Ibn Taymiyya on Ethics

Utilitarianism as propagated by Jeremy Bentham states that an act is good when it produces the maximum happiness and benefit for the greatest number. Then religious utilitarianism would be maximizing happiness and benefit for this world and for the hereafter. For Ibn Taymiyya, worship of God alone is the ultimate purpose of humanity and leads to the ultimate happiness and benefit of humans. Therefore, Ibn Taymiyya thought in terms of religious utilitarianism. He applied this framework to understand God’s actions as well. Furthermore, in his ethics,

“The Book and justice are inseparable. The Book explicates the law. The law is justice, and justice is the law. Anyone who judges with justice judges with the law… The entire revealed law is justice’ (MF 35:366).

Law and human benefit are equivalent such that there is no benefit outside of the law as benefit is the law and law is benefit.

“The principle overall is that the law never neglects a benefit. Indeed, God – Exalted is He – has perfected the religion for us and completed the blessing. The Prophet – May God bless him and give him peace – has indeed spoken about everything that will bring us closer to the Garden” (MF 11:344).

Ibn Taymiyya also believes that morality is an objective feature of the world and we as humans are guided by the fitra or a natural disposition created by God that guides us towards these morals just as we naturally know that food satiates hunger. Furthermore, every act of God is based on justice and a wise purpose and this purpose is for human welfare thus the consequence and result of actions define the ethical value of actions more than the actions themselves.

         What should be done according to Ibn Taymiyya if following the law perfectly and attaining full benefit is not possible?

“One has to investigate. If the right is greater, it is commanded, even if it necessarily entails something wrong of lesser import. Wrong is not prohibited if [prohibiting it] necessarily entails losing something right greater than it. Indeed, prohibiting in that case would be tantamount to blocking the way of God…If the wrong is predominant, then it is prohibited, even if this involves losing something right less than it. Commanding that [lesser] right that involves a greater wrong is commanding wrong and furthering disobedience to God and His Messenger. If right and wrong are intertwined and equally in balance, then they are neither commanded nor prohibited. Sometimes it is beneficial to command, and sometimes it is beneficial to prohibit…It all depends on the specific and actual circumstances” (MF 28:129-130).

The example Ibn Taymiyya uses for this is if a king becomes a Muslim but if prohibiting the king from drinking alcohol would lead to him apostatizing then it would be better to allow him to drink to prevent the greater harm. It should be noted that generally it is accepted that one should have the proper intention as well for their deeds to be accepted as good.

         A trilemma was presented to Ibn Taymiyya regarding God’s wisdom.

“Concerning the goodness of the will of God…Does He create for a cause or for other than a cause?

1. If it is said, ‘not for a cause,’ He is aimless – Exalted is God above that.

2. If it is said, ‘For a cause,’ and if you say that it is eternal, it necessarily follows that the effect is eternal.

3. And if you say that it is temporally originated, it follows necessarily that it had a cause, but an endless chain is absurd” (MF 8:81)

The first claim is of the Asharites who believed that God acts without a purpose, the second claim is of the philosophers such as Ibn Sina who believed that the world is eternal alongside God, and the third is of the Mu'tazilis who believed that there are temporally originating events in God’s essence (in a sense). The Asharites claimed that if God acted for a wise purpose then there would be an infinite regress and if there were temporally originating events in God’s essence then that would imply that God changes. They also claimed that if God acted for a wise purpose then this implies that God was imperfect but then perfected when achieving His goal. The Mut’tazilis claimed that God acts for wise purposes that are disjoined from His essence so the wise purposes impact humanity but do not impact God. However, the Asharites rebut that even if the purposes are not connected to God then there is still temporality and God is perfected by His wise purposes. The Greek inspired Islamic philosophers claimed that God is timelessly eternal and is pure act such that God emanates the world through a series of emanations as an eternal effect. God’s will is identical to His knowledge therefore God does not act for purposes and therefore is perfect eternally.

         Ibn Taymiyya, as per the Athari tradition, refutes all three by claiming, against the Asharites, that a God who does not create for a wise purpose is foolish and a God that acts by His power is better than a God with no power and an eternal will does not create temporal effects. Ibn Taymiyya also rejects Ibn Sina and the Neoplatonic scheme of emanations. Against the Mu’tazilis, Ibn Taymiyya claimed that disjoined wise purposes are not God’s anymore and God acts not indifferently to creatures but for them according to His love and His own benefit. Therefore, God, according to Ibn Taymiyya, is perfect and acts and creates by His will and power for a wise purpose and has causes that subsist in His essence as temporal events that regress infinitely into the past for His own benefit. God is not subject to time but time arises out of God’s dynamic activity. Furthermore, he claimed that God has been active from eternity and acts in temporal sequence. These temporal events originating in God’s essence do not create a change in God because they are voluntary attributes and acts so God does not change and God is consistent in His character. As for the Asharite claim that God acting for a wise purpose entails that God was previously imperfect, Ibn Taymiyya claimed that it is rational to be perfected by one’s acts. A God who cannot act for a wise purpose is imperfect and what God creates is the best possibility. God is perfected through His own acts just as He is perfected through His attributes and essence. God does not need His creation to be self-sufficient rather we rely on God for everything.