URDU: عبادات کے باب میں امام ابن تیمیہؒ کے اختلاف کی نوعیت اور ثمرات

The nature and implications of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah's disagreement in Islamic rituals

  • Muhammad Usman Haider Hitech University, Taxila, Pakistan
Keywords: İbn e taimiah, academic disagreement, jurists, Islamic rituals.


Difference of juristic opinion has been an evident part of Muslim jurisprudential tradition since the early period. The existence of scholarly and academic disagreement and multiple approaches signify the acceptance, And to the least tolerance to the disagreement the glory of the inclusiveness of our tradition. This article analyzes the unique juristic opinions of İBN taimiah. It explores the existing difference of opinion between İBN taimiah and other jurists in rituals. The study observes that at times he disagrees with the sahaba, taba’in as well and prefers one opinion over among the jurists of first generation. For example, in the case of Witar prayer being obligatory or not he rejects the hanfi opinion of Witat as an absolute obligation. A deeper analysis depicts in certain legal questions he disagrees with the four leading Jurists but reconciles with over the among. An example is the issue of zakah to the household of the prophet SAW. Whereas in a few issues he adopts the opinion of four schools or anyone of these or the opinion of majority like in case of facing kabah while cleaning oneself after defecation (istinja). So it can be concluded that İbn e  taimiah in his juristic opinions prefers the juristic rulings from sahabah based on his unique methodology, at times disagrees with the four jurists altogether and prefers another jurist over them  and on other occasions he  even assents to one of the four juristic opinions.

Author Biography

Muhammad Usman Haider, Hitech University, Taxila, Pakistan

Ph.D Scholar

How to Cite
Muhammad Usman Haider. (2022). URDU: عبادات کے باب میں امام ابن تیمیہؒ کے اختلاف کی نوعیت اور ثمرات: The nature and implications of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s disagreement in Islamic rituals. Rahat-Ul-Quloob, 6(2), 137-154. https://doi.org/10.51411/rahat.6.2.2022/427