Recently, Ibn Taymiyyah has surfaced, and has always appeared. Between being summoned with every “extremist” incident, and the brightness of his name as the main theoretician of “jihadist” organizations, and between a wide range of summonses that place Ibn Taymiyyah in the heart of them, Ibn Taymiyah stands out as a central figure in shaping some aspects of our present reality. The truth is that Ibn Taymiyya, not only as a mere name, but as a historical engagement with an intellectual legacy, but raises several issues related to the centrality of heritage and how to deal with it, and its determinants, in addition to the questions that it poses related to concepts that still exist in our present-day reality, such as atonement and its consequent operations Excluding up to the point of killing.
In this context, we held an interview in “Meydan” with Professor Raed Al Samhouri, researcher and critic in Islamic literature and thought, who is interested in philosophy, theology and the origins of jurisprudence, who wrote a book we see important about Ibn Taymiyyah titled “Critique of Salafi Discourse: Ibn Taymiyyah as a model”, and therefore we We ask him a number of questions that have been raised about Ibn Taymiyyah, and we may openly review the heritage, in a more scientific and serious way, as a substitute for the summonses that are cut out from their contexts. It is an interview that can serve as an introduction to thinking about heritage in general, and Ibn Taymiyyah in particular, not as a promise of definitive answers.
- Before delving into the thought of Ibn Taymiyya, and as a foundational question, does the frequent recall of the past have anything to do with the failure to deal with our reality, that is, we resort to the past and the conflict over heritage as a defensive and identity mechanism whose presence increases as our current failure increases?
Returning to the past has not only one image, but rather more than one image, there is a return to the past in order to go to the future, and this is represented by some trends of contemporary Salafism such as Jamal al-Afghani, Muhammad Abdo and Rashid Rida, for example. There is a return to the past in order to become entrenched in it, and this is represented by a prevailing current today that lives outside the age, and thinks about its developments as if it lived in the time of Ahmed bin Hanbal or Ibn Taymiyyah. This trend, in my opinion, makes heritage a "identity", even though heritage is not an identity, not a language or concept, but even the heritage itself was inclusive of many overlapping identities, and various currents contributed to it from the side of race, religion, and so on. Rather, the Qur’an itself contains Romans, Syriac, and others that have Arabized and entered into the words of the Holy Qur’an. There is a return to the past in order to rebuild it according to the evidence and historical view and with a non-indecent criticism.
It is worth noting that all of these readings stem from this same era, so we all live in this age, whether we like it or not, that is, even those who read Ibn Taymiyyah “a traditional reading” cannot abandon this era, and they are using its tools, according to what they have reached, and with explanations The elders of this era read the heritage and return to it, but the question is: for what purpose? And in what mind? This is the difference, and I think it is more a matter of "will" rather than a return to scientific method. However, there are readings without a method, if we like accuracy, but rather follow according to “texts” and “quotations” and enough, and I believe that if these people lived in the time of Ibn Taymiyyah they would be more flexible than they are now.
- Ibn Taymiyyah possesses more than just a juristic and nodal heritage, as his production is greatly exceeded by the "traditional" scholars of his time, as he broke into new spaces in philosophy and politics. Did the claim of his modern Salafi monopoly presented it to the people in a piecemeal fashion?
I am certain that this is true, I have read the legacy of Ibn Taymiyyah three times (except very little), and I found that there is not a little bit of fragmentation, interpretation, and projection, not only by his followers, but also by his opponents, and this lame reading is really offensive to Ibn Taymiyyah every Abuse, deform, and employ him in anything unrelated to him. Perhaps I think well and explain this by the magnitude of his heritage, or by hastening to pass judgment on him, or by misunderstanding, or the absence of the scientific method, God knows best, and I do not want to be misunderstood, so I say that it is the recitation of Ibn Taymiyyah intentionally and intended for previous purposes.
- There are those who see that Ibn Taymiyyah is the feeder of violent movements such as ISIS, Al Qaeda and others. What is your opinion?
