Very interesting 177

Ibn Taymiyya proves to be an undisputed scholar, with good knowledge (perhaps without reaching in certain branches of knowledge, the status of "master") of logic, philosophy (which he uses sometimes, especially for developing certain ideas about the universe or to refute heresies and deviations of some outgoing philosophers of Islamic orthodoxy) and Revelation. His critics stray currents of Islam (Ismailis, batinisme, jahmistes "deviant rationalists" and Mu'tazilites, ...) are very relevant, all in a very pleasant and rigorous academic style.

Where we see some flaws in his reasoning is when addresses the issue of apparent meaning of Divine Attributes, the reality of the soul (which he applies rational method to try to identify where the soul just beyond the terms of rational order as to its intelligible character) and the Divine Essence. He remains a prisoner of mental concepts (duel order and limited) attempt to "define" the soul and God, which are realities that are beyond conceptualization (which implies limitations) physical objects and ways of thinking, and that work with analogies. Refuting the materialistic thinking that the soul is a part of the body (physical), like those who think that the soul is only an "abstract thing" without reality, he wants to stay in the "physical" part, saying that the soul is a material substance, but in a "category" of different sensitive / visible elements of the world. Now it is possible to regard the soul as a reality simply order supra-physical, which enables to avoid using a term that may cause confusion as the word "material", which by definition means any item based on the matter (atom, space, etc.) which is then quantifiable (which is not the case for the mind, nor the soul-consciousness, which, while being palpable and experienced daily and even at every moment, is not visible to the senses nor quantifiable by the tools and scientific instruments and / or materials, although without consciousness, this awareness and knowledge would itself be impossible).
It is clear that often, he joined unknowingly Asharite the traditional doctrine on the bottom (unlike the trend "metaphorical / métaphoriste", later repeated by many ahbaches), but this is his terminology is problematic, unlike its methodology (include concepts and differences, and attempt to bring them back to their source to better separate the true from the false, and then locate the origin of deviations, to fully know what we are really talking about, knowing that term may have a different meaning according to each other). While saying that "Allah is above the heavens," He does have attributes named "Hands", "Eyes", etc., he then said that the apparent meaning must be accepted, but that it Remember that as for the delights of Paradise, there are only names that are identical, contrary to their reality are different. And he recalled that even between two elements (or creatures) created order of differences exist, then the difference between the Uncreated (God) and the created (thing) is even greater, and can not therefore exist no comparison between God and His creatures ... which is to say, with another terminology (more tortuous) that Asharites generally profess. The Attributes of God are real, it's accepted and pronounced the like that They were appointed by Allah and His Messenger, while rejecting the apparent meaning that comes to people's minds when it comes to terms that are identical creatures, knowing that to exempt Allah, by His Essence, to any terms specific to creatures (physical space, physical address, bodily organs, etc.).

For example, when we say that "Allah is above the heavens and the Throne", he means by this that it is not a space where God would be inside or outside space "but that God is not concerned, or by a localizable thing He would / created. It is simply to emphasize His Transcendence. The Asharites refuse, however, to avoid ambiguity, d use the words "space, place, direction, etc." about God as Revelation (which does not use these terms for God) and intelligence reject these terms as well as the traditional target direction (from the creation and creatures) existential modalities created and limited. This terminological choice is probably the logical consequence of the conceptual limitation of Ibn Taymiyya, who tended to all "streamline", which was even beyond the reason, for the soul , as God, should not be considered as "physical objects" composed of matter, organs, etc. Reality is that not reducing physical and temporal terms. What falls psychic or spiritual orders, while being able to have some "tangible form," does not consist of physical bodies, atoms or particles, and therefore want to "conceptualize" by means appropriate to the world Physics can only lead to aberrations, and the two opposing groups (abstrationnistes-deniers and anthropomorphist-physicalist).
While using confusing words, it takes good care explain to exclude erroneous interpretations and possibilities, such as "space" where when it concerns God, there is not physical space formed by atoms with physical directions and spatial concepts (up and down, inside and outside, etc.).

But regarding the other tendencies, it usually turns against them their own arguments by the tools of logic and philosophy itself (in the sense both wide of this discipline and of Peripatetic philosophy in particular).

This book sheds light on so many problems and controversies, and also refutes a number of prejudices which weighed on Ibn Taymiyya (including charges exaggerated or even unfounded in most cases "anthropomorphism", actually induced because of his bad terminology, cut off from its definitions and explanations, since just after to use the offending words in question, he refuted the logical implications in terms of interpretation, to give a more orthodox and remote understanding of apparent meaning while saying rely on the apparent meaning; it is because of this contradiction that people accused of anthropomorphism).

In the end, this book is very interesting and detailed, with many useful information. The only complaints we could do about Ibn Taymiyya, would be the fact all want to "conceptualize" while contradicting thereafter (ie it is not possible), then use ambiguous wording and a literal interpretation of ambiguous terms, while wanting to redefine them later (which produces unnecessary complexity) and to reduce everything to "physical", even distort the meaning of this term and introduce several orders in the " physics ", where the realities beyond the scope of physics.

As for the translator's notes, they are usually interesting, rewarding and very useful, even if on "Sufi" remains too vague and gives the impression that the term "Sufi" is already a sign of madness in itself, so that it was used by elite scholars to describe the best of the Muslims after the Companions and where Ibn Taymiyya himself was well praised tasawwuf, authentic Sufis, and where he claimed himself of tasawwuf.