Ibn Arabi and Ibn Sina on "Perpetual Contingency"

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by FaqirHaider, Jun 20, 2020.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider اللَه المقدر والعالم شؤون لا تكثر لهمك ما قدر يكون






    I'd recommend brother to watch these 4 videos, so one has a good frame to work with when they want to look at the works of Shaykh Al Akbar.

    Shaykh Saeed points out the Premise that "If Ibn Arabi was from Ahl al Sunnah, then it necessitates that none of his opinions can be against ASWJ," is not definitive , there have been many who were form ASWJ but on some points had difference of opinion, therefore it is not true that if one is from ASWJ he must by necessity comply with ASWJ (absolutely.)

    IF someone goes into Ibn Arabi's work with this premise, then the apparent meaning and understanding of Ibn Arab'is work will compel him to conclude that those statements are forgeries and cannot be taken as his words.
    (Shaykh Abdul Wahab al Sa'rani Qadassalhu Sirruhu) opinion is as such

    Shaykh Saeed Foudah, states that it is not the case that Ibn arabi is not from Ahl al Sunnah, on the contrary he is From Ahle Sunnah, but when people of his caliber swim in deep rumination(ijtihad) they end up with conclusion that no one prior ever came too, which may or may not be in agreement with the conclusion of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamma'h, and of the later is true then that conclusion is to be rejected.

    Shaykh Saeed foudah goes into all these contentions brought about, and basically break primarily into two sides (justifications), one who takes his works as tampered , and he names the scholars of this party, and the other who do ta'weel and try to interpret those problematic statements in light of established sunni kalam. His person conclusion end in proving that there are indeed problematic statements, and it the attribution of fabrication in Ibn Arab's work is wishful thinking and that indeed those matters were not forgeries (in the sense of how we can etymologically source his works) but mistakes(ijtihadi or otherwise), and proceeds to mention the ulama of this position a major in being (Imam Rabbani Mujaddid Alf Thani qaddasallahu Sirru).

    Saeed Foudah however does vigorously critisize the "manhaj" who not only approach such conclusions with taqleed but silence others against scrutinizing and criticizing such opinions, he urges for a fair approach be it regarding any group or individual absent of any special pleading even for the likes of Shaykh al Akbar ibn Arabi (qadasallahu sirruhu).


    also these "contentions" are regarding Tawheed and kalam , not (kashf or fiqh, hadith).
     
  2. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    Please read the previous post (#15) as well regarding Ibn Sina And Ibn Taymiyyah:

    On Shaykh Ibn Arabi:

    Shaykh Abu Adam writes:

    Asħ-Sħaˆraaniyy (898-973 AH/ 1493-1565 AD), ˆAbdulWahhaab ibn ‘Aĥmad ibn ˆAliyy Al-Ĥanafiyy (as he is a descendant of Muĥammad ibn Al-Ĥanafiyyah) was a scholar among the Sufis. He was born in Qalqasħandah in Egypt, and died in Cairo. (Al-‘Aˆlaam (2002), 4/180) Among his many books authored are Lawaaqiĥu-l-‘Anwaari-l-Qudsiyyah Fii Bayaani-l-ˆUhuud Al-Muĥammadiyyah, hereby referred to as Al-ˆUhuud Al-Muĥammadiyyah.

    Asħ-Sħaˆraaniyy’s considerable knowledge and piety made him many envious enemies, to the extent that his books were perverted in his own time. He had to defend himself by showing the original manuscripts of his books to show his innocence. In the introduction to his book quoted below, he speaks of such an incident and explains that he started mentioning ĥadiitħs as proofs for everything he said to make them more difficult to pervert. After all, he argued, if the claims stated blatantly contradict the ĥadiitħ mentioned it would be easier for the reader to discover that there is something fishy going on! (Al-ˆUhuud Al-Muĥammadiyyah, 6)

    Asħ-Sħaˆraaniyy is among the scholars that defended Muĥyiddiin Ibn ˆArabiyy and explained some of his strange expressions in a manner that agrees with the sayings of Ahlu-s-Sunnah. Note, however, that some of the expressions found in the latter’s books are perversions. Asħ-Sħaˆraaniyy said:

    Asħ-Sħaykħ Abuu Ţaahir Al-Muzaniyy Asħ-Sħaadħiliyy told me that all of what is in Asħ-Sħaykħ Muĥyiddiin’s books of things that contradicts blatant Islamic Law is forged, because he is a complete man by the consensus of authenticators." (Al-Yawaaqiitu wa-l-Jawaahir, 3)

    In any case, this is all history, and what we are mainly concerned with here is belief in itself, not what particular non-prophets believe in particular. The following narration of Asħ-Sħaˆraaniyy, however, shows Asħ-Sħaykħ Muĥyiddiin’s strong knowledge of, and adherence to, Sunni kalaam. First, however, let us see briefly what Asħ-Sħaˆraaniyy’s attitude is, and where his loyalty lies.

    Asħ-Sħaˆraaniyy is a mainstream Sunni i.e. an Asħˆariyy
    He said with regard to his loyalty to Ahlu-s-Sunnah:

    …. And know that what is meant by "Ahlu-s-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaaˆah" in the customary expressions of people today is Abu-l-Ĥasan Al-Asħˆariyy and whomsoever was prior to him, such as Al-Maaturiidiyy and others…. (because of Al-Asħˆariyy’s fame, however)…. people started saying "this man’s belief is correct and Asħˆariyy," but they do not mean that those who are not are necessarily wrong absolutely,… and there is no significant difference between Asħˆariyys and Maaturiidiyys in the sense that they accuse each other of bad innovation in the religion….

    …. and know, dear brother, that whomsoever follows Ahlu-s-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaaˆah must have his heart full of content with following them, and against whomsoever disagrees with them. (Al-Yawaaqiitu wa-l-Jawaahir, 2)

    With regard to ambiguous expressions found in books of sufis in general and Sħaykħ Muĥyiddiin, he said:

    I advise all those who are not capable of reaching the understanding of what the people of illumination to stand firm by the apparent decrees of the scholars of kalaam, and not go beyond that….. (Al-Yawaaqiitu wa-l-Jawaahir, 2)

    Asħ-Sħaykħ Muĥyiddiin on the pebbles thrown in Ĥajj pilgrimage

    (إشارات الشيخ محيي الدين للتوحيد في رمي الحصى بالحج) قال الشعراني في لواقع الأنوار القدسية: ذكر الشيخ محيي الدين في باب الحج من “الفتوحات”ما نصه: إنما كان حصى الرمي سبعا لأن الشيطان يأتي الرامي هناك بسبع خواطر، لا بد من ذلك فيرمي كل خاطر بحصاة ومعنى التكبير عند رمي كل حصاة: الله أكبر من هذه النسبة التي أتانا بها الشيطان وأطال في ذلك ثم قال:

    Asħ-Sħaˆaraaniyy said: “Asħ-Sħaykħ Muĥyiddiin mentioned in the chapter on Ĥajj in Al-Futuuĥaat the following: ‘The pebbles we are throwing are seven, because the Satan always comes to the thrower there with seven seeds-of-doubt (misgivings). So, the thrower throws a pebble at each of these satanic suggestions. And the meaning of saying, " Allaahu-Akbar," with every thrown pebble is that Aļļaah is greater than what the Satan brought.’

    I would recommend that every brother read this entire post.
    It shows the immense knowledge of KALAM that Shaykh Muhyiddiin had and sort of undermines what the fraudsters and fabricators, spew against him.
     
  3. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member



    Wa ʿalaykumu s-salam brother,

    Listen from 8:00-9:00, pertaining to this "deep philosphical thought" according to Yasir of ibn Taymiyah.

    Shaykh Abu Adam expands on this here.
    Ibn taymiha.png



    And here as well:

    Shaykh Abu Adam writes :
    The Greek philosophers believed that Allah is the cause of the world’s existence not by choice (i.e. He did not create by choice, according to them). This meant that they believed one or more creations to be eternal. Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah believed that the world (i.e. other than Aļļaah) is eternal, even though no particular creation is eternal.


    Ibn Taymiyyah says:


    It is a necessity of Aļļaah’s self to act, but not an act in particular, and not having something done in particular, so there is no eternal object in the world, and He is not eternally a complete influencer for anything (to exist) in the world, but He has in beginningless eternity always been a complete influencer for something (to exist), one after another…(Aş-Şafadiyyah, 2/97)

    قال ابن تيمية في الصفدية (2 / 97): وحينئذ فالذي هو من لوازم ذاته نوع الفعل لا فعل معين ولا مفعول معين فلا يكون في العالم شيء قديم وحينئذ لا يكون في الأزل مؤثرا تاما في شيء من العالم ولكن لم يزل مؤثرا تاما في شيء بعد شيء وكل أثر يوجد عند حصول كمال التأثير فيه.

    Note that his statement “It is a necessity of Aļļaah’s self to act, but not an act in particular,” means that Aļļaah has no choice but to create something. This is a plain ascription of flaw to the Creator, and the one that has such a belief is light years away from being anything that can be called a Muslim. All Muslims must believe that Aļļaah does not need to, and is not compelled to, or obligated to, create at all, and does not achieve more perfection by it.

    These claims of the philosophers and Ibn Taymiyyah then, contradict the Islamic belief. This is as indicated by the Qur’aan:


    "وهُوَ الأَوَّلُ",


    Meaning: "He is Al-Awwal.” (Al-Ĥadiid, 03)." This means that He existed before everything else, and that He was not preceded by non-existence or the existence of something else . Al-Bukħaariyy[3] narrated that the Prophet Muĥammad r said:


    "كان الله ولم يَكُنْ شَيْءٌ غَيْرُهُ"


    "Aļļaah existed and there was nothing else" (Bukħaariyy No. 3019) Aļļaah’s existence then, does not resemble the existence of created things. It is a beginning-less, eternal and necessary existence, and is not affected by anything, or shared with anything. This is what Asħ-Sħaykħ Muĥyiddiin meant by “the affirmation that Allah existed and there was nothing else existing with Him.”

    ____________________________________________________________________


    Here is a good evidence against why "Ibn Taymiyah's philosophy" is against sound intellect:


    Shaykh Abu Adam writes:
    Your statement also means that there is no first creation. In other words, you are saying that creation is eternal without a beginning. This is blasphemy according to all Sunni scholars, and is the belief of the Greek Philosophers, adopted later by Ibn Taymiyyah, in order to defend his idea that Aļļaah is something physical with events (something non existent becoming existent) occurring in it, just like creation. Ibn Ĥajar Al-ˆAsqalaaniyy said: “Qaađiy ˆIiaađ and others narrated that there is scholarly ijmaaˆ consensus on the takfiir of the person that says the world (ˆaalam, i.e. anything other than Aļļaah) is eternal.”
    قد حكى عياض وغيره الإجماع على تكفير من يقول بقدم العالم

    You could see here how wahabis are defending the "possibility" of infinite regress in the past. here as well. And here.
    ________________________________________________________________


    Shaykh Abu Adam on the philosopher's view pertaining to eternality of the cosmos:

    Question: I think that what a philosopher would say about the eternality of the world is this: The heavens and the earth indeed had a beginning, as the Quran states. However, they were created by Allah from some prior substance that existed before them. So he would affirm a beginning to the heavens and the earth, but he would deny that before they were created nothing else existed besides Allah. Now my question is this: Why exactly is this belief kufr? Is it because of the hadith that “Allah was and nothing was with Him”?

    Shakyh Abu Adam's Answer: It is a combination of many evidences, but it is basically because he believes that this substance is not created by Allah, and is His partner in eternity. The bottom line is that it is shirk.


    [Shaykh] Abu Adam

    ______________________________________________________________________

    Here, Shaykh Abu Adam mentions Ibn Sina:

    Yes, you’ve got it right, except that 2+2=4 is not only a definition, as I will explain below. What he is talking about is not Islamic philosophy, but the Greek philosophy of Ibn Sinaa and his ilk. They believed that fire has the ability to burn by itself, without Allah having willed it. They are kuffaar, as stated by Al-Ghazzali and others.

    On Ibn Rushd:

    [Question]
    In which of his books did ibn Rushd say that the world is without being created? Have those accusing him of kufr ever actually read his writings, or are all the charges based of hearsay? If one wants to know his views on this issue, they should read his “Decisive Treatise,” which is available in English.

    Shaykh Abu Adam:
    It is not hearsay, even a quick look at Decisive Treatise reflects a man whose primary purpose is to defend Aristotle and his heresies against Ahlu-s-Sunnah. He says in it that it is not kufr to deny resurrection or to claim that the world is eternal. That is enough in itself. You find him always trying to cast doubts about the certainty of the world having a beginning.


    As for plain quotes, here is one: In “Risalah maa baˆd Al-Ţabiiˆah” Ibn Rusħd states plainly his belief that the world is eternal and says: “… moreover, the parts of what is eternal are eternal, because it has become clear that this one movement, I mean the daily movement, is beginninglessly eternal. And if the elements of the sky, which are the parts of the greatest bulk, are eternal, then their movement is necessarily eternal, and the things that move them are also eternal. I mean they are all eternal, and they are of the kind of what moves it all.” (“Risalah maa baˆd Al-Ţabiiˆah,” Ibn Rusħd the grandson (595 AH), 1st Ed., Dar Al-Fikr Al-Lubananiy, Beirut, 1994.)


    One of the bad omens about this person is that he is really the source for most attacks launched by orientalists and Ibn Taymiyyah against rational proofs for Islam’s correctness. They took their ideas from him in terms of how to sow doubts about basics of the religion.

    I think enough has been said about this man for now. I simply meant to mention him as one of the philosophers, for he is famously one of them, and that the philosophers are kuffar in general, as has been stated by Al-Ghazaaliyy, Abuu Manşuur Al-Baghdaadiyy and others.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Someone says:
    Also the kalam argument is not the only one, even if people for some reason believe in ‘real infinities’ we can give them the falsafa argument (from ibn sina etc) that allow the world to be ‘eternal’ while still having a cause that is ontologically separate from it (i.e. God). See the debate between Coplestone and Russell (on google) for an explanation of this, this is an excellent debate as it clearly shows the nature of ‘kufr’ [how the ‘covering’ manifests] -russell says something like ‘the universe needs no explanation’ so ‘we don’t need to look for a cause, as not everything needs a cause’ – its like they look for causes but decide to ‘selectively stop’ without good reason.

    Shaykh Abu Adam:

    No, we can’t give them the falsafah argument. The belief that the world is eternal is self-contradictory and blasphemous.


    Someone responds:

    I do not myself subscribe to the falsafa argument, simply due to the reasons imam ghazali gave in his tahafut, and many others (non-muslims included) have given: that ‘infinity’ is not a ‘real concept’, no one has actually witnessed an infinity. So the concept of infinity is incoherent (at least when applied in the way the philosophers apply it), and this is why all the falsafa stuff is ‘speculative’ or ‘just fancy talk’ – and the kalam argument is not only something more logically stronger than the falsafa one but also experientially verified (from the experience of normal people, our fitrah, and also by the experience of the sufis)


    Shaykh Abu Adam:

    This argument that leads to saying that Allaah created the world without a choice is very ugly and is the main reason why they said Ibn Siinaa is a kaafir. For this reason we cannot show it any regard, just like we cannot show any regard for any other argument in support of kufr beliefs. It does not work as an argument, because it is incongruent, so the kalaam argument is not merely “better”. In addition, it opens a Pandora’s box of opens support for atheism, ittihaad, ĥuluul, polytheism, restrictions to Allaah’s knowledge, denial of attributes such as will and power, and all sorts of other bad beliefs.


    Source (See comment section here).



     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
  4. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    Salaam Brother and Doctor Saad, why do you think it was the view of ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Sina?
     
  5. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    I think I have read that this was the view of Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Sina which ofcourse contradicts Sound intellect and Islam.

    The guy who wrote the above doesn't know what Kalam is or what the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah were up against when they refuted the philosophers.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
  6. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    [Aa`raf 7:54] Indeed your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then (befitting His Majesty) established Himself upon the Throne (of control)); He covers the night with the day, which hastily follows it, and made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient to His command; pay heed! Only He has the power to create and command; Most Auspicious (Propitious) is Allah, the Lord Of The Creation.

     
  7. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Active Member

    To be honest br. Juwayni, I would class both of these quotes under the forged category even if they are mentioned in a great number of shuruhat
     
  8. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    Issue here is that some of these people are making it out to be that created things have been coming into existence for pre-eternity. Thus, although they are not saying the individual creations are Pre-Eternal, they are saying that there was an infinite chain of created existents coming into existence.
     
  9. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    Might be stating the obvious if you already knew this but I was listening to Shaykh Saeed Fodeh on ibn Baz and he mentioned the word Qadim has two meanings. One that it is what precedes something else, the other is Ever Existent.
     
  10. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    He got back to me. So one quote he provided which I traced to William Chittick's Sufi Path of Knowledge, page 84, citing Futuhāt al-Makiyyah I 90.23 (does this mean volume I page 90?), quote:
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    Indeed, though it would seem the issue of believing in the pre-eternity of the universe/perpetual contingency would be separate from the Perennialist issue.
     
