Introduction
Contrary to modern stereotypical belief Ibn Taymiya was himself a sufi Shaykh of the Qadiri tariqah, founded by one of Islam’s greatest saintly men Imam Abdul Qadir al Jilani (ra). Ibn Taymiya as Ibn Atab Allah points out to him in the debate has trouble understanding the inner sciences of Islam, all of which related to man’s physiology, hence like his Hanabli madhhab in law he adopted a literalist view to everything because science in his time had not yet established the link between religion (the outward) and mans physiology (inward) both of which impacted on mans consciousness and Iman (faith).
Ibn Taymiya wrote about tasawwuf (sufism) in many places and viewed it positively, he teaches it for example in his major work Majmu’a Fatawa, volume 11 is entitled Tasawwuf (Sufism). Ibn Taymiyah’s silsila (genealogy) in the Qadiri tariqah, along with his students is as follows:
1. Abdul Qadir al Jilani (d.561AH).
2. Abu Umar Qudama (d.607AH).
3. Muwaffaq ad din bin Qudama (d.620 AH), both he and his father learnt from Abdul Qadir al Jilani directly.
4. Ibn Taymiya (d.728 AH)
5. Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya (d.751AH).
6. Ibn Rajab al Hanbali (d.795 AH).
(Source: Shaykh Yusuf ibn Abd al Hadi (d.909AH) in his work Bad al Ula bi Labs al Khirqa, copies of the manuscript exist in Princeton, Sorbonne, and Damascus universities).
Ibn Taymiya himself said “I wore the blessed Sufi clock (Khirqa, meaning he became a shaykh in the Tariqa) of Abdul Qadir, there being between him and me two” (al Masala at Tabriziyya, the manuscript is in Damascus).
And “I have worn the Sufi clock (Khirqata at-Tasawwuf) of a number of shayks belonging to various tariqas (sufi schools), among them Shaykh Qadir al Jili, whose tariqa is the greatest of the well known ones”…further on he says “The greatest Tariqa (ajallu-t-turuqi) is that of my master (sayyid), Abdul Qadir al Jilli, may Allah have mercy upon him.”
(Found in Imam Hadi’s manuscript in Princeton library, collection pool. 154a, 169b, 171b-172a and Damascus university, copy of original Arabic manuscript, 985AH. Also mentioned in at-Talyani, manuscript Chester Beatty 3269 (8) in Dublin, fol. 67a).
Ibn Taymiya opposed the seemingly pantheist (a doctrine that identifies god with the universe and man in literal terms and not accepted in Islam) descriptions of certain Sufis, known as ittihadiya. But revelation which is the knowledge of Allah, He revealed it to mans heart, “For he (Gabriel) it is who hath revealed (the Quran) to thy heart by Allah’s leave.” (2:97), hence a vocabulary that included the inner dimensions of man and the understanding of Allah was inevitable among the scholars of which Ibn Taymiya had trouble with the language and essentially was not qualified through any shaykh to understand correctly. (We have explained this technical language in detail in our work “What is the Unseen World and Where Is It: Understanding The Technical Terminology Of The Scholars”, had Ibn Taymiya had the scientific knowledge of today his opinions would have certainly been different).
What is missing from the vocabulary of the war mongers who quote his criticism often, to denounce Tsawwuf entirely, which Ibn Taymiya being a Sufi shaykh could never have done, is the fact that the Law (Fiqh) of Islam is in the hands of the Faqih’s (Jurists) and not in the hands of the Sufi’s, because Tassawwuf is not the area of science in Islam which deals with Law it deals with human perfection (Ihsan) and adab (manners) and how to attain both, so the debate is entirely between the madhhabs of fiqh and not between Fiqh and Tasawwuf, as the ignorant confuse.
As seen from the debate bellow when the scholars refer the matter to Islam they both quote and reference the madhabs (schools of law) they come from as the source for their rulings and understanding in Deen, and both scholars are Shaykhs of Tasawwuf, they don’t quote the schools of Tasawwuf for legal rulings.
Ibn Ata Allah was a Maliki in Law while Ibn Taymiya was a Hanbali, which was the most literalist of the schools of Law and the smallest, Imam Ahmad, himself a saintly man, almost certainly did not found a madhhab (school of Law) his haya (modesty) was to great for that, but this was done by his students so not much Ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) was performed by him which they could learn from, this is why little attempts at interpretation are seen in the madhhab throughout Islamic history as the scientific knowledge of Man advanced through the ages.
As a result it was the madhhab least equipped to handle the scientific advancements of man because it didn’t have the tools in Law to keep up with science, new legal rulings (Ijtihad) were required upon each area of science that was discovered, hence the madhhab stayed small throughout the ages and today is the smallest school of Law in Islam who’s population is only about 3% of the world muslim population, but it is the Main madhhab of Saudi Arabia were Islam’s holiest cities exist, although this wasn’t the case before the founding of the country after WW1 which was under the rule of the Ottoman Khalifah whose official madhhab (school of law) was Hanafi.
When messengers from the kings of Yemen came to the prophet (saws) announcing they had accepted Islam, they also requested that teachers should be sent to teach them the religion.
The prophet (saws) sent a group of the companions and made Mu’ad Ibn Jabal (ra) their amir (religious leader), He (saws) then asked Mu’ad the following questions to make shore he understood the ways of Islam and how to rule among these people:
The prophet (saws) first asked, “According to what will you judge (decide cases)”. Mu’ad said, “I will judge in accordance with Allah’s Book (the Qur’an).”
The prophet (saws) then asked, “What, if you found nothing in the Book of Allah?” Mu’ad replied, “Then according to the sunnah of Allah’s Messenger.”
The prophet (saws) then asked, “And if you found nothing in the sunnah of Allah’s Messenger?” Mu’ad replied, “I will make ijtihad through my judgment (‘my own independent legal reasoning based on my understand of the Deen’).”
The Prophet (saws) said, “Praise belongs to Allah Who has made the messenger of the prophet of Allah consistent with what pleases him.”
The prophet (saws) bade them farewell and walked for some distance alongside Mu’ad as he rode out of the city. Finally he said to him “O Mu’ad, perhaps you shall not meet me again after this year. Perhaps when you return you shall see only my mosque and my grave.” (Meaning ‘these are the ways you will need after I am gone’) Mu’ad wept and those with him wept too, and a feeling of sadness overtook them as they left. (Recorded by Abu Dawwud and Ahmad).
From the example (Sunnah) of the prophet and the companions, the scholars defined the tools needed to make Fiqh (Law) and Ijtihad (come up with their own independent legal rulings), they are:
1) The Quran and Sunnah, knowing the commands and prohibitions and naskh (what is abrogated).
2) Ijma, knowing the Consensus of Opinion among the companions and scholars on matters.
3) Qiyas, Analogical deduction and how to apply it.
4) Istihsan (Juristic preference on matters) and Maslaha (what is in the public interest of the community).
5) Urf (peoples cultural customs and how to rule upon them) and Istishab (the presumption of existence, or non existence of facts, needed to rule on a case).
6) Sadd al Dharai (Blocking the means to harmful things) and Hukm Sharii (knowing the value of Shariah rules and on whom it is applicable).
7) Taarud (conflict of evidences) and Ijtihad (independent legal reasoning and what is needed to conduct it).
With these tools the scholars through out the history of Islam gave rulings on newly arisen matters that the Ummah faced, most were developed after the time of Imam Ahmad ibn hanbal (who lived in Iraq) and were first outlined by his teacher Imam Shafii in his book al Risala when he was in Egypt, this was the book and science the prophet (saws) said would spread around the world.
The Prophet (saws) once made a dua, “O Allah! Guide Quraysh, for the science of the scholar that comes from them will encompass the earth. O Allah! You have let the first of them taste bitterness, so let the latter of them taste reward.” (Ibn Hajar), the Scholars agreed that this was referring to Imam al Shafii who was the first in the world to outline the legal science of Usul al Fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence).
Ibn `Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari’s Debate with Ibn Taymiyya
One of the great sufi imams who was also known as a muhaddith, preacher, and Maliki jurist, his name was Abu al-Fadl Ibn Ata Allah al-Iskandari (d. 709) he was the author of al-Hikam (Aphorisms), Miftah al-falah (The key to success), al-Qasd al-mujarrad fi ma`rifat al-ism al-mufrad (The pure goal concerning knowledge of the Unique Name), the biographical al-Lata’if fi manaqib Abi al-`Abbas al-Mursi wa shaykhihi Abi al-Hasan (The subtle blessings in the saintly lives of Abu al-`Abbas al-Mursi and his master Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili), and many others.
He was Abu al-Abbas al-Mursi’s (d. 686) student and the second successor of Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili founder of the Shadhili sufi tariqah.
Throughout Islamic history many misguided groups have appeared, some deviated in Fiqh (law) others deviated in Aqeedah (creed) and others deviated in tasawwuf (sufism), when this occurred it was a sunnah of the scholars to refute them so the main body of the Ummah wasn’t misguided by them. Ibn Taymiya was one of the sufi shaykhs who wished to correct the deviant sufi groups that arose in his time, but then overstepped and made mistakes in attacking the legitimate beliefs of scholars from other madhhabs, primarily because he was following the fiqh of his Hanbali madhhab which was literalist, so inevitably Hanbali fiqh would clash with Shafii, Maliki and Hanafi fiqh through him, he could not see which arguments of the scholars came from other madhhabs, so many beliefs which fell under ikhtilaf, valid difference of opinion of the madhhabs, were attacked by him.
Ibn Ata Allah confronted Ibn Taymiyya for his excesses in attacking those of the Sufis with whom he disagreed. He never refers to Ibn Taymiyya by name in his works, which is a sunnah of the scholars. In his Lata’if, it is clear he is speaking of him when he says that Allah has put the Sufis to the test through what he terms “the scholars of external learning”
Text of the Debate
(My comments are in brackets)
From Usul al-Wusulby Muhammad Zaki Ibrahim Ibn Kathir, Ibn al-Athir, and other authors of biographical dictionaries and biographies, they have transmitted to us this authentic historical debate.[2] It gives an idea of the ethics of debate among the people of learning. It documents the controversy between a pivotal personality in tasawwuf, Shaykh Ahmad Ibn Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari, and an equally important person of the so-called “Salafi” movement, Shaykh Ahmad Ibn `Abd al-Halim Ibn Taymiyya during the Mamluke era in Egypt under the reign of the Sultan Muhammad Ibn Qalawun (al-Malik al-Nasir).
The Testimony of Ibn Taymiyya to Ibn `Ata’ Allah:
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya had been imprisoned in Alexandria. When the Sultan pardoned him, he came back to Cairo. At the time of the evening prayer he went to al-Azhar mosque where salat al-maghrib was being led by Shaykh Ahmad Ibn `Ata Allah al-Iskandari. Following the prayer, Ibn `Ata’ Allah was surprised to discover that Ibn Taymiyya had been praying behind him. Greeting him with a smile, the Sufi shaykh cordially welcomed Ibn Taymiyya’s arrival to Cairo, saying: “as-Salamu alaykum”. Then Ibn `Ata’ Allah started to talk with the learned visitor.
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “Ordinarily, I pray the evening prayer in the Mosque of Imam Husayn and the night prayer here. But look how the Divine plan works itself out! Allah has ordained that I should be the first one to greet you (after your return to Cairo). Tell me, O faqih, do you blame me for what happened?
Ibn Taymiyya: “I know you intended me no harm, but our differences of opinion still stand. In any case, whoever has harmed me in any way, from this day on I hereby exonerate and free him from any blame in the matter.”
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “What is it you know about me, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya?”
Ibn Taymiyya: “I know you to be a man of scrupulous piety, abundant learning, integrity and truthfulness in speech. I bear witness that I have seen no one like you either in Egypt or Syria who loves Allah more nor who is more self-effacing in Him nor who is more obedient in carrying out what He has commanded and in refraining from what He has forbidden. Nevertheless, we have our differences. What do you know about me? Are you claiming that I am misguided when I deny the validity of calling on anyone save Allah for aid (istighatha)?”
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “Surely, my dear colleague, you know that istighatha or calling for help is the same as tawassul (shaykh Ibn Ata Allah intends the matter in the non literal sense, since he likened it to tawassul, while Ibn taymiya took it in the literal sense hence the difference in definitions, but the messenger of Allah said “everything is according to its intention”) or seeking a means and asking for intercession (shafa`a); and that the Messenger, on him be peace, is the one whose help is sought (through his rank or status with Allah, as Adam (saws) sought intercession through his rank when he committed his wrong) since he is our means and he the one whose intercession we seek.”
Ibn Taymiyya: “In this matter, I follow what the Prophet’s Sunna has laid down in the Shari`a (i.e agreeing with tawassul and intersession). For it has been transmitted in a sound hadith: “I have been granted the power of intercession.”[3] I have also collected the sayings on the Qur’anic verse: “It may be that thy Lord will raise thee (O Prophet) to a praised estate (Maqam al Mahmoud)” (17:79) to the effect that the “praised estate” is intercession (for creation). Moreover, when the mother of the Commander of the Faithful `Ali died, the Prophet prayed to Allah at her grave and said:O Allah who lives and never dies, who quickens and puts to death, forgive the sins of my mother Fatima bint Asad, make wide the place wherein she enters through the intercession of me, Thy Prophet, and the Prophets who came before me. For Thou art the most merciful of those capable of having mercy.[4]
This is the intercession that belongs to the Prophet, on him be peace. As for seeking the help of someone other than Allah, it smacks of idolatry; for the Prophet commanded his cousin `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas not to ask of anyone to help him other than Allah.”[5]
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: May Allah cause you to prosper, O faqih! As for the advice which the Prophet — on him be peace — gave to his cousin Ibn Abbas, he wanted him to draw near to Allah not through his familial relationship to the Prophet but through his knowledge. With regard to your understanding of istighatha as being seeking the aid of someone other than Allah which Is idolatry, I ask you (meaning that is idolatry but your definition of what it is, is wrong): Is there any Muslim possessed of real faith and believing in Allah and His Prophet who thinks there is someone other than Allah who has autonomous power over events and who is able to carry out what He has willed with regard to them? Is there any true believer who believes that there is someone who can reward him for his good deeds and punish him for his bad ones other than Allah?
Besides this, we must consider that there are expressions which should not be taken just in their literal sense. This is not because of fear of associating a partner with Allah and in order to block the means to idolatry. For whoever seeks help from the Prophet only seeks his power of intercession with Allah as when you yourself say: “This food satisfies my appetite.” Does the food itself satisfy your appetite? Or is it the case that it is Allah who satisfies your appetite through the food?
(This is the reality of everything, it is only a wasila (intermediary) between us and Allah, this is how the scholars where able to say ‘All knowledge’s from Allah’, or the prophets dua “There is no Might and Power except from Allah”, La Hawla wa la Quwata illa bi-llah, how does this then translate literaly life except in this manner. Allah taught this reality to the prophet (saws) in the Quran, “O you who believe, keep your duty to Allah, and seek means of nearness (wasila) to him (referring to everything), and strive hard in His way that you may be successful” (Al Maidah:35)).
As for your statement that Allah has forbidden Muslims to call upon anyone other than Himself in seeking help, have you actually seen any Muslim calling on someone other than Allah? The verse you cite from the Qur’an was revealed concerning the idolaters and those who used to call on their false gods and ignore Allah. Whereas, the only way Muslims seek the help of the Prophet is in the sense of tawassul or seeking a means, by virtue of the privilege (which is his rank) he has received from Allah (bi haqqihi `inda Allah), and tashaffu` or seeking intercession, by virtue of the power of intercession which Allah has bestowed on him (Allah is the one who brings about all things).
As for your pronouncement that istighatha or seeking help is forbidden in the Shari`a because it can lead to idolatry, if this is the case, then we ought also to prohibit grapes because they are means to making wine, and to castrate unmarried men because not to do so, leaves in the world a means to commit fornication and adultery.”
(Here we see the scholars referring to the tools of Ijtihad (legal reasoning) in coming up with their rulings, Sadd al Dharai (Blocking the means to harmful things) and Maslaha (what is in the public interest of the community), hence rules regarding these matters is a matter of Ijtihad (personnel legal opinion) between the madhhabs of both scholars, and comes under the law for valid ikhtilaf (difference of opinion) between scholars, so there is no blanket tahrim (making things illegal) on these issues, as the uneducated try to claim today. The imam next points out Ibn Taymiyas methodology and the differences between the Hanbali and the Maliki Madhhab, that the matter is not regarding Sadd al Dharai by definition, but Masalih, what is in the public interest. “Blocking the means” to harmful things is entirely based on conjecture regarding the outcome of things, it is a principle the Hanbali madhhab is literalist and strict upon, hence modern Saudi Arabia’s stance on these issues even though the Ummah is not suffering from a epidemic of wide spread shirk. People claim such things are shirk after the fact Allah promised his prophet (saws) to protect his Ummah (nation) from falling into shirk and He (saws) stated a number of times He (saws) did not fear this for his Ummah, but feared us fighting between each other even more (bukhari and muslim), so the matter is according to personal definitions, after this fact was given to the prophet and it isn’t the reality with Allah).
