Did Ibn Taymiyyah Retract His Stance on Istighatha and Tawassul?

Some people argue that Ibn Taymiyyah retracted his stance on Tawassul being haram and that he also did not deem all forms of Istighatha to be Shirk based on an event that took place in his life. Some sources reported that Shaykh al-Birzali (d. 739 A.H.) relayed that in the year 707 A.H., some of the Sufis of Cairo complained about Ibn Taymiyyah’s statements regarding Ibn Arabi and other matters. The case went before a judge. It is reported that Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Istighatha is not made except to Allah. We do not even make Istighatha to the Prophet in a meaning of worship, yet we seek his intercession to Allah.”[1]

Two points are then made:

1) Ibn Taymiyyah clearly did not believe that all forms of Istighatha are Shirk, as he qualified it with “in a meaning of worship.” There would have been no point in making such qualification if he believed all forms of Istighatha are Shirk.

2) Ibn Taymiyyah clearly said that seeking intercession through the Prophet is permitted.

A number of points could be made in response to this claim.

First, it is sheer desperation to genuinely judge a person’s beliefs based on his ambiguous statements while he is in a setting of coercion and interrogation while ignoring his clear-cut words after that incident in his didactical works. It is established without any dispute that Ibn Taymiyyah was persecuted during his time. To escape persecution, he would sometimes utter vague and ambiguous statements just to escape death.[2]  Evidently, in this setting, he is being interrogated and threatened with harm if he says anything wrong. Hence, we need to be wary of this point.

Secondly, the statements uttered are ambiguous. Ibn Taymiyyah, in his writings, has said that intercession through the Prophet is valid by loving, obeying, and believing in him.[3] Therefore, we can understand his approval of intercession in this event to be referring to this kind of intercession.

As for his statement, “Istighatha to the Prophet in a meaning of worship,” how can we know what he means by this without seeing his other statements? What exactly constitutes Shirk in Istighatha for Ibn Taymiyyah? As one can see in several of his statements furnished here and here, it is clear that it is the kind that is widespread in certain pockets of the Muslim world. Furthermore, this statement need not be understood as a qualification, but as a description that Istighatha to other than Allah is worship to other than Allah. This is especially the case when right before his alleged statement, he said, “Istighatha is not made except to Allah.” Also, under duress, Ibn Taymiyyah could have very well added the phrase “in the meaning of worship” because he knew that his opponents would not object to it, and it could have been nothing more than a clever ploy on his part without even having to lie.

Thirdly, this incident occurred in 707 A.H., 20 years before Ibn Taymiyyah died. Ibn Taymiyyah authored several works after this incident, such as his Radd ‘ala al-Bakri where he designated Istighatha as Shirk, and al-Qa’idah al-Jaleela where he declared Tawassul to be haram.[4]

Fourthly, how is it possible that none of Ibn Taymiyyah’s students reported that he recanted? Ibn Abdul Hadi even reported this incident in his al-‘Uqud al-Durriyah, yet still went on to author al-Sarim al-Munki to defend Ibn Taymiyyah’s stance on tawassul being haram. So clearly, Ibn Abdul Hadi did not extrapolate from this incident what some people in our times are doing out of sheer desperation.[5]

In summary, this is a desperate and weak argument that should not be seriously considered.  

Recommended Reading:

Ibadah Discourse

---

[1] Ibn Katheer says in his al-Bidayah wal-Nihaya:

قالَ البِرْزالِيُّ: وفِي شَوّالٍ مِنها شَكى الصُّوفِيَّةُ بِالقاهِرَةِ عَلى الشَّيْخِ تَقِيِّ الدِّينِ وكَلامِهِ فِي ابْنِ عَرَبِيٍّ وغَيْرِهِ إلى الدَّوْلَةِ، فَرَدُّوا الأمْرَ فِي ذَلِكَ إلى القاضِي الشّافِعِيِّ، فَعُقِدَ لَهُ مَجْلِسٌ، وادَّعى عَلَيْهِ ابْنُ عَطاءٍ بِأشْياءَ، فَلَمْ يَثْبُتْ عَلَيْهِ مِنها شَيْءٌ، لَكِنَّهُ قالَ: لا يُسْتَغاثُ إلّا بِاللَّهِ، ولا يُسْتَغاثُ بِالنَّبِيِّ - ﷺ - اسْتِغاثَةً بِمَعْنى العِبادَةِ، ولَكِنْ يُتَوَسَّلُ بِهِ، ويُتَشَفَّعُ بِهِ إلى اللَّهِ.

[2] Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali mentions in his Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabilah:

وذكر الذهبي والبرزالي وغيرهما: أن الشيخ كتب لَهُمْ بخطه مجملًا من القول وألفاظا فِيها بَعْض ما فِيها، لما خاف وهدد بالقتل، ثُمَّ أطلق وامتنع من المجيء إلى دمشق. وأقام بالقاهرة يقرىء العلم، ويتكلم فِي الجوامع والمجالس العامة، ويجتمع عَلَيْهِ خلق.

ثُمَّ فِي شوال من السنة المذكورة: اجتمع جَماعَة كثيرة من الصوفية، وشكواه الشيخ إلى الحاكم الشّافِعِي، وعقد لَهُ مجلس لكلامه من ابْن عربي وغيره، وادعى عَلَيْهِ ابْن عَطاء بأشياء، ولَمْ يثبت منها شَيْئًا، لكنه اعترف أنَّهُ قالَ: لا يستغاث بالنبي ﷺ، استغاثة بمعنى العبادة، ولكن يتوسل بِهِ، فبعض الحاضرين قالَ: لَيْسَ فِي هَذا شَيْء.

[3] He says in his al-Qa’ida al-Jaleelah:

فإن كان مقصود المتوسلين التوسل بالإيمان به وبمحبته وبموالاته وبطاعته، فلا نزاع بين الطائفتين

[4] For a chronology of Ibn Taymiyyah’s works, see Dr. Hammad’s article, al-Tarteeb al-Zamani li-Mu’allafat al-Imam ibn Taymiyyah

[5] Not even Ibn Taymiyyah’s opponents such as al-Subki whom Ibn Abdul Hadi was refuting.