This talk of the truth is from the "coldest" accusations and "gripping them", and it is a recruitment of Ibn Taymiyyah that results from ignorance, and from the absence of historical induction and understanding, if we think well, or result from the intended desires and projections if we misunderstand. The Mamluks were not strictly implementing the provisions of the Sharia at that time, rather they inevitably had to do with penalties that violated the Sharia, and some of them were applying the ritual, which is a customary law compiled from many religions and laws, which was set up by Genghis Khan, in addition to martial martial law at the hands of the dictators. Whose king was absolute, capricious, capricious, based on treachery, conspiracies, killing and power. There was a robbery of people's money, usurpation, and fascist injustice. However, Ibn Taymiyyah did not create a “jihadist group” for example, without the researcher finding in his statements great interest in the powerless caliph in Egypt at the time, as the ruling was really only for the sultans.
Even his fatwa in Nasiriyah was not lost on them only because they were deviant, but also because they were exposed to the returning Mamluk army after the fall of Khazindar in which they fought the Tatars. Even his fatwa in the Tatars was carried out by Damascus and besieged by Damascus, and the Tatars were killed from Jabal Salihiya alone (the home of the Hanbali) 4000 Hanbali, and they captured the daughters of the Hanbali sheikhs, as Ibn Katheer says, and they committed brutal crimes against the Hanbali jurists from the family of Abdul-Da’id.
But Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj employed that fatwa against the Egyptian government and against the army, as they are an abstaining sect (abstaining from whom?), The fatwa of the abstaining community, i.e. the abstaining community on the guardian of the Muslims, was launched by Ibn Taymiyyah against the abusers of the state and those outside it, so the Egyptian army here Who came out? On the jihadist group? So see how it distorts the mind of a man and takes him out of his historical context, and these are problems of Ibn Taymiyyah's reading in this era.
- One of them counted the phrase "Estabab or else he was killed" more than 400 times in the legacy of Ibn Taymiyyah. Does not this large quantity indicate a violent approach?
Where is the violence in a Sharia judgment report (say 400 times) in 100 volumes ?! If we count the number of words and perform a simple mathematical ratio, this repetition will be like a drop in a circumference. The quantitative approach is a false and deceptive approach. The poet may mention a lot of generosity while he is obscene. Rather, the lesson of right and wrong, did Ibn Taymiyyah disagree with anything that corresponds to “Ahl al-Sunnah” in those interrogations in terms of total releases or is it different?
There is an important thing that the reader should be aware of: The ruling on infidelity in a matter does not mean that it should be passed on at all to people at all, but it is almost impossible in the thought of Ibn Taymiyyah himself, because he is one of the most careful people in imposing the rulings of unbelief on those appointed, and there is no evidence for that. Whoever interviewed many of the servitude, and the belief of the servitude is a disbeliever unanimously, and with this he did not order the killing of any of them, but even his opponents who had spoken with him for thirty years, including the servitude, he would have mercy on one of them if he died. I wrote in response to these words, which are not considered knowledge in al-'Arr or in al-Nafir on my Facebook page, and I explained the ration, ignorance, and prejudice.
- When we drop the political figure of Ibn Taymiyya on the "modern jihadi" figure, we find that Ibn Taymiyyah was more flexible than these, is this conclusion correct?
It is not only true, but it is very true. Ibn Taymiyyah, despite his disbelief in al-Nusayri by virtue of the fact that they are apostates, said that he forbade their killing and captivity. He said of the "Shiites" that many of them are apparently and inwardly believers, and he said about the commoners of Ismailis that they may be Muslims. But people do not look at these texts and their similarities, and they are many, and they cling to other texts written on exceptional occasions and war, to make them the original. Madness is arts!
- Why Ibn Taymiyyah? Why did the Salafi movement choose Ibn Taymiyyah and did not choose a figure like Izz ibn Abd al-Salam, for example?
