There are some contemporary as well as traditional (Islamic and otherwise) writings that appear to say or at least imply that Ibn Arabi believed that (a) "whatever of traditional convictions one looks at closely, it will be found that there is 'pointing to'/'talking about' the same ultimate Truth." Hence, a presumed conclusion, as it appears, in such writings: (b) "Ibn Arabi didn't have any negative notes with regards to any such convictions."
However, within the limits of what I understand, and as it will be explained below, while there are texts about point (a), there are texts in Ibn Arabi's writings that are not consistent with point (b). Once that is realized, the next point is: To consider a consistent explanation of his writings.
In this article, some excerpts, that I think are related to point (a), will be presented and discussed.
Fusus, the 10th gem:
"In general, every person has to have a conviction in his God, he refers to Him through that conviction and seeks Him through it. So, if The Truth [God] appeared to him through [according to] that conviction, he accepts that appearance, but if [the same Truth] appeared according to another [conviction], he rejects it and would seek refuge [God's refuge as he knows Him] and would misbehave towards the appearance he doesn't recognize. Although, he thinks that he has behaved correctly. /p>
So, a believer only holds a belief in God, that is in accordance to what is instilled in his inside. So, in convictions, God is according to what is inside, hence holders of convictions did not see but their souls and what they instilled in them. [An argument that probably sounds similar to some non-religious views on religious beliefs. But Ibn-Arabi does not stop there, he continues beyond it. As I understand, to Ibn-Arabi that piece of information is not a conclusion, rather it is just an introduction to further presentation of his view].
Note that peoples' levels in knowledge of God, are the same levels of seeing [God] in the hereafter. And I have informed you the reason that necessitates this.
[Here comes the main point] So be careful not to confine yourself with any particular conviction and disbelieve in every thing else. You will miss many good things. Rather, you will miss the knowledge of what the matter is, as it really is. So, be in yourself like a Substance [Greek term for primordial unchanging essence, regardless of the transformation, in form, it goes through. It cannot be conceived to be separate from a form. The Arabic word is 'Ha-yola'] encompassing [or able to portray] all the Forms [Greek term] of convictions. Because God is much greater and all surrounding, than to be confined by any certain conviction. Since He says [in the Quran, 2-115] "whithersoever ye turn, there is Allah's countenance." and he did not mention any certain direction. Rather mentioned that there will be "Allah's countenance" (Yusuf Ali translated 'countenance' or 'face' as 'The Presence'), and the face of something is its reality [equating face of something with its essence or reality is common in Sufi writings]. With that, He alerted the hearts of the knowledgeable people, so they are not busied by the matters of worldly life from bringing to attention such a subject."
[My understanding of Ibn Arabi's opinion: Different convictions regarding God are not an indication of contradictions, rather they are "Because God is much greater and all surrounding, than to be confined by any certain conviction".]
Al-Futuhat Al-Makkiah, the end of chapter 85:
"The men who acknowledged the conviction of everyone with conviction, for what he reached at and knew and established, [such men] will on the day of visit [A day every week assigned to seeing God in paradise] see God with the eyes of every conviction. So the one who wants good advice for himself, should search in his world for all the sayings in this regard. And should know wherefrom, every sayer has established his saying. If that saying was established to him [the researcher] according to the intrinsic manner [of that saying] in which it was considered correct to him, then he described that conviction accordingly, and did not deny or reject [sounds probably somewhat similar to a certain modern approach for comparative studies of philosophies and religions], he will gain the fruit of that in the day of the visit. No matter what that conviction was. This is the all-surrounding divine knowledge.
The foundation of the correctness of what we have mentioned, is that every one seeking God, is under the rule of one of the names of God. And that name is what appears to him. And that [name] is what is given by that conviction, when the name appears, in a manner that the holder of belief does not sense [certain of his belief and what it is about but not exactly aware of how his belief is established?]. And all the names of God are correctly related to the Truth. Hence, seeing [the Truth] in each conviction, even if different, is correct and nothing is wrong with it. This is what is given by the most complete Revealing [Sight/Vision, the Arabic word is Kashf].
No investigation of a seeker has ever been out of [towards] God. And it cannot be out. But people are prevented from [fully seeing] the Truth by the Truth, because of the most clear display of Truth [it is more obvious than any 'thing'. This phrase has an explanation elsewhere.] So this group [the knowledgeable people] that has this degree of knowledge of God, [has] a place in the day of visit away [from others]. When all are returning back from the visit, each holder of [particular] conviction, thinks [a person of that special group] to be one of his own group, because he sees the picture of his [a person of that group] conviction in that day as his own picture. So, he [such a person of that group] is loveable by all other groups. And so he must have been during his life time.
What we have said here, is only known to the most advanced of the people exposed to revealing and existence. On the other hand the people who depend on mental reasoning would not even catch its smell. So, pay attention to what we have mentioned and work accordingly. In this way you will give Divinity its due, and be one who was fair to his God in knowing Him. Because God is so above attempts to confine under any particular restriction or picture. And from here is known the general happiness for all creatures of God and the wideness of His Mercy, that [Quran, 7,156] 'extendeth to all things'."
Comments:
* While Ibn-Arabi seems to be confirming the non-exclusivity of religious points of view about the Truth, to my knowledge most Islamic scholars do not agree with his opinion.
Indeed it would sound very unusual for a religious scholar to encourage his students to study another conviction so thoroughly until one is able to see 'The Truth' through the eyes of someone with that conviction. And Ibn Arabi is not encouraging to study just one or two other convictions, as an example or just to get the idea, rather he seemed to have been serious about studying 'every conviction' one may come across.
However, Ibn Arabi in his final words of advice to his son, said that 'this way' (Sufism) is based on the Quran and the Sunnah and he advised his son to strictly follow the Sharia (religious guidelines) and uphold its rules. The rest of the advice as well as his recommendations for the Mureed (aspirant Sufi student), mentioned in his article 'What a Mureed has to be aware of', show Ibn Arabi's seriousness about following Islamic guidelines. And those were just two examples of his view. Given this information, it appears that as Ibn Arabi was writing the excerpts translated above, he was strictly abiding by accepted Islamic religious guidelines. Assuming consistency in Ibn Arabi's writings, is it possible then to explain the excerpts in a manner that is in agreement with the Quran and Sunnah? I do not have enough background to be sure about a clear answer.
Anyway, here are some personal notes on this issue.
* When a religious scholar studies another conviction, in many cases the reason would be to find out what is wrong with 'that other conviction'. Ibn Arabi noted once (I don't recall where exactly at the moment) that 'it is the habit of [most] people of religions to criticize each other'. In what seems to be a clear contrast, Ibn-Arabi encourages studying other convictions to find out how they are approaching 'the same universal Truth'. Since, as he said, 'No investigation of a seeker has ever been out of [the direction towards] God'. As far as I understand his view, what he meant was that the structure of existence being the same for all beings, the spiritual aspect is but part of that structure, so even with different manners of approaching the spiritual aspect, views cannot be about anything other than the same aspect. However, while he did not seem to have been objecting the existence of various approaches, I think it is probably incorrect to translate his stance as meaning that he did not have any problem accepting those approaches as they were, as I feel some non-Sufi scholars criticizing Ibn Arabi understood. Since Ibn Arabi had notes, positive and negative ( and these were sometimes mild and sometimes strong) regarding a wide range of sects and religions. His notes were mostly about Islamic sects, Judaism, Christianity (those three are expected) but interestingly (given that his travels were confined to the western parts of the Islamic world), I also recall he had few notes on Hinduism too. Not even his fellow Sufis were spared. For instance, I recall several places where he expressed disagreement with Al-Ghazali and Abu-Talib Al-Makki (An early Sufi, the author of Qoot Al-Quloob or 'Food for the Hearts'). In short, what appears to me about Ibn Arabi's method is that: Acceptance of the fact that other approaches exist, as they are, and being open-minded about them and able to study them in a thorough manner, does not mean that one doesn't have an opinion about them.
In modern scientific methods there is an interesting approach of total separation between perceiving/understanding a system of thought and expressing one's opinion about it. I noticed the existence of this systematic approach in writings of earlier Arab thinkers like Ibn Arabi and Al-Ghazali. For instance, note Al-Ghazali's book the Maqasid then the Tahafut. The first was pure presentation of some Greek philosophical concepts and the second was about his opinion on Greek philosophy. The first was so clear and unbiased, that some proponents of Greek philosophy thought the book was a sign that a new Ibn Sina is emerging. But Al-Ghazali disappointed many of them when he wrote the Tahafut. Ibn Rushd in particular expressed his strong disagreement in his book 'Tahafut Al-Tahafut'. Anyway, the point I want to emphasize is that not to clearly separate the two stages (perception and opinion), appears to have been and probably still is, a major source of misunderstanding.
Ibn Arabi might have appeared to be calling for understanding different convictions, but his basic set of beliefs, as listed in his Aqeedah (elements of faith) in the beginning of the Al-Futuhat appear to indicate that his beliefs were not different from Ahl Al-Sunnah (Sunnis) as Al-Sha'rani said (Al-Yawaqeet Wa Al-Jawahir).
