Ibn Arabi and Ibn Sina on "Perpetual Contingency"

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Juwayni, May 15, 2020.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. 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.

     
  2. 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
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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:

  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.






     
  9. 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.





     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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/
     
  12. 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