Konsep Moderasi Beragama dalam Pemikiran Ibnu Taimiyah: Analisis terhadap Majmu‘ al-Fatāwā

Abstract

Contemporary discussions of religious moderation create a need to revisit conceptual resources in the classical Islamic tradition without equating historical categories with current policy frameworks. This study analyzes the construction of balance and proportional religious conduct in Ibn Taymiyyah’s thought, identifies its normative principles in dealing with ghuluw, disagreement, and religious conflict, and critically positions those principles within contemporary religious moderation discourse. The study employs a qualitative library-research design with textual-interpretive and qualitative content analysis of Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā as the primary source and academic literature as supporting sources. Data are analyzed through meaning-unit identification, thematic coding, categorization, cross-text comparison, and conceptual synthesis. The findings indicate that moderation can be reconstructed through four interrelated elements: wasat as an orientation toward balance; i‘tidāl and iqtiṣād as principles of proportionality; rejection of ghuluw and tafrīṭ as mechanisms for controlling excess and neglect; and justice and caution in responding to disagreement. The study argues that moderation in Ibn Taymiyyah’s framework is neither relativism nor unlimited compromise, but the placement of belief, judgment, communication, and action within normative limits and contextual demands. Its contribution lies in reconstructing moderation from the internal structure of Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā rather than labeling Ibn Taymiyyah as a moderate figure. The framework may enrich Islamic Religious Education by grounding religious moderation in proportional reasoning, contextual reading, and critical engagement with disagreement.