Being a student of knowledge is undoubtedly a meritorious endeavor. That is, if you do it for the right reasons. As I mentioned elsewhere, the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam forbade us from earning knowledge for the sake of argumentation and other ignoble reasons. Alhamdulillaah, the Ummah has enough students of knowledge - we see more every day. Yet how many are students of Islam? That is to say how many are willing to accept the Truth from the Quran, the Sunnah, the Sahaabiyaat, and the classical scholars without having a pre-conceived notion?

     Yet I can hardly blame the students of knowledge who were immediately told, upon signing for the job, "Republican or Democrat? Chicken or Beef? Salafi or Sufi?" The fact is one can hardly study in any religious institution that is not already aligned with a methodology and an approach to Islam. And while that may be useful in learning one of the schools of thought on Islam, it is up to the "Independent" to take from various sources to get a more holistic view of Islam.

       I know the Truth can be a scary thing. This is not only true of atheists, Jews and Christians, and "others" whom we ask to be fair and unbiased, but applies to us as well. For most of us have notions we were raised with, that our parents or society taught us, that we instinctively felt, and when those notions are challenged, it takes some strength not to as the Quran describes it, be "averse". So how can we ask others to give up their whole lives, everything they knew and held dear, if we are not ready to do the same?

     The person who sincerely seeks the Truth, "no fear shall be upon them, nor shall they grieve". For if you find you are mistaken, you will be happy to correct yourself and align yourself with the Truth, and if you find you are correct, you will be happy to have even greater conviction and firmer resolve. But this is not an easy state to achieve. Most people simply cannot let go and are fooling themselves when they fancy themselves independent. This does not in any way mean you may not have beliefs, just that you are willing to give them up for things which may be frightening or unpleasant, simply because you can admit the Truth.

     Another issue is that of "guidance". There is a lot of worry that perhaps you will be "misguided" if you are "open" - but how do you know that you are guided in the first place? Because someone told you? The only way is to be sincere towards Allah and let Him guide you - to not reject the Truth when it becomes available to you.  For if you have no pre-conceived notion, it will not harm you. If the Truth supports this, you go towards this, and if the Truth supports that, you go towards that. Although guidance is an important issue, the WAY most people have of "ensuring" guidance is simple - do not listen to the others who are "misguided". So how would a Christian, who is also of course keen on not being "misguided" by a bunch of devilish, barbaric polytheists (Muslims) ever come to Islam? How would an atheist abandon his supposed objective, scientific reality for "religious delusion"? The fact is, Islam IS the Truth and ENCOMPASSES the Truth, all of it, and a KNOWLEDGABLE Muslim fears to go nowhere.

     This leads to another unfortunate issue - that of suppressing knowledge. In the Quran, Allah makes numerous entreaties to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians, the recipients of previous revelations) to not hide the Truth (the coming of Muhammad, the revelation of God, etc.). Yet how often we see Muslims following in their footsteps - they hide some information that would take away from what they want others to believe, all in the name of "saving others". Yet as the Quran mentions of those who think they are making sure others are "guided" (and by guided they mean think the way they do) or fooling Allah and the Believers, they only fool themselves. Why not admit the Truth and what Truth from Islam are we afraid of anyway?

     Which brings me to the central point of this paper - a case study of how far things have become polarized amongst the Muslims. Aside from the laypeople, who by in large, try their best to fulfill their worship to God, most of the "knowledgable" people are the ones who have rent the Ummah in two. Perhaps they have good intentions and want to save us from ourselves and all that, but they do so by suppressing knowledge or presenting things AS IF there is ijmaa’ah (concensus) on an issue when none exist.

     Take the two "sons", Ibn ‘Arabi and Ibn Taymiyyah. Unfortunately, these two figures have become SYMBOLIC for each side, and no longer can anyone see them for what they were - but they must be aggrandized and made "sacred" because they represent two philosophies and approaches to Islam. Perhaps any of you who "do not know", meaning those who are open to information, will find the following information about them interesting (I make no claim to interest those who "know" for most likely they do not see information as information, but merely as ammunition or scandal).

     Ibn Taymiyyah, rahimahullaah

     Ibn Taymiyyah (1263 - 1328) was a great Hanbali scholar and considered "Shaykh ul Islaam" due to his immense knowledge. I have seen some people downplay his knowledge or impact, but no doubt, these people are not just in their assessment. I don’t think anyone can doubt his knowledge or his impact on religious matters. Nevertheless, he did diverge from the Hanbali school and was censured and even imprisoned for some of his beliefs and fataawaa, some of which were heavily refuted or flatly contradicted by other ‘ulemaa` of his time.

     However, the REAL issue with Ibn Taymiyyah is not if he was right or wrong, but the fact that he is the "founder" of the "Salafi da’wah". Salafis, of course claim there is no founder except the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam himself, and  I am sure are sincere in this belief. But the fact remains that Ibn Taymiyyah came with opinions not previously held and did have a very dominant personality and had a vigorous and coherent methodology. This is not a problem for him, but rather, the problem is that nowadays, Ibn Taymiyyah is untouchable to Salafis. I have seen many instances where the IDEA that he made a mistake (in fiqh or ‘aqeedah, etc.) is dismissed outright. IF there is any hint of a refutation or rebuke, even from his own students, it is dismissed as fabrication or other (as one site labeled them) "plausible" explanations. (Uh, "plausible" is not the same as "probable" or even "true".) 

