Few figures in Islamic intellectual history evoke as much admiration and debate as Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), commonly honored with the title Syaikh al-Islam. Over the past two centuries—especially with the rise of reformist movements—he has often been portrayed almost exclusively as the master architect of Salafism. In public discourse, he is frequently imagined as a fierce opponent of all forms of Sufism, an uncompromising critic of spiritual orders, and a scholar whose legacy serves as the ideological backbone of contemporary Salafi doctrines.
Yet, serious engagement with his writings and intellectual heritage reveals a more layered, textured, and often misunderstood picture. Historical Ibn Taymiyyah was not the monolithic figure modern polemics make him out to be. Indeed, he was deeply shaped by the spiritual traditions of his time. Not only did he affirm the legitimacy of Sufism, but he also participated in Sufi practice, praised its early teachers, and even aligned himself with specific Sufi orders. His critiques were not aimed at Sufism as a whole, but at what he perceived as abuses or innovations that compromised the Qur’anic and Prophetic message.
Understanding this reality is crucial for appreciating his true intellectual legacy. To define him solely as a “Salafi” is to flatten his identity; to ignore his profound relationship with Sufism is to misread the richness and complexity of Islamic history.
A Scholar Formed by a Living Sufi Environment
Born in Harran and later relocating to Damascus, Ibn Taymiyyah grew up in an environment where Sufism was a mainstream, normative dimension of Muslim scholarly life. Many of the greatest jurists, Hadith masters, and theologians of his age were also Sufi initiates. The binaries often drawn today between “Salafi” and “Sufi” simply did not exist in the same way during the 7th–8th Islamic centuries.
He and his family were associated with the Qādirī Sufi order, founded by the celebrated saint ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī. Ibn Taymiyyah frequently cited al-Jīlānī with reverence, identifying him as a paragon of spiritual purification and moral excellence. In fact, he openly stated:
“Our shaykh, ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī, said…”
—Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā
His respectful references are not those of an outsider peering in critically, but of a participant within a spiritual lineage.
This is supported by records from early biographers such as Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Ibn ‘Abd al-Hādī, and al-Dhahabī, who frequently mention Ibn Taymiyyah’s appreciation for, and involvement in, Sufi circles. He lived among Sufis, debated them, advised them, and learned from them. He also wrote commentaries on early Sufi classics, including works by al-Harawī, one of the pillars of the Hanbali-Sufi tradition.
Affirmation of True Sufism
Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings contain detailed discussions of Sufism—its origins, its virtues, its classifications, and its diverse traditions. Far from dismissing it, he described it as a legitimate and beneficial avenue of spiritual growth, provided it remained rooted in Qur’an and Sunnah. He wrote:
“The term ‘Sufism’ refers to a reality that was already recognized among the elite of spiritual people. They were known for their striving in worship and devotion.”
—Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā, 11/17
Ibn Taymiyyah argued for a distinction between:
-
Authentic Sufism (al-taṣawwuf al-ṣaḥīḥ):
A path of zuhd (asceticism), sincerity, remembrance (dhikr), and moral purification. -
Corrupted forms of Sufism:
Practices involving extremism, antinomianism, superstition, or un-Islamic metaphysics.
This distinction is critical: his criticisms targeted what he saw as theological or methodological deviations—not the science of Sufism nor its legitimate practitioners. In this regard, his method resembles the approach of major Sunni jurists and theologians who praised early Sufi masters while rejecting innovations that crept into later practice.
Praising the Early Sufi Masters
A review of Ibn Taymiyyah’s works reveals extensive admiration for Sufi champions such as:
-
Junayd al-Baghdādī
-
Sahl al-Tustarī
-
Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī (Bāyazīd)
-
Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (though he critiqued some aspects of Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn)
-
‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī
He consistently identified Junayd as the model of sound Sufism, describing him as the leader of the people of spiritual truth and self-purification. Junayd’s emphasis on sobriety (ṣuḥb) and unshakeable adherence to Shari‘ah became, for Ibn Taymiyyah, the gold standard for authentic Sufi method.
This is significant: if Ibn Taymiyyah were categorically anti-Sufi, he would not repeatedly elevate Sufi saints as exemplars of the Islamic spiritual path.
His Own Spiritual Practice
Several historical accounts describe Ibn Taymiyyah’s personal devotion and ascetic lifestyle. He was known for:
-
Constant dhikr, often to the point where he said,
“Dhikr is to me like water to a fish; how could a fish survive without water?” -
Long periods of fasting.
-
Extended night prayers.
-
A life of simplicity, humility, and abstention from worldly comforts.
-
Engaging in states of intense spiritual reflection, especially during imprisonment.
His student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya described witnessing his teacher’s spiritual states, recounting how Ibn Taymiyyah experienced deep serenity and joy through remembrance of God. Ibn al-Qayyim remarked:
“I never saw anyone whose heart was more attached to Allah than Ibn Taymiyyah.”
These are descriptions of a man deeply immersed in the spiritual practices that constitute the core of Sufi discipline.
Why Is He Portrayed Today Only as a Salafi?
