IDEA 18
Ibnul-‘Arabi’s Error
When we refer to GOD as the Creator, we are describing His Eternal Capacity to create. He does not need to be constantly creating to be The Creator. Such a need would constitute a dependence, while AL-LĀH is transcendently and absolutely Independent. (IIQ, page 422)
Ibnul-‘Arabi, the famous Andalusian mystic philosopher frequently referred to as Al-Shaikh Al-Akbar (the greatest shaikh), has long been a controversial figure in Islam. He was a brilliant and prolific theologian who many from times past until today have regarded as either a saint or heretic (or both). The Tao of Islam (State University of New York Press, 1992), by Sachiko Murata, provides a clear restatement of one of his most controversial positions, expressed in two of his major works, Fusus Al-Hikam and Al-Futuhat Al-Makkiyyah.
On page 58 of her book, she writes, “But Ibn al-‘Arabi does not neglect the logic of relationships. The vassal depends for its existence on the Lord. So also the Lord depends for its existence on the vassal. The influence goes both ways.” She then quotes from his two aforementioned books as follows: “Were the Essence to be stripped of these relationships, It would not be a god.” “Since the cosmos has no subsistence except through God, and since the attribute of Divinity has no subsistence except through the cosmos, each of the two is the provision (rizq) of the other.” “He preserves us in engendered existence and we preserve the fact that He is a god.”
Most Muslim critics have reacted to these assertions with shock and anger; Ibnul-‘Arabi undoubtedly knew they would. He defends himself by saying that we have to distinguish between the Essence of GOD as He is in Himself, Absolute, and Independent of the worlds (Q3:97), and the God Whose Names and Qualities automatically imply “the logic of relationships.” In other words, he bases his ontology on the requirements of human language and reasoning. I reject this subtle rhetorical trick for three reasons.
1) Logic and language only work by duality and contrast. To retroactively impose that frame on The Incomparably One is an indefensible mental sleight of hand. His being One does not admit multiple levels. He can be Transcendent and Immanent, or Forgiving and Vengeful, because there is no contradiction or multi-dimensionality involved. They may appear differently to us, but there is no need to postulate any difference in Him because of them. But independent at one level and dependent on another? That is like saying He can be three persons and yet one, or capable and incapable, or wealthy and yet poor (i.e., dependent, which is what the Jews said of Him in Q3:181).
2) When there is a clash between two descriptions of GOD, one absolute and the other relative, the higher (e.g., Independent) must overrule and predetermine the lower (e.g., subsisting by another). Rather than dividing our ontology, we need to divide our language, which AL-LAH certainly does; some of His expressions are to be taken as foundational and absolute (among them His Unity), and some are metaphorical (His ‘turning,’ ‘descending,’ etcetera). This rule of interpretation is established in Q3:7.
3) To be Lord, Creator, Speaker, Knower, etcetera does not imply a need, a necessary other, but rather the possibility of there being another. GOD did not become a god by having worshippers, or only find His creative side by creating, or discover He had a voice only after He spoke in time. Rather He had, has, and will have all these Names and Attributes eternally, before anything was, and likewise after everything has perished. If I am appointