[Crazykz]

Salam Aleykum,

Ibn Arabi I've heard he dived too deep into philosophy and got into Kufr, His Books do have lots of useful and rich information Like al Foutouhat al Makkiyah But I never met a scholar who recommended it for anybody to read... maybe because it's too confusing.

قال الذهبي رحمه الله: ((ومِن أردئ تواليفه كتاب "الفصوص"! فإن كان لا كفر فيه فما في

الدنيا كفر ، نسأل الله العفو والنجاة. فوا غوثاه بالله)). (سير أعلام النبلاء: 23ـ 48).

Imam al Thahabee said in Siyar A'alam al nubala that in Ibn Arabi's book "Fusous" there is Kufr and that if what's inside it wasn't Kufr then there is No Kufr in the universe.

قال الحافظ ابن حجر في لسان الميزان: ((سألت شيخنا الإمام سراح الدين البُلقيني عن ابن عربي ، فبادر الجواب: بأنه كافر. فسألته عن ابن الفارض فقال: لا أحب أن أتكلم فيه. قلت: فما الفرق بينهما والموضع واحد.؟ وأنشدته من التائية فقطع علي بعد إنشاء عدة أبيات بقوله: هذا كفر هذا كفر)). (لسان الميزان: 4ـ364).
وقال الحافظ ابن حجر: ((ولا أرى يتعصب للحلاج إلا من قال بقوله الذي ذكر أنه عين الجمع فهذا هو قول أهل الوحدة المطلقة ولهذا ترى ابن عربي صاحب الفصوص يعظمه ويقع في الجنيد ، والله الموفق)).
(لسان الميزان: 2ـ315)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar al Asqalani in Lisan al Meezan said that he asked his Sheikh Imam al bulqini about ibn Arabi and he said: "he's Kafir".

وقال العز بن عبد السلام رحمه الله: ((شيخُ سوءٍ مقبوحٍ ، يقول بِقِدَمِ العالَمِ ، ولا يُحَرِّم

فرجاً)). (سير أعلام النبلاء: 23ـ 48).

Al Izz bin Abdul Salam said that he was a Bad Sheikh in Siyar A'alam al Nubala.


وألف الشيخ برهان الدين البقاعي المتوفى سنة (885 هـ) كتاباً سمّاه: تنبيه الغبي على تكفير ابن عربي
Sheikh burhan al Deen al biqa'ee (d. 885 hijri) wrote a book called "Tanbeeh al Ghabi Ala Takfeer ibn Arabi" and he wrote the names of all scholars who made Takfeer on Ibn Arabi:
بدر الدين بن جماعة (ص: 140) ، وشمس الدين محمد بن يوسف الجزري (ص: 141) وحفيده إمام القرّاء محمد بن محمد الجزري صاحب الجزرية (ص: 176) , وعلي بن يعقوب البكري (ص: 144) , ومحمد بن عقيل البالسي (ص: 146) , وابن هشام , صاحب مغني اللبيب (ص: 150) , وشمس الدين محمد العيزري (ص: 152) , وعلاء الدين البخاري الحنفي (ص: 164) ، وعلي بن أيوب (ص: 182) , وشرف الدين عيسى بن مسعود الزواوي المالكي (ص: 143) ، وشمس الدين الموصلي (ص: 154) , وزين الدين عمر الكتاني (ص: 142) , وبرهان الدين السفاقيني (ص: 159) , وسعد الدين الحارثي الحنبلي (ص: 153) , ورضي الدين بن الخياط (ص: 163) , وشهاب الدين أحمد ابن علي الناشري (ص: 163).

ومنهم: محمد بن علي النقاش, قال في وحدة الوجود (ص: 147): ((وهو مذهب الملحدين كابن عربي وابن سبعين وابن الفارض)).

ومنهم علاء الدولة أحمد بن محمد السمناني المفسر الصوفي. (الدرر الكامنة: 1ـ250)

ومنهم: أبو حيان الأندلسي صاحب التفسير, فقد في تفسير سورة المائدة عند قوله تعالى: ﴿لقد كفر الذين قالوا إن الله هو المسيح بن مريم﴾ (صفحة: 142-143): ((ومن بعض اعتقاد النصارى استنبط من أقر بالإسلام ظاهراً , وانتمى إلى الصوفية حلولَ الله في الصور الجميلة , وذهب من ذهب من ملاحدتهم إلى القول بالاتحاد والوحدة كالحلاج , والشعوذي , وابن أحلى , وابن عربي المقيم بدمشق , وابن الفارض , وأتباع هؤلاء كابن سبعين)). وعد جماعة ثم قال: ((وإنما سردت هؤلاء نصحاً لدين الله وشفقة على ضعفاء المسلمين .وليحذروا , فإنهم شر من الفلاسفة الذي يكذبون الله ورسله, ويقولون بقدم العالم, وينكرون البعث , وقد أولع جهلة ممن ينتمي إلى التصوف بتعظيم هؤلاء, وادعائهم أنهم صفوة الله!!)).

ومنهم: تقي الدين السبكي (ص: 143) , فقد قال: ((ومن كان من هؤلاء الصوفية المتأخرين كابن عربي وغيره, فهم ضلال جهالٌ , خارجون عن طريقة الإسلام , فضلاً عن العلماء)). Taqi al Deen al Subki, Abu Hayyan al Andalusi (Sahib al Tafseer), Ala'a al Dawlah Ahmad bin Muhammad Al Samnani al mufassir al Sufi, Muhammad bin Ali al Naqqash, Badr al Deen bin Jama'ah, Shams al Deen Muhammad bin yusuf al Jzari and his grandson Imam al Qura'a Muhammad bin Muhammad al Jazari (Sahib al Jazariyah), Ali bin Ya'aqoob al bakri, Muhammad bin Aqeel al Balisee, Ibn Hisham (Sahib Mughni al Labeeb), Shams al Deen Muhammad al Ayzari, Aladeen al Bukhari al Hanafi, Ali bin Ayyub, Sharaf al Deen Isa bin Masood al Zawawi al Maliki, Shams al Deen al Mousilee, Zain al Deen Umar al Kattani, Burhan al Deen al Safaqinee, Saad al Deen al harithee al Hanbali, Radi al Deen bin al Khayyat, Shihab al Deen Ahmad bin Ali al Nashiri...

[freeringtonesioo]

Assalamu'alaikum

Burhanudhin Ibrahim ibn Umar al-Biqaii al Shafii(d.885.AH), a scholar of Tafsir and Hadith had accused them of Kufr but in fact he had been in turn refuted by Imam Jalaludin al-Suyuti(Rah)(d.911..AH), another prominent shafii scholar of repute .[Ref:Shadaratu Zahab by Ibnul Imad al-Hanbali]

In turn, Suyuti was refuted by Ibrahim Al-Halabi Al-Hanafi. By the way, apparently even Suyuti did not have good opinion regarding Ibn Arabi, OR probably he changed his view later on.

Some scholars, especially those Dhahiri scholars(NOT referring to the Fiqhi school) not trained in the inner sciences(tasawwuf), made Takfir of them. The majority of the Sufiyah have praised them, especially Shaykh Al-Akbar Ibn 'Arabi (rahmatu'Allahi 'alayh). His legacy is to be found especially in the Shathili Tariqa.

Oh yes... all those were Zahiris. Faqih Ibn Abdussalaam, Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Iraqi, Dhahabi, Allama Taqi As-Subki, Shaikhul Islam Bulqeeni, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, Sakhawi and so on and so forth, all these were Zahiris ignorant of inner science.

Interestingly, it was Ibn Arabi who was a Zahiri (in fiqh, all though Batini in faith). Izz Ibn Abdussalam got Al-Muhalla from Ibn Arabi.

AOA,

anyways.....ive heard abt the things which are said related to the 2 persons mentioned....all i can say is tht we shud leave it to Allah.....leave it as mutashabihat.....dont make judgements......worry abt ur own self.....Allah will ask abt YOU on YOUR judgement day.....so we shud all get ready for tht........

Wallah Ho Allam

That means leave all those who propagate that Firawn died as Muslim, and people of Bani Israel were correct in worshiping the calf and and Musa (AS) got angry on Harun (AS) because he stopped them from worshiping it.

[cxddfrxc]

AOA

Ahlussunnah bro,

Actually i said tht statement becuz the mashaikh and ulemas involved in both the sides i.e. one who support them and other who are against them, majority of them are very respected scholars and imams and mashaikh of muslim ummah.......and if we have such a debate thn i have seen tht it can easily go out of control and people start criticising those ulemas whose taqwa is at the highest level.......and the criticism normally comes from an average muslim like me.....who is no where near to the level of taqwa tht those greats had.....but he just want to have a hot debate on the topic......

if u r certain that something is wrong or right thn no problem but if u dont know which where to go thn it lies in the mutashabihat category for u.....either we shud go and ask an authentic aalim abt it.....or leave it......

what i meant to say was tht i see people debating abt things which are not of tht priority in deen like ive seen people discussing wahdat ul wujood whn majority of them are not even regular namazis.....i am also like tht.....i accept it.....the thing is debates can easily get out of control and u loose focus on WHAT is more important.....

I wud also like to say tht i also have read abt those two and my stance is similar to the ones who say tht those two were not right......but as i said thr r very respected ulemas who defend those two......and whn it comes to authentic ulemas i choose to shut my tongue up......and leave it to Allah......i know i ahve to correct my aqeedah and my amaal.......

And the examples u gave are not releveant here as those are not mutashabihat eevery other alim will say tht tht was wrong.....so no issues thr.....i was merely talkin whn thr is a confusion.......

But i also understnad what ur tryin to say.....tht if u know something is wrong u shud say as it is.....so ya but my point was tht if u know for sure tht it is wrong thn u can say it.....otherwise either go to an authentic aalim or u know just leave it.......

Hope tht makes some sense....

Saad

[cxddfrxc]

bro faltu thanks for pointing it out. I will try to write in non-cellphone english

Jazak Allah,
Saad

[BenWired306]

sawaaiq Yes the majority of those who made takfir of Shaykh Al-Akbar ibn 'Arabi (radiya'Allahu 'anhu) were scholars who were not trained in the inner sciences, ie Tasawwuf. They were scholars of the outer sciences, ie Fuqaha, Muhaddithun, and Mutakallimun. They could not comprehend his writings. The vast majority of Ahl Al-Tasawwuf hold him in the highest esteem.

I ask you to stop your continious spreading of the lie that I am affiliated with the Ahbash, which I have negated more than once!

[BenWired306]

Sidi Tripoly Sunni The writings of Sayyidina Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Arabi (qaddasa'Allahu sirrahu) are very useful, if you are able to understand them. However they are very deep and he uses a complex terminology even within Sufi circles. What our ulama recommend the awwam to read are works like Al-Imam Abdul Karim Al-Qushayri's Risalah, the works of Imam Al-Ghazali and similar works. There is a order in which you study books of Fiqh, Aqidah and Hadith, even more so when it comes to Ilm al-Ihsan. If anyone just picks up the Fusus Al-Hikam, it is likely that he understands it the way Allamah Thahabi did, which is in reality misunderstanding it. As far as Allamah Izz ibn Abdussalam, this was most likely before he entered the Path of Tasawwuf at the hands of Al-Imam Sayyidina Abu Al-Hasan Al-Shathili, qaddasa'Allahu sirrah.

wa'Allahu alam

Ahlussunnah You mention Al-Hafeth Ibn Hajr (rahmatu'Allahi alayh), but he did not do Takfir of Shaykh Al-Akbar and this has been refuted by the ulama of suluk. Izz Ibn Abdussalam became a Sufi at the hands of Shathili, and Al-Imam Abu Al-Hasan Al-Shathili praised Ibn Arabi and his tariqa has retained a lot of the teachings of Ibn Arabi.

As for Ibn Arabi being a Dhahiri. When I mentioned that when I called the scholars who made Takfir of Ibn Arabi as Dhahiris I was NOT referring to the Fiqhi school. So to even bring that up just shows you havn't even read my posts, why then comment on them ya akhi?

As for him actually being a Dhahiri, then this would be in the sense that he rejected Taqlid for himself, as you may know that the Dhahiri school did not permit Taqlid. He was Andalusian and the schools prevelant there were Maliki and Dhahiri, and it is possible that he studied the school growing up.

[freeringtonesioo]

You mention Al-Hafeth Ibn Hajr (rahmatu'Allahi alayh), but he did not do Takfir of Shaykh Al-Akbar and this has been refuted by the ulama of suluk.

Among Ibn Arabi's critics there were two type of scholars. Those who made takfeer on him, and those who make takfeer of the statement, assuming that Ibn Arabi might have repented before his death. But all of them agree that he was misguided, including Suyuti (in his last opinion). Ibn Hajar considered him "Mulhid", as in Fathul Bari (8/95).

Izz Ibn Abdussalam became a Sufi at the hands of Shathili, and Al-Imam Abu Al-Hasan Al-Shathili praised Ibn Arabi and his tariqa has retained a lot of the teachings of Ibn Arabi. This theory was forwarded by Ibn 'Ataaullah Al-Iskandarani. No proof for it, except plain statement.

1. Ibn Abdussalam calling him "bad shaykh and liar" and attributing to him the belief of "eternity of world" and "not considering adultery to be prohibited", was narrated from him by Imam Ibn Daqiq Al-'Eid, his student, which he heard at Cairo. This was after the death of Ibn Arabi.
2. The stories, in which it was attributed to him that he praised Ibn Arabi,shows that it was said during the lifetime of Ibn Al-Arabi.
3. Hence there remains not a single support for the theory of Ibn Ata'ullah. Its only what he said, and Suyuti (earlier), Sha'arani, Fairozabadi subscribed to it.

