Dr. Muhammad Maroof Shah
We need to focus on what is essential to Ibn Arabi and not his unique unprecedented opinions (tafarudat). We need to take note of the tradition of internal criticism amongst Sufi stalwarts of some of his views. From his disciples like Qaysari and other contemporaries who approached him with caution and had some reservations on certain points, down to Sirhindi and to such 20th century figures as Allama Ashraf Ali Thanwi and Allama Kashmiri one finds great tradition of internal criticism of some of his individual opinions and exegetical moves. Ibn Arabi is not to be identified with this or that view but should be seen as an attempt to unearth the view of no-view or view from nowhere/ everywhere or truth in all the partial or limiting views. This would help one to appreciate the freedom that is Ibn Arabi and liberating graces of what is considered the deepest – metaphysical and esoteric – dimension of Islam as such. One may well transpose Gilson’s remark about Aquinas and say that it is better to say not that Ibn Arabi was right but he is right. Some of the most influential scholars in Indian subcontinent (whose legacy colours Kashmir’s spiritual landscape) – Syed Ali Hamadani, Sirhindi, Shah Waliullah, Imdadullah Mahajir Makki, stalwarts of Deoband, Beraeli and Ahl-e Hadith schools (amongst the last mentioned such figures as Nazir Hussain Dehlavi, Sanaullah Amritsari, Abdullah Muhaddith Ropadi amongst many other influential scholars may be named) – have drawn much from Ibn Arabi/praised him greatly. Great number of most significantly influential later Quran commentators, fuqaha, hadith scholars and almost all great later Sufi poets including Kashmiri Sufi poets, philosophers, poets and political figures including anti-imperialist fighters acknowledge debt to Ibn Arabi. Ibn Arabi has been, generally speaking, the last word on the science of secrets of sha’riah (“Secrets he has divulged are so subtle and delicate that common ulama and Sufis can’t access. And it is not that he did this under sukr or state of intoxication. But, self avowedly, he was mandated to express them and if he had hesitated, he would have been burnt.”) He is one of the very rare scholars who could claim that he has attempted to implement in his life every hadith/sunnah that pertained to him. One can’t cease thanking God for the gift that is Ibn Arabi. He offers for anyone who can dive pearls. If one doesn’t know how to dive, he/she may better avoid him and should refrain from passing comments. Intellectual-literary elite in the Islamicate world in general has been breathing Ibn Arabi with the very air that sustains them. Most of the great scholars today at the forefront of Islam’s dialogue with modernity and its crises, other religions, philosophies and cultures invoke Ibn Arabi. The world has already been crying to reclaim, like Imam Hussain (A.S), Ibn Arabi as its own. Reclaiming Ibn Arabi is reclaiming our share in divine mercy, love, beauty, joy, catholicity, pluralism and gender justice that have been hallmarks of Islamic Revelation and ideals of its culture/civilization. Not to know or read Ibn Arabi is to miss a life’s treasure and turn a blind eye to the Taj Mahal of Islamic spirituality. It is not the question of liking or disliking a person named Ibn Arabi but our attitude towards Metaphysics and Symbolism or heart’s way to Truth that is at stake in having a view for or against Ibn Arabi. Neither Sufis nor Reshi (and in case of Kashmir, neither great Shah-i-Hamdan nor Kashmiri Sufi poets) can be perfectly understood without understanding Ibn Arabi.
There is no controversy or dispute around Ibn ‘Arabî’s credentials as a foremost scholar of several sciences or on his claim to mastery of the science of God amongst the vast majority of Muslim scholars, Sufi Masters, Sufi poets and sages – only a handful amongst major scholars have expressed some reservations. This is to be expected if we note that Sufism was considered essential to any integral definition of Islam until quite recently and Ibn Arabi had no rival as the Sufi Shaykh. Ibn Arabi corpus has been largely accepted in mainstream Sufism and world famous Sufi poetry has helped to popularize it. We are living in the shade of Ibn Arabi. Post-Ibn Arabi we find Muslim thought as a development of certain aspects of his vast “system.” Regarded as the Greatest Master by most Muslims his key work Bezels of Wisdom (Fusoos-al-Hikm) has received more than 100 commentaries so far by the best minds of Islam. He even wrote exegesis of the Quran from this point of view. One wonders how come he is only marginally mentioned in most books on Islam today and new generations of Muslims hardly ever read him.
The project of revisiting Ibn Arabi needs to engage with major critiques of Ibn Arabi.
Major Critical Readings of Ibn Arabi
One major reading that has coloured recent reception of Ibn Arabi is the one attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah. Here we consider some salient points of it. We will also comment on Iqbal’s reading that appropriates Ibn Taymiyyagh mostly. Another reading is that of Sirhindi. The latter has been forcefully countered or put in perspective by William Chittick in several works and most crisply in his essay Wahdatul Wujud in India. About the former, especially a few remarks here.
Schuon, Chittick, Nasr and others have conclusively shown that the following assumptions (that form key to Ibn Taymiyyah’s/Sirhindhi’s critique) are not correct:
· Ibn ‘Arabî ‘swajudi Sufism compromises Creature-creature distinction.
· He implicitly downplays certain recognized tenets of law.
· He is positing a unity based on subjective state and more advanced Sufis travel further and come to again affirm distinctness of the world/man and God.
· He implicates transcendence of good/evil binary leading to suspension of central doctrine of Islam.
We need to note that Ibn ‘Arabî never uses the expression wahdatul wajud for which he is most often targeted by theological critics. This expression was later coined but not used in the sense of pantheism or in such a sense as would warrant Ibn Taymiyyah’s condemnation as erasing all distinction of different levels of existence, of good and evil and of God and servant. He uses expressions which state both the theses of wahdat al-shuhud and wahdat al-wujud in conjunction and it is this combination, which Sirhindi later stressed but attributed only the latter to him, that expresses his integral understanding. Shah Waliullah and others have explained his position very well vis-à-vis Sirhindi. He rejects nothing that passes as the canon of exoteric Islam and affirms orthodox creed in the beginning of Futūhāt. He only reads deeper meanings in it and this doesn’t warrant condemnation from orthodox authorities.
Ibn ‘Arabî ’s synthetic view should not be confounded with modern eclecticism and uniformitarianism or “all is okay” cheap spirituality or some interpretations of anekantvada that liquidate the claim of absoluteness of truth or loss of distinction between truth and falsehood. He has very precisely formulated doctrines. His pluralism doesn’t mean he is for everything or everything could be read in him. We need formal religion. New Age spirituality and NeoVedantic antinominan mysticism and libertine spirituality of many famous modern mystics would be emphatically rejected in his worldview. Even many modern appropriations of Sufism that involve wild dancing and music performances without observing prescribed requirements as defined by masters has no warrant from Akbarian viewpoint. Addas has quoted his condemnation of shahid bazi (contemplation of beautiful young men to provoke ecstasy), sama (communal spiritual recital) etc. in this connection. We may also note Ibn Arabi’s attention to the dimension of furqân as distinguished from qur’ân. To quote from English translation of one of the passages in Futûhât:
He who stops with the Quran inasmuch as it is a qur’ân has but a single eye that unifies and brings together…. however, it is a furqân…. When I tasted the latter…, I said, “This is lawful, that is unlawful, and this is indifferent. The schools have become various and the religions diverse. The levels have been distinguished, the divine names and the engendered traces have become manifest, and the names and the gods have become many in the world.
Ibn ‘Arabî has been charged with pantheism, polytheism, paganism, monism, deception etc. but all these charges don’t hold water in light of the following points.
Ibn Arabi’s theological critics like Ibn Taymiyah and many neosalafi scholars approach him from theological perspective which is a category mistake as he is basically approaching everything from the perspective of metaphysics of which theology is a distant and inadequate reflection or translation.
He is a greater literalist in matters eschatological and juristic than many of his critics. It is gross misreading to conflate his Unitarianism with philosophical monism as Nasr has pointed out.
He clearly distances himself from those captive of illusions of unification (ittihad) in his Kitab al-Asra. He emphatically negates what he calls the heresy of incarnation. Ibn ‘Arabî’s first principle is unamnifest Absolute which is Mystery of Mysteries i.e., transcendent. He emphatically warns against what he calls pantheism/monism.
His respect for the sacred law is revealed in both his life and works and even Ibn Taymiyyah noted the former. His elaboration of understanding of the Quran as furqan and sharia is haqiqah thesis nullify the charge against him of nullifying divine commandments or erasing distinction between good and evil though he is against absolutizing these distinctions as at the plane of union it is idolatry to maintain any distinction. Ibn ‘Arabî saw himself as heir to guardian of prophetic wisdom and thus sacred law which is respectful of dualities at the plane of relativity.
Prof. Amin Andrabi, noted Iqbal scholar and Kashmiri traditionalist, defends – and admirably so – Ibn Arabi on all the points on which Iqbal (some of them shared by Ibn Taymiyyah) finds him problematic.
Charge 1 Pantheism
Prof. Andrabi, quoting Nasr’s refutation of the claim that Ibn Arabi upheld pantheism (viz. God is one with the world or God and his servants are one), says that it is doubly false because pantheism is a “philosophic system” and Ibn Arabi never created or followed any system and since pantheism implies substantial continuity between God and the Universe but Ibn Arabi never tires of claiming divine transcendence over every category. To describe Wahdat-ul-Wajud as pantheism is to misread both. It is a category mistake.
Charge 2 Ibn Arabi’s interpretation of the Quran is similar to Sankara’s interpretation of Gita
Prof. Andrabi asks how come Iqbal knew about the former’s commentary of the Quran if it has been lost (any reports about its being found again are after Iqbal lived and died) and that he didn’t have access to reliable translation of the Gita.
Charges 3 Muslims turned status quoist
Pantheism, appropriated and transmitted through Sufi poetry, turned Muslims into passive collectivity. Prof. Andrabi ignores this charge although one might note that Nasr’s refutation of this charge is quite forceful. Ibn Arabi’s alleged pantheism posits that human individuality is an illusion and this doctrine implies passivity and inertia. Our author points out that for Ibn Arabi it is God Himself who has given the name wajud to the cosmos so how can he ascribe to a view that posits an illusory status for the cosmos and the human self. Pantheism is spiritually affiliated with the Batinites whom Ibn Arabi himself “mentions the sects with certain amount of hostility.” One might add that he also said “Sharia is Haqiqa”.
Charge 4 Sufism is of Alien Origin
Sufism itself is of foreign origin or ajmi importation into Islam. Our author notes that Iqbal changed his views later perhaps under Massignon’s influence. However, in fairness to Iqbal, as noted by Suheyl Umar also, it needs to be noted that Iqbal had said that wujoodi Sufism is of non-Arabic origin (ajmi plant) not wujood of Sufism is of alien origin. Prof. Andrabi also points out that Iqbal’s denunciation of Sufism is “a blatant contradiction of what Iqbal has said about Sufism at numerous other places” and the fact that he himself is best described as Sufi thinker.
Charge 5 Fusus has heresy
Iqbal’s statement that Ibn Arabi’s Fusus contains nothing but heresy and deviation is simply inexplicable. However Andrabi ventures at a probable explanation for this harsh but mistaken view by pointing out Iqbal’s reliance on secondary sources like Ibn Khaldun when it came to appraisal of Sufism. He also points out that “There is no evidence to show that Iqbal had the chance to study the original works of Ibn Arabi… A few centuries earlier the situation was no better for Ibn Taymiyah who due to lack of authentic reports and reliable texts, in all sincerity, denounced Ibn Arabi on various points…. And doesn’t seem to be well informed about the works and doctrines of Ibn Arabi. For example, compare Ibn Arabi’s position on question of Itihad (unity) and Halul (absorption) with the ideas attributed to him by Ibn Taymiyaah in his Fatawa.” In fairness to Ibn Taymiyyah it might be pointed out that he was quite careful to phrase his denunciation in terms that indicated his reliance on views attributed to Ibn Arabi. Some other charges are mentioned but not answered although the case for Ibn Arabi’s interpretation is clearly and forcefully stated.
Let us note that as access to Ibn Arabi corpus has increased and a great number of scholarly studies published, it has becomes possible to convincingly defend Ibn Arabi against his influential critics – Ibn Taymiyyah, Hazrat Sirhindi, Showkani and Iqbal. He emerges as a colossus of Muslim intellectual and spiritual tradition. Ibn Arabi provides a hermeneutic that unearths universally recognized truths in theological and scriptural material that has usually been interpreted more parochially or exclusively. He aligns himself with what he sees as the unified position of all prophets (thus founders of world religions) and saints and traditional philosophers like Plato. He doesn’t base his “position” of no position on any disputable rationalis axiom or proposition. Remaining loyal to the text with exceptional use of philological resources he excavates treasures of meanings that overturn all exclusivist claims.
Having cleared problems in problematizing Ibn Arabi or his legacy, we may now appreciate why he compels attention and one can’t afford to ignore him and why he is appreciated across traditions and ages and why the best minds have been attracted to him.