* Sufi Scholars who believe that Ibn Arabi's writings were in line with the Quran and Sunnah, say that the huge misunderstanding of his writings by many non-Sufi scholars were due to (a) misinterpretation of his words when taken literally, (b) ignoring the fact that Sufis share the same Islamic beliefs with every Muslim and ignoring their careful and strict abidance by religious guidelines and (c) not taking into consideration the Sufi approach of looking at things, an approach that they believe, is based on and totally consistent with the original sources of Islam, the Quran and the Sunnah, and not borrowed from outside.
There were Sufis who had harsh words for some non-Sufi scholars in response, as it appears, to accusations of those non-Sufi scholars that Sufis have deviated from original tenets of Islam, but that was not the common case. There were much milder and actually quite favorable opinions about non-Sufi scholars by Sufis like Al-Nabulsi, Zarroq, and Ibn Arabi himself. Zarroq said in the Principles, that non-Sufi scholars cannot be faulted for their criticism of Sufis [because ultimately both parties are in the same group], and that they are to be encouraged to understand what Sufis mean. Ibn Arabi, talking about non-Sufi scholars, in the opening chapter of the Futuhat said: "A person who has known [what is beyond appearances, etc., i.e. a Sufi], understands why some people deny Sufi knowledge, but there is no way to consider those deniers our enemy. The story of Moses and Al-Khidr tells us that there is room for both attitudes. Both are correct." The story and its mystical implications received quite an attention in Sufi literature. Moses represented the exoteric part of Divine Revelation, while Al-Khidr was a representative of the Divine esoteric teachings. And Ibn Arabi appears to be of the opinion, that even when at the surface there seems to be disagreements, eventually a reconciliation is possible between the two aspects. (Details on the story of Moses and Al-Khidr can be found in any Tafseer of Quran on Surat Al-Kahf [18:60-82]).
* Similarities between convictions do exist and while some researchers try to find evidence of copying or borrowing of concepts from across religious boundaries, I feel that a more plausible view is also possible, based on (a) that the spiritual aspect is the same for all human beings regardless of how they select to approach it or express themselves about it, (b) according to the Quran, the ultimate Source of religious teachings and the essence of heavenly Messages to all nations were the same, even if the rites differed ("For We assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, (with the command), 'Serve God and eschew Evil'" [Quran 16:36] and "To each nation have We given rites which they are to perform" [Quran 22:67]). Hence, it is natural for similarities to exist. However, even with similarities regarding goals and referred concepts, religions are not exactly the same. Each religion seems to provide a whole and a consistent approach starting from the basic steps heading towards the Divine. That setup includes the mystical part of religion as an integral part that, in my view, cannot be separated from the rest of a religion and be considered a self-sustained philosophy, and at the same time expect to have a complete picture of the path that the religion represents. And that's why, I think, Sufis insist that Sufism cannot stand without following basic Shariah guidelines. Another point, I think that picking a set of concepts from different Paths might not give a consistent view of a Path to the Divine either. I think that understanding and appreciating other Paths, in their entireties, is consistent with following a specific, complete and a consistent Path. And that seems to be different from adopting concepts from other Paths (which is probably what some non-Sufi scholars understood when they criticized Sufis talking about concepts from other religions). A common Sufi saying goes: 'Who looks [or wanders] around does not reach [the destination]'. In other words, a common Sufi stance appears to be that picking a Path (starting from basic guidelines of a Sect within religion, and then stepping into a Tariqah or a Sufis sect), sticking with it, and concentrating on its teachings is more likely to help reaching the desired destination. And that does not appear to contradict in any way a deep understanding of other choices and preferences. What I feel is that the picture that Sufi scholars might be 'adopting concepts from outside' or neglecting basic Islamic guidelines, might not be a correct picture.
* As far as I can tell, it seems that Sufis saw and understood other religions in their entireties, without leaving their own, and only after having known very well the Path to the Divine that their religion represents. Based on their understanding of their own religion, Sufis were able to relate to other paths of religions and easily saw how others were approaching deep and intricate spiritual concepts. If that perception is correct then it seems that Sufis' study of other religions taking a relatively open-minded and deeper approach was probably seen incorrectly, by some non-Mystic scholars, as a behavior coming from a less devout Muslim, even when a Sufi (in this case Ibn Arabi) is stating that he is not different from any devout Muslim when it comes to adherence to the tenets of Islam and practicing religious duties.
* Sufis have no doubts about the need to see through and beyond appearances. However, this is where they often seem to be talking about appearances (including various religious guidelines) in a tone not fully understood by someone not familiar with their approach. Yet, (and this point is emphasized just as strongly by Sufis) Sufis also have no doubts about recognizing and strictly respecting the rules and the guidelines of the community they live in and the world in general seen with normal perception. In other words, speaking about deeper aspects does not mean being inconsistent or losing touch with the normal way of looking at things, including the guidelines of one's religion, which is the reason, as it appears, behind many Sufis' respect for non-Sufi religious scholars.
