2023/05/04
Wahdat al-Adyan: Sufi Idea or Western Thought? - IBTimes.ID
Wahdat al-Adyan: Sufi Idea or Western Thought?
By Angga Arifka
24/05/2022
Wahdat al-adyan (transcendent unity of religions) is one term. The term refers to the ideas of the Sufis who suggest that all religions essentially culminate in a transcendent or esoteric unity. Although not a few scholars who reject it, this term continues to be discussed. Let's also discuss it briefly.
Penisbatan Wahdat al-Adyan
Generally, the term wahdat al-adyan is first attributed to the tenth century Sufi martyr, al-Hallaj. One of his famous poems is:
Truly, I have thought carefully about religions,
And I have found the source, to whom all mankind is gathered.
You should never force a religion on someone,
Because truly it is a denial of eternal sources.
Only the eternal Source determines it,
Only to Him all majesty and meanings can be understood
(Mukti Ali, 2015: 324).
The context of this statement is that during his lifetime in Baghdad , al-Hallaj witnessed the disharmony of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.
As the majority community, Muslims often recklessly harass non-Muslims. Al-Hallaj at that time, to be exact, saw a Muslim harassing a Jew.
The next day, when he met the Muslim, al-Hallaj said, “O my son, all religions belong to God. Know that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religions are just different symbols and names, while the target is not different." (Ibid.).
From his statement, al-Hallaj was later considered to be the originator of the idea of wahdat al-adyan , although the term itself never came out of his mouth.
Ibn Arabi's view of Wahdat al-Wujud
Not only did al-Hallaj, the great Andalusian Sufi, Ibn Arabi, in many of his views, imply the idea of the esoteric or inner unity of religions.
In fact, he doesn't just imply it. Instead, he made this view explicit in one of his poems. A poem that is often quoted by many people.
My heart can hold all forms,
to the deer is the savanna, to the monks is the monastery,
Temples for idols, Kaaba for pilgrims
Torah sheet, Al-Qur'an manuscript
I embrace the religion of Love;
wherever the camels of Love tread,
that's where my religion and faith roam
(Ibn Arabi, 1978: 67).
Also Read The Meaning of Happiness According to Philosophers
It cannot be denied that Ibn Arabi himself never mentioned the term " wahdat al-adyan ". Nevertheless, the verse we have just quoted shows that Ibn Arabi appears to be inclusive in accepting the truth of other religions.
Apart from being so inclusive, Ibn Arabi also did not hesitate to negate exclusivity.
Syair Wahdat al-Wujud dari Jalal al-Din Rumi dan Ibn al-Farid
Besides Ibn Arabi, the most worthy of mention is Jalal al-Din Rumi. he hums,
What can I do, O Muslims? I don't know myself.
I'm not a Christian, not a Jew, not a Zoroastrian, nor a Muslim.
Not from the East, not from the West. Not from land, not from the sea.
(Idries Shah, 1968: 103).
Just like Ibn Arabi's poem that we have quoted, Rumi also shows his position walking on the path of love. Ibn al-Farid, the Sufi poet from Egypt, nicknamed "sultan al-'ashiqin" (lord of the lovers), hummed,
The burning fire of the Qur'an is the light of the mosque's mihrab
it does not undermine the Bible which is the light of the Christian church
[and] the teachings of the Torah that speak to his people
who every night sings the prayer of prayer
prostrating, prostrating, and worshiping in front of the stone statue in the sculpture,
will not be blocked by the disobedience of fanaticism
I have issued a warning to those who deviate from the truth
and have expressed my apologies to all groups
no deviant religious doctrines,
and there are no deviant beliefs
Magi worshiped fire, and never went out,
Like a thousand blasphemy roar thundered.
(Mukti Ali, 2015: 349-350).
***
I think there are not a few Sufis who voice similar ideas. Hakim Sanai, for example, the twelfth century Persian Sufi poet, hums,
At his door, what is the difference between Muslim and Christian,
the good and the bad?
At its door all are seekers and He is sought.
And there are still many Sufi poets who will hum a similar idea, an idea called wahdat al-adyan .
Indeed, the Sufis, so far, have never explicitly mentioned the term wahdat al-adyan . Before we investigate further about the origins of this term, it is better for us to briefly review how contemporary Muslim scholars respond to the idea of " wahdat al-adyan ". In this case, Muslim scholars are divided into three views (Media Zainul Bahri, 2021: 1-3).
Also Read Three Groups of Sufis According to Ibn Taimiyah
Repon for Sarjanawan
First , a view that even disbelieves the Sufis, which is loudly represented by 'Abd al-Rahman al-Wakil. This first view sees wahdat al-adyan as proof that the Sufis who stand up have slipped into error and have deviated from the true teachings of Islam.
Second , the view that rejects wahdat al-adyan comes from the Sufis. For this second view, the Sufis never actually taught or formulated the idea of wahdat al-adyan . Those who understand this are just misunderstanding the thoughts of the Sufis.
This misunderstanding, according to them, is caused by the influence of Western scholars in reading Sufism and especially by the influence of discussions on pluralism of religions originating from Western scholars. Thus, making Muslim scholars search for their treasures on this matter.
Those holding this second view include scholars from the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC), Malaysia, especially senior Malaysian Muslim intellectuals from Indonesia, Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, and Suad Hakim, an expert on Ibn Arabi from Lebanon.
Third , the view that affirms that indeed the Sufis spoke seriously about wahdat al-adyan . Although terminologically the term did not come from them alone. Scholars who hold this view include Henry Corbin, Nicholson, Annemarie Schimmel, and William C. Chittick.
If all we mention are them, surely we will immediately think that what is said by those who hold the second view is true. That these terms or ideas are the result of the interpretation of Western scholars.
Those who Affirm Wahdat al-Adyan
Let's mention Muslim scholars who affirm wahdat al-adyan . Among them are Ahmad Amin, Muhammad Mustafa Hilmi, 'Abd Qadir Mahmud, and Abu al-Ala Afifi.
Read Also Looking at Gender Equality with the Perspective of Sufism
The latter, Abu al-Ala Afifi, a serious scholar of Ibn Arabi as well as contemporary commentator Fusus al-Hikam , does not use the term wahdat al-adyan in reading Ibn 'Arabi's texts, instead he uses the term "universal religion".
Muhammad Mustafa Hilmi, Professor of Philosophy and Sufism at Cairo University, in his work on Ibn al-Farid, Ibn al-Farid wa al-Hubb al-Ilahi , mentions al-Hallaj, Ibn Arabi, and Ibn al-Farid as adherents of wahdat al -adyan .
Mustafa Hilmi in his work uses references from Western scholars, namely Massignon and Nicholson.
According to Bahri (2012: 35), Massignon and Nicholson's work quoted by Mustafa Hilmi does not clearly mention the term " wahdat al-adyan ". Thus, he concluded that the scholar who first used the term was Mustafa Hilmi.
The Egyptian Sufi scholar Abd al-Qadir Mahmud, in his work al-Falsafah al-Sufīyah fi al-Islam , indeed also uses the term wahdat al-adyan and attributes the term to Ibn 'Arabi, who according to him is one of the natural children of the main teachings Ibn Arabi, wahdat al-wujud . However, he took this term from Hilmi's book.
So, he was not the first scholar to use this term. Thus, regarding the accusation that Muslim scholars misunderstood the idea of wahdat al-adyan which was attributed to Sufis due to the infiltration of Western scholars' thoughts proven to be wrong, it is more or less influenced by the study of religious pluralism that is developing in the West.
According to one researcher, Anis Malik Thoha (2005: 18), discourse on religious pluralism in the West emerged only in the eighteenth century. So, the accusation that wahdat al-adyan was influenced by Western thought or discourse has been proven wrong. The Sufis have echoed, neither discourse nor pluralism, spiritual perceptions that all religions rest and meet in the same "pure space" or "inner space".
Editor: Yahya FR
West sufi
0
0
8 posts
Angga Arifka
ABOUT AUTHOR
Alumnus of Ushuluddin Faculty and Philosophy of UIN Sunan Ampel Surabayaarticles
What is the difference between Islamic philosophy and Muslim philosophy? - IBTimes.ID
What is the difference between Islamic philosophy and Muslim philosophy?
By Angga Arifka
27/05/2022
What is meant by Islamic philosophy? Is there an Islamic philosophy? Religion, namely Islam on the one hand, and philosophy, on the other, are they compatible with each other?
Generally, when reading books on the history of philosophy, we can hardly find the history of Islamic philosophy in them. The question is why? I think it happened because there was a big narrative built by the previous orientalists, that Islamic philosophy was just a duplication of Greek philosophy, so they ignored the contribution of Islamic philosophy itself.
Islamic philosophy is considered a kind of footnote to Greek philosophy. In addition, there are actually many terms used by Western scholars to refer to Islamic philosophy, namely Arabic philosophy ( Arabic philosophy), Muslim philosophy (Muslim philosophy ) , and philosophy in the Islamic world ( philosophy in the Islamic world) . ).
Definition of Philosophy
Before going any further, we need to see for a moment what philosophy means according to Muslim philosophers. Al-Kindi, the first Arab Muslim philosopher, defines that philosophy is the science that studies the essence of everything.
Furthermore, al-Farabi, who is called the second teacher of philosophy after Aristotle, explained that philosophy in its meaning and essence is a science that studies everything that exists as it is (Syamsuddin Arif, 2014: 6).
The term philosophy ( philosophia ) is absorbed into "philosophy" in Arabic. Unfortunately, in the Qur'an there is no word that mentions "philosophy". Even so, all Muslim philosophers understand that philosophy or philosophy is synonymous with "wisdom".
According to Ibn Sina , wisdom is the perfection of the human soul that succeeds in grasping the meaning of everything and is able to express the truth with reason and action in accordance with its abilities as a human being (Ibid, 5).
I think it's pretty clear what Ibn Sina meant. He intends to show that philosophical activity is not far from religious activity. That is, with reason, humans can reach the perfection of the soul. This is one of the opinions of Ibn Sina in answer to one of the questions above.
Read also Mulyadhi Kartanegara: Picking up the Future of Islamic Philosophy
By looking at the fact that history of philosophy books are common in which we can hardly find the history of Islamic philosophy, we can draw a tentative conclusion that the existence of Islamic philosophy is downplayed, and maybe “ignored completely”. Why?
Terminology Disputes
Let's begin to reconsider whether Islamic philosophy is worthy of the record. In the twentieth century, Islamic scholars from the West still did not have the same opinion to call what we are talking about now: Islamic philosophy, Arabic philosophy, Muslim philosophy, or philosophy in the Islamic world.
First , some scholars, such as Ernest Renan, Peter Adamson, and Dimitri Gutas, call it "Arabic philosophy". Their reason was that philosophy at that time used the same language, Arabic as the lingua franca of philosophical activity.
Indeed, not only Muslim philosophers who built the philosophical system at that time, but also Christian philosophers such as Yahya bin Adi and Jewish philosophers such as Maimonides participated in it.
Furthermore, the use of the term Arabic philosophy actually confirmed that the philosophical system at that time was not much different from previous Greek philosophy, and the only difference was the language, Arabic. In my opinion, such claims are half true, but the rest are not.
Actually, many themes were raised by Muslim philosophers without referring to Greek philosophy, such as prophetic philosophy, philosophy of sainthood, philosophy of eschatology, and especially ushul fiqh (philosophy of Islamic law). In addition, Islamic philosophy in its first appearance brought a new field in which there was a goal to harmonize philosophy with religion.
***
If so, shouldn't we call it "theology"? I don't think so, because that is the scope of "kalam" or Islamic theology which includes theological issues based on Islamic doctrine in the texts of both the Qur'an and hadith, while Islamic philosophy is anchored on the basis of reasoning.
Read also Mabadi' 'Asyarah Philosophy of Intelligence
Second , some scholars decided to use the term "Muslim philosophy". The reason is that the system of philosophy is based on its philosophers. The argument is quite weak.
In my opinion, there is no Muslim philosophy if there is no Islam itself. Therefore, the most basic is the influencer, while Muslim philosophers are influenced. If there were no Islam, there would be no Muslim philosophers.
