Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Bahadur Ali

Was Ibn 'Arabi a Shi'a in disguise?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Quick question though: Why does one of our top Shia scholars (Khomeini) hold high honor for Ibn Arabi and his work?

I have no idea. I actually haven't seen any original references of Ayatullah Khomeini speaking of the virtues of ibn Arabi. All I've seen is unverifiable online sources that claim that he did, so I can't really judge the extent to which he revered ibn Arabi. In any case, that is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Anyone who claims that Imami Shi'ahs are dogs and pigs in essence gets no respect from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for ur explanations Ehsan , Mulla Sadr made a book which he differentiate between Irfan and fake sufism "kasr asnam al jahiliyah " Ibn Arabi aren't responsible for what the sufis after him made , historically you can't prove the shiesm of ibn arabi and other scholars under taqiyya as we don't know what was the environment they lived in and the pressure they had from extremist sunnis.. just like the imamate concept historically all the things u can prove about immamate is ghadeer khom and saqifa bani saqeeda , but According to the Aqeeda you can fully explain the immamate concept... don't explain Ibn Arabi writings as u think you should know what he meant by it

i think this subject shud be left for scholars especially the philosophers .... common people have little knowledge on Irfan and it's philosophy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some people here are trying to criticize Grand Ayatollah al khominie (qas)"i know exactly what's their agenda and who are their preachers" i wanna remind u , ur not worthy of the dust on Al khominies(qas) shoes.

to brother ehsan and Imami-Ali i think u better end the discussion this is not a matter to be discussed with the ignorant people .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some people here are trying to criticize Grand Ayatollah al khominie (qas)"i know exactly what's their agenda and who are their preachers" i wanna remind u , ur not worthy of the dust on Al khominies(qas) shoes.

to brother ehsan and Imami-Ali i think u better end the discussion this is not a matter to be discussed with the ignorant people .

People should be allowed to criticize Imam Al-Khomeini (qas) just as we criticize revered leaders and scholars of Sunnis.

If they think it was illogical view of Khomeini (qas) to praise Ibn Arabi, then they have the right to express that. But also Tabatabai (qas) and others, etc... will be criticized in that.

Of course one can assume they have no reason to assume this about it, but here are the premises that lead

The knowledge he possessed cannot be possessed but by a true believer and a Arif.

An Arif must be follower of an Infallible Imam/Ahlulbayt (as).

Thus he is a Shia.

Thus they conclude on those premises. Now you cannot derive 1) unless your an Arif yourself. And you cannot derive two unless you know for certain a believer will be a follower of Imam (as) (Ahlulbayt (as)).

Now if either of those two premises are not true, then they have no basis.

1) Did he possess knowledge only a Arif can posses?

This is a first question.

2) Can only a follower of Ahlulbayt (as) be a an Arif?

This is a 2nd question.

Either of these two being no, then it's logical to conclude he was not Shia. Why? Because we should go on available evidence. When a person says he believes this and that, you assume he does. You go on how you reason with everyone and how you view everyone.

For people whom can't answer either 1) or 2), we can assume that Urufa whom say he is Shia know the answers or we can assume they don't. Then it comes down to how you view those scholars, would they conclude this without knowledge/proof?

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people can have their opinions about shia scholars as they are not Infallible , but what kinda disgust me is "a certain shia group" which is soo eager to Attack Grand Ayatollah al Khomeini(qas) , knowing that the common people shudn't be involved in the ayatollahs disagreements and disputes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to ask whether it even matters if he was a shia or a sunni, and can one reach such stations if one is a muslim but not a shia?

Sorry for nagging but can anyone answer this question clearly?

Jazak'Allah

Edited by MFAHH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for nagging but can anyone answer this question clearly?

Jazak'Allah

Yes it does matter, particularly if people are emulating him for religious guidance (to the point even of trying to re-interpret tawhid through his heretical Sufi lens). And as to whether he could achieve such a high status otherwise, 1) I don't think he had a high status, rather that he was a nasibi liar and deviant who was astray leading others astray 2) if one is outside of the walayat of the Ahl al-Bayt, one is in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Ayatullah Khomeini, Ayatullah Mutahhari & Allamah Tabataba'i (rahimuhum Allah) studied and had benefitted from was Ibn Arabi's take/view on gnosticism. That does not mean that they agreed with him on everything or were eager to put him in the same school. I used to think highly of Ibn Arabi, untill I saw his writing about his own self in his books. He makes some absurd claims about his own self, as if he was the greatest person alive who received revelation, anyone who knows and has gone on the path of 'Irfan understands that this man hasn't even passed the first stage of his self imposed stages of spiritual journey, which is ascetism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's a condition called Exposing People's BS Disorder.

Those who say that ibn Arabi was actually Shi'a are either stunningly ignorant, deeply delusional, or insane. It is understandable to assume that a Shi'a in taqiyyah would hide his beliefs and not express enmity towards the caliphs, but it's insane to assume that he would go so far as claiming that Shi'as are essentially dogs and pigs, that Umar is superior to the Prophet, and that Mu'awiyah is beyond reproach. Taqiyaah means to CONCEAL your beliefs -- it doesn't mean to promote the polar OPPOSITE of your beliefs.

As for the quotes from ibn Arabi regularly provided by these ignorant Shi'as to show that he had Shi'a beliefs, many of them are completely fabricated. For example, in the first link provided by Imami_ali in post # 83 that supposedly shows which of our scholars claimed that ibn Arabi was Shi'a, we see this quote taken from ibn Arabi's Futuhat as evidence of his Shi'i beliefs:

قال رحمه الله في الباب 366 من الكتاب المذكور: ((إن لله خليفة يخرج من عترة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم من ولد فاطمة يواطئ إسمه إسم رسول الله، جده الحسين بن علي عليهما السلام

http://www.hajr-network.net/hajrvb/showthread.php?t=402980860&page=2

It is saying that ibn Arabi wrote in his Futuhat (Chapter 366), that the Mahdi will be a descendant of "Husayn bin Ali, peace be upon them both". This is a purely Shi'a belief, since Sunnis believe that Imam Mahdi will be a descendant of Imam Hasan.

But when we read the actual Futuhat, Chapter 366, we see this instead:

انّ للّه خليفة يخرج وقد امتلأت الارض جورا وظلما فيملؤها قسطا وعدلا لو لم يبق من الدنيا إلا يوم واحد طول الله ذلك اليوم حتى يلى هذا الخليفة من عترة رسول الله صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم من ولد فاطمة يواطئ اسمه اسم رسول الله صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم جده الحسن بن على بن أبي طالب يبايع بين الركن والمقام يشبه رسول الله صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم

http://www.ibnalarabi.com/maktaba/futuhat.asp?ID=1782

Here it clearly states that the Mahdi will be a descendant of "Hasan bin Ali b. Abi Talib", which is perfectly in line with Sunni beliefs, as expected.

In fact, anyone who has ever read his works can see perfectly clearly that he was 100% Sunni. Every single hadith that he quotes is taken from the primary Sunni texts. If he were Shi'a, then, in all his extensive writings, would there not be one, just one, hadith taken from a primary Shi'i source?

But there isn't any. That's how much of a Shi'a he is.

Salaam

What fyst has posted may or may not be accurate, but one thing the brother has overlook is the high probability of Ibn Arabi's text being manipulated and fabricated as the subsequent generations went along. You have to realize, the Sunni Sufi's as much as they wish to express their love for Ahlul bayt, which I don't question, alot of them have enimity towards the Shi'a, and I'm sure you all have experience it at some stage with interactions with them , at least I have.

The point is, when we see, Ibn arabi's text and his great influence on many Shi'i mystics, which of whom have greatly exerted much more exfluyence on latter Shi'i clerygymen, like Mulla Sadra, Hydar Amuli, and 20th centruy scholars, we have to ask ourselves a question; Are we fooling ourselves into thinking they were wrong? or Is something fishy!?

For example, lets focus on this parth of Ibn arabis text from futuhat. Can anyone, after reading it, name me ONE, JUST ONE SUNNI WHO SAYS THIS!

futuhat chap 369 III 371.27 cairo,1911 reprinted cario: al hay'at al misriyyat al amma li'l kitab 1972

This part is where he talks about perfect servants, and how they don't lose track or hope when their master leaves.

I quote;

"Even if the shaikh should pass away, this disciple would not feel his loss as such, since he knows the state of shaikh. Such was Abu bakr Al siddiq, with the messenger of GOD, when the messenger died. There was no one who was not terribly upset and did not say things which should not have been heard. Thereby each bore witness against himself for his own inadequncy and his lack of knowledge off the messenger whom he followed. This was the case with everyone but Abu bakr, since for him the situation had not changed. He knew what there was and the actual situation. Hence, He limed the pulpit and recited, "Muhammad is naught but a messenger, messengers have passed away before him, Why if he should die or slain, will you turn about your heels? (quran 3. 144.) So he whose illusions had overcome him came back to his senses and then people knew the excellence of abu bakr over everyone. Hence he was worthy of immamate and being given precedence. NO one swore allegiance to him aimlessly. And no one failed to swear allegiance to him except those who were ignorant of the same thing in him which they were ignorant in messeger of GOD"

Ibn arabi says,

1) Everyone except Abu bakr didn't know the messenger.

This would mean, he is excluding Umar, Imam Ali and other companions as ignorant of the messenger of God. This is not the SUNNI position. WHILE the Shi'i position is precisely THIS. NO one really knew the Prophet except ALI!

2) Abu bakr told the people not the turn back their heels.

Who really told the people not to turn their heels. I thought the Sunni version was lala land, noone disputed Abu bakrs kalifat, and the ones who did were Ali and Few of his companions. Is ibn arabi telling me, Ali, whom he refereed to as, sirr al anibiya wal murasaleen and the best after the prophet, as being deviated and ignorant and later acknowledging Abu bakrs excellence. wasn't it other way around, did not the people later acknowledge Alis superiority, even Umar and Abu bakr? Even abdaal the sufi on shiachat, ask him, who is superior, he'll say Ali, and he will also say, Sufi's generally accept this. So was ibn arabi delusional or was his text changed?

3) Abu bakr worthy of Imamate.

Please tell me, since when has anyone else claimed this for abu bakr. Imamate is a Shi'i concept taken from the quran, and we too say, the knowledge and superiority proves Ali's Imamate

4) People who failed to swore allegiance to the abu bakr, didn't really swear allegiance to the messenger.

Wow, do we (shia) not say, that the companions deviated from the truth and in reality they didn't understand the messenger and in their hearts they were weak in faith? Thus they also rejected Ali

Just, take Abu bakrs name out and replace it with ali, you will not see a difference in aqaid!

This is just ONE Example of how Ibn arabis text have been fabricated and distorted, but the apparent contradictions make it clear and evident the Shi'ism of Ibn arabi.

Edited by Love'sParadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just ONE Example of how Ibn arabis text have been fabricated and distorted, but the apparent contradictions make it clear and evident the Shi'ism of Ibn arabi.

The thing is we assume by contradictions, Ibn Arabi was well aware of them. The Quran says if it was from other then God, we would find in it many contradictions.

Therefore it's not surprising there are contradictions...

For example, in one place he would say Ali (as) is the Closest to the Nabi (saw) of all creation. In another place, he says no one knew the Messenger (saw) but Abu Baker. Perhaps he was in love with both, and just was spilling what his heart felt for each of them at that time. And that's exaggerated praise... I mean by that when praising one of them, he would go full out, to the extent of making them unique.

But this is not impossible, people often don't notice contradictions.

For example, Christians believe Isa (as) said "..the father, whom is greater then I". Yet say "The father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are one reality... At one point, they emphasize, "God sacrificed his son..", yet say "the son is the father", and yet believe the son said "..the father, whom is greater then I". Obviously there is a contradiction but they never notice it. They're always in the moment of the phrase and never notice a contradiction.

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who reaches such a high level of irfan HAD to be SHIA!

because only SHIAS are right. everyone else follows a corrupt path.

We shias are guided. remember! everyone else is somehow or another misguided or not privileged by God.

So If we know Ibn Arabi is not a shia, then he was not an Arif.

But if he was an Arif..then obviously HE MUST have been shia!

Its like A=A ...so simple!

byebye

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

What fyst has posted may or may not be accurate, but one thing the brother has overlook is the high probability of Ibn Arabi's text being manipulated and fabricated as the subsequent generations went along. You have to realize, the Sunni Sufi's as much as they wish to express their love for Ahlul bayt, which I don't question, alot of them have enimity towards the Shi'a, and I'm sure you all have experience it at some stage with interactions with them , at least I have.

The point is, when we see, Ibn arabi's text and his great influence on many Shi'i mystics, which of whom have greatly exerted much more exfluyence on latter Shi'i clerygymen, like Mulla Sadra, Hydar Amuli, and 20th centruy scholars, we have to ask ourselves a question; Are we fooling ourselves into thinking they were wrong? or Is something fishy!?

For example, lets focus on this parth of Ibn arabis text from futuhat. Can anyone, after reading it, name me ONE, JUST ONE SUNNI WHO SAYS THIS!

futuhat chap 369 III 371.27 cairo,1911 reprinted cario: al hay'at al misriyyat al amma li'l kitab 1972

This part is where he talks about perfect servants, and how they don't lose track or hope when their master leaves.

I quote;

"Even if the shaikh should pass away, this disciple would not feel his loss as such, since he knows the state of shaikh. Such was Abu bakr Al siddiq, with the messenger of GOD, when the messenger died. There was no one who was not terribly upset and did not say things which should not have been heard. Thereby each bore witness against himself for his own inadequncy and his lack of knowledge off the messenger whom he followed. This was the case with everyone but Abu bakr, since for him the situation had not changed. He knew what there was and the actual situation. Hence, He limed the pulpit and recited, "Muhammad is naught but a messenger, messengers have passed away before him, Why if he should die or slain, will you turn about your heels? (quran 3. 144.) So he whose illusions had overcome him came back to his senses and then people knew the excellence of abu bakr over everyone. Hence he was worthy of immamate and being given precedence. NO one swore allegiance to him aimlessly. And no one failed to swear allegiance to him except those who were ignorant of the same thing in him which they were ignorant in messeger of GOD"

Ibn arabi says,

1) Everyone except Abu bakr didn't know the messenger.

This would mean, he is excluding Umar, Imam Ali and other companions as ignorant of the messenger of God. This is not the SUNNI position. WHILE the Shi'i position is precisely THIS. NO one really knew the Prophet except ALI!

2) Abu bakr told the people not the turn back their heels.

Who really told the people not to turn their heels. I thought the Sunni version was lala land, noone disputed Abu bakrs kalifat, and the ones who did were Ali and Few of his companions. Is ibn arabi telling me, Ali, whom he refereed to as, sirr al anibiya wal murasaleen and the best after the prophet, as being deviated and ignorant and later acknowledging Abu bakrs excellence. wasn't it other way around, did not the people later acknowledge Alis superiority, even Umar and Abu bakr? Even abdaal the sufi on shiachat, ask him, who is superior, he'll say Ali, and he will also say, Sufi's generally accept this. So was ibn arabi delusional or was his text changed?

3) Abu bakr worthy of Imamate.

Please tell me, since when has anyone else claimed this for abu bakr. Imamate is a Shi'i concept taken from the quran, and we too say, the knowledge and superiority proves Ali's Imamate

4) People who failed to swore allegiance to the abu bakr, didn't really swear allegiance to the messenger.

Wow, do we (shia) not say, that the companions deviated from the truth and in reality they didn't understand the messenger and in their hearts they were weak in faith? Thus they also rejected Ali

Just, take Abu bakrs name out and replace it with ali, you will not see a difference in aqaid!

This is just ONE Example of how Ibn arabis text have been fabricated and distorted, but the apparent contradictions make it clear and evident the Shi'ism of Ibn arabi.

I think that your point is very good :)

It shows that there may well have been distortions and changes within the texts, and Awakened I see where you are coming from but I don't think that such contradictory statements could be true. It is like saying that one day I will love Hussain and the other day I will love Yazid, and that I will switch the roles that they both played in history. I am sorry if I am not understanding you point but it seems like that.

Salaams and duas

Edited by MFAHH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, lets focus on this parth of Ibn arabis text from futuhat. Can anyone, after reading it, name me ONE, JUST ONE SUNNI WHO SAYS THIS!

. . .

Just, take Abu bakrs name out and replace it with ali, you will not see a difference in aqaid!

This is just ONE Example of how Ibn arabis text have been fabricated and distorted, but the apparent contradictions make it clear and evident the Shi'ism of Ibn arabi.

This is a baseless assumption. You just have to read the historical distortions by the Sunni scholars whereby they have replaced the name of Imam Ali (a) with any of the so-called companions of the Prophet (s). For example:

Birth in Kaaba:

It is firmly established that the Companion Hakim ibn Hizam ibn Khuwaylid ibn `Abd al-`Uzza ibn Qusay al-Qurashi was born in the Ka`ba, as Imam Muslim stated in his Sahih (Kitab al-Buyu`, Bab al-Sidq fi al-Bay` wa al-Bayan). See also al-Hakim, Mustadrak (1990 ed. 3:549) and Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba (#1802)

So according to them, it's not Imam Ali (a) but Hakim ibn Hizam who was born in the Kaaba.

The most beloved to the Prophet:

It is related by Amr bin As who said: "One day I asked the Prophet: 'O Prophet of Allah! Whom do you love most among the women?' He replied, 'A'yesha.' I said: 'Whom do you love best among the men?' He replied, 'A'yesha's father, Abu Bakr.'" Since the Prophet preferred Abu Bakr over all other men, he was superior to the whole community. This fact in itself is the most compelling proof of the legitimacy of Abu Bakr's caliphate.

http://www.al-islam.org/peshawar/5.3.html

Caliph of Religion:

There is an authentic hadith narrated by Umar Bin Ibrahim Bin Khalid, who reports from Isa Bin Ali Bin Abdullah Bin Abbas, and he from his father, and he from his grandfather, Abbas, that the Prophet of Islam told that gentleman, "O uncle! Allah has made Abu Bakr Caliph of his religion. So listen to him and obey him so that you may secure deliverance."

http://www.al-islam.org/peshawar/5.2.html

Then, there's the hadith about the companions being the stars; which has been distorted [originally referring to the Ahl al-Bayt (a)], etc. .there are many such traditions which have been distorted to show the superiority of the caliphs.

Thus, it is expected of Ibn `Arabi to praise Abu Bakr in such a manner and it is not anything new or distinct from the Sunni school of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that your point is very good :)

It shows that there may well have been distortions and changes within the texts, and Awakened I see where you are coming from but I don't think that such contradictory statements could be true. It is like saying that one day I will love Hussain and the other day I will love Yazid, and that I will switch the roles that they both played in history. I am sorry if I am not understanding you point but it seems like that.

Salaams and duas

No because majority of Muslims don't see Abu Baker and Ali (as) as enemies. But there are people whom claim to love both Hussain (as) and Yazid. So even in the case of conflict between them, Sunnis tend to praise both. The famous example being Mauwiya vs Ali (as).

Contradictions exist in most people, they just don't realize it.

The contradictions and the phrases with Shia doctrines can be seen as evidence, but it's not conclusive evidence.

There is tafsiral ibn Arabi which I think supports Shia doctrine but I think it's not authored by him, but by one of his students. There he refers to Ali (as) as Ameeral Momineen, only, which is quite unique to Shias. Also, if you see his comments on verse 4:59, and Talut (as) verse, you will see his political view of leadership is that of Shia (by CONCEPT AT LEAST). And if you check the commentary of the verse "And we made them (IBrahim, Isaac, Yaqoub) Imams...", he talks about the hadith of Mohammad (pbuh) and Ali (as) being light and how Angels (as) learned through them how to Worship God. Therefore referring to inward guidance and specifically relating that hadith about Ali (as) with the issue of the guidance mentioned in that verse. Therefore you can see the author (be the student or Ibn Arabi) believe in the Spiritual Light Guidance Imamate as well combined that to being the one whom belongs Political Authority in Talut (as) verse and saying they are the ones we are told to obey in 4:59.

His student alleged to right that book from what I've heard is believed to have understood him and had the same beliefs. So this can be proof either way.

Now people always mentioned shia hadiths are never quoted but I have not found anything about Angels (as) being taught to be Worshipped by Mohammad (pbuh) and Ali (as) but in Shia hadiths.

The issue with me is that in that tafsir, it's shown by truth of verses, therefore it's not like he is just stating a view of Imamate. While when he is talking about people (Abu Baker, Umar, etc), he is not really proving anything about them, just brining concepts that can apply to anyone else. But when the Talut (as) verse is discussed and generalized and shown to have a truth basis for all time, then applied to 4:59, and also when the Spiritual Imamate is discussed and the haq of it supported by a hadith of that type of guidance, he is showing these things have to be true. Because they are Quranic concepts and also showing that hadith has Haq in Quran that it points to.

The same goes with the concept of perfect man and Pole of age... the concept is proven by truth... and in Futuhat, there is a great link with leadership and Spiritual Vision and that being the only way of true rule of revelation and falsifies the basis of the current Fiqh by it, he is providing arguments that make it necessary for there to be an Imam, or otherwise, true rule by revelation was impossibility from the get go.

Therefore, you realize his writtings prove Shiismm, while the phrases supporting Sunnism are just assertions.

Therefore anyone whom understands his writtings will by evidence be forced to accept Shia concepts of Wilayah and Ismaa, but the assertions of Abu Baker and Umar etc are not proven.

Therefore, on that basis, a motive can be given to him to do that. This is way he is not proving by way of dogmatic proof, but by showing the truth behind it, and this would be a way of convincing sunnis without going into dogmatic debate (which we see in sunni-shia forum over 95% of time leads no where). Or rather it's a different approach then that offered by traditional proof (this hadith obviously means this and that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but one thing the brother has overlook is the high probability of Ibn Arabi's text being manipulated

No, the brother hasn't, because this "high" probability that you speak of is practically zero.

There may be problems of authenticity with other texts of ibn Arabi, but the part you quoted from is in al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, which is known to be a genuine text since there is an original manuscript of this work in ibn Arabi's own handwriting. See this:

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.”

http://www.amislam.com/tawhid4.htm

Just, take Abu bakrs name out and replace it with ali, you will not see a difference in aqaid!

If you replace Abu Bakr's name with Ali, that passage makes NO sense whatsoever, but it makes perfect sense as it is. I believe you are unfamiliar with this Sunni hadith about the merits of Abu Bakr that ibn Arabi is referring to in that passage:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 333:

Narrated Abu Salama from Ibn Abbas : Abu Bakr came out and 'Umar , was addressing the people, and Abu Bakr told him to sit down but 'Umar refused. Abu Bakr again told him to sit down but 'Umar again refused. Then Abu Bakr recited the Tashah-hud (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but
Allah
and Muhammad is
Allah
's Apostle) and the people attended to Abu Bakr and left 'Umar.
Abu Bakr said, "Amma ba'du, whoever amongst you worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped
Allah
,
Allah
is alive and will never die.
Allah
said: 'Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed (many) Apostles have passed away before him ..(up to the) grateful.' " (3.144)
(The narrator added, "By
Allah
, it was as if the people never knew that
Allah
had revealed this verse before till Abu Bakr recited it and then whoever heard it, started reciting it ")

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/023.sbt.html

And:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 19:

Then Abu Bakr came and uncovered the face of
Allah
's Apostle, kissed him and said, "Let my mother and father be sacrificed for you, (O
Allah
's Apostle), you are good in life and in death. By
Allah
in Whose Hands my life is,
Allah
will never make you taste death twice." Then he went out and said, "O oath-taker! Don't be hasty." When Abu Bakr spoke, 'Umar sat down.
Abu Bakr praised and glorified
Allah
and said, No doubt! Whoever worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped
Allah
, then
Allah
is Alive and shall never die." Then he recited
Allah
's Statement.:-- "(O Muhammad) Verily you will die, and they also will die." (39.30) He also recited:--

"Muhammad is no more than an Apostle; and indeed many Apostles have passed away, before him, If he dies Or is killed, will you then Turn back on your heels? And he who turns back On his heels, not the least Harm will he do to
Allah
And
Allah
will give reward to those Who are grateful." (3.144)

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/057.sbt.html

And:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Abu Bakr went out while Umar bin Al-Khattab was talking to the people. Abu Bakr said, "Sit down, O 'Umar!" But 'Umar refused to sit down. So the people came to Abu Bakr and left Umar.
Abu Bakr said, "To proceed, if anyone amongst you used to worship Muhammad , then Muhammad is dead, but if (anyone of) you used to worship
Allah
, then
Allah
is Alive and shall never die.
Allah
said:--"Muhammad is no more than an Apostle, and indeed (many) apostles have passed away before him..(till the end of the Verse )......
Allah
will reward to those who are thankful." (3.144)

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/059.sbt.html

So we see that ibn Arabi is stressing the greatness of Abu Bakr using the primary Sunni source of hadith (Bukhari). There is no similar hadith about Imam Ali [a] in any source, Shi'a or Sunni.

So even IF you assume that Futuhat is corrupted (even though we have a copy in his own handwriting), it still makes NO sense to assume that this section was about Imam Ali [a], because there is NO source that states that, after the death of the Prophet, Imam Ali [a] "limed the pulpit and recited, "Muhammad is naught but a messenger, messengers have passed away before him, Why if he should die or slain, will you turn about your heels? (quran 3. 144.)"

But, as I've shown above, this is a unanimously accepted Sunni belief. So, it is absolutely clear for anyone who is familiar with Sunni hadith that ibn Arabi was definitely referring to Abu Bakr in that passage by paraphrasing the Sunni hadith found in Bukhari.

3) Abu bakr worthy of Imamate.

Please tell me, since when has anyone else claimed this for abu bakr. Imamate is a Shi'i concept taken from the quran,

All Sunni's claim this! Imamate is not purely a Shi'i concept. Sunni's believe in Imamate too, but they have a different understanding of it. There is a Sahih Sunni hadith that Shi'ahs often quote that says that the Prophet stated: He who dies without (recognizing) the Imam, dies the death of the days of ignorance (jahiliyyah).

Here are some of the references:

Musnad Ahmad:

ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå ÍÏËäí ÃÈí ÍÏËäÇ ÃÓæÏ Èä ÚÇãÑ ÃäÈÃäÇ ÃÈæ ÈßÑ Úä ÚÇÕã Úä ÃÈí ÕÇáÍ Úä ãÚÇæíÉ ÞÇá:

-ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ãä ãÇÊ ÈÛíÑ ÅãÇã ãÇÊ ãíÊÉ ÌÇåáíÉ.

Kanz al-Ummal:

14863-

ãä ãÇÊ ÈÛíÑ ÅãÇã ãÇÊ ãíÊÉ ÌÇåáíÉ æãä äÒÚ íÏÇ ãä ØÇÚÉ ÌÇÁ íæã ÇáÞíÇãÉ áÇ ÍÌÉ áå.

Mu'jam al-Kabeer:

ÍÏËäÇ ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÑÞ ÇáÍãÕí ËäÇ ÚÈÏ ÇáæåÇÈ Èä ÇáÖÍÇß ËäÇ ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÚíÇÔ Úä ÖãÖã Èä ÒÑÚÉ Úä ÔÑíÍ Èä ÚÈíÏ Úä ãÚÇæíÉ ÞÇá ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ãä ãÇÊ ÈÛíÑ ÅãÇã ãÇÊ ãíÊÉ ÌÇåáíÉ

In fact, there are MANY Sunni hadith that talk about them having Imams. Here's another example:

Sahih Bukhari Book #88, Hadith #206.

Narrated Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman: The people used to ask
Allah
's Apostle about the good but I used to ask him about the evil lest I should be overtaken by them. So I said, "O
Allah
's Apostle! We were living in ignorance and in an (extremely) worst atmosphere, then
Allah
brought to us this good (i.e., Islam); will there be any evil after this good?" He said, "Yes." I said, 'Will there be any good after that evil?" He replied, "Yes, but it will be tainted (not pure.)'' I asked, "What will be its taint?" He replied, "(There will be) some people who will guide others not according to my tradition? You will approve of some of their deeds and disapprove of some others." I asked, "Will there be any evil after that good?" He replied, "Yes, (there will be) some people calling at the gates of the (Hell) Fire, and whoever will respond to their call, will be thrown by them into the (Hell) Fire." I said, "O
Allah
's Apostle! Will you describe them to us?" He said, "They will be from our own people and will speak our language." I said, "What do you order me to do if such a state should take place in my life?" He said, "
Stick to the group of Muslims and their
Imam
(ruler)." I said, "If there is neither a group of Muslims nor an Imam (ruler)?" He said, "Then turn away from all those sects even if you were to bite (eat) the roots of a tree till death overtakes you while you are in that state."

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/088.sbt.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I've heard some pretty convoluted arguments in favor of this Sufi secretely having been Shi`a (still haven't really answered why he would have had to been all secret about it in the first place), but this one might take the cake. So, in reporting a well known incident that Sunnis use to argue for Abu Bakr's virtue, and thus, yet again as he does in so many places, demonstrating his fanatical devotion towards Abu Bakr, you've assumed that he couldn't possibly have been the Nasibi his works so clearly scream out, but rather it was all a vicious Sunni conspiracy to change his books that oringally would have been stating this to be Amir al-Mu'mineen (as)?? Are you really serious here? So, the fact that we have a manuscript of Futuhat with his own signature on it doesn't mean anything to you?

Yes, Ibn `Arabi says a lot of things that other Sunnis wouldn't say, like claiming he was himself the khatam al-awliya and such. All this proves is how even by Sunni standards, the guy was seriously misguided and even delusional.

As to your claims about his supposed influence on later Shi`i `ulama, I'm afraid you've likely been reading too much Corbin and Nasr. For instance, Sayyid Haydar `Amuli wasn't really quite the big name folks now make him out to be until Corbin and co "discovered" him. Generally speaking, our `ulama have (rightly so) taken a hostile approach to Sufism and its ideologues, exceptions notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to your claims about his supposed influence on later Shi`i `ulama, I'm afraid you've likely been reading too much Corbin and Nasr. For instance, Sayyid Haydar `Amuli wasn't really quite the big name folks now make him out to be until Corbin and co "discovered" him.

We can sit here arguing till the cows come home, but the fact still remains, that Ibn Arabis works have been taken in high regard amongst (many of) our honourable and reputable 'Ulema.

For example Allamah Tabatabei (ra) is narrated to have gone through the Fusus al-Hikam privately, as well as with his teacher Syed Qadhi, an incident regarding which Allameh said some quite remarkable things:

Allamah Tabatabai once remarked that before meeting Qadhi, he hadstudied the Fusus al-Hikam of Ibn al-‘Arabi and thought that he knew itwell. When he met this master of real spiritual authority he realisedthat he knew nothing. He also commented that when Mirza ‘Ali Qadibegan to teach the Fusus it was as if all the walls of the room werespeaking of the reality of gnosis and participating in his exposition.

Source: IslamicDigest

Not only that, but Imam Khomeini used to openly invite others to read the works of 'Ibn Arabi, as the example of Gorbachet shows.

Speaking from the perspective of a layman, surely if 'Ulema the callibre of Allamah Tabatabei and Imam Khomeini can accept his works, then for what reason should we not? And if there are certain 'Ulema who oppose 'Ibn Arabi, then to whom should we (the layman) listen?

Generally speaking, our `ulama have (rightly so) taken a hostileapproach to Sufism and its ideologues, exceptions notwithstanding.

Not from what I have seen. You would be surprised as to how many of their books can be found in classes of Fulsafa in the Islamic Seminaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love:

Love: The point is, when we see, Ibn arabi's text and his great influence on many Shi'i mystics, which of whom have greatly exerted much more exfluyence on latter Shi'i clerygymen, like Mulla Sadra, Hydar Amuli, and 20th centruy scholars, we have to ask ourselves a question; Are we fooling ourselves into thinking they were wrong? or Is something fishy!?

You recognize that Shia gnosticism is profoundly influenced by Ibn Arabi.

Now you prolly have recognized (thanks to fyst) that Ibn Arabi was Sunni.

The conclusion now for you should be that Ibn Arabi 'provides' the barzakh for shiasm and sunnism. A barzakh that transcends shia-sunni polemics.

Unless of course you would like to think Ibn Arabi and all those shia gnostics were deviants. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, fyst does provide good counter arguments, and I do appreciate it for his research. But the main premise of my post still stands, the text of ibn arabi has been manipulated, even though there is a hand written copy. BUt i can't comment cause I haven't read it...nevertheless, you cannot explain the apparent contradictions in the books, unless ibn arabi was delusional (God forgive us for having such a thought).

The point is, after reading Ibn arabi's books, there was a paradigm shift in me and how i looked at tawhid. And it has made me more humble and intellectually cognizant of the devine presence.

The question is to the brothers; is it possible for a Sunni to achive great ma'rifa of Allah and his friends? forget sunni, what about a non muslim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...nevertheless, you cannot explain the apparent contradictions in the books, unless ibn arabi was delusional (God forgive us for having such a thought).

Why should you seek Allah's forgiveness for such a thought? One would think that ibn 'Arabi's teachings are the only path by which one can achieve cognizance of God. If one cannot achieve that via the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as), then one is implying that these sources are, by themselves, deficient, AFAIC ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, fyst does provide good counter arguments, and I do appreciate it for his research. But the main premise of my post still stands, the text of ibn arabi has been manipulated, even though there is a hand written copy. BUt i can't comment cause I haven't read it...nevertheless, you cannot explain the apparent contradictions in the books, unless ibn arabi was delusional (God forgive us for having such a thought).

It will be more humbling as we read ibn arabi..and as we continue to discover that contradictions are a reality.. What makes an Arif an Arif is the fact that he is able to transcend the limiations of thinking in terms of: "eitehr this or that". The 'states' of Ibn Arabi (just as in anyone) are different

because no created thing stays the same for more than one moment. and that goes for our states or opinions and perceptions. (Awakened seems to know what he is talking about). This is why Ibn Arabi contradicts himself n many places with regards to many other issues.

The question is to the brothers; is it possible for a Sunni to achive great ma'rifa of Allah and his friends? forget sunni, what about a non muslim?

Yes..NonMuslims surely can become gnostics.

Julian of Norwich is a good example. i recommend you to read her 'revelations'.

also read Meister Eckhart. Read Psuedo Dionysius as well. these are to name a few.

Apparently this goes to show us that there are many ways to God. The ways to God are many. but there is only One God. this is because only the Absolute can be one. the "way" to the absolute is not itself absolute. Therefore the "way" must be one of many ways. there cannot be more than one absolute. so let us NOT make Shiaism a God!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should you seek Allah's forgiveness for such a thought? One would think that ibn 'Arabi's teachings are the only path by which one can achieve cognizance of God. If one cannot achieve that via the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as), then one is implying that these sources are, by themselves, deficient, AFAIC ...

Ibn Arabi's teachings will help us understand the teachings of ahlul bayt (a.s) better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember having read the book Kernel by the Kernel by Allamah Tabatabai, and he states that those from other religions can reach a certain level of ma'rifah of Allah, but they are not able to trancend that. So it is possible for Ibn Arabi to have gained ma'rifah of Allah and through his itellect he wrote his views on Gnosticism and what he had experienced. Like the previous posters have said he perhaps strayed a little but, as Allamah Tabatabai said straying from the path to Allah is very easy and one must be constantly humble before Him in order to prevent that. Also as has been said before the great Arifs studied Mulla sadra and others aswell and weren't necessarily inclined to Ibn Arabi.

So that is the conlusion I have come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember having read the book Kernel by the Kernel by Allamah Tabatabai, and he states that those from other religions can reach a certain level of ma'rifah of Allah, but they are not able to trancend that. So it is possible for Ibn Arabi to have gained ma'rifah of Allah and through his itellect he wrote his views on Gnosticism and what he had experienced. Like the previous posters have said he perhaps strayed a little but, as Allamah Tabatabai said straying from the path to Allah is very easy and one must be constantly humble before Him in order to prevent that. Also as has been said before the great Arifs studied Mulla sadra and others aswell and weren't necessarily inclined to Ibn Arabi.

