ibn taymiyyah on trial a narrative account of his mihan

IBN TAYMIYA ON TRIAL: A NARRATIVE ACCOUNT OF HIS MIḤANAuthor(s): Hasan Qasim MuradReviewed work(s):Source: Islamic Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring 1979), pp. 1-32Published by: Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, IslamabadStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20847091 .Accessed: 08/12/2011 16:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, Islamabad is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Islamic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iriiiu

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20847091?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

IBN TAYMIYA ON TRIAL :

A NARRATIVE ACCOUNT OF HIS MUJAN

?Hasan Qasim Murad

Born on 10 Rab?' I 661 at Harr?n in a Hanball family of religious scholars, Ibn Taymiya was brought up and educated in Damascus w? re

his family had moved in 667 under the impact of Mongol advances in Syria. Trained in the usual traditional sciences, he was licensed to give

fatw?s by a Sh?fi'? muft?, Sharaf al-DIn al-Maqdis? (d. 694), before he was

twenty years of age. At the beginning of 683 Ibn Taymiya succeeded in

his father's position, after his death, as shaykh al-hadlth in Dar al-Had?th

al-Sukkariya?his very first lecture there being a notable success, espe

cially with the Sh?fi'? stalwart T?j al-D?n Faz?ri (d. 690)?and also started

sitting on every Friday at the Umayyad mosque, in his father's stead, to

give lectures in Qur'?nic exegesis. He is, however, reported to have refused

q?gli al-qutji? and mashlkhat al shuy?kh offered to him sometime before 690.1

Sometime in 690 Ibn Taymiya made a statement pertaining to the attributes of God in his Friday lecture at the Umayyad mosque. "Some

opponents" rose against him and tried to stop him from lecturing in the

future, but in vain, since the Sh?fi'? Q??l? al-Qud? Shih?b al-D?n al-Khuway (d. 693) and Sharaf al-D?n al-Maqdis? took his side. This was the first in a long series of mihan which continued, with interruptions, until the

very end of Ibn Taymiya's life. 2

After a short period of quiet academic life during which Ibn Taymiya performed probably his only hajj, 3 there occurred an event which marks the beginning not only of the public life of Ibn Taymiya but also of his life of confinement. In Rajab 693, inhabitants of Suwayda (a village in the

vicinity of Damascus) filed a complaint with the Viceroy al-D?n Aybak al-I?amaw? (d. 703) of Damascus against a Christian who was secretary to an influential Arab am?r 'Ass?f ibn Shih?b al-D?n Aitmad ibn rlajjl

2 HASAN QASIM MURAD

(d. 694), accusing him of having insulted the Prophet. The Viceroy ignored the complaint to please *Ass?f. This seems to have agitated the Damascenes, since next day, Thursday 28 Rajah, two things simul

taneously happened: after a rally in the Umayyad mosque, Ihn Taymiya and the Sh?fi'I Zayn al-DIn al-F?riq? (d. 703), Shaykh Dar al-Kfed?th al-Ashrafiya, led a crowd to the viceregal lodge, had an interview with

the Viceroy, and returned after getting the assurance that due action

would be taken in this matter according to Sharl'a; but, in the meantime, a large crowd outside B?b al-Na?r, having seen 'Ass?f with some of his fel

lows, stoned and wounded them after a brief argument and forced 'Ass?f to

take cover in the house of an am?r. 'Ass?f complained to the Viceroy of

this treatment when he was finally brought to him under armed protection. The Viceroy, evidently suspecting their hand in it, summoned Ibn Taymiya and F?riq?, chastised them and had them beaten and finally put in con

finement in Madrasa 'Adhr?wiya. This was followed by more general

reprisals; more people were rounded up by the authorities?Mushidd

Shams al-D?n Sunqur al-A'sar (d. 709) and the w?ll al-baladsome of

them were beaten, some exposed to the pillory and six confined in Madrasa

'Adhr?wiya. Turning down several attempts at intercession on behalf

of prisoners, the Viceroy wrote to the Sultan about this affair, then set

about to quash the case against the Christian by trying to get evidence of

enmity between him and his accusers, but in vain: the Christian converted

to Islam, perhaps the best thing he could do in the circumstances to save

his neck. On Friday 6 Sha'b?n the Viceroy sought and obtained a fatw? from Sh?fi'? q?dls and '?lims that after conversion his blood should be

spared. F?riq? too agreed with this fatw? and was released. Then

Ibn Taymiya was also released with apologies and respect but was not

consulted about the Christian evidently for fear of the opposition. The

other prisoners were also released. The matter however did not end

here, since a few days later, Friday 13 Sha'b?n, a meeting of q?fis and

'ulama* of the four schools was held in the presence of the Viceroy. The

meeting failed to conclude anything positive except to indicate the diff?rence of opinion on this issue among the 'ulam?' of various schools. The

Christian, after having been confined in Madrasa 'Adhr?wiya until 19 Dh? al-Qa'da, was set free at night through the efforts of Mushidd Shams al-D?n Sunqur al-A'sar who was under the influence of 'Ass?f. 4

This incident was followed by another period of academic quiet in which Ibn Taymiya got another teaching job at D?r al-?lad?th al

IBN TAYMIYA ON TRIAL 3

Hanbaliya as successor to his own teacher Zayn al-D?n ibn al-Munajja (d. 695).* In this period too Ibn Taymiya supposedly collaborated for the first time in an official enterprise?an expedition to Little Armenia?when on Friday 17 Shaww?l 697 he exhorted a large gathering in the Umayyad mosque to jihads The event which is generally taken as the first mibna of Ibn Taymiya, and rightly so if mifrna be understood in its technical sense ("a religious test with a view to obtaining assent to some particular belief or system of beliefs"), occurred in Rabl'I 698. A large group of faqihs who already disliked Ibn Taymiya for his good reputation and were further embittered due to his recent ascendancy with the acting Viceroy Sayf al Din J?gh?n in the affair of astrologers [?], but were unable to discredit him because of his blameless character and great knowledge, finally found a weak link in his armour. This was a fatw? which Ibn Taymiya had written in response to an inquiry from Ham? concerning the attributes of

God, in which he had preferred the creed of the salaf to that of the later theologians, thus giving legitimate ground for opposition to the faqihs. They wrote a refutation of it and launched a vigorous campaign against him accusing him of belief in, and propagation of, the doctrine of tajslm (corporeality of God). The Hanaf? Q?d? al-Qud? Jal?l al-D?n (d. 745) took their side and summoned Ibn Taymiya to his court. Ibn Taymiya refused to appear on the ground that beliefs were not the proper concern of a q?4l The q?di retaliated by having his creed publicly denounced. Before the denunciation could cover the whole city J?gh?n stepped in on the side of Ibn Taymiya by sending soldiers to beat the announcer and his

companions; others involved in this affair were sought but were able to conceal themselves. However, afterwards Ibn Taymiya voluntarily offered to the Sh?fi'? Q?d? al-Qud? Imam al-D?n (d. 699) to discuss his 'aqida.

A prolonged meeting was held on Saturday 14 RabTI and resulted in the clear victory of Ibn Taymiya; the q?d? and his brother declared themselves on his side and a great crowd escorted him home.7

This fitna subsided for the time being, not because there were no more grounds for opposition or because the teeth of opposition had been extracted, but evidently because, in the years following, the country was

facing a serious crisis in the form of Mongol invasions and people were*

probably, not feeling free to indulge in the leisure of investigation of beliefs. Ibn Taymiya himself was actively engaged, throughout these years, in meet

ing this crisis. He was busy in seeing Mongol authorities, once the city of Damascus had fallen into their hands and most of the city leaders had

4 HASAN QASIM MURAD

fled to Cairo, to get concessions for the suffering inhabitants, especially to obtain the release of prisoners of war; he was trying to encourage the

defenders of the citadel of Damascus, which, thanks to its commander, had not fallen; he was exhorting the public and the army toJihad both by his tongue and his pen, once the Mongols had returned and a fresh invasion

was imminent; he went to Egypt, on the suggestion of the Syrian leaders,

to persuade the sult?n and his officers to come to their help; once the

second Mongol invasion was under way, he was endeavouring to raise once

again the morale of the fighting forces in particular, by giving fatw?s of the permissibility to wage war against Muslim Mongols, by predicting the

victory in this battle, in fact, perhaps by actually taking part in the battle; he was participating in both the expeditions against the people of Kasra

w?n, who had not only attacked the retreating Egyptian army at the time

of the first Mongol invasion, but were generally rebellious and heretical.

These things must have earned Ibn Taymiya some reputation and probably also bought him some enemies. ? Busy he may have been but Ibn Taymiya could still find time to crusade against bid'?t, by spilling out wine, for ex

ample, and closing the wine shops in Damascus. 9 This seems to be the

hall-mark of his activities during these and the immediately following

years; it was as if satisfied with his work in the domain of beliefs, he was

out to reform practices; and this, as to be expected, got him into trouble

more than once.

In Shaww?l 701 "a group of jealous persons" rose against Ibn

Taymiya and complained to the Viceroy Afram (d. 719) that he had taken

upon himself the administering of legal punishments and chastisements

and that he shaved the heads of children. Ibn Taymiya also spoke about the complaints and exposed their faults. The situation calmed down,

however, and came to naught, o

In Jumada I 702 an attempt was made to implicate Ibn Taymiya in a pseudo-conspiracy against Viceroy Afram. A letter, which upon

investigation turned out to be a forgery, fell in the hands of the Viceroy saying that Ibn Taymiya and some other dignitaries of the state including the Hanaf? Q?d? al-Qud? Shams al-D?n ibn al-Har?r? (d. 728), Shaykh al

Sh?fi'ya Kam?l al-D?n al-Zamlak?n? (d. 727), and Karn?l al-D?n 'Att?r were secretly corresponding with the Mongols and trying to reinstate

Qibjaq as viceroy over Syria. The persons behind this letter?a faqir called Ya'f?r?, another called Ahmad al-Ghan?r?, and the k?tib who


wrote the letter for them, al-T?j al-Man?dil??were apprehended and

severely punished. 11

On 26 Rajab 704 Ibn Taymiya had a rock cut off, which was sup posed to have contained the foot print of the Prophet and was for that reason visited and consecrated by the people. This action seems to

have been resented by the "people of Damascus." But because of the dubious nature of the issue, Ibn Taymiya got the benefit of doubt. 12

The last and the most important event of this period, however, was

Ibn Taymiya's debate with Ahmadi or Rifa'! faqtrs on Saturday 9 Jum?d?

I 705. This debate, which perhaps should not properly be called a nahm in as much as it was Ibn Taymiya himself who was the aggressor, was only the last of a series of confrontations with these faqtrs?confrontations in

which Ibn Taymiya claimed to have exposed them and to have made many of them, including some of their shaykhs, repent. Sometime before the

final incident Ibn Taymiya had scolded one of their shaykhs, probably their chief Shaykh ??lih, who had entered the Umayyad mosque with a group of his followers wearing iron chains on their necks, and let them go

'

only when they showed acquiescence. But afterwards they insisted on

their ways and their shaykh wrote letters to Ibn Taymiya defending them. Ibn Taymiya invited him to a face-to-face talk. Shortly, however, an

incident occurred which forced the issue and brought it before the autho

rities : Ibn Taymiya pulled off the chain from the neck of one of them. The

faqtrs, furious and ignoring Ibn Taymiya's offer to talk the matter out, went to the viceregal lodge. All they wanted was to be left alone, but the Viceroy would not listen to them unless Ibn Taymiya was also present. In other words, there was to be a debate. In fact, the Viceroy was so keen on it that even when, following Ibn Taymiya's urging, the faqtrs finally decided to give in, he insisted on holding the debate and remained adamant

despite the pleadings of some great amirs on behalf of the faqtrs. Before the commencement of the debate Ibn Taymiya saw the Viceroy and other amirs and explained to them his findings and views about these faqtrs and

expressed his intention to call off their bluff regarding their miraculous

powers. The Viceroy was obviously enjoying this squabble and also wanted to get an amir, al-tl?jj Bahadur (d. 710), disillusioned with the

faqtrs. Thus, after a last-minute overture of peace from the leaders of the faqtrs was turned down, the debate started. The arena probably ex

tended from a seat at the corner of the viceregal lodge to the adjoining

6 HASAN QASIM MURAD

Mayd?n [Akhtfarl where a carpet was laid down for the occasion. Besides the ranks and files of these faqirs, a great crowd of am?rs, k?tibs, '?lims,

faqirs and common people had gathered. The faqlrs were apparently divided among themselves, since one of their leaders, H?tim, again tried to

seek peace, while another, their chief, tried to justify wearing of the neck

laces but was refuted by Ibn Taymiya. Then he pleaded with the Viceroy to convoke a meeting of the q??l?s and faqihs to settle this issue. He was

obviously implying that since Ibn Taymiya was Hanbal? and the faqlrs were Sh?fi'?, this was merely an inter-school dispute. But Ibn Taymiya had Ibn al-Zamlak?n?, one of the leading Sh?fi'Is, denounced them right then and there. After making a last attempt, foiled by Ibn Taymiya, to

justify their beliefs and practices on the basis of difference in zahir and

bafin, one of their shaykhs, 'Abd All?h, finally fell back upon their claim

to ability to perform miraculous feats like entering fire. Ibn Taymiya challenged them, as he had done many times before, to enter the fire with

him after washing their bodies with hot water and vinegar, and explained, on being asked by the audience, their trick of spraying certain medicines on their bodies which protected them from fire. When he saw 'Abd Allah making fuss about getting wood and starting a fire, Ibn Taymiya invited him to put their respective fingers, after washing, into the candle fire. 'Abd Allah turned pale. This obviously removed the prop from under them. Their leaders begged for peace and the people hooted at them. Following this the Viceroy announced, on the suggestion of Ibn

Taymiya, that they should abide by the Kit?b and the Sunna, failing which

they would be executed. Even though the faqlrs had to submit to Ibn

Taymiya's demands, especially when faced with argumentum ad baculum, their hearts were evidently not in it since they kept on arguing until the

meeting was dispersed. Ibn Taymiya however came out with flying colours, ?

Probably the most significant event, rather series of events, in the

history of Ibn Taymiya's miban is that which started in 705, shortly after his debate with the faqirs, when, on an order from the Sult?n, two councils of 'ulama1 were held in Damascus under the auspices of Viceroy Afram on 8 Rajab and 12 Rajab to test Ibn Taymiya's religious views. The second council was followed, after a strife between the two parties, by a third council on 7 Sha'b?n. A short while after that Ibn Taymiya was summoned to Cairo and, following a summary trial, was put in jail.


This phase of the mibcm, which lasted with but one interruption until the end of 709, when Sultan N??ir returned to the throne for the third and the last time, was due mainly to three persons : Ibn Makhl?f (d. 718), the

M?lik? Q?d? al-Qu?l? of Egypt?Na?r al-Manbij? (d. 719) ? a s?fi shaykh

who had his z?wiya at Husayniya in Cairo, ? and Baybars al-J?shnig?r

(d. 709) ? Maml?k amir, ust?d?r, Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian

army and then Sultan of Egypt and Syria. They may have separate motives but the chain of events which ostensibly led to their joining hands

against Ibn Taymiya started in 703 when, on reading Fus?s al-FLikam, Ibn

Taymiya turned against its author, Ibn al-'Arab? (d. 638). He started

condemning him and his followers and in Ramadan (year?) wrote a re

futation entitled "Al-Nu??? 'ala al-Fu???'\ Then, having come to know

that Karlm al-DIn (d. 710), Shaykh al-Shuy?kh of Kh?nq?h Sa'Id al-Su'ada in Cairo, and Na?r al-Manbij? were devoted to Ibn al-'Arab! and his

works, Ibn Taymiya wrote letters to them, severely criticising Ibn al

'ArabFs work and explicitly condemning him and those who held his

views. Na?r al-Manbij? was offended. Now Na?r al-Manbij? enjoyed great prestige with Baybars al-J?shnig?r and for this reason all the digni taries of state used to visit him frequently. When Ibn Makhl?f visited

him, Na?r al-Manbij? acquainted him with the letter. Assuring him of

his full support, Ibn Makhl?f advised him to acquaint Baybars al-J?shnig?r with it and to make a desirable arrangement with him in this connection.

Ibn Makhl?f went even further and suggested the way to deal with Ibn

Taymiya, namely, to have him questioned about his creed since he repor

tedly corrupted the minds of great many people and believed in tajsim, which was kufr according to M?lik?s and required capital punishment. Na?r al-Manbij? acted accordingly and a new phase of miban started for Ibn Taymiya. 1*

The first council was attended by q?fis of four schools, their depu ties, muftis, and shaykhs, none of whom?including Ibn Taymiya himself? was notified of the purpose of the council beforehand, which was, as the

Viceroy stated at the beginning of the council, to question Ibn Taymiya about his belief and about the letters he wrote to Egypt inviting people to adopt it. Replying to the latter charge on the ground that he did not write any such letter except in answer to questions put to him, Ibn Taymiya charged that a letter containing a distorted belief had been forged in his name and presented to Baybars al-J?shnig?r. Then, having dictated from

g HASAN QASIM MURAD

memory part of his beliefs at the request of the Viceroy, Ibn Taymiya said

that lest he be accused of tempering with his own original beliefs, he would

rather present a statement of beliefs written about seven years before the

coming of the Mongols to Syria. Then he went on to say that some people had lied about him to the Sultan; he enumerated his services to Islam

and pleaded, in the name of justice, that all those who had lied should

also be summoned in order that they could be questioned about their

lies. This talk was written down at the order of the Viceroy. When the

creedal statement?which was sent for?arrived, Ibn Taymiya explained that it was written on the request and insistence of a q?di from W?sit

and that many copies of it had spread in Egypt, Iraq and other places. To

avoid suspicion, the Viceroy had it read out word by word by his secretary instead of by Ibn Taymiya. The discussion revolved around the question of the attributes (sif?t) of God and their interpretation (ta'w?l). Seeing the solidarity of the opponents of Ibn Taymiya in the course of discussion

and fearing them, the Viceroy tried to get Ibn Taymiya to profess that his

creed was the creed of Ibn Hanbal; he was evidently trying to end the

dispute and save Ibn Taymiya from his antagonists since, Hanbalism being a recognised school, whoever wrote in accordance with it would not be

objected to. But Ibn Taymiya insisted that it was the creed of all the

pious salaf and not of Ibn Hanbal only. He threw a challenge that if

any one could produce within a period of three years a single evidence

from the first three centuries (qur?n) which contradicted what he had said, he would retract his creed. On the other hand, he took it upon himself

to provide the traditions of all the factions in the three centuries: Hanaf?s,

M?lik?s, Sh?fi'?s, Hanbal?s, Ash'ar?s, S??s, Ahl al-Had?th and others, which conformed with what he said. After the reading and discussion of

the creed, his opponents presented a total of four objections, (though he

was also supported and praised on many points). The first related to the

nature of Im?n and the other three, again, to the attributes of God. When

Ibn Taymiya was in the process of dictating his answer to the second ob

jection, someone suggested that, since the council had protracted, he should

write the answer and present it in another council. Perhaps the opponents were, as Ibn Taymiya suggests, really at their wits' end and wanted to gain time. 15

Some time before the second council some Sh?fi'? leaders, Ash'ar?s, Hanaf?s and others, who were ostensibly in agreement with Ibn Taymiya's


views, came to him and expressed their anxiety that, unless he did produce evidence to support his claims and showed their leading companions (dimma ash?bihim) to be in agreement with him, there would be disunity and it would be difficult for them to show deviation from the teachings of

their factions in public gatherings since this would mean the accomplish ment of the desires of their enemies. One of the Hanafi leaders went so far as to repeat the suggestion that if he would only call his creed the creed of Ibn Hanbal, it would end the dispute. But Ibn Taymiya did not

change his stand that it was the belief of the salaf he was talking about, and assured them that he would make his claims good by citing evidence from all the Muslim factions that had transmitted the consensus of the

salaf \ and that he would further demonstrate that what he had said was

not only the creed of the salaf but also of leading adherents of al-Sh?fi'?

(d. 204) and Ash'ar? (d. 324); and that the enemies would be refuted and every true Sh?fi'? and Ash'ar? would be victorious. 16

In the second council the opponents brought their leading shaykh, ?af? al-D?n al-Hind? al-Sh?fi'? (d. 715), who had not been present at the first council; they came also with solidarity, strength, and preparation they did not have before, since the first council had come upon them suddenly. Ibn Taymiya brought his written answer to their previous objections and

made an opening speech emphasizing the need of unity on the principles of

religion and asserting that what he said was unanimously agreed upon by the salaf and called for unity among Mulsims; finally, he threatened that if this peace talk failed and he was still opposed, he would use the language of war and expose the false creeds which had corrupted the communities and the state and go to the Sultan and tell him things which he would not say in this council. Then, submitting that people such as Hanbal?s and Ash'ar?s differ due to their ignorance of the truth of the matter, he entered Ibn 'As?kir's (d. 571) Kit?b Tabyln Kizb al-Muftar?fl m? Yunsabu il? ah Shaykh ab? al-Hasan al-AsKar? as an evidence probably to his claim that in reality even al-Ash'ar? was in agreement with his creed. After a digression into issues such as the meaning and origin of the Mu'tazila, the first theological dispute among Muslims, and the first use of the term

mutakallim, ?af? al-D?n?with whom this discussion was going on?charge that the fiashwiya and the mushabbiha derive their origin from Ibn flanbal. Ibn Taymiya retorted by saying that such people are found more among the adherents of other imams, such as the Kurds and the Karramiya who

10 HASAN QASIM MURAD

are Sh?fi'?s and Hanaf?s respectively. The point Ibn Taymiya was making was that these imams and their genuine followers were free from such

attributions. This was followed by a brief explanation of the word

bashwiya by Ibn Taymiya, at the end of which he asserted that there was

no evidence whatsoever to prove that any of the prominent Hanbal?s, whom he named, ever took a hashwi stand, as was falsely charged by al

R?z? (d. 606) and others. Ibn Taymiya wanted his creed to be read to

Saf? al-D?n as he was not present at the first council. The suggestion was

turned down on the basis that it would take too long. However, a part which the opponents wanted to question was read and the word al-baqiqa was discussed and Saf? al-D?n was praised by Ibn Taymiya. A dispute occurred between two great opponents themselves on the word al-wuj?d, which Ibn Taymiya tried to resolve by compromising the two opposite views. After a brief discussion over a certain Elad?th in which the audience

agreed with Ibn Taymiya and praised him, the discussion was diverted

into issues not directly related to his creed. Following this, the question of ta'w?l and sif?t was again taken up, in the course of which Ibn Taymiya was vigorously supported by Muhammad ibn Qaww?m (d. 718). When

Ibn Taymiya was speaking on the same subject, the M?lik? Q?d? al-Qud? Jamal al-D?n al-Zaw?w? (d. 717) angrily remarked that instead of giving evidence to prove his claim Ibn Taymiya had merely collected some

Qur'?nic verses and Prophetic traditions calling them the creed of the re

deemed people. Ibn Taymiya retaliated by emphasising the importance of the Prophet, and attacking Ibn T mart's practices and beliefs and accu

sing Zaw?w? of following Ibn T mart (d. 524). This enraged the M?likfs and a great disturbance started in the council, which was adjourned by the

Viceroy. Sometime during the council the opponents became dissatisfied with ?af? al-D?n and put forward Ibn al-Zamlak?n? as their spokesman, who is reported to have done well, i7

The second council probably ended without coming to a clear decision one way or the other. Both parties claimed victory. 18 The result was strife. One of the followers of Ibn Taymiya was brought to the court of Jal?l al-D?n al-Sh?fi'? (d. 739) who punished him. Jal?l al-D?n al-IJanaf? did the same with two others. In fact, many others were apprehended but were let go. Disorder occurred in the city. The Viceroy was out hunting. This was followed by still greater strife. On Monday 22 Rajab Jam?l al-D?n al-Mazz? (d. 742) read a section on the refutation of


Jahmiya from the chapter on human actions of Bukh?rTs (d. 256) in a general meeting held under the dome of Na?r of the Umayyad mosque in connection with a rain-making ceremony. Some of the Sh?fi'? faq?hs

present got angry and said that they were aimed at by this takf?r and took

the matter to the Sh?fi'? Q?d? al-Qud? Najm al-D?n ibn ?asr? (d. 723) who put Mazzi into prison. When Ibn Taymiya heard this he went bare

footed with a group of his companions to the prison and secured his re

lease. Then he went to the viceregal lodge and met the Q?dl al-Qud? there. A heated argument ensued between the two in the presence of the

Viceroy in which Ibn Taymiya defended and praised Mazzi, and the

Q?di al-Qud? became angry and swore that unless Mazzi was returned to

prison he would depose himself; the Viceroy had to humour him, so Mazzi

was returned to his prison at Q?siya where he remained for a few days. Ibn Taymiya complained that the Q?dl al-Qud?'s deputy, Jal?l al-D?n al

Sh?fi'?, had taken advantage of the absence of the Viceroy for hunting to

persecute Ibn Taymiya's friends. The Viceroy ordered the search and

imprisonment for those who did too much talking from both the groups;

perhaps the order applied more on the opponents of Ibn Taymiya, that is, unless the Viceroy was favouring Ibn Taymiya's friends. 19

A third council was probably necessitated by the conflicting ver

sions concerning the results of the second council and the strife following it. 20 It was attended, among other q?dls and faqihs, by Najm al-D?n ibn al-?a?r?, Kam?l al-D?n ibn al-Zamlak?n? and Sadr al-D?n ibn al-Wak?l

(d. 716). The issue discussed was again tcCml fi al-Sif?t especially kal?m Allah. Ibn Taymiya cited from Ash'arFs Maq?l?t al-Isl?miyln and

Kit?b al-Ib?na and Ibn 'As?kir's Tabyln Kizb al-Muftarl in support of his

claim that none of the im?ms including al-Sh?fi'? and Ash'ar? did interpre tation in the attributes of God. Sadr al-D?n ibn al-Wak?l agreed with Ibn Taymiya in that, according to al-Sh?fi'?, the Qur'?n was kal?m lafzl and uncreated and that one who does not believe in that is a k?fir. In fact Ibn al-Wak?l had a note written to that effect which Ibn Taymiya now produced. Ibn al-Zamlak?n? differed with him, since it implied the

kufr of great Sh?fi'? 'w/am?' like Juwayn? (d. 478) who regarded Qur'?n as

kal?m nafsl. Ibn al-Wak?l, caught between the devil and the deep sea, became evasive and was opposed by some and supported by others. The

Viceroy was perplexed. Ibn al-Zamlak?n? sought Ibn ?a?ra's support against Ibn al-Wak?l, but he remained aloof. Ibn al-Zamlak?n? became


furious and started saying that Sh?fi'? 'ulama* like Juwayn? were being

dubbed as k?fir and people were tolerating it silently. He was of course

alluding to Ibn Sasr? who took the cue and angrily retorted. Ibn Taymiya tried to cool him down, but he announced his resignation from the post of q?di al-qu4?.n

Perhaps the third council also ended inconclusively. However, Ibn Taymiya must have scored highly against his opponents and left them

out of their breath, since it was taken for granted that the 'ulamff were

satisfied with his creed. The Viceroy too must have sent a report to that

effect to the Sultan, since his letter arrived at the end of Sha'b?n announc

ing his pleasure on the concurrence of the 'ulama* s opinion toward the creed of Ibn Taymiya. 2 2 A short while after, however, the issue was again opened up when on 5 Ramadan a courier arrived with a decree containing severe denunciation of Ibn Taymiya and summoning him, Ibn Sasr.?, and others to Cairo, and inquiring as to what had transpired in 698 under

J?gh?n on account of the creed of Ibn Taymiya and also ordering a copy of both the first and the second creeds. Accordingly, a group oifaqihs,

including the Q?d?s Jal?l al-DIn al-Hanaf? and Jal?? al-D?n al-Sh?fi'?, was

called and asked about the events of 698. Each of them told what he

knew, which was written down. The Hanaf? said that a certain statement of his was reported, he was questioned and he answered. The Sh?fi'? submitted the copy of the creed which was presented in the time of his brother Im?m al-D?n Sh?fi'?. "They" [?] talked the Viceroy into writing in their behalf to close this door of trouble. What had happened in the

meantime to require this fresh attempt at the beliefs of Ibn Taymiya? If there was any mystery, it was solved on 10 Ramad?n by the Maml?k of the Viceroy who arrived with the mail courier to announce that Ibn

Taymiya was urgently wanted in Cairo and that the M?lik? Q?d? al-Qud? Ibn Makhl?f was raising hell in this matter and Baybars al-J?shnig?r was

backing him. He also reported the aflBiction of Hanbal?s in Egypt and

arguments between the M?lik? and tlanbal? q?qlis. The Viceroy, when he learned this, desisted from writing to intercede and ordered them to pack. Ibn Taymiya was accorded a rousing farewell. 2 3

On Friday 23 Ramad?n, a day after their arrival in Cairo, a sum mary trial was held for Ibn Taymiya at the viceregal lodge in the citadel after the Friday prayers. It was attended by, besides religious authorities, ofl&cers of state including the Viceroy of Egypt Sayf al-D?n Sall?r (d. 710)


and Baybars al-J?shnig?r. Shams al-D?n ibn 'Adl?n al-Sh?fi'? (d. 749) made a formal charge against Ibn Taymiya's belief that God is really on

the throne, and that He speaks by letter and sound, and that he can be

pointed at in a physical sense, and asked for him "the grave punishment"

(hinting at death according to the M?lik? school). Ibn Taymiya rose to

put his defense but was cut short, when he started to speak in his usual rhetorical way, being reminded that he was not brought to give khutba, that his views were already known, that there was no need to prolong the

proceedings and that he should only answer the charge. Then Ibn Tay miya refused to continue, on the ground that the q?#9 being a party to the

dispute, could not be the arbitrator. Consequently he was sentenced to

imprisonment together with his two brothers; and was not given another chance to be heard even when immediately after he showed readiness to accept Ibn Makhl?f as judge. Afer remaining a few days in one of

the towers of the citadel they were transferred to the Jubb, thanks to Ibn

Makhl?f; he had come to know that a group of amirs used to visit Ibn

Taymiya and were sending him food through slaves, so he went to Bay bars al-J?shnig?r and told him that if Ibn Taymiya, despite the proof of

his kufr, was not put to death, he should at least be put to hardship; so

they were transferred to Jubb on the night of 'Id al-Fitr.24

After Ibn Taymiya had been carried to the prison, the Sh?fi'? Q?d? al-Qud? Badr al-D?n ibn Jam?'a (d. 733) spoke about Sh?fi'? doctrine and Hanaf? and Hanbal? qud? al-qu4?t were asked to express their views in this

matter. Hanaf? Q?d? al-Qud? Shams al-D?n al-Sar?j? (d. 710) readily accepted it, but Hanbal? Q?d? al-Qud? Sharaf al-D?n al-Harr?n? (d. 709) hesitated. Shams al-D?n al-Qurw? al-M?lik? pressed him to renew his Islam under threat of imprisonment. So he repeated the doctrine instructed by Ibn Jam?'a. In fact Ibn Taymiya's imprisonment was fol lowed by a nation-wide proscription of the Ibn Taymiyan creed as well as a fresh crack down upon Hanbal?s. A decree was issued denouncing Ibn Taymiya and his beliefs and binding people in general and Hanbal?s in particular to renunciation of them, failing which, it declared, they were liable to forfeit their freedom and office. In Damascus the decree was read by Qad? Shams al-D?n ibn Shih?b al-D?n Muhammad al-Muwaqq? (d. 727) in the presence of all the q?ils and Am?r Rukn al-D?n Bay bar al-'Al?? (d. 712), H?jib of Syria, and all the Hanbal?s; after the recitation Hanbal?s were brought before the M?lik? Q?d? al-Qud? Jam?l al-D?n


al-Zaw?w? and confessed that they believed in what Im?m Sh?fi'? believed.

