Ibn Taymiyya’s Objection Regarding “ourselves”

Ibn Taymiyya has said regarding “ourselves” (anfusanā) that in the Arabic language it does not mean equal or equivalent, but rather it can be said “yourselves” (anfusakum) or “themselves” (anfusahum) for members of a tribe or community who are coordinated and connected in some matters; or “ourselves” (anfusanā) is said in relation to one another.(708)

He accepts that ʿAlī (a.s.) is an instance of “ourselves” (anfusanā), but maintains that it is not exclusive to him, therefore, being an instance does not establish any distinction, because every individual in relation to their harmonious community is like a self; as in “And when We took a pledge from you: ‘You shall not shed your [own people’s] blood, and you shall not expel your folks from your homes,’ you pledged, and you testify [to this pledge of your ancestors]. Then there you were, killing your folks…”(709) regarding the Children of Israel who are of one race and like each other’s souls, We took a pledge that they should not kill one another and not drive each other from their homeland. About two groups that have no connection with each other and are fighting, it is not said “do not kill yourselves.”

The answer to Ibn Taymiyya’s objection, which his successors have also followed, is that if the word “souls” (anfus) is used in an absolute sense, like in the two mentioned verses and the verse “Now turn penitently to your Maker, and slay [the guilty among] your folks”,(710) it means an absolute tribal connection. In the verse under discussion, if it had said “come, let us call our souls and your souls,” it would have conveyed the same meaning; however, when the closest members of the tribe to a person, like sons and women, are mentioned, and then “souls” is mentioned separately and alongside them, it becomes clear that it does not mean an absolute tribal relationship, because the father-son or father-daughter relationship is among the strongest tribal bonds, and this detailed distinction prevents partnership and shows that the meaning of “souls” (anfus) is not an absolute tribal relationship, otherwise the Prophet (s.a.w.) had an uncle, and an uncle is closer than a cousin; but the Prophet (s.a.w.) did not bring along the likes of ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib.

Ibn Taymiyya has gone to great lengths to justify this point, saying: ʿAbbās was not among the early emigrants, therefore he was not suitable for participation in the mubāhala (“mutual imprecation”), thus the spiritual criterion had an effect, not merely the ancestral relationship like marriage ties, because familial bonds come with one word and go with another, like marriage and divorce.(711)

The answer to Ibn Taymiyya is that ʿAbbās was the uncle of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and had endured many hardships for Islam, yet he was not invited to the scene of mubāhala, therefore the presence of the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) indicates his spiritual proximity to the Messenger of God (s.a.w.).

People like the author of al-Manār who have become captive to Ibn Taymiyya’s ideas, in explaining the verse under discussion which on one hand uses the plural forms “sons” (abnāʾ), “women” (nisāʾ), and “souls” (anfus), and on the other hand, both Shi’i and Sunni believe that the Messenger of God (s.a.w.) only brought Commander of the Faithful (a.s.), Fāṭima al-Zahrāʾ (a.s.), and Ḥasanayn (a.s.) to the scene, say that “ourselves” (anfusanā) means absolute kinship.(712) If “ourselves” (anfusanā) means absolute kinship, why wasn’t ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib invited to the scene of mubāhala? Was it because he was not among the early emigrants? Is being among the earliest and first a condition for presence in the realm of mubāhala?

It becomes clear that “ourselves” (anfusanā) carries its true meaning, which is “ourselves,” and here since the Prophet (s.a.w.) himself is being addressed by God, it means that either you yourself or someone who is at the level of your soul should come to the scene of mubāhala, and someone who is at the level of one’s soul is different from someone who has familial ties, and detail precludes partnership; like “Save yourselves and your families from a Fire” (713) where “self” (nafs) in contrast to “family” (ahl) means the person himself, not just any tribal relationship; unlike verses such as “So when you enter houses, greet yourselves”(714) where the general tribal bond validates the use of the word “self” (nafs).

Note: Detailed responses to such objections are appropriate in thematic exegesis or independent treatises, not in sequential exegesis; however, what was necessary has been considered and will be observed, God willing!