4276

IBN TAYMIYAH

The aspect of Ibn Snas writings that attracted

Suhraward and his followers was his Eastern (mashriqyah)
philosophy. The Arabic words for Eastern and Illuminationist (mushriqyah) are written identically; according to
Suhraward they mean the same thing in Ibn Snas works.
Unfortunately, the most important of his writings on Eastern
philosophy, Al-ins: af, was lost, but his references to the East
in H: ayy ibn Yaqz: an and The Bird convinced Suhraward that
Ibn Sna was on the right track. Suhraward translated the
latter into Farsi and wrote a companion work to H: ayy ibn
Yaqz: an, which he called Western Exile. In his basic treatise
H: ikmat al-ishraq (Illumination wisdom), Suhraward points
out that the sources of wisdom that Ibn Sna lacked were
precisely those writings of Zoroastrianism, Pythagoreanism,
and Hermetism which were both Eastern and Illuminationist. He rejects Ibn Snas distinction between essence and existence, saying that existence has no reality outside the intelligence that abstracts its essence. Ibn Snas view of form and
matter, similar to that of Aristotle, is transformed by
Suhraward into light and darkness; the human soul is composed of light. He interprets Ibn Snas treatises to be symbolic accounts of the return of the soul/light to the Supreme
Light, and wrote several treatises that describe this journey
of the soul to God.
The Ishraq tradition was most influential in Iran after
the establishment of the Safavid regime (14991722) and its
adoption of ShE Islam as the official state religion. In Isfahan, the Safavid capital after 1598, the two greatest exponents of the Ishraq school were Mr Damad (d. 1631) and
his pupil Mulla S: adra (1571/21640). Mr Damad wrote a
commentary on the metaphysics of the Shifa D in which he
combined the teachings of Ibn Sna and Suhraward, particularly in the area of angelology. Mulla S: adra, the greatest of
the Ishraq theosophers, founded a school that continues to
the present day. His synthesis of philosophy, revelation, and
illumination follows Ibn Snas principle of the primacy of
existence and its division into necessary, possible, and impossible existents. He departs from Ibn Snas views and relies
more on Ibn al-EArab, the Neoplatonists, and Islamic revelation in holding that the sciences of the otherworld, learned
by illumination and revelation, are true knowledge and far
superior to the sciences of this world. Just as the Europeans
had accepted only one aspect of Ibn Snas thought, the
philosophical/scientific, the Ishraqyah selected only the
other aspect, the mystical, for inclusion in their system of
belief.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
The best account of Ibn Snas life and works is his brief autobiography and its continuation by his disciple Juzjan, which I
have edited and translated as The Life of Ibn Sna (Albany,
N.Y., 1974). A survey of his writings and their influence on
the European and Islamic worlds is found in Soheil M.
Afnans Avicenna: His Life and Works (London, 1958); a
work emphasizing his influence on Christian and Jewish
thought is Avicenna: Scientist and Philosopher, edited by
G. M. Wickens (London, 1952). The best analysis of his

metaphysical theories is Parviz Morewedges The Metaphysica

of Avicenna (ibn Sna) (New York, 1973), which is a translation of the Ilahyat (Metaphysics) of the Danish-namah-i
EAla D with an extensive commentary and comparison with
Ibn Snas other works on metaphysics. The negative side of
the debate over interpreting his works esoterically is presented by Amlie-Marie Goichon in such works as the introduction and notes in her French translation of the Isharat:
Livre des directives et remarques (Paris, 1951) and Le rcit de
H: ayy ibn Yaqz: an (Paris, 1959). The case for an esoteric interpretation is made in Henry Corbins Avicenna and the Visionary Recital, translated by Willard R. Trask (New York,
1960); the connection between Ibn Sna and the Ishraq
school is shown in Seyyed Hossein Nas: rs Three Muslim
Sages: Avicenna, Suhraward, Ibn EArab (Cambridge, Mass.,
1964).
WILLIAM E. GOHLMAN (1987

AND

2005)

