The UC Santa Barbara Undergraduate Journal of History

ABSTRACT: Authority is a frequent topic of analysis when discussing the works of Mamluk era jurists Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim. The common interpretation of their views is one of authoritarian control. Some previous works have argued that both authors were in favor of expansive government that regulates all aspects of society absolutely. However this minimizes the nuance in their opinions, as well as perpetuates the idea that Ibn al-Qayyim was simply a copy or imitation of his teacher, Ibn Taymiyya. Each author tackled the issue in their own way with Ibn al-Qayyim more readily discussing and critiquing authority in academia. They often did share opinions with some key differences, namely in the extent to which the word of authority was to be adhered to. In a broader sense, they both did take hard stances on the role of authority, and advocated for its expansion, however neither author was in favor of a state with absolute control. Instead they offered a view of authority that was supposed to adhere to Shari’a as much as it was to enforce it. In their mind society would be chaos without authority, and authority that didn’t follow Shari’a ideals was incapable of properly running society.