Talk:Ibn Arabi/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV

"A profound visionary capacity, coupled with a remarkable intellectual insight into human experience and a thorough comprehension of all the traditional sciences"? Also in the next paragraph refers to the Koran as 'the infallible Koran'. As this article is of interest to Muslims and non-Muslims should this be changed to refer simply to 'the Koran'?

It should be treated stylistically as the Bible or Torah. The Koran often has adjectives appended like "The Generous Koran", but they are not essential. Khabir786 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to congratulate whoever it was that made the executive decision to make this article utterly worthless and unusable to anyone who isn't familiar with Islamic lunar year calendars. That's just brilliant! Now this article is good for nothing to anyone outside of the Muslim lunar calendar world. Stupid idiots... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.57.40 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Subtle misspelling?

Isn't this a misspelling,

"... one whom subtlety lesser minds ..."

and should be something like

"... one whom subtly lesser minds ..."

(hey, I had to look up how to spell the word) Shenme 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should actually be, "one whose subtlety less minds...". The whole thing could probably use a rewrite, though. Palmiro | Talk 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For the context & grammar it should read "one whose subtlety lesser minds," and I've duly corrected it. However, I personally take issue with the tone of that sentence. The rather disparaging assumption that disagreement has stemmed only from being of "lesser minds" is not exactly an unbiased one, particularly when coupled with the generally derogatory term "Wahabis" being used as the only mention of a source of criticism, and coming in the context of a brief article which still finds space to refer to Arabi as a visionary twice. I do not mean to imply that the opposite position should be taken and criticism should dominate -- only that the balance here is tipped in favor of admiration as opposed to something more neutral. --208.101.153.146 18:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You, as well as Palmiro, are absolutely right about this article needing a serious rewrite. The man was one hell of a thinker, but to present him as the sine qua non as this article does is a bit extreme and needs to be rethought/redone. Besides that, the article is an absolute mess, organizationally speaking. I plan to devote some time to it myself when I get the chance, but—of course—that'll require some research first ... —Saposcat 08:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Saposcat, I agree with the rest of you that this needs a serious rewrite. I'm a specialist on Ibn al-`Arabi and medieval Andalusi thought, so perhaps we can work together on this. I'm currently working on some other articles related to early modern Shi`ism, but I could probably devote some time to collaborating on a rewrite of this article soon. Have you drafted anything yet or thought of how to reorganize this? Masarra 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that it's heartening to have a specialist willing to give their attention, since that's probably exactly what any article on the massively complex Ibn al-`Arabi would need. I haven't had the time yet to draft anything or give much thought to it yet—I've been busy with other things—but in terms of organization, as with any article on a writer/thinker, there should broadly speaking be a "Life" section, a "Works" section, and an "Influence" section. The "Works" section would obviously be the toughest bit, in that it would need to summarize the salient aspects of his thought in as clear a manner as possible—perhaps subsections devoted to the major stuff ("Bezels of Wisdom", "Meccan Openings", etc.) might help in this process, although from what I know of Ibn al-`Arabi, his different works are not as clear-cut in the way that, for example, Kant's three Critiques are. Anyhow, those are just basic organizational ideas. Thanks for offering to help: Ibn al-`Arabi certainly deserves a better page than I think he's got right now. —Saposcat 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone knowledgable is going to rewrite this soon, please include an explanation of wahdat al-wujud as many of us unfamiliar with this are very interested. Chris 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can casually expain 'Whadat Al Wujud' but for a citation and resources please review The Path, or Discourses, by Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, master of the Nimatullahi Sufi order.

'Whadat Al Wujud' oneness of being, oneness of existence, is the knowledge(not just mere belief) that God is the only thing which exists, and that everything that 'is', everything that is 'being' is God, from God, and part of God. An analogy would be: most people see themselves as 'I'm over here and God is over there, God is up there in the clouds, the sky, or within the ocean and I'm on land. The religious perspective tend to suggest that God exists is outside humanity or beyond it, where as Whadat Al Wujud means that God is "as close to you as your jugular vein", not separate or distant. Much more can be said to expand on this concept but this will have to suffice for now.

William Chittick has pointed out that wahdat al-wujūd (the oneness of existence) was in fact not emphasized a great deal by Ibn 'Arabi himself, but was popularized by his disciples. Mohamadkhan 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of works

Ibn Arabi is known to have wrote 700 works, of which 300 are extant. The figures in the article are much reduced. Any opinion?--Connection 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For the exact no of works please see the latest Article of Ibn Arabi Society in their latest Journel. --Abrar Ahmed (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know much more about every aspect of this man. For someone who, along with Rumi, is regarded as one of the giants of Islamic culture and Sufi thought this article is very sketchy. Can anyone flesh it out a little? ThePeg 12:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now included a link to Wahdat-ul-Wujood so that people needing to know more about this concept may read the main article. Ibn Arabi was a genuis whose works were misunderstood by his lovers as well as his haters. The reason was that he used the poetic language of Ayyam Jahilliya (pre-Islamic era). Intellectuals of early day Islam used this language and Arabic has changed a lot since then. Glimpses of that language is found in Quran only. I have included an example of Mushakila to explain his writing style.

There is another reason for misunderstanding. When Ghengiz Khan attacked and destroyed Baghdad, he did so with the help of a Vazier named Ibn Ulqami. Unfortunately he was an Ismaili Shia. Destruction of an entire civilization was a traumatic experience for Muslims and Ibn Taimiya reacted by developing hatred for anything that resembled Shias. Unfortunately for him, Sufism, especially Ibn Arabi's works looked like Shia to him. The further aggravate the situation, Mongols converted to Islam and adopted the Sufi method, hence connected to Ibn Arabi. Today's Islamic world is controlled by House of Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, due to their enourmous oil wealth and bloody capture of Hejaz (state that include holy cities of Mecca and Medina. They follow Wahhabism which claim heritage to Ibn Taimiya's teaching. As a result, Ibn Arabi has been demonized as Kafir (heretic). Hassanfarooqi 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AL-Ghazali has dedicated page for some of his works, i.e. The Incoherence of the Philosophers. We could apply the same thing to Ibn Arabi's works by creating dedicated page for Futuhat and Fushush. --Lokamaya (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Wierd quotation marks

In the Wahhabi criticism section there are alot of quotation marks. It actually looks like the whole section is a quotation. Could someone fix this if they know what is going on? The section is reproduced below:

"Some Sunnis reject the notion that Ibn Arabi was a Muslim. Reasons for Ibn Arabi being branded a heretic were some of his statements in his books such as Fusoos Al-Hikam and Al-Ahkaam. One example is where Ibn Arabi said, "Al-`Abdu Rabbun Warrabbu `Abdun" meaning The slave (human) is the Lord/God and the Lord/God is the slave (human)." Sufis claim that such statements were always considered to be the most elevated exposition of mystical thought in Islam, and therefore unsuitable for the untrained mind. Ibn Arabi has also said, "Al-Rabbu Rabbun Fa in tanazzal, wal abdu abdun fa in tarakka" (Lord is Lord however low He comes down and a slave is a slave however high in status he goes up). This clearly shows that he accepted the existence of creations."

--Barastert 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it look any better now? Some Wahhabi editor had put his POV. I never remove POVs but put a caption "xx's view and its defence". Since Takfeer upon the Grand Sheikh (or for that matter any Sufi scholar) is common among Wahhabi scholars, I did not remove it but added the other side's defence. I consider criticism (not swearing) is an important part of any article, a little defence should be enough. Hassanfarooqi 00:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm considering rewriting this article, or at least the Works section as formulated by Saposcat above. If we were to restructure it into Life, Works, and Influence, I'd prefer that somebody else take care of the "Life" part of it. I don't think that I would divide the Works section into a discussion of his various books....in fact, come to think of it, it might be better to divide the article in Life, Works, Thought, and Influence, the Works section being a brief description of his major books, while the Thought section would outline the crucial points of his thought--and there are many of them. One thing is for sure: the sections that are grammatically flawed almost to point of being nonsensical have to go! Mohamadkhan 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this article seems sadly underdeveloped to me, for such a notable figure. I am an MA student in religious studies, and would like to help collaborate on this article. My senior thesis includes a great deal about Ibn Arabi's cosmology, and I could easily adapt some of that. I notice some interest in collaboration above, has anything come of it? May I participate? Thank you kindly.

Dear mystery contributor, you could just create a new subheading, 'His cosmology', and put your material there. Everyone else will indicate what they think of it soon enough. ;-) Mporter 09:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't correct that Murcia is in Andalusia.

This article is a big cut-and-paste job. This whole article requires a massive rewrite which I have somewhat undertaken to do. Most of the names contain diacritics and do not link up to the relevant article. These have now been corrected and unnecessary information has been removed. Referencing has also been added. SEMTEX85 (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Murcia

Murcia was a muslim kingdom in Al-Andalus (Medieval Muslim Spain). It is not Andalusia(Spanish region) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.24.178.127 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I've changed the link to Taifa of Murcia. --Annielogue (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear SEMTEX85, I don't know your credentials, so please don't feel offended, but are you familiar with the 'Ibn Arabi Society(.com) and have you corresponded with anyone there? Have you corresponded with William Chittick or James Morris at Boston University? Or Pablo Benito at the University of Murcia? These are comprised of/are just a few very active 'Ibn Arabi scholars who are very helpful. The Society could put you in touch with many, many more. If you really are thinking of taking on the arduous task pf rewriting this article, generous expert colleagues are always a delight. I'm merely a student of the 'Arabi since 1977 and a fellow of the Society (through membership only). MaryHBB (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)MaryHBB.MaryHBB (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference is highly important

I have taken out this quotation, because it does not belong to him.

“ There was a time when I used to reject those who were not of my faith. My heart has grown capable of taking on all forms. A pasture for a gazelles, a convent for Christians. A temple for idols, a Kabba for the pilgrim. A table for the Torah, a book of the Koran. My religion is love. Whatever path the caravan of love shall take, that path shall be the path of my faith. ” — Ibn Arabi(1165-1240)

Generally when you have an unreferenced quote, the proper thing to do is to place the citation needed tag behind it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Except for the first line (There was a time when I used to reject those who were not of my faith.)the rest of the quote is an accurate translation from Tarjuman al-Ashwaq or "Interpreter of Desires". I don't have a copy of the Nicholson edition, which includes the poetry in the original Arabic, his translation and a translation of the second edition which was published with Ibn Arabi's explanation of the allegories he used in his poetry. Even in his own time he created controversy, and by unpacking the meanings of his verse, he responded to critics (who could only see what their small minds allowed ;)Khabir786 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If he had a rebuttal, then make sure to find it as that does seem relevant. As far as his critics, whether they were small minded or not is just your POV, remember that as editors we aren't here to judge, just inform. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the quote, minus the first sentence here. I'll add this part into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annielogue (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ibn Arabi, Nostradamus, Edison

I think there must be a section about the prophecies of ibn Arabi.

"many Muslims believe that Nostradamus had first hand contact with some lost works of Muhyiddin ibn Arabi (1165-1240) and that ibn Arabi is actually Nostradamus' source of information about the 'future.'" http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=129348&bolum=135

In contrast to Nostradamus who used an implicit way for his prophecies fearing the reaction from the Church, ibn Arabi had more direct writing. He forecasted the invention of telegraph from centuries. It is known that Edison said 'I found my way to electricity in Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya of ibn Arabi'. He predicted the conquest of Istanbul and that Damascus will be taken by Sultan Yavuz. http://www.astrolojiokulu.com/yazi-detay.asp?makaleID=57

Currently I cannot provide English sources on this issue. Anyone with reliable references please take the lead :) Obuli (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Mahmud Erol Kılıç, who has doctoral dissertation about Ibn Arabi, says there is no evidence Ibn Arabi had contacted with Nostradamus. According to rumours, Ibn Arabi had predicted Ottoman Empire and conquest of Istanbul in the Ed-Dâiretü'n Numaniyye fi'd Devleti'l Osmaniyye. Mahmud Erol Kılıç says there is a book index had written by Ibn Arabi in Aleppo and there is no "Ed-Dâiretü'n Numaniyye" in the list. Mahmud Erol Kılıç argues that "Ed-Dâiretü'n Numaniyye" didn't written by Ibn Arabi. http://yenisafak.com.tr/arsiv/2005/mayis/02/g07.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.75.99.168 (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Panegyric

This article is written in style addressed to religious Muslims, rather than contemporary English speakers. This editor has the greatest respect for Ibn el Arabi, but this needs to be rewritten with recognized sources for the readers of this encyclopedia. Tapered (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Which Fez?

I was referring to this page and noticed that the link to Fez goes to a disambiguation page. Can someone make it point to the relevant entry? --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Tachfin (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Khatm ul Awliya

Khatm ul Awliya or The Seal of the Saints is a central thesis in Sufi Islam, by Ibn Arabi. The article on Khatm ul Awliya should be more closely linked to this article, but by someone who knows the subject better than I do.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely - and it may be as well to advertise the fact that Khatm ul Awliya is currently under threat of has now been rescued from deletion at AfD. I have today done a quick "rescue" but it needs a much deeper and more scholarly treatment than I could possibly give it, so please help! See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khatm ul Awliya .... Chiswick Chap Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the first sufis who write the book called "Khatm ul Awliya" was Hakim al-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Arabi wrote a reply to this book --Lokamaya (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly opinion of ibn arabi

Zayn ad-Deen al-Iraaqee [the teacher of ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee] said, “these words are disbelief from the one who utters them due to a number of reasons…” It is known that ibn Arabee believed that Pharaoh was correct when he said ‘I am your lord most high’ as in Fusoos (pg. 210).

Al-Iraaqee said, “his saying concerning the statement of Pharaoh, ‘I am your lord most high’ that it was correct for him to say that…there is not doubt that the one who says this statement, and it is authentic that he said it while possessing his intelligence and not being coerced then he is a kaafir..."

The son of Al-Iraaqee, Imaam Walee ad-Deen Ahmad al-Iraaqee said under the twenty first issue of his ‘Fataawaa al-Makkiyyah,’ “there is no doubt in including the Fusoos that is famous from him amongst the clear and explicit disbelief. The same applies to his ‘Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah.’ If these books are truly written by him (ibn Arabee) and he believed in what he wrote when he died then he is a kaafir who will remain for eternity in Hellfire. There is no doubt concerning this.

Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee, “and how would it be if the Shaykh (i.e. Sayf ad-Deen Alee al- Hareeree, the Sufi) saw the words of ibn Arabee which are pure kufr and heresy, he would say ‘this is the Dajjaal that is awaited.’” He also said, “if his (ibn Arabees) words are not kufr then there is no kufr in the world.” [I quote this from memory] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.223.8 (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly opinion of ibn arabi

Zayn ad-Deen al-Iraaqee [the teacher of ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee] said, “these words are disbelief from the one who utters them due to a number of reasons…” It is known that ibn Arabee believed that Pharaoh was correct when he said ‘I am your lord most high’ as in Fusoos (pg. 210).

Al-Iraaqee said, “his saying concerning the statement of Pharaoh, ‘I am your lord most high’ that it was correct for him to say that…there is not doubt that the one who says this statement, and it is authentic that he said it while possessing his intelligence and not being coerced then he is a kaafir..."

The son of Al-Iraaqee, Imaam Walee ad-Deen Ahmad al-Iraaqee said under the twenty first issue of his ‘Fataawaa al-Makkiyyah,’ “there is no doubt in including the Fusoos that is famous from him amongst the clear and explicit disbelief. The same applies to his ‘Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah.’ If these books are truly written by him (ibn Arabee) and he believed in what he wrote when he died then he is a kaafir who will remain for eternity in Hellfire. There is no doubt concerning this.

Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee, “and how would it be if the Shaykh (i.e. Sayf ad-Deen Alee al- Hareeree, the Sufi) saw the words of ibn Arabee which are pure kufr and heresy, he would say ‘this is the Dajjaal that is awaited.’” He also said, “if his (ibn Arabees) words are not kufr then there is no kufr in the world.” [I quote this from memory]http://www.hoor-al-ayn.com/articles/Innovation%20and%20deviation/Sects%20and%20Rulings/Sufism/Takfeer%20of%20Ibn%20Arabi.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.223.8 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Major trimming needed

A lot of good work has been put into this article, and the individual is considered extremely relevant to Muslim philosophy. That being said, much of the article seems to be gushing by fans of the mans written works, and to be honest a lot of it looks like it could be copy-pasted from websites promoting translations of his books. Quite a bit of it is based on original research or simply not sourced. While an article this important shouldn't be cut down, I do think that many of the longer unreferenced sections should be cut out.

Also, the article for Ibn Arabi on the Arabic Wikipedia does carry a number of references which could be used, especially for the section on the differing views regarding him. I can try to bring some sources, but really before that happens much of the unsourced and unrestricted praise will need to be cut out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, this has been unsourced for a while. Some of the fairy tale-like claims need to be removed, especially considering most of them and most of this article in general lies without references. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You talked and You removed his leanings towards Sufism.There is nothing which can be said Unwarranted.Each heading or each line on the Article need not be sourced.Though Article is well sourced.Msoamu (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The removal was absolutely correct. What was sourced was sourced strictly to religious primary sources. Wikipedia is not here to document or re-copy what those sources say. We need secondary sources that comment on the primary ones, and we need to clarify when we are explaining what the primary sources say and when we are providing information which is corroborated by other sources. MezzoMezzo's approach is a great one, though, of course, information which can be verified should be re-added. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that while I did revert to MezzoMezzo's version, I self-reverted, as it is a dramatic change so discussing it here won't hurt. However, we do need to figure out a way to cut down on the unverified info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The article was not only unsourced, but even with some sources a lot of that info still needs to be removed. I mean...mystical journey to the center of the Earth? Meeting al-Khidr, who Muslims believe lived during the time of Moses? It's patently ridiculous. While it should be discussed because opposition has been shown, the burden of proof lies on any editor which would dispute the removal of this content per site policy.

Regarding the removal of references to Sufism, then that wasn't my intent. If that did happen inadvertently, then it should be easy to make that clear with sources as Ibn Arabi is one of Sufism's most important figures. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, out of just the slightest hint of fairness, the journey to the center of the Earth is described as a vision, which is fine. But reading just a few sections, this whole article acts as if the religious texts are facts, when, of course, they're religious texts, open to interpretation and dispute. Now, we can and should report what those texts say, but we need to be clear at each step of the way what is verified by independent sources, and what is only in the religious texts themselves. Certainly all of the interpretive gestures need to be removed the line "The Meccan period of Ibn ‘Arabī’s life can be viewed as the fulcrum of his earthly existence;" for example, jumps out out at me as wholly unsuited to an encyclopedic treatment of the person. Unless Msoamu or another editor can start to put forward some suggestions as to how we can proceed without scrubbing and re-starting, I'm inclined to support your major removal MezzoMezzo. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, look. On a personal and religious level, I like Ibn Arabi. I agree with the majority of his views. But I also prefer that Wikipedia remain as an encyclopedia and not a form of promotion for what seem like peyote-induced visions, especially considering that some books attributed to Ibn Arabi are of a disputed nature (in terms of their attribution to him). My removal was bold per Wikipedia:Be bold, but considering that I removed 28,000 characters, it could have been too bold without discussion. If someone can bring multiple sources supporting more details of the man's biography, then any sensible editor will support that; it enhances the encyclopedia. My position, however, is that this should be a process starting from scratch, hence my mass removal of content. Even if we just trimmed rather than the deletion I did, most of it came from a single source as the article itself mentions. Ibn Arabi is an extremely notable figure in history; why rely on one source, especially one that reports these visions as truth? I hope my position is clearer, as I don't want to give the impression that I just like deleting willy-nilly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So what's the plan at this point? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait until the ANI thread closes (even though I think you're absolutely right, it can seem combative to carry on while allegations of poor editing on your part are up there). After it's down and your exonerated (which I presume you will be if your other edits are similar to what you did here), then I'll go ahead and revert back to your last version. At that point, the WP:BURDEN lies on Msoamu to provide sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian, your approach is very positive.I appreciate it.I also request you to kindly have a look at some other pages of Islamic movement which contains POV content.Can we edit with the same approach some other Articles?Msoamu (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that the thread has closed, would it be alright to re-instate the edits under discussion here? MezzoMezzo (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think so, yes. I'll make the revert now. And, of course, if sources that meet wP:RS can be found, Msoamu or other editors are welcome to re-add/add more content. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely - he's an extremely notable figure and it's a shame there's so little here as it is. I remember seeing some publications from Brill on Google Books, and I was planning on translating some sources currently on the version of this page on Arabic Wikipedia. I hope others will help - it's argued that in the English language, Ibn Arabi is the most studied Muslim historical figure after the prophet Muhammad, even more so than Rumi. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Mystical journey to the center of the Earth

What? Is this really serious? Journey to the center of the Earth? Meeting with someone who supposedly met Moses thousands of years before? Mystical visions? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ibn El Arabi's influence on the psychiatrist Carl Jung

I read Idries Shah's book "the Sufis" about thirty years ago and remember a passage saying that Ibn El Arabi had a theory of the subconscious archetypes similar to the ideas of the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung.
I have never seen this elaborated in journals anywhere else. I realise that Idries Shah's book is seen as unscholarly in
some circles but you can see how beloved it is at the Amazon books review site. There is an extract from the book about Ibn
El Arabi at
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/ibn-arabi/lSAh62aRADw 09:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)09:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)09:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)09:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)09:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)~

10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)116.251.137.101 (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hirtenstein source

There are two citations of Hirtenstein in the article, but there are two sources in the bibliography in which the author took part. Which citations in the body of the article correspond to which sources in the bibliography? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

reference suggested

The following link to a translation by Jane Clark of preface to The Tarjumān al-Ashwāq might be a good reference in the section "Return to South". This might take the place of the (incomplete) reference to Hirtenstein? From the link: "This shaykh had an unmarried daughter, a slim and elegant girl who was riveting to gaze upon. She adorned the assemblies [at her father’s house], delighting whoever was addressing the gathering and confounding her peers. She was called Niẓām, and she was named ‘Ayn al-shams wa al-bahā’ – “the source of the sun and the glory”. She was one of the women who are learned and who serve God, who are dervishes and ascetics."

http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articlespdf/preface-tarjuman-al-ashwaq.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.173.241 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it seems that the blogsite http://agussubandiadiwinata.blogspot.ca/2011/11/ibn-arabi.html contains clones of Wikipedia articles – and acknowledges them – rather than the other way around. Go to the blog and search for "Wiki". Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Aymatth2, I should have included the other link in the copy/paste tag (I later realised it was an earlier mirror), but I had already placed it. I didn't see a reason to change the tag given that I thought a copyvio check would be done. The pertinent link was the second one included in the edit summary for the delete tag: [1]. That's where I thought the copyrighted material came from. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• That is a clone of Ibn Arabi#Commentaries and translations of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam, but does not acknowledge WP. The give-away is in the footnote numbers: "... The first English translation was done in partial form by Angela Culme-Seymour[18] from the French translation of Titus Burckhardt as Wisdom of the Prophets (1975),[19] and the first full translation was by Ralph Austin as Bezels of Wisdom (1980).[20] ...". The clone at the ibnalarabi.com website has the same footnote numbers as WP, but no footnotes. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I should have checked a bit more closely. Much appreciated. Out of curiosity, is there a page where I can report usage without attribution? I actually found quite a bit of that recently, but wasn't exactly sure what to do about it. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know of one. Cloning from WP without acknowledgement is very widespread, as is cloning in general from one site to another. I cannot see WP taking any action about it, except perhaps with a massive clone of most of WP. I think in theory it is the editors who should complain, not WP. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverting to Ibn al-Arabi

I want to revert this article to Ibn al-Arabi because his actual name is with the article "al" not without it. All the manuscripts we have seen only mention him as "Ibn al-Arabi". I dont know what is the reason for changing it to Ibn Arabi. anyone have to say anything please say here. Abrar Ahmed (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That would be a mistake, but a common one. Ibn al-Arabi is also Andalusian, but a different person entirely; he was a Maliki scholar. The subject of this article is correctly called Ibn Arabi per his histories, but both English sources and even a few modern Arabic ones erroneously mix up the two persons. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for combination and expansion

I have two suggestions for changing the structure of the article. The first is uncontroversial: more material needs to be available about the locations he lived in, as well as his status toward the end of his life. His works are arguably some of the most studied in the Muslim world, and the only issue might be that there are simply so many sources; sifting through them all will take some time. But as it is, the section about his life seems too short for such an influential figure.
The second is merging the Islamic Law and Ibn Arabi and al-Insan al-Kamil section into one called "Views" or something like that. The reason is that it seems odd to have sections for only specific views, especially when - again - there is so much research on his views and philosophy. Those sources still need to be sought out, but the section merge can take place now, in theory. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ibn Arabi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150704094712/http://www.guldustah.com/fusoos-ul-hikam.html to http://www.guldustah.com/fusoos-ul-hikam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying source containing Ibn Arabi's words

Kaos-Industries, two things:

a) you recently edited a term in the article and I wanted to ask you about that source. I've found it, but it does not mention Ibn Arabi on that page, neither in the preceding or following pages.

b) I think both your edit (revelation) and the word you replaced (generation) do not make sense. I think what is meant is that consensus is derived from those who were contemporaries of Muhammad, not so much they witnessed revelation (there were no revelations attested to, but only Muhammad's poetic recitations as memorized by others... if this is considered 'revelation', that is understood and no need to get into that). I think the sentence is talking about the first generation of Muslims and their thoughts (consensus) on the meaning of Muhammad's poetry, correct? Please clarify, thank you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have anything to add or take away about the authenticity of any of the sources, I merely happened to come across the page of Ibn Al-Arabi and edited the part I saw as a mistake. Based on what I know of the Islamic tradition and fiqh, it's a near certainty that "revelation" is the word that the author meant to use here instead of "generation"; the phrase "witnessed revelation" is a common euphemism among Islamic fiqh circles to describe followers of his generation i.e. those of his contemporaries who surrounded and supported him. Your characterisation of it as poetry rather than revelation is borne from a secular viewpoint, and one that is neither here nor there on a page discussing Ibn Arabi's views, which were not secular and who no doubt saw the recitations to be more than poetry. You're making the mistake of introducing your own dogma into what should be an academic discussion about the beliefs of an overtly religious figure. If you weren't doing that, my apologies, but that's how it comes across.

--Kaos-Industries (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning your intention. You had the right idea. The problem is that the source doesn't mention Ibn Arabi nor the conclusion as found in that sentence. It also seems that whoever wrote that sentence and added that particular citation reached their own conclusion according to some things you've mentioned, but again the source doesn't support this conclusion as attributed to Ibn Arabi and thus is grounds for deletion.

Secondly, I acknowledge your point about my words. I wrote what I did in order to distinguish the dogma already prevalent (i.e., witnessing revelation) in this and many other Islamic articles despite how other scholars describe the Quran (poetic) and objectively write about the subject matter (secular perspective including dogmatic perspectives, which is the point of academia). Thus it is important to distinguish between how dogmas are understood and rationalized, and then how they are viewed from the outside and concluded as rational, irrational, and so on according to context, objectivity, clarity, etc. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting content per reasons previously explained. If support can be found that clarifies content, please introduce it and restore the content. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation issues / user concerns

Nuralakbar, thank you for the effort to include the traditional religious ideas. A few things: you included islamqa.net as a source, but unfortunately that is a religious website that is largely unacademic, typically biased towards its own views, and does not qualify as objective scholarship. You also cited a self publishing (Expertini Limited) source that has no other reference. Please provided only searchable and viable citations as you did in supporting the traditional legends. Also, a single citation is sufficient, no need to add repeated citations for a single point. I removed the repeated citations. A thousands citations repeating the same information doesn't make it true nor does it legitimize the content. So long as that citation is academically acknowledged as scholarship is fine. Also, to label a non-Islamic (religiously) scholar as 'orientalist' is a bias manner and a typical polemic in trying to cast doubt on the work of objectivity. Please avoid such manners in wikipedia, for it takes away from the clarity of the article and distracts from the facts besides legends. Besides these, thank you for the contributions. - HafizHanif (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for opening a discussion in the incorrect location. Despite this mistake, I think my edits were clearly explained in the talk invitation to discuss. I think there is a level of misunderstanding regarding objectivity which has given rise to mostly unfounded accusations.

Firstly, initial edit summary ([2]) is an accusation of a sole focus on one character (Jesus) in the article. Ibn Arabi wrote extensively about Jesus. Notice in the article version prior ([3]) that Jesus is mentioned six times, while Muhammad is mentioned 11 times. After the accuser's (Nuralakbar) initial edit, Jesus is mentioned three times while Muhammad is mentioned 12 times. From this rudimentary view, how was there a sole focus on Jesus? The content that elaborated Ibn Arabi's opinions of Jesus were summarily deleted by accuser, and this in my opinion reveals bias and is a poor effort regarding Wikipedia's effort to expand understanding, not limit it. Whatever the case, the contention is refuted.

Secondly, consecutive edits were made without summary. Such activity is usually deemed as vandalism, and this is how I approached the edits besides reasons explained in my initial talk page response. For the sake of approaching the accuser's efforts in good faith, I opened a talk section and addressed the issues I noticed. Why weren't these issues addressed? Why, instead accusations?

Thirdly, both Sunnis and Shias claim Ibn Arabi as their own. This is typical religious infighting. Is there a citation quoting Ibn Arabi claiming to be Sunni or Shia himself? What did Ibn Arabi call himself? The answer is mentioned in the article. This accusation is refuted.

Fourthly, I identified the self-published source in my talk page entry, and also the religiously biased source. I then mentioned that there is no need to use more than one good citation to support a single sentence's content. I left the encyclopedia entry, for example, and deleted the repetitive sources and explained the attempt to 'win' claims by amount of similar citations. It seems the accuser viewed my removing of additional sources as an attempt to censure. This accusation is refuted.

Fifthly, I changed the page number because there was no summary or explanation for the change... so I was reverting to what was previously there. If, now as explained by the accuser, it was a mistake on my part, then I apologize for that.

Sixthly, within religious studies there is a tendency by some religious scholars to label those who don't believe their dogmas and legends in a polemic manner, although the labeled scholars study the same subject and aim for objectivity outside of religiously dogmatic views and opinions. In this case, I read the insertion of the term 'orientalist' to identify Watt as a non-religious Muslim and an attempt to lessen / delegitimize his work. However, Watt does add great objectivity that speaks from outside the blinding dogmatic view while also citing religious Muslims from the ancient world. The content did not label Watt as an orientalist, but the accuser used this label and now argues the point after the fact. "Islamic scholar" is neutral and objective, "orientalist" is biased for reasons explained. This accusation is refuted.

All of the preceding accusations are thus refuted for reasons mentioned less the changing of page numbers out of ignorance on my part.

I hope the accuser actually reads my initial invitation to discuss their edits and motivations behind them, and responds to the points I made, and actually understands this is not a battle, but a cooperative effort to draw out Ibn Arabi's work and ideas. I am not interested in arguing or having to come back and correct poor work, no matter how well intended it is. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The majority of my comment had to do with the Ahmad article, therefore I have re-added it there, as this is not the appropriate place to discuss the majority of the points highlighted. Your statements are clearly without base. The academic sources clearly indicate that there are many 'perfect men' and Jesus (AS) is only one of many. Similar statements could be said of Adam (AS), Noah (AS), Abraham (AS), Moses (AS), etc. and even himself (he considered himself as a 'perfect man'). Taking a book focused on Jesus (AS), which has to do with Jesus (AS) and less to do with Ibn Arabi's doctrines is not the right approach. There could well have been a book about Moses (AS) and Ibn Arabi could have been quoted there as well. This does not take away from the central theme of his doctrine which is that the primary source of all 'perfect men' is Muhammad (SAW).

Removal of academic sources [4] which clearly indicate Ibn Arabi's religion without justification is against WP guidelines. It certainly violates WP:NPOV, as the reference as well as another one, which I have included, clearly indicate this.

Since you have referenced my original comment I will quote it here so that other users may get a broader context of the matter.

HafizHanif has a history (seen here: [5] of making what seems to be pro-Christian edits, where he censors and removes sourced content such as the fact that Ibn Arabi was a Sunni Muslim and misrepresents Ibn Arabi's ideals of the concept of The Perfect Man so that he exaggerates the role of Jesus (AS) in his doctrine, when in reality, Ibn Arabi made it clear that all Perfect Men (Jesus (AS) being one of many; others include Adam (AS), Noah (AS), Moses (AS), himself (Ibn Arabi), etc.) are subservient to the highest ranked Perfect Man which is Muhammad (SAW) and they all inherit their level of perfection through him as stated in the following reference..

Over here [6], HafizHanif, refers to the book Sufis and Saints' Bodies: Mysticism, Corporeality, and Sacred Power in Islam which was published by the University of North Carolina Press, as a "self-published" source.

In the same edit he refers to the book Striving for Divine Union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis which was published by Routledge, as a "self-published" source.

In the same edit he changes the page referenced for Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God from 507 to 312, when 507 is the correct reference for this topic.

The user changed the article to refer to William Montgomery Watt as an "Islamic scholar," instead of the more appropriate title of "Orientalist" (which is also stated with references in his own article).

The edits of this user concerns me as he censors reputable academic sources under the assertion of "reverting religious bias," when in reality the bias seems to be expressed by him. Nuralakbar (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nuralakbar (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

HafizHanif, on what basis can you call me a sockpuppet here? [7]. You are inflating a source which is specifically about Jesus and attributing it to the philosophy of Ibn Arabi. In reality, Jesus is a minor figure, but none-the-less regarded as an Al-Insan Al-Kamil, among many other Al-Insan Al-Kamil. Nuralakbar (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

user:EdJohnston, there has been no attempt for dialogue by HafizHanif, so I have re-added the two academic sources which detail the religion of Ibn Arabi [8], which were removed by HafizHanif without reason. I also believe that he exaggerates the role of Jesus as Al-Insan Al-Kamil, when the source he references is specifically about Jesus and not the ideology of Ibn Arabi. Ibn Arabi regarded Moses, Adam, Abraham and even himself as Al-Insan Al-Kamil, so why are these not discussed here? Nuralakbar (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Refocusing article to reflect latest (current) sources as objectively as possible

I'd like to encourage future editors of this article to add work towards an objective perspective on Ibn Arabi. I have included in the very first citation the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Ibn Arabi, whose bibliography (at the bottom), from which it is derived, is quite extensive. I did this because of the extensive bibliography found at that entry. I suggest referring to this encyclopedic source and its summarized content (and bibliography) when working on the Ibn Arabi article. Why? Because Ibn Arabi has contributed ideas to all people, not only Muslims in general. Thus why Ibn Arabi is considered a heavy weight when it comes to philosophy (universal ideas), and his work is considered non-religious when discussing human issues. Just as religious dogmas aim to universalize humanity into a certain through process, Wikipedia is a place that aims to universalize the human experience in terms servicing different points of view, not just highlighting or referring to narrow points of view or identifiers.

As anyone can see from my efforts, I also work on adding proper information into the citation boxes to perfect the Wiki effort. I also aim at providing prose in summarizations. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Was Arabi fully Arabic or mixed?