     Perhaps Ibn Taymiyyah had great ideas and principles for Islam - yet the status and position he receives in the current da’wah is a little extreme. Many who defend him have not in reality read some of his own statements which would raise some eyebrows in relation to issues of ‘aqeedah, shirk, or kufr. Yet the public must be guarded against those statements because he is no longer a scholar - but a symbol. May Allah have mercy on him - until now I consider Ibn Taymiyyah as very dear to my heart. And I do consider him one of the greatest scholars, beginning with the Tabi’een on down, but I do not delude myself into thinking he was the only one or whom all of Islam must originate from.

     I must say I purposely did not reprint the negative things I have read about Ibn Taymiyyah because I personally believe some of his statements are misunderstood, while some of the statements are vehemently attacked as "baseless" while I have some doubt if indeed they were. Once you see people who can not admit the truth of statements that go against their beliefs, their testimony becomes unreliable. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if after publication of this almost NOTHING about Ibn Taymiyyah, "it" will have to be "refuted" and the symbol will have to be hotly defended, for the very da’wah of "true" Islam depends on this legend. Why publish another book of Seerah when you can study the life of this great scholar and founder of an entire movement? So I leave that to anyone who cares to research it for himself/herself. Why? NOT to indulge in the negative points of ANY of the scholars, but merely to see that things are not always what you are told…  

     Ibn ‘Arabi, rahimahullaah

     Ibn ‘Arabi (1165-1240) was born in ‘Andalus but settled in Damascus. He was known to be a great Mujtahid Imam, and followed the Dhaahiri (literalist) school of thought in Fiqh. He was also known to be a pious ascetic, Sufi mystic, and prolific writer. Aside from that, many of his statements (the same issue lol - one should note not all statements attributed to him are accepted as "authentic") came under scrutiny in his time until now.

     Again, you should know that Ibn ‘Arabi is merely "symbolic" of Sufism and even Traditionalism (I have written elsewhere that the two are not necessarily synonymous). The fact of the matter is that the scholars were divided about him. Some deeply believed he was a saint (walee), and others declared his beliefs heretical or even disbelief. What might surprise many Sufis is that these were not just "anybodys" who disagreed with him. Even some of his own teachers, even those who were masters of Tasawwuf, condemned him.

     Why is this so hard for Sufis to admit? I see countless defenses of one who was not unanimously sanctioned - because again, he is a legendary figure. It would be better if the people were just and said that the people disagreed about him - while keeping his contributions. Yet, Ibn ‘Arabi, being a symbolic figure, is heavily attacked by Salafis, most of whom do not understand any of his writings and could not be just to him to save their lives (of course, when attacking someone, you need not verify sources), and also fanatically defended by Sufis. It’s as if the Salafis are saying "Sufism, you mean, like Ibn ‘Arabi?!", seeking to cite an "extreme" example of spirituality gone awry as a kind of blanket refutation of something which also cannot be given just estimate (ie Sufism). And the Sufis of course must rush to his defense, seeking to erase any blemish on the legendary figure.

     The sad thing is this is so extreme it’s almost shocking - I wrote an article a few weeks back MENTIONING Ibn ‘Arabi and in fact what I said about him was you could say, something a Salafi could take as a "point" for their side - yet it did not stop a Salafi brother from writing an entire "refutation" of Ibn ‘Arabi based on nothing! (Should I be flattered that my MENTIONING someone is enough to illicit a clarification?) And this grew, with another brother calling me and saying, "You like Ibn ‘Arabi, the one who said such and such…"?! So you see, :) at no point will either of these political parties let an incident go by that they don’t have to make sure that everyone knows exactly what to think about the "Sons of War". We are supposed to be Ahl us Sunnah - but now add to that Ahl Ibn Taymiyyah or Ahl Ibn ‘Arabiyy too? I challenge you - simply ask a group of people what they think of either of these "decisive" figures - and I dare you to get a "mixed" answer. The responses have been programmed very well depending on who you are. May Allah save us from the traps of Shaitaan, fixated on useless issues and dividing our Ummah further.             

     So why do we do it? Because da’wah is now politics, and instead of discussing ISSUES, we discuss PERSONALITIES. And of course, trust - who do you trust? Why the guy with the big grin and the easy answers, who says, "Vote for this guy - he’s your ticket to salvation! And here’s all the dirt on the other guy!"

     Things have gone too far and I pray that this "violence" stops. Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullaah was one of the greatest scholars of Islam, a brilliant writer, and not the founder of Islam. Ibn ‘Arabi was a great scholar, known for personal devotion, and also not the founder of Islam. What these men brought of Truth, take it, and what they erred on, may Allah forgive them. If they were wrong on any matter, what harm can it do to Islam? For Islam is above that and these tribalistic alliances should end. You will not be asked in the grave your opinion of either of these.

     Perhaps the best answer I have seen was the one given by Imam An-Nawawi, rahimahullaahu ta’aalaa, when asked about Ibn ‘Arabi:

That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned, and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do.

This entry was posted on Monday, May 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm and is filed under Seeking Islam. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.