Ibn Tamiyya: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "[[" to "") |
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "]]" to "") |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{PropDel}}<br><br>{{subpages}} | {{PropDel}}<br><br>{{subpages}} | ||
'''Ibn Tamiyya''' (1263?-1328), formally Taqi al-Deen Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, is seen as the theoretical father of modern Salafism, a radically conservative form of Islam. Part of the Hanbali | '''Ibn Tamiyya''' (1263?-1328), formally Taqi al-Deen Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, is seen as the theoretical father of modern Salafism, a radically conservative form of Islam. Part of the Hanbali school of Islam, he wrote on the necessity of armed jihad against foreign invasion of Islamic lands; he suggested that armed jihad should be added to the pillars of Islam. He also condemned Sufism. Wahhabism also draws on his thinking. | ||
His core argument was expressed in urging Muslim fight against the Mongol invasion (1294-1303), in spite of protests that the Mongol monarch had converted to Islam. That king, however, allowed Mongol tribal law to coexist with Sharia | His core argument was expressed in urging Muslim fight against the Mongol invasion (1294-1303), in spite of protests that the Mongol monarch had converted to Islam. That king, however, allowed Mongol tribal law to coexist with Sharia, making him an apostate and a legitimate target of jihad. <ref name=Henzel>{{citation | ||
| url = http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/05spring/henzel.pdf | | url = http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/05spring/henzel.pdf | ||
| title = The Origins of Al-Qaeda's Ideology: Implications for US Strategy | | title = The Origins of Al-Qaeda's Ideology: Implications for US Strategy | ||
| author = Christopher Henzel | journal = Parameters, U.S. Army War College | | author = Christopher Henzel | journal = Parameters, U.S. Army War College | date = Spring 2005}}</ref> | ||
By requiring there to be no Muslim society without Islamic law, he set a context that Salafists used to justify rebellion against Muslim rulers that did not enforce that law, and was cited by the assassins of Anwar Sadat | By requiring there to be no Muslim society without Islamic law, he set a context that Salafists used to justify rebellion against Muslim rulers that did not enforce that law, and was cited by the assassins of Anwar Sadat.<ref name=Simon>{{citation | ||
| url = http://www.cfr.org/publication/11425/is_there_a_clash_of_civilizations_islam_democracy_and_usmiddle_east_policy.html | | url = http://www.cfr.org/publication/11425/is_there_a_clash_of_civilizations_islam_democracy_and_usmiddle_east_policy.html | ||
| title = Is there a Clash of Civilizations? Islam, Democracy, and U.S.-Middle East Policy | | title = Is there a Clash of Civilizations? Islam, Democracy, and U.S.-Middle East Policy | ||
| author = Steven Simon | publisher = Council on Foreign Relations | | author = Steven Simon | publisher = Council on Foreign Relations | ||
| date = September 14, 2006}}</ref> | | date = September 14, 2006}}</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Latest revision as of 07:30, 18 March 2024
| This article may be deleted soon. | ||
|---|---|---|
 Ibn Tamiyya (1263?-1328), formally Taqi al-Deen Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, is seen as the theoretical father of modern Salafism, a radically conservative form of Islam. Part of the Hanbali school of Islam, he wrote on the necessity of armed jihad against foreign invasion of Islamic lands; he suggested that armed jihad should be added to the pillars of Islam. He also condemned Sufism. Wahhabism also draws on his thinking. His core argument was expressed in urging Muslim fight against the Mongol invasion (1294-1303), in spite of protests that the Mongol monarch had converted to Islam. That king, however, allowed Mongol tribal law to coexist with Sharia, making him an apostate and a legitimate target of jihad. [1] By requiring there to be no Muslim society without Islamic law, he set a context that Salafists used to justify rebellion against Muslim rulers that did not enforce that law, and was cited by the assassins of Anwar Sadat.[2] References
|
||
