The third ideology is that of wahdatul-wujood, i.e. that all in existence is a single reality, and that everything we see is only aspects of the Essence of Allaah. The chief claimant of this belief was Ibn ‘Arabee al-Haatimee at-Taa’ee, who was buried in Damascus having died in the year 638H. He himself says about this belief in his book al-Fatoohaat-ul-Makkiyyah”

“The slave is the Lord and the Lord is a slave,
I wish that I knew which was the one required to carry out the required duties.
If I were to say the servant then that is true, or if I were to say the Lord,
then how can that be required for Him.”
Al-Fatoohaat-ul-Makkiyyah as it is attributed by
Dr. Taqiyyuddeen al-Hilaalee in his book al-Hadiyyatul-Haadiyah (p.43).

He also says in al-Fatoohaat:
“Those who worshipped the calf worshipped nothing except Allaah.”
Quoted as Ibn ‘Arabee’s saying by Ibn Tayrniyyah in al Fataawaa (vol.11)
who attributes it to the book al Fatoohaat.

Indeed he praised Fir’awn (Pharaoh) and declared that he died upon eemaan!

Furthermore he speaks against Haroon for his criticism of his peoples worship of the calf, thus directly opposing the text of the Qur’aan.

He also held that the Christians were Unbelievers only because they made divinity particular to ‘Eesaa, whereas if they had made it general to all then they would not have been unbelievers. [Despite all the gross deviation of Ibn 'Arabee and the fact that the scholars declared him to be an Unbeliever, yet he is revered by the Sufis and others who do not distinguish between the truth and falsehood, and those who turnaway from accepting the truth even when it is as clear as the sun. But his books, which are filled with clear apostasy, such as al-Fatoohaatul-Makkiyyah and Fusoosul-Hikam are still circulated. He even has a tafseer, which he called at-Tafseerul-Baatin since he holds that there is an apparent and a hidden meaning for every Aayah, so the outer meaning is for the people of Ta'weel]

The scholar Burhaanuddeen al-Baqqaa’ee said, explaining the beliefs of Ibn ‘Arabee at the start of his book, Tanbeebul-Ghabee:

“Firstly it must be known that his speech, i.e. that of Ibn ‘Arabee, revolves around unrestricted unity of allexistence, that there is nothing besides this world, and that the Deity is a composite whole which does not exist except within its parts.”

Ibn ‘Arabee held that all the pagans and idol-worshippers were upon the truth since Allaah is in his view everything. Therefore whoever worshipped an idol, or worshipped a stone, or a tree, or a human, or a star, then he has worshipped Allaah.

O brothers, if the Sabians were unbelievers because they worshipped the stars, and the Jews were unbelievers because they worshipped the calf, and the Christians were unbelievers because they worshipped ‘Eesaa, and the Quraysh were unbelievers before Islaam because they worshipped idols…then how can the one who calls to the worship of all these things not be an unbeliever? [See Hadhihi Hiyas-Soofiyyah (p.38)].

Ibn ‘Arabee even admits his belief that all religions are one and that his heart is ready to embrace every sect and religion.

SourceThe Reality of Sufism in Light of the Qur’an and the Sunnah – Muhammad al-Madhkhalee [PDF]

As to what proceeds: The noble shaikh, al-Allaamah Saalih ibnu Fawzaan ibni Abdillaah al-Fawzaan was asked the following question:

Question:

I find some vagueness between Ibnu Arabee and Ibnul Arabee. I would hope that you would explain for us the difference between the two and their most well, known writings?

Answer:

The difference between the two is clear. Ibnu Arabee without the definite article [attached to the name Arabee] is the well known heretic who used to espouse Wahdatul Wujood and he was one of the extremist Soofees who were eventually lead to the issue of ilhaad, the statements of Wahdatul Wujood and that there is no difference between the Creator and the creation. And according to his aqeedah, all that exist is Allaah, the Most High.

As for Ibnul Arabee, with the definite article [attached to the name Arabee], then he is the well-known, lofty imaam, Aboo Bakr ibnul Arabee, al-Maalikee who had noble writings in the area of hadeeth and tafseer and a noble book, defending the Companions, which he called al-Awaasim minal Qawaasim.

He defended in that book, Islaam and the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alaihe wa alaa Aalihee wa Sahbihee wa sallam.

It is a noble book and he also has a book entitled Tafseeru Aayaatil Ahkaam, in two huge, volumes. He also has an explanation of the Sunan of [al-Imaam] at-Tirmidhee called Aaridatul Ahwadhee fee sharhit Tirmidhee.

All of these books are published and to be [easily] found and all the praise is due to Allaah.

Therefore, there is an obvious difference between these two men; one is an astray disbeliever, and that is none other than Ibnu Arabee, al-Haatimee, at-Taa’ee while [the other one] Ibnul Arabee is a noble, lofty imaam known for correctness, knowledge and fear of Allaah.

Source: al-Muntaqaa minal Fataawaa of the noble Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan, volume two, pages 306-07    

Dawud Adib the son of David C.White Sr.

Jazaakum Allaahu khayran.  It should be noted that this is not absolute, as some of the ‘ulamaa’ do not go by this.  Just as some say Ibn ‘Uthaymeen sometimes and Ibn al-’Uthaymeen sometimes, ‘Abbaas, al-’Abbaas, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn al-Qayyim, etc., they may say Ibn ‘Arabee and Ibn al-’Arabee for the same person.  And Allaah knows best.

Moosaa ibn John Richardson

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=3943&bookmark=1

Related Links: