Portrait of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

Source: First Things

 Muftah (https://muftah.org) 

Ibn Taymiyyah and the Ibn Abdul Wahhab Brothers

()

Josef Linnhoff (https://muftah.org/author/joseflinnhoff/) July 31st, 2017

 Broaden
Few classical your
thinkers are as perspective.
important to modern Islam as the
Our weekend newsletter delivers fresh and independent views
13th century theologian, Ibn
on Middle Eastern and North African a airs to your inbox.
Taymiyyah. Widely considered a
Enter your
controversial figure email
during his(we won't share it)
lifetime, Ibn Taymiyyah remains
amongst the most discussed and NOW
SUBSCRIBE
debated thinkers in Islamic
history.

For many non-Muslims in the

West, however, Ibn Taymiyyah’s
legacy has been reduced to his
supposed influence on
Wahhabism—a reform movement
inaugurated by Muhammad Ibn
Abdul Wahhab in 18th century
Arabia. Literature abounds in both
popular and academic sources
describing Ibn Taymiyyah as the
movement’s chief inspiration.
Indeed, a cursory Internet search
reveals that Wahhabism is often
referred to as “the school of Ibn
Taymiyyah.”

This is significant if only because

it has greatly influenced
contemporary impressions of Ibn
Taymiyyah, which are increasingly
distorted. In an age where
Wahhabism has become a byword
for an excessively strict, intolerant,
and even violent form of Islam,
Ibn Taymiyyah’s legacy has been
cast in a “Wahhabi light.” All the
negative coverage that exists
about this movement (leaving
aside problems of definition, or
whether such publicity is even
merited at all) is often projected
back onto Ibn Taymiyyah in an
uncritical manner.

This is perhaps most apparent in

the link frequently made between
Ibn Taymiyyah, Wahhabism, and
the nebulous category of “Islamic
extremism.” As the standard
argument goes, Wahhabism is the
chief source of “Islamic
extremism” today, with its roots
tracing back to the medieval
teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah. The
ultimate inspiration of fanatical
groups, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS,
must, therefore, be found in Ibn
Taymiyyah. Consider the following
quote from a major news article
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/what-
is-wahhabism-the-reactionary-
branch-of-islam-said-to-be-the/),
which is typical of prevailing views
on Wahhabism and Ibn
Taymiyyah:
 The exclusivism of Ibn
Taymiyyah combined
with the use of violence
advocated by modern
ultra-Wahhabists such
as Al Qaeda, Isil and
Boko Haram, have now
given rise to cells of
activists outside Saudi
Arabia, ready to commit
terrorist outrages such
as the ones seen in
Beirut, Paris, Brussels
and Lahore.

Leaving aside the issue of so-called

“Islamic terror,” readily associating
Ibn Taymiyyah with Wahhabism is
a substantial reduction and
oversimplification of his scholarly
legacy; it distorts more than it
clarifies. In reality, Ibn Taymiyyah
left a rich and complex legacy for
intellectuals to parse—but one
interpretation (among countless
others) of this is found in the
writings of Muhammad Ibn Abdul
Wahhab and the Wahhabi
movement. It is imperative that
we recognize this, along with the
fact that the Wahhabi reading of
Ibn Tayymiyah is greatly contested
and has indeed been challenged
since the very earliest days of the
Wahhabi movement itself.

Understanding Wahhabism

Wahhabism first emerged in

Arabia, as a localized reform
movement aimed at correcting the
deviances and errors that
Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab
perceived to be widespread in the
Muslim community. For Ibn Abdul
Wahhab, many of the popular
religious practices of the day—
such as the veneration of saints’
graves, pilgrimage to their shrines,
pleading for intercession with God
from holy figures, or attachment
to relics—smacked of a blatant
idolatry (shirk) that reflected an
excessive attachment to fellow
men, rather than God. His
writings consistently stressed the
absolute sovereignty of God, and
emphasized the need to perform
all acts of worship (ibada), broadly
conceived, toward God alone:
 To prostrate only to
God, to perform ruk‘u
only to Him, to seek the
removal of harm only
from Him, to request
benefits only from Him,
to make vows only in
the name of Him, to
sacrifice only to Him,
and all other acts of
worship be performed
only to Him, alone
without any partners.
And this is the meaning
of lā illaha illallah (there
is no God but Allah).[1]

As many scholars have noted, Ibn

Abdul Wahhab found in these
ideas a close affinity with his
famous predecessor Ibn
Taymiyyah, who also railed against
many similar practices in his
13th century Damascene world. It
is, as such, no surprise that Ibn
Abdul Wahhab regularly cited Ibn
Taymiyyah in his writings. Indeed,
like Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Ibn
Taymiyyah’s legal rulings never
tired of condemning the rampant
shirk being practiced by many
Muslims of the time, particularly
their excessive devotion toward
saints and Sufi-oriented mystics.

This strict emphasis on shirk is

not the most controversial aspect
of Ibn Abdul Wahhab writings,
however. That is reserved for his
takfīr (excommunication) of those
Muslims engaging in acts of
idolatry. Throughout his writings,
Ibn Abdul Wahhab declared that
Muslims who engage in such
idolatrous practices are no longer
Muslim—despite their testimony
of the shahada (the Muslim
declaration of faith). For him,
these acts contradicted Islamic
monotheism (tawhid), and made
those who practiced them
unbelievers. We find this in several
places across Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s
writings:
 The scholars (ulama),
from all the four Sunni
legal school
(madhhāhib) mention in
the chapter concerning
the rules pertaining to
the apostate (fī bāb
hukm al-murtad) that if
a Muslim believes that
God has taken a son, he
is a murtad. Likewise, if
he commits shirk then
he is a murtad.[2]

Know that the proofs

regarding takfīr of the
righteous Muslim, if he
associates with God…
are clearly found in the
words of God, the words
of the Prophet and all
the words of the
scholars.[3]

Clearly, these are extremely

controversial positions to hold.
The matter of takfīr was, and
remains, a hugely sensitive issue
in Islam. This is because the
traditional punishment for
apostasy under Islamic law is
death, as well as the general urge
by Muslims to keep their
community unified. For these
reasons, there is traditionally a
great reluctance among jurists to
excommunicate individual
Muslims.

Many contemporary extremist

groups in the Muslim world have
latched onto Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s
conception of takfīr and readily
declared as apostates any Muslims
who oppose their interpretation of
the faith. Because of Ibn Abdul
Wahhab’s association with Ibn
Taymiyyah, these beliefs have
wrongly been imputed to the latter
as well. Despite having strongly
condemned shirk himself, Ibn
Taymiyyah actually diverged from
Ibn Abdul Wahhab in his writings
on takfir:
 It is not permissible to
call a Muslim an
“unbeliever,” neither for
a sin which he has
committed nor for
anything about which he
was in error, such as
questions about which
the People of the Qiblah
(i.e Muslims) dispute.[4]

Ruling that a person is

an unbeliever is only for
Allah…the verdict that a
specific person is an
unbeliever and the
permissibility of
sentencing him to death
is conditional upon the
prophetic proofs having
reached him…otherwise,
not everyone who is
unaware of some matter
of Islam is to be deemed
an unbeliever.[5]

Sulayman Ibn Abdul Wahhab

As central as Ibn Taymiyyah has

been to the formation and
evolution of the Wahhabi
movement, it is important to note
that his writings can just as easily
be used to indict Wahhabi
thought. This is most clear
through the life and work of
Sulayman Ibn Abdul Wahhab—
Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s
lesser-known older brother and
major critic of the early Wahhabi
movement. Sulayman wrote a
significant refutation of his
brother’s work, called The Divine
Lightning in Refutation of the
Wahhabis (al-Sawa‘iq al-Uluhiyya
fi-l-Radd ‘ala al-Wahabiyya).[6]
The document stands as one of
the earliest, if not the earliest,
refutations of Wahhabism in
Islamic history.

Turning to the text

(https://www.amazon.co.uk/Divine-
Lightning-Sulaiman-Abdul-
Wahhab/dp/1926635523) of
Sulayman’s essay, two important
points stand out. First, Sulayman
agreed with his brother’s harsh
criticisms of the Muslim
community, particularly as it
pertained to the cult of saints. He
wrote that the customs of
sacrificing to saints, pilgrimage to
graves, and seeking intercession by
holy figures were widespread and
indeed examples of shirk.[7] For
instance, in one passage,
Sulayman complained that many
Muslims seemed more interested
in traveling to these graves and
shrines than the Kaaba in Mecca
itself.[8]

The second important point is

Sulayman’s clear deference toward
Ibn Taymiyyah. On almost every
page, Sulayman referenced Ibn
Taymiyyah, making him the most
frequently cited Islamic thinker in
the entire treatise. At first, one
might think this is a polemical
strategy; Sulayman attempted to
discredit his brother by using his
favorite scholar against him. But,
gradually it becomes clear that
Sulayman was himself a genuine
admirer and champion of Ibn
Taymiyyah, as evidenced by the
fact that he referred to him by the
honorific title, “shaykh al-
islām.”[9]

With a common criticism of the

cult of saints and a shared
deference to Ibn Taymiyyah, how
did Sulayman develop into a
significant critic of the Wahhabi
movement? Perhaps
unsurprisingly, the issue of takfir
is the reason. Sulayman
consistently challenged his
brother’s tendency toward takfir
for self-professed Muslims. This
was the central concern
throughout Sulayman’s entire
treatise.

In the opening pages, Sulayman

wrote:

You are now

pronouncing takfīr over
he who witnesses that
there is no god but God
alone, and that
Muhammad is his slave
and messenger, and of
he who performs the
prayer and gives zakat
and fasts during
Ramadan and performs
pilgrimage, believing in
God, His angels, books
and messengers … (yet)
you make them
unbelievers and their
lands the lands of war.
So we ask you…from
where have you taken
this madhhab?![10]
In many ways, Sulayman’s essay
reflected all the fears around takfīr
in traditional Islamic thought.
Given the popularity of the
practices Muhammad Ibn Abdul
Wahhab deemed worthy of takfir,
Sulayman accused his brother of
“splitting” the unity of the
community. Because these sinful,
blasphemous, and idolatrous
practices have existed in Muslim
lands for the last eight hundred
years, Sulayman asked whether
this meant previous generations of
Muslims were unbelievers also: “if
your madhhab is correct, then
there has not been any Muslim
left on the earth for the last eight
hundred years except
yourselves!”[11] The purpose of
mentioning Muhammad Ibn
Abdul Wahhab’s madhab, or legal
school, is to imply that his
brother’s thoughts have no
precedence in any of the four
classical legal schools of Sunni
Islam—Shafi’ism, Hanbalism,
Hanafism, and Malikism. It was a
way of condemning his brother as
beyond the normative bounds of
Sunni Islam. Sulayman even went
as far as to say that his brother’s
beliefs practically excommunicated
“the entire community of [the
Prophet], all of them.”[12]

Lesser Idolatry

A key pillar of Sulayman’s

argument against his brother
rested on the important
distinction between greater and
lesser idolatry. This distinction
was not found in the Quran, but
rather was alluded to in the Hadith
traditions, and became a key
construct in later Islamic thought.
An act of “greater idolatry” (shirk
al-akbar) is typically viewed as
something so manifestly
idolatrous as to directly contradict
Islamic monotheism, taking the
person outside of Islam. An
example of this would be praying
to a stone or wooden idol; one
cannot seriously claim to be
Muslim and perform this act. An
act of “lesser idolatry” (shirk al-
asghar) would be an act that is
disapproved of, but considerably
less serious. Religious affectation
in performing prayers, so as to be
seen or praised by others, would
be a typical example.
According to Sulayman, the
popular violations his brother
railed against were shirk al-asghar
—crucially falling short of
apostasy. Sulayman based this
argument, in part, on a reading of
Ibn Taymiyyah:
From where did you get
that a Muslim…if he
calls out to a living or
dead (saint), or makes
vows to him or sacrifices
to him or touches his
tomb… that all this is
greater idolatry
(constituting apostasy)
…and that he who
commits it may have his
good deeds wasted,
wealth plundered and
blood spilt (as an
apostate)?[13]

If you say that you have

taken this (takfīr) from
the writings of the
scholars (ahl al-ilm) like
ibn Taymiyyah or ibn
Qayyim … then we say;
this is right and we
agree with you in
following these two
figures … However, they
did not say what you
say; that this is greater
idolatry (shirk al-akbar)
that excludes one from
Islam… You have taken
from their writings what
works for you while
 ignoring what doesn’t.
Actually, their writings
prove that these actions
are lesser idolatry (shirk
al-asghar).[14]

Sulayman made the case that even

if these practices were examples of
shirk al-akbar, this did not, in and
of itself, lead immediately to
takfir. The Islamic tradition
demands more prudence in this
situation; there is a careful, juristic
process that must be followed
before proclaiming takfir. In such
an instance, Muslim scholars are
tasked with carefully, and
patiently, educating the individual
in question, as they may be
blaspheming out of ignorance.
This is done by presenting them
with the “clear manifest proof”
(hujja) of their error, presumably
by reference to the Quran or
Hadiths. Once again, Sulayman
drew on Ibn Taymiyyah to make
these points:
 The writings of ibn
Taymiyyah … show that
the ignorant and
mistaken person from
this umma, if they
perform an act of
unbelief (kufr) or
idolatry (shirk), does not
become an idolater
(mushrik) or unbeliever
(kāfir) by this (act) until
the hujja is made clear to
them and they then
reject it.[15]

This is the central theme

throughout Sulayman’s entire
essay; he reckoned his brother had
fundamentally misread the works
of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Historical sources appear to

indicate that Sulayman’s treatise
received quite a favorable
reception and managed to turn
some against the emerging
Wahhabi movement. By way of
response, Muhammad Ibn Abdul
Wahhab penned his own counter
essay, in which he argued again
that his philosophy was
completely in-line with the
teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah,
including the issue of takfir.[16]

As history tells us, however, this

debate between the brothers
would not be settled by strength
of argument, but rather by force of
arms, as the early Wahhabi
movement gradually spread its
influence through conquest across
the Arabian peninsula in the late
18th century.

The Importance of Precedent

It is beyond the scope of this short

essay to make a value judgment as
to which of the brothers offered
the “correct” reading of Ibn
Taymiyyah’s works, and on what
basis. Both Sulayman and
Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab
(and their respective supporters)
would certainly claim to be the
“real defenders” of Ibn Taymiyyah.
This essay is, however, concerned
with Ibn Taymiyyah’s intellectual
legacy, and so, what is important,
is highlighting the debates, rather
than judging their substantive
merit.
Ultimately, this 18th century feud
between Sulayman and
Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab is
important today for two key
reasons. First, it challenges
simplistic impressions of Ibn
Taymiyyah as a “proto-Wahhabi”
thinker. Of course, it is a truism of
intellectual history that important
thinkers are interpreted
differently by their followers. Yet,
Sulayman still provides an
interesting case study by which we
can see the complex legacy of Ibn
Taymiyyah, and also the various
(even contradictory) ways in which
his works have been interpreted.
Indeed, Sulayman shows us that
the Wahhabi movement offers but
one, highly contested,
interpretation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s
works and thought. From
Sulayman, we see that challenges
to the Wahhabi appropriation of
Ibn Taymiyya are as old as the
Wahhabi movement itself.

Second, it is important to
highlight something else about
Sulayman’s treatise, aside from
what it reveals about Ibn
Taymiyyah and his legacy. Despite
all his fierce criticisms, Sulayman
disagreed with his brother only on
the seriousness of the violations
witnessed in the community. The
real issue for Sulayman is whether
the clear decadence of the Muslim
community is grounds for takfir.
This is significant because it gives
us an important insight: even
some of Muhammad Ibn Abdul
Wahhab’s fiercest opponents
accepted or even shared his
criticisms of the Muslim
community.

In the mass of critical literature

against Muhammad Ibn Abdul
Wahhab and the Wahhabi
movement today, this important
sense of context is missing.
Behind popularized slogans
against Wahhabi Islam as
“extremist” or “un-Islamic” lies a
particular thinker who existed
within a certain context and had a
specific kind of engagement with
the classical Islamic tradition. Put
differently, Muhammad Ibn Abdul
Wahhab is not an aberration; he
and his movement were a product
of Islamic thought, rooted in a
deference to the classical writings
of Ibn Taymiyyah and criticisms of
the contemporary community,
which were affirmed and shared
by even his closest opponents.

The debate between Sulayman and

Muhammad over Ibn Taymiyyah
provides but a snapshot of what
the intellectual history of any
major faith tradition is truly
about.

Endnotes:

[1] Muhammad, Ibn ‘Abdul

Wahhāb. ‘Risā‘il Shaksiyya’, in
Mu‘allafāt al-Shaykh al-Imam
Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb,
5 Vols (Riyadh: Jāmiat al-Imam
Muhammad bin Saud al-Islāmiyya,
1398H), 5/137. See also, 44, 52,
111, 150.

[2] Ibid, 152.

[3] Ibid., 173.

[4] Taken from Yahya Michot, Ibn

Taymiyyah: Against Extremisms
(Beirut: Ali Bourak, 2012), 234.

[5] Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Istighaatha

fi-l-Rad ‘ala al-Bakri (Riyadh: Dar
al-Watan, 1997), 1/381-382.
[6] Sulayman, Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhāb.
as-Sawā‘iq al-Uluhiyya fi-l-Radd
‘ala al-Wahhabiyya (Istanbul,
Turkey: Dār al-Shifqa bi-fāteh,
1979).

[7] Ibid., 7, 36, 37, 38.

[8] Ibid., 47.

[9] Ibid., 27.

[10] Ibid., 5.

[11] Ibid., 41.

[12] Ibid., 28.

[13] Ibid., 6.

[14] Ibid., 6-7.

[15] Ibid., 10.

[16] Muhammad, ibn ‘Abdul

Wahhāb. ‘Mufīd al-Mustafīd fī
kufr tārik al-tawhīd’, in Mu‘allafāt
al-Shaykh al-Imam Muhammad
ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, 5 Vols
(Riyadh: Jāmiat al-Imam
Muhammad bin Saud al-Islāmiyya,
1398H), 1/290-320.

Like () Tweet

()
More to Explore

(https://muftah.org/irans-foreign-policy-may-
put-national-security-risk/)

Iran’s Foreign Policy May

Put Its National Security At
Risk
(https://muftah.org/irans-
foreign-policy-may-put-
national-security-risk/)

(https://muftah.org/muslims-scapegoating-
sala sm-isiss-crimes/)

Why Are Muslims

Scapegoating Salafism for
ISIS’s Crimes?
(https://muftah.org/muslims-
scapegoating-salafism-
isiss-crimes/)
 1 Comment
(https://muftah.org/muslims-
scapegoating-salafism-isiss-
crimes/#comments)

(https://muftah.org/syria-war-terror-lefts-
sala phobia/)
 Syria, the War on Terror,
and the Left’s “Salafiphobia”
(https://muftah.org/syria-
war-terror-lefts-
salafiphobia/)

(https://muftah.org/scapegoating-wahhabism/)

Scapegoating Wahhabism
(https://muftah.org/scapegoating-
wahhabism/)

Comments Community Login


1

Sort by Best
 Recommend ⤤ Share

Join the discussion…

LOG IN WITH

OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name

Nadim Mahjoub • a month ago

This is the second essay in this
collection. Unfortunately, it
confirms the fragmentaion of
Muftah provides diverse perspectives about the global events that matter.

Follow 10.8K followers

Like 59K

OUR WEEKLY INSIGHTS

Your email SUBSCRIBE

CONNECT WITH US


(https://www.facebook.com/muftahmagazine)
 (https://twitter.com/MuftahOrg)
 (mailto:info@muftah.org?
Subject=Muftah.org)

(https://www.instagram.com/muftahorg/)
 (https://muftahorg.tumblr.com/)
© 2017 Muftah. All Rights Reserved. Website made by

Our Mission (https://muftah.org/about/) Our Sta (https://muftah.org/sta /) Submissions (https://muftah.org/submissions/)

Terms of Use (https://muftah.org/terms-of-use/) Privacy Policy (https://muftah.org/privacy-policy/)
Contact Us (https://muftah.org/contact-us/)