Customer Reviews

Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn Arabi (Golden Palm)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Of all the technical terms used in Suffism, Walayah seem to be playing a central and key role in the Sufi philosophy. This same word appears, over and over, in Shiism as well to such a degree that it would not be an exaggeration to claim that there would not be a Shiism if the word walayah was eliminated from it, just as Quran would fall apart as a divine book if one eliminated the word "Allah" and his Oneness from it. It was Shia understanding that while it is possible, and indeed necessary, for the cycle of prophecy to come to an end , but it is not possible, ontologically, for the cycle of Walayah to ever to come to an end. From the very early period of its development, Shia Imams put the entire foundation of Shiism on the notion of Walayah, without which the divine purpose of " I wish to appoint a Khalifah on earth" would be disrupted and become unrealizable. The Ontological reason for the necessity of Walayah, Imams tell us, is the very fact that one of Allah's Names is the Name "Wali" and this Name will always have its "manifestation" in all levels, including in our physical plane of existence. This manifestation is necessary for cosmos to continue and it is irrelevant whether people will recognize the Imam or "Perfect Man" as such or not, just as it makes no difference, in an ontological sense, whether people believe in "Allah" and his Ever-Presence or not . This is the secret behind the philosophy and function of the "hidden Imam" , Al-Mahdi, in Shiism. When Shia Imams were confronted with the question of what the use of a "hidden Imam" would be, their answer was " people still benefit from Sun whether it is behind the clouds or not". This provides a very interesting clue as the existential function of an Imam, from Shia point of view. Sun being behind the clouds, and visually absent from our eyes, is not the same as having Sun removed all together, in which case life as we know it will cease to exist on earth. It is important to notice that the earliest versions of shia documents, always emphasize on the trinity of Oneness of Allah, messenger-hood of Prophet and Walayah of Imams. In the teaching of Imams, Walayah is the differentiating factor between "Islam" and "Iman." The first one requires only a verbal admission of Oneness of Allah and prophecy of Prophet, and the second one is when one enters the sanctuary of Walayah, as Quran alludes to this in the verse " and they say we have Iman, say nay, rather you have become Moslems and Iman has not yet penetrated your hearts.." Once one examines these documents, it becomes clear how close the idea of walayah in Suffism is with that of Shiism and the influence of Shii teachings on the formulation of this key concepts among Sufis. However, one important distinction remains between that of Shia undersatnding of Walayah and that of Suffism. In Shiism, Walayah, or more precisely Imamt, is not comparable with Walayah of suffism, for Imams, according to Shia teachings, is a state of "Ismat" and difference between a sufi Wali and an Imam is the same as a sufi Wali and the Prophet himself. Many of Ibna-Al Arabi's comments in Futuhat reflects this if one is willing to read the text carefully enough. It seems to me that eventually suffism began to spread throughout rapidly expanding Islamic world, and with it, each culture injected their own background into suffism and it began to widen its gap with Shiism, and even with their own early masters. This may explain why Ibne-Al Arabi, the greatest master, felt he had to write as much as he did, or why so many other great sufis began distancing themselves from popular suffism. We can see this culturalization even at our own time with popularization of suffism in the west, and anyone who has had contact with some of the western or westernized sufism begins to wonder if Ibne-Al Arabi is not turning in his grave. But this kind of transformation from original happens all the time even to atheistic philosophies such as Marxism, with its popularization in third world countries which transformed it from a "philosophy" into a "religion". While this great book examines Walayah in our great Master's writings, it would be very constructive to have a book written on Walayah in Shiism.

I find Sufism a fascinating dimension of Islam. More fascinating is the Shiism with their notion of Imams and the philosophy of the "absent Imam" usually referred to as Mahdi. From what I understand, Mahdiism is common between Sunni and Shia Islam and, as author of this book mentions, even Ibne' Al-Arabi mentions his name and claims to have had close encounter with him. What amazed me was the fact that even though there has been, among Sunni Moslems at least, many claims by different people to have been the promised Mahdi, there has been no such thing among Shies. I always wondered why and I think I have discovered the reason for it. The reason seems to be in the extraordinary attribute of the Imams of Shia, which is usually referred to by "Ismat". This attribute ,at first, seems to be equivalent to the "infallibility" familiar in the west. But as one looks closer,one realises that this means alot more than what the word " ifallible" means in the west. It seemed the "Ismat" qualification put such a stringent requirement on the "Imam" that is almost impossible for one to claim to possess such an attribute. For example, An Imam's knowledge, we are told, is so extraordinary that he can meet any challenge, at any age, put forth to him by the most powerful minds of his time regardless of their field of expertise. No wonder no one among Shia dares to claim to be the promised Mahdi, and one wonders if such a person can ever exist. But of course one never knows since we have seen many strange things in our time that defies human intuition and knowledge. I find it fascinating how Shiism came up with means of preventing promised "Mahdi's" popping up, all over the place, and hence cheapening the idea, by creating such a stringent qualification. Maybe that was the point, to create an everlasting hope for something impossible, a hope for an impossible perfection, a continuously forward-looking philosophy. Or maybe such a person does exist and is, in a sense, a divine masterpiece of genetic engineering or as a Sufi might put it a "Perfect Man" in its truest sense. Either way it is a fascinating philosophy.

This is an excellent monograph on Ibn Arabi's doctrine of sainthood. Chodkiewicz lucidly presents the stages comprising the sufi path culminating in the Beatific Vision and the subsequent return via the double-ladder to the world of the senses: "Earthly as well as heavenly," writes Chodkiewicz, "the saint is he who brings together the high and the low...like the Muhammadan Reality...he forms the 'isthmus' of the two seas'".

Apart from enumerating the stages-on-the-way, Chodkiewicz explains the important role sainthood plays in sufi metaphysics, paying particular attention to the hierarchy of saints which reaches its apex in the gnostic invested with the station of the "pole" (qutb).

The presence of such a belief in Ibn Arabi led some to argue that the shaikh simply reconstructed the shiite doctrine of the imams mutating it into a sufi-sunni doctrine of sainthood. The fallacy of such a contention is like arguing that the Muslims usurped Divine Unity from the Jews, or the Jews from the ancient Egyptians, because a universal reality -- precisely because of its universality -- is independently accessible. Although hasty historicist speculations are expected from those who deny the existence of a supraphenomenol realm, the alam al-ghaib (the world of the unseen), it is a bit strange when it comes from purported believers in a spiritual domain, irregardless of their religiuos persuasion

To say that Ibn Arabi -- and by extension the sufis -- copied from the shiites is to deny the possibility that they both "drank from the same waters" -- Muhammadan waters that existed prior to both the sufis and the shi'ites, attested to by the Prophet's words: "I was a Prophet when Adam was between spirit and flesh".

Chodkiewicz has comprehensively covered a large terrain comprising the world of the batin or unseen as seen through the eyes of one of Islam's greatest mystical philosophers.

ibn Arabi to anyone who does not know is one of the most controversial figures in Islamic history. It may be fair to say Hallaj is perhaps the most controversial Sufi (Due to him saying "Ana al-Haqq" or "I am the truth") But ibn Arabi is by far more reaching due to his wide influence on Sufism and Islam both during and after his death.

The Mamaluks were supporters of ibn Arabi, it is said that after Sultan Selim the Ottoman conquered Syria he had an eloborage mausoleum built over the resting place of ibn Arabi. He was read by Abdul Qadir Jaziri (A man who is a hero to one and all in Algeria regardless of religious adherence or lack of it) whose book Mawaqif is based upon the teachings of ibn Arabi, Naqshbandis, Rifa'i's, Khalwatis and Qadiris all read the books of ibn Arabi throughout the Ottoman empire and it was only in correspondence to the rise of Wahhabi thought that the teachings of ibn Arabi declined. ibn Arabi was popular amongst all both Sunni and Shia and perhaps it is the universalism of Sufims that made it such a threat to the extreme Sunni and Shia alike.

In the past 40 years the works of ibn Arabi have become of interest to Western academics especially those who are keen to gain a greater understanding of the cultural life of the Middle East up until World War 1 Chodkeiwicz, is one of those scholars who have made a sterling effort to provide us the Western reader with that greater understanding.

This book deals with issues of prophet hood in Islam as ibn Arabi interpreted it. ibn Arabi took what some may see as a unique outlook of the world but in reality saw it as the true essence of Islam. That Islam was the descendant of all religions, a sort of ocean of which all streams and rivers lead. For ibn Arabi diversity was not a challenge or something to fear but rather something to learn from and understand. It is no wonder then that ibn Arabi has come to such attention in the West.

Chodkiewicz provides us with an introduction to ibn Arabi, the numerous books that have been published on him over the years in the West and how our ideas of him have changed over time. The author then goes on to explain the complex concepts that ibn Arabi introduced to the world in regards to theology. Issues of prophet hood are discussed, though it must be added within the understanding of Islam. Issues of sainthood, its interpretation in Islam, ibn Arabis interpretation and its development. The author quotes from other Sufis such as Balqi and Rumi (Who was greatly influenced by ibn Arabi) and discusses the levels of sainthood. The author attempts to provide the reader with some comparisons and examples that can be found in for example Catholicism but to say this book is not one that can be just picked up and read on a Sunday afternoon would be an understatement.

A worthwhile read but I would strongly recommend to anyone if they wished to begin reading ibn Arabi; start with the book "Sufis of Andalusia" move on to "Quest for the red sulphur" "Wisdom of the Prophets" before you begin on this book as you may find yourself greatly confused.

anyone who is familiar with the teaching of suffism, know that welayah, perhaps after oneness, is one the most central teaching of suffism, as it is in shiah teachings. I personally think that in the beginning Sufi and Shia were one and the same judging from the fact that most of our great sufi masters end their chain of authority to one of the known shai Imams and throught these imams they reach Prophet himself. Another topic of dicusion is the notion of "seal" which seems to me have different meaning to different people and also means deifferent things in different contexts. By reading Ibne Al-Arabi at first one may think that he goes through a few evoltuion as to who the seal of welayah is. Not to mention that other Sufi masters had their own ideas about who the seal would be. I think there is much confusion and no clear answer. But one can always fall back on the first principle and try to reach a conlcusion. The first principle in our case is Quran itself, and according to a verse in Quran " should you reach a dispute about a matter, refer it to Allah and His messenger" one should go back to Quran and Hadith as the ultimate and final Judge on this issue instead of philosophical speculations which obviously has gotten us no where. Based of the Quran and Hadith, it seems a lot more reasonable to have Ali, may God be pleased with him, as the seal and not Isa,may God bless him. Ibne Al-Arabi himself, no doubt based on his knowledge of Hadith, considers Prophet to be the most noble and supreme and , as he puts it, "the closest of the people to him is Ali" makes the matter even more clear. From my studies of Hadith, I have not come across anything that would suggest, directly or indirectly, Isa as the seal, but a number of Hadiths and verses in Quran exits that would point clearly to Ali , if one should insist on the notion of "Seal" of the Awleya. I have read Heydar Amoli's view on this and it seems more aligned with Quran and Hadith than the great Sheik's view on this. I higly repect the great Sheikh but Truth should be respected more and moreover Quran and Prophet are the final judge in all matters. Quran and Prophet are the final gauge and Meezan against which everything else should be refered. This is true if we are talking within the boundaries of Islam, but if we are not, then of course everything and every view is a fair game.

My dear readers, friends, and brothers and sisters, why are we such hard-liners of our own? Let there be a thousand, or even a million interpretations and theological discussions on Ibn Arabi, when in today's world practically everyone is writing and pusblishing something, and if not that, everyone has their own columns, blogs, websites, and on and on. Perhapse, we should pay closer attention to our own responsibilities as readers, and stop pointing the finger at others. Why not consider the implications of so much negative criticism of our own? Please, be gentle, be kind, be good, and follow a few of the good examples of the man and woman of God, including the Prophets, be they any.

Ibn Arabi was a great man, and no matter how many people write about him, in however many different languages and tongues, with however many interpretations, it is still not enough. How could he have walked the lands of the greatest, be they Muslims, Christians, or whatever, and how could he have been advisor to the greatest, and how could he have displayed such measures of poverty, patience, charity, and everything that every Muslim longs for, had he not been a great? I take a look at myself and I look at him. I am ashamed of myself before such a man. He is a true mirror, a great mirror for us to look at ourselves in, and indeed Shekhol Akbar -The Great Master. If I make it three steps in his footsteps, in the very beginning of his path, Allah will be eternally pleased. Also consider, the author is not Ibn Arabi, he is only one of many serious readers and scholars.

With deep resecpt to all who practice their faith and religion with a clear conscience.

I recommend this book to anyone who wishes to familiarize themselves with one of the greatest Sufi masters in the Islamic world. I have been reading Ibne Al-arabi's work for past 15 years and find him a very interesting and profound mystic. However, it seems to me that his argument about identifying himself as the seal of saints is rather peculiar and shaky. I don't think this title can go anyone merely based on a "dream" and its interpretation by "analogy". Sheik should know this better than anyone since he points out in a number of places that how even some of the prophets have made mistakes in taking their dream as face value or not interpreting them correctly. My biggest objection comes from considering the hadiths of Prophet which, if studied carefully and even within the guide lines of sheik's fundamental principles, would point to someone else as the seal and not to him. Ibne Arabi is not even on the radar chart as far as the hadiths are concerned. I think a matter of this significance and importance is hardly left to a personal " dream". I have read Haydar Amoli's comments in this matter and he seems to be more self-consistent with Quran and Hadith and "logic".

On a different note, I also find sheik's comment on " Shiism" rather confusing. There is rarely anything that sheik mentions in his books that is not already mentioned in the Shii books prior to him in one way or another. One can always find a saying ( hadith) or a "monajat" attributed to Shii Imams expressing the same idea or philosophy as Sheik explicitly or implicitly. I am not exactly sure on what ground Sheik criticize Shii given the fact that his thought are almost a copy of the Shii teaching. One possible reason is the politics of his time, he just wanted to be "politically right" which as we all know so well, could be a powerful motive, even in the 21st century. I find it particularly interesting that he never mentions , as far as I know, any of the Shii Imam's names in his works where as many of the Shii books must have been available to him and he must have known about them and their contents. This is like someone writing about " relativity" and yet never mentioning a word about Einstein and his contribution to the theory. There is definitely something wrong with this picture. I have far too much respect for Ibne Al-Arabi as to accuse him of dishonesty or hypocrisy, and I think for anyone who has a working knowledge of Islamic history in the middle east, in particular to Shiism, would know why Sheik kept his distance from Shiism or else he would have been eliminated before he could spell "suffism" and for those who raise their eye brows to this argument my advice is to read middle east's history up to present day so they would at least have a semi intelligent eye brow raising. We live in the 21 st century now and many facts that were hidden from the eye of ordinary people by the so called religious scholars are now available to us so raising eye brows ( or sword as it has been the traditional practice) won't do any good, the genie is out of the bottle and it seems to be a non reversable process. So lets raise issues instead of eye brows.

I find this book to be mainly an attempt to offset some of professor henry Corbin's thesis on the root of Ibne Arabi's theosophy. Author takes every opportunity to make this point, at times at the risk of boring the readers. The problem I see with many of the books written by some scholars is that they don't understand there is a difference between learning to read and speak"Arabic" by taking a few classes here and there, and understanding the middle east's "language" and hence this lack of understanding creates much misunderstanding. This is why so many western scholars still debate whether the poems of Hafez, another great Sufi, is about women and Russian vodka or does it have some mystical content as well. reading Persian is one thing and understanding the "language" is quite another. Ibne Arabi himself was and is also accused of " eroticism" in his divan by some "experts" as well. Chodkeiwics, quotes a passage from Ibne Arabi and based on that he "proves" that Ibne Arabi is fundamentally anti-immameyah ignoring the homology between the entire works left behind by Ibne Arabi, such as futuhat and the body of Shia literature dated prior to Ibne Arabi. According to Chodkiewics methodology, one can conclude based on the new testament, that Jesus was fundamentally anti-Jewish, pro Caesar and in favor of prostitution and against the "Law".

It is hardly "scholarly" that one should flip through a book finding some rhetoric and drawing conclusion based on it. These kind of rhetoric rarely mean anything in the "language" of middle east.Scholars such as Corbin, have a much more "mature" approach. They have a "systems" approach and not a fragmented, pick and choose type of methodology. The fragmented approach is fine for those who wish to preach the truth but not so appropriate for a scholarly work in which case it is simply insulting the reader's intelligence.

I likt this book a lot. Unlike the book alone with the alone by Corbin, this is a book that is honest and accurate. I recommend Chodkeiwicz book on Ibne-'Arabi to anyone but do not recommend books written by Corbin which is misleading and full of Shii propagenda. I made a mistake of buying his book"history of islamic philosphy" where he makes very clear his biase about Shiism, according to that book every significant thinker in Islam were either a Shii' or from Iran, this an example of what I call Scholars for hire. But for every Scholars like Corbin God raises another one like Chodkiewics to guide people to the truth.

A good friend of mine who has Sufi tendency gave me this book to read. I found it very interesting but something puzzled me about the how Arabi came to consider himself a seal of saints. Apparently Arabi had a dream that he has been raised to the level of seals of saints. Modern psychology would suggest that he either had a very high opinion of himself or maybe he had low self-esteem. At first when my Sufi friend told me this, I thought he was just joking, but then I realized he was serious. A dream? Even if Arabi had such a dream, it would be very strange that he would actually take it seriously and literary, particularly when he, in many other occasions, criticizes other mystics, or even prophets for taking the content of their dreams literary and hence misinterpreting their dreams. I guess he forgot to take his own advice in this case, possibly because he was overjoyed by this dream and didn't want to consider alternative interpretation( who would?). The fact that he took his dream at face value, while warning others not to do the same about their dreams, is not surprising, what is surprising is that intelligent people and modern scholars as well have given too much weight to this "dream" claim. A dream? He should have come up with something more substantial for a matter of this importance and magnitude. This is like Prophet claiming to be the seal of Prophets base on a dream. Even Shia people in considering Ali second only to Prophet offer some hadith and saying attributed to prophet to back their claim and not just claiming Ali had a dream that he is number one and yet everyone including Arabi gives alternative interpretation to all these hadiths that shai bring up to support their claim. Some of these hadiths, which is recorded in our reliable and canonical books, are far more suggestive in supporting Shia claim than a " dream" that Sufi's rely upon. I think Arabi and his supporters exercise a double standard here. Practice "tawil" for others' claims and literary tanzil for themselves. I think Arabi and his followers and admirers need to be more self-consistent.