These points were notified by Allamah Taqi Al-Faasi and then Ibrahim Al-Halabi.

As for Ibn Arabi being a Dhahiri. When I mentioned that when I called the scholars who made Takfir of Ibn Arabi as Dhahiris I was NOT referring to the Fiqhi school. So to even bring that up just shows you havn't even read my posts, why then comment on them ya akhi?
I know that, I notified it because I thought it to be interesting in light of you using the word "Zahirism".

As for him actually being a Dhahiri, then this would be in the sense that he rejected Taqlid for himself, as you may know that the Dhahiri school did not permit Taqlid. He was Andalusian and the schools prevelant there were Maliki and Dhahiri, and it is possible that he studied the school growing up. I don't have much problem from his Zahirism. Its not the issue at all... But I, and many others, do have problem from his Batinism. You are defending whom?the one who hardly have any works in service of the muslim community, except some books which, to many, are haram to even read. He has only given confusion and philosophy to islam.
Shamsud-Deen Ibn Al-Jazari said, "if this is how people are given excuses then there will remain no Kafir on the planet." Qouted by As-Sakhawi in "Al-Qawl Al-Munbi".

Wassalau'alaikum

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

Assalam alaikum w.w..

Hazrat Maulana Rasheed Ahmed gangohi sb (rah) mentions in Fatawa Rasheediya that Hazrat Mansur Hallaj (rah) was a Waliullah.. Hazrat Maulana zafar Ahmed Thanvi (rah) has written a book on him titled ' Seerat Mansur Hallaj (rah)'

wa assalam..

Salaam 'alaykum wr wb.
This is a very lively thread alhamdulillah. I will soon put up a slightly detailed post with the position of contemporary Deobandi scholars with whom I am in touch with reference to Husayn al Hallaj.
The actual name of Maulwi Zafar's book is Al Qawl al Mansoor fi ibn al Mansoor. Have you read it brother? But more importantly one should read the warning that Sayyiduna Junayd al Baghdadi gave to al Hallaj when he started proclaiming Ana al Haqq. He did it many times and for a long period before he was killed.

[Flefebleaft]

Regarding Ibn-e-tayymiah ru making takfir of such scholars,he was a bit mutashaddid and so are the present day salafis. Ibn Taymiyyah wasn't the harshest on Ibn Arabi and there were hundreds of Ash'ari and Sufi ulama who made tafseeq and takfeer of Ibn Arabi so why just single out Ibn Taymiyyah and or the "present day salafis"?

Ibn Taymiyya is not less controversial than the two mentioned above and certain scholars have declares takfir on him as well. So are you saying that they are better than Ibn Taymiyyah and the ulama who condemned Ibn Arabi dwarf those who condemned Ibn Taymiyyah.

Yes the majority of those who made takfir of Shaykh Al-Akbar ibn 'Arabi (radiya'Allahu 'anhu) were scholars who were not trained in the inner sciences, ie Tasawwuf. They were scholars of the outer sciences, ie Fuqaha, Muhaddithun, and Mutakallimun. They could not comprehend his writings. The vast majority of Ahl Al-Tasawwuf hold him in the highest esteem. So why don't you apply the same standard to Ibn Taymiyyah and do you believe that Ibn Arabi is better than Ibn Taymiyyah?

I ask you to stop your continious spreading of the lie that I am affiliated with the Ahbash, which I have negated more than once! You certainly have ta'assub towards them and constantly defend them.

[Jadldqys]

Assalam o 'alaykum,

Old discussion:

Mujaddid Alf-i-Sani on Shakyh ibn Arabi

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...akyh-ibn-Arabi

[BenWired306]

Ahlussunnah Keep in mind that Sayyidina Ibn Ata'illah al-Iskandari (rahmatu'Allahi alayh) was an inheritor of the Shathili Tariqa by Sayyidina Abu Al-Abbas Al-Mursi (qaddas'Allahu sirrahu), the main inheritor of Sayyidina Al-Imam Abu Al-Hasan Ali Al-Shathili, qaddas'Allahu sirrah. So Ibn Ata'illah's statement in regards to this is not to be taken lightly.


sawaaiq So why don't you apply the same standard to Ibn Taymiyyah and do you believe that Ibn Arabi is better than Ibn Taymiyyah? What standard? What have I said about Ibn Taymiyah? Or are you just assuming that I am a Habashi again? Who is better is for my Rabb to decide, but for me personally Shaykh Al-Akbar (qaddas'Allahu sirrahu) has made a bigger impact on me. His benefit is mostly for those who are spiritually accomplished, but it reflects on us lower level novices.