In Cairo too the Hanbal?s were made to profess the Ash'arite doctrine

regarding the Qur'?n and the $ifSt; they were persecuted otherwise also.

Their q?4i al-qu4? Sharaf al-D?n did not possess sufficient learning to put up a defense. The person most active against them was Ibn Makhl?f, with whom a group of Sh?fi'?s collaborated. The Hanaf? Q?d? al-Qu?l? of Damascus Shams al-D?n al-Har?r? wrote a note in favour of Ibn Tay

miya and was dismissed through the efforts of Ibn Makhl?f. 25

On the night of Td al-Fitr 706?more than a year after Ibn Taymiya was sent to jail?Sallar, the Viceroy of Egypt, who is reported to be pro Ibn Taymiya, convoked a meeting of the Sh?fi'?, M?lik?, and Hanaf? q?4is and the faqihs 'Al? al-D?n B?j? (d. 714), Shams al-D?n Khat?b Jazar?, and, Namr?w? (d. 710) and talked about setting Ibn Taymiya free. They

agreed that certain conditions be imposed upon him and he be compelled to renounce part of his creed. Six times the messenger was sent to him to come and discuss the matter, but Ibn Taymiya declined the offer and the council ended without achieving anything. 2 6 What happened was that the opponents, who were not really interested in any true discussion, wanted to make it a touch-and-go affair. But Ibn Taymiya, who had not forgotten the last year's summary trial and still felt resentment about the unfairness of it, would not fall for any such thing again. So he first tried to have a

private talk with the amirs and, failing in that, when they still insisted upon his appearance before them, he offered to have a written exchange of

arguments over his creed, to be submitted in turn to the 'ulam?9 of east and west for their verdict. At this they revealed their true intentions when

they plainly told him, in> written note, what modifications they required in his beliefs, and also that he should not talk or write about such matters to the common people. Ibn Taymiya hastily scribbled an answer defend

ing his position on these points. But the opponents had a one-track mind and again and again demanded his personal appearance and thus

finally had the messengers illtreated by Ibn Taymiya. 27 However, Sallar seems to have been really determined to see Ibn Taymiya free, since he was

finally able to arrange confrontations between the 'ulama9 and the priso ners. Two successive encounters between the brothers of Ibn Taymiya, Sharaf al-D?n (d. 727) and Zayn al-D?n, (d. 737) on the one hand and Ibn Makhl?f and Ibn 'Adl?n on the other took place in the presence of Sallar at the end of 706. Although brothers are reported to have outwitted the

opponents, the encounters ended without any result. A third encounter


took place between Ibn Taymiya himself and Q??K al-Qu?Ul Badr al-D?n ibn Jam?'a on Friday24 ?afar at D?r al-Awhad! in the citadel, again evidently with no result, since Ibn Taymiya was adamant on not leaving the prison. These encounters were apparently part of the attempt of the *ulam?\ on Sall?r's initiative, to come to some sort of terms with Ibn

Taymiya in order to set him free without losing face or faith. 2 8

Where Sallar failed, Amir Hhis?m al-D?n Murjtanna ibn '?s?, (d. 735) another devotee of Ibn Taymiya, succeeded. In Rab?* I 707 he came

to Cairo, met the sult?n and got permission to release Ibn Taymiya. He personally went to the prison and, through persuasion, got him out and brought him to the viceregal lodge on Friday the twenty-third. Some

faqlhs were also called and a long discussion took place which continued with a break for Friday prayers till the sunset. Nothing was settled. Another council took place, on an order from the sult?n on Sunday the

twenty-fifth with Viceroy Sall?r presiding. A goodly number of faqlhs turned up, including Najm al-D?n ibn Raf'a (d. 710)?who was their chief spokesman?Al? al-D?n al-B?j?, Fakhr al-D?n ibn bint ab? Sa'd (d. 719). Shams al-D?n al-Khat?b al-Jazar?, al-D?n al-Namr?w? and Shams al-D?n ibn 'Adl?n. But the q?4ls did not come. When summoned, they sought excuse on various pleas such as illness. Were they afraid of the superior knowledge and arguments of Ibn Taymiya, as has been suggested, or were they protesting against sult?n's high-handedness in releasing their

prisoner? The discussion continued all day long and the council reported ly ended well. Ibn Taymiya, who had apparently been staying with Sall?r all these days, wrote a letter to Damascus on Monday the twenty sixth about his release from the prison and afterwards lodged with Ibn

Shaq?T (d. 744) in Cairo. The Viceroy made him stay in Cairo ostensibly for letting the people benefit from his knowledge; though, there may be some other reason (maslafra) behind it, such as keeping him under the eye, especially if Ibn Taymiya gave some undertaking in the second council. The council either ended without reaching any decision at this stage, except perhaps to wink at Ibn Taymiya's freedom (any way there was no q?4t there to decide otherwise), or an agreement?a compromise over some changes in the wordings of Ibn Taymiya's creed?was already reached, whether voluntarily or under duress. If latter was the case, then the agreement somehow must have been violated by Ibn Taymiya, since

shortly afterwards a third council was held to deal with the same problem.


The only thing which had reportedly happened in the meantime was that on Friday (30 RabF I) Ibn Taymiya prayed in the mosque of rj?kim and was asked to make a speech after the prayer. He would not. (Had he

given some undertaking in this regard?) Someone quoted a verse from the Qur'?n to the effect that he was religiously bound to make knowledge

manifest. That was enough. Ibn Taymiya rose and kept on speaking until the evening on the meaning of Hb?da and ist??na. Anyhow, the third

council took place on Thursday 6 Rab?4 II in Madrasa ???ihiya and was

attended by the q?fis also. Ibn Taymiya was asked to repent from certain

things. And, if not before, then now the council ended with certain changes in the words of the creed. The tone of one of the letters which Ibn Taymiya

wrote to Damascus, probably shortly afterwards, is quite conciliatory.

Anyway, these particular issues did not rise again in the later life of mihan

of Ibn Taymiya. 29

Following the third council Ibn Taymiya set about imparting knowledge; lecturing in congregational mosques and public gatherings.

People flocked to him. All was well until he spoke about the idols of

ittib?dl S?fism. He could not have chosen a more unfortunate topic to

speak about in a place like Cairo. Barely six months after the last council, a new mibna occurred, perhaps with Na?r al-ManbijFs long hand of influ

ence also working from behind. In Shaww?l 707, Kar?m al-D?n, Shaykh al-Shuy?kh of Kh?nq?h Sa'?d al-Su'ad?, (whom Ibn Taymiya had earlier written a censorious letter along with Nasr al-Manbij?) and Ibn 'Ata

[Allah?] (d. 709), together with a group of about 500 persons?not including the common people ??mm?) who followed them?made a noisy demonstra tion at the Cairo citadel and complained to the sultan against Ibn Taymiya and his statements about Ibn al-'Arab? and others. They had also called on the amirs and left no stone unturned in this matter. The matter was referred to the Sh?fi'? Q?d? al-Qud? Badr al-D?n ibn Jam?'a. A trial was held in Dar al-'Adl. Ibn 'At? accused Ibn Taymiya of many things, but could not prove any of them. Rather he admitted that Ibn Taymiya had said that none could be called for help except God, so much so that even the Prophet could not be called for help in the sense of Hb?da, though he could be made a mediator or intercessor to God. Someone said that there was nothing objectionable in that. Ibn Jam?'a, the arbiter, maintained that there was lack of respect to the Prophet in it and chided Ibn Taymiya.