At the latter comment both the shaykhs laughed. Ibn `Ata Allah continued: “I am acquainted with the all-inclusiveness and foresight of the legal school founded by your Shaykh, Imam Ahmad, and know the comprehensiveness of your own legal theory and about its principle of blocking the means to evil (sadd al-dhara’i`) as well as the sense of moral obligation a man of your proficiency in Islamic jurisprudence and integrity must feel. But I realize also that your knowledge of language demands that you search out the hidden meanings of words which are often shrouded behind their obvious senses. As for the Sufis, meaning for them is like a spirit, and the words themselves are like its body. You must penetrate deeply into what is behind the verbal body in order to seize the deeper reality of the word’s spirit.
Now you have found a basis in your ruling against Ibn `Arabi in the Fusus al-hikam, the text of which has been tampered with by his opponents not only with things he did not say, but with statements he could not even have intended saying (given the character of his Islam). When Shaykh al-Islam al-`Izz ibn `Abd al-Salam understood what Shaykh Ibn `Arabi had actually said and analyzed, grasped and comprehended the real meaning of his symbolic utterances, he asked Allah’s pardon for his former opinion about the Shaykh and acknowledged that Muhyiddin ibn `Arabi was an Imam of Islam.[6] (These kind of statements by such scholars are further explained in my work What Is The Unseen World and Where Is It: Explaining the Technical Terminology Of The Scholars).
As for the statement of al-Shadhili against Ibn Arabi, you should know that Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili is not the person who said it but one of the students of the Shadhiliyya. Furthermore, in making this statement that student was talking about some of the followers of Shadhili. Thus, his words were taken in a fashion he himself never intended.
“What do you think about the Commander of the Faithful, Sayyidina `Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him?”
Ibn Taymiyya: In the hadith the Prophet, on him be peace, said: “I am the city of knowledge and `Ali is its door.”[7] Sayyidina `Ali is the one mujahid who never went out to battle except to return victoriously. What scholar or jurist who came after him struggled for the sake of Allah using tongue, pen and sword at the same time? He was a most accomplished Companion of the Prophet — may Allah honor his countenance. His words are a radiant lamp which have illumined me during the entire course of my life after the Qur’an and Sunna. Ah! one who is ever short of provision and long in his journeying.
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: Now, did Imam Ali ask anyone to take his side in a faction? For this faction has claimed that the Angel Gabriel made a mistake and delivered the revelation to Muhammad — on him be peace instead of `Ali! Or did he ask them to claim that Allah had become incarnate in his body and the Imam had become divine? Or did he not fight and slay them and give a fatwa (legal opinion) that they should be killed wherever they were found?
Ibn Taymiyya: “On the basis of this very fatwa, I went out to fight them in the mountains of Syria for more than ten years.
Ibn Ata’ Allah: And Imam Ahmad — may Allah be pleased with him — questioned the actions of some of his followers who were in the habit of going on patrols, breaking open casks of wine (in the shops of their Christian vendors or wherever they find them), spilling their contents on the floor, beating up singing girls, and confronting people in the street. All of this they did in the name of enjoining good and prohibiting what is forbidden (Sadd al Dharai, the Hanbali madhhab has a history of being violent and extreme because of their wrong understanding of this principle, still to this day). However, the Imam had not given any fatwa that they should censure or rebuke all those people. Consequently, these followers of his were flogged, thrown into jail, and paraded mounted on assback facing the tail (a form of humiliation).
Now, is Imam Ahmad himself responsible for the bad behavior which the worst and most vicious Hanbalis continue to perpetrate right down to our own day, in the name of enjoining good and prohibiting what is forbidden?
All this is to say that Shaykh Muhyiddin Ibn `Arabi is innocent with respect to what those of his followers do who absolve people of legal and moral obligations set down by the religion and from committing deeds that are prohibited. Do you not see this?
Ibn Taymiyya: “But where do they stand with respect to Allah? Among you Sufis are those who assert (that a narration says) that when the Prophet — on him be peace — gave glad tidings to the poor and said that they would enter paradise before the rich, the poor fell into ecstasy and began to tear their garments into pieces; that at that moment the Angel Gabriel descended from heaven and said to the Prophet that Allah had sought his rightful portion from among these torn garments; and that the Angel Gabriel carried one of them and hung it on Allah’s throne. For this reason, they claim, Sufis wear patchworked garments and call themselves fuqara’ or the “poor”!
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “Not all Sufis wear patchworked vests and clothing. Here I am before you: what do you disapprove of in my appearance?”
Ibn Taymiyya: “You are from the men of Shari`a and teach in al-Azhar.”
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “al-Ghazali was equally an Imam both in Shari`a and tasawwuf. He treated legal rulings, the Sunna, and the Shari’a with the spirit of the Sufi. And by applying this method he was able to revive the religious sciences. We know that tasawwuf recognizes that what is sullied has no part in religion and that cleanliness has the character of faith. The true and sincere sufi must cultivate in his heart the faith recognized by Ahl al-Sunna. (Imam al Ghazali’s work revived the ummah and protected it from deviating, for this all scholars considered him a Mujadid, he relied on other scholars in the area of Hadith verification, this argument is a reference to a weak or fabricated hadith).
Two centuries ago the very phenomena of pseudo-Sufis appeared which you yourself criticize and reject. There were persons who sought to diminish the performance of worship and religious obligations, lighten fasting and belittle the five daily prayers. They ran wild into the vast arenas of sloth and heedlessness, claiming that they had been liberated from the shackles of the slavery of divine worship.