Third , philosophy in the Islamic world. This term wants to underline the area of the Islamic world at that time, the eighth, ninth, and so on, when philosophy developed in the Islamic world from Andalusia to Khurasan.
However, we may hesitate to agree with this term, because philosophical activity is not only carried out by Muslim philosophers, but also by non-Muslim thinkers living in the Islamic world.
Fourth , the majority of scholars use the term Islamic philosophy such as Montgomery Watt, Oliver Leaman, and others. This point wants to emphasize that it is completely unfair to conclude that Islamic philosophy is just a duplication of Greek philosophy.
Indeed, we cannot deny that Islamic philosophy was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. But actually, the source of Islamic philosophy is the Hellenized philosophy of Alexandria (Alexandria). Therefore, the philosophical system is not strictly Greek. We know that Alexandria was then the center of scientific civilization. Which, combines several cultures and mystical traditions. Like Persia, Egypt itself, and Greece.
Islamic Philosophy as a System
The main point is that Islamic philosophy is directly framed in Islamic language (not Arabic). And, in the cultural context of Islamic society which is covered by Islamic doctrine as well. The first three terms, we can conclude, only consider philosophy as a product, while the last views philosophy as a system.
Also Read Suhrawardi Al-Maqtul, Islamic Illumination Philosopher Who Was Killed
We can defend against the last term, because philosophical action in Islam is guided by Islamic doctrine itself. In the Al-Qur'an, many verses that we can find recommend not only Muslims in particular but also humans in general to think, meditate, observe, contemplate, consider, and understand everything deeply in the world.
In short, Islamic philosophy really existed not because of the external influence of Greek philosophy, but mainly because of the guidance of Islamic doctrine in the Qur'an itself.
Islamic philosophy
Sufi metaphysics - Wikipedia Waḥdat al-wujūd means "the Unity of Existence" or "the Unity of Being."
Contents
- Waḥdat al-Wujūd (unity of existence)
- subsectionTashkīk
- Opposition to Wahdat al-Wujud
- subsectionOpposition within Sufism
- Response to criticism
- Accusations of pantheism
References
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Islamic philosophy, Sufi metaphysics is centered on the concept of وحدة, waḥdah, 'unity' or توحيد, tawhid. Two main Sufi philosophies prevail on this topic. Waḥdat al-wujūd literally means "the Unity of Existence" or "the Unity of Being."[1]
- Wujūd, meaning "existence" or "presence", here refers to God.
- On the other hand, waḥdat ash-shuhūd, meaning "Apparentism" or "Monotheism of Witness", holds that God and his creation are entirely separate.
Some scholars have claimed that the difference between the two philosophies differ only in semantics and that the entire debate is merely a collection of "verbal controversies" which have come about because of ambiguous language. However, the concept of the relationship between God and the universe is still actively debated both among Sufis and between Sufis and non-Sufi Muslims.
Waḥdat al-Wujūd (unity of existence)[edit]
The mystical thinker and theologian Abu Saeed Mubarak Makhzoomi discussed this concept in his book called Tohfa Mursala.[2] An Andalusian Sufi saint Ibn Sabin[3] is also known to employ this term in his writings. But the Sufi saint who is most characterized in discussing the ideology of Sufi metaphysics in deepest details is Ibn Arabi.[4] He employs the term wujud to refer to God as the Necessary Being. He also attributes the term to everything other than God, but he insists that wujud does not belong to the things found in the cosmos in any real sense.
Rather, the things borrow wujud from God, much as the earth borrows light from the sun. The issue is how wujūd can rightfully be attributed to the things, also called "entities" (aʿyān). From the perspective of tanzih, Ibn Arabi declares that wujūd belongs to God alone, and, in his famous phrase, the things "have never smelt a whiff of wujud." From the point of view of tashbih, he affirms that all things are wujūd's self-disclosure (tajalli) or self-manifestation (ẓohur). In sum, all things are "He/not He" (howa/lāhowa), which is to say that they are both God and not God, both wujud and not wujud.[5] In his book Fusus –al-Hikam,[6][7] Ibn-e-Arabi states that "wujūd is the unknowable and inaccessible ground of everything that exists. God alone is true wujūd, while all things dwell in nonexistence, so also wujūd alone is nondelimited (muṭlaq), while everything else is constrained, confined, and constricted. Wujūd is the absolute, infinite, nondelimited reality of God, while all others remain relative, finite, and delimited".
- Ibn Arabi's doctrine of wahdat ul wujud focuses on the esoteric (batin) reality of creatures instead of exoteric (zahir) dimension of reality.
- Therefore, he interprets that wujud is one and unique reality from which all reality derives.
- The external world of sensible objects is but a fleeting shadow of the Real (al-Haq), God.
- God alone is the all embracing and eternal reality. Whatever exists is the shadow (tajalli) of the Real and is not independent of God.
- This is summed up in Ibn Arabi's own words: "Glory to Him who created all things, being Himself their very essence (ainuha)".[8]
To call wujud or Real Being "one" is to speak of the unity of the Essence. In other terms, it is to say that Being—Light in itself—is nondelimited (mutlaq), that is, infinite and absolute, undefined and indefinable, indistinct and indistinguishable. In contrast, everything other than Being—every existent thing (mawjûd)—is distinct, defined, and limited (muqayyad). The Real is incomparable and transcendent, but it discloses itself (tajallî) in all things, so it is also similar and immanent. It possesses such utter nondelimitation that it is not delimited by nondelimitation. "God possesses Nondelimited Being, but no delimitation prevents Him from delimitation. On the contrary, He possesses all delimitations, so He is nondelimited delimitation"[5][9] On the highest level, wujūd is the absolute and nondelimited reality of God, the "Necessary Being" (wājib al-wujūd) that cannot not exist. In this sense, wujūd designates the Essence of God or of the Real (dhāt al-ḥaqq), the only reality that is real in every respect. On lower levels, wujūd is the underlying substance of "everything other than God" (māsiwāAllāh)—which is how Ibn Arabi and others define the "cosmos" or "universe" (al-ʿālam). Hence, in a secondary meaning, the term wujūd is used as shorthand to refer to the whole cosmos, to everything that exists. It can also be employed to refer to the existence of each and every thing that is found in the universe.[10]
God's 'names' or 'attributes', on the other hand, are the relationships which can be discerned between the Essence and the cosmos. They are known to God because he knows every object of knowledge, but they are not existent entities or ontological qualities, for this would imply plurality in the godhead.[4][9]
Ibn 'Arabî used the term "effusion" (fayd) to denote the act of creation. His writings contain expressions which show different stages of creation, a distinction merely logical and not actual. The following gives details about his vision of creation in three stages: the Most Holy Effusion (al-fayd al-aqdas), the Holy Effusion (al-fayd al-muqaddas) and the Perpetual Effusion (al-fayd al-mustamirr).[11] Waḥdat al-wujūd spread through the teachings of the Sufis like Qunyawi, Jandi, Tilimsani, Qayshari, Jami etc.[12]
The noted scholar Muhibullah Allahabadi strongly supported the doctrine.[13]
Sachal Sarmast and Bulleh Shah two Sufi poets from present day Pakistan, were also ardent followers of Waḥdat al-wujūd. It is also associated with the Hamah Ust (Persian meaning "He is the only one") philosophy in South Asia.
Tashkīk[edit]
Tashkīk or gradation[14] is closely associated with Sadrian interpretation[15] of waḥdat al-wujūd. According to this school, the reality and existence are identical which means existence is one but graded in intensity. This methodology was given a name of tashkik al-wujud and it thus explains that there is gradation of existence that stand in a vast hierarchical chain of being (marāṭib al-wujūd) from floor (farsh) to divine throne (ʿarsh), but the wujūd of each existent māhīyya is nothing but a grade of the single reality of wujūd whose source is God, the absolute being (al-wujūd al-mutlaq). What differentiates the wujūd of different existents is nothing but wujūd in different degrees of strength and weakness. The universe is nothing but different degrees of strengths and weaknesses of wujūd, ranging from intense degree of wujūd of arch-angelic realities, to the dim wujūd of lowly dust from which Adam was made.[16]
Opposition to Wahdat al-Wujud[edit]
Sufi metaphysics has been a subject to criticism by most non-Sufis; in Al-Andalus, where most of the Muslim scholars were either Zahirites or Malikites preferring the Ash'arite creed, Sufi metaphysics was considered blasphemy and its practitioners blacklisted.[17] Followers of the Ash'arite creed in the east were often suspicious of Sufism as well, most often citing Sufi metaphysics as well.[17] However, it is important to note that Ibn Arabi was influenced by Al Ghazali, who himself was a strong supporter of the Ash'arite creed.