A note was presented to him saying that he should do with him what was


required by SharVa. Ibn Jam?'a said that he had already said about him

what should be said about a person like him. This trial seems to have ended without any action taken against Ibn Taymiya. He came out un

scathed and in fact more determined than before. The complaints went on piling against him and finally the authorities gave him the choice between residence in Damascus or Alexandria, with certain conditions, and prison. Ibn Taymiya chose the latter. But a group of his friends, on their way to Damascus, took the responsibility of the conditions imposed. Ibn Taymiya had to respect their option in this matter. On the night of Thursday 18 Shaww?l he departed on the mail-horse for Damascus. But Ibn Makhl?f, who had been ill while all this was happening, came to know of Ibn Tay miya's departure and got in touch with the n?'ib [?]. As a result of this, the next day another barld was sent after Ibn Taymiya. He was brought back from Bilb?s the same day, Thursday, and presented again before the Sh?fi'? q?dl al-qud?. A group of faqlhs were also present. Someone informed Ibn Taymiya that the authorities would not be satisfied except by his imprisonment. To this the q?dl al-qud? added that there was maslafya for him in this. Then he deputised Shams al-D?n al-T?nisi al-M?lik? (d. 715) and Nur al-D?n al-Zaw?w? al-M?lik? (d. 722), one after the other, to sentence him to imprisonment. The first mentioned refused point blank saying that nothing was proved against him, while the other could not make up his mind. At this point Ibn Taymiya seeing their reluctance in sentencing him to imprisonment intervened and offered that he would go to prison and follow what was required by maslaha. On N?r al-D?n al-Zaw?wFs recommendation that he should be put in a place worthy of him, it was said that the authorities were interested only in something by name of prison. He was put the same night in the Q?d?s' Prison at H?rat al-Daylam and was allowed to keep someone to serve him. On the night ofWednesday 20 Shaww?l 708, brothers of Ibn Taymiya were also sum moned. But only Zayn al-D?n, together with a group of persons, was found. They were kept under surveillance, then all were released excep Zayn al-D?n who was carried to the place where Ibn Taymiya was kept under detention, but was later freed on 5 Safar 709.3 0

On the last Friday night of ?afar 709 Ibn Taymiya was transferred from Cairo to Alexandria in the company of amir muqaddam none of his adherents was able to go with him. Reaching Alexandria on Sunday,


he was put in a clean, spacious tower. When the news of deportation to

Alexandria without any friend, and rumours about his murder and drown

ing, reached Damascus ten days later, there was consternation among his

friends and admirers there. The situation, however, changed shortly when some of his friends went to Alexandria and were not prevented from

seeing him; then group after group of them followed and people (ak?bir, cty?n, and faqlhs) engaged him in studies and discussions. Apparently the nature of Ibn Taymiya's confinement in Alexandria was not, properly

speaking, that of a prisoner, since not only could people go to him for study and discussion, but he could choose his own visitors, could go out for a bath and for Friday prayers and address gatherings. What had hap pened since his last imprisonment to require his removal to Alexandria? The most important thing which had happened was the change of hands in the central government: Baybars al-J?shnig?r had replaced Sultan

N??ir as Sultan of Egypt and Syria. The Hanbali Q?d? of Damascus,

Taq? al-D?n Sulaym?n ibn Hamza (d. 715), was deposed because he refused to validate Sultan N?sir's letter of abdication on the ground that he was

forced to abdicate, that no one in his right mind would leave the throne

willingly. Ibn al-Zamlak?nl was removed, on the instigation of Nasr al

Manbij?, from nazr al-m?ristan, because of his affiliations with Ibn Taymiya. Ibn Taymiya too was reported to have caused damage to Baybars al

J?shnig?r and his shaykh Na?r al-Manbijl and to have said that his days were finished, his leadership had come to an end, and expiration of his

time had drawn near. Furthermore, despite his detention, or may be because of it, Ibn Taymiya's popularity increased. More and more people (n?s9 amirs, and a'y?n) went to visit him?till the prison would be full of

ljiem?and he still talked to them on the same old subjects, not excluding Ibn al-'Arab? and his followers. So the opposition, which can now be

identified with the government, decided to send him in exile to Alexandria.

The decision to deport him to Alexandria was taken with twofold objectives in view: one, that he would be far away from the centre of activities; two, that some one there would be audacious enough to assassinate him, and

his influence would come to an end; it was thought that people there did

not have affection for him. Whatever the intentions of his opponents in

sending Ibn Taymiya to Alexandria, and they were obviously not good, Ibn Taymiya apparently did quite well there. He appears to have attracted

the Alexandrians to his teachings?especially his teachings against some


extremist ??fl sects like Sab4Iniya and 'Arabiya, who were quite popular there and whose strength was thus broken. Bands of them repented,

including one of their leaders who was a close associate of Na?r al-Manbij? and who even wrote a book exposing the heresies of these sects. This

incident became widespread and "enemies of God and His Prophet" were

condemned openly name by name. Na?r al-Manbij? was terrified and

humiliated and tried in vain to win over people by various means. 31

After his third and final return to the throne, reaching Cairo on

the first of Shaww?l, Sultan N?sir sent for Ibn Taymiya from Alexandria on the eighth. Ibn Taymiya, who was given a nice farewell by Alexand

rians, reached Cairo on Saturday the eighteenth and met the sultan on Fri

day the twenty-fourth. The sultan showed great respect to him and re

ceived him in a court session in which the Egyptian and Syrian qatfis and faq?hs were also present. The sultan made peace between him and them.

In the session Ibn Taymiya is reported to have addressed the sultan in

harsh words, when he saw him inclined towards restoring, at a price offered,

the privilege of wearing white headgears with coloured marks to ahi al

dhimma; the sultan dropped the idea. Afterwards Ibn Taymiya, who is

reported to have met the sultan once again a few months later, took up

residence in the city of Cairo near Mashhad al-IJusayn. Common people,

amirs, ak?bir, soldiers and number of faqlhs frequented him. Among the

faqlhs were those who apologized for what had happened to him, and Ibn

Taymiya generously exonerated them from the harm they had done to

him. A new era of influence and popularity had begun for Ibn Taymiya? more influence and popularity than he enjoyed during and after the

Mongol wars and battles of Kasraw?n. He was now enjoying a position with Sultan N??ir somewhat similar to that of Nasr al-Manbij? with Baybars

al-J?shnig?r. He appeared to have acted like a religious consultant or

minister without portfolio to the sultan. His hand was noticed working behind the nomination of Afram as viceroy of Tripoli and dismissal of

Sayf al-D?n Kar?y (d. 719) from the viceroyalty of Damascus; and behind

the issuance of at least two letters from the sultan forbidding the sale of

offices and the private revenge against the murderers. 3 2

(iii) Ibn Taymiya might have the blessings of the sultan and might be

popular in certain sections of the society, but he was still not immune

from opposition. After having taken up residence in Cairo for the second


time, Ibn Taymiya had resumed his usual scholastic activities, perhaps with comparatively more emphasis on writing; he even sent for certain

books from Damascus. By now one should be suspicious of these scho

lastic activities. They seem to be the breeding ground for trouble. And

trouble was what followed. On 4 Rajab 711 some persons in the mosque of H?kim at Misr ganged up against Ibn Taymiya, found him alone, and beat him. A large crowd on foot and horses from Husayniya and

other places came looking for Ibn Taymiya and found him at the mosque of Al-Fakhr K?tib al-Mam?l?k. They offered to raze Misr if he would

so order, but Ibn Taymiya would not have it. Then they wanted to kill

those who hurt him and destroy their houses, but Ibn Taymiya would not

hear of that even. They got impatient and insisted on fighting, and only

reluctantly gave in after a lot of argument back and forth. Then they wanted him to leave with them for Cairo to save him from further moles

tation. But Ibn Taymiya wanted to offer his 'asr prayer at the mosque of Hakim. He declined to pray somewhere else even when told that the

enemies were set on killing him and the mosque of H?kim was the more

likely place for another assault. He headed for the mosque of H?kim,

stopping in a mosque on the way to let the mass of people, which had not

left him and was crowding the road, disperse, lest someone should get knocked down in it. People were afraid that the enemies would kill him

by shutting him and his friends in the mosque, but he entered the mosque and after the 'asr prayer spoke till the maghrib prayer on "the issue the

riot was about." The effect was astounding: the followers of his enemies

divided into two contending groups, one of them openly supporting Ibn

Taymiya and acknowledging its mistake in rising against him. 3 3

A few days later, in the middle decade of Rajab, another offense was made against Ibn Taymiya, the news of which reached Damascus in

Sha'b?n. A faq?h, Nur a?-D?n al-Bakr? al-Sh?fi'? (d. 714) by name, who was "one of the haters of Ibn Taymiya" and had acute differences with

him on the question of istigh?tha (to the extent that when, probably in the second Cairo trial, someone suggested that Ibn Taymiya should be chastised for depreciating the Prophet, Bakr! remarked that this was absurd, since either he was depreciating, in which case he should be put to death, or he was not depreciating, in which case he should not be punished at all,) caught Ibn Taymiya in a lonely place and pulled his collar asking him to

go with him to the court since he had a claim against him; but when the

people gathered, he slipped away; sought by the authorities, he went into

TAYMIYA ON TRIAL 21

hiding; then some people interceded for him. ? situation developed because of this incident: a group of soldiers and other persons wanted to

take revenge on Bakr?, but Ibn Taymiya did not allow it; in fact he did not

even file a complaint. 3 4

IV. In Shaww?l 712 Ibn Taymiya set out for Syria with the sultan and his army with the intention of jih?d against the Mongols, but parted ways with him when he knew that Mongols had gone back, and went to

visit Bayt al-Maqdis, reaching Damascus on the first of Dh? al-Qa'da

together with his brothers and friends. He was given a rousing reception

by a great number of people of Damascus; even women came out to see

him. After his return to Damascus Ibn Taymiya once again busied him

self with his usual academic pursuits with ever more fervour. However, this time they were different from the preceding one in three ways: One, he resumed his duties as teacher at Sukkariya and Hanbaliya; in Egypt his lectures were confined to mosques and general gatherings. Two, he

took up more leisurely writing; most of his copious and original works

belong to this period. Three, stress was more on ijtih?d ft ahk?m al-shari'a, that is, on matters of law rather than on theology. In some matters he

gave fatw?s in conformity with the dimma of the four schools and in some

others against them, at least against the famous rulings of their schools.

