Ibn Taymiyyah’s Ethics The Social Factor by victor E. Makari (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. ix + 236.

Abstract

Except for the works of the French scholar Henri Laoust and a recent study
by Muhammad Umar Memon, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle against Popular Religion
(The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1976), very few studies of the thought of Ibn
Taimiya have appeared in English. Makari’s work is therefore a welcome addition
to this meager list. Its main contribution lies in dispelling some of the
misunderstanding that has all along bedevilled a true appraisal of the thought
of the Hanbalite doctor.
It is unfortunate that some bright and bold spirits of Islam, such as the
celebrated Hanbali doctor and theologian Ibn Taimiya, have remained
misunderstood not only in the West but also among the Muslims themselves.
A good part of the musunderstanding stems no doubt from the fact that for
most of his life Ibn Taimiya managed to remain a quite controversial figure.
A substantial part of the misunderstanding results from the close association
of his name with the Wahhabi movement which erupted violently toward
the end of the eighteenth century. Muhammad b. Abd al-Wahhab, the founder
of the Wahhabi movement, was certainly influenced by Ibn Taimiya and his
writings, especially in his bitter denunciation of the Sufi rituals, tomb worship,
and the cult of saints, and no less in his moral and puritanical activism.
In their scrupulous observance of the word of the Qur’an and the sunnu, indeed
both Ibn Taimiya and the Wahhabis resemble each other closely. Just
as Ibn Taimiya had led bands of people in raids against the local taverns and
shrines, the Wahhabis in their time, too, razed tombs and sacked the holy cities.
A distinction must be made, however, between the two. While the Wahhabis
represent a religio-political movement, Ibn Taimiya was concerned, mainly,
with reforming Islam and with reinculcating a positive attitude toward this
world. He never condemned Sufism per se; rather, his criticism was directed
against what he defined as inadmissible deviations in doctrine, ritual, and
morals. He has, moreover, left behind a vast legacy of writing. A close scrutiny
of his works reveals him as a man of unrelenting intellectual conviction. He
used his uncommon erudition to criticize and reject most of the commonly ...