Part 4

Another linguistic issue discussed by Ibn Taymiyyah was the mabda’ al-lughat, origin of languages.”* He raised the question of how language theories were perceived by different scholars. Abu Hashim al-Jubba’1, al-Ash‘ari” and other scholars were of the opinion that language is istilahiyyah, conventional. However, al-Ash‘ari later retreated from this position and disagreed with the Mu‘tazilites on several fundamental issues, including the origin of language. He held the view that language is tawqifiyyah which is based on learning and experience. The language theory most favored by Orthodox Muslims is the revelationist theory, which is based on the idea that language was originally revealed to man by Allah. Thus Allah inspires human beings with speech just as He does other creatures. Furthermore, as stated in the Qur?an, Allah taught Adam the names of all entities

* Majaz al-Qur?an (2 vols.) Cairo, 1962, was edited by Fu’ad Sezgin. * This treatise is included in his Majmii Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, vol 20. Collected and edited by

‘Abd al-Rahman Tbn Muhammad Ibn Qasim with the assistance of his son Muhammad. Published by Matba‘at al-Ma‘Grif, Rabat, Morocco, n.d., pp. 400-97.

* This issue was discussed by Bemard G. Weiss in "Medieval Discussions of the Origin of Language," ZDMG (1974): 33-41.

* Al-Ash‘ari, Abu al-Hassan ‘Ali Tbn Isma‘Ql (260-324 A.H), was a theologian and founder of the school of orthodox theology that bears his name. He is a descendent of Abu Miisaal-Ash“ari. [7 2, p, 694 and al-Zirikli, vol. 5, p. 69.]

and presented those names to the Angels. Ibn Taymiyyah emphasized that Allah did not teach Adam all the languages that everyone would ever speak. The different languages of the world would, of course, be spoken by Adam’s offsprings and they would only pass their own language on to their children.

The Semantic Theory of Absolute and Conditioned

Ibn Taymiyyah, in defining and analyzing the terms associated with key concepts, introduced and applied a unique semantic theory that distinguished between what he called the mutlaq, absolute usage and the muqayyad, conditioned usage. An illustration of this approach is the difference between the terms ma ‘rif, good, and munkar, evil. When these two terms are used in a mutlaq, absolute, sense they encompass everything morally good and evil, respectively. However, when they occur in a muqayyad, conditioned, sense they indicate a restricted or qualified context.”* Ibn Taymiyyah stated that to fully understand the shades of meaning of words in the Qur’an and the Sunnah—especially between such polar opposites as ma‘raf and munkar—it is essential to analyze them according to the dichotomy between absolute and conditioned usage. This theory was also rigorously applied to the analysis of the concept of Iman.

The Concept of Exception

One of the issues debated in Islamic theology is whether or not to use the conditional clause “In sha’a Allah,” if Allah wills, after the affirmative clause “ana mu’min,” J am a believer. Allah says: “Do not say of anything: ‘I shall do it tomorrow’ except [with the saying] ‘if Allah wills’ . . .” (18:23-24). The realization of actions and their execution in the future are dependent on Allah’s will. This issue came to be known as istithna’, exception. The Murji’ites, Jahmites, and those who agreed with them considered Iman as an entity which a person acknowledged in his heart. Thus, if one said that he uttered the Shahadah, testimony, or “I am a believer,” he would need to say the exception as it is acknowledged in the heart. Therefore they believed that those who use the

IBN TAYMIYYAH AND KITAB AL-IMAN 15

exception, with regard to Iman, have raised an element of shakk, doubt, about their belief and are thus referred to as the al-shakkakah, the doubters.

The pious ancestors, such as Ibn Mas‘iid, used to make the exception “if Allah wills” with regard to Iman. Their position was not that they had uncertainty about their Iman but simply used it to affirm the statement “I am a believer,” and there was no other connotation beyond that. As Ahmad Ibn Hanbal emphasized, Iman is both a saying and work. The exception used by the pious ancestors was not directed to the saying but rather to the element of carrying out the obligations since absolute Iman includes the performance of all that Allah commands and the abandonment of all that He prohibits. At the same time, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal disliked the question, “Are you a believer?” because he thought that it was a heresy introduced by the Murji‘ites to defend their position that Iman, particularly absolute Iman, is mere tasdiq, assent. In this case, Ahmad, who represented the orthodox Muslim position, refrained from using the exception.

One of the issues raised about the exception with regard to Iman is al-muwafat, the state of belief at the time of one’s death.” Ibn Taymiyyah explained the position of the Kullabite sect with regard to al-muwafat as the state in which a man dies. Every man is either a believer or an unbeliever at the time of his death and nothing of essence prior to this time matters. In other words, if one’s Iman is followed by a state of kufr, unbelief, and he dies suddenly, he dies as an unbeliever. Ibn Taymiyyah opposed the use of exception in the state of the almuwafat because he believed that the Kullabite sect did not understand the view of the pious ancestors concerning this matter.

EDITIONS OF KITAB AL-IMAN

Kitab al-Iman is a valuable and basic source on the topic of faith. It has a wide readership and, as a result, there have been several Arabic editions published. The accuracy of these editions varies from one edition to another, some are abridged and others contain the full text. For the purpose of this translation seven different editions were consulted, most based on what is usually referred to as the Indian edition (1311 A.H.). Two of these were adapted as the main source on which this

Al-Maktab al-Islami, Ist ed., 408 pp., Damascus, 1381 A.H. (Referred to as MI.1.) This edition has a very brief introduction by Zuhayr al-Shawish and is based on the Indian edition. Numbers for the Qur’anic verses appear in footnotes. However, the numbering is not always accurate. The hadiths that occur in the text are carefully edited by the well-known scholar of hadiths Nasir al-Din al-Albani. This edition does not contain any chapter titles or subtitles and the divisions are indicated only by the heading fasl, chapter. It contains a table of contents in which detailed subheadings are given along with a brief table of errors at the end of the book. Overall, the footnotes are brief and few in number.

Al-Maktab al-Islami, 2d ed., 455 pp., Beirut, 1392 A.H. (Referred to as MI.2.) This edition also features a brief introduction by Zuhayr al-Shawish. The volume contains twenty-three chapters of varying lengths. For instance, chapter 22 is about a hundred pages long. This edition is basically the same as the first, with only a few improvements. For example, numbers for the Qur’anic verses appear in brackets immediately following the quotation. The table of contents, placed at the end of the text, does not correspond exactly with the titles and subtitles of the first edition. Both of these editions are considered very reliable.

Dar al-Tiba‘ah al-Muhammadiyyah at al-Azhar, Ist ed., Cairo, n.d., 404 pp. Edited by Muhammad Khalil Harris. (Referred to as MKH.) Basically the main text is similar to al-Maktab al-Islami, 2d ed. However, the division of paragraphs is different. The volume is clearly printed and has a short introduction by the editor. No numbers are provided for the Qur’anic verses, but references for the hadiths appear in parentheses. The editor provides notes, but for the most part, they are not much help.

Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Ist ed., Beirut, 1983, 398 pp.(Referred to as DKI.) This edition contains a one-page introduction and a brief biography of Ibn Taymiyyah with a list of sixteen of his well-known works. The Qur’anic verses are enclosed in parentheses and their verse numbers are placed in the footnotes. The references for the hadiths are in small double parentheses. Footnotes and subtitles are limited and are not based on the style of the above editions. There is

IBN TAYMIYYAH AND KITAB AL-IMAN 17

no index, but the volume does contain a table of contents that includes subheadings.

Dar Ihya’ al-‘Ulim, Ist ed., Beirut, 1984, 350 pp. Edited by Shaykh Husayn Yisuf al-Ghazal. (Referred to as GHA.) Shaykh Ghazal has heavily edited and summarized some of the chapters. For instance, in the original edition chapter 8 is about thirty pages, but in this edition it is summarized into a little over three. In all, the original text has been reduced by about seventy pages. Long notes have been inserted into the text in brackets. In a lengthy introduction, Shaykh Ghazal attributes his summarization and extensive abridgement to a desire to make the language more accessible for the reader. The convenient and attractive layout—including subheadings, footnotes, and numbering of Quranic verses—will appeal to the reader.

Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, Ist ed., Beirut, 1993, 459 pp. Edited by Muhammad alZabidi. (Referred to as MZ.) This edition, was received after the first draft of this translation was completed, is by far the best and was used extensively in the several revisions and refinements of the work. In the introduction, the editor included a biography of Ibn Taymiyyah based on some of the basic original sources. One attractive feature, not included in the other editions, is the volume’s ten indices, including an index of the occasional verses of poetry that occur in the text. The last chapter of the book contains a minor typographical error. A few lines that should have appeared on page 378 were mistakenly switched with lines on page 376. The editor also added subheadings. Compared to the twenty-three chapters of MI.2, this edition contains only nineteen. The editor has taken the liberty of combining some of the short chapters.