IBN TAYMIYAH (AH 661728/12631328 CE), more

fully, Taq al-Dn Abu al-EAbbas Ah: mad ibn EAbd al-H: alm
ibn EAbd al-Salam al-H: arran al-Dimashq, was a jurisconsult, theologian, and S: uf. He was born in Harran, and at
the age of six he fled with his father and brothers to Damascus during the Mongol invasions. Ibn Taymyah devoted
himself from early youth to various Islamic sciences (QurDan,
h: adth, and legal studies), and he was a voracious reader of
books on sciences that were not taught in the regular institutions of learning, including logic, philosophy, and kalam.
EARLY CAREER. Ibn Taymyah studied law under the direction of his father and Shams al-Dn EAbd al-Rah: man
al-Maqdis (d. 1283). Under several teachers of h: adth he
studied a number of works, in particular the Musnad of
Ah: mad ibn H: anbal, (a h: adth collection that he read several
times), the six books of h: adth, and the biobibliographical
Mu Ejam of al-T: abaran. He studied Arabic grammar and lexicography for a brief period under Sulayman ibn EAbd alQawi al-T: uf (d. 1316); then, on his own, he mastered
Sbawayhs text on grammar. He became qualified to issue
legal opinions before the age of twenty; at twenty-one, upon
the death of his father in 1283, he succeeded him as professor
of h: adth and law at Dar al-H: adth al-Sukkaryah, a S: uf
monastery and college of h: adth founded around the middle
of the thirteenth century in Damascus. Ibn Taymyah was
a prolific writer, described as fast to learn and slow to forget: It was said of him that once he learned something, he
never forgot it.
Ibn Taymyah also succeeded his father at the Umayyad
Mosque, where he gave lectures on QurDanic exegesis. His biographers record that, lecturing without notes, he would give
materials for two or more fascicles. On one of these Fridays
of QurDanic exegesis in the Umayyad Mosque in 1291, Ibn
Taymyah lectured briefly on the divine attributes. This was
his first known public venture into controversial dogmatics.
The reaction was quick among his opponents, who tried to
prevent him from lecturing further in the mosque but failed
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION

IBN TAYMIYAH

in their attempt. Ibn Taymyahs treatment of the divine attributes was given as part of his profession of faith, the
Eaqdah. The ShafiE chief qad: Shihab al-Dn al-Khuwayy
declared: I am in agreement with the creed of Shaykh Taq
al-Dn [ibn Taymyah]. When he was reproved, he continued: because he has sound intelligence, speaks from extensive knowledge, and says only what he knows to be sound.
In 1292 Ibn Taymyah went on the pilgrimage to
Mecca, where he gathered materials for his work Manasik
al-h: ajj (Rituals of the pilgrimage), denouncing a number of
practices in the rituals of the pilgrimage as condemnable innovations.
The ShafiE historian Ibn Kathr, in the events of the
year 1293/4, treats of the affair of EAssaf al-Nas: ran (the
Christian), who was reported by witnesses to have cursed
the Prophet. Ibn Taymyah and a companion, al-Fariq, apparently implicated in the affair for encouraging the assault
and battery to which EAssaf and his bedouin protector were
victims, were flogged and put under house arrest. This was
the episode behind Ibn Taymyahs work Kitab al-s: arim
al-maslul Eala shatim al-rasul (The sharp sword drawn against
the reviler of the messenger [of God]).
In 1296, at the death of his professor Zayn al-Dn ibn
Munajja, Ibn Taymyah succeeded to the chair of law thus
vacated in the Madrasah H: anbalyah. His biographer Ibn
Rajab said that he read an autobiographical note in Ibn
Taymyahs own hand to the effect that Ibn Taymyah was
offered, before the year 1291 (thus before the age of thirty),
the post of shaykh al-shuyukh, or head of the S: ufs, and the
post of chief qad: , but he refused them both. Refusals to assume such posts usually meant that the scholar wished to stay
aloof from the central power, out of desire for a private scholarly life, or in order to pursue the ascetic life, or to remain
free to criticize practices he deemed not in keeping with the
tenets of Islam. When Ibn Taymyahs subsequent life is
taken into consideration, his refusal clearly appears to have
been based on the last of these reasons.

OPPOSITION TO THE ASHEARIYAH. Ibn Taymyah lived in a

period between those of two notable propagandists of the rationalist AshEar movement in theology: Ibn EAsakir
(d. 1176) and Subk (d. 1370). The attempt of the AshEar
movement to obtain legitimacy by infiltrating the ShafiE
madhhab (school) of lawan attempt that surfaced in the
eleventh centurywas still developing and had to face two
implacable forces blocking its goal. The traditionalist movement was represented particularly by two madhhabs of law:
the H: anbal and the ShafiE. The former was the obvious obstructive force, while the latter included the AshEar faction,
which was hard at work to gain the adherence of fellow
ShafiEs to AshEar thought, an effort destined to fail in the
face of the alliance between the traditionalists of the two
madhhabs.
Already in the days of Ibn EAsakir the traditionalists had
introduced an institution that was conceived to correct,
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION

4277

among other things, the detrimental consequences of the exclusory principle in the madrasah, according to which only
those students who chose to belong to the madhhab represented by the madrasah were admitted. This policy tended
to be divisive, separating members of the traditionalist movement who belonged to all the Sunn madhhabs, while allowing the AshEaryah to stay within one madhhab, the ShafiE.
The new institution that helped to correct the situation was
the Dar al-H: adth, wherein the principal subject of instruction was h: adth rather than law, and students of any of the
four madhhabs could attend. Thus a H: anbal professor, such
as Ibn Taymyah, could have students belonging to the
ShafiE madhhab, such as al-Birzal, Mizz, and al-Dhahab.
The first Dar al-H: adth was founded in Damascus by the
Zengid ruler Nur al-Dn (d. 1173).
To the philosophical theology of the AshEaryah, Ibn
Taymyah opposed his famous professions of faith ( Eaqdah;
pl., Eaqa Did). His first full-length Eaqdah, written at the request of the people of Hama in the year 1299 and therefore
known as Al- Eaqdah al-h: amawyah, was very hostile to the
AshEaryah and their kalam-theology. According to Ibn
Rajab, Ibn Taymyah wrote this Eaqdah in one sitting. His
other important profession of faith is the EAqdah wasit:yah,
written for a group of religious intellectuals in Wasit: (Iraq)
before the arrival of the Mongols in Damascus. Both professions of faith were attacked by his enemies, and he was taxed
with anthropomorphism. In a meeting in the house of the
ShafiE qad: Imam al-Dn EUmar ibn EAbd al-Rah: man
al-Qazwn (d. 1299) the EAqdah h: amawyah was studied;
Ibn Taymyah was questioned regarding various points, and
it was deemed to be satisfactory. Regarding the Wasit:yah,
even the AshEar-ShafiE S: af al-Dn al-Hind (d. 1315)
found it to be in conformity with the QurDan and sunnah.
Nevertheless, his enemies tried hard to keep him in prison,
even to have him executed, but failed on both counts.
Ibn Taymyahs polemic activity extended to the philosophers, especially the logicians, against whom he wrote a refutation, Al-radd Eala al-mant:iqyn. He wrote extensively
against the monistic (ittih: adyah) and incarnationist
(hululyah) S: ufs and condemned as heretical innovations
many of the S: uf practices of his day. Nevertheless, Ibn
Taymyah was praised by the S: uf Abu EAbd Allah
Muh: ammad ibn Qawwam, who said: Our Sufism became
sound only at the hands of Ibn Taymyah, implying that
Ibn Taymyah was not an outsider to Sufism. Recently discovered evidence shows that Ibn Taymyah belonged to the
S: uf order of the Qadriyah, named after the H: anbal S: uf
EAbd al-Qadir al-Jlan, whom he praised and preferred to
the other H: anbal S: uf, al-Ans: ar al-Haraw.
On the theological question of the divine attributes, Ibn
Taymyah held that God should be described as he has described himself in his book and as the Prophet has described
him in his sunnah. This classical traditionalist doctrine goes
back to al-ShafiE (d. 820) and to Ah: mad ibn H: anbal
(d. 855), the two great leaders of the movement, in whose

4278

IBN TAYMIYAH

works Ibn Taymyah was thoroughly versed. Ibn Taymyah

and his famous disciple Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzyah (d. 1350)
drew much of their inspiration from the works of al-ShafiE
and Ibn H: anbal. From the genesis of the traditionalist movement the principal message has always been that the basic
sources for belief and practice are the book of God and the
practice (sunnah) of the Prophet.
Ibn Taymyah, in the title of one of his numerous
works, emphasized the place of the Prophet in relation to the
two fundamental sources: The Steps Leading to the Knowledge
That the Messenger of God Has Already Made a Clear Exposition of the Roots and Branches of Religion. For the Prophet,
as messenger, brought the book of God and was himself a
living example of what should be followed. Ibn Qayyim
al-Jawzyah quotes from the introduction to al-ShafiEs
Risalah: Praise be to God . . . who is as he has described
himself, and who is exalted above all the attributes given to
him by those among his creatures who have described him.
And again: No event shall befall an adherent of Gods religion but that there is a guide in the book of God showing
the right way to be followed. These two statements were
quoted against the AshEaryah, the rationalist movement of
the period of Ibn Taymyah and Ibn Qayyim, as al-ShafiE
had said them some five centuries before in condemnation
of the MuEtazilah, the rationalist movement of his day.

