Complete

A Critical Study
Of
Ibn Taymia’s Response to Christianity
THESIS
SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
ISLAMIC STUDIES
By
FADHL MOHAMMED MOHAMMED FUSHOOSH
Under the Supervision Of

Prof. OBAIDULLAH FAHAD
DEPARTMENT OF ISLAMIC STUDES
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
ALIGARH (INDIA)
2016
Acknowledgements
Ultimate praise and thanks are due to Allah who helps all those who seriously seek His
help through extending all means to reach their goals; He is the Most Merciful, the Most
Compassionate.
I am immensely grateful to the chairperson of the Department of Islamic Studies, Prof.

Sayyid Ahsan, who treated me with immense kindness and amiability and provided all
necessary administrative help throughout my tenure.
Thanks should next be extended to my supervisor, Professor Obaidullah Fahad for his
indispensible and impeccable guidance throughout all stages of writing the thesis. He
spared no effort to provide his enlightening recommendations that contributed to the
quality as well as precision of this presentation.
Thanks are also due to all staff members in the administration of the department for their
bureaucratic facilities. Thanks should also be extended to the library staff members for
their guidance in locating the appropriate references in the seminar library of the
department.
I should not forget to thank my parents, wife and my three children (Shadin, Haneef and
Jana) in Yemen for bearing with me and waiting for me patiently despite all the political
problems that were rife during our separation.
I am pleased to thank everyone who helped in any way in the work at any level or stage,
especially Mr. Tahbrez Sormaly (Mauritian) for checking my transliteration, and my
colleagues from Kashmir Mr. M. Dawood, for his formatting remarks, Mr. Yaseen, Mr.
Iqbal, Mr. Showkat, Mr. Zubair, Mr. Mudassir and Mr. Irfan for their imformation about
the various procedures of the university.
I am also indebted to my Yemeni friends for their valuable academic help and moral
support, especially Dr. Muhammad Jubaily whose role was truly instrumental in whatever
academic advancement I have made so far.
Fadhl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transliteration Table .................................................................................................. VII
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3
1. THE AGE OF IBN TAYMIYYAH ......................................................................... 11
1.1 The Political Situation ................................................................................... 11
1.1.1 The Origin of the Mamlūks.................................................................... 12
1.1.2 Rise of the Mamlūks .............................................................................. 12
1.1.3 Al-Man ūrah Battle and the Mamlūks ................................................... 14
1.1.4 The Mongol Threat ................................................................................ 15
1.1.5 ‘Ayn J lūt the Decisive Battle ............................................................... 17
1.1.6 The Preparation against the Crusade Emirates ...................................... 17
1.1.7 Precautionary Measures against Contingent Mongol Attacks ............... 18
1.1.8 The Mamlūk-Crusader Encounter.......................................................... 21
1.2 The Socio-Religious Situation ...................................................................... 21
1.2.1 Position of the Mamlūks ........................................................................ 22
1.2.2 The Feudal System ................................................................................. 24
1.2.3 The Sultans............................................................................................. 24
1.2.4 The Sultanic Mamlūks ........................................................................... 25
1.2.5 Awl dunn s ............................................................................................ 25
I
1.2.6 The Bureaucratic Class .......................................................................... 27
1.2.7 The Subjects ........................................................................................... 28
1.2.8 The Sufis ................................................................................................ 28
1.2.9 Religiously Unacceptable Practices ....................................................... 30
1.2.10 Markets .................................................................................................. 33
1.2.11 The Minorities ........................................................................................ 35
1.3 The Intellectual Situation .............................................................................. 38
1.3.1 The Islamic Schools ............................................................................... 40
1.3.2 The Populist Religious Thought ............................................................ 42
2 . EDUCATION, LIFE AND BOOKS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH........................... 51
2.1 BIRTH ........................................................................................................... 52
2.2 Education and Academic Qualities ............................................................... 52
2.3 Areas of Interest ............................................................................................ 56
2.4 Physical and Moral Features ......................................................................... 58
2.4.1 Sincerity ................................................................................................. 58
2.4.2 Austerity ................................................................................................. 59
2.4.3 Courage and Generosity ......................................................................... 60
2.4.4 Magnanimity .......................................................................................... 61
2.4.5 Mercifulness ........................................................................................... 63
2.5 Debates .......................................................................................................... 64
2.5.1 The Theological Development across History ....................................... 65
II
2.5.2 Themes of Debate .................................................................................. 68
2.6 Trials and Tribulations .................................................................................. 75
2.6.1 The Epistle to Hamah............................................................................. 75
2.6.2 Encounter with A madiyyah .................................................................. 76
2.6.3 Al-Aq dah Al-W si iyyah ...................................................................... 76
2.6.4 The Anthropomorphism Charge ............................................................ 77
2.6.5 The Issue of Istigh thah......................................................................... 77
2.6.6 The Issue of Divorce .............................................................................. 79
2.6.7 Visiting the Graves ................................................................................ 80
2.7 Death ............................................................................................................. 81
2.8 Books ............................................................................................................. 82
3 CHRIST IN THE WRITINGS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH .................................... 101
3.1 όγο (Logos) .............................................................................................. 101
3.2 The Trinity................................................................................................... 104
3.2.1 Definition and Difference .................................................................... 104
3.2.2 Meaning of the Hypostases .................................................................. 105
3.2.3 The Biblical Evidences ........................................................................ 107
3.2.4 Trinity: A Concoction .......................................................................... 110
3.3 The Principle of Incarnation ........................................................................ 113
3.4 Christian Rationalization of the Mixing ...................................................... 114
3.5 The Christian Illustration ............................................................................ 115
III
3.6 Transfiguration: A Corollary ....................................................................... 121
3.7 Incarnation: An Insult to God...................................................................... 122
3.8 Essence vs. Accident ................................................................................... 124
3.9 Misinterpretation of the Scriptures .............................................................. 126
3.10 Anthropomorphic Texts .............................................................................. 128
3.11 The Ascension and God’s Indivisibility ...................................................... 129
3.12 The Christian Convert Argues..................................................................... 131
3.13 The Crucifixion for Atonement ................................................................... 133
3.14 Temporal Considerations ............................................................................ 137
3.15 Parallels in Muslim Theology ..................................................................... 138
3.16 Divinity of Christ ........................................................................................ 140
3.16.1 Godhead vs. Messengership................................................................. 142
3.16.2 Biblical Evidences ............................................................................... 143
3.16.3 The Story of the Devil.......................................................................... 150
3.16.4 Subordinationism ................................................................................. 151
3.16.5 Prophecies about the Divinity of Christ ............................................... 153
4 . ALTERATION IN THE DIVINE MESSAGE ................................................ 165
4.1 Innovation in religion .................................................................................. 165
4.1.1 Changing the Monotheism ................................................................... 166
4.1.2 Disgracing the Prophets ....................................................................... 169
4.1.3 Playing with the Divine Ordinances .................................................... 171
IV
4.1.4 Monasticism ......................................................................................... 174
4.1.5 The Crucifixion .................................................................................... 175
4.2 Alterations in the Scripture ......................................................................... 176
4.2.1 Transmission of the Bible .................................................................... 176
4.2.2 Interpretation of the Bible .................................................................... 180
4.2.3 Criteria for Authenticity ....................................................................... 184
4.2.4 Interpreting of Quran by Christians ..................................................... 185
4.2.5 Christianity vs. Disbelief ..................................................................... 192
5 . CHRISTIANS AND THE UNIVERSALITY OF ISLAM .............................. 201
5.1 Unity of Religion ......................................................................................... 201
5.2 Proofs of Muhammad’s Prophethood ......................................................... 206
5.2.1 The Biblical Evidences ........................................................................ 206
5.2.2 The Quranic Evidences ........................................................................ 215
5.2.3 The Miracles ........................................................................................ 220
5.2.4 Personality of the Prophet .................................................................... 223
5.2.5 Merits of His Community .................................................................... 225
5.2.6 The Precursory Events ......................................................................... 227
5.3 Universality of the Message ........................................................................ 228
5.3.1 Methods of the Christians More Applicable To the Prophet Muhammad

229
5.3.2 The Quran in Arabic ............................................................................ 230
V
5.3.3 The Alleged Infallibility of the Apostles of Christ .............................. 231
5.4 Islam: the Uncalled-For ............................................................................... 232
5.5 Criteria for Authentic Prophethood ............................................................. 233
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 245
Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 257
VI
Introduction
Introduction
1
2
Introduction
Historical, political and religious factors occasioned to a vast interfaith polemical

literature between Muslims and Christians. Along history, there had been many such
polemical responses, in which the respective writers exerted to rebut the opponents’
doctrines and prove their own. The crusaders and their political existence in the holy
land and elsewhere, and their collusion with the Tatars against the Muslims at some
epochs of history induced many antipathetic reactions that ranged from military to
academic. Besides, the Islamic duty of defending and propagating Islam imposed and
provoked the responses of many Muslim scholars. Among the very prominent
responses is that which Ibn Taymiyyah, who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth
century, launched. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote prolifically almost about every subject of
religious import. Regarding refuting Christianity, apart from the small tracts and
chapters in different books, he wrote a voluminous book challenging their assertions
against Islam and disproving Christian allegations and doctrines.
Significance of the Study
This is an attempt to carry out a critical study of Ibn Taymiyyah’s response to

Christianity. This response was triggered by a letter Ibn Taymiyyah received from
Paul of Antioch, the bishop of Sidon See. Ibn Taymiyyah who was always keen to
counter attack any innovation in religion from within the Muslim community could
not have condoned this daring transgression in which the necessity of Islam as the
only valid means for salvation is challenged. He, therefore, ventured to write a long,
cogent response where (as usual) he utilized his unmatchable polemical power to keep
the Muslim’s theology in its pristine shape.
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions at the introducing pages the main points that were claimed
by the Christian bishop in the letter. They can be reiterated thus:
 That Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was not sent to
the Christians. Rather, he was sent exclusively to the pagan Arabs and the
Quran testifies to this.
 Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) spoke highly about
their religion in the Quran.
3
 The Torah, the Gospels, the Psalms, etc., support their faith in the hypostases,
the Trinity, the incarnation and the like. Therefore, they should uphold fast to
them since no proof to the contrary is found.
 Sound reason substantiates their religion and creeds.
 They are monotheists and that anything in Christianity that suggests
anthropomorphism is like the anthropomorphic texts available in Islam.
 What Christ had brought was perfect leaving no place for any later
modification or addition.
These points stirred up Ibn Taymiyyah and motivated him to make his efforts and
write such a long defense. However, as Islam and the Muslims rather than the
Christians are his main concern, the response seems to be addressed to the Muslims to
demonstrate that the Christians lost the way to paradise through their innovation and
alteration in their religion. He attempts to demonstrate to the Muslims and Christians
that the remaining evidence in the Christians’ scripture is enough to guide them to the
ultimate truth that Islam represents.
The writings of different scholars from different cultural backgrounds varied

regarding the disposition of Ibn Taymiyyah and his approach in dealing with the alien
ideologies and religions. Some portray him as allowing for religious pluralism where
they claim that he had no problem with those believing in the original teachings of
their religions although they do not believe in the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) and his message. Others depict him with a negatively
intolerant and intolerable dogmatic particularism. Others yet demonstrate him to be a
man with a strange unpredictable nature (or having a screw loose) probably irritated
by the slightest difference or resistance. The reason behind all these differences is
perhaps incomprehensive study of the man or of Islam itself. Such incomplete
investigations and impulsive and biased judgments led to this fluctuation.
The Christians had been the avowed enemies of Islam. Ibn Taymiyyah cannot forget
the crusades and their devastative action in the Muslim lands nor can he forget their
alliances with the Tartars against the Muslims. In his response to the Christians is a
4
great chance to know his approach to them and decide where he stands between the
alleged particularism and compromise, taking into consideration the Christian Muslim
interactions. His response would naturally reveal whether he was biased against the
Christians on the bases of the historical animosities and encroachments, or he was of
the view that they were wrong only because they did not follow the original teachings
of their religions.
Literature Review
Apart from the papers and books authored on Ibn Taymiyyah’s response to Christians
each dealing with the matter from different aspects, the PhD thesis written by Maryam
Z mil entitled Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah Min Al-Nasr niyah (Ibn Taymiyyah’s Attitude
Towards Christianity) is the most voluminous work dedicated to this area. The thesis
by Mariam Z mil dealt with the response to Christianity in which she herself tried to
respond to them. The thesis’ lengthy discussions seemed primarily directed to how to
refute Christianity and prove it wrong, albeit Ibn Taymiyyah’s answer was also
investigated only to detect his attitude towards Christianity.
Gona Grigoryan’s dissertation entitled Anti-Christian Polemics of Ibn Taymiyyah:

Corruption of Scriptures is another work on the topic. However, as the title suggests,
the work is only concerned about the corruption of scriptures. In the words of the
writer, “this thesis has sought to explain the role of the prophetic knowledge in the
theological outlook of Ibn Taymiyyah through examining the concept of
ta r f,[distortion of text].”1 Therefore, the discussion centered on how the Christians
garbled the text of their scripture.
Ismail Abdullah wrote a paper entitled Taw d and Trinity: A Study of Ibn
Taymiyyah’s al-Jaw b al a . As the title suggests and in the words of the author,
“The purpose of this paper is to analyze the methodology and approach adopted by
Ibn Taymiyyah in refuting the Trinitarian concept elucidated and defended by Church
fathers”.2 However, his conclusion was partial. He did not touch all the principles
underlying Ibn Taymiyyah’s approach. He was content to mention that Ibn
Taymiyyah asserted both revelation and reason in the quest for religious truth.
5
Aims of the Study
However, this study is not concerned with how to respond to Christianity as much as
it is concerned with discovering Ibn Taymiyyah’s approach in responding to them.
The study seeks to fulfill the following aims:
 To identify the approach he adopts in his responses to the Christians. What are
the epistemological and metaphysical foundations that he bases his responses
on? What kind of evidences and explanations he adduces to convince his
adversaries?
 Allegedly, Ibn Taymiyyah is believed by many to be rigid and intolerant
towards the opponents and to the popular faith. This study will unravel the real
situation and expose much of the personal features of Ibn Taymiyyah.
 The Muslims are still holding dialogue with the Christians and this study will
help in boosting this move through providing cogent argumentations that the
two faiths will have to accept.
The Overall Framework of the Thesis
For the fulfillment of these aims, the presentation had to follow a logical sequence.
Therefore, as the reader needs to know the background of the dialogue of Ibn
Taymiyyah with the Christians, the thesis starts chapter one with dealing with the
times of Ibn Taymiyyah. In this chapter, the political, the social and the intellectual
conditions of the Muslim world are described in details. Here, the military and
political activism is delineated along with The Muslims’ endeavor for survival in the
midst of the collective attack from the Christians and the Tartars. Then the social
fabric in the Mamlūk time is discussed and how it governs the relationship between
the various social strata. Moreover, the intellectual progress and recession are
discussed to unravel the general atmosphere in which Ibn Taymiyyah had to face
many hardships that are dictated by the mentality of the time. This, moreover, depicts
much of the scientific character of Ibn Taymiyyah, and how he deals with critical
situations, based on his knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah.
6
The second chapter deals with the life of Ibn Taymiyyah: his education, character,
debates, trials, death and legacy. This helps in discovering the personality of Ibn
Taymiyyah, his religiosity and his academics credentials testified by the
contemporary historians. It also reveals the motives of the attacks of his opponents.
His debates with the various Muslim groups and sects sheds light on a great portion of
his polemics which are not much different from his polemical interactions with the
proponents of other religions.
The third chapter deals with his response proper. It is devoted to how Ibn Taymiyyah
sees Christ and how he refutes the Christians’ allegations regarding him. The
Christians consider him as God and son of God. The chapter discusses the topic from
the philosophical, scriptural and rational points of view, and delivers much on the way
Ibn Taymiyyah always undermines the pleas of his opponents.
The fourth chapter deals with the alteration of the message of Christ as seen by Ibn
Taymiyyah. It discusses Ibn Taymiyyah’s views regarding the authenticity of the
Christian tradition and how the Christians transmitted their traditions and thereby
influenced their dogma. He demonstrates how the Christians tampered with the
original text and invented new theology alien to the guidance of prophets. The result
was a departure from the divine message to synthetic concepts traceable nowhere in
the scripture. The major crime committed was the patent contradiction to the oneness
of God, which is the crux of all divine guidance to humanity.
The fifth chapter examines the concept of prophethood. The Christians claimed that
Christianity is a complete was of life capable of availing its followers salvation even
if they do not follow the last messenger. Rather, it is superior and more
comprehensive than Islam. Moreover, they claimed that Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) was sent only to the Arabs. To have a round up
response, Ibn Taymiyyah discusses the proofs of the prophethood of Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the universality of his message, and the
criteria of authentic prophethood. This chapter is an investigation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s
approach of disproving the Christians’ allegations regarding prophethood.
7
Methodology
To render the study authentic the researcher examines the author’s own writings in
Arabic, especially his book Al-Jaw b aL- a Liman Baddala D n al-Mas ,
which forms the backbone of this work. In a like manner, most of the books
consulted are those belonging to the historical epoch under question or the
author’s own writings. The historical accounts laid down by the contemporaries of
Ibn Taymiyyah were given precedence, as they are the most authentic references
regarding this epoch of history. Moreover, regarding the data on Christianity, the
Bible and the writings of the early Christian writers were consulted, although the
writings of contemporary Christian writers also formed part of the consulted
references.
As Ibn Taymiyyah’s method is characterized by discursive and repetitive

argumentation, the reader finds it difficult to find out the response of the same
thing together. The researcher attempts to juxtapose the answers so as to make it
easy for the reader with this thematic organization to locate answers of the same
problem together. Moreover, the researcher carries out an analytical and critical
study wherein the views of Ibn Taymiyyah on christinaity are crosschecked and
compared with the writings of the Christians along history, to ensure his full
understanding of Christianity, on the one hand, and to check how well he adheres
to his priniclpes, on the other. At the conclusion section, moreover, the various
findings are grouped together to find out the various implications that can be
detected from the study.
1
Gona Grigoryan, Anti-Christian Polemics of Ibn Taymiyyah: Corruption Of Scripture, (unpublished)
MA thesis, European Central University, Budapest, 2011, p. 63
2
Ismail Abdullah, “Taw d and Trinity: A Study of Ibn Taymiyyah’s al-Jaw b al a ”, Intellectual
Intercourse, Vol. 14, 2006, P. 90
8
Chapter One: The Age of Ibn Taymiyyah
CHAPTER ONE
The Age
Of
Ibn Taymiyyah
9
10
1. THE AGE OF IBN TAYMIYYAH
Since Ibn Taymiyyah is the main theme in this study, it is pertinent to have a cursory look
into the political, socio-religious and intellectual background. In the following sections,
he will be silhouetted against this background.
1.1 The Political Situation
Ibn Taymiyyah was born in a very critical situation not for the Muslim prosperity in
different aspects of life but it was like that for Islam itself. After the sublime expansion of
the Muslim rule in the east and west, the whole situation turns to mark the end of Islam as
a civilisation not only as a state. The caliph who was considered the highest authority lost
his hold on things and the whole state of affairs was controlled by his entourage. He
himself was engrossedly busy in pursuing his personal needs and corporeal desires.
There were many Muslim states in different parts of the Muslim world. The Khwarism
kingdom was in the east, extending from the Transoxiana to the Persia. This was led by
powerful leaders, and formed a formidable power bordering the Mongol Empire. Yemen
and Hijaz1 had their independent rulers, each time changing, due to the absence of
stability. Egypt and Sham were under the Ayyūbids and then the Mamlūks . Islam in the
west (Andalusia) was already contracting, and the Muslim-Muslim conflicts undermined
their power and thereby their respect and awe in the hearts of the Christians. The Seljūks
had their own rule to the north of Sham. Moreover, the relationship between these
Muslim statelets was characterised by hostilities and incessant mutual encroachments.
The Christians were prowling in the west waiting their chance to jump and attack the
Muslims, who were already fatigued through disintegration and fragmentation. Realising
the situation of the Muslims, they coveted their lands and wealth. They made many
extremely genocidal campaigns, indiscriminately atrocious pillages2, which extirpated
more than seventy thousand people in Jerusalem alone,3 with religious people at the top
of their priorities. They did not spare children and women. Within Solomon's Temple
“about ten thousand were beheaded. If you had been there, your feet would have been
stained up to the ankles with the blood of the slain. What more shall I tell? Not one of
them was allowed to live. They did not spare the women and children.”4 This fact was
11
affirmed by the Christians themselves who witnessed the incident.5 Unlike the Muslims
who used to take the women as slaves and wives, they, in the words of the Christian
historians, as they did in Antioch, “pierced their bellies with their lances”.6 By the time
of Ibn Taymiyyah, the seventh campaign (Crusade) transpired.
1.1.1 The Origin of the Mamlūks
Ibn Taymiyyah lived during the Mamlūk rule. Therefore, it is pertinent here to talk about
the origin of these rulers. Literally, the word ‘mamlūk’ in Arabic means ‘slave’. The
Mamlūk sultans were originally slaves. People in political authority7 used to buy young
slaves from the traders of the time and entrust them to the care of the formal centers
assigned for the education and training of these children.8 On their arrival at these camps
they are medically vetted and then allotted in the various places to be militarily trained
and exposed to intensive courses in Arabic, Islamic education, etc. Al-Maqr z 9 (d. 845
AH) reported that these slaves were first taught the Quran by an appointed faq h (jurist)
who would come and teach them the Quran, the Islamic moral manners and writing. They
were also disciplined to regularly observe prayers and remembrance. When a slave
reaches the prepubescent age, he would be taught elementary fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).
These Mamlūks were of diverse origins: Turks, Mongols, Tatars, Slavs, Spanish and
some other white slaves. However, at the time of the Bahri Mamlūks10 they were
preponderantly from the Qafjak and Caucasus, whereas during the Jerkis Mamlūks they
were mostly from the Jerks.11
1.1.2 Rise of the Mamlūks
The Ayyūbids exhausted themselves and depleted their resources in internal strives and
jealous political rivalry, leaving unmanned frontiers susceptible to the enemies’ attack to
terminate the already languishing power of the Muslims once they wished. The Frankish
invaders had installed Christian rule inside of the Muslim lands. They established
emirates inside the Muslim lands. In the midst of intoxicating animosities, the Muslim
rival rulers even sought the support of the Franks against one another, and at times some
of them gravitated this alliance through promising to concede Muslim lands, including
Jerusalem, which Sal udd n had taken great pains to regain. Since the restoration of
12
Jerusalem in 1245 CE, Innocent IV and Louis IX had been preparing for attacking Egypt
and the Muslim lands. The aim of the mission was twofold: to retake Jerusalem and to
establish a Mongol-Christian alliance against the Muslims and surmount them from
different directions. This would lead to spreading Catholicism on the one hand and gain
dominance over the resources of the Muslims and over the trade routes on the other.
The Muslims had bitter experience with the atrocious invasion of the Christians. When
they were mobilised first by the pope, they launched the campaign and faced eastward
with the determination to extirpate the Muslims and crush their existence. The town
Ma‘arrah was among the first to fall in their uncouth hands in 1098. They killed men,
children and women indiscriminately. They mutilated and committed the most intolerable
massacres, history has ever known. At the intoxication of victory or hunger, they turned
into cannibals. They ate half roasted corpses. This has been mentioned by their historian
eyewitnesses.12 They devoured the flesh of the Muslim men, and children were grilled
and eaten. This merciless ferocity was perpetrated in many of the cities that were
predestined to fall under their cavalier and inhuman march. They used to repeat slogans
purporting their mission, namely to exterminate the Muslims. The Jews and Christians
were not spared this indiscriminate pillage.13 Moreover, they burned the Jews in the lands
they conquered.14
The Mongol and Christians exchanged embassies and wanted to inflict a collective attack
against the common enemy, the Muslims, and occupy their land. However, this did not
come off, for the Mongols wanted to rule over Europe and therefore sent to the Papacy to
recognise their sovereignty and declare Europe’s subordination and vow obedience to the
Khan. Although this alliance failed, this did not end the aspirations of the pope. He sent a
Dominican priest to the Mongol leader whom they met at Tabriz in 645/1247. Now the
Mongol leader showed approval and renewed hope in the pope’s heart. He sent in turn
two of his men with the mission. This orchestration solidified the stance of Louis IX in
the seventh crusade. While still in Cyprus, Louis IX received two Nestorian men
despatched by the Khan, to prove his support. Again, Dominican men headed by
Longjumean carried a mobile church as a present along with some other things to Europe.
Successive mutual embassies culminated in strengthening the relationship between the
13
superpowers manifested in the exemption of taxes levied on Christians in the Mongol

territories. Moreover, the visitation of a high level mission headed by Hithium conduced
to the collective attack against the Caliphate. The Nestorians played great role in this
concord; therefore they held high positions in the service of the Khan. The others were
Armenians and Georgians. Therefore, the entourage of Halagu as well as his own wife
were Christians and played a great role in his attack against the Muslims.15
This called for instant attempts of a strong ruler to reunite the Muslims under one banner.
Najmudd n Ayyūb rose to carry out this mission. However, as he needed a strong and
loyal army under his disposal, he resorted to buying and rearing young slaves in the
manner mentioned above. He gradually tried to fight for unity and through these slaves
he gathered strength.16
1.1.3 Al-Manṣūrah Battle and the Mamlūks
The Frankish invaders reached Dimy (Damietta). There they committed the most
heinous crimes to the natives.17 They killed, raped and plundered the city. They had no
human senses whatsoever. Although the city fell immediately, the Muslims could transfer
the battle to al-Man ūrah, wherein they smote the invaders a deadly blow in 647/1249.
The volunteers from various parts of the Muslim world came to the rescue of the Muslim
lands and were led by the Mamlūks such as Baybars, Farisudd n Aq ai and Ezzudd n
Aybak and many of the Mamlūks who epitomized the most skilled and bravest warriors.
They were able to handle the whole affair aptly. Amidst these tumults Najmudd n18 died,
thus vacating the scene for the Mamlūks to emerge as the most expert leaders who were
able to overtake and carry out the national responsibilities the Ayyūbid rulers shirked.
This battle and the restive situation in general acted as the labour for the birth of the
Mamlūk rule. The nearest to the throne at this juncture was the wife of Najmudd n, who
was a slave maid probably of Armenian origin. At the political stage, this woman,
Shajaratuddur managed the state affairs, and in the battlefield Baybars played the role of
the commander-in-chief. His logistic manoeuvres, military tactics and superb expertise
outwit the plans of the Count leader (Louis’ brother), who himself fell prey to his vanity
and was killed. The news of the demise of the last Ayyūbid leader was intentionally
concealed.
14
At this juncture, Shajaratuddur19 was faced with a chorus of protests. Although she
demonstrated a great dexterity in tackling the responsibilities of the state, being a woman,
she failed to gain the consent of the people. Therefore, she sent for Toran Shah, the son of
Najmudd n. When he arrived he introduced efficient innovations into the plan. The battle
culminated into the seizure of Louis IX, the leader of the campaign, who was
subsequently ransomed. As a result of this triumph of the Muslim forces, much wealth
accumulated as loot.
After this victory, Tor n Shah turned on the major contributors of the victory. He started
threatening the princess and portrayed bitter dislike for the Mamlūk leaders, who came to
know that he was harbouring intentions threatening their lives. By this he signed his death
warrant, as they concurred to get rid of him, which they did no later. This incident hit the
final nail in the coffin of the Ayyūbids, who had no longer any pretext for remaining on
the throne. Nothing would now preclude the Mamlūks’ progress to power. They
considered themselves as the inheritors of their masters. No question of appointing any
Egyptian. The Egyptians had no claim to rule as the Mamlūks proved to be the real
defenders of the lands. However, they opposed the rule of Shajaratuddur, making the
Mamlūks appoint Ezzudd n Aybak sultan 20. He and shajaruddur were killed for political
reasons, and power rolled down to Qu uz.
1.1.4 The Mongol Threat
By this time, the Mongols had established the largest ever awe-inspiring empire,
extending from China in the east to Hungary and Prussia in the west, under the leadership
of Genkis Khan (550/1155-625/1227). They devastated the Khwarizmi kingdom, “which
at the height of its power stretched from the Ural mountains to the Persian Gulf and from
the Euphrates to the Indus including two Iranian provinces of Khuzestan and Pars,”21 in
no time. In Bukhara, Samarqand and all cities, they pillaged, plundered and spared no one
on their way. When people appealed for peace, the Tatars ostensibly granted them peace,
and drove them to help them fight those who took refuge in the well-fortified castle,
making them fight their fellows. Once their job was over, the Tatars reneged and killed all
and sundry people and demolished the city.22 This betrayal was repeated in many of their
raids.
15
Although the Khwarizmi kingdom was part of the Muslim world, none of their
neighbours came to their succour. With this might and atrocity, the Mongols scared
people and rulers, to the extent that they forced the rulers to betray each other. The whole
setting was in favour of the Mongol attack.23 Moreover, the internal treachery of the
vizier Ibn al-‘Alqam , (who sacked many soldiers in the Muslim army as redundant and
weakened it), and some others, in the caliph’s court, facilitated Mongols’ attack of
Baghdad in 656/ 1258, wherein they did no less than what they had done in Samarqand
and the other cities.
In the year 657/1259, news reached Damascus portending the Mongol attack. Being
imbued with fear, the king of Damascus and Mosul, who had been part of the Ayyūbid
polity, tried to win the pleasure of Mongols by sending gifts as a sign of recognition.
Although Qu uz was not the ruler, he discussed the issue with the elders and decided to
fight back the Mongol invaders. He threw away the minor ruler of the time and proceeded
to the throne, with complete determination to liberate the Muslims from this catastrophic
attack. The Mongol barbaric assault on the eastern lands had not been obliterated from
living memory.
When the Mongols entered Damascus, the Muslim masses felt miserable, whereas the
Christians rejoiced at it and translated their joy into humiliating acts against the Muslims
in the city. For example, they threw wine at the faces of people and at the doorsteps of
mosques. They carried the Cross and used to chant words, abusing Islam. They also
commanded people to pay homage to the Cross as they passed by them. This hurt the
Muslims tremendously.24
Then he started rearranging things in Egypt, and preparing for the encounter with the
most invincible force of the time, and at the same time he could convince the Ayyubid
leader in Damascus to break away from the Mongols.25However, the latter succumbed to
fear and fled leaving the city bare for the Mongols. The head of the Mongols
(Katabghanūn) was a Nestorian Christian, who sent to the fleeing ruler and arrested him.
16
1.1.5 ‘Ayn Jālūt the Decisive Battle
In Ramadan, 26 (658/1260), the Muslim and the Mongol armies met at Gaza, (‘Ayn
Jalūt). Qu uz sent Baybars with a small expedition to delude the Mongol army and draw
the whole focus of the army to them. While engrossed in the combat, the true Muslim
army came under the leadership of Qu uz, to resolve the issue to their favour. Thus the
Muslims won the battle, demolishing the psychological defeatism that abode in the
Muslim hearts for a long time along with fragmentation and the factional jealousy of the
Ayyūbids. This also warranted further import of slaves.
The Mamlūks now appeared as the mightiest force eligible to defend the Muslim world.
After slight sojourn at Gaza, Qu uz decided to embark for Egypt. He thought he had
consolidated his rule with this great achievement. People were impatiently waiting for his
arrival at Egypt. However fate pre-emptively stirred the feuds of Baybars, who brought
his life to end, to be his ‘rightful’ successor.
Despite the unprecedented success, the Mamlūks were still suffering the legitimacy
drawback. They were basically slaves, and slavery is antithetic to sovereignty. To get out
of this dilemma, Baybars appointed an Abbasid decent caliph, to virtually continue the
chain, and win the legitimacy through this façade.
1.1.6 The Preparation against the Crusade Emirates
This time the focus of the Mamlūks was directed to the crusader emirates, as the ‘Ayn
Galūt incurred a deadly blow to the Mongols enough to deter their aggression for some
time. In order to attack the Christian emirates, Baybars tried to ally with the neighbouring
forces lest they should come to the aid of the crusader emirates if he launched raids
against them. He signed many friendship and alliance treaties with the western countries
such as Roman Empire, Sicily and Napoli. He built good relations with Alfonzo X, the
king of Spain and even asked the hand of his daughter. He did the same with the leaders
of the eastern countries such as Berk Khan, the leader of the Golden Horde, who was the
first to embrace Islam and whose kingdom extended from the Black Sea to Turkistan in
the east. More interestingly, Baybars used to make alliances with some of the crusaders to
attack the others.
17
He also installed a communication System (al-bar d) which acted as his intelligence and
correspondence network. From Damascus to Cairo news could be communicated in three
days. He, furthermore, built the marine navy for the protection of the country in times of
peace and war. He also bought more slaves of his nationality to reinforce his power. All
these were precursory indications for the imminent attack against the Franks, who at
times helped the Mongols and even provided shelter for them in their citadels. These
Christian strongholds were more dangerous than the Mongols who soon melted in the
Islamic civilisation and contributed to its enhancement. Unlike the Christians, the
Mongols brought with them their pagan intellectual heritage which had no market in the
new land. The Christians were grasping strategic areas on the sea inside the Muslim
lands. They had three emirates: the Emirate of Antioch, the Emirate of Tripoli (Lebanon)
and the Emirate of Jerusalem. Baybars made many assaults against the Christian emirates,
and contributed too much in regaining the lands they captured.
1.1.7 Precautionary Measures against Contingent Mongol Attacks
Just in the same manner Baybars fortified the Muslim lands through a network of
alliances including that with the Mongol leader, Berk Khan. Moreover, he conquered
Asia Minor from the hands of the Seljuks.
This conquest marked the highest point in the achievements of the Mamlūk ruler, who
spent seventeen years fighting for the cause of Islam and the Muslims. People loved him
too much and were very much delighted at the great glory he has retrieved for the Muslim
world. He never relaxed throughout this period. Therefore, his tenure was characterised
with stability as well as superb victories over internal and external forces, unlike the ten
years before him which were characterised by tumults and turpitudes. After a life busy
with reconquering robbed Muslim lands, Baybars died in 676/1277.26
After the two minor sons of Baybars were successively thrown away, Al-Man ūr
Qalawūn became king in 678/1279. Some opposition arose, and the Mongols wanted to
exploit it but he could soon overcome it. However, In 680, they attacked Mongol-ruled
Hums in large multitudes. After too much bloodshed from the two sides, the Muslims
triumphed. Although some of the Mongol rulers converted to Islam, their relations with
18
the Mamlūks kept fluctuating. In the year 699 AH, there came news of an imminent
Mongol invasion, which stirred the situation and scared the society. Fare prices hiked as a
result of the migration wave. In this invasion Muslims were defeated. This paved the way
for the Mongols to progress to Damascus. This threat called for a collective opinion of the
Damascene dignitaries and scholars, who agreed to seek peace for people from the
Mongol leader, Q z n, which he granted.27
Some were of the opinion that the citadel should surrender too for the safety of the
people. Here Ibn Taymiyyah opposed this opinion, and urged the security board not to
concede it whatsoever. Then the Mongols attacked the city, killed people, took women
and children as prisoners, and stole valuable books. The places where the Christians lived
helped the Mongols in their attack. The whole city became in their grasp except for the
citadel. Although, a farman was read out for the people, the Mongols continued their
violent actions in the region, killing and vandalising. They installed ballistae to attack the
citadel, which did not surrender. In order to surround it from all directions they set fire to
the surrounding buildings. People seldom went out of their houses in fear of being forced
to fill up the trench around the citadel. Mosques were almost neglected. Those who were
forced at times to come out for anything they needed, used to wear the Mongol attire for
camouflage. Whoever appeared out he was not certain to come back to his family. Then
Q z n left Sh m and appointed some of his men and an army to protect it pending his
return the coming autumn, as he said on his departure. 28 However, they left the city, on
hearing of the arrival of an Egyptian army, leaving the city with no guard. The citizens
were assigned to guard the walls and defend the city against any security threat. Ibn
Taymiyyah used to go round and recite verses of the Quran encouraging these guard men
and reminding them of the reward promised for them by Allah.
Moreover, in the year 700/1301, news reached Damascus of a new Mongol raid. This
infused fear and disturbance in the entire city. They took flight to different parts such as
Egypt, and the other Sh mi cities. Great scholars were not an exception. This deportation
caused the transportation to be at a premium, and therefore fares hiked. Due to this
migration people started selling their clothes and luggage at entirely low prices. Ibn
Taymiyyah did his best to drive people into jih d. He urged them to defend their lands
19
with their souls and money. Moreover, he went to the soldiers in the citadel, encouraged
them and promised them reward from Allah and also assured them victory over their
enemies. He convinced them by saying that the money spent on travel would rather be on
this preparation for war. This is a rewardable act whereas fleeing would avail them
nothing.29
The Egyptian army returned to Egypt and Ibn Taymiyyah travelled to them and exhorted
them to maintain Allah’s ordinances in defending the subjects. In his eight day sojourn in
Egypt he also reached common people to help in the encounter. Thus he mobilised both
the armies of Sh m and that of Egypt. People took all necessary preparations for the war.
Common people formed a great portion of the war force. However, the Mongols fled to
Baghdad.
In 702/1303, the Mongol army reached Sh mi lands. The Muslim army confronted and
swept them away. However, a month later, they draw nearer leading the armies in Hums
and Hamah to leave their places and succumb to flight. As they draw near to Damascus,
people got totally terrified. Ibn Taymiyyah played a major role in assuring the people that
the Mongols would not cause them any harm. He kept encouraging people of the victory
over the Mongols. Both the political and the religious dignitaries swore allegiance to
defend the lands. Ibn Taymiyyah swore to them that this time they would defeat the
Mongols.30
Then people started doubting the legality of fighting the Mongols since they purported to
be Muslims. Ibn Taymiyyah stood for this claim and issued fatwas highlighting that the
Mongols violated the very basic principles of Islam, and therefore their claim to be
Muslims would not avail them anything. He said that they were like those who revolted
against Ali and Mu‘ wiyah, and thought they were more eligible for rule than them.
Likewise, these blamed the Muslims for their bad deeds, while they themselves
committed more heinous and blasphemous crimes. Besides, they launched offensive wars
against them and their duty now is to defend themselves.31
Then he went to the army of Hamah which fled from the enemy and told them of the
allegiance that was accomplished by the Muslim army, and made them also swear to do
20
the same. Ibn Taymiyyah as well as the rest of the scholars strengthened the morale of the
Muslim warriors, and participated actively in the war.
This battle took place in a place called Shuq ub in 702 AH.32 It was a momentous and
decisive one. All Muslims in Egypt and Sh m united this time, and if they were defeated
this time it was very likely that they would be gone for ever. By the grace of Allah, the
Muslims defeated the Mongols leading them to flee to different resorts. This brought the
Mamlūk-Mongol encounter to end.
1.1.8 The Mamlūk-Crusader Encounter
Despite the assiduous campaigns of Baybars, the crusaders were still there in Tripoli,
which was dominated by the Normans, and Acres, the capital of the Emirate of Jerusalem.
Moreover, Al-Marqab Fort was in the grasp of the Hospitlar Knights, and arsūs was
under the control of the Templar Knights. Under the raids of Qalawūn, these started to
crumble one after the other. By the time he died the crusaders were feeble to make any
revenge. Yet, the Muslims were afraid of possible European support. So they were very
keen to uproot their rule as soon as possible. Qalawūn died in 689/1290 before the
accomplishment of this mission. Yet he contributed a lot in diminishing their power.
Immediately after the demise of Qalawūn, his son al-Khal l took over in the same year.
He did not have to face any internal opposition. Circumstances were totally in his favour.
Therefore, he immediately took recourse to crushing the remaining crusader forces.
Supplies arrived to the crusaders from Europe but availed them nothing since the
Muslims now are the strongest in the region. Al- Khal l’s strenuous raids culminated in
the total termination of the crusader existence in the Muslim lands in the year 690/
1291.33
1.2 The Socio-Religious Situation
In the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah, the socio-religious conditions of those times are
densely discussed. He revolted and opposed many such practices on the ground that they
were anti-Islamic. In this section, an attempt is made to shed light on the way they lived
along with the religious reflections and implications.
21
1.2.1 Position of the Mamlūks
Sal udd n was the uniting force and therefore the de facto founder of the Ayyūbid polity
which encompassed Sh m and Egypt. Through this unity he could counter fight the
crusaders and restore Jerusalem to the fold of Islam. However, when he died, the Muslim
state was plagued with disunity and violent rivalry. In their race to power gore was the
normal political scene. The contending parties sought legal and illegal means to overcome
the opponents. Some even orchestrated with the crusaders to help them against their foes,
and the price was the Muslim lands including Jerusalem. To overweigh the other forces,
they individually managed to buy, train and recruit slaves in the military system. The
pressing need for support accelerated this trade and consequently the number of the slaves
multiplied.
Najmudd n Ayyūb was predominantly responsible for this boom in slave trade, or more
correctly for the political empowerment of these slaves. At a particular time, he lost all
supporters and thereby his dominion. Only his slaves stood by him in this juncture. He
tried to avail himself of the largest number of slaves he could afford, especially after he
used the Khwarizmi mercenaries and they forsook him. This placed the Mam l k
(Mamlūks, the title given for the slaves) a central position in the political realm. As he
located their lodge near the sea, he called them Bahri Mamlūks.34 When he died, his wife,
Shajaratuddur, who was of Turkic stock, concealed his death from the people, due to their
combat with the crusaders, and managed the political affairs successfully. Being a female,
she was faced with an unwelcome public reaction. This warranted the invitation and
appointment of his son, Tor n Shah. Due to mutual hatred, he had to face death through
wounds, drowning and burning. Since then the Mamlūks had monopoly on politics for
centuries.
As far as the Ayyūbids are concerned, they basically established themselves as the real
defenders of Islam. Now as they had proven themselves to shirk the task, they had no
justification to remain at the top of the Muslim political hierarchy. Rather, their very
existence became undesirable. Now the role is vacant for him who could prove himself
really qualified for it, a position the Mamlūks won through their serious and assiduous
planning, logistics and mobilisation. The Mamlūks could aptly unite the Muslim forces
22
in Egypt and Sh m and other parts as well and demolished the crusader existence and
Mongol danger. This position of the Mamlūks was strengthened by their first fabulous
victory over the Mongol army, and destroyed the hype that the Mongols were an
invincible power. The ensuing result was that the master-slave equation was reversed and
the slaves became leaders.
These slaves grew within the protective care of their respective masters. Once they are
bought, they were immediately allotted in special centres or camps, wherein they were
provided boarding, accommodation and training and regular salaries, in total isolation
from the subjects. Each sultan or am r had his own slaves, who were exclusively under
his tutelage. Besides, he provided them with teachers who were responsible for their
Islamic and Arabic education, apart from the military training for which they were
primarily procured. The master would come and check their diets, accommodation, etc.,
regularly. Stringent accountability was carried out if things were discerned to go wrong
in this connection. Those under one sultan or am r exchanged a sense of fellow-feeling
which characterised them as a distinct community attributed to their master. Such an
affinity had its bearing on the subsequent decisive stances towards various political
participants and trends.
Once a slave finished this course, he was promoted to the rank of knight and granted a
fief, which is exchangeable and lucrative in nature. As he rose along the military
hierarchy, he was given a different but larger fief. This changing infeudation rendered
inheritance an unthought-of notion.35 Gradually the slaves replaced their masters.
The Mamlūk sultans followed this feudal system and bought many slaves for the same
purpose and established the same feudatory relations with their slaves.
In this section it is pertinent to look into the social fabric of the Mamlūk populace, where
the Mamlūks slaves/leaders and the Egyptians were located and the position of the
scholars of Islam in this assortment.
23
1.2.2 The Feudal System
This system gave the Mamlūks, who almost exclusively formed the bulk of the Muslim
army, many privileges, most important of which the fiefs which were of daunting values.
Despite of the decrees of re-infeudation adopted by them, the sultan and his men had the
lion’s share of the total acreage of land. The Egyptians had only to cultivate it and
transfer the produce to the rulers. Thus it was a class-based society. In the following
sections an attempt is made to draw an exact image of the classes and interrelations
underpinning their co-existence.
1.2.3 The Sultans
The head of state at the time of any independent polity was called sultan. The title ‘king’
was applied to anyone in power whether at the highest level above all governors or even
the governors themselves. Hence, the head of state had the right to combine the two titles.
He, moreover, could have as many as eight hundred slaves. In a lesser manner the rulers
under him could have their own. Therefore, everyone had a veritably small army under
him, which he prepared for any encounter wherein the swords would have the final say.
To guarantee their loyalty, some Mamlūk rulers used to have his meals with them, and
would be angry if any of them avoided this gathering. It was a feudatory relationship. The
Mamlūks were well qualified and they knew the purpose of their existence in this strange
land and were willing to come to their master’s aid whenever he summoned them. The
slaves belonging to one ruler used to develop a strong relation through being classmates.
This relation was essential for the defence of the master and his rights even after his
death. At times of the transfer of power wherein contention was heated between the sons
of the deceased sultan and the other Mamlūk rulers, his slaves would fight in favour of
the children even if they were minors. Yet, the nature of the Mamlūk rule did not allow
inheritance.
The slaves of the sultan were situated inside Cairo. Besides having a great number of
Mamlūk soldiers, their number increased when he combined the soldiers of his
predecessors. However, the relationship with them was not like that with his own men.
For his slaves who were nurtured under his surveillance and aegis, he gave much
24
preference. Furthermore, some sultans had little contact with their families. They
preferred to eat with their slaves. They were not particular about the education or
qualification of their free children, who were known as awladunn s.
1.2.4 The Sultanic Mamlūks
These were slaves bought through agent traders who were very eager to win the prizes of
the sultan. Wars in the adjacent lands and at times good relations with the kingdoms
which happened to be en route to the Mamlūk lands facilitated the process. When such
slaves arrived, special training institutions were allocated for them, wherein they secured
physical, military and religious training and education, with full boarding. Graduates from
these institutions were conferred ranks commensurate with their abilities. When a
Mamlūk reached the rank of Amir, the sultan would make a large ceremony and that
knight is offered a fief, proportional to his rank. All the subjects could do was to attend a
big procession in the streets of Cairo. The knight at this ceremony used to swear
allegiance to his master. This fief incrementally augmented as he secured higher ranks.
However, when land and its cultivation had little value, revenues of some government
sectors were periodically privatised for them. Muhammad bin Qalawūn tried to annul this
‘cash infeudation’. Initially this fief was in the same place, but later it was given in
different places. However, once he was promoted, he had to leave his previous fief, and
receive a different one. This precluded inheritance of fief. Therefore, the idea of transfer
kept revolving in the mind of the Mamlūk knight and deterred him from developing his
project. This was detrimental to the general economic situation. The slave soldiers of the
other rulers (amar ’) constituted the second class in the military, and were usually
situated outside Cairo. Accordingly, privileges differed from those under the sultan.
1.2.5 Awlādunnās
The third position in the Mamlūk hierarchy was that of awladunn s (the children of the
Mamlūk rulers). It also included the others who joined the field from the Egyptians,
Turkmen and others. Their payments were at stake at times at the late Mamlūk era.
Awladunn s were the children of the Mamlūks. They were free from any form of slavery.
Most of them had no interest in the military and political participation. They were less in
25
degree than the previous generation, who were basically slaves. However, some of them
participated and excelled in the intellectual domain, and contributed actively. 36 Some
joined sports and some frequented religious circles. They, moreover, lived luxuriously as
they were the sons of the rulers and therefore were enjoying the fiefs of their fathers.
These Mamlūks were isolated from the society, and despite the Arabic elements in the
syllabus they learned, some did not speak Arabic. Therefore, a foreign language pervaded
the court. They considered themselves strangers to the land as well as to the people. They
lived as a military minority concerned mainly for ruling the country. Moreover, they
considered themselves equal claimants to power. Whenever the post were left vacant due
to the demise of the sultan many claimed it. Ultimately the matter was left to the sword to
resolve. Ezzudd n Aybak, Qu uz , Shajaruddur, and others were murdered in the race to
the throne. Minors and their families were besieged and put under house arrest; and
although provided all needs, they were denied rule by force. Thus it was only power that
determined political matters.
The natural result was estrangement between the subjects and these Mamlūk rulers.
People had seen how power, privileges and wealth were distributed. This must have left a
bad impact on the minds of the subjects. All positions in the regime were the exclusive
right of these outsiders and the indigenous people were denied any participation. They
were not given the same chances of education and training. Yet they had no way to
change the situation. The sultan was the legitimate authority deputized by the virtual
caliph, who hardly played any role apart from legitimising the authority of the ruler. The
sultan had all military and legal powers. But as they were led by Muslims and the
scholars of Islam gave their legal and moral support, they did not revolt. As for the other
rights, the vicissitudes of time had taught them that stability was a great boon. The
Mamlūks rid the Muslim land of the true enemies and established relative peace. None
other than them could have played that role. Therefore, most probably, such things made
them content with, or at least less eager for the participation in the politics of the time.
Awladunn s lived a luxurious life rendering them ineligible for politics.
26
1.2.6 The Bureaucratic Class
These were offices occupied by learned people in the courtly, administrative, and
financial and judiciary institutions. These were preponderantly occupied by the religious
scholars as they formed the majority of the educated people. Therefore, they were
dubbed as the ‘turbaned’. This class played a major role in the consular system. The
sultans used to refer to them in matter of financial and judiciary import. They provided
the legal support for the sultans.
These religious scholars made far reaching contributions in their respective schools. They
were very influential in the society. Their circles were the general interest. They were
attended by the public. People used to attend debates between the different theological
tenets. Therefore, their being with the sultans gave the sultans momentum and people saw
in the Mamlūks the legitimate rulers who undertook to defend the Muslim lands. This
class used to get high salaries and the endowments were under their jurisdiction.
However, as it is human nature some of them used these positions to gain vested interests,
and compromised their integrity. This is the reason that made some to abstain from
offices, like Ibn Taymiyyah, who was even offered to be given an allowance as long as he
stayed in Cairo, but he refused. This class had their own attire and were therefore distinct
from the commoners.37 Although history has recorded some instances of corruption in
this class, this was not the general case. They remained trusted in the community.
In this bureaucratic section there were people from the non-Muslims who worked in the
financial and administrative sections and who, to the indignation of the people, used to
receive high salaries; and naturally by virtue of their positions, wielded some influence.
The Mamlūk could not dispense with them due to their expertise. Their wealth augmented
and they caused the people who had been impoverished by the heavy taxes to protest.
This at times led some sultans to confiscate their properties. The Christians and the Jew
worked preponderantly in medicine and as accountants. They used to wear distinctive but
expensive clothes.
27
1.2.7 The Subjects
People of all trades, apart from those mentioned above, came under this class. They were
of different economic levels. However, they were equal in the eyes of the rulers. They
equally had no place at the political and military systems. The feudal system left no space
for them in places of influence. They had yet to undergo taxes. They used to carry the
taxes levied as a result of the exigencies caused by the Mongol and crusader invasions.
For example, when Qu uz determined to counterattack the Mongols, he consulted
‘IzzuddῙn bin Abdul-Sal m who was one of the prominent scholars of Islam and who was
known for his probity and integrity. The sultan consulted him to levy some taxes on the
people, so as to face the expenses of the war. The scholar told him that such taxes would
be imposed only if the all that is in the national treasury is spent on the same and nothing
remained in it and the rulers themselves submitted all that they had accumulated and
become like the other subjects. No one should retain anything save his weapons and
mount. He said that it was not fair to impose taxes on people while the Mamlūk rulers
hoarded wealth.38 This has two implications: the first: the influence and respect the
religious scholars commanded and second the justice of Qu uz.
1.2.8 The Sufis
Sufism demonstrated in austerity, rigorous worship and complete devotion for religion
appeared in the third century.39 Then it drifted from the way it was originated. Due to the
catastrophic conditions of the Muslims at times of disintegration and vulnerability, there
emerged a type of emotional religiosity strange to the spirit of Islam, which was
characterised with withdrawal from active participation in life. It surfaced as religious
practices mixed with the psychological defeatism which was demonstrated in the evasive
and escape-oriented religious trends. This contributed to the wide spread of Sufism
wherein dervishes started gaining credence as regards their alleged miracles and wonders.
This phenomenal dominance was probably as a reaction to the emergence of a
rationalistic version of Sufism, which was preached by Sufi philosophers who were
flayed with criticism throughout history and at times of history some of them were killed
(such as Al-Shahraward al-Maqtūl).
28
This trend of Sufism denounced the use of reason and clinched strongly to mythology,
appeared sociologically in the form of excessive veneration of the dervishes and so called
saints. They claimed many wonders to have been performed by them. Generous
endowments were entailed to the shrines, lodges where they used to live and worship.
Fabulous stories were invented and people exaggerated in this practice to the extent they
made too many innovations around the graves. They sought the help and succour of the
dead and even circumambulated around their graves. It is because of this practice that the
same personality could have more than one grave dispersed in different regions.
Moreover, they also invented a rigorous preceptor-seeker relationship that established the
former as the only source of knowledge the seeker is recommended to depend. He should
take things the former says for granted. Whatever he gave that should not be questioned.
All these erroneous practices spurred the counterattack of the orthodox scholars of Islam,
and created much disparity and conflict.
The excessive veneration of the graves triggered people to seek the blessings of the dead,
pray them for their needs, and build luxuriously decorated large domes over their graves,
hardly distinguishable from mosques.40 Every shrine was given a specific day on which it
was visited. This formed a weekly cycle. And as they attributed many wonders to them,
they started another innovation, namely, celebrating their days. Moreover, during those
celebrations morality was not preserved and therefore it was a sentimental religious
gathering devoid of the spirit of faith and religiosity. The outcome was religious
ceremonies lacking all meaning of true adherence to the basic teachings of Islam. It was a
religious system mixed with myths and superstitions. It was basically ostensible
religiosity. They introduced even dancing into the lodges that were built specially for
them. This dancing seemed like a kind of worship.41
They fictitiously prospered, and ways (sufi paths) were introduced and the stringent
seeker-sheikh relationship and affiliation helped in their multiplicity to the extent that
some historians believe they reached thirty six. This affiliation barred the seekers from
receiving knowledge from other than their respective sheiks.
Some of the Mamlūk rulers had no problem getting these people near to them. They also
helped in some cases. Some of them even got people involved in witchcraft in his
29
entourage. They established their institutions and supported them. Outsider historians
mentioned this in their discussions about the dervishes and poor ascetic Sufis, along with
the grave ceremonies/celebrations.
Moreover, historians like Ibn Ba ū ah mentioned some of the habits and practices that
sullied the Sufis and impugned them. According to him, they used to wear strange styles
of clothes, they used to shave their moustaches, eye brows and they took to singing,
dances with drum beating as part of religion,42 drinking wine and addiction to hashish.
This hashish was attributed to them. It was called the hashish of the poor,43 referring the
Sufis. This is because the poverty was often associated with them.
From the point of view Ibn Taymiyyah always held this warranted much concern.
Therefore, he studied the veracity of every practice claimed to be part of religion. He
tested it against the main sources of Islam, and then came up with his conclusions. As he
was against superstition, imitations, inactive life, etc., he had to devote much of his time
in refuting these practices, even though it displeased influential people. His writing
unravels some of such practices.
1.2.9 Religiously Unacceptable Practices
Making many adh ns in the mosque yard was one of the things Ibn Taymiyyah criticises
and repudiates as an innovation. He says that this is totally against the authentic
traditions. He says: “those who make adh ns along with the muezzin their act is not
supported by evidence, according to all imams. Rather. It is an innovation, condemnable
on many grounds”44
There was another phenomenon that prevailed and gained credence. There were some
people who would stand in the mosque and deliver stories not free from unauthentic
narrations. People used to listen attentively to them. This used to take place before the
sermon on Fridays. Ibn Taymiyyah says that the imams (great authorities in Islamic
scholarship) unanimously reject this, and he asserts that this makes people busy with this
and drives them away from the different actions preferable before the sermon. This is
made worse if they do this during the sermon.45
30
He also talks about reciting the Al-An‘ m chapter in one rak‘ah in witr prayer in
Ramadan and elsewhere. They read it in a confusing speed, and make hard for those after
them to stand for such long time. Besides, he speaks of some kind of prayers such as
offering one hundred rak‘ t in Ramadan in the mosque, in which they read the last but
two chapters of the Quran in a specific manner congregationally. He discards that as
something innovated, except if it is done individually at home. He always speaks against
things done in the mosque as established acts, whereas they are not supported by any of
the scholars of Islam. By the passage of time these things would be taken as authentic
traditions. Innovation mainly comes from here. He generalises by saying holding
congregations for prayers with specific number of rak‘ t is an innovation. He also speaks
about a prayer that they did and called salah qadr, which is performed after midnight to
complete the number one hundred rak‘ t.46
He also spoke about some agnostic people who would not follow the guidance of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and does not believe in that
being obligatory. Another faction of people was the Sufis who thought that those reaching
some particular degree of religiosity are no longer bound by the law of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Others, moreover, believed that
they could follow Christianity or Judaism, and that that did not conflict with Islam.
Regarding these, Ibn Taymiyyah judges that if proofs were established for their
complicity, while being aware of the Islamic rule therein, they should be killed.
Surprisingly, he says that these types of people were many in his time.47
In the time of Ibn Taymiyyah there were some people who used to seek blessings from
being in some places such as the Lebanon Mount and other places. He says that these
were mounts and places like other places. None has any merits. They are not like Makkah
and MadῙnah, whose merit is ever-subsisting in them as long as they existed. He
concludes with the statement that seeking blessings in this mount and its trees are
ignorant acts similar to the acts of the ignorant people before the ministry time of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).48
He spoke about the Tartars that kept attacking the Muslim lands. He said that they must
be fought depending on knowing their situation and knowing Allah’s rule regarding
31
people doing what they did. He then describes them as being a people motivated to
restore the dominion of Cheng z Khan. They were seen with no muezzin in their camps,
they did not perform hajj although they were able to do so. Their army was comprised of
people who either did not believe in anything or were hypocrite heretics such as the
pantheists, the Rafidites, the Jahmites and the like. He says that their criterion was how
well one adhered to the Yasa law formulated by Cheng z Khan, not to Islam. According
to their criterion even a non-Muslim could be closer to their hearts than those who did not
follow them in what they did. They believed that Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him) and Cheng z Khan both came from Allah. Ibn Taymiyyah also claims
that the Tatar considered Cheng z Khan to be the son of God as the Christians considered
Jesus. They also would follow his law blindly and mention his name when eating and
drinking and venerate him more than they venerated the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him). They legalised killing anyone not abiding by his law. He
sums his description of them by stating “all in all, all trends of heresy, hypocrisy,
agnosticism, deviation and disobedience are prevalent in the Tartar army. They are the
most ignorant people of matters of religion. The most audacious in transgressing the
boundaries and prohibitions of Allah and had the most share of following conjecture and
desires.
It is noteworthy to say that the most important proof that led him to command their
fighting as disbelievers is that they did not follow the law of Muhammad (peace and
blessings be upon him) and followed the legislations of Cheng z Khan. Moreover, their
actions in the various Muslim lands and cities showed that they had no concern to any
Muslim. They killed all indiscriminately and raped women.
Furthermore, he spoke about some people who used to travel to different lands as part of
religious habits. They were called nuss k. They would keep roaming all their lives with
ragged clothes on.
There were other habits in vogue among some people namely having long moustaches,
and even deriding those who cut them. One of them asked Ibn Taymiyyah and he told
him that cutting the moustache is not something to be ashamed of since the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did it.
32
He also talks about some women who used to wear big turbans49 on their heads and
judged that they were like the humps of lean camels. Another practice that he warned
against was the love and reverence for the astrologists that was prevalent in his time.
They used to tell people what would happen in the future. Seemingly, they used to sit in
shops and people used to respect and facilitate their work. What makes us sure of the
prevalence of the practice is the fact that he debated with them as he himself tells us.
It seems that some fraternity agreements wherein each one would declare to his ‘brother’
that “my wealth is your wealth and my children are your children are my children and
your blood is my blood” and then drink his blood. Ibn Taymiyyah repudiates this practice
as unanimously prohibited. Through his repudiation he unravels another graver thing. He
says that this practice resembles the practice of those who make brotherhood with some
women and mingle with her alone. This he says is done by some of those affiliated to
Sufism.
He also denounced the Muslims’ participation in dhimm s festivals and quoted that some
scholars in anafi and Maliki Schools regarded this as disbelief. He also talks about the
feudal system prevalent at that time, and declares that such fiefs are to be exploited during
the tenure in the army not to be sold or given, and quotes the unanimity of the imams in
this.
The misdistribution of wealth was a rampant practice at those times as it is now. He

mentions that there were some people who were extremely poor but not given from the
treasury; others were given salaries more than they needed; others received money for
some particular tasks, and although they assign others to do them they give them less than
the money allocated for the task.
1.2.10 Markets
Markets prospered due to the density of population of Cairo. Cairo was a multicultural
city which acted as the receptacle of people from all nations. The wars in the East and
West contributed dramatically to this density and cultural diversity. This gave rise to
economic developments, manifested in the spread of markets. Historians speak of a great
33
number of markets. Each market was for a specific commodity. Therefore they had
draperies, etc. therefor the masters of any trade or craft used to have their markets.
Besides, there were venders who would go round quarters in the cities and sell particular
commodities. People, men and women selling clothes used to go round and people would
allow them inside houses. Others used to have mobile kitchens pulled along the streets,
selling out food items. People selling were in great number to the extent that attracted the
historians of the time. They used to bring the water from the Nile, on their backs, camels,
etc. There were temporary markets such as in the time of religious celebrations and
during wars. In the vicinity of the battle some people would come and sell weapons, food
items, etc.
These markets were supervised and checked by government personnel. The tasks of these
employees varied. Some were tax collectors. A man was appointed over every trade to
determine the taxes. Another post was that of the main inspector, or mu tasib. His post
was considered one of the very important posts. This inspector was socially extremely
respected. He used to check the prices and health conditions of goods. He was responsible
for cases of fraud, thefts, reductions in weighing and measurements, rotten foods. Illegal
cases were punished and goods were dispensed with. On the other hand, if this inspector
does not do his job properly then people inflicted all insults on him, especially in regards
to the prices.
Women at those times would every now and then go shopping and would jest with the
shopkeepers. Couples sometimes came together for shopping then the husband would
leave her to buy her needs and go away. Women usually used to buy clothes for their
husbands. They used to form the bulk of shoppers, especially at ceremonies. Such
ceremonies made it imperative for woman to frequent the markets. Any deterrent action
from the husband against this would cause serious repercussions in the matrimonial
relations. Therefore, there was unbearable crowded.
Furthermore, ceremonies boosted the markets. For example, in Ramadan, in celebrating

tar w h (supererogatory prayers at nights of Ramadan), and even at Christian festivals,
wax lights markets boomed. A great amount of them were bought. They were of different
34
sizes; some of them were pulled on carts. This reflected the economical level of the
people of the time. Moreover, harlots, historians account, used to stay until late during
night time in the markets, wearing distinctive attire.
Another function characterised the market of that time was that the market was a place of
exchanging news. It functioned as the media today. People used to talk and discuss
different issues, and the authorities would make its formal announcements there. These
markets multiplied in the early Mamlūk time but curtailed in later times wherein the
famines and plagues as well as the maladministration and riots sounded the knell for this
prosperity.
Historians also spoke about the coins at those times. They were made of silver. The
proportion of silver in the currency was almost seventy per cent of its total weight. As the
state started to decline at the time of the Jerkis Mamlūks, silver was gradually supplanted
with copper. Even this base metal was cheated and adulterated with lesser metals. This
gradually undermined the trust in this currency. This forgery nurtured a wave of
economic decline. It sometimes led the authorities to remint a different currency. This, for
example, was part of the reformatory procedures to check the monetary corruption
Muhammad bin Qalawūn introduced after his return from Karak to rule for the third time.
At other times strict penal measures were applied to deter forgery and adulteration, or to
force people to recognise and deal in the new currency. All in all, the previous accounts
tell us that the Qalawūn era reached the acme of economic prosperity. But the whole
situation changed dramatically after him and turned into irredeemable decline and as a
result the markets curtailed due to the decline in consumption; and commodities became
at premium.
1.2.11 The Minorities
Multiculturalism was one of the important features of the Mamlūk era. The crises and
natural disasters provided the momentum for the growth of non-Arab population.
Immigrations of the people in east and west played a vital role for this diversity. People
from the adjacent empires flooded into the Mamlūk Egypt for safety and created a
heterogeneous society wherein there was mutual influence that was so strong that it
35
transcended religions and overcame the inter-religious particularism among the

commoners.
Among the non-Muslims who lived among the Muslims were the Jews and Christians.
For the Jews, three denominations existed in Egypt: the Samaritan Judaism, the Rabbinic
Judaism50 and the Karaite Judaism51. The Jews were smaller in number. For the
Christians two denominations existed: the Jacobites (monophysites) and the Melkites.52
Each one of such denominations had their own patriarch, who was their representative in
front of the formal authorities. He also enjoyed high formal prestige. 53 The Jews were
smaller in number but the Christians constituted a large portion of the whole population.
This can be affirmed with reference to the number of churches they had. The Arab
historian, Al-Maqr z counted as many as eighty two churches for the Jacobites alone.54
Like the Muslims, they were bound by the national law, participated in the general
receptions of the arriving high ranking politicians, like the caliph, the sultan, etc., and
participated in the communal national duties physically and financially, such as digging
channels and building the bridges, etc.
The Coptic Christians were originally farmers and as Omar, (the second caliph)
conquered it by compromise, the lands under the Coptic citizens remained under their
control and they had to pay produce taxes. The rest of the non-Muslims had other
occupations like the financial and commercial sectors.
According to the historical accounts about that period, they practised their rituals and
ceremonies freely, and whatever sporadically stringent rules they had to follow, they
indulged in the same social life as the Egyptians. The People of the Book were an
inseparable part of the Egyptian society and therefore they participated in the general
Egyptian social activities and shared with the Egyptians the same social economic
intellectual and political conditions, and they had to influence and get influenced by the
society they lived in.
36
For example, in times of drought (as happened in 775 and 854 AH) they along with the
Muslim leaders, commoners and scholars used to go out in the open lands praying Allah
for rain. 55
On the different Christian festivals, the streets and markets in Cairo enshrined celebrative
manifestations gathering all inhabitants irrespective of religion and race. The markets
boomed on festivals which seemed to have been shared by all. The books authored by
Muslim scholars in this connection are indicative of this phenomenon. For example, Ibn
Taymiyyah wrote his book Iqtiḍ ’ al- ir al-Mustaq m to clarify what is the correct
attitude a Muslim should have towards the festivals of the other religions. This is believed
to be necessitated by the social practices prevalent at those days.
However, they used to be skirmishes between the Muslims and the Christians and at other
times the Christians tried to disturb the stability of the cities by setting fire to them. Great
areas were burned. At those times the Muslims exceeded the limits in revenge.56
Moreover, it was clear that during the pre-Ghaza battle between the Muslims and the
Mongols, the Christians in Sh m seized the opportunity and humiliated the Muslims so
much so that they throw wine on the passer-byes and destroyed the mosques. Thus they
rejoiced at this apocalyptic attack against the Muslims. After the conflict was resolved to
the advantage of the Muslims, they retaliated against the Christians. This kindled some
animosities between the two groups.
Moreover, one should distinguish between the crusader-Muslim and the Muslim- Arab
Christian relationships. Whereas the relationship with the crusaders in their respective
emirates was hostile and never ceased to be so, the relationship with the Arab Christians
inside the Muslim rule was much better to the extent that they held prestigious offices in
the Mamlūk regime. Moreover, even during treaties between the Muslims and the
crusaders, attacks were easily sparkled, and such treaties were summarily violated. The
treaties were just bridges to attacks. Supplies did not cease to come to the crusader lands
from Europe and the Muslims used to have treaties to make surprise attacks as time
allowed. This featured the relations existed those days.
37
The Christians leaving their continent to settle in and occupy a vast acreage of Muslim
lands was not an easy issue for the Muslims to condone. They could not bear it and
remained all time harbouring the restoration of Muslim lands.57 They also suffered
another blow at the hands of the Mongols. But the Mongols represented a military threat,
which was milder than the intellectual and military threat represented by the Christians.
The incessant harassments of the Christians for the Muslim traders in the Mediterranean
provoked and intensified animosities between the two parties, leading Baybars to prepare
for attacking Cyprus. He prepared seventeen ships and sent them to Cyprus but the
weather was not in their favour. Some ships capsized and the whole campaign proved to
be a great loss for the Muslims. Yet for the Muslims it was not a defeat. It was merely an
act of God. Only defeat by the sword of the enemies was disgracing. All these incidents
led to many reactions between the two religions.
Therefore, debates and attacks and sending letters such as the one received by Ibn
Taymiyyah could not be sent just for the sake of debate. It was intellectual invasion. And
it must have been understood as such by the Muslims who were very particular and
enthusiastic to respond to them. There are two factors that lead us to this conclusion. One
is the number of responses the Muslim scholars did and the second is the nature of
response. Many scholars of Islam wrote detailed books in repudiation of the claims
propounded by the Christians. Some scholars translated the indignation through the harsh
language they used. And although Ibn Taymiyyah was calm in his response he seemed to
be addressing the Muslims and correcting their theology in dealing with the Christian
allegations. This is an indication of his being too keen that the Muslims should not be
misled by the Christian falsifications.
1.3 The Intellectual Situation
In the thirteenth century, and before the Mongol invasion, Baghdad was the capital of the
Islamic caliphate. Therefore, it was the most important city, both politically and
scientifically. As stability was the prerequisite of any scientific advancement stable places
especially the metropolitan cities (in modern expression), were the locus of all intellectual
and scientific movements. These characteristics were manifest in Baghdad. Consequently
38
it witnessed great important strides in all sciences. It had the greatest library on earth, and
the House of Wisdom, which was erected by Harun al-Rash d. These unique facilities
made it the haven of the scholars from all over the world. People with diverse interests
found it the ideal place for their projects whether commercial or scientific.
However, this prosperity was terminated at the hands of the eastern barbarian people who
had no concern for knowledge and civilisation. Rather, they were the most savage,
inhuman and uncouth people in the world. These were the Mongols, under the leadership
of Genghis Khan. They had been unnoticeable nation in the east and then constructed the
vastest empire humanity had ever known. Through some historic factors, they developed
an ineluctable urge for devastating civilisations and looting properties. They swept over
the eastern lands, perpetrating the most heinous and inhuman crimes through their big
scale killings, massive destruction and arsons, carnages, etc., and reached Baghdad to
repeat the same in this city, which was once the haven for science and scientists from all
civilised world. In this assault, big politicians and scholars were the main target of these
hosts. Many of them were beheaded before the caliph, who, as some historians reported,
met a more disgracing fate, where he was made to lie and be trodden by the horses until
he breathed his last under their hooves.
This led to a massive migration. The ideal substitutes were the second most developed
cities, namely Damascus and Cairo. Moreover, among the most important places for
Islamic knowledge was Palestine, which had its importance because of the holy land-
Jerusalem. But this had to face a similar fate as Baghdad at the hands of the Crusaders
who killed people en masse, and caused great deportations. The scholars along with many
who could escape the Christian swords left these cities and fled to Damascus and Cairo.
To give but a few examples, the family of Qud mah, who were later known as the al-
Maqdisi, left his domestic land (Palestine) and travelled to Damascus. Many Maqdisis
were notable Muslim scholars in the field of Islamic jurisprudence. Similarly, the family
of Ibn Taymiyyah left arran and settled in Damascus. Damascus had special gravity for
peaceful settlement. It contained plenty of water, to the extent that every house had a
fountain, which, apart from being one of the essential elements of life, added to the
beauty of the houses, which contained beautiful mosaic images and wall dressings. In this
39
city, many trades and artefacts prevailed at that time. This is more obvious when we read
about the European travelogues, and how they praised the different industrial products
which they were very keen to buy as things unavailable in their own lands, including
swords, clothes, carpets, etc.
However, the turbulences that took place in Damascus especially at the time of the
Mongol raids and at the interim periods until a strong ruler took over and settle the
dispute and contention, again affected the demographical distribution. Scholars would
choose to live in a learning-friendly environment, where educational facilities and
amenities abounded. Therefore they sought quieter places. At many times whenever news
came portending the arrival of Mongol troops many people tried to leave the city and seek
to live in other places. However, there were scholars who remained in the city such as Ibn
Taymiyyah. He never fled the combat. His visits to Cairo were for political reasons or
where he had to be put behind the bars as a punishment for his intellectual revolution
against the customary erroneous elements in the Muslim society and intelligentsia.
1.3.1 The Islamic Schools
The schools of those times seemed to be highly concerned with education. The scholars
appointed as teachers were highly qualified. As per our standards of today they were far
more qualified and the syllabi were far more advanced than many of the universities and
the teachers nowadays.
Besides the mosques, the Islamic schools played a central role in the dissemination of
Islamic knowledge. Whereas mosques provided the spiritual enrichment which was
nurtured through memorisation of the Quran and listening to the regular exhortations in
the form of sermons and lectures, the schools were the institutions that embraced
specialised education which was run under the auspices and sponsorship of the state. This
type of formal and free education was basically initiated by Niz mul-Mulk in the fifth
century, where he established schools in Khur s n and Persia then in Baghdad, Basra and
Mosul.
The Ayyūbids were very particular in this regard. They established schools to obliterate
the intrusive esoteric thought of the Fatimids/Nusairids who tried to force it on people.
40
The Mamlūk continued to sponsor education and even initiated many endowments for
this purpose. Some of such schools are58:
 The ‘ dil Major School, after the name of the founder Al-‘ dil
 The hir School in Sh m, after the name of Baybars (Al- hir)
 The lih School
 The K mil School
 The Sukkar School
 The Omar School
And many more existed. Some of these schools were multi-disciplinary, whereas others
were exclusively for ad th, Islamic jurisprudence or Arabic linguistics and literature.
Some schools specialised in specific schools of thought/law. Some were teaching the
anbali thought while others were teaching scholasticism or kal m. Moreover, in Iraq
and Persia Schools were exclusively for astronomy, mathematics, philosophy or logic.
This period produced many great scholars in different religious sciences as well as natural
disciplines. Some are as follows:
 ‘Ezzudd n bin Abdul-Sal m (d. 660 AH)

 Abu Sh mah, the historian (d. 665 AH)
 Ibn Al-‘AdῙm, the historian and ad th specialist (d. 666 AH)
 Na irudd n ūsi, the great philosopher and astronomer(d. 672 AH)
 Imam Nawaw (d. 676 AH)
 Ibn Khallik n, the q i and historian ( d. 681 AH)
 Shih budd n Al-Qur f , the juristic theorist (d. 682 AH)
 Ibn Al-Naf s, the physician who discovered the blood circulation system ( d. 687
AH)
 Ibn Daq q Al-‘ d, the chief Q i (d. 702 AH)
 Imam Sharafudd n Ibn Qud mah, jurist and ad th specialist (d. 687 AH)
 Ibn ‘A ’ullah Al-Isakandar (d. 709 AH), authored the ‘A ’ wisdoms (al- ikam
Al- ‘A ’iyyah)
41
 Abul-Hajj j Al-Mizz (d. 742 AH), the great encyclopaedic ad th specialist and
memoriser
 Abu ayy n Al-Andalus , the commentator of the Quran and great Arabic
grammarian (d.745 AH)
 Ibn Al-Ward , the linguist and grammarian in Arabic (d. 749 AH)
 Ibn Hish m, the father of linguistics (d. 761 AH)
 Ibn Taymiyyah and his students
1.3.2 The Populist Religious Thought
In this era, two antagonist religious trends existed: Sunnis and Shia. The Shia prospered at
the time of the Buwayhids and Fatimids who were also called the Ubaidis. However,
al udd n could restore the previous situation and caused their thought and state to
wane. The majority of people followed Sunnah and venerated the a abah. These were
preponderantly either Asharites or ahl al- ad th in theology. In terms of the schools of
law the four schools co-existed. The Ayyūbids advocated the Shafi‘ School and Sufism
prospered under their aegis. In theology they patronised the Asharite thought. Ayyūbids’
favour for these thoughts conduced to their dissemination in that epoch of history.
Asharites preferred to deal with matters of ‘aq dah rationally, to the minimisation of
scriptural evidence. Ahl al-had th derived these issues from texts not through rational
speculation. This provoked many debatable issues between the two orientations. Here
conflict surfaced on the intellectual ground. Abu al- asan al-Ash‘ar . The founder of
Asharite School of thought was initially a Mu‘tazilite for forty years. He therefore
mastered and also got influenced by their rationalistic reading of scripture. Then realising
their faulty approach in proving ‘aq dah matters he reverted to establishing his own
school. This school was still hovering over rationalism in ‘aq dah. However in his book
Al-Ib nah, which was among his last books, he declared that he upheld the view of
Ahmad bin anbal. In this book he stated that he adhered to what Ahmad bin anbal
used to say and believe, and that he opposed everything that Ahmad bin anbal
opposed.59 His followers continued his previous thought and even differed among
themselves in some issues. They contributed a lot to the theorisation and preaching of his
thought. The Ayyūbid rulers adopted it as being the best way to follow.
42
However, unlike the Ayyūbids, who supported the Shafi‘ School, Baybars during his
reign, in the year 663 AH, appointed a chief q i from every school to judge his
community according to their respective schools. This vitiated the power of Shafi‘
thought, allowing its counterparts to have almost equal chances.
The Mamlūk era witnessed an intellectual particularism and conflict. People adhered
blindly to their respective schools. Therefore it is believed that the appointment of the
four Q is was thought to be expedient due to this bigotry. Moreover, this bigotry
infiltrated the ranks of the scholars, and, as a result, they fell prey to partial rationalisation
of their juristic decisions. This contributed to a vast literature confined within the
boundaries of the four schools. The contemporary scholars struggled relentlessly to
produce encyclopaedic works commenting, elucidating, elaborating, editing and
authenticating the previous literature. Ultimately, this led to a common assumption that
the door of ijtihad was closed and that the later generations would not add anything to
what the earlier giants did. This assumption gained credence, and ijtihad was considered
as unnecessary and unapproachable. Any opinion not sanctioned by the opinions of the
four imams is immediately rejected. Therefore, when Ibn Taymiyyah made his own
efforts depending on the texts and the pressing need for deciding on new emerging issues,
once his opinions were not supported by the opinions of the four imams, although they
were supported by many of the opinions of the salaf, a sever campaign was (and still is)
launched against him. Being a anbali did not make him cling to the dictations of his
school. Rather, he studied matters with view to finding solutions from the Quran and
sunnah and the opinions of the Muslim scholars. Although he did not follow the four
schools in some issues, his opinions were mostly supported by texts and opinions of the
previous scholars.60
Thus Ibn Taymiyyah was the pioneer to open the door of ijtihad and his opinions are still
alive even now. He amply fulfilled the conditions of independent research and arrived
therefore at valid and tenable judgements. His students also followed in his footsteps.
Any opinion and statement was negotiable for him except for those made by the Prophet.
However, being a human being he could have made mistakes, like anyone, but that does
not doubt his unimpeachable probity in his exertion and investigation.
43
He made the same efforts in issues related to theology. People in his time were
preponderantly followers of Asharite School of thought, especially after it has been
standardised by al udd n to be the only one taught at al-Azhar. Ibn Taymiyyah was
such an open minded scholar that he, unlike many of his contemporaries, was more aware
of the underlying principles of the different theological schools than their adherents, and
was able to decide what is right and what is wrong based on comparative study and
investigation.
Another factor that conduced to igniting public opinion against him was his discussions
and expositions about some of the Sufi practices and trends that were taken for granted
and won the support of some Mamlūk rulers. He differentiated between many actions and
sections of Sufis. He talked about them differently based on his knowledge about each.
He divulged the secrets of some of those who affiliated themselves to Sufism but went
wrong in their religious practices.61
In the preceding paragraphs, an attempt has been made to elaborate on the political, social
and intellectual background wherein Ibn Taymiyyah lived and with which he had to
interact. The tumults spurred by the collective attacks and the ensuing aftermaths besides
the long accumulated intellectual residues as a result of the intrusion of philosophy and
speculative scholasticism into religious matters moulded his thoughts, sharpened his wit
and directed his responses. This partially formed a forceful motive for his intellectual
production. Furthermore, the erroneous approaches adopted in intellectual investigation
and the social praxis that was sullied by destructive inter-civilizational contact triggered
him to counteract through his various struggles.
It is, moreover, pertinent to have a panoramic biographical account of Ibn Taymiyyah to

consolidate the earlier chapter in drawing a clear picture of his personality. Here the
elaboration on his education, debates, legacy, trials and death are means that serve this
purpose.
44
Notes and References
1
See Ibn Taymiyyah’s Majmū’ al-Fat w , edited by Anwar al-B z and ‘ mir al-Jazz r, Dar al- Waf ’
2005, vol. 28 pp. 542-4. He, while affirming the fact that the Mamlūks during his time were the only able
to defend Islam, tells us that Yemen was too weak or lenient to do anything in this regard. For Hejaz, he
characterised it as having drifted from the guidance of sharia, developed many innovations and were astray;
and the pious people there were too vulnerable to do anything for rectifying the situation and the r f ah
(extremist Shia who charge the companions of the prophet with blasphemy) were prevalent in the territory.
Moreover, people in North Africa were led by the Bedouin people whom he described as the worst of
humankind. For Moroccans, he said they forsook jihad although their land had been taken by the Christians.
2
For the Christian atrocities see Amin Maalouf: The Crusaders Through The Arab Eyes, translated by Jon
Rothschild, first published by Al-Saqi Books, London, 1984
3
Ibn Al-Ath r, Ali Bin Muhammad: Al-K mil F Al-Tar kh, (2nd ed), edited by Abdul-Kar m Al-Q i,
Darul-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1415 AH vol. 9, p. 19
4
The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials, 2nd Ed, University
of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 1998, edited by Edward Peters, p. 91
5
See Chronicle of the First Crusade, M.E. McGinty, trans., 1941
6
Op cit. p. 80
7
This practice was not a new thing in the politics if Mamlūk rulers. This practice had already started by the
Abbasid caliphs, and was followed by the Ayyūbids, who bought the Mamlūk slaves and through them they
came to power, and established their polity.
8
This secured for them Islamic upbringing. However, in the reign of Faraj Bin Barqūq and thereafter this
was not the case. The slaves brought were adults who demonstrated a very immoral conduct. See Al-
Maqr z , Abu Al-Abb s Taqiyyudd n. Al-Maw ’eẓ wa al-I‘Tib r bi Dhikr al-Khi a Wa al- th r, D r al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1418 AH,
9
Ibid vol. 3, pp. 373-4
10
The Bahri Mamlūk was the name initially given by Najmudd n Ayyūb to the slaves he bought to be his
support for gaining power. This name continued to be applied to the first of the two Mamlūk phases of rule.
Bahri means related to the sea, as he allotted his slaves in a place by the sea.
11
Q ssim Abduh Q ssim A r Sal n al-Mam l k, al-Tar kh al-siy si wa al- ijtim ‘ , Ein For Human And
Social Studies, Cairo, 1998, p. 26
12
The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials, 2nd Ed, University
of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 1998, edited by Edward Peters, p. 84
13
Amin Maloof: The Crusaders Through The Arab Eyes, translated by Jon Rothschild, (Al-Sadiq Books,
London 1984), p. 38
14
Ibn Taghri Bardi, al-Nujūm al-Z hirah, D r al-Kutub, Egypt, vol.5 , p. 150
15
Mar‘ Farsat, “Al-Ta luf Al-Maghūl Al-Na r n ”, Majallat Al- Albayan, Issue No. 300, p. 79-82
45
16
For the situation of the whole Muslim world during this debacle and how the Mamlūks were the de facto
defenders of Islam, see Ibn Taymiyyah’s Majmū’ al-Fat w , edited by Anwar al-B z and ‘ mir al-Jazz r,
D rul- Waf ’ 2005, vol. 28 pp. 542-4
17
Op. cit, vol. 6, p. 238
18
Najmudd n was a man of virtue and righteousness, generous and chivalric who demonstrated great
respect for religious scholars. See Al-‘Ayni, Badrudd n: ‘Aqd al-Jum n edited by Mahmoud Rizq
Ma moud, D rul-Kutub wa al- Wath ’iq Al- Qawmiyyah, Cairo, 2010, p. 129
19
Al-Maqr z considered her to be the first Mamlūk ruler as she was a Turk or Armenian slave woman. She
was described by some historians as highly fastidious, intensely jealous; excessively chivalric …intoxicated
with vanity and conceit.
20
Al-‘Ayn , Badrudd n: ‘Aqd al-Jum n edited by Mahmoud Rizq Mahmoud, D rul-Kutub Wa Al-
Wath ’iq Al- Qawmiyyah, Cairo, 2010, p. 5
21
Sharif, M M: History Of Muslim Philosophy, Alegauer Heimatverlag GmbH, Kempton Germany, 1966
volume 2, p. 789
Dhahab , Shamsudd n, T r kh Al-Isl m, (D r Al-Kit b Al-‘Arabi, Beirut, 1987), first edition, edited by
22
Omar Abdul-Sal m Tadmur , vol. 44 pp. 42-3
23
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions in his letter to the king Al-N ir that the Mongol invasion was a sign of Allah’s
mercy for the Muslim nation. He said that this problem was a test for the Muslims to bring them back to
Allah and have their sins absolved. This apocalyptic problem, he said, led to the unity of the Muslims under
the banner of one ruler. See his Ris latun ila Al-Malik al-N ir, (published as part of Jame‘ Al-Ras ’el
Regarding the Tatars, edited by Muhammad Az z Shams, D r ‘ lam al-Faw ’id, Makkah, 1424 AH vol. 5,
p. 297
24
Ibn Kath r, al-Bid yah wa al-Nih yah, editedby Ali Sh r , D r I ya’ Al-Tur th Al-‘Arabi, 1988, vol.13
p. 254
Al-Maqr z , Ahmad bin Ali, Al-Sulūk li Ma‘rifat Duwal Al-Mulūk, edited by Abdul-Q dir A a, (Dar Al-
25
Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1997), Vo. 1, p. 138
26
Abu Al-Fida’ ‘Im dudd n Ism il, al-Mukhtasar fi Akhb r al-Bashar, al-Ma ba‘ah al- usainiyyah al-
Mi riyyah, vol. 4, p. 10
27
Al-Dhahab , Shamsudd n Tar kh Al-Islam, edited by Omar Abdul-Sal m Tadmur , D r Al-Kit b Al-
‘Arabi, Beirut, 1987, vol. 52 p. 75
28
Ibn Kath r, al-Bid yah wa al-Nih yah, edited by Ali Sh r D r I ya’ Al-Tur th Al-‘Arabi, 1988, vol.13
pp. 10-11
29
ibid
30
Ibid p.28
31
See this fatwa in Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū’ al-Fat w , King Fahd Complex, Mad nah, KSA edited by
Abdul–Ra m n Bin Muhammad Q ssim vol.28, p.509
32
Ibid p. 29
46
33
Muj rudd n Al-‘Al m , al-Uns al-Jal l bi Tar kh al-Quds wa al-Khal l, edited by Adn n Yūnus,
(Maktabat Dind s, Amman, Jordan, 1420), vol. 2p. 89
Al- Maqr z , Ahmad bin Ali, Al-Sulūk li ma‘rifat Duwal Al-Mulūk, edited by Abdul-Q dir A a, (Dar Al-
34
Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1997), vol. 1, p. 441
35
But we have to remember that Nūrudd n Mahmoud Zink used to let the children of the diseased inherit
the fiefs of their fathers. See Al- Maqr z Al-Maw ‘iz wa al-I‘tibar Bi Dhikr Al-Khi a wa Al- th r D r Al-
Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1418/1997, vol. 3, p. 377
36
S rimudd n bin Daqq q, Ibn Taghr Bard and Ibn Eyas are a few examples.
37
Al- Maqr z in his Maw ‘iz mentions three types of attire: that of what he calls the sword masters, that of
the pen masters and that of the religious scholars. Vol. 3, Pp 395-7
38
Al-Dhahabi, Tar kh Al-Isl m, D r Al-Kit b Al-‘Arabi, Beirut, 1987, vol. 48, p.45
39
Al-Maw ‘iz, op cit, vol. 4 p. 281
40
See for example, the very beginning of Ri lat Bin Jubair. He and Ibn Ba ūtah dwelled long on the
description of decorations and skilful architecture of graves and the practices done round them.
41
Al-Qazw n , Zakariyya bin Muhammad, th r al-Bil d wa Akhb r al-Ib d, http://www.alwarraq.com, p.
115. Almost all historians and geographers have mentioned this in their books.
42
In Maw ‘iz, op cit vol. 4, p. 281, the author quotes a poet describing the Sufis of his time. He mentions
dancing, drinking, sexuality, unity and indwelling and singing as the characteristics of the Sufis of his time.
43
Al-Sulūk op cit, vol. 3, p. 226
44
Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Fat w Al-Kubr , edited by Muhammad Abdulq dir A a and Mus afa Abdulq dir
A a, Darul-kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah 1987 vol. 5, p. 324
45
Al-Ba‘l , Badrudd n Muhammad bin Ali, Abridged Version of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Al-Fat wa Al-Mi riyyah,
edited by Muhammad mid Al-Faq , D r Ibn Al-Qayyim, Dammam, KSA, 1986, p. 40
46 Ibid p. 81
47
ibid p. 411
48
Ibid pp. 599-600
49
Also mentioned in Al-Sulūk , op cit, vol.2, p. 3
50
“Rabbinic Judaism is based on the belief that at Mount Sinai, Moses received from God the Written
Torah (Pentateuch) in addition to an oral explanation, known as the "Oral Torah," that Moses transmitted to
the people,” as quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism, retrieved on14-2-2015.
51
The definition of this sect as given in Wikipedia (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism,
retrieved on 14-2-2015) is thus: “Karaite Judaism is a kind of Judaism that accepts only the Hebrew Bible
as authoritative, and rejects the Mishnah and Talmud, which are explanations of the Bible by rabbis in the
first few centuries of the Common Era”.
47
52
Q ssim Abduh Q ssim A r Sal n al-Mam l k, al-Tar kh al-siy s wa al- ijtim ‘ , Ein For Human And
Social Studies, Cairo, 1998, p. 254
53
Al-Qalqashand in his Sub Al-A ‘Sha, elaborated on their denominations, beliefs and hierarchy.
54
op cit p. 257
55
Bin Taghr Bard , Al-Nujūm Al-Z hirah, annotated by Muhammad Husain Shamsudd n, D r Al-Kutub
Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1992, vol. 15 p. 170
56
See for example, Maw ‘iz, vol.3, p.15
57
Settlement has been a stable ideological policy of the West. They shed a lot of blood to occupy the
Muslim lands and kill the indigenous inhabitants. Now they have submitted this land to the Jews and kept
supporting them in all grounds. However, this time it is not only the indigenous inhabitants who suffer.
Rather, all those of power or those who form the slightest threat to Israel have to suffer carnages, invasion
and destruction under untenable arguments. After everything is clear, they adduce ex post facto
rationalizations.
58
Al-Nu‘aim , Abdulq dir Muhammad (d. 927 AH) wrote a book in which he enumerated and discussed
the different schools established in the Muslim lands. This book is entitled Al-D ris Fi T r kh Al-Mad ris,
published in 1990 by D rul-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut.
59
Al-Ash’ar , Al-Ib nah ‘An Usūl Al-Diy nah, D r al-Ans r, Cairo, 1397 AH, p. 20
60
Burh nudd n, the son of Ibn Qayyim authored a book in which he studied the mattes in which Ibn
Taymiyyah deviated from the four schools and proved that in no matter whatsoever was he alone in the
opinions he upheld. This book is entitled Al-Mas ’il Al-Fiqhiyyah Min Ikhtiy r t Sheikh Al-Isl m Ibn
Taymiyyah. It was published in 2007 by both D r Ibn ‘Aff n and D r Ibn Al-Qayyim.
61
In the next chapter, you will read about his interaction and his opinions on some of them.
48
Chapter Two: The Life, Education and Books of Ibn Taymiyyah
CHAPTER TWO
Life, Education and Books
of
Shaykhul-Isl m Ibn Taymiyyah
49
50
2 . EDUCATION, LIFE AND BOOKS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH
The life, age and works of Ibn Taymiyyah have been one of the greatest attractions of
writers of diverse origins and interests. He has been the object of investigation and
study of different writers in different languages throughout history. Each researcher
had looked at the subject from a different angle. Some dealt with his life; some others
looked at his juristic opinions on different matters; others, however, looked into his
polemics and debates; others, yet, had dealt with his philosophical and logical
contributions. Some studied his reformist and educational efforts in society. Other
researches concentrated on his propagation, jihad or defense of Islam against attacks
from within and without. On other occasions, his thought in general is studied. Some
reached a conclusion in his favor; others favored to be in the other side. Almost all his
life and career are sufficiently covered by the researches carried out by Muslims and
non-Muslims. Throughout eight centuries, researches and books have been authored
covering a broad spectrum of his legacy. Bakr Abu Zaid stated that traditional
religious scholars from the four schools wrote on him, mostly from the Shafi‘ School,
where as many as twenty eight had written on him1. He was included in the classified
biographical compendia (tar jim) in the category of the jurists, in the category of the
ad th specialists and in that of the exegetes. Ten of his contemporaries who missed
to meet him wrote independent biographies. Some wrote even more than one
biography about him, some two and some three.
Contemporarily, attempts have been made to write a historiographical account of the

studies conducted so far about him. For example, Dr. Salahudd n al-Munajjid in his
book Shaikhul-Isl m Ibn Taymiyyah, Siratuhū Wa Akhbaruh ind al-Mu’arrikh n (Ibn
Taymiyyah’s Biography And News In The Historians’ View) enumerated as many as
seventeen biographies arranged chronologically. Another compendium is al-Jame‘
Lis rat Ibn Taymiyyah written by Muhammad Az z Shams and Ali bin Muhammad al-
‘Amr n in which they collected the traditional biographies whether written as
separate books or as independent chapters, traversing the time span between the eight
century to the thirteen century AH, counting seventy five. Despite the long span, it is
limited to those biographies penned down in Arabic. However, an exhaustive account
51
of the studies conducted on him would possibly run to hundreds. Al ’udd n Al-Ra l
in his Ma‘ lim Al-Ijtih d p. 43 in 2002 mentioned that Al-Faryo’ reported that
ninety six separate works, one hundred and two biographical studies included with
other biographies and twenty orientalist studies have been conducted on Ibn
Taymiyyah. It follows from the above that the personality and thought of Ibn
Taymiyyah have been throughout the ages a central theme that many have opted to
study. This testifies to his being a genius of rare existence.
2.1 BIRTH
Authentic material sources of all ages are unanimous that Ibn Taymiyyah2 Taqiudd n
Abul-‘Abb s Ahmad, son of Shih budd n Abdul- al m, son of Majdudd n Abul-
Barak t Abdul-Sal m, son of Abdullah Abul-Q sim Al- arr n was born on Monday
10 RabῙ‘ al-Awwal 661 AH, which corresponds to 22 January 1263 CE. He was born
into a devoutly religious family famous for its scholarly pursuit. His father and
grandfather were both highly esteemed scholars of the age. His father was a mufti and
professor, and his grandfather had even assumed higher ranks in many fields of
knowledge and Islamic jurisprudence, in particular.3 He is credited with authoring the
book of the legal rulings entitled Al-Muntaqa, which has been taught until the present
day in the Arab world, and maybe elsewhere too. His mother is Sittul-Ni ̒am, daughter
of Abdul-Ra m n, son of Ali al- arr niyyah, who had nine sons but no daughter.
Ibn Taymiyyah was accorded the title Shaykhul-Isl m by many of his contemporaries
and it is used since then down to the present day. This provoked his hate mongers into
excessive aversion and rage that reached the extent of charging with disbelief anyone
calling him so. Despite the absence of threat, Ibn Nasirudd n (d. 842 AH)4 explained
the graveness of the prejudiced charge in his independent book written solely for this
purpose, entitled al-Radd al-W fir, and quoted around ninety scholars who willingly
used the title in their writings.
2.2 Education and Academic Qualities
As Harran was threatened with the approach of the Mongols, the family of scholars
had to venture a very hard journey for the safety of their lives. They were carrying the
scientific wealth (i.e. books) which was the dearest ever to their hearts and which
52
could otherwise be in danger should the Mongols lay hand on them. They used
pulling beasts for the transport of the load, which soon in the middle of the route
fatigued them, forcing the caravan into a halt. The pious scholars raised hands,
supplicated, and miraculously overcame the obstacle course.5 They could barely
escape the danger of such risky migration to Damascus, which assumed a high
position at those times paralleled only by Cairo as the two havens of scholars of that
caliber. At that very time (i.e., in 667), Ibn Taymiyyah was hardly seven years of age.
He started his education in Damascus.
Since his early life, all academic credentials and scholarly qualities manifested
themselves clearly in him. He possessed a highly retentive memory, sharp wits, quick
improvisation, a fluent tongue and an invincible urge for seeking knowledge. He
obtained fame in an early age by virtue of the rare characteristics he demonstrated.
One of the scholars from Aleppo visited Damascus. He came to a tailor near the
madrasa where Ibn Taymiyyah studied; asking him about a boy whose name was
Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah, mentioning that he heard that he had a fast memory. The
tailor pointed to the street leading to his school, which Ibn Taymiyyah frequented
every day. The man waited the child to pass by. After a while, he turned up with a
wide board in hand. The man dictated to him twelve or thirteen a d th with their
chains of narrators, asked him to read that once, took the board immediately and
asked him to recite that. The child proceeded reciting all that was written in
continuous flow. He commanded him to clean that and wrote another set of selective
a d th and ordered to rehearse in the previous manner. Every time, the child stood
up the challenge confidently. The old man prophesied that that child would be a force
to be reckoned with, as what he witnessed was rare to happen.
Furthermore, he, as described by Al-Dhahab , started his life with complete purity,
continence and chastity along with complete devotion to worship and religious
service. He used to attend the madrasas and religious circles, debates, and convince
the listeners at an early age, transfixing and astonishing dignitaries and scholars of the
town. He qualified for issuing fatwas (independent legal opinions) at the age of
nineteen and assumed the teaching chair of his father at the age of twenty-one.6 al-
Bazz r narrated that a Jew used to interrupt his way in his younger age to pose
questions as he noticed the signs of intelligence in him. Ibn Taymiyyah used to
53
answer his questions, pointing to the misconceptions and discrepancies in his religion.
This frequently happened until at last the Jew was convinced and converted to Islam.7
He learned arithmetic, committed the Quran to memory and learned writing at an

early age. He mastered Arabic linguistics, ad th, jurisprudence, commentary on the
Quran, history, algebra, logic, astronomy and comparative religion and even started
writing books in his teenage. He debated in his prepubescent age. He had many means
of strengths: strength in stalwartness, strength of memory, strength of personality,
strength of voice and declamation and strength of intelligence.8Ibn Abdul-H d
sketched the academic endeavor in his early life thus:
…and they [Ibn Taymiyyah and his family] arrived at Damascus in the year six
hundred sixty seven [667 AH] and studied under Zaynudd n A mad bin Abdul-
D yim bin Ni‘mah Al-Maqdis the volume of Ibn Arafah, and other books.
Then our teacher studied under many, such as Ibn Abil-Yusr, Al-Kam l bin
‘Abd, Shamsudd n Al- anbal , Q i Shamsudd n bin ‘At ’ al-Hanaf ,
Jam ludd n Al- ayraf , Majdudd n bin ‘As kir, al-Naj b Al-Miqdad, Ibn Abil-
Khayr, Ibn ‘Allan, Abu Bakr al-Haraw , Al-Kam l Abdul-Rah m, Fakrudd n bin
Al-Bukh r , Ibn Shaib n, al-Sharaf bin al-Qaww s, Zainab Bint Makk , and
many more.
His teachers… were more than two hundred.
He heard Musnad Ahmad [Imam Ahmad bin anbal’s collection of had th]
many times, Mu‘jam Al- abar n Al-Kab r, the big collections of ad th as well
as the extracts, took much concern about ad th and he himself read many and
adhered to hearing ad th[from ad th scholars] for years. He heard the
Ghayl niyy t[ a big collection of ad th which al-D rqutn compiled and
narrated from Abu Bakr Al-Bazz r from Abu lib bin Ghayl n] in a session,
copied and selected. He wrote al- ib q and al-Athb t, learned writing and
arithmetic in the madrasah, occupied himself with learning sciences, committed
the Quran to memory, then resorted to Islamic Jurisprudence, then the Arabic
language under Abdul-Qaw to good comprehension, read and deliberated the
book of S bawayh, understood it and mastered the Arabic grammar. Moreover,
he directed all his interest to the commentary of the Quran until he broke the
record in that. He also had great command over the fundamentals of fiqh; all
these when was only in his teenage.9
By the beginning of his third decade he was a fully qualified scholar, capable of
debating and convincing, writing books, issuing fatwas, holding classes that were
attended by not only the masses but also the scholars and rulers, and which brought
him great fame in the Muslim world. Scholars, supporters and adversaries 10,
acknowledged his being a big figure in the academic domain, an invincible force in
debates, and as a comprehensive encyclopedia.11He was characterized by endurance
and indefatigable persistence in research.
54
As narrated by the contemporaries, once he was discussing any topic, it seemed to the
audience to be the only subject he mastered. This is the testimony of the hostile
contemporary the maliki scholar, Ibn Makhlūf.
He was an avid reader, persistent knowledge seeker and feeling an ever-lasting thirst
for details in religious matters. Throughout his life, he was not seen involved in other
than reading, teaching, writing, preaching, issuing legal opinions or expounding
Islamic theology and law. His brother who undertook to take charge of financing him
has spared him the quest for the worldly gains necessary for sustenance. He devoted
all his time for the quest and dissemination of religious sciences and the defense of
Islam. Often, he used to write, teach or dictate extemporaneously. For example, he
dictated a whole volume in explanation of the Quranic chapter called al-Ikhl (i.e.
the 112th chapter in the Quran). Hardly had he quoted a ad th except that he was able
to mention the imam who collected it, the companion who narrated it and the
authenticity or otherwise of the narration. Once he was imprisoned in Egypt with no
references at his disposal, but he wrote many books small and big and enriched his
discussions therein with the necessary quotations from the Quran, sunnah and the
sayings of the companions, mentioning the names of the authors and narrators,
attributing every quotation to its authority and the books taken from. Such writings
were checked by some of his disciples and found to be sound. An example of such
improvised books is his al- rim al-Maslūl, which is overflowing with quotations,
intricate and delicate arguments and discussions with striking originality. He initiated
the discussion in clear language, proposed decisions, quoted, analyzed weighed the
evidences, accepted and rejected, all in uninterrupted flow.12 A Jew brought him a
poem skeptically questioning the Islamic doctrine of qadar (predestination). Ibn
Taymiyyah thought for a while and wrote an impromptu one hundred-eighty-four-line
poem following the same meter and rhyme in a lucid form that if a commentary is
attempted, it would run to two volumes. His responses were described as
spontaneously proceeding, seemingly effortlessly as if known and prepared for in
advance and pronounced with no pauses or hesitation.13 It was enough for him to read
a book once to recall it whenever he wished to quote therefrom either in word or
meaning. People from remote territories would come to him with probing questions.
Then he would sit and scribble --on the spot-- pamphlets and booklets in response to
55
their queries. He used to give full answers, and if he felt that his answer would lead to
other doubts; he used to clarify that too along with many of the relevant matters, thus,
dispelling misconceptions and disambiguating intricate concepts and issues. He was
very swift in writing, which rendered his handwriting too illegible for the fresh reader.
2.3 Areas of Interest
He demonstrated a great command in commenting on the Holy Quran. For a very

short verse, he was able to write a big volume. He himself admitted that before
proceeding to explain a verse of the Quran, he would read one hundred references on
the same. Therefore, he soon became an encyclopedic exegete having no parallel in
his age, and authored rich commentaries on certain parts of the Quran. The extant
portions are probably less than the lost ones. He wrote, for example, on the meaning
of Istigh thah ( i.e., to say: I seek refuge in Allah from the cursed Satan), Basmalah
(i.e., so say: In the Name of Allah…) and tens of selective verses of the Quran.
Moreover, Islamic theology was the field on which he favored to focus much of his
writing.14 He wrote and debated a lot to prove what he believed to be the orthodox
belief of the followers of the Prophet and had to face the bitter consequences thereof.
He devoted much of his writing to explicating the meaning and manifestations of
worship, which is the exclusive right of Allah and draw clear lines of demarcation
between the Islamic concept of monotheism and its opposite. He discussed many
issues that stemmed from the discussions of the scholars of the time and adduced
rational and scriptural evidences in substantiation of his arguments. The precedence of
reason over revelation, the intercession of the dead on behalf of those who seek their
blessings and the travel initiated to visit the graves typified the discussions in vogue.
The beatific names and attributes of Allah and refutation of the denial of attributes as
well as anthropomorphism occupied a big space in his writing.
Furthermore, from the legacy he left behind, it is obvious how authoritative he was in
the field of ad th. He memorized a huge number of a d th along with their
references, degree of authenticity, the narrators thereof, etc. When he wrote about any
matter of religious import, he deployed and rallied a large number of a d th in
substantiation of his arguments, refuting, inter alia, the opposing views, evaluating the
evidences they adduced in a very smooth way, without deliberation on the
56
arrangement of the ideas or the affectation of style and method. Hardly did he read a
ad th that he was able to probe into its meaning, check its authenticity and relevance
to the topic under question make substantive comments on the narrators and
crosscheck his with those of the experts in the field. al-Dhahab said, “a ad th not
known to Ibn Taymiyyah is not a ad th an epithet that was ascribed to ad th
specialists such as Ya ya Ibn Ma‘ n, Abu Zur‘ah, etc.
In jurisprudence, he occupied a prominent place among the scholars of Islam. He was

more aware of the approaches and principles of the founders of the various schools of
thoughts than those who followed and specialized in such schools. When discussing
any juristic opinions of the followers of schools, he could point out confidently where
such scholars deviated from the theories and principles of their respective imams. He
supported every issue he discussed with quotations from the a abah or the jurists or
both. Although he was a anbali jurist, he followed no particular school. He believed
it is prohibited for any one qualified to make independent opinions to imitate any of
the imams, who themselves warned against following them if their opinions were not
in line with the evidences. He vehemently opposed blind imitation, and encouraged
ijtih d to those capable of tackling it. He rightly believed that Allah and His
messenger have the exclusive right to be followed. He was able to take action and
issue a fatwa in perplexing situations where the people were too hesitant to take
decision such as when the Q z n-led campaign assaulted Sh m (Great Syria). The
Mongols at that time had already professed Islam. The Muslims in Sh m divided in
their opinion regarding the expedient way to ward off the attack. His juristic opinions
are widely dispersed in his works, densely associated with citations from the Quran
and Sunnah and the orthodox ancestors in Islam and were highly convincing. On a
few issues, he even opposed the opinions of the four imams, instigating the criticism
and confrontation of the contemporaries, who acted only within the confinement of
the four schools.
He possessed a comprehensive knowledge on religious sciences and acquired great

position in some other secular sciences, such as logic and philosophy, in which he
discussed the systems of argumentations of not only the Muslims but also those of
Aristotle and Plato in a purely rational but strongly convincing manner. He had also
good knowledge about arithmetic and algebra. He was a great linguist. He had read
57
al-Kit b, Sibawayh’s masterpiece , despite its intricate details, comprehended it, and
was even able to find eighty points that needed to be reevaluated in that book.
Additionally, he demonstrated in his debates and discussions good knowledge of
history. In answering the different wrong allegations, he could point out the
anachronisms therein.15
2.4 Physical and Moral Features
Ibn Taymiyyah was white with a black head and a beard mixed with a few gray hairs.
He was middle in height. His eyes were like speaking tongues. His shoulders were
wide. His voice was clearly audible with a fluent tongue, quick in reading. He used to
have a streak of harshness in debates but soon he would restrain himself with
clemency and magnanimity, and reached the acme in excessive courage, tolerance and
sharp wit.16
2.4.1 Sincerity
One of the outstanding characteristics of Ibn Taymiyyah was his sincerity in his
career. This is evident from the fact that he had been throughout his life exerting to
bring back the prophetic practice to life enduring all such incarcerations and
detentions without obtaining any worldly gains, neither money nor offices. Rather he
sought no offices, favoring to live solely for disseminating true Islamic knowledge
and practice. He used to say boldly what he believed to be the truth without any
conservation or fear. This was due to his alacrity to jeopardize his life, prestige or
fame for the service of Allah. He used to cast the truth in the face of sovereignties and
rulers uncompromisingly.
Ibn Taymiyyah was not only a man of powerful memory. Rather what set him apart
from the scholars of the time beside his memory was his deep and scrupulous search
for truth. In watching hours of the night, he would spend a long time trying to
understand a single issue, imploring Allah for the disclosure of the right solution. His
study of matters was thorough and encompassing. For one single matter, he would
review the whole literature and exhaust all the evidences available, analyze and judge.
For example, in discussing whether the Prophet saw Allah, he said, “we have
pondered over all what has been written and quoted, which were almost one hundred
58
books, but found nothing authentically narrated from a companion or imam.”17 He
immersed deep in the secrets of topics and came out with independent but well-
searched conclusions that he adhered to and proclaimed boldly even if such
conclusions happened to be in open contradiction of the opinions of the leaders of the
four schools. His main references were the Quran, the Sunnah and the consensus of
the scholars. This trend inflicted on him the animosity of some of those of imitative
propensity, which he totally ignored. Shamsudd n al-Dhahab , accounting the reasons
of his animosity with some scholars, said:
He was a man who least humored people with often hurried reaction. He was not
interested in official privileges, nor did he go by the norms of the politicians
[protocols in today’s language, if so to speak]. He helped his enemies against
himself by indulging in discussing issues bigger than the minds and the
knowledge of people of the time could tolerate.18
When talking or writing about any issue, it appears to the audience that all the textual
and rational evidences are present before his eyes and roll over in timely moments on
his tongue effortlessly. This enabled his conclusions to be very authentic and
authoritative and left his adversaries stunned and subdued. 19 Any one reading his
literature thinks that he hardly ignored anything and left almost no minute detail to be
added.
2.4.2 Austerity
Ibn Taymiyyah was invested with a nature uninterested in this world since his
childhood. al-Bazz r said that an eyewitness told him that the father of Ibn
Taymiyyah told his teacher to encourage him to study with the payment of forty
dirhams to be given to him monthly if he worked hard to study and memorize the
Quran. In response to this offer, Ibn Taymiyyah said to his teacher, “sir, I have made
an oath of allegiance to Allah not to receive any allowance for the Quran.” al-Bazz r
added that if a common person of the time was asked who was the most ready to
reject worldly interests and was most keen in seeking the Hereafter, he would say: Ibn
Taymiyyah. 20 When he travelled to Egypt to mobilize the Muslim army against the
Mongols, he was offered a daily allowance and gifts. Content with his mean
resources, he willingly turned down the offer. Thus, he led an austere life, eating and
wearing modestly, wishing for no more.
59
2.4.3 Courage and Generosity
He was a man of proverbial courage. This is evident in the situations where he was
alone in the front line. As stated above, he used to make opinions depending on
revelation and the legacy of the companions of the Prophet, even if that contradicted
the popular belief regarding such issues. He used to sacrifice being harassed for
freedom of research. He upheld the conclusions he arrived at after conscientious
research, disregarding the reaction and indignation of the scholars and rulers of the
time, who followed the schools of thought. Another sign of courage was the
unparalleled role he played in fighting the Mongols and the heretic Nusayrids.21
During such fight, eyewitnesses reported, he was in the front line encouraging the
fighters through preaches, promising them of the reward assigned by Allah to those
defending the frontiers of Islam; and acted what he preached. He played a combatant
and mobilizing role. When he mounted his horse, he would show himself like the
strongest knight and firmest fighter, crying the Islamic war cry ‘Allahu Akbar’ (Allah
is the greatest).
Moreover, when Q z n approached Damascus for attack, Ibn Taymiyyah,

accompanied by the sages of the town, entered his presence and he was the
spokesman of the group saying, “you claim that you are a Muslim and have a q i,
imam, a sheikh,…your father and your grandfather were disbelievers but did not do
what you have done. They signed pacts and remained loyal to them but you promised
and betrayed and were not as good as your word.”22 He did not eat the food offered to
them there, clearly explaining that the food is made from the animals looted from the
people and cooked with the wood logged from the trees of the peasants. Q z n felt
unusual awe and asked him to pray for him.23Moreover, a common man complained
to Ibn Taymiyyah about one of the authoritarian rulers of the time. Ibn Taymiyyah
came to such person, who sarcastically said to Ibn Taymiyyah, “it is I, who wanted to
come to you because you are an austere scholar.” Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Do not play
tricks. Moses [the prophet] was better than me and Pharaoh was worse than you but
Moses used to come many times a day to the door of Pharaoh to invite him to the
faith.”24
60
2.4.4 Magnanimity
In every occasion, Ibn Taymiyyah came to prominence and his word was even more
audible than that of the scholars holding official positions. His independence in
research and opposition of the followers of the different schools irritated them and so
they plotted to block or hinder his progress. They caused him many apprehensions.
Yet, when he was able to retaliate, he epitomized the magnanimous brother. This
occurred when Al-Mansūr Muhammad bin Qal wūn came to power for the third time
and wanted to avenge himself on those who took part in his ouster, including some
religious scholars who also had often conspired and harmed Ibn Taymiyyah. Al-
Mansūr consulted him about executing some of them, reminding him of the
inconveniences Ibn Taymiyyah was inflicted because of them, and imploring to get a
fatwa from him to carry out the revenge legally. Ibn Taymiyyah reminded him that
those were the scholars of Islam, the like of whom was rare to find, and pleaded
amnesty. He carried on dissuading him until he at last forgave them. Further, Ibn
Taymiyyah declared that all those who participated in harming him were clear from
his grievances.
The Maliki q i, Ibn Makhlūf, who was on bad terms with Ibn Taymiyyah, confessed,
“We did not see like Ibn Taymiyyah. We incited people against him but he eluded us;
however, when he was able to retaliate, he pardoned us and argued in our favor.” 25Ibn
Qayyim said, “I have not seen anyone representing these qualities [the highest degrees
of magnanimity] as Ibn Taymiyyah, to the extent that one of his friends said, ‘I wish I
could treat my friends [as kindly] as Ibn Taymiyyah does to foes.’”26 Ibn Qayyim said
that one day he brought him the news of the death of one of his avowed enemies, who
had fiercely harmed him. Ibn Taymiyyah scolded, frowned at him and got
immediately to the deceased’s family, consoled them and told them to consider him
their father and requested them never to hesitate to ask his help whenever in
need.27He used to pray for his enemies, who instigated the peoples and rulers and
even those who appealed for his execution. For example, Ali bin Ya‘qūb al-BakrῙ,
was one of the Sufi scholars, who advocated the concept of seeking succor from the
dead saints, Ibn Taymiyyah authored a book in which he refuted and rejected the
practice as an innovation. He got furious and targeted Ibn Taymiyyah. Some Sufi
scholars demanded that he be penalized but al-Bakr appealed to the rulers that he
61
should be executed as an infidel. He even met Ibn Taymiyyah in isolation and now
supported by Sufi common people, avenged himself by beating him. He spared no
chance to defame or harass him. Indignant fans and supporters from different social
strata came to the aid of Ibn Taymiyyah, asking him to decide as to which punishment
should be applied to the antagonist Sufi. Ibn Taymiyyah said that he never avenged
himself. People urged him not to concede in this way. He responded, “The right is
mine, yours or Allah’s. If it is mine, I have pardoned them. If it is yours, do not ask if
you are unwilling to follow my advice. If it is Allah’s, He will take His whenever He
wishes and in the way He favors.” This was in the year 711 AH. Nevertheless, the
fans wanted to discipline al-Bakr . He resorted to Ibn Taymiyyah, who graciously and
ungrudgingly interceded on his behalf and requested that he be acquitted. 28 Thus, he
was fair and kind to both his fans and foes. His aim was not to induce any problems
and disturbances among the Muslims. He said, “I, by Allah, am one of the keenest to
help in extinguishing any evil in this and in others and in establishing good. If Ibn
Makhlūf does whatever [hostile actions] to me , by Allah, never will I be able to do
him any good except that I will do it and will not support his enemy against him…this
is my intention and inclination although I know everything [of the enemies’
actions.]29
This moral character is clearly demonstrated in discussing, debating and answering

the deviants. He used to mention the good aspects of the opponents. He used to admit
the virtues of men even if they were his opponents and innovators in his opinion. For
example, when he talked about Ibn Kull b, whom he criticized on other issues, he
said that he had virtues, knowledge and faith, credited with rebutting the Jahmites.30
Moreover, he defended him when some people charged him that he intended to spread
Christianity in the Muslim lands.31 Further, he was asked about the s limite sect. He
answered that they were generally Sunnis; followers of Abul- asan bin
S lim…deviated in some issues and so were considered as innovators.32 Once he was
invited to debate with a Shafiite knowledgeable scholar. After the debate, he was
asked to comment on the scholar. He said, “I saw a man with the Shafiite thought
dripping from his beard,”33meaning the man had overwhelming knowledge. He spoke
well of his antagonists before the sultan, interceded on their behalf, and pleaded that
they be pardoned. He warned the sultan that if he killed them, he would not find any
62
more knowledgeable than them. The rule he applied in judging people is as he himself
explained: it is possible that same person or group will have correct and incorrect
beliefs or practices. They are then worthy of praise in their good deeds and worthy of
punishment in their erroneous ones. To mention and highlight either exaggeratedly is
unfair. Allah’s religion is to strike a middle way between the two extremes. Then he
gave an example of Abul- asan Al-Ash ‘ar . He said that the latter had a worthwhile
response to the innovators, which should be praised if pure intention was maintained
and had diverted from the path of sunnah in some issues, on which he is to be
dispraised, if insisted after being informed.34 Although he launched the fiercest attack
against the Shia, he admitted, “Some of them have faith and good deeds.”35 He also
said, “Amongst them are devout worshippers, remote from transgression and are
austere.”36Furthermore, in his talking about the Mu‘tazilites he said that they, despite
their deviation, “supported Islam in many situations and rebutted the atheists with
rational evidences.”37
2.4.5 Mercifulness
Ibn Taymiyyah was a man of tender humanitarian feeling. He would respond kindly
to whosoever needed his help. He would not hesitate to give anything in his
possession to those who needed succor. He would visit the needy and vulnerable and
enquire about their needs, and do the best he could to alleviate their sufferings. If he
had nothing to offer, he would even take off some of his clothes and give them away.
Moreover, he would stint on the food he had, to oblige the indigent.38As an
eyewitness reportedly told al-Bazz r, Ibn Taymiyyah never refused to give anything
asked from him even his original books. Rather he would tell the asker to take
whatever by himself.39
Besides holding that rank in the academic realm, he was a model for humility. Al-
Bazz r reported that he did not see anyone in his time like Ibn Taymiyyah in that. He
was extremely humble with all: the elderly and the young, the elites and the common,
the good well-off people and the poor. He would even be more kind to the poor than
to the affluent, entertaining, amusing and sharing with them and even serving them to
console them. He did not get bored with anyone enquiring about matters of religion.
He would, instead, be cheerful and show amiability to all indiscriminately. He would
63
himself carry the copy of the pupil who came to him for classes. If the student rushed
to do that instead, he would retort that since the written were the sayings of the
messenger of Allah, he should carry it. He would sit in an insignificant place in a
session gathering him with his students.40
He exaggeratedly venerated the Sunnah of the Prophet, May peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him. In very critical and hard situations, he adheres to what he knew to
be the prophetic way. For example, after succeeding in deploying the forces against
the Mongols, he was there in the Muslim army. The ruler of the Egyptian army
wanted him to join his battalion, but he apologized because according to the Sunnah,
he should be with the battalion of Sh m as they were his people. He followed the
example of the Prophet also in that he ordered people to break the fast as the Prophet
did in the battle during the month of Ramadan.41 He exerted his full efforts to live
according to the prophetic model, starting from his personal affairs such as clothing,
drinking, eating, etc., to public life where he is mixing with people. He combined
between the retreat life and the social life. He had been seen in the mosque where he
listened to the people and issued fatwas. He also visited the ill, attended funeral
ceremonies, went round, bidding the good and forbidding the wrong, etc. He also
spent much time in praying supererogatory prayers. He was a devoted worshipper,
with proverbially excellent and solemn performance. He exemplified firm belief in
Allah. In the fight against the Mongols, he promised the Muslims that they would be
victorious. His prayer was often answered. He used to pray for the people for quick
recovery, aid, etc., and soon got his prayers answered. He gave glad tidings to the
people that their woes will soon be alleviated, and soon stability was restored through
the ouster of Baybars II (Al-J shink r).
Therefore, we can conclude that the antagonist campaign launched against him is
unjustifiably prejudiced. Moreover, the debates and responses he carried out were out
of compassionate bent for rectification of conduct and not in humiliation or exclusion
of others.
2.5 Debates
Ibn Taymiyyah’s aim was to restore the way of the orthodox generations (the salaf).
He spared no effort in trying to reach this end. Further, the age he lived was, in his
64
estimation, replete with alien ideas and erroneous doctrines. The cultural contact with
the others and the foreign encroachments, among many other factors, brought about
many deviations in religion and more specifically to matters related to the Islamic
doctrine or faith. He was a man of rigorous faith and powerful polemics. Taymiyyah
was described in debates as:
He cannot be defeated through misunderstanding as he had excessive cleverness,

nor through shortage of knowledge as his knowledge was unfathomable, nor did
he manipulate religion, nor did he uphold views independently out of desire, nor
did he draw random conclusions. Rather, he would support his arguments and
debates with the Quran, ad th and analogical reasoning (qiy s), following his
reliable predecessors. Therefore, he is rewarded once for his mistakes and twice
for his right decisions.42
However, he was not the first to tackle this task. In terms of the Islamic theology, Ibn
Taymiyyah meticulously tried to follow the same doctrines the salaf upheld and the
four imams. He never opposed their theological doctrines. But the age he lived was
full of the issues that needed to be reinvestigated in the light of the circumstances
surmounting real life. There are some who try to portray him as a man who came to
oppose the mainstream belief or innovate in religion. Therefore, a brief account of
how all differences in theology came into being in the Muslim world will reveal what
was the original belief the salaf advocated. The following paragraphs will shed light
on this issue.
2.5.1 The Theological Development across History
From a pure Islamic point of view, the best way is the way laid down by the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and traced by his followers.
This was the most accepted way. This can be reflected by comparing between the
mainstream trend and the subsequent changes that were modeled by different sects
and factions and which effected debates and theorization. The formative period of the
theological debates can be dissected into the following stages43:
 The first stage extends across the first century. They used to depend wholly on
the Quran and the Sunnah in relation to ‘aq dah without going into detailed
elaborations therein. As people were still capable of understanding the Quran
through Arabic, which they mastered, there was no need for the written
material. Islam remained pristine and devoid of any superstitions or
65
innovations. People were more in need of education, which the companions
carried out amply. If any filthy ideas infiltrated into the society, they could be
easily distinguished as abnormal and intrusive. The people who broke with the
guidance of the companions, (who were the most knowledgeable and nearest
to prophetic example), were the first to fall victims of this plague. The Shia44
and the khaijites, (whom Ali fought), not only deprived themselves from the
prophetic guidance through condemning its bearers (the companions who
narrated the authentic doctrine) but also cursed them and charged them with
disbelief. This undermined their allegiance with the Prophet, and severed their
ties with the original teachings. This singled them out as insignificant groups
of innovators in a pure community.
 The second century: now people felt the need to answer the innovators,
through writing. In doing so, they needed to set rules and find definitions of
terms such as m n (faith), its increase and decrease, qadar (predestination)
and its core concepts, seeing Allah, the speech of Allah, His names and
attributes and other terms which in the first century used to be discussed in
general terms when people were aware of the language. The need was more
urgent in the second century as they needed to clarify the terms, their
meanings and rules that control such concepts and how to set them according
to full-fledged investigation in the Quran and Sunnah into separate works. As
people started denying some previously acknowledged matters such as seeing
Allah, the divine predestination, the Quran as Allah’s uncreated word and
went to extremes on penalty and pardon of sin, formulating the rules and
writing had become necessary. Furthermore, in this century, small polemical
responses to specific sects and particulars of doctrine also appeared, albeit in a
small number.
 The third century: here the need became even more urgent. The deviants in
turn had formulated rules for the justification and thereby promulgation of
their doctrines. Comprehensive researches in response to them were produced
in which the previous literature as well as the Quran and Sunnah were more
vehemently explored. These researches, at this time, were based on well-
defined methodology and terminology.
66
 The fourth century: in this century, speculative theology swept over the
reliable scientific trend in most of the Muslim lands. The latter methodology
had its supporters but they were comparatively a few since then down to the
age of Ibn Taymiyyah. This also provided fertile environment for the
esotericism and rafi ite thought. The emergence of doctrine identified with
the statelets such as Fatimids, Buwaihids and Kharijites, etc., occasioned the
dominance of speculative thought over the orthodox and slackened the earlier
adherence to textual evidences.
In a like manner, Mutazilite School prospered in times when the leaders at the late
Abbasid rule championed it. Abul- asan al-Ash‘ar , the founder of the Ash’ar
School, was a Mutazilite theologian. He mastered the thought, discovered its faults
and reverted to the School of Ahl-Al d th, later known as anbali School in theology,
most probably because at that time the leading imam of the school was Ahmad bin
anbal, the founder of the anbali fiqhi School and the most prominent of those who
faced the inquisition of the Mu’tazilites. Al-Ash‘ari aimed at proving the same
doctrine rationally in order to combat the Mu’tazilites with their own approach. Still,
he is sometimes seen divided between the schools, thus arriving at inconclusive
conclusions. Al-Ash‘ar declared in his al-Ib nah that he is the follower of Ahmad bin
anbal in his doctrine.45 The anbalites and the Ash’arites remained the two schools
that preponderantly retained the orthodox faith.46 The majority of scholars were
followers of either. Although there were differences between them, they were
interdependent. However, hostilities between the two schools erupted only in the year
469 AH when Abu Nasr Ibn al-Qushayr arrived at Baghdad and taught in the
Ni miyyah School. He was an ash‘rite from the east. He fervently praised his school
and at the same time, bigotedly vilified the anbalites.47 This immediately triggered a
warlike conflict between the followers of the two schools. It was the first clash of its
type to emerge between them.48 Since then prejudice has been observed in the
writings of some scholars of the two schools. By the Mamlūk era heated debates
reached a climax, which Ibn Taymiyyah said to have tried to mitigate.
This gives a clear indication as to the development and evolution of the approaches
and sects. Ibn Taymiyyah strove for the salafi way most of the time shorn of formal
protection. He was sometimes detained and ostracized. However, through his
67
charisma, professionalism and dynamism he could mobilize even the formal
machineries to the fulfillment of his high aspirations in the defense of Islam.
Ibn Taymiyyah criticized individuals and groups on the bases of the following:
 Because they adopted faulty approaches, (speculative, philosophical, esoteric,

etc.,) in understanding Islam;
 Because they gave reason precedence over revelation;
 Because of partial and incomplete study in which some of the evidences are
neglected;
 Because of altering the orthodox way of understanding and deduction;
 Because they invented new doctrines; or
 Because they tried to nullify some elements in Sharia
On the bases of these reasons, he opposed the Asharites, Jahmites, esotericism, Shia,
etc., debated with all these either in writing or in councils in the presence of formal
and informal audience.
2.5.2 Themes of Debate
The areas of research which caused difference between Ibn Taymiyyah and his
contemporaries were quite great in number. However, there are main and major points
which can represent a wide range of such differences. In the following paragraphs
some of such main points are discussed.
2.5.2.1 Divine Attributes
The Jahmites denied Allah’s attributes, denied man’s free will, denied the beatific
vision (i.e., seeing Allah in the Hereafter), and believed that Paradise and Hell would
perish after being populated and that the Quran is created and many others. 49 The
Mu‘tazilah adopted a rational method in studying the Islamic doctrine. To the
vitiation of Sharia, they assign to mind the identification of good and bad; they
claimed that the Quran was created, that man was completely free and was therefore
the author of his own acts, and that a perpetrator of major sins was neither a Muslim
nor a disbeliever; rather, he is in a middle position. Nevertheless, they believed that
68
on the day of resurrection such would be cast in Hell, ineligible for the Prophet’s
intercession.
The Ash’arites affirmed only seven divine attributes and denied the rest on the ground
that they will be understood as resembling those of humans. They were also divided
between the literal and allegorical interpretation of the attributes that have semblance
of human physique, such as the hand and the face, etc. While their leader, Abul-
asan, was inclined to the literal, some of his followers tended to favor the
allegorical. It should be noted, however, that the belief in the literal meaning does not
mean that Allah, for example, has a physical hand. Rather, He does have a hand but
such hand necessarily does not resemble those of the creatures, as there is none like
him. He has hands the features of which are unknown to people. They (Ash’arites)
also argue that Allah’s word is eternal as it comes from the eternal. This goes against
the fact that Allah makes fresh speech whenever He wishes. Moreover, they believe
that Allah’s word does not differ from nation to nation. It is the same to all. In
Hebrew, it is the Torah, while in Arabic; it is the Quran and so on. In reaction to the
Mu‘tazilite concept of free will, they affirmed that Allah has created the actions of
man while he is only provided some power to carry out such acts, which they term as
kasb (earning). Therefore, his role is not instrumental; in reality, man has no will of
his own.
Ibn Taymiyyah argued that Allah’s attributes are rationally undeniable, since none can
deny His being existent, living, etc., the denial of which is tantamount to atheism. To
believe in a god with no attributes is to worship a non-being. To acknowledge some
and deny some under the pretext that they lead to anthropomorphism is not fair, since
according to this logic, this applies to all attributes. The creator and creation share the
names of attributes. In reality, however, they are entirely different, very much as they
are different among creatures.
2.5.2.2 Divine and Human Acts
Ibn Taymiyyah also argued that man is fully responsible for his acts because both
options are open to him and he can freely choose either. However, to believe that
Allah does not create man’s actions is firstly a stark opposition to the Quran 50 and
secondly leads to the conclusion that there are incidents in this universe in which
69
Allah does not interfere or will. Moreover, it is unjust on Allah’s part to punish man
for something he cannot avoid. As to the perpetration of major sins, Ibn Taymiyyah
stated that Allah and His messenger recognized the thief, adulterer, the wine drinker,
murderer, etc., as believers, though they are punishable; and it is up to Allah either to
punish or pardon.
He opposed the principle of justice as set by the Mu‘tazilites. According to them, all
that Allah can do is just and good. This sounds perfect. However, they infer two
conclusions from this: the first is that Allah has nothing to do with man’s actions. (See
above). They negate that Allah wills or intervenes in man’s actions, including his
misdeeds. The second is that Allah does not will bad things to happen. Ibn Taymiyyah
believed that Allah does what is just and refrains from doing unjust things. He is
exalted high above doing anything bad or unjust. He enjoins the right and forbids the
wrong and false. Ibn Taymiyyah also propounded that nothing escapes His
predestination. Good and bad events occur by His leave. In the same manner, Allah
wills man’s deeds the good and bad inclusively. Ibn Taymiyyah assigned the
Qadariyyah’s reluctance to accept this doctrine to the lack of distinction between two
different but related concepts, viz, the will and the pleasure of Allah. He wills all
incidents in the universe and nothing happens without His will but He likes obedience
and dislikes disobedience, likes good and hates evil, and so on.
2.5.2.3 The Quran: Created or Uncreated?
Regarding the Quran, Ibn Taymiyyah believes that it is the word that Allah spoke to
the Prophet through the ways of revelation.51Therefore, it should not be attributed to
any other. The Quran understood as such, cannot be said to be created. The speech is
an inseparable attribute of Allah, and cannot be said to be standing on its own right.
Anyone hearing the Quran is hearing Allah’s speech. The Prophet is reported to have
said: “who will protect me so as to convey Allah’s speech.” Allah calls the Quran ‘the
speech of Allah’.52 Ibn Taymiyyah vehemently rejected the idea of the creation of the
kal m (speech, part of which is the Quran) as it leads to the conclusion that Allah’s
attributes are created, although he stated that the paper and the ink with which the
Quran is written as well as the voice of the human reader of the Quran are created. To
say that the Quran as sound and letter is subsistent in Allah is, according to Ibn
70
Taymiyyah, an innovation53. The predecessors in the first three generations did not
discuss this issue nor did they ever question the Quran being the word of Allah.
The Quran and the Sunnah are clear in referring to the Quran as Kal mull h (Allah’s
speech). This is enough to settle the problem. Nevertheless, the perplexing part is in
the man’s reading the Quran. On the one hand, it is the action of man, (which the
opponents adhered to) and on the other hand, what man is reading is Allah’s speech
that He revealed to His Prophet, and, therefore, Allah’s speech should not be said to
be created, (which Ibn Taymiyyah firmly stood for). The idea first germinated in the
deviant heads (Jahmites). The Mu’tazilah set for themselves the rule that Allah should
not be described with attributes because this would imply multiplicity; hence their
denial of the divine attributes. Kal m is no exception. It is an attribute. Therefore, it
goes against their approach if they acknowledge the Quran as Allah’s Kal m. Ibn
Taymiyyah asserted that the Quran is the uncreated word of Allah. He also admitted
that the voice of the reader of the Quran is created. These two propositions are
obviously tenable. However, his insistence that the Quran in letter and sound is
Kal mull h may seem inconclusive. Nevertheless, his insistence is justified when
the whole scenario becomes clear.
Ibn Taymiyyah was vigilantly aware that the claim that the Quran was created was an
attempt to divest Allah of His attribute of speech and reduce him to a dumb being,
who created the Quran in the angel who in turn conveyed the message to the
messengers. When Ibn Taymiyyah emphasizes that the Quran was in letter and sound
the uncreated word of God, he is speaking of the way it was spoken by Allah. It
should not be understood as to mean that he did not differentiate between the Quran
when first revealed as the spoken word of Allah and the reading of the reader. He is
also aware of the difference between the kal m and sound produced by the human
reader. The kal m denotes the meaning and content of the Quran, which has a
different ontological realization from the action of the human being. The Mu’tazilites’
position is precarious, because all existent beings have more than one attribute and the
very same thing can have too many attributes. Thus, the multiplicity of the attributes
does not contradict the singularity of the subject.
71
2.5.2.4 The Sufis
Ibn Taymiyyah also debated with Sufis. Sufism underwent many changes and passed
through many stages ranging from the purity of monotheism and complete following
of the Prophet to superstitions and innovations. In later generations appeared theories
alien to Islam. Some of the Sufis thought of exempting themselves from the duties of
Sharia. At some stage, they free themselves from its bounds. Ibn Taymiyyah quoted a
Sufi mystic as saying that, “the seeker of their [Sufis’] path in his initial stages
differentiates between obedience and disobedience…then he sees only obedience…
then sees neither obedience nor disobedience.”54It means that the beginner Sufi starts
like any one, differentiating between what is pleasant to Allah and what is not.
However, as he goes up along those degrees of Sufism, he relies mainly on qadar.
Whatever he does, he attributes that to Allah’s predestination. He is not culpable for
any mistake. Then he reaches a stage where he sees the existence as one. Here there is
no difference between good and bad or monotheism and polytheism. These had
allegedly transcended the simple human existence and claimed that they had attained
union with the divine existence, so much so, that they (the human and the divine
existence) were inseparable and undistinguishable. This culminated into the
pantheism theory.
Ibn Taymiyyah further clarifies their aspects of deviation by saying that a group of
those who discussed monotheism following the Sufi approach upheld that to prove
Allah’s lordship is the final aim and to get self-annihilation in that is the end. Any one
reaching this stage is no longer bound to differentiate between the good and the bad;
and this led them to rescind the impositions and the prohibitions and the promise and
the threat, laid down by Allah. They did not distinguish between the will of Allah,
which is inclusive of all creations, and His love and pleasure, which are conditional
on obeying Him. Allah wills the good and the bad but likes the good only. All that
occurs in this world is by His leave and will, but He commands and likes only the
good. Others turned into witchcrafts, boasting high ranks of self-righteousness and
miraculously awesome states. Some believed that a wal (saint, a pious man) has an
edge over the prophet, because they claimed that the former received from Allah
through no medium, unlike the latter.
72
Ibn Taymiyyah has categorized Sufis into different classes: some are pious people and
devout worshippers who lead austere life and had no interest in wealth and power.
Their main aim is to please Allah. Some were mercenaries, seeking sustenance
through pretentious asceticism. His hottest debate was directed towards those who
introduced new notions in religion undermining the very principle of monotheism. He
stated that people like Ibn ‘Arab and Ibn Sab‘ n denied the creator and claimed that
the very existence of the creature is the existence of the creator and that there is
nothing beyond the heavens. Ibn ‘Arabi went as far as to believe that dwellers of the
Paradise and the dwellers of the Hellfire are both enjoying, though differently. Ibn
Taymiyyah was right in his attack against this because they annul the divine message.
Allah sent prophets to people to set the criterion of what is good and what is not and
promised the reward according to the actions. To repeal this principle will cause
disorder and destruction, because, according to this philosophy, people are not
accountable and all will ultimately abide in the divine bliss whether in Paradise or
Hellfire. They also insolently cancelled any distinction between Allah and His
creation.
2.5.2.5 The Bāṭiniyyah
The B iniyyah (esoterists) are those who interpreted the religious texts exclusively on
the bases of a hidden meaning they claim to know. In their interpretation of the
Quran, for example, they may suggest meanings not in line with the context or even
the language the Arabs had known. According to them only prophets and saints, know
this aspect of religion. They also claimed that their imams were infallible in that they
never committed any mistake. This sect included the Ismailis, the Nu airids, the
Qarmatians, etc. it started as a secret group during the Umayyad reign. As vulnerable
communities, they worked clandestinely underground but when powerful, they
appeared what they really were. Some historical accounts suggested that their aim was
to pervert people from the divine guidance and establish a godless society. They are
against religions and morality. They were putsch mongers and revolutionary in nature.
Al-Baghd di wrote that researchers differed on the motives behind their campaign,
and reported that the majority were of the opinion that that they aimed to revive
Zoroastrianism, by means of the false interpretations they made to the Quran and
Sunnah. Others attributed them to the Sabians.55 He further argues that the historians
73
affirm that that were the descendants of the Zoroastrians, and were inclined to their
faith. They did not dare to declare their faith but resorted to the misinterpretation of
the Quran.56 Their affair was explicit as an attempt at abolishing Sharia, but the
camouflage they structured to trap people was that they claimed affinity to and
support of the prophetic household, until their propaganda gained currency. They
claimed the lineage of the Prophet to gain respect and support, and fortify themselves
against ouster.
As to the lineage of the Ismailis, Ibn Taymiyyah believed that their ancestor was a
Jew, brought up by a Magian. They did not follow the same religion as the twelvers,
the Zaidis or the extremists, who believed in the divinity or the prophethood of Ali.
They were more evil than those all were. Therefore, Muslim scholars wrote much
about them to disclose their secrets and unravel their evil, and hence the Muslims’
assault against them.57
2.5.2.6 The Philosophers
Ibn Taymiyyah identifies two kinds of philosophers:
1. The naturalists: these, according to him, denied any existence beyond the
heavens. As it is clearly understood, they posited that this world is
independently a necessary being; there is no originator or creator.
2. Theists: these acknowledge the existence of the Deity of this universe. This is
the faction which Ibn Taymiyyah discussed more often.
The philosophers exerted their minds to prove the existence of Allah through
philosophy. Ibn Taymiyyah quotes them as saying Allah cannot have attributes or be
described. They, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, asserted the wisdom of Allah and
denied His volition. They said that if Allah had volition, then He would be doing
things for interest, but He is exalted above that. Ibn Taymiyyah rejected these
postulates as self-contradictory.58Furthermore, he stated that some of the philosophers
denied Allah’s knowledge of the particulars, and that He does not hear or respond to
the prayers of people. For example, Ibn S na asserted that the souls of the dead could
intercede on behalf of their loving visitors, by virtue of what they gain from the active
intellect owing to their departure from the body. This, he asserted, could happen
74
without the knowledge of the interceding soul or even Allah. Ibn Taymiyyah rejected
this notion categorically and justified that this way would lead people to take the
graves of the righteous as objects of worship. This also reduces Allah to a helpless
being. Ibn Taymiyyah saw that their approaches were conspicuously faulty and were
insufficient and incapable of guiding to the true belief, the belief that Allah willed to
establish in the hearts of the believers, and with which He sent His messengers. He
viewed their approach as self-contradictory, blasphemous, complex, futile or all
combined.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s ontological theory is based on the conviction that the aim of creation
and revelation to prophets is to establish the belief in the existence and oneness of
Allah. Any notion violating this should be categorically ruled out. Therefore, the
eternality of the world, divesting Allah of His attributes, the claim that one of the
intellects created the world, and that incidents in this world emanated from the
Necessary Being without His knowledge, all these, Ibn Taymiyyah rightly observed,
were detrimental to the concept of taw d (rigorous Islamic monotheism), which is
what all the Divine Message is about.
2.6 Trials and Tribulations
The opinions Ibn Taymiyyah held often caused him suffering due to the stereotyped
practices attributed falsely to Islam. He often revolted against anything that he
considered anti- Islamic. Here are some of the issues for which he met much
inquisition.
2.6.1 The Epistle to Hamah
The first combat was in the year 698 A H. Ibn Taymiyyah sat in the mosque teaching
as usual. Some Shafi‘ scholars floated issues in the epistle he sent to Hamah. They
objected to some of the elements therein. He defended his position and answered their
probes.59 The session was concluded peacefully.
In the year 705, Ibn Taymiyyah accompanied an expedition to fight some Rafidites.
He demonstrated great knowledge and courage in the way he co-led the expedition.
This brought him great fame. Rulers now recognized his role and followed his
recommendations. Envy struck the hearts of some of the peers.
75
2.6.2 Encounter with Aḥmadiyyah
In the same year, the A madiyyah (a Sufi sect) sued Ibn Taymiyyah for freedom of
religion. They requested the governor to order Ibn Taymiyyah not to interfere with
their affair. Ibn Taymiyyah refused, declaring that each one is bound by the
injunctions of Sharia and none can be out of such bounds. This happened when many
smaller chances had occurred where he discussed to some of them and to others about
the false wonders they performed and told them that they were devilish gimmicks.
They boasted their ability to enter the fire without being harmed. Ibn Taymiyyah
declared his willingness to meet the challenge and suggested that he and they would
have bath and rub their bodies well with detergents and would enter together. They
backed away. The challenge was too much for them. Rather, one of them slipped with
this and confessed that their juggler could pass only to the Tatars (the Mongols). The
audience caught this confession and discarded their complaint and the meetings broke
up with the resolute decision that they be bound by the Sharia and leave their
superstitions. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a book elaborating on their devious way. 60
2.6.3 Al-Aqīdah Al-Wāsiṭiyyah
In the same year, the Vice Sultan, the q s and Ibn Taymiyyah held a meeting in
which they questioned some issues in Ibn Taymiyyah’s al-Aq dah al-W sitiyyah.
They deferred some issues to the next meeting. Sheikh afiyyud n Al-Hind was
assigned to lead the discussion but he fell too short of carrying the task efficiently in
the face of Ibn Taymiyyah. They agreed to deputize sheikh Jam ludd n al-Zamalk n
to carry out the debate. Ibn Taymiyyah was very alert and truly impressed people
with profound and witty discussions. The book was approved. Consequently, people
cheered up the peaceful end, which was in favor of Ibn Taymiyyah. These meetings
were conducted when the Sultan, induced by the Maliki q Ibn Maklūf and
Na rudd n Al-Munbij , had sent a decree that Ibn Taymiyyah’s ‘aq dah should be
scrutinized. Then the vice sultan in Damascus left the city. The void left behind was
occupied with tumults. The Maliki q punished some of the fans of Ibn Taymiyyah.
The arrival of the Vice Sultan stopped hostile actions but hearts continued simmering.
The same administered a third council and Ibn Taymiyyah was not convicted.
76
2.6.4 The Anthropomorphism Charge
In the same context, Ibn Taymiyyah was told that N rudd n Al-Munbij had been an
advocate of wa datul-wujūd (pantheism) after Ibn Arab . Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a
three hundred-line letter admonishing him for that. Na rudd n Al-Munbij held a
counsel with some of the qa is who (allegedly) for fear of changing the faith of the
people, and rousing sedition appealed to the sultan in Cairo to summon Ibn
Taymiyyah. A letter was sent to Damascus to this effect, ostensibly recognizing the
previous sessions and claiming to vindicate him of the previous charges. All knew it
was a trick. However, Ibn Taymiyyah wanted to promulgate his thought in Egypt, too.
Elites and commoners saw him off sadly. On his arrival in Cairo, a council was held
in which peer debate was expected. Ibn Taymiyyah started to talk but he was silenced.
Al-Shams bin ‘Adn n was selected plaintiff, who immediately claimed that Ibn
Taymiyyah wrote that Allah is on His throne in the literal sense of the word and that
Allah speaks with letter and sound. The judge was Ibn Makhlūf, the Maliki scholar.
Ibn Taymiyyah started to defend himself with praising Allah and so on just as it was
conventional when starting a sermon. They objected to this beginning and demanded
instant response to the claim.
Ibn Taymiyyah enquired about the judge. They told him that the assigned judge was
the Malikite scholar. He retorted with the question, “how come that you be the judge
while you are my opponent?” This infuriated the judge. A verdict was issued that Ibn
Taymiyyah be incarcerated. An edict was read that he be jailed in the citadel.
Religious as well as political leaders engineered, supported by a large number of
jurists and Sufis, the subsequent ostracism against Ibn Taymiyyah and the
anbalites.61 However, in 705 he was freed. The sultan ordered the administration of
a general meeting. Nevertheless, this time the leading adversaries desperately
circumvented the encounter.62
2.6.5 The Issue of Istighāthah
In the same year, another suit was reported to the authorities against Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Sufis litigated him on the bases that he criticized Ibn Arabi, their spiritual model.
The Shafi’ q i was designated judge. No point was proved against Ibn Taymiyyah,
except that he insisted that istigh thah (succor in dire distresses) ought to be asked
77
from Allah alone and not the Prophet. Some scholars saw no issue in that but the
Shafi‘ q i viewed that as a disrespect for the Prophet. Ibn Taymiyyah believed that
invocation should be addressed to Allah; then as the Prophet is closest to Allah, he
may be used as a means of intercession and not the object of prayer. Then he was
given choices: either to be released on conditions or to be detained. 63 He favored
prison, despite the reluctance of his followers. He did not want to compromise his
freedom of thought for freedom of body. Yet, friends could convince him to leave for
Damascus. He accompanied them. Yet, the people wielding authority insisted that he
be sentenced to prison. He was brought back to the court the next day. There he was
told that he had to be imprisoned. Q s were indecisive to pronounce the verdict,
some on the ground that he was not convicted. Therefore, he willingly went to prison,
where he was served and allowed to receive visitors.
In 709 AH Ibn Taymiyyah was exiled to Alexandria. He started teaching as usual;

everyday gaining more and more followers. The purpose of sending him there was
that Alexandria was the old center of Sufis and Sufism. There it was expected that his
approach would irritate the inhabitants and they would probably assassinate him,
ridding the authorities of the persistent headache.64 The top religious authority was
N rudd n Al-Munbij , the zealous advocate of Ibn Arab , and the top political
authority was the king al-Mu affar Baybars, who looked at Ibn Taymiyyah as the
supporter of his rival al-N ir, who resigned from his position due to some political
reasons. Ibn Taymiyyah had no supporters in Alexandria and therefore it was
expected that he would face his fatal end shorn of any public or political protection.
Alexandria was the haven of the followers of Ibn Sab‘ n, the mystic Sufi. This
negatively affected the conduct of people and one of the gravest repercussions was
that people started liberating themselves from the restrictions of Sharia. Ibn
Taymiyyah vigorously fought the bad propensities and misconceptions about Islam.
People loved him, and his thought quickly circulated; and the market of the innovators
curtailed.
Later on in this year, there were tremendous changes that occurred in the political
milieu. The king al- N ir rose to power again. Now he brought back Ibn Taymiyyah
from his ‘asylum’ and induced Ibn Taymiyyah to grant him a fatwa to penalize those
scholars who supported his rival. Ibn Taymiyyah dissuaded him, spoke highly of them
78
and interceded on their behalf. He was so close to the heart of the king that the latter
used to follow his opinion in many occasions. But Ibn Taymiyyah used this privilege
in fighting corruption. For example, bribery was rampant in Syria at that time. Ibn
Taymiyyah urged the king to enact strict measures to check this phenomenon.
Moreover, if any governor oppressed people and he knew about that he would raise
the people’s grievances to the king and plead in their name that that governor be
sacked.
With this tender consideration, it is no longer surprising to find common people and
scholars immensely loving and sympathizing with him in his woes.
2.6.6 The Issue of Divorce
He came back to his hometown Damascus, where he was received warmly by the
equally loving masses. Here he became more involved in writing about the Islamic
jurisprudence. He targeted issues that were problematic. He realized that people had
taken the word of divorce as a means of oath. They used to swear at their wives with
the pronouncement of divorce. Failure to carry out the oath caused them losing their
partners. Ordinary oaths were atoned with fasting three days, feeding ten indigents or
liberating a slave. When it came to the kind of oath in vogue, (i.e., making oaths with
words of divorce), no atonement was possible. The couple would be immediately
separated. This double standard invoked his doubts concerning the validity of such
decisions. He started digging up in the references for the opinions of the companions
and their followers to crosscheck the resolutions reached by the majority of the
scholars in his time. In this, he found that considering the legacy of the orthodox
predecessors and the cumbersome situations people were put in due to the previous
decisions, it was expedient or rather appropriate not to nullify a sacred bond such as
marriage with slips and lapses and unintended divorces. He wrote invalidating such
so-called divorces, proclaiming that those pronouncements should be treated simply
as shere oaths.
This incited the opposition of the litigious rivals in office as well as the followers of
the four schools. To suppress the fuss, the chief q i advised Ibn Taymiyyah to stop
publicizing that opinion. Therefore, the book was formally banned. This was in 718
AH. Then, Ibn Taymiyyah scrupled about hiding knowledge from people. He resumed
79
his disseminating it. He never hesitated to proclaim the truth even if that irritated the
rulers and if the ruler was once his savior and supporter. He was summoned to attend
the court where he was urged to refrain from that opinion which ‘rebelled’ against the
four schools. Yet, he out of fear from none but the Great Ruler (Allah) did not cease
to spread the truth he reached after ample research and investigation. Again, in 720
AH, he was summoned and reproached for his decision but they did not put the issue
to debate for fear of his invincible arguments. Receiving no conceding response, they
decided to send him to jail. For five months and eighteen days, he was in prison. Then
in 721 AH he was released.
2.6.7 Visiting the Graves
He continued writing, editing and adding to his books for a few years. In the
meantime, the hearts of the diverse groups he had opposed were simmering with envy
and abhorrence. Despite the various motives, these united and joined hands to curb
the free scholar. To consolidate the attack they dug into his literature. A fatwa he
issued seventeen years before seemed drastically serving the purpose of inciting the
elites against him. They distorted the fatwa to mean that Ibn Taymiyyah prohibited
visiting the graves including the gravesite of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him). However, originally, he did not prohibit such visit.
Rather, he prohibited initiating a travel to any gravesite however holy that might be.
This comes in perfect conformity with the prophetic ad th, where the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said initiating a travel is
allowed to none but three mosques, his mosque, Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and the
Holy Mosque at Makkah. With reading this fatwa differently, they incited the court
against him in 726 AH. He was detained without investigation.
In the prison, his brother was allowed to attend him. The enemies aimed at optimizing
the chance by putting his students under incessant inquisition and detention. They
were later released, however. Scholars with good faith were vigilantly observing the
socio-religious change the innovators had created in the wake of his imprisonment.
They appealed to the authorities not to help the enemies of Islam with the
imprisonment of the supporter of the Sunnah. However, the imprisonment provided a
good seclusion for the studious scholar to devote all his time without any interruption
80
to worship, especially at that old age, and to scrupulous research. He dedicated his
time in answering and responding to the erroneous trends and false beliefs in fashion
those days. His writings leaked out into the society with lighting speed. Now his
enemies realizing that they needed more importantly to imprison his thought, they
conspired to obtain a formal order to check his writing. All books in his possession,
which mounted to sixty volumes and fourteen bundles, were carried along with all the
writing utensils at his disposal to the grant bookstore in the town. He, unable to resist
the urge of dispelling misconceptions and expounding the Islamic thought in its true
perspective, used charcoal. He did not stay there for more than five months. Soon he
was released to a wider and more beautiful life after an illness brought his life to end
in 728 AH.
2.7 Death
When he died in 728 AH in the citadel wherein he was imprisoned, men and then
women came and recited the Quran beside his body, and then it was taken and
washed. People flooded to the place seeking the blessings of seeing him. Then they
held the funeral prayer at the citadel. The citadel and the way leading to the mosque
were congested with people. The corpus arrived at noon at the mosque, which was
already densely filled by people of all social strata. The funeral prayer was repeated
after the noon prayer. People were in huge numbers, which even kept augmenting.
The city allies and markets were too narrow to accommodate the sudden influx of
people conveniently.
After that, the body was carried out on heads and fingers all stunned by the tragic
event, weeping and sobbing. People while busy with looking at the coffin amidst the
crowds lost their Turbans, handkerchiefs and shoes. The coffin was seen going back
and forth due to the heated contest of people, every one wishing to participate in this
honorable duty. All loved him except those envious few and some of the Sufis and
Shia. The number multiplied as the people proceeded towards the cemetery. They had
to stop at intervals due to the jam. They halted in one of the markets on the way to the
cemetery to offer the funeral prayer for the third time. People would come in groups
to offer the funeral prayer delaying the burial to be done shortly before the afternoon
prayer (i.e., ‘A r). People
81
from the outskirts and villages came to witness the ceremony. Damascene people
closed their shops. All except the physically challenged and the old attended. Those
unable to witness were greatly sympathetic, and participated with their prayers.
Women who attended the ceremony apart from those on the roofs all bewailing him
were estimated to be fifteen thousand. Men were estimated to be one to two hundred
thousand. People offered large amounts of money to buy his clothes. Many people
read the whole Quran for him and frequented his grave in the wake of his burial.
Many poets wrote eulogies lamenting his death and praising his character.65
2.8 Books
As stated above and depending on the account of al- hahab , who was an authentic
authority being his student; Ibn Taymiyyah started writing books when he was
nineteen. When he was twenty, he was already a great scholar whose books were
circulating in the Muslim world. Historians differed on the number of the books he
authored. Some said he left thousands of books; others curtailed the number to
hundreds. Ibn Abdul-H d quoted al- hahab as saying that the number reaches five
hundred. Then the same quoted al- hahab as stating that the books of Ibn
Taymiyyah had at that time become over four thousands. Al-Siyū reported that to be
three hundred.66 Al- ajaw said that his books were three hundred in five hundred
volumes in addition to his fat wa (pl. of fatwa, juristic verdicts) which mounted to
three hundred67 thus summing them up to be eight hundred. These are the accounts of
his contemporaries and students. They were uncertain about the number of the books
he wrote. Why was it difficult to exhaustively enumerate his books? This can be
summarized thus68:
 People used to come to him from all parts of the Muslim world and enquire
about matters of religion. He would sit, write, and give it to the man waiting
for the answer. Sometimes he had a chance to have that redrafted. Sometimes
he did not. Such being the case, many tracts or pamphlets and even books had
disappeared.
 He was a prolific writer. He wrote very fast, citing, balancing evidences,
attributing citations to their respective authors, judging the degree of the
authenticity of a d th and their narrators all from his memory, producing
82
such multitude of books but without any scheme of distribution or
preservation.
 The official ban placed on his books for some periods and the confiscation of
the same for some others. Those who had his books tried to hide them, either
with them, or entrusted them to others, or sold them or gave them away.
Moreover, some were even stolen or denied but, in fear of the authorities,
none could claim them.
 His friends used to take some of his books. He would ask them to give them
back for redrafting. Out of love for the possession of his books, they would
not.
 He used to write, in some cases, without giving a title to that. His scribe or
students used to give the title. Therefore, some books have more than one
title, thus upsetting the calculation.
 He wrote a great number of books while in prison, where there was no one to
make extra copies, and gave them away to acquaintances and strangers
indiscriminately.
Nevertheless, his books achieved wide circulation. “Hardly had one come to a town,
except that one would find his books thereat.”69 The more intensely some attempted to
confine his books, the wider the circulation they gained. The following reasons
account for that:
 Allah supports him who works for His cause. Ibn Taymiyyah, as
acknowledged by those who knew him in person, devoted his entire life for the
defense of Islam and the rectification of the Muslims’ faith and practice.
 His very detention and the ban placed on his writings ensued adamant reaction
from the sympathetic public.70 Moreover, when the books forcibly got out of
prison, they luckily became in the hands of the readers. Thus, they were
instrumental in publicizing them.
 People felt his tender feeling towards them in all his affairs and his care for
the welfare of the Muslims. They could observe his disinterested strife against
the threats of the intrusive forces that jeopardized the land and mind in the
Muslim World.
83
 His fame as an advocate of the salafi approach and as an indefatigable activist.
 His convincing argumentation and well-referenced polemics.
 His freedom from bigotry to any school of law; thus he was seen as a man for
all.
 Anyone came for enquiry got his demand immediately. Ibn Taymiyyah did
not need to consult references nor did he had any engagements to delay the
answer. Even in his session in the mosque for teaching, he did not follow any
particular syllabus. Rather, individuals would bring the issues for discussion,
either in the form of oral questions or books for explanation, verification, etc.
Therefore, he was nearer to the masses.
 In many cases, he wrote on demand. The receiver of the copy written was keen
to keep and often to disseminate it too.
Now, it is in order, to have a cursory look into some of the books he wrote.
1. Kit b al- m n
In this book, Ibn Taymiyyah discussed the meaning of ‘ m n’ and ‘isl m’ as used in
the Quran and Sunnah. He elaborated on the implications and invalidations of both
and discussed the factions that went wrong in understanding these and the influence
of that. The book was published in Amman, Jordan by Al-Maktab Al-Isl m in one
volume consisting of three hundred and seventy-nine pages, and edited by
Muhammad Na irudd n Al-Alb ni. Yūsuf bin asan Ibn A-Mubarrid, (d. 909 AH)
mentioned the book in his Mu ̒jam Al-Kutub.
2. Fatwa al- amawiyyah al-Kubra
In the year 698 AH, Some people came with questions from Hamah to Ibn
Taymiyyah, enquiring about what the best position a Muslim should assume regarding
the attributes of Allah. He referred them to another scholar. Again, the question came
to him. In one session, in reply to the question, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote this book,
wherein he discussed the attributes of Allah, rallying evidences from the Quran and
Sunnah in support of his arguments. This spurred the animosity of those who viewed
this affirmation as leading to anthropomorphism.71 He proved that his was the
approach of the companions and those who followed them. He pointed out the danger
84
and the implications of taking the attributes figuratively or negating them all together.
He showed how indecisive those who adopted speculative or allegorical approaches
had become due to their insufficiency.
The book was edited by amad bin Abdul-Mu sin Al-Tuwajir , and published in one
volume by D r Al- umy‘ (Riyadh), KSA in 2004. Muhammad bin le Al-
‘Uthaym n commented on and abridged it into Fat Babb al-Bariyyah Talkh Al-
amawiyyah and Abu Zubair Abdul-Ra m n Harrison translated this abridged
version of the book
3. Bay n Talb s al-Jahmiyyah fi Ta’s s bida ̒ihim al-Kal miyyah
It is a critical study of the speculative approaches of the Jahmites. Ibn Taymiyyah

himself revealed the motivations behind the writing of this book. He said that when he
wrote the answer for the questions that came from Hamah (see book no. 2 above); one
of the best jurists raised some probing questions about that. Ibn Taymiyyah had to
answer back. He answered in ten volumes. What made him extend discussion was that
the people who produced these skeptical questions were not independent in their
responses. Rather, they depended on the arguments of the followers of the Jahmites,
mostly from those of Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Umar al-R z . Therefore, Ibn
Taymiyyah tried to show the deficiencies in his arguments and the Jahmites’ method,
in general.
The book was published (in ten volumes) in 1420 AH by the King Fahd Complex in
Mad nah, KSA. Yūsuf bin asan Ibn A-Mubarrid, (d. 909 AH) mentioned the book in
his Mu ̒jam Al-Kutub.
4. Al-Akhn ’iyyah or al-Radd ̒ala al-Akhn ’
This book is a response to the the Maliki q , Muhammad bin Abu Bakr Al-Akhn ’ .
It is an attempt to elaborate on the question of travelling to the graves of the saints and
messengers. Ibn Taymiyyah issued a fatwa to the effect that travelling to the graves of
whosoever was prohibited in Islam. This created a commotion in the intelligentsia.
Al-Akhn ’ wrote a research on the topic proving the opposite. Al-Akhn ’ abused Ibn
Taymiyyah in this book, claimed that the mainstream scholars confirmed his own
85
conclusion and that Ibn Taymiyyah breached the consensus of the scholars. Ibn
Taymiyyah authored this book and differentiated between the mere visiting of graves,
which is commendable, and the initiation of travels to the graves, which the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) proscribed. Ibn Taymiyyah
thought that the mistake that led the q to denounce his conclusion was due to
obscuring this difference. The book discusses and refutes the evidences of the
opponent, explained the salafi way of visiting the graves, denounced his claim of the
scholars’ confirmation but overlooked his invective.
The book was published in 1423 AH by Al- Maktabah Al-‘A riyyah, Beirut, Lebanon
and edited by Add n bin Mun r Al-Zahaw . It consists of 253 pages.
5. Raf ̒ al-Mal m ̒ an al-A’immah al-A ̒ l m
It is about the respect and loyalty due to the religious scholars, especially the four
imams. The difference between their decisions should not lead to any distrust in them.
He justified their position, vindicated them from intentional deviations. He stated that
they all agree on the absolute subordination to the Prophet and disclosed the secrets
and reasons behind their disparity. He attributed their disagreement on some issues to
the familiarity of each with the evidences relevant to the matter under discussion. For
example, why they differ on a particular issue while the Sunnah is clear in that issue?
Ibn Taymiyyah answered by stating three reasons for that: a) that particular ad th did
not reach that particular scholar, b) that he did not consider it authentic to act and
judge by it, or c) that he thought the ad th had been abrogated. He also elaborated on
the other reasons that contribute to the difference in opinion. Yet, he declared that the
scholars starting from the a abah up to that time had knowledge that was short of
exhausting every aspect in religion. Moreover, none apart from the prophets is
infallible. Such being the case, unintentional mistake is inevitable. The difference of
understanding the same thing is also an impetus that triggered difference or wrong
judgment. He concluded by asserting the belief in all the Quran and Sunnah and
warned against partial following.
The book was published in 89 pages in 1983 by the General Presidency of The
Administrations of the scientific researches, Ifta, Da ̒wah and Guidance, Riyadh,
86
KSA. Muhammad bin Ali al-Dawūd mentioned this book in his abaq t al-
Mufassir n.
6. uqūq Ahl al-Bayt
Literally translated, the title of this book would mean ‘the rights of the prophetic
household’. He starts by elaborating on the merits that Allah had conferred on them.
He also mentioned the special formal care that is due to them. Therefore, the fay’ (the
warless spoil that the Muslims gained from their enemies) is partially the right of the
household who were loyal and loving to the Prophet’s first-supporting companions
(Muh jir n and An r). No one abhorring them is eligible to this right. He discussed
the Shia’s abuse to the companions and stated that Ali and the companions were
intimate friends; and even when Ali fought in the Battle of the Camel, he did not take
prisoners, nor he killed them, nor took their property as spoil, nor did he chase any
escaper, nor ended the life of the injured. Rather, he prayed for the dead of the two
parties and said, “Our brothers did wrong to us.” Ignorance, Ibn Taymiyyah said,
among other things made the Shia transgress the bounds of Sharia. The book in
general is a smooth discussion with the Shia on the issues that caused them to part
with the guidance of the Prophet and the companions including that of Ali too.
D r Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, published this book in 69 pages. Abdul-

Q dir ‘A a edited it.
7. Dar’ Ta ̒ ruḍ al-‘Aql wa al-Naql
The literal meaning of the book is ‘warding off the text-reason conflict’. The whole
message Ibn Taymiyyah wanted to convey through the writing of this book is that
reason and Sharia or religion can never be contradictory or conflicting. The general
rule that innovators created, as he states from the very beginning, is that when reason
and revelation contradict, reason should be given precedence. This is because reason
is the base, upon which texts are situated. To depreciate reason is to depreciate both,
because denouncing the base is denouncing what is thereon. Thus, they prove that
reason should be placed first. Then they either interpret the text allegorically or
suspend interpretation. Ibn Taymiyyah resolves the matter by saying that if two
evidences seem contradictory, it is possible that they both bear clear-cut statement of
87
the matter under discussion (and in this case, they cannot be contradictory). It is also
possible that they remotely point to that; or one may be of the former type and the
other of the latter, (and here the one precisely relating is given precedence. He
maintained that degrees of authenticity and relevance of the evidences of the issues
under discussion should be taken as the criterion of weighing such evidences.
Furthermore, He exposes the ways the innovators manipulated the texts, and
according to that understood the doctrine and law erroneously. The book is a
refutation of all the decisions made on the above stated rule and other related matters.
The book runs to ten volumes. Imam Muhammad bin Saud University published it in
1991. The book was edited by Muhammad Rash d Sal m. ala udd n bin Aybak bin
Abdullah al- afd cited the book along with a good number of Ibn Taymiyyah’s
books in his al-W f Bil-Wafiyy t.
8. Al-Tadmuriyyah
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions at the beginning what forced him to write this book. It was a
request from a man from Tadmur. The man, as Ibn Taymiyyah accounts, asked him to
elaborate on Allah’s attributes, Islamic concept of monotheism, Sharia and
predestination. This is because these issues are of paramount importance and to know
them is direly needed by any Muslim. Beside, many misunderstood these issues. This
book, therefore, attempts to explicate aspects of monotheism, its implications and
invalidations. As monotheism also means to devote worship to Allah, and as worship
implies complete submission and complete love, then it is part of monotheism to
believe in Allah’s creation (including all incidents that take place in the world), and
command (all that Allah ordered to be done or avoided). Under creation comes
predestination and under command comes Sharia. This devotion in worship is the
crux of the message of all prophets. The book also contains the areas of monotheism
where the pioneers of speculative theology and the Sufis and some others erred. The
book consists of 241 pages.
It was published by Maktabat Al-Obaik n, Riyadh, KSA, and edited by Muhammad

bin Awdah Al-Saud .
88
9. Al-‘Aq dah al-W i iyyah
It is an epistle to the people of W si . It is characterized by its lucidity and, unlike

most of his books, went through thorough and tough official scrutiny, and debates
were conducted between Ibn Taymiyyah and his professional opponents on this
treatise. Whenever his doctrine was questioned, Ibn Taymiyyah used to refer them to
it and further challenged them with giving them a three-year period to find out any
inconsistency therein. This book is simply an elaboration and commentary on the six
bases of faith ( m n), namely, belief in Allah, His angels, His books, His scriptures,
His messengers, the Last Day and the qadar (good and bad predestined incidents).
Under m n, Allah’s attributes and His nearness to pious people are discussed. The
uncreatedness of the Quran and the beatific vision are also dealt with under the first
four aspects. Under the Last Day, incidents that would take place in the hereafter are
explored. The book also deals with the degrees of the people in their belief in
predestination. The method and belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jam a̒ h is highlighted
and the author demonstrates how they are middle between extremes in all aspects of
religions.
The book was published by A w ’ Al-Salaf, Riyadh, KSA. The book runs to 71
pages. Ashraf Abdul-Maq ūd edited the book. Many scholars particularly of the Arab
countries explained and published this treatise. The book was translated into English
by the Islamic research Department of Jamia Salafia, Banaras (India). Darussalam
publications republished the book with amendments.
10. Al-Nubuww t
The book is a discussion of prophethood, characteristics of the prophets and their

miracles. It deals with the prophets’ endeavor, strife and triumph over the infidels of
their communities. It sets a line of demarcation between the miracles of prophets and
the extraordinary maneuvers of the acrobats and the sorcerers. It also deals with the
concept of miracle adopted by the Ash’ari School and the pitfalls committed in the
study of the miracles.
89
The book was published in two volumes by A wa’ Al-Salaf, Riyadh, KSA in 2000
AD. Abdul-‘Az z bin li Al- uwayy n edited it and made an introductory study to
the topic and a short biography of Ibn Taymiyyah at the beginning.
11. Bughyat al-Murt d fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Mutafalsifah wa al-Qar mi ah wa al-

B iniyyah
As the title reveals, the book is a response to the philosophers and B tinis (see above).
An enquiry into the authenticity of three a d th spurred the writing of this book. The
first indicates that the first thing that was created was the mind or intellect. The
second shows that Allah was an unknown treasure, and then He liked to be recognized
so He created His creation. The third states that Allah was but none was with Him and
now He is as He was. The intention was to define the position of the issues derived
from these ad ths, and which the factions identified in the title adopted. Citing the
judgments of the early masters of ad th, Ibn Taymiyyah ruled out the first as well as
all a d th to that effect as fabricated. Philosophers (including Ikhw n Al- afa, some
of the Jahmites and those of the pantheists, who developed an inclination to
philosophy) depended on these forged a d th to justify the Aristotelian philosophy,
which postulates that the first thing to emanate from the Necessary Existent was the
first intellect. The book demonstrates and denounces the application of Islamic terms
to mean alien concepts imported from non-Muslim thought. The philosophical
thought was so appealing to some people in the Muslim lands that they strove to
visualize the worldview postulated by the philosophers even though it undermines the
very bases underpinning monotheism.
The book was published by Maktabat Al-‘Ulūm wa al- ikam, Mad nah, KSA. It was
edited by Mūsa Al-Duw sh. It runs to 531 pages.
12. Minh j al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah
The author states the reason that prompted the authorship of this book. He said that
some people brought him a copy of a book entitled Minh j al-Kar mah fi Ma‘rifat Al-
Im mah, written by a rafi ite called Ibn Al-Mu ahhar Al- ill for the king
Khudabandeh. Al- ill in this book claimed that the imamate is the first prerequisite
in Islam. He also tried to establish the preference of Ali to the other companions. In
90
doing so, he curses the companions, starting with the Prophet’s own most beloved
wife, ‘ ’ishah. In an attempt to decorate his ideology, he dispraises the people of
Sunnah and attributes to them false statements they never said. Ibn Taymiyyah
authored this book as a response to this Rafidites. The book, therefore, picks up
statements of the author of Minh j Al-Kar mah and refutes them.
The book, moreover, elaborates on the respect due to the companions and
demonstrates the wickedness and ignorance of those who target the best of the
Muslim community, especially those whom the Prophet had identified by name as
people of paradise. Moreover, the author states two main reasons for this: the
ignorance of Shia and their habit of telling lies to the extent that the ad th specialists
used to discredit their narrations. The book condemns the statement that imamate is
the most honorable issue for the Muslims to know, the infallibility of the imams, the
claim that their ideology is obligatory upon Muslims to follow, etc. The book
demonstrates through quoting the Rafidites that he mainly depended upon obviously
fabricated a d th.
Minh j Al-Sunnah Al-Nabawiyyah was published by Imam Muhammad bin Saud

Islamic University in nine volumes in 1986. It was edited by Muhammad Rash d
S lim.
13. Al-Ris lah al-Qubru iyyah
Literally translated as the epistle to Cyprus, the book is a letter to the Cyprian
sovereign appealing to him to deal kindly with Muslim prisoners in his custody and
at the same time inviting him to Islam. The letter is an invitation to the king to
faithfully and sincerely re-evaluate the Christian faith and to discard blind imitation.
In the very beginning, the author highlights the purpose of the creation of the world
and the monotheism-polytheism conflict throughout the ages. Then it discusses the
succession of the prophets for the guidance of people to Allah, who supported them
with miracles as signs of their veracity. A link in this chain of prophets was His slave
Jesus, the man of the miraculous and immaculate birth. The letter proceeds to
explicate the extremism and deviation of the Christians, their gimmicks, discrepancies
and adulteration and distortion of the Bible, supporting that with historical, rational
and scriptural evidences. It also shows how Islam is middle between the extremities of
91
the Christians and Jews. Ibn Taymiyyah then speaks of the tolerance of the Muslims,
how he personally extricated the Christians from the tight grip of the Mongols, how
kindly the Muslims treat the Christian prisoners and the early Muslim-Christian
dialogue, initiated by the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him). He also speaks highly of the victories of the Muslims over their enemies, how
they subdued armies many times their number, etc. The tone of the letter is amiable,
diplomatic and compassionate.
The book was published by Maktabat al-Sayyid in 1979. It runs to 76 pages. It was
edited by Ali Assayyid ub al-Madan . Sala udd n bin Aybak bin Abdullah al- afd
cited the book along with a good number of Ibn Taymiyyah’s books in his al-W f bil-
Wafiyy t.
14. Qa i̒ dah ‘Aẓ mah fi al-Farq bayn Ib dat Ahl al-Isl m wa al- m n wa Ib dat
Ahl al-Shirk wa al-Nif q
The title literally means a great rule in the difference between the worships of the
people of faith and the worships of the people of polytheism and hypocrisy. It is a
detailed discussion of the characteristics of sound worship. The book stipulates two
conditions for worship to be acceptable: that it should be devoted solely to Allah and
that it should be performed in the way He prescribed through His Prophet. Islam is the
religion of all the prophets, but the law each brought from Allah was different. The
companions of the Prophet followed him, disseminated his guidance to the people and
were alert of any aspect of associationism (shirk). The true believers assumed their
role. Then people who missed the prophetic guidance created many innovations. The
book is an investigation into this phenomenon.
The book runs to 143 pages. It was published in 1997 by D r Al-‘ imah, Riyadh,
KSA. It was edited by Sulaim n bin li Al-Gho n
15. Al-Jaw b al- a Liman Baddala D n al-Mas
The title can be translated as ‘the right answer to those who altered the religion of
Christ’. It is a response to a letter that came from Europe in which the writer tried to
prove through the Bible and the Quran that Christianity as it was at those times was
92
the true religion of Jesus Christ and that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) was sent particularly to the Arabs. The response touched areas such as
heresies created by the Christians, that the true religion of Jesus should not be
different from that brought by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) or any other prophet that Christianity has been abrogated by Islam and that Islam
is a universal religion binding to all men and jinn. He supported his arguments by
rational, philosophical, historical, biblical and Quranic evidences.
The book runs to six volumes. It was published in 1999 by D r Al-‘ imah, Riyadh,
KSA. It was edited by ‘Ali bin asan and others. Sala udd n bin Aybak bin Abdullah
Al- afd cited the book along with a good number of Ibn Taymiyyah’s books in his
al-W f Bil-Wafiyy t.
Due to the wide circulation and due to the vast number of his writings, biographers
had different accounts of his books albeit with a good deal of overlap. Here I shall
attempt to list titles along with the references where they are found. In cases where the
same is mentioned in more than one place, I will attribute it to only one. It is
noteworthy that some of the books were given what looked like headlines and not
titles. This may be an instance where he did not give titles but people just phrased
headlines indicating the content.
Al- m n, Jaw b Al-I ̒tir ḍ t Al-Mi riyyah ̒ala Al- Fat wa Al- amawiyyah, Talb s Al-
Jahmiyyah, Kit b Al-Istiq mah, Kit b Al-Mi nah Al- Mi riyyah, ‘Ib l Al-Kal m Al-
Nafs n and Al-Fat wa Al-Misriyyah are referred to in Mu‘jam Al-Kutub72 and
others.
Al-Mas ’l Al-Iskandar niyyah, Al-Radd ‘Ala Al-Man iq, Al-Radd ‘Ala Al-Fal sifah,
Al-Ris lah Al- afdiyyah, Q ‘idah fi Al-Qaḍ y Al-Wahmiyyah, Q ‘ḍah fi M
Yatan h wa M l Yatn h , Ithb t Al-Ma ̒ d, Al-Radd ‘Ala Ibn S na, Naqḍ Qawl
Al-Fal sifah, Mas’alat Ma Bayn Al-Law ayn Kalam Allah, Ris lah ila Ahl
obrust n, Q ’idah fi Al-Kulliyy t, , Naqḍ Qawl Al-Falasifah, Q ’idah fi Al-
Isti‘ dhah, and Q ’idah fi Qawlih Ta ̒ l Iyy ka Na ̒ budu wa Iyy ka Nasta ̒ n, are
referred to in Al-W fi bil-Wafiyy t73.
93
Al- rim Al-Maslūl ‘ala Muntaqi Al-Rasūl, Tab l Al-Ta l l, Iqtiḍa’ Al- ir Al-
Mustaq m, Al-Radd ‘ala aw ’if Al-Sh ̒ah, Man sik Al- ajj, Kit b Al-Ta awwuf, Al-
Kalim Al- ayyib and Al-Siy sah Al-Shar ̒iyyah are mentioned in abaq t Al-
Mufassir n.74
Al- ib q wa Al-Ithb t is indicated in Fahris Al-Fah ris wa Al-Athb t wa Mu‘jam Al-

Ma‘ jim wa al-Mashyakh t wa Al-Musalsal t.75
Al-Kaylaniyyah, Al-Baghd diyyah, Al-Halawūniyyah, Al-Radd ‘ala Al-Man iq, Kit b

Faḍ ‘il Al-Qur n, Al-Tu fah Al-Ir qiyyah fi Al-A‘m l Al-Q liyyah, Mas ’l fi Al-
al q, Al- afdiyyah, Al-Radd ‘ala Ahl Kisrw n, Al-Radd ‘ala Al-Bakri, Mas’alah fi
Shadd Al-Ri l wa Q ‘dah fi Al-Ma abbah are stated in Al-‘Uqūd Al-Duriyyah fi
Man qib Ibn Taymiyyah.76
In the previous sections, the way Ibn Taymiyyah followed in his debates with the
different Muslim factions has become clear. He would often resort to the Quran and
the Prophet Muhammad’s Sunnah in dealing with the various topics that caused the
difference between him and the opponents. However, he never missed to use his
common sense in his discussions. He established harmony between the religion and
reason.
He was a man who lived the worries and fears of his nation. As one of the great
intellectual references to whom people resorted in times of adversity; he was a
compassionate scholar who vividly interacted with the vicissitudes that befell his
community, and positively and actively participated in the protection of his nation
from the intellectual and military invasion of the foreign hostile powers.
As part of his lifelong struggle for truth and protection of his community and Islamic
ideals, he was overwhelmingly keen to rebut the falsifications made by the Christian
clergy against Islam. Through hermeneutical travesties, they attempted to doctor
Islamic texts to support their Trinitarian notions. He was motivated by a letter sent to
the Muslim lands to establish their theology and align Islamic texts to testify to their
allegations. In reaction, he made assiduous explication of the Christological belief the
Christians tried to market inside the Muslim lands and provided convincing responses
94
thereto. In the following chapter, an attempt shall be made to discuss his answers to
the notion of unity and indwelling, which they based on Trinitarian assumptions.
1
Bakr Abu Zaid, in his preface to Al-Jami‘ li-S ratih 2nd ed. 1422 AH: D r ‘l m Al-Faw ’id,
Makkah, KSA p. 15
2
Taymiyyah was the title given to one of his grandfather (Muhammad Ibn Al-Khi r) . It was narrated
that he had seen a girl at Taym ’ and when he came back home his wife gave birth to a girl which he
called Taymiyyah likening her to the girl he had seen at Taym ’. Then he was nicknamed Taymiyyah.
Others believe that the nickname was given to the newborn girl.
3
See Ibn Al-Waz r Muhammad Bin Ibr h m: Al-‘Aw im Wal-Qaw im Fi Al-dhab ‘An Sunnat Abil-
Q sim (Al-Ris lah, Beirut, 1994) edited and annotated by Shu’aib Al-Arna’ū , vol.5, p. 262
4
Muhammad Bin Abdullah Al-Qaisi, a Shafiite scholar.
5
Ibn Abdul-Hadi, Muhammad Ibn Ahmad, Al-‘Uqūd Al-Duriyyah fi Man qib Ibn Taymiyyah, edited
by M. H. Al-Faq (D r Al-K tib Al-’Arabi, Beirut) vol. 1, p.18
6
Ibid vol.1 pp. 20-21
7
Al-Bazz r, ‘Omar bin Ali (d.749 AH), Al-A‘l m Al-Aliyyah fi Man qib Ibn Taymiyyah,(Al-Maktab
Al-Isl m , Beirut, 1400 AH), edited by Zuhair Ash-Sh wush p.20
8
Bakr Abu Zaid, in his preface to Al-Jami‘ li-S ratih , pp. 18-20
9
Ibn Abdul-H d , Muhammad Ibn Ahmad, abaq t ‘Ulam ’ Al- ad th, (Mu’assasah Al-Ris lah,
Beirut, 1996), edited by Akram Al-Būsh and Ibrahim Al-Zaibaq, vol.4 pp. 281-282
10
Al- hahab , Tabaq t Al-Huff ẓ, D rul-kutub Al-Ilmiyyah vol.4 p.192,
11
See Abu Zahrah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Huy tuhu Wa ‘A ruh, D r Al-Fikr Al-’Arabi, Cairo, 1991 p. 80
12
See also Ibn Abdul-H d , Muhammad Ibn Ahmad, abaq t ‘Ulam ’ Al-Had th, (Mu’assasat Al-
Risalah, Beirut, 1996), edited by Akram Al-Būshi and Ibrahim Az-Zaibaq, vol.4 pp. 284-290
13
Al-Bazzar, ‘Omar bin Ali(d.749 AH), Al-A‘lam Al-Aliyyah fi Man qib Ibn Taymiyyah,(Al-Maktab
Al-Isl m, Beirut, 1400 AH), edited by Zuhair Al-Sh wush, pp 18-28
14
Al- Al-Bazz r wrote in his , Al-A‘lam Al-Aliyyah fi Man qib Ibn Taymiyyah that he asked Ibn
Taymiyyah about the reason why he comparatively wrote more on the Islamic faith (Aq dah) and
requested that he write on jurisprudence a book on his own selective opinions on juristic issues. Ibn
Taymiyyah replied that matters of jurisprudence are less serious. If the Muslim imitates any reliable
scholar, it is permissible. The faith, however, has been erroneously dealt with by the deviant factions
such as the philosophers, the esoteric groups, the atheists, the pantheists, etc.
15
For his sciences see also Al-‘Omar , Shih budd n Ahmad bin Yahya, Mas lik Al-Ab r Fi Mam lik
Al-Am r,(Al-Mujamma‘ Al-Thaqafi, Abu Dhabi, 1423) vol.5 p. 696-7
16
Ibn Al-Waz r, vol. 5 p.264
17
Ibn Taymiyyah, Jami‘ Al-Ras ’il, editd by Az z Shams, D r ‘ lam al-Faw ’id, 1422 AH
95
18
Ibn Rajab (d. 795), Dhail abaq t Al- an bilah, Maktabat al-Ubaik n, Riyadh, KSA, 2005, edited
by Abdul-Rahman Al ‘Uthaym n vol.4 p. 507
19
Abu Zahrah, p. 84
20
Al-Bazz r, pp. 45-46
21
Khaṯṯab , Dawūd Mahmoud Dusūq , ‘Aw mil Al-‘Abqariyyah ‘Ind Al-Im m Ibn Taymiyyah,
http://www.alukah.net/Culture/0/23292/#ixzz2aBLSH6jG accessed on 4/7/2010
22
Al- Bazz r, p.70
23
Al-‘Omar vol.5, p.699
24
al udd n, Muhammad Bin Sh kir Bin Ahmad Bin Abdul-Ra m n, Faw t Al-Wafiyyat, 1st ed. D r
dir, Beirut, 1973 vol.1, p.75
25
Ibn kath r, Al-Bid yah wal-Nih yah, D r al-Fikr, Beirut, 1986 vol.14 p.54
26
See Ibn Qayyim: Mad rij Al-S lik n, D r Al-Kit b Al- ‘Arabi, Beirut l.1996, edited by Muhammad
Al-Mu’tasim Billah Al Baghd d , vol. 2 p.328
27
ibid vol. 2 p. 329
28
Ibn kath r vol. 14, p.70
29
Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu‘ Al-Fat wa, King Fahd Complex, Mad nah, KSA edited by Abdul–Ra m n
Bin Muhammmad Q sim vol.3, p.271.
30
Al-Dhahab , Tar kh Al-Islam Al-Maktabah Al-Tawq fiyyah, vol.17 p.216
31
Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmou‘ Al- Fatawa vol. 5, p.555
32
Opcit. vol. 30 p.93
33
Shawk n , Al-Badr Al- le’, D r al-Ma‘rifah, Beirut, 1250 AH vol. 1, p.115
34
Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Fat wa al-Kubra, D rul-kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1987 vol.6, p.662
35
Ibn Taymiyyah , Minh j Al-Sunnah, Imam Muhammad Bin Saud Islamic University, KSA, 1986,
vol. 6, p.302
36
ibid , vol.5 p.157
37
Ibn Taymiyyah, D r’ Ta’ ruḍ Al-‘Aql Wal- Naql, Imam Muhammad Bin Saud Islamic University,
vol.7, p.106
38
See Al-A‘l m, p.48
39
See Al- A‘l m, p.65
40
See Al-A‘lam, pp. 50-52.
41
Ibn kath r: Al-Bid yah Wal-Nih yah, 14/26
96
42
Ibn Hajar, Al-Durar Al-K minah, Majlis D ’iratul-Ma‘ rif Al-Uthm niyyah, India, 1972 2nd
edition vol.1 p.177
43
Al-‘Aql, Nassir Bin Abdul-Kar m , Sharh At-Tahawiyyah, audio lessons written down by Ash-
Shabakah Al-Islamiyyah, http://www.islamweb.net, the second lesson, accessed 15/08/2013
44
The term ‘Shia’ here does not apply to those who simply favoured Ali to the rest of the companions.
Rather, it refers to those who condemned most of the a abah as infidels.
45
See Al-Ib nah, p. 20. It should be noted here that it took Abul-Hasan Al-Ash‘ar some time to get rid
of the Mutazilite traces in his thought. This book, being one of his late books, manifested almost total
transfer. His followers dilated the difference between him and Ahl Al-Had th through clinging to his
early persuasion.
46
Ibn ‘As kir al-Dimishq (d. 571 AH) authored a book entitled Taby n Kadhib Al-Muftari Fi M
Nusiba Il Abi’l-Hasan Al-Ash‘ar (Exposing the Fabricator’s Lies Concerning What Has Been
Attributed to Abu’l Hasan Al-Ash‘ar ). In this, he highlighted some of the doctrines attributed wrongly
to Abu’l Hasan Al- Ash‘ r .
47
Ibn Al-Jawz , Al-Muntaẓim F Tar kh Al-Mulūk Wal Umam , Darul-kutub al-ilmiyyah, Beirut 1992,
edited by M. Abdul-Q dir ‘A and Mustafa Abdul-Q dir ‘A , vol. 16 p.181
48
Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū’ Al-Fat wa, vol.3, p.228
49
See his discussions of their doctrines in his Talb s Al-Jahmiyyah
50
Allah says, “And Allah created you and what you do” (Quran: 37:96)
51
For the manners of revelation see Quran: 42:51.
52
Allah says: “And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, protect him so as to [let him]
hear the kal m (speech or word) of Allah.” (Quran: 9:6)
53
Ibn Taymiyyah stated that Quran as letter and sound is Allah’s word. The opponents mistakenly
attributed to him the belief that Allah spoke with sound and letter. They also attributed to Im m Ahmad
the belief that the readers’ voice and the ink with which the Quran is written are eternal. In his book
Majmu‘ Al-Fat wa vol. 3, p. 170 he declares that it was a fabrication and said he collected the saying
of Ahmad and showed that the imam never upheld that view.
Ibn Taymiyyah, Iqtiḍa’ Al- ir t Al-Mustaq m, D r Alamul-Kutub, Beirut, 1999, edited by Nassir Bin
54
Abdulkar m Al-‘Aql. p. vol.2 p.392
55
Al-Baghd d , Al-Farq Bayn Al-Firaq, D r Al- f q Al-Jad dah, Beirut, 1977, p. 279
56
Ibid p. 269
57
Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū‘ Al-Fat w , vol. 4, p. 162
58
Ibid vol.16, p.130
59
Ibn Kath r, al-Bid yah Wa al- Nih yah, vol.14, p.4
60
ibid. vol. 14, p. 36
61
Ibid vol. 14, p. 38
97
62
Ibid vol. 14, p. 45
63
Ibid
64
Nadw , Abul- asan, Rij l Al-fikr wa al-Da‘wah, translated by Sa‘ d Al-A‘ um Al-Nadw , D rul-
Qalam Damascus, 2002 p.102
65
Ibn Kath r, al-Bid yah Wa al- Nih yah, vol 14, pp.135-6
66
Al-Dhahab , Tabaq tul- uff z, p. 521
67
Al- ajaw , Muhammad bin Al- asan, Al-Fikr Al-S mi, D rul-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon,
1st ed. 1995. Vol.2, 434
68
Abdul-H d mentioned some in his Al-‘Uqūd, pp. 80-81
69
Abdul-H d , Al-‘Uqūd p. 23
70
Al- ajaw said that because of his trial, people liked his books, looked for them, publicized them,
revived their content and followed its material, thus he became a leader and gained wide celebrity.
71
Anthropomorphism used to be associated with the anbalites due to their affirmation of the
attributes of Allah. Ibn Taymiyyah in his book Majmu’ Al-Fat wa vol.3, p.197 exonerated imam
Ahmad from this charge and affirmed that only a few of the followers of Ahmad viewed that whereas
the pure Hanbalites never upheld this doctrine. Anthropomorphism was more observed in the non-
Hanbalites, e.g., all the Kurds who were all Shafiites and who followed this doctrine more than any
other people and the people of J l n, and it was found in the Karramites who were all Hanafis.
72
Ibn Al-Mubarrid, Yūsuf bin asan (d.909) Maktabat Ibn S na for publication and distribution, edited
by Yusra Abdul-Ghan Al-Bishr , p. 116
73
Al- afd , khal l Aybak (d. 764 AH), D r I ya’ Al-Tur th, 2000, edited by Ahmad Al-Arna’ū and
Turki Mu tafa.
74
Al-D wūd , Muhammad bin Ali (954 AH) D r Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon
75
Al-Katt n , Muhammad Abdul- ayy (d.482 AH), D r Al-Gharb Al-Isl m , Beirut, Lebanon, vol. 1,
p. 275
76
Ibn Abdul-H di, Shamsudd n Muhammad bin Ahmad (d.744 AD), D r al-Kit b Al-‘Arabi, Beirut,
Lebanon, edited by Muhammad H mid al-Faq
98
Chapter Three: Christ in the Writings of Ibn Taymiyyah
CHAPTER THREE
Christ in the Writings
Of
Ibn Taymiyyah
99
100
3 CHRIST IN THE WRITINGS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH
Christianity has become a Christocentric religion, wherein Christ is the focal point of
discussion. Rather, most of the innovations took place due to the different
understanding of the nature and status of Christ. Therefore, this chapter is devoted to
Ibn Taymiyyah’s discussions on Christ.
3.1 λόγος (Logos)
The Greek translation of the Bible introduced some Greek words into Christianity
along with their cultural connotations. The Greek word transliterated as ‘logos’
contributed greatly in creating much hermeneutical controversy. We first have to
understand that the term has many meanings: a word (being the expression of a
thought or reasoning; a saying), speech, discourse, communication, divine utterance,
analogy. As regards to God, it means decree, mandate and order. The logos is a
common term (used 330 times in the New Testament) with regards to a person sharing
a message.1 Moreover, in pre-Christian Judaism, wisdom, word, and, for that matter,
spirit was near alternatives as ways of describing the active, immanent power of God.
In the Old Testament, "the word of God" repeatedly denotes the revelation of God and
the divine will. In Hellenistic Judaism, the Law of Moses had been identified with
wisdom.2 Furthermore, the logos may refer to the act of speaking, as in James: 3:2-3
or the faculty and skill of speaking, as in Ephesians: 6:19-20. When it is attributed to
God, it may mean revelation as in John: 10:35.
This leads to the fact that logos was used to cover the whole speech process and skill.
The word logos may refer to any of the stages of speaking: either as the power of
speaking, or as the collection of thoughts and ideas (foreknowledge), or as the words
spoken, received or enacted. With reference to biblical use it also means what God
says to His elected people (prophets and messengers, who in turn conveyed the same
to His servants),3 and their prophecies4 and God’s command which is naturally
manifest through revelation.5 Sometimes, however, the person who received the
‘word’ and acted and preached according to it is made its referent. We in our ordinary
language refer to some people as being the incarnate of abstract qualities. This
101
personification is seen also in the Old Testament, wherein wisdom (which is

identified with the law) is personified as a ‘lady’.6 This is clearly a figurative use. Ibn
Taymiyyah is completely aware of the diversity and of the wide coverage of the term,
and therefore constantly urges the Christians to opt one meaning for the use in
explicating their dogma instead of having many meanings.7
Moreover, the statement in John: 1:1 which does not consider Christ and logos as one
or rather does not mention Jesus is equivocal. Nevertheless, what John said in other
places should be considered. In other verses, he differentiates between the Christ and
the word of God (logos)8. See for example: John: 10:35 and Revelation: 1:9.
Therefore, it could be said that the word of God is His revelation to His selected
prophets one of which was Christ.
However, in Christian dogma, the logos is Jesus, who is therefore believed to have
existed before all ages. Being the logos, he is the creator of everything. This Greek
term has been the main reason for deifying Christ; since the word of God is eternal,
comes from God, and considered as the God’s faculty of speech, wisdom or
foreknowledge, it is identifiable with Him. All these attributes are identified with
Christ because of a cultural conflation. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being
‘homooúsios’ with God the Father, meaning consubstantial, or of the same
essence/substance as the Father. The concept of consubstantiality (and likewise co-
eternality) of three principles had no traces in the post apostolic literature. The Holy
Spirit as a person is not traceable either. The Bible is replete with references wherein
God is portrayed as a transcendent being that is clearly distinct from the world
including Christ. The main difference is accentuated through the various meanings an
allegorical statement can accommodate. The personification of impersonal things
especially the logos occasioned the point of departure from the monotheistic
principles that divine religions are pivoted on.
Thus, the Son is referred to as the Word of God, as described traditionally to be the
logos. Discussed rationally, it appears to Ibn Taymiyyah as a mysterious hybrid. όγο
(Logos) has many meanings. The various understandings of the logos and its relation
with God brought many themes into light. Is God immanent or transcendent? Is He in
102
need to assign intermediaries between him and the corporal world? Are the
personified beings identified with God form a hierarchy or unity? What is the
meaning of the triadic formulas in the Christian literature? Many theories were
produced, because it was a Greek word used to connote different meanings in
different contexts. Apart from this are the cultural and political circumstances that
Christianity suffered and survived although not unaffected.
Having a monotheistic mindset, Ibn Taymiyyah could not reconcile Nicene concept of
Godhead and monotheism. Furthermore, he found the Christian concept of Trinity is,
from the ontological and rational point of view, unpalatable. In his analysis of the
concept, he picks up the ‘Word’ element in the picture, whereby he seeks to identify
the identity of the word to make a judgment accordingly. The word, he noted, can be
God, His attribute or both. If no one of these is possible, then it must be a being
distinct from God. If it was God Himself, or both God and His attribute, then it would
be the Creator of the world, (who is the Father). However, the Christians believe that
the Father is not the Christ. Moreover, if the word was an attribute of God, then it
could not be the creator, whereas, according to the Christian theology, the Christ is
the creating word of God. Further, an attribute of God inheres in Him and does not
detach itself to unite with or dwell in another such as a human being/form. Nor does
the self or the substance ever exist stripped of its attributes. Therefore, Allah exists
with His attributes, which do not constitute/possess a superfluous or extra identity. Ibn
Taymiyyah asserts that there is no being in the universe without attributes, although
he admits that there is a difference between the existences of the two.9
Therefore, it is absurd to say that the attribute deserves to be worshipped. The

Christians propound that the Word of God is worshipped along with Him. They
dedicated the first ecumenical council to defining the nature of Christ and asserted
that he was God. Christ, they further elaborate, is the speaker among the Prophets.
They also call him the creating word of God10, who would descend at the end of time
and judge between people11. He will also forgive people who had faith in him. The
word of God, Ibn Taymiyyah asserts, cannot create, forgive sins or judge between
people just because it is an attribute exactly like mercy, ability, etc., which do not
103
constitute separate entities. No one prays any of God’s attributes. Ibn Taymiyyah
reiterates the query whether the word of God, which appeared in Jesus, is God’s
speaking attribute (i.e. the capacity to speak) or the speaking self? If it means God’s
spoken word, then it can mean either of two meanings: first, it means the revelation
that the Prophet Jesus received, which is true. Second, if it means that God’s word,
which is His attribute, detached itself from Him12, descended and united with Jesus,
then this is not true. Ibn Taymiyyah generalizes that nothing that is detached from
God can be an attribute of Him, let alone being a creator. He tells us that the mistake
of the Christians is three fold: one, because they made the son and the Holy Spirit as
the attribute of God; second, they made that attribute a creator; and third, when they
believed that the attribute united with a human and that human is the creator of the
heavens and the earth. He states that the error in the indwelling is a triple error beside
their errors in the Trinity, wherein they secluded three attributes apart from God’s
various attributes to be independent substances forming the triune God. Thus, in both
places, the error is triple.
3.2 The Trinity
The doctrine of trinity has been the focal point in Christianity. many debates have
been carried out due to this incomprehensible dogma. Moreover, the Muslim-
Christian debates concentrated on it. Here the meaning and implications of this
doctrine are briefly dealt with.
3.2.1 Definition and Difference
The Catholic Encyclopedia asserts, “In scripture there is as yet no single term by
which the three divine persons are denoted together”13. Moreover, in the writings of
the early Christians, it is not used neither as a term nor as an agreed upon meaning
denoting a triune god comprised of consubstantial coeternal persons, as this meaning
first appeared in the fourth century. As for the meaning of Trinity, it is according to
Advanced Learners Dictionary, “the existence of one God in three forms, the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit”14. According to Easton dictionary of biblical terms, the
Trinity is:
104
“[A] word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of
God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the
Gr[eek] . trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas,
first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.15 The propositions
involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one
God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30).
2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona,
suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus
Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy
Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.16
It should be noted however that those who coined or used the term, speak of three
persons in one, being equal in divinity. To Theophilus, the trinity refers to God, His
word (logos) and His wisdom (Sophia). To Tertullian, it refers to God, His Reason
and His word as an expression of that reason. He thinks of the son as second in
position. Even in later eras after the canonization of the Trinitarian creed in 325 CE,
difference in meanings continued and many opinions emerged. Maulana Taqi
Othm n wrote:
“In elucidating and interpreting the doctrine, however, the views of the Christian
scholars themselves are so divided and contradictory that it is extremely difficult
to arrive with certainty at one conclusion…some say that it is the totality of the
Father, the son and the Holy Spirit. Others are of the view that the Father, the son
and the Virgin Mary are the three persons whose unity represents the God… One
group is of the opinion that each of three per se is God just as the whole is God.
Another group is of the view that each of the three separately is God but when
compared to the whole each has a lesser status, and the word ‘God’ has been
used for each in a slightly wider sense. The third group is of the opinion that
each of the three is not God, but that God is only the whole (trinity).”17
3.2.2 Meaning of the Hypostases
This Greek term has had many meanings and dimensions. Greek philosophers, who
were the natives of the term, differed concerning its meaning diametrically. Therefore
having a cursory look into the meaning is pertinent here.
“The word hypostasis (Greek ὑπό α ) means underlying state or underlying

substance, and is the fundamental reality that supports all else… Neoplatonists
argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses
are three higher spiritual principles or hypostases, each one more sublime than
the preceding…. Plotinus taught that God exists in Three Hypostases, The One,
The Divine Mind and The Word-Soul. In the Christian Scriptures this seems
roughly its meaning at Hebrews 1:3. Allied to thi s was its use for "basis" or
105
"foundation" and hence also "confidence," e.g., in Hebrews 3:14 and 11:1 and 2
Corinthians 9:4 and 11:17.”18
Ibn Taymiyyah posits that the word ‘uqnūm’ (ὑπό α or hypostasis) is mentioned
nowhere in the divine books that are available at the disposal of the Christians. The
Disciples of Christ never used it either. Then, it is an invented term, which is said to
have a Roman origin, denoting ‘the origin’ and sometimes has other meanings too.
Therefore, the Christians differ about the meaning of this word as it is from a foreign
language. Sometimes they say that the meaning is persons; sometimes qualities; some
other times attributes and sometimes essences (jaw hir, pl. of jawhar). Others,
however, make the term more inclusive to enshrine the accidents as well as the
essence.19 They further say that the term refers to the essence with any of its
properites.
The essential attributes forming the hypostases (along with the essence) are believed
by the Christians to be consubstantial unlike the other subordinate attributes. Ibn
Taymiyyah tells them that if this means that they are essences it becomes clearly
incredible and no sane man would uphold it. If they differentiate between the different
attributes, and on the bases of that, they make some attributes to participate in the
formation along with the essences and place them on the same footing as the essences,
this is wrong on the following grounds:
 Believing that attributes are of two categories: some coessential and others are
accidental is in the sight of all faiths false.
 The Christians say that every existing thing has a mental concept representing
an existence different from its existence in the outer world. Ibn Taymiyyah
admits it is true that what we conceptualize in the mind is necessarily
different from the thing available in the outer world. In the mind, we simply
have an idea. Nevertheless, the question he poses is that whether the resultant
in the outer world is one or two.
Ibn Taymiyyah attempts to explain the meaning using his knowledge of the Bible, the
Quran and his mental power. From the Quranic perspective, the Holy Spirit refers to
106
the Archangel Gabriel, who brings down revelation to the prophets.20 In the Quran, it,
besides referring to the agent of revelation, also refers to the revelation per se, and
therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah maintains that the Christ was supported with both, as they
are co-related.21
The Holy Spirit in the prophetic terminology is the moral and spiritual support that
Allah confers on whom He wills of the righteous including the prophets. Furthermore,
it refers to the light, guidance, revelation and the angels that descend to the aid of the
people of God. Ibn Taymiyyah gives scriptural evidences in support of his opinion,
some of which are as follows:
 The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
commanded ass n bin Th bit (the poet companion) to defend him by poetry,
saying, “Verily the holy spirit is with you as long as you defend His Prophet.”
and prayed for him saying: “O Allah! Support him with the holy spirit.”
 The Quranic verse, “For such, He has written faith in their hearts and
supported them with a spirit from Him.”(Quran: 59:22)22
As such, the Holy Spirit is not a person in the Trinity or something with which only
Christ was honored or identified. The Christians, Ibn Taymiyyah states, consider the
Holy Spirit to mean both the support stated above as well as the life and ability of
God.23 Ibn Taymiyyah argues that the Christians should concede either that the Holy
Spirit in other people is not the life of God, or that it is the same in all people. If
they agree on the latter, then similarly, the Holy Spirit is in all those who are said in
the Bible to have it. Many people are stated in the Bible to have the Holy Spirit.24
3.2.3 The Biblical Evidences
Through his reading of the literature on Christianity and the letter he received, Ibn
Taymiyyah learned that the Christians depend on certain texts in their scripture to
substantiate their claims. Here he tries to answer such claims. In the following
paragraphs, these will be considered separately along with the answers Ibn
Taymiyyah strived to provide.
107
The first quotation Ibn Taymiyyah gives is one he attributed to Genesis, the first book
of the Torah. There he quotes that when God had willed to create Adam, said: let us
make a creature in our likeness in our image. Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that some
translate the verse to ‘let us make a man …’He must be referring to this verse: “And
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”25 the Christians believe,
Ibn Taymiyyah said, ‘God’ here means His spirit and His word. Further, he attributes
to the Christians that they said that God said, “Adam has become as one of us”,
insinuating at his wish when he ate the tree and became naked. This quotation is
mentioned in the Bible currently held by the Christians today thus: “And the LORD
God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now,
lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.”26
The Christians also give the following verse as evidence for the Trinity as Ibn
Taymiyyah quotes them: “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven”27. The repetition of the word ‘lord’
signifies the lordship of the son. Ibn Taymiyyah answers them in the following:
 Nothing is like Allah.28
 The Christ is not mentioned by name. It is open to all men.
 If by His spirit, they mean His life or knowledge which are God’s attributes,
the attribute cannot be like the person it subsists in. If they mean something
else then this must be created and the creature can never be like the creator.
 The word ‘make’ in the verse makes it clear that the being that is made is a
created being, whereas Christ in their sight is a creator.
 Likeness is not identicalness. Two things can be similar in some aspects but
not necessarily identical. There is only a common area between them. The
other features are different. After all, the phrase is not an evidence for the
three persons in any way.
 Practically, many different things may come under the same name though they
are completely different just as in the case of colors. They share the name
‘color’ but obviously, the black is not like the white. Therefore, the name may
be the same but realities are different.
108
 Since he is created (‘let us make man’) he cannot be the Christ in his divinity.
The verse cannot mean His spirit or word. It refers to a created being over
which Christ in his humanity possesses no merit.
 The verse mentions Adam not Christ.29
 The plurality of the pronoun in the text does not mean multiplicity of persons.
In many languages, the plural can refer to great sovereignties that have men
and supporters under their command. As God created everything, He will not
have anyone as His equal.
The second verse the Christians take to testify to the divinity of both the Father and
the son, namely, “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone
and fire from the LORD out of heaven”30. The texts mention two lords. Ibn
Taymiyyah gives the following answers:
 To call God’s life or knowledge son or lord is wrong. Moses never in the
Torah named any of such attributes son or lord.
 The one who provides rain is naturally the one who has it with him. He would
not provide rain while it is with another. Christ does not have the rain.
 The attribute is dependent on something else. It cannot have independent
actions.31
 It is acceptable in language to repeat the same noun instead of using the
pronoun in the second case. It is like saying the Lord rained from what He
possessses.
In additinon, the Christians rely upon this verse in their affirmation of the Trinitarian
doctrine: “Moreover He said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to
look upon God.”32 Ibn Taymiyyah answers them in the following:
 The Christians claim that the repetition of the word God here refers to the
three persons, although they do not believe in three gods. Moreover, this verse
does not have any indication to the Trinity. Rather, it affirms only one God.
 Believing in a god who is worshipped by Abram, Jacob and Isaac does not
prove the existence of three persons.
109
He, further, noted that the Christians interpreted the speech of prophets wrongly to
suit their desires. For example, they interpreted the ‘son’ mentioned in their scripture
to mean the word, while from the point of the language, they are two different
utterances. Moreover, Ibn Taymiyyah elaborates, the word son in the language of
their scriptures applies only to anyone happened to grow under the care of God; in
other words, to created beings. It is a title said to be conferred on many righteous
people such as the apostles and people of Israel as in “But as many as received him, to
them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name.”33 These who are said to be the sons of God are not believed to be divine and
did no become incarnate, why then the Christ? This tells us, Ibn Taymiyyah rightly
observes, that the title son of God refers to humans only.
3.2.4 Trinity: A Concoction
The Christians think that what they believe is firmly grounded on prophetic traditions
and biblical references. Therefore, they think that no one has any right to question this
belief. Ibn Taymiyyah answers them in the following manner.
 The Christians say in plain language that Jesus is a coeternal true God from a
true God from the essence of his father and that Christ is coequal. They claim
that he created and was not created but born of the Father before all ages. They
also proclaim that the Holy Spirit is worshipped and glorified. The adjective
‘consubstantial’ tells the reader that Christ is another essence and the
statement that the Holy Spirit is worshipped tells that he is an independent
God. Therefore, they believe in three gods.34
 Ibn Taymiyyah criticizes the Christians for their claim that God is one with
three attributes, forming the hypostases. He asserts that Allah is one with
many attributes. To make them only three is not right. Even a numerical
examination would prove the Trinity false. This is because to the Christians
the Father is an essence with two attributes: life and knowledge, which make
the persons two not three. Therefore, he becomes a god with three persons.
Nevertheless, God’s attributes are not only three.
110
 They differ in the meaning of the persons. The Holy Spirit for example is
interpreted as power, life and sometimes as existence. The word is taken to
mean the wisdom, knowledge and sometimes as speech.35
 There can be many parts comprising a whole but these constituent parts cannot
be the same. They are necessarily different. In the case of the Trinity of the
Christians, however, the persons are all one. Yet, they believe that God is
indivisible.
 The divine scriptures are all unanimous that God is one and that there is no
god beside Him. He is the only god worthy of worship. There are no
references to the incarnation or indwelling neither plainly stated nor
potentially meant in any of the divine scriptures. Only a few texts may be
interpreted to mean some of what the Christians believe. Thus they left the
categorical in favor of the allegorical, which is too insignificant beside the
categorically stated texts that command the worship of one and forbid the
worship of any beside Allah. Otherwise, Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that once there
is a divine text no one has the freedom to choose another meaning.36
 They curse those who deny the divinity and the coessentiality of Christ. They
also curse those who say that Christ did not sit to the right of his Father or that
the Holy Spirit is not a god and those who deny triune unity. They also curse
those who say that Christ is the Father. So, they curse him who say that he is
the creating Father and him who says that he is not the creator. He who affirms
one and denies three is wrong and he who affirms three and denies one. Thus,
the truth as well as falsehood is negated. This, Ibn Taymiyyah affirms, is sheer
contradiction.37
 The three sects, the Nestorians, the Melkites and Jacobites curse one another.
Moreover, the Milkites and the Jacobites curse those who deny that Mary gave
birth to God.38 They affirm that she gave birth to a fully human and fully
divine being. The Milkites and the Nestorians curse those who affirm that they
both [the Father and the son] are one essence (homosious) with one will39.
Furthermore, the Christian sects parts of which are these are all different in
their understanding of the Trinity and the incarnation. They uphold self-
111
contradictory notions. For example, some believe that Mary is the wife of God
and some make her a god. Some consider the Christ the physical son of Allah,
and so on.40
The Christians adamantly claim that they follow the Torah as well as the divine
books in their creed. Ibn Taymiyyah answers them in the following:
 The books contain abundant evidences affirming the oneness of God. In no
one of them is there any mention of the Trinity, the hypostases, the
indwelling or the incarnation or the assertion that he was a true God from a
true God; nor is there any mention of the attributes of Allah as being His
son, god or lord.41 Rather, these doctrines are clearly opposed and
confronted in these books. The names of the supposed persons are not
mentioned in their books. Ibn Taymiyyah declares that if the Christ said
this they should ascertain as to the meaning he intended. The Christians
should examine the language he used to speak, and the way he used to
convey his intents. However, it is clear that the meanings of the persons
are entirely invented. If the meaning in the Bible is earnestly sought, it
would contradict the meaning they concocted. For example, the meaning
of ‘son’ is clear that it means anyone brought up by the grace of God under
His protection, which applies to the creatures only. Israel, David 42 and the
apostles and many more are called the sons of God in the Bible. 43
 At the same time however, they unanimously admit their creeds were
determined by the church fathers in the ecumenical councils, the first of
which was during the time of Constantine in 325 CE, wherein they made
the creed the Christians today believe and wholeheartedly follow. It is not
something they received through the prophets.44 They incrementally
developed and fashioned them to be in line with the divinity of Christ.
Ibn Taymiyyah gives a full account of the ecumenical councils in order to show that
they took for granted what those councils brought forth. Throughout his discourse, Ibn
Taymiyyah posits that the Christians came to the already distorted scripture and
understood it all differently from the message the prophets of God brought, namely
112
monotheism. They followed enigmatic statements and left the clear-cut ones all
because they are not willing to concede the divinity of Christ, thus bringing forth a
syncretism of true religion and Hellenistic paganism.
3.3 The Principle of Incarnation
The doctrine of incarnation is not postulated exclusively in Christianity. Rather, it is a

traditional doctrine in other faiths, too, which signified for some researchers to be
imported from pagan faiths. Nevertheless, our discussion will be confined to how it is
perceived in the Christian faith, and how Ibn Taymiyyah struggled to rebut it and
repudiate it as rationally and theologically untenable, since it is a stark contradiction
against the concept of tawh d. Although this doctrine blurs the God- man distinction,
the Christians upheld it tenaciously.
It is the central Christological issue that bewildered humanity not on the bases of its
metaphysical or supernatural implications and complications but on the bases of its
syncretism and patent discrepancy. There were myriads of people who raised voices
against it, including people in the Christian faith.45 Moreover, the pioneer scholars, in
their endeavor to disambiguate it, produced various interpretive approaches that
unfortunately fell too short of serving the purpose. Their scriptural and rational
evidences prove the opposite. The best plausible solution is not conclusive. In
addition, as it is the case with many Christian doctrines, the texts they provide are
either twisted to mean what they believe, or are pointing to the opposite. Therefore,
their ex post facto rationalizations represented the springboard from which Ibn
Taymiyyah used to launch his critique against their doctrines.
The doctrine of incarnation in Christian theology refers to the supposed embodiment

of God the son in human form as Jesus Christ, so as to fulfill the law, atone for the
sins of humanity and save them by sacrificing himself. The incarnation, according to
the Christians, took place through the Holy Spirit. After this common ground for
many Christians, various Christologies were propounded by the different Christian
churches.
113
3.4 Christian Rationalization of the Mixing46
It is stipulated in the fourth ecumenical council (451 AD) that Christ is both divine
and human, without confusion, without change, without division and without
separation. It is mandatory for Christians to believe in it. Ibn Taymiyyah quotes a
Christian historian’s47 classification of mixing. This Melkite historian (al- asan bin
Batr q) said that mixing is of the following types:
The first: the mixture of two concrete natures and their change, such as the mixture of
the wine and water; Second: the mixture with distinction as in the case of oil and
water in one pot or flux and silk, wherein each preserves its distinct existence in the
other. The historian as is quoted by Ibn Taymiyyah observed that the two types of
mixing could happen only in the concrete materials. He proclaimed that change
happens here and each material changes when it unites with the other, and the ensuing
mixture is a matter that has the characteristics of both but not of any one of them in its
pure form as in the case of copper and gold. Ibn Ba r q, being a Melkite, said that the
Nestorians fell in error when they described the unification of the human and the
divine in Christ as the unification of two persons. He said that this unification implies
change, which entails corruption. They, with this blasphemous proposition, attributed
to God to suffer death and calamities. The third type of mixture, presented by the
Christian apologist is the mixture wherein it is only a mere indwelling free from
change, separation or corruption. This is a kind of penetration of the spiritual nature
into the material earthly nature, in which the former permeates throughout the latter,
thus occupying every single space of the material nature again without any change or
corruption for either of the two natures. This type of mixture like that which occurs
between the soul and the body, or the fire and the iron, where the two become one
firebrand subsisting in the fire nature but mixing with the nature of the iron without
separation or discontinuity, transfiguration or corruption. On the bases of this mode of
mixture, the divine creating word managed to mix with the human nature. This is the
claim of the Christian apologist.
Ibn Taymiyyah objects to the way the Christian historian tried to differentiate between
the two types of mixture where he confirmed a change or transfiguration in one of the
114
cases but negated it in the others. Ibn Taymiyyah states that if change is admitted in
the case of the mixture between the two material things, then it is equally possible in
the case of the mixture of the spiritual and the material.48 Ibn Taymiyyah emphasized
that the evidences the opponent presented are directly opposing this argument. Ibn
Taymiyyah tries always to turn the table against his adversaries in debate. Rather, he
standardizes the practice and thinks that it is a general rule that whatever proofs the
deviants offer can always be turned against them. The following examples
demonstrate this.
3.5 The Christian Illustration
To explain the incarnation to those who do not subscribe to it, the Christians provided
many illustrative explanations in an attempt to demystify it. Here an attempt is made
to enumerate the examples that Ibn Taymiyyah mentions and the way he exposed the
falsifications thereof.
1. The water and the container: when the water is in the container taking its
shape, neither the water nor the container loses its properties. Similarly, the
word of God dwelled in the body but each retained its qualities. Ibn
Taymiyyah shows the differences between the doctrinal implications of the
incarnation and the example they gave to draw analogy between the two:
 It implies that the divine is in need of the human just in the same way
the water needs the container
 It is sheer indwelling and there is no sense of unity, as the water does
not pervade the container’s body.
 The elements remained separated, whereas the doctrine supposes that
they are united.
2. Another example is the example of the tree wherefrom God spoke to Moses.
The Christians affirmed that as God dwelled in the tree to talk to Moses, He
similarly dwelled in Christ to talk to people. Ibn Taymiyyah brings into light
the fact that the sound that was heard from the tree was not of the tree,
whereas the sound that was heard from the body was Christ’s. Christ before
115
and after unification spoke the same sound and people who knew him did not
notice any difference. Therefore, it is clearly his, not God’s.
Furthermore, when God spoke to Moses from the tree the voice heard was
diametrically different from the voices people were accustomed to hear. Therefore,
the voice was so difficult for the people to capture that they asked Moses to spell it
out for them. This is a biblical truth. Ibn Taymiyyah reported that according to the
Christians, Christ united with God from the beginning49 of his formation and
continued to unite until his ascension and sitting to the right of his Father.
Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah denies any analogy between the incarnation and speaking
from the tree, which is used by the Christians to justify union. Ibn Taymiyyah tells us
that people unanimously agree that God did not dwell in the tree nor did He unite with
it. Rather, He said, “I am God beside whom there is no God so worship me and
establish prayer at my remembrance.”50 God spoke in the first person, ordering Moses
to worship him. All that He spoke was of the same kind. However, in the case of
Christ, God did not speak to people in this manner. Christ used to differentiate
between himself and the Father.
Secondly, God speaking to Moses from the tree is very much the same as his descent
from the heavens, or his descent on the Day of Judgment to judge between people.
However, unification with humans is rationally impossible besides being not stated by
any of the prophets. Moreover, they, Ibn Taymiyyah proceeds, claim that the unifying
element took Jesus as a barrier, a place to dwell in and speak to people through. At the
same time, they claim that the Father did not unite with nor dwell in Jesus. This
entails that a part of the Father united with Jesus and the other part did not. The Father
did not unite but the son did unite. This is in plain contradiction to the principle of the
indivisibility of God.
3. They also gave the example of the log of wood or rod of iron and fire. They
stated that the incarnation in human form is very much like the unity of fire
and the wood or iron. There is unity of two different yet distinct elements.
116
Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out the differences between their doctrine and the example
wherewith they tried to support their claim. The fire in the burning wood does not
exist outside the wood and then united with it. Rather, the wood turns into fire due to
the contact with it. The fire manifested in the wood was the result of that source fire
not the fire proper. Moreover, if that is hit, the hitting occurs on the fire too. If this
example were sound enough, it would imply that hitting or beating before or after
crucifixion could have been inflicted on the divine character, which is plain
blasphemy. To give another aspect of the invalidity of the example they gave, Ibn
Taymiyyah tells them that any object be it animate or inanimate when put in fire
changes diametrically. Similarly, the human body or anything else, when put in fire,
sometimes melts and sometimes burns; and the fire after burning or dissolving it,
changes too. In addition, there can be many objects near the fire; the heat that one
object gets is not the same heat that the others get. If the Christians liken God and the
speaking word to the fire and its light or heat, then, to believe that the word of God
united with some of His creation entails multiplicity. Moreover, if the burning iron is
put in water or beaten, these happen to both of them. This means that the beating,
crucifixion, the spitting, the worship, the prayer, the eating, the drinking, etc. all
happened to the human as well as the divine aspects of Christ.
4. They also gave the example of the sun, which despite being distinct, its light
and heat permeate the universe and falls on every object.51 Likewise, the word
of God took the human body as its principle in which it subsisted.
Ibn Taymiyyah urges the Christians to differentiate between the physical existence of
the sun and its impact. What is seen or felt on the objects is merely the impact and the
not sun proper. The sun is far removed from the objects on which fall its light and
rays, what to think of the distance between God and His creation. Furthermore, Ibn
Taymiyyah argues that the sun does not unite with or dwell in the rays that are
dependent on other objects, nor does it unite with the objects that receive its light. The
sun is a distinct entity. Moreover, the sun’s light that is inherent in the sun is not the
light that is dependent on the various objects it falls on. Rather, it is seen red on red
objects and black on black objects. Moreover, the example of the sun and its light is
also invalid on the ground that the light of the sun is in need of the object it falls on. It
117
is blasphemy to believe that God is in need of any created thing. In addition, heat
cannot reach the objects that are hidden under other objects. If the Christians consider
God a spirit in the Christ, then a parallel statement can be made that the sun existed in
a small area of land. If anyone said about a much smaller object such as a planet, a
mountain or even a big rock that it was in the womb of a woman, that person would
be ridiculed, what if this claim is said about God! If the Christians say that God
descended from heaven on the mount and spoke to Moses from the bush or in the
column of cloud, it does not mean that he united with a creature, nor does it mean that
His speech was subsistent in any of His creation. However, the Christians uphold that
God united with Christ and his voice was the voice of the Lord of the World without
any medium.52
According to the salaf, Ibn Taymiyyah affirms, Allah spoke the Quran and the other
scriptures and He spoke to Moses without any medium. None of them said that the
speech that Moses heard was eternal. Rather, they said that Allah is ever speaking in
the time and manner He wishes. This is because the speech is a perfect attribute and
then He possesses this faculty. No one can be called All-Hearing All-Knowledgeable
All-Merciful, if these attributes are inherent in a being other than him. Likewise, the
speech that is done at will is more an attribute of perfection than when done
unwillingly. The speech that is dependent on someone yet proceeds without his will,
is consequently either impossible or is a shortcoming on the part of that person, who
is said to speak against his will, as in the case of the demoniac. Moreover, is it perfect
for God to be eternally speaking than to speak after being unable to; if this is the case
when it is supposedly possible, how far more so when it is impossible! It is
blasphemous to think that Allah is deficient.
The Muslim ummah was safe from innovation in religion because whenever a heresy
surfaced, there were religious scholars who were able to refute it and show people the
right path, unlike in the case of the Christians who innovated in religion and
confronted those who opposed them. This is why the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Allah looked at the inhabitants of the earth
[before the advent of Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] and
118
condemned them all, the Arabs and the non-Arabs, except for some of the People of
the Book.”53
5. They also gave the example of the soul and the body54 to justify the
incarnation. Ibn Taymiyyah refutes this example and establishes the
differences between this example and the supposed unification of the speaking
word of God and the human Christ.
Ibn Taymiyyah says that it is not a correct example for the following reasons:
 It is universally acknowledged that the body is diametrically different

before and after it separates from the soul. There is no difference
bigger than the difference between life and death. Adam, for example,
was created from water and earth, and then he became burnt clay. Then
the soul was breathed into it, whereupon, he became a body with
blood, nerves and flesh. Can any sane person claim that Adam was the
same before and after the breathing of the soul? His descendants are
created from a small drop. This passes through many embryological
stages. In all such stages man is merely a dead body. After the soul is
breathed into it, the body starts to manifest life. The blood runs in the
veins and arteries, and the baby starts all his movements and activities
only after that.
 As the soul feels the pain with the body, then, according to the
example given by the Christians whereby the unification of the word
with the human body is equalized with the soul and the body, the word
of God felt the pain of the persecution of Jesus and torture at the
crucifixion. It also must have felt the hunger and the thirst of the
human body.
 This nullifies the clause that the ‘Christ was fully human and fully
divine’ as, by the same token, man should have been fully a soul and
fully a body just as before unification. Likewise, the burning rod of
iron would be fully fire and fully iron. However, the man is a
composite of the two. Man is not a soul and man is not a body. The
119
word man applies to both united. If it were real unification, then Christ
would be half-human and half-divine. Ibn Taymiyyah said:
It is not right to say that Christ himself was fully divine and Christ himself was
fully human, as conceptualizing this in its full sense, would lead to the definite
conclusion … that the very human is the divine himself. If this is said as regards
to two creatures, suc as an angel and a human that they are the same, this is
obviously false. What if it is said about the Lord of the World!55
 The Christians claim that the Christ was crucified and died and that his
speaking soul left him and in this very state, the divine did not leave
him. Here, whereas the soul departs with the body at death, the divine
character did not. Therefore, this unification is more influential than
the unification of the soul and the body.56
 The soul on its unification with the body has features and behaviors
different from those it had before the unification. Again, when it leaves
the body, its actions and features change. If the example is true, then it
means that God after unifying with the human changed actions and
features just as the soul, and He would be like the abstract soul before
unification.
 The soul and the body share the same actions, the good and the bad
and their consequences. This is even more true to the soul than to the
body. If God were so, then whatever Christ did at will, it would be
God’s. Moreover, as the soul is addressed with the injunctions of the
law, then God incarnate is likewise addressed with the injunctions that
the Christ was ordered. The God incarnate would pray and worship.
This nullifies their claim that he created with his divinity and ate and
worshiped with his humanity. The soul and the body in their
unification share the same actions. So, if God gives any command,
they both would carry out that command. If any pain befalls them, they
both suffer, and rather, the soul suffers more. Interestingly, when a jinn
possesses any human being, such man or woman changes the way
he/she speaks; the voice becomes the jinn’s not the man’s. If the body
120
is beaten then only the jinn suffers the pain. This is common
experience.
Ibn Taymiyyah said that he did that several times. The jinni changes and the person
possessed changes and the beating is felt only by the jinn. If we consider the
unification of the soul and the body more perfect, then the soul must undergo even
more changes. The Christians adamantly assert that the divine quality was observed
on the Christ neither before nor after the performance of the miracles. He was seen
simply as a human like any other human.
3.6 Transfiguration: A Corollary
Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the incarnation entails transfiguration. The human or the
divine would change into the other essence or a third essence. This is in clear conflict
with the doctrine that supposes that the incarnation is free from any confusion,
division or transfiguration57. In addition, when two things unite, they become one. If
they do not become one then they are not united. If the result of the union is either of
the two constituents, then the other is nonexistent. Clearly, in this case it is
annihilation not unification. Moreover, one should note that some of the Christians
believe that Christ is one with one nature, one substance and one will.
Ibn Taymiyyah emphasizes that the union with God must necessitate a tremendous
change. The Prophets during revelation used to undergo a lot of physical exhaustion
and psychological and spiritual developments that were easily observable to the
people who happened to be present. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him), for example, would undergo physical experiences such as total
preoccupation, excessive perspiration, increased body weight, etc. to the extent that if
he was on his mount, it would sit, due to the overweight that is added to the weight of
The Prophet after the revelation started. If his leg happened to be leaning on another’s
leg, that other would feel all but breakage. These bodily manifestations appeared on
the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), although he did
not claim unity with God, nor did he claim that he saw God.
121
Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah argues, that Jesus could not unite with God without being
recognized by the people. Rather, people thought that they were talking, mixing with
and accompanying a human being. Ibn Taymiyyah, Further, argues that the prophets
including Moses58, Jesus59 and Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
60
them all) declared that man could not see God in this life. If seeing is not feasible,
unification and incarnation are a fortiori not.
Yet, according to Christians , Christ did not witness any changes commensurate with
the magnitude of the event (i.e., unity with God). Rather, they insist that before
baptism he performed no miracles. Ibn Taymiyyah wonders how could it happen
without any such manifestations, whereas according to them, when Moses heard the
voice he was enshrined in light, which would have a lesser impact than the unification
as it is nothing besides the unification with God. Ibn Taymiyyah uses common sense
to defy the notion that God spoke through the Christ in the literal sense of the word.
He argues that if an angel or a jinn united or dwelled in a human being and spoke
through him, the people would easily recognize that the speaker is not that human but
another. How clear it would be of God! It would be much clearer in deed!
Ibn Taymiyyah also points out another error the Christians have fallen in: he states
that unity necessitates that the united two should become one and has the same actions
and the same features. The Christians confirm unity but differ on the question of the
features; they (monophysites and chalcedonians) differ whether Christ has one nature
or two natures. Moreover, some say that he has one will (monothelitists) and some say
he has two wills.
3.7 Incarnation: An Insult to God
Ibn Taymiyyah declares that the indwelling is not credible unless the thing or the
being which is said to indwell is in need of the thing that receives, (or is the locus of)
the indweller. He compares the theory of God incarnate with that of the philosophers
and the pantheists. He says that the philosophers proposed the theory of matter and
form (hilomorphism), in which they affirm that matter is the principle of form. They
also acknowledge that the form is dependent on matter. Moreover, the philosophers
122
uphold that the heavens are eternal and Self-Necessary and that the first of them is a
cause for the rest heavens, which the Christians in their theology try to emulate. In the
same manner, the proponents of the Unity of Existence consider the relation of the
creator to the creation as the relation of matter and form, as suggested by Ibn Sab‘een,
who says that God is water in water, fire in fire, and in everything in the form of that
thing.61 Ibn Taymiyyah said that “he who thinks that Allah is in need of anything in
any way, he is a calumniating disbeliever, since need is an attribute of deficiency.
How much more grave is then the case of those who claim that He is in need of
everything, [insinuating at the pantheists.]?”62 Interestingly those who investigated
into the relationship between Christian dogma and its intellectual environment
affirmed that the early Christians were influenced by both the philosophers and the
stoics who were materialists and pantheists. Here Ibn Taymiyyah makes almost the
same assertion.
The Christians claim that in the same manner as the abstract matters need something
concrete to appear through, God wanted to appear to people therefore He dwelled in
Christ.63 Ibn Taymiyyah makes the following refutations against this claim:
How can we proof that the spirit of man is more subtle than all other creatures,
including the angels, Gabriel and the spirit that was breathed into Adam? Even if it is
taken for granted that God united, it means that He united with or indwelled in blood
and flesh. He did not unite with the spirit.
The appearance of God through the body of Christ must effect such a great change
that everyone who happened to see him like the apostles and the others would surely
have recognized him. If this did not happen, it simply means that there is no
difference between God and any of His creations. The implications of these are
invalid. If God is so insignificant that people did not see or recognize him, then their
claim that God appeared through the Christ is not correct. It becomes absurd to claim
that God made the incarnation a means to appear to people and yet people do not
recognize him. If people did not see God then the example they gave is useless, since
in no case could people see God.
123
Rather, the appearance of divine affairs is more feasible in the abstract than in the
concrete. The angels take the revelation from God then they bring it to the prophets.
Such revelation reaches the angels first then it reaches the Prophets, as they are the
intermediaries. If it were possible that God united with any, He would a fortiori unite
with the angels not the humans. In order to receive revelation from the angels Allah
has qualified the prophets to be able to receive revelation from the angels. The angels
sometimes come to the prophets in an inhuman form. They do not need to change
their forms or unite with the humans. Therefore, God did not unite with Gabriel so as
to be able to talk with the prophets. Moreover, it is acknowledged that the angels
sometimes take the form of men, but no one ever seen an angel and a human
becoming one. If this is not possible in the case of an angel, then it is more so in the
case of God.
Jinn may unite with the human being but they never become one with him. Rather,
they become two with two wills and two essences. The jinni enters the human being
and speaks with his tongue.
The Christians are different concerning the nature of Christ despite their emphasis on
the unification. Some of them say he is one nature (monophysitism) but some claim
that he has two. Some say that he has one will (monothelitism) but the others claim
that he has two. Then for each kind, there must be a different kind of unification. This
is naturally not as easy as the dwelling of a jinn in a man. If this cannot happen in the
case of the angels and the jinn, it is, a fortiori, less likely in the case of the Lord of the
World. The Christians should concede that he is one with one will and nature, in
which case all that happened to one, must have happened to the other too. If they do
not subscribe to this view, then they adopt that God multiple.
3.8 Essence vs. Accident
To negate the multiplicity of gods in the concepts of incarnation and Trinity, the
advocates have imported the philosophical dichotomy of essence and accident, as
exclusively representing the whole existence.Whereas the former denotes anything
that is existent on its own right, the latter depends on another in its existence. In short,
124
incidents are the properties that essences may have. Now, in the discussion of God’s
existence in the Trinity and as incarnate these terms seem to avail much for the
Christians in negating multiplicity of gods, especially when we consider that the
Christians affirm that the word or son of God is of the same essence as the Father.
Ibn Taymiyyah states that the Christians consider God to be an essence; since
essences are superior to incidents. Therefore they believe they describe God with the
best names and avoid assigning to him any lesser degree. Rather, they say that He is
the noblest existing ever; therefore, He is an essence. Furthermore, they believe, as
Ibn Taymiyyah reports, that God is an immaterial essence. This means to them that
He although being a jawhar (essence), He does not receive accidents or occupy space,
unlike the material things. Apparently, they follow this tactic to prove the divinity and
incarnation. Ibn Taymiyyah responds in the following:
 Using the term is the least thing to repudiate, since Allah is not named
jawhar in the Scriptures. Rather, he asserts that it is a Roman word interpreted
differently by different people.64 Sometimes they say it denotes origin,
sometimes person and in other times the self along with the attributes.
However, he said there is a difference between calling Allah with such names
and just talking about him using those names. Calling him is not permissible
except with His beatific names that are mentioned in His scripture or by His
messenger, following the verse, “Allah has the beatific names, so call him
with them.”65 To talk about him with other good names to elaborate on the
meaning, this is permissible, as long as they have correct meaning. He also
maintains that this term (jawhar) has been taken from the Greek philosophers,
and has no place in religious terminology. Moreover, he says that philosophers
did not differ on the essence of things as they did concerning the accidents.
Some believe they are additions to the essence, whereas others say they are
not. Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah says it is safer for the Christians to let the
divine to be interpreted not in the light of these philosophical implications,
since neither the name nor the meanings is stated by the prophets and the
scriptures.
125
 Secondly, he believes that the intelligible can only be visualized by the mind,
as having independent existence. The same thing can be said about the
existence of a jawhar or essence divested of its attributes; in reality, however,
there is nothing such that has essence but no properties or accidents.
Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that calling Allah as essence ripped of
attributes is a philosophy traceable to Aristotle and his followers who denied
the attributes of Allah. Thus, he concludes that the Christians who uphold this
theory are followers of philosophers not the Christ or apostles. Moreover, Ibn
Taymiyyah diagnoses the confusion of the Christians thus:
“The reason for this is that they structured for themselves a dogma partially from
the clear cut texts, such as their statement that God is one; some from their
equivocal texts of the prophets, such as the son and the holy spirit; and some
from the literature of the philosophers and the attribute-denier polytheists, such
as those who say that He is essence without properties.”66
3.9 Misinterpretation of the Scriptures
There are biblical texts that led some to use them as evidences for their assumptions
of indwelling or incarnation, such as: “the Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from
Seir into them; he shined forth from the mount of Paran, and he came with ten
thousands of saints; from his hand went a fiery law for them.”67
The verbs ‘rose up’ and ‘shined forth’ are possibly misinterpreted as to prove God
permeating the world through unity or indwelling. However, it is unanimously agreed
among all religions that God did not dwell in Moses when He spoke to him; and in the
same manner, He did not dwell in the mount of Paran, although He stated that He
‘shined forth from’ it. Ibn Taymiyyah gives more examples from the Bible wherein
these verbs are used but did not mean the literal interpretation, such as in the case
when it is stated that God came from Jerusalem. Whereas it is thus stated, neither
Moses nor anyone else claimed to have seen God as independent or incarnate in any
form.68 Rather, Christ asserted that no one could see God, which is an inclusive
negation. Further, touching would have a greater bearing than mere seeing. Therefore,
if no human can see God, then, a fortiori, touching is more to be so. Likewise,
unification is far more unlikely than seeing.
126
If this supposed unification is interpreted to mean that knowledge emanates from

Allah into the hearts and minds of the prophets69, then it is not the exclusive right of
Jesus Christ. Moreover, the slave cannot be a deity by virtue of the knowledge that
‘dwells’ in him.
The question whether the speech and knowledge of Allah is He or ‘other than Him’ is
difficult to say immediately, as the phrase ‘other than Him’ is equivocal. If it is taken
to mean that they are independent of Him, then it is not right. The attributes of
anything cannot be other than or distinct from the object on which they depend. This
is more so in relation to the creator. If, however, the phrase ‘other than Him’ means
that they are not He, then the attribute is not the subject proper. Moreover, the name
of the Lord Allah when used in its absolute sense, it includes the Holy Self along with
all that He deserves of the attributes of perfection. It is not possible for the essence to
exist bereft of its attributes. Therefore, the name ‘Allah’ includes also the perfect
attributes of Him. In fact, nothing exists divested of its attributes. With this, Ibn
Taymiyyah tries to prove that the word of God, which, according to him, is the
attribute of speech, cannot be distinct from Him and dwell in human body.
Ibn Taymiyyah opens possibilities for the interpretation of the texts that seem to
include any trace of incarnation. The Christians claim that God, in order to talk to His
people, appeared to them through the Christ. As He is too subtle to appear to people,
He wanted to show himself through a concrete body. Ibn Taymiyyah here raised the
question: was the word that united with the Christ God’s attribute, His essence or
both? If the uniting element was God’s attribute of speech, then this can mean either
of two things: if God’s speech was sent down on the Christ, then this is true and it is
not the exclusive privilege of the Christ. All prophets received revelation in this
manner. If it means that the attribute of speech detached itself from God and dwelled
in the Christ, then this is not true. Yet, if true it would not avail the Christians
anything since they believe that Christ was the creator of the heavens and the earth 70,
the creator of Adam and the son of Adam, the creator of Mary and the son of Mary;
the son by his humanity and the creator by his divinity. Furthermore, he says that the
Christians admit that God dwelled in the Christ as He did in others. The dwelling in
127
the Christ is like the indwelling that is mentioned by David that God dwelled in the
hearts of the saints. This is obviously the indwelling of faith and the knowledge of
God and not God per se.71
3.10 Anthropomorphic Texts
Thus, the appearance of God to His servants can mean the appearance of faith in their
hearts or it can mean the appearance of God’s cognitive example or notional image in
their hearts. Even in the Quran, there are texts that seem to carry this meaning: that
God pervades the world (with His power and knowledge). Such texts should not be
interpreted literally. For example, Allah said in the Quran, “He is God in the Heaven
and God in the earth.”72
In the authentic ad th of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be

upon him), Allah is reported to have said: my slave, I got ill but you did not visit
me…my slave, I was hungry but you did not feed me,” etc. In a similar context, Allah
said that if He loves any of His slaves, He becomes the hearing power with which he
hears, the sight with which he sees, the hand with which he takes and the leg with
which he walks. In the same manner, when any person would like to express his love
to another, such person uses expressions such as, ‘you are in my heart’, you are my
heart’, ‘you are in my eye’, etc. Through these examples, Ibn Taymiyyah tries to
prove that such expressions must not be taken literally. They are merely expressions
of love, knowledge, etc., and there is no intention of indwelling. Ibn Taymiyyah
diagnoses the mistake as lying in the inability of the advocates of the indwelling to
distinguish between the different kinds of existence of any object and the existence of
its cognitive example in the mind of the perceiver. This very mistake, Ibn Taymiyyah
opines, has led the people like abu Yaz d Al-Bis m , and the rest of the proponents of
the idea of immanent God to advocate the pantheistic theory.
In our daily experience, the same thing can have many manifestations: physical,
cognitive, orthographic, verbal, etc. Ibn Taymiyyah gives the example of the sun. It is
the sun, which is in the sky, the sun, which is thought of by the hearts or minds of
people, the sun whose name is articulated by the tongues and the s-u-n that is written
128
with pens. If the word ‘sun’ is written in paper, and some assert that the sun is on
paper, no one would think of it to be the object which is in the sky. Rather, one would
think of its orthographical realization.
Ibn Taymiyyah provides the reader with even more examples where such expressions
should not be taken literally. It can be said that two people are united whereas they are
far apart. Such unification can be unification through ideology or through loyalty or
through aim. These types of unification do not mean physical unification. It also can
happen even without the knowledge of any of the unifying parties. The seen can
indwell in the heart of the seer without his knowledge.
Regarding the terms and titles that the prophets did not negate or affirm such as the
direction and the spatial boundaries of God, Ibn Taymiyyah asserts, they should not
be negated or affirmed. However, if the affirmer arrives at a correct meaning, then he
is correct. If he speaks in terms of negating such uses and he arrives at a correct
meaning then he is correct, even if he used wrong expressions. However, those who
affirm or negate the truth and falsehood at the same time are correct in what is right
and wrong in what is wrong. They have thus confused the truth and falsehood. All
prophets are unanimous that God is above. Moreover, in the Quran and the Sunnah
are about one thousand references to this fact.
3.11 The Ascension and God’s Indivisibility
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah utilizes the biblical narrative of the resurrection of

Christ and his sitting to the right of his Father to rebut the Christian belief of the
indivisibility of God. Ibn Taymiyyah shares with them the belief that God is
indivisible. However, according to this narrative, God is portrayed to be divisible. Ibn
Taymiyyah said that their statement that God is indivisible contradict their creed and
the way they portray Him, namely, that He has united with Christ and that Christ
ascended to the heavens and sat to the right of his Father. The ascender, according to
them, was Christ, who was fully human and fully divine. They do not believe that the
one, who sat to the right of the Father, was Jesus in humanity. Rather, they believe
129
that Christ in his full humanity and full divinity sat to the right of the Father. Is there a
clearer example of division than this?
Moreover, this is not the statement of the prophets so as to claim that it is right but
intelligible for humans. It is, rather, the statement of the bishops. They pinpointed it
and made it their creed. If they spoke of what they could not comprehend, then they
are ignorant and must not be followed. If the Christians understood that, then no sane
man would understand of the fact that the Christ in his divinity sat to the right of his
Father anything other than the latter is independent of the God incarnate. Understood
as such, it is plain division and separation.
Ibn Taymiyyah is highlighting one of the critical issues in the unity and distinction
paradox. The divine is claimed by the Christians to be inseparable and indivisible.
Yet, they insist on the incident of the ascension and the sitting to the right of the
Father. If the divine existence is one, it will not sit to the right of its own self. The
phrase ‘to the right of his Father’ tells us clearly that it (divine existence) is not one.
As a result, another question arises: is the God incarnate the Father or His attribute? If
He was the Father, then Christ was the Father. However, this is unanimously denied
by all the Christians. If God the incarnate was not an attribute of the Father, the whole
picture becomes rationally unpalatable and absurd. God’s attribute cannot detach
itself from Him, nor can it unite with or dwell in anything. Moreover, no sane person
would ever think of an attribute to be a creator. Interestingly, the Christians believe
that Christ created everything including Adam and Mary, although he is the son of
both. According to them, with respect to his divinity, he created them; but with
respect to his humanity, he was the son of Adam and Mary.
Ibn Taymiyyah also shows that they are uncertain whether God just took Jesus to be a
barrier for Him through whom He could talk to people, or that He really united with
him. In other words, is it union or indwelling?
Ibn Taymiyyah tries to use the arguments of the Christian sects refuting one another.
Ibn Ba rῑq, the Melkite historian, tries to rebut the Nestorian doctrine of unity. Ibn
Taymiyyah proves that the Melkites’ stance on the issue is not better than that of the
130
Nestorians. For example, Ibn Ba r q disagrees with the Nestorians on the time of the
unification. He said that if they say that God united with Christ before pregnancy,
then it means that He united with him before he became a man, which is against the
Nestorian condition that He united with a partial man. Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that
the Melkites are more erroneous in this regard. If the Melkites claim that He united
with him when he was a full human, then there is no scope of partnership of the two
natures.
3.12 The Christian Convert Argues
Ibn Taymiyyah quotes a Christian convert to Islam who had been a great authority in
Christianity. This scholar was called Al- asan bin Ayyūb. Ibn Taymiyyah quotes Al-
asan bin Ayyūb explicating the doctrines of the different Christian groups in his
statement of the reasons that led him to convert to Islam. According to him, the
Jacobites professed that Mary had begotten God (theotokos), that he suffered pain and
was crucified and died. After three days, he rose from the dead. This goes against the
Chalcedonian creed. The Melkites, for instance, claim that Christ is one person with
two natures; each nature has a will. The human has a will (like David and Ibrahῑm)
and the divine has a will (like the Father and the son.) They, like the Jacobites, claim
that Mary has begotten a god and that Christ is a name that enshrines the human and
the divine natures. Although they confess this, they claim that the body of Christ died
but God who they claim Mary has begotten, did not die except by the essence of the
human nature within him. Ibn Taymiyyah wonders:
Did begetting, death and all other acts that the Christians talk about happen to
Christ apart from his two essences? How could a rational person consider it
correct to worship a god who is begotten from a human woman, died and
suffered from pain and epidemics?73
This obviously contradicts with the number of the persons of the triune God, claimed
by the Christians. In the above statement, Christ has two natures, two essences but
one person. However, in the Trinitarian creed, the three persons are one essence and
one god. Therefore, the objection raised here is that “they prove two hypostases for
one essence and only one hypostasis for two united essences, although the hypostases’
131
will is only one. Still, they claim that there are two wills and two natures for the
human character and the divine character”74
Furthermore, Al- asan bin Ayyūb points out more faults in their creed. He says that if
the son was called so because he came from God, the Holy Spirit has a more right to
be called so, since it also came from God. Otherwise, what is the difference between
the two? He also declares that the Holy Spirit was superior to the son, since it led him
to the trial of the Devil and changed him, from the simple human to the God
incarnate. The changer is superior to the changed and the arranger is superior to the
changed. The doer is superior to the object. He finds out another contradiction. The
claim that Mary has begotten a god and the claim that he was crucified and buried are
contradictory.
Ibn Taymiyyah brings into light the will of Christ. He observes that two opposing
wills cannot coexist in one entity. The human will would struggle for eating, drinking,
worshipping and praying whereas the divine will would take to an opposite direction.
Each will would shirk the actions of the other. If they exist in the same thing then it
would want two opposing actions at the same time. This is and absurd. Ibn
Taymiyyah concludes that if the Christians understand what they say, it would mean
that it is reasonable. If they say what they do not understand, then it necessarily means
that they said bout Allah what they do not understand.75 However, if anyone quotes
the prophets verbatim, he is not obliged to comprehend what they say. Nevertheless,
the Christians, Ibn Taymiyyah rightly observed, brought about things that are neither
reasonable nor authentically reported from the prophets
If the Christians justify the unification by saying that he did so in order to set a perfect
example for humanity, it is no wonder that they claim He felt sorry, and bit His hand
with repentance so as to set an example for the people to repent their sins. Ibn
Taymiyyah concludes that whatever bad opinions the devious sects have about God,
the Christians’ allegations would even be worse and more disgracing. Moreover, as
they espouse this kind of unification they cannot rebut the other’s allegations that God
united with any one apart from Christ unless they adduce specific evidences regarding
that, (i.e. evidences that state clearly that that was the exclusive privilege for the
132
Christ to the exclusion of any other.) If they deny it on the bases that no one claimed
that or that they do not have any idea about that, it can be easily said that their
ignorance of the existence of something does not make it nonexistent. If something is
taken as a sign for the existence of another, its absence does not necessarily mean that
other thing is nonexistent too. It is only when the first is a necessary condition for the
existence of the second; the nonexistence of the first leads to the nonexistence of the
ensuing thing. Even the anthropomorphists never claimed that God ever united with
any of His creatures.
Although Ibn Taymiyyah often mentions only three groups of the Christians, he
acknowledges the existence of many apart from them and further refers the reader to
the history written by the Christian historian Sa’ d bin Al-Batr q for more
information.
The physical birth of God incarnate from the human woman necessitates that that
woman became a wife, and had a sexual act with the Father. This act with the human
is more feasible than unifying with him and facing the same fate as he has. Moreover,
the begetting, Ibn Taymiyyah asserts, cannot be thought of except with created things.
3.13 The Crucifixion for Atonement
Ibn Taymiyyah starts with stating the ideological background of the doctrine. He said
That the Christians say that the Christ, who is both divine and human, surrendered to
the disbelievers’ crucifixion in order to avoid being cast in Hell by the Satan as the
other prophets.76 They further state that he did not expose himself, as God or Son of
God, to the Satan so that he may not know him, and surrendered to the enemies to
take, beat him, spit in his face, put the thorns on his head and crucify him. He showed
meekness on his death, screamed for the aid of his lord and asked Him why He
subjected him to his enemies. He did all this in order not to be noticed by the devil, so
the devil will not recognize that he was the God and the son of God. Therefore, he
will not take his spirit to the Hell as he took those of Ibrahim and Noah.77
133
Ibn Taymiyyah attempted to disprove this doctrine (as he understands it) in the
following arguments:
 If Satan took the children of Adam by the sin of their father, (as the Christians
claim), then there is no difference between the human Christ and the others. If
he took them under the pretext of their own sins, why should he take them by
the sin of their father?
 Will those who came before the demise of the Christ, will they meet the same
fate as those who came after him? If yes, why then was the devil enabled to
take the predecessors and not the successors, since they are more sinful than
the prophets are? How could it be reasonable that God empowered the devil to
punish the prophets before Christ while the tyrants after him were spared?
 Taking the offspring of Adam to the Hell is either just or unjust. If just, then
the devil is not to be blamed; and it is not appropriate for Christ to elude him
to escape the justice that he deserved, since it is compulsory to let justice take
its course. If, however, it was unjust, why did not God prevent the devil from
doing it? If the answer was that God could not, then they would be attributing
inefficiency to God. If He was able to ward off such injustice but did not do it
then there is no difference between warding it off before or after the Christ.
The time factor has no bearing here.
 The devil should not be held culpable before the Christ, and therefore there is
no need to punish or blame him. If he was justified then there is no need for
the trick. He should not be taken by his crime.
 Before the crucifixion, if the devil was excused, how could it be logical to be
punished through the crucifixion as he could have said that he did not know
that the crucified was the Christ in his humanity? Further, he could have said
to God that you had given me the permission to take all humanity to Hell and
the Christ is but one of them. I did not know that you or your son united with
him. If I knew, I would have glorified him but I did not know.
 Taking the people apart from the Christ to the Hell is, according to the
Christians, permissible. And if that is true, then God would have no plea
against the devil.
134
 If the sins of Adam and his children should not be assigned to the devil, it is
not logical to claim that the devil has the right to tempt the people to do evil
and he is given the right to punish them. Here, Ibn Taymiyyah detects an
analogy between the Christians and the Zoroastrians, who claim that all evil
and punishment is exclusively carried out by the devil. He further observed
that the Manichaeism is a syncretism of Christianity and Zoroastrianism, and
their leader was a Christian Zoroastrian.
 If God united or dwelled in the Christ in order to confront the injustice of the
devil, then why did not he do the same in any of the children of Adam, before
the Christ since the people before him were more sinful than the people who
came after the Christ?
 The Christian arguments are completely illogical. How is it possible that all
the people, including the saints and the prophets before the Christ were in the
prison of the devil by the sin of their father Adam and how is it possible that
the only way God resorted to was the crucifixion of Christ. How is it possible
that the prophets who were higher in rank than Adam be imprisoned in the
devil’s prison? Ibrahim’s father was a disbeliever and God did not take
Ibrahim by the sin of his father. How is it possible that he was imprisoned by
the sin of his farthest father? Moreover, Noah strove hard to revert his people
to the religion of God all his lifetime, and at last, God destroyed them by his
prayer, how could he be imprisoned by the sin of Adam?
 What is the relationship between the Crucifixion, which is one of the major
sins, and the extrication of these from the devil? Allah could have prevented
him from doing any injustice and punished him. Allah is always in the favor of
his helpers and friends. Why did Allah forsake them and made them in the
custody of his and their enemy? Was He unable to protect them, or was He not
aware of his mischief? If the Christians say so, then it is plain blasphemy,
contradiction and degradation of God.
 This creed entails that those who were before the Christ, including those who
killed the apostles of the Christ and burned his Bible and the perpetrators
135
throughout the ages are not culpable for their crimes, as the crucifixion of
Christ obliterates all sins humans did.
 The Bible discredits the Christians in this regard. It states that the Christ
decried those who claimed to be his followers and told them that they did not
know their scholars.
 If sin was invalidated with his ascension, then those who killed him are no
longer condemnable by their sins, for after his coming there would be neither
sin nor sinners. Those who killed his disciples or burned their books are, too,
not sinners. Moreover, all sins since his coming until the Day of Judgment are
immediately forgiven. If this is true, then the whole existence becomes
meaningless.
Al- asan bin Ayyūb, quotes in this regard, a few hymns that the Christians
repeat in their prayers. He quoted, for example: Oh Our Lord, who has
conquered with his pain the severity of death” and “with the prayers of our
Lord Jesus Christ, death was invalidated and the devil’s sedition were stopped
and long gone.” In addition, the hymn that is pronounced on the second Friday
after Easter: “We have pride in the Cross, which invalidated our sin and we
are safe and secure because of it.” This is discredited by the Bible itself. In
Mathew: 7:22-23, Christ is reported to have said, “Many will say to me in that
day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have
cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I
profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
This very belief is not in keeping with the biblical declaration. If the sins are
forgiven, then why the Christ is threatening not to recognize them? Secondly,
in what way are they in need of his forgiveness? Moreover, in other places in
Mathew, we are told that people would be divided as per their deeds: some in
everlasting bliss and the other in everlasting punishment. See, for example,
Mathew: 25:41-46. This is a plain contradiction with the supposed story of the
atonement of the son through the sacrifice he made on the Cross and the whole
story of the incarnation and the indwelling. The people are divided into two
groups on the bases of their deeds. Those who carried out the commandments
136
would be blessed and those who rebelled would be punished. Then only the
sins cast them into punishment. Understood as such, the incarnation and
indwelling, the crucifixion and the atonement all become baseless myths that
Al- asan bin Ayyūb kept incessantly questioning.
The Christians use the Quran in order to justify their belief. They claim that the verse,
“they did not truly kill him, nor did they crucify him. Rather, He raised him to
himself.”78 supports Dyophysitistic Christology . They say that Christ was crucified
and felt the pain with his humanity not with his divinity. Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that
Christ was raised body and soul, and therefore he was no longer in need of food, etc.,
for he has a state different from the state of the people of the earth. Ibn Taymiyyah
adds that the Quran in the same context states that Christ said to Allah, “I was a
witness over them while I stayed among them. However, when you took me up, you
were the watcher over them.”79 Taken together, the Quranic verses tell us that after
the rising of the Christ Allah alone was the witness.
He also quotes the Christians as saying that the verse, “and [remember] when you
made out of clay a figure like that of a bir by leave, and you breathed into it, and it
became a bird by my leave”80 indicates that the creator was the word of god identified
with the human Christ. They also quote David as saying that God created the heavens
and the earth with the word of God. The leave stated in the Quranic verse was the
leave of God incarnate, according to the Christians. Ibn Taymiyyah said that if the
creator was God, then He would not need the permission of anyone. In addition, there
would be no grace bestowed upon him. Moreover, the text they quote tells very
clearly that the word was created with; it was not the creator proper. Once we know
that he did what he did by the leave of another, then he had the human status like any
of the Prophets.
3.14 Temporal Considerations
Here he discusses the concept of pre-existence or co-eternality with the father which
is vigorously emphasized in the ecumenical councils. The doctrine of the incarnation
can be refuted with reference to the chronological succession of the process of
137
unification. Ibn Taymiyyah did not miss to ask the question: if the word was the
creator and the created which unified with or dwelled in Mary and the created man
was taken as barrier, was this alleged creating of this man before, after or during
unification? It is entirely absurd to claim that this was before creation, as it is surely
impossible to create after the unification. If it was during the unification, then it
implies that they have never been together. Some Christians claim that God united
with a lifeless body before the spirit was breathed into it, and this union continued
after death until he rose up from the grave. Until the time of union, no miracle was
performed by this body. However, they substantiate their claim of his divinity by the
miracles. Moreover, the non-performance of miracles does not necessarily mean the
negation of divinity or divine unification. It also implies that the performance of
miracles is a proof of divinity, even if this appeared from a non-living thing. If this is
true, then the worshippers of the calf are more excused than the Christians. If God
united with the blood clot and the buried body, then it is also possible for him to unite
with the calf and the idols.
3.15 Parallels in Muslim Theology
The Christians tried to support their allegations with finding parallels in the Muslim
theology.81 They present these as pretexts for their doctrines. Ibn Taymiyyah
therefore, shows the Christians the differences between them and the Muslims. In this
regard, the Christians insinuate at the advocates of anthropomorphism. Subscribers to
this doctrine liken Allah to His creation. They hold that the physical attributes of
Allah mentioned in the Quran should be held in complete analogy with those of
humans. They think that Allah for example has a hand like hands of His creation, a
leg like the legs of His creation and the same is said about the remaining attributes but
they do not believe that Allah is a body. Ibn Taymiyyah proves that these are in a
better position than the Christians are. He discusses this and points out the differences
and similarities. He stated:
 Despite the fact that both the anthropomorphist Muslims and the Christians
share the fact that they interpret texts literally, none shares the Christians the
belief in the Trinity and incarnation.
138
 The Muslims took what is there in the scriptures literally, but the Christians
followed what is not in the scriptures.
 The Muslims associated the seemingly anthropomorphic verses with the
verses that deny the likeness of Allah to any of His creatures, whereas the
Christians did not associate the Trinity and the incarnation with what negates
them.
 The Muslims did not call His attributes with names that they invented and
interpreted the prophets’ statements to mean them; but the Christians gave
them names that the prophets never heard of.
 The Muslims did not abandon the many clear and straightforward statements
in favor of a few statements that might imply wrong doctrines. However, the
Christians did.
 The Muslims did not concoct codes that the prophets did not know of. But the
Christians canonized creeds that were not brought by the prophets.
 The Muslims did not believe in something absurd. Nevertheless, the Christians
did.
 The Muslims did not upheld self-contradictory notions, whereas the Christians
believed that God was one but at the same time claimed that he is two natures
(divine and human) and three (persons).
Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that on the bases of the above, the Christians have no right
to claim that they are like the Muslims.82 Further, he affirms that the excessive
Muslims who liken Allah to His creation and whom the Muslims consider as non-
Muslims are better than the Christians in their theology. The former are less
presumptuous in opposing both, religion and reason. If the devious Muslims are better
than the Christians are, then it is far more so with reference to the righteous who
uphold true doctrines. Ibn Taymiyyah strikes a balanced way between
anthropomorphism where God is likened to His creation and the denial of attributes.
Ibn Taymiyyah admits that the Quran and sunnah contain seemingly anthropomorphic
texts but they do not contain anything of what the deniers of attributes claim. None of
the books state that God is neither inside nor outside the world, neither immanent nor
139
transcendent, neither above the world nor is He pointed at, that nothing goes up to
Him, nor comes down from Him, that nothing can approach him nor does He
approach anything, to the rest of what the deniers of attributes believe. The books do
not support anything of these false allegations but the there are many verses that
contains what seems to indicate corporealism. However, to say that God embodied as
the angels or the jinn is more credible that the incarnation upheld by the Christians.
This is because it is conventional that the angels can take a human form but they did
not become absolutely humans. If this is not feasible for the angels to unite with the
humans, how is it possible in the case of the Lord of the World to unite with the
humans? Moreover, it is also possible for the jinni to dwell in the human body and
speak with his tongue. Nevertheless, they are two essences, two wills and two natures.
The Christians claim that the lord of the world united with the human and then some
of them claim that he has one nature (Monophhysites, like Jacobites) and some claim
that he has two natures and two essences (Chalcedonians).
3.16 Divinity of Christ
The assumed divine incarnation of the word of God, (the logos) led the Christians to
claim that Christ was God. They tried to establish this doctrine through textual as well
as rational evidences, thereby producing many Christologies: pneumatic, angelic,
kenotic chalcedonian, monophystic, monothelitistic, etc. They cannot break away
from the ecumenical canons, which the bishops of the different patriarchates decided
and devised in the fourth century. A thorough examination of some Christian writers
in the early centuries is enough in reaching the conclusion that the Christ was not
thought of as the immanent god who was coeternal, consubstantial and one with the
Father in the literal sense.
The various apologies compiled by scholars such as Justin, Tertullian (around the
years 169 and 220 AD), Tatian, Numenius, Ignatius and Astrides (first half of the
second century AD), who lived in the early Christian centuries, proves that a great
section of their writings depicts and demonstrates God as one. However, the views of
some of them that affirm a trio of godhead were serious attempts at analogizing the
Unitarian view inherited from the original Christianity and the Greek philosophy,
140
which introduces the logos as part of the heavenly power independent of God. The
translation and dissemination of Christianity in the Hellenistic world was one of the
main factors in the departure from pure monotheism to a triadic God.
When Christianity was languishing under persecution of the Greek polities that did
not acknowledge Christianity as a true religion, the Christian missionaries tried to
preach Christ through the philosophy the Greek recognized. The logos which is
basically a Greek word was deeply rooted in Greek philosophy; and for the Christians
to have the Greek recognition had to use the same terminology, claim Christianity to
be the right philosophy which Greek philosophers sought to obtain83 and
incrementally got their theology Hellenized. This syncretism led to having this dogma
canonized in the fourth century, under the auspices of Constantine the emperor, who
though convener did not recant his Hellenistic beliefs totally. Therefore even in early
Christianity there was an obvious analogy between Christian theology and Greek
mythology/philosophy, especially middle Platonism84. According to middle
Platonism, god formed a hierarchy of three principles, with the middle (Demiurge)
playing intermediary role between the supreme, who has no immediate contact with
the material world, and who is said to be not omnipotent, and the material world.
Therefore, the material world is the creation of this intermediary agent.
This philosophy echoed in the post apostolic literature especially in the apologies
addressed to Hellenistic elites. This triadic formula infected Christianity and
culminated in the canonization of Trinitarian dogma after much rationalization and
theorization.85 Moreover, the early church fathers in the first and second centuries
such as Justine, Tatian and Irenaeus were not unanimous on the nature and
relationship of the principles forming the heavenly power. However, none of them
viewed them to constitute an eternal consubstantial unity or even tri-personal God.
They viewed them to form a hierarchy of different layers and places. See Proto-
Trinity, by Thomas Edmund Gaston.
The Muslims followed different approaches and made various judgments concerning
these evidences. Some tried to judge them according to the biblical evidences without
questioning the authenticity thereof. Yet, others disregarded the authority of their
141
book and although they did not believe in them as God’s word, they responded and
refuted their allegations with references from their books. Others attempted to
undermine the authenticity of their texts to disprove all claims based on these texts.
Some others targeted these doctrines and found out their deficiencies through rational
arguments. In this section, we shall see how Ibn Taymiyyah tried to refute the
doctrine and whether he acknowledged any authority to their texts.
The divinity of Christ forms the backbone of Christology. It is a putatively accepted

doctrine among most of the Christian denominations. As some of the Christian sects
do not accept it, this opens up vistas for investigation. In fact, it is this supposed
incarnation that postulated the divinity of the Christ, according to the Christian
theology. In the previous section we discussed the incarnation of the word of God. In
this section, the divinity of Christ is investigated and the evidences thereof are
analysed.
3.16.1 Godhead vs. Messengership
According to the Christians, there is a triune God comprised of three persons, one of
which is the Christ. He is considered as the second person in the Trinitarian unity.
Considered as such, he is accorded the status of deity. Anyone not believing this
belief is considered to be of the followers of the Antichrist who will come at the end
of time. The Bible said:
“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the
world.”86
In the following pages, we shall attempt to probe into the issue and evaluate the
answers of Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah held the view that the ontological dualism
of godhead and messengership postulates that the Christ can be either a messenger or
god. As these are mutually exclusive, the Christ cannot be both. So, to claim that he is
either nullifies the other. Now the Christians should admit that the Christ is simply a
human being sent by the Creator of the world to put across His message, or they can
claim that he was a god and here they cannot deny the multiplicity of gods.
142
Furthermore, mixing entails transformation. It is impossible to find two things

retaining their individual qualities or properties while united. Change is ineluctable.
Applying this example to the issue under discussion, God becomes the messenger and
the messenger becomes God. If this conclusion is true, especially with reference to the
example of fire and the rod of iron, in the discussion of the unity, then the sufferings
on the stakes and outside them must have affected God too. If this is held by the
Christians, their statement is more degrading for God than the statement of the Jews
who claimed that God was poor and stingy and so on.
3.16.2 Biblical Evidences
In addition, the biblical quotations they cite in substantiation of their theology if

authentic should be understood within the linguistic framework of Christ’s verbiage.
The linguistic uses he followed entail a different interpretation. They quote this
biblical verse, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”87 This statement, according to Ibn
Taymiyyah, propounds that within the prophetic uses of the language it means that the
Christ is God’s selected and beloved.88 The title was also applied to Israel or Jacob
when God addressed him with, ‘Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my
firstborn:89 The title was also given to the Prophet David and the Christ himself said
to the apostles that God was his and their father90. Nowhere in the discourses of the
prophets is it mentioned that the word of God is the son of God in the real sense of the
word.
As the title applies to these creatures, it entails that the Christ is created like them.
Thus, the title is given to the human Christ not the Christ as a deity ‘eternal born not
created’. Ibn Taymiyyah also said that it is mentioned nowhere in the discourses of
the prohets that Jesus was eternal and born not made. They did not designate the
eternal as the son of God. Nor is it stated that God made anything eternal son for
himself. He further did not dub any of His attributes His son.91
In addition, the biblical quotation that Christ shall be god indicates that it does not
mean real divinity. ‘Shall be called god’ is not a proper expression befitting God. The
143
other description that characterizes Christ is that he comes and dominates in real
dominion. This expression tells us, as Ibn Taymiyyah said that it does not refer to
Allah as He is the ever-possessor of the world. He is also characterized with the
epithet ‘the light of the day’. He is not made the light itself. These descriptions are
accorded to a human being. Had they been attributed to the lord of the world who
united with the human Jesus, those who quoted it would have clearly indicated. They
would not articulate such utterances, which are either clearly or apparently stating the
opposite, or are general and not relevant to the matter under discussion.
However, there are similar statements said by the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him). Yet he never claimed the same allegations. The
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is reported to have
said that he was written at the records of Allah as the seal of the prophets when Adam
was lying as mud. He further said, “I will tell you what I first was like. I am the
invocation of my father Ibrahim, the glad tiding of Jesus, the dream of my mother; she
saw when she was about to give birth to me that light emanated from her lighting the
palaces of Sh m.”92 This is a clear statement that he was named the seal of the
prophets when Adam was only lying in his mud. The meaning of the statement of the
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is that Allah
predestined that he be the seal of the prophets and be prominent through this
prophethood. The time of this prophecy is between the creation of Adam and the
blowing of life into him. Yet he never claimed eternality although he said, ‘before life
was.’ This very characterization shows that it is for one who cannot be god since it is
not proper to say that God was before life was. Habakkuk also is quoted to say that
Allah was seen on the earth and that Allah mixed with people.93 Ibn Taymiyyah says
that we have to make sure of the prophethood of these two, the authenticity of the
narration and the correctness of translation. After that, judgement can be made
according to the same criteria as any quotation. Moreover, in the ad th of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) there are quotations that
suggest the pervasion of Allah in the world. Allah is reported by the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to have said that He refers to
Himself as being ill, thirsty , etc., since these exigencies befall man. This is
144
interpreted to mean that giving charity to the Muslim, helping him in any way is
tantamount to helping Allah although He is in no need to anyone. The Christians talk
to the images in their churches but say that the address is directed to the people
representing theise images. This allegorical or figurative language should not be taken
literally to indicate the divinity of anyone. These expressions should be understood to
mean that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wanted
to indicate the high status a Muslim assumes in the sight of Allah.
Ibn Taymiyyah picks up some of the biblical prophecies that the Christians believe to
foretell the advent of Christ, and points out that they do not necessarily mean him
since it is not stated clearly. Moreover, he proves that these prophecies apply more
clearly to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) than to
the Christ. Some of such prophecies are mentioned below.
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive,
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”94
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon
his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”95
“Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne
of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and
with justice from henceforth even for ever”96
In response to these biblical quotations Ibn Taymiyyah argues that these are more
applicable to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) than the Christ
for the following reasons:
 “The government shall be upon his shoulder” refers to the seal of prophethood
on his shoulder, which is a sign that he is the true prophet. This feature is the
exclusive possession of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him): that
he was sent with the sword which he wears on his shoulders. The phrase,
‘mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace,’ testifies to this.
145
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was dominant over
the followers of the other religions and he was the prince of peace.97
 The phrase, ‘Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no
end,’ also is a proof that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) was the Prophet who was prophesied as he is the last of the prophets and
no Prophet was raised after him. Therefore, his law and authority being
perfect, required no more laws to be revealed. As such, his law is eternal.
Another verse he quotes is this from Mathew: 13: 41: “The Son of man shall send
forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and
them which do iniquity.” This verse, he asserts, does not refer to the Christ as God.
He indicated that some of the Christian scholars said that this verse does not imply
that Christ is the lord of lords, or that he is the creator of the angels. He said further
that the lord of the angels assigned them to guard the Christ. This is testified by the
statement of Luke when he said that God sent him an angel from Heaven to support
him.98 If the Gospels testify that, the angels keep and guard Christ it means that the
angels obey the Christ by Allah’s order and that they as well as Christ are in the
service of God. He quotes some of the biblical verses that portray that the angels are
merely servants of Allah help to support the messengers and prophets. He also cited
the verses wherein Christ states that he is sent by Allah and the verse wherein he is
sighted and heard to shout for Allah’s help such as when he was on the Cross.
The Christians take as plea for the divinity of Christ the verse wherein it is stated that
man was created in the likeness of God. Ibn Taymiyyah refutes this by stating that this
is not special to Christ. He is merely one of the creations said to be created in the
likeness of God. The word of God is meant here and if this word means the divine
attribute of knowledge, then it is not possible that one’s attribute can be like him.
Apart from this is that the Christians believe that the Word of God is not created.99
Moreover, he quotes the verse from Genesis 1: 26: “And God said, Let us make man
in our image, after our likeness.” Ibn Taymiyyah maintains that similitude of a thing
to another does not entail that they are identical, which implies that they do not share
states of possibility, prohibition and permissibility. Rather, there are two things:
146
 An Area of overlap, which they share. It is a collective concept that is

particular to neither of them. Being as such, the similarities here do not breach
the line of demarcation between the creator and the created.
 Those properties that are particular to one of similar things; for instance, the
attributes of knowledge, life and power. Those particular to God are not
available in the slave and vice versa. The defects that are peculiar to the slave
should not be attributed to God. Likewise, the divine perfection, which is the
exclusive right of God, must not be attributed to the slave. Furthermore, the
phrase, ‘in our image, after our likeness’ does not involve the attributes like
the speech, the life, and the other attributes that are subsistent in him (the
created), because these are created, and then it does not include the divine
which they claim to have been incarnate in the human. He also maintained that
the human is like the other humans. Therefore, this similarity is not special of
the Christ. The phrase, ‘who can be in His likeness if not His word and spirit?’
is baseless.
The statement, ‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given,’ with the use of
the plural does not indicate multiplicity of the speaker. If the human kings use the
plural to refer to themselves individually, God has more right to do so. Moreover,
the word which is inherent in something cannot speak. Thus, their claim that God
addressed His attribute which they call the son or the spirit is a false claim.
One of the verses they quote to prove the divinity of Christ is “Then the LORD
[sic] rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD
[sic] out of heaven.”100 The Christians take this as plea since there are two lords
mentioned. The claim, Ibn Taymiyyah said, can be refuted on the following
grounds:
 The convention in the Torah is not to refer to any of God’s attributes as the
son or the Father. Therefore, Moses did not say this statement.
147
 If supposedly this was not the convention, then the one who sent rain is
normally the one who has the rain. The attribute do not have anything nor does
it do anything on its own right.
 The repetition of the noun does not necessarily indicate multiplicity of
persons. Rather, it may highlight the absoluteness of the person referred to.
The Christians also make use of this verse to substantiate the alleged divinity of
Christ. The verse reads, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”101 Ibn Taymiyyah propounded that this (as
is shown in the following) does not act as a proof for the allegation.
 The word ‘my lord’ can never be used to refer His to attributes. If the Christ
was any of His attributes, it is not right to say that the verse means him. If this
is the case, then his human entity is far beyond being referred to as such. This
being the case, it is now clear that neither the divine nor the human entities of
the Christ are meant here.
 In the first instance he said ‘the Lord’ whereas in the second instance he said
‘my lord’ attributing him to himself as his lord, who created him, while in the
Christian theology they, despite their excessiveness, say that he is ‘true God
from true God’. They make him creator.
 Such being the case, the verse can be interpreted as to mean that the speaker,
the Prophet David, out of humility spoke about the Christ as being his master
because he thought him to be superior to him.
They also take this verse as a plea, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten
thee.”102 For Ibn Taymiyyah this nullifies the supposed pre-existence of Christ. He
looked into the matter from the following perspectives:
 He said there is no mention of the attributes of God as son, nor is there any
mention of the Trinity. Therefore, it is not a proof in their favor.
 This can be turned against them as God called David his son. This is a clear
proof that the title is not an exclusive right of Jesus. Thus, the son as a title is
not the attribute of God. Rather, it applies to anyone whom God has fostered
of the slaves of His.
148
 The statement ‘this day have I begotten thee.’ Indicates a recent incidence;
something that took place after being nonexistent. However, they believe that
the emanation of the word from the Father is an eternal thing.103 In addition,
only one of two conclusions can be arrived at: a) it means the day I begotten
you. And here ‘begotten’ means ‘created’. B) It means selected, indicating that
that day selected him according to the language of the Bible.
Then Ibn Taymiyyah makes a comparison between the Christians and the polytheists
of Quraish. He said that the polytheists of Quraish set up gods and yet believe that
they are created by God, not creators, whereas the Christians believe in Jesus to be a
creator. They said that the one who spoke to Moses from the tree is one and the same
as the one who spoke to His other slaves. There is a great difference between God
and slaves. Furthermore, by comparison, Moses had greater miracles than Jesus did.
Then Ibn Taymiyyah looks at the issue from the Quranic perspective wherein he
states that as the spirit from which Jesus was created was itself created, Jesus must be
created.
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah set four criteria for the establishment of the divinity of
Christ. He deals with each one separately:
1. The prophecy that the archangel Gabriel brought from the heaven
2. The statement of John that is confirmed by the Christ, wherein he said that
women never ever brought one like him as stated in Mathew: 11:11.
3. The voice heard from the heaven
4. The answer of Christ when John asked about whether he is the one to be
awaited as in this verse, “When the men were come unto him, they said, John
Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look
we for another?”104
Ibn Taymiyyah inferred from the story that if Christ was God why did he need to be
perfected through the Baptist and why was he unknown to John the Baptist? He
inferred that the Baptist, the performer of baptism must be greater than the one
baptized. Secondly, God could not be unclear to a man like John. Thirdly, the answer
149
Jesus gave was thus “Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell
John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the
lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is
preached.”105 Ibn Taymiyyah says that the answer he gave did not include any claim
of divinity. He did not mention any attribute of God as being existent in him. The
miracles he pointed out are evidences for prophethood most of which were performed
by the prophets. John did not point to him as creator. Moreover, what he said about
Christ might be out of courtesy not that he was inferior to Christ.
3.16.3 The Story of the Devil
Ibn Taymiyyah also cites the story of the Devil and his temptation of Christ. This he
quotes in substantiation of the humanity of the Christ. The Devil according to the
Christians restrained and tempted him in the mountain for forty days. The Devil
moreover said to the Devil that if he was the son of God to order the rocks to become
bread. The Christ told him that it is written that the life if man does not become bread.
Whereupon he led him to Jerusalem and made him stand on the temple and told him
that he was the son of God throw yourself …etc.
Ibn Taymiyyah wonders how the Christians know all about this and yet still believe in
the divinity of Christ. Any sane man can easily come to the conclusion that this
cannot take place between God and Satan. The Satan tempted the Christ and ordered
him to do many bad things to the extent that he ordered him to prostrate before him.
And only then the Christ got offended and rebuked him and God sent an angel to take
him. This is the biblical wording:
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the
devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an
hungered. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of
God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is
written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth
him on a pinnacle of the temple. And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God,
cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning
thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy
foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt
the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
150
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and
worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the
devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.106
Ibn Taymiyyah points out many things in this story that refute the divinity of Christ.
They are:
 It is impossible to for the Devil to be given the power to tempt God
 The inability of the Christ to defend himself and his need for the angel
to rid him of the Devil
 The declaration of the Christ that he is ordered to prostrate before
God107
All these are clear indications of the humanity of the Christ. Rather, these put Christ
in a humiliated position, a position that does not even befit a prophet. This great
prophet of God is portrayed to be played with by the Satan, who is the utmost avowed
enemy of God. How is it possible that a great prophet such as Jesus be subjected by
the Devil?
3.16.4 Subordinationism
Among the most prominent early Christian theologians, Arius (c.250 – c.336) upheld
that the son is subordinate to the Father. “In reaction, the church developed its
doctrine of the Trinity, whereby the Son (and Holy Spirit), though distinct persons
(hypostases), share with the Father, as his ontological equals, the one being or
substance (ousia) of God.”108 The Council of Nicaea condemned Arius and
established the Trinitarian dogma in 325. This is a historical fact that Ibn Taymiyyah
is well aware of.
Ibn Taymiyyah points out one of the main manifestations of the humanity of Christ.
By bringing these issues into light, Ibn Taymiyyah demonstrates that the Bible
indicated clearly that Christ was a helpless and subordinate human being. He quotes
the following situations:
 His prayer to God such as when people used to come to him to pray for them
in situations of distress or illnesses, when he shouted on the stakes, as in this
151
verse “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli,
lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?”,109 his prayers for the Jews, and his prayer as in the following:
 “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will,
but as thou wilt.”110
 “He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this
cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” 111 The
Christ also declares that he cannot be like his God.
 He said, “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his
lord.”112
Ibn Taymiyyah also quotes the Bible as stating that God cannot be seen and he who
sees him shall die. Jesus has been with the people for thirty-three years and yet they
did not die. He also quoted Psalms:8:5: For thou hast made him a little lower than the
angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Further, the biblical statement
says that God said to Jesus that He (God) has begotten him. Being begotten means
that he is not eternal and is therefore created. This emphasized through the adverbial
‘this day’113 this specification has dispelled all doubts that he was not before that day.
The offer after that to answer his prayers demonstrates that he is in need of God as he
is helpless and unable. Other collaborative evidences are:
“Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus
lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.”114
“We accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.”115
“And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not
mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.”116
“And he said unto her, What [sic] wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my
two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy
kingdom.”117
152
“And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of
Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”118
Moreover, when Christ was asked about the hour he responded that he did not know it
and said that his Father only knows it. At the same time, he said that the son does not
know the hour. These two propositions lead to the conclusion that he was only human.
If they claim that, only the human did not know we could say that none knew except
the supreme God. It is stated in Mathew: 24:36: “But of that day and hour knoweth no
man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah noted that if The Christians believe that Jesus is God
because he is entitled in the Bible as lord, then all those who are called lords are
similarly gods such as some of the kings and some of the prophets like Joseph as
stated in the Torah.119 Ibn Taymiyyah mentions many examples of this type.
3.16.5 Prophecies about the Divinity of Christ
Ibn Taymiyyah again says that if the Christians say that the prophets foretold about
the divinity of the Christ as in “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”120
Immanuel according to Ibn Taymiyyah means ‘God with us’.121 Ibn Taymiyyah
responds to this presupposition by saying that this is a title conferred on the nobles.
Overall, whatever is stated about the divinity of Christ can be proved for the other
prophets, too. Whatever the Christians might say to support the claim, Ibn Taymiyyah
finds out parallel proofs for the other prophets, thus negating all peculiarities
allegedly dedicated to the Christ to portray him to be God.
Furthermore, he says the Christians cannot prove that Christ was God except through
proving the authenticity of their books; they can prove the authenticity of their books
only through proving the apostles infallible messengers of God, which in turn can be
proven only through proving that Christ was God. This infinitely cycling
argumentation makes their point impossible.122
153
Ibn Taymiyyah quotes some of the a d th wherein the cardinal crime perpetrated by
the Christians, are highlighted. Allah is reported by the Prophet Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him) to have said, “The son of Adam has belied me
while he has no right to do so, and abused me while he has no right to do so. He
belied me when he said, ‘How can He revive me as He first created me,’ whereas
creating something for the first time is not easier than reviving it. He belied me when
he said that I have taken a son whereas I am the one needless who does not beget nor
is begotten. I have no equal.” 123
Therefore, Muath bin Jabal said that the Christians profaned Allah in a way that no
one ever did it. For prevention, the Islamic law prohibited all to talk about God in
terms of the son or child, in order to block all ways leading to polytheism. It also
prohibited bowing for anyone even if that is done as a greeting. In like manner, it
prohibited offering prayers on the sunrise time and banned even little consumption of
wine. Through these preventive measures, Islamic Sharia has preserved monotheism
from all transgressions.
Ibn Taymiyyah wanted to pose a question for the Christians, a question that they are
not able to answer: the divine character in Christ where is it taken from; in which
scripture is it mentioned? Which Prophet has foretold his advent? Ibn Taymiyyah says
that the only evidence they have in support of their claim is the verse in Mathew, “Go
ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”124.
An examination has been so far made into the claims brought forth by the Christians
in justification and substantiation of the incarnation and Trinity, and how Ibn
Taymiyyah refuted them. He very often takes evidences from their scriptures and
interprets them according to his understanding of the basic teachings of God in the
Quran and according to his understanding of philosophy and logic. Yet, this does not
necessarily mean that he believed their scripture to be authentic and free from error.
In the following chapters an investigation into the true position he stands in relation to
the authenticity of their books will be attempted.
154
1
http://Biblehub.com/greek/3056.htm retrieved on 24-2-2015. P. 1
2
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Logos_in_Hellenistic_Judaism, accessed on 04/09/2015
3
As in Mathew:7 :24 and 7 :26
4
As in 2Peter: 1: 19
5
The Acts of Apostles is replete with references to the word of God where revelation is meant.
6
As in Proverbs: 1:20-33;8:1-9:6
7
See for example Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Jaw b Al- a Liman Baddala D n Al-Mas , edited by Ali
asan N ir et al, D r Al- imah, Riyadh KSA, 1994 vol.4, pp. 444-5 (hereafter al- Jaw b)
8
Some traditional commentators such as Barclay have viewed the gospel of John as an attempt to
reconcile Christianity to Greek thoughts.
9
Here Ibn Taymiyyah gives a rule: when we say that the attribute is not different from its subject, it
means that they are not one and the same thing. Yet, he emphasizes that the name given to anything
refers to both the attribute and the being it is dependent on. Therefore, he criticizes the philosophers
who did not differentiate between the thing known, for example, and the knower. Moreover, they in
their discussions about Allah, said He is the intellect, the person who has intellect and the thing that the
intellect contains. Therefore, they do not differentiate between the known, the knower and the knowing
mind. The philosophers consider these as having one existence. According to them, the lord of the
world is merely knowledge. The peripatetic philosophers call the angels the intellects, but as the
prophets never talked about the angels as the intellects, it is utterly not right to call them so. Ibn
Taymiyyah further talks about Aristotle and his followers and says that they have no knowledge of the
angels or the jinn. Al-Jaw b vol. 5, pp.25-26
10
This is again one of the influences of Greek philosophy. The logos is the creating word of God as it
is God’s command. When the Christians took Jesus to be the logos or Word of God they considered
him the creating word of God and therefore the creator of everything.
11
This has its precedents in plato’s thought. Justine in his First Apology said: “ And Plato, in like
manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them;
and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm retrieved on 24-2-2015
12
All these meanings are the meanings of the Greek ‘logos’.
13
The Catholic Encyclopaedia, The Dogma Of The Trinity
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11699, retrieved on 12/01/2016
14
Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition, Edited by Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson,
Oxford University Press
15
This tells us very clearly that the term and naturally the meaning associated to it are a later creation
or innovation.
155
16
M. G. Easton, Eastons Bible Dictionary AGES Software • Albany, OR USA Version 2.0 © 1996,
1997.
Taqi Othm n , What is Christianity: Armed Forces Printing Press (KSA), 1987, Trans. Mahomed
17
Shoaib Omar p. 2
18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_%28philosophy_and_religion%29 accessed on 25-3-2015
19
Al-Jaw b vol. 3, p.200
Referred to in the Bible as ‘the angel of the lord’ who ‘appears’ to different people to convey divine
20
messages.
21
Al-Jaw b 2/187
22
Even now, some Christians acknowledge this meaning such as Robert Schmid, who writes in his
article entitled “The Triple Myth of The Trinity” that “many excellent papers and books have been
written giving reasons why the Holy Spirit is not a person, but simply the power of God.”
23
I found it nowhere stated that the Holy Spirit is identified with God’s life of ability. Theophilus of
Antioch believed it to be His wisdom. Holy Spirit has different meaning in different contexts. It
signifies divine power, the soul in man, the giver of strength of faith, etc.
24
For example: Isaiah :63: 10-11, Psalms: 51:11, Ephesians:1:13, Luke:11:13
25
Genesis:1:26:
26
Genesis:3:22
27
Genesis:19:24
28
It should be noted that in the Bible (Isiah 40:18 ) God is mentioned to have no equal: “To whom then
will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?”
29
Ibn Taymiyyah cross checked and concluded that the man meant here in Adam as is clear form this
verse in Genesis:5:1: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man,
in the likeness of God made he him”
30
see Al-Jaw b, vol. 3, p.450
31
The Christians believe that the Father has no source whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him and
the Son is begotten by Him. Ibn Taymiyyah interprets this association as His attributes, based on the
fact that some of the early Christians made a similar attempt regarding the Holy Spiritand the word.
32
Exodus:3:6
33
John:1:12
34
35
Al-Jaw b, Vol. 4, p.449
36
Al-Jaw b, Vol. 4 p.452
156
37
Al-Jaw b, vol.4, p.464
38
The Nestorians did not believe her to be theotokos ( birth giver of God) but named her Christotokos (
birth giver of Christ). Nestorian Christology was condemned by the council of Ephesus in 431.
39
Those believing that they are of one will are called Monothelitists.
40
Al-Jaw b, vol. 4, pp. 466-7
41
The triune god comprised of three equal persons is not found in the pre-Nicene literature. Justin
(around 100-165 AD) stated that God is unnamed because names serve to distinguish one thing from
another in the realm of the multiple and diverse existence, but since God is one and unique, he cannot
be named in any way.
42
Psalms: 89: 26-27
43
See Genesis:6:2, Job:1:6 and 38:7
44
Al-Jaw b, vol. 3, pp. 227-8
45
John Hick for example in his The Metaphor Of God Incarnate: Christology In A Pluralistic Age.
(Louise Ville: Westminster, 1994) p. 27 said that “divine incarnation… requires that an eternally pre-
existent element of the godhead, God the Son, or the divine logos, became incarnate as a human being.
But it is extremely unlikely that the historical Jesus thought of himself in any such a way. In deed he
would probably have rejected the idea as blasphemous.” Furthermore, the contributors in The Myth Of
God Incarnate mention that Jesus was a man approved by God and that the later Christian conception
of him as God Incarnate the second person in the Trinity were a merely mythological or poetic way of
expressing his significance for humanity. Moreover, the existence of the non-Trinitarian churches is a
historical fact.
46
Mixing here stands for the ensuing ‘confusion’ of the two natures of Christ.
47
Al- asan Bin Al-Batr q
48
Al-Jaw b vol. 4 pp.355-8
49
The Christians are not unanimous concerning the time the unification took place. Majority of them
believe in his being eternal (i.e. he pre-existed his birth), just as the logos (God’s wisdom, speech) was
with him from the beginning, as it is his attribute.
50
Al-Qur’ n: 20:14
51
This example is quoted from Justine who in turn quoted it from Philo who was middle Platonist Jew
to demonstrate the relationship between God and the logos.
52
Al-Jaw b, vol. 4, p. 323-5
53
Al- Jaw b vol. 4, p.324
54
The soul-body relations equated with higher celestial relations is traceable in the metaphysics of
Plato and the stoics. Plato believed that the world is created by the Craftsman who though not
omnipotent creates the World Soul, which relates to the world in the same way the soul relates to the
body. The stoics believed that God is the world soul who pervades the world.
157
55
Al-Jaw b vol.4, pp.360-61
56
This is similar to the platonic philosophy. “Plato explains that the world was created from chaotic
matter by a god that he calls the Demiurge (literally ‘the Craftsman’). The Demiurge creates the World-
Soul, which relates to the world in the same way that the human soul relates to the human body.
Interestingly, the Demiurge is not omnipotent; he has to use the pre-existent chaotic matter to form the
world and in this way Plato explains the imperfections in the world.” Thomas Edmund Gaston Proto-
Trinity: The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the First and Second Christian Centuries,
University of Birmingham Research Archive, e-theses repository, 2007 (unpublished).
57
The Chalcedon Creed reads: Following the holy Fathers, we all with one voice confess our
Lord Jesus Christ one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead, the same perfect in
humanity, truly God and truly man, the same consisting of a reasonable soul and a body, of
one substance with the Father as touching the Godhead, the same of one substance with us as
touching humanity, like us in all things apart from sin; begotten of the Father before the ages
as touching the Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born from
the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as touching humanity, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord,
Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change,
without division, without separation.(see Investigating Christian Theology : Clergy
Development Church of The Nazarene, Kansas City USA . 2003, p. 34)
58
It is written in the Bible ( Deuteronomy: 12-15)that “then the lord spoke to you [Moses] from the
midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words but you saw no form…so watch yourselves carefully,
since you did not see any form on the Day of the Lord.”
59
See (Job: 9:11, Mathew:6: 6, John: 1:18, Exodus: 33:20, etc.)
60
Authentic ad ths (although there is an opinion to the contrary) testify that on the night he
(Muhammad) ascended to Heaven he did not see Allah.
61
62 Al-Jaw b vol. 4, p.377
63 Stipulating material intermediaries is deeply rooted in middle Platonism. However, they needed
such intermediaries because they believed that God is transcendent and therefore to deal with the
material world such intermediaries are required. Justine denounced this and said that it was impossible
that God left the super celestial realm to make Himself visible in a little spot of earth, a statement
flagrantly opposing the notions of incarnation and Trinity.
64
For the various meanings of the term, see The Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy, Second Edition
Robert Audi Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 5
65
Al-Qur’ n :7 : 180
66
Al-Jaw b, vol. 5 pp. 54-55.
67
Deuteronomy: 33:2
68
In Deuteronomy: 4:12: God said to Moses “And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the
fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.”
69
This is also a philosophical concept, related to the logos, clearly stated by Justine. He believes that
the logos is issued from God, and held it to mean reason and wisdom.
158
70
John 1:3 “Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been
made.” And more clearly this verse: “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he
appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.” (Hebrews 1:2)
71
Al-Jaw b vol.4, p.315
72
Al-Qur’ n:43: 84
73
Al-Jaw b’s translation entitled Answering Those Who Altered The Religion Of Christ, abridged by
Ashshahhat Ahmad At-Tahan, rendered into English by Bayan Translation Services, p. 281
74
Ibid, p. 282
75
Many acknowledge that the Christians are made to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity by their
religious leaders, Even that means that they have to disable their reasoning faculty. For example,
Robert Schmid writes in his article entitled “The Triple Myth of The Trinity” that “the fact that no one
understands what that means, does not bother most [Christians], after all, their leaders, ministers,
theologians and tradition confirm that to be a biblical fact that is to be believed, not understood.”
76
There are many interpretations for the role of both Christ and the Satan in the crucifixion, and
explanations for the intent and extent to which each was aware of the whole plan. However, the Bible
contradicts what Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Christians in this regard. The Christians today as far as
my knowledge goes do not believe that the Satan imprisoned the sinners in hell in the real sense of the
word.
77
78
Al-Qur’ n:4 :157-8
79
Al-Qur’ n:5: 117
80
Al-Qur’ n :5: 110
81
see also al-Jaw b, vol. 4, p.439
82
Al-Jaw b, vol. 4, pp. 361-341
83
In The Preaching of Peter he said: “… we and the good Greeks worship the same God, though not
according to perfect knowledge for they had not learned the tradition of the Son.
84
Middle Platonism is the period of Platonism between Antiochus of Ascalon (c.130–68 B.C.) and
Plotinus (A.D. 204–70). Cambridge dictionary of philosophy, second edition, Robert Audi Cambridge
University Press
85
See Thomas Edmund Gaston Proto-Trinity: The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the
First and Second Christian Centuries, University of Birmingham Research Archive, e-theses
repository, 2007 (unpublished).
86
I John:4:2-3
87
Mathew:28:19:
88
Prophets in the Bible were called gods, as in John 10:34-36: “Jesus answered them, is it not written
in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
159
scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”
89
Exodus:4 :22
90
God is entitled as father for many or all people. See Deuteronomy :32:6 and 1:31, Exodus: 4:22,
Isaiah: 63:166 and 64:8, Jeremiah:3:4, 3:19 and 31:9, Psalms:68:5 and 103:13. Thus, Christ being
called the son of god is nothing new in the terminology of the Bible.
91
92
Ahmad Bin anbal: Al-Musnad, ad th no. 17163
93
Probably he means this verse in Habakkuk (3:3): God came from Teman, and the Holy One from
mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.”
94
Isaiah:7:14
95
Isaiah:9:6
96
Isaiah:9:7
97
98
Luke :4 :11
99
Al-Jaw b vol.3, p. 442
100
Genesis:19:24
101
‘Psalms:110:1
102
Psalms: 2:7
103
104
Luke:7: 20:
105
, Luke:7:22:
106
Mathew 4: 1-11.
107
Al-Jaw b, vol. 4, pp.108-9
108
Cambridge dictionary of philosophy p. 44
109
Mathewt:27:46
110
Mathew:26:39
111
Mathew:26:42
112
Mathew:10:24
160
113
Al-Jaw b 4/135
114
John:11:41
115
Acts:24:3:
116
Mathew:20:23:
117
Mathew:20:21:
118
Luke:24:49:
119
He may be referring to this verse in Genesis: 45:9: “Haste ye, and go up to my father, and say unto
him, Thus saith thy son Joseph, God hath made me lord of all Egypt: come down unto me, tarry not.”
120
Isaiah: 7:14:
121
This is also confirmed by English dictionaries.
122
123
a Al-Bukh ri ad th no. 4482
124
Mathew:28:19
161
162
Chapter Four: Alteration in the Divine Message
CHAPTER FOUR
Alteration
In
The Divine Message
163
164
4 . ALTERATION IN THE DIVINE MESSAGE
The alteration in Christianity has been a common thesis discussed by many scholars
who could observe the wide gulf separating the true divine teachings that are
traditionally acknowledgeable and rationally reasonable, from the current enigmatic
tenets of belief in Christianity. Minds (even from the Christian circles) that are not
marred by preconceived notions and Trinitarian propensities have opposed Christian
doctrines that have been incrementally augmenting over time. The subsequent
additions and deletions that both the scripture and the religion suffered made this gap
become larger. Therefore, alteration, as proved by Ibn Taymiyyah, has two aspects:
the alteration through inventing new doctrines like the Trinity, incarnation, divinity of
Christ, etc., and the alteration of the meaning of scriptural texts through translation
and interpretation, which collaboratively influenced the Christian theology. Both
these aspects that brought about changes in Christianity are probed into in this
chapter.
Moreover, as the transmission of the Bible is another issue that sheds light on the
authenticity and therefore authority of the Bible, Ibn Taymiyyah discusses it
extensively, although it is apparently viewed secondary to the discussion of the
interpretation and translation. The Christian Bible consists of the Old Testament and
New Testament.1 Although the Jews believe only in the so called Old Testament, they
do not follow the versions followed by the Christians. Furthermore, given the plurality
of Jewish sects, there are a number of versions accepted within the Jewish
communities. Moreover, the Christian translation and interpretation of the Old
Testament as part of their own scripture, has been adjusted within the Trinitarian
paradigm and therefore they assigned to it meanings the Jews do not acknowledge.
4.1 Innovation in religion
Throughout this voluminous work, (al-Jawab), Ibn Taymiyyah tries to prove the new
additions the Christians have presumptuously introduced into the religion of Christ.
The Christians on the other hand try to prove their stance through quoting the Quran,
165
as supporting their creeds and confirming the authenticity of their books. In response
to this, Ibn Taymiyyah explores the Muslim exegetic literature to disprove this
fallacy. In so doing, he proves that the Christians have severed all ties with Christ’s
message by inventing a totally new religion of their own making and therefore he
considers them to be totally far from truth and as having committed the greatest form
of disbelief. The Quran recurrently and discursively asserts their disbelief on the bases
of their innovation and twisting the meaning of the texts to support their false
allegations.
Ibn Taymiyyah identifies three reasons for the deviation of the Christians:
1. They abandoned the texts that are clear and categorical in favour of those
which are ambiguous or allegorical.
2. They do not have a sound criterion to distinguish between the divine from the
devilish miracles.
3. They reposed implacable trust in concocted narrations, as they possess no

systematic technique of scrutinising these narrations. These are taken for
granted and never subjected to authentication.
Apart from that, the Christians have no scriptural foundations for their dogmas. Their
scriptural evidences are either not authentic or irrelevant to the topic of discussion.
The whole Christian theological edifice is structured on untenable arguments.
In this chapter the Christians’ allegations regarding the authenticity of their scripture
and the validity of their doctrines and whether these are supported by the Quran are
presented along with the responses of Ibn Taymiyyah.
4.1.1 Changing the Monotheism
Jesus was one of the mightiest messengers and faithful prophets, who made the
propagation of monotheism (taw d) their major aim and devoted their whole lives to
serving this purpose. The Quran expresses very plainly how Jesus was created with
the word of Allah2 and therefore he is called the word of Allah (being created purely
by the word of Allah without any human/sexual intervention). However, after his
166
ascension, people deified him and even went as far as to make this one of the pillars
of faith, without which faith is null and void. Even at this stage, the Quran
communicates a dialogue in heaven between Allah and His messenger Jesus, wherein
Allah questioned him if he ordered people to take him as god, which he denied
outright.3 Although Islam makes it obligatory and as a pillar of Islam to believe in
Jesus and all the prophets, it states that divinity is the exclusive right of Allah. The
concept of monotheism has a rigorous and strict meaning in Islam, allowing only a
binary taxonomical classification of beings into godhead and creations, where the first
position is occupied exclusively by Allah. It means that worship is the exclusive right
of the Almighty. Worship again has a more inclusive meaning in Islam. All words
and deeds and even thoughts that please Allah are types of worship that should be
devoted exclusively to Allah. Thus, invocations and prayers, vows, seeking help or
protection that Allah alone is able to afford, fear, hope, etc. are all types of worship
that should be offered to Allah alone. This puts Islam (as prescribed to all the prophets
in its pristine form) as the only religion loyal to this ideal. Judaism and Christianity
are said to be monotheistic religions whereas they (as represented by the followers)
have demolished the very bases of monotheism as they assign divine qualities to
people. The Christians set up Jesus as God and son of God and the Jews believe Ezra
son of God as reported in the Quran.4
Ibn Taymiyyah made it his focal point to prove the wide difference between
monotheism and the practices and doctrines the Christians brought in. What made
this task easy is the Christian’s vulnerable stance in this regard. The divinity and
sonship of Christ are in patent contradiction to the purpose for which humanity in
general was created, which is the pure worship to Allah; and the incarnation and
Trinity oppose the oneness and transcendental nature of Allah. Ibn Taymiyyah
departed from the following propositions:
 The Quran stated plainly and condemned such practices as profaning Allah
and setting up deities with him.
 The Bible proclaims the humanity, servitude, subservience and helplessness of
Christ, and warns against those who innovate in religion.
 The whole textual packages the Christians depend on in this respect are either
a human creation or misinterpretation.
167
 Their doctrines are not consistent with reason, and crush the very bases of
monotheism.
 It is historical fact that it was too late that their current doctrines were
canonised.
The bishops and archbishops of the various patriarchates assumed the rank of Allah
and obtained for themselves the right to canonize any set of beliefs and doctrines in
their ecumenical counsels. Such doctrines became instantly in force, and anyone who
opposed them was excommunicated and cursed as a heretic.
Ibn Taymiyyah rallies many textual evidences available in the Quran and Bible, and
supports that with historical facts and reason. As regards monotheism, Ibn Taymiyyah
says:
For taw d, the Jews likened the Creator to His creation and blemished the Lord
with qualities that befit the created. They said that Allah is poor, miser, and that
He is susceptible to fatigue, etc. The Christians described the created with
qualities of perfection that are special for the creator. They said that Christ
created the heavens and the earth, and that he is eternal, omniscient,
omnipotent... However, the Muslims were guided to truth by Allah in matters
they differed. Therefore, they did not liken the creator to the created nor the
created to the creator. Rather, they affirmed for Allah what He deserves of the
qualities of perfection and glorified him high above all imperfections and
affirmed that He is one having no similar or equal …. Thus they, unlike the
Jews, glorified him high above defects and above similitude to creation unlike
the Christians.5
Therefore, the Christians’ error, as Ibn Taymiyyah has put it, emanated from their
extremist reverence for persons. They initially erected Jesus as son of Allah through
misinterpretation, although ordinary pious people are referred to as sons of God in the
Bible, but not deified. The sonship of Christ, the union with the Father, the
indwelling and the divinity of Christ were all introduced into Christianity formally in
the time of Constantine6, the king of the Roman Empire in the fourth century after the
demise of Christ. At that time the bishops were convened by the king to standardize
doctrines to unite the Christians folks, under the Roman Empire. This council came in
response to the pathetic disparity among the Christians.
Ibn Taymiyyah quoted the ad th of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) when he said the Christians took their religious leaders as gods, since they
legalized the illegal and prohibited the lawful. The institution and canonization of
168
certain articles in the Christian faith made their (canonical creeds’) authority as
divine, meaningless, for they are man-made. So, the deification of Christ was clearly
intended by the Christians but they never felt that they deified the fathers of the
church as well. Ibn Taymiyyah does not stop here. He elaborated on the issue and
propounded that some factions deified Mary, the mother of Christ. Moreover, they
made as gods the three persons of the Trinity. He said:
They associated with Allah the prophets and others below them. Therefore, they
worshipped the Christ. Further, they took their priests and monks as gods apart
from Allah. In addition, they made the deciples of Jesus messengers of God, and
claimed that man is elevated to the status of the prophets by virtue of his good
deeds; and as a result, they prayed to them and sought their intercession after
their death. If a pious man among them dies, they build a temple on his grave,
and draw images therein.7
As for the title ‘God’, Ibn Taymiyyah proved that the Bible made it the title of Moses
and others too. Therefore, he concludes that the Christians did not understand the
language of the Bible and took it literally. Their preconceptions blurred their vision to
see that these terms are used figuratively. They quote the verses that state that Christ
is God, lord and son to prove their points but at the same time they fail to see the same
applied to other people too.
The enormity of the mistake in monotheism made Ibn Taymiyyah dwell the longest
on this theme, and arrive at the conclusion that they worship many gods and therefore
they are miserably different in understanding the very basics of their religion, and
therefore deeply immersed in disbelief.
4.1.2 Disgracing the Prophets
The position of the prophets is another issue that needs to be highlighted here. The
Jews humiliated the prophets and messengers of Allah. They calumniated them and
ascribed to them even immorality and painted for them pornographic images in their
Scripture. Further, they subjected some of them to abject and miserable torture and
they put some others to death.8 On the contrary, the Christians hyperbolically revered
some of them and went to extremes in that.9 They even considered the apostles of
Christ as infallible messengers of Allah. Moreover, they erected many of saints as
gods through seeking their succour in dire circumstances. Islam, however, as it always
169
does, strikes a middle way in this respect between deification and humiliation. In
Islam the prophets of Allah are venerated but not deified. Ibn Taymiyyah said:
For the Muslims, they were guided by His [Allah’s] leave to truth in matters
wherein they differed. They believed in all the prophets and did not discriminate
between them. They did not go to extremes regarding them as the Christians did,
nor fell too short of paying them the homage due to them, as did the Jews.10
The Muslims revere the Christ more than the Christians, as they believe in all that he
said and do not alter his words or intent. Through wrong interpretation, the Christians
introduced illogical and absurd themes into religion and when questioned about the
logicality thereof they would say that they are beyond reason or are unintelligible to
human mind11. The best and the seal of the prophets, Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him), assumed the status of the messenger-slave, and it
was the highest peak a prophet may reach. In contexts of praise in the Quran he was
described as such12. He and Noah, Ibrahim, Moses and Jesus were called the mightiest
of the messengers of Allah as the Quran puts it.13 But none of these was ever called
god, nor son, nor lord, for the biblical usage of the terms ‘god’, ‘father’, ‘son’ ‘lord’
and the like created problems for humanity. Ibn Taymiyyah invited the Christians to
read the Bible in the correct context and perspective. Many scholars of the Bible
acknowledge that the Bible propounded that the context of the writers rather than the
actual contexts overcame its presentation. It is mainly because of misreading,
misconceptualization and adamant insistence on trinitarianism that the Christians
ended up with many gods in a supposedly monotheistic religion.
In addition, in Islam it is a precondition of counting any as a Muslim that he or she

should believe in all the prophets indiscriminately. Moreover, part of this belief is to
believe in their being infallible, which makes their actions and sayings absolutely true
and exemplary for their respective peoples. Having this status they should be obeyed.
This necessarily implies that their ordinances are not contradictory. On the basis of
this logic their message is the same. All of them urged their respective peoples to
worship none save Allah. Anyone denying or speaking badly about any of the
prophets is immediately judged as a disbeliever. The followers of other faiths after the
coming of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are bound by this
rule. They are all unsalvageable from the torments of the hellfire, in which they would
170
dwell permanently, if they do not follow Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him). This is because disbelieving in one of the prophets is tantamount to
disbelieving in all, given the unity of their message. Therefore, the Quran contains
many texts affirming the disbelief of the People of the Book (the Jews and the
Christians), since they denied some of the prophets of Allah.14
4.1.3 Playing with the Divine Ordinances
Christ is quoted even in the Bible as to say to his people that he did not come to
change the law.15 The law here refers to the legal system in the Torah, which was
given to Moses. In the Quran, it is stated several times that Christ came to confirm,
not to change the Torah.16 However, he is also quoted to have said that he came to
make lawful some unlawful items previously prohibited in the Torah. In other words,
he came to slightly modify the legal injunctions of the Torah. The Quran reports the
Christ as saying: “And I have come confirming that which was before me of the
Torah, and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have
brought to you a proof from your lord, so fear Allah and obey me.”17
The response of the population that Jesus addressed was diverse: the followers of
Christ accepted the institution and later went even further in error and aberration
when they believed that their fathers have the right to abrogate even what Christ
brought. But the Jews rejected it all, for they denied abrogation. They thought that the
modification vitiates the authority of the commandments in the Torah. Thus biblical
as well as Quranic references testify to the fact that Christ did not bring a totally new
law but adopted the law brought by Moses. Therefore, there are slight changes in
legislation between the books revealed to Moses and Christ. The Muslims were
balanced in this regard and believed that Allah has the exclusive right to modify his
law through the prophets whenever He wishes. Therefore, we should believe in what
Allah revealed to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him), even when the successor prophet changes items in the law of his predecessors.
Since all come from Allah, we should accept them indiscriminately, as this is part of
their message. Otherwise, man has no right to abrogate any of the creator’s law
brought by the prophets.
171
As regards legislation, the Jews were extremists. They prohibited the good things and
went to extremes regarding impurities to the extent that they prohibited eating with
the woman who is in her menstrual cycle or even staying with her in the same
house.18 Moreover, certain fats19 as well as certain animals with cleft hooves are
prohibited and many other things.20 With these constraints on diet made obligatory
upon the Jew, Christ made lawful for them some of what has been prohibited for
them, as a sign of mercy from Allah. However, they believed that Allah does not
abrogate anything after endorsing it. Right to the other sharp extreme, the Christians
took everything as lawful including wine, pork, and all animals. They also considered
everything as pure including urine, and the like, and repealed circumcision. They,
unlike the Jews, as regards abrogation, believed it to be the prerogative of their
bishops to abrogate even divine commandments, as they did many times in all their
ecumenical councils (the first one being that of Nicaea in 325 CE), wherein they
totally changed their religion and associated others with Allah in His lordship and
godhead. Moreover, they also adulated the Cross, on which Christ was believed to
have been crucified.
The Muslims, however, were guided in the matters wherein they differed, and Allah
made lawful for them all good things and prohibited all obnoxious and abominable
things and removed the restrictions and constraints that yoked the children of
Israel,(unlike the case of the Jews) and commanded them to be pure and clean from
all kinds of impurities, unlike the Christians. Generally speaking, Ibn Taymiyyah
notes, Christendom are inclined towards accepting falsehood, such as the Trinity, the
union and the indwelling; and the Jewry are characterized by rejecting the truth and
maligning the prophets.
In addition, in their commitment to falsehood and being so deeply immersed in error

and bigotry, they condemn and curse anyone asking them for fair judgment regarding
things they innovated in religion. It is always the way of the biased individuals of all
social strata and scholars of various ideologies. The Christians’ extremist stance on
the person of Christ is motivated with the same things that motivate some Muslims
sects which highly and unduly glorified their saints and leaders, such as Ali bin Abi
T lib, who is deified by some of the Ismailis. They face the incessant demand for
evidences that prove their opinions with supposing that these issues are
172
incomprehensible. Ibn Taymiyyah recurrently differentiates between bringing
something incomprehensible and bringing something known to all to be impossible.
In other words, there is a big difference between what is unreasonable and what is
impossible to fully comprehend. What the Christians innovated falls into the first
category.
During the time of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the Torah
according to Ibn Taymiyyah had enough guidance to lead the Jews, since the Quran
tells Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about this fact. Allah
says, “How come they unto thee for judgement when they have the Torah, wherein
Allah hath delivered judgement (for them)? Yet even after that they turn away. Such
(folk) are not believers.”21 The same thing is said about the Gospel which the Quran
tells their followers to make their judgements according to them. Allah says in the
Quran, “and let the people of the gospel judge on the bases of what Allah has revealed
in it.”22
Ibn Taymiyyah is of the view that this reference is valid in matters where the Quran
and the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have the
same judgements. The Christians were bound by the Law of Moses unless such rules
were abrogated by the Christ. Likewise the matters that Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) abrogated, should not be followed, even though they
may be there in the pre-abrogation revealed book. Moreover, Ibn Taymiyyah asserts
that what remains in the Gospels today contains enough light to lead its followers to
the truth that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the last
messenger of Allah and therefore they have to follow him, although he admits that
what remains today in the Bible as regards the law is mostly the Christians’ invention.
Allah says in the Quran in describing some sections of the People of the Book,
(particularly the followers of Moses) thus: “those who follow the unlettered Prophet
whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel…”23 this unlettered prophet is
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is also clearly stated that
the Quran is the book dominating all other scriptures. The Quran says, “And we have
sent down to you [Prophet Muhammad] the book in truth confirming the books before
it and dominant over them. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and
do not follow their desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you…”24
173
4.1.4 Monasticism
Another aspect that the Christians introduced, as Ibn Taymiyyah puts forward, is
monasticism. Ibn Taymiyyah says it is a sheer innovation. It has no place in the
teachings of Christ. The Christians take a Quranic verse as a plea for the lawfulness of
their monasticism. The verse is “…and we ja‘aln (made, placed), in the hearts of
those who followed him, compassion and mercy. But the monasticism which they
invented for themselves, we did not prescribe for them, but they sought only to please
Allah therewith, but they did not observe it with the right observance. So we gave
those who believed their due reward, but many of them are rebellious.” 25
Ibn Taymiyyah propounds that Allah in this verse praises those who followed Christ
and whom Allah has bestowed with mercy and compassion. Monasticism is stated to
be invented by the Christians. Then those who followed the prophets and did not
change their religion are praised in the verse unlike the rebellious innovators. Thus,
the verse does not praise the Christians for monasticism, according to Ibn Taymiyyah.
Some interpret the verse to mean that Allah made in their hearts mercy, compassion
and monasticism, and this is supported by face-value reading. However, Ibn
Taymiyyah rejects this interpretation on the following grounds:
 Monasticism was not practiced by the early Christians; the disciples did not
practise it. It was invented later unlike the mercy and compassion, which were
in the hearts of all those who followed Christ.
 Allah has said that they invented monasticism unlike the mercy and
compassion, which are ‘made’ in their hearts.
 Mercy and compassion are things related exclusively to hearts, whereas
monasticism is not related to hearts. Therefore, it cannot be subsumed under
the verb ‘made’.
Again some interpret it to mean that Allah did not prescribe it for them except for the
pleasure of Allah. Others take it to mean that they did not do it except for the pleasure
of Allah. Ibn Taymiyyah rejects this interpretation on the following grounds:
 The monasticism was not prescribed at all as the verse plainly states that it was
invented.
174
 When Allah ordains anything, He does not do that in order to seek His own
pleasure. It is people who do whatever they do for this purpose.
 Why monasticism in particular is referred to as something that is ordained for
the pleasure of Allah? The verse does not mention things initially ordained,
what to speak of monasticism?
 To say that they did not do it except to seek the pleasure of Allah does not
necessarily entail any praise for them, for nothing can avail Allah’s pleasure
unless it is ordained by him.
4.1.5 The Crucifixion
The crucifixion is another issue Ibn Taymiyyah touches while exploring the
Christians’ doctrines. He follows the Quran in this regard and propounds that the
Christ was not crucified but a substitute was. The Quran states that: “… they did not
kill nor crucify him; but another was made to resemble him (and they killed that man
not Christ). And in the succeeding verse Allah tells that He raised Jesus to Himself.26
The Christians, instead of condemning this inhumane attempt to kill the innocent
prophet of Allah, venerated the Cross and made it their motto which they believe to be
part of their identity. They hang it in their necks and attribute to it much good. In the
time of the Roman emperor Constantine, this Cross was allegedly discovered by
Helen, the mother of Constantine. She travelled to Jerusalem and reached the place
where the Cross was buried and made excavations and discovered a number of
crosses. A test was conducted to identify the Cross, on which Christ was crucified.
The healing of a sick person was the test applied. They brought an ill person and put
the crosses individually on him. Only one of them could heal the illness. That was
therefore identified as the Cross they were searching for.
Long before that, her son, the emperor, saw in His dream, while the war between him
and his rivals was ablaze, that he would be granted victory over his enemies through
the cross which he saw in the sky. That allegedly was his own claim which induced
him into formalising Christianity in his kingdom, and entitled him later to play a vital
role in the forming of their religion. Ibn Taymiyyah more emphatically attributes
much of the alteration of the Christian religion to this emperor. He, with his pagan
175
background entered into the fold of Christianity but without recanting his previous
beliefs. This, along with the long contact of Christianity with the Helens caused many
Roman doctrines to be fossilised in Christianity. That is why Ibn Taymiyyah says that
the heresies the Christians are upholding now originated from paganism. He says that
their religion is a mixture of Roman beliefs and prophetic guidance.
4.2 Alterations in the Scripture
In the previous sections, alterations in religion have been discussed. The second
aspect of alteration is the scripture. Here, an attempt is made to deal with the ways the
Christian scripture was transmitted and how well they match the standards of
authenticity.
4.2.1 Transmission of the Bible
Ibn Taymiyyah held that the Torah was originally handed down from Allah to the
Prophet Moses all at once. However, it was lost by the passage of time. The lands of
the Jews underwent apocalyptic attacks from different kings who meant to destroy the
lands of the Jews and ransack them. The transmission of the Torah, he asserts, was
interrupted when Jerusalem was destroyed. It is said later that this transmission of the
Torah was resumed when a man called Ezra re-dictated it. People differed who this
man could be. Some are of the opinion that he was a prophet; others believed he was
not a prophet. His copy is said to have been compared with an antique copy and found
identical.
This, Ibn Taymiyyah negates, cannot safeguard against error, especially when we
know that it was not memorized like the Quran by almost all followers. The
transmission of one, two or three is not enough to consider what they transmitted
authentic. Thus, Ibn Taymiyyah refutes the authenticity claim through this historical
examination, which historians acknowledge. The assaults of the Babylonian, the
Persian and the Roman kings played a great role in sacking cities wherein the
followers of Moses and Jesus lived, practiced their religions and kept their religious
books. As these kings were averse to the religion per se, they would leave no stone
unturned to destroy everything pertaining to religion. Therefore, temples were
destroyed at times, the holy books were burned and religious people were killed.
176
Therefore, their knowledge, preservation and practice of their religions must have
suffered as a result. Moreover, the Christian historians acknowledge that apart from
the fact that the Torah was collected in written form long after the demise of Moses,
(although it is believed by some to have written some portions of the Exodus and
some laws for the community) it took roughly half a century to be completed. Dennis
Bratcher in his book entitled The Development of the Bible (page one) writes:
However, it is likely that the Bible actually began to take shape as Scripture later
as the earliest written traditions began to be collected into books about the time
of Solomon, around 1000 BC. The Old Testament in roughly the form that we
know it did not emerge until after the return from Babylonian exile around 500-
450 BC.
The Christian scholars admit that the Bible as is seen in the present form developed
over two thousand years. This is not as regards writing it in books only but revelation
is given more protracted period outliving the prophets themselves.27 Some of the
books at times were considered as part of the scripture then discoveries of older
manuscripts led to either modification or exclusion of the previous books. One such
book is the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocrypha. This is also true with respect to the
different versions of the Bible. The grave defects in the King James version of the
Bible, for example, called for its revision.
Ibn Taymiyyah seems indifferent regarding the time when the Torah was written.
What concerns him is the interrupted transmission whether oral or written. He
considers it sufficiently authentic if concomitantly transmitted28 either orally or in a
written form. This is actually the standard set in Islamic scholarship in the scrutiny of
ad th. A ad th thus transmitted is considered authentic. It should also be noted that
he equates the Gospels with the ad th of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) in that they both are merely reports of the prophets’
words and deeds.
The status of the Gospels, in his view, is even weaker for it was not written down nor
dictated by Jesus; it was only after the ascension of Christ that the apostles who
accompanied Jesus, namely, John and Mathew wrote their accounts of Jesus, which
they admit are not exhaustive of his words and deeds (see John:21:25). Moreover,
they did not claim that Christ conveyed them as God’s word. They admit them as their
177
personal accounts of the life of Christ—what he said and did.29 Therefore, they are
very much like writing the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him) 30. They are mere accounts made by people subject to scrutiny.
Not many people memorized or recorded them. What is worse, Mark and Luke did
not see the Christ. After all, the narration of two or three is liable to error, especially
when we consider their confusion in the man crucified; was he the Christ or not, and
whether he was God or not, although Christ is the focal point of the entire
Christendom.
Ibn Taymiyyah makes a comparison between the way the Quran was transmitted and
the way their books were transmitted. He highlights a very crucial difference. That is
of the isn d (the study of the continuity of the line of narrators). This is a science in
Islamic scholarship wherewith the authenticity of the ad th narration is scrutinized.
The Muslims have developed this meticulous technique on the bases of which they
judge the authenticity or otherwise of any narration. This involves the study of the
men who transmitted the ad th: whether they are trustworthy or not, whether they
perfectly preserved the ad th they narrated, in memory or records, whether the chain
of the narrators is broken or not, the phraseology involved to signify the way the
adῑth was received, etc. All these guard against fabrication and forgery. However,
the Christians do not possess such investigative techniques. Moreover, the Prophet
has testified that his ummah will not agree on error, a testimony the Christians did not
obtain for themselves. Rather, they agreed in error when they belied the Christ and
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon both of them). Further, thousands
of people transmitted the Quran whereas a relatively small number of people
transmitted the Bible (in translation).
In addition, Ibn Taymiyyah highlights another criterion for the authenticity of

narration. That is, whether it was concomitantly transmitted. This, he mentions to
prove the authenticity of the Quran and show the superiority of it over the rest of the
so-called divine books. The Christians boast, as Ibn Taymiyyah puts it, that their
scripture is written in seventy-two tongues31; therefore, change is not feasible with
this great number. Ibn Taymiyyah rightly refutes this by referring to the language the
Christ spoke. He says that the language Christ spoke was Hebrew. It was later that it
was translated in other tongues. Furthermore, he says it is common knowledge that
178
the copies available in the hands of the Jews, Christians, and Samaritans are obviously
different.32 They are not identical copies. This testifies to the fact that change is
necessarily there in their respective scriptures. More, it is impossible to find anyone
who claims to have mastered seventy-two languages, checked the copies in the world,
and concluded that they are identical. On the contrary, it is enough to find some of
the copies different to judge the change, which actually what people came to observe.
The copies of the Psalm are even worse in this regard as the change there is more
prevalent. He says that he himself saw some of the copies of the Psalms in which
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was mentioned by name as a
prophet, whereas in the other copies there is no mention of him. Therefore, Ibn
Taymiyyah reaches the conclusion that changes in their scripture can easily be proven
through observation and comparison. The laxity and leniency in taking matters of
religion made their standards of scrutinizing authenticity and validity incredibly low.
Ibn Taymiyyah uses the correct yardstick to ascertain the alteration in the text. With
the difference in the texts available with the different Christian sects and those with
the Jews and the Samaritans, no claim of originality remains valid. Moreover, if the
change is only in the words, given the different translations then it would not create
such confusion, but the difference is actually in the meaning, too. Even
contemporarily, whole verses are being expunged from time to time,33 and some of
them are reinstituted after being obliterated. Other verses are modified; hence, the
multiplicity of the versions of the Bible.
The Christians, as Ibn Taymiyyah tells us, hold that the people received the scripture
from the apostles, (who were, according to them, messengers of God) each in his
respective tongue. Ibn Taymiyyah gives the following arguments to refute this claim:
 If these narrations/copies are not concomitantly transmitted, they become an
invalid source of knowledge.
 This is a big lie. Many nations did not receive any gospel in their language
such as the Arabs. The Arabic versions were translated from Hebrew, Roman
and Syriac. The first translation of the Torah into Arabic was in the tenth
century.
179
 The Christian gospels are only four, written by four people, two of whom saw
Christ whereas two did not see him. This is not concomitance in narration that
guards against forgery. The tongues in which the gospels were narrated came
after these four apostles. The apostles did not speak seventy tongues.34
Moreover, the apostles were not infallible. The Christians do not claim that
they are prophets. Therefore, they are prone to mistake.
 In the content of these books are clear proofs in stark opposition to the wrong
allegations they made, such as the Trinity, incarnation, divinity of Christ, etc.
One should not abandon clear proofs in favor of ambiguous statements.
 Supposing it is true that the Bible is available in seventy-two languages, each

language would have many copies, making it difficult to say that all copies are
identical and are still in the form they received them from the apostles.
After this, Ibn Taymiyyah holds a comparison between the Quran and the Bible in
terms of their transmission. In the transmission of the Quran people did not depend on
the copies they had. They depended mostly on their memorization, something
individuals in the Christian faith hardly ventured to do, not to speak of big numbers of
people. Therefore, Muslims were able to correct any mistake in any of the copies of
the people, unlike the Christians. Further, they did not preserve the words verbatim
only, they also preserved the script (the orthographic system); that is, how single
words should be written. This manifests the superiority of the Quran in its
authenticity over any other book. Therefore, if this is true in the case of the Torah,
which is the most authentic part of the Bible, what to say about the gospels! Ibn
Taymiyyah builds on this conclusion that if the books with the Jews and Samaritans
are different from those with the Christians, this means the Christians did not take
from the same source, and thereby authenticity is affected.
4.2.2 Interpretation of the Bible
Apart from the mistakes in narration, the Christians mistook also in interpreting their
books. Ibn Taymiyyah highlights their difference in the meaning they ascribe to the
specific texts. Difference in interpretation led naturally to difference in theology.
When they mistook in interpreting the meanings of terms such as the Word Of God,
180
the Son of God, the personification of some abstract things, the use of allegorical
expressions (like baptismal formula) and the like, they were led astray in many
cardinal issues pertaining to the understanding of Godhead, which is the most
important thesis in any religion. Interestingly, in Christianity no name is known for
God. By this they are equally entrenched in disbelief as the Jews since they
disbelieved in what Moses and Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
both of them) brought. The leading bishops concocted creeds that are not sanctioned
by the previous prophets or Christ. Therefore, they differed with the rest of the
bishops of their time and charged them of altering the scripture. All those who did not
accept the creeds made by the dignitaries in the ecumenical councils were
anathematized as heretics or even heresiarchs. This easily leveled charge governed
the judgments against the Jews, who in turn charged them of confusion and change.
Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that the Jew, Christians and Muslims are all
unanimous that the scriptures of the Christians underwent alteration. He further says
that scriptures contain news and commandments. The news should be believed and
the commandments should be carried out. The People of the Book discredited much
of their news and violated many of their commandments. In addition, each sect proves
this condition in the other sects.35
Moreover, in response to the Christians’ claim that the Muslims believe that all the
copies of the Bible were altered after the advent of Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him); he said that this claim is baseless, as the Muslims cannot prove
it. They cannot carry out a global survey to make this generalization. The Muslims
believe that change is undeniable but not necessarily in all the copies on the earth. The
Muslim scholars are unanimous that alteration is in interpretation and meaning. As
regards the change in words after the spread of copies around, however, Muslims are
different. Some of the Muslim scholars are of the opinion that they were not changed;
many of the Muslim scholars and the Christians viewed that only some of the words
are changed. Some of the People of the Book even believe that altered words are more
than those in the original form, especially in the New Testament, wherein change is
more prevalent and which many scholars are of the opinion that only a small portion
is God’s word. Therefore, the Gospel which is the word of God is not the one
available now.
181
However, it should be noted here that when he talks about the change after the
massive spread of copies, as viewed by some Muslims is not in word, they do not
mean that the Bible is God’s word. Rather, what they mean is that at a particular time
all the copies of the Bible are similar. What consolidates this view is the fact that it is
inevitable that all Bibles available are mere translations (which are naturally
influenced by the translators’ preconceived notions36, and the original copies are non-
existent or even not written, not to speak of the successive revisions carried out for the
Bible. That is why there are many versions of the Bible. Talking about the revisions
made to the Old Testament, Peter J. Gentry observed “The process of making
systematic, thoroughgoing revisions…continued from possibly 200 BC through AD
200.”37 As late as the 17th century the King James Version of the Bible is said to
contain grave defects. This called for the modification and correction carried out by
the Bible scholars, and as a result, many versions of the Bible have been produced.
Moreover, the Torah in the hands of the people now contains commandments and
judgments of Allah, although it witnessed a change in the words. He quotes the Quran
(5:41-42) where it is stated that the Jews altered the word of God and in the next verse
it exclaims why the Jews should come to you [Muhammad] when they have Allah’s
judgment in the Torah. He concluded that the Torah that outlived the sack of
Jerusalem, the coming of Nebuchadnezzar, the ministry of the Christ and the mission
of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have these two
characteristics (alteration and preservation of commandments). And the copies
available at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) were preponderantly in agreement concerning words, where we can find slight
change across copies just as the case of the copies of the adῑth books. For the
commandments, there is hardly any Muslim claiming the change in text, although that
they are unanimous that the Torah has undergone tremendous change. The
calumniations against the prophets are clear indications of the change.
As of the Gospels, he quotes the Quran: 5:47 where it is stated that the people of the
Gospels are ordered to follow its judgment. This testifies to the fact that it still
contains God’s judgment and commandment but does not guard against the change in
the news. The change in text occurred in the news more.
182
Ibn Taymiyyah also quotes a counter argument the Muslim scholars propose: that the
verse ordering the Christians to judge according to their Gospels was valid only
before the coming of . This he accepts and opines that this is in agreement with the
other reading of the verse. However, he says that they are ordered to follow the
judgment of their books where they are not abrogated by commandments of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This is in keeping with
known rule the Muslim scholars have formulated, which reads, “The law of those
before us is a law for us unless it is abrogated by our religion.” The Quran speaks
about itself to be confirming but dominating the previous books.38 Therefore, he says
that the Quran is considered as the judge and witness over the other scriptures.
The question that arises here is that whether Ibn Taymiyyah considers the Bible God’s
word or not? He states that the narration of two or three is not enough to render the
narration sound and reliable. He also said that long after the ascension of Christ the
apostles started writing the gospels, which are not God’s word but accounts of the
words and deeds of Christ, which contains enough guidance to lead them to the right
path. He believes that the Bible if read without presumptions will surely act as a path
to truth which lies in Islam. He further declares that the change occurred in news is
more than in the commandments.39 He is most probably motivated by stories such as
ascribed to the prophets, which humiliate rather than honor them. The crucifixion, the
incarnation, the divinity of Christ, the inherited sin, the story of the devil and the like
belong to this category. These issues made Christianity totally against the principle of
tawh d. It is by virtue of this that it became at variance with Islam as a genre. In short,
he acknowledges that although the transmission was interrupted and the apostles did
not claim to exhaust his tradition, still it is sufficient in leading to the truth which is
Islam. He further points out that many texts in the Bible refer to Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him) as the one prophet prophesied by the Christ.
It should be noted also that whenever Ibn Taymiyyah quotes or refers to the gospels
he never mentions the epistles of Paul. He is totally aware of him. Yet he does not
mention him probably because he did not consider him as a Christian but an enemy to
Christianity given his enmity prior to his ostensible conversion. More, Ibn Taymiyyah
does not believe in theophany in any religion.
183
4.2.3 Criteria for Authenticity
According to Ibn Taymiyyah, to examine the veracity and authenticity of any narrated
text, a set of standards should be observed:
 That it is transmitted through a continuous chain. The chain of narrators
should not be broken. However, for heavenly books, the narrators should be so
many that it is clear that they cannot collectively concoct a lie, such as when
they are dispersed and no one knows of the other, and produce exactly the
same thing.
 The trustworthiness of the narrators
 If such text is merely a translation, as in the case of the Bible, such translation
should be precisely like the original.
 It should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, not the intent of
the translator.
The response Ibn Taymiyyah made, checks the Bible against all these standards. He
asserts that the Torah was lost after the destruction of Jerusalem. Someone rewrote it
later. This person is not well known so as to ascertain his trustworthiness, nor is he
enough to narrate a heavenly book, being only one. A big number of people are
needed to concomitantly transmit it, in a manner that makes it impossible for them to
agree on error. The suggestion here is that the two first standards are not satisfied in
the Torah.
As for the gospels, they are accounts written by ordinary people who are not immune
against error. The gospels written by the apostles are no exception. The apostles are
not prophets to say that they are infallible, and to accept whatever they say. They are
at best messengers of Christ.
In addition, when the Christians quote the previous prophets they need four things:
 To prove the prophethood of such people;
 To know the exact words they said;
 To prove the correctness of the translation of their sayings;
 The intent of the prophets should not be marred by misinterpretation.
184
Although Ibn Taymiyyah never quoted from the epistles of Paul, he discusses the
alleged visions he saw. It is a very dangerous thing to canonize the epistles of
someone who is, apart from being once the avowed enemy of Christ, an ordinary man
claimed to have seen Christ. By virtue of this alleged vision he became an apostle
whose messages were taken for granted as infallible guidance from the Christ.
Knowledge about Allah should not be taken so lightly. Scrupulous investigation
should be carried out. Single narration is naturally inauthentic, or at least
undependable. Ibn Taymiyyah believes that such vision cannot be from God.
Everyone can claim to have this vision and distort religion in the way one wishes.
This leads us to the conclusion that whatever Ibn Taymiyyah says regarding the
authenticity of the Bible, he does not consider the epistles of Paul as part of that. He
did not bother to discuss the authenticity of these epistles because he said that if Paul
did really have a vision of something, it was a devil.40 Devils do appear to people to
misguide them off the right path.41 Some Muslims had a vision of something
assuming itself to be God, telling them that they were exempt from all religious
responsibilities. God will not make such a declaration as He cannot be seen in this
world and because He never declares any to be exempt from his duties including the
prophets and the angels, what to say about ordinary people.
4.2.4 Interpreting of Quran by Christians
The Christians, in their hard endeavor to substantiate the authenticity of their

doctrines, tried to interpret some of the verses of the Quran in such a manner as to suit
their theology. Here a set of the verses they quoted for this purpose will be presented
along with the meanings, they assigned to them and Ibn Taymiyyah’s answer to
counteract them.
 Well-guided community before the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him): They quoted the verse (3:113) wherein Allah
praises that section of the People of the Book as being still pious believers.
This, Christians claim, is a divine testimony for the soundness of their
religion. Ibn Taymiyyah tells them that the term ‘People of the Book’
includes the Jews as well the Christians42, whereas the Muslims and the
Christians agree that the Jews are non-believers. Furthermore, The Quran
praises those who followed Moses in other verses such as in (8:159) where it
185
is stated that of the people of Moses is a community that leads with truth and
establish justice therewith. Therefore, he further tells them that the verse
means those who believed in Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) as in the verse (3:199) which reads: “verily, there are among the
People of the Book those who believe in Allah and what has been revealed to
you.”43 This verse, he clarifies to them, speaks about, as the majority of the
exegetes of the Quran say, the Negus, the Abyssinian king and the like who
believed in Prophet Muhammad’s message but were not able to migrate to
him, due to the office they were occupying among the disbelievers. Faithfully,
Ibn Taymiyyah quotes the other opinions too, which reads to the effect that
the verse refers to all the People of the Book who believed in the message of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Ibn Taymiyyah
argues that the Quran would not have called them the People of the Book just
in the same case when it does not refer to the pagans after embracing Islam as
pagans but as Muslims.
 Vindication from Shirk (Polytheism). Present day skeptics also claim that
the verse advocates religious pluralism. The verse is “verily those who
believe and those who are Jews, Christian, and Sabians, whoever believes in
Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds shall have their reward from
their lord and on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” 44 They say this
is clear proof of the Quran’s recognition of the Christian theology as being
valid even after the commission of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah
be upon him) . Ibn Taymiyyah states that the verse does not support this
claim since it equates them to the Jew and the Sabians, whereas the Christians
and the Muslims agree that the Jews are non-believers since they disbelieved
in the Christ. Secondly, if the verse does not praise the Jews, it similarly does
not praise the Christians. Ibn Taymiyyah reports that the verse addresses the
followers of prophets who followed the pristine and valid guidance, before
they were abrogated by successive divine messages and before the alteration.
Therefore it includes those who followed them before alteration and
abrogation. He further elaborates that the People of the Book are not part or
those who believed in Allah and the Day of Judgment and also were not part
of those who did good deeds.45
186
Rather, Allah says in the Quran, “fight against those who did not believe in
Allah and the day of judgment, nor forbid what Allah and His messenger has
made prohibited, and those who did not acknowledge the religion of truth
[Islam] among the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah with willing
submission and feel themselves subdued.”46 The Quran is clear that people of
Trinity, those who said that God is Jesus Christ are those of the Christians and
Jews who claimed they were the most beloved by Allah, are disbelievers. He
also addressed them saying that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him) is sent to them also after along interval of divine
message.47 It also is clear that the Christians are disbelievers.
 Bound to follow Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
The Christians brought forth the argument that the book that is revealed to
this man (Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) speak of
him as having no firm belief in what he preached. For this, they quote the
Quran to support their freedom from following him. In this connection they
quote verse (34:24) which can be translated thus, “and we and you are rightly
guided or in plain error.” This, they say, tell very clearly the uncertainty of
Muhammad in his religion. They also quote "I do not know what will be done
with me and with you.”(46:9) Ibn Taymiyyah assertively propounds that the
Quran is full of the commandments that order and invite them to follow the
Prophet. Moreover, he was commanded to fight them, and he did carry out the
commandment. He fought them to either convert or succumb to his rule. As
for the apparent uncertainty in the discourse is another way of stating that the
disbelievers are unjust and erroneous. It is similar to the case of two opposing
parties, one just and the other is an oppressor. The former may at some
situation say to the latter that either of us is unjust you or I. This is as to say
that the unjust of us has become easily recognizable. This is a fair manner of
expression. As for the prophet not knowing the recompense going to happen
to him and the disbelievers, this Ibn Taymiyyah admits that the prophet does
not know the unseen future unless informed by Allah.
 Christians are blessed. The Christians, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, claim
that the faction or group referred to in the first chapter of the Quran as the
blessed or those endowed with grace, are the Christians. However, he
187
considers this one of the biggest calumnies since the Quran is very clear in
considering them as nonbelievers, ignorant and astray in several places in the
Quran. As the context of the verse puts it, it orders the Muslims to seek
Allah’s guidance and help in following the path of those bestowed with His
grace. If those were the Christians then the Prophet and his nation would seek
to follow the religion of the Christians. Furthermore, if Jesus is stated in the
Quran to be one of those blessed, there is no plea for them in that since this
applies to other prophets.
 Referred to as guidance even in the Quran: Moreover, in the second verse
in the second chapter of the Quran, which reads, “this is the book wherein
there is no doubt, (being) guidance for the pious,” refers, according to the
Christians, to the Christians and their book. Ibn Taymiyyah says if the
Christians tried to thus interpret the Quran, the interpretation of which has
been concomitantly transmitted from the Prophet himself, what to say of their
interpretation of their book which were not transmitted so credibly? This is a
clear proof that they changed the scripture at their disposal. Ibn Taymiyyah
affirms that this verse refers to the Quran and there is no mention of their
books in this verse nor the contexts supports it.
The conclusion derived by Ibn Taymiyyah is that the Christians wish to alter and twist
the meaning of the Quran in the same manner as they did with the Bible. He said48
that these Christians followed in their manipulation of the Quran the same method as
they did with the Torah and the Gospel. They abandon the entirely clear texts which
have only one possible meaning and adhere to allegorical texts suggesting many
meanings, though they may contain meanings contrary to what they advocate. It is
they and their like, who are meant in the verse,
He it is who sent down to you the scripture wherein entirely clear verses; these
are the substance of the scripture, and (sent down) others that are allegorical.
Those with aberration in their hearts follow the allegorical, seeking dissension.
No one knows the meaning thereof save Allah. The people well rooted in
knowledge say we have believed in it; all is from our lord. (Quran: 3:7)
 The churches praised in the Quran: They quote this verse (22:40) “Those
who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our
Lord is Allah. For had it not been for Allah's repelling some men by means of
188
others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name
of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily
Allah helps one who helps Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty. The
Christians say that the Quran speaks highly of our churches as places wherein
the name of Allah is mentioned much. Ibn Taymiyyah repudiates this by
saying that the mentioning of the name of Allah is mentioned just after the
mosques, which are exclusively the Muslims’. This necessarily tells us either
that the name of Allah is mentioned there only or that this includes the
temples of the non-Muslims before the commission of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), or before alteration
and abrogation. Again, he faithfully quotes the counter arguments of the
Muslim scholars. He quotes al- a k who was a great authority in tafsir as
saying that Allah likes to be remembered even by those who commit shirk.
That is, the one who associates others with Allah is better than the one who
insolently denies the existence of Allah.
This makes him conclude that the People of the Book are better than the
pagans. This conclusion is true if checked against the other verses of the
Quran. The Quran never praises the People of the Book who did not believe
in the message of and follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him). On the contrary, it considers them as disbelievers who
deviated from the guidance of prophets. However, in the context of
comparison, the Quran prefers the least of the two evils. He says when the
Romans were defeated by the Persians, the companions of the Prophet were
upset because the Romans were people of divine scripture closer to truth than
the Persians were. Therefore, if the Persians destroy such temples, it is an
evil; if the Muslims who will establish mosques in their places destroy it, it is
better. It depends on whether the religion is closer to truth. The crux of the
verse, he says, is to establish the conception that destroying the places of
worship is evil only when not substituted by what is better than them.
 The ḥawāriyyūn in the Quran. They Christians adduce these verses to prove
that the ḥawāriyyūn the apostles of Christ were mentioned in the Quran
appreciatively, as they were the people who went round in the seven regions
189
of the world to preach the Gospel. They quote verses such as these: 1) “verily,
we have sent our messengers with proofs and sent down with them the book
and the criterion so that people would act justly.” (57:25) and 2) “mankind
were one community and Allah sent prophets with glad tidings and warnings
and with them He sent down the book (al-kit b) in truth to judge between
people in matter wherein they differed.”49 They argue that the verses refer to
the Disciples of Christ, who collectively preached one book, i.e., the Gospel.
The verse talks about many messengers preaching one book. So, they
definitely do not mean messengers such as Abraham, Moses, etc., since each
one preached a different book. Ibn Taymiyyah answers them in the following
points: first: the verses do not authenticate the disbelief in Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him) who was sent to them and to other
peoples who showed tenacious adherence to an abrogated religion. Second,
their alleged claim that they will follow Christ and his apostles is a stark
falsehood, as they are followers of neither, for two reasons: one, most of their
religion is changed and therefore, not belonging to the Christ nor to his
apostles. Two, the Christ prophesied the coming of Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him), as in the verse (61:6). Third: to say that the
Quran revered their apostles is wrong interpretation of the Quran. After all,
they have a long history of misinterpretation. They interpreted many verses in
the same manner. The verse does not avail them the meaning they ascribe to it
for the following reasons: A) the worthiest prophets of this description are
those named in the holy Quran itself as in the verse (4:104). B) The mention
of iron in this verse as being sent down as the revelation was sent is a clear
indication of the role of jihad the Muslims would be carrying out. C) The
book mentioned in the verse is not a specific book. Rather, it is a genre as in
the verse (2:177). D) It talks about all the books revealed to the prophets.
Furthermore, the next verse talks about prophets such as Noah, Ibrahim, etc.
This is a departure from the general to the specific, to draw attention to the
qualities of some particular prophets. E) No verse in the Quran considers the
apostles messengers. However, the verse (36: 14) wherein two messengers
were sent to a town [some believe it is Antioch] but the dwellers of the town
belied them. Then one more was sent to them. Again, they did not follow
190
them and upon that Allah caused them to perish through an awful cry. The
Christians and some of the Muslim scholars believe that they were followers
of the Christ. Nevertheless, the Christians believe they were two: one was
Peter Simon and the other was Paul. And they also believe that they followed
them. So, even in the Christian narrative they were not apostles of Christ.
Furthermore, the people of Antioch were not inflicted with such collective
death. Scholars of Islam are well aware of the fact that no such calamity after
the revelation of the Torah took place.50 Moreover, the book was not sent
with the apostles. It was sent with the Christ.
The verse (2:213) which reads “people were one community; then Allah sent
the prophets as bringers of glad tidings and as warners, and sent with them the
Scripture so as to judge between people in the matters wherein they differed.”
The people sent here is taken by the Christians to mean the apostles of Christ.
Ibn Taymiyyah rejects the interpretation as invalid since the apostles were
called messengers not prophets in their books. Besides, the book they
preached was not sent with them nor did it contain judgment between people,
unlike the Quran and the Torah, in which the verses on legal issues are
abundant.
 Scripture testified: The Christians boast of the Quran’s confirmation of their
scripture. Ibn Taymiyyah agrees with the fact that the Quran confirms the
books before it. Nevertheless, he declares that the Christians missed to
differentiate between what Allah has actually revealed to the prophets before
the commission of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
and the doctrines they are adhering to. The Quran did not confirm the Trinity,
the unity of the divine and the human, the indwelling, the divinity and the
sonship of Christ, the legalization of illegal things such as the pork, impurities,
etc., all these are abominable things oft-dispraised in the Quran. Moreover, if
what they adhere to was valid, then the Prophet would not have fought them.
The Christians presumptuously tampered with the meaning of the Quran in their
dialogue with the Muslims, to fit their false argumentations. Here are some of the
verses they adduced to prove their aberrations:
191
1. They took as a plea the verse (42:15) wherewith the Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded people to believe in
whatsoever books Allah has sent down including the Quran, the Torah and the
Gospels. To refute the meaning they ascribed to this verse, Ibn Taymiyyah
studies it within context. The previous verses talk about the sending down of
books to bind people in true belief but the People of the Book differed and had
doubts therein. Therefore, the prophet warned against difference and doubts
and commanded to believe in all the books revealed and to judge with justice.
Besides, the verse orders the Prophet to declare that his and their lord is Allah
and commands him to free himself from the deeds of the People of the Book if
they do not follow him. So, the whole context testifies to the opposite of what
the Christians have assigned to it. The Prophet as well as all people should
believe in all the prophets indiscriminately. Moreover, the Quran is full of the
commandments imposing on the Prophet to avoid the ways of the
disbelievers—the pagans and the People of the Book—and to declare himself
free from their beliefs. In short, they have no evidence in the verses they quote
to support their allegations of the Quran legitimatizing their books.
2. Another verse is “argue not with the People of the Book except in a way that is
better except the wrongdoers of them.”51 The Christians interpret the verse as
to mean that the Prophet is ordered to argue with the Christians in good
manners, and the wrongdoers are the Jews. The phrase ‘the People of the
Book’ in Quranic terminology always refers to both the Christians and the
Jews. To discriminate between them and claim the superiority of either is
plainly an instance of garbling divine texts.
4.2.5 Christianity vs. Disbelief
The Quran contains many verses that declare the blasphemy of the Christians. Here
are some of them:
1. “They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of
Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy
the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? 52
192
2. They surely disbelieve who say : Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The
Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your
Lord. Lo! Who so ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden
Paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evildoers there will be no helpers.53
3. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is
no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying, a painful doom
will fall on those of them who disbelieve.54
4. And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind:
Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified It
was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou
knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy
mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. I spake unto
them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying) : Worship Allah, my
Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and
when Thou tookest me Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness
over all things.55
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions many of such verses as proofs for the disbelief of the
Christians along with any of those who reject the prophethood and message brought
by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
As all his discussions prove the verses they bring to substantiate their claim that the
Quran acknowledges and adopts their altered doctrines, can be turned against them.
The meanings they ascribe to the different verses are far removed from the meaning
intended and made clear through the context. Therefore, this invalid approach cannot
lead to truth. The ideal way to arrive at correct conclusions is to study the verses in
context. Holistic rather than fragmentary approach will surely lead to sound facts
unless blurred by bias. Ibn Taymiyyah is obvious in stating the response of the Quran
to the Christian faith and followers. The tone is never apologetic. Secondly, his
discussions of the verses they plucked from the Quran to substantiate their position as
followers of the religion that is recognized and adopted by the heavenly scriptures of
theirs and of the adversaries, adds to the opinion he advocates and which the title
suggests, viz, the alteration of religion.
193
One of the allegations they made in the letter and which Ibn Taymiyyah sees as one of
the cardinal issues he is very passionate to discuss is the nature of the prophethood of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Using the biblical as well as
the Quranic evidences, the Christians struggle to prove that the message of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is not binding upon them to
follow. It is exclusively for the Arabs. As they had a better religion, according to their
estimations, the Quran itself acknowledges it as sound and probably superior to the
Quran, the Christians had better follow their religion. In response to this, Ibn
Taymiyyah devotes much of his treatise to proving the universality of the message of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the obligation upon the
Christians who had merely corrupted vestiges of an abrogated scripture. This is what
will be dealt with in the next chapter.
194
1
Ibn Taymiyyah refers to the divisions of the Bible as the Torah (by which he means the Pentateuch)
and the Gospels (by which he means the first four books).
2
His order and will which are necessarily impersonal
3
Al-Qur’ n: 5:116-118.
4
Al-Qur’ n: 9: 30
5
Al-Jaw b: vol. 2: pp.260-261
6
Although they have precedents in the apologies of the early Christians, a Trinitarian unity was never
upheld by them. On the contrary, they believed in a tri-personal hierarchy as God.
7
Ibid. p. 261
8
The main charges levied against the Jew in the Quran are their disbelief in the signs of Allah, their
aggression and transgression and their killing the prophets of Allah. See, for instance, Al-Qur’ n: 2: 61.
9
Al-Qur’ n: 9: 31.
10
Al-Jaw b: vol. 2. P. 262
11
There is a big difference between what is beyond human mind to understand and what is impossible.
Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that whereas religions may contain some things that are incomprehensible, they
do not entertain irreasonable ideas.
12
See Al-Qur’ n 17: 1, 72: 19, etc.
13
Al-Qur’ n: 46: 35.
14
The Jews denied the Christ and the Christians denied Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon them). See Al-Qur’ n: 4: 150-151 and 126.
15
As in Mathew: 5:17: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil.”
16
Al-Qur’ n: 3:56, 5:46 and 61:6
17
Al-Qur’ n: 3: 50.
18
Leviticus: 15: 19-33.
19
Leviticus: 7:23: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of
sheep, or of goat.
20
As in Deuteronomy: 14:7: Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them
that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide
not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
21
Al-Qur’ n: 5: 43
22
Al-Qur’ n:5:47
195
23
Al-Qur’ n: 7: 157
24
Al-Qur’ n: 5: 48
25
Al-Qur’ n: 57: 27. The translation would naturally differ according to the understanding of the
translator. Anyone interested in knowing the original verbiage should refer to the Quran.
26
Al-Qur’ n: 3: 157-8
27
In Hebrews: 1: 1, “God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets." ‘Diverse manners’ could have been dreams, visions, and many other ways.
This opened vistas for people who did not even see Christ to claim that they have received revelation
such as Paul, whose epistles have been canonised. This also made possible for the Christians to assign
much weight to what their fathers said, let alone what had been attributed to the apostles, who were
unfairly granted the title messengers of God.
28
Concomitance or taw tur in had th terminology means that a statement is narrated by a great number
of people in a way that make it impossible for them to agree on error.
29
That is why we find the phrase “the Gospel, according to john, Mathew, John, etc.
30
The only difference is that the verbal traditions of the prophet Muhammad were preponderantly
quoted verbatim. However, they are not attributed to God as being his words, but in the Quran it is
stated that the prophet never speaks out of his own desires but is guided by Allah and based on this,
(like other prophets), he is infallible.
31
Therefore it is stated that the name ‘Septuagint’ (Greek, originally Septuaginta, meaning seventy and
as a term refers to the Greek version of the Torah) came from this propaganda. But how they extended
this to include the whole Bible is quite strange. It may be a false claim they made or it may be due to
Ibn Taymiyyah’s misquoting.
32
Ibn Taymiyyah had not known about the later division among the Christians themselves and the
emergence of the Protestants who in turn divided into further sub-sects.
33
For example, the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) and the New International Version of the
Bible (NIV) are different. There are whole verses deleted from the NIV after being acknowledged as
divine in the KJV. Although it is certain information that Ibn Taymiyyah did not know about these
changes, it adds further proofs to the proofs of the changes he witnessed.
34
It is traditionally believed that seventy men carried out the Greek rendering of the Old Testament.
35
This inter-Christian polemical literature provided much data in respect of the weaknesses and
inefficiencies of Christianity. This provided fertile land for the polemics of Ibn Taymiyyah who uses
their own arguments against each other to counterattack them.
36
In Hebraic Roots Bible p. 3 (Copyright Word of Truth Publications, 2012) the author wrote “I have
studied and perceived that some translations are third and fourth generations away from the original
language. Each translation strays farther from the original text and becomes watered down and more
distant from the truth.” He also said in page 6: “There have been several areas where the translators of
the Masoretic text purposely changed scripture to fit their own theology.”
Peter j. Gentry: “The Text of the Old Testament” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1
37
(March 2009). P. 24
38
He says that it is a known fact that the judgement which they [the Jew] are commanded to follow is
such that is not abrogated in the Gospels and the Quran. In a similar manner, what they ordered in the
196
Gospels to follow is such that is not abrogated in the Quran. The commandment in all these is to
worship Allah, bid the thing he ordered and judge according to his judgement in any book as long as it
is not abrogated in his later books.
39
This is his belief concerning the content of the Bible, not the actual laws and worships they are
practicing. In the latter, they innovated a lot, and invented many rituals and festivals alien to the
original teachings. This will be discussed in the alteration of religion.
40
Al-Jaw b: vol. 2, p. 324
41
Ibid. vol. 2, p. 318
42
This is to affirm to them that this rule applies to both but the Christians never acknowledge the Jew
as being well guided people since they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus.
43
Al-Qur’ n: 3: 199. See also 29: 47.
44
Al-Qur’ n: 2: 62
45
Al-Jaw b: 3: 124
46
Al-Qur’ n: 9: 29. The succeeding verses clearly address the Christians who claimed Jesus to be Son
Of God and the Jews who claimed Ezra to be Son Of God, in the literal sense of the word and states
that by doing so they are like the disbelievers before them. In the very same verse he states the
Christians took their bishops as gods apart from Allah whereas they were ordered to worship only one
God with no partner.
47
Al-Qur’ n: 5: 15 and 19.
48
Al-Jaw b: vol.3, p. 125
49
Al-Qur’ n: 2: 213
50
This is taken from the verse (28:43), which reads: “And We gave Moses the Scripture (the Torah)
after We had destroyed generations of the old.”
51
Al-Qur’ n: 29:46
52
Al-Qur’ n: 5: 17
53
Al-Qur’ n: 5: 72
54
Al-Qur’ n: 5: 73
55
Al-Qur’ n: 5: 116-7
197
198
Chapter Five: Christians and the Universality of Islam
CHAPTER FIVE
Christians
And
The Universality Of Islam
199
200
5 . CHRISTIANS AND THE UNIVERSALITY OF ISLAM
In this chapter, Ibn Taymiyyah tries to affirm the prophethood of Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him) on the one hand and to prove the universality of
his message on the other. He brings the proofs the Christians provide to testify the
messengership of Christ and shows that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) had better and clearer proofs for his prophethood and messengership. Apart
from that, Ibn Taymiyyah disproves the Christians’ allegations regarding the limited
nature of the message of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
5.1 Unity of Religion
The core family through which human race came into being is comprised of Adam
and Eve. The purpose of creation is to worship Allah in the way He prescribes.1
Adam was a prophet. His posterity retained monotheism for a long period. By the
passage of time people started setting up the dead pious people among them as Gods
whom they started praying, asking for help, succor, and intercession and even healing
of diseases. This was the first time humanity indulged in polytheism. Allah, for the
mercy and love of humanity sent to them a messenger. This messenger was Noah.2
Like any messenger, his mission was to restore monotheism and eliminate corruption
and injustice. In the same manner, all the other prophets and messengers were sent at
times of deviation from monotheism to restore it. Thus, the message of all was the
same. Since they all brought people back to the obedience of Allah, and since
submission, peace, obedience and purity from polytheism are connotations of Islam;
the prophets were all considered Muslims. In the Quran, Allah says, “religion with
Allah is Islam.”3 He also says, “and he who seeks as a religion other than Islam, it will
not be accepted of him and surely he will be a loser in the hereafter.” 4 Again, in the
Quran many prophets are reported to have said they were Muslims or they are referred
to as Muslims. Noah (as in 10:72), Lot (as in 51:36), Ibrahim (as in 3:67), Joseph (as
in 12:101) and Solomon (as in 27:380) are, according to the Quran, Muslims.
This meaning of Islam made it more inclusive than to be a religion that is followed or
founded by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is the way of
201
life followed by all the prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all)
since all propagated monotheism or pure worship of Allah.
Jesus is no exception. He is reported in the Quran to confess the same. He said as in

this verse, “I [Jesus speaking] did not command them except that you [Allah]
commanded me: that you [his people] should worship Allah, my and your lord, and I
was a witness of them while I was among them.”5 This unity of religion professed in
the Quran does not necessarily lead us to claim that the law was also the same, or you
have the choice not to follow Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
after his coming. The law that is actually concerned about the things allowed,
mandated and prohibited is naturally different. Allah has made lawful for some people
things that are prohibited for the others in other religions. In the same religion, things
initially prohibited may be made permissible at later stages, and vice versa. But this
abrogation is the exclusive right of Allah. Gradual development of legislation is a
wise and divine procedure. Nevertheless, there are certain universal laws that never
change. The prohibition of wine, pork, obnoxious things and abominations, severing
ties with the relatives and parents, maltreatment, etc., and the obligation of good
treatment, monotheism, positive attitudes towards all human kinds are some of such
universals. Human nature is created to disdain certain things and to value certain other
things. As these are there in all people, religions came to support and reinforce them.
Ibn Taymiyyah in his discussions of the monotheism for example, quotes Quranic
verses such as:
“We did not send a messenger before you except that we reveal to him that there is no
God except me, so worship me alone.”6
“And we have raised in every nation a messenger (proclaiming): worship Allah and
avoid false Gods.”7In this regard, Ibrahim is considered as the leader. That is why
Allah says in the Quran, “who forsakes the religion of Ibrahim except him who has
befooled himself?”8
Ibn Taymiyyah says that the religion of all the prophets is one as the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “We, the congregation
202
of prophets, have one religion, and the closest to Jesus is I as there is no prophet
between me and him.”9
Although Ibn Taymiyyah propounds that the message of all prophets is the same (i.e.
monotheism), he asserts the precedence, domination and superiority of Islam (the
version revealed to Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) over all
other religions. What Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has
received remains the only religion accepted by Allah as it encapsulated all the perfect
features in the previous revelations. Hence, there is no place for pluralism (all
religions are accepted) and relativism (there is no absolute truth). Ibn Taymiyyah also
asserts throughout his writings that few of the so called followers of previous
religions remained faithful to the teachings of their respective messengers.
The community of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is more
merited than the other communities. In support of his persuasion, he adduces many
verses of the Quran and ah d th. The superiority claimed for the Quran led the
Christians to investigate into the Quran for verses mentioning the merits of their
religion. One of the verses they picked is this: “ [and remember] when Allah said to
Jesus, I am taking you back and raising you to me and cleaning you of the
disbelievers, and making those who follow you above the disbelievers to the Day of
Resurrection.”10 The Christians take this to boast the Quran’s approbation and
preference of them.
Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledges the fact that those who followed Christ are better than
and above the disbelievers. However, this is especially for those who did not alter his
religion. These are above the disbelievers. The Muslims did believe in him. Moreover,
when the Christians changed their religion, and Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him) was sent prophet with the religion of the prophets, He made the
Muslims above the Christians to the Day of Resurrection. Allah says, “He has
ordained for you that religion which He commended unto Noah, and that which we
inspire in you [Muhammad], and that which we commended unto Abraham and
Moses and Jesus, (saying): establish the religion, and be not divided therein” 11 This
verse orders that people should unite and follow the religion of the prophets. Division
conduces to failure. The believers, in order to be victorious, have to be united. Victory
203
is always with the followers of prophets.12 Furthermore, among all circumstances
there will remain a group of people holding fast to truth, despite the fact that the
people let them down, as is prophesied by the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him).13 This group is the true monotheists, and is thus the
remnant of those who remained faithful to the principle of oneness of Allah.
Furthermore, the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians are unanimous that all the
divine scriptures make it imperative to worship none but Allah and to believe that He
sent to humanity messengers and made it compulsory upon them to establish justice
and forbid injustice, abominable vices, polytheism and the like. They, moreover,
agree on the Last Day. There are universals in all religions, which indicate clearly that
they come from the same source.
The Christ and the prophets before him all came to establish monotheism, and the
Torah is full of testimonies to this. None of them demanded that intercession should
be sought from the dead people, prophets or kings, nor did anyone of them order
people to pray him for their needs. None of them ever ordered his people to make
images, or pray, or revere them. This unity makes us conclude that the religion of
Moses is the very same religion as that of Jesus and Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon them all), despite the fact that Christ came after Moses and
abrogated some of the laws Moses brought, after confirming the law, and saying that
he did not come to destroy the Law.14 Likewise, the religion of the Muslims is the
religion of Ibrahim, Moses and the Christ. It is they, who truly followed the Christ,
and that is why Allah has made them above the Christians until the Day of Judgment,
and the Christians who altered the religion of Christ, who is clear from any affinity to
them, just in the same manner as Moses is clear from those who altered his religion
and discredited the Christ.
This unity of the religion of the prophets makes it an act of disbelief to belie or vilify
any one of them. It is an article of faith in Islam to believe in all the prophets
indiscriminately. Being as such, they should be revered and respected. They are
placed at the highest degrees humans can ever reach. Based on this, the Jews have
committed disbelief when they disbelieved the prophet Jesus and committed a heinous
crime when they dubbed him bastard, and the Christians have committed disbelief
204
when they belied the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
This unity, furthermore, entails that we must believe in all the books they brought
which is again an article of faith in Islam. Disbelieving in any of such scriptures is
tantamount to disbelief in Allah. The confirmation of the prophets of each other
solidifies this unity. Ibn Taymiyyah said:
It is one religion, upon which prophets and messengers have agreed. They agree
on the fundamentals of religion and the basics of constitution, despite their
variety in law, manifested in the abrogating and abrogated regulations, which are
similar to the variety in the same book. The Muslims were first commanded to
pray towards Jerusalem, and then they were commanded to pray to the Holy
Mosque at Makkah. Nevertheless, in both the cases they were following what
Allah has revealed.15
Thus, Ibn Taymiyyah based his argument on the following premises:
 The oneness of God: As God is one, He alone should be worshiped, throughout

the ages. This stable commandment does not change with the change of time.
Therefore, the various prophets and messengers should preach the same God. All
preached monotheism, and warned against polytheism. The best community that
remained faithful to this principle is the Muslims, and therefore are the closest to
the prophetic guidance.
 The prophets’ mutual confirmation: Each prophet confirmed his predecessors.

Therefore, the disbelief in one is a disbelief in all others. To claim the obedience
of one and the denial of another is rationally and religiously impossible.
 All prophets should be respected as the accredited teachers Allah has sent to
humanity. Vilification of any is an act of disbelief with which the belief in others
does not avail salvation.
 The books they brought from Allah confirm one another. The divine message is
uniform.
 The variation in law is a logical development. Just as the same prophet may bring
some directives and then abrogate them by the order of Allah, and just as the same
book may contain ordinances which become later no longer in force, due to the
revelation of other ordinances abrogating them, a prophet may rescind some or all
the laws brought by his predecessors. This abrogation occurs to the items of
205
consumption and probably the festivals, and the like. News and Creeds are not
susceptible to abrogation, because they are immutable facts.
Ibn Taymiyyah very prudently pinpoints the philosophy of prophethood. He states

that as God is one, His message is one. The series of prophets is one whole unit and
indivisible entity. The Christians should take them all or leave them all. Here Ibn
Taymiyyah asserts that it is unjustifiable to disbelieve in any prophet, what to speak
about abusing or condemning him. Once this principle is established, the Quran is
inevitably part of the divine message, which is the last (and therefore valid) and
therefore, is the most worthy of being followed. As the Christians have changed their
book, they have no right to preach it and should follow the last and pristine message.
Thus although Ibn Taymiyyah stressed upon the fact that Christ brought a true
guidance from Allah, and although he was a great messenger of Allah, the Christians
have no plea to preach his teachings as they have already altered and tampered with
them. The conclusion he wants to reach is that the Christians have no option but to
follow the divine guidance extant in the Quran.
5.2 Proofs of Muhammad’s Prophethood
Ibn Taymiyyah presents many proofs testifying that Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him) came as a universal prophet from Allah with more cogent
evidences than the earlier messengers brought. At the same time, he declared that one
evidence is enough for affirming the prophethood of any prophet if this evidence is
ineluctably tenable.16
5.2.1 The Biblical Evidences
Ibn Taymiyyah quotes many biblical verses testifying to the veracity of the
prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), either
through prophesying his advent or through confirming what he has brought. This
suggests that the people of the previous books have known him before his coming
through what they have known in their scriptures. This notion recurs in the Quran in
many places. Here an attempt will be made to quote some of the biblical verses Ibn
Taymiyyah cites to prove his point:
206
 And he said The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he
shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints:
from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Yea, he loved the people; all his
saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of
thy words. 17
Here Ibn Taymiyyah argues that Allah’s prophetic guidance is
personified. The places mentioned are the habitations of different prophets.
They denote Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon them all) respectively. ‘Mount Paran’ refers, according to Ibn
Taymiyyah, to Makkah, where the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him) started his ministry, and the wilderness of Paran refers,
according to Ibn Taymiyyah, to the wilderness between the Hejaz and the ūr
(Sinai Mount). However, the Easton Bible dictionary states that Paran was “a
desert tract forming the north-eastern division of the peninsula of Sinai” and
mount Paran was “probably the hilly region or upland wilderness on the north
of the desert of Paran forming the southern boundary of the Promised Land.”
However, Ibn Taymiyyah is correct because this place is spoken about in the
Bible (Genesis: 21: 21) as being the place where Hagar and her son dwelled.
Now this becomes a clear reference to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) as a coming prophet.
 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every
man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his
brethren.18 The translation as given by Ibn Taymiyyah is quite more revealing
of the superiority of Ismail the prophet who was not prominent nor any one of
his descendants until the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him). The most prominent descendant of Ismail is the
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).But the
different versions of the Bible depict Ismail differently in this text.
 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? And whither wilt thou
go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of
the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her
hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed
exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.19 The angel here
addresses Hagar the mother of Ismail, the father of the Arabs. Ibn Taymiyyah
207
says that the promise is a prophecy that applies only to the Muslims, who soon
became a great nation after the coming of Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him).
 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy
seed. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle
of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and
sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-
sheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one
of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way
off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child.
And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. And God heard
the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called Hagar out of heaven, and said
unto her, what aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not; for God hath heard the voice of
the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will
make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of
water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.
And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and
became an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother
took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.20 This gives clear proof that Paran
was the name given to Makkah, where the bondswoman, Hagar, lived with her
son, Ismail.
 Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the
congregation of saints. Let Israel rejoice in him that made him: let the children
of Zion be joyful in their King. Let them praise his name in the dance: let them
sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp. For the LORD taketh pleasure
in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation. Let the saints be joyful
in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in
their mouth, and a two edged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon
the heathen, and punishments upon the people therefore God hath blessed thee
forever21. Ibn Taymiyyah propounds that the saints described here are the
companions of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is
they who always remember and praise Allah, in all their postures. Another
208
epithet that applies to them and not to the followers of Jesus is jihad with the
sword especially that which has two edges.
 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy
majesty. And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness
and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things. Thine
arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall
under thee.22 This is also an elaboration on the topic where the descriptions
made fit only the followers of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him).
 “Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the
mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is
mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.”23
 “Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that
Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the
top of the mountains. Let them give glory unto the LORD, and declare his
praise in the islands.24 The villages that Kedar inhibited, as Ibn Taymiyyah
rightly espoused, were at Makkah. And the happiness mentioned is the
happiness of the whole universe and in Arabia in particular.
 “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon
thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the
people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon
thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of
thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves
together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters
shall be nursed at thy side. Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine
heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be
converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. The
multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah;
all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they
shall shew forth the praises of the LORD. All the flocks of Kedar shall be
gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee:
they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house
of my glory. Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their
209
windows?25 Ibn Taymiyyah viewed this as a meticulous description of
Makkah. No city fits it as Makkah does.
 And he saw a chariot with a couple of horsemen, a chariot of asses, and
a chariot of camels; and he hearkened diligently with much heed: And he
cried, A lion: My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower in the daytime,
and I am set in my ward whole nights: And, behold, here cometh a chariot of
men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is
fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her Gods he hath broken unto the
ground.26
This is a vision wherein the means of conveyance symbolize the people who use
them. The Christ entered Jerusalem on an ass. The camel was used by the people of
Arabia. Hence it is taken to represent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) who used the camel and who was impatiently awaited by the people of
Mad nah. They used to climb the high places every day anticipating his arrival from
Makkah.
 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them
from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:
None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep;
neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be
broken: Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses' hoofs
shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind.27 The horses, the
rest of the equipment of war and intense alacrity to fight are qualities applying
to none, after David, except Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) and his people.
 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry
aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the
desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. 28 The barren
land and the singing refer to Makkah, which is described thus in the Quran.
The singing is the Quran which Arabia never received any before it.
 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall
inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.29
210
 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be
upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The
mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of
his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and
upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with
justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will
perform this.30 Ibn Taymiyyah comments here by saying that Isaiah has
described Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with the
most particular epithets that is the sign on his shoulder, which is naturally the
sign of prophethood which is not given to Jesus or Solomon. He also described
him as the person who would sit on the throne of David, which Ibn Taymiyyah
explains as indicating the taking of dominion from children of Israel.
 “Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are
continually before me. Thy children shall make haste; thy destroyers and they
that made thee waste shall go forth of thee. Lift up thine eyes round about, and
behold: all these gather themselves together, and come to thee. As I live, saith
the LORD, thou shalt surely clothe thee with them all, as with an ornament,
and bind them on thee, as a bride doeth. For thy waste and thy desolate places,
and the land of thy destruction, shall even now be too narrow by reason of the
inhabitants, and they that swallowed thee up shall be far away. The children
which [sic]thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in
thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell.
Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have
lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and
who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they
been?”31
Ibn Taymiyyah says that the description given here is usually attributed to the Ka‘bah
because it is the Ka‘bah not Jerusalem that is adorned and it is the Ka‘bah which is
served by the kings. It is Makkah, for which Allah has brought people from its
inhabitants and from outside as pilgrims. Those who wanted to destroy or scare them
have been expelled from it and it remained high in honor. None could destroy it even
the Abyssinians who tried to destroy it with the elephant. It has been protected since
211
Ibrahim the prophet who built it. Jerusalem was destroyed many times and its people
killed and deported.
 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His
glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. And his
brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there
was the hiding of his power. Before him went the pestilence, and burning
coals went forth at his feet. He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and
drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the
perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting. I saw the tents of Cushan in
affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.32 Ibn Taymiyyah
claims that holy one who appeared in Paran, who had brightness and fear in
the hearts of the enemies, was Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) as Jesus did not appear in Paran.
 Thou didst march through the land in indignation, thou didst thresh the
heathen in anger. Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people. 33 The
whole chapter three of this book is a prophecy that Ibn Taymiyyah says very
clearly discuss the power of the Prophet and his people or nation and their
dominance over the other powers. It applies to none else. What makes Ibn
Taymiyyah certain of this is the mentioning of the name of Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him), which is no longer available in the Bible
today. He mentions his name many times in the Bible, which suggests that
many editions have been made to the Bible resulting in this change. He
himself said he saw the name of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) mentioned in some of the extracts of the Bible he saw.
 The story of Nebuchadnezzar with the prophet Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar saw
a dream and required it to be interpreted. Daniel interpreted it like this:
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a
kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And whosesoever the children of
men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given
into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of
gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another
third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth
kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and
212
subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces
and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay,
and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the
strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom
shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed
with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they
shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the
days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall
never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it
shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for
ever.34
Ibn Taymiyyah says that this is the descriptions of Muhammad not the Christ (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon both of them). It was he who was given a strong law
and who demolished all the kingdoms and became the most dominant and his
dominion shall remain forever. None can destroy it.35
 “The comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my
name he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance
whatsoever I have said unto you.”36 Only the Quran claims to contain details
about everything as in 16: 86. Moreover, the original word for the comforter
(paraclete) has connotations that befit Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him) more. Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) is called in the Quran mercy for all humanity. Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) is the only Prophet who would intercede on
behalf of the people on the Day of Resurrection. Ibn Taymiyyah says the
praclete (translated as comforter, intercessor or advocate in English) is given
many meanings, some of which is amm d, mid37 (one who praises very
often) consoler, and he quotes that majority as upholding that it means amd
(the praise and thanks due to a great person). Although the etymology
(explicated by the Christians) of the word does not support this meaning, the
translations given to this word apply best to the Prophet Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is he who is very passionate for the
welfare of his ummah (followers and enemies), and who would intercede on
213
the Day of Judgment on behalf of the sinners to be pardoned. He is the only
intercessor on that day. Even in his lifetime he would always pray for the
safety of his people (whoever comes after him to the Day of Judgment).
 “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall
testify of me. And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me
from the beginning.”38 These words are the Christ’s words. The only prophet
who came after Jesus and confirmed him is Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him).
 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I
go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send
him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of
righteousness, and of judgment. Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of
righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of
judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of
truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew
you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall
shew it unto you.39 These give clear evidence that the Christ is speaking about
someone who would come after him and would have a more comprehensive
message than he would, something which the holy ghost does not fit for,
according to Ibn Taymiyyah.
Ibn Taymiyyah also criticizes the soundness of the Christian’s approach for he affirms
that they attributed to the word paraclete meanings inherent in Syriac and Greek
which the Christ never spoke. Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that Christ spoke
Hebrew.40Most of the Christians say it means savior. None could say for sure who this
is. Some say he is Christ. However, it cannot be the Christ for the following reasons:
The Holy Spirit is not identified only with the Christ as has been mentioned several
times. Verses state that he is a different person, not Christ for he told them to keep his
commandments and he will send them another paraclete. This has been described
with high qualities such that he will remain with them forever whereas Christ did not
214
stay long with them. This shows that the latter abrogates the law of the predecessor.
Ibn Taymiyyah said the latter testifies for him, and teaches them everything, and he
rebukes them for sins. He tells them that it is expedient for them that he goes to let the
other paraclete come. All these are applicable to someone that they can hear and see.
It is then a great man who will be with them. He will be a man greater than Jesus will
since he will tell them about things Jesus was not able to tell along with the other
things mentioned. It is clear that the referent is other than Christ; these attributes are
more applicable to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).41
 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh,
and hath nothing in me.42
The verse as given by Ibn Taymiyyah reads, “the prince of this world will come when
I have nothing.” Ibn Taymiyyah takes it to indicate the dominion of Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) over the past prophethoods.
 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the
builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's
doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore, say I unto you, The
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but
on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.43
Now the kingdom referred to is the prophethood. It was taken from the Israelites
and given to the Arabs. Hence, the term “another nation”. It is they who brought
the fruits of prophethood and overruled all those who opposed them.
 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it
first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of
God?44
5.2.2 The Quranic Evidences
The Quran has been revealed to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him). It is replete with narrations about events of the ancient Past that none had any
access to know before him. Ibn Taymiyyah says, “The Quran is full of news about
215
the unseen past which is not known to any human being, except through the prophets
whom Allah has informed.”45 This is an exclusive sign of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Ibn Taymiyyah asserts. Even stories that
are there in other divine books are not as elucidated as they are in the Quran.
Moreover, the Quran talks about the life and destruction of many nations in the
remote past: how their prophets tried to lead them to the right path but they disobeyed
and what was the end of every one of such disobedient nations. The pagans or the
People of the Book, who lived at the time of the Prophet, sometimes probed such
news. They used to ask the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about
things in the past, and revelation would come to his aid. He could not have known
these, had he not received any revelation from Allah. Moreover, such news was
sometimes initiated without any challenge on the part of the people. These became a
witness for his prophethood and the prophethood of his predecessors. This is because
his and their news were proved concomitant without previous collusion. Since they
are in total agreement despite the long period, then they are all telling the truth. No
one however, can claim that received it from any human being. People are
unanimous in this regard for the following reasons:
 His enemies from his people were too anxious to find any such plea to reject
and discredit his prophethood. Had they known or suspected any such thing,
they would publicize it.
 His people were unanimous that no one taught him what he brought to his
people.46
 At the time he was erected, people were either pagans or People of the Book.
None was a believer in his religion. The code of life he prescribed was greatly
different from the previous religions. It is also known that the stories
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) brought about ancient
people had precedents in the previous books, so no one could discredit him;
but at the same time, his way of narration is highly superior to the ways of the
previous books.
 If he had taken part or all his knowledge from any one, he could not hide his
source at least from people in the know. He would be discovered easily and
the whole secret would be divulged.
216
 He was unlettered, and no one in his position is entitled to bringing anything
similar (let alone superior) to what his predecessors had brought.
None of the above has happened. Rather, when his pagan people used to gather for
consultation as regards what to say to people concerning Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him), some suggested that he was a liar; others suggested
to say to the people that he was a sorcerer; others suggested to say to people he was a
poet. However, they themselves believed that these suggestions were all untenable
arguments easy to reject. However, in their private seclusions, they affirmed the
Quran being from any human source. They acknowledged the Quran captured their
hearts when they listened to it. They would feel its sweetness and recognize it was not
part of human production or composition. Moreover, the Prophet was known among
them as the trustworthy. Therefore, the Quran narrated all the allegations levied by the
people and vindicated the Prophet from all such accusations. The Quran also tells us
that devils cannot bring down anything like the Quran. They were prevented from
exploring the heavens as they used to do before the coming of Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him). The soothsayers made mistakes in their
conjectures, unlike the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) or the Quran. Moreover, the poets used to listen to him but none ever found that
the Quran is incomparably superior to the poetry they used to compose. Ibn
Taymiyyah says that if the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) disclosed some of the things that Moses and the others told and which could not
have otherwise been known except through them and if it was already known that he
did not learn that from any, the conclusion is that he was none but a prophet from
Allah.
Furthermore, people other than his contemporaries can know his trustworthiness and
prophethood through the following ways:
 The exhaustively covered and concomitantly known biography of the Prophet,
unlike any other human being
 He told about things nonexistent in the books of the previous prophets. Such
being the case, it is impossible for him to learn from them things they did not
know.
217
 If that were the case, his people would hurry to disclose it, as they did not
leave any stone unturned to find any fault in him.
 An affair like this is not concealable. All (the enemies and followers, alike)
would be curious to report it. Some of the scholars of the People of the Book came
to the Prophet and asked him about things to come, like Abdullah bin Sal m and
some other Jews. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) satisfactorily answered all the questions and, therefore some converted to
Islam. These tests would be invalid if they knew that someone told him about
what they asked.
 Allah is a witness since the Quran is His word and none was able to bring
anything like it. The Quran was revealed in a superb language and style, setting up
a challenge commensurate with the mastery of the people of those times. Although
they were masters of the language and used to compete in composing poetry and
other literary genres, they were unable to meet the challenge the Quran posed
before them every now and then. Hence, the challenge is still standing.
 His foretelling about the inability of humankind to produce any like it:
Although the challenge was put forth in his time, none ever could meet it. A
simple human being could not put forth such a challenge that endures so long. It is
continuing despite the bitter hatred of many people in the world to change, malign
or distort the Quran.
 The eternal veracity of the Quran: All the news contained therein is still true to
the letter. Given the volume of the Quran, no one can ever speak about all such
things mentioned in the Quran, and yet remain immune from mistake in at least
some minute details.
Unlike all other prophets, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) was given an eternal miracle, the Quran. This is because humanity cannot
distort or produce any like it. Every prophet is given miraculous capabilities, (such as
healing the ill, making inanimate things animate, etc.) that his people well mastered.
As the Arabs were masters in literature, the Prophet was given, among other miracles,
the Quran, which is an inimitable literary work. The Prophet said, “Never was there
any prophet of the prophets except that he was given of the signs, due to the like of
which humanity believed. But the thing I was given is a revelation that Allah revealed
218
to me; therefore, I wish to have the greatest number of followers.”47 The prophets
were all raised to save people from the wrath of Allah, by leading them to the path
that He favors, namely to worship none but Him and to act according to His
commandments. He set them as perfect human examples to demonstrate the conduct
most favorable to Allah. The prophets conveyed that accurately, warned people from
following the path of the ingrate and narrated to people the miserable end of those
who rejected the divine message and followed their desires in the previous nations.
Such prophets performed wonders and brought books with them so that people can
recognize them. Some of them were sent with books revealed to them while others
were erected or sent to revive a previous religion.
The miserable end of those who belied the prophets is another sign for the veracity of
the prophets and the authenticity of their message. All the above is stated in the
Quran. Allah sent many prophets and messengers to peoples. Noah, Ibrahim, Christ,
S li , Hūd, Lot and the like were sent to their respective peoples. Those who
disbelieved them were destroyed. This is another sign Ibn Taymiyyah mentions.
Later people were recommended to take lessons from the end of those peoples and
avoid their way. Therefore, the Quran exhorts people to move about and ponder over
the events, incidents and realities manifest in the world.
The signs for the veracity of the prophets are various and not confined to a particular
period. They are witnessed before, during and after their ministries. One of the
incidents that herald the coming of a prophet is the prophecies of his predecessors,
and the incidents indicating the coming of that prophet. His triumph over his enemies
and their destruction are signs during his ministry. After his death the followers’
victory and the defeat of their enemies are signs for the veracity of his prophethood.
In countless times in the Quran it is mentioned that Allah makes triumphant the
followers of the prophets.48 The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) is no exception. As far in history as the time of Ibrahim, the Prophet
Muhammad was prophesied. Ibrahim (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all)
prayed Allah to erect for the people of Makkah (where he entrusted his wife Hagar
and Ismail) a messenger from among themselves.49 Further, many such signs were
observed by people during his childhood and upbringing, such as what happened to
219
his wet nurse50 and what has been seen during his childhood.51 After his death, his
followers were accorded great respect and awe. They used to be victorious even when
they are a half or third the number of the enemies. Moreover, although sometimes
they were defeated, as it is the way of Allah to have his friends defeated sometimes as
a test, the ultimate victory was always theirs.
It should be noted, Ibn Taymiyyah affirms, that once a prophet shows one sign that is
sufficient to prove the veracity of his message, he has established a perfect proof, on
the bases of which people become immediately countable for their rejection. Just as in
the case of matters of litigation where the proof once established against either of the
litigating parties, the other has no right to ask for another; it is not compulsory for the
prophet to provide more and more signs. The contumacious disbelievers always ask
for more evidences even when the proofs are enough for any sane person to ascertain
the veracity of something. Therefore, those who adamantly rejected divine guidance
due to the number of evidences are, nevertheless, bound by the commandment of the
Prophet. However, Allah must have some wisdom for the multiplicity of the signs of
prophethood. The more the proofs, the more apparent truth becomes. Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was provided with a greater number of
proofs due to the universality of his message. The adamant disbelievers may require
to be shown more signs or particular signs. Sometimes they are given, sometimes they
are not. With the succession of the signs, more and more people come round and get
convinced, and they become more and more aware of the inability of those who
defied the truth. These signs, especially those involving punishment or destruction of
those asking them, are sometimes withheld out of mercy for people.52
5.2.3 The Miracles
Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that the miracles of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah
be upon him) are far more in number and more cogent than the miracles of all the
other prophets and messengers. These miracles can be broadly classified into two
categories:
 What has passed and has become circulating news like the miracles of Moses
and Jesus.
220
 What is still a standing miracle such as the Quran. Other examples include the
knowledge and faith in his followers, the Sharia, his description in the previous
books, the miracles of his followers, the news prophesied in the Quran that came
true, such as the conflagration in Hejaz, the Turks’ fighting the Muslims and the
victory of the Romans over the Persians.
The Quran invited the disbelievers of his times and of all times to bring ten chapters
like the Quran then it challenged them to bring a chapter like it, (although a chapter
may be two lines). And here in the next verse Allah says, “if you do not do[bring a
chapter like it], and you will never do, then fear, the fire the fuel of which is people
and stone, prepared for the disbelievers.”53 Moreover, the Quran goes in challenging
the disbelievers as far as to declare that if the human race as well as the jinn jointly
tries to produce any like it they will not be able to do so. 54 Since its revelation to the
Prophet who lived among the masters of the language, who were well motivated to
rebut and refute it , until the present time, none ever was able to meet the challenge.
Rather, the challenge is still standing and it will continue until the Day of Judgment.
This renders the Quran an eternal miracle unparalleled in previous prophethoods.

This miraculousness of the Quran does not consist in the fact that people were
prevented from trying to bring anything like it. Although this is a miracle, if it is true,
the Quran is intrinsically inimitable. The diction, the euphony, the Style, the
utterance-meaning compatibility, the expositions it makes about Allah’s names,
attributes, angels, etc., the prophesying of the unseen future events and the like,
contribute to this miraculous nature of the Quran, and make it different from all the
other literary genres the Arabs had known and make it distinct from the previous
books or the books authored in any topic, be it theological philosophical, scientific, or
whatever. Moreover, it is unmatchable in structure, manner, reality, and all
considerations.
Ibn Taymiyyah posited that the evidences of prophethood are like the evidences of
lordship in that some of them are apparent to all while others are manifest only to
knowledgeable people. Moreover, as the humans need air more urgently than they
need water, and need water more than they need food, Allah has made air a common
asset effortlessly available, and made water more available than food. In the same
221
manner, Allah has made evidences of lordship more common and available to all
people, because people direly need them. Every human being needs to know his
creator, sustainer, etc., to worship the right and the only God worthy of worship. In
the second degree come the evidences of prophethood, which in turn are more easily
observable to all than the particular details of law.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) foretold many
incidents and all successively materialized. Some of these are:
 The splitting of the moon: The disbelievers asked him to show them a sign. He
showed them the splitting of the moon, which is a proof for the changes of the
universe at the end of time. It is stated in the Quran that the heavens, the earth and
the planets will undergo tremendous commotion and disorder.55 This incident (the
splitting of the moon) was seen by all, the believers and the disbelievers. The
disbelievers thought that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
had deceived them through magic. They asked the travellers who were not there,
and all confirmed it. Therefore, it was recorded in the Quran. The Prophet used to
pray with these verses in the congregational and public prayers. None ever rejected
that as untrue. Had it been untrue the disbelievers who were very keen to discredit
him would have scandalized him for that.
 The night migration to Jerusalem and his ascension to heavens: There he saw the
paradise, Hell, the angels, the prophets, the heavens and so on. Naturally, his people
did not believe him. They asked him to describe the holy mosque at Jerusalem. He
did to the very truth they knew. He moreover, told them that on his way he saw one
of the traders from Quraish (his people) lost his mount in a place at Sh m. While he
was searching it, the Prophet passed and told him about his mount. The Quraishi
pagans asked the man after his return and he acknowledged it.
 The Prophet used to pray Allah for rain, victory, etc. His prayers used to be
answered immediately. This happened several times.
 His communication with the animals: He did many miraculous things with animals,
such as speaking, consoling, ordering as well as the surrender of the wild animals to
him, the complaints of animals to him against their masters, and many others. All
these took place in the presence of many people.
222
 In the same manner, he spoke to trees and they obeyed him and prostrated for him.
He also healed the ill, by the leave of Allah.
 An eye of one of the companions of the Prophet was injured and dropped over his
cheeks. The Prophet called him and wiped it with his palm. Immediately it became
the best of his eyes. Another companion of his had his leg broken in one of the
expeditions. The Prophet wiped it and it returned to its previous state.
 The stump of wood he used to stand on and deliver his speeches to people cried
when the Prophet used the pulpit in its stead. The Prophet to console the stump,
stepped down from the pulpit and embraced the stump, which instantly stopped
crying.
 A Bedouin asked him to show a sign. He told the Prophet to call a bunch of fruit.
The Prophet called it, and the bunch of fruit came jumping.
 The multiplication of fruits and food: In several occasions, he prayed Allah and to
the surprise of many, the small amount of food or fruits sufficed a great number of
people.
The wolf recommended a Bedouin to go and listen to the Prophet, telling people of
events of the past. The Bedouin led his flock to Mad nah, the city of the Prophet and
once he arrived, the Prophet asked him initially to tell the people about what he saw.
These phenomenal miracles undoubtedly testify to his prophethood.
5.2.4 Personality of the Prophet
The conduct, morality, sayings and actions he did and said, and the law he brought are
signs of his being a prophet. The noble lineage he belongs to is another indispensable
sign. All the prophets were born into noble families, who were part of noble clans and
of equally honorable descents and races. This was the testimony of the Caesar of the
Christian Byzantium during the time of the Prophet. The Prophet Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him) belongs to the noblest and purest pedigree. He
was selected from the descent of Ibrahim from whose posterity was selected all the
erected prophets. Ibrahim begot two sons who were the ancestors of all prophets.
From the branch of Ismael, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
was the only prophet and messenger, counterbalancing all those who descended from
the branch of the prophet Is q (Isaac). Along down the lineage, Quraish was the best
223
tribe to which the best clan of H shim belonged. He was raised in Makkah, (the
mother township) in which the Holy Mosque was built by Ibrahim and Ismael, and
which is the pilgrim sight of all prophets and which will continue to be visited in the
same name.
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
Both in his raising and upbringing, he reached the acme of perfection a human
can reach. He has been known for his probity, righteousness, justice, morality,
eschewing and circumventing obscenity, injustice and all abominations. All
those who knew and believed in him before his prophethood acknowledged this
in him. Those who disbelieved in him after his being selected prophet knew no
deficiency in him neither in his words nor deeds, nor in his manners nor did they
ever witness him telling lies, committing injustice or vile acts. Moreover, his
physical constitution and countenance manifested one of the pictures, most
inclusive of good features. He was unlettered from an unlettered community;
neither they nor he knew anything the People of the Book had known, nor did he
ever learn any of the people’s sciences nor had he any associations with such
people. He did not claim prophethood until he reached the age of forty, whereat
he experienced something amazing and received great words, the like of which
was never heard earlier or later, bringing something none in his community had
ever known. His followers were typically the followers of the prophets, viz, the
vulnerable people, whereas the people of authority belied and opposed him, and
sought his destruction and that of his followers with all their might and means,
just in the same manner the disbelievers used to do with the prophets and their
followers who did not follow them without fear or favor. He had nothing to give
them neither wealth nor office; he did not have a sword (military force). Rather,
both were with his enemies. These persecuted his followers by all means while
patiently enduring, totally unwilling to concede their religion due to the
sweetness of faith and knowledge that saturated their hearts.56
He used to come to people during their visiting the Holy Mosque at Makkah to invite
them to the religion Allah has commanded him to convey to his people. Many people
turned away from him and many reviled at him. Yet he persistently continued his
propagation, which was welcomed by the people of Mad nah, who received some
knowledge of the coming prophet through the Jews, their neighbors. Then his
message increasingly enjoyed wide currency. Thus, all knowledge they had regarding
the true faith was from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). They
never adopted anything that does not have his sanction. Therefore, innovation in
religion was easily discernable. Knowledge and faith guarded against innovation in
religion.
224
His followers, who previously had been the epitome of idol-worship, bloodshed,
divination, severing kinship ties, denial of resurrection, etc., became the most
knowledgeable pious and fair people on earth. When the Christians in Great Syria saw
them, they thought them to be no less in these terms than the apostles of Christ. The
legacy they left is a clear testimony to that.
The Prophet despite the immense expansion of his dominion, died poor, and left
neither money, nor wealth except the personal arms he had and his mount, with some
of his clothes in pawn.57
5.2.5 Merits of His Community
Ibn Taymiyyah considers the merits of the Prophet ’s followers as a credit added to
the veracity of his prophethood. Ibn Taymiyyah classifies nations into two types:
those given a divine book like the Jews and Christians and those who were not given
any book such as the Indians, the Turks, the Greek and the Arabs before Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Generally speaking however, all peoples
and nations acknowledge the hereafter and that the good is better than the bad and that
justice is better than injustice. Nevertheless, the people with a divine book are better
in ethics and management of things than those who were not given a book.
In terms of monotheism, worships and transactions, the Muslims are middle and
moderate, better than the People of the Book. Islam encapsulates all the good features
inherent in the Torah and the gospels, revealed to Moses and Jesus. The Muslims
excelled in both the secular as well as the religious sciences. There may be some
Muslims less faithful and careless about religious sciences but they still excelled in
secular sciences. This class of people are least valued by the Muslims. These
discarded people may be better than the scientists of the People of the Book may.
Thus, even the scum of this nation may be better than the previous nations.
Moreover, in theological matters, what the prophets spoke about the community of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is no doubt the most reliable
reference. In terms of jihad the Muslims are the best of those who carry out jihad. The
Jews did not perform jihad with Moses. They backed away at the most critical
juncture when the prophet Moses extended his most imploring appeal to urge them to
carry out the divine commandment of fight the infidels. Similarly, The Christians did
225
not fight by the order of religion. Through all these discussions, Ibn Taymiyyah
would like to prove to the reader that the Muslims are better and middle between the
Jews and the Christians. He recapitulates his previous discussions by saying:
Let the sane man ponder over the minds of the Muslims, their manners and their
justice. It will make clear to him the difference between them and the others.
Then, ponder over the manner of their worships, their perfection and
moderation…the purification manners, the alignment in prayer , the bowing and
prostration, their facing the Ka‘bah, the house of Ibrahim the leader of all
creations, their abstention from speaking [during prayer], their humility and
serenity, recitation of the Quran and listening to it, through which every fair man
can distinguish between the Quran and the rest of the books, and the like of the
differences, which demonstrate the superiority of the worships of the Muslims
over the others. Moreover, the Muslims’ judgment concerning the capital
punishments and rights is inevitably observable for every sane man, to the extent
that some of the Christians used to appoint one in their lands to judge between
them, according to the Sharia of the Muslims…. The Muslims are middle and
moderate between the Jews and the Christians in monotheism, prophethoods and
lawful and unlawful items, and the like. All this proves the superiority of this
nation over the two nations. Although the evidences are too innumerable, the
intention here is to point out that briefly. The conclusion is that the superiority of
the nation conclusively indicates the superiority of its leader.58
Ibn Taymiyyah here sets a stick yard to examine the veracity of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in his claim of prophethood.
He says that anyone claiming what Muhammad, (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) claimed, must be any one of three: a) a true Prophet or messenger like
Noah, Ibrahim, etc., who are mentioned in the Quran; b) a just king who formulated a
just law, with which he manages people’s affairs justly, and forces people to act in a
like manner, like those who formulated the laws in India, Persia and the like; or he
may be: c) a liar, deliberately perpetrating sins including lying and oppression and
blunders through speaking without knowledge. As far as the intention is concerned,
this triple classification can be reduced to two: whether his intention is to lead people
to justice or injustice. The latter is an evil man, and this kind of men must lie either
intentionally or unintentionally whereas the former is a righteous one. In the latter
case, the man concerned either knows what he tells of the unseen things, confident in
his information, and certain in its veracity, or he is not certain of the veracity of what
he prophesies and tells. The man telling about things with unquestionable veracity
should be obeyed and his teachings should not be violated, because he is surely a
prophet. Anyone who likes justice may devise a law that he thinks is just; and when
he gives news, he would be speaking the truth to the best of his knowledge. This is
226
common in all people with good faith and good will. However, when he never makes
any mistake, this cannot be other than a prophet, immune from mistake. Infallibility is
human quality exclusively for prophets and messengers. The rest of people however
good they may be will commit mistakes in their commandments or news. The Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) never told any untrue
information nor did he ever order anything that is against justice or wisdom.
Therefore, all that he said is true, including his statement that he was a prophet, higher
in status than the rest of the prophets, that he was the seal of the prophets sent to the
entire world, that the book he brought was truly revealed to him by Allah, and that
this book is dominant over the rest of the books. The multitude and the systematicity
of the laws, regulations, worships and all other ordinances prove that they are coming
from Allah. No human being can ever make any such great, mistake-free and
contradiction-free system, unless he is receiving it from the Omniscient God. Anyone
unable to make such distinctions with which to know the true prophet from the
imposter has degenerated to the lowest degrees of ignorance.
In addition, the question, why did people in different lands and with various cultures
believe he was a prophet from Allah? He did not pay them nor did he promise them
anything. He was not a force to be feared to compel people to convert to Islam. He
himself and his followers were badly persecuted and tortured in his initial stages of
ministry. What made his people to endure all such anguish-laden situations and
unbearable tortures? Besides, the manners of his companions proved that they were
not the product of an imposter, or simple leader. They were the epitome of sacrifice,
courage, generosity, magnanimity and abstention from following worldly lusts.
5.2.6 The Precursory Events
Other signs include the elephant the Abyssinians brought to destroy the Ka‘bah and
the guarding of the heavens from the devils least they should overhear the news from
the heavens. Upset by the defiling of the Christians’ church in Sana’a (Yemen), the
Abyssinian king, tried to revenge by destroying the Ka‘bah of the Arabs in Makkah.
He brought an invincible force of hosts and armaments lead by a gigantic elephant.
He poked the elephant to demolish the Ka‘bah but the elephant refused to make that
presumptuous step. However, when they faced him to the opposite direction that is
227
towards the south, he would run. At last, after many disparate attempts Allah sent
birds to strike them with stones, sparing no one. This phenomenal incident was
considered a harbinger for the coming of a Prophet as that was in the same year he
was born. This event installed in the hearts the significance and the sanctity of the
Ka‘bah, as the house of Allah which he protected, and devastated its enemies. Such
protection was naturally not for the sake of the neighbors of the Ka‘bah as they were
polytheists, nor were these polytheists dearer to Allah than the Christians who had a
divine book. Rather, it was surely for the sake of the sacred house or for the sake of
the Prophet who was to be born that year, or for both.
Moreover, the Quran started descending at early time when Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) and his followers were persecuted in Makkah by the
disbelievers. At that time, angels preventing the devils from overhearing what is said
there guarded the heavens.59
This debarment provoked the devils and the jinn in general, to make a thorough
survey to discover the reason thereto. After wide dispersion in the land and sea, they
found the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) performing
‘the dawn prayer’ with his companions. They listened to the recitation of the Quran.
They understood clearly that it could not be the speech of ordinary men. They came
back to their people advising them to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) and declaring their belief in him. This occasioned the
revelation of a Quranic chapter narrating the whole incident. The time this was
revealed to and recited by the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him), the majority of people were disbelievers. They all heard it along with the
followers but none ever discredited this as untrue. This is because, Ibn Taymiyyah
justifies, all people observed the falling of the celestial bodies and as a result got
terrified. They thought that the dwellers of the heavens were killed. Therefore, they
rushed to offer offerings for their Gods. It was something that they never saw
before60. When this was revealed to the Prophet, none belied him.
5.3 Universality of the Message
The universality of the message of Islam is one of the major points Ibn Taymiyyah
has undertaken to discuss in the beginning of the book. The letter to which Ibn
228
Taymiyyah puts his response attempted to argue in favor of the universality of
Christianity, and that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) was sent only to the Arabs. In order to do so, they quote many of the sayings of
the prophets as well as the Quran and assign to them meanings that are in line with
their allegations. Ibn Taymiyyah attempts to prove the universality of the message of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) , and at the same time refute
the claims of the Christians.
5.3.1 Methods of the Christians More Applicable To the Prophet Muhammad
Ibn Taymiyyah declares that the Christians have no right in quoting any of the
prophets or messengers to support their religious doctrines. This is because they knew
those whom they quoted such as Moses, Jesus, and the rest, in one of the following
ways:
 Through the proofs such prophets adduced like the miracles;
 They just believed in their prophethood without any evidence;
 They quoted them because the Muslims acknowledge them as prophets.
However, all the three reasons seem invalid, since in the first case, any proof available
for the prophets before Muhammad are greater in Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him). The miracles and signs given to Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him) are greater in number and more convincing than those of the
previous prophets are. Moreover, every proof for the veracity of the prophethood of
Moses and Christ proves the veracity of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him). To apply the criterion to one of the prophets and not
to the other is tantamount to divesting the proof from its meaning. If the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) satisfies the conditions they
have set for prophethood, which are demonstrable in the other prophets, then he is a
prophet. To claim that the conditions, though available in all are proofs for all but
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), is rationally unpalatable.
More importantly, if they believed in the prophethood of the previous prophets
without any proof, which is a fact, then they have based their religion on delusory
bases.
229
If however, they quoted them because the Muslims believe in them, this is wrong for
the following reasons:
 When you stand before Allah what is the plea you will produce for believing
one and disbelieving the other, while the veracity of him whom you disbelieve
is more prominent than that of the others. If the evidences you quote are
correct, then they prove the veracity of the one you have rejected too. If they
are incorrect then your religion is not valid, since you depend on incorrect
evidences.
 The Muslims knew the prophets only through Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him). If he were not true, the Muslims would not
have known the other prophets. Here your evidence becomes invalid. If,
however, he is true then here too your argument becomes invalid.
 The Muslims does not believe in the prophethood of any prophet except
accompanied with the belief in Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him). None believed in the prophets and excluded Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him). All the evidences testifying the veracity
of any of the prophets testifies a fortiori to the genuineness of the prophethood
of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
 The Muslims believe in Moses and Jesus, who prophesied his coming. If they
prophesied his coming, this is a clear proof of his prophethood. If they did not
prophesy his coming, the Muslims believe only in those who prophesied his
coming.
Thus, Ibn Taymiyyah demonstrates their tenable position in quoting the prophets. He,
in his entire thesis endeavors to prove that they did not base their religion on what the
prophets said and commanded. They erected their theological edifice on fragile bases.
5.3.2 The Quran in Arabic
The Christians believe that since the Quran was revealed in Arabic, it addresses none
but the Arabs. It is not a universal message as the Muslims claim. Ibn Taymiyyah
gives the following answers to them:
230
 If the language matters, his applies to the Torah and the Gospels (the original
books given to Moses and Jesus respectively, not the ones available now), as
they were imparted to Moses and Jesus in Hebrew. This also applies to all the
divine scriptures. In fact, they all were sent down in one language, the
language of the community of the respective the prophet/messenger. Then the
message reaches the other nations/communities, either through translation or
through learning the original tongue.
 The Christ and his apostles spoke Hebrew. Then he sent his apostles to the
other communities to convey his message to them in their respective
languages. If they think that the apostles spoke in the tongues of peoples, this
is also reported about the companions of Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him) whom he sent to the neighboring kingdoms and
communities.
 Among the Christians at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) were some who spoke Arabic, and therefore
they could understand the Quran, albeit their diversity of origin. The people
who sent the letter to the Muslims could understand a lot from the Quran and
they quoted it in their arguments. How is it reasonable to say that they are not
bound by the Quran?
 Understanding every verse in the Quran is not obligatory. What is obligatory
is to understand the core message that is understandable in all languages. The
verses that state that the Quran was revealed in Arabic so as to be understood
do not prove their (the Christians’) claim. Rather, the Quran was revealed in
Arabic because it is the best vehicle and the most capable of conveying the
meaning of the Quran. This is to be understood in the best way and then
transmitted correctly to the other communities. The grace is more for the
Arabs for getting first-hand information and then being the mediators to the
other communities.
5.3.3 The Alleged Infallibility of the Apostles of Christ
If the Christians claim that their books were translated to the other communities by
the apostles, who were infallible messengers, unlike the Quran, which is translated by
fallible translators, this can be refuted through the following:
231
 This is a stark fabrication. Countless Arabs were followers of Christ. They did
not change his messages before the coming of Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him). Yet, there was no book, neither the Torah not
the gospels, written in Arabic, although they were the neighbors of Jerusalem.
 Translating a book need not be carried out by one who is infallible. Anyone
knowing the two tongues is eligible for the task. If many translated but not
differed despite their dispersion in various countries, this bears witness that
they translated it correctly.
 The claim that the apostles were infallible messengers as Ibrahim, Noah, etc.,
is a false claim. Rather, they are the messengers of Christ. Moreover, many of
the Christians believe that the apostles were messengers of Allah but not
prophets. However, none can be a messenger but not a prophet, nor can such a
man be infallible. If they had wonders, they are like the upright Muslims who
show wonders but are still fallible.
5.4 Islam: the Uncalled-For
The Christians claimed that ‘since we had our own prophets who spoke to us in our
tongue and preached to us the religion we are following now, there is no need to
follow this man.’ Ibn Taymiyyah answers them in the following manner:
 The erection of one prophet does not necessitate that none else will be erected.
Moses, for example, was sent to the children of Israel with the Law. Then the
Christ was sent to them and it was imperative on them to believe in him.
Those who did not believe in him were disbelievers.
 The claim that they are still adhering to the religion preached by the apostles is
untrue. Rather, what they now adhere to is concocted and innovated. The
creed, the prayer to the east, making of images in the churches, and
considering the people portrayed as intercessors, and setting up their days as
festivals, building churches in their names, legalizing pork, not circumcising,
monastery life, deferring the fast to the spring, extending it to fifty days, the
sacraments, etc., all these are their making. The Christ did not sanction them.
 To claim that the apostles handed down the scriptures to all peoples, each in
their tongue is not completely true. The Arabs did not receive the Torah and
232
Gospels in Arabic. They were translated into Arabic only later. If the Arabs
before Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are bound by a
book revealed in a tongue not theirs, why are the Romans not bound by the
book that was revealed in another tongue but translated into theirs later?
5.5 Criteria for Authentic Prophethood61
There is a great difference between true and false claimants of prophethood. True
prophets are at the highest degree whereas false claimants or impostors are the most
wretched humans. The difference is therefore as big as the difference between black
and white or good and evil. Heavenly scriptures warned too much against lying
against Allah. See for example, the verses in the Quran: 6:93, 39:32-34, 39:60, etc.
The Bible also contains verses to this effect. If lying to people is strictly prohibited in
all scriptures, what to speak of lying to Allah? Is there a sin graver than that?
Therefore, it is pertinent to set a system through which one can identify each.
There are several ways to know the genuineness of a statement. Ibn Taymiyyah
identifies the following:
1. General Concomitant narration: The Quran was concomitantly transmitted.
That is, a great number of people without previous orchestrations to fabricate
narrated the same verses verbatim. They did not know about one another, and
yet their accounts were in meticulous concord. This type of narration is the
most reliable in the sight of the ad th experts. A d th (pl. of ad th) narrated
in this manner were at the highest degree of authenticity. Now the a d th that
contained miracles of the Prophet were more concomitantly narrated than the
a d th detailing manner and number of prayers. This is because as Ibn
Taymiyyah propounds, they all took place in public. Some of them were
witnessed by hundreds of people. For example, all those who were with him,
who were one thousand and five hundred, saw the gushing of water from
between his fingers at Hudaybiyya. Similarly, many saw the splitting of the
moon and testified to it although they were geographically too far apart. Many
of these miracles took place in battles and the congregations of people. Hosts
of people and whole armies used to satisfy their hunger or quench their thirst
with scanty supplies, multiplied miraculously at the hands of the prophet. This
233
great number of people witnessing the same incident makes it impossible for
them to agree on the same testimony unless this is an unquestionable fact
actually seen by all.
2. Limited concomitance, which becomes widely known within a specific class
of scholars, professionals, or a group of people belonging to the same sect,
religion, and so on. Through this type of narration many miracles are
commonly known to scholars, historians, specialists, etc.
Ibn Taymiyyah espouses that the evidences and signs of prophethood are
concomitantly known among the Muslims, the commoners and the elite, those with
mean knowledge and the knowledgeable scholars.
3. Virtual concomitance: here he refers to the news that becomes known to all
classes although every individual narration may not suffice alone in proving or
confirming the news heard. He gives examples such as people’s knowledge of the
proverbial courage of ‘Antarah and Kh lid bin Al-Wal d, that Al-Mutanabb was a
poet, etc. these are known to all peoples through the recurrent narration. This kind
of accounts collectively entails unquestionable truths, although individual
narrations will not lead to this level of certainty. Moreover, if the news transmitted
in this manner about people of this kind and by people of this category is
considered true, the news transmitted about the proofs of prophethood are more
authentic both in quality and quantity, since they are narrated by more trustworthy
people such as the scholars of Islam. Besides, and the number of narrations are
more than the number of the narrations transmitted about the people spoken about
above.
4. Some of the signs were performed in the presence of thousands of people.