[Flefebleaft]

What standard? Don't play ignorant. Would you and the rest of the anti-Salafi Ash'aris and Sufis who make tafseeq and takfeer of Ibn Taymiyyah makes the same excuses for him as you have done with Ibn Arabi?

What have I said about Ibn Taymiyah? Or are you just assuming that I am a Habashi again? Who is better is for my Rabb to decide, but for me personally Shaykh Al-Akbar (qaddas'Allahu sirrahu) has made a bigger impact on me. His benefit is mostly for those who are spiritually accomplished, but it reflects on us lower level novices. Who is better in status and it's clear that many of your kind do favour Ibn Arabi over Ibn Taymiyyah as the Ahbash favoured Hafez al-Asad over Ibn Taymiyyah? Do you agree with this?

[BenWired306]

Seriously sawaaiq, you are obsessed with the Habashis. It is time to let go.

Am I anti-Salafi Ash'ari? Please elucidate.
Did I make Takfir of Ibn Taymiyah?

[Elitiachirl]

While we're at it, I'd like to ask about Suhrawardi, which some time ago a poster wrote was founder of one of the orthodox Turuq acknowledged by Deobandis. I tried looking him up, and found Shaikh Shihabuddin Suhrawardi who is called al-Maqtul. Is he the same guy? The article (admittedly it is Wikipedia) says he was executed by the Sultan Malik al-Zahir of Egypt for strange teachings.

Or did I read about the wrong guy, and it's another one named Suhrawardi that the Deobandi acknowledge (Abu al-Najib Suhrawardi or Abu Hafs Omar Suhrawardi)?

[Ruidselisse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diya_al..._as-Suhrawardi

[Elitiachirl]

So it's ABU NAJIB Suhrawardi that's acknowledged... thanks for clearing it up. Someone should expand that Wikipedia article though, because it's the heretic Suhrawardi that's currently more famous.

[MaickiP]

Imam al-Rabbani (ra) also praised Hadrat Mansur al-Hallaj (ra). We should be careful about throwing "kafir" around. These are the Friends of Allah.

[freeringtonesioo]

Keep in mind that Sayyidina Ibn Ata'illah al-Iskandari (rahmatu'Allahi alayh) was an inheritor of the Shathili Tariqa by Sayyidina Abu Al-Abbas Al-Mursi (qaddas'Allahu sirrahu), the main inheritor of Sayyidina Al-Imam Abu Al-Hasan Ali Al-Shathili, qaddas'Allahu sirrah. So Ibn Ata'illah's statement in regards to this is not to be taken lightly.

Ok lets not take it lightly, then what? Should we take the statement of Ibn Daqiq Al-'Eid lightly who was more close to Ibn Abdussalaam than Shaykh Ibn Ata'ullah, who was not the student of Ibn Abdussalaam. History of claims of sufiyah shows that they are not to be taken seriously in matters related to "telling stories" and "attributing something to someone as far as the thing is good" and "defence of their tareeqah and there heroes". The point is, there isn't any good evidence to support the theory of Ibn Ata'ullah, and to prefer it over the tradition reported by Ibn Daqeeq Al-Eid and from him it was narrated by several scholars which include likes of Dhahabi and Ibn Sayyid An-Naas.

As you have mentioned Abul Abbas Al-Mursi here, then let me tell you his view regarding Afeef Ad-Deen At-Tilimsani, another one like Ibn Arabi. Ibn Taymiyyah, in his "Madhhab Al-Ittehadiyeen" [Majoo' Rasail (4/76)], narrates from Kamalud-Deen Ibn Al-Maraghi, that he was once with Abul Abbas Ash-Shadhilee, so he heard him saying regarding At-Tilimsani and his likes [this include Ibn Arabi], "these are the Kuffar. They believe that the creation is itself Creator".

وحدثني أيضاً كمال الدين أنه اجتمع بالشيخ أبي العباس الشاذلي تلميذ الشيخ أبي الحسن فقال عن التلمساني: هؤلاء كفار هؤلاء يعتقدون أن الصنعة هي الصانع

Wassalam alaikum

[KitRittyTug]

Ibn Taymiyya is not less controversial than the two mentioned above and certain scholars have declares takfir on him as well.

Can u name some..??

[Crazykz]

Can u name some..??

Salam

I bet you that Ibn Hajar al Haythami al Shafi'i al Sufi made takfeer on him.... But I Don't care because Ibn Hajar al Asqalani praised him.