  12. Ibn Hadi

    Ibn Hadi Ya Ghaus e Azam Dastageer

    There is a book published last year by Oxford University Press. The author is Gregory Lipton. "Rethinking Ibn Arabi".
    He actually refutes the Nasr, Guenon, Schuon, Chittick et al crowd. And says that Ibn Arabi was not a universalist/perennialist.
     
  13. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    And here is the pdf of the Muṣṭafā al-Bābī's edition of Imām Qāshānī's Sharḥ. I'm beginning to wonder whether the citation to page 314 is a typo and actually 214 because the aforementioned edition as well as this edition of the Sharḥ do not exceed 300 pages.






     
  14. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    Having had a look through the poster's Facebook profile, I am unsure if he has access to the original source texts. He may be relying on the writings of non-Muslim theologians to generate his view of Ibn Arabi. Anyways, I Googled 'Ibn Arabi "Qidam al Alam"' and I found the same claim in one book of Toshihiko Izutsu - Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts on page 193, stating:
    "10. 'Ibn 'Arabī upheld the thesis of the eternity of the world (qidam al-'alam) with no less definiteness than the Peripatetic Philosophers' - Affifi, Fuṣ., Com., p. 314."​

    On page 21, Izutsu explains the way he cites the Fuṣūṣ:
    "In quoting from the Fusus al-Hikam (Fur*), I shall always give two paginations: (1) that of the Cairo edition of 1321 A.H., containing al-Qashani' s commentary, and (2) that of Affifi's critical edition, Cairo, 1946 (1365 A.H.). 2. Fus., p. 199/104."
    * The r might be a typo of picking up the ṣ because this was pulled straight from Google's OCR of the page.

    On 359 of in the bibliography of Tao of Islam, The: A Sourcebook on Gender Relationships in Islamic Thought, Sachiko Murata* said a Cairo edition of Imam Qāshānī's Sharḥ had been published/edited by Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī in 1966.

    * Mrs. William Chittick, Chittick himself is closely connected to Hossein Nasr and the Perennialist movement.





     
  15. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    Understood. Truth be told, at least in the area of scientific writing, I found a number of instances where authors distort first-hand English citations as they cite them third or fourth-hand and do not critically assess the transmission by just looking up who said it first.
     
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    it would be a good start if the person who made these claims could substantiate their claims by giving references.
    once they do that, we can verify their claims.

    a lot of people generalise and distort statements, to suit their theory. i don't want to speculate on WHY the person says so and then proffer my explanation or refutation.

    ---
    a trick employed by 'academics' to mask their ignorance is, that they make vague statements, throw a couple of terms and drop a few names. giving the impression that they are on top of the game. if you scratch a little, the whole pretense will crumble.

    see my analysis various pseudo academics such as arnold mol, atabek, yasir qadhi, razor-punk, akram nadwi and others.

    ---
    http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/shaykh-asrar-arnold-mol-and-nazzam.13460/
     
  17. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    As Salāmu Âlaykum Wa RahmatulLāh,

    Came across this on Facebook, quote:

    "The Big Bang theory has had its time, and so has the Kalam cosmological argument —both are becoming gradually outdated. Speculative science is now moving towards the model of an ever-existing multiverse. The most congruent theistic argument for such a scenario will be the classical onto-contingency argument as expounded by Ibn Sina and Ibn Arabi. But it requires some preliminary knowledge of Falsafah and Kalam to understand Ibn Sina and Ibn Arabi directly. David Bentley Hart has done an excellent job in unpacking the gist of onto-contingency argument for the contemporary scientific mind. You should read as well as recommend his book “Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss” to any of your friend who is into the fashionable scientism stuff. He will take it seriously if he really is an open-minded thinker."

    In a comment, the poster says:

    "...no doubt yes! I love IT’s doctrine of “perpetual creation” based on the textual evidence from a Hadith."

    IT = Ibn Taymiyya

    On the face of it, the author seems to be arguing that our Kalam needs to shift to affirming a sort of perpetual contingency for the universe because speculative science seems to moving towards such a model.

    Issues:
    1. What did Ibn Sina actually say on this notion.
    2. What did Ibn Arabi actually say on this notion.
    3. What did Ibn Taymiyya actually say on this notion.
    3a. What did Ibn Taymiyya base his view on?
    4. How did prominent Ulama of Kalam view each of the positions held by those above on this issue.
     

Share This Page