These include for example, augmentation of food during the digging of the trench
around Mad nah to protect it from the pagan confederates’ attack. Other examples
are the gushing of water from his fingers and the overflowing of the well at
udaybiyyah. The people witnessing this incident were one thousand and five
hundred. They were all pious people all aware of the gravity of the sin of putting
words in the mouth of the Prophet. None ever doubted the narration of these
signs. They all narrated it in the same manner and there was no difference among
234
them in relation to the details, although they did not make any previous agreement
to confirm one another.
5. Every class of specialists (theologians, exegetes, jurists, etc.) has narrated in their
respective books a number of signs enough to lead to certain and firm belief in
them. Books of different categories are overflowing with signs of the prophethood
of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Each author mentions
them for a different purpose and to prove a different point.
6. Whole books were devoted to this genre of knowledge. The content of these books
is only the signs of prophethood. As a result, a good collection of books was
produced solely for this purpose.
Moreover, Ibn Taymiyyah, (apart from setting criteria for authentic

prophethood), provides ways of testing the truthfulness of the claimant of
prophethood. He viewed that the procedure applied for the confirmation of veracity of
prophethood is very much the same news is confirmed. To say, “I am a prophet,” is a
piece of news. The transmission of his signs is also through news telling. If the news
is identical with reality then it is true. If they are not identical, it is lying whether the
informant intends to report contrary to truth, or not. However, in the former case he is
punishable whereas in the latter case he is not punishable once he exerts to know the
truth and makes all possible investigation. On the bases of this, a d th are rejected
either because the narrator deliberated lying or because he unintentionally
misreported. The companions of the Prophet were never known for deliberate lying.
Even ordinary people well known for lying sometimes tell the truth. In this case,
confirmation is obligatory, as ordered in the Quran. The claimant, the denier, the
witness and the confessor are all news tellers, whose news are subject to verification.
Based on the above, Allah commanded that one should not speak what one knows to
be untrue or speak about or negate something one does not know. Clear proofs should
be believed and not opposed with false claims. Such proofs should be asked for,
whether the informant is pious or even a disbeliever. His news should not be accepted
or rejected until verification is carried out. Therefore, the Prophet said about the
People of the Book, “Do not believe or disbelieve them” since they may mistranslate
the information in their books. This is the rule Islam adopts in the treatment of news.
235
Therefore, the ad th specialists drew very clear measures in the acceptance or
rejection of narrations, based on the retention and of the narrators. They authored a
great number of books for defining their rules and classifying narrators according to
their reliability in reporting the prophetic a d th. Some narrators were known for
their sound memorization and truthfulness in narration. The a d th reported by these
are accepted. Others were true but with faults in their memorization. These are
described as such and their a d th are suspended. This is also the case of those who
occasionally lied. Moreover, if later proofs became available for the deliberation of
lying then the a d th of these people are rejected all together. Thus, only the a d th
verified to be authentically narrated are enacted and put in force. Other a d th are
either rejected or suspended. Negation and affirmation should be based on sure
knowledge.
Ibn Taymiyyah asserts that these measures are the only measures capable of defining
sound and unsound narrations. If acceptance and rejection of news is based on other
than these, no truth will be reached, and people would seek and follow their desires.
However, for the things that take place or occur only in association, the absence of
one associate entails the absence of the other. Therefore, if certain incidents are
witnessed only in public and cannot be hidden, and this happened by a single reporter,
whereas the other people did not report them, this report is immediately rejected. Ibn
Taymiyyah gives the example of building a city. If anyone narrates such a thing
whereas other people in the vicinity have no idea about it, his report is directly dubbed
untrue. This is because people are usually motivated to report and exchange things of
this type.
Likewise, if it is claimed that the disbelievers at the time of Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) could meet the challenge, and produced something
like the Quran that could refute the Quran, this claim is straight away dropped,
because this is of great interest to people to see and report. Since the interest is keen,
and yet none reported it, then it is patent fabrication. `Thus, the associates are clear
indicators of the existence of things. However, some associates are clear to all; others
are clear to specific people, such as the knowledgeable. This explains why specialists
of a d th rejected certain narrations without bothering to investigate into the men
236
who narrated them. They knew ways unknown to others although many ways are
known to all. The same can be said about the signs of the Prophet, which are generally
known to all; some are more knowable than the others are.
The facial expressions also signal to what the heart conceals. A man telling the truth
and speaking his heart is easily distinguishable from the one who speaks contrary to
what he conceals. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) had the purest heart and the best intentions for his people and humanity in
general. That is why he was selected by Allah. This is why some of those who saw
the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) for the first time
could surely identify him as a prophet from Allah and converted on spot.
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “to know the veracity of the truthful and the falsehood of the liar
is like other knowledge in that it may be axiomatically known without investigation or
may be known after research and investigation.”62 He also viewed that some people
have expertise in discerning the liar from the truthful through the bodily appearances.
Therefore, he elaborates that some people are able to decide whether the one who
claims prophethood is a true prophet or an impostor without seeing his miracles.
Abdullah bin Salam, the Jew, lived in Mad nah at the time of the Prophet. He
converted to Islam only by looking at the face of the Prophet and that was enough for
him to know the veracity of the Prophet. Many people are reported in the a d th
collections to have recognized him at the first sight and meeting. The first batch to
convert to Islam like Abu Bakr, Khad jah, and the others was before the splitting of
the moon, the foretelling of things to come and before the challenge with the Quran to
be met. They heard the Quran and it was enough for them to know that he was a
prophet from Allah. Khad jah assured him that Allah will not disgrace him only due
to what she had seen of his manners. Heraclius, the Roman Caesar, asked Abu
Sufy n, the Qurayshite trader in his land, about qualities and manners of the Prophet
to verify that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was truly a
prophet. When they told him of the qualities and manners Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) possessed, he declared that he was a prophet and
would possess the land under his rule at that time, i.e. the Byzantine Empire. These
qualities as the Quran tells us are there in the previous scriptures. Those who were
aware of them in the previous books such as the Jew rabbis in Mad nah could
237
determinedly assert he was a prophet. They used to admit that in their confidential
counsels, and denied it outwardly.
Ibn Taymiyyah identified three groups who contradicted the prophets. They are:
1. The philosophers and esoteric infidels who thought that the prophets brought
things out of their fantasy; they talked about the faith and the last day in an
unrealistic manner so as to elude people into something beneficial. However,
they count this to be a merit for the prophets.
2. Those of misinterpretation, who twisted the meaning the prophets intended in

order to indoctrinate their own.
3. People seeking to drive people into ignorance; i.e. those who propound that
the prophets themselves did not know what they were preaching. The meaning
thereof was known exclusively to Allah.
However, the prophets including (a fortiori) our prophet are well identifiable by virtue
of their moral, physical, spiritual and religious manifestations, as they are equally
identifiable on the bases of their message and miracles. People who needed to know
the Prophet were:
 People who have a preconception of a prophet to be raised, whose qualities
would be such and such, as drawn in the previous scriptures. They therefore
needed to check him against what they have already known. The Byzantine
king was of this category.
 People who believed in the messengers in general, but were aware of the fact
that a prophet would be raised. These need to know whether the one claiming
prophethood is a prophet or not. They can recognize him through what is
known of the qualities of the prophets. The prophets are in total agreement on
the general principles, such as the monotheism, the Last Day, and the like.
True news never contradicts; the prophets therefore do not discredit
themselves. However, some of them may be more knowledgeable than the
others are. Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told about
more things than Moses and Jesus. Believing that they contradicted each other
or that they brought things contrary to reason is impossible. The rational
238
conjectures opposing the traditions must be wrong or the text or meaning
reported from the prophets is not meticulously transmitted. Similarly, if
contradictory texts/statements are reported from different prophets, one of the
narrations must be wrong, or does not carry a meaning contrary to the
prophet’s statements.
Ibn Taymiyyah counterattacked the arguments of the Christians from their Bible, the
Quran and through investigating into the doctrines and character of the followers.
Moreover, he touched the verses they quoted to substantiate their claims and
interpreted them according to the standard rules of commentaries set by orthodox
scholars and concluded that the Christians wish to tamper with the Quran as they did
with their Bible. He brought the Quran and the Bible along with logic to serve as
testimonies against the Christians in a highly convincing manner.
239
1
Al-Qur’ n: 51:56
2
Abdullah bin Abb s said, “Between Adam and Noah are ten generations all adhering to truth. Then
they diverged; whereupon, Allah sent prophets as warners and bringers of glad tidings (al- kim, al-
Mustadrak, had th no. 3654)
3
Al-Qur’ n: 3:19
4
Al-Qur’ n :3: 85
5
Al-Qur’ n: 5:117
6
Al-Qur’ n: 21:25
7
Al-Qur’ n:16: 36
8
Al-Qur’ n: 2:130
9
Sahih Muslim, had th No. 2332
10
Al-Qur’ n:3: 55
11
Al-Qur’ n: 42: 13
12
Allah says in the Quran 40: 51 “ We grant victory to our messengers and the people who believe”
13
Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad al-imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, had th No. 14720
14
In Mathew: 5:17: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil.”
15
16
Al-Jaw b: vol.6, p.429
17
Deuteronomy: 33:2:
18
Genesis:16:12
19
Genesis:16: 8-10
20
Genesis: 21: 13-21
21
Palms: 149: 1-7
22
Psalms:45:3-4
23
Psalms:48:1-2
24
[Ibn Taymiyyah says it is in Psalms, whereas it is in Isaiah:42: 11
25
Isaiah: 60: 1-8 and the whole chapter speaks about it, with the last verse being, “A little one shall
become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the LORD will hasten it in his time”
240
26
Isaiah:21:7-9
27
Isaiah:5:26-28
28
Isaiah:54:1
29
Isaiah:54:3
30
Isaiah:9:6
31
Isaiah:49:16-21
32
Habakkuk:3:3-7
33
Habakkuk:3:12-13
34
Daniel:2:37-44
35
Al-Jaw b: 5: 227
36
John: 14:26
37
This is not found anywhere in the Christian books that discuss the etymology of the word. “Paraclete
comes from the Koine Greek word πα ά η ο (paráklētos, that can signify "one who consoles or
comforts, one who encourages or uplifts; hence refreshes, and/or one who intercedes on our behalf as
an advocate in court").[1] The word for paraclete is passive in form, and etymologically (originally)
signified " called to one's side".” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraclete, accessed on 28/09/2015).
However, this passive meaning does not fit the (active) meaning they assign to it. Moreover, the
Muslims assign to the word the meaning amd, or praiseworthy on the bases of the Greek word they
think the word is derived which is different from the word given by the Christians.
38
John:15:26 -27
39
John:16:7-14
40
See Al-Jaw b, vol. 5, p.882
41
Al-Jaw b, vol. 5, p. 287
42
John:14:30
43
Mathew:21:42-44
44
1Peter:4:17
45
Al-Jaw b: vol.5, p. 386
46
His people acknowledged that the Quran was miraculous and imitable. They used to declare that
among themselves, although in the face of Muhammad they used to make many claims they knew their
fallacy.
47
a al-Bukhari, had th number: 1563
48
Al-Qur’ n: 40: 51
49
Al-Qur’ n: 2: 129
241
50
Her animals were healthy and full of milk unlike those of her fellow villagers.
51
The coming down of angels and cutting open the chest of the prophet Muhammad and cleaning it.
52
Such as that mentioned in the Quran:8: 32
53
Al-Qur’ n: 2: 24
54
As in Al-Qur’ n:17: 88
55
The Quran makes a connection between the splitting of the moon and the approach of the Last Day
in its- discussions of the matter. Moreover, the whole chapter was named after this incident (Al-Qamar
or the moon) and starts right away from the beginning to discuss it.
56
Al-Jaw b: vol. 5, pp. 438-9
57
58
Al-Jaw b, vol.6, pp.44-45
59
The Quran talks about a group of jinn reporting this in the chapter named the Jinn.
60
On the bases of literary legacy, some scholars affirmed the falling of stars even before this
debarment. This said debarment just intensified the punishment and made the falling more frequent and
tense.
61
see Al-Jaw b, vol. 5, pp.146-161 and vol.6, p. 46
62
Al-Jaw b, vol. 6, p. 494
242
Conclusion
CONCLUSION
243
Conclusion
244
Conclusion
Conclusion
Through Ibn Taymiyyah’s discussions of the necessity of inter-faith dialogue and that
it is one of the most important means of exposing the truth and how he himself
wrote his voluminous book in actualization of this principle, Shaykhul-Islam Ibn
Taymiyyah is rightly considered a staunch advocate of interfaith dialogue. He
proposed that truth is to be revealed and conveyed to people in the best manner, and
this is one of the major duties of scholars of Islam. He was not biased against the
Christians on the bases of the long-lived animosities between the Christians and the
Muslims. No carnages and oppression that were inflicted by the crusaders affected his
response to his foes. Rather, he tried his best to refute the opinions made by some
Muslim scholars that dialogue was abolished the time the Muslims were ordered to
pick up the sword and fight back the disbelievers. He dedicated much space to prove
that dialogue is always a means of showing the truth to the other and it will continue
to be so. For this, he depicts much patience in tracing their argumentations and checks
them individually.
However, he had been very cautious that the Muslims should not fall in the
contradiction, cryptic dogma and the blasphemy of the Christians. For him as well as
for any Muslim, salvation is conditional on following and the believing in
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as the seal of prophets and in
his message as the final and comprehensive message. Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah
opposed strongly their claims of religious relativism and superiority of their religion.
Furthermore, he warns the Muslims not to emulate them in their doctrines, rituals or
festivals.This zeal of religious distinction gave momentum to his elaborative response.
For categorical refutation for the Christian allegations, Ibn Taymiyyah disproves their
epistemological foundations. One of such foundations is the Quran. He asserts that the
Christians have no right to quote the Quran when they do not believe in it. Although it
is all right, it is epistemologically incoherent for them to support their claims with the
Quran which they do not believe to be worthy of following. The Muslims, however,
he assures, can quote the previous scriptures because they believe in them all as a
pillar of Islam. However, one should differentiate between two kinds of quoting: one
is done for supportive evidence and the other is done to provide areas of debate.
245
Conclusion
Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah’s assertion is tenable in the first type and not in the other.
He himself does not believe in their book as being from God or authentic, yet he
quotes it a great number of times, sometimes for supportive evidences and sometimes
for quest of shortcomimgs and mistakes.
In their quoting the Quran, the Christians adopt many garbling methods to force the
Quranic text to support their allegations. Through hermeneutical manipulations, they
ascribe to the Quran meanings that do not comply with the language of the Quran and
have no bases in the literature left by the Muslim exegetes. Being himself a great
exegete and a master of Arabic, Ibn Taymiyyah attmepts to know the right meaning
through consulting a great number of references and carrying out a comparative study
to reach the truth.
The Christians tried to demonstrate that the Quran, for example, acknowledged their
religion and their different dogmas. Ibn Taymiyyah brings into light the Quran’s
affirmation that the Quran is revealed to dominate all previous books and its law to
overwrite all legislations. Therefore, it is the standard criterion in any issue of dispute.
Moreover, it bluntly declares that the Christians have committed blasphemy by
upholding Trinity and divinity of the three persons. It also repudiates the various
Christian dogmas and condemns the Christians for adhering to them.
Another epistemic foundation they base their arguments on is the Bible. According to
a Quranic imperative, Muslims should believe in all scriptures including the one
revealed to the Christ. Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledges the impeccability of this original
book but propounds that such a book of purity and originality is no longer available
anywhere. All that is written in the Bible is mere accounts of the life and character of
the Christ, which the writers themselves never claimed to be exhaustive nor dictated
by Christ. Such accounts lack continuous chain of narration. They are narrations that
are stripped of the names of the people who transmitted them. The a d th of the
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are accompanied
with the names of narrators and therefore anyone capable of authenticating such
a d th can trace the narrators and decide whether they are trustworthy or not, unlike
the case of the Bible, where there is no chain of narrators. Thus, in terms of the nature
and subject of the Bible as a biographical account of the life of Christ, it is similar to
246
Conclusion
the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
Nevertheless, in terms of possibility of verifying the authenticity or otherwise the
Bible does not allow for this process. Besides, the Bible contains other accounts and
even incredible stories. It also contains many things that cannot be of divine origin,
such as the verses that go against the principle of taw d, the infallibility and the high
moral character of the prophets. Through this, Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that the Bible
available is not Allah’s word.
Ibn Taymiyyah admits, however, that a great portion of the Bible is still unchanged,
and much of the truth is still there in it. He says that the truth remaining in the Bible is
enough to lead the Christians to Islam. It contains many texts prophesying the advent
of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and many descriptions of
Islamic landmarks such as the Ka‘bah and Makkah, the character of the sa abah and
the noble descent of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him), etc. Ibn Taymiyyah displays great mastery of the Bible in picking up texts of the
same theme from different places and juxtaposes them to form a coherent picture.
Moreover, he seems to have a good knowledge of many versions of the Bible in some
of which he asserts he saw the name of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) mentioned. It means that he came across versions difficult to find now.
This poses a challenge for the researcher to trace such quotations in the Bible. His
excessive use of the Bible is a clear indication that he is of the opinion that the
Muslims in their dialogue with the Christians may use the Bible properly, unlike some
scholars who rejected this method. It is noteworthy here to state that Ibn Taymiyyah
never quoted the epistles of Paul. The reason is that Ibn Taymiyyah does not consider
him a Christian, what to speak of his being an apostle of Christ, especially when it is
common knowledge that he never met Christ and it was only through his alleged
theophany that he became an apostle and saint.
Another epistemological foundation is the resolutions of the ecumenical counsels.

The creeds canonized in the different ecumenical counsels by the church fathers are
taken for granted and followed wholeheartedly by the Christian world. Ibn Taymiyyah
argues that this is a divine right wrongly ascribed to such people as they are neither
infallible nor are assigned by God to carry out this task. They merely tried to canonize
a Trinitarian creed mentioned nowhere in the scriptures. Therefore, it is the greatest
247
Conclusion
error committed by the Christians. They followed them and deviated from the divine
guidance extant even in the Bible. The deification of the Christ and the Holy Spirit as
well as the affirmation of the Christ as co-eternal and consubstantial as the Father,
have no precedents in any of the divine scriptures. Rather, these are clearly notions
inherited from the Greek. Thus, the creeds that evolved in the ecumenical counsels
along the ages have no sound bases whatsoever. Through these discussions, Ibn
Taymiyyah demolished their epistemological foundations.
Their metaphysics of the Christians was also one of the targets of Ibn Taymiyyah. In
the Nicene counsel, the Son of God was regarded of the same substance as the Father.
He was the word of God and said to have united with Christ. Through this union,
Christ became fully human and fully divine. Besides, the heavens and the earth
would not have been created without him. Ibn Taymiyyah seeks to identify what the
word of God is. If it is an attribute of God then it cannot exist anywhere apart from
him. Nor can such an attribute have any action of its own. For this reason, Ibn
Taymiyyah examines many philosophical interpretations offered by different
philosophers, including the forms of Plato and form-matter theory of Aristotle. He
also discusses the accident essence dichotomy. He concludes that Christians’
metaphysics are totally against reason. He bases his arguments on the following
principles:
1. Reason and revelation never contradict. Based on this principle, he rejected

the self-contradictory dogmas. With reference to Christianity, the Christ is
declared to be God’s creating word, which is eternal and of the same substance
as the Father. God- the Father is the real Creator, beside whom there can be no
creator. To declare that Christ is the creating word of God through whom all
things came into being is sheer contradiction.
Moreover, to claim three persons, each is God but they are not three but one, is again
a contradiction. Ibn Taymiyyah differentiates between what is incomprehensible and
what is understood as impossible. In relation to religion, there may be things we are
not able to fully comprehend, but there cannot be things that go against reason. The
Christian doctrines are of the second category.
248
Conclusion
Further, the word of God cannot exist on its own right. Either it can be an attribute
subsistent in Him or something possessed by Him, but is not part of Him. In the first
case, the word of God cannot detach itself from Him and dwell anywhere in the
world. In the second case, the word of God becomes among His creation, sharing
nothing of His divinity. The divinity itself is the absolute right and epithet of God that
none can share it. To claim three divine beings is totally against the divinity of the
Absolute.
2. The second principle on which Ibn Taymiyyah build his arguments is that if
two things unite they must become a third substance, sharing the properties of
the two constituents, but is identical with neither. The word of God is believed
by the Christians to have united with a created human. They also believe that
the three hypostases united and formed one deity without any change or
alteration. Therefore, after unification, they are one substance. They also claim
that Christ is a true God from a true God of the same substance as his Father.
They also claim that the human and divine united in Christ, and on the bases
of this he is fully human and fully divine. Reasonably, both of the two
characters; the Divine and the human will change. The notion of unification
without change is against all reasonable thinking, let alone the fact that they
advocate patent polytheism.
3. Another principle he posits is that the meaning of an utterance is governed by
the intent of the speaker. Therefore, one should seek to understand the
meaning of the phrases: ‘son of God’, ‘the word of God’, the Father, etc. The
meaning of words uttered by the prophets should be maintained as intended by
them. Ibn Taymiyyah accuses the Christians of attributing to the prophets
meanings they never intended. Due to this, they deified some of God’s
creation. The terms the Father, the son of God, the children of God, the Holy
Spirit and the like should be understood within context and in a manner that
does not violate the principle of monotheism. Moreover, there is no specific
meaning of the philosophical terms as the Christians are using, such as the
substance, the incidence, quiddity and the like. The intent should be clear to
judge conclusions accordingly.
249
Conclusion
The misuse of terminology caused doctrinal mistakes and led to great metaphysical
errors in Christianity. The Christians’ use of the logos in their apologies to the
Hellenistic world granted polytheistic connotations to the Word of God stated in the
scripture. Apart from this they used terms that are purely of the Greek philosophy but
never used anywhere in the scripture such as the hypostases and the like. Through the
dialectic discussions of Ibn Taymiyyah it is clear that he had good command of the
meanings the ‘word’ or logos had been given. This is also clear when he says that
Christianity is a mixture of the guidance of the prophets and the Greek philosophy,
which he describes as pagan. He also asserts that the Roman kings played a major
role in the alteration of the religion of Christ. Through the excavations of the mother
of Constantine, the Cross became a sacred figure and symbol, and through the dream
of Constantine himself, he ostensibly converted to Christianity to change it through
his convening the counsel at Nicaea, which was the first formal step to divesting
Christianity from monotheism. The subsequent Roman kings also made their
contributions through their intervention in the formulations of creeds.
To safeguard against such confusion Ibn Taymiyyah argues that divine texts are of
two types: those with categorical and clear meaning and those with allegorical and
ambiguous meaning. The problem of the Christians is that they abandon the former in
favor of the latter, whereas they should follow the other way around. The uncertain
meaning of the allegorical texts should be checked against the clear ones. The
Christians left the clear verses of the Bible stating the oneness of God and the
helplessness and subordination of Jesus to Allah, and tried to accentuate the sonship
and divinity of Christ as well as the deification of the Holy Spirit. All these flagrantly
oppose the concept of taw d, which all prophets tried to indoctrinate in the minds of
their peoples, and for which they were basically sent.
4. On the bases of this Ibn Taymiyyah forms another principle: that the religion
of all prophets is one. Therefore, there should be no difference in their
message. They all were sent for the sole purpose of teaching people to
dedicate worship absolutely to Allah and to submit to His Will. As these are
the connotations of Islam, all prophets’ religion is Islam, as declared by them
in the Quran in different places. However, this should not be understood to
mean that the practical law is the same in all religions. Allah dictates laws
250
Conclusion
according to His knowledge of people’s capacity and welfare, and according
to His infinite wisdom, He abrogates certain laws after he had made them
obligatory to follow. This applies to the same religion as it applies to the
abrogation between other religions.
Regarding prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him),

the Christians claimed that he was sent to the Arabs and none else. Ibn Taymiyyah
formed a rule here: that discussing veracity of the Prophet is prior to discussing
whether he was a universal messenger. Admitting for him that he was a prophet, is
tantamount to affirming that he never lies. It follows then that whatever he says is true
and since the Christians acknowledge his prophethood then they must believe in
whatever he says. It is illogical to believe in someone as a prophet but at the same
time disbelieve in his claim of universality of message. The Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) very often affirmed that he was sent to the
whole world. This statement is said by someone whom the Christians believe to be a
prophet. Therefore, they must accept his claim that he was sent to the whole world
including the Christian world.
Another rule regarding the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah
be upon him) is that he is like the messengers whom the Christians read in their
books Moses and Jesus. Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
claimed what they claimed. Therefore, the Christians should apply the same criteria
by which they knew the truthfulness of these prophets to judge the prophethood of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). All is needed is to check the
veracity of his prophethood, then the question of universality is verified through his
own claim. Whatever a prophet says is true, and should be accepted.
Another generalization is that all evidences that testified to the prophethood of the
prophets who the Christians claim to believe in and follow are more abundantly
available for Muhammad the prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
Therefore, the Christians should follow all the prophets or leave them all. Their
selective approach is not logical. Apart from that, Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him) is proven as a prophet through the Bible, the Quran and his
miracles part of which was telling about the events to come in the future, which came
251
Conclusion
true as precisely as he declared them. Further, the Bible is full of texts that apply
exclusively to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
The Christians contradict themselves when they affirm the prophethood of

Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) but disbelieve in the
universality of his message. They do the same contradiction when they quote the
Quran and disbelieve in some of it or misinterpret it in the manner that suits their
doctrines.
Ibn Taymiyyah deploys rational as well as scriptural (biblical and Quranic) evidences
for almost every issue he discusses to refute the erroneous illogical metaphysical and
theological allegations. With his polemical and dialectical skill as well as his mastery
of philosophy and logic and his awareness of the scriptures of the three religions and
the Christian sectarian differences, he disproves all anti-Islamic notions that might
lead astray the Muslims who have been his major concern in his responses to the
Christians. He builds his arguments on logical rules that the opponent can but accept.
Whenever, he deals with any controversial issue, he would normally discuss the
counter argrments. Furthermore, he is never seen affirming things biasedly without
coherent epistemic bases or textual evidences; although as a human being, he must
have missed the truth. For example, he claimed that the Christians believed that the
Satan took to his prison those sinners before the sacrifice of Christ and that the Christ
disguised himself least he should be known by the Satan in oreder to liberate the
people through the crucifixion plan from the repercusssions of their sins.
A man who is a staunch advocate of interfaith dialogue and who goes with his
opponents through this very long discursive argumentation, using reason and
scriptures of both religions, and who builds his theological edifice on sound rational
rules, letting the religious and political hostilities of the past not affect his judgments,
can be confidently considered as the epitome of magnanimity and tolerance. He tried
to link people directly to the divine text beyond the boundaries of the four schools of
law and re-opened the door to ijtihad for those qualified for it. Even in matters where
he stands as a hard-liner, he welcomed all sound academic criticism and was ever
ready to involve in any face-to-face debate with any one, including those whom he
considered as heretics.
252
Conclusion
Ibn Taymiyyah’s main aim was to exalt Allah high above the image the Christians
made for Him. Therefore, the legacy he left revolves around laying the rational
foundation of taw d as described by the prophets, not emulating the popular dogma.
That is why he rejected the Trinity, incarnation and unification of God with anything.
Rather, he accentuated the God-creation contradistinction and this rendered the
taw d his overarching theme in the whole work to safeguard against any infiltration
of these false and anti tawhidic elements into the Muslim lands and minds. Moreover,
he revolted against all long-fossilised erroneous notions that led the Muslim
community to conflict, decadence or blind imitation, and tried to bind all under the
guidance of the Prophet and the early pure generations.
Recommendations for Further Research
Ibn Taymiyyah frequently quotes the Bible in his response to the Christians especially
when he wants to prove that the Bible talks about some Islamic landmarks such as the
name of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his ancestors’
origin, the Ka‘bah, Makkah and the like. The researcher pursued him in the Bible in
most of the cases. However, some of the texts particularly those that include
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by name are not found. Ibn
Taymiyyah said that he himself found some biblical excerpts wherein Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was mentioned by name. It is
recommended, therefore, that a research be carried out in search of such texts. They
most probably are retained in some of the versions of the Bible.
253
254
BIBLIOGRAPHY
255
256
Bibliography
Arabic
1. Abu Zuhrah, Muhammad, Ibn Taymiyyah ay tuhū wa ‘Asruh, D r

Al-Fikr al-‘Arabi, Cairo, 1991
2. A mad bin anbal: Al-Musnad, , edited by Shu‘aib al-Arna’ū et al,
Mu’assasat Al-Ris lah, Beirut, 2001
3. Al-‘Ali, Ibrah m Muhammad, Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah Rajul Al-Isl wa
al-Da‘wah, D r al-Qalam, Damascus, 2000
4. Al-‘Al m , Muj rudd n, Al-Uns al-Jal l bi Tar kh al-Quds wa al-Khal l,
edited by Adn n Yūnus, (Maktabat Dind s, Amman, Jordan, 1420 AH
5. Al-‘Asqal n , bin Hajar, Shaikhul-Isl m Ibn Taymiyyah, Edited By Sa‘ d
Mi‘Sh shah, D r Ibn azm, Beirut Lebanon, 1998,
6. Al-‘Ayn , Badrudd n: ‘Aqd al-Jum n, edited by Mahmoud Rizq
Mahmoud, D r al-Kutub wa Al- Wath ’iq Al- Qawmiyyah, Cairo, 2010
7. Al-Amran, Muhammad Az z Shams and Ali bin Muhammad, Al-J mi‘ li
S rat Ibn Taymiyyah, D r ‘ lam Al-Fawa’id, Makkah, KSA, 2001,
‘Ala’udd n Al-Ra l
8. Al-Ash’ar , Al-Ib nah ‘an Usūl Al-Diy nah, D r al-An r, Cairo, 1397
AH
9. Al-Ba‘l , BadruddῙn Muhammad bin Ali, Abridged Version of Ibn
Taymiyyah’s Al-Fat wa Al-Mi riyyah, edited by Muhammad Hamid Al-
Faqi, D r Ibn Al-Qayyim, Dammam, KSA, 1986
10. Al-Baghd d , Abdul-Q dir bin hir, Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, D r al-
f q al-Jad dah, Beirut, 1977
11. Al-Bazz r, Omar (d. 749), Al-A‘l m Al-Aliyyah, edited by Zuhair al-
Sh wush, Al-Maktab Al-Isl mi, Beirut, 1400 AH
12. Al-Beirūn , Muhammad bin hir, Al-‘Q ’ed al-Wathaniyyah fi al-
Diy nah al-Na r niyyah, edited by Muhammad Abdullah Al-Sharq wi,
D r al- a wa, Cairo, 1989
13. Al-Bukh r , Muhammad bin Ism ‘ l, a al-Bukh r , edited by
Muhammad Zuhair bin N ir, D r awq al-Naj h, 1422 AH
257
14. Al-Dawūd , Muhammad bin Ali (954 AH) abaq t Al-Mufassir n, D r
Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon
15. Al-Dhahab , ShamsuddῙn, Tar kh Al-Isl m, first edition, edited by Omar
Abdul-Sal m Tadmur , D r al-Kit b al-‘Arabi, Beirut, 1987
16. Al- ajaw , Muhammad bin al- asan, Al-Fikr Al-S m , 1st ed. D r al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, 1995
17. Al-Harr s, Muhammad Khal l, Ibn Taymiyyah al-Salafi, D r Al-Kutub
Al- ‘ lamiyyah, Beirut Lebanon. 1984
18. Al-Hil l , Salim, Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Muftara Alayh, al-Maktabah al-
Isl miyyah, Amman, Jordon, 1985
19. Al-Katt n , Muhammad Abdul- ayy (d.482 AH), Fahris Al-Fah ris wa
Al-Athb t wa Mu‘jam Al-Ma‘ jim wa al-Mashyakh t wa al-Musalsal t,
edited by I s n ‘Abb s, D r al-Gharb al-Isl mi, Beirut, Lebanon, 1982
20. Al-Khalaf, Saud bin Abdulaz z, Dir s h fi al-Ady n al-Yahūdiyyah wa
al-Na r niyyah, A wa’ Al-Salaf, Riyadh, KSA, 1997
21. Al-Khazraj , Ahmad bin Abdul- amad, Maq mi‘ Al- ulb n, edited by
Abdul-Maj d Al-Sharaf , University Of Tunisia
22. Al-Maqr z , Abu al-Abb s Ahmad bin Ali, Al-Sulūk li ma‘rifat Duwal
Al-Mulūk, edited by Abdul-Q dir A a, D r al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah,
Beirut, 1997
23. ______________. Al-Maw ‘iẓ wa al-I‘tib r Bi Dhikr Al-Khi a wa al-
th r, D r Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1418 AH
24. Al-Mash‘ab , Abdulmaj d bin S lim, Manhaj Ibn Taymiyyah Fi Mas’alat
Al-Takf r, Maktabat A w ’ Al-Salaf, Riyadh, 1997
25. Al-Munajjid, Salahudd n, Shaikh al-Isl m Ibn Taymiyyah, S ratuhu wa
Akhb ruh ‘Ind Al-Mu’arrikh n, D r Al-Kit b al-Jad d, 1976
26. Al-Nadaw , Abul-Hasan, Rijal Al-Fikr Wa Al-Da‘wah, D r Al-Qalam,
Damascus, 2002
27. Al-Nu‘aim , Abdulq dir Muhammad (d. 927 AH) Al-D ris Fi T r kh Al-
Mad ris, D r al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1990
28. Al-Qalqashand , Ahmad bin Ali, Sub al-A‘Sha, D r Al-Kutub Al-
‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut
258
29. Al-Qazw n , Zakariyya bin Muhammad, th r Al-Bil d wa Akhb r Al-
‘Ib d, D r dir Beirut, Lebanon
30. Al-Qur f , Ahmad bin BadῙs, Al-Ajwibah Al-F khirah ‘ala al-As’ilah Al-
F jirah, (Manuscript) Riyadh University Manuscript Section, No. 1268,
Riyadh, 1752
31. Al- afd , Khal l Aybak (d. 764 AH), Al-W fi bil-Wafiyy t, edited by
Ahmad Al-Arna’ū and Turki Mu tafa, D r I ya’ al-Tur th, 2000
32. Al-Shawk n , Al-Badr al- li‘, D r al-Ma‘rifah, Beirut
33. Al- abl w , Mahmoud Sa‘d, Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min Falsafat Ibn
Rushd, Ma ba‘at Al-Am nah, 1989
34. Burhanudd n, Ibr h m bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, Al-Mas ’il Al-
Fiqhiyyah min Ikhtiy r t Sheikh al-Isl m Ibn Taymiyyah, D r Ibn Al-
Qayyim, 2007
35. G. Welter, Al-Har aqah fi al-Mas iyyah, Trans. Jamal S lim, D r al-
TanwῙr, Beirut, Lebanon, 2007
36. Ibn ‘Abdul-Had , Shamsudd n Muhammad bin Ahmad (d.744 AD), Al-
Uqūd al-Duriyyah fi Man qib Ibn Taymiyyah, edited by Muhammad
amid al-Faq , D r al-Kit b al-‘Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon
37. Ibn ‘As kir, (d. 571 AH) Taby n Kadhib Al-Muftari fi M Nusiba Il
Abi’l-Hasan Al-Ash‘ar , D r al-Kit b al- ‘Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon, 1404
38. Ibn Al-AthῙr, Ali bin Muhammad: Al-K mil Fi Al-Tar kh, (2nd ed.),
edited by Abdul-Kar m Al-Q i, D r al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut,
1415 AH
39. Ibn Al-Jawz , Al-Muntaẓim F Tar kh Al-Mulūk wa al Umam , edited by
M. Abdul-Q dir A a and Mustafa Abdul-Q dir A a, D r al-Kutub al-
‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1992
40. Ibn Al-Mubarrid, Yūsuf bin asan (d.909), Mu ̒jam Al-Kutub, edited by
Yusra Abdul-Ghan Al-Bishr , Maktabat Ibn S na, Egypt
41. Ibn Hajar, Al-Durar Al-K minah, Majlis D ’iratul-Ma‘ rif Al-
Uthm niyyah, India, 1972
42. Ibn Kath r, Al-Bid yah Wa Al-Nih yah, edited by Ali Sh r , D r I ya’
Al-Tur th Al-‘Arabi, 1988
259
43. Ibn Taghr Bard , Al-Nujūm Al-Z hirah, Annotated by Muhammad
Husain Shamsudd n, D r al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1992
44. Ibn Taymiyyah , Minh j Al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, Imam Muhammad
bin Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, KSA, 1986
45. _______________. Al- afdiyyah, edited by Muhammad Rash d S lim,
Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah, Egypt, 1986
46. _______________.D r’ Ta‘ ruḍ al-‘Aql wa al- Naql, edited by
Muhammad Rash d Sal m, Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic
University Riyadh, KSA, 1991
47. _______________. Al-Akhn ’yyah or al-Radd ̒ala Al-Akhn ’ , edited by
Adn n bin Mun r Al-Zah w , Al- Maktabah Al-‘A riyyah, Beirut,
Lebanon and 2002
48. _______________.Al-‘Aq dah al-W si iyyah, edited by Ashraf bin
Abdul-Maq ūd, A wa’ Al-Salaf, Riyadh, 1999
49. _______________.Al-Fat w Al-Kubr , edited by Muhammad Abdul-
Q dir A a and Mustafa Abdulq dir A a, D r al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah,
Beirut ,1987
50. _______________.Al-Fatwa al- amawiyyah al-Kubra, edited by
amad bin Abdul-Mu sin Al-Tuwayjir , D r al- umay‘ , Riyadh, KSA,
2004
51. _______________.Al-Furq n Bayn Awli ’ al-Ra m n wa Awliy ’ al-
Shay n, 4th edition, edited by Abdul-Q dir Al-Arn ’ū , D r al-Bay n,
Damascus, Syria, 1988
52. _______________.Al- isbah fi al-Isl m, Edited by Ali bin N yif Al-
Shu ūd, D r al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 2007
53. _______________.Al-Jaw b al- a Liman Baddala D n al-Mas ,
edited by Ali asan N ir, et al, D r Al-‘ imah, Riyadh, KSA, 1994
54. _______________. Al-Nubuww t. Edited by Abdul-‘Az z bin li Al-
uwayy n, A wa’ al-Salaf, Riyadh, KSA 2000 .
55. Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Rad ‘ala al-Mantiqiyy n, D r Turjum n Al-Sunnah,
Pakistan, 1976
56. _______________.Al-Ris lah al-Qubru iyyah, edited by Ali Assayyid
ubh Al-Madan , Maktabat al-Sayyid, 1979
260
57. _______________. Al- rim al-Maslūl ‘ala Sh tim Al-Rasūl, edited by
Muhammad Mu yidd n Abdul- am d, Saudi National Guard, KSA
58. _______________. Al-Tadmuriyyah, edited by Muhammad bin ‘Awdah
Al-Saudi. Maktabat Al-Obaik n, Riyadh, KSA, 2000,
59. _______________. Bay n Talb s al-Jahmiyyah fi Ta’s s Bida ̒ihim al-
Kalamiyyah, King Fahd Complex, Mad nah, KSA, 1999
60. _______________. Bughyat al-Murt d fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Mutafalsifah
wa al-Qar mi ah wa al-Ba iniyyah, edited by Mūsa Al-Duw sh,
Maktabat al-‘Ulūm wa al- ikam, Mad nah, KSA, 1995
61. _______________. uqūq Ahl Al-Bayt , edited by Abdul-Q dir A a, D r
Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon
62. _______________. Iqtiḍ ’ Al- ir Al-Mustaq m Mukh lafat Ahl al-
Ja m, edited by N sir bin Abdul-Kar m Al-‘Aql, D r A‘l m Al-Kutub,
Beirut Lebanon, 1999
63. _______________. Kit b al- m n, edited by Muhammad Na irudd n Al-
Alb n , al-Maktab al-Isl mi, Amman Jordon, 1996
64. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū‘ al-Fat w , edited by Anwar al-B z and ‘ mir
al-Jazz r, D r ul- Waf ’ 2005
65. _______________. Mas’alatun fi al-Kan ’is, edited by Ali bin Abdulaz z
Al-Shibl, Maktabat Al-Ubaik n, Riyadh, 1995
66. _______________.Mih j al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, edited by
Muhammad Rash d S lim, Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic
University, Riyadh, KSA, 1986,
67. _______________.Qa i̒ dah Aẓ mah fi al-Farq bayn ‘Ib dat Ahl Al-Isl m
wa Al- man wa Ib dat Ahl Al-Shirk wa al-Nif q, edited by Sulaim n bin
li Al-Gho n, D r Al-‘ imah, Riyadh, KSA, 1997
68. _______________. Raf ̒ al-Mal m ̒an al-A’immah al-A ̒ l m, the General
Presidency of The Administrations of the Scientific Researches, Ifta,
Da ̒wah and Guidance, Riyadh, KSA, 1983
69. _______________.Ris latun ila al-Malik al-N ir, edited by Muhammad
Az z Shams (published as part of Jame‘ al-Ras ’il ,D r ‘ lam al-
Faw ’id, Makkah, 1424 AH
261
70. _______________. Shar ad th al-Nuzūl, Al-Maktab Al-Isl mi, Beirut,
Lebanon, 1977
71. _______________. Ziy rat al-Qubūr wa al-Istinj d bil-Maqbūr, D r
aybah, KSA, Riyadh
72. Jastaniyyah, Basmah Ahmad, Ta rῙf Ris lat al-Mas ‘abr al-Tar kh,
D r Al-Qalam, Damascus, 2000
73. Joseph Naseem Ahmad, Al-Isl m wa al-Mas iyyah, D r al-Fikr al-
Jami‘ , , Alexandria Egypt, 1986
74. Kairanv , Maulana Muhammad Ra matull h, Izh r Al- aq, T H
Publishers ltd, trans. Muhammad Ali R z , 1989
75. Mar‘ , Farsat, “al-Ta luf al-Maghūl al-Na r n ” Majallat al- Al-
Bay n”, issue 300
76. Muslim bin al- ajj j, Sa Muslim, edited by Mahmoud Abdul-B qi,
D r I y al-Tur th al-‘Arabi, Beirut
77. Nadw , Abul- asan :Rij l al-Fikr wa al-Da‘wah, translated by Sa‘ d Al-
A‘ am Al-Nadw , D r al- Qalam Damascus, 2002
78. Q ssim Abduh Q ssim, ‘A r Sal n al-Mam l k, al-Tar kh al-Siy s wa
al- Ijtim ‘ , Ein For Human And Social Studies, Cairo, 1998
79. The Noble Quran
80. Turmeda, Anselm, Tu fat Al-Ar b Fi al-Rad ‘ala Ahl al- al b, 3rd,
edited by Ma mūd Ali im yah, D r al-Ma‘ rif, Cairo, 1992
English
1. Al-Nadw , Abul-Hasan, Saviours Of Islamic Spirit, edited and translated

By Muhiuddin Ahmad, Academy Of Islamic Research And Publications,
Lucknow, India, volume II, 1974
2. Al-Ta n, Ashshahhat Ahmad abridged Ibn Taymiyyah’s Answering
Those Who Altered the Religion of Christ, translated by Bayan
Translation Services, Umm Al-Qura
3. Ans ri, Muhammad Abdul-Haqq, Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds On Islam,
All Rights Reserved 1421 A.H.-2000 A.D. 2000
4. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition, Edited by Catherine
Soanes and Angus Stevenson, Oxford University Press
262
5. Easton, M. G., Eastons Bible Dictionary AGES Software • Albany, OR
USA Version 2.0 © 1996
6. Edwin, Joseph Victor, A Common Word Between Us And You: A New
Departure In Muslim Attitudes Towards Christianity, Dissertation for
master’s degree, Department of Theology and Religion, University of
Birmingham, 2010 (unpublished).
7. Faber, George Stanley, B. D. The Origin Of Pagan Idolatry Ascertained
From Historical Testimony And Circumstantial Evidence. A. J. Valpy,
Tooke’s Court, Chancery Lane, London, 1816
8. Gaston, Thomas Edmund Proto-Trinity: The Development of the
Doctrine of the Trinity in the First and Second Christian Centuries,
University of Birmingham Research Archive, e-theses repository, 2007
9. Gentry, Peter J.: “The Text of the Old Testament” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 1 March 2009
10. Harnak, Adolf, History Of Dogma, , Translated From The Third German
Edition by Neil Buchanan, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal
Library
11. Hick, John, The Metaphor Of God Incarnate: Christology In A Pluralistic
Age. (Louise Ville: Westminster, 1994)
12. Investigating Christian Theology: Clergy Development Church of the
Nazarene, Kansas City USA. 2003
13. Kelly, Ronald D. The True History Of The Early Christian Church,
Ambassador College 1967 unpublished thesis Master of Arts in Theology
14. King James Version Of The Bible
15. Maalouf, Amin: The Crusaders Through The Arab Eyes, translated by
Jon Rothschild, first published by Al-Saqi Books, London, 1984
16. Maier, Christoph T. Crusade Propaganda and Ideology. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2000
17. Maulana Taqi Othm n , What is Christianity: Armed Forces Printing
Press, KSA, 1987, Trans. Mahomed Shoaib Omar
18. New American Version Of The Bible
263
19. The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other
Source Materials, 2nd Ed, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
1998, edited by Edward Peters
20. The Preaching Of Peter, cited in Thomas Edmund Gaston’s Proto-
Trinity: the Development of the Doctrine Of the Trinity In the First And
Second Christian Centuries, University of Birmingham Research
Archive, e-theses repository, 2007
21. Tyerman, Christopher, Chronicle of the First Crusade, translated by M.E.
McGinty, Penguin Classics, UK, 1941
Websites
1. Ancient Rome and Early Christianity,

www.sps186.org/downloads/basic/.../Ch%206%20Section%203.pdf,
accessed on 23/7/2015
2. Bratcher, Dennis, “The Development of the Bible”,
http://www.crivoice.org/Bibledate.html, retrieved on 23/7/2015
3. Hebraic Roots Bible p. 3 (Copyright Word of Truth Publications, 2012
www.coyhwh.com/en/Bible/hebraicRootsBible.pdf retrieved on
23/7/2015
4. http://Biblehub.com/greek/3056.htm accessed on 24-2-2015
5. http://Biblehub.com/greek/3056.htm retrieved on 24-2-2015
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism accessed on
2/03/2015
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism accessed on
2/03/2015
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_%28philosophy_and_religion%2
9 accessed on 25-3-2015
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Judaism, retrieved on14-2-2015.
10. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism, retrieved on 14-2-

2015
11. Logos (Christianity) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, accessed on
13/07/2015
264
12. Martyr, Justin, First Apology,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm, Accessed on 24-2-2015
13. Martyr, Justin, The Second Apology Of Justin For The Christians
(Addressed To The Roman Senate),
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyrsecondapology.ht
ml, retrieved on 24-2-2015
14. Titan, Tatian's Address to the Greeks
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0202.htm accessed on 24-2-2015
265

Complete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Study

Under the Supervision Of

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

I am immensely grateful to the chairperson of the Department of Islamic Studies, Prof.

Transliteration Table .................................................................................................. VII

1. THE AGE OF IBN TAYMIYYAH ......................................................................... 11

1.1 The Political Situation ................................................................................... 11

1.1.1 The Origin of the Mamlūks.................................................................... 12

1.1.2 Rise of the Mamlūks .............................................................................. 12

1.1.3 Al-Man ūrah Battle and the Mamlūks ................................................... 14

1.1.4 The Mongol Threat ................................................................................ 15

1.1.5 ‘Ayn J lūt the Decisive Battle ............................................................... 17

1.1.6 The Preparation against the Crusade Emirates ...................................... 17

1.1.7 Precautionary Measures against Contingent Mongol Attacks ............... 18

1.1.8 The Mamlūk-Crusader Encounter.......................................................... 21

1.2 The Socio-Religious Situation ...................................................................... 21

1.2.1 Position of the Mamlūks ........................................................................ 22

1.2.2 The Feudal System ................................................................................. 24

1.2.3 The Sultans............................................................................................. 24

1.2.4 The Sultanic Mamlūks ........................................................................... 25

1.2.5 Awl dunn s ............................................................................................ 25

1.2.7 The Subjects ........................................................................................... 28

1.2.8 The Sufis ................................................................................................ 28

1.2.9 Religiously Unacceptable Practices ....................................................... 30

1.2.10 Markets .................................................................................................. 33

1.2.11 The Minorities ........................................................................................ 35

1.3 The Intellectual Situation .............................................................................. 38

1.3.1 The Islamic Schools ............................................................................... 40

1.3.2 The Populist Religious Thought ............................................................ 42

2 . EDUCATION, LIFE AND BOOKS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH........................... 51

2.1 BIRTH ........................................................................................................... 52

2.2 Education and Academic Qualities ............................................................... 52

2.3 Areas of Interest ............................................................................................ 56

2.4 Physical and Moral Features ......................................................................... 58

2.4.1 Sincerity ................................................................................................. 58

2.4.2 Austerity ................................................................................................. 59

2.4.3 Courage and Generosity ......................................................................... 60

2.4.4 Magnanimity .......................................................................................... 61

2.4.5 Mercifulness ........................................................................................... 63

2.5 Debates .......................................................................................................... 64

2.5.1 The Theological Development across History ....................................... 65

2.6 Trials and Tribulations .................................................................................. 75

2.6.1 The Epistle to Hamah............................................................................. 75

2.6.2 Encounter with A madiyyah .................................................................. 76

2.6.3 Al-Aq dah Al-W si iyyah ...................................................................... 76

2.6.4 The Anthropomorphism Charge ............................................................ 77

2.6.5 The Issue of Istigh thah......................................................................... 77

2.6.6 The Issue of Divorce .............................................................................. 79

2.6.7 Visiting the Graves ................................................................................ 80

2.7 Death ............................................................................................................. 81

2.8 Books ............................................................................................................. 82

3 CHRIST IN THE WRITINGS OF IBN TAYMIYYAH .................................... 101

3.1 όγο (Logos) .............................................................................................. 101

3.2 The Trinity................................................................................................... 104

3.2.1 Definition and Difference .................................................................... 104

3.2.2 Meaning of the Hypostases .................................................................. 105

3.2.3 The Biblical Evidences ........................................................................ 107

3.2.4 Trinity: A Concoction .......................................................................... 110

3.3 The Principle of Incarnation ........................................................................ 113