Opposition within Sufism[edit]
As a doctrine, waḥdat al-wujūd was also not without controversy or opposition within the Sufi community, some members of which responded to its conceptual emergence by formulating rival doctrines. One example was waḥdat asḥ-shuhūd, which was formulated by 'Ala' al-Dawla Simnani (1261–1336), and would go on to attract many followers in India, including Ahmed Sirhindi (1564–1624), who provided some of the most widely accepted formulations of this doctrine in the Indian sub-continent.[12][18] Sirhindi wrote that one should discern the existence of the universe from the absolute and that the absolute does not exist because of existence but because of his essence.[19]
Response to criticism[edit]
Some later Sufis, such Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (1703–1762), tried to reconcile the doctrines of waḥdat al-wujūd (unity of being) of Ibn Arabi and waḥdat ash-shuhūd (unity in conscience) of Sirhindi by downplaying the differences between the two as being based more on terminology than substance.[20]
Sufis in the 19th century, such as Pir Meher Ali Shah and Syed Waheed Ashraf, meanwhile noted that the two concepts only differ in that wahdat-al-wujud states that God and the universe aren't identical.[21][22]
Accusations of pantheism[edit]
The term wahdat al-wujud as a critical mystical notion was ascribed to Ibn 'Arabi for the first time in the polemics of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328).[23][24][25][26] even though he did not employ it in his writings.[27][28][29][30][31][32] It is highly controversial among Wahhabi and Salafi sects of Islam.[33][34]
They accused Ibn 'Arabi of holding pantheist or monist views incompatible with Islam's pure monotheism.[35][36][37][38][39] However, according to a number of scholars including al-Sha'rani (d. 573/1565) and 'Abd al-Ra'uf al-Munawi (d. 1031/1621), the books of Ibn 'Arabi have been altered and distorted by some anonymous apostates and heretics, and therefore many sayings and beliefs were attributed to him, which are not true to what he actually wrote.[40][41]
Proponents of waḥdat al-wujūd such as 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, 'Abd al-Ra'uf b. 'Ali al-Fansuri, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Mir Valiuddin [de] and Titus Burckhardt disagree that waḥdat al-wujūd is identified with pantheism. Nasr, for example, considers that the term pantheism and monism cannot be used to equate with waḥdat al-wujūd.[42][43] Ideas similar to pantheism existed since the early stages of Islam. Jahm writes that God is "in heaven, on earth and in every place; there is no place where He is not (...)" and "He is in everything, neither contiguous nor separated.", a position attacked by Ahmad ibn Hanbal.[44]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ Arts, Tressy, ed. (2014). Oxford Arabic Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199580330.
- ^ Tohfa Mursala by Abu Saeed Mubarak Makhzoomi. yanabi.com. Archived from the original on 18 May 2016.
- ^ S.H. Nasr (2006), Islamic Philosophy from its Origin to the Present: Philosophy in the Land of Prophecy, State University of New York Press, p. 156
- ^ Jump up to:a b "Ibn al-'Arabi, Muhyi al-Din (1164-1240)". www.muslimphilosophy.com.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Imaginal worlds, William Chiittick (1994), pg.53
- ^ Ibn Arabi. Fasus-al-Hikam (PDF).
- ^ Ibn-e-Arabi. Fasus-al-Hikam.
- ^ "A History of Muslim Philosophy, pg. 409".
- ^ Jump up to:a b Chittick, William (24 February 2020). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ Imaginal worlds, William Chiittick(1994), pg.15
- ^ "Unity of Being in Ibn Arabi".
- ^ Jump up to:a b Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present(2006), pg76
- ^ Hadi, Nabi (1995). "MuhhibbullahIlahabadi, Shaikh". Dictionary of Indo-Persian Literature. Abhinav Publications. p. 427. ISBN 978-81-7017-311-3. Retrieved 10 November 2014.
