Part 3

"Therefore, it is clear that it is that group situated in ash-Sham and Egypt who are the vanguard of Islam, their success is an honour for Islaam, and their defeat is a calamity for it." This lengthy quote is included for its importance and to demonstrate lbn Taymeeyah's up-to-date insight into the affairs of his time, and mistreat ability to interpret the social and psychological condition of the people. Secondly, next to the Shaykh's connection with the masses and knowledge of current affairs, he also possessed a depth of understanding and a high level of alertness. He noticed that, from the end of the second century AH, there existed of a group of Muslims who were fascinated by the philosophies of Plato and the logic of Aristotle 7. That group tried to instil the theories of the philosophers into the pure creed, thereby disfiguring it, so that beneficial knowledge was turned into sterile debate and idle discussion. The abstract theories had never been able to grant felicity to mankind, which was always granted in the light of Prophethood. Truly, here is an Imaam uninfected by an inferiority complex that diseased some scholars, past and present. Thirdly, the letters, which were selected for this book, are another side of Ibn Taymeeyah. A side many people do not know of. Usually, it is his uncompromising stances and truthful, sometimes harsh retorts that are often remembered. However, there is a side of his character that writes a letter to his mother full of concern, leniency and respect. Other letters are for his brothers and students in Damascus, and are characterized by love and advice. He also shows forgiveness towards those who worked to imprison him. Another is a letter full of wisdom, eloquence and firmness to a Christian king. This is the side of his character unknown to many - that of Ibn Taymeeyah, the benevolent man with a heart full of eemaan and mercy. These letters were predominantly written in prison. But why was such a Shaykh imprisoned? He was neither imprisoned by a non-Muslim state nor by an oppressive ruler. Unfortunately, his gaoling was conspired by some of the envious Shaykhs of his time, "due to his individual distinction in enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, for people's genuine love and adherence to him, and to the large number of his followers."8 This is along with their asabeeyah 9 to what they themselves wrote in Fiqh or Beliefs, and although some did it with a good intention, they nevertheless all conspired to provoke the ruler against Ibn Taymeeyah, and as a result he was imprisoned in Cairo, Alexandria and Damascus. Herein lies a serious problem. How can a scholar be imprisoned as a result of an ijtihaad, by which he differed from other scholars yet never transgressed beyond the boundaries of ijtihaad, and certainly not outside of Islaam? How is it that we cannot accommodate another opinion by a scholar noted for his love for Allaah and His Messenger? One says this not to solely dig into the past, but because currently, there are similar incidents and this is indeed a very pitiful state. Our hearts should be big enough to encompass disagreements as long as they are not in the areas of innovation, deviation or legislation contradicting Allaah's command. We should not resort to replies and retorts, which show false piety and bravery, or to using titles to give the mistaken 7 Just as some are captivated by the discourse of the Orientalists today. 8 Ibn Katheer, al-Bidaya wan-Nihaya, vol. 14, pg.37. 9 Meaning unjustified blind following of a certain idea, party or place, belittling and rebuking those who are different. It does not mean mere following. impression of a battle being waged against an enemy, as if with swords and not with the words that are being used. We return to Shaykh ul-Islaam in prison. The story began when he wrote a treatise entitled alHamaweeyab in reply to a question from the town of Hama regarding Allaah's Attributes in 698 AH. He was asked to explain the treatise in Damascus in a few public gatherings. There, he informed the Deputy Sultan that what was in the treatise was not novel, but had been written in his own book 'Aqeedah al-Wassiteeyah a few years earlier, and that both books included the beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah. None could debate or doubt his strong and evidence-based works. The Deputy tried to resolve the objections of other scholars, by announcing that Ibn Taymeeyah's works were following the tradition of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal. Ibn Taymeeyah rejected this appeasing attitude, and replied that it was the 'Aqeedah of the predecessors, and was not exclusive to Imaam Ahmad. The Shaykhs of Egypt succeeded where their counterparts in Damascus failed. This was due to his credibility and trustworthiness in the second capital Damascus, and his anonymity in the first (Cairo, Egypt). The Shaykhs in Cairo had managed to incite the oppressive ruler, Ruknudeen Baybars the Jashangir whose personal shaykh and mentor, was a fanatical Soofee named Nasr alManbaji 10. As a result, a sultanate order was issued to bring Ibn Taymeeyah to Cairo for interrogation in 705 AH. Against the advice of the Deputy Sultan in Damascus, Shaykh ulIslaam decided to go to Egypt as he saw much benefit in being there.