This is in response to Dr. Nazir Ahmad Zargar’s Write-Up,”Re-reading Ibn Arabi” (GK, dated April 18, 2019). As a student of IslamicStudies, I have certain reservations with the write-up, which I put forth inthe below paragraphs.
Taqi al- Din Abu al-Abbas was born in Harran in Syria in661/ 1263, and from 667/ 1269, he lived in Damascus, having fled Harran due tothe Mongol invasion. He spent a total of over six years of his life in prisonas the result of his campaign against the teachings, which stood against Sunniweltanschauung, particularly the Sufis. Ibn Taymiyyah asserted speculativemysticism propounded by figures like Ibn Sab’in, Sadr al-din Qunawi, Tilmisaniand above all Ibn Arabi in a good member of treatise as the most dangerous thanTatar invasion, and of all the treats which lay in the heart of Islam. Hecriticized the logical foundations of speculative mysticism and categoricallyrejected the doctrine of whadat al-wujud, its logical underpinnings, and itsrelation to Platonic philosophy. However, it was pantheistic mysticism whichIbn Taymiyyah opposed, for he himself was the traditional, non-Ittihadi Sufi(Wael B. Hallaq, 1993).
In his piece, Dr. Zargar tinted varied opinions of scholarsabout Ibn Arabi: “Some declared him as Kafir (disbeliever) on the basis of theso many heretical utterances in his writings which, they urge, are clearlyagainst the Shari’ah”. He only mentions four scholars who declared him Kafirand likewise. The author then presented a queue of scholars, who praised Ibn Arabi,is either because of bias or unfamiliarity of Ibn Arabi critiques. In fact,there are hundreds of prominent and classical scholars (belonging to differentschool of thought), who declared Ibn Arabi as Kafir, Mulhid, Zandeeq andlikewise. For instance, Imam Azz bin Abdus Salam as-Shafi (d. 660 A.H.) termedIbn Arabi as ‘Shaykh of evil (s’uu) and lair’. Sharif Uddin Zayi al-Malki (d.743 A.H.) said: ‘what has been written in the Fassus of ibn Arabi is chatter/irrational talk and based on kufr and fable’. Similarly, another scholar,Sharif-ud-Din al-Mukri as-Shafi (d. 837 A.H.) said: “one who doubts regardingthe disbelief of Jews and Christians and the group of Ibn Arabi, he himself isa disbeliever”. Al-Mukri’s argument is furthered by Allahuddin Bukharial-Hanafi (d. 841 A.H.), who is reported to have said: “He (Ibn Arabi) iszindaaq (disbeliever).’
Dagish al-Ajami, in his book on Ibn Arabi, has given a longcatalog of numerous scholars who highly criticized Ibn Arabi and termed him asKafir, Imam ul-Mulhideen, Zindeeq and likewise. Dr. Zargar postulates thecontradictory arguments, he writes: “At the very outset let’s admit that thereare many things in the books of Ibn Arabi that seems clearly against the Qur’anand the Sunnah…. books does not remain a Muslim”. This designates that theauthor himself believes that Ibn Arabi sometimes goes against the teachings ofthe Qur’an and the Sunnah. The author further considers (pretends to be like aMufti, which he is not) those who believe on these things are not Muslims.Ironically, he believes that the one who writes against the Qur’an and theSunnah is Muslim and one who trusts on these things is not Muslim. Surely, aflagrant contradiction ensues from this assertion. On second occasion he writes: “the author asa humble student (which he is not) …against the belief of ahl al-Suunah waal-jama’ah”. Here the author professes himself as a scholar, which he isnot—because students of knowledge knows that Futuhat is quite different fromrest of his writings—and he specifies Ibn Arabi writings to Futuhat.
Dr. Zargar has a long history of misquoting the scholarsparticularly Ibn Taymiyyah. Here as usual continued the legacy and misquotesIbn Taymiyyah by writing half text only that is indeed very cheap act. “Ibn Arabiis nearest to Islam amongst them …commands and prohibitions and the laws”. Thequestion arises amongst whom Ibn Arabi is nearest to Islam and why half textonly? The full text/ passage reads as: “The second rule: The existence of creationappearances is the real existence of creator and besides him nothing exists;this is what he innovated and goes lonely with opposite to all scholars(Mashayikh), and this is the sayings of other Ittihadiyah. But, amongst themIbn Arabi is nearest to Islam, and better in his saying because he, in manyoccasions, makes a distinction between manifestation and exteriority (differsbetween apparent and being) and pays due regard to the commands andprohibitions and the Shariah. Many Sufi’s in the way of Suluq enhance his sayingsregarding morality, worship. And that is why most devotees took his teachingand got benefited. Despite, they didn’t understand his realities. Whoever amongthem understands his realities/ beliefs and agreed with him, discloses hisstand.”
In a video clip on Facebook uploaded by Anjuman Ahle SunnatWaljama’at titled Shaykh ibn Arabi aur Whadat ul Wujud, the author as usualcontinued his legacy of misquoting Ibn Taymiyyah. His open and unqualifiedstatement(s) are: “Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah didn’t use any criticallanguage against Ibn Arabi; instead he called him Muttabi’al-Sunnah (followerof the Sunnah)”. Here Dr. Zargar openly lies against Ibn Taymiyyah, that too inMasjid. Then in the piece also his intellectual dishonesty is apparent by writingprocedural fuss like “It is interesting to note that while Ibn Taymiyyah isvery harsh against the followers of Ibn Arabi like Ibn Sab’in, Sadr al-dinKonya, Tilmisani and Billiyani, but at the same time he seems moderate whileevaluating Ibn Arabi”. These are ostensible misrepresentations which have nopedigrees in Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings, to deconstruct the allegations let’squote Ibn Taymiyyah directly. “Certainly, I was among the people who had goodintention with regards to Ibn Arabi, and I praised him, what I found beneficialin his books like in Al-Futuhaat, al-Kinnah, al-Muhkam, al-Marboot, al-Durrahal-Fakhirah, al-Matali al-Nujoom and likewise other writings, we were not awareof his real ideology and didn’t studyyet his al-Fussus and other alike texts, then we gathered with our brothers for the sake of Allah and went tosearch the truth in order to follow that and display the reality of the path,when the matter opened before us it was obligatory to explain his deviancy”(Majmo al-Rasil, vol.1, p. 179). He further writes in Al-Furqaan (vol.1, p103):”certainly Ibn Arabi and his alike claimed that they are Sufi’s, actually theyare among the Sufi apostate/ heretic (Mulhid) philosophers and not among theknowledgeable Sufis”. The phrase ‘Ibn Arabi and his alike’ is explained inMajmu al-Fatawa; he mentions Ibn Arabi, Ibn Sab’in, Ibn Farz, Tilmisani, theyall are Ittihadiyah. Ibn Taymiyyah identified them as apostate/ heretics(Mulhid za’la). He further stated that they should be called towards repentance,if they won’t, then they must be decapitated or killed (Majmu al-Fatawa, vol.2,p 390). Now, it is evident like Ajhar’uminas Sha’ms (appearance of Sun) thatIbn Taymiyyah evaluates Ibn Arabi and his followers alike.
In sum, he shakes the foundations of mystical pantheism andheld the philosophers and the Jahmis—stripping God of allattributes—responsible for the pantheistic heresies of Ibn Sab’in, Qunawi,Tilmisani, and above all Ibn Arabi and their followers.
(Owais Manzoor Dar is pursuing PhD in Islamic Studies atJamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi)