Ibn Arabi on Logical Arguments

 

In the first chapter of his book Al-Futuhat Al-Makkiyah, Ibn-Arabi divides believers into four groups. The first is that of 'common people'. The basic conviction of common people is based on purely taking elements of faith as they are without any arguments. The next group is the people of purely logical thinking, their faith is based on logical proofs. The third group are the people whose conviction is partially based on logical proofs and partially on pristine revealing of truth. The last and most high group, are the crème de la crème (the 'selected people' as he puts it) according to Ibn-Arabi. The author, intentionally did not clarify details of their conviction in any particular place. Rather he said that he had spread elements of their conviction throughout the chapters of the book. He approves the first, the third and the fourth groups. The second, he hardly stops criticizing whenever it is mentioned.

 

Ibn Arabi's view of common peoples' belief

Here he is talking about the case of people with basic beliefs and not talking yet about the higher level of faith through mystical insight:

"Then we come back to the reason, why we have prevented the person who is ready for Truth to be manifested in his heart, from philosophical contemplation of the validity of convictions. One reason is that common people's convictions are without fault. There is no argument on this point among reasonable specialists in Shariah. Although, common people do not study philosophy or various methods of opponents [in this field]. Rather Allah kept them at [the level of] pure instinct [according to the Prophet PBUH, man is born on pure instinct, then later he/she follows one of various convictions. Islam is described as the religion of pure instinct, hence the author's comment] which is knowledge that Allah almighty exists, as he [the student] was told by a learned father or instructor [notice the expression "as he was told". There is no reasoning involved here]. And regarding knowledge of Allah almighty and Tanzih of Allah [negating any man-imagined perceptions of Him], they follow the outer meaning of the Quran. If they are like this, then the common people are, thank God, on the right path. But if any of them considered to interpret [the outer meanings of Quran] then he is out of common people and has become in one of the categories of philosophizers. And he is either right or wrong, according to his interpretation of the outer meanings of the Quran, and that's what he will meet Allah with. Common people, thank God, are with proper conviction, because they received it as we have said from the outer meaning of the Quran. Received it in a manner that does not doubt at all. Tawator [consecutive assured passing of knowledge from a vast number of people from one generation to a vast number of people of the following generation] is one of the methods that takes one to knowledge. The goal of knowledge is to categorically establish what you know [If that was achieved, using any method, then that's what is important] that it is as we have known without any doubt. And the Holy Quran, has been established by tawator that a person came with it, who claimed that he is a messenger from Allah, and he brought evidence that he is actually a messenger, and that evidence is the quran, and no body has ever been able to contradict him. Then it has been established to us through tawator that that person is a messenger from Allah to us, and he came with this quran that is in our hands today, and told us that it is the word of Allah. Since all that has been established to us through tawator, then it is established that it is true information and the final word."

The above quote shows Ibn Arabi's agreement with the conviction accepted by the vast majority of non-Sufi scholars. I think that is the reason why Sufis like Ibn Arabi do not belittle or blame them for not understanding or not considering what is beyond that level. I think what Ibn Arabi was saying is that if one knew it for sure through a trusted source like tawator, that's all that is important. Why philosophize if one will ultimately reach the same conclusions through mystical insight?

 

A little later he says about people who depend heavily on logical thinking:

"I wonder whether this person who seeks to know Allah through reasoning and condemns to blasphemy any one who doesn't, how his situation was before seeking evidence based on reason and while seeking evidence? Was he a Muslim or not? Did he pray and fast? Or did he find proof that Muhammad is a messenger of Allah to him? Or that Allah exists? If he was already convinced about all these [through tawator], then that is the situation of common people. He should, then, leave them at what they are and not condemn anyone to blasphemy. If he was not believing in all that until he philosophized and read books on logical arguments [ilm al-Kalam] then we seek protection of Allah from this manner of thinking."

Ibn Arabi appears to be talking about 'Affirming the Consequent', a logical fallacy that many religious logical arguments seem to suffer from according to some rational thinkers. According to Ibn Arabi, common people accept elements of faith without arguments, Mystics realize elements of faith through mystical insight, in neither case there is logical argumentation. As for logical thinkers, Ibn Arabi says that they could not but have started from a basic level of belief then tried to prove logically the same level of belief and then (in some extreme cases as it appears) they tried to force that reasoning on others.

 

However, not all who used logical arguments were the same.

The following quotes show Ibn-Arabi's view on scholars who used logical arguments only to argue with doubters and non-believers. Ibn Arabi shows respect for them yet politely disagrees with them:

"The scholars of this science [ilm al-kalam], may Allah be pleased with them, did not write in this field to establish for themselves their knowledge of Allah, rather they wrote to confront the opponents who rejected God, or the Qualities, or some of the Qualities, or the Messages, or the Message of Muhammad peace be upon him in particular, or the Creation of the world, or the return to these bodies after death, or the Gathering [in the day of judgment] and the revealing [of books in which every detail of one's deeds is recorded], and such subjects. Those [opponents] were deniers of the Quran, rejecting it. So the scholars of kalam particularly sought to establish evidence based on the same method that lead them [the opponents] to negate what we claim is right, so that common people don't get confused about their convictions. That's why, whenever an innovator [innovation in religion is rejected in Islam. Only strict following of what has been revealed upon the prophet is to be considered.] comes up, an Ash'ari or whoever of the thinkers of reason, would confront him."

later he said:

"The science of Kalam, as honorable as it is, is not needed by most people. Hence one person is enough in a town, like a doctor. But people need many scholars in Shariah. And knowledge of Shariah is quite enough."

and :

"Nonetheless they [the Kalam scholars], may Allah be pleased with them, worked hard and intended something good. Although, what they have left [more important things in Ibn-Arabi's opinion] is more necessary than what they have busied themselves with. May Allah benefit every one according to his intention."

 

Ibn Arabi's view on Faith based on Logical Evidence

In page 98, he says:

"Believers are of two types. A believer with [whose belief is based on] reasoning, inference, and [logical] evidence. This [believer's] belief cannot be trusted, and the Light of Faith does not mingle with [his] Heart's yearning [for that Light]. Because this believer only looks at it [Faith] from behind the veil of his evidence. And there is no [logical] evidence that is not prone to doubt or criticism [unlike 'instinctive realization', as in realizing one's existence for instance] even if not immediately. So, Faith [while felt] does not mingle with the Heart's yearning of an adopter of [logical] evidence. And this veil [logical thinking] is between him [his heart] and it [Faith]. The other [type of] believer, [is one] whose evidence was none other than his Heart's embracement of Faith without any [need] for something else [logical proof], and that is the Faith that mingles with the Heart's yearning. For such a person Doubt is inconceivable, because Doubt does not have a place to stay, since it dwells in reasoning [as compared to 'instinctive realization'], and there is no such reasoning, hence no doubt."

Then Ibn Arabi continues, saying that the mingling of the Light of Faith with the Heart's yearning is just the start for further stages of 'sight' and experiences. According to his argument, it seems that a believer who has based his belief on reasoning has no chance of further advancement then.

 

Why logical arguments have shortcomings:

"Minds have limits, at which they stop, in the sense that they think, but [they do not stop functioning] not in the sense of their readiness to receive. So, a matter that looks impossible to the mind [as a thinking machine], might not be impossible when seen as Divine-related. Also, what may seem possible to the mind, might be impossible as Divine-related."

I selected 'Divine-related' as the closest possible translation for the phrase intended. He means, most likely, with it to differentiate between two points of view. The first one is creature-towards-God, this is based on logical thinking of mind. The second is how things are as they are. The latter sense of awareness is based on Divine revealing. Which mind as a thinking machine cannot perceive, but mind, as a pure and calm 'receptacle', unfettered by logical approaches, may be granted the divinely bestowed opportunity to selected people, to perceive.

 

Ibn Arabi's recommended approach:

In Chapter 322, Ibn Arabi strongly criticizes rational thinking in matters of faith. Then he urges the Sufi to stay away from logical arguments, and instead advises the following:

Stick to the path of Belief and following what Allah has ordered you [religious duties], remember your Lord in the morning and evening [an advise based on a verse in the Quran] with the remembrance that He stated, and fear God.
When the Truth [God] wants to let you know [about something] of His knowledge, come with your mind and heart [submissive, without arguing, free from presumptions] to accept what He gives of knowledge of Him.

The first sentence in the quote is what a believer normally does, while the second is what an advanced Sufi may go through. So, it is basic religious guidelines that leads to advancement in the Sufi path. There does not appear to be a place for logical arguments here.

 

Comment

As I understand, Ibn-Arabi's opinion on mental reasoning with regard to matters of faith is that it does not lead to much fruitful conclusions. Hence it is to be avoided as much as possible for all in general and at all costs for 'common people'. A similar view is expressed by Al-Ghazali. Both Ibn-Arabi and Al-Ghazali would try to prevent most people from studying it, unless it is necessary like in the case of defending basic religious convictions or trying to bring back a person 'lost in those arguments' to the path of faith. In that case, the person undertaking the effort has to be knowledgeable in shariah first, and not having established his conviction on such 'mental evidence'.

It appears to me that the vast superiority, in matters of faith, of either basic pure faith (of 'common people') or the Vision of advanced Sufis, over mental reasoning is a very important point to Ibn-Arabi, that is probably why he emphasized it several times in his writings.

Ibn-Arabi mentions mental reasoning in three contexts:

1. Total or too much dependence on Mental Reasoning in matters of faith. This seems to be unacceptable at all to Sufis. And Ibn-Arabi is not alone in this.

2. Using Mental Reasoning to argue with people with doubts or non-believers who use such methods. Here Ibn-Arabi says it is ok as an option only, and should be only allowed to very few people.

3. Mental Reasoning coupled with Sufi Visions and experiences. This is the third group of believers mentioned above. This group, according to Ibn-Arabi, is higher than people with basic faith but lesser than Sufis who depend on Mystical experiences alone. Regarding this context, I recall (but unable to locate precisely where at the moment) Ibn-Arabi mentioning the pitfalls of using mental reasoning and that one should be very careful when using it due to 'slippery grounds'. No such warnings with the basic and original method of Religious Realization starting from pure basic faith, cleaning the heart and mind enough to start 'seeing it' as it is instead of attempting to postulate or deduce one's way to Realization, which according to Ibn Arabi and other Sufis is an approach that does not bear fruit.

Sufis who shared Ibn Arabi's opinion were many, among them as I understand are Ibn Ata-Ellah, Al-Sha'arani, and Ibn Ajeeba.

Al-Ghazali studied Ilm Al-Kalam and mastered it too. But it did not take him too long to figure out its limits and its appropriate use in an Islamic society. He recognized its importance for rational clarification of religious beliefs to the masses. He used it and encouraged using it, but only for qualified people. He recognized also the stage of Sufi realization, as the highest level of knowledge humans can reach, and he described Sufism as the destination he was looking for.

The difference of opinions between Al-Ghazali and Ibn Arabi can probably be inferred from their respective backgrounds. Al-Ghazali was a teacher by profession. He was accustomed to explaining subjects in a manner that can be followed gradually by those reading his books. He also became aware of the importance of Sufism only in his late thirties. Compared to Ibn Arabi's situation, Al-Ghazali's road to mystical insight appears to have been laborious and long. I think that one of his notable contributions was documenting the experiences of his journey.

Ibn Ata-Ellah was a religious scholar and trained in Kalam too, before he was introduced to Sufism. Once he became a Sufi, he also noted the limits of Kalam. Yet he continued to use it and (as I understand) considered it a valid stage of awareness even if it is less than mystical insight. However, he notes that the relative difference between mystical insight and the awareness level associated with Kalam mastership is similar to the relative difference between the latter and a common person's plain beliefs. I think it is an interesting note, given his experience with both Kalam and Sufi insight.

Ibn Arabi's situation was different. He was brought up in a family of ascetics and mystics. He met Sufi teachers very early in his life. His first mystical experiences started relatively earlier. So, it seems that, to him, it was clear that the straightforward path was to start from pristine faith and leap towards mystical insight without having to go through logical formulations.