Читать книгу Economic Concepts of Ibn Taimiyah - Abdul Azim Islahi - Страница 9
ОглавлениеIbn Taimīyah – A Brief Biography
A. His family, education and personal character
The personality of an author and his ideas are inevitably linked. As there are many factors – environment, family, education, etc. – which contribute to the making of a personality, it naturally follows that for the serious study of a scholar of the stature of Ibn Taimīyah, some biographical background is essential.
Ibn Taimīyah’s full name is Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad bin ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm. He was born in Ḥarrān on 22 January, 1263 AD (10 Rabī‘ al-Awwal, 661 AH). His family had long been renowned for its learning. His father ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm, uncle Fakhr al-Dīn and grandfather Majd al-Dīn were great scholars of Hanbalite jurisprudence and the authors of many books. His family were forced to leave their native place in 1269 AD before the approach of the Mongols and to take refuge in Damascus.1 At that time Ibn Taimīyah was seven years old. His father ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm was appointed as Professor and head of the Sukkariyah Madrasah. Endowed with a penetrating intellect and a wonderful memory, Ibn Taimīyah studied at an early stage all the disciplines of jurisprudences, traditions of the Prophet, and commentaries of the Qur’ān, mathematics and philosophy and in each he was far ahead of his contemporaries.2 Among his teachers was Shams al-Dīn al-Maqdisī, first Ḥanbali Chief Justice of Syria following the reform of the judiciary by Baibars.3 The number of Ibn Taimīyah’s teachers exceeds two hundred; besides Shams al-Dīn, among other famous teachers were Ibn Abī al-Yusr, al-Kamāl bin ‘Abd, al-Majd bin ‘Asākir, Yaḥyā bin al-Ṣairafī, Aḥmad bin Abū al-Khair, etc.4 Ibn Taimīyah was barely seventeen when the Qāḍī al-Maqdisī authorized him to issue fatwā (legal ruling). The Qāḍī remembered with pride that it was he who had first permitted an intelligent and learned man like Ibn Taimīyah to give fatwā.5 At the same age he started delivering lectures. When he was thirty, he was offered the office of Chief Justice, but refused, as he could not persuade himself to follow the limitations imposed by the authorities.6
Ibn Taimīyah remained a confirmed bachelor. Once Ḥāfiẓ Dhahabī wrote about him that he was free from the passions of food, clothing and sex. He was interested in nothing except spreading knowledge and inspiring action in accordance with it.7 His brother used to take care of his expenses, which were slight as his lifestyle was very simple. He was more concerned with the interests of others.8
Ibn Taimīyah’s education was essentially that of a Hanbali theologian and jurisconsult. But to his knowledge of early and classical Hanbalism he added not only that of the other schools of jurisprudence but also that of heresiographical literature, in particular of philosophy and Sufism. He had an extensive knowledge of Greek and Islamic history, and religious books of others, as is evident from the variety of the books he wrote. Though he preferred the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, he was never biased in favour of it. In his writings, he frequently quoted the opinions of all four of the well-known schools of jurisprudence, even others. In a number of matters he himself held opinions different from those of the four schools. In fact he was an original thinker (mujtahid)9 who merely drew upon the wisdom of the four established schools.
In all his reformative efforts, Ibn Taimīyah accepted the Qur’ān and the Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet) as the basic criteria. In matters where there was no clear guidance from the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, he never hesitated to venture into rational thought and took the path of ijtihād or creative originality and initiative.
The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries AD have a distinguished place in Islamic history. But their importance lies rather in the expanding than the deepening of knowledge. The means of acquiring knowledge were easily available as libraries and schools were established in large numbers.10 But in general there was a want of original thinking (ijtihād), a want that Ibn Taimīyah did much to supply. He examined the existing branches of learning critically and laid new foundations for research. A strong opponent of Ibn Taimīyah in his lifetime, Chief Justice Subkī (d. 1356) once wrote to the great Islamic historian, al-Dhahabī: ‘I highly respect him (i.e. Ibn Taimīyah), and appreciate his expertise in education, Sharī’ah, and rational sciences. I also recognize the high place he achieved in original thinking and intellectual ability, which words cannot describe. Such a unique personality had not been present for centuries.’11
Ibn Taimīyah was very generous and kind-hearted, especially towards the poor and the needy. Amīrs, army officers, traders and all classes of people loved him, as he worked for their interests in every possible way. He used to spend money generously on the poor.12 Though he himself never engaged in trade and commerce, he had contacts with such people and hence understood their problems, as is evident from the Fatāwā in which a large number of enquiries were addressed to him about trade, commerce, business enterprises and contracts.