- ^ Moris, Zailan (5 November 2013). tashkik. ISBN 9781136858598.
- ^ "index". www.muslimphilosophy.com.
- ^ Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present, pg 78
- ^ Jump up to:a b Alexander D. Knysh, Ibn Arabi in the Later Islamic Tradition. Pg. 169. State University of New York Press: Albany, 1999.
- ^ 'Tasawwuf' book in Urdu by Syed Waheed Ashraf
- ^ MaktoobatRabbaniyah
- ^ G. N. Jalbani, The Teachings of Shah Waliyullah of Delhi, pg98
- ^ TehqiqulHaq fi KalamatulHaq a book by PirMeher Ali Shah
- ^ 'Tasawwuf' a book in Urdu by Syed Waheed Ashraf
- ^ Amin Banani; Richard Hovannisian; Georges Sabagh, eds. (1994). Poetry and Mysticism in Islam: The Heritage of Rumi. Cambridge University Press. p. 70. ISBN 9780521454766.
- ^ Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi' (2008). Spiritual Dimensions of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi's Risale-I Nur. SUNY Press. p. 295. ISBN 9780791474747.
the name of Ibn 'Arabi appears often in Nursi's work in connection with the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud, a doctrine to be avoided in his view. While this phrase tends to be linked with Ibn 'Arabi's name by both his supporters and detractors, it has to be approached with great caution.
- ^ William C. Chittick. "Wahdat al-Wujud in India" (PDF). Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences. Stony Brook University.
In itself, waḥdat al-wujūd does not designate any specific doctrine. Over history, it came to have a variety of meanings depending on who was using it. Certainly, when it came to be controversial, Ibn ʿArabī's name was usually mentioned. Nonetheless, there is no doctrine that he or any of his early followers called waḥdat al-wujūd.
- ^ "Wujud". www.iis.ac.uk. The Institute of Ismaili Studies. Archived from the original on 10 September 2021.
Ibn al–'Arabi (d. 638/1240) is regarded as the father of the concept of wahdat al–wujud (the unity of being).
- ^ William C. Chittick (2012). In Search of the Lost Heart: Explorations in Islamic Thought. SUNY Press. p. 73. ISBN 9781438439358.
But Ibn al-'Arabi himself, so far as is known, never employed the term wahdat al-wujud in his enormous corpus of writings," even though he frequently discussed wujud and the fact that it can be described as possessing the attribute of oneness or unity...
- ^ David Lee (2015). "Peter G. Riddell (Foreword)". Contextualization of Sufi Spirituality in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century China: The Role of Liu Zhi (c.1662-c.1730). Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 45. ISBN 9781498225229.
The history of the term wahdat al-wujud is summarized by Chittick: The term is not found in the writings of Ibn al-'Arabi.
- ^ Amin Banani; Richard Hovannisian; Georges Sabagh, eds. (1994). Poetry and Mysticism in Islam: The Heritage of Rumi. Cambridge University Press. p. 81. ISBN 9780521454766.
But Ibn al-'Arabī never employs the term wahdat al-wujūd, while Qūnawi only mentions it in passing.
- ^ "Ibn 'Arabî (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 20 June 2013.
Ibn 'Arabî has typically been called the founder of the doctrine of wahdat al-wujûd, the Oneness of Being or the Unity of Existence, but this is misleading, for he never uses the expression.
- ^ "Oneness of Being (waḥdat al-wujūd)". The Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi Society (MIAS). Archived from the original on 10 September 2021.
There is broad agreement amongst Ibn ʿArabī specialists that he did not use the term waḥdat al-wujūd (Oneness of Being or Unity of Existence) in his own writings, and hence did not employ this expression in his Sufi philosophical doctrine. The first to have used it, several decades after the death of Ibn ʿArabī in the late 7th century and early 8th century of the Hijri calendar, was Ibn Taymiyya, who employed the term negatively, as a critique and condemnation.
- ^ "Ibn 'Arabî (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 10 September 2021.
The first author to say that Ibn 'Arabî believed in wahdat al-wujûd seems to have been the Hanbalite polemicist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), who called it worse than unbelief.