The modern image of Ibn Taymiyyah as an anti-Sufi symbol owes more to contemporary ideological battles than to historical reality.
1. Selective appropriation
Modern Salafi reformers often cite Ibn Taymiyyah’s criticisms of certain Sufi ideas or orders while ignoring his affirmations of classical Sufism. Over time, this led to the construction of a simplified figure useful for modern polemics.
2. Reaction against popular Sufism
In many regions, Sufi practices had developed into elaborate, sometimes excessive forms by the 18th–19th centuries. Reformists looked to Ibn Taymiyyah as a reference point for challenging these practices, emphasizing only the corrective parts of his legacy.
3. Modern Sufi responses
Conversely, some Sufi groups reacted defensively, portraying him as a hostile critic. In doing so, they reinforced the binary image of “Salafi vs. Sufi,” which would have been alien to Ibn Taymiyyah himself.
4. Loss of historical nuance
Popular religious discourse thrives on clear categories. A figure who affirms Sufism and critiques it is more difficult to fit into modern narratives than a purely polemical champion of one side.
The Intellectual Unity of Law, Theology, and Spirituality
Ibn Taymiyyah did not see jurisprudence, theology, and spirituality as competing domains. Instead, he viewed Islam holistically; purification of the soul (tazkiyah) was inseparable from correct belief and righteous action.
This synthesis is one of the most important—yet often neglected—features of his thought. He repeatedly emphasized:
-
The need for tahdhīb al-nafs (refinement of the self).
-
The importance of remembering God frequently.
-
The centrality of sincerity (ikhlāṣ) and truthfulness (ṣidq).
-
The virtues of muraqabah (spiritual vigilance), muḥāsabah (self-examination), and tawbah (repentance).
-
The spiritual benefits of khalwah (retreat) when practiced in accordance with the Sunnah.
These are not the ideas of a scholar hostile to spirituality; they are the pillars of a refined Sufi ethic integrated within an orthodox Sunni framework.
His Critiques: A Call to Reform, Not Rejection
Ibn Taymiyyah’s critiques of Sufism—often quoted selectively—were not aimed at the foundations of the discipline, but at developments that he believed had diverged from the Qur’anic worldview. Among the issues he addressed:
-
Pantheistic interpretations influenced by Ibn ‘Arabī’s doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd.
-
Excessive veneration of saints or tombs.
-
Practices not traceable to the early generations.
-
Certain ecstatic expressions that might violate theological boundaries.
Yet, even here, he often approached the matter with nuance. He distinguished between:
-
The intention behind a Sufi’s statement,
-
The linguistic form the statement took, and
-
The degree of excusability depending on spiritual state.
His approach echoes Junayd’s principle: “Our path is built on the Qur’an and Sunnah.”
It is thus inaccurate to imagine his critiques as sweeping condemnations. They were internal critiques offered by someone who belonged to the tradition he sought to reform.
The Harmony of Salafi Principles and Sufi Spirituality
To say that Ibn Taymiyyah was a “Salafi” and “Sufi” is not contradictory. In his view:
-
The Salafi method provides the pure textual and doctrinal foundation.
-
Sufism provides the method of transforming the soul according to that foundation.
He saw the two not as opposing camps, but as complementary dimensions of an integrated Sunni identity.
In fact, he argued that true Sufis were the inheritors of the Salaf in their emphasis on purification, devotion, and asceticism. He viewed early Sufism as a direct continuation of the spiritual path of the Prophet’s companions.
This is why he famously said:
“The true Sufis are among the best of the people.”
—Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā
Why Recovering This Balanced View Matters Today
Understanding Ibn Taymiyyah as both Salafi and Sufi has important implications for contemporary Muslim discourse.
1. Healing sectarian divides
The sharp dichotomy between Salafi and Sufi identities is a modern phenomenon. Ibn Taymiyyah’s example shows that deep spirituality and textual rigor can coexist.
2. Restoring authentic Sufism
His affirmation of early Sufi masters highlights a path of spiritual discipline rooted in Qur’an and Sunnah—one that avoids both excess and neglect.
3. Broadening the Salafi tradition
A more historically grounded understanding shows that the Salafi heritage includes attention to the heart, soul, and spiritual excellence.
4. Enriching Islamic scholarship
Recognizing Ibn Taymiyyah’s multi-dimensional legacy invites Muslims to cultivate a form of religiosity that is both intellectually rigorous and spiritually profound.
Conclusion: A Scholar Beyond Modern Labels
Syaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was not merely a “Salafi” in the modern ideological sense. Nor was he an opponent of spirituality or a critic of Sufism in totality. He was:
-
A jurist of extraordinary depth,
-
A theologian with penetrating insight,
-
A spiritual master grounded in remembrance, sincerity, and asceticism,
-
A reformer who honored the Sufi tradition while calling it back to its original purity.
To reduce him to a single label is to misunderstand the man and his era. He stands as a reminder that Islamic scholarship at its highest level transcends the simplifications of modern debates. His life and works teach that the path of knowledge and the path of the heart are not separate roads, but two halves of a single journey toward God.
No comments:
Post a Comment