So that is the conlusion I have come up with.

May you quote the page number from kernel of the kernel please? or chapter and section title if you dont mind?

Anyone who says that Mulla Sadra and Tabatbai were not inclined VERY MUCH or PROFOUNDLY influenced by Ibn Arabi... clearly doenst anything about tabattabai or mulla sadra.

If anyone (beside ahlul bayt), ibn arabi was the most influencial on Sadras philosophical doctrines. Sadra always refers to ibn arabi and quotes him in his works. Sadra can be called a "Shiite Ibn Arabi".

one of the most difficult and hardest irfani text hawza students can study at a hawza is Ibn Arabi;s Futuhaat Al Makiyya and Fusus al Hikaam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes..NonMuslims surely can become gnostics.

Julian of Norwich is a good example. i recommend you to read her 'revelations'.

also read Meister Eckhart. Read Psuedo Dionysius as well. these are to name a few.

Apparently this goes to show us that there are many ways to God. The ways to God are many. but there is only One God. this is because only the Absolute can be one. the "way" to the absolute is not itself absolute. Therefore the "way" must be one of many ways. there cannot be more than one absolute. so let us NOT make Shiaism a God!

The problem with your argument is that we have authentic narrations from the Imams (as) that state that were it not for the Ahl al Bayt (as), Allah would not have been known. We also have authentic narrations to the effect that true knowledge is only to be found with them.

As much as you may not like it, the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) did not encourage the kind of religious pluralism that you are espousing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with your argument is that we have authentic narrations from the Imams (as) that state that were it not for the Ahl al Bayt (as), Allah would not have been known. We also have authentic narrations to the effect that true knowledge is only to be found with them.

As much as you may not like it, the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) did not encourage the kind of religious pluralism that you are espousing.

And what the Imams say are true. God would not have been known. but this is for you and me. for a christain it is Christ. you think the christains before knew about the ahlul bayt? And also..whether one accepts ahlul bayt or not.. God is known thorugh ahlul bayt (in a metaphysical sense) whetehr one realizes them or not.

Anyway...

pluralism is haram! I dont advocate religious plurlaism! astaghfirullah

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. not good for me,maybe its good for you.

"[43:11] He is the One who sends down from the sky water, in exact measure, ..."

Of course - anyone who doesn't comprehend or accept ibn 'Arabi either has not reached a sufficiently high spiritual level or, alternatively, they simply aren't meant to understand ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

يا 110 48

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

It is not recommended for people to get into long disputes and arguments that lead to no proper conclusion and settlement. Therefore, the reply will be written in a few points to prove what is needed, and it will end there insha'Allah.

When discussing the Tashayyu' of 'Ibn 'Arabi, one must first define what theterm "tashayyu'" means in order for us to debate whether 'Ibn 'Arabi fits into that category or not. Before clarifying this term, the discussio n will be useless.

What is Tashayyu' (Shi'ism)?

What are the criteria that must be fulfilled in order for a person to be classified as a "Shi'ite"?

I ask from those who don't believe in Ibn Arabi's Shi'ism to answer these two questions so that we may proceed with the discussion.

I also kindly ask from all the other brothers/sisters not to engage in discussing any point other than this, so that the discussion could continue on with its proper manner, and the conclusion will be reached through the best/shortest means insha'Allah.

Wasalam.

Edited by Imami_ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May you quote the page number from kernel of the kernel please? or chapter and section title if you dont mind?

Anyone who says that Mulla Sadra and Tabatbai were not inclined VERY MUCH or PROFOUNDLY influenced by Ibn Arabi... clearly doenst anything about tabattabai or mulla sadra.

If anyone (beside ahlul bayt), ibn arabi was the most influencial on Sadras philosophical doctrines. Sadra always refers to ibn arabi and quotes him in his works. Sadra can be called a "Shiite Ibn Arabi".

one of the most difficult and hardest irfani text hawza students can study at a hawza is Ibn Arabi;s Futuhaat Al Makiyya and Fusus al Hikaam.

Insh'Allah I will find the quote.

I am sorry as I completely phrased my last post wrongly (it was early in the morning), what I meant to say is that Mulla Sadra and Allamah Tabatabai were obviously greatly infuenced by Ibn Arabi but they weren't necessarily inclined to everything that he wrote as they were Shiite philosophers and had their own ideas.

ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã

íÇ 110 48

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

It is not recommended for people to get into long disputes and arguments that lead to no proper conclusion and settlement. Therefore, the reply will be written in a few points to prove what is needed, and it will end there insha'Allah.

When discussing the Tashayyu' of 'Ibn 'Arabi, one must first define what theterm "tashayyu'" means in order for us to debate whether 'Ibn 'Arabi fits into that category or not. Before clarifying this term, the discussio n will be useless.

What is Tashayyu' (Shi'ism)?

What are the criteria that must be fulfilled in order for a person to be classified as a "Shi'ite"?

I ask from those who don't believe in Ibn Arabi's Shi'ism to answer these two questions so that we may proceed with the discussion.

I also kindly ask from all the other brothers/sisters not to engage in discussing any point other than this, so that the discussion could continue on with its proper manner, and the conclusion will be reached through the best/shortest means insha'Allah.

Wasalam.

Qualities of a shia

Edited by MFAHH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...