Saving Islam from moral nihilism

Ibn Taymiyyah is one of the most influential, if controversial, personalities in Islamic history.

He is often protrayed as a "xenophobe", a "literalist", and an "anti-rationalist". He is often regarded, out of ignorance more than anything, as one of the people to whom the modern cult of "political Islam" can look to for support in their efforts to promote political nihilism as an Islamic doctrine. This is absurd, for in his opinion, revolt, even against a tyrant, was a sin, to be discouraged, because revolt and revolution often ended in mass bloodshed.

The more 'sophisticated' modern Western criticisms of 'Wahhabism', will never fail to mention Ibn Taymiyyah, as some sort of 'pre-cursor' to Ibn Abdul Wahhab, and more erroneously, modern political Islamist movements.

But the point of this post is not to look at his political views. That is, perhaps, if God Wills, for another time. I wish to quote just a few passages from him, with respect to the core belief that must exist if a religion is to survive the corrosive acids of secularism, or the moral nihilism of the desctruction of a Transcendence - namely that of the 'moral good', and more importantly, the ability for the human to carry out this moral good.

Now, we all know that moral action requires a degree of autonomy in action, but also freedom in ones moral judgment. Yet Ibn Taymiyyah was working against the backdrop where the will of the human had been degraded in order to save the omnipotence of God, and, at least in matters of 'doctrine', this had happened to such an extent that 'good' and 'evil' had no real 'meaning', that is to say creation by God had been reduced to a mere whim of His Will. Against this there was also the development of deterministic doctrines of certain Sufis, to whom moral nihilism (that is the complete erosion of 'good' and 'evil') married perfectly with their 'Divine union' with God.

Of this Ibn Taymiyyah says [1]:

"[T]he majority of Muslims and others, like the leaders (imams) of the four schools of law and others [like] the pious ancestors (salaf) and other scholars, all affirm God's wisdom and purpose (hikam) [in His creation and legislation]. They do not deny [His wisdom and purpose] like the Ash'arites and others [such as the philoopshers] do. [The latter] only affirm a [divine] will (irada) , but do not [affirm] wisdom; and [affirm] only [God's] compelling will (mashi'a) without affirming mercy (rahma), love (mahabba) and no gratitutde (rida)... [And so they fail to distinguish] between what occurs as unbeilef (kufr), unrighteousness (fusuq) and disobedience (isyan).... Nor do the [leadership of the majority] agree with the Mu'tazila who deny the power of God... His universal creative will (umum khalqihi), His all-compelling will [that creates both good and evil], and His power. Nor do they [the leadership - t] compare Him [anthropomorphism] to His creation in those matters that are declared to be obligatory and prohibited [for mankind [2]] as do they [the Mu'tazlia]... Indeed they say Gos is the creator and owner of everything: whatever He willed happens, and whatever He did not will, does not occur... But they [the majority, unlike the Ash'arites] also state: "nothwithstanding the fact that God is the creator, lord and owner of all things, in His creation He distinguishes between their substances and their actions... It is in accord with what He had said [in the Qur'an (68: 35) - t]: 'Shall We make those who surrender on par with those who are criminals?'" [3]

After setting out what he saw as the two incorrect positions, on the one hand that of the Mu'tazila and others, with the humanistic concepts of God, and on the other hand (chiefly) the Ash'arites, among others, who in the face of the intense humanism of the former, reacted solely in order save the Omnipotence of God, he goes on to say:

"It must be pointed out that on this [crucial and delicate point], many sections among the folk of theology and mysticism (ahl l-kalam wa l-tasawwuf) have erred. They have adopted a position that is far worse than that of the Mu'tazila and others who espouse free will." [4]

This seems like quite a breathtaking criticism, for the Mu'tazila have always been regarded as a 'heresy' from the off. But, for Ibn Taymiyyah, the reason was that this issue went to the core of what he saw as the problem with Islam in the way it was being practiced in his time. He says:

"For surely the latter [the Mu'tazilah] attach great importance to [divine] commands and prohibitions; promise [of reward] and threat [of punishment]; and obedience to God and His Messenger; and they command the performance of good deeds and prohibit the performance of evil. But they [the Mu'tazila et al.] went astray in the matter of free will (qadar). They wrongly believed that if they affirmed God's universal creative will, His all-inclusive power and all-comprehensive creativity of everything [both good and evil], it would result in an objectionable affront to His justice and wisdom. They erred in this belief." [4]

He contrasts the Mu'tazila position with the other pole in this issue:

"In opposition [to the Mu'tazila - t] were a party of scholars, devout worshippers, some folk among the proponents of theology and mysticism, all of whom affirmed God's omnipotence. And they truely believed that God is the lord of everything [... - t] and whatever He willed happened and whatever He did not will did not occur. Now, all this is good and correct. But they fell short of [recognizing] the divine command and prohibition; promise and threat. Some became [... - t] extremists and heretics. In fact they became similar to the polytheists (mushrikin) who said: "If God has willed we would have committed no association (shrik), nor would have our forefathers have [done so], nor would we have tabooed anything" [Qur'an 6: 148 - t]. Now, the proponents of free will, even if they did resemble the Magians in the sense that they affirmed an [ultimate] actor [a human being], other than God to be the [cause] of evil, this group [their opponents], came to resemble the polythiests... Surely, the polytheists are more evl than the Magians! All Muslims agree that the Magians are acknoledged [as a religion] on their payment of a poll-tax [and are therefore not killed]. Some scholars have even held that it is permissible for Muslims to marry their women and partake of their food [similar to Jews and Christians]. As for polytheists (mushrikun), the community is unanimous in their belief that one cannot marry their women and may not eat their food. [4]

He goes on:

"The essential point here is... [that a - t] person who after having affirmed God;s omnipotence (qadar) thereafter produces it as an argument to nullify God's commands and prohibitions (al-amr wa l-nahy) is more evil than the one who only affirms divine commands and prohibitions, but does not affirm God's omnipotence [but does so in order to affirm humankind as an ultimate, free actor]... For [this means - t] that despite affirming God's omnipotent will and bearing witness to his universal lordship over all creation, one still does not distinguish between what is commanded and what is forbidden; and [does not distinguish] between those who have faith and those who reject truth; and [does not distinguish[ between God's servants and rebels. Such a person cannot claim to believe in any of the messengers or in any revealed Book. In such a person's view Adam and the devil are equal; Noah and his people are equal; Moses and the Pharaoh are equal; and the early converts to Islam [who perceived its truth without delay] and the Makkan pagans - all are equal." [5]

"This deviance became rampant among the mystics, asceticsm and devout worshippers. This is especially true when they combine with it the monotheism (tawhid) of the theologians [such as the Ash'aris] who affirm God's omnipotence and universally compelling will, without affirming God's love and gradtitude for [for good] and enmity and dislike [toward evil]." [6]

Ibn Taymiyyah had a lot of other things to say on many topics. He charged the theologians (mutakallimun) with having distorted Islam through Kalam (theological rhetoric), and of having abandoned the 'positive' aspects of Islam, namely that of law. Another interesting point was the role of reason. He is often held as an "anti-rationalist", simply because of his association with the Hanbali school. Yet, by affirming that faith and deeds are connected, and that reason was part of revelation, he seems to have allowed a passage for reasoning into law and ethics in Islamic thought; something which seemed to have been abandoned in 'classic' Islamic theology. His opposition to 'rationality', was really against the theologians and philosophers. But then, to anyone who has a few tracts or works of theology, they are neither spiritually refreshing nor do they satisfy the intellect.

Though it is often held he criticised Sufism, his main attack was on the panthestic doctrines of Ibn `Arabi. These sort of doctrines, for him, completely destroyed the heart of religion and submerged themselves in moral nihilism. It is interesting to note that the other person who tried to purge Islam from such nihilistic tendencies was a Sufi - Shaykh Ahmad as-Sirhindi, of India. But that is for another time.

We shall also be meeting the Mu'tazila in detail, soon, God willing, when I get round to posting the next two parts of my little series "A short history of Islamic philosophy".

Notes
[1] I have tried to corroborate these words of Ibn Taymiyyah in his Majmu' Fatawa (and also looked up his Kitab al-Istiqama). Nonetheless, I have decided to stick to a translation. In this case I am using the lengthy citations in Fazlur Rahman, Revival and Reform in Islam: A Study in Islamic Fundamentalism, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2000. I have kept Rahman's notes (in square brackets), for the most part. I have had to trunacte the citations, so I too have some comments in brackets. These are marked with a 't'.

[2] Here Rahman adds in his notes, "they [the leadership] do not use human reason to measure God's nature".

[3] Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu' Fatawa, volume VIII, pp. 97-98. Translation as cited in [1].

[4] Ibid., volume VIII, pp. 99-100.

[5] Ibid., volume VIII, p. 100.

[6] Ibid., volume VIII, p. 100-101.

Comments

[Thebit]

My apologies to Aziz - I have deleted your comment, without even realising it!

[Al-Muhajabah]

Thanks for this very interesting post. I hope you will continue to share more on this topic.

And the new blog looks great!!!!!

[Thebit]

Thank you, al-Muhajabah, for your warm words.

Salaam `alaykum

[Aziz]

my earlier comment probably was not important - were it so, it would have attracted enough interest to save itself :)

One note I have though is that this view of the Mutazila seems to be very narrow. It seems that Ibn Tamiyyah has a very specific grievance against them. But is that perception accurate? I will be very interested in your entry on the Mutazila when you complete it.

[Umar at-Taalib]

As-Salaamu alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakatuh.
I am not sure if this will be seen by anyone, but insha'Allaah, my next statements will be of benefit to someone and may it be a means of Rahmah for myself. The Shaykh-ul-Islaam Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (rahimullaah ta'ala) had a purpose in his approach to each of the various deviant groups. On one hand, he is attacking the antinomianism of the extreme Sufis, the head of this movement being ibn 'Arabi. Yet on the other hand, he opposed the stale legalism that was found within the fold of Islaam, often seen in the guise of al-'Asha'riyyah. I am aware that many seem to think the Shaykh was an extremist of some sort, yet all of that which I have read from him, (which is, without boasting or raising my own level, is extensive) he was concerned that the Muslims seek al-Wasitiyyah (a middle path). He opposed the various groups, whose descendants attack him unfairly today, for being extreme in the following of their leaders and their own ways without referring back to the Qur'an and the Sunnah and the ways of our Rightly guided predecessors. I would be interested in how others view him in light of his own writings, and not the words of others who either attack him or praise him unnecessarily. You can reach me at [email protected]