This last-mentioned change determined the character of the issues, if not

the issues themselves, over which he got into trouble later. It is however

a bit early to talk of the troubles. This period of quiet, intense intellectual

activities was quite extensive. In fact, it extended through and beyond the subsequent troubles of Ibn Taymiya, till the very end of his life. In

this period, all of which was spent in Damascus, though he was probably still in good books of Sultan N?sir, Ibn Taymiya was, unlike the old times

of Afram, reportedly cold shouldered, to say the least, by the new Viceroy of Syria, Sayf al-D?n Tankiz (d. 741), whose tenure of office corresponded with this period. In this period too Ibn Taymiya was finding fresh,

energetic disciples like Shams al-D?n ibn Qayyim (d. 751) and Shih?b

al-D?n ibn Murr? and also fresh, energetic disputants like Taq? al-D?n al-Akhn?'? al-M?lik? (d. 750) and Jamal al-D?n ibn Jumla al-Sh?fil

(d. 738), while some old opponents like 'Al?' al-D?n al-Q?naw? (d. .729) were still there, in fact some old supporters like Shams al-D?n ibn al-Har?r?

were turning into opponents. Moreover, in this and the following period Ibn Taymiya was broaching the problems which, besides probably being in


contravention to the accepted rulings of all the four schools including the

Hanball, had direct social bearings in addition to deep emotional trim

mings. 3 5

The new phase of mifran, spreading over a period of more than

three years?beginning in 718 ending in 721?revolved around the pro

blem of bedf bi al-tal?q. Orders were issued by the sultan to stop Ibn

Taymiya from giving fatw?s on this issue; three councils were held in

Damascus in this connection; and finally Ibn Taymiya was put into

prison for not paying heed to these orders, where he remained for about

six months. Instructed by a group of eminent muftis of Damascus, the

Hanball Q?d? al-Qud? Shams al-Din ibn Muslim (d. 726) met Ibn Taymiya on Thursday 15 Rab?* II718 and advised him to give up giving fatw?s on this issue. Ibn Taymiya accepted the advice. But either Cairo was not

made aware of Ibn Taymiya's acquiescence, or Ibn Taymiya had given a fatw? in the meantime, or somebody just wanted to harass him, for on

Saturday the first Jumada I the sultan's letter arrived forbidding Ibn

Taymiya from giving fatw?s on this issue and ordering the holding of a

council in this connection. The council was held on Monday the third

in the viceregal lodge. The matter was settled in conformity with the order

of the sult?n, and was announced in the city next day. Thereupon, either

perhaps irritated, or probably reminded of his duty by this measure, Ibn Taymiya reverted to if ta' saying that he could not conceal knowledge. On Tuesday 29 RamacJ?n 719 the q?fis and faqihs gathered with the

Viceroy Tankiz. Sultan's letter, part of which pertained to Ibn Taymiya due to his fatw? on this issue, was read to them. Ibn Taymiya was sum

moned and reproved for iftS after the interdiction. The council ended

after emphasizing the interdiction. Evidently Ibn Taymiya did not stop

giving fatw?s even after that. Consequently on Thursday 22 Rajah another council was held, with the viceroy, q?iis and muftis present. Ibn

Taymiya was summoned and they held a discussion with him concerning

iftS on the issue of fal?q, reproved him, and imprisoned him in the citadel

from which he was released, at an order from the sult?n, on Monday 10

Multarram 721. Compared to the thorough-going character of the

first three councils of Damascus, these councils were mere brushing affairs; as if the matter was not considered susceptible to dispute or discussion.

Or was it because there was no Afram there to conduct the councils other wise? The only mentioned name in connection with opposition to Ibn

Taymiya on this matter is?besides a general reference to muftis of Damas


cus?-of IJanaf? Q?d? al-Qu^? of Egypt, Shams al-Din al-IJar?r?, who is

reported to have induced the sultan to have Ibn Taymiya arrested. 3 6

V. After his release from the prison in 721 Ibn Taymiya went

back to his usual educational work, including the teaching at Hanbaliya and Sukkariya. Five and a half years later, however, he had to face

another, in fact his last, mibna, which ended in his death in the prison. The issue this time was the visiting of the graves of the prophets and the

pious. In 726 certain people discovered a fatw? written by Ibn Taymiya seventeen years ago in this matter. Discovery of this fatw? generated

great controversy and gossip. False statements were attributed to Ibn

Taymiya and he was made the object of slander. The fitna assumed such

intensity and proportion that Ibn Taymiya was in mortal danger from the

intrigues of those who rose in this dispute in Egypt and Syria, and a number

of his friends lost their nerve. A group of well-known people gathered in

Damascus to deliberate about the fate of Ibn Taymiya. Various sugges tions were given: should be exiled; should be silenced (his tongue should be cut off); should be castigated; should be imprisoned. Probably it was the same people who went to see ba'4 wul?t a?-um?r [the viceroy? the Sh?fi'? q?4l al-qu4?ci] about this matter. The fatw? was described in scandalous terms, so that it was misunderstood. Other "things" com bined with all this denial, scandalising, and distortion. The upshot was

that the sultan was written about it. A copy of Ibn Taymiya's fatw? was

also sent, with this note from the q?4l al-Sh?fi'?ya [Jal?l al-D?n?] that he

examined Ibn Taymiya's answer to the question posed?answer written in his own had?and that the crux of the matter was that Ibn Taymiya

regarded the visitation of the grave of the Prophet and those of the other

prophets a sin according to decisive ijm?\ When the letter arrived, there was sharp reaction. Probably it was then that a group of persons?

probably the same eighteen who, headed by the M?lik? Q??l? al-Qud? Akhn?'?, issued a fatw? of kufr against Ibn Taymiya?met in Cairo and went to the sultan asking him to put Ibn Taymiya to death. But the sult?n did not agree to that. Instead, he convened a meeting of the four

q?4is to discuss and decide this issue; q?4ts mtl and discussed; the verdict of imprisonment was reached and was implemented by an order of the

sult?n. During all this Ibn Taymiya was neither presented in a court, nor

was made aware of the writing which was contested, nor was any charge filed against him. Anyway, on Monday 6 Sha'b?n, after

' yr, Mushidd


al-Awq?f N??ir al-D?n and one of the fr?fibs, Ibn al-Khat?r?, came to Ibn Taymiya on behalf of the viceroy and informed him that the sultan's orders had arrived to the effect that he should be put in the citadel. They brought with them a mount for him. Ibn Taymiya expressed his delight on hearing the news and said that he was expecting this, that there was great good in it. They rode together to the citadel; a pleasant room was vacated for him; running water was provided; his brother Zayn al-D?n was allowed by the sultan to stay with him for service and a sufficient stipend was assigned to him. On Friday the tenth the sultan's letter re garding his imprisonment and prohibition from iftS was read in the Umayyad mosque. On Wednesday the fifteenth, the Sh?fi'? Q?d? al-Qud? Jal?l al-D?n ordered, following the decree and permission from the viceroy to do what was required by shar\ the imprisonment of a group of Ibn Taymiya's friends. Those who did not go into hiding were punished, paraded in the city on donkeys, and publicly denounced. Then all were released except Ibn Qayyim, who was imprisoned with Ibn Taymiya. Ibn Qayyim was beaten, paraded on a donkey, and finally put into the prison, not simply because of his affiliation with Ibn Taymiya, but in his own right: in Jerusalem he had spoken about the question of intercession of the pro phets, and had denied that one could go with the sole intention of visiting the grave of the Prophet with the exclusion of the mosque of the Prophet; the 'ulama9 of Jerusalem disapproved it and wrote to the Sh?fi'? Q?d? al Qud? Jal?l al-D?n and other q?fts of Damascus; when the letters concern ing Ibn Qayyim arrived, the 'ulama9 of Damascus, who might have not forgotten the affair of tal?q, wrote to the sultan about Ibn Taymiya and his friend Ibn Qayyim; the sult?n acquainted the IJanaf? Q?d? al-Qud? Shams al-D?n al-Har?r? with it; Har?r? denounced Ibn Taymiya excessively until the sult?n wrote for his imprisonment; and Ibn Qayyim was beaten. This

may also partly explain why an issue which by no means was new, in the sense that Ibn Taymiya had been dealing with it off and on since early days, suddenly came into limelight and assumed such importance that a seventeen-year old fatw? of his was dug cut and a fitna created out of it. Another incident had taken place the year before, which also might have helped in bringing this issue into focus: Shih?b al-D?n ibn Murr?, another devotee of Ibn Taymiya and enemy of Sufis, spoke in certain mosques of Cairo about the question of intercession and visitation on the lines of Ibn Taymiya; a group of common people and partisans of Sufis jumped upon him, intending to kill him, but he ran away; this matter was taken to the

A A ON TRIAL 25

M?lik? Q?d? al-Qud? Taql al-D?n Akhn?'? who had him brought and

imprisoned on 26 Rab?* I; then on 15 RabT II a council was held for him in the presence of the sult?n himself, in which Badr al-DIn ibn Jangall (d. 746), Badr al-DIn ibn Jam?'a, and other amirs praised him, while Amir Aydamur al-Khat?r? disputed with them and attacked Ibn MurrI and Ibn Taymiya, with the result that he and Jang?l? were about to quarrel; the sult?n entrus

ted the affair to Argh?n al-Daw?d?r, the Viceroy of Egypt?reportedly another admirer of Ibn Taymiya

? who took Ibn MurrFs side and rebuked N?zir al-Jaysh Fakhr (d. 732) on taking the side of the S?fts; finally he was placed in Akhn?Ts hands, who had him, on 29 Jum?da I, severely flogged till he bled, paraded sitting on a donkey facing backward, denounced in the words that this was the reward of one who talked about

the Prophet in such a way; the people were about to kill him, but then he

was returned to prison and later freed and exiled from Cairo when some

one interceded for him. 37 Ibn Taymiya's opponents finally got him (and his friends) nailed on the one issue on which his forceful tongue and pen would not be of much avail?such was the emotionally explosive and thus

politically sensitive nature of it. Yet such was the dread of his ability to

reach the hearts and minds of people, high and low, that his opponents dared not give him the chance to defend himself publicly, or even in camera.

Ibn Taymiya must die in prison.

The last imprisonment of Ibn Taymiya, which eventually ended in

his death, was perhaps not the last or the least of his mifian. He still had

to go through his final, probably his greatest mifyna shortly before his death? a miijna which must have broken his spirit and hastened his end. A few

months before his death, on Monday 9 Jum?da II 728, he was deprived, on an order from the sult?n, of his books and writing material?papers, ink, and pen?and was forbidden to read and write. The very last of his

writings, addressed to some of his friends, were written with charcoal.

The person responsible for this particular mihna was the M?lik? Q?d?

al-Qud? of Egypt, Taq? al-D?n al-Akhn?'?. Ibn Taymiya, who had con

tinued his polemics against his adversaries even in the prison, had written

a refutation of Akhn?Ts refutation of his writing on the question of

visitation, and had showed his stupidity and ignorance; Akhn?'? who was

reportedly one of sult?n N??ir's favourites, went straight to the sult?n

and complained of it; and thus the sult?n dealt Ibn Taymiya the hardest

blow that he could?perhaps unwittingly, since he did have a soft corner

and a spot of respect for him in his heart and only the year before had told


'Al? al-D?n al-Q?nawI (d. 729), when the latter was leaving for Damascus

to take charge of q?fi al-qud?t al-Sh?fi'?ya, to tell the viceroy to release

Ibn Taymiya (but Q?naw? had retorted that if he was imprisoned because of his fatw?s, then he could not be released unless he had retracted them?

and thus Ibn Taymiya remained a prisoner till his death "since his retrac

tion was unthinkable").

