It’s well-known fact that both Barailwees and Deobandis/Tablighi Jamaat consider Ibn Arabi to be “al-Shaykh al-Akbar” (Great Shaykh), and they promote his deviant thoughts and defend his falsehood.
It would be beneficial to expose some of the serious errors committed by this individual (Ibn Arabi) in the name of Islam and the fatawaa (verdicts) of Noble Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah regarding him.
Ibn Arabi wrote many books among them is Fusus al-Hikam, he said in the introduction of this book that..he got that book from the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). In the same book he accused Prophet Noah (alaihis salaam) of being ignorant of the proper way to conveying the message. He said ..bani israil did not committed Shirk by worshiping the golden calf in the absence of Musa (alaihis salaam) as according to Ibn Arabi, Allaah manifested Himself in the form of the Calf. Further, He declared pharaoh to be a believer (Muslim).
Some of this heretics works are presented below followed by statements of scholars of Islam declaring takfir upon this khabees individual:
Ibn ‘Arabi considers worship of the calf as nothing but worship of Allah
Ibn ‘Arabi wrote in “Fusus ul Hikam” (seals of wisdom) in the chapter “The Seal of the Wisdom of the Imam in the Word of Harun (Aaron)” (as translated by Aishah Bewley):
Then Harun said to Musa, “I was afraid that you would say: You have caused division in the Tribe of Israel,'” (20:94) and you would make me the cause of their division since the worship of the Calf divided them. There were some of them who worshiped it following and imitating the Samiri, and there were some of them who refused to worship it until Musa returned to them so that they might question him regarding it. Harun was afraid that he would have that division between them attributed to him.
Musa knew the matter better than Harun because by his knowledge he knew THE ONE the people of the Calf worshiped since Allah DECREED that only HE would be worshiped. When Allah decrees something, IT MUST OCCUR.
Musa chided his brother Harun since the business consisted of disavowal and inadequacy.The gnostic is the one who sees Allah in everything, rather he sees Him as the source of everything. Musa was teaching Harun with the instruction of knowledge even though Musa was younger than him in age”
End of ibn ‘Arabi’s words
‘AbdurRahman Al-Jami explained in his Sharh on ‘Fusus ul Hikam” this by quoting the verse “Your Lord has done Qadha (decreed) that you should not worship but Him” and commented as such:
“Because this Qadha (decree) is not restricted on the Hukm Taklifi Ijabi (order) as it has been restricted by people of Zahir (following apparent meanings), until one could say that it does not necessitate that what is decree (must happen), rather it includes the Hukm Taqdiri (the decree)” End of Al-Jami’s words.
Ahlus Sunnah wal Jam’aah say that the decree (Qadha) here is not the universal decree of creation (Qadha Al-Kawni), meaning it is not that Allah has predetermined that He only would be worshiped and nothing else can be worshiped, but here the decree is the religious decree (Qadha Shar’i) meaning that Allah has decreed that He only should be worshiped and He ordered people only to worship Him, and people can refuse to do such, so it does not necessitate that what Allah ordered them to do must happen, and indeed Allah blamed the polytheists for worshiping other than Him and punished them.
The Hukm Taklif Ijabi means the order, Allah makes His worship alone obligatory on the people. The Hukm Taklifi are of five categories: obligatory (Wajib), recommended (mandub), permissible (Mubah), Makruh (disliked) and Haram (forbidden).
So for the Scholars, this verse means Allah ordered that He only should be worshiped, and Ibn ‘Arabi and Al-Jami are saying that the meaning is that Allah has decreed and predetermined such a matter, and none can be worshiped but Him, so whoever worshiped the calf did not worship other than Allah, likewise whoever worshiped the idols did only worship Allah. And this is why many scholars such as Imam Az-Zahabi said there is no Kufr greater on earth than what is in “Fusus”.
Words of ibn ‘Arabi
Commentary of Al-Jami below:
Ibn ‘Arabi considers Idol worship as worship of Allah
And ibn ‘Arabi reiterated this in the chapter of Nuh (aley salam) and said that Idol worship was none but worship of Allah, and justified this by the same verse, he said (as translated by Bewley):
“’He who affirms duality, falls into shirk, and whoever speaks of uniqueness is a unifier. Take care lest you be a dualist by connection, and take care lest you be a isolator by disconnection.
You are not Him, rather you are Him
and you see Him in the source of thing,
absolute and limited at the same time.
Allah says, “There is nothing like Him,” and so He disconnects, “and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” (42:11) so He connects. Allah says, “There is nothing like Him,” so He connects and doubles it, and “He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” Then He uses disconnection and makes Himself Unique.
If Nuh had combined these two calls for his people, they would have answered him. He called them openly (71:8), and he called them secretly (71:9). Then he said to them, “Ask forgiveness of your Lord. Truly He is Endlessly Forgiving.” (71:10) He said, “I have called my people night and in the day, but my calling has only made them more evasive” (71:5-6) because they knew what they had to do in answering his call.
So the knowledge of those who know Allah is what Nuh indicated in respect to his peopleby praising them through blame.
So “there is nothing like Him” unified several matters in one single matter. If Nuh had articulated something like of this âyat, his people would have responded to him, because it contains connection and disconnection in a single âyat, rather in half an âyat.
Nuh, peace be upon him, peace be upon him, called on his people at night in respect to their intellects and spirituality (rûhânîyya), which are unseen; and by day he called on them in respect to their outer forms and arrival. In his call, he did not unify with anything, like “there is nothing like Him.” So their inward had a distaste for this separation, and it increased them in evasion. Then he said of himself that he called upon them that He might forgive them, not that He be unveiled to them. They understood that from him. That is why “they put their fingers in their ears and wrapped themselves in their clothes,” (71:7) and this is the form of veiling to which he called them. So they answered his call by action, not by saying, “At your service.”
There is both the confirmation of likeness and its negation in “There is nothing like Him.”
The kingdom belongs to the people of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for Allah says “Give of that to which He has made you successors.” 11 (57:7). For the people of Nuh it is, “Do not take anyone besides Me as a guardian” (17:2). The kingdom was confirmed for the people of Muhammad, and the guardianship in it belongs to Allah. The people of Muhammad are the khalîfs in it. The kingdom belongs to Allah and He is their guardian, and that is the kingdom of being appointed khalif. For this reason, Allah is the “King of the kingdom” as at-Tirmidhi says (Since He answers His slave who is the “kingdom”. Technical term used by al-Hakim at-Tirmidhi and Abu Madyan, discussed by Ibn al-‘Arabi in the Futuhat al-Makkiyya, Chapter 24, vol. I, p. 182).
“They have hatched a mighty plotting,” (71:22) because calling to Allah is the plotting of the One called; since He does not lack the beginning, He is called to the end, so they call to Allah. This is the source of devising according to inner sight. Nuh said, “The affair belongs entirely to Him,” so they answered Him with plotting as He called them.
The people of Muhammad came and knew what the call to Allah was in respect of its He-ness, rather what it is in respect to His Names. Allah says, “The day those who are godfearing are gathered to the All-Merciful.”13 So He used the “particle of the end” (ilâ – to) and joined it to that Name, and we recognise that the universe is under the care of a Divine Name which requires them to be among the “godfearing”. The reality of taqwâ is that man avoids ascribing blessings, perfections and praiseworthy attributes to himself or to others, except for Allah. He fears Allah through His acts and attributes. These things are evils from the spring of possibilities.
They said in their plotting, “Do not abandon your gods. Do not abandon Wadd or Suwa’ or Yaghuth or Ya’uq or Nasr.” (71:22) Then they abandoned them ignorant of the Truth according to what they left of the idols (Here in the copy I have, the words are: Had they abandoned them, they would be ignorant of the Truth according to what they would have left of the idols). Allah has an aspect in every worshipped thing. Whoever recognises it, recognises, and whoever is ignorant of it is ignorant among the people of Muhammad. YOUR LORD DECREED THAT YOU SHOULD WORSHIP ONLY HIM – THAT IS THE JUDGMENT OF YOUR LORD
The one who possesses knowledge knows who the slave is and in what form he is manifested as far as he is a slave. Separation and multiplicity are like the limbs of the sensory form and like faculties of meaning of the spiritual form. He only worships Allah in every worshipped object. The lowest one is the one who imagines that godness is contained in it. Were it not for this illusion, stones and other things would not have been worshipped. This is why He said, “Say: Name them!” (13:33). If they had named them, they would have named stone, tree, or star. If they had been asked, “Who do you worship?” they would have replied, “God”. They would not say “Allah” or “the god”.
The highest knower does not use this imagination, but rather he says that this is a divine tajalli which one must exalt, and he does not restrict himself. The lowest one is the one possessed of fantasy: “We only worship them so that they bring us neared to Allah.” (39:3). The highest knower says, “Your god is One God, so submit to Him,” (22:34)wherever He is manifest, “and give good news to the humble-hearted” who humble the fire of their nature. They spoke to it (the fire), and did not say “nature”. “They have misguided many people,” (71:24) i.e. they perplexed many in the multiplicity of the One by aspects and relations.
“And because of their errors” which is that which is recorded for them, “they were drowned” in the seas of the knowledge of Allah which is perplexity among the men of Muhammad. When the seas were heated up, “they were put into a fire” in the source of water, “and they found no one to help them besides Allah.” (71:25) Allah is the source of their helpers, and so they were destroyed in it for time without end. If He had brought them out to the shore, the shore of nature, He would have brought them down from this high degree. All belongs to Allah and is by Allah, rather it is Allah.” End of ibn ‘Arabi’s words
Comment: So Ibn Arabi praised in many places these polytheists, showed they answered Nuh (aley salam) in reality, in action, they answered by plotting, they understood Tawhid, and they were drowned in ocean of knowledge, Nuh (aley salam) praised them through blame, they were right in not leaving idol worship, and if they left it they would be ignorant of the truth. Is there a greater Kufr than this?
Al-Jami wrote in commentary :
“He (rad) said in “Futuhat” : And creation was worshiped here by people who worshiped it, but nothing was worshiped but Allah but they did not know and called it Manat, Lat, ‘Uzza, and when he dies, the veil is taken off and he knows that he did not worship but Allah.”
Al-Jami went on commenting the words of ibn ‘Arabi (that are in bald):
“So people who look at their objects of worship are of two types : “the lowest is the one who imagines in it”, meaning in his useful object of worship, “Al-Uluhiyah” meaning his deserving the specificity of worship, even if it is to get close to the Mutlaq Haqq (absolute God), “and if there was not this imagination” meaning the imagination of the meaning of Uluhiyah (divinity) and deserving worship “no stone or other would be worshiped” like the tree, sun, moon “and this is why” meaning the worship of these objects of worship is based on the imagination of Uluhyah (divinity) in them… “If they had been asked, “Who do you worship?” they would have replied, “God“” among restricted and partial (Juzzi) Gods, as they did not worship but the imagination of Uluhiyah (divinity) in them, not because of them being stone or tree or others, “They would not say” in answer “”Allah” or “the god“” absolute and manifest (Zahir) in all gods and lords, because the direction of their worship were restricted gods and not absolute (Mutlaq), so they were veiled from Haqq Mutlaq (absolute God) because of restricted partial (Juzzi) Gods, this is why their creed was judged to be Kufr, BECAUSE KUFR IS THE VEIL.
“And the highest category does not imagine” restricted Uluhiyah (divinity) in every object of worship “Rather he says it is a divine Tajalli” in which the Mutlaq Ilah (The absolute God) “which one must exalt” looking at who is manifest in it not because of worshiping it (object) specifically “and he des not restrict himself” to the specific and restricted rather he worships the Mutlaq Al-Ilah (The absolute God) and He is the one restricting one of His manifestation.”
End of Jami’s words
So one can see that for Al-Jami all people worshiped Allah, lower people only restricted Uluhiyah (divinity) to stones, trees and imagined Uluhiyah (divinity) in them, and they were veiled from the absolute God and their Kufr means they were only veiled…and the higher people worship all manifestations of absolute God and they do not restrict to some. And people who worshiped Lat and ‘Uzza did not worship but Allah.
Al-Jami also commented about the polytheists drowning in water:
“” In the seas of the knowledge of Allah” they vanished in the witness of his Ahadiyah (Unity), “they were put into a fire” from the light of the radiations of His face burning the veils of their vessels. “In the source of water” the source of water of knowledge and witness of his Ahadiyah (Unity)…”
And for Al-Jami also polytheists will be drowned in ocean of knowledge, and he totally agreed with the Kufr of ibn ‘Arabi, leaving no doubt about his intent.
Scans of ibn ‘Arabi
Explanation of Al-Jami
Ibn ‘Arabi considers Pharaoh as a believer
When one sees this heretic apostate praising the idol and calf worshipers, it won’t be strange to see that ibn ‘Arabi will also praise pharaoh, a great enemy of Allah. Allah clearly said that Pharaoh is being punished day and night and on the day of judgment he will face a greater punishment, and contrary to this ibn ‘Arabi dares to say Pharaoh died as a believer.
In the chapter of Prophet Musa (aley salam), ibn ‘Arabi wrote (as translated by Bewley):
“The consolation of Pharaoh was with the belief Allah gave him when he was drowning. So Allah took him pure and purified. There was no impurity in him since He took him in his belief before he had acquired any wrong actions. Islam effaces what was before it. He made him a sign of His concern so that none might despair of the mercy of Allah, for “no one despairs of solace from Allah except for the unbelievers.” (12:87) If Pharaoh been of those who despair, he would not have embarked on belief. Musa, peace be upon him, was, as the wife of Pharaoh said, “a source of delight for me and for you. Do not kill him. It may well be that he will be of use to us.” That is what happened. Allah gave them use of Musa, although they were not aware that he was a prophet who would destroy the kingdom of Pharaoh and his family.”
Ibn ‘Arabi further described Pharaoh as a Gnostic knowing the truth and testing Musa (aley salam):
”As for the wisdom of Pharaoh’s question regarding divine whatness (mâhiya) when he said, “What is the Lord of the worlds?” (26:23) that question did not arise from ignorance, but it was posed in order to test Musa and to see what answer he would give when he claimed that he had a message from his Lord. Pharaoh knew the rank of the Messengers in knowledge of Allah and he wanted to test Musa’s answer to ascertain the validity of his claim.
In order to inform those present, he invited an answer which would have been misleading as far as they were concerned since they did not know what Pharaoh himself knew about the question.
Musa answered him with the answer of those who have knowledge of the matter. Then Pharaoh, in order to preserve his position, asserted that Musa had not answered his question. So because of the inadequacy of their understanding, it seemed clear to those who were present that Pharaoh knew more than Musa. For this reason, when Musa answered him with what was not appropriate – and outwardly it is not an answer to what he was asked about – and Pharaoh knew that he would only give that answer, Pharaoh then said to his companions, “Your Messenger” who was sent to you “is mad” since the knowledge of what I question him about is veiled from him since it is inconceivable that it be known at all.
The question is valid. The question of the what-ness is a question about the reality of what is asked about – it must be real in itself. As for those who make definitions which consist of category and genus, these are matters shared by various things. Whoever has no category must have a reality in Himself which belongs to no other. The question is invalid in the school of the People of Allah, sound knowledge and sound intellect. The only answer to it is the answer Musa gave.
Here is a great secret! He mentioned the “act” in giving the answer to the one who asked for a definition of essence. He made the essential definition the source of the attribution to what appeared of Him in the forms of the universe, or what appeared in Him of the forms of the universe. In answer to, “What is the Lord of the worlds?” he said that He is the One in whom the forms of the universe are manifest on high – which is the heaven – and below – which is the earth, “if you but have certainty” or He who is manifest by them.
When Pharaoh told his companions that Musa was mad, (majnûn) in the sense that he was possessed, Musa added to the elucidation in order to inform Pharaoh of his rank in divine knowledge because he knew that Pharaoh already knew that. Musa said, “The Lord of the East and the West,” bringing what was manifest and what was hidden, in the outward and the inward, “and what between them is” which is Allah’s words, “He has knowledge of everything,” “if you have intellect,” i.e. if you possess qualification since this comes from intellect.
The first answer is for those who are certain, and they are the people of unveiling and existence. Musa said, “If you have certainty,” i.e. if you are the people of unveiling and existence. I have given you knowledge of what you are already certain about in your witnessing and existence. If you are not of this category, I have answered you in the second answer: if you are among the people of intellect and qualification, and you limit Allah according to what the proofs of your intellects accord.
Thus Musa manifested both aspects in order to inform Pharaoh about his question and his veracity. Musa knew that Pharaoh knew that because he asked about the what-ness of Allah. He knew that his question was not couched in the language the ancients used in their questioning by means of what. That is why he answered him. If he had known anything else from him, he would have been mistaken in the question. Musa treated that about which he was asked as the source of the universe, and Pharaoh addressed him by this language 20 although the people present were not aware of that.
Pharaoh said to him, “If you take any god other than me, I will certainly make you one of the imprisoned.” (26:29) The letter sin in prison (sijn) is one of the letters of increase, (Zawa’id, the augmenative letters, i.e. the ten letters which are added to the radical letters in Arabic words sin, hamza, alif, lam, ta’, mim, waw, nun, ya’ and ha’. If you take away the sin from sijn (prison), you get “jinn” meaning veil) meaning I will veil you, for you answered by what supported me so that I might say the same to you. If you say to me, “O Pharaoh! I do not recognize your threat to me while the source is but one, so how can you separate?” Then Pharaoh replied, “The ranks are separate, but the source is not separate and it is not divided in its existence. My rank right now is power over you by actual fact, O Musa! I AM YOU by the source and other than you by rank!”
When Musa understood that from him, he gave him his due in respect to himself and told him, “You will not be able to do that.” Pharaoh’s rank gave him power and influence over Musa because Allah is in the rank of Pharaoh in respect of the outward form which has authority over the rank in which Musa appeared in that assembly.
Therefore Musa told him that Allah had manifested a barrier to his hostility against Musa. He said, “Even if I were to bring you something undeniable?” Pharaoh could only reply, “Produce it then, if you are someone telling the truth” so that Pharaoh would not appear to be unjust among those of his nation who were weak-minded. They had doubts about him, and they were the group Pharaoh made unsteady. However, they obeyed Pharaoh because they were a corrupt people, that is, lacking sound intellects’ rejection of taking Pharaoh’s claims literally. The intellect stops at a certain limit, and only those of unveiling and certainty can cross that limit. This is why in his answer, Musa first addressed those of certainty and then address those of the intellect.
COMMENT: Look at this shameless alteration of the speech of Allah, ibn Arabi describes Pharaoh as someone knowing Allah and testing Musa, and Musa addressed two kinds of people: those of certitude, meaning Wahdtul Wujud, and those on intellect meaning commen laymen, and Pharaoh is among the elite of cognizant. And see also how prison (Sijn) is turned into the meaning of veil (Jin). This is the Batini religion, they give esoteric meaning to every word and distort the words of Allah from their meaning in order to replace the religion of Islam by their Batini religion.
Ibn ‘Arabi and witnessing Allah in women
The Kufr and Ilhad of ibn ‘Arabi did not stop here, he went on to say that having sexual relation with women is with none but with Allah, La Hawla wala Quwatta ila Billah. And this Kufr is greater than any Kufr of Jews and Christians and even polytheists of Quraysh.
In the last chapter on the Prophet Muhammad (saw) ibn Arabi wrote (as translated by bewley):
”His Lord made him love women as Allah loves the one who is in His form. Love only occurred by the One by whom he is formed. His love was for the One he was formed by, and He is Allah. This is why the Prophet said, “He made me love…,” and he did not say, “I loved” as coming from himself because his love is connected to his Lord in Whose form he is. In his love for his wife, he loves her by Allah’s love for him as a divine nature. (Since his nature (khuluq) was immense or mighty (‘adhim) as Allah said, “You are truly immense in character,” (68:4) and as ‘A’isha said of the Prophet, “His nature was the Qur’an)
When a man loves a woman, he desires union, that is, the goal of union which exists in love. In the elemental form, there is no greater union than marriage. By this appetite encompasses all parts. For that reason, complete ritual washing is prescribed after intercourse. Purification envelops him as annihilation in the woman was complete in the obtainment of appetite. Allah is very jealous of His slave IF HE BELIEVES THAT HE FINDS PLEASURE IN OTHER THAN HIM. So man purifies himself by ritual washing IN ORDER TO RETURN TO HIM IN WHOM HE WAS ANNIHILATED, SINCE THAT IS ALL THERE IS.”
Ibn ‘Arabi further wrote:
When man witnesses Allah in women, his witnessing is in the passive; when he witnesses Him in himself, regarding the appearance of woman from Him, he witnesses Him in the active. When he witnesses Him from himself without the presence of any form from him, his witnessing is in the passive directly from Allah without any intermediary. So his witnessing of Allah in the woman is the most complete and perfect because he witnesses Allah inasmuch as He is both active and passive. Regarding himself, He is passive in particular. For this reason, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, lovedwomen because of the perfection of the witnessing of Allah in them since one does not ever witness Allah free of matter. Allah by His essence is independent of the worlds. So from this aspect, the business is impossible, yet witnessing only occurs in matter. The witnessing of Allah in women is the greatest and most perfect witnessing. The greatest union is marriage.”
Comment: Ibn Arabi here clearly states that having intercourse with a woman is union with Allah (Na’uzu billah) and what Kufr is greater than this?
He said that Allah is JEALOUS of His slave if he believes that he found pleasure (had intercourse) with other than Him (Allah).
And the Ghusl for Ibn ‘Arabi is to return to Allah in whom he was annihilated, and there is only Allah in the universe.
And this is the reason why many scholars declared ibn ‘Arabi to be an apostate and condemned his Kufr like Az-Zahabi, ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani, As-Sakhawi, Al-‘Iraqi, Abu Hayan Al-Andalusi, Mulla Ali Qari, Sa’d Taftazani, Shaykh ul Islam ibn Taymiyah, Hafiz ibn ul Qayim and many others.
Some of those are presented below:
There are many more blunders made by this individual, who is high respected till date by millions of Sufis worldwide. They not all respect him rather defend his above believes and try to find excuse for him.
Now, let see the fatawaa (verdicts) of Noble Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah regarding Ibn Arabi :
Imaam Haafidh Ibn Hajr (d. 852 H) said,
“I asked my Shaykh Siraaj ud deen al-Balqayaanee about Ibn Arabi and he replied quickly he (Ibn Arabi) is kaafir (disbeliever)”
refer : Leesaan ul-Meezaan (4/319)
Imaam Haafidh Ibn Daqeeq al-Eed asked Abu Muhammad Izz ud deen Abdul Azeez bin Abdus Salaam as-Silmee ad-Damashqee (d. 660 H) about Ibn Arabi and he replied,
“Dirty, liar and far from the truth, ..
refer : al-Wafaa Bal-Wafyaat (4/125)
Imaam Abu Hayyaan Muhammad bin Yoosuf Andaloosee (d. 745 H) said,
“From the heretics who affirm unification and unity of existence are…… Ibn Arabi”
refer : Tafseer Bahr al-Muheet (3/464-465)
Imaam Haafidh Ibn Katheer (d. 774 H) said,
“and the book which is named Fusus al-Hikam contains many things which indicate clear kufr (disbelief).”
refer : Bidaayah WanNihaayah (13/167)
Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728 H) wrote,
“..however a group from amongst the heretics (is) like the author of Fusus al-Hikam Ibn Arabi and others like him who are heretics…”
refer : Majmoo’a Fataawa (11/385)
Qadhee Taqee ud deen Alee bin Abdul Kaafee as-Subkee (d. 756 H) said,
“Whoever is from amongst the later sufi’s like Ibn Arabi and others then they are ignorant and misguided and they outside the way of Islam.”
refer : Sharh Minhaaj in the Chapter of al-Wasayyah
Shamsuddeen Muhammad al-Eaizree wrote about Fusus al-Hikam in his book
“The scholars says whatever is in it, then all of it is disbelief and everything in it is based on the belief of unification.”
refer : al-Fatawaa al-Muntashirah
Imaam Ibn Khaldoon (d. 732 H) said
“Among these Sufis are: Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Saba’een, Ibn Barrajaan and their followers who follow their path and their religion. They have many books in circulation that are filled with blatant kufr and repugnant bid’ahs, trying to interpret clear texts in very far-fetched and repugnant ways, such that the reader is astounded that anyone could attribute such things to Islam.”
refer : Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu
The deviant teachings of Ibn Arabi are mentioned in Fazael-e- Tabligh (Fazael-e-Amal), Chapter 7, “Keeping company with the Righteous”, with regard to the Ayah of the Quran, “O those who believe! Fear Allah, and be with the truthful (faithful) people!”
“The commentators [scholars of Tafsir] have written that by ‘truthful’ are meant the mystics [sufis] and the true lovers of Allah, for whoever attaches himself to them and listens to their sermons, he attains very high standards of spirituality.
Shaykh Akbar [Ibn Arabi] has written: “You cannot get rid of the evil wishes of yourself, though you may strive for it for your whole life unless your desires are subjected to the commandments of Allah and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet ( sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ). So, when you find a true lover of Allah, serve him well and follow his instructions as though you have no will of your own; obey him in all your spiritual, religious and personal matters. even those concerning your occupation, so that he may lead you to the right path and take you nearer to Allah. ” End of quote.
We ask the Tablighi Jamaat and Deobandis to give us the names and references of those [scholars of Tafsir] commentators who “have written that by ‘truthful’ are meant the mystics [sufis]”??
Further, for an individual to serve and follow another individual (who is not a prophet) to such a extent that the former has no will of his own left and obey all theinstructions of the latter in spiritual, religious and personal matters is not correct.This is because a believer is commanded by Allaah to unconditionally believe, obey, and follow only Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). No one else has the right to be followed or be asked to be followed unconditionally!
In conclusion, the correct methodology of seeking knowledge is through the Noble Quran, the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) in accordance with the understanding of the Salaf-us-Saliheen. Anything else is going astray.
Post Courtesy :
A compilation of some of the heretic statements of Rumi and ibn Arabi can be downloaded from the link below:
Who was Ibn ‘Arabi?
He was a prominent Sufi; in fact he was an extreme Sufi. His name was Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Taa’i al-Andalusi. The scholars have told us about him in response to a question which was put to them. The question was as follows:
What do the imaams of the religion and the guides of the Muslims say about a book which has been circulating among the people, the author of which claims that he wrote it and distributed it to people by permission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which was given to him in a dream which he claims to have seen? Most of this book contradicts what Allaah revealed in His Books and is opposed to what His Prophets said.
Among the things that he says in this book are: Adam was called insaan because in relation to the truth (Al-Haqq), he was like the pupil [insaan] of the eye, the part that can see.
Elsewhere he said: Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.
Concerning the people of Nooh he said: if they had turned away from their worship of [their idols] Wudd, Siwaa’, Yaghooth and Ya’ooq, they would have lost more of Al-Haqq.
Then he said: Every object of worship is a manifestation of Al-Haqq. Those who know it, know it, and those who do not know it, do not know it. The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied manifestations are like the limbs of a physical image.
Then he said concerning the people of Hood: They reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) and were no longer remote. The heat of Hell no longer affected them and they gained the blessing of closeness to Allaah because they deserved it. They were not given this delicious experience as a favour, but because they deserved it as a result of the essence of their deeds, for they were on a straight path.
Then he denied the idea of the warning against those of mankind against whom the word of punishment is justified.
Should the one who believes in what he says be denounced as a kaafir, or should we accept what he says, or what? If the person who listens to him is an adult of sound mind, and does not denounce him by speaking or in his heart, is he a sinner, or what?
Please explain to us clearly and with proof, as Allaah has taken the covenant from the scholars on that basis, for negligence [on the part of the scholars] causes a great deal of confusion to the ignorant.
(‘Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu by Taqiy al-Deen al-Faasi, p. 15, 16).
(The author) mentioned the response of some of the scholars:
Al-Qaadi Badr al-Deen ibn Jamaa’ah said:
The passages quoted, and other similar parts of this book, are bid’ah and misguidance, evil and ignorance. The religiously-committed Muslim would not pay any heed to them or bother to read the book to find out more.
Then he said:
The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) could never give permission in a dream for something which goes against and contradicts Islam; on the contrary, this is from the evil insinuations or whispers of the Shaytaan and a trap whereby the Shaytaan is playing with him and tempting him.
His words about Adam, that he is the pupil of the eye, and his likening Allaah to His creation, and his remark that ‘Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ – if by ‘Al-Haqq’ he is referring to the Lord of the Worlds – is a clear statement of anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and he has taken this notion to extremes.
With regard to his denial of what has been narrated in the Qur’aan and Sunnah concerning the warning: this makes him a kaafir in the view of the scholars of the followers of Tawheed.
His comments about the people of Nooh and of Hood is vain and false talk which deserves to be rejected. The best way of dealing with that is to destroy this and all other similar passages of his book, for it is no more than fancy words, an expression of baseless ideas and an attempt to introduce into the religion ideas that do not belong to it. The ruling on this is that it should be rejected and ignored.
(Ibid., p. 29, 30).
Khateeb al-Qal’ah Shaykh Shams al-Deen Muhammad ibn Yoosuf al-Jazari al-Shaafa’i said:
Praise be to Allaah. His comment about Adam being called insaan is anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and is a lie and falsehood. His belief that the idol-worship of the people of Nooh was valid is kufr. Anyone who says such a thing cannot be approved of. His comment that ‘Al-Haqqwhich is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ is false and contradictory, and it is also kufr. His comment that the people of Hood had reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) is a lie against Allaah, and by saying this, he has rejected what Allaah said about them. His remark that they were no longer remote and that Hell became a blessing and a joy for them is a lie and a rejection of everything that was revealed to the Prophets; the truth of the matter is what Allaah said about that, that they (the people of Hood) will abide in the torment forever.
Concerning those who believe what he says – and he knows what he said – the same ruling applies to them as to him: that they are misguided kaafirs, if they have knowledge. If they do not have knowledge, then the person who says that out of ignorance should be told the truth and taught about it, and should be stopped if possible.
His denial of the warning to all people is a lie and a rejection of the consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. No doubt Allaah will bring about the punishment. Islam offers definitive evidence that a group of sinners from among the believers will be punished, and the one who denies that is regarded as a kaafir. May Allaah protect us from wrong belief and denying the Resurrection.
(Ibid., p. 31, 32).
Ibn Taymiyah said:
The Muslims, Christians and Jews all know something which is a basic principle of the Muslims’ religion: that whoever says of any human being that he is a part of God is a kaafir, he is regarded as a disbeliever by all these religions. Even the Christians do not say this, although their belief is a major form of kufr; no one says that the essence of creation is part of the Creator, or that the Creator is the creation, or that Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.
Similarly, his remark that if the Mushrikeen turn away from idol-worship, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is obviously kufr according to the basic principle that is common to all the religions. For the religions are agreed that all the Prophets forbade idol-worship and regarded as disbelievers those who did that; the believer cannot be a believer unless he disavows himself of worshipping idols and of everything that is worshipped instead of Allaah. As Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning);
“Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’” [al-Mumtahanah 60:4]
— and he quoted other aayaat as proof — then he said:
Whoever says that if the idol-worshippers give up their idols, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, and the one who does not regard them as kaafirs is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, for the Jews and Christians regard idol-worshippers as disbelievers, so how about one who says that the one who gives up idol-worship has turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that he has abandoned idol-worship?! Let alone the fact that he says, The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied forms are like the limbs of a physical image and the energy in a spiritual image; nothing but Allaah is being worshipped in everything that is worshipped. He is an even greater kaafir than the worshippers of idols, for they only take them as intercessors and mediators, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“ [The Mushrikeen say] ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah’” [al-Zumar 39:3]
“Have they taken (others) as intercessors besides Allaah? Say: “Even if they have power over nothing whatever and have no intelligence?” [al-Zumar 39:43]
They acknowledged that Allaah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the Creator of the idols, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And verily, if you ask them: ‘Who created the heavens and the earth?’ Surely, they will say: ‘Allaah (has created them)’” [al-Zumar 39:38]
Shaykh al-Islam also said:
When the faqeeh Abu Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam came to Cairo and they asked him about Ibn ‘Arabi, he said:
He is a vile and evil shaykh who says that the world is eternal and does not see anything haraam in any sexual relationship.
He mentioned the belief that the world is eternal because this is what [Ibn ‘Arabi] believed, but this is well-known form of kufr and the faqeeh Abu Muhammad denounced him as a kaafir because of this. At that time Ibn ‘Arabi had not yet said that the universe was God or the universe was the image and essence of God. This is a greater form of kufr because those who say that the universe is eternal still believe that there had to be Someone Who brought it into existence, that from the One Who must exist comes that which may exist. Those shaykhs who met him [Ibn ‘Arabi] said that he was a liar and a fabricator, and that in his books such as al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah etc. there were lies which could not be concealed from any intelligent person.
Then he said:
I have not even mentioned one-tenth of what they mentioned about kufr, but people who do not know about them have been deceived by these ideas, just as they were deceived by the Baatini Qaraamitah when they claimed to be descendents of Faatimah and said that they belonged to the Shee’ah, so the Shee’ah began to like them without knowing of their hidden kufr. So the person who is attracted to them is one of two things: either he is a heretic and hypocrite, or he is misguided and ignorant. With regard to these pantheists (ittihaadiyoon), their leaders are the leaders of kufr and must be executed, and their repentance cannot be accepted if they are seized before they repent, for they are among the greatest heretics, those who make an outward display of being Muslim whilst concealing kufr in their hearts, those who conceal their beliefs and their opposition to Islam. Everyone who follows them, who defends them, who praises them, who admires their books, who is known to help them, who does not like to speak against them or who makes excuses for them by saying that we do not know exactly what these statements mean, who says ‘How can we be sure that he wrote this book?’ and other excuses which no one but an ignorant person or a hypocrite would come up with, must be punished.
Indeed, it is obligatory to punish everyone who knows about them but does not help to resist them, because campaigning against these people is one of the most serious duties, for they have corrupted the minds and religious belief of many shaykhs, scholars, kings and princes, and they are spreading corruption throughout the world, preventing people from following the path of Allaah. The harm that they cause to the religion is greater than that done by those who damage the worldly interests of the Muslims but leave their religion alone, such as bandits on the highways and the Tatars (Mongols) who took their wealth but left their religion alone. Those who do not know them should not underestimate the danger they pose. Their own misguidance and the extent to which they misguide others defies description.
Then he said:
Whoever thinks well of them and claims not to know how they really are should be informed about them. If he does not then turn his back on them and denounce them, then he should be classed as one of them.
Whoever says that their words could be interpreted in such a way that it does not contradict sharee’ah is one of their leaders and imaams. If he is intelligent, he should know what they really are. But if he believes in it and behaves like this openly and in secret, then he is a worse kaafir than the Christians.
(Ibid., p. 25-28 – adapted and abbreviated)
Ibn Hajar said:
Some confusing words of Ibn ‘Arabi were mentioned to our master Shaykh al-Islam Siraaj al-Deen al-Balqeeni, and he was asked about Ibn ‘Arabi. Our Shaykh al-Balqeeni said: he is a kaafir.
(Ibid., p. 39).
Ibn Khaldoon said:
Among these Sufis are: Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Saba’een, Ibn Barrajaan and their followers who follow their path and their religion. They have many books in circulation that are filled with blatant kufr and repugnant bid’ahs, trying to interpret clear texts in very far-fetched and repugnant ways, such that the reader is astounded that anyone could attribute such things to Islam.
(Ibid., p. 41).
These later Sufis, such as Ibn ‘Arabi and his followers, are misguided and ignorant and beyond the pale of Islam; those among them who have knowledge are even worse.
(Ibid., p. 55).
Abu Zar’ah ibn al-Haafiz al-‘Iraaqi said:
Undoubtedly the famous book Al-Fusoos contains blatant kufr, as does al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah. If it is true that he wrote this and continued to believe in it until he died, then he is a kaafir who is doomed to eternity in Hell, no doubt about it.
(Ibid., p. 60).
So how can any sane person say that these brilliant scholars did not understand Ibn ‘Arabi? If they did not understand him, who can?
An incident from which we learn a lesson:
I heard our companion al-Haafiz al-Hujjah al-Qaadi Shihaab al-Deen Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajar al-Shaafa’i say:
there were many disputes about Ibn ‘Arabi between me and one of those who like Ibn ‘Arabi, until I insulted him because of the bad things that he had said, but that did not make the man change his mind.
He threatened to complain about me to the Sultaan in Egypt with regard to a matter that was different from that which we were arguing about, just to cause trouble for me.
I said to him: the Sultaan has nothing to do with this! Come, let us make Mubaahalah [call our sons, our wives and ourselves and pray and invoke the Curse of Allaah upon those who lie – cf. Aal ‘Imraan 3:61].
It is very rare, when people make Mubaahalah and one of them is lying, for that one to go unpunished.
So he said to me, ‘Bismillaah’ [i.e, he agreed]. And I said to him:
‘Say: O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is misguided, then curse me with Your Curse’ – so he said that.
Then I said, O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is rightly-guided, then curse me with Your Curse.
Then we parted.
Then we met in a park in Egypt on a moonlit night, and he said to us, Something soft touched my leg, look!
So we looked but we did not see anything. Then he checked his eyes and he could not see anything (i.e., Allaah had afflicted him with blindness).
This is the meaning of what Al-Haafiz Shihaab al-Deen ibn Hajar al-‘Asqallaani told me.
(Ibid., p. 75, 76).
1 thought on “Ibn Arabi On the Scale Of Ahlus Sunnah (The Sufi Mystic and Heretic kafir who is revered by Barelwi and Deobandi Sufis)”
Another reason why Ibn Taymiyyah was opposed was his criticism of Sūfīs, particularly Shaykh Muhyī al-Dīn Ibn `Arabī, although he described himself, in his letter to Abū al-Fath Nasr al-Munayjī, as a former admirer of the Shaykh al-Akbar:
I was one of those who, previously, used to hold the best opinion of Ibn `Arabī and extol his praise, because of the benefits I saw in his books, such as what he said in many of his books, for example: al-Futūhāt, al-Kanh, al-Muhkam al-Marbūt., al-Durra al-Fākhira, Matāli` al-Nujūm, and other such works. (Ibn Taymiyyah, Tawhīd al-Rubūbiyyah in Majmū`at al-Fatāwā (2:464-465))