The Foundations of Ibn Taymiyyah's Nasibism in Minhaj alSunnah; Explaining the Principles, Typology of Critiques, and Evaluation of Instances from the Perspective of a Spectrum of Sunni and Shia Scholars

Abstract

The positions of Ibn Taymiyyah toward the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) have consistently been a matter of scholarly dispute. This study aims to methodologically distinguish "isnad criticism" from "behavioral disparagement" (tanqis). Employing directed qualitative content analysis, it examines the statements concerning the Ahl al Bayt across four key volumes of Minhaj al Sunnah (Vols. 3, 4, 6, and 8). The theoretical framework was established based on definitions of Nasibism in classical Sunni and Shia sources, emphasizing the distinction between "behavioral" and "creedal" levels. Of the 452 extracted phrases, 128 were coded as disparaging (with importance coefficients of 2 and 3). Validity was ensured through triangulation—integrating the primary text, intra-Sunni critiques, and external Shia critiques—alongside dual coding (achieving 87% agreement). The findings indicate that Ibn Taymiyyah fully satisfies the four behavioral criteria of Nasibism—disparaging Fatimah in the Fadak episode; disparaging Ali through pejorative characterizations and likening him to Pharaoh; denying the legitimacy of Ali's wars; and offering a dual-faceted defense of his assassin—thus exemplifying "behavioral Nasibism." The five fold typology of scholarly responses reveals that "behavioral excess" serves as a point of convergence across a wide spectrum of Sunni and Shia scholars, although disagreement persists regarding its underlying cause (theological polemics versus inner animosity). Accordingly, a critical reassessment of the inclusion of his theological-historical works in academic curricula—distinct from his jurisprudential and legal-theoretic opinions—is recommended.