In terms of attendance Ibn Taymiya's funeral procession is reported to be second only to that of Ibn flanbal. Only three persons of some note

are supposed to have stayed away from the funeral and that too for fear

of their lives at the hands of an angry mob?angry at their notorious

enmity for Ibn Taymiya. 3 ? Perhaps, he did beat them after all.

Ibn Taymiya died on the night of Monday 20 Dh al-Qa'da 728.

NOTES

1. Bid?ya, , 241, 255, 303, 341, XIV, 136-37; 'Uq?d, pp. 2-5, 12-13, 22-25; Ta'rikh, pp. 286-87; Dhayl, 387-391.

2. Dhayl, p. 389; this incident is reported on the authority of Birz?lFs "Ta'rikh". It is curious that no other contemporary or later source, including Ibn Kathir who

is generally based on Birz?li, mentions this incident. Perhaps the reason for its

being generally overlooked lies in the fact that, besides having failed to develop into a situation, it fell so far back from the main stream of Ibn Taymiya's troubles.

3. Biaaya, XIV, 333.

4. Chronique, pp. 34-35; Jazari's account of this incident is the fullest; it is also most

intelligible, except at one point: it says that the viceroy asked the Sh?f? *ulama

"s'il ?tait licite de faire couler le sang de cet individu, maintenant qu'il s'?tait con

verti ? l'Islam," to which they replied in affirmative. In the context, the question can be only of sparing the blood and not of shedding it. Ibn Kathir, in fact, uses

the word "buqina damuhu". Either there was a misprint, or Sauvaget misunder

stood the word, that is, unless I am misunderstanding his French. Ibn Kath?r's own account is comparatively brief and very confounding. According to him * Ass?f was the name of the Christian abuser who was protected by one Ibn Ahmad ibn Sajj?, Amir Al 'Ali, and was beaten by the crowd and finally went to IJij?z and

was murdered there. However, Ibn Kathir contradicts himself later when he re

ports that in 694 'Ass?f ibn Ahmad ibn Hajji who had protected the Christian was

murdered. Ibn Kathir contradicts Jazari in one more point, when he says that the Christian's life was spared because enmity between him and his accuser was estab lished. This can also be attributed to his careless copying. (Bid?ya, , 335-36,

340). Ibn Rajah is the only other historian who makes a brief reference to this incident (Dhayl, p. 396).

5. ?tf^e, , 344.


6. Bid?ya, XIII, 352. 7. 'Uq?d, pp. 198-202; this account, given on the authority of Birz?li, is the fullest,

but does not specify that opponents were faqihs. This information is provided by Ibn Kath?r (Bid?ya, XIV, 4) and Safadi (Durar, I, 145). ?afadi also adds the name of Jal?l al-D?n among the supporters of Ibn Taymiya. Compare Dhahabi's account C?q?d, p. 195) and Ibn Rajab's (Dhayl, p. 396).

8. Bid?ya, XIV, 6-12, 14-16, 23-26, 35; 'Uq?d, pp. 118-94; Durr, pp. 15-37. 9. Bid?ya, XIV, 11, 33,41. 10. Bid?ya,Xl\, 19.

. Bid?ya, XIV, 22.

12. Sul?k, II, 8-9; Ibn Kathir's report of this incident gives the impression that this act was approved by the Damascenes and it was only an anonymous plurality which resented this because of their jealousy towards Ibn Taymiya. This may be the

point of view of the religious circles to which Ibn Kath?r belonged (Bid?ya, XIV, 34). Maqrizi's source, relying on barid from Damascus, seems more detached and nearer the truth.

13. Ras?'il wa Mas?Ul, pp. 121-148: Bid?ya, XIV, 36; 'Uq?d, pp. 194-95; Sul?k, , 16. Birz?lFs contribution through Ibn Kath?r and Ibn 'Abd al-H?d?, to the account of this incident is that he provides the name of the chief of Rif?'?s. Maqrizi's description of the guise of these/?^ ? is more detailed than even that of Ibn Taymiya: they were not only iron necklaces, but shoulder chains, bracelets, and matted hair.

14. Durr, pp. 143-44; Ibn al-Daw?d?ri makes no mention of the Damascus councils being held due to these three persons. In fact, by having Ibn Makhl?f suggest only that Nasr al-Manbiji should make Baybars al-J?shnig?r summon Ibn Taymiya to Egypt, and by having Nasr al-Manbiji mention to Baybars al-J?shnig?r that Ibn Taymiya corrupted the minds of the Viceroy of Syria and the great Syrian amirs, Ibn al-Daw?d?ri gives the impression that these three became involved and effective

only after the Damascus councils; compare the accounts of the Safadi (Durar, I, 147 Dhahab? ?Uq?d, p. 196) and Ibn Rajab (Dhayl, p. 397). It is the historians of Birz?li school who explicitly connect these three persons with the three councils of Damascus; (Bid?ya, XIV, 37; 'Uq?d, p. 204). Ibn 'Abd al-H?d? adds one more name, Qurwi, to these three. Ibn Taymiya too refers to Baybars al-J?shnig?r in his account of the first Damascus council C?q?d, p. 207). It seems that Ibn al Daw?d?r? and Safadi, or their source, who give the account of the causes of the miban separately at the end of the account of the miban of 705, left the connection of these three persons with the Damascus councils to the reader's imagination. If it were not for Ibn Taymiya's own reference to Baybars al-J?shnig?r, I would be inclined to think that historians of Birz?li school are projecting back the machi nation of these three persons. Maqrizi is the only historian who not only makes no mention of the three councils, but gives prominence to a fourth person, Ibn 'Adl?n, at the expense of Nasr al-Manbiji and Baybars al-J?shnigir, though he too does not explicitly connect Ibn 'Adl?n with the Damascus councils. In fact


he gives the impression as if the three councils were a local affair. Perhaps his

brevity is to be blamed for this.

15. 'Uq?d, pp. 207-32; the chroniclers' accounts of this council do not exceed a line

or two.

16. 'Uq?d, pp. 241-42; none of the chroniclers mentions this.

17. 'Uq?d, pp. 232-48; Imam, pp. 217-22; Bid?ya, XIV, 36-37; Durr, pp. 133-34.

Importance of the chroniclers' accounts of this council lies in their providing the name of ?af? al-D?n al-Hind? whom Ibn Taymiya refers as al-shaykh al-Kabir and

al-shaykh al-mutaqaddim; and in that he was later substituted by Ibn al-Zamla

kan?.

18. Durr, p. 134; Durar, 1,145; Sul?k, , 18; Bid?ya, XIV, 37; 'Oq?d, p. 204. Reports of the historians of the Jazari and Birz?l? schools on the matter of the result of the second council agree only on one point: that the issue was settlsd; otherwise they differ sharply: according to the Jazari school Ibn Taymiya testified about himself

(Safad?) or he called upon the audience to bear witness (Ibn al-Daw?d?ri) or he wrote a document, which was witnessed, saying (Maqrizi) that he is a Sh?fi'? and, as Maqr?z? adds, an Ash'ari; but that his adherents publicized afterwards that he was victorious. On the other hand, Ibn Kathir gives out that not only al-aqida was accepted but that Ibn Taymiya was taken home in a victory procession. Ibn * Abd al-H?di does not say in so many words that Ibn Taymiya's creed was accepted,

but he too implies a victory for Ibn Taymiya. However, unlike Ibn Kathir he

shows awareness of the opposite version, attributing it to the distortion of Ibn

Taymiya's statement by the opponents and accusing Ibn al-Wak?l and his friends

of the scandalisation that Ibn Taymiya had retracted his creed. What seems to have happened, as the opposite claims so soon after the council indicate, is that

perhaps nothing was settled one way or the other?neither the creed was accepted

by the 'ulam?,9 nor Ibn Taymiya had turned Sh?fi'? or 'Ash'ari. Both the parties

thought they had won?Ibn Taymiyans because of Ibn Taymiya's performance and the opponents because of Ibn a?-Zumlak?n?'s performance. The origin of

these conflicting versions probably lies in the repeated statement of Ibn Taymiya that Sh?fi'? and Ash'ari believed in what he believed. This could be taken other

way round. This is corroborated by Ibn al-Daw?d?ri's additional statement that

he professed to believe in what Sh?fi'? believed. Maqr?z?'s report of a document is probably unfounded or may be referring to what happened after Ibn Taymiya's release from first Cairo imprisonment?an adept at garbling the accounts that

Maqr?z? seems to be.

19. Durr, pp. 134-35; Durar, I, 145-46; Bid?ya, XIV, 37; 'Uq?d, pp. 204-5. There seems to be some confusion as to whether the argument between Ibn Taymiya and

Ibn Sasr? took place in the presence of the viceroy himself or someone who was

acting for him.

20 There seems to be no other apparent reason. Dbahabi suggests that it was to finish the reading and discussion of the creed ('?q?d, p. 196). But we have seen that the reading had already been finished in the first council. The second was held to finish

IBN TAYMIYA ON TRAIL 29

the discussion, which in the light of the claims of a settlement, one way or the

other, was also taken to be concluded

21. Imam, pp. 226-29.

22. Durr, p. 136; Bid?ya, XIV, 37; '?q?d, pp. 205-6, 196; Dhayl, p. 396. All, except Ibn al-Daw?d?r?, maintain that the 'ulama9 approved Ibn Taymiya's creed, even

if some of them did, as Dhahabi mentions, unwillingly. Ibn al-Daw?d?ri also refers to this approval, but only in connection with Sult?n N?sir's letter?which

may be the result of Afram's favourable report?which, in itself, is not a direct evi dence of 'ulam?'s approval. Could it be that since Ibn al-Wakil, one of the most staunch opponents, was cornered by Ibn Taymiya, it was thought that his creed was accepted as orthodox? Somehow it seems not very plausible that 'ulama*

would show their approval of the creed.

23. Durr, p. 136; Durar, 1,146; Sul?k, II, 18; 'Uq?d, pp. 248-49; Bid?ya, XIV, 37-38. 24. Durr, pp. 137-38; Durar, I, 146-47; Sul?k, II, 18; Bid?ya, XIV, 38; %Uq?d, p. 250;

Dhayl, p. 397.

