[inhitoemits]

nice article on Ibn Arabi.
http://www.livingislam.org/n/iarabi_e.html#up-n1-1

[inhitoemits]

From another article on why some people have misunderstood and misrepresented Ibn Arabi -

Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, in his translation of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri’s “Umdat al-salik,” explains Ibn al-‘Arabi’s background and elaborates on why some people have misunderstood and misrepresented his true position:

“Muyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi is Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-‘Arabi, Abu Bakr Muhyi al-Din al-Hatimi al-Ta’i, The Greatest Sheikh (al-Shaykh al-Akbar), born in Murcia (in present-day Spain) in 560/1165. A “mujtahid” Imam in Sacred Law, Sufism, Qur’anic exegesis, hadith, and other Islamic sciences, and widely regarded as a friend (wali) of Allah Most High, he was the foremost representative of the Sufi school of the “oneness of being” (wahdat al-wujud), as well as a Muslim of strict literal observance of the prescriptions of the Qur’an and sunna. He first took they way of Sufism in A.H. 580, and in the years that followed authored some 600 books and treatises in the course of travels and residences in Fez, Tunis, Alexandria, Cairo, Mecca, Baghdad, Mosul, Konya, Aleppo, and finally Damascus, where he lived till the end of his life and completed his “al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya” [The Meccan Revelations] and “Fusus al-Hikam” [The Precious Stones of the ring-settings of the Wisdoms]. Since interest in his work continues among even non-Muslim scholars, a number of hermeneutical obstacles are worth mentioning here that have in some measure so far hindered serious efforts to understand the Sheikh’s works, by friend and foe alike.

The first lack of common ground with the author, who has written,

“We are a group whose works are unlawful to peruse, since the Sufis, one and all, use terms in technical senses by which they intend other than what is customarily meant by their usage among scholars, and those who interpret them according to their usual significance commit unbelief.”

While this may not be particularly intimidating to someone who is already an unbeliever, it does at least implicitly deny the validity of a do-it- yourself approach to the Sheikh’s thought and point up the relevance of the traditional maxim,

'Knowledge is to be taken from those who possess it.'

A related difficulty is that the context of much of Ibn al-‘Arabi’s “Futuhat” and other works is not only the outward Islamic sciences, but also their inner significance, not by any means an “esoteric symbolism” that nullifies the outward content of the Sheikh’s inquiries, but a dimension of depth, a reflective counterpart to their this-worldly significance whose place and existential context is the world of the spirit, to which the physical universe—in which many of his would-be interpreters are firmly enmeshed and know nothing besides, especially those who are atheists—is like a speck of dust in the sea. While the present discussion cannot adequately do justice to the topic, one may yet observe that the heart of someone familiar only with the “What will I eat,” “What will I say,” “Will it prove feasible,” and other physical and intellectual relations of instrumentality that make up this world is no more capable of real insight into the world of someone like the Sheikh than a person inches away from a giant picture is capable of “seeing” the picture he believes is “before his very eyes.” The way of Ibn al-‘Arabi is precisely a “way,” and if one has not traveled it or been trained to see as Ibn al-‘Arabi sees, one may well produce intelligent remarks about one’s perceptions of the matter, as attested to by a whole literature of “historical studies” of Sufism, but the fact remains that one does not see.

A third difficulty is the problem of spurious interpolations by copyists, as once happened to ‘Abd al-Wahhab Sha‘rani, who had to bring his own handwritten manuscript to court to prove he was innocent of the unbelief that enemies had inserted into his work and published in his name. The “Hashiya” of Ibn ‘Abidin notes that this has also happened to the “Fusus al- Hikam” of Ibn al-‘Arabi, the details being given in a promulgation by the Supreme Ottoman Sultanate exonerating the author of the statements of unbelief (kufr) it said that it was interpolated into the work. This is supported by the opinion of Mahmud Mahmud Ghurab, an Ibn al-‘Arabi specialist of Damascus who has published more than twelve books on the Sheikh’s thought, among them “al-Fiqh ‘ind al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi” [Sacred Law According to the Greatest Sheikh, Muhyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi], which clarifies Ibn al-‘Arabi’s position as a Zahiri Imam and mujtahid in Sacred Law; and “Sharh Fusus al-Hikam” [Exegesis of “The Precious Stones of the ring-settings of the Wisdoms], in which Ghurab indicates eighty-six passages of the “Fusus” that he believes are spurious, adducing that they contradict the letter and spirit of “al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya,” which must be given precedence because we possess a manuscript copy in the author’s own handwriting, while there are no such copies of the “Fusus.”

One may summarize the above-mentioned difficulties and others by the general observation that without a master with whom to read these texts, someone who has himself read them with a teacher aware of their place in the whole of the Sheikh’s work, one is in danger of projecting one’s own limitations onto the author. This happens in our times to various groups of interpreters, among them non-Muslim “sufis” who have posthumously made Ibn al-‘Arabi an "honorary syncretist", saying that he believed all religions to be equally valid and acceptable—which Ghurab says is an ignorant misreading, and to which the Sheikh himself furnishes a sufficient reply in his account of his convictions (‘aqida) at the first of the “Futuhat” where he says,

“Just as I charge Allah, His angels, His entire creation, and all of you to bear witness upon me that I affirm His Unity, so too I charge Him Most Glorious, His angels, His entire creation, and all of you to bear witness upon me that I believe in the one He has elected, chosen, and selected from all His existence, Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace, who He hassent to all mankind entirely (ila jami’ al-nas kaffatan) to bring good tidings and to warn and to call to Allah by His leave” (“al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya”).

Other interpreters who commit errors are well-meaning Muslims who do not and cannot understand the Sheikh’s words, which they read in their native Arabic as if it were a newspaper and then level accusations of unbelief against the author on the basis of what comes to their minds while doing so. For all groups of interpreters, there is a pressing need for scholarly modesty and candor about our exegetical limitations, and to draw attention to the fact that without a guide in reading the Sheikh’s thought, one is adrift in a sea of one’s own guesswork.

Aside from these basic hermeneutic requirements for reading the work of Ibn al-‘Arabi, other, existential qualifications are needed, for as mentioned above, the Sheikh’s method is a way, and as such entails not only curiosity, but commitment and most of all submission to Allah Most High as the Sheikh had submission to Him, namely through Islam—as well as other conditions mentioned by Ibn Hajar Haytami in a legal opinion in which, after noting that it is permissible or even meritorious (mustahabb) to read the Sheikh’s works, but only for the qualified, he writes:

“Imam Ibn al-‘Arabi has explicitly stated:

‘It is unlawful to read [the Sufis’] books unless one attains to their level of character and learns the meaning of their words in conformity with their technical usages, neither of which is found except in someone who has worked assiduously, rolled up his sleeves, abandoned the wrong, tightened his belt, filled himself replete with the outward Islamic sciences, and purified himself from every low trait connected with this world and the next. It is just such a person who comprehends what is being said and is allowed to enter when he stands at the door’.”

The Sheikh outlines what is entailed by “working assiduously” in a series of injunctions (wasaya) at the end of his “Futuhat” that virtually anyone can benefit from, and by which one may infer some of the outward details of the Sheikh’s way. By all accounts, he lived what he wrote in this respect, and his legacy bears eloquent testimony to it. He died in his home in Damascus, a copy of Ghazali’s “Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din” on his lap, in 638/1240.”

One can see that Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi was a great saint of Islam who adhered to the footsteps of the pious salaf us-salih. Unfortunately, many Muslims quote from non-Muslim sources and orientalist translators like William C. Chittick and Peter Lamborn Wilson to accuse Ibn al-‘Arabi of heresy. The ulema of Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jamma’ praised Ibn al-‘Arabi very much, and continue to praise him until this day.

[VrQsgM7c]

Man please leave him alone. HE's been discussed millions of times!

