelogue just like Ibn Taymiyyah and there's no reason to include views like that at all unless a secondary source mentions them. I removed quite a bit of material, but I defend all of it. This article needs to be rebuilt in accordance with WP:RS more than anything else, not with primary sourcess from either supporters or detractors of the subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you can just tag them and allow references to be gathered and discussion to go down. But sometimes when things are deleted then that is pretty terminal.--Inayity (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Per the policies I quoted above, I really don't think leaving highly contentious material in a biography would be the right thing to do even if it was reliably sourced. As it is, I would contest the sources removed due to them being primary sources. Primary sources are allowed, but only in certain cases and on sensitive topics they should be avoided. That, in addition to the fact that some of the sources are known to be inaccurate such as the attribution of Nasiha Dhahabiya, contributed to my being bold and simply removing them. If someone wants criticism of the subject to be shown, then we know there are many reliable sources from known, respected publishers which can show that; but smear material from people as controversial as Ibn Taymiyyah himself (re: Kawthari, Saqqaf) doesn't belong here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dhahabi's "Golden Advice" in refuting Ibn Taymiyya is accepted as authentic by multiple sources such as Little, Donald P. “Did Ibn Taymiyya Have a Screw Loose?” Studia Islamica, no. 41, 1975, pp. 93–111. and Caterina Bori. “A New Source for the Biography of Ibn Taymiyya.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 67, no. 3, 2004, pp. 321–348. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Weird Claims[edit]

The infobox of this article claims that one of Ibn Taymiyyah's notable ideas is the "Theory of Relativity". The source given is the site In addition to the source being an unreliable POV site, the claim seems far fetched. Surely the theory of relativity was put forward many centuries later by Einstein?

I have noticed other strange claims in the infobox including the assertion that Ibn Taymiyyah influenced John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Francis Bacon, Roger Bacon, Descartes and George Berkeley. No sources have been given for this. Again, this seems far fetched and really needs to be sourced. Roger Bacon for example died when Ibn Taymiyyah was fairly young.

I have therefore removed the source and have added the citation needed tag. RookTaker (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor (user:Tamim506) tried to resolve the issue by citing a book entitled "Ibn Taymiyyah’s logic and intellectual his approach" by the author "Dr Muhammad Husni Zayn". I did a google search for both the book and the author and couldn't find either. I also tried to find the book on Amazon but without success. No ISBN has been provided and / or publisher. As such it seems to be an inadequate reference for such outstanding claims. I have therefore reverted the "sources" and re-added the citation needed tag. RookTaker (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The latest edits by user:Tamim506 have been copied and pasted from This might therefore be a copyright violation. Further, the website is unreliable as a source as it is nothing more than a fan site. There are a number of more reliable sources on Ibn Taymiyyah that might be useful such as the book Ibn Taymiyya's Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism (Islamic Philosophy, Theology & Science: Texts & Studies) by Jon Hoover. I have reverted the changes made until we find reliable sources.RookTaker (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ali ibn Abi Talib section deletion explanation.[edit]

This is to inform all concerned editors, the reasons behind why I will delete this section after I finish writing this post. It could be said that a certain amount of experience in this field is required to see the polemics being espoused in this section. This can very easily be missed if one is uninformed of the topic. The section on Ali uses the book Minhaj Al-sunnah to state Ibn Taymiyyah's opinions when this is an absolute misuse of the text. The text was used as an instrument of discourse in refuting the Shia doctrine. It was written in response to a book by Al-Hilli called Minhaj Al-karama. The book based its arguments in light of taking the assumptions in al-hilli book to hold true. Therefore the arguments in the book are stated after hypothetical assumptions are made. I will try to re-add this section with appropriate information if there is enough weight to this issue as Ibn Taymiyyah showed considerable respect and admiration towards Ali. Please see his books; Al-Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah or Majmu Al-Fatawa. The section on Ali in this article then goes on to quote Primary resources. Unless a reliable secondary source can be found for this section, it should not be put back in. For any further work on this issue, may I remind others that the article for Minhaj Al-Sunnah requires considerable work as it is still a stub. Mbcap (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You just censor the facts. The link was provided to an online version of Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, which is basically anti-Shia work from the page one to the last. Ibn Taymiyyah slanders Prophet Muhammad's family, and Shia beliefs. The ONLY people who hold Ibn Taymiyyah in high regard are wahhabis, he is widely criticized by the Shias and Sunni Sufis as a deviant. See for example: [4], [5], even secular sources label him as a "godfather of modern day terrorism" [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are the usual sectarian anti Ibn Taymiyyah polemic websites that you quote. Try to read his works and stop following the cut and paste works and misleading quotation that was used by these biased websites175.136.50.145 (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Salafi Scholar[edit]

It is strange that in articles related with salafism or wahhabism or in the criticism of sufi- sunni scholars or subjects it's seen everywhere that ibn taymiyyah is quoted as a grand master of salafism but here in article about ibn taymiyyah it's been mentioned too many times obsessively that he was a sunni scholar sunni philosopher sunni theologian etc etc. It is total deception and it makes the tone of the article as representative of salafism projecting it as traditional sunni movement. There should be experts from within islam who know these subtle issues. Wikipedia seems to be too much biased towards wahhabism and their definitions. Zikrullah (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Zikrullah Maybe you could help build the article up in that regard. In the modern assessment section, it was hoped that the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on the modern wahabi movement could be elaborated on. There are plenty of sources for such a thing so your help would be welcome. Mbcap (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015[edit]

please change circiumstances to circumstances, in last line of chapter Mardin fatwa and the Mardin Conference (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

recent edits (Jerusalem)[edit]

The recent edits have many positive aspects, but unfortunately the sentence "Ibn Taymiyyah opposed giving any undue religious honours to mosques except for three; Masjid al-Haram (in Mecca), Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (in Medina) and Al-Aqsa mosque (in Jerusalem)" significantly mischaracterizes his views on Jerusalem, and involved removed a more accurate source (see comment of 16:20, 23 September 2006 above on this page). AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

AnonMoos Thank you for bringing this up. It was myself who removed the above for reasons which I thought were appropriate. Regardless, after you brought it up, I went back to the source that states the above about Jerusalem and read it about five times over just to make sure I had not missed anything. These are the current issues I have with the content regarding Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem:
  • The way the sentence reads now is:
"Ibn Taymiyyah opposed giving any undue religious honors to mosques (even that of Jerusalem, the Al-Aqsa Mosque), to approach or rival in any way the Islamic sanctity of the two most holy mosques within Islam, Masjid al-Haram (in Mecca) and Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (in Madina)."
  • This then has the following sentence after it which was the reasoning given for the previous version of the sentence:
"Ibn Taymiyyah uses a saying (hadith) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in Bukhari and Muslim to justify his view that it is not permitted to journey exclusively to any mosque than Mecca, Medina, or Jerusalem.
  • This therefore gives false information as the reasoning is not for this version but the one in the article previously.Therefore I will re-add the previous version of the sentence so the reasoning is correctly attributed. I will then put the current sentence regarding "even that of Jerusalem..", after that and attribute it to the author, Charles D. Mathews.
  • Secondly after reading and re-reading five times through the source you use, I found no mention of the statement or anything similar to, ""Ibn Taymiyyah opposed giving any undue religious honors to mosques (even that of Jerusalem, the Al-Aqsa Mosque), to approach or rival in any way the Islamic sanctity of the two most holy mosques..." --> What the paper actually says is that "A vow for pious journey to Jerusalem may or may not be binding." This wiki article does not deal with the issue of vows, as their is not enough weight in reliable sources on Ibn Taymiyyah's views on vows. There is no mention of the current assertion in the article which uses this source. It never says that the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem does not approach or rival the sanctity of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina. Please provide a source for the assertion if we are to keep it in the article, otherwise it should be deleted.
  • The quote from Ibn Taymiyyah that is used as the source in the thread above which you mention from 2006 constitutes primary research as no such explanation is given by the author of the paper, Charles D. Mathews's most related and relevant explanation to these quotes is the following (Quote first then authors actual statement):
  • The quote, "زيارة بيت المقدس مستحبة" (Translation: Visiting Jerusalem is undesirable) --> Author of paper says, "There is danger in visiting such places as Jerusalem at the time of religious rites of the unbelievers". This is not a categorical statement of undesirability and neither does it hint at any degree of blanket undesirability but that it is so at the time of religious rites of the unbelievers.
  • The quote, "وليس ببيت المقدس مكانا يسمى حرما ولا بتربة الخليل ولا بغير ذلك من البقاع إلا ثلثة أماكن.‏ أحدهما هو حرم مكة شرفها والثاني حرم النبي صلعم والثالث وجّ وهو وادٍ بالطائف" (Translation: My arabic is not good enough to properly translate but I think it mentions; Jerusalem is not sacred, as well as some other places which he mentions. He says that the Mecca/Medina mosques and Ta'if valley are sacred) --> The the author of the paper does not address this quote at all. Using it as a source is primary research and even then does not back up the current content.
  • For the reasons elucidated above, we cannot use quotes from Ibn Taymiyyah without a secondary source to support the assertions being made.
  • You also state that a more accurate source has been removed. The source I used was a Phd carried out by Serajul Haque at Oxford University under the supervision of Hamilton Gibb, the renouned orientalist who edited the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Serajul Haque became a respected scholar in his country and his Phd was turned into a book. This is a far more reliable source than the one in question by Charles D. Mathews from Birmingham-Southern college that was published by the Journal of the American Oriental Society. As the source does not back up the content of the edit in question, it cannot be used. Regardless, if we even look at the Journal of the American Oriental Society, it is not peer reviewed, and it has no identifiable impact factor. (I could not find an impact factor or anything to say it was peer reviewed) Contrast this with, The Middle East Journal which is peer reviewed and has an an impact factor of 0.69. I am only giving this example to show where the journal cited in the article fits in relation to similar journals in its field.
  • I have edited the section again and re-inserted the previous version but I kept the current edit with attribution to author to allow anyone to bring forth a reliable source to back up the assertion.
Mbcap (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

When you say "reading and re-reading five times through the source you use", I don't know what you're referring to, because I have A Muslim Iconoclast (Ibn Taymiyyeh) on the "Merits" of Jerusalem and Palestine by Charles D. Matthews in front of me right now, and there is ample support (in the English text) for the cited assertion. Right near the beginning, at the bottom of page 1 and top of page 2, it says "...individuals opposed to the exaggerated popular views of the sanctity of Jerusalem and Palestine... Such a one was Aḥmad ibn Taymīyyeh al-Ḥarrānī...". On page 5, it says "Only ordinary acts of worship should be performed in Jerusalem; above all, the circuit, or ṭawāf, must be reserved only for the Ka`bah in Mecca. Jerusalem as the first qibla is made light of... The Dome of the Rock possesses and bestows no special merit. ... There is danger in visiting such places as Jerusalem at the time of religious rites of the unbelievers." etc. The Arabic I provided above is paraphrased by Matthews as "There are only three real ḥarams in the world--Mecca, Medina, and Wejj (a wady in Ṭā'if)", though the Arabic goes on with a further explicit denial that anything in Jerusalem or Hebron should be called a ḥaram حرم.

Ibn Taymiyya was willing to give a certain limited special status to Jerusalem, but he was vehemently opposed to setting up any place other than Mecca or Medina to approach or rival the preeminent status of Mecca and Medina in Islam in any way. Unfortunately, the sentence "Ibn Taymiyyah opposed giving any undue religious honours to mosques except for three; Masjid al-Haram (in Mecca),Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (in Medina) and Al-Aqsa mosque (in Jerusalem)" gives the impression that Ibn Taymiyya placed Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem pretty much on a level in terms of Islamic significance -- and this impression would be completely mistaken... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is, A Muslim Iconoclast (Ibn Taymiyyeh) on the "Merits" of Jerusalem and Palestine by Charles D. Matthew, which I read five times. The section on his view in the article is about journeys made exclusively to mosques. He held that it was not allowed apart from the one's in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. This is not an issue surrounding the classification of Jerusalem as a haram so I do not see why it is relavent. Regarding tawaf, yes it is true that tawaf is only permitted in Mecca but we are not discussing tawaf in Jerusalem in the views section.
But you said something that put the issue in perspective. That is, putting the three mosques at equal status. On reading the sentence again, you are right because it does give that impression and you are also right, regarding the mistaken impression it would give. Ibn Taymiyyah did not hold Al-Aqsa on an equal status as the Mecca/Medina mosques. I have therefore discussed the topic, of visitation solely to visit a mosque, as a separate issue. Mbcap (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ibn Battuta acount[edit]

There is something need a clarification in Ibn_Taymiyyah#Lost_works section, i guess it source from Ar-Rihlah/Ibn Batuttah account solely. It is said that Ibn Batutta met Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Hajar al`Asqalani. Its very dobious. First when Ibn batuta reach Damascus in 9 ramadan 726 (Aug 9, 1326) stay less than a month only (leaving Damascus in September 1, 1326), Ibn Taimiya was already imprisoned from Sha'ban 726 (18 July 1326) and never been released from prison until his dead in September 26, 1328. Second, while Ibn Batutta died in 1369 Morocco, Ibn Hajar had not born yet until 1372 in Cairo. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 23:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt for clarification ibensis . Yes Ibn Battuta met Ibn Taymiyyah. The book I use does not mention a date but it is known that he used to receive visitors whilst in prison. I did not mention that in the article because it would be original research. Regarding Ibn Hajar, none of the two men met him. What the sentence was saying was that Ibn Hajar also mentions the existence of this work in his book Durar al-Kamina. I have edited the relavent section and clarified the meaning. I hope it reads more clearly now. Mbcap (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Now it's clearer. Former statement made litle ambigue. Well its right that he mention the lost book in his Rihla book. Even though its still dobius (no proof) that Ibn Batuta met Ibn Taimiya or visiting the prison. According to Ibn Battuta himself, he isnt visiting the prison rather attending a Jum'ah sermon led by Ibn taimiya?! (who suppose to be in prison). For the time info, Ibn Battuta stay in Damascus during month Ramadan 726, please [clarify the date]. Some researcher doubt the description from ibn batuta while travelling Sham cities, Iraqi Tigris, etc. Elad 1987, check notes before. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 14:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ibensis Got an edit conflict sorry, I have just done some searches and found that Ibn Battuta's account is highly contested as he did not write the extact book we have today, strictly speaking. You are also write about hearing the sermon but then Ibn Taymiyyah was in prison at the time. I have corrected it now. Mbcap (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Islamic Philosopher![edit]

There is written in the lead that Ibn Taymiyyah is an Islamic Philosopher. As I know, he criticized Philosophers due to their approach towards interpreting the religion based on their own reason. It also contradicts with the other part of the article which says :The knowledge he gained from history and philosophy, he used to refute the prevalent philosopical discourses of his time, one of which was Aristotelian philosophy.[18] and Ibn Taymiyyah considered the use of philosophical proofs and kalam to be redundant because he saw the Qur'an and the Sunna as superior rational proofs.[66] Ibn Taymiyyah said that these explanations were not grounded in scriptural evidence such as the philosophical explanation of the divine attributes of God or the proof of God using the cosmological argument.[66] He said that the call to Islam was not made using such methods by the Qur'an or the Prophet and that these theories have only caused errors and corruption.[66] Obviously, we can not consider every thinker or scholar as a philosopher. How can we consider him as a philosopher or how should we define Islamic philosophy so that it includes him?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Seyyed I agree with you totally. I am still going through all the literature on Ibn Taymiyyah and I have not come across a source which states that he was a philosopher. I still have about five other books to get through which might say otherwise. However, it is unlikely that he was a philosopher due to his harsh criticisms of them. Mbcap (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
While its correct that Ibn Taimiya is not a philosopher and heavily criticize the penetration of greek philisophy into islamic theology. But i think someone who call him a philosopher, mean that he is an expert in (islamic) philosophy field. Its like an orientalist scholar of Islam, is not have to be a muslim but someone who doing academic research and understanding in islamic studies. For addition about Ibn taimiya relation with philosophy please refer to this short podcast. ibensis (What’s the Story?) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I did read that he studied philosophy and used his expertise in the field to refute the philosophers. Mbcap (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Studying philosophy does not make anybody a philosopher. A philosopher has a specific rational approach towards the Being, the reason, society, etc. Ibn Taimiya clearly has an opposite approach. I guess he would not be satisfied to recognized as a philosopher ;-) --Seyyed(t-c) 03:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My own reading of Ibn Taymiyyah is not yet complete so I cannot say either way. Please do whatever is most appropriate. Mbcap (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think "a theologian/scholar who has anti philosophical views" is the best statement for the lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

opinons on ibn taymiyyah[edit]

