Login

u/Ziad31958860

r/islam r/MuslimAcademics r/TraditionalMuslims r/vintageart r/Sufism r/MuslimLounge r/islamichistory r/Qafiya r/progressive_islam
Ibn Arabi: Ahl al-Sunnah or not?
▲ 16 r/Sufism

Ibn Arabi: Ahl al-Sunnah or not?

I have a question regarding how traditional scholarship—historically and today—reconciles full-on Akbarianism with the boundaries of Ahl al-Sunnah.

If someone avoids making takfir of Ibn 'Arabi, do they officially consider him part of Ahl al-Sunnah? Did his prominent defenders, like Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari and other traditional masters, view him as squarely within Ahl al-Sunnah?

Here is how I view the dilemma, and I’d love to hear how others untangle it:

  • A Separate System: Full-on Akbarianism is its own comprehensive school of thought in both fiqh and 'aqeeda—in some aspects it aligns with Ahl al-Sunnah, but in others, it directly contradicts or is alternative to it.

  • The Wahdat al-Wujud Nuance: I'd actually argue, perhaps surprisingly to many people, that Wahdat al-Wujud is his least hetrodox position.

What many people don't know—and I feel like many critics of Wahdat al-Wujud, including scholars, fail to realize—is that many earlier orthodox giants flirted with proto-Wahdat al-Wujud or Wahdat al-shuhud concepts; for example:

  • Al-Ghazali in Mishkat al-Anwar, the section of Haqeeqat al-Haqai'q where he called God the Light of Lights and said: > "فكل ما عدا الله تعالى إذا اعتبرت ذاته من حيث ذاته فهو عدم محض، فإذا اعتبر وجوده من الوجه الذي يلي موجده كان له وجود، وإن اعتبر من الوجه الذي يلي ذاته لم يكن له وجود."

Translation: > "Everything other than God, when considered in itself, is sheer non-being; but when considered from the aspect by which it is related to its Originator, it has existence, whereas when considered from the aspect of its own essence, it has no existence."

  • Hisham ibn 'Ammar, the muhhadith of the Sahihin said: > "سبحان من تجلى لخلقه بخلقه" Translation: > "Glory be to Him who manifested Himself to His creation through His creation!"

He was rebuked harshly by Imam Ahmad for this, but it remains a metaphysical reality for people who know.

The Breaking Point: The real tension, in my opinion, and according to my limited knowledge, arises when Wahdat al-Wujud is pushed to its absolute metaphysical "limit", anchored by boundless divine mercy and experiential kashf (mystical unveiling). This leads Akbarians to conclusions that, to my knowledge, fall outside Ahl al-Sunnah, such as:

> -Hell's punishment ('adhab) turning to sweetness ('udhuba).

> -​Pharaoh dying a Muslim.

> -​A radical reinterpretation of Noah's people: Rather than being viewed simply as stubborn polytheists who rejected the prophet and faced a standard physical flood, Ibn Arabi frames them as gnostics who outwardly disobeyed God but inwardly did not. Because souls, by their nature, are naturally drawn to the divine, so the Real praised them inwardly while condemning them outwardly. They could not refuse the divine pull within the idols they worshipped, because their god of belief was those idols. Since in Wahdat al-Wujud, everything reflects Absolute Being, these idols are delimited mirrors reflecting the Absolute, with the delimitation belonging solely to the mirror, never to the Source.

> ​Whether the Akbarians believe a literal flood literally happened or not, I am not sure, but they argue that the flood so thoroughly destroyed their outward created forms, or the delimited mirrors, and the illusion of separation that Noah's people were drowning in 'ishq (burning love) in the Sea of Unicity. And as Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi puts it, they were being tormented in God's Jalal (Majesty) in His Jamal (Beauty).

This effectively makes shirk stop being shirk, and turning what is traditionally understood as divine punishment into a hidden reward and a form of ultimate closeness to Allah.

Adding to the tension is that Ibn Arabi claims that the Prophet came to him and told him that he is the Seal of Muhammadan Sainthood, paired with teachings that traditional orthodoxy rejects as errors or kufr. This is further complicated by the fact that these very concepts, rooted in Fusus al-Hikam, were received through direct kashf via an encounter with the Prophet Muhammad, as he explicitly details in the book's introduction.

So my Core Question is how do traditional defenders justify full-on Akbarianism as an acceptable position within the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah despite these specific metaphysical conclusions? How is his status as the Shaykh al-Akbar reconciled with teachings that orthodoxy rejects? Did his teachings become an acceptable option within Ahl al-Sunnah?

u/Ziad31958860 — 17 hours ago
▲ 6 r/Sufism

Struggling with Ibn Arabi: The Fusus & 200 Scholars Who Condemned Him 😪

Hello, fellow wayfarers! I am deeply besotted by Ibn Arabi and the Akbarian tradition. I believe I understand Wahdat al-Wujud as they intended it, and I do not believe it is shirk. As God’s Essence is never contained in creation; rather, creation discloses a delimited mode of His Absolute Being. The delimitation belongs only to the created form, not to Absolute Being itself.

But I am mainly struggling with two things: certain concepts in the Fusus, and the fact that so many eminent scholars condemned or even declared Ibn Arabi a kafir. It seems that even among his defenders, those who were not full-on Akbarians, like Al-Suyuti and Ibn Attah' Allah Skandari, often believed that his works had been interpolated, attributed problematic passages to shath (intoxicated utterances that are outwardly expressions of disbelief but may be excused because they were uttered by a pious person), or simply had not sat down and read the Fusus.

Even the Akbarians, despite their great influence in Ottoman elite circles, were swimming upstream against a longstanding scholarly current that regarded Ibn Arabi's core ideas as dangerous or heretical or kufr. Their prestige and state patronage did not amount to settled acceptance; his legacy remained deeply contested.

And correct me if I am wrong, but we do not really know of many defenders who actually sat down and worked through the Fusus and defended its arguments without themselves belonging to the Akbarian school. It seems that those who were able to actively defend the logic of the Fusus were precisely those who belonged to his school. And... They don't actually defend it, rather they just say the same things without telling you how they got there, etc. So it's not a defense.

There is a terrifying book called The Reality of Ibn Arabi: Followed by the Religious Verdicts of 200 Eminent Scholars Who Declared Muhiyudin Ibn Arabi to Be a Disbeliever or a Misguided Person, by Ali Hasan Khan. It defines Wahdat al-Wujud very wrongly, then has 9 sections, each dealing with a passage from Ibn Arabi's original Fusus, followed by an Akbarian commentary, usually from Jami, Qunawi or Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, and then mainly Mulla Ali al-Qari refuting it completely. That part is not really my problem, because I can somewhat easily defend Ibn Arabi there and recognise where I think Mulla Ali al-Qari misunderstood him.

My main and much more serious problem is section 10, where it lists 200 eminent scholars who condemned Ibn Arabi, many of them even declaring him a kafir. Yes, I know that there were also scholars who defended Ibn Arabi, but if 200 scholars were genuinely against him, or even, say, 100, since some of the reports are not particularly strong, how am I supposed to reconcile that? I know some recanted like reportedly Al-Izz ibn Abdelsalam after sitting with Al-Shadhili and others, but still, nothing really changed in the grand scheme of things.

The book presents the material as though there were an enormous and sustained scholarly consensus against him. Here are 3 pictures showing how this section is structured.

Now, let's talk about my main problems with the Fusus

  1. The Chapter of Noah

Does Ibn Arabi—or rather God via the Prophet Muhammad, since Ibn Arabi maintains that the Fusus al-Hikam was dictated to him by the Prophet with instructions to take it to the people so they might benefit—critique Noah’s mission in calling to God, saying that if Noah had successfully combined transcendence and immanence, his people would have listened to him? Furthermore, do Akbarians say those idol worshippers were actually gnostics who couldn't resist the Divine pull? And do they say the flood was a cosmic instrument that shattered their rigid outward forms, forced them out of their illusion of independency, and plunged them into the Ocean of Unicity? The part that trips me up is how this makes their punishment for disbelief (or incomplete beleif) a reward. For instance, Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi writes in his book Jawahir al-Nusus fi Hall Kalimat al-Fusus \[The Jewels of the Texts in Solving the Words of the Fusus\] that Noah's people were tormented by His Majesty (Jalal) within His Beauty (Jamal), because they say His Mercy encompasses everything as the Quranic verse says, and as the Hadith says, "My Mercy precedes My Wrath." He even mentions an idea of "praising in the cloak of blame" about how they were outwardly punished while inwardly, Reality was praising them; and also he mentions that their spirits were drawn to the Divine while only their phantoms (ashbah) disobeyed. Where did he get that from and what does he mean?

Yet, not all Akbarians read it this way. Ismail Haqqi Bursevi takes a starkly different view. Quoting Al-Qashani in his Ruh al-Bayan tafsir on Noah’s prayer in Surat Nuh (71:28)—"My Lord, forgive me and my parents and whoever enters my house a believer..."—he explains it as an inner map of the soul:

\> "Meaning, annihilate me in the spiritual unification (al-tawhid al-ruhi), and {And whoever enters my house as a believer} \[Nuh: 28\]—meaning my station in the Holy Presence through unification for the souls of those who believed and their egos, so that He brings them to the station of annihilation in unification, while {And do not increase the wrongdoers} \[Nuh: 28\]—meaning those who veiled themselves with the darkness of their egos from the world of light—i.e., annihilation by drowning in the primordial sea (al-bahr al-hayuli) and the severity of the veil."

How do we reconcile these two radically different Akbarian lenses? Which one is correct according to Akbarians, and according to Wahdat al-Wujud taken to its metaphysical limit? So ​I really would love to understand this, and I imagine this is the hardest and most controversial writing of Ibn Arabi, because these masters use specialized terminology and unspoken assumptions that are deeply implicit to their tradition.

  1. Prophethood, Sainthood and The Seal

The other thing I just can't understand at all is where they got—and what they mean by—continuous prophethood versus legislative prophethood, which ended with Muhammad. How is it that sainthood is continuous while prophethood ended, but in the same time, another type of prophethood is continuous? Ibn Arabi says Saints take knowledge directly from the Divine Ocean while prophets require angels, how and why? I do understand that they maintain prophets are both saints and prophets—saints first and prophets second—but doesn't that degrade prophethood and make sainthood higher than prophethood? Furthermore, what do they mean, and how did they arrive at the ideas that prophets take knowledge from the Seal of the Saints, that the concept of the Seal of the Saints itself exists, and that Ibn Arabi himself is the Seal of the Saints and the metaphysical heir of all the prophets.

Ps: Tough I love (maybe wrongly idk) that Al-Azhar teaches him and defends him to this day.

Thank you 🌷

Edit: SUPERB NEWS! After doing some basic AI-assisted research, I’ve realised that, like, 70% of the 29 scholarly verdicts I checked are basically fake. What I’m finding is essentially a 14th-century Hanbali echo chamber, hearsay attributed to Shafi‘i figures but recorded more than a century later, “fatwas” from extremely minor and low-lev figures such as Nur al-Din al-Bakri al-Shafi‘i who his own master made fun of, Ibn Karhir made fun of, and the Mamluk Sultan exiled and prevented him from teaching ever again, and just good ol' category errors. It's looking good for Al-Shaykh al-Akbar!

u/Ziad31958860 — 9 days ago
▲ 0 r/TraditionalMuslims

My Attempt to Summarise Ibn Arabi's Metaphysics (later named Wahdat al-Wujud, though Ibn Arabi himself never used that expression)

Although Ibn Arabi never used the expression Wahdat al-Wujud (Unity of Being), it later became associated with the Akbarian tradition, the school of thought named after his honorific al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the Greatest Master). Since the phrase has often been misunderstood, especially in modern discussions, what follows is my own attempt to summarise Ibn Arabi's metaphysics as clearly and faithfully as possible. It is ultimately my own interpretation and synthesis of his thought, so it may well contain errors or oversimplifications.

A note on terminology: In what follows, Being (al-Wujud) refers to the "is-ness" by which anything exists, not God conceived as an entity or object. Essence (al-Dhat) refers to what God is in Himself, His innermost reality, forever beyond all created knowledge and comprehension. Not in the loose English use of "essence of the poem" for example.

~~~

The ocean is not God in His Essence, for God's Essence (al-Dhat) is utterly hidden, incomparable, and transcendent. Rather, the ocean, like all creation, is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being (al-Wujud) is disclosed by the theophanies (tajalliyat) of His infinite Divine Names, each appearing in a delimited form. A calm sea, for example, may disclose Names of Beauty (Jamal), such as al-Wasi' (the All-Encompassing) and al-Jamil (the Beautiful). Its vastness may also disclose al-Jalil (the Majestic). By contrast, a violent, stormy sea may disclose other Names of Majesty (Jalal), such as al-Qahhar (the Subduer) and al-Qawi (the All-Strong). So too with all creation: every created thing discloses multiple Divine Names simultaneously, though some Names are more evident than others in a given theophany.

Before their outward existence, all created things are eternally known by God as the immutable entities (a'yan al-thabita): the uncreated fixed possibilities of all that is to be created. They possess no independent existence, nor do they occupy a place "within" God, for God's knowledge is neither spatial nor temporal. Rather, they are the fixed possibilities according to which creation receives existence through the continual Divine theophanies (tajalliyat) of the Divine Names. According to Ibn Arabi, creation is continuously renewed (tajdid al-khalq), each instant receiving existence anew through a fresh Divine theophany (tajalli).

The universe must be viewed from two complementary, not contradictory, vantage points. From the eye of al-Haqq, or al-Haqiqa, creation possesses no independent existence ('adam in itself). The universe is like a mirror through which God's one Being is disclosed by the theophanies of His Divine Names; in this sense, its existence is entirely borrowed from the Real. Like a reflection in a mirror, it has no independent reality apart from the one reflected, yet the reflection is never identical with the one before the mirror. Likewise, God neither indwells creation (hulul), as grapes rest in a bowl or water fills a vessel, nor becomes united with it (ittihad), as wine mixes with water. Such notions wrongly assume two independently existing realities, whereas creation possesses no independent being apart from the Real. Multiplicity belongs to the loci (mazahir), whereas unity belongs to the one Divine Being (al-Wujud).

From the eye of the Sharia, however, there remains a real distinction between Creator and creation. We are contingent, created beings with moral responsibility, limitations, and accountability, whose existence remains wholly dependent upon the Real. Here too, there is neither indwelling nor union: God is never contained by creation, nor does creation become God.

Every created thing is huwa la huwa (He/Not He)It is "He" insofar as God's one Being alone is disclosed through it, just as a reflection truly discloses the one standing before a mirror. Yet a reflection is never the very thing standing before it, nor is it identical with the one reflected. Likewise, every created thing remains "not He" because it's a finite, contingent locus (mazhar), never God's Essence.

Even what appears ugly or evil is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being is disclosed by the Divine Names of Majesty (Jalal) such as al-Mumit (The Giver of Death). The realised gnostic ('arif) recognises these, too, as Divine theophanies of those Names, while still judging evil as evil and acting according to the Sharia. Thus, metaphysical realisation never abolishes moral responsibility.

Where, then, is creation in relation to God? According to Ibn Arabi, the question itself is misleading. God is not a body, nor is He subject to space, direction, or location. Therefore, creation is neither "inside" God, as though He were a container, nor "outside" Him, as though something could exist independently beyond the One Reality. Such spatial categories belong only to the created order. Creation exists only through God's perpetual self-disclosure (tajalli), by which each instant of existence is continually bestowed anew, while God forever transcends every locus, direction, and limitation.

Thus, Ibn Arabi's doctrine is neither pantheism, which identifies creation with God, nor deism, which separates creation from God's continuous self-disclosure. It also transcends the ordinary sense of panentheism, for creation is neither "within" nor "outside" God, since such spatial categories cannot be applied to the Divine. Rather, it is a metaphysics of perpetual Divine self-disclosure (tajalli), in which God's one Being is disclosed through His Divine Names while His Essence remains forever hidden and transcendent. Thus, the realised gnostic beholds both tanzih (transcendence) and tashbih (immanence) together without sacrificing one for the other.

~~~

What do you think? 🌷

reddit.com
u/Ziad31958860 — 1 month ago
▲ 3 r/progressive_islam

My Attempt to Summarise Ibn Arabi's Metaphysics (later associated with Wahdat al-Wujud, though Ibn Arabi himself never used that expression)

Although Ibn Arabi never used the expression Wahdat al-Wujud ("Unity of Being"), it later became associated with the Akbarian tradition, the school of thought named after his honorific al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the Greatest Master). Since the phrase has often been misunderstood, especially in modern discussions, what follows is my own attempt to summarise Ibn Arabi's metaphysics as clearly and faithfully as possible. It is ultimately my own interpretation and synthesis of his thought, so it may well contain errors or oversimplifications.

A note on terminology: In what follows, Being (al-Wujud) refers to the "is-ness" by which anything exists, not God conceived as an entity or object. Essence (al-Dhat) refers to what God is in Himself, His innermost reality, forever beyond all created knowledge and comprehension. Not in the loose English use of "essence of the poem" for example.

~~~

The ocean is not God in His Essence, for God's Essence (al-Dhat) is utterly hidden, incomparable, and transcendent. Rather, the ocean, like all creation, is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being (al-Wujud) is disclosed by the theophanies (tajalliyat) of His infinite Divine Names, each appearing in a delimited form. A calm sea, for example, may disclose Names of Beauty (Jamal), such as al-Wasi' (the All-Encompassing) and al-Jamil (the Beautiful). Its vastness may also disclose al-Jalil (the Majestic). By contrast, a violent, stormy sea may disclose other Names of Majesty (Jalal), such as al-Qahhar (the Subduer) and al-Qawi (the All-Strong). So too with all creation: every created thing discloses multiple Divine Names simultaneously, though some Names are more evident than others in a given theophany.

Before their outward existence, all created things are eternally known by God as the immutable entities (a'yan al-thabita): the uncreated fixed possibilities of all that is to be created. They possess no independent existence, nor do they occupy a place "within" God, for God's knowledge is neither spatial nor temporal. Rather, they are the fixed possibilities according to which creation receives existence through the continual Divine theophanies (tajalliyat) of the Divine Names. According to Ibn Arabi, creation is continuously renewed (tajdid al-khalq), each instant receiving existence anew through a fresh Divine theophany (tajalli).

The universe must be viewed from two complementary, not contradictory, vantage points. From the eye of al-Haqq, or al-Haqiqa, creation possesses no independent existence ('adam in itself). The universe is like a mirror through which God's one Being is disclosed by the theophanies of His Divine Names; in this sense, its existence is entirely borrowed from the Real. Like a reflection in a mirror, it has no independent reality apart from the one reflected, yet the reflection is never identical with the one before the mirror. Likewise, God neither indwells creation (hulul), as grapes rest in a bowl or water fills a vessel, nor becomes united with it (ittihad), as wine mixes with water. Such notions wrongly assume two independently existing realities, whereas creation possesses no independent being apart from the Real. Multiplicity belongs to the loci (mazahir), whereas unity belongs to the one Divine Being (al-Wujud).

From the eye of the Sharia, however, there remains a real distinction between Creator and creation. We are contingent, created beings with moral responsibility, limitations, and accountability, whose existence remains wholly dependent upon the Real. Here too, there is neither indwelling nor union: God is never contained by creation, nor does creation become God.

Every created thing is huwa la huwa (He/Not He)It is "He" insofar as God's one Being alone is disclosed through it, just as a reflection truly discloses the one standing before a mirror. Yet a reflection is never the very thing standing before it, nor is it identical with the one reflected. Likewise, every created thing remains "not He" because it's a finite, contingent locus (mazhar), never God's Essence.

Even what appears ugly or evil is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being is disclosed by the Divine Names of Majesty (Jalal) such as al-Mumit (The Giver of Death). The realised gnostic ('arif) recognises these, too, as Divine theophanies of those Names, while still judging evil as evil and acting according to the Sharia. Thus, metaphysical realisation never abolishes moral responsibility.

Where, then, is creation in relation to God? According to Ibn Arabi, the question itself is misleading. God is not a body, nor is He subject to space, direction, or location. Therefore, creation is neither "inside" God, as though He were a container, nor "outside" Him, as though something could exist independently beyond the One Reality. Such spatial categories belong only to the created order. Creation exists only through God's perpetual self-disclosure (tajalli), by which each instant of existence is continually bestowed anew, while God forever transcends every locus, direction, and limitation.

Thus, Ibn Arabi's doctrine is neither pantheism, which identifies creation with God, nor deism, which separates creation from God's continuous self-disclosure. It also transcends the ordinary sense of panentheism, for creation is neither "within" nor "outside" God, since such spatial categories cannot be applied to the Divine. Rather, it is a metaphysics of perpetual Divine self-disclosure (tajalli), in which God's one Being is disclosed through His Divine Names while His Essence remains forever hidden and transcendent. Thus, the realised gnostic beholds both tanzih (transcendence) and tashbih (immanence) together without sacrificing one for the other.

~~~

What do you think? 🌷

reddit.com
u/Ziad31958860 — 1 month ago
▲ 5 r/MuslimAcademics

My Attempt to Summarise Ibn Arabi's Metaphysics (later associated with Wahdat al-Wujud, though Ibn Arabi himself never used that expression)

Although Ibn Arabi never used the expression Wahdat al-Wujud ("Unity of Being"), it later became associated with the Akbarian tradition, the school of thought named after his honorific al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the Greatest Master). Since the phrase has often been misunderstood, especially in modern discussions, what follows is my own attempt to summarise Ibn Arabi's metaphysics as clearly and faithfully as possible. It is ultimately my own interpretation and synthesis of his thought, so it may well contain errors or oversimplifications.

A note on terminology: In what follows, Being (al-Wujud) refers to the "is-ness" by which anything exists, not God conceived as an entity or object. Essence (al-Dhat) refers to what God is in Himself, His innermost reality, forever beyond all created knowledge and comprehension. Not in the loose English use of "essence of the poem" for example.

~~~

The ocean is not God in His Essence, for God's Essence (al-Dhat) is utterly hidden, incomparable, and transcendent. Rather, the ocean, like all creation, is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being (al-Wujud) is disclosed by the theophanies (tajalliyat) of His infinite Divine Names, each appearing in a delimited form. A calm sea, for example, may disclose Names of Beauty (Jamal), such as al-Wasi' (the All-Encompassing) and al-Jamil (the Beautiful). Its vastness may also disclose al-Jalil (the Majestic). By contrast, a violent, stormy sea may disclose other Names of Majesty (Jalal), such as al-Qahhar (the Subduer) and al-Qawi (the All-Strong). So too with all creation: every created thing discloses multiple Divine Names simultaneously, though some Names are more evident than others in a given theophany.

Before their outward existence, all created things are eternally known by God as the immutable entities (a'yan al-thabita): the uncreated fixed possibilities of all that is to be created. They possess no independent existence, nor do they occupy a place "within" God, for God's knowledge is neither spatial nor temporal. Rather, they are the fixed possibilities according to which creation receives existence through the continual Divine theophanies (tajalliyat) of the Divine Names. According to Ibn Arabi, creation is continuously renewed (tajdid al-khalq), each instant receiving existence anew through a fresh Divine theophany (tajalli).

The universe must be viewed from two complementary, not contradictory, vantage points. From the eye of al-Haqq, or al-Haqiqa, creation possesses no independent existence ('adam in itself). The universe is like a mirror through which God's one Being is disclosed by the theophanies of His Divine Names; in this sense, its existence is entirely borrowed from the Real. Like a reflection in a mirror, it has no independent reality apart from the one reflected, yet the reflection is never identical with the one before the mirror. Likewise, God neither indwells creation (hulul), as grapes rest in a bowl or water fills a vessel, nor becomes united with it (ittihad), as wine mixes with water. Such notions wrongly assume two independently existing realities, whereas creation possesses no independent being apart from the Real. Multiplicity belongs to the loci (mazahir), whereas unity belongs to the one Divine Being (al-Wujud).

From the eye of the Sharia, however, there remains a real distinction between Creator and creation. We are contingent, created beings with moral responsibility, limitations, and accountability, whose existence remains wholly dependent upon the Real. Here too, there is neither indwelling nor union: God is never contained by creation, nor does creation become God.

Every created thing is huwa la huwa (He/Not He)It is "He" insofar as God's one Being alone is disclosed through it, just as a reflection truly discloses the one standing before a mirror. Yet a reflection is never the very thing standing before it, nor is it identical with the one reflected. Likewise, every created thing remains "not He" because it's a finite, contingent locus (mazhar), never God's Essence.

Even what appears ugly or evil is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being is disclosed by the Divine Names of Majesty (Jalal) such as al-Mumit (The Giver of Death). The realised gnostic ('arif) recognises these, too, as Divine theophanies of those Names, while still judging evil as evil and acting according to the Sharia. Thus, metaphysical realisation never abolishes moral responsibility.

Where, then, is creation in relation to God? According to Ibn Arabi, the question itself is misleading. God is not a body, nor is He subject to space, direction, or location. Therefore, creation is neither "inside" God, as though He were a container, nor "outside" Him, as though something could exist independently beyond the One Reality. Such spatial categories belong only to the created order. Creation exists only through God's perpetual self-disclosure (tajalli), by which each instant of existence is continually bestowed anew, while God forever transcends every locus, direction, and limitation.

Thus, Ibn Arabi's doctrine is neither pantheism, which identifies creation with God, nor deism, which separates creation from God's continuous self-disclosure. It also transcends the ordinary sense of panentheism, for creation is neither "within" nor "outside" God, since such spatial categories cannot be applied to the Divine. Rather, it is a metaphysics of perpetual Divine self-disclosure (tajalli), in which God's one Being is disclosed through His Divine Names while His Essence remains forever hidden and transcendent. Thus, the realised gnostic beholds both tanzih (transcendence) and tashbih (immanence) together without sacrificing one for the other.

~~~

What do you think? 🌷

reddit.com
u/Ziad31958860 — 1 month ago
▲ 2 r/MuslimLounge

My Attempt to Summarise Ibn Arabi's Metaphysics (later associated with Wahdat al-Wujud, though Ibn Arabi himself never used that expression)

Although Ibn Arabi never used the expression Wahdat al-Wujud ("Unity of Being"), it later became associated with the Akbarian tradition, the school of thought named after his honorific al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the Greatest Master). Since the phrase has often been misunderstood, especially in modern discussions, what follows is my own attempt to summarise Ibn Arabi's metaphysics as clearly and faithfully as possible. It is ultimately my own interpretation and synthesis of his thought, so it may well contain errors or oversimplifications.

A note on terminology: In what follows, Being (al-Wujud) refers to the "is-ness" by which anything exists, not God conceived as an entity or object. Essence (al-Dhat) refers to what God is in Himself, His innermost reality, forever beyond all created knowledge and comprehension. Not in the loose English use of "essence of the poem" for example.

~~~

The ocean is not God in His Essence, for God's Essence (al-Dhat) is utterly hidden, incomparable, and transcendent. Rather, the ocean, like all creation, is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being (al-Wujud) is disclosed by the theophanies (tajalliyat) of His infinite Divine Names, each appearing in a delimited form. A calm sea, for example, may disclose Names of Beauty (Jamal), such as al-Wasi' (the All-Encompassing) and al-Jamil (the Beautiful). Its vastness may also disclose al-Jalil (the Majestic). By contrast, a violent, stormy sea may disclose other Names of Majesty (Jalal), such as al-Qahhar (the Subduer) and al-Qawi (the All-Strong). So too with all creation: every created thing discloses multiple Divine Names simultaneously, though some Names are more evident than others in a given theophany.

Before their outward existence, all created things are eternally known by God as the immutable entities (a'yan al-thabita): the uncreated fixed possibilities of all that is to be created. They possess no independent existence, nor do they occupy a place "within" God, for God's knowledge is neither spatial nor temporal. Rather, they are the fixed possibilities according to which creation receives existence through the continual Divine theophanies (tajalliyat) of the Divine Names. According to Ibn Arabi, creation is continuously renewed (tajdid al-khalq), each instant receiving existence anew through a fresh Divine theophany (tajalli).

The universe must be viewed from two complementary, not contradictory, vantage points. From the eye of al-Haqq, or al-Haqiqa, creation possesses no independent existence ('adam in itself). The universe is like a mirror through which God's one Being is disclosed by the theophanies of His Divine Names; in this sense, its existence is entirely borrowed from the Real. Like a reflection in a mirror, it has no independent reality apart from the one reflected, yet the reflection is never identical with the one before the mirror. Likewise, God neither indwells creation (hulul), as grapes rest in a bowl or water fills a vessel, nor becomes united with it (ittihad), as wine mixes with water. Such notions wrongly assume two independently existing realities, whereas creation possesses no independent being apart from the Real. Multiplicity belongs to the loci (mazahir), whereas unity belongs to the one Divine Being (al-Wujud).

From the eye of the Sharia, however, there remains a real distinction between Creator and creation. We are contingent, created beings with moral responsibility, limitations, and accountability, whose existence remains wholly dependent upon the Real. Here too, there is neither indwelling nor union: God is never contained by creation, nor does creation become God.

Every created thing is huwa la huwa (He/Not He)It is "He" insofar as God's one Being alone is disclosed through it, just as a reflection truly discloses the one standing before a mirror. Yet a reflection is never the very thing standing before it, nor is it identical with the one reflected. Likewise, every created thing remains "not He" because it's a finite, contingent locus (mazhar), never God's Essence.

Even what appears ugly or evil is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being is disclosed by the Divine Names of Majesty (Jalal) such as al-Mumit (The Giver of Death). The realised gnostic ('arif) recognises these, too, as Divine theophanies of those Names, while still judging evil as evil and acting according to the Sharia. Thus, metaphysical realisation never abolishes moral responsibility.

Where, then, is creation in relation to God? According to Ibn Arabi, the question itself is misleading. God is not a body, nor is He subject to space, direction, or location. Therefore, creation is neither "inside" God, as though He were a container, nor "outside" Him, as though something could exist independently beyond the One Reality. Such spatial categories belong only to the created order. Creation exists only through God's perpetual self-disclosure (tajalli), by which each instant of existence is continually bestowed anew, while God forever transcends every locus, direction, and limitation.

Thus, Ibn Arabi's doctrine is neither pantheism, which identifies creation with God, nor deism, which separates creation from God's continuous self-disclosure. It also transcends the ordinary sense of panentheism, for creation is neither "within" nor "outside" God, since such spatial categories cannot be applied to the Divine. Rather, it is a metaphysics of perpetual Divine self-disclosure (tajalli), in which God's one Being is disclosed through His Divine Names while His Essence remains forever hidden and transcendent. Thus, the realised gnostic beholds both tanzih (transcendence) and tashbih (immanence) together without sacrificing one for the other.