[inhitoemits]

Numberless Sunni Ulema call Sidi Muhiddin “Shaykh al-Akbar”, praise and defend him, among which: Shaykh ‘Abdu-r-Razaq al-Kashani (Ta’wilat), Shaykh Sadru-d-Din al-Qunawi (Sharh Fusus al-Hikam), Jalalu-d-Din Rumi (Mathnawi and Diwan), Fakhru-d-Din al-Hamadani (Rub‘iyyat) Ibnu-l-Farid al-Misri (Ghazal), Mahmud Shahristani (Ghulshan-e Raz), ‘Abdu-l-Karim al-Jili (Al-Insan al-Kamil), Ibn Hamzah al-Fanari (Miftah al-Uns), Nuru-d-Din Jami (Nafahat al-Uns), Imam Rabbani (Maktubat, expecially letter 55 & 163, Muntahabat, Ta’idu Ahl as-Sunnah, and Ithbat an-Nubuwwah), Khalid al-Baghdadi (Ihtiqad-Nama, and Risalah fi Tahqiq ar-Rabitah), ‘Abdu-l-Ghani an-Nablusi (Fayd al-Muqbas, and Khulasah at-Tahqiq), Khwaja Muhammad Hasan Khan (Al-Usul al-Arba’h), Yusuf an-Nabhani (Khulasah al-Kalam, Hujjat-Ullahi ‘ala al-‘Alamin, and Shawaiq al-Haqq), Malik ibn Shaykh Dawud (Haqiqah al-Islamiyyah fi Raddi ‘ala al-Mazhaim al-Wahhabiyyah), Muhammad Hayat Sindi (Risalah Ghayah at- Tahqiq), Omar Nasfi (‘Aqaid an-Nasafiyyah), Shah Ghulam ‘Ali Dehlawi (Mukatib as-Sharifah), Ahmad Waliyy-Ullah Dehlawi (Al-Insaf, Ikd al-Jayyid, and Al-Mikyas), Ahmad Ibn Zayni Dahlan (Futuhat al-Islamiyyah, and Khulasah al-Kalam), Jajalu-d-Din as-Suyuti (Karasatu-t-Tanwir), Sulayman Ibn ‘Abdi-l-Wahhab (As-Shawaiq al-Ilahiyyah), Fadli-r-Rasul (Sayf al-Jabbar), the Egyptian Jami’at al-Madari (Nahs as-Sawiyyi fi Raddi ‘ala Sayyid Qutb wa Faisal Mawlawi), Ahmed Rida Khan Berlewi (Fatawah al-Haramayn), Siraju-Din ‘Ali Ushi (Nukbat al-Laali), Abu Muhammad al-Wailturi (Fatawah ‘Ulama’ al-Hind), Qadi Habib al-Haqq Permuli (Tanqid wa Tardid), Tahir Muhammad (Zahirat al-Fiqh al-Kubra), Muhammad Rebhami (Riyad an-Nasihin), Muhammad Yusuf al-Banuri (Al-Ustadh Mawdudi and Kashf as-Sublah), Sa‘id ar-Rahman at-Tirahi (Habl al-Matin), Muhammad Bawa Wiltori (Hidayah al-Muwaffiqin), ‘Abdu-l-Wahhab as-Shahrani (Tadhkirah al-Awliyyah, and Mizan al-Kubra) Mudarris Hamid-Ullah Najwi (Al-Basayr li-l-Munkir at-Tawassuli bi-Ahl al-Maqabir), Muhammad Khadimi (Al-Bariqah), Muhammad Birjiwi (Tariqah al-Muhammadiyyah), ‘Abdu-r-Rahman Kutti (Sabil an-Najat), Rauf Ahmad Mujaddid (Durr al-Ma’arif), Dawud ibn Said Sulayman (Al-Mihah al-Wahbiyyah), Dawud al-Musawi al-Baghdadi (Ashadd al-Jihad) Mahmud Effendi al-Alusi (Kashf an-Nur), Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdi-Lllah al-Khani (Al-Bahjah as-Saniyyah), Hasan Dhu Zajwa’i at-Turki (Ir‘am al-Murid), Hajj Ibrahim Yare as-Somali (Tarbiyyah ar-Rabbaniyyah), Shaykh Ibrahim al-Ahmadi al-Idris (Azhimah al-Qadr), Mo’allim Hussein al-Badawi as-Siddiqi (Kalimat al-Muhlasin), Ahmad ‘Ali al-Layji al-Katibi as-Shahir (Fajr as-Sadiq), ‘Abdu-l-Hakim al-Arwasi (Sa‘adah al-Abadiyyah, with tafsir by Shaykh Hilmi ‘Ishiq), Zahir Shah Ibn ‘Abdi-l-‘Azhim Miyanu-d-Din (Diya’ as-Sudur), Mustafa Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hasan al-Shati al-Hanbali (Nuqul as-Shari‘ah), Muhammad Najib al-Mati‘i al-Hanafi (Tathir al-Fu’ad), Taqiyyu-d-Din ‘Ali as-Sabaki (Shifa’ as-Siqam, and Intisar al-Awliyya’ ar-Rahman), Effendi Sadiq az-Zahawi (Fajru-s-Sadiq), Sulayman Islambuli (Miftah al-Falaq, and Khutbatu ‘Id al-Fitr), ‘Abdu-l-Majid Ibn Muhammad al-Khani (Sa’adah al-Abadiyyah), ‘Ali Muhammad al-Balkhi (Al-Hadiqah an-Nadiyya), Muhammad Mahbubu-l-Haqq Ansari (Hujjah al-Qati’ah), Qasim Ibn Qatalubgha’ al-Hanafi al-Bankoghi (Nur al-Yaqin), Qadi Habibu-l-Haqq Firmulewi (Dalayl al-Hujjaj), Ibn Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari, (Hikam, Lataif al-minan fi manaqibi Abi ‘Abbas wa Shaykhihi Abi Hasan, Miftah al-Falah wa Misbah al-Anwar, and Kitab at-Tanwir fi Isqah at-Tadbir), ‘Aziz Ahmad (Ta‘lim as-Shaykh Ahmad as-Sirhindi), Al-Aflaki (Manaqib al-‘Arifin), Muhammad ‘Abdu-l-Qayyum al-Qadiri al- Hazarawi (At-Tawassul bi-n-Nabi wa as-Salihin), Muhammad Hafiz at-Tijani (Ahl al-Haqq al-‘Arifun bi-Llah), ‘Abdu-s-Samad at-Tijani (Allah wa al-Rakam Sitta wa Sittin), and many others.

[inhitoemits]

Man please leave him alone. HE's been discussed millions of times!

ok, Maulana, I will stop here. I only wanted to help any confused sincerefriends to clear some of their doubts. May Allah guide.

[Beatris]

If those words are not his, then why is it that some who have written commentaries on them from among those who ascribe themselves to the religion of Islam have agreed with them as per they are written? Abdur-Rahman al-Jami being the most prominent that I am aware of.

Why is the Fusus translated into English if it is spurious- and the offending sections of idol-worship are translated as well?

[inhitoemits]

If those words are not his, then why is it that some who have written commentaries on them from among those who ascribe themselves to the religion of Islam have agreed with them as per they are written? Abdur-Rahman al-Jami being the most prominent that I am aware of.

Why is the Fusus translated into English if it is spurious- and the offending sections of idol-worship are translated as well?

Brother plese did you read the entire articles in both my posts?

[VrQsgM7c]

My understanding is that both We (deobandis) and Salafis are correct in our views.

1) We say that whatever Ibn Arabi (RA) said was in a state of jazb OR it has different meanings than what is apparent.

2) Salafis go by his apparent meanings and say he was a mushrik.

I think both will be accepted by Allah.

Simple.

[Beatris]

I've read both of those previously, Nuh Keller's from the index of Reliance and Haddad's from his 'Biographies' section. However, they do not answer the question I posed.

1) Since the words of Ibn Arabi are disbelief, why are they translated, including the words that are supposedly interpolated and spurious?
2) Why have commentaries been authored on the Fusus by people agreeing with those words and saying things like 'Worship of the calf is worship of Allah because Allah has an aspect in every worshipped thing?'

[inhitoemits]

I've read both of those previously, Nuh Keller's from the index of Reliance and Haddad's from his 'Biographies' section. However, they do not answer the question I posed.

1) Since the words of Ibn Arabi are disbelief, why are they translated, including the words that are supposedly interpolated and spurious?
2) Why have commentaries been authored on the Fusus by people agreeing with those words and saying things like 'Worship of the calf is worship of Allah because Allah has an aspect in every worshipped thing?'

who r the translators u r referrimg to?

[Beatris]

On Amislam.com, all translated by Aisha Bewley.

Including passages like:

The people of Muhammad came and knew what the call to Allah was in respect of its He-ness, rather what it is in respect to His Names. Allah says, "The day those who are godfearing are gathered to the All-Merciful." (13) So He used the "particle of the end" (ilâ - to) and joined it to that Name, and we recognise that the universe is under the care of a Divine Name which requires them to be among the "godfearing". The reality of taqwâ (14) is that man avoids ascribing blessings, perfections and praiseworthy attributes to himself or to others, except for Allah. He fears Allah through His acts and attributes. These things are evils from the spring of possibilities. They said in their plotting, "Do not abandon your gods. Do not abandon Wadd or Suwa' or Yaghuth or Ya'uq or Nasr." (71:22) Then they abandoned them ignorant of the Truth according to what they left of the idols. Allah has an aspect in every worshipped thing. Whoever recognises it, recognises, and whoever is ignorant of it is ignorant among the people of Muhammad. Your Lord decreed that you should worship only Him * that is the judgement of your Lord. If the passages are interpolated and spurious, why are they being translated by Aisha Bewley into English- might I add, she studied Ibn Arabi' under a scholar? Why are they commented on and agreed with in commentaries?

[antipenq]

My understanding is that both We (deobandis) and Salafis are correct in our views.

1) We say that whatever Ibn Arabi (RA) said was in a state of jazb OR it has different meanings than what is apparent.

2) Salafis go by his apparent meanings and say he was a mushrik.

I think both will be accepted by Allah.

Simple.

Assalam O Alaikum wr wb

1.If a Hindu claims that Adi Shankara (a Wahdat ul wujoodi mythologist of Hindu tradition) was a monotheist in his heart but he was in the state of 'Jazb' while he was presenting his arguments for pantheism , what will you tell him?

2.Any text can be interpreted in any way in the light of subjective thoughts and preconceived notions if one stops taking the apparent meanings. (As Iqbal says that whenever you see a person starts doing esoteric interpretation of some texts,rest assured that he does not want to understand it or act on it)

3.Sharia has to deal with the Dhahir and a Hukam applies to the Dhahiri state. A faqih never deals with the internal state of the object (may be because even logically it will be a violation of Occam's Razor) while giving a fatwa.

4.So whoever did his Takfeer was perfectly justified in doing so.

[antipenq]

Ibn Arabi says in Fas al Mosaviyya that Pheron was justified in saying "Iam your lord most high"

"since all are lords, (25) I am the highest of them through the power which you have outwardly given me over you. The sorcerers knew that he spoke the truth in what he said, and they did not deny it. They affirmed that to Pharaoh, and said, "You only judge in this passing life, so judge as you like, for the kingdom is yours." So the statement of Pharaoh, "I am your Lord most high," (Ana Rabakum A'alaa) was valid. Although the source is from Allah, the form is Pharaoh's. He cut off the hands and feet, and crucified through a real source in false form in order to attain the ranks which are only attained by that act.

http://www.amislam.com/fusus.htm (The same can be found in Abdul Qadeer Siddiqqu's urdu translation of Fasus)

Allah in Quran says that when Pheron uttered these words ,Allah seized him with huge punishment
(٢٠) فَكَذَّبَ وَعَصَىٰ (٢١) ثُمَّ أَدۡبَرَ يَسۡعَىٰ (٢٢) فَحَشَرَ فَنَادَىٰ (٢٣) فَقَالَ أَنَا۟ رَبُّكُمُ ٱلۡأَعۡلَىٰ (٢٤) فَأَخَذَهُ ٱللَّهُ نَكَالَ ٱلۡأَخِرَةِ وَٱلۡأُولَىٰٓ .
I would like to know how can these words of Ibn Arabi be interpreted in any other way?

Ibn Arabi says Pharoh was saved

"The consolation of Pharaoh was with the belief Allah gave him when he was drowning. So Allah 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 Allah, for "no one despairs of solace from Allah except for the unbelievers." (12:87)"

http://www.amislam.com/fusus.htm

Allah says in Quran
وَلَقَدۡ أَرۡسَلۡنَا مُوسَىٰ بِـَٔايَـٰتِنَا وَسُلۡطَـٰنٍ۬ مُّبِينٍ (٩٦) إِلَىٰ فِرۡعَوۡنَ وَمَلَإِيْهِۦ فَٱتَّبَعُوٓاْ أَمۡرَ فِرۡعَوۡنَ*ۖ وَمَآ أَمۡرُ فِرۡعَوۡنَ بِرَشِيدٍ۬ (٩٧) يَقۡدُمُ قَوۡمَهُ ۥ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ فَأَوۡرَدَهُمُ ٱلنَّارَ*ۖ وَبِئۡسَ ٱلۡوِرۡدُ ٱلۡمَوۡرُودُ

"He (Pheron) will go ahead of his people on the Day of Resurrection, and will lead them into the Fire, and evil indeed is the place to which they are led.) This will be the condition of those who were followed. They will have a great share of the punishment on the Day of Resurrection. This is as Allah says"

What second interpretation against Quran can one even think of applying to the words of Ibn Arabi?

(The original Arabic quotations can be read here on page 201,211) http://www.scribd.com/doc/25356404/A...ikam-Ibn-Arabi

[antipenq]

In Arabi is controversial specially when people missunderstand his writing and the extrimist use his saying to justify the miss-deed. So scholars of the past based on their reading passed fatwa against him. So it is foolish to read his book and more so to study his materials unless one is equipped with a capeble scholar of Shariah and Tassawuf.
Allahualam

What do you mean by controversial? I have presented two quotations from Fasus al hikam , kindly give me its correct understanding. Who passed fatwa regarding reading his books? Why are his books being published even now if such a fatwa was passed and why did Nuh Keller thought of writing "understanding" Ibn Arabi?

[Slonopotam845]

As-Salamu ´Alaykum,

Dr.Ati As has already been mentioned in the thread, some ´ulama were, and are of the opinion that there has been additions to the original, and it is therefore not written by Shaykh ibn ´Arabi, quddisa sirrahu 'l-´aziz. Reading the Shaykh's writing with insight, and such insight is granted by Allah alone, one will find that there is a tremendous amount of benefit in them. Is there is a possibility that he made a mistake? Yes, of course. And if he did, may Allah forgive him. But it doesn't mean that he (quddisa sirrahu 'l-´aziz) intended what YOU see when YOU read it. Whatever he has said can be explained as to be in accordance with the Qur'an without much difficulty, if he indeed did write those passages in the first place.

The leading Sufis have always accepted him as a Wali...

wa'Llahu a'lam
wassalam

[Beatris]

The people of Muhammad came and knew what the call to Allah was in respect of its He-ness, rather what it is in respect to His Names. Allah says, "The day those who are godfearing are gathered to the All-Merciful." (13) So He used the "particle of the end" (ilâ - to) and joined it to that Name, and we recognise that the universe is under the care of a Divine Name which requires them to be among the "godfearing". The reality of taqwâ (14) is that man avoids ascribing blessings, perfections and praiseworthy attributes to himself or to others, except for Allah. He fears Allah through His acts and attributes. These things are evils from the spring of possibilities. They said in their plotting, "Do not abandon your gods. Do not abandon Wadd or Suwa' or Yaghuth or Ya'uq or Nasr." (71:22) Then they abandoned them ignorant of the Truth according to what they left of the idols. Allah has an aspect in every worshipped thing. Whoever recognises it, recognises, and whoever is ignorant of it is ignorant among the people of Muhammad. Your Lord decreed that you should worship only Him * that is the judgement of your Lord. Please reconcile the statement 'Allah has an aspect in every worshipped thing,' with the Qur'an 'without much difficulty.'

