Philosophy (Falsafah) According to Ibn Taymiyyah

Introduction

Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328 CE), a prominent Islamic scholar of the Hanbali school, is one of the most influential and controversial figures in Islamic intellectual history. While renowned for his deep knowledge of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic jurisprudence, he is also well-known for his trenchant critique of philosophy (falsafah), particularly the forms it took under the influence of Greek thought. Ibn Taymiyyah’s relationship with falsafah was not a simple rejection; rather, it was a nuanced and deliberate engagement aimed at purifying Islamic thought from foreign elements that, in his view, distorted Islamic theology (ʿaqīdah).

This article explores Ibn Taymiyyah’s understanding and critique of falsafah, the philosophical traditions he engaged with, his epistemological and theological concerns, and the broader implications of his thought.

---

Background: Philosophy in the Islamic World

By Ibn Taymiyyah’s time, philosophical discourse had a long history in the Islamic world. Greek philosophy—especially the works of Aristotle, Plato, and Plotinus—had been translated into Arabic and engaged with by Muslim thinkers such as Al-Kindī, Al-Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). These thinkers developed what is known as Islamic philosophy or falsafah, often synthesizing Greek metaphysics with Islamic theology.

However, this synthesis was not universally accepted. Theologians from the Ashʿarī and Māturīdī schools, as well as traditionalist scholars like those of the Hanbali school, raised objections. Ibn Taymiyyah stood at the pinnacle of this traditionalist critique.

---

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Intellectual Context

Ibn Taymiyyah was active during the decline of the Abbasid Caliphate and the rise of Mongol and Crusader threats to the Muslim world. This period of crisis, both political and intellectual, shaped his urgent and reformist tone. He believed the Muslim community (ummah) had deviated from the pristine teachings of Islam due to the influence of foreign ideas, particularly Greek-inspired metaphysics.

Ibn Taymiyyah saw falsafah not merely as an academic pursuit but as a spiritual and theological danger. He argued that the adoption of Greek philosophical frameworks led to errors in understanding God, the nature of existence, and the human soul.

---

Critique of Philosophical Metaphysics

One of Ibn Taymiyyah’s major concerns was metaphysics—particularly the notions of causality, existence, and divine attributes. He fiercely criticized the Aristotelian concept of causality, which posited a necessary relationship between cause and effect, and the idea of an eternal universe as held by philosophers like Ibn Sīnā.

According to Ibn Taymiyyah, such ideas conflicted with the Islamic doctrine of tawḥīd (the oneness and uniqueness of God). He argued that the universe is contingent and created by God’s will, not through a necessity of nature. God acts by choice, not by compulsion or necessity, and this voluntarism underlies his broader theological framework.

He rejected the philosopher's belief in the eternity of the world—a position he regarded as contradictory to the Qur’anic worldview, which clearly states that the world had a beginning created by God.

---

Epistemology: Revelation vs. Reason

A core element of Ibn Taymiyyah’s critique of falsafah lies in the epistemological tension between reason and revelation. Philosophers like Ibn Sīnā prioritized ʿaql (intellect) over naql (transmitted knowledge, i.e., revelation). Ibn Taymiyyah reversed this hierarchy.

He emphasized that reason has a role, but it is subordinate to revelation. He did not deny the utility of rational inquiry; rather, he believed that reason must operate within the framework set by the Qur’an and Sunnah. Reason, when divorced from revelation, leads to speculative errors and heresies.

In his book Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wa al-Naql (“Refutation of the Conflict Between Reason and Revelation”), Ibn Taymiyyah attempted to show that there is no real conflict between reason and authentic revelation. When such a conflict appears, it is due either to faulty reasoning or a misunderstanding of revelation.

---

Theology and Divine Attributes

One of the most controversial aspects of falsafah was its treatment of God's nature. Philosophers tended to adopt a negative theology (via negativa), arguing that God’s essence is unknowable and that only negative attributes (e.g., God is not ignorant, not unjust) can be ascribed to Him.

Ibn Taymiyyah sharply opposed this approach. He argued that the Qur’an clearly describes God with positive attributes (e.g., knowledge, will, power, hearing, seeing), and these should be affirmed without likening God to His creation (tashbīh) or denying His attributes (taʿṭīl).

For Ibn Taymiyyah, the denial of God's attributes led to a deistic or impersonal conception of the divine, which was antithetical to Islamic teachings. He advocated for a theological approach based on the principle of affirmation without anthropomorphism.

---

Logic and Language

Ibn Taymiyyah also critiqued Aristotelian logic, which had become a standard tool of philosophical and theological argumentation. In his treatise al-Radd ʿalā al-Manṭiqiyyīn ("Refutation of the Logicians"), he challenged the epistemic certainty that logicians claimed for their methods.

He argued that Aristotelian logic was not universal, and that its terms and categories were based on Greek linguistic and cultural assumptions. Instead, he proposed that Islamic thought should develop its own conceptual tools, rooted in Arabic language and Islamic epistemology.

---

Broader Implications

Ibn Taymiyyah’s critique of falsafah had long-term implications for Islamic intellectual history. He laid the groundwork for later Islamic reformers and Salafī thinkers who emphasized the primacy of revelation, the purity of early Islamic belief, and a rejection of foreign influences in religious thought.

However, it would be reductive to view Ibn Taymiyyah merely as an anti-philosophical figure. He was deeply engaged with philosophical texts and thinkers, often quoting them extensively before refuting their ideas. His engagement with falsafah shows a form of philosophical reasoning used to defend traditionalism, rather than a wholesale rejection of rational thought.

---

Conclusion

Ibn Taymiyyah’s stance on falsafah is complex and cannot be summarized as a simple rejection of philosophy. Rather, he offers a thorough critique of the philosophical frameworks that he believed compromised Islamic theology. He was particularly concerned with protecting the integrity of Islamic belief from metaphysical ideas that originated in pre-Islamic thought.

By emphasizing the primacy of revelation, affirming God's attributes as stated in the Qur’an, and critiquing the abstract reasoning of the philosophers, Ibn Taymiyyah positioned himself as a defender of orthodoxy and a reformer of Islamic thought. His legacy continues to influence debates about reason, revelation, and the role of philosophy in the Islamic tradition today.

Logic (Mantiq) According to Ibn Taymiyyah

Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328 CE) remains one of the most influential and controversial figures in Islamic intellectual history. A 13th–14th-century Hanbali scholar, jurist, and theologian, Ibn Taymiyyah is known for his efforts to return Islamic thought to what he considered its pure, original sources: the Qur’an and Sunnah. One of the lesser-known but significant aspects of his intellectual legacy is his opposition to Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelian logic (mantiq), which had become deeply embedded in Islamic scholastic theology (kalam) by his time. His critique of logic, especially as practiced by Muslim theologians and philosophers, is most famously encapsulated in his work Ar-Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyin (“Refutation of the Logicians”).

The Intellectual Context

By the 13th century, Aristotelian logic had been fully integrated into the works of Islamic theologians, especially the Ash‘arites, and was used as a foundational tool in philosophy, theology, and jurisprudence. Logic (mantiq) was seen not just as a philosophical discipline, but as a necessary method for attaining certainty in knowledge and defending the tenets of faith.

Philosophers like Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and theologians like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and al-Ghazali had elevated logic to a near-sacred status, using it extensively in their works. Al-Ghazali, for example, even claimed that logic was a fard kifayah (communal obligation) for the scholars of Islam. In this environment, to criticize logic was almost equivalent to questioning the very structure of rational inquiry.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Critique of Aristotelian Logic

Ibn Taymiyyah’s response to the prevalence of logic among theologians and philosophers was radical and comprehensive. In Ar-Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyin, he systematically challenged the validity, necessity, and usefulness of Aristotelian logic in Islamic epistemology. His critique can be categorized into several major themes:

1. Epistemological Objections

Ibn Taymiyyah argued that Aristotelian logic does not accurately reflect the way human beings acquire knowledge. According to Aristotelian logic, certainty in knowledge is achieved primarily through syllogism (qiyās), which involves deducing a conclusion from two premises.

For example:

• All humans are mortal.

• Socrates is a human.

• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Ibn Taymiyyah rejected this as artificial and disconnected from real-life cognition. He asserted that human beings do not typically think in rigid syllogistic structures. Instead, they rely on inductive reasoning, experience, sense perception, and fitrah (natural disposition). In his view, syllogisms are abstract constructions that do not guarantee truth, especially when the premises themselves can be flawed or based on false universals.

He emphasized that knowledge should be grounded in the clear, evident truths of the Qur’an and Sunnah, not on speculative, Greek-derived methods.

2. The Problem of Universal Concepts

A cornerstone of Aristotelian logic is the use of universal concepts or categories (like “man,” “animal,” or “justice”). Ibn Taymiyyah challenged the very coherence of these abstract universals. He was skeptical of the claim that we can truly grasp the mahiyyah (essence) of things through these conceptual categories.

He viewed universals as mental constructs that do not necessarily correspond to reality. Thus, building logical arguments on such abstractions risks leading to fallacious conclusions. Ibn Taymiyyah preferred empirical and particular knowledge grounded in reality and divine revelation rather than speculative generalizations.

3. The Authority of Revelation Over Rationalism

For Ibn Taymiyyah, divine revelation (wahy) is the ultimate source of knowledge. Logic, philosophy, and speculative theology must always be subservient to the Qur’an and Sunnah. He was deeply concerned that the overreliance on logic and philosophical speculation among Muslim scholars led them to reinterpret or even contradict clear scriptural texts.

He accused the logicians of giving precedence to reason over revelation, and thereby creating a system that could potentially undermine the foundations of Islamic belief. His project was not anti-reason, but a call to prioritize the revealed texts as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

4. Critique of Kalam and Philosophical Theology

Ibn Taymiyyah extended his critique of logic to the practitioners of kalam, the speculative theology developed by the Ash‘arites and others. These theologians had adopted mantiq as their primary tool for defending Islamic doctrine. Ibn Taymiyyah accused them of constructing an artificial and overly abstract version of Islam that was disconnected from the understanding of the Salaf (the early generations of Muslims).

He believed that kalam relied too heavily on Greek metaphysics and logic, often resulting in paradoxes and confusion rather than clarity. Instead, he advocated for a return to the straightforward, clear, and consistent language of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s Alternative: Empirical and Scriptural Reasoning

Although Ibn Taymiyyah critiqued formal logic, he did not reject reason altogether. Rather, he advocated for what might be called a more naturalized and scriptural form of rationality. He emphasized:

• Qur’anic reasoning, based on analogies (qiyās shara‘i) and reflection (tadabbur) found in the scripture.

• Experience-based knowledge, grounded in human observation and natural perception.

• Fitrah, the God-given human disposition that inclines toward truth and recognizes moral and metaphysical realities intuitively.

In his epistemology, these tools—when aligned with revelation—were far more reliable than the speculative constructs of Aristotelian logic.

Influence and Legacy

Ibn Taymiyyah’s rejection of mantiq had significant repercussions. During his lifetime, his views were controversial and led to multiple imprisonments. However, his ideas found fertile ground centuries later, especially among reformist movements like the Salafiyya and modern Islamic revivalist thinkers.

Some later scholars, such as his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, continued to critique the use of mantiq in Islamic theology. In the modern era, thinkers who emphasize scriptural literalism and oppose Western-influenced Islamic philosophy often cite Ibn Taymiyyah’s works as a foundational authority.

Yet, his anti-logic stance has also been challenged by later scholars who argue that logic, when properly understood and subordinated to revelation, can be a useful tool for defending the faith and engaging in intellectual discourse. Today, many Islamic seminaries continue to teach logic as part of the traditional curriculum, albeit often with caution regarding its philosophical assumptions.

Conclusion

Ibn Taymiyyah’s critique of mantiq was part of a broader intellectual project aimed at returning Islamic thought to what he viewed as its authentic roots in revelation and the understanding of the early Muslim community. His objections to Aristotelian logic were not a rejection of reason itself, but a rejection of what he saw as a misplaced and potentially dangerous form of reasoning.

By challenging the dominance of Greek logic in Islamic scholarship, Ibn Taymiyyah opened the door to a re-evaluation of how Muslims approach knowledge, reason, and the divine. His legacy continues to shape contemporary debates about the role of reason and revelation in Islamic epistemology, making him a towering—and often controversial—figure in the history of Islamic thought.

Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah: Non-Believers Won't Dwell in Hell forever

The question of whether Hellfire is eternal for non-believers has been a subject of theological debate within Islamic scholarship. Two prominent scholars, Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, presented views that diverged from the mainstream Sunni doctrine, suggesting that Hellfire may not be eternal for non-believers.

Ibn Taymiyyah's Perspective

Ibn Taymiyyah argued that Hellfire is not eternal for non-believers. He posited that the Qur'anic verses describing the eternal nature of Hellfire refer to the duration of punishment, not its absolute perpetuity. He cited the verse: "They wish to get out of the Fire but never will they emerge from it, and for them is an ongoing punishment" (Qur'an 5:37), interpreting it to mean that the punishment is ongoing but not necessarily eternal.

Ibn Taymiyyah also emphasized God's mercy, stating that it precedes His anger and that His mercy encompasses all things. He believed that eternal punishment would contradict God's attribute of mercy. Additionally, he argued that the purpose of Hellfire is to purify souls, and eternal punishment would negate this purpose.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's View

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, in his work Shifā’ al-ʿalīl, discussed the duration of Hellfire for non-believers. He acknowledged the mainstream view of eternal punishment but also entertained the possibility that Hellfire might not be eternal for non-believers. He referenced the views of some early Islamic scholars who suggested that the punishment in Hellfire could eventually cease for non-believers, aligning with Ibn Taymiyyah's perspective.

However, in his later work Zād al-maʿād, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya appeared to reaffirm the traditional view of eternal punishment for non-believers, indicating a shift in his stance over time.

Conclusion

The views of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya on the duration of Hellfire for non-believers present an alternative perspective to the mainstream Sunni doctrine. While their interpretations are not widely accepted, they contribute to the broader theological discourse on the nature of divine justice and mercy in Islam.