~~~

What do you think? 🌷

reddit.com
u/Ziad31958860 — 1 month ago
▲ 16 r/Sufism

My Attempt to Summarise Ibn Arabi's Metaphysics (later associated with Wahdat al-Wujud, though Ibn Arabi himself never used that expression)

Although Ibn Arabi never used the expression Wahdat al-Wujud ("Unity of Being"), it later became associated with the Akbarian tradition, the school of thought named after his honorific al-Shaykh al-Akbar (the Greatest Master). Since the phrase has often been misunderstood, especially in modern discussions, what follows is my own attempt to summarise Ibn Arabi's metaphysics as clearly and faithfully as possible. It is ultimately my own interpretation and synthesis of his thought, so it may well contain errors or oversimplifications.

A note on terminology: In what follows, Being (al-Wujud) refers to the "is-ness" by which anything exists, not God conceived as an entity or object. Essence (al-Dhat) refers to what God is in Himself, His innermost reality, forever beyond all created knowledge and comprehension. Not in the loose English use of "essence of the poem" for example.

~~~

The ocean is not God in His Essence, for God's Essence (al-Dhat) is utterly hidden, incomparable, and transcendent. Rather, the ocean, like all creation, is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being (al-Wujud) is disclosed by the theophanies (tajalliyat) of His infinite Divine Names, each appearing in a delimited form. A calm sea, for example, may disclose Names of Beauty (Jamal), such as al-Wasi' (the All-Encompassing) and al-Jamil (the Beautiful). Its vastness may also disclose al-Jalil (the Majestic). By contrast, a violent, stormy sea may disclose other Names of Majesty (Jalal), such as al-Qahhar (the Subduer) and al-Qawi (the All-Strong). So too with all creation: every created thing discloses multiple Divine Names simultaneously, though some Names are more evident than others in a given theophany.

Before their outward existence, all created things are eternally known by God as the immutable entities (a'yan al-thabita): the uncreated fixed possibilities of all that is to be created. They possess no independent existence, nor do they occupy a place "within" God, for God's knowledge is neither spatial nor temporal. Rather, they are the fixed possibilities according to which creation receives existence through the continual Divine theophanies (tajalliyat) of the Divine Names. According to Ibn Arabi, creation is continuously renewed (tajdid al-khalq), each instant receiving existence anew through a fresh Divine theophany (tajalli).

The universe must be viewed from two complementary, not contradictory, vantage points. From the eye of al-Haqq, or al-Haqiqa, creation possesses no independent existence ('adam in itself). The universe is like a mirror through which God's one Being is disclosed by the theophanies of His Divine Names; in this sense, its existence is entirely borrowed from the Real. Like a reflection in a mirror, it has no independent reality apart from the one reflected, yet the reflection is never identical with the one before the mirror. Likewise, God neither indwells creation (hulul), as grapes rest in a bowl or water fills a vessel, nor becomes united with it (ittihad), as wine mixes with water. Such notions wrongly assume two independently existing realities, whereas creation possesses no independent being apart from the Real. Multiplicity belongs to the loci (mazahir), whereas unity belongs to the one Divine Being (al-Wujud).

From the eye of the Sharia, however, there remains a real distinction between Creator and creation. We are contingent, created beings with moral responsibility, limitations, and accountability, whose existence remains wholly dependent upon the Real. Here too, there is neither indwelling nor union: God is never contained by creation, nor does creation become God.

Every created thing is huwa la huwa (He/Not He)It is "He" insofar as God's one Being alone is disclosed through it, just as a reflection truly discloses the one standing before a mirror. Yet a reflection is never the very thing standing before it, nor is it identical with the one reflected. Likewise, every created thing remains "not He" because it's a finite, contingent locus (mazhar), never God's Essence.

Even what appears ugly or evil is a locus (mazhar) through which God's one Being is disclosed by the Divine Names of Majesty (Jalal) such as al-Mumit (The Giver of Death). The realised gnostic ('arif) recognises these, too, as Divine theophanies of those Names, while still judging evil as evil and acting according to the Sharia. Thus, metaphysical realisation never abolishes moral responsibility.

Where, then, is creation in relation to God? According to Ibn Arabi, the question itself is misleading. God is not a body, nor is He subject to space, direction, or location. Therefore, creation is neither "inside" God, as though He were a container, nor "outside" Him, as though something could exist independently beyond the One Reality. Such spatial categories belong only to the created order. Creation exists only through God's perpetual self-disclosure (tajalli), by which each instant of existence is continually bestowed anew, while God forever transcends every locus, direction, and limitation.

Thus, Ibn Arabi's doctrine is neither pantheism, which identifies creation with God, nor deism, which separates creation from God's continuous self-disclosure. It also transcends the ordinary sense of panentheism, for creation is neither "within" nor "outside" God, since such spatial categories cannot be applied to the Divine. Rather, it is a metaphysics of perpetual Divine self-disclosure (tajalli), in which God's one Being is disclosed through His Divine Names while His Essence remains forever hidden and transcendent. Thus, the realised gnostic beholds both tanzih (transcendence) and tashbih (immanence) together without sacrificing one for the other.

~~~

What do you think? 🌷

reddit.com
u/Ziad31958860 — 1 month ago
▲ 2 r/islam

Tafsir Ishari: The Forgotten Tradition of Sunni Qur'anic Exegesis

Try reading more esoteric tafsirs (exegesis), known as tafsir ishari. Contrary to what many assume today, tafsir ishari has been accepted in mainstream Sunni Islam since the time of the Prophet. Before the Salafi print boom in the 19th and 20th centuries, which heavily promoted more literalist commentaries, especially those of Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari, to a lesser extent Al-Qurtubi, tafsir ishari was the most widely read forms of tafsir for the average Muslim.

Indeed, as the authentic hadith records, for example in Mushkil al-Athar 3095 (The Problematic Reports; called that because it is entirely dedicated to explaining reports that are not immediately obvious)

> "The Qur'an was revealed in seven modes. Every verse has an esoteric meaning and an exoteric meaning, and every limit has a horizon."

As long as an esoteric interpretation does not contradict the exoteric meaning of the verse, follows the rules of the Arabic language, and remains within the bounds of the Shari'a (Islamic law), it has been been regarded as entirely legitimate. This was the position of the great orthodox authorities like Sheikh al-Islam Al-Suyyuti, Hujjat al-Islam Al-Ghazali and so many more.

In these works, you find beautiful meanings that Saints have agreed upon over centuries of the tradition, such as the interpretation of the Two Seas in Surah al-Rahman.

> 19 He let the two seas flow, so they might converge; 20 between them a barrier, where they shall not merge. (Qur'an 55:19–20):

The literal tafsir tells us of the physical seas, and how the salty sea and the sweet sea do not mix; an objective sign of God's craftsmanship. But tafsir ishari sees in this a mirror of the human condition.

The "sweet sea" is the ruh (spirit), ever yearning for the heights, craving the crystalline nectar of Divine proximity. The "salty sea" is the nafs (carnal self), dense with the weight of the earth, bitter with the brine of desire and ego. They meet within the narrow geography of the human chest, locked in a perpetual, roiling struggle.

This is precisely why tafsir ishari was never regarded it as dangerous or merely subjective. Read this way, the Shari'a is no longer merely a law to obey, but the shore that keeps the sea of the soul from swallowing itself. If an interpretation leaves you loving God's Law more than before, because you finally glimpse its wisdom, what greater unveiling could there be?

Some great examples of tafsir ishari include Lata'if al-Isharat (The Subtlety of Allusions) by Imam al-Qushayri, Al-Bahr al-Madid fi Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Majid (The Ever-Extending Sea in the Interpretation of the Glorious Qur'an) by Ibn Ajiba, and even Rumi's Masnavi.

The Masnavi, a 26,000-verse epic composed of countless smaller poems, is itself a kind of tafsir ishari. As Rumi himself writes in its Arabic introduction:

> "This is the book of the Masnavi, and it is the roots of the roots of the roots of the religion (...) and the unveiler of the Qur'an."

I also highly recommend Alan Williams' translation. It is, by far, the best. I would avoid the others.

By the way, Rumi was not some secular bohemian; that's what Persian nationalists and questionable English translations would have you believe. In reality, he was the grand Hanafi jurist and chief mufti of Konya, and continued teaching even after meeting Shams Tabrizi, who was not just a wondering dervish, but a man deeply learned in the Shafi'i school of thought.

He famously wrote in the Masnavi:

> "I am the servant of the Qur'an as long as I have life. I am the dust on the path of Muhammad, the Chosen One. If anyone interprets my words otherwise, I am disgusted by him, and disgusted by his words."

He makes many similar statements throughout his works. He also says that the Shari'a (Islamic law) is like a candle that lights the way, the tariqa (Spiritual Path), towards Reality (Haqiqa), that is, towards God.

Indeed, Rumi, his father, and his son were praised by jurists, Sufis, and jurist-Sufis alike.

Among the Shafi'is, Shaykh al-Islam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (1445–1505) cited Rumi with respect in several works and regarded him as one of the recognised Saints. Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari (1420–1520), the foremost Shafi'i jurist of his age, likewise spoke favourably of Rumi and the Mevlevi path, regarding the Masnavi as a work of profound spiritual benefit. The renowned Shafi'i jurist and saint Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha'rani (1492–1565) frequently praised Rumi among the great Saints. One of the clearest endorsements comes from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (1504–1567), who referred to Rumi as "the great 'arif (gnostic), the realised Imam" in al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya (The Hadith Legal Verdicts). He also spoke highly of Rumi's son, Sultan Walad, the founder of the Mevlevi Order.