Not satisfied with their own vile deeds until they have claimed intimations of the most extravagant realities and mystical states just as Imam al-Qushayri himself described in his well-known Risala, which he directed against them (in every area of knowledge in Islam, there have been groups that have gone astray and the ulluma have written against them).
He also set down in detail what constituted the true path to Allah, which consists in taking a firm hold upon the Qur’an and the Sunna. The Imams of tasawwuf desire to arrive at the true reality (of things) not only by means of rational evidences thought up by the human mind which are capable of being false as well as true, but by means of purifying the heart and purging the ego through a course of spiritual exercises. They cast aside concerns for the life of this world in as much as the true servant of Allah does not busy himself with anything else except love of Allah and His Prophet. This is a high order of business and one which makes a servant pious and healthy and prosperous. It is an occupation that reforms those things that corrupt the human creature, such as love of money and ambition for personal standing in society. However, it is an order of business which is constituted by nothing less than spiritual warfare for the sake of Allah.
My learned friend, interpreting texts according to their literal meanings can sometimes land a person in error (which was Ibn Taymiya’s case along with many from the Hanbali Madhhab). Literalism is what has caused your judgments about Ibn `Arabi who is one of the Imams of our faith known for his scrupulous piety. You have understood what he wrote in a superficial fashion; whereas sufis are masters of literary figures which intimate much deeper meanings, hyperbolic language that indicates heightened spiritual awareness and words which convey secrets concerning the realm of the unseen.”
(When Jibril (Gabriel) asked the prophet what is Ihsan (Human perfection) He (saws) replied “it is to worship Allah like your seeing him” (Bukhari and Muslim), He gave this answer even while it is impossible to see Allah in this life, the prophet defined the term and wasn’t asking us to perform an impossible task. This figurative language is part of the language of the prophet and Allah in the Quran which is why the scholars use it, the prophet (saws) called the language of the Quran “Jawami al-Kamil” (Bukhari), it is short expressions, often figurative, which contain the widest amount of knowledge in them. It is the most befitting type of speech to contain Allah’s vast amount of knowledge in a few short words).
Ibn Taymiyya: “This argument is against you, not in your favor. For when Imam al-Qushayri saw his followers deviating from the path to Allah he took steps to improve them. What do the sufi shaykhs in our day do? (It should be remembered that in his major work Majmu’a Fatawa Ibn Taymiya dedicated an entire volume (Vol.11 labelled Tasawwuf) to teaching tassawwuf) I only ask that Sufis follow the path of the Sunna of these great and pious ancestors of our faith (Salaf): the ascetics (zuhhad) among the Companions, the generation which succeeded them, and the generation that followed in their footsteps to their best! (These are enumerated because their actions are legislated upon) Whoever acts in this way I esteem him highly and consider him to be an Imam of the religion. As for unwarranted innovation and the insertion of the ideas of idolaters such as the Greek philosophers and the Indian Buddhists, or like the idea that man can incarnate Allah (hulul) or attain unity with Him (ittihad), or the theory that all existence is one in being (wahdat al-wujud) and other such things to which your Shaykh summons people: this is clearly godlessness and unbelief.”
(Here we see Ibn Taymiya using three technical terms and defining them according to his comprehension of them, Hulul is unjustly used because only the shia he fought in Syria were ever accused of it and ittihad is what Imam Ibn Arabi was wrongfully accused of by those who hadn’t comprehended what space was yet and how mans heart perceives it at the quantum level through it’s own electromagnetic field (light) that it produces, in fact this is how all animals sense the world around them and hunt, but we have the benefit of science these scholars did not. Imam Ibn Arabi spoke about these things often in his works and those less capable of understanding science, most Lawyers (faqih’s) today can’t understand science it isn’t their field of expertise, could not comprehend the nature of his words and took science for fiqh. Our book Who Was Al Khidr discuss’s to what extent Islamic scholars spoke about space, the universe and mans connection to it through his physiology. Wahdat al wujud, Ibn Taymiya gives the wrong definition of it according to most scholars. There is a connection between Allah, the Universe and Man, who He created in His image, just not along the lines Ibn Taymiya assumed because his definition was wrong, and it is stated clearly in the Quran itself which Allah will make clear to mankind before the hour, our time, “In time We shall make them fully understand Our messages [through what they perceive] in the utmost horizons [of the universe] and within themselves (the human body), so that it will become clear unto them that this [revelation] is indeed the truth.”[Qur’an 41:53] this connection is key to understanding how this revelation is the truth. This is probably why Imam Ibn Ata Allah began to get upset after this point at so many accusations, while refusing to learn or correct anything).
Ibn `Ata’ Allah: “Ibn `Arabi was one of the greatest of the jurists who followed the school of Dawud al-Zahiri after Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, who is close to your methodology in Islamic law, O Hanbalis! But although Ibn `Arabi was a Zahiri (i.e. a literalist in matters of Islamic law), the method he applied to understand ultimate reality (al-haqiqa) was to search out the hidden, spiritual meaning (tariq al-batin), that is, to purify the inward self (tathir al-batin).[8] However, not all followers of the hidden are alike. In order that you not err or forget, repeat your reading of Ibn `Arabi with fresh understanding of his symbols and inspirations. You will find him to be very much like al-Qushayri. He has taken his path in tasawwuf under the umbrella of the Qur’an and Sunna just like the Proof of Islam, Shaykh al-Ghazali, who carried on debates about doctrinal differences in matters of creed and issues of worship but considered them occupations lacking in real value and benefit. He invited people to see that the love of Allah is the way of a proper servant of Allah with respect to faith.
(Here we see the imam referring multiple times, at this point, to Ibn Taymiya’s inability to understand the technical language employed by Ibn Arabi. If a scholar defines a word differently than what you perceive then you can only judge his words according to how he intends them, because the prophet (saws) said “actions are judged only according to their intention” (Bukhari)).
Do you have anything to object to in this, O faqih? Or do you love the disputations of Islamic jurists? Imam Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, exercised extreme caution about such wrangling in matters of creed and used to say: “Whenever a man enters into arguing about issues of creed it diminishes his faith.” Similarly al-Ghazali said: The quickest means of drawing near to Allah is through the heart, not the body. I do not mean by heart this fleshy thing palpable to seeing, hearing, sight and touch. Rather, I have in mind the inner most secret of Allah himself the Exalted and Great (the spiritual heart) which is imperceptible to sight or touch. Indeed, the Ahl al-Sunna are the very ones who named the Sufi shaykh al-Ghazali: “the Proof of Islam,”[9] and there is no-one to gainsay his opinions even if one of the scholars has been excessive in praising his book when he said: “The Ihya ulum al-din was almost a Qur’an.”[10] (Through this work the scholars said Imam al Ghazali revived the entire Ummah in his time).
The carrying out of religious obligation (taklif), in the view of Ibn `Arabi and Ibn al-Farid, is a worship whose mihrab, or prayer-niche indicating the orientation of (our) prayer, is its inward aspect (what it does to mans heart and physiology), not merely its external ritual (physical movements, meaning how prayer affects man’s body spiritually and physically). For what is the good of you standing and sitting in prayer if your heart is preoccupied with something other than Allah. Allah praises people when He says in the Qur’an: “Those who are humble in their prayer” (23:2) and He blames peoples when He says: “Those who are heedless in their prayer” (107:5). This is what Ibn `Arabi means when he says: “Worship is the mihrab of the heart, that is, the inward aspect of prayer not the outward.” (Ibn Taymiya failed to grasp the relationship between the acts of worship and their effects on man, which by our time have been well established in science).
The Muslim is unable to arrive at the knowledge of certitude (ilm al-yaqin) nor at certitude itself (ayn al-yaqin) of which the Qur’an speaks unless he evacuates his heart from whatever distracts it in the way of wordly cravings and centers himself on inward contemplation. (This is the science of Tasawwuf).
(Allah says, “And surely it is indeed the Truth of certitude”69:51, “and in the earth are signs for the ones with the truth of certitude” 51:20, “we have indeed made the signs clear for the people who have certitude”2:118, the eye of certitude is what man needs to read the signs of Allah which he will use to worship Allah like he is seeing him, the seeing him part refers to the ability to always read his signs, in other words know what He wants, which is the meaning behind the story of Al Khidr in the Quran, we have spoken about this story at length in our book Who Was al Khidr).
Then the outpourings of Divine reality (knowledge from Allah) will fill his heart, and from there will spring his sustenance (what guides him). The real sufi is not the one who derives his sustenace from asking and begging people for alms (still needs to seek knowledge from scholars on every matter, this is the lesson from the story of al Khidr and Musa (saws) in the Quran, al Khidr (ra) relied upon his heart while Musa (ra) relied upon revelation (the Angels) and hadn’t learnt this type of knowledge yet, so Allah sent him to al Khidr). The only one who is sincere is he who rouses his heart and spirit to self-obliteration in Allah by obedience to Allah (get rid of what you want and want only what Allah wants, through obedience to him). Perhaps Ibn `Arabi caused the jurists to rise up against him because of his contempt of their preoccupation with arguing and wrangling about credal matters, actual legal cases, and hypothetical legal situations, since he saw how much it distracted them from purifying the heart. He named them “the jurists of women’s menses.” (Jurists of Gossip) May Allah grant you refuge from being among them! Have you read Ibn `Arabi’s statement that: “Whoever builds his faith exclusively on demonstrative proofs and deductive arguments, builds a faith on which it is impossible to rely. For he is affected by the negativities of constant objections. Certainty (al-yaqin) does not derive from the evidences of the mind but pours out from the depths of the heart.” Have you ever read talk as pure and sweet as this?”
Ibn Taymiyya: “You have spoken well if only your master were as you say, for he would then be as far as possible from unbelief. But what he has said cannot sustain the meanings that you have given in my view.”[11]
(Here we see Ibn Taymiya refusing to give up his own definition of words in favor of how the Scholar Ibn Arabi defined them, Ibn Taymiyah hadn’t learnt these definitions by studying with the scholars who teach them, while Ibn Arabi had, and Imam Ibn Ata Allah quotes the scholars he learnt his language from for Ibn Taymiya but his mind was already made up).
Here ends the discussion between the two sheikhs, Ibn Taymiya refused to accept the evidence Ibn Atta Allah gave, but regardless the matter is with Allah only.
Allah has acquitted Imam Ibn al Arabi among the wider community of Islamic scholars as he is regarded highly as one of the major scholars of Islam, this is their opinion of him throughout our history and the prophet (saws) said my community will never agree on error. “My community will not come together on misguidance”; “The hand of Allah is with the congregation”, this is fate of the matter which Allah already knew ahead of time.
Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud said: Whatever the Muslims deem to be good is good in the eyes of Allah and whatever they consider bad is bad in Allah’s view. This is an authentic saying of Ibn Mas`ud that Imam Ahmad related in his Musnad (1:379 #3599) among others.
Regarding istighatha, intercession and similar matters these are matters of Fiqh not Tasawwuf because permissibility is referred back to the judgment of the Madhhabs of Fiqh as both Ibn Atta Allah and Ibn Taymiya did. They are not an actual practice of tassawwuf or something you have to do to purify yourself to get closer to Allah, the scholars of fiqh believe in their permissibility for others sake but don’t approach it themselves because it is better to rely on what you have from Allah and not ask through the means of something else.
This is what the prophet (saws) said regarding his Awliyah, they don’t rely on means to approach him or as little as possible, some scholars did use Tawassul in matters as did the companions, but they mostly do without even though it is permissible, and as imam Ibn Atta Allah pointed out “The real sufi is not the one who derives his sustenance from asking and begging people for alms”.
Imam Shafii the founder of the Shafii madhhab (school of Law) and about whom the prophet (saws) said his science will fill the entire earth, his legal opinion on the permissibility of matters far exceeds that of Ibn Taymiya and any modern sect. He himself did tawassul of ahl al bat (the prophets household and descendants) which scholars like Imam Ibn Hajar al Haytami reported on. The prophet (saws) said in many ahadith I have left for you two things so hold on to them they are the Quran and my ahl al bayt.
Imam Shafii’s tawassul is crystal clear because he wrote about it for others to follow and understand, in his book Diwan the Imam said “The Family of the Prophet (saws) are my means and my intermediary to him. Through them I hope to be given my record with the right hand tomorrow.”
To illustrate the fact that all the earlier scholars of Islam understood the baraka and light from Allah to be a physical and tangible thing which affects physical matter, hence a person can get physiological benefit from it, Hafiz al Iraqi as well as Ibn Taymiya related “that Imam Shafii sought blessing from drinking the washing water of Imam Ahmad’s shirt”, this is tawassul from a living person and baraka is a wasila to Allah.
Imam Ahmad was the student of Imam Shafii and a saintly man, baraka and light are not viewed as magic or something from a cartoon, the scholars viewed them with analytical and scientific minds and acted accordingly to help themselves, we should keep in mind that the desert Arabs used to drink urine from camel because it was the only cure from a serious illness that afflicted them, both Imam Bukhari and Imam muslim related that when some people came to madinah and fell sick the prophet (saws) told them to drink the milk and urine of camels, they did so and recovered, so likewise the Imam’s sought cures from things that had baraka and light in them because these are quantum substances.
If one is doing what is right, like the Imam’s of this Ummah, then he isn’t in need of istighatha or similar things, which are matters of seeking help for desperate people after committing a serious wrong, they are not tools for tazkiya an nafs (purification of the self), so again this is a matter of Fiqh and not Tasawwuf.
Allah’s Apostle said, “Nations were displayed before me (on the day of Judgment); one or two prophets would pass by along with a few followers. A prophet would pass by accompanied by nobody. Then a big crowd of people passed in front of me and I asked, ‘Who are they? Are they my followers?’ It was said, ‘No. It is Moses and his followers.’ It was said to me, ‘Look at the horizon.’ Behold! There was a multitude of people filling the horizon. Then it was said to me, ‘Look there and there about the stretching sky!’ Behold! There was a multitude filling the horizon. It was said to me, ‘This is your nation out of whom seventy thousand [70,000] shall enter Paradise without reckoning.’ ”
Then the Prophet entered his house without telling his companions who they (the 70,000) were. So the people started talking about the issue and said, “It is we who have believed in Allah and followed His Apostle; therefore those people are either ourselves or our children who are born in the Islamic era, for we were born in the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance.” When the Prophet heard of that, he came out and said. “Those people are those who do not treat themselves with Ruqya, nor do they believe in bad or good omen (from birds etc.) nor do they get themselves branded (cauterized), but they put their trust (only) in their Lord.” On that ‘Ukasha bin Muhsin said, “Am I one of them, O Allah’s Apostle?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” Then another person got up and said, “Am I one of them?” The Prophet said, -Ukasha has anticipated you (or preceded you to it).” (Sahih bukhari)
The prophet (saws) said “I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim, and I was made victorious with awe, and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand.” The prophet said, “Jawami al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before the coming of the prophet (saws)” (Bukhari).
Meaning Allah would express in figurative language and short expressions much of the knowledge contained in all previous scripture, telling us that Allah placed more knowledge in the Quran than he previously revealed to mankind, and this is what it means that the prophet (saws) received the keys to the treasures of the earth, it is knowledge that will be used to open up the world and lead it from the ancient world to the modern one, this is why the prophet (saws) mentioned both matters in the same narration.
One day the prophet (saws) went out and offered the (funeral) prayer for the people of Uhud (the martyrs of the battle) as he used to offer a funeral prayer for any dead person, and then after returning (saws) ascended the pulpit and said, “I am your predecessor before you, and I am a witness upon you, and I am looking at my basin (kawthar) just now, and I have been given the keys of the treasures of the world (the keys or things that will open up everything in the world, from resources to knowledge, which occurred after the prophets time). By Allah, I am not afraid that you will worship others beside Allah after me, but I am afraid that you will compete with each other for this world.”(Bukahri and Muslim).
Imam Nawawi said in his famous tafsir (exegesis) to sahih muslim about this hadith “This hadith shows the miracles of the prophet (saws), It gives news this nation will possess the treasures of the earth, and this came to pass; that the Ummah would not apostate as a whole, and it (the Ummah) is saved from it by Allah, it would compete in this world, and all of it will come to pass”.
Ibn Hajar al Asqalani said in his famous tafsir to sahih bukhari, Fath al Bari, regarding this hadith “His saying that I am not afraid that you would commit shirk after me, means that I am not afraid that all of you would commit shirk, because some people did fall into shirk, may Allah protect us from that.”
When three of the four madhhabs of Islam hold the same view regarding tawassul and intersession etc, as Ibn Ata Allah, that means that more than 90% of this Ummah follow these legal opinions and hence the matter is beyond shirk, the opinion of one madhhab is not binding on those who don’t follow it and it can’t be forced upon them (La ikraha fee Deen, 2:256).
References:
1 Ibn `Ata Allah, Lata’if al-minan fi manaqib Abi al-`Abbas.on the margins of Sha`rani’s Lata’if al-minan wa al-akhlaq (Cairo, 1357) 2:17-18.
2 See Ibn al-`Imad, Shadharat al-dhahab (1350/1931) 6:20f.; al- Zirikly, al-A`lam (1405/1984) 1:221; Ibn Hajar, al-Durar al-kamina (1348/1929) 1:148-273; Al-Maqrizi, Kitab al-suluk (1934-1958) 2:40-94; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya (1351/1932) 14:45; Subki, Tabaqat al-shafi`iyya (1324/1906) 5:177f. and 9:23f.; Suyuti, Husn al-muhadara fi akhbar misr wa al-qahira (1299/) 1:301; al-Dawadari, al-Durr al-fakhir fi sirat al-malik al-Nasir (1960) p. 200f.; al-Yafi`i, Mir’at al-janan (1337/1918) 4:246; Sha`rani, al-Tabaqat al-kubra (1355/1936) 2:19f.; al-Nabahani, Jami` karamat al-awliya’ (1381/1962) 2:25f.
3 Bukhari and Muslim, hadith of Jabir: “I have been given five things which no prophet was given before me…”
4 al-Tabarani relates it in al-Kabir. Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim declare it sound. Ibn Abi Shayba on the authority of Jabir relates a similar narrative. Similar also is what Ibn `Abd Al-Barr on the authority of Ibn `Abbas and Abu Nu`aym in his Hilya on the authority of Anas Ibn Malik relate, as al-Hafiz al-Suyuti mentioned in the Jami` al-Kabir. Haythami says in Majma` al-zawa’id: “Tabarani’s chain contains Rawh ibn Salah who has some weakness but Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim declared him trustworthy. The rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound hadith.” This Fatima is `Ali’s mother, who raised the Prophet.
5 Hadith: “O young man… if you have need to ask, ask of Allah. If you must seek help, seek help from Allah…” (ya ghulam ala u`allimuka…): Tirmidhi (#2516 hasan sahih); Bayhaqi in Asma’ wa al-sifat p. 75-76 and Shu`ab al-iman 2:27-28 (#1074-1075) and 7:203 (#10000); Ahmad 1:307; Tabarani; Ibn Hibban; Abu Dawud; al-Hakim; Nawawi included it in his 40 Hadiths (#19) but Ibn al-Jawzi placed it among the forgeries.
6 See al-`Izz ibn `Abd al-Salam al-Maqdisi’s Zabad khulasat al-tasawwuf (The quintessence of self-purification) (Tanta: al-matba`a al-yusufiyya). Published under the title Hall al-rumuz wa-mafatih al-kunuz (The explanation of symbols and the keys to treasures) (Cairo: al-maktab al-fanni li al-nashr, 1961). Note that this is a different author than Shaykh al-Islam al-`Izz ibn `Abd al-Salam al-Sulami.
7 From the Reliance of the Traveller p. 954-957: “(`Ali Qari:) The Hadith “I am the city of knowledge and `Ali is its gate” was mentioned by Tirmidhi… [who] said it was unacknowledgeable. Bukhari also said this, and said that it was without legitimate claim to authenticity. Ibn Ma`in said that it was a baseless lie, as did Abu Hatim and Yahya ibn Sa`id. Ibn Jawzi recorded it in his book of Hadith forgeries, and was confirmed by Dhahabi, and others in this. Ibn Daqiq al-`Eid said, “This Hadith is not confirmed by scholars, and is held by some to be spurious.” Daraqutni stated that it was uncorroborated. Ibn Hajar `Asqalani was asked about it and answered that it was well authenticated (hasan), not rigorously authenticated (sahih), as Hakim had said, but not a forgery (mawdu`), as Ibn Jawzi had said. This was mentioned by Suyuti. The Hadith master (hafiz) Abu Sa`id `Ala’i said, “The truth is that the Hadith is well authenticated (hasan), in view of its multiple means of transmission, being neither rigorously authenticated (sahih) nor weak (da`if), much less a forgery” (Risala al-mawdu`at, 26).”
8 This is a key equivalence in Ibn `Ata Allah’s Hikam, for example #205: “Sometimes lights come upon you and find the heart stuffed with forms of created things, so they go back from whence they descended.” Ibn `Ata’ Allah, Sufi Aphorisms (Kitab al-hikam), trans. Victor Danner (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1984) p. 53.
9 As illustrated by Salah al-Din al-Safadi for Ghazali’s entry in his biographical dictionary: “Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad, the Proof of Islam, the Ornament of the Faith, Abu Hamid al-Tusi…” al-Safadi, al-Wafi bi al-wafayat 1:274.
10 Ironically, a similar kind of praise on Ibn `Ata’ Allah’s own book al-Hikam is related on the authority of the great shaykh Mawlay al-`Arabi al-Darqawi by Ibn `Ajiba in Iqaz al-himam (p. 3-4): “I heard the jurist al-Bannani say: “The Hikam of Ibn `Ata’ is almost a revelation (wahy). Were it permitted to recite the daily prayer without the Qur’an, the words of the Hikam would be allowed.” He meant by this that there is nothing in the Hikam except what proceeds from the Qur’an and points back to it again, and Allah knows best.
11 In Muhammad Zaki Ibrahim, Usul al-wusul (Cairo: 1404/ 1984) 299-310.
“Reproduced from Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani’s The Repudiation of “Salafi” Innovations (Kazi, 1996) p. 367-379.
Allah’s blessings and Peace be on the Prophet (saws), his Family (r.a), and his Companions (r.a)