Was Ibn Taymiyyah the spiritual father of jihadists?

Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH) - may God have mercy on him - is still the preoccupation of people and the fullers of the world with knowledge and controversy; For many reasons, the doctrines take upon him his uniqueness with jurisprudential jurisprudence that has not been preceded to him (such as the three divorces, and he traveled to the Prophet’s Mosque ...), even though in most cases he used to adhere to the Ahmed bin Hanbal school of thought and has options in which he violated the sect; It is not surprising that he has attained the level of ijtihad (the mujtahid within the sect), as his contemporaries in Damascus have reached, Imam Taqi al-Din al-Sibki al-Shafi’i. As for the Ash'aris, they take strong criticism of their beliefs and some of their imams, and people of different religions, beliefs and sects take upon him the controversial writings that took care of discussing their beliefs and nullifying their doctrines, even though he had ancestor in the responses to the ancestors who established this type of discussion that has become a branch of knowledge in beliefs and religions.

At the present time, a new rivalry took place between Ibn Taymiyyah, represented by some political regimes and the Sheikhs who sought refuge in them. Due to Ibn Taymiyyah's revolutionary paradigm, He was a revolutionary figure par excellence. He was not a traditional scientist who was satisfied with reading, researching and studying. Rather, he had witnessed political stances, and he himself participated in jihad alongside the army in fighting the Tatars and defending Damascus, and when the people heard about the arrival of the Tatars and the dignitaries fled and some sheikhs, people incited to jihad and used to roam the walls and recite them They have signs of jihad and strengthens their resolve. And internally, he was keen on enjoining good and forbidding evil in his time, and he had great prestige and moral authority in which both people and rulers feared.

In the year 699 AH, the Tatar army went to Damascus, and the notables of the country and Ibn Taymiyyah agreed on the path to the Tatar commander Kazan to take safety from the people of Damascus. When they met him, Ibn Taymiyyah spoke to him, and his pupil, Al-Hafiz and historian Ibn Katheer, described him as "very strong, with a great interest that benefited the Muslims." But another person who witnessed the meeting - Abu Bakr Ibn Qawam Al-Balsi (718 AH) - says: Ibn Taymiyyah said to the Kazan translator: Say to him: “You claim that you are a Muslim and you have muezzins, a judge, an imam and a sheikh - as we have reached - so we invaded and entered our country for what? Your father and your grandfather, Hulagu, were unbelievers, and they invaded the lands of Islam but rather pledged and fulfilled, and you pledged and left, and said, and what you have fulfilled! ”, Then“ He brought food to the congregation and they ate only from Ibn Taymiyyah. He was told: How do I eat all of your food? You have been looted from people's sheep and cooked with what you cut down from people's trees? "

Ibn Qawam says: “Then Kazan asked him [Ibn Taymiyyah] to pray, so he said in his supplication: Oh God, if your servant is this praiseworthy, then he fights, so that your word is supreme, and that the whole religion is yours: so help him, support him, and rule him over the countries and servants. Hypocrisy, reputation, and a request of the world and that his word is supreme, and to humiliate Islam and its people: so let him down, shake it, destroy it, and cut it off. " All this, "Kazan believes in his supplication and raises his hands." As for the owners of Ibn Taymiyyah in the delegation, it is the greatest of shame and distress by his actions, and even after that they decided not to accompany him!

This revolutionary character was a form of jihadi thought in general, especially with the stagnation of such attitudes in the present time, and with the transformation of a number of sheikhs into a sedition and aid to regimes based on their injustice, and therefore it was not strange that a campaign was launched against him by the sheikhs of power in particular, because if you search among them You hardly find in them one of the owners of the attestations of the truth, on the contrary, their common people who supported the darkness and helped them with a fatwa, word or job. The secret of Ibn Taymiyyah’s attractiveness to the jihadists is the same as the secret of his weakness in the authoritarian regimes and their sheikhs, and he has decided - for example - the Hafiz al-Asad regime forbade his books and fatwas for a long time, and therefore I could not personally read Ibn Taymiyyah until after I left from Damascus in the early 2000s, and now a regime has decided Al-Sisi, his media, and his men launched a severe and vulgar attack on the personality of this unique imam!

This revolutionary character was a form of jihadi thought in general, especially with the stagnation of such attitudes in the present time, and with the transformation of a number of sheikhs into a sedition and aid to regimes based on their injustice, and therefore it was not strange that a campaign against him by the sheikhs of power was determined.

Ibn Taymiyya cannot tolerate the use of fatwas by jihadists in the past decades; Because if we walked on this logic, we would draw us to all the quotes that occurred from the Holy Qur’an as well as to others, as the historical separation that spans centuries between Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwas and its contemporary applications is sufficient alone to bear the full responsibility of those who use it, not to him, as responsibility in the end is the responsibility of a responsible not mufti; Because we know that the fatwa differs from the ruling in that it is contained in a special context and specific circumstances and is not a general ruling, in addition that Ibn Taymiyyah is present in the writings of the major reformers - such as Muhammad Abdo and Rashid Rida - more strongly than is present in the writings of jihadists (and I will devote an article to this later) .

But if we limit ourselves to the presence of Ibn Taymiyyah in the writings of jihadists (i.e. affiliated with jihad), we will find that he has a distinctive and selective presence, which makes us before multiple aspects of the personality of Ibn Taymiyyah, which is formed according to the directions and inclinations of those who are excluded from him. Diligent outside the tradition, and with critics of Greek philosophy a critical philosopher, and with the jurists of facilitating the people of the Imam of the Muftis (many of the fatwas of divorce and the combination of prayers for the traveler without restriction of time and others, but it is taking place on his doctrine).

When Abu Musab al-Suri dated the contemporary jihadist ideology, he made it in three stages: In the first, Sayyid Qutb laid "the intellectual foundations of the jihadi movement" until the mid-1960s, and the Muslim Brotherhood additions were "merely repetition, interpretation, and paraphrasing", and "were not - for the most part - the same Jihadist. " In the second, detailed doctrinal additions took place in the late seventies through the use of the jurisprudence of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah "as a basis for jihadist jurisprudence at the hands of the Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Group in Egypt." In the third one was added to this what was proposed by the Arab Afghan Library in the late 1980s, and it was a repetition of kinetic thought and Salafi jurisprudence from the legacy of the Wahhabi school.

If we limit ourselves to the presence of Ibn Taymiyyah in the writings of the jihadists, we will find a distinct and selective presence for him, which makes us in front of multiple aspects of his personality that are formed according to the orientations and inclinations of those quoted by him. Critical, and with the jurists of facilitating the people in front of the muftis

That is, Ibn Taymiyyah is present here as part of the founding of the juristic aspect of the jihadists. But what did Ibn Taymiyyah make in his choices in which he became independent (so that we remember that in most of his fiqh is Hambali), which supports jihadist thought? We will find his fatwas on fighting the Tatars who took over a number of countries and reached Damascus, specifically two central ideas: his fatwa on ruling power, and his fatwas on fighting the abstaining community.

Between the years (1979-1981) Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj in his book "The Hidden Obligation" inaugurated the theoretical basis for jihadist thought, and he used - for the first time - Fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah to fight the Tatars and toppled it on the Egyptian ruling regime. Although some jihad theorists recognized the book’s simplicity, it was important and foundational in terms of containing “the most important fatwas of contemporary jihad against existing governments… and measuring their conditions on Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwas to fight the Tatars,” says Abu Musab.

What is the story of the ruling in context? Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about "a man who assumed government over a group of archers of hazelnut and said: This is the law of hazelnut ...", and he replied that "... from a ruling on the rule of hazelnut and the law of hazelnuts or other things that contradicts the law of God and His Messenger and the ruling of God and His Messenger, and he knows that: he is from the Tatar who They bring the judgment of God in the rule of God and His Messenger. "

Faraj used these fatwas to atone for existing systems; Just because of its ruling on statutory laws, then the violent theorists subsequently persist in dropping historical facts and fatwas on contemporary countries regardless of their context and the conditions for carrying them on other facts, and whether they exist in the measured branch that has the same cause that was provided in the measured original. Faraj ruled on the fatwa of the Tatars ruling the disbelief of the ruling regime, and that the house was converted into a Kafr house. The context is a royal policy taken from the Tatars king, Genghis Khan, which is a book of a number of rulings that he quoted from various laws of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and others, in which many rulings were taken from his personal view.

Although the Tatars fluctuated in their religious conditions, they were originally a pagan people and pretended to Islam later, and it is clear that Ibn Taymiyyah was not convinced of the sincerity of their Islam, and they committed crimes and atrocities that made the historian Ibn Al-Athir Al-Jazari (630 AH) mourn for Islam and Muslims, He described from their crimes that "these people did not keep anyone, but killed women, men and children, broke the stomachs of pregnant women, and killed the fetus", and he said: "The dates did not include anything that came close to them or what depended on them."

