In defense of Tawhid and Ahl at-Tawhid
Part 4
by Zubeir Ashari-Maturidi
Al-hamdu Lillah, my work is completed. I am waiting for your suggestions and for
approval before publishing it. Barak-Allahu fik.
May Allah Ta'ala forgive us and you and guide us both to the right path.
As-salamu ‘alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa
barakatuH.
A Refutation of Those Ignoramuses Who Dare
to Accuse Shaykh Muhiddin
Ibn al-‘Arabi of Being a Kafir
Abu Aminah Bilal Philips, in his “Fundamentals of Tawheed,” says:
“An example of this form of Shirk among some Muslims is that of many Sufis like Ibn ‘Arabee who claim that only Allaah exists (All is Allaah, and Allaah is all).”
If Bilal Philips is refering to Shaykh al-Akbar Muhiyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi, then this is an ugly accusation by Bilal Philips against one of the greatest Ahl al-Sunna Shuyukh in the history of Islam. Wahhabee hatred for Sufis will undoubtedly cause statements of innovation and even kufr to come out of their mouths against these ‘awliya. It must be noted that this wahhabee’s attack against Shaykh Ibn al-‘Arabi is not limited to just him but to other great sufis as well. Numerous wahhabee ignoramuses have accused Ibn al-‘Arabi of kufr in their websites and books.
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 isno more capable of real insight into the world of someone like the Sheikh than a person inches away from a giant Monet 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 he 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 has sent 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 error 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 Jama’ah praised Ibn al-‘Arabi very much, and continue to praise him until this day.
Shaykh Abu Omar ‘Abdul-Hadi, an Ahl al-Sunna scholar, says:
“The prevalent verdict of Ahlu-s-Sunnah scholars is that Shaykh Muhi-d-Din Ibnu-l-Arabi was a mu’min, and a zayd, an ‘alim, a faqih, a muhaddith, a Zahiri qadi and a mufassir. The mistake of calling him kafir or a mushrik (astaghfir-Ullah al-‘Azhim) started with Ibn Taymiyyah’s ignorance and survives in his misguided disciples. Ahl al-Tasawwuf wa-l-Ihsan agree on the fact he was a wali, having a high status by Allah. A relevant number of mashaykh of Tasawwuf think he was a qutb in his time, and turuq like ‘Alawiyyah and Darqawiyyah also think he was the Khatm al-Wilayyah al-Muhammadiyyah.
“His doctrine of “wahdatu-l-wujud” is the more complete expression of manzilat al-ahadiyyah in a intoxicated and permanent
maqam ar-Rububiyyah. Sober mashaykh like ‘Ala-u-Dawlah as-Simnani criticized some points of his doctrine from a stricter Ash’ari point of view, but notwithstanding this, they were treating him with the maximum respect.
“Imam Rabbani as-Sarhindi developed the sober doctrine of “wahdatu-s-shuhud,” but thid does not prevent him treating Ibn ‘Arabi as a great wali and a murshid kamil. One line of his “Futuhat” or “Fusus” is more valuable than all of the abstruse books by Ibn Baz, Albani and Philips together.
“A masterpiece of a refutation against those who falsely think about Ibn Taymiyyah as “’alim” and “mujaddid” and accept his baseless takfir against Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn al-‘Arabi is in the book Al-Ni’matu-l-Kubrah, by Imam Shihabu-d-Din Ahmad Ibn Hijr al-Haytami as-Shafi’i. This text is highly praised by Shaykh ‘Abdu-s-Samad Ibn Hamid, a Sunni scholar from Cameroon.
“Numberless Sunni Ulemas call him “Shaykh al-Akbar”. His doctrine is praised and defended by: Shaykh ‘Abdu-r-Razaq al-Kashani (Tawilat), 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-Islamiyya, 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 (Fatawa al-Haramayn), Siraju-Din ‘Ali Ushi (Nukbat al-Laali), Abu Muhammad al-Wailturi (Fatawa ‘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 (Tadhkira al-Awliyyah, and Mizan al-Kubrah) 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), ‘Abdur-r-Rahim Mancuso al-Itali (al-Fatihah ma Hiya, ‘Ulum al-Tafsir al-Qur’aniyyah, and ‘Ala Khatam al-Wilayyah al-khassa al-Muhammadiyyah), 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), ‘Abdus-s-Samad at-Tijani (Allah wa al-Rakam Sitta wa Sittin), etc.
“Even the shi‘ite Ruh-Ullah al-Musawi al-Khomeini praised Shaykh al-Akbar very much in his letter to Mikhail Gorbachev.
“Many of these books are forbidden by the so-called Saudi Dar al-Ifta’, but - al-hamdu Lillah - are preserved through a waqf from Shaykh al-Arwasi. I ask everyone who reads this message to recite al-Fatihah for his blessed soul.”
May Allahu Ta’ala bless Shaykh al-Akbar Muhi-d-Din Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Hatimi at-Ta’i al-Andalusi and those who spoke the truth about this wali, and may Allah Azza wajal protect him from the false accusations and takfeer by wahhabees, orientalists, and the kuffar. Ameen.
My refutation is complete, w-l-hamdu Lillahi
Rabbi-l- ‘alamin.