The Poison of Philosophy 285
“later” kalām theologians,^133 but also those of Shiites,^134 theosophists,^135
mystics,^136 and other sects relied on false premises and inferences far
removed from truth.
Ibn Taymiyya therefore undertakes to deconstruct logic first. He
states in al-Radd ʿalā al-manṭiqiyyīn that he initially intended to
write a refutation of the mutafalsifa’s metaphysics, but had realized
“that much in their views on (the basis of metaphysics (ilāhiyyāt)
and) logic is the source of their errors in metaphysics” and thus
engaged in the rebuttal of the logicians.^137 He sometimes, as in this
case, uses the term mutafalsifa, literally “pseudo-philosophers,” as a
general denomination for all those he criticizes.^138 Wael B. Hallaq has
convincingly argued that Ibn Taymiyya does not distinguish between
the semantic use of falāsifa and mutafalsifa, since for Ibn Taymiyya
“philosophy qua philosophy is erroneous, and those who make it
their business to study it are pseudo-scholars,” no matter how they
are called.^139
the references in the following four notes, see the entries in the indices: Ibn
Taymiyya, Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql, vol. 11, “Fihris al-aʿlām”, and “Fihris al-firaq
wal-ṭawāʾif wal-qabʾil”; and Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya.
133 He differentiates several groups within the Ashʿariyya, the Muʿtazila, the Jah-
miyya, and the Qadariyya, among others, and often refers to specific persons.
134 He sometimes subsumes them under al-Shīʿa or al-Rāfiḍa, among others,
sometimes alluding to leading proponents of Shiite subgroups.
135 His favorite addressee of critique among them is al-Suhrawardī al-Maqtūl
(d. 587/1191).
136 Ibn Taymiyya especially criticizes Ibn al-ʿArabī (560/1165–638/1240) and his
school.
137 Ibn Taymiyya, al-Radd, p. 4. Al-Suyūṭī either omitted some words of the
original (here in brackets) or his copy of al-Radd ʿalā al-manṭiqiyyīn dif-
fered from the edited one (Jahd al-qarīḥa, p. 202; Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya,
p. 4). Ibn Taymiyya seems, however, to have completed his refutation of the
rationalist’s metaphysics before the rebuttal of logic (see above, chapters 4
and 7).
138 Ibn Taymiyya, al-Radd, p. 3; al-Suyūṭī, Jahd al-qarīḥa, p. 202; Hallaq, Ibn
Taymiyya, p. 4; see also the following note.
139 Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya, p. 4, nn. 3–4 (with many references also to other writ-
ings of Ibn Taymiyya). He thereby disproved Michel (Ibn Taymiyya’s Cri-
tique of Falsafa, p. 4); Hoover came to the same conclusion (Ibn Taymiyya’s
Theodicy, p. 31, n. 41). See also Ibn Taymiyya, Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql, vol. 11,
“Fihris al-firaq wal-ṭawāʾif wal-qabāʾil”, s. v. al-falāsifa=ahl al-falsafa=al-
mutafalsifa.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated