Ibn Taymiyyah and his fatwas on forbidden (haram) and permissible (halal) issues

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Department of Theology and Religious Studies

National Pedagogical Dragomanov University

Ibn Taymiyyah and his fatwas on forbidden (haram) and permissible (halal) issues

Lyudmila B. Maevskaya, Khaisam Muhammad Aga

ABSTRACT

Recently, the study of the legacy of a medieval religious scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, who lived in Syria at the turn of 14th century, has become particularly relevant due to the growing activity of various radical groups. Notably, some parts of his teachings became the foundation of the ideology of various modern extremist sects such as Wahhabism. However, his answers to religious questions regarding the forbidden (haram) and the permitted (halal) remain understudied. Ibn Taymiyyah's ideas contradicts the unanimous conclusion of Islamic theologians on more than 60 issues. His opinion on certain issues provoked lively discussions to the point of even forbidding him to make conclusions on certain religious issues. In addition, his belonging to the Hanbali madhhab in Islam is questionable. Another problem of the study is its contradiction to the traditional Islamic concept of God. The main purpose of the study is to investigate the ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah on some issues of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), to compare his views with the opinions of Islamic theologians and to define erroneous ideas about jurisprudence. In this study, the main approach was to study the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and compare them with the works of Islamic theologians, representatives of different madhhabs. It was found that a certain number of religious and legal opinions of this religious scholar in matters of halal and haram contradict the legal norms of the vast majority of Muslims. This study proves that the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah contradict the Islamic concept of God and religious and legal practice

Keywords: Islamic law, Islam, fiqh, madhhab, fatwa, ijma, ijtihad

Людмила Борисівна Маєвська, Хайсам Мухаммад Ага

Ібн Таймія та його фетви з заборонених (харам) та дозволених (халал) питаннях

ibn taymiyyah islamic

АНОТАЦІЯ

Останнім часом дослідження спадщини середньовічного релігієзнавця Ібн Таймії, який жив у Сирії наприкінці 14 ст., набуває особливої актуальності у зв 'язку зі зростанням активності різних радикальних груп. Примітно, що деякі частини його вчення стали основою ідеології різних сучасних екстремістських сект, таких як ваххабізм. Однак його відповіді на релігійні питання щодо забороненого (харам) і дозволеного (халяль) залишаються недостатньо вивченими. Ідеї Ібн Таймії суперечать одностайному висновку ісламських теологів з більш ніж 60 питань. Його думка з окремих питань викликала жваві дискусії, що навіть забороняло йому робити висновки з окремих релігійних питань. Крім того, сумнівна його приналежність до мазхабу Ханбалі в ісламі. Іншою проблемою дослідження є його суперечність традиційній ісламській концепції Бога. Основна мета дослідження - дослідити ідеї Ібн Таймії щодо деяких питань ісламської юриспруденції (фікху), порівняти його погляди з думками ісламських теологів та визначити помилкові уявлення про юриспруденцію. У цьому дослідженні основним підходом було вивчення праць Ібн Таймії та порівняння їх з працями ісламських богословів, представників різних мазхабів. Було виявлено, що певна кількість релігійно-правових думок цього релігієзнавця з питань халяль і харам суперечить правовим нормам переважної більшості мусульман. Це дослідження доводить, що вчення Ібн Таймії суперечить ісламській концепції Бога та релігійно-правовій практиці

Ключові слова: ісламське право, іслам, фікх, мазхаб, фетва, іджма, іджтіхад

INTRODUCTION

A Middle Eastern religious scholar of the 13^th-14^th centuries Ibn Taymiyyah is a rather controversial figure in the history of Islam. Therefore, many scholars have dedicated their studies to his biography and heritage. At the same time, many aspects of his activities have not been considered. His teaching interest scholars from different countries, who discuss various aspects of his teaching. At the same time, they present completely opposite opinions about this historical figure. While some scholars consider him to be an outstanding Islamic theologian, a fighter for justice and one of the reformers of Islam, others define him as the inspirers of modern extremism. They emphasise that his religious conclusions became the foundation of Wahhabism in the 18^th century, and the extremist group ISIS, which emerged at the turn of the 20^th-21^st centuries and referred to his teachings. The ideologists of extremism constantly refer to its fatwas, giving them a more radical interpretation in some cases.

Despite scholars being heavily invested in studying the legacy of Ibn Taymiyyah, there is a small number of works dedicated to his religious and legal conclusions, some of which are still unexplored. Therefore, the study discusses some of his fatwas, which relate to the topic of haram and halal in the first place. K. Bori [1],

I. Dayeh [2], F. Griffel [3], D. Hoover [4; 5], M. Kylych [6], K. Khan [7] are among the most famous scholars of Ibn Taymiyyah's legacy. The theoretical significance of the work is in a more detailed study of the conclusions of Ibn Tayimiyyah, which are still the subject of discussion in the Islamic world, and in assessing the correspondence of his innovative ideas to the opinion of most Islamic theologians. The study reveals the contradictions on the matters of faith and generally accepted religious practice among Muslims. The results of the study of the religious conclusions of Ibn Taymiyyah can be used both in the secular science for compiling courses in various disciplines, and in Islamic theology for conducting a comparative analysis and assessing their compliance with the Islamic faith.

A. Laust [8] was one of the founders of the study of the heritage of Ibn Taymiyyah in Western countries. K. Zagar [9; 10] studied his role in the emergence of Wahhabism and analysed some of his religious conclusions. Ya. Maihula analysed his anti-Mongol fatwas [11]. Ya. Friedman translated some of his works into English and analysed his attitude towards the Alawites and the religious conclusions against this religious group [12]. Makari discussed the principles of social ethics followed by Ibn Taymiyah [13]. A. Al-Matrudi studied the role of Ibn Taymiyyah in the development of the Hanbali madhhab and attempted to analyse whether he was a follower of this religious and legal school [14]. D. Shestopalets analysed legal opinions against Christians [15]. The studies of Ya. Mishot, who dedicated a number of his works to the personality and teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah, are worth of special notice. However, these studies are not sufficiently objective due to the fact that the author sympathises with some of the ideas of this religious scholar [16]. He also studied the features of the religious conclusion of Ibn Taymiyyah “Marda Fatwa”, as well as the conclusions on the status of monks [17; 18] and his criticism of the imamate doctrine in Shiism [19].

1. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Methodology is the core of any academic research [20-24]. Using a particular method of study allows revealing all the facets of the subject matter to the fullest. The choice of research method depends primarily on the scientific field of the study. At the same time, it is of great importance to combine the methodological principles of various sciences and to obtain new syncretic research methods.

In this study, general scientific and general philosophical research methods, and the methodology of religious studies and Islamic in particular studies were used. A new area for the research should be the search for theological methods that can be applied in religious studies in general and in Islamic studies in particular, and the development of new scientific methods that can be used in the study of Islamic theology. Notably, the Islamic studies possess versatility which includes a considerable number of research techniques adopted in various humanities, ranging from philology to sociology and psychology. This feature allows studying comprehensively studying religion and all aspects of Islamic civilisation comprehensively, which in the modern world is not limited to any region but has acquired a global comprehensive character. Along with the general philosophical methods, comparative analysis was used to compare the ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah to the opinions of Islamic theologians.

The specifics of the study provide for some methods that are usually used by Islamic theologians such as qiyas (analogy). The main research method was the study of the original texts of Ibn Taymiyyah's works and the comparison of his religious conclusions with the opinions of Islamic theologians. This method allowed establishing that the legal conclusions of Ibn Taymiyyah contradict the opinion of the scholars of the Hanbali madhhab. Therefore, this religious scholar became the founder of his madhhab and most often relied on his opinion and the opinion of early anthropomorphists who considered themselves to be Hanbalites.

2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

2.1 The main theses of the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyah contradicts the unanimous position of Islamic scholars (ijma) in 60, and some say even 100 questions on religious and legal matters. Scholars note that Ibn Taymiyyah's ideas were not popular among the intelligentsia and his supporters were always in the minority, both in his time and in following centuries. K. Bori believes that despite the apparent popularity of Ibn Taymiyyah's ideas among the masses, they were not recognised by Islamic theologians and were considered contradictory to religion.

His religious conclusions are analysed and examples of some issues where his conclusion contradict Sharia Law are presented. Notably, he considered the argument and not the opinion of scholars of any madhhab to be the main aspect when making legal decisions. This suggests that the unanimous opinion of Islamic scholars is not an authoritative source for him. In his opinion, the argument is only the information of a religious nature, which was given by the Prophet Muhammad. People who do not seek an argument lost the true path [25]. Ibn Taymiyyah believed that the best role models were Muslims from the first three generations [26]. This idea provided for him making some legal decisions that are not typical for well-known law schools. At the same time, he allegedly appealed to the opinion of the Salafs, which is the name of the Muslims of the first generations. Some religious conclusions are purely his personal opinion and are not found in works of other theologians.

At the same time, the contemporary religious scholar Muhammad Yasser al-Hanafi claims that Ibn Taymiyyah respected the opinion of the scholars of the four most famous schools of Sunnism, and said that following each of these madhhabs is Islam [27]. At the same time, his statement that it is not obligatory to follow any madhhab was discovered. In the “Jamiul Masail”, he forbids to accuse a person of disbelief if one follows only the Koran and the Sunnah, while not adhering to any of the four schools [28]. He stressed that the issue of following a particular madhhab provoked disputes and contradictions that were not resolved during his lifetime. Notably, this issue is the subject of disputes and disagreements up to the present day.

The study examined Ibn Taymiyyah's ideas about the concepts of “halal” and “haram” and what he meant by these terms. He emphasised that only what is permitted under the Sharia law should be considered permissible and mandatory, only what is prohibited by the Sharia law should be considered forbidden. Y. Kardavi quotes him saying that the jurists of the early period of Islam said the word “haram” only when they found a specific indication of the prohibition of something [29]. In his opinion, Islamic theologians are the ones who should give a correct explanation of religious issues, since they have a deeper knowledge than ordinary believers and are the leaders on the true path for them [30]. At the same time, scholars may differ in the level of knowledge and understanding of a particular religious issue.

His fatwas on forbidden and permitted meat products were examined. Particularly, in the volume 35 of “Majmua al-Fatawa”, he discusses the rules for slaughtering livestock. In volume 22 of the same book [31], he mentions the rules related to the use of forbidden foods in case of unbearable hunger and lack of other products. He said that if a person is forced to eat the meat of a dead animal, etc., then it is obligatory to eat considering the opinions held by the scholars in the four madhhabs. When analysing his fatwas on this topic, it was found that they generally correspond to the opinion of most Islamic theologians.