This question I had been thinking about twenty years ago. Why Ibn Taymiyyah? In fact, there are several reasons: the first is that Ibn Taymiyyah did not leave a group of dissenting sects that he did not respond to, and the second was the accuracy of his understanding of the sayings of philosophers and the breadth of his criticism of them, and the third: his tremendous mastery in various sciences, and the fourth: that he was seeking to serve the "public", and fifthly: his position Heroic towards Gazan and the Tatars in general, and the sixth of them: his participation in the battles himself and his preoccupation with public work as well as knowledge, and the seventh: that warm passion and sincerity shown in his abundant writings, and eighth: his launching the door of diligence, and the ninth: freedom to search and speak openly of the results carelessly of the consequences, and the tenth: bearing prison For his opinions, and other reasons, he is a truly inspiring personality.
- Why do jihadists treat the fatwas of “Sheikh al-Islam” with this privacy, which they sometimes reach the level of legislation, as soon as they say “Ibn Taymiyyah said,” This calls in their minds to settle the debate on the matter?
I do not know about the accuracy of this issue, because when you read the jihadists, you find a reminder of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Taymiyyah, such as Ibn Hajar and Al-Nawawi, and Kalshafi and Malik and others. But Ibn Taymiyyah, of course, is an authority, and it is natural for him to have fanatics who see his words as the final say (even if they misunderstood him), and this is not limited to only those.
- How far is Ibn Taymiyyah's thought in the contemporary reform movements, away from the Wahhabi movement? For example, many Indians pay tribute to his production, such as Shah Wali Al-Dahlawi, the author of the great argument of Islam, and Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadawi and others?
There are those who pay attention to the "spirit" of the Timi ideology that transcends the "issues" that occupied it, and take care of the overall approach and its purposes, and this is what the guardian of God Dahlawi, Al-Nadawi, Al-Afghani, Muhammad Abdo, Rashid Rida, Al-Fassi, and Brahimi, and others have to do. And there are those who imprisoned himself in some cases in which they repeat and increase, yes, Ibn Taymiyyah is undoubtedly present in the contemporary reform movements, but the manner of his presence varies according to the understandings of these reformists. There are those who root for democracy in the name of Ibn Taymiyyah, and there are those who prohibit it in the name of Ibn Taymiyyah, there are those who open up to others in the name of Ibn Taymiyyah, and there are those who close in the name of Ibn Taymiyyah, there are those who maintain power never in the name of Ibn Taymiyyah, and there are those who never hostile to it in the name of Ibn Taymiyyah, and in my opinion A historical reading will help Ibn Taymiyyah understand more than "cut and paste" and "quotes".
- Criticism of Islamic heritage abounds as the main brake on Ennahdha, so how do you see this saying?
This needs full research. We should ask these: What heritage do you mean? Is the nation's heritage only its cultural and cultural interaction with history? Is it possible that this heritage in which the nation was the first in the world for centuries is a corrupt heritage? These are sharp, absolute, and even childish judgments. Didn't the early Arabs rise to reach China and Europe in the first and second century? Did they do anything in history? Did they build Baghdad, Granada and Cairo? Is it not among us Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, Ibn Rushd, Abu al-Barakat al-Baghdadi, al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham, Jabir ibn Hayyan and al-Khwārizm؟? Is it not from Al-Jahiz and Abu Hayyan? Is it not from us Al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Razi and Judge Abd al-Jabbar? Did not Ibn Abi write a layer of doctors? Did they contribute to building civilization or not? The problem with heritage is not at all, but the problem is with people who employ whatever they want of heritage for the sake of tyranny and oppression, and to remain in a state of underdevelopment.
- Why did the Islamists pay attention to Ibn Taymiyyah’s idiosyncratic heritage and neglect its philosophical production and consideration? Is it true that Ibn Taymiyyah was the first of Europe to deviate from Aristotelian logic?
The Islamists did not even care about Ibn Taymiyyah’s all-juristic heritage, but rather some of what suits them. But we should not lose sight of the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who benefited from him - as he says - the “facilitation” approach, and this is a fact. All the issues that Ibn Taymiyyah disagreed with the four imams In it, there is a direction of "facilitation". They did not care about the philosophical aspect because this originally concerned them only with the amount of "responding to opponents" and in the manner of "cutting and pasting".
As for Ibn Taymiyyah’s precedent for Europe in departing from formal logic, I am not familiar with the history of philosophy in Europe, but what I know is that Ibn Taymiyyah was an episode of a long process in the face of formal logic, since Abu Ishaq al-Nizam who said that he vetoed Aristotle’s book, then Abu Ali al-Jibai, who He responded to Aristotle's logic, then the Shiite Nebkheti who criticized Aristotle, then Judge Abd al-Jabbar, then Fakhr al-Din al-Razi as well, and Ibn Taymiyyah came up with his important book "Responding to the Logical" to be the culmination of these efforts. He does not claim that all of Aristotle's logic is invalid, but he has objections to the concept of perception and the principle of ratification, we do not dwell on it, and I discussed it in my book, "The Rush of My Father, Arab Marzouki."
- How do we understand Ibn Taymiyyah’s employment in Wahhabi thought, and what are the limits of interference and separation in it?
This question needs an academic study to answer it!
But I will point out some differences:
I feel very embarrassed when I compare the two characters! Is it permissible to compare Ibn Abd al-Wahhab with some of Ibn Taymiyyah's students as well as Ibn Taymiyyah himself?
- Modern Salafism claims that Ibn Taymiyyah was the first to break the wall of tradition and open the door to ijtihad. Is this a true statement, and what are its signs?
It is absolutely not true, but Ibn Taymiyyah was shocked at his jurisprudence. Ibn Taymiyyah’s criticism of al-Ghazali is considered one of the most prominent stations and battles of man. The Iraqi sociologist Ali al-Wardi glorifies Ibn Taymiyyah’s sayings, especially in the criticism of theology and the foundations of logic, and considers it a basis for the inductive approach, so how do you read this narration?
I do not see that Ibn Taymiyyah presented a new criticism of logic, as theologians preceded it by Qurans, and they objected to the definition of the boundary, and to the claim that the logical limit can put a hand on the subjectivity of things, and that is why they contented themselves in identifying things with drawing only for the purpose of distinction, but Ibn Taymiyyah extended this criticism His son and depth, as well as the inductive approach is not from the creation of Ibn Taymiyyah, but is known even to the Greek philosophers, the whole issue is that he invalidated a lawsuit that depicts things but is with a limit, then the limit is with him only words that do not depend on knowledge of something, and that things can be known with sense, and that measuring things with sense, and measuring Representation, i.e., a partial-to-partial analogy, is not always presumptive as the logicians claim, but it may be determinist. This is undoubtedly a reinforcement of the inductive approach, but Ibn Taymiyyah is preceded by this, and he has the advantage of generation and deepening.
- You have a book on Ibn Taymiyyah’s criticism entitled “Criticism of the Salafi Discourse… Ibn Taymiyyah as an Example”, but we have seen for you passages and posts defending Ibn Taymiyyah, and this may appear to be a contradiction in the eyes and understandings of some.
Where is the contradiction in criticizing those we love? Or defend those who criticize him? And where is the contradiction in defending the oppressed and responding to the unjust and unjust attacks of the unjust? I appreciate Ibn Taymiyyah very much, and amazes me a lot in his view of matters, in his analysis, and in his opinions, but my lack of agreement (and I am not equal in anything) with him on a matter does not mean that I do not defend him, and does not mean that he is not a great imam, and does not mean that he is not my teacher Whom I learn with love and pride.
- Describe the nature of your approach to understanding Ibn Taymiyyah.