UNDER ATTACK. Ibn Taymyahs troubles came chiefly from

his opposition to AshEar thought working from within the
ShafiE madhhab, and also from his criticism of extremist
S: uf thought and practices. His troubles (mih: an; sg.,
mih: nah) were treated extensively by his ShafiE disciples
al-Birzal, al-Dhahab, and Ibn Kathr, and by the H: anbal
biobibliographer Ibn Rajab.
Ibn Taymyahs enemies finally succeeded in removing
him from the scene. The opportunity was presented by one
of his legal opinions (fatwas) titled Travel to the Tombs of
the Prophets and Saints, in which Ibn Taymyah prohibited
such travel. His opponents pounced on this fatwa and
charged him with demeaning the prophets and with unbelief
(kufr). Eighteen jurisconsults, led by the Malik qad:
al-IkhnaD, wrote fatwas condemning him. The four chief
qad: s of Cairo issued their decision that he be imprisoned
in the citadel of Damascus. Other jurisconsults, including
the two sons of the leading Malik jurisconsult Abu
al-Wald, had issued fatwas condemning that decision. They
stated that it had no valid basis against Ibn Taymyah because he had simply cited the divergent opinions of the jurisconsults on the subject of the visiting of tombs (ziyarat
al-qubur) and had given preponderance to one side of the
question, a choice that was legitimate to make. But the decision stood without appeal. Ibn Taymyah was never to leave
the citadel alive; he died there some two years later. Three
months before his death, his enemy al-IkhnaDi, against whom
he had written a refutation, complained to the sultan, who
ordered that Ibn Taymyah be deprived of the opportunity
to write; his ink, pen, and paper were taken away from him.

But to the very last, his enemies could not quite get the better
of him.
The biographers cite a number of statements made by
Ibn Taymyah during his imprisonment that show the mans
stature and state of mind. A prisoner is one who has shut
out God from his heart. A prisoner is one whose passions
have made him captive. In this world there is a paradise
to be entered; he who does not enter it will not enter the paradise of the world to come. What can my enemies possibly
do to me? My paradise is in my breast; wherever I go it goes
with me, inseparable from me. For me, prison is a place of
retreat; execution is my opportunity for martyrdom; and
exile from my town is but a chance to travel. In reference
to his enemies who strove to have him imprisoned: If I were
to give all the gold it takes to fill the space of this citadel,
I could not possibly reward them for the good they have
done me. And he often repeated the following prayer: O
God! Help me to move my tongue incessantly in your praise,
to express my gratitude, and to serve you in perfect worship.
On 20 Dhu al-QaEdah 728 (September 26, 1328), Ibn
Taymyah died in the citadel at the age of sixty-five. The
populace turned out in the hundreds of thousands for the
funeral procession, which was compared to that of Ah: mad
ibn H: anbal. He was buried next to his brother, Sharaf al-Dn
EAbd Allah, in the S: uf cemetery where other S: uf members
of his family were buried.
Ibn Taymyahs influence has reached modern times.
His teachings, first followed by Muh: ammad ibn EAbd
al-Wahhab (d. 1792), became the basis of the Wahhab
movement in the nineteenth century and the guiding principles of the Wahhab state of Saudi Arabia. Again, in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, through Muh: ammad
EAbduh and Rashd Rid: a, they influenced the modernist
Salafyah movement.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arabic Sources
Ibn al-EImad al-H: anbal. Shadharat al-dhahab f akhbar man
dhahab. Vol. 5. Cairo, 1931. See pages 8086.
Ibn Kathr, IsmaEl ibn EUmar. Al-bidayah wa-al-nihayah f alta Drikh. Vol. 14. Cairo, 1937. See pages 135141.
Ibn Rajab. Dhayl Eala tabaqat al-H: anabilah. Vol. 2. Edited by M.
H: amid al-Fiq. Cairo, 1953. See pages 387408.
Studies
Laoust, Henri. Essai sur les doctrines sociales et politiques de
Taki-al-Dn Ah: mad b. Taimiya. Cairo, 1939.
Laoust, Henri. La biographie dIbn Taimya daprs Ibn Kathr.
Bulletin dtudes orientales 9 (1942): 115162.
Laoust, Henri. Le H: anbalsme sous les Mamlouks Bahrides.
Revue des tudes islamiques 28 (1960): 171.
Laoust, Henri. Ibn Taymiyya. In The Encyclopaedia of Islam,
new ed. Leiden, 1960.
Laoust, Henri. Linfluence dIbn Taimyya. In Islam: Past Influence and Present Challenge, edited by Alford T. Welch and
Pierre Cachia. Edinburgh, 1979.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION

ICONOCLASM: AN OVERVIEW

Makdisi, George. AshEar and the AshEarites in Islamic Religious

History. Studia Islamica 17 (1962): 3780.
Makdisi, George. Ibn Taimya: A S: uf of the Qadiriya Order.
American Journal of Arabic Studies 1 (1973): 118129.
Makdisi, George. The Hanbali School and Sufism. Humaniora
Islamica 11 (1974): 6172.
GEORGE MAKDISI (1987)

ICELANDIC RELIGION

SEE GERMANIC

RELIGION

I-CHING

SEE YIJING

ICONOCLASM

This entry consists of the following articles:

AN OVERVIEW
ICONOCLASM IN THE BYZANTINE TRADITION

ICONOCLASM: AN OVERVIEW
Iconoclasm can be defined as the intentional desecration or
destruction of works of art, especially those containing
human figurations, on religious principles or beliefs. More
general usage of the term signifies either the rejection, aversion, or regulation of images and imagery, regardless of the
rationale or intent. Any investigation of either the historical
events or the concept of iconoclasm raises questions regarding the valuing and meaning of imagery, particularly sacred
art and ecclesiastical doctrines. Traditionally, doctrinal pronouncements defined roles, functions, and meanings of art
or iconoclasm within specific religious traditions.
Any study of iconoclasm is premised on the bifurcation
of a historical event or a cultural attitude or idea. As a historical event, iconoclasm can be interpreted as being either active
or passive. The former category includes legitimate accounts
of the damaging of images; whereas the latter category corresponds to the promulgation and the contents of religious
doctrines. Evaluations should incorporate motivations,
meanings, and results of either form of the iconoclastic enterprise. As a cultural idea or attitude, iconoclasm requires analysis from the perspective of valuing art and imagery within
the individual culture, the formative role of religious values
on that culture, and the role of the visual within that religious tradition.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the English
word iconoclasm is a composite formed from two Greek
words: eikon (icon) and klasma (breaking); whose primary
meaning is [t]he breaking or destroying of images; esp. the
destruction of images and pictures set up as objects of veneration; the attacking or overthrow of venerated institutions and
cherished beliefs, regarded as fallacious or superstitious.
With the same Greek roots, the Oxford English Dictionarys
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, SECOND EDITION

4279

primary definition of an iconoclast is as [a] breaker or destroyer of images; spec. (Eccl. Hist.) One who took part in or
supported the movement in the 8th and 9th centuries, to put
down the use of images or pictures in religious worship in
the Christian churches of the East; hence, applied analogously to those Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries who
practised or countenanced a similar destruction of images in
the churches. The Oxford English Dictionary lists an important secondary definition to the broader concept of iconoclasm and iconoclast as [o]ne who assails or attacks cherished beliefs or venerated institutions on the ground that
they are erroneous or pernicious. The rarely invoked term
iconomachy is delineated in the Oxford English Dictionary as
being from the ecclesiastical Greek, eikonomachia is defined
as [a] war against images; hostility or opposition to images,
esp. to their use in connexion with worship.
The primary reference for iconoclasm has been religion,
and in particular, Western monotheism. This reference raises
critical issues in any discussion of the meaning of iconoclasm
in world religions. Foremost among these issues is the role
of religious belief in the formation of cultural and individual
identity. If the procedures by which an individual learns
about, assents to, is initiated into, and becomes a member
of a religious community is analogous to those for entry into
political and social communities, then a socialization process
orients perception. How we come to see and interpret what
we see is predicated on our disciplined sense of values. Orientation into a religious confession privileges the acceptance of
the normative and appropriate, and simultaneously defines
the abnormal and inappropriate.
However, if Ernst Cassirer (1962/1944), Moshe
Barasch (1992), Mircea Eliade (1992/1986), and Marshall
G. Hodgson (1964), to name only a select few, are correct,
then how do we resolve their commitment to the basic
human activity of symbol making with the privileging status of religion in the process of seeing and the discussion of
iconoclasm? If iconoclasm is limited to the preconceived categories of Western monotheism, then is it independent of
the otherwise universal relationship between art and cultural
memory and religious traditions? As the basic nature of
human beings is to make symbolsvisual as well as auditory
and oral symbolsthen imaging can be defined as a universal human activity.
All world religions have an attitude toward art and imagery; some have a bifurcated view, others a single lens
through which they see and define art. The remaining religions vacillate throughout their individual histories as ambiguous or ambivalent toward imagery. Nonetheless, art and
cultural memory are embedded within religion and encoded
with religious meaning and value. This reality must be evaluated within the late twentieth- and early twenty-first-century
recognition that there is no innocent eye; rather, feminist,
deconstructionist, and postmodernist scholarship argues persuasively that le regard is more than an engendered gaze. Le
regard offers a nonreligious basis for the recognition that