Subjecting Islam to Scholastic Tradition

This is a transcript of my video, Sacrificing Islam for Scholars and Tradition, for those who prefer reading to watching.

Too many Muslims care more about protecting the status of past scholars—including extremists such as Ibn Taymiyya—than about defending Islam against the distortions within the scholarly tradition. This is a predicament that the Muslim Umma has carried within itself for centuries. The ironic combination of obsession with the past and ignorance of history has made us lose the ability to distinguish between what is sacred and what is not.

Introduction

I recently published a video titled The Ibn Taymiyya Phenomenon: Islamic Scholarship at Its Worst, and then followed up with two related Facebook posts. The video is a refutation and condemnation of twelve fatwās by Ibn Taymiyya that mandate and permit the killing of countless Muslims. Unsurprisingly, some people commended the video while others criticised it. The negative and condemnatory comments would have been predicted by anyone who knows the elevated status of Ibn Taymiyya among his supporters, some of whom value him regardless of his extremism, while others are aware of that aspect of his thought and consider it the true spirit of Islam.

I would like to highlight in this video what the desperate defence against this specific criticism of Ibn Taymiyya reveals—which, as I said, is no surprise.

Also, it is only natural that some would believe there are stronger defences against my critique than what I discuss here. If and when you find such responses, make sure you assess them properly, noting the various elements of the criticism I raised in the original video and in this one and those I listed in the Facebook post. In particular, make sure that you do not treat scholarly ijtihād and Islam as one and the same.

Historical Theology vs. Systematic Theology

It is critical to distinguish between Islam as a religion, as defined in the Qur’an and exemplified by the Prophet (PBUH), and Islam as a social enterprise, which is what scholarship is. This is a major theme that I have addressed over the decades, as those who are familiar with my work know. Systematic theology focuses on coherence, which makes it inherently self-referential. That is why we need historical theology when seeking historical authenticity.

When Muslims critique other faiths, mainly Judaism and Christianity, they focus on historical theology to identify distortion in teachings. But when they study Islam, they pay little attention to historical theology, as if Muslim scholars could not have made serious mistakes.

Learning Before Teaching

This is a standalone video. But I will avoid repeating what I have discussed in the original video, so to understand the full scale of the discussion, both videos are needed.

I will start with a general observation. It is clear from the angry replies and comments that many, if not most, of those defending Ibn Taymiyya did not even bother to watch the video, which is over two hours long and discusses each and every fatwā in detail. As I keep repeating, writing before reading, commenting before watching, and generally teaching before learning is a very common intellectual and spiritual disease that characterises many of the replies and counter-replies on the internet. There is no reason to believe that this ill is any less prevalent among Muslims than among other internet users.

Defence & Justification: Tradition, Not Ibn Taymiyya

Let me now move to discussing the angry responses to my critique, which seek to defend Ibn Taymiyya.

The main counter-argument has been to note that these fatwās were issued and embraced by previous jurists and juristic schools. Ibn Taymiyya, the defence goes, did not come up with them; he simply quoted them.

I will address later in this video the less serious matter of defending Ibn Taymiyya. I will start with and focus on the much more serious issue of using tradition as a sufficient explanation and leaving things at that. This defence is nothing more than sectarian tribalism and fanaticism masquerading as Islamic discourse. Some Muslims are outraged by criticism of extremist Ibn Taymiyya or other venerated scholars, but not by their distortion of the Islamic legal system and creeds.

I will now present twelve arguments.

Argument 1: Ijtihād Is Not Qur’an or Sunna

Defending Ibn Taymiyya or these fatwās on the basis that some or all of them were issued and adopted by various schools of fiqh exposes what I consider to be the most fundamental failure in Islamic scholarship—and, consequently, in how most Muslims perceive Islam: conflating the foundational sources of Islam with scholarly ijtihād; i.e., conflating revelation with human tradition. The following are basic facts that the overwhelming majority of Muslims agree on:

• The Qur’an is the first foundational source.
• The Sunna (not ḥadīth) is the second foundational source.
• The Sunna explains, but does not contradict or override, the Qur’an.
• The Qur’an is entirely authentic, while the Sunna is the subject of disagreement.

Any other source, oral or written, is not foundational. It is ijtihād (human independent reasoning). This includes:

• The mythical ijmāʿ (consensus)
• Qiyās (analogical reasoning)
• Tafsir (interpretation), whether figurative or literal.

These, along with every other scholarly method, tool, and opinion, are simply ijtihād. It is not sacred.

Argument 2: Ijtihād Is Not Islam

Let me explain this by quoting two verses all Muslims know, though their full meaning as a pair is not always fully appreciated:

إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ

Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam (Āl ʿImrān 3:19).

This verse identifies true religion—the one religion—as being Islam.

The following verse explains that this religion, which Allah called Islam, was perfected and completed during the life of the Prophet (PBUH):

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا

This day I have perfected for you your religion, completed My favour upon you, and approved for you Islam as your religion (Al-Māʾidah 5:3).

Whether you accept the popular opinion that this was the very last verse to be revealed or simply a very late one, that has no bearing on its clear meaning: Islam is what Allah revealed during the life of the Prophet (PBUH). Period.

The opinions of the Companions, the Successors, and the scholars of any credal or juristic school are not an intrinsic part of “Islam”. They are ijtihād aimed at understanding various aspects of Islam, but they are not the same as Islam itself. Let me put it more broadly: an interpretation of a text is not the text itself. If you claim those interpretations and views—whether credal or juristic—are part of Islam, then any Muslim who does not accept them would either be considered a non-Muslim or someone whose Islam is incomplete or impure.

This could lead to Sunnis viewing Twelver Shias, Ibāḍīs, and Zaydīs as non-Muslims; Twelver Shias viewing Sunnis, Ibāḍīs, and Zaydīs as non-Muslims; and so on. Thankfully, excommunication and questioning the validity of one’s faith is not the standard position of most scholars. But if you extend the definition of Islam to include the ijtihād of scholars, serious questioning of other Muslims’ faith becomes inevitable. Indeed, this un-Qur’anic thinking—which treats ijtihād as sacred—is the very genesis of sectarianism.

Do not defend scholars at the expense of Islam. Do not sacrifice Islam for scholars.

Argument 3: Foundationless Fatwās

Let me relate this to the subject of the video on the takfīr fatwās. Most juristic schools consider abandoning prayer altogether a major sin whose punishment is death (though the Ḥanafī school offers more leeway). Let us focus on this specific fatwā, as addressing it inherently covers those even more mind-boggling fatwās that mandate executing Muslims for much smaller failures, such as delaying prayer.

There is no verse in the Qur’an, nor any authentic action or ḥadīth by the Prophet (PBUH), that justifies executing Muslims who abandon prayer. A verse or two might be forced to yield this interpretation, but such a misunderstanding can happen only by:

• Taking those verses out of their respective immediate contexts.
• Ignoring the tens or hundreds of other verses—that is, taking those misinterpreted verses out of their broader Qur’anic context.

This abuse of the Scripture is documented in the Qur’an itself:

وَقُلْ إِنِّي أَنَا النَّذِيرُ الْمُبِينُ ‎﴿٨٩﴾‏ كَمَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَى الْمُقْتَسِمِينَ ‎﴿٩٠﴾ الَّذِينَ جَعَلُوا الْقُرْآنَ عِضِينَ

And say, “Indeed, I am the clear warner.” Just as We sent down to the dividers who have made the Qur’an into parts (al-Ḥijr 15:89–91).

So, taking Qur’anic verses out of context is as old as the Qur’an itself. Of course, this distortion is not applied to the Qur’an alone; it is common human behaviour in polemics.

The same applies to the life of the Prophet. It may be possible to find an isolated, dubious event/ḥadīth or two in secondary sources to support the absurd claim that those who abandon prayer should be executed, but it is impossible to draw this conclusion from any reading of his life as a whole. That would be a brazen abuse of both Islam and history.

Argument 4: Textual Abuse in Practice — “The Verse of the Sword”

Let me give an example of this specific misuse of the Qur’an from Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwā (Sharḥ ʿUmdat al-Fiqh, vol. 2, p. 47):

“As for abandoning prayer altogether, it necessitates execution, and there is no disagreement on this point because Allah Almighty says:

فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ ۚ فَإِن تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

When the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. If they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakāt, then leave their way free. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful (al-Tawba 9:5).”

The mention of prayer is precisely what scholars seized upon to create this classic misapplication. The verse explains a specific circumstance in the ongoing struggle of Muslims against polytheist enemies who were actively at war with them and broke their peace treaties. Ibn Taymiyya took it completely out of its historical context and applied it universally to all Muslims, everywhere, in any era. You would be hard-pressed to find a more egregious misapplication of a Qur’anic verse.

In the interest of time, I will leave further discussion of this verse. I have dedicated an entire chapter to this verse in my book Abrogation in the Qur’an and Islamic Law (https://www.safispub.com/quran/abrogation-in-the-quran-and-islamic-law/). I should quickly mention, though, that many Muslim scholars call it āyat al-sayf (the Verse of the Sword) and claim it abrogated tens of Qur’anic verses on tolerance, forgiveness, and peace. As if using this misinterpretation to persecute non-Muslims were not bad enough, it has also been used to justify executing countless Muslims, as shown in Ibn Taymiyya’s quote.

To be clear, this total distortion of the verse is the rotten fruit of scholarly ijtihād. Ironically, orientalists, biased Western academics, and Islamophobes did not engineer this misinterpretation; it was created by Muslim scholars who loved and practised Islam.

This is how a verse is ripped from its context to justify an un-Islamic fatwā and separated from the broader message of the Qur’an as a whole. (Please refer to my previous videos on tolerance in the Qur’an.) Stop for a second and ask yourself: how on earth could any Muslim or non-Muslim—let alone intelligent scholars like Ibn Taymiyya—apply this verse to Muslims who abandon prayer? What twisted view of Islam could make such a misapplication even occur to a scholar? Unfortunately, there have been far too many who thought this way.

Argument 5: Islam Is Not a Cult of Death

If the fatwās I critiqued reflected the true letter and spirit of Islam’s legal system, it would be a faith whose legal framework incessantly obliterates its own believers. It is reminiscent of cults that end in mass suicide or murder. These fatwās turn Islam into a cult of death. Do not attempt to defend or sugarcoat such twisted thinking—it is poisonous. It damages Islam and harms Muslims, regardless of which scholars or traditions you think you are defending.

Argument 6: Self-Genocidal Rulings

Every single person who defends these fatwās effectively justifies the execution of the vast majority of Muslims—including their own family, friends, neighbours, and acquaintances. No linguistic, theological, or legal gymnastics can alter this reality. It is a form of self-genocide. Is this really what embracing and practising Islam does to people?

Argument 7: Cognitive Dissonance in Modern Apologetics

Anyone who defends genocidal rulings that permit the mass killing of human beings, while simultaneously claiming that Islam is a faith of peace, exists in a state of profound cognitive dissonance. It is an extreme case of self-deception.

Argument 8: Ibn Taymiyya’s Methodological Distortion

Let me now tackle the focus on defending Ibn Taymiyya on the basis that he simply quoted earlier scholars. In the original video, I mentioned several times that Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwās were not picked out of thin air. In fact, some of these fatwās explicitly reference previous, established juristic opinions. Furthermore, I quoted two of the fatwās from Sharḥ ʿUmdat al-Fiqh, which is a commentary by Ibn Taymiyya on a famous book in Ḥanbalī fiqh by Muwaffaq al-Dīn bin Qudāma al-Maqdisī (d. 620) titled ʿUmdat al-Fiqh. Ibn Taymiyya says he was repeatedly asked to write this commentary.

Even if the fatwās did not quote previous opinions, anyone who has a basic knowledge of Islamic law in those areas knows these rulings predate Ibn Taymiyya. For those interested, I recommend my video “A Hadith Coup Against the Qur’an: Apostasy, Violence, Compulsion” (https://youtu.be/EUclFek27c4).

I explained why I focus on Ibn Taymiyya and why I consider his work an extreme case. For instance, he uses “consensus” (ijmāʿ) not only inaccurately—which occurs with other scholars as well—but deceptively. He also chooses the most extreme ruling when lighter opinions exist, or even when other scholars argue that an act is not an offence at all. See, for instance, his outrageous fatwā on killing those who pronounce the intention for prayer aloud. This fatwā alone puts Ibn Taymiyya in a tiny group of extremist scholars. But he went further than any other.

I have published on his misleading methods across theology, fiqh, and history in other videos, articles, and posts, and I encourage you to check them out. I respect academic scholarship whether I agree with a thinker or not; my strong critique of Ibn Taymiyya is specifically due to his methodological dishonesty and extremism. His writings are focused on othering fellow Muslims and radiate hostility.

In other words, Ibn Taymiyya was no ordinary bad scholar; he embodied the worst flaws of Islamic scholarship and accelerated their proliferation.

Argument 9: The Fatwā, Not the Muftī

I attacked those fatwās not because they were advocated by Ibn Taymiyya, but because they contradict the Qur’an, the Sunna of the Prophet (PBUH), and common sense. Applying any one of them systematically would wipe out most Muslims from the face of the earth. The fact that they are practically impossible to implement does not change the reality that they are genocidal by design. This is an undeniable fact, regardless of how many scholars advocated those rulings or who those scholars were. The fact that Ibn Taymiyya was not the first to legislate these positions does not alter their grim reality.

Argument 10: Critiquing Ideas, Not Intentions or Character

Scholars are human beings, and even the best of them make mistakes. Criticising a scholar does not mean judging their personal intentions or their ultimate standing before Allah. I do not claim to know people’s ultimate intentions, nor is it my place to judge them. Condemning intentions is practised by the likes of Ibn Taymiyya, as I showed in my discussion of Fatwās 1 and 12 on those accused of being zindīq.

I accuse Ibn Taymiyya specifically of conceptual, historical, and theological distortion because I have found clear, repeating patterns of this throughout his writings.

Argument 11: Freedom of Speech for All

Despite my severe critique of extremist and aberrant thought, such as Ibn Taymiyya’s, I am unequivocally opposed to censoring scholarship and ijtihād. Sadly, even enlightened Muslim scholars sometimes engage in this un-Islamic practice—the very same people who complain about Muslim voices being marginalised by anti-Muslim media, groups, and individuals!

I have always believed in giving people the right to express their views, confident that falsehood can never permanently defeat or conceal the truth. This is why I do not support banning the writings of Ibn Taymiyya or hiding them from the public. On the contrary, I strongly advocate making his complete works accessible to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

I read Ibn Taymiyya in the original Arabic, and although I haven’t checked the exact extent of what’s been translated into English, it seems to be only a fraction of his massive corpus. I would like to see all of his writings translated. Surely there are sufficient resources in the Muslim world for this, whether from wealthy individuals, instituations, or goverments. Let people read and judge for themselves. This is precisely why I published those fatwās in full, in their original Arabic alongside English translations.

To be clear, I am not calling merely for books about Ibn Taymiyya’s thought. That is already happening, and I fully support every scholar’s right to publish their assessment of his legacy. However, because his primary texts remain largely inaccessible to English readers, selective translations—and a selective focus on certain subjects—risk presenting a sanitised version of his legacy, while ignoring his most impactful and dangerous teachings. While often unintentional, this selective presentation is both misleading and damaging. (Consult the section titled “True Legacy” in my original video.)

I do not mean to target specific contemporary academics in this argument, but rather to highlight a systemic deficiency in how his legacy is studied. My call is not to stop writing about Ibn Taymiyya, but to make his original texts directly accessible to the English-speaking world.

Argument 12: Islam: Faith or Social Ties?

The existence of fatwās mandating the execution of countless Muslims is only one of many difficult topics in Islamic history and theology. Highlighting and addressing such issues requires not only intellectual honesty, but moral courage.

Muslims, like adherents of any faith, belong to various theological and juristic traditions. This belonging is not merely religious; it is deeply social. Thinking differently from one’s social group and questioning and critiquing its foundational assumptions is daunting and often costly—a reality known to anyone who has reverted to Islam, as I have.

The ultimate question we, Muslims, must all confront is this: is Islam first and foremost a faith or a community? Is it about revelation and one’s relationship with the Creator, or tradition and human social ties? Is it about the Qur’an and the Prophet (PBUH), or tradition and idolised scholars?

Every Muslim knows the right answer. The question is: does every Muslim live it?

Copyright © 2026 Louay Fatoohi
Blog: https://www.louayfatoohi.com
 http://www.facebook.com/LouayFatoohi
 http://twitter.com/louayfatoohi
 http://www.instagram.com/Louayfatoohi
Website: http://www.quranicstudies.com
All Rights Reserved.