- ^ "Martyrdom of al-Hallaj and Unity of the Existence: the Condemners and the Commenders" (PDF). Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). International Journal of Islamic Thought (IJIT). p. 106.
Wahdat al-wujud is a very most polemical topic discussed in the world of Islamic Tasawwuf or Sufism since 2nd century of Islamic history. This issue continued to be debated from time to time until today.
- ^ "Ibn ʽArabī's thought on waḥdat al-wujud and its relevance to religious diversity" (PDF). www.iis.ac.uk. State Islamic Institute Mataram. p. 30.
THE HISTORY of the development of Islamic thought was tinged by the controversy of Sufi philosophical thinking developed by Ibn ʽArabī, a prime exponent of the doctrine of the unity of being (waḥdat al-wujūd).
- ^ Roger S. Gottlieb (2006). The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology. Oxford University Press. p. 210. ISBN 9780199727698.
- ^ "Ibn ʽArabī's thought on waḥdat al-wujud and its relevance to religious diversity" (PDF). www.iis.ac.uk. State Islamic Institute Mataram. pp. 60–61.
Many Muslim scholars judge Ibn ʽArabī as a pantheist. A.E. Affifi, for example, considers him a pantheist, and views this type of sufism as perfect pantheism. Fazlur Rahman also says that the teachings of Ibn ʽArabī are a system entirely monistic and pantheistic contrary to the teachings of Islamic orthodoxy. The same view on this matter is given by Hamka and Ahmad Daudy.
- ^ Richard Foltz (2003). Worldviews, Religion, and the Environment: A Global Anthology. Cengage Learning. p. 360. ISBN 9780534596071.
- ^ International Association for the History of Religions, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Instituut voor Godsdienstwetenschap, University of Leeds (1987). Science of Religion. Vol. 12. Institute for the Study of Religion, Free University [and] Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds. p. 81.
Wahdat al-wujud, "unity of being" is applied to Ibn 'Arabi's (560/1165-638/1240) mystical doctrine, which became a target of severe criticism from the orthodoxy.
- ^ Indian Institute of Islamic Studies (1982). Studies in Islam: Quarterly Journal of the Indian Institute of Islamic Studies. Vol. 19. p. 233.
His mystical theories not only came to be supported by a large following, but also became a target of severe criticism from the orthodoxy (ulamā - i zāhir), for whom their expounder was an heretic and an apostate.
- ^ Stephen Hirtenstein; Michael Tiernan, eds. (1993). Muhyiddin Ibn'Arabi (1165-1240 A.D.): A Volume of Translations and Studies Commemorating the 750th Anniversary of His Life and Work. Element Books Ltd. p. 311. ISBN 9781852303952.
- ^ "حكم من يدعي إجماع أهل السنة على تكفير الإمام محيي الدين بن العربي". Egypt's Dar al-Ifta (in Arabic). Archived from the original on 23 July 2021.
- ^ "Ibn ʽArabī's thought on waḥdat al-wujud and its relevance to religious diversity" (PDF). www.iis.ac.uk. State Islamic Institute Mataram. pp. 61–62.
- ^ Farzin Vahdat (2015). Islamic Ethos and the Specter of Modernity. Anthem Press. p. 209. ISBN 9781783084388.
Nasr thus rejects an interpretation of the ontological doctrines of wahdat al-wujud (unity of existence) in which human status can be elevated by the symbolic journey towards the Divine realm: "The pantheistic accusations against the Sufis are doubly false because, first of all, pantheism is a philosophical system, whereas Muhyi al-Din [Ibn 'Arabi] and others like him never claimed to follow or create any "system" whatsoever; and secondly, because pantheism implies a substantial continuity between God and the Universe [including humans], whereas the Shaikh [Ibn al-'Arabi] would be the first to claim God's absolute transcendence over every category, including that of substance." Running into difficulties in his interpretation of the notion of "unity of existence" Nasr further wrote that wahdat al-wujud is neither pantheism, nor panentheism, nor existential monism...
- ^ Morris S. Seale Muslim Theology A study of Origins with Reference to the Church Fathers Great Russel Street, London 1964 p. 62