Scholars’ Didactical, Not Polemical, Works Ought To Represent Their Stances

Many scholars author two types of books:

1) Books that are intended for didactical purposes (mutun). They employ didactical methods that lay out principles and apply them to a given subject.

2) Books that are intended to refute opponents. The primary purpose of these books is not to instruct but rather to break down the opposing side’s arguments and refute them.

If you want to properly represent the views of a scholar on a given subject, then it is critical that your first recourse is to refer to that scholar’s books that are intended for didactical purposes, for it is in those books that the scholar more clearly lays out his views. If you ignore that and just read his apologetic/polemical works, you could come out with false impressions.

One victim of this was Shaykhul Islam ibn Taymiyyah. Several scholars accused him of being a Naasibi (i.e., hater of Ahlul Bayt) simply based on reading his book Minhaajul Sunnah, which was intended to be a rebuttal to Shias. In that book, Ibn Taymiyyah would hold the Shias to account by demonstrating some of the necessary implications of their views, some of which would render a negative portrayal of the Ahlul Bayt.

Based on some citations from that book, they determined that Ibn Taymiyyah was a Naasibi. However, this is far from the truth since Ibn Taymiyyah has dozens of statements regarding the Ahlul Bayt and the obligation to love them and respect them from his other sayings. To forget the intended purpose behind his book Minhajul Sunnah is unfair to Ibn Taymiyyah when representing his stance.

Proper representation of others is essential. We must be careful.