25. Durr, pp. 138-45; Durar, I, 147; Sul?k, II, 18; Bid?ya, XIV, 38; Dhayl, P. 397; 'Uq?d, p.191. Ibn al-Daw?d?ri and Ibn IJajar/Safadi also state that the official

decree made the holding of Ibn Taymiya's belief an act liable to forfeiture of life and property, but the text of the decree is free of any such clause. Sources specify the recitation of the decree only in Damascus, but Ibn al-Daw?d?ri mentions that its copies were sent to all the Islamic countries (s?'ir al-mam?lik al-Isl?miya?).

26. Durr, p. 146; Durar, I, 148; Sul?k, II, 30; Bid?ya, XIV, 42; 'Uq?d, pp. 250-51; Dhayl, p. 398.

27. Majm?'aFat?w?,pp.2-4. In the second set of negotiationsi Ibn Taymiya was

pressed to agree to a document prepared by the opponents and to promise not to return to his creed again, which Ibn Taymiya declined to do. Then he was asked to write a fresh statement of his beliefs, but he refused on the ground that it might be construed to mean that he had modified his earlier beliefs ; that was the reason why, he pointed out, when he was asked to write his beliefs in Damascus, he had presented the creed already written; he could not, he said, invent a new doctrine every day.

Finally he was asked to write anything at all, as long as it was in his own hand, such as a statement of forgiveness to all ; Ibn Taymiya at first was inclined to write

this, but then desisted saying that it was not customary to write such a thing, since

forgiveness needed not writing. This account also contains, besides something common with the other account, some cryptic remarks, such as that the opponents

were able to incite the sult?n and get his order against Iba Taymiya by making him believe that Ibn Taymiya had criticised him, that some persons in Syria, some of whom went to the Mongols and some of whom were still there, had used Ibn Tay miya in a conspiracy against Egyot; that disunity among the Egyptians ?uf m?') would result in mischief, as had happened in Syria, even though there was more

unity there than in Egypt ; that Ibn Taymiya was asked to do something which might cause harm to Nasr al-Manbiji and Ibn Makhl?f, to which he did not agree, but it was time that they should take care of it lest it became uncontrolable.


28. 'Uq?d, p. 252; Bid?ya, XIV, 43, 45; Sul?k, II. 30.

29. Z>?#r, pp. 150-51 ; Durar, I, 148; Stf/ttfc, II, 40; Bid?ya, XIV, 45-46; 'Uq?d, p. 197, 252-53, 255, 259-67; Dhayl, p. 398. Ibn al-Daw?d?r? has mistaken the date of the letter Ibn Taymiya wrote to Damascus after the third council for the date of the council itself. Ibn Kathir has mistakenly put the third council after the

complaint and the trials following it.

30. 'Uq?d,pp. 197-98,267-72; Dhayl,pp. 398-99; Bid?ya,XIV, 45-46;Durar,1,148-49; Sul?k, II, 40. According to Ibn *Abd al-H?di, second Cairo trial was held on a

Tuesday in the first decade of Shaww?l [ninth]; according to Ibn ?ajar/Safad?, the demonstration took place in the middle decade of Shaww?l, which means that the trial was held even later. Ibn Rajab makes the complaint lodged directly to the Sh?fi'? q?di al-quqa. Ibn 'Abd al-H?di gives the date of departure for Syria as Thursday 12 Shaww?l. Ibn ?ajar/Safad? uses the expression r?sala al-ni?ib for Ibn MakhlOf's action subsequent to his coming to know of the departure; could it be arsala al-n?'ib, that is, he sent his deputy? Ibn IJajar/?afad? adds that Sharaf al-D?n ibn al-S?b?n? and 'Al?' al-D?n Q?nawi testified against Ibn Taymiya in the third trial, but apparently there was no room for it. Maqr?z? is confounding :

makes Ibn Taymiya's departure to Syria subsequent to the third trial and under the order of Taq? al-D?n 'A ibn al-Zaw?w? and moreover makes him imprisoned in Syria.

31. 'Uq?d, pp. 272-77, 198; Bid?ya, XIV, 49-50, 47-48; Dhayl, p. 299; Durar, I, 149. Ibn Kathir, following his earlier mistake of interchanging the times of the third Cairo council and the events following the ??f?s' complaint, keeps Ibn Taymiya out of prison in 708 and thus makes him go to Alexandria not from confinement to confinement but from freedom to confinement. According to Ibn 'Abd al-H?d?'s

statement, due to Ibn Taymiya's reforming activities, the prison itself turned into something better than any religious institution, so much so that the prisoners would not leave him even when freed.

32. 'Uq?d, pp. 278-83; Bid?ya, XIV, 43-55, 60-62, 66; Dhayl, pp. 399-400; Durar, I, 149; Sul?k, II, 78. Compared to Ibn *Abd al-H??T Ibn Kath?r's reproduction of Birz?l?'s account of Ibn Taymiya's arrival from Alexandria and meeting with the sult?n is extremely garbled, especially in the matter of dates. Ibn 'Abd al-H?di and Ibn Kathir, whose reports of Ibn Taymiya's interview with the sult?n are very picturesque, describe how the sult?n stood up from his place and went forward to receive Ibn Taymiya when he saw him coming, how they greeted each other, how the sult?n took him aside to a place overlooking the garden where they sat talking for a while, how they returned hand in hand, how Ibn Taymiya sat on the seat of the sult?n, how [only Ibn 'Abd al-H?d?J sult?n praised him before the audience. They also add, on the authority of Ibn Taymiya, that when the sultan took him aside, he sought afatw? from him for the execution of certain q?g*ts who had not only given

fatw?s in favour of the sultan's deposition and fealty to Baybars al-J?shnig?r, but also against Ibn Taymiya; that he also produced certain fatw?s from his pocket; that despite provocation Ibn Taymiya dissuaded the sult?n from his designs against


the 'ulama*. This information clearly contradicts Ibn ?Eajar/?afad?'s statement that when the sult?n made peace between Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Makhl?f, the latter put the condition that he would not revert [to his beliefs] and the sultan assured him that he had repented ; this means that it is not Ibn Taymiya forgiving the 'ulama* it is the M?liki forgiving him if he promises to behave himself in future. Safadi's report is probably not true, since, under the circumstances, Ibn Makhl?f should not be in a position to make bargains. Ibn Kath?r's and Ibn ' Abd al-IJ?d?'s reports are indirectly supported by Ibn Taymiya's letter written shortly after the session, and expressing the clear-eyed self-confidence symbolic of gaining upper hand.

33. 'Uq?d, pp. 282-89; Bid?ya, XIV, 54-55. 34. 'Uq?d, p. 289; Dhayl, p. 400? Bid?ya, XIV, 70, 114-15; Durar, I, 155. 35. 'Uq?d, pp. 289-90, 321-25; Bid?ya, XIV, 67; Dhayl, pp. 400-401; Durar, I, 149,

303; Sul?k, II, 185. 36. Uq?d, pp. 325-26; Bid?ya, XTV, 87,93,97-98; Dhayl, p. 401 ; Sul?k, II, 185,193, 212;

Ta'rikh, pp. 267-68, 270-71. Ibn Kath?r's date of Ibn Muslim's meeting with Ibn Taymiya (15 Rabi' I) is wrong, according to calculations, as is Ibn al-WardPs date

(Jumada II) for the arrival of sultan's letter. Ibn Rajab, who does not give the date or year of the third council preceding the imprisonment, makes Ibn Taymiya go to prison twice, adding that the second time he was prohibited from giving fa tw? at all, but that he kept on %\v'm%fatw? orally saying that he could not conceal know ledge.

37. 'Uq?d, pp. 327-41; Bid?ya, XIV, 117, 123-24; Dhayl, p. 401; Ta'rikh, p. 289; Sul?k, II, 263, 273; Durar, I, 302-303. Ibn Kath?r misdates the imprisonment by making it on 16 Sha'b?n. According to Ibn Kath?r the note on Ibn Taymiya's answer to the question about the visitation was written by the Q?<J? al-Sh?fi'iya of Damascus after Ibn Taym?ya was sent to the prison?where, according to Ibn Kath?r the answer was obtained. But Ibn 'Abd al-H?d?'s report that the answer was obtained and sent to Egypt with the comment of the Sh?fi'? q?d? before the arrest seems more logical.

38. 'Uq?d,pp.361,363-71,373; Bid?ya, XTV, 134-36, 138-39;Dhayl,pp.402,405-406; Durar, III, 26-27.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (WITH ABBREVIATIONS USED)

Ibn%Abd al-H?d?, .. (better known as Ibn Qud?mat al-Maqd?s?) AW Uq?d al Durriya min Man?qib Shaykh al-Islam. Cairo, 1356. (' Uq?d)

Ibn al-Daw?d?ri, .. "Kanz al-Durar wa Jami' al-Ghurar". Vol. IX: Al-Durr al-F?khir f? s?rat al-Malik al-N?sir. ed. Hanz R. Roemer.

Cairo, 1961. (Durr) Ibn Bajar, .. Al-Durar al K?mina fi A'y?n al-MVat al-Th?mina. 4 vols.

Hyderabad, 129-32. (Durar) Ibn Kath?r, .. Al-Bid?ya waal-Nih?yafi al-Ta'rikh. 14 vols. Cairo, 1932

39. (Bid?ya) Ibn Rajab, .. Kit?b al-Dhayl 'Alk Tabaq?t al-Ifan?bila. 2 vols. Cairo, 1953.

(Dhayl)


Ibn Taymiya, .. Majm?'at al-Ras d'il wa al-Mas?'il. 5 vols. Cairo, 1341 -, .. Majm?'a Fat?w?. 5 vols. Cairo, 1329.

Ibnal-Ward?, Ta'rikhibn aUWardi. 2 vols. Cairo, 1868-69. (Ta'rikh). Jazari, .. La Chronique de Damas d'ai-Jazari. Summary tr. Jean Sauva

ge t. Paris, 1949. (Chronique) Maqr?z?, .. Kit?b aUSul?k li Ma'rifat Dawl al-Mul?k, 2 vols, todate.

Cairo, 1934-58. (Sul?k) Kokan *Umr?, .. Imam Ibn Taymiya, Lahore, 1960. {Im?m).

ibn taymiyyah on trial a narrative account of his mihan

Documents