If it was from the 'interpolations,' then why was it translated by a scholar who has studied Ibn 'Arabi professionally?
If it was from the 'interpolations,' then why is the commentary by Abdur-Rahman al-Jami in agreement with the statement?

[antipenq]

As-Salamu ´Alaykum,



As has already been mentioned in the thread, some ´ulama were, and are of the opinion that there has been additions to the original, and it is therefore not written by Shaykh ibn ´Arabi, quddisa sirrahu 'l-´aziz. Reading the Shaykh's writing with insight, and such insight is granted by Allah alone, one will find that there is a tremendous amount of benefit in them. Is there is a possibility that he made a mistake? Yes, of course. And if he did, may Allah forgive him. But it doesn't mean that he (quddisa sirrahu 'l-´aziz) intended what YOU see when YOU read it. Whatever he has said can be explained as to be in accordance with the Qur'an without much difficulty, if he indeed did write those passages in the first place.

The leading Sufis have always accepted him as a Wali...

wa'Llahu a'lam
wassalam

Walaikum as sallam wr wb

Brother , The Takfeer of Ibn Arabi based on these texts was done by the most prominent scholars one whose scholarship and credibility Ahli Sunnah Wal Jammat agree like Shaykh Ul Islam Imam Ibn Taymimiyyah rahimahullahImam Dhahabi Rahimahullah , Imam Ibn Qayyum Rahimahullah , Imam Ibn Kathir Rahimahullah , Imam Ibn Rajjab Al Hanbali rahimahullah , Allama Mullah Ali Qari Al-Hanafi Rahimahullah and many more who lived in an the era very much near to Ibn Arabi so we can perfectly satisfied all these Ulama (Many of whom were Muhaditheen) would have checked the issue very carefully before doing Takfeer if any sort of tempering would have been done in Ibn Arabi's books then they would have been aware of it and would have mentioned it. Then , The text of Fusus makes perfect sense in the light of Wahdat ul Wujood and there is a good amount of fluency in the book which negates any tempering and thats why the same book is published even now.
As far as some Sufis who have come u with this idea that Ibn Arabi is Wali then their view is null and wide rejected infront of Ibn Arabi unambiguously going against Quran and the almost unanimous Takfeer of Ibn Arabi by prominent scholars. If these texts are reconcilable with Quran then i would like to see a reconciliation for the two quotations i have presented.

[Slonopotam845]

Dr. Ati

Sure these were men of great learning, however they were not known to be from the men of tasawwuf, even though a couple of them ventured in to that field somewhat. And several of them were Ibn Taymiyya's students, so they had similar views in many if not most things. But let's be fair, some ´ulama, also prominent, like al-Subki, went into takfir of Ibn Taymiyya. So he is not free from blame himself. And as you may know, he also casted doubts as to whether Ibn ´Arabi had indeed written these things or not. So Allah knows best as to how carefully he had looked in to the matter before making takfir of Shaykh al-Akbar, quddisa sirrahu 'l-´aziz.

As for reconciliation... One of my teachers, who is a Hanbali Mufti, has written a commentary on Fusus al-Hikam. It is not yet published, so unfortunately I cannot share it with you. If I find time within the next couple of days I will try to summarise his explanations. But even then, you will need to have a certain insight to be able to grasp its fuller meanings.

wassalam

[Beatris]

Why did your teacher write a commentary of Fusus al-Hikam if it's been interpolated or has spurious passages? Did he skip the parts he found spurious, or was there deep and insightful meaning to be found in the statement that I posted?

Also, al-Subki did not pronounce takfir on Ibn Taymiyyah , only tabdi that I am aware of.