Being highly critical towards the thought of the
philosophers, Ibn Taymiyyah might be understood as deeming the whole of
philosophical thinking to be invalid. However, looking at
criticisms scattered through his various treatises, we may see that there
are some aspects which have some appearance of philosophy in his thought.
To say the least, we can infer that his criticism of philosophers’ ideas
suggests that he has an idea on which he bases his criticism. This assumption
might be justified as he admits the term ‘philosophy’ without bothering to
discuss the origin of the word, which suggests that he understands philosophy
as a general term. Its positive or negative connotation depends
substantially on the ideas it contains.
The negative value of philosophy in the eyes of Ibn
Taymiyyah is traceable from his view of a particular fact of history. To him,
the emergence of philosophy in Islam cannot be separated from the Mu’tazilites
and Jahmites, who paved the way for the encroachment of Greek philosophy upon
the thought of the Muslim thinkers. The Mu’tazilites and the Jahmites offered a
new method of theological discussion derived from the Hellenistic legacy and
this adventure was then followed by the Muslim philosophers. Their
objective was initially to correct the mistakes of the mutakallimËn. However, the
consequence of this attempt led them back to the pure, original Hellenism. As a
result, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, the works of these Muslim philosophers were
not better than those of the mutakallimËn, but much worse.[1] In
addition, to Ibn Taymiyyah, the negative value of Greek philosophy is mainly
because they were people who did not believe in God and had no prophets or revealed
Book.[2]
From this historical fact, Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that
in Muslim philosophy there were foreign elements that can hardly be compatible
with Islamic thought, for they are not in line with the knowledge handed down
by the Prophet. It is in this sense that Ibn Taymiyyah’s negative
viewpoint of philosophy is to be understood.
As Ibn Taymiyyah understands philosophy in ideal terms,
there is nothing wrong with the term ’philosophy’ on its own. He even
seems to accept the term as such and does not look into its etymological
implication. His judgement on its positive or negative value is based on the
concept of belief in God. Therefore, he distinguishes between the ‘true
believers philosophers’ (al-falÉsifah al-hunafÉ‘), who are praised
by God, and the ‘infidel philosophers’ who associate God with
other deities in their worship (falÉsifah al-mushrikÊn). On
the positive value of philosophy, he considers, for instance, that some
of the ancient philosophers of the Sabeans were the ‘true believers
philosophers’ (hunafÉ‘) who worshipped the one God, did not
associate anything with Him and believed that God is the creator of this
universe. Consequently, their philosophical thought would be is positive.
On the negative value, he regards the Greek philosophers in general and
Aristotle in particular as ‘infidel philosophers’, who believed in the
eternity of the universe.[3] He
considers the idea of the eternity of the universe is in contrary to the true
belief, though some Muslim philosophers support this idea. However, he does not
elaborate further the positive thought of the Sabean philosophers. The
focal point in this issue is that the positive value of philosophy, to Ibn
Taymiyyah, is centred on the thought that encompasses the true concept of
belief in God as the Qur’Én teaches it.
A lucid example of his understanding of philosophy in
such a way, is his rejection of the ideas of Ibn SÊna, who understood
philosophy as the conceptualisation of things and the correct
understanding of theoretical and practical truth for the perfection of the
human soul.[4]
Ibn Taymiyyah rejects Ibn SÊna’s ideas because it implies that the
conceptualisation of things will lead to the perfection of the soul. To
him the perfection of the soul depends on both the knowledge of God and
virtuous action (‘amal al-ÎÉlih) through love of Him.[5]
What is implicit in this example is that philosophy, in the eyes of Ibn
Taymiyyah, is not merely concerned with the conceptualisation and
the judgement of things, since knowledge alone cannot elevate the soul.
In this context, much of Ibn Taymiyyah’s direct
definition of the term ‘philosophy’ is found in his MinhÉj. He
states that the true philosophy (al-falsafah al-haqÊqiyyah) is the
existential knowledge (al-‘ulËm al-wujËdiyyah) by which ‘being’ (al-wujËd)
is known.[6] The
word ‘being’ (al-wujËd) in this context is referred to God and
therefore philosophy according to Ibn Taymiyyah is knowledge about God.[7] Elsewhere
he states that the ‘sound philosophy’ (al-falsafah al-ÎahÊhah)
that is based on reason should rely on the veracity (Îidq) of the
prophets and what is brought by them, for they have knowledge of God that
is unknown to the philosophers.[8] This
definition seems similar to what is known by the Muslims as UÎËl al-DÊn or ‘Ilm
al-TawhÊd. Some Muslim philosophers claimed this term as
the epithet of their philosophy, which would be inevitably rejected by Ibn
Taymiyyah.
Furthermore, the philosophers equated the term
philosophy with hikmah (wisdom), but Ibn
Taymiyyah’s understanding of hikmah is more specific than
philosophy. He defines the term hikmah as knowing and
practising religion in a general sense, and this is common to every
nation. Every nation has their own hikmah, based on
their knowledge and religion. The people of India, who are infidels, for
instance, have hikmah; the Arabs before Islam had their hikmah, as
there were hukamɑ of the Arabs, even though they were
infidels worshipping idols. The Greeks also had hikmah according
to their own beliefs. In addition, Ibn Taymiyyah admits that the hukamɑ in
every society are the most learned and excellent men among them. However, he
emphasizes that this is not necessarily praised by God and His messenger. The
truly praisworthy hikmah or hakÊm is no
other than the believers (al-mu’minÊn al-muslimÊn), who believe in God,
His angels, His Books, His messengers, life after death, who worship the one
God, never associate anything with Him, and never deny His prophets
and His Books.[9]
Quoting the Qur’Én[10]
he stressed that the true hikmah comes from belief in God, the
Last Day and virtuous actions. This is more specific than his
understanding of philosophy.
In this brief summary we see that for Ibn Taymiyyah, the
term ‘philosophy’ per se is independent of religion, culture
and nationality. It can be true or false, sound or unsound based on the value
judgement of the person concerned. However, from an Islamic perspective,
philosophy or hikmah has its own particular meaning that
cannot be blended with foreign elements, incompatible with its
teachings.
[1] MinhÉj al-Sunnah,
vol.I, pp. 86-88; al-Radd, ed. A. Øamad, pp. 512-513.
[2] NaqÌ al-Mant{}iq, p. 171.
[3] al-Radd, ed.
R.‘Ajam, vol. II, p. 43.
[4] Ibn
SÊna, ‘UyËn al-Hikmah, n.p, Cairo, 1326 A.H. p.
30.
[5] al-Radd, ed.
R.‘Ajam, vol. I, p. 40.
[6] MinhÉj
al-Sunnah, ed.R.SÉlim, vol. I, p. 261.
[7] Vide
infra, “On the Subject Matter of Metaphysics”, Chapter III, 1.
[8] MinhÉj
al-Sunnah, ed. R. SÉlim, vol. I, p. 258.
[9] al-Radd, ed.
R.‘Ajam, vol. II, p. 176.
[10] The
Qur’Én sËrah reads: ”Those who believe (in the Qur’Én)
and those who follow the Jewish (scripture), and the Christians and the
Sabeans, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day and act righteously,
shall have their reward with their Lord; in them shall be no fear, nor shall
they grieve." The Qur’Én, 2: 62.