Al-Dabahī al-Zāhid (d. 1311) was a major trader before he joined Ibn Taimīyah’s disciples.13 All kinds of people used to benefit from Ibn Taimīyah’s lectures. He was always very firm and uncompromising in support of a right stand. For this same reason he made a number of enemies.14
B. His struggles and persecutions
Ibn Taimīyah’s life was not confined to the world of books and words. Whenever circumstances demanded, he took part in political and public affairs too, distinguishing himself not only through his writings and speeches but also with the sword as a brave warrior. Here is a brief account of his war deeds, a crucial aspect of his life.
In 1300, the Mongols under their king Ghazan invaded Syria and defeated the Sultan’s army. Ibn Taimīyah, by this time well-known, flung himself into the stream of affairs, while the religious divines and saints were leaving Damascus to take refuge in Egypt. There were disturbances everywhere. Prisoners escaped from jails, unruly elements began looting and plundering the city before the Mongols arrived.15 Ibn Taimīyah did his best to restore order in the city; together with the remaining ‘ulamā’ he met the Mongol chief, Il-Khan Ghazan. So forcefully did he plead the case of the people of Damascus before Ghazan that he secured the release of many prisoners and succeeded in obtaining a declaration of safety for civilians.16
During 1300, when the Mongol threat arose for a second time, Ibn Taimīyah exhorted people to jihād and encouraged them to confront the Mongols boldly. He was asked by the Governor of Damascus to go to Cairo and persuade Sultan Nāṣir to intervene in Syria. He left for Cairo in January 1301. When he saw that the Sultan was reluctant to face the Mongols, he warned him: ‘If you wish to avoid coming out to protect Syria, we shall choose another Sultan who will defend and protect the land in time of war just as he enjoys its resources in peace time.’ He further argued: ‘Though you were not the ruler of Syria, yet if its inhabitants asked you to help them, you must come to their rescue. Seeing that you are their ruler and they are your subjects you have no excuse; you are responsible for them.’17 The Sultan was so impressed by Ibn Taimīyah’s words that he was prepared to face the Mongols. The Mongols, however, refrained from attacking that year but they came back the next year in greater strength. Ibn Taimīyah toured the cities, called the people to a holy war and fired them with zeal. After a pitched battle at Shaqḥab in which Ibn Taimīyah fought bravely, the Syrian-Egyptian army won a glorious victory that turned the tide against the Mongols.18 On this occasion, Ibn Taimīyah issued a fatwā exempting from the duty of fasting those who were fighting, and even those who actually stayed at home.19 This victory, which was to a great extent due to Ibn Taimīyah’s efforts and commitment, stopped the Mongols’ advance.
Apart from the battle of Shaqḥab, he took part in some other expeditions with the Mamluk authorities, and also undertook a few expeditions without them.20
2. Opposition of rival ‘ulamā’
Because of his brilliant performance on the battlefield and his radical thinking, Ibn Taimīyah’s fame spread throughout the realm, and he became a highly distinguished celebrity. This made a number of jurists jealous. Ibn Kathīr has pointed out this fact, saying that: ‘A group of jurisprudents were jealous of Ibn Taimīyah, as he had a place in the court of the Sultan and people paid heed to him. To enjoin good and forbid evil was his vocation, and because of this he became very popular among the people. His followers were countless. His religious zeal, learning and actions made them jealous of him.’21
(a) Visit to Cairo and the first imprisonment
Ibn Taimīyah’s opponents complained against him in the Sultan’s court in Egypt, and certain baseless charges were levelled against him. He was summoned by the Sultan and arrived in Cairo on 7 April, 1306. Ibn Taimīyah was accused of anthropomorphism. He was not given a proper chance to clarify his position and was put into prison.22 He remained in the citadel of Cairo for nearly a year and a half. He was released on 25 September, 1307.
(b) Second imprisonment
After his release from jail, Ibn Taimīyah decided to stay for some days in Cairo to try to reform the creed of the people and their way of life.23 He criticized bitterly the un-Islamic ideas of Sufism and continued to denounce all those innovations (bid‘āt) which he regarded as heretical.
Meanwhile another Sultan, Baibars al-Jāshankīr, who was strongly pro-Sufis had taken power in Egypt. Since a number of Ibn Taimīyah’s supporters were present in Cairo, he was on this occasion exiled to Alexandria and put under house arrest. This exile lasted seven months. When Nāṣir Muḥammad bin Qalāwūn was restored to the throne on 4 March, 1310, he recalled Ibn Taimīyah and received him in audience at Cairo.24
On his return to Cairo Ibn Taimīyah resumed his reformist activities, remaining there for about three years. Sultan Muḥammad bin Qalāwūn often consulted him. Ibn Taimīyah also advised the Sultan privately.25
(c) Return to Syria and the third imprisonment
In 1313 a new Mongol threat appeared. The Sultan decided to face the Mongols at the Syrian border. People remembered the heroic part Ibn Taimīyah had played in the earlier battle and, though he was now over fifty, the Sultan sent for him to come to Damascus on 28 February, 1313. However, the Mongols retreated without a fight. Ibn Taimīyah now concentrated his attention on academic and social problems. He organized his teaching, as ever more people sought his guidance in their everyday life. His knowledge and thinking now became broader and more concrete. He sometimes issued a fatwā or legal ruling, even against the verdicts of the four famous schools of jurisprudence.26 One such legal ruling was on divorce. In 1318, in a letter, the Sultan forbade him to issue any fatwā on divorce which was contrary to the prevailing Hanbalite doctrine. Ibn Taimīyah held the view that a triple utterance of the repudiation formula at the same time was to be considered as only one utterance, and that any repudiation obtained under duress was invalid. Ibn Taimīyah, accused of disobeying the Sultan’s order, was condemned to prison. He remained in the citadel at Damascus for five months and eighteen days,27 until his release on 9 February, 1321 by the decree of Sultan Nāṣir.
(d) The fourth and last imprisonment
Ibn Taimīyah’s last imprisonment began on 13 July, 1326 and lasted until his death. His opponents dug up an old fatwā, related to tomb visits, given by him some seventeen years before which could be provocatively interpreted. In his treatise on the subject (Risālah Ziyārah al-Qubūr) Ibn Taimīyah had questioned the legality of visiting tombs, even the tomb of the Prophet.28 His opponents distorted the sense and context of this fatwā to make it objectionable in the eyes of the public and the Sultan. A great dispute arose and Ibn Taimīyah was imprisoned in the citadel of Damascus along with some of his pupils including Ibn al-Qayyim.29
(e) His last days
While in prison, Ibn Taimīyah spent all his time teaching and writing. Many of his works were produced in this period. During his detention the Maliki qāḍī, al-Ikhnā’ī, wrote a booklet against Ibn Taimīyah’s treatise on tomb visits. From inside prison Ibn Taimīyah wrote an article criticizing the Qāḍī in which he proved him to be ignorant and incompetent and unsuitable for the post of judge. This article was widely circulated and al-Ikhnā’ī complained to the Sultan. Ibn Taimīyah was then, in 1328, deprived of all means of writing, his pen and papers taken away.30
But this did not stop Ibn Taimīyah from writing; he wrote many letters and booklets with coal.31 He never complained to anybody about his persecution. Only when all reading and writing materials were taken away from him, did he say: ‘Now they really have put me into prison.’ He breathed his last on 26 September, 1328 (20 Dhu’l-Qa‘dah 728 AH) having endured harsh conditions for five months. The whole country mourned. Schools, shops, hotels and markets were closed to mark his death. His burial was attended by great numbers of Damascans: eye-witnesses confirm that, excepting some invalids, all turned out for his funeral prayer, both those who had been for him and those against.32 This is a clear testimony of his place among the people, of their appreciation of his sacrifices for public purposes and just cause. Including the two years and three months of his last imprisonment, Ibn Taimīyah spent about five years in different prisons.
In the Islamic perspective, ‘reform’ is understood quite differently than in Christian terminology. In Islam, ‘reform’ means purification of the original Islamic teachings, and the removal of un-Islamic new practices (bid‘āt) and misconceptions. In this sense of the word, Ibn Taimīyah was a great reformer.
According to ‘Allāmah Shiblī Nu’mānī, the highest reformer is one who revolutionizes religion or politics; who does not merely follow others, but expounds his own thoughts, who bears hardships, makes sacrifices and does not hesitate even to lay down his life for that cause.33 Each of these essential qualities of a reformer is found in Ibn Taimīyah.
1. The main aspects of his reforms
The most important elements of Ibn Taimīyah’s reforms were: (a) to bring about a revolution against un-Islamic practices (bid‘āt) that had crept into Islam and to emphasize the concept of Tawḥīd with all its implications; (b) a return to the fundamental priorities of Islam and its original spirit, instead of disputing over secondary and non-fundamental problems; and (c) serving the public good through such state intervention in economic life as promotes justice and security and prevents exploitation and selfishness.34 He devoted all his energies to these activities throughout his life.
By the thirteenth century, the pure sweet spring of Islam had become muddied – on the one hand by un-Islamic customs and rites and false innovations such as tomb worship; on the other hand, by certain forms of Sufism which enervated the revolutionary message of Islam. Ibn Taimīyah carried reform in both directions.
Sufism was widespread at that time, in diverse groupings, with diverse concepts, techniques and cults. But all the forms of Sufism preached a life of seclusion and individualism; any effort to organize for collective good and any participation in such effort was considered worldliness.35 Some Sufis invented ideas and beliefs different from, even contrary to, the teachings of Islam; in the end, they only diverted the attention of their followers from the actual problems of life. Ibn Taimīyah bitterly criticized such ideas and practices. Once he wrote a letter to Shaikh Naṣr Manbijī the spiritual adviser of Baibars Jāshankīr in which he condemned the monism of Ibn ‘Arabī. Manbijī became angry with him and on his advice, Jāshankīr exiled him to Alexandria.36 At that time Cairo was dominated by the Sufis. Ibn Taimīyah wanted to break their power and preached against them. As a result he faced strong opposition from the Sufis and their followers. In Damascus, a certain Shaikh Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, who had disfigured himself and was accused among other things of antinomianism, was brought to him. Ibn Taimīyah persuaded him to civilize and better his condition.37 In 1305, he also reformed a similar group of Rifā‘īyah.38
Some misguided people glorified tombs. Tomb-worship is contrary to the Islamic belief in Tawḥīd, the denial of divinity and power to anyone except Allah the Almighty. Tomb worship and related un-Islamic innovations violate this principle. Ibn Taimīyah denounced them and wrote many treatises on these issues.
Ibn Taimīyah wrote books and took an active part in reform on politico-economic matters. The details of his economic views will be discussed later. It is worthwhile to note that many of the reforms of Sultan Nāṣir Muḥammad bin Qalāwūn, perhaps the most successful ruler of the period, were inspired by Ibn Taimīyah.39
The principles behind Ibn Taimīyah’s economic views are well expressed in a letter he wrote to the Sultan of the time advising him to fight starvation, to satisfy basic needs, to help the oppressed, to listen to persons in distress, and to enjoin good and forbid evil, for he counted such actions as the pillars of justice and goodness.40
On another occasion, when a tyrant governor of Damascus imposed excessive taxes, Ibn Taimīyah had him transferred by the Sultan and the taxes repealed.41
Ibn Taimīyah saw great upheavals in his time. He saw how a false concept of religion can lead to exploitation and disturbance, and how misconceptions enter into religion especially when it is deprived of power. He was of the opinion that religion and the state should be indissolubly linked. Without the coercive power of the state, religion is in danger: without the discipline of the revealed law, the state becomes a tyrannical organization.42
D. Attack on philosophy and logic
Another target of Ibn Taimīyah’s criticism was Greek philosophy and logic. Translations from Greek into Arabic had started in the early periods of Islam. A few Abbasid caliphs even established academies for this purpose. Within two or three centuries, a great number of Muslim philosophers appeared who propounded Greek ideas or tried to justify the Islamic ideas and creeds from Greek-philosophical points of view.
The truths of Islam were distorted through conflicting interpretations. By the thirteenth century AD, Greek philosophy had such a hold over people’s minds that they could hardly think without its help, indeed it had become a measuring stick for even religious truths. As a result of the influences of Greek philosophy, it became near-impossible for people to keep steadily to the right path of Islam.