As for Ibn Taymiyyah, he said about them: “The belief of these Tatars in Genghis Khan was great; they believe that he is the son of God of the same type as what Christians believe in Christ.” That is, they combined corrupt beliefs, injustice and criminality, and then the scholars of that era saw that the Tatars demonstrated Islam - and later on - with their rule in the context that did not change anything from the truth of the matter. Because they saw from the apparent evidence inconsistent with their claim, how is the state of the contemporary Egyptian state measured against the state of the Tatars? Then how can I download Ibn Taymiyyah and visit the actions of these movements? This is if we ignore the political developments that took place in the form and system of government and the laws that arose and others, which were imposed by the historical context different from the time of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Although the Tatars fluctuated in their religious status, they were originally pagan people and pretended to Islam later, it is clear that Ibn Taymiyyah was not convinced of the sincerity of their Islam

Moreover, the mere ruling of positive laws (regardless of evaluating the relationship of these laws to Sharia) is not required by infidels jurists, as I explained in my book "Permissible Violence", but this is a heresy that first emerged in some imams of the Najdi call with the emergence of Wahhabism. The bottom line is that the composition presented by Faraj in this book is his own, in which Ibn Taymiyyah was employed in only specific parts that speak on the Tatars, and Faraj dropped it on the Egyptian state.

The second issue: The fatwa in which Ibn Taymiyyah spoke about fighting the sect that refrains from performing some duties. Faraj quoted Ibn Taymiyyah as saying: “The Muslim scholars have agreed that if the sect abstains from some of the apparent and frequent duties of Islam, then it must be fought.” Then came Abu Bakr Naji referred to the verse “And shed away what is left of usury, if you are believers, if you do not do so then authorize a war from God and his Messenger to execute the community.” And he said: "The scholars said, commenting on this verse: This is not only for someone who deserves usury, but also for whoever did it. The nation agreed that whoever commits sin will fight as if the people of a country agreed to deal with usury."

The origin of the talk is that Ibn Taymiyyah was answering a question about "recruits who refrain from fighting the Tatars and saying: There are those who come out with them with hatred", meaning that the questioner asks him about the duties of the soldiers and scared some of them to fight the Tatars who came to the Levant. On the other hand, Ibn Taymiyyah talks about The abstaining community, if it abstains from some of the apparent duties of Islam, which is repeated, then concludes that these "Tatars and their likes are more deviating from the law of Islam than those who deny Zakat and Kharijites."

The scourge of jihadist thought is that it violated the law of jurisprudence with its strong selectivity, and installed an updated image that was not in jurisprudence, so he combined here two levels: theoretical and practical, on the theoretical level the foundations of the idea of ​​governance and the resulting atonement of rulers and regulations, and on the practical level: when they atoned rulers and regulations, They abolished their mandate and promoted their steadfast duties as jurists

And the “abstaining community”, that is, it has immunity, or as it transpired elsewhere, “which is only capable of fighting.” Abstention is a departure from the legal authority, and therefore it was represented by the impediments of Zakat and Kharijites, and the fighting of these is under the leadership of the Imam and to preserve the group, not with diligence A private issued without his family is misplaced, and combat is not the killing. Ibn Taymiyyah clearly states that the Sharia that obligated the fight of the infidels (i.e. the warriors) “did not necessitate the killing of those who are capable of them”, i.e. those subject to power, and the Hanafi jurist Ibn Abdin tells us a similar meaning as well. The jurists only make that entrusted to the Imam exclusively, but the efforts of a group in expiation of the Imam and the existing system is a departure from the law of jurisprudence itself.

The scourge of jihadist thought is that it violated the law of jurisprudence with its strong selectivity, and installed an updated image that was not in jurisprudence, so he combined here two levels: theoretical and practical. On the theoretical level, he established the idea of ​​governance and the resulting atonement of rulers and regulations, and that belief and pronunciation if not translated into action It is not considered faith, as Qutb stated in saying: “Those who distinguish between religion between belief and dealings are not believers, no matter how they claim faith and declare in their own tongue or even in other rituals of worship that they are believers!” Thus, all the sins issued by Muslims are included in this sense, and that He does it, he fights against her, and if he does not take it easy, as Naji said.

As for the practical level: When they disbelieved the rulers and regimes, they abolished their mandate and promoted their steadfast jobs to them - jurisprudence - including the duty to change the "evil" by force, and to go out and fight the group to return it to the deserted sharia, and their document on that issue, which is known as the "fighting the cult of the abstinent" as it Already.

They believe what Ibn Taymiyyah himself said; Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was quoted as saying: “People are most mistaken in terms of interpretation and measurement.” Then Ibn Taymiyyah explained his words: “He wants to not judge what the general and absolute indicates before looking at what is specific to him and restricting him, and he does not do the measurement before considering The significance of the texts, do you push it? The most error of people is their adherence to what they think of the indication of verbal and analogy, because presumptuous matters are not carried out until the opponent is searched, a search that the heart will be reassured to, otherwise he would be mistaken for those who did not do so. Al-Zawahir with Al-Azaz for the interpretation of the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him and his companions, through the way of the people of innovation

Violent groups took this course of themselves from the error in the interpretation and error in measuring the facts of the present time to the words of Ibn Taymiyyah himself in the Tatars without depth, scrutiny, or sponsorship of the Sharia system, then people came and held Ibn Taymiyah responsible for these ignorances, and God has the matter before and after !