These are really big questions, and it is unfair to answer them with a few lines. I will summarize the issue, and I say: I used to read Ibn Taymiyyah on the method of quotes, cutting and pasting, according to the traditional method, without reading the context, historical and social details in detail on him, so this was the reason that I criticized some of his fatwas, but after learning that I joined the constellation of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, I learned that In studying ideas, it is necessary to study their social and political contexts, in order to understand them the right to understand, and this is the new approach that I read with Ibn Taymiyyah now.
When you read his fatwa in Al-Nusayriyah, without knowing that they were disobedient to the state, and that they were a thorn in the side of the Mamluk Sultanate, and without knowing that they were blocking the road, intimidating the safe, stealing the children of Muslims, kidnapping them and selling them to the Franks, which is disbelief, and without you knowing They were in contact with the Tatars and the Crusaders, so the fatwa will be understood as an invitation to free killing because of the sect, but all this will disappear when you know why Ibn Taymiyyah issued such a fatwa, which was the home of the scholars of his time also from the Ash'ari.
- What is the most important legacy of Ibn Taymiyyah in Arab and Islamic thought? How can an idea be invested in modern times?
Everything that Ibn Taymiyyah left is important; It depends on the researcher's interest to answer this question in detail. For me, every book by Ibn Taymiyyah is important to me.
- Does the "crisis" of dealing with Ibn Taymiyyah and historical figures demonstrate our need for new methodologies and tools for reading history?
Yes, precisely the historical and critical approach is necessary. This I see now is the best way to understand Ibn Taymiyyah and other scholars. And I had an attempt in my book "The Imaginary Ancestor", which I devoted to what I call "the predecessor of the ordeal," which is about Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, and how the Hanbali appeared. As it was not in the time of Ahmad bin Hanbal Hanbala, but he was a speaker of the hadeeths, but, for political goals, the Ma'mun made the tribulation to get rid of his opponents who atone for whoever says the creation of the Qur’an, and Ahmed bin Hanbal was someone who says this saying. The expiation of those who said creating the Qur’an means the expiation of the Caliph al-Ma’mun himself, which means of course the permissibility of departing from it and robbing his legitimacy. Hence the ordeal was political, as I see worn by religious clerics, in which scholars from the people of hadith and others joined together, and the source of satisfaction was from al-Ja’adh al-Mu'tazili, for example. (But this does not mean that the Mu'tazilites are their companions, and Ibn Taymiyyah was alerted to this.) Ahmad, due to what he experienced in the ordeal, became the imam of the Sunnis at all, as Ibn al-Qayyim says, and a group in the early fourth century AH knew that they were Hanbalis.
I do not want precise details in this regard, but it is explained in detail in my book "The Imagined Ancestor" issued by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. As for the second book that I am currently working on, it will be on Ibn Taymiyyah, God willing, which I call "the predecessor of the joint", from As he was trying hard to distinguish his real Sunnis from Ash'ari! As well as joints all other "stray" currents of his time. That is, he was warning the approval of the esoteric in the interior, through interpretation, deviant mysticism, and so on, and this would lead to the return of inner rule, as I conclude.
- Is there a final word that you would like to direct to those who are concerned with Ibn Taymiyyah's heritage, whether they are dedicated to celebration or criticism?
I would like to say: Ibn Taymiyyah is not an angel and not a demon, and whoever wants to read Ibn Taymiyyah is not in a hurry in the results, but he must devote himself to the effort to understand his total rules, and to distinguish between Ibn Taymiyyah's intellectual approach, and his style in which he tended, for many objective reasons, to The thickening, and this is what some of his fans took on him, especially the Golden Imam.
Confusion occurs when the sharp method takes us away from the origins of the total approach, just as confusion occurs when we do not pay attention to the historical context and the atmosphere in which these fatwas were issued, which he wrote only for certain facts, and they were referred to the state, and scholars of his era agreed with him, and they disagreed with him only because of His position on names and attributes, and his enlightening fatwas on divorce, and his fatwas prohibiting the nomination of nomads other than the three mosques.