Reverting the "Arab" designation until further evidence is found or clarified. Is an ethnic heritage continual despite one parent being of a distinctly different ethnicity? Although by name Ibn Arabi can be labeled an Arab, and by religious identity a Muslim, can Ibn Arabi be designated an Arab according to his heritage? It is sourced that his mother was Berber and his father Arabic. What would this make Ibn Arabi? -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I would leave the ethnicity portion in the article and out of the lead, since his ancestry is Berber and Arab(thus avoiding Wikipedia:UNDUE). The IP that continues to edit war Arab into the lead, needs to stop and join the discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Kansas Bear

According to Britannica he was of pure Arab blood:

Ibn al-ʿArabī was born in the southeast of Spain, a man of pure Arab blood whose ancestry went back to the prominent Arabian tribe of Tayy.[9]

Also the Wikibidia article says that his father claimed descent from the legendary poet Hatim al-Tai. This statement is not sourced at all and in my opinion it should be omitted.

I propose the new rephrasing to be like this:

Ibn Arabi was of mixed parentage. His father was from a pure Arab blood who belonged to the prominent Arabian tribe of Tayy. His mother came from a noble Berber tribe with strong ties to northern Africa.[2] In his writings, Al-Arabi mentions a deceased maternal uncle, Yahya ibn Yughman, who was a wealthy prince of the city of Tlemcen, but had left that position to lead a life of spirituality after encountering a Sufi mystic.

your opinion?

Tvhs91 (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no problems with any ethnicity as long as they are sourced. I do not think any ethnicity should be presented in the lead if said individual is of two or more ethnicities(per Wikipedia:Undue). As for Brittanica(which I would avoid), I would be more interested in what The Encyclopaedia of Islam says about him. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree no ethnicity should be presented in the lead.
Unfortunately, the accessible part of his article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam does not discuss his ethnicity [10], although the first version of the Encyclopaedia considers him a descendant of Hatim al-Tai [11]. Regardless, I don't think there is a dispute here. Based on the available sources, the man seems to have been of a mixed Arab-Berber origin. The Brittanica source could be used for his Arab paternal descent which is not disputed by any other source. Tvhs91 (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree the ethnicity argument, or the boasting of ethnicity, should not be in the lead. To mention it, according to current scholarship, it should follow the most recent sources (from ethnic Berber mother and ethic Arab father). As to using terminology like pure Arab and such is a lean towards dogmatism and should be avoided. Those are loaded religious terms, in my opinion, which speak to ethnic pride prevalent in any dominant group in any age and place. So if those terms are added, this reality should be noted and distinguished. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

April 2021

I'm just noticing this previous consensus here for keeping the ethnicity out of the lead. Only a few months after this discussion the label "Arab" was added without further explanation in this edit, and recently editors are now going back and forth in adding/removing "Berber/Amazigh" in front of this, again without further explanation. Currently it reads as "Amazigh arab Andalusian Muslim scholar", which seems a little overkill on the adjectives.
I invite editors to disagree here or revert and explain, but I'm changing it back for now to read simply as "Andalusian Muslim scholar", because I agree with the consensus above: the lead should be a straightforward summary, and if ethnicity here is not straightforward (as seems to be the case) then it should be reserved for the section where his ancestry is discussed in more detail and more neutrally with sources. Specifying that he's a Muslim philosopher from Al-Andalus is already ample initial context for most general readers; ethnicity is not automatically important for every historical figure (not to mention it isn't always perceived the same today as it was then) and I don't think there's enough reason here to start disputing edits over which uncontextualized ethnic label to include in the lead. R Prazeres (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Biography

I proposed a new structure for Ibn Arabi's biography:

Biography: Prolog about Andalusia in early 12 A.D.

• Family: genealogy, family, etc
• Early life: childhood until the first 'mukasyafa' (unveiling event) in Seville, visiting Averous, some of his master in Andalusia
• Leaving Andalusia: his journey to Maghribi (Morocco, Tunis) until back to Andalusia for the last time when his parents died.
• Journey to the East: leaving Andalusia for the last time, went to Mecca, Anatolia, until he reached and settled in Damascus
• Death: death in Damascus

--Lokamaya (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

@TrynaMakeADollar: I did an image search and could not find any reliable source that establishes a connection of this image to Ibn Arabi. Per WP policy, we would need to find such a RS in order to restore the image. Eperoton (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Because the image was on the WP article for a long time, I was under the impression that it did in fact depict Ibn Arabi. I'll take your word for it. If it does not depict him, then it should be removed. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, TrynaMakeADollar. Unfortunately, fantasy "portraits" of pre-modern figures sometimes remain in WP articles for a long time, even when the only connection is that someone gave that name to a random image on Commons. You're welcome to try a search as well. Perhaps I missed something. If it's an imaginary, but culturally significant representation, we could use it with an appropriate description. Eperoton (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wahabi attitude towards

1. ^ If ibn Arabees words are not kufr then there is no kufr in the world.-[salaf.indiaaccess.com]Allaahuakbar An Invitation to Discover True Islaam [Salaf][Quran][Hadith][Islam] [sunnah][allaahuakbar.net]

Why is this link here? It is not the page of a scholar, newspaper, etc. It appears to be original research. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.33.114 (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph seems oddly placed. Why is the opinion of a minority trend given such a prominance in the page? At the very least the opening sentence of this paragraph needs a gentler lead in and some context as to why this is relevant.

I think this is because the Wahabi/Salafi hostility towards Sufism is most pronounced in the present day and, given that the exporting of Wahabi doctrine from Saudi Arabia via Saudi money is having an enormous influence in the Exoteric Muslim world their criticism of people like Arabi is important to know about. Wahabi-funded Madrassahs and schools are often actively campaigning against Sufism and harrassing pilgrims to Sufi shrines. Given that Sufism is often regarded in some quarters as the more benign aspect of Islam and Wahabism is often seen as its opposite it makes sense to include this passage in such a way on this page. ThePeg 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, the sufi movement itself is a minority, and considered by all four grand imams of jurisprudence to be a major deviation from Islam. It is interesting that different factions will make subjective unfounded claims that other people's views are themselves unfounded claims, like your very statement: "because the Wahabi/Salafi hostility towards Sufism is most pronounced in the present day and, given that the exporting of Wahabi doctrine from Saudi Arabia via Saudi money is having an enormous influence in the Exoteric Muslim world their criticism of people like Arabi is important to know about". Most factual sources will demonstrate that this entire sentence is not only false, but itself is not a neutral point of view, and is based on the notions of an extremist minority movement that is spreading these notions. Most of the scholars who pronounced Ibn Arabi to be outside the realm of muslims for his deviant thoughts are established Imams who died centuries before Saudi Arabia was ever created, and they came from all over the globe, and they made that pronouncement by showing that Ibn Arabi's fundamental beliefs are in direct contradiction with basic principals mentioned in Quran and Sunna, including some that the prophet of Islam Mohammed has specifically dictated to be a sign of kufr, like all his claims of communicating and meeting past prophets such as Al-Khidr, and claiming to see the throne of God. There are dozens of old historian books from 500 years that are detailing all this, including "The awakening of the fool to the kufr of Ibn Arabi" by Burhan Al-Din Al-Rifai', written in the 1500' A.D.