In his work “Permissible and Forbidden in Islam”, a modern religious activist and a follower of the ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah Yu. Qaradawi notes that the mentioned prohibitions on the use of forbidden things are relevant only for those situations when a person has a choice. In the case of hunger and the inability to find the permitted products, a different rule applies. The concept of “necessity” refers to the satisfaction of hunger with forbidden food in critical situations. Some people think that they should go a day without food. In this case, one can eat just as much as one needs to survive [29]. It also allows using tanned dog and pig skin [29]. Notably, Yu. Qardawi allows to consume meat from strangled or electrocuted chickens if the People of the Scriptures consider this method of slaughtering cattle acceptable to them and prohibits the use of meat imported from communist countries [29].

He notes that the opinions of legal experts have diverged regarding the use of medicines that contain prohibited ingredients. And if some of them believe that they should not be consumed, others argue that the need for medicine is similar to the case with food since both are necessary for survival. Based on personal observations and the opinions of experienced doctors, Yu. Qardawi concluded that there is no medical necessity that forces to take medicines that contain prohibited substances. In addition, there are certain religious conclusions by Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the economic sphere. A. Maulidizen analyses his religious conclusions about economic relations. Explanations on this issue are in the many volumes of “Majmua al-Fatawa”, as well as in separate books on the political and economic system of the state, including “Kitab al-Siyasa”, “Al-Hizba fi al-Islam”, etc. and it shows that this religious scholar considered what is permissible and forbidden in economic relations [32].

As for the interpretation of the divorce by Ibn Taymiyyah, Abdullah al-Harariy in the work “Makalat Sunniyah fi dolyalat Ibn Taymiyah” [33] quotes the words of the famous historian al-Hafiz Shamsuddin Ibn Tulun from the book “Zahair al-Qasr” listed issues where his opinion contradicts the Islamic faith and the generally accepted opinion of Islamic theologians. He also mentioned some issues that contradict the most authoritative opinions in the madhhabs. He mentioned the oath of divorce and cited the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, who believed that this vow did not count as a divorce but that atonement should be made. No one had suggested this opinion before. Afterwards some people held a similar opinion on this issue for a long time.

One of the most controversial and discussed fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah is his religious conclusion about a triple divorce. He addresses this issue in Volume 33 of “Majmua al-Fatawa”. When discussing his idea, it was found out that one of the inconsistencies in Islamic legal practice is the decision on a triple divorce. This fatwa has always been controversial and became the reason for his imprisonment and the ban on issuing fatwas on this issue. This religious incarceration became the controversy and is still discussed in the Islamic world. Some scholars disagree with his opinion, while others are guided by his religious conclusions.

In addition, Ibn Taymiyyah proposed an original idea that during menstruation (al-Haid) divorce is not valid. He also said that a triple divorce is considered a one-time divorce, but in another book, he agreed with the unanimous opinion of Islamic theologians that a triple divorce is considered a triple divorce. Then he wrote that anyone who disagrees with it is not a Muslim. After a while, he the conclusion about a triple divorce being considered as one. There is mutually exclusive idea on this issue, which is common for the works of this religious scholar. These mutually exclusive ideas on various issues are frequently mentioned in his works. As a result, he accused himself of unbelief.

Many people began to adhere to the idea of Ibn Taymiyyah, which is an illegal innovation. Ahmad Al- Shuwaiki (d. 1599) allowed a woman to return to her husband after a triple divorce secretly. Islamic theologian Najm al-Din Al-Gazzi publicly expressed his disagreement with this opinion and criticised it of being inconsistent with Islam. This case indicates that people who agreed with some of Ibn Taymiyyah's views were under great pressure and followed his ideas secretly. Many scholars believe that Ibn Taymiyyah was one of the first to claim that the trip to the grave of the Prophet Muhammad (ziyarat) is one of forbidden innovations. However, there is historical evidence that in Baghdad during the rule of the Shiite Buid dynasty (945-1061), there was an armed confrontation between the pseudo-Khanbalites, who managed to organise paramilitary groups, and the Shiites, who were supported by the government. In 1089, they managed to organise an uprising against the administration of Baghdad, and the Shiites who lived in the Karkh area. The Caliph brought troops under the command of Sayf al-Dawla into the city, and the pseudo-Khanbalites suffered a crushing defeat [34]. During the confrontation there was the destruction by the pseudo-Khanbalites of the Quraysh cemetery, where the descendants of Imam Ali were buried. This event occurred in 1051 [34]. I.B. Mikhailova finds the connection between the destruction of the cemetery with the Shiite flags used by pilgrims, where the name of Imam Ali was written that irritated their opponents.

This raises the question about what caused the destruction of this cemetery: either banal hatred of Shiites, or the emerging trends of denial of ziyarat, or that its denial originates in the rejection of Shiite rituals on the Day of Ashura. There are possibly several reasons, and the denial of ziyarat by some pseudo- Khanbalites originates in the rejection of Shiite ritual practices, which they eventually transferred to the Sufis who visited the graves of their sheikhs. A few centuries later, Ibn Taymiyyah declared that it is forbidden to travel to visit the grave of the Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, the tendencies of rejection by the pseudo- Khanbalites of ziyarat developed in several centuries before the birth of Ibn Taymiyyah and he cannot be considered to be the first to oppose this Islamic ritual.

Graves of famous people were also visited by Sunnis during that historical period, and one of these graves belong to Musab ibn al-Zubayr, the brother and companion of the Prophet Muhammad - Abdullah ibn Zubayr. Grave of this particular person were most likely visited by Sunnis in contrast to the religious practice of Shiites, who did not like him and visited the graves of other people. At the same time, the ceremonies of visiting cemeteries were quite similar [34]. Notably, when visiting the graves, the warring parties were forced to cross each other's areas of residence, which led to violent clashes at least twice a year. Supporting his opinion on the prohibition of ziyaratah, Ibn Taymiyah refers to Imam An-Nawawiyah, who said that opinions of the scholars differed regarding the trip to other places besides the three mosques [35]. However, he did not deny ziyarat but only mentioned that the opinions of scholars differed on the issue of going to other mosques except for the mosques in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. It means that the full dignity is gained only through the trip to these three mosques.

2.2 Inconsistency in ibn Taymiyyah's views

Ibn Taymiyah argued with the saying of the Prophet Muhammad, who said that whoever visits his grave is worthy of his intercession. This saying was transmitted by Ad-Dar Kutniyah and confirmed by the well-known Islamic theologian As-Subki. Notably, Ibn Taymiyah believed that the dead have knowledge of the living. For example, in the book “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31], when answering the question whether the dead have knowledge that they are visited by the living, and also whether they know that one of their relatives is dying, he said that there are many sayings by the prophet about their meetings, conversations and that the dead see the deeds of the living. It is also said that the dead recognise the living who visit them.

Shiite sources indicate that Ibn Taymiyyah claimed that there are no reliable sayings that would allow for a trip to visit the grave of the Prophet Muhammad and the Prophet Ibrahim. They also quote him saying that most of the hadiths about the visit to the Prophet's grave are fake, and that the authoritative imams do not convey the Prophet's sayings on this matter. At the same time, they noted a contradiction in the views of Ibn Taymiyyah, who quotes the words from a hadith of Ibn Maji and Al-Darakutni, where the prophet said: that any person who visits his grave after death paid him a visit as if during his lifetime. When commenting this saying, Ibn Taymiyah expressed doubt about its authenticity, and said that the experts of the hadiths do not mention anything about visiting the graves [36]. Ibn Taymiyyah's ideas about ziyaratah influenced the Wahhabis' attitude towards this Islamic tradition.

In addition, Ibn Taymiyyah was opposed to the construction of mausoleums for the graves of famous people, which was widely practiced in the Islamic world. In his most famous work “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31], he states that scholars are unanimous regarding the idea that a mosque should not be built over a grave. He claimed that in the blessed times of the Salafs no mausoleums or monuments were built over the graves. He believes that monuments and domes were built in the country of the Fatimids (in Egypt during the reign of the Shiite Fatimid dynasty) for the first time [31]. At the same time, the emergence and spread of the practice of building domes and mausoleums is referred to the period of weakening of power in the Abbasid state by Ibn Taymiyah [31]. Then he claims that building a mosque over a grave or lighting a lamp over it is a disobedience to Allah Almighty and the instructions of the Prophet Muhammad.

The contradictory views of Ibn Taymiyyah most clearly demonstrate his attitude to tawassul, which is a prayer addressed to the Almighty for the sake of (through) the prophets and saints. This practice is mostly used by the supporters of Sufism. If in some books he allows tawassul, in others he denies such a practice radically. For example, in “Mediation” [37], he wrote that there is a forbidden tawassul and gives such examples as: 1. Approaching the Almighty by mentioning in the supplication a high position held by someone with Allah such as mentioning the Prophet. 2. An attempt to obtain the mercy of the Almighty through the supplication of a dead person, that is, a living person turns to a dead person and asks to pray for them.

Approaching God by appealing to someone's personality, such as someone who says, “O Allah! I ask you for the sake of your prophet” [37]. He believes that these types of at-tawassul include features of innovation (bid'a) and elements of shirk at the same time [37].

Islamic theologians believe that Ibn Taymiyyah was the first to prohibit tawassul, and that no one before him had prohibited these actions. At the same time, some tendencies towards the future denial of tawassul were discovered in the early period of the history of Hanbalism. When discussing the biography of Ibn Taymiyyah, Mahdi Istanbuli quotes him: it is unacceptable to ask for help from the dead without considering Allah, even if it is a prophet, it is also unacceptable to ask the dead for a request, or for Allah to fulfil the prayers for the sake of the dead, to ask God to fulfil the requests for the sake of the high position of someone before him. He considered this to be paganism in the worship of the Almighty [38].

In the book “Talhis al-istigasa” [39], Ibn Taymiyyah said that one of the greatest types of hostility towards Allah, humiliation and baseness is making a request (du'a) not to Allah. He considered this to be a form of polytheism, and in “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31] he stated that anyone who calls (with a request) not to Allah is a polytheist. In the same collection of fatwas [31], he cited a saying that the request for the help of the created one from the creation (Allah) is like the request of the drowning one from the one who is drowning. In the book “Ar-Radd ala al-Ikhnai” [40], Ibn Taymiyyah said that from some of the later (scholars) began innovations on this matter, which was not considered desirable by any of the four imams. It was similar to asking the prophet for forgiveness while standing at his grave.

He also disapproves of asking for help from other living people and says that asking for something from people is forbidden but has become allowed because of the universal need for people to do it. However, it is preferable to leave it by trusting in Allah. He went on to say that asking people for something results in a number of bad consequences [41]. However, in other books, he allowed performing of tawassul, and in a book called “Kalimut-toyib” he said that there is a hadith recorded by Al-Bukhari in the book “Al-adab al- mufrad” [42] from Ibn Umar that, one day, his leg was very sore and he said: “O Muhammad!”. This hadith was also narrated by Ibn as-Sunniyah in “Amal al-yaum wa laylah” and by An-Nawawiyah in “Al-Azkar”, by Shamsuddin al-Jazariyah in “Al-Husun al-Hasyin” and “Muhtasar al-husun al-Hasyin”. In his book “Al-Qalamut-toyib”, Ibn Taymiyyah reported from Al-Haysam ibn Hanash that one day when they were visiting Abdullah ibn Umar, he had a severe pain in his leg. One person said to him: “Tell me the name of the person you love most”. He said: “O Muhammad!”, and the pain immediately subsided.

In the book “Ayan al-asr wa awan an-nasr” [43], As-Safadiy tells the story that Ibn Taymiyyah narrated when he listed in his work the books written by this author, he confirms that the prophet can hear everyone after death, and respond to the greeting of any person [44]. He admits that the Salafis turned to God for the sake of the prophet and called out “Ya Muhammad!”, and in the first volume of the “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31], he writes that this man used the well-known formula of tawassul [44] when appealing to the Almighty. In addition, he reported that Ahmad ibn Hanbal performed tawassul in the name of the prophet [45]. As a result, Ibn Taymiyyah contradicted himself in his attitude to tawassul. This ambiguous idea has developed most likely due to external pressure on Ibn Taymiyyah, and he, depending on the situation, denied or confirmed the permissibility of these practices.

Contrary to the opinion of the scholars of the Hanbali madhhab such as Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, Ibn Taymiyyah believed that the dead do not receive a reward for reading the Qur'an for them. In general, he had an ambiguous attitude towards Sufism and devoted the 11th volume of his fatwa collection “Majmua al-Fatawa” to this issue. One of rather controversial decisions of Ibn Taymiyyah was the declaration of jihad to be the duty of every person (fard-ain). At the same time, it is generally accepted that jihad belongs to the category of fard-kifaya. He also denies the saying of the Prophet Muhammad about big and small jihad and recognised only the military form of jihad. When referring to Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Nahhas (d. 1411) believes that in the works of the scholars of the past jihad only means battle. If they believed that the word “jihad” includes other meanings, it would be reflected in their books.

In the study by L.B. Mayevskaya, Ibn Taymiyyah's statement regarding the battle for the sake of protecting religion is quoted. Considering the unanimity of scholars, this is necessary. After believing in God, there is nothing more important than to fight an enemy that destroys religion and earthly life and does not mention the conditions for doing so. They must defend as much as they can [46]. He also cites the dictum that guarding the sea border at night is better than a man working for his family for a thousand years, and believes that jihad has an advantage over other forms of worship. He also believes that a Muslim's stay on the border guard is better than staying in Mecca, Medina, or in the Holy Mosque (Al-Aqsa) of Jerusalem [31]. Ibn Taymiyyah considered jihad to be the reason for guidance on the true path and says that jihad was the reason for guidance on the straight path, which is surrounded by the doors of knowledge.

In his opinion, the rejection of jihad deprives a Muslim of happiness in both worlds fully or partially. He believed that the most important type of obligatory jihad is the fight against non-believers and that defensive jihad is mandatory for every Muslim (fard ain), and that it is forbidden to retreat even if the enemies outnumber the Muslims more than twice. This is due to the fact that this type of battle is a duty, and not a personal choice. The Muslims fought on the day of the battle of Uhud, as well as when the Tatars captured Damascus. At the same time, he recommends leaving jihad together with unjust rulers [31] and proposes the original condition for jihad, which is the presence of force. In the book “As-Saarim al-Maslyul”, Ibn Taymiyyah says that the verses, where there is a call to lead jihad, are used only when Muslims have power and a leader. If there is no power and no leader, then Muslims should be guided by the verses that command patience.

2.3 Innovations in religion as a negative phenomenon

In the works of Ibn Taymiyyah, a negative attitude to innovationsis significant, especially regarding his most famous volumes of the book “Majmua al-Fatawa”. In one of his books, he said that there are two types of innovation: through words and beliefs and through deeds and worship. The second type includes the first one, and the first calls for the second [31]. In Al-Istiqama [47], he said that innovation is related to schism in the same way that the Sunnah is related to unity. In another volume of “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31], Ibn Taymiyyah states that the main proponents of innovation usually do more harm to the Muslim community than people who just commit sins. He believes that it is the reason why the Prophet Muhammad considered it necessary to kill the Kharijites and forbade fighting with the unjust rulers of the Muslims at the same time. Ibn Taymiyyah believed that one of the reasons for delusion is innovation in religion, and debauchery in everyday life [31].

In his work “Majmua al-Fatawa” [30], he states that Christians are happy with the customs of the innovators from among the Muslims when they do what is appropriate to Christianity, and become similar to them. In the book “Al-Iktida” [44], Ibn Taymiyyah said that one of the main reasons for the loss of the religion of Allah and his laws is following the traditions of non-believers. He believed that innovation spreads gradually and at first it is only a span. Then, the number of its adherents increases gradually until it turns into a larger community [31]. Therefore, he believed that the explanation of the idea of the innovation followers and a warning against them is mandatory [31]. Ibn Taymiyyah even equated people who refuted the beliefs of the adherents of innovations with the participants of jihad [31]. He has repeatedly pointed out [31] that Islam is based on two principles: no one should be worshipped except the one God, and the Almighty should be worshipped only as he commanded it to be done through his messenger, and not through innovations. Ibn Taymiyyah believed [31] that the adherents of innovations are worse than those who commit sins by following their passions. This is evidenced by the Sunnah and the unanimous opinion of the scholars.

Ibn Taymiyyah considers Mawlid to be one of the innovations (bidah) and treats it negatively. In the book of “Iktida” [44], he says that as for the glorification of the birthday of the Prophet and the celebration of this day, some people do it, and they might be given a great reward for this act because they have a good intention and the glorification of the Messenger of Allah. Somewhat earlier, he says that the first generations of Muslims did not celebrate Mawlid [44]. In this study, it was found that many of the students of Ibn Taymiyyah treated Mawlid positively, and modern adherents of his ideology treated it negatively, considering holding events in honour of the Prophet Muhammad worse than drug use. This religious scholar urged not to perform collective and Friday prayers for those who, in his opinion, adhere to any innovations and commit unholy acts. He also urges not to accept the opinion and testimony of any scholar who could be adhering to an innovation secretly. In his opinion, this is a manifestation of God-fearing [31]. Notably, these practices can contribute to disagreements and shatter the community, provoke confrontation and even armed conflict. In his volumes of religious conclusions “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31], he says that a person is allowed to perform the five daily prayers, which are the Friday prayer, and others for any person who is not known to him as a supporter of innovation or impiety. This is the unanimous opinion of the imams of the four madhhabs and other Muslim scholars. It is not necessary to find out the imam's beliefs and examine him to pray for the imam. He prays for someone whose status is unknown to him. At the same time, he declares the handshake after prayer to be an innovation [31].

It is a curious fact that he denied the practice of praying on a mat, which is well known among Muslims. Ibn Taymiyah claimed that making prostrations on the prayer mat is a forbidden innovation and claims that the companions of the prophet and representatives of the first generation of Muslims did not pray on the mats [31]. He believed that laying carpets in the mosque is an innovation, even if they are laid in the mosque of the prophet [31]. Notably, the Wahhabis did not accept this view of Ibn Taymiyyah and use carpets and rugs during namaz. The radical Wahhabi sect of the Hajurites, who live mainly in Yemen (Damaaj), do not use mats, do not decorate mosques, do not build minarets and mihrabs, considering it all to be innovations.

In addition, it is necessary to consider the original idea of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the Muslim reading of the dhikr “Allah”. In the book “Ar-Ra'ad ala al-Mantyqiyn” [48], he said that there is no benefit from pronouncing this word either on earth or in heaven. Thus, reading such a dhikr is considered an illegal innovation. At the same time, the categorical denial of all innovations contradicts the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, who said that acts that do not correspond to religion will be rejected and his followers will not unite to spread misconceptions and the opinion of Islamic scholars, who divided innovations into those allowed by religion and prohibited by Sharia. Notably, this medieval religious scholar opposed radically to the use of any musical instruments, considering that they are prohibited and that this is the opinion of the imams of the four madhhabs [31]. At the same time, in different madhhabs, the prohibition of musical instruments is interpreted somewhat differently, and the use of percussion (drums, tambourines) is allowed. He considered any music to be the wine for the soul [31]. He goes on to say [31] that singing and beating tambourines and clapping hands are the acts of women, and those men who did such things were called effeminate men (“muhannas”). They also considered singers to be effeminate men.

Similar to the early pseudo-Khanbalites, who advocated for a strict separation of men and women, Ibn Taymiyyah forbade young women to attend weddings and funerals [49]. He believed that when men and women mix, it is similar to a mix of fire and wood [47]. The Prophet Muhammad did not demand such a thing, and women who were not related to him communicated with him, asking him religious questions personally. Modern Wahhabis mainly in Saudi Arabia engage in this practice. Notably, there has been a tendency to weaken the ban on mixing men and women recently. Among his erroneous opinions, there is an idea regarding marriage with a woman who does not perform prayer. He considered marrying her to be worse than marrying an adulteress, a thief, and a drinker. This idea of Ibn Taymiyyah is related to the fact that he believed that friendship, entering into kinship relations (through marriage) and brotherhood are all forbidden, except with people who obey the Almighty Allah, and do it exactly as Allah himself wills [31]. However, it is known that a Muslim man is allowed to marry Jewish and Christian women, who are among the people of the Book and, thus, do not perform the fivefold prayer. The teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah and the beliefs of the Kharijites mention the concept of “Al-wa'al al-ba'ar”, popular among modern Wahhabis, that is, the “Concept of sympathy and antipathy”, which implies that Muslims are exclusively adherents of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and all others are infidels.

2.4 The influence of ibn Taymiyyah's views on the Islamic world and the relations of Muslims with representatives of other faiths

Here, some of his especially radical religious conclusions are presented. They are directed against both Muslims and representatives of other faiths. In his book “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31], Ibn Taymiyyah wrote that any person who claims that it is necessary to adhere to the opinion of one particular imam should be killed if he does not change his opinion and does not repent. Thus, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, it is necessary to kill the Wahhabis, whose teachings are mainly based on his teachings. He also argued in “Majmua al-Fatawa” that a person who believes that a traveller is obliged to perform four rakyat prayers and perform a fast in the month of Ramadan contradicts the unanimous opinion of Muslims and is lost. If he does not change his mind and repent, then he must be killed. As a result, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, many Muslims should be killed.

When referring to Ibn Khuzayma, Ibn Taymiyyah called for the killing of anyone who disagreed with his anthropomorphistic interpretation of the faith. He accuses them of disbelief and demands that they be put to death. In the “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31], it is written that Imam Ibn Khuzayma said that anyone who does not believe that God is on his Throne above the seven heavens is an infidel (kafir), and it is permissible to shed his blood. This person is given some time to perform penance, and if one does not repent, then one's head should be cut off and thrown in the trash. As a result, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, all Muslims should be killed, since in Islam the traditional faith is considered akida tanzih, that is, belief in a God who has no likeness, and he adhered to the tashbih faith and likened God to his creations, which is borrowed from the teachings of other faiths, and in Islam, it is considered as disbelief.

In addition, Ibn Taymiyah accused [31] any person who claims that Allah cannot be seen in the future world of disbelief. He believes that this person is an unbeliever who rejects the Qur'an and does not believe in Allah. In his opinion, this person must repent, or otherwise one must be killed. Thus, this fatwa is primarily against the Jahmites and Mu'tazilites, who deny the possibility of seeing the Almighty. In addition, in the “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31], there is a case about Ibn Taymiyah being asked whether the person who claims that Allah did not speak to the prophet Musa with his voice was right. Ibn Taymiyah replied that this person is wrong and is an infidel, and should repent. If one does not repent, then one must be killed. In addition, in Majmua al-Fatawah, [31] he refers to the scholars of the first generations of Muslims and says that any person who claims that the Qur'an was created must repent, otherwise one should be killed. This fatwa is primarily against the Mu'tazilites. In “Majmua al-Fatawa” [31], Ibn Taymiyyah declares non-compliance with the basic precepts of Islam to be disbelief. Notably, the fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah do not promote interfaith dialogue. He has proposed a number of religious ideas targeting Alawites, Druze, Shiites, Mu'tazilites, Jahmites, and Christians. He is the only author of fatwas against the Alawites, which are now used against them by extremists in Syria.

Yu. Qardavi [29] quotes “Iktida as-Siratul-Mustakim” by Ibn Taymiyyah on keeping the difference between Muslims and non-Muslims in everything because this leads to committing unworthy deeds and even imitating their religious traditions. He also believed that a person follows the same religion that his close friend follows. Therefore, he believes that it is impossible to be friends with non-Muslims [31]. Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah believed that it is forbidden to attend the holidays of Jews and Christians, and to sell them goods for the holiday [30] He argued that if the Muslims sell to the infidels on their holidays something that they can use for the event: food, clothing, incense, etc., or give them this, then they assist in organising the forbidden holiday [44]. Nowadays, these religious conclusions are very popular among representatives of the Wahhabi movement, who spread them through various social networks. He considered complete assimilation to nonMuslims to be a sign of disbelief [44]. He prescribed different vicious qualities to Jews and Christians [31].

Whether or not Ibn Taymiyyah belonged to the Hanbali madhhab is discussed. Sharif believes that he belongs to the Hanbali madhhab, but his influence is not limited to only one school [50], other scholars believe that he belonged to the Hanbali. However, after analysing his religious conclusions on many religious issues, it can be stated that they contradict the opinion of Islamic theologians who belong to this religious school, and this contradiction is vivid most clearly in the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah and the Hanbali scholars have an opposite idea about concept of God. This also applies to other religious conclusions.

As for his legal conclusions, in one of his works, I. Dayeh states that the intellectual heritage of Ibn Taymiyyah became the subject of lively academic disputes after his death. Most scholars believed that Ibn Taymiyyah's views had no influence on the Islamic world after his death and until the 19^th century, especially outside the followers of the Hanbali madhhab [2]. He believes that it is impossible to deny the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on religious and philosophical thought before the 19th century. He influenced the writings of Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi Al-Gharnati (d. 1388), who is one of the representatives of the Malikite madhhab. At the same time, E. Bazzano points out that the borrowing of the ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah was often selective in following centuries [51]. The spread of Ibn Taymiyyah's contradictory ideas created tension in the main centers of Islamic knowledge [52].

At the same time, K. Bori cites the opinion of Khaled Ruayhab, who believes that Ibn Taymiyyah did not actually have a significant influence on the development of the history of Sunni Islam from the 14^th to the 17^th centuries [52]. He believes that his books were not popular among Sunnis and were not usually studied in religious educational institutions. The supreme judges of the four madhhabs examined Ibn Taymiyyah's views in detail and unanimously condemned his teachings [53].

CONCLUSIONS

When studying the religious conclusions of Ibn Taymiyyah on the issues of “halal” and “haram”, the authors came to the conclusion that, contrary to the opinion of many scholars, he does not belong to the Hanbali madhhab since his many ideas contradict the position of scholars of this religious and legal school. If some scholars consider him to be a representative of this school, others hold the opposite opinion, believing that he founded his special school, which teachings were borrowed by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab several centuries later and on which became the foundation of the Wahhabism movement. After studying the religious conclusions of Ibn Taymiyyah, it can be concluded that many of them contradict the position of the Islamic theologians of the four madhhabs. This is demonstrated through his concept of God and the religious and legal conclusion on a triple divorce, which provoked disputes that last to this day. As a result, it can beargued that the popularisation of the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah does not contribute to the establishment of inter-religious dialogue and the harmonisation of inter-confessional relations.

In the future, it is advisable to conduct an in-depth study of individual fatwas of this thinker to establish their compliance or non-compliance with Islam. The results of the work can be used by Islamic theologians, as well as specialists of secular academic disciplines: Islamic scholars, religious scholars, jurists, historians and philosophers when preparing practical courses for these disciplines.

REFERENCES

[1] Bori, С. (2004). A new source for the biography of Ibn Taymiyya. Retrieved from

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-

studies/article/abs/new-source-for-the-biography-of-ibn- taymiyya/445F5FDF80ABF2618661BA347ED8A1E9.

[2] Dayeh, I. (2018). Reading Ibn Taymiyya in Granada: A study of inexplicit citation. Muslim World, 1(108), 154-171.

[3] Griffel, F. (2018). Ibn Taymiyya and his Ash'arite opponents on reason and revelation: Similarities, differences, and a vicious circle. Muslim World, 1(108), 11-39.

[4] Hoover, J., & Mahajneh, M. (2018). Theology as translation: Ibn Taymiyya's Fatwapermitting theology and its reception into his averting the conflict between reason and revealed tradition (Dar' Ta'arud al- Aql wa l- Naql). Muslim World, 1(108), 40-86.

[5] Hoover, J. (2007). Ibn Taymiyya's theodicy ofperpetual optimism. Leiden Boston: Brill.

[6] Kilic, M. (2006). Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (691-751/1292-1350). In O. Leaman (Ed.), The biographical encyclopedia of Islamic philosophy (pp. 212-213). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

[7] Khan, Q. (2007). The political thought of Ibne Taymiyah. New Delhi: Adam Publishers.

[8] Laoust, Н. (1939). Essai sur les doctrines sociales etpolitiques de Taki-d-Din Ahmad b. Taimiya. Le Caire: Imprimerie L'Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale.

[9] Zagar, C. (2017). Origins of Wahhabism from Hanbali Fiqh. Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, 16, 65-114.

[10] Zagar, C. (2014). The Hanbali and Wahhabi schools of thought as observed through the case of Ziyarah. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1398829915&disposition=inline.

[11] Maihula, J. (2019). Translation and analyses of Ibn Taymiyya's First Anti-Mongol Fatwa. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 4(3), 137-142.

[12] Friedman, Y. (2010). The Nusayri-Alawis. Leiden Boston: BRILL.

[13] Makari, V. (1983). Ibn Taymiyyah's ethics. The social factor. California: Chico.

[14] Al-Matroudi, A.H. (2006). The Hanbali school of law and Ibn Taymiyyah: Conflict or conciliation. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

[15] Shestopalets, D.V. (2011). The work of Ibn Taymiyyah “The true answer to those who substituted the religion of the messiah ” as a monument of Islamic anti-christian polemical literature of the 13'^h-14'^h centuries. Kyiv: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

[16] Michot, Y., & Stas, L. (2018). Ibn Taymiyya's Fatwa on martial arts training. Muslim World, 3(108), 419-445.

[17] Michot, Y. (1997). Ibn Taymiyyah. Paris: Fetva des miones.

[18] Michot, Y. (2016). Ibn T aymiyya's “New Mardin Fatwa”. Is genetically modified Islam (GMI) carcinogenic?

Muslim World, 1, 130-181.

[19] Michot, Y.M. (2014). Ibn Taymiyya's critique of shi'i imamology. Muslim World, 1(104), 109-149.

[20] Kreidenko, V.S. (2012). New scientific methods for researching the library industry. Bibliosphere, 1, 3-8.

[21] Begalinova, K., Ashilova, M., & Begalinov, A. (2020). Religious extremism in Kazakhstan: Threats of spreading and means of opposition. Central Asia and the Caucasus, 21(4), 124-131.

[22] Clark, E.A., & Vovk, D. (2020). Legal reform in Uzbekistan: Prospects for freedom of religion or belief and covenantal pluralism. Review of Faith and International Affairs, 18(4), 35-48.

[23] Carter, B. (2021). When civilians are targets: The fatal effects of state sponsored religiously motivated terrorism. Democracy and Security. doi: 10.1080/17419166.2021.1972287.

[24] Jahic, E. (2021). Extended galleries above the porch in two mosques: Qualitative analysis of mosques with wooden minaret in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Heritage and Sustainable Development, 3(2), 78-88.

[25] Ibn Qayyim Al-jawziyya. (2011)Miftah dar as-sa'ada. Cambridge: The IslamicTexts Society.

[26] Why the impact of the medieval scholar Ibn Taymiyyah is growing. (2018). Retrieved from https://fanack.com/religions-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa/medieval-scholar-ibn-taymiyyah/.