Im not a regular editor nor do I want to be. If an editor can add this in it would be great

ibn Hajar al-Haytami on Ibn Taymiyyah "Ibn Taymiyyah is a servant whom God forsook, misguided, blinded, deafened, and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings. Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the Mujtahid Imam Abu al Hasan al Subki, of his son Taj al Din Subki, of the Imam al Izz ibn Jama and others of the Shafi, Maliki, and Hanafi scholars... It must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator and an ignorant who brought evil whom God treated with His justice. May He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions"

Have not yet checked reliable source so ill leave it up to editors to look for it. Misdemenor (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


would like to suggest the writing of the article is not as NPOV or clear as it could be. (Perhaps not surprising when a figure so admired by so many is involved.)
Case in point is this in Facing charges against his creed (`Aqidah) section.
We read that he was "imprisoned several times for conflicting with the ijma of jurists", that he wrote a creed, that he "adopted the view that God should be described as he has described himself in the Qur'an and the way the Prophet Muhammad has described him in the hadith", and it is not until several sentences into the section that we learn that all scholars "had to adhere to ...", the creed. "Ibn Taymiyyah was uncompromising and maintained that it was obligatory for all scholars to adhere to his creed".

Two problems:

  • Ibn Taymiyyah "adopted the view that God should be described as he has described himself in the Qur'an and the way the Prophet Muhammad has described him in the hadith." The issue is not whether or not we should contradict God and Muhammad, but whether they meant the descriptions to be taken literally or figuratively.
  • Secondly, the stakes for which Ibn Taymiyyah was "imprisoned several times" certainly seem much higher than "conflicting with the ijma of jurists". "Ibn Taymiyyah was uncompromising and maintained that it was obligatory for all scholars to adhere to his creed," means that according to him, if they didn't they were not Muslims. Shouldn't we getting to the point on this issue? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Alawite Shia's[edit]

I have deleted a mention as the Alawite's as 'Shi'as'. That is commonly reported in the media but I have read that this is only because the Iranian Khomenie(spelling?) announced that they were Shia in the 1970's (so when he was in exile) for (current) political reasons, previously there was mention that they were Shia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

They have sometimes been considered among the "extremists" (see Ghulat)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Jordan & Egypt Ban[edit]

Ibn taymiyyah and Salafi related books are apparently banned in Jordan as well as Egypt [7][8] Im not sure where to include this in the article but if any editors have ideas then go ahead. Misdemenor (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Taymiyyah's criticism of Greek Philosophy[edit]

Given Ibn Taymiyyah's substantive criticism of Greek Philosophy, it would seem appropriate to add a section on that. (This would in effect elaborate on the brief statements: "he totally rejected … Peripatetic philosophy" and "later works focusing on … refutation of Greek logic".) Aside from Hallaq (2011) Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians, another secondary source for such is the site Muslim Scientists and Thinkers, which covers Criticism of Aristotelian Logic (His Attitude Towards Logic), Criticism of Aristotelian Logic, On Syllogisms, Criticism of Aristotelian Logic — On Logical Definition each with links to mostly Arabic references. (Those pages branch from an overview page on the Philosophical Thought of Ibn Taymiyyah.) Among the topics there, perhaps his comments on metaphysics deserve particular attention as they could be used to supplement Metaphysics#Rejections of metaphysics, various sections in Islamic Philosophy, Logic#Controversies in logic. Are others familiar with the sources cited therein or otherwise versed in these topics? humanengr (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Searching for info about this book: "The Sword on the Neck of the Accuser of Muhammad", by Ibn Taymiyyah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:D165:C242:F16E:67CA (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)