As always though, fanatics will keep deleting the references and will keep fighting on wikipedia to glorify their icons. 175.139.3.16 (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

May Allah help you and guide you, and guide us all^ 99.226.37.176 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to add the 'wahabism' as a main chapter, such a waste of space. Wahabi founded in 20 AD, Ibn Arabi born in 12 AD. --Lokamaya (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are you removing fair criticism of Ibn Arabi by his contemporary scholars? If you dislike the language or feel there is bias feel free to present a counter point according to scholastic views on the matter rather than erasing the entire section

Mistake in Full Name

Hey ! There is a mistake in his full name. His full name also contains Muhiyyudin. There are plenty of reliable sources about it: TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi[12], Google Books and Other Sites. IAmAtHome (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism based on Islamqa.info

@Dedicatedediter1001:, please address the concern raised by other editors before re-adding those info again to the article. You have twice reverted other editors edits which shows you are clearly engaged in WP:EDITWARRING. Please carefully read my edit summary here, and address those issues first. I am going to report you in case you further revert my edits. Also I have left a note on your talk page regarding source reliability. Islamqa.info is not a relaible source. Pease note that Wikipedia articles must be written on secondary reliable sources. It also violates WP:NPOV, i.e., it is not written form a neutral point of view. Again, I did not find the book online. No publication year or name of the publisher mentioned. When did the book come out, and who published it? Please read WP:Verify in this regard. The edit is certaily not made on the book, as it is verifiable reading this article on on Islamqa.info. Even if it was, you need to establish consensus before you can break the status quo. The language in which it is written is ludicrous. Please carefully read WP:STATUSQUO before reverting my edit again. Mosesheron (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I would like to report Mosesheron to the admins for WP:EDITWARRING but I prefer to first take the issue here on the TalkPage. I was requested by S0091 and Mosesheron to add reliable citations as they told me IslamQA and alislam was not WP:RS.

I agreed and found better sources such as linking the direct wordpress PDF of Ruhollah Khominie’s book “Adabus Salat” where he criticises Sufism and I further gave reference of a book that collects the verdict and views of over 200 high-profile scholars in support of the criticism towards Ibn Arabi by scholars outside of Sufism. Instead of acknowledging I did indeed improve citations Mosesheron (in clear biased defense of Ibn Arabi) deleted my entire edit and told me I was character assassinating Ibn Arabi when all I did was mention the sources for the criticism and quoted the work of Ibn Arabia. I did not even say “this makes him a disbeliever” I was literally just referencing 1) scholars and his controversial personality in Islam 2) direct pages and claims he made in his book that the scholars have criticised

I gave no opinion only book references, an image of the referenced page from his book, and a PDF file of ayatollah Khominie’s book.

If he has a problem with wordpress let him delete that specific part. He instead clearly has a bias and likening towards Ibn Arabi such that he took it as an opportunity to delete all criticism whereas previous users like S0091 did not express concern in what I did except in the poor citation that I initially began with (as I am an inexperienced user). FeV1.6 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I did forget to add that Mosesheron also told me to “read serious textbooks” and that I am “ignorant” simply for adding opposing views to a very clearly (!) controversial character in Islam. If somebody is controversial amongst the different sects it’s worth mentioning a few sources and some of his work/words but out of respect for Mosesheron I deleted the quotation of Ibn Arabi’s work that was being criticised by the book “Reality of Ibn Arabi” citing the verdict of over 200 scholars from different sects on Ibn Arabi.

I also deleted the “blog post” in my revert which told me Mosesheron didn’t bother checking my citations as it was actually a PDF file of a book by ayatollah Khominie expressing his views of Sufism.

It is unfortunate but I have made this last revert in accordance with every point Mosesheron raised by deleting the Ruhollah Khominie citation and also deleting the imgur image of Ibn Arabi’s page reference.

I also dialled down the tone in a neutral critical manner as much as possible although neither S0091 nor Mosesheron said that was an issue when they made reverts of my work. I have therefore made the entire last edit in full accordance with their comments. If he reverts that back with no fair justification I will definitely be in a better position to call it edit warring, not to mention his offensive slander of my “ignorance”. FeV1.6 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@FeV1.6: Please accept my apologies for using the word. I should not have used that. However, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making major edits to other articles (I would exclude new entries being developed by you). We welcome criticism but that has to be based on WP:secondary reliable sources and in a neutral manner. Best wishes. Mosesheron (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron I am not sure if my previous reply was sent as I can’t find it. Anyways to summarise I was asking after having read WP:secondary I don’t see how you were justified in deleting the edit just because the author who compiled all the references and verdicts of scholars isn’t popular. I even checked the references and with a quick Google search I found Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi’s criticism of Ibn Arabi’s controversial ideas. It wasn’t hard to find and I then tried Googling more about Mulla Qari and easily found him to be a scholar along with background information about him from a Wikipedia article. What’s wrong with the book? References available and it is a compilation/collection of many different works (hence the 200 senior scholars thing). I am not going to list all the 200 scholars as a reference. If you want, I’ll select maybe 2 or 3 scholars and give reference to their books directly but the book collection of all 200 references is obviously much better. FeV1.6 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)