Your understanding of the difference of sufism vs Islam

[Link]

Also Ibn Arabi believed everything is constantly created, destroyed and recreated. See his tafsir about the first creation and last creation verse, he believes everything constantly is maintained by God creating it from his own essence and that everything constantly is destroyed and recreated. He believes this about both light and dark aspects of creation.

He is saying there is no difference in any moment, God is creating time through destroying and recreating every moment, and we see it as all connected, but there is no time in reality connecting things, it's God creating, destroying, and recreating, that creates moments of time.

He doesn't believe creation can exist on it's own or that God can even possible create a stable perpetual creation, he constantly has to maintain by creating, destroying, recreating.

Ibn Arabi said a lot of wrong thing in his works, but he said a lot of insights. Like all scholars, some of his intuition is right, some of it is not.

In his explanation everything descends from God then returns to him after being destroyed, then recreated by descend and then up to him, and this constantly happens and we can't even see it, but this how moments are created.

 

[Link]

He also explained this with how God is first and last, especially with respect to being last.

 

[firedragon]

Brother I use to be obsessed with reading Ibn Arabi and sufi books in general. You don't understand it properly and I don't mean to be rude about that. But I've studied for so many years. There is a lot of hyperbola Ibn Arabi uses. I don't like Ibn Arabi too much myself, but he taught a lot of insights and his view is panentheism.

Pantheism - God is all things
Panentheism = God is all things + but God is beyond all things and transcends.

If you read his Fusus, he talks about how God is seen/not seen, manifest yet unseen, known yet unknown, with all creation, beyond all creation.

You aren't doing his works justice with this oversimplification.

Panentheism is a word that is underlined in red, because it's hardly known. It's pantheism but with addition God transcends.

There is three views when it comes to oneness of all things.

Monism (everything is one)
Panthesim (God is everything)
Panentheism (God is everything + transcends all things)

Ibn Arabi was of the 3rd view. Same with Rumi.

LInk. I am specifically referring to the concept of God. Simple.

Anyway, you are saying Ibn Arabi was a penentheist right?

1. Even if he is a panentheist, it is still everything is God. So in my post, I said everything exactly fitting in the model of panentheism.

2. I know that just saying "pantheism" is absolutely oversimplifying Ibn Arabi. Ibn Arabi says "Adam was the first mother". Its way beyond this level of fundamentalism. I am only being specific. So please do point out the exact writing that describes Ibn Arabi being Panentheistic.

Thanks.

 

[Link]

His famous Fusus.

 

[firedragon]

He also explained this with how God is first and last, especially with respect to being last.

I will never forget, one day when I was praising Ibn Arabi with a Sufi, you called it satanic and told me I am helping satanic teachings.

 

[firedragon]

His famous Fusus.

Which chapter? What makes it panentheistic?

 

[Link]

I will never forget, one day when I was praising Ibn Arabi with a Sufi, you called it satanic and told me I am helping satanic teachings.

I think he is Satanic because he is too liberal in interpreting Quran and also is almost transitioning Islam to soothsaying type religion. He is a source of corruption and good.

I can believe someone is bad yet still acknowledge where they are right. That is why I don't really care for chains in ilmel rijaal, because even a liar, will narrate a lot true hadiths but mix with lies.

 

[Link]

Which chapter? What makes it panentheistic?

The first one I believe, outward and inward, God is present and beyond, seen and not seen explaination and how he is all things but all things are nothing compared to him. It's the Tashbih and what it means chapter. We have to say God has no likeness yet see him through his signs/likeness type explanation.

I have to go back and see, but what I recall it was the first chapter.

 

[Link]

I believe Ibn Arabi type tafsir where he puts absurd meaning to verses including the Kalima "There is no God but God" to mean everything worshipped is God being worshipped, is too far. He has some really absurd explanations of verses.

I believe we have to condemn him for that, and I believe a big problem with the nation, is they resort to ambiguities rather than clear signs.

I believe Ibn Arabi did that too much and if we copy his method, we will never unite on truth but will go further astray in divisions.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I believe Ibn Arabi type tafsir where he puts absurd meaning to verses including the Kalima "There is no God but God" to mean everything worshipped is God being worshipped, is too far. He has some really absurd explanations of verses.

I believe we have to condemn him for that, and I believe a big problem with the nation, is they resort to ambiguities rather then clear signs.

I believe Ibn Arabi did that too much and if we copy his method, we will never unite on truth but will go further astray in divisions.

As a sufi I don't find your view offensive nor does others in this OP offend my belief in sufi teaching.

 

[Link]

As a sufi I don't find your view offensive nor does others in this OP offend my belief in sufi teaching.

We shouldn't be attached to anyone but God and the means to God is not normal humans but his chosen ones. I use to be attached to Ibn Arabi because of Khomeini (q) praise of him, but I realized it was irrational.

Ibn Arabi is a great teacher to humans, but he mixes so much falsehood with insights, to me it's better we devote our time to Quran and Ahlulbayt (a) instead, and always resort things back to Quran primarily.

Thank you for not being offended. When people insult Mohammad (s), I don't take offense, because I know they have not witnessed his holy spirit and his light. If they did, they wouldn't say the none-sense they do about him.

 

[firedragon]

I think he is Satanic because he is too liberal in interpreting Quran and also is almost transitioning Islam to soothsaying type religion. He is a source of corruption and good.

I can believe someone is bad yet still acknowledge where they are right. That is why I don't really care for chains in ilmel rijaal, because even a liar, will narrate a lot true hadiths but mix with lies.

Oh so you believe his conception. Okay okay.

The first one I believe, outward and inward, God is present and beyond, seen and not seen explaination and how he is all things but all things are nothing compared to him. It's the Tashbih and what it means chapter. We have to say God has no likeness yet see him through his signs/likeness type explanation.

I have to go back and see, but what I recall it was the first chapter.

Isn't the first chapter sulalah al adam? I think. Just see if you can give what you are exactly referring to.

Read that again Link. I think you are referring to Abraham. Where Ibn Arabi discusses god being manifest and beyond. That is taken into the idea of aparentism. That does not mean panentheism. That is showing his dhifaini or the duality. That means he is manifest in the attributes and he is beyond. That does not mean his creation and he is also present outside his creation and creation is within him.

Even if you insist, it still is within my posts capacity. That is what you must understand.

 

[Link]

Oh so you believe his conception. Okay okay.



Isn't the first chapter sulalah al adam? I think. Just see if you can give what you are exactly referring to.

Read that again Link. I think you are referring to Abraham. Where Ibn Arabi discusses god being manifest and beyond. That is taken into the idea of aparentism. That does not mean panentheism. That is showing his dhifaini or the duality. That means he is manifest in the attributes and he is beyond. That does not mean his creation and he is also present outside his creation and creation is within him.

Even if you insist, it still is within my posts capacity. That is what you must understand.

You are correct, I was emphasizing on transcendence proof. But to him, all things were made of God, but how?

See his explanation of everything being created and recreated.

Also in the same chapter about Adam (a), if I recall Adam (a) is where all "titles/names" is found, and so united all of creation in him. So to him the light of Adam (a) unites all of creation but also he talked about how every particular creation manifests God and so there is the united image (Adam) and there is all of creation other then Image of God, which have features from God but don't unite all his titles and features.

This essentially what he means by God is everything, everything is a particular manifestation of God while Adam (a) unites all glory and beauty in creation, and hence is chosen.

But there is more discussion on how God creates everything from himself. In this chapter, he also doesn't just mentioned Adam (a) as a likeness, but everything is a likeness because it comes from God and returns to him, but a particular angle, while Adam (a) is centered and unites all infinite glories and beauties from God and found in creation.

I thought you were asking for proof of transcendence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

We shouldn't be attached to anyone but God and the means to God is not normal humans but his chosen ones. I use to be attached to Ibn Arabi because of Khomeini (q) praise of him, but I realized it was irrational.

Ibn Arabi is a great teacher to humans, but he mixes so much falsehood with insights, to me it's better we devote our time to Quran and Ahlulbayt (a) instead, and always resort things back to Quran primarily.

Thank you for not being offended. When people insult Mohammad (s), I don't take offense, because I know they have not witnessed his holy spirit and his light. If they did, they wouldn't say the none-sense they do about him.

I agree with you that one should not be attached to anything on this earth not even to our spiritual teacher or imams, and focus our time and effort to God.
We might understand God different but that is not a reason for feeling offended or feeling one must attack each others belief and understanding.
We can only do our very best as servant of God, then it is up to God to accept us or not.

 

[Link]

I agree with you that one should not be attached to anything on this earth not even to our spiritual teacher or imams, and focus our time and effort to God.
We might understand God different but that is not a reason for feeling offended or feeling one must attack each others belief and understanding.
We can only do our very best as servant of God, then it is up to God to accept us or not.

Well spoken.

 

[firedragon]

You are correct, I was emphasizing on transcendence proof. But to him, all things were made of God, but how?

See his explanation of everything being created and recreated.

Also in the same chapter about Adam (a), if I recall Adam (a) is where all "titles/names" is found, and so united all of creation in him. So to him the light of Adam (a) unites all of creation but also he talked about how every particular creation manifests God and so there is the united image (Adam) and there is all of creation other then Image of God, which have features from God but don't unite all his titles and features.

This essentially what he means by God is everything, everything is a particular manifestation of God while Adam (a) unites all glory and beauty in creation, and hence is chosen.

But there is more discussion on how God creates everything from himself. In this chapter, he also doesn't just mentioned Adam (a) as a likeness, but everything is a likeness because it comes from God and returns to him, but a particular angle, while Adam (a) is centered and unites all infinite glories and beauties from God and found in creation.

I thought you were asking for proof of transcendence.

I was not asking for transcendence. I was asking for Panentheism. Even Sufi's who criticise him have always done so for his pantheistic conception. SO I am interested in understanding exactly where you got panentheism from in Ibn Arabi's work. Some Sufi's, Sunnis and even some prominent Shii's like Shaykh Ahmad of Bahrain criticised Ibn Arabi for his Pantheistic conception of God. I mean someone like Shaykh Ahmad, being a direct student if "Irfan", and a heavy mystic, still refuted Ibn Arabi.

Anyway, if you get to some text just point it out here.

 

[Link]

There is two components to Panentheism:

God transcends all things
God is all things

I think the Adam (a) chapter shows both and why and how, but which one of the two you asking proof for?

 

[Link]

This is from Du'a Jawthan Kabir (from Nabi Mohammad (s) - he use to carry this du'a which has 1000 titles from God to battle), the following is 10 titles:

يَا نُورَ النُّورِ
O Light of the light,
ya nuran-nur

يَا مُنَوِّرَ النُّورِ
O Illuminator of light,
ya munaw-wiran-nur

يَا خَاِلقَ النُّورِ
O Creator of light
ya khaliqan-nur

يَا مُدَبِّرَ النُّورِ
O Planner of light,
ya mudab-biran-nuri

يَا مُقَدِّرَ النُّورِ
O measurer/limiter of light,
ya muqad-diran-nur

يَا نُورَ كُلِّ نُورٍ
O Light of every light,
ya nura kul-li nur

يَّا نُوراً قَبْلَ كُلِّ نُورٍ
O Light before every light,
ya nuran qab-la kul-li nur

يَّا نُوراً بَعْدَ كُلِّ نُورٍ
O Light after every light,
ya nuram ba`a-da kul-li nur

يَّا نُوراً فَوْقَ كُلِّ نُورٍ
O Light that is above every light,
ya nuran faw-qa kul-li nur

يَّا نُوراً لَّيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ نُورٌ
O Light like of which there is no light.
ya nural-laysa kamith-lihi nur

سُبْحَانَكَ يَا لا إلَهَ إلاّ أنْتَ
Praise be to You, there is no god but You,
subhanaka ya la ilaha illa anta

الغَوْثَ الغَوْثَ
[I beseech you for] the help, the help
al-ghawth al-ghawth

خَلِّصْنا مِنَ النّارِ يا رَبِّ.
Free us from the Fire, O Lord.
khallisna minan-nari ya rabb

 

[Link]

Here is the Du'a:

Duaa Jawshan Kabeer - Ramadan - Duas.org

 

[Yazata]

For you that are not a Muslim or a Sufi.

I'm neither one.

What is your understanding of the two teachings of Sufism vs Islam ?

I perceive Sufism to be a particularly pietist subset of Islam. It is the practice of inward devotion to God as contrasted with the arguably more superficial devotion inherent in Islamic legalism. Religion of the heart one might say. As such, Sufism seems to me to encompass much of the deep and abundant contemplative tradition of Islam.

Why do you feel the way you do toward the two teachings?

I'm not 100% convinced that they are "two teachings". Traditional Sufism, as I understand it, typically treats outward adherence to Islamic law as a necessary training, discipline and preparation for the deeper inner transformations of adherence to God as they conceive it.

As for me, I'm very much a Western secularist. Islamic law puts me off bigtime. (I won't say more because I don't want to offend our Islamic RF'ers. But it's where I'm coming from.) The strands of Islamic tradition that most interest me as an interested non-Muslim are the deep and interesting philosophical and the Sufi strands.