Analysis and criticism of Ibn Taymiyyah’s ideas on Sufism
- Author:
- Reza Jalili
- Level:
- Master
- Subject(s):
- Sufism and Islamic mysticism
- Language:
- Farsi
- Faculty:
- Faculty of Mysticism
- Year:
- 2014
- Publisher:
- URD Press
- Supervisor(s):
- Mohammad Mohsen Moraveji Tabasi
- Advisor(s):
- Rasool Mazraei
If Ibn-Arabi is known as the father of Islamic Mysticism, in contrast, Ibn-Taymiyyah is famous for relentless criticism and controversy with Sufis of Khanqah and Tariqat. His scientific, social and political life is full of contrasts and contradictions against his opponents. Expressing his beliefs some of which were very bold, he was afraid of no one. Several times, because of fighting Sufism and philosophy-oriented Tariqat Sufis, Ibn-Taymiyyah had some debates and went over to the court and was jailed. He admires the first form of Sufism – or Sufism of Ahle Hadith – but for Ibn-Arabi’s pantheism theory, Ibn-Taymiyyah excommunicate him and his followers. In his view, the doctrine of pantheism is as same as unity and advent, and does not believe in mystical Velayat and termination of Velayat. He considers immortality and munificence of some Sufis as Satanic status and rejects them. Of course, all these are because of his excessive reliance on the predecessors’ understanding of religion. For their customs, Ibn Taymiyyah, calls Tariqat Sufis the heretic; He does not recognize Sama (Hearing), cloak wearing, pledge of allegiance, and Sofia’s special Azkar and slogans (Orad). Ibn-Taymiyyah’s frequent admiration of famous predecessors of Sufi mysticism and authorship of some works on issues of practical Sufism and excommunication of theorists of theoretical Sufism, has led some scholars to view his ideas full of the contradiction and ambiguity. In fact Ibn-Taymiyyah accepts the Sufism which is based on a particular reading of Salafism; Ibn Taymiyyah does not deny or accept general or detailed Sufism, but everything which is incompatible with the standards of the Salafism is sentenced to mislead and excommunication. Hence, the criticism and objection by Ibn Taymiyyah is not sympathetic, but they are hostile landscape without regard to principles of mysticism and mastery of theoretical and practical issues. His words on admiration of knowledgeable scholars in the early formation of Sufism are also Salafi-oriented perspectives and are based on a narrow interpretation of practical mysticism of Sufism and reducing the ascetic and moral issues.