Among the Hanafis, the great hadith scholar and jurist Ali al-Qari (d. 1606) quoted Rumi approvingly and defended the Sufi tradition more broadly. The eminent Hanafi exegete Isma'il Haqqi Bursevi (1653–1725) constantly cited Rumi in Ruh al-Bayan (The Spirit of Elucidation), praising him as a realised 'arif. The celebrated Hanafi jurist and Grand Mufti of Damascus Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi (1641–1731), one of the greatest scholars of the Ottoman era, quoted Rumi extensively and regarded him as one of the highest Saints. Later still, the celebrated Hanafi mufassir Mahmud al-Alusi (1802–1854) frequently cited Rumi with admiration in Ruh al-Ma'ani (The Spirit of the Meanings). Among the Malikis, the renowned exegete, jurist, and saint Ahmad ibn Ajiba (1747–1809) likewise quoted Rumi extensively throughout his tafsir and other writings with evident admiration.

Rumi's family likewise received remarkable praise. His son, Sultan Walad, the founder of the Mevlevi Order, was described by the great Shafi'i hadith master Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani in Al-Durar al-Kamina (The Hidden Pearls) as:

> "One of the Imams of the Hanafi masters, brilliant, ascetic, pious, a jurist, scholar of usul (legal methodology), and grammarian..."

Likewise, the Hanafi jurist and biographer Abu al-Wafa' al-Qurashi described him in Al-Jawahir al-Mudiyya (The Luminous Jewels) as:

> "An Imam... who followed his father in leaving the world behind."

The great Hanafi historian and jurist Ibn Qutlubugha likewise praised Sultan Walad in his biographical works, affirming his learning, piety, and distinction among the Hanafi scholars.

Finally, let me end with one of my favourite verses in the Qur'an, a verse whose radiant imagery gave birth to centuries of mystical poetry and tafsir ishari contemplating the Light of God. This translation is by M. A. R. Habib and Bruce B. Lawrence, the same translation I quoted earlier from Surah al-Rahman:

> 35 God is the Light of the heavens and of the earth; His Light is a parable, of a niche which holds a lamp, the lamp enclosed in a glass, the glass which glows like a gleaming star, lit from an olive tree, blessed; whose soil is neither East nor West; its very oil would shine forth though untouched by fire: Light upon Light. God guides to His Light whom He will; He strikes parables for humankind, for God is Knower of all things. (Qur'an 24:35)

What do you think?

May God purify your heart and my heart 🌷

reddit.com
u/Ziad31958860 — 1 month ago
▲ 27 r/Sufism+2 crossposts

Challenging the Modern Narrative on Qur'an and Music

https://youtu.be/lV5rVeHIFE4?si=9K-UZY70uoKUuxYz

I would say that my beleifs align with classical Sunni Islalm so I do accept hadiths, I know many don't accept hadiths here, but I still think you can gain a lot from reading this.

I was iust watching this interview with the legendary Sheikh Abdul Basit, and it struck me again how deeply our greatest Qur'an reciters were embedded in the classical Egyptian musical tradition. It's a beautiful reminder that for masters like him, Mustafa Ismail, and, the overwhelming majority of Egyptian reciters, music and the Qur'an were never mutually exclusive; in fact, their appreciation for the arts informed the very beauty of their recitation.

Abdul Basit was a well-known, avid fan of Umm Kulthum, she, herself, a hafiza (one that memorised the entire Qur'an)—as Egyptian reciters and scholars have always been—and one can clearly see the influence of her music, and broader classical Egyptian music, on that school of Egyptian recitation.

Reciting the Qur’an using maqamat (musical modes) was practiced by Abdul Basit, the Egyptian reciters, and indeed the overwhelming majority of Shafi'is in our history as it is explicitly mustahab (recommended) in the Shafi’i madhhab, for it is a lie what commonly gets told today: reciting quran with maqamat is haram.

Certainly, there are entire scholarly lineages in the Shafi’i madhhab that hold that all musical instruments are permissible if the context is clean. They acknowledge that all "anti-music" hadiths, and especially the "anti-music" Qur’anic verses, are tied strictly to contexts of negative diversion and only prohibit it under those conditions.

Truly, giants in the Shafi’i madhhab allowed all musical instruments, even though the two Ibn Hajars were against it. Though an argument could be made that Kaff al-Ru'a' 'an Muharramat al-Lahw wa al-Sama' (Deterring the Vulgar Masses from the Prohibitions of Idle Diversion and Listening) was prohibiting the vulgar masses out of sadd al-dhara'i' (blocking the means to sin), not prohibiting it for the spiritually mature. An interpretation famously championed by the Hanafi Grand Mufti of Damascus in the 18th century, Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, in his treatise Idah al-Dalalat fi Sama' al-Allat (Clarifying the Evidences for Listening to Instruments), and by many other scholars.

These permissive scholars include the Sheikh al-Islam and Sultan al-'Ulama' (Sultan of Scholars) Al-'Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam, Sheikh al-Islam Al-Suyuti, Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, the Saint Al-Qushayri, and the Saint Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili. This view also covers entire lineages like Al-Azhar from the 18th century to our day, and Yemeni Shafi’is who routinely composed spiritual poetry to be played on the qunbus (Yemeni oud).

For it is provably a lie what is so often said: that music and the Qur’an cannot coexist in one heart. Unquestionably, the greatest Qur’an reciters we know of were avid music lovers; nay, we know that reciters like Mustafa Ismail and Abdul Basit openly loved and studied music to improve and inform their recitation.

Finally, I leave you with a funny but honest quote from Hassan al-Attar, the 19th-century Sheikh al-Islam and Grand Mufti of Al-Azhar:

> He who is not moved by delicate poetry, recited with the tongue of stringed instruments, on the banks of rivers, in the shade of trees, is a coarse-natured donkey.

I lied, this is really the last thing I am gonna say, finally, there is a difference between a true ijma' (consensus) and a claimed ijma. Ibn Taymiyyah and the 9 other scholars, or so, that claimed consensus were engaging in a scholarly project to create unity, rather than actually reflecting the (ikhtilaf) disagreement on the issue.

What do you think? May Allah purify my heart and yours, and don't forget to send salawat on the Prophet 🌷

u/Ziad31958860 — 1 month ago