PDA

View Full Version : To Ibn arabi followers


Madarijas-Salikeen
30th May 2007, 07:21 PM
bismillah ar rahman ar raheem

I praise Allaah ta ala who has sent the Nabi salalahu alayhi wa salam with the straight path. I praise Allaah who has completed our deen for us , which means it is not in need of newly invented matters. Our deen is not a changing religion that is weak like the manmade religions of others or corrupted religions.

Many people are flocking to sufism, they will buy into deceptive words and accept them. They will then start defending things such as istighatha, wahdat al wujud, istiana, innovated practices, mawlid, and hadra and samaa and tons of other innovations.

We are told that when a 'waliy' says 'I am Haq' etc... that they are to be excused for they are spiritually intoxicated. Ibn taymiyah rahimullah alayh also excused them if they reach this by lawfull means. As you see below:

Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah] said:

But some of those who have this experience may become intoxicated and irrational when in that state of oblivion, in which state they may say things like “Glory be to me” or “There is nothing in this cloak except Allaah” and other such words that were narrated from Abu Yazeed al-Bistaami. Whatever an intoxicated person says is to be overlooked; it should not be narrated or told to others, if his intoxication has not come about through haraam means such as forbidden acts of worship or performing acts of worship in ways that are not allowed. But if the cause of intoxication is something haraam, then the intoxicated person is no longer to be excused. In this regard there is no difference between physical and spiritual intoxication.


Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 2/461

Now a sufi may say, 'but their means is lawfull'

However, this is not true. For it is part of Sufism to reach this state. They want to strive to reach this state and experiance being in the divine presence and seeing only Allaah etc... They strive to become spiritually intoxicated! This is known from their works. Fana is what they want to reach. This is their way onto their journey to Allaah.

Now, these sufis still go along saying these individuals are excused. They say you cannot hold them responsible for their spiritually intoxicated state.

BUT and thats a big BUT,

Why is it that they write books that contain kufr statements upon the dhahir? If its uttered from a spiritually intoxicated state why then write it down? If it is written down during this spiritual state, then when they come out of their (spiritual intoxication) they should destroy their writings! Yet we see that they record their writings anyways, and in order to defend themselves they use this argument of ibn arabi.


"it is unlawful to read (the sufis) books unless one attains to their level of character and learns the meaning of their words in comformity with their technical usages, neither of which is found except in someone who has worked assiduously, rolled up his sleeves, abandoned the wrong, tightened his belt, filled himself replete with the outward islamic sciences, and purified himself from every low trait connected with this world and the next. It is just a person who comprehends what is being said and is allowed to enter when he stands at the door" (Reliance of the traveler page 1082)


Perhaps some of us can understand them going into a state of madness during their innovated dhikr, but what about these works they write?

Ibn arabi claims the nabi salalahu alayhi wa salam approved of al futoohat. Yet do we know of a single one amongst the companions radiallahu anhu to state such 'inner' meanings as that described in ibn arabi's work? Or do we know of even a single sahabi writing something down that they believed the Nabi salalahu alayhi wa salam approved of in a dream? Did they focus on special inner meanings? Did they reach the divine presence and witness allaah without a veil? How ironic for indeed these same companions debated over rather the Nabi salalahu alayhi wa salam saw Allaah in his lifetime.




The statements of kufr in his works as in the fusoos and al-futoohaat are defended by the sufis as something which the scholars of the "outward islamic sciences" do not understand! The advocates of the concept of wahdat Al-wujud confirm it as it came in ibn arabis work and criticize those whom they classify as 'scholars of the shareeah" (Like ath-thahabee, ibn hajar, ibn taymiyyah, ibn katheer, and many more) who rejected this kufr! This basic argument is that this concept could only be understood by those who qualify in understanding the mystic "inward" knowledge as has been discussed above. In this regard, ahmad bin kamaal Basha (d940/1533) a defender of ibn arabi states that, "unlike the people of kashf and baatin (inward), people of the "outward"are unable to comprehend the intended meaning of some of the issues in Al-Fusoos and Al-Futoohaat." He then concluded that, "in this respect, the one who does not know the intended meaning must keep silent, because Allaah Most High said:

"The hearing and the sight and the heart each of those you will be questioned (by allaah)" Soraat Al-israa 17:36)

The people of ath-thaahir neither wrote nor propagated the corrupt thoughts and concepts of wahdat al-wujud. Those great scholars of Islaam who exposed such the false concepts should according to ahmad basha, have kept silent! This is a great misguidance.


People began defending the statements of these mystics when they are in a state of spiritual intoxications. Then they started defending their writings which only seem to be a result of their spiritual intoxications.

There is no such thing as secret knowledge in islaam. Whatever was not within the deen of al islaam as the nabi salalahu alayhi wa salam presented , will never be accepted from Allaah. Innovations such as that of the mystics and current day mystic leaders has nothing to do with Islaam let alone what is attributed to the nabi salalahu alayhi wa salam from some dream dictated to them.

We ask that Allaah be our protector against the deviant creeds and keep us steadfast on the Straight path Ameen

Alhamdulilah!Allaahuma sali ala muhammadin wa ala ali muhammad

wa salaamu alaykum

-mustafa

Abd al-Haqq Marshall
30th May 2007, 09:22 PM
I don't think there are any Ibn Arabi followers here, alhamdulillaah.

moubeen
30th May 2007, 10:52 PM
there are quite a few people who follow his ideas even if they don't mention him explicitly. The deobandee Imaams to start with, then we have people like the author who goes by the name Harun Yahya, Who was known to praise Ibn Arabi in an earlier edition of his book when promoting wahdatul wujood and then in later editions removed referances to Ibn Arabi and denied he was promting unity of existance after he was questioned about it.

Abu_Abdillah2000
31st May 2007, 12:42 AM
Regarding the question of "secret knowledge", I have noticed that most of the sufis try to use the authentic hadith of Abu Hurayrah (it in the sahihayn, I think) in which he said: "I received two bags (i.e. two kinds of knowledge) from the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam. One I have propagated to you, but if I were to reveal the other one, my throat would be cut from my body."

However, they have misunderstood (perhaps deliberately) the meaning of the hadith as explained by the ulama. The knowledge of the "second bag" does not refer to some kind of esoteric ibn-arabi-type secret , but rather to Abu Hurayrah's knowledge of the fitnahs that would occur in this Ummah, particularly regarding some of the oppressive rulers of Banu Umayyah. What he meant when he said "if I told you my throat would be cut" is that if he went around in public spreading this information about the blameworthiness of some of those rulers, they would have had him arrested and executed. And Abu Hurayrah said those words during the rule of Banu Umayyah, and there are many other narrations (particularly in Mustadrak al-Hakim) that clearly show this, wallahu a'lam.

So in conclusion, this is yet another example of "sufis" (as is their habit) tampering with the ahadith of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, and the athar of his companions, and distorting the truth and mixing it with falsehood.

Madarijas-Salikeen
31st May 2007, 01:02 AM
as salaamu alaykum,

jazakallah khayr my brother abu abdullah 2000


Please if there is more anybody can add please add. Responding to the shubuhaat caused by the mystics is very important in this age of callers calling to 'Traditional islam'

Allaah guide us all ameen

Its interesting that the sahabah used to not invite each other in their house for secret knowledge or taking eachother to the Divine presence.

All these visions and hallucinations are just like heroin addicts, sex addicts, cross worshippers, isa alayhi salam worshipper , and others as Dr. salih as salih has described in his book 'Dispraise of al hawwa'.

It reminds me of what a hindu told me in my days of jahiliyah, he told me that his grandfather who meditates daily would see images of 'hindu gods' supposedly in 'heaven' .

What a deception from Shaytaan and these sufis will believe anything attributed to their leaders.


Im wondering to find evidence on ibn arabi claiming that he was the greatest shaykh, a sufi who actually studies with sufi and has brewli leanings mentioned this on sunni forum. It would be very nice if i could find the reference .

Abu_Abdillah2000
31st May 2007, 01:23 AM
Ibn 'Arabi is a strange case, and it really is a wonder why these so-called "traditional Muslims" respect him so much. When you know about some of his other non "sufi" related views, you will understand what I mean.

Firstly, with regard to 'aqidah, he was vehemently opposed to the ash'aris. One of the brothers on the "Sunnipress" forums brought some quotes from him about that.

However, Ibn 'Arabi's own understanding of 'aqidah was apparently problematic and inconsistent, however in some issues pertaining to al-Asma' was-Sifat he was, if not "salafi", then very close to it.

However, his position on "harf wa sawt" is inconsistent, as he denies it in one place but apparently affirms it in others.

Regardless of all this, he would have strongly opposed the ash'arism and maturidism of his modern-day would-be defenders.

As for fiqh, he was on the Dhahiri madhhab like Ibn Hazm. This is well-known, and evident from the book "al-Futuhat". And his general approach to fiqh (but not necessarily his "sufistic" insights on it) resembled more that of scholars like Nasir ad-Din al-Albani than the modern-day "traditionalist" muqallidun.

So Ibn 'Arabi probably would have made tabarru' of these guys who are forcing everyone to make taqlid of only one of the 4 madhahib and not go outside of that!

And perhaps if some of Ibn 'Arabi's Ash'ari/Maturidi/Sufi/Madhhabi contemporary would-be defenders actually knew that Ibn 'Arabi was anti-ash'ari/maturidi, anti-taqlid, a (sometimes) pro-muthabbitah in 'aqidah and a dhahiri in fiqh, perhaps they would now be thrown into great confusion!

Abd al-Haqq Marshall
31st May 2007, 02:31 AM
His aqeedah resembles Ibn Hazm (in Fusus al-Hikam he says Allah's attributes are identical to His Essence), and he lambasts the Asharis a great deal. As far as fiqh, he at one point said that following a madhhab was forbidden. In al-Futhuhat he constantly derides the madhhabi scholars as fools and hypocrites.

PS. I'm not defending him, I'm condemning him.