Did Al-Shāṭibī Take Directly from the Works of Ibn Taymiyyah?

Below is a translation of Dr. Sulaymān ibn Muḥammad al-Najrān’s article, Hal akhadha al-Shāṭibī min kutub Ibn Taymiyyah raḥimahu Allāh mubāsharatan?

At the time of Ibn Taymiyyah’s death, al-Shāṭibī was approximately eight years old, or slightly older, depending on the differing reports regarding his birth. Al-Shāṭibī was from the Maghreb and never traveled to the East, while Ibn Taymiyyah was from the East and never traveled to the Maghreb. The time frame allows for the possibility that Ibn Taymiyyah’s works were transmitted from the East to the Maghreb.

Did al-Shāṭibī benefit directly from Ibn Taymiyyah’s works? This is possible, especially given that al-Shāṭibī consistently sought sources of the highest caliber, esteemed references, clarity of vision, intellectual maturity, and the strength of argument supported by evidence. These qualities were manifest and foundational in the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah; may Allah have mercy on him, making them a natural object of study and consideration for al-Shāṭibī.

At the outset, the hypothesis that al-Shāṭibī directly benefited from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah was a matter of disagreement among contemporary scholars. Shaykh Mashhūr, in his critical edition of al-Muwāfaqāt, dismissed the notion that al-Shāṭibī had taken directly from Ibn Taymiyyah’s works. He stated:

“We can confidently assert that neither Ibn Taymiyyah nor Ibn al-Qayyim is mentioned at all in any of al-Shāṭibī’s printed works. Despite extensive research and thorough investigation, I have not found anything that would allow us to establish this connection as a fact or even as a plausible reality. Furthermore, I did not find in this book of al-Shāṭibī any mention of the Ḥanbalīs. In fact, he explicitly stated (3/131) that the books of the Ḥanafīs and Shāfiʿīs were virtually nonexistent in his time—so what then of Ḥanbalī works?...”

He continued:

“Based on the foregoing, I find it unlikely that Saʿd Muḥammad al-Shanāwī’s assertion in his book Madá al-Ḥājah li-Akhdh bi-Naẓariyyah al-Maṣāliḥ al-Mursalah fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī (1/150) is correct. When discussing al-Shāṭibī’s intellectual influences, he stated verbatim: ‘Imām al-Shāṭibī was influenced by the writings of his predecessors, namely al-ʿIzz ibn ʿAbd al-Salām, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and al-Qarāfī. As a result, his book presents a synthesis and analysis of these valuable perspectives, which crystallized into the theory of maṣāliḥ mursalah…’

I asked our shaykh, al-Albānī—may Allah preserve him—about this matter, and he replied that he had not found any evidence to confirm it, nor had he come across anything that would allow for certainty or even probability that a connection was established between al-Shāṭibī and Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn al-Qayyim.”[1]

Thus, Shaykh Mashhūr, and before him, Shaykh al-Albānī—as quoted—both dismissed the possibility that al-Shāṭibī directly benefited from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah. Joining them in this position was Shaykh Dr. Aḥmad al-Raysūnī, who, in his response to the claims of the lawyer al-Shanāwī, stated:

“I found that al-Shāṭibī—only once—mentions: ‘Some Ḥanbalīs have said,’ and this was in reference to the unfounded claims of consensus that some use to shut down discussion and debate on certain issues where consensus is asserted but does not actually exist. Even so, I find it unlikely that al-Shāṭibī took this directly from a Ḥanbalī author. Even more improbable is the idea that he had access to any of the works of Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn al-Qayyim, especially given that he was not among those who traveled to the East, unlike Ibn al-ʿArabī and al-Ṭarṭūshī, for example, both of whom al-Shāṭibī frequently cites. The same applies to his teacher, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Miqrī, who himself recounted: ‘I met in Damascus Shams al-Dīn Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, the disciple of the jurist Ibn Taymiyyah.’

However, none of this serves as evidence in support of the claim made by Dr. al-Shanāwī, the lawyer, nor does it even provide grounds for ‘bringing the case before the court.’”[2]

Thus, we have three scholars—Shaykh al-Albānī (may Allah have mercy on him), Shaykh Mashhūr, and Shaykh Dr. al-Raysūnī—who denied that al-Shāṭibī directly benefited from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah. Similarly, Dr. al-Ḥusayn Āyatullāh Saʿīd, the editor of al-Muwāfaqāt, neither explicitly affirmed nor denied this connection.

On the other hand, three others disagreed with them: Dr. Saʿd ibn Muḥammad al-Shanāwī, the lawyer, who preceded them in making this claim, as well as Shaykh Dr. Bakr Abū Zayd (may God have mercy on him) and Dr. Yūsuf al-Badawī. They concluded that al-Shāṭibī had benefited directly from Ibn Taymiyyah’s works.

Shaykh Dr. Bakr Abū Zayd (may God have mercy on him) stated:

“This is a brief glimpse into the scholarly and practical life of this great imam [referring to al-Shāṭibī]. Upon reflection, his renewalist inclination and reformist call become evident, as is the case with every reviver and reformer. His approach bears a striking resemblance to the renewal movement undertaken in the East by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah Almighty have mercy on him), despite the geographical distance and the fact that this imam [al-Shāṭibī] was born after the passing of Shaykh al-Islām. Moreover, neither of them ever traveled to the other’s region.

However, I have found traces of knowledge indicating that Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah’s voice was heard in Granada. This is because Imām al-Shāṭibī cited him in al-Iʿtiṣām (1/356), stating: ‘Some Ḥanbalīs have said…,’ which is verbatim from Ibn Taymiyyah’s book Iqāmat al-Dalīl ʿalá Buṭlān al-Taḥlīl, published within al-Fatāwā al-Kubrá (3/370).

Perhaps al-Shāṭibī (may Allah have mercy on him) refrained from explicitly naming Ibn Taymiyyah or extensively quoting him out of caution due to the hostility and aversion toward him that had developed among later generations.”[3]

After Shaykh Bakr Abū Zayd, Dr. Yūsuf al-Badawī affirmed that al-Shāṭibī had indeed benefited from Ibn Taymiyyah. He presented eight pieces of evidence to support this, some of which included verbatim quotations from Ibn Taymiyyah’s Bayān al-Dalīl ʿalá Ibṭāl al-Taḥlīl as cited by al-Shāṭibī. Other evidence was based on the correspondence of wording, shared terminology, and similarities in the reasoning behind specific issues. From this, it is evident that al-Shāṭibī benefited from this work of Ibn Taymiyyah, and perhaps from others as well.

It is well known that al-Shāṭibī’s teacher, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Miqrī (d. 759 AH), met Ibn al-Qayyim and was his contemporary. He possibly carried some of Ibn Taymiyyah’s works to al-Andalus, from which al-Shāṭibī subsequently benefited.[4]

As for Shaykh Mashhūr, he later retracted his earlier position in al-Muwāfaqāt, where he had denied that al-Shāṭibī directly benefited from Ibn Taymiyyah’s works. He then presented eleven pieces of evidence supporting al-Shāṭibī’s reliance on Ibn Taymiyyah, some of which included direct quotations from Bayān al-Dalīl, others paraphrased citations, and other instances of verbal and argumentative correspondence—closely resembling the evidence put forth by Dr. Yūsuf al-Badawī.[5]

Following this, Shaykh Mashhūr authored a study titled al-Shāṭibī Ḥasanah min Ḥasanāt Madrasat Ibn Taymiyyah,[6] in which he affirmed the position he now holds.

However, Shaykh Mashhūr’s description of al-Shāṭibī as “a virtue among the virtues of Ibn Taymiyyah” is an evident exaggeration. Al-Shāṭibī was an independent mujtahid in legal theory (uṣūl), and his methodology in establishing and structuring evidence was not identical to that of Ibn Taymiyyah. Although they arrived at many similar conclusions, their foundational approaches in constructing legal principles were distinct, with each following an independent methodology. Consequently, it would be inaccurate to characterize al-Shāṭibī—given his vast intellectual legacy, extensive scholarship, and rigorous intellectual struggle—as merely a byproduct of Ibn Taymiyyah.

If it is established that al-Shāṭibī indeed drew from Ibn Taymiyyah’s works, this would primarily demonstrate the breadth and elevation of al-Shāṭibī’s research sources. The fact that he sought out Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings despite the geographical distance between them is significant in itself. Moreover, considering how close their respective eras were, it was not common at that time for books to travel easily across such distances—this presents a second angle to consider. Additionally, Ibn Taymiyyah was known for his notable stances against the Ashʿarīs and Sufis, whereas most of al-Andalus adhered to Ashʿarī theology and incorporated elements of Sufism. This could have led to potential opposition against al-Shāṭibī—yet this is a third factor to consider.

Despite these combined obstacles, al-Shāṭibī overcame them, benefiting from Ibn Taymiyyah’s knowledge with remarkable skill, wisdom, and precision. He incorporated into his works what he deemed to be the truth without causing controversy, disruption, or discord.

---

[1] Muqaddimat al-Shaykh Mashhūr li-al-Muwāfaqāt 1/78.

[2] Naẓariyyat al-Maqāṣid ʿan al-Shāṭibī, p. 305.

[3] Naẓariyyat al-Maqāṣid ʿind al-Imām al-Shāṭibī, p. 305.

[4] See: Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah ʿind Ibn Taymiyyah, pp. 505–517, by Dr. Yūsuf al-Badawī. Also, see the study titled Dirāsah Ḥawl al-Niqāshāt al-Muʿāṣirah al-Mutaʿalliqa bi-Farḍiyyat Istifādat al-Shāṭibī min Ibn Taymiyyah, by researcher Sundus Abū Nāṣir, a doctoral student at Sakarya University, in which she affirmed the conclusions reached by Dr. Yūsuf al-Badawī.

[5] See: Muqaddimat Taḥqīq al-Iʿtiṣām by Shaykh Mashhūr (1/9–80).

[6] The study was published in Majallat al-Aṣālah, issue 27.