Appropriation of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya 21
realm of jurisprudence^83 – but displayed a series of creative outbursts.
Bori stresses that Ibn Taymiyya “did not have a systematic mind”, but
was “unsystematically explosive both in the quantity and the quality
of his works”.^84 This is very much in confluence with his typical for-
mat because it perfectly fit his mode of performance, for “fatwa litera-
ture does not attain the degree of systemization that is found in the
great treatises and, as a rule, does not admit of such highly extended
argumentation as is found in uṣūl al-fiqh-work.”^85 The engagement on
behalf of Ibn Taymiyya (and his work), above all by Ibn al-Qayyim
but also by other followers and admirers, should be regarded as a huge
accomplishment in itself: (i) socially, by recognizing and asserting
Ibn Taymiyya’s importance, i. e. backing someone who was often not
acknowledged by the establishment and partaking in his protests; (ii)
materially and practically, by identifying, collecting and ordering his
scattered notes; (iii) and not least, intellectually, by curiously exploring
the breaches made by him, spelling out implications, and developing
and systematizing his ideas.^86 Nevertheless, we do not want to pursue
these “auxiliary” functions and their merits any further here, because
it is not yet the decisive point we finally want to make; in addition, the
above argumentation again bears the risk of ending up in the double
bind of apologetics. Coming back to the cited axiomatic statement of
Rapoport and Ahmed, we are hesitant to endorse even the remaining
middle element, namely the claim that Ibn Taymiyya was “one of the
most original (...) thinkers in the history of Islam.”^87 We do not under-
take to flatly deny this assertion of supreme originality, but rather to
note the broader intellectual climate in Western literature that rein-
forces such value judgements.
In an article on Mamluk belles lettres and the role of poetry therein,
Thomas Bauer argues that it is simple-minded to evaluate this litera-
ture per se, because one should also consider the historical develop-
83 Krawietz, Transgressive Creativity, pp. 43–49.
84 Bori, Collection, p. 55.
85 Weiss, Ibn Taymiyya on Leadership, p. 64.
86 It must be added that well-versed modern scholars like the Egyptian Muḥammad
Abū Zahra (d. 1974) may appreciate Ibn Taymiyya’s writings “because they are
clear, illustrative and illuminating, never complicating or obscuring things”
(fa-innahā wāḍiḥa mushriqa nayyira lā taʿqīd fīhā wa-lā ibhām), Abū Zahra,
Ibn Taymiyya. Ḥayātuhu wa-ʿaṣruhu wa-ārāʾuhu wa-fiqhuhu, Cairo 1952,
p. 521. The majority of his readers would not endorse this, but would rather
bemoan his utter conciseness – to put it mildly.
87 Rapoport and Ahmed, Introduction, p. 19.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated