[Trercakaressy]

salaam aleikom brothers, a salafi brother which i had a debate with, is interested in becoming a follower of traditional islam, but he keeps on asking me about ibn arabi, and he has problems for now to accept sunnipaht's stance on ibn arabi, he says ibn arabi has some very strange things like:


http://bewley.virtualave.net/fusus25.html

The consolation of Pharaoh was with the belief gave him when he was drowning. So took him pure and purified. There was no impurity in him since He took him in his belief before he had acquired any wrong actions. Islam effaces what was before it. He made him a sign of His concern so that none might despair of the mercy of ,

for "no one despairs of solace from except for the unbelievers." If Pharaoh been of those who despair, he would not have embarked on belief.

''The consolation of Pharaoh was with the belief Allah gave him when he was drowning. So took him pure and purified'
he told me this stamement was not correct, he refered to:

soerah 11:97 and soerah 11:98 , he sayd pharoah wasnt muslim, he died als kafir.

so whats your opinion brothers and sisters about ibn arabi's statement about pharao, what did scholars say about it, i stay neutral for now, i don't know the meaning of ibn arabi's words.

wa salaam

[avaiptutt]

Ibn `Arabi wrote alot of things people cannot understand. The answer is that whatever is written in the Fusoos that contradicts the Futuhat is superceded by the Futuhat.

There are 2 opinions on such statements by Ibn `Arabi:

1) He wrote them in metaphorical poetic Sufi language that only the `Ullema can understand and thus the laypeople are NOT ALLOWED to read his books because they might become confused.

2) That these were forgeries written into his books and with his name upon them and that he did not really write them.

[jenilopaz]

Ibn `Arabi wrote alot of things people cannot understand. The answer is that whatever is written in the Fusoos that contradicts the Futuhat is superceded by the Futuhat.

There are 2 opinions on such statements by Ibn `Arabi:

1) He wrote them in metaphorical poetic Sufi language that only the `Ullema can understand and thus the laypeople are NOT ALLOWED to read his books because they might become confused.

2) That these were forgeries written into his books and with his name upon them and that he did not really write them.

Excellent post.

[Ngwkgczx]

Syaikh Ahmad ibn Idris (founder of Ahmadiyyah-Idrisiyyah Tariqah) defended Syaikh Ibnu Arabi by saying

"Call the passages (in Ibn Arabi's writings) unbelief - if you are unable to explain or interpret them - but don't call Ibn Arabi an unbeliever, because there is no way you can be positive he was an unbeliever".

The Syaikh then said "Do not forget, may God have mercy on your souls, that some censure Ibn Arabi, whereas others praise him, including the greatest scholars, and acknowledge that he is far greater than they are. Let us avoid commiting a grave error; the best course is to think well of people. For if those you have mentioned have censured him, more people have praised him. A great number of scholars and saints have confirmed him as a reliable authority and have exonerated him of that which he has been accused, not the least among them them Al hafiz as Suyuti who composed concerning him a work which he named "The Awakening of The Dense in Ibn Arabi Defense". We may mention as well Al Qusyairi, Al Barzanji, in one work Ibn Jama'a and the author of Qamus, Muhammad b Ya'qub al Firuzabadi, who even said about him after going on at a great length,

"By God, by God, by God the Great and by the One
Who raised him up as an evidence of Himself and a proof.
What i have said is only part of his virtues;
I add no more lest i should make the list less perfect."

[avaiptutt]

After that I spoke with Shaykh Hisham Ahmad. Of Wahdatu l-Wujoud he said that it was Shirk in Falsafa, but Wahdatu l-Wujoud is not a philosophical concept rather it was an experience in Tasawwuf to be seen in a similar fashion as Fana` Fi-llah. This is not Shirk. However, very few who ascribe to it today take it as an experience only. Ibn al-`Arabi however did, and he was truly Shaykh al-Akbar. He did not ascribe to Ittihad, but problems occured mostly because he was misunderstood. This however did not occur in his lifetime, not a single `Alim that lived in his time criticized him as others after him such as Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya did. This is evidence for him being upon righteousness, mentiones Shaykh Hisham. The problems occured for a few reasons. At first, because unqualified individuals began reading his works and this is something he forbade them. Ibn Taymiyya opposed him after reading his works, of which he took only what was apparent to him. The second reason is because some of his works have been corrupted, thus because of Tahreef things he did not say were ascribed to him by others. `Ulema who are learned in his works have opposed this and demonstrated from his authentic works that such sayings are the result of corruption and cannot be ascribed to Shaykh al-Akbar Muhiyyidin Ibn al-Arabi.

Then I spoke with Shaykh Usama Sabbagh. He said of Ibn al-Arabi that he was Shaykh al-Akbar of Tasawwuf. His works contained difficult words that are used as terminology in Tasawwuf, and he forbade laymen to read his works. I did not further enquire about Wahdatu l-Wujoud because of lack of time, and because it was generally covered already in the mentioning of terminology in Tasawwuf and Shaykh Ibn al-`Arabi. He also mentioned that these topics are not something we should all concern ourselves too much with. The Shaykh gave me his email, he speaks English a lil' so I will invite him to visit the forum sometimes and hopefully he can add anything I may have left out insha'allah.

Finally, I spoke with Shaykh `Ali al-Khalaf. He said that Wahdatu l-Wujoud is a subject that is better left to the `Ulema, because it is very complex and easily misunderstood. Of Ibn al-`Arabi he said that he was Shaykh al-Akbar wa-min al-Salahin. Thus he did not dissaprove of him at all, nor of the experience that he is the best known supporter of.

In summary, they all accept Wahdatu l-Wujoud in Tasawwuf and consider Ibn al-`Arabi to be Shaykh al-Akbar. Hopefully this information will be as beneficial for you as it was for me, insha'allah. I have added the relevant parts in the new thread about Shaykh al-Akbar Muhiyyidin `Ali Ibn al-`Arabi.

http://www.forumforfree.com/forums/i...showtopic=1249

[avaiptutt]

What do the scholars say about Ibn `Arabi? Is he a disbeliever or one of the greatest saints (a
Answered by Shaykh Amjad Rasheed

What do the scholars say about Ibn `Arabi? Is he a disbeliever or one of the greatest saints (awliya)?

Scholars have differed about Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn `Arabi. Some declared him a disbeliever because of what they found in his books, in terms of expressions used that contradict the shari`ah, according to the way they understood it. And others said he was among the greatest saints and righteous and they considered those expressions to be of the terminology of the Sufis without its being contradictory to the shari`ah even though the outward meaning may have seemed as such, but the intended meaning certainly was not.

Many of our realized imams from Ahl al-Sunna, our `Ashari masters such as Shaykh al-Islam Zakariya al-Ansari, who was an imam of the many sciences of theology, tafsir, hadith, fiqh and Arabic have tread the same path, as well as their great students such as the Imam of Egypt, al-Shihab Ahmad al-Ramli and his son, Al-Shams Muhammad al-Shams al-Khatib al-Shirbini and the pillars of the late scholars such as Shaykh al-Islam al-Shihab Ibn Hajar al-Haitami. The latter has elaborated on the issue of al-Shaykh al-Akbar, and has defended him at length in his great work, Al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyah, so whoever wishes may refer to it. (f. There is a short biography about Ibn `Arabi in the Reliance of the Traveler and Shaykh Nuh has written an article about him, that can be found at the website, www.masud.co.uk).

Shaykh al-Islam Zakariya objected, in his book al-Ruddah from “Sharh al-Rawd”, when Imam ibn al-Muqri called Ibn `Arabi and his followers disbelievers, saying, “And it (i.e. Ibn al-Muqri calling Ibn `Arabi a disbeliever) is only according to his understanding, as some of them did from the outward meaning of his sayings. And the truth is that they are [f. the foremost of the] believers and their words are aligned with their terminology like the rest of the Sufis. And these meanings are a reality according to what they intend even if it requires that others need to interpret, for if they only understood the outward, it would entail disbelief. Because words that have particular terminological usages are literal when they are used in their very terminology and are considered to be figurative when used out of their terminology.

Thus, whoever understands it according to its terminology, understands it soundly. And many great scholars, gnostics of Allah, considered Ibn `Arabi to be of foremost believers, among them is Shaykh Taj al-Din ibn Ata’iLlah and Shaykh AbduLlah al-Yafi`i, and this high rank of theirs is not maligned by the outward purport of their words to those who are not Sufis because of what we have just said. Because it may be that when a gnostic of Allah is drowned in the ocean of oneness and beholding of Allah-such that his self vanishes in Allah and his attributes vanish in Allah’s attributes and he is oblivious to anything other than Him-certain expressions may come out in this state, that may seem to indicate hulul and ittihad (indwelling and union with Allah [s. see Reliance of the Traveler w7.1] ) because of the deficiency of language to express the state that he has risen to, rather it has nothing to do with those two things, as the erudite scholar al-Sa`d al-Taftazani has said.”

This is some of what the scholars have said about Shaykh Muhyi al-Din ibn Arabi. And it is my belief, and it is the belief of my shaykhs, realized men in the spiritual path following in the footsteps of realized scholars of the Sacred Law that I mentioned and others, also, that: that Shaykh Muhyi al-Din is among the Imams of our noble Sufis and that his words that appear in discussions of Sufism are completely in line with their terminology without them being meant as hulul or ittihad (indwelling and union with Allah) of the creation with the Creator nor the opposite, and without any negation of responsibility for the morally responsible.

A person who doesn’t tread the spiritual path with a shaykh who is knowledgeable, who acts upon his knowledge and is realized in Allah should be warned of going near the books of the Shaykh, such as the Futuhat, because those who are not familiar with their terminology, in most cases, will be misled by the outward purport of his words. So he would either believe in something false that wasn’t even intended, or he would deny [f. and condemn] their true spiritual experiences that are not contradictory to the shari`ah. And it is also unfit for those who are not known of being of sound Sufism to speak the words of the Sufis unless by way of ascribing them [s. those words] to the Sufis, and without believing just the outward meaning of their words, as has been stated by Ibn Hajar in the Tuhfa, in the chapter of apostasy.

And the questioner should know that no one has the knowledge of what is in people’s hearts nor the ends of their works except Allah. And having a better opinion is (husn al-dhann) that our Imams said what they said about Shaykh Ibn `Arabi, in praise or blame, only to serve the deen in what seemed correct to them. Also, the one thing that our imams do agree upon is that it is haram to believe any false belief that may seem to be indicated by the words of Shaykh Muhyi al-Deen and others.

And those whose faith is established, we don’t declare them disbelievers, except with certainty. And the basis that is used regarding apostasy is that whoever says something whose outward is disbelief, but may carry some meaning that could be interpreted otherwise, he is not declared a disbeliever until it is confirmed what he intended by it, [f. and that he actually intended disbelief]. And we have seen that great imams of verification have explicitly stated Ibn `Arabi’s high rank after having thorough knowledge of what he said. And they considered those words that were open to interpretation to be in accordance with the terminology of the Sufis, such that those words were not intended as disbelief.

And Allah knows best the truth and unto Him is the return and the final abode.

- Amjad Rasheed

(Translated by Sr. Shazia Ahmad, with notes from Faraz Rabbani’s recorded translation)

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...D=3863&CATE=22

[propolo]

Assalamu 'Alaykum,

There is an excellent new translation of Ibn 'Arabi's Fusus al-hikam by Caner K. Dagli entitled "The Ringstones of Wisdom." He makes use of some valuable commentaries to help explain the meaning of certain difficult passages, such as 'Abd al-Razzaq al-Kashani's Sharh fusus al-hikam and Dawud al-Qaysari's Matla' khusus al-kilam fi ma'ani fusus al-hikam.

If intellectually minded Muslims are not allowed to fill their philosophical and theological voids with the gnostic teachings of scholars such as Ibn 'Arabi and Mulla Sadra, they will fill it with modern and post-modern "philosophical" non-sense, as we have seen in the West.

If a particular Shaykh tells his students not to approach Ibn 'Arabi that is fine. One should follow his murshid. But these rulings do not apply to all Muslims, or those in other turuq, where reading the texts of Ibn Arabi is encouraged. It is like making a universal fatwa against his texts. Who has such authority?

It is fine to judge the veracity of various interpretations, but incorrect to steer people away from his work.

wa salam,
Abu Abdallah

[XzBZB2UV]

salaam aleikom brothers, a salafi brother which i had a debate with, is interested in becoming a follower of traditional islam, but he keeps on asking me about ibn arabi, and he has problems for now to accept sunnipaht's stance on ibn arabi, he says ibn arabi has some very strange things like:



he told me this stamement was not correct, he refered to:

soerah 11:97 and soerah 11:98 , he sayd pharoah wasnt muslim, he died als kafir.

so whats your opinion brothers and sisters about ibn arabi's statement about pharao, what did scholars say about it, i stay neutral for now, i don't know the meaning of ibn arabi's words.

wa salaam

Now what about the reference of Jibril who stuffed the mud down the Firaun throat for fear of Firaun receiving any mercy from Allah.

Also what did the other scholars of Islam have to say about the outcome of Firaun? Are they in acceptance that Firaum died upon disbelief? Refer back to the text

[avaiptutt]

Fir`awn died on disbelief - I thought this was AGREED upon.

[XzBZB2UV]

Fir`awn died on disbelief - I thought this was AGREED upon.

Exactly the concept I had in mind as well brother Omar. Also can it be stated that Ibn Arabi was wrong on this 'assumption', or was it that his documents was 'forged'.

[avaiptutt]

Exactly the concept I had in mind as well brother Omar. Also can it be stated that Ibn Arabi was wrong on this 'assumption', or was it that his documents was 'forged'.

Either they were forged or taken out of context as a metaphorical meaning of something which only extremely qualified people can explain.

Another possibility is that he wrote that first, then he wrote the Futuhat and changed his beliefs.

But of all the possibilities I think that it is:

A metaphorical meaning of something taken out of context which only extremely qualified people can explain - and it does not contradict the `Aqeedah of Ahlul Sunnah that Fir`awn died on disbelief.

And Allah knows best,

[XzBZB2UV]

Either they were forged or taken out of context as a metaphorical meaning of something which only extremely qualified people can explain.

Brother, IMHO I feel something is being left out due to the fact that it was documented that it came from, does any one have any information from him that he recanted these statements?

[Trercakaressy]

thx Omar, for your great effort,

i think the same as you, also what does ibn arabi mean with 'purified' etc. it doens't have to mean that he (pharao) was suddenly a muslim, maybe he was purifief from his arrogance of evil, when he became to realize (the pharoa) that he was wrong, but his repentence was too late , however it could be that his mind was purified etc.

there can be many ways to interpretate ibn arabi's statement, i;'m interested in his works now , but i will focuss better on islam in general since i'm quit new in islam.

wa salaam

[incimisiche]

He wrote them in metaphorical poetic Sufi language that only the `Ullema can understand and thus the laypeople are NOT ALLOWED to read his books because they might become confused.

i cant help but to feel very uncomfortable with this stance, sometimes this arguement is used in cases where im like, COME ON. if someone writes 2+2=5 he is not talking in some metaphorical mathmeticians language that only they understand, no he is just dead wrong.

besides i remember a hadith that says a muslims speech is supposed to be clear and unambiguous

[Trercakaressy]

shayk g.f. haddad comments:



Ibn Arabi, The Controversy Surrounding Him


The name of Ibn 'Arabi remains associated with controversy because of those who criticized him severely for the work attributed to him under the title Fusus al-Hikam ("The Precious Stones of the Wisdoms").
The attribution of this work in its present form to Ibn 'Arabi is undoubtedly incorrect as the Fusus contradicts some of the most basic tenets of Islam expounded by Ibn 'Arabi himself in his authentic works, such as the finality of Prophethood, the primacy of Prophets over non-Prophets, the abrogation of all religious creeds other than Islam, the everlastingness of the punishment of Hellfire and its dwellers, the abiding therein of anyone that does not accept the Prophet after his coming, Pharaoh's damnation, etc.