Ibn Taimīyah was aware of this. He knew that unless the crippling falsehood of Greek philosophy was removed, the people would not be able to grasp the divine truth of Islam. He studied critically all the great Muslim philosophers and their works, such as al-Fārābī (who is called the next master after Aristotle), Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), Ibn Tufail, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), etc. He criticized even al-GhazālI (d. 1111), himself a great critic of philosophy in his last days, for not wholly abandoning philosophy.43 During his exile in Alexandria in 1307 Ibn Taimīyah wrote one of his most valuable works, al-Radd ‘Alā al-Manṭiqi‘īn. The French scholar, Henri Laoust, is of the opinion that in Alexandria he might have met and come under the influence of the passing Muwaḥḥidūn of the Maghrib44 who were vehemently opposed to philosophical thinking in religion and very strict in their belief in the unicity of Allah.
‘Ibn Taimīyah was opposed to extreme rationalism. Like Kant (d. 1804) he did not believe that reason could lead us to the knowledge of Ultimate truths. He was opposed to logic in its application to the truths of religion or Ultimate truths. He was not against reasoning as such, but believed that it was not confined to the Aristotelian logic or syllogistic reasoning. Logic, he demonstrated, was not a measure of the Truth or Reality. It was only a means of judging the consistency of arguments. Its Constant use sharpened the intellect and assisted in discovering fallacies in the existence of a thing. It was neither a source of existential nor valuational knowledge …’
‘In the opinion of Ibn Taimīyah logic was also not in conformity with reason, because reason could not be subordinated to principles laid down by one man. Reason had its own nature and it had its own methods. Its course and functioning could not be determined by anyone. The lines prescribed by Aristotelian logic were too narrow for reason and in fact reason was not restricted to these ways alone …’
‘As against the deductive method, Ibn Taimīyah emphasized the need and importance of the inductive and empirical method,’45
E. His method of teaching, style of writing and his disciples
Ibn Taimīyah’s method of teaching was both elegant and striking, replete with authentic references, strengthened with rational argument and evidence from the Traditions. For a lecture on any subject he would refer to verses of the Qur’ān and discuss their meanings with cross references from the Qur’ān. He would also note evidence from traditions of the Prophet and check their authenticity. He would then expound the relevant opinions of the four schools of jurisprudence and of other famous experts in jurisprudence. Having discussed the matter fully in this way, the problem and its solution would become clear in the minds of his listeners. Ibn Taimīyah had a prodigiously good memory which helped him overwhelm his adversaries in polemic.46
His style is clear and elegant. His writings are so richly steeped in references to the Qur’ān, to Tradition, to the sayings of the Companions and their followers, and to opinions of other experts in jurisprudence, that any Muslim reader must feel that he is living in the blessed age. From the literary point of view too, his writings have great merit. Because of their clear expression and choice of idiom even his technical works seem to be literary ones.
But in contrast to these merits, it is claimed that Ibn Taimīyah’s writings have some shortcomings as well, in particular their frequent digressiveness.
When Ibn Taimīyah died he left a number of pupils and disciples who were second to none. His disciples were of two kinds as were his teaching sessions. One kind consisted of those who learned from him through his speeches after the Friday prayers, and through his public lectures.47 In such meetings he presented to the audience the pure and simple teachings of Islam; urged them to follow the good and the just, and forbade to them evils and innovations.
The other kind of disciples were those who attended his special sessions; they were disciples in the true sense of the word. They possessed the ability necessary to grasp the broader meaning of their master’s teaching; they inherited his knowledge and way of thinking.
Ibn Taimīyah’s disciples spread from Syria to Egypt and Cairo to Alexandria. Some of them scattered to very far-off places.48 They preached and developed his intellectual heritage, and shared their master’s persecutions. One of the most famous of them was Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzīyah (d. 1350), a great writer in his own right. He so mingled his personality with that of his teacher that we find in his books echoes of Ibn Taimīyah’s thought. Among other distinguished disciples were Ibn ‘Abd al-Hādī (d. 1343), who died at the age of forty but left valuable works. He wrote a biography of his master, al-‘Uqūd al-Durrīyah; Ibn Kathīr (d. 1373), the famous historian and commentator of the Qur’ān, whose book al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah contains a detailed biography of his teacher; Ḥāfiẓ Dhahabī (d. 1348), the great Islamic historian of traditions; al-Mizzī (d. 1341), another expert on traditions; Muḥammad bin Mufliḥ (d. 1362), writer of many books; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Bazzār (d. 1349), the author of a biography of Ibn Taimīyah; Ibn al-Wardī (d. 1348), expert in literature, grammar and some other branches of learning; and Qāḍī Ibn Faḍl Allāh (d. 1349), a famous writer.
F. Impact of Ibn Taimīyah through the ages
Ibn Taimīyah created a climate of revolutionary thinking both through his ideas and his reformist endeavours whose impact was felt not only in his own time but ever since. In his lifetime people were divided either into those who were strong opponents or strong supporters fully in agreement with him, or uncommitted, those who agreed with some views and disagreed with others. Ibn Taimīyah left behind a large number of books and disciplines. His opponents soon sank into anonymity, while the value of and appreciation for his works has increased. He had a great influence over Sultān Nāṣir Muḥammad bin Qalāwūn, who often consulted him during his stay at Cairo from 1309 to 1312.49 The Sultan appointed the Amīr Shams al-Dīn Afram as Governor of Tripoli on his advice.50
Ibn Taimīyah had a great influence among amīrs and high-ranking officials. During his stay in Egypt and Syria, and even when he was imprisoned, amīrs and other responsible persons, as well as ordinary people, used to consult him.51 Ḥusām al-Dīn Muhannā Amīr of ‘Arab, Kitbughā al-Manṣūr (d. 1321), and Ṣaif al-Dīn Arghūn al-Nāṣirī (d. 1330) who held the office of viceroy and governor of Aleppo, are described as his friends and admirers.52 When he was imprisoned in Egypt, several amīrs used to visit him and bring gifts of the best food. The Qāḍī disapproved of this and complained to the Sultan who had Ibn Taimīyah tranferred to the prison at the fort.53
In his own lifetime Ibn Taimīyah’s fame and influence extended beyond the boundaries of Egypt and Syria. When he was imprisoned for the last time in the citadel of Damascus, many letters came from the inhabitants of Baghdad protesting against his arrest and demanding his release.54 When he died, funeral prayers in absentia were performed even as far as China.55
One of his disciples, Altama ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Ardabīlī, went from Damascus to the court of the Sultan, Muḥammad Tughluq.56 Professor K. A. Nizami writes: ‘Ibn Taimīyah’s disciples reached India at a time when the country was in the grip of pantheistic doctrines. The policies of Sultan Muḥammad bin Tughlaq and Fīrūz Shāh seem to have been very greatly influenced by these tendencies of the age.’57
Ibn Taimīyah’s influence continued to be deeply felt long after his death, as acknowledged by Maqrīzī (d. 1441) the historian of the second Mamluk period.58 It continued much later, as exemplified in Ibn Taimīyah’s biography written by al-Marā‘ī (d. 1623), in the Ottoman period. And almost all historians have recognized his deep impact on the most prominent reformer of the eighteenth century, Muḥammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (d. 1792).59
Some of Ibn Taimīyah’s rulings (fatāwā) have survived in the legal codes of some modern Muslim countries. A conspicuous example is the case of divorce under duress in the Egyptian and Syrian laws.60
G. Economic views in his writings
It is inconceivable that economic matters could have escaped the attention of such a versatile genius as Ibn Taimīyah. He had witnessed ruined families and destroyed economic life since his very earliest years. His own family had faced migration and suffered loss of property. He observed a general economic decline at the Mongols’ hands. He had contact with every class of person – from the fallāḥin and artisans up to amīrs and sultans. He had seen the agony of the poor classes and the exploitation by the ruling class. So deeply did this impress his dynamic and conscientious spirit that he could not keep silent. What also inspired him was that Islam as a religion does concern itself with economic problems and holds certain fundamental principles in regard to them.
Ibn Taimīyah emphasized that every person must be assured a minimum standard of living sufficient for him to fulfil his obligations to the Almighty and to his brethren.61 Equally, he emphasized justice; that is, he sought to point out the responsibilities of the individual as well as the state, so that both could co-operate with each other and neither was abused. According to him, justice is a value recognized by all nations. He says: ‘All people agreed that the consequences of injustice are gloomy, and the fruit of justice is admirable.’62