Nevertheless the Fusus have received commentaries by the following scholars among others: Sadr al-Din al-Qunawi (d. 671), 'Afif al-Din al-Tilimsani (d. 690), Mu'ayyid al-Din al-Jundi (d. 700), Sa'd al-Din al-Farghani (d. 700), Kamal al-Din al-Zamalkani (d. 727), Dawud al-Qaysari (d. 751), Kamal al-Din al-Qashani (d. 751), Sayyid 'Ali al-Hamadani (d. 766), Khwaja Muhammad Parsa (d. 822) the intimate friend of Shah Naqshband -- Allah be well-pleased with him --, Mawlana Jami (d. 898), Isma'il al-Anqarawi (d. 1042), 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (d. 1144), and others.


source:

http://www.livingislam.org/n/iarabi_e.html

[occurrini]

As'salamu 'alaykum,

I didn't read this post because I assumed that it was about another statement about Firawn that comes from the Fusus, but I'm glad my curiosity got the better of me. Shaykh Muhyiddin ibn al-Arabi was a mujtahid in several fields of knowledge. It was possible that he expressed some things that were incorrect. I think that people tend to over react in defense (and critique) of Ibn al-`Arabi and thus the impression is given that his defenders believe that every single thing that he ever uttered was true. It was possible that he made mistakes like others made mistakes.

The only difference is that when Ibn al-`Arabi uttered something that might be a mistake, people holler "kufr", but when someone like Ibn Taymiyyah did the same, "Everyone's words are measured against the Qur'an and Sunnah" and he is excused. People undoubtably misunderstand him, especially those who have aligned themselves against tasawwuf as a conviction, but not everything that he said can or should be explained away as being a false attribution.

I'd be interested to see both what Mahmud Ghurab says about the probable authencity of this passage, as well as what the traditional commentaries say about it before I dismiss it as a Jewish conspiracy.

There is a statement in the Qur'an that implies that Pharoah accepted Musa's nabuwwa and what is entailed thereby, prior to being drowned. Ibn al-Arabi was a master in Arabic, far beyond most scholars of today. Much of his beliefs come purely from the Arabic language, which is something that no reasonable person can condemn him for. Perhaps he joined between the verses in Surah al-Hud, the verse that states that no amount of good will go unrewarded, and the verse that states he submitted prior to dying. I do not believe that anyone was suggesting that Ibn al-Arabi said he was rightly-guided. Rather, all he seems to assert is that he repented, even though he lead his people to ruin. Ibn al-Arabi, by his statement, seems to be joining all the verses together in a more wholistic manner, including that about people who prop themselves up as taghoot, is their repetence not accepted?

Even if he is wrong, the verse is there and to assert that he was a kafir, or that this idea is kufr, is a wee bit extreme don't you think? Especially by people who demand that the Qur'an and ahadith always be understood according to the dhahir, which was Ibn al-`Arabi's madhhab. He has been described affectionaly as a Salafi by scholars who support him, and based on the little bit that I have read that has been directly translated from the Futuhat, that is not farfetched. The man considered it haram to paint flowers for God's sake. . .

What what do I know? I'm nobody important. Allah be well pleased with him and with us.

[santorio]

Assalamu alaikum!

Regarding Ibn Arabi and Firawn, It is said that Ibn Arabi held Firawn to be a Kafir in his later work Futuhat al-Makkiyya. How far is it true? This is what the person said in FB, and i dont understand arabic!


قال الشيخ ابن عربي في الباب الثاني والستين من الفتوحات المكية: بأن فرعون من أهل النار الذين لا يخرجون منها أبد الآبدين والفتوحات آخر مؤلفاته فإنه فرغ منها قبل موته بنحو ثلاث سنين

And the same is said here - Controversy over Ibn `Arabi's Fusus: The Faith of Pharaoh.

Ali al-Qari states that ibn arabi himself in the sixty second chapter of Futuhat mentioned Pharaoh along with Nimrud as one of the sinners who claimed lordship for themselves and are in hellfire eternally. It is Ali al-Qari's opinion that Ibn Arabi did not contradict this correct view in Fusus, but only meant that the proof of Pharaoh's infidelity appears less then decisive. Its in the 7th page of the paper. The words of Ali al-Qari is in his treatise on Pharaoh's faith Iman Firawn wa al-Radd alaihi li al-allamah
Ali ibn Sulan Muhammad al-Qari as claimed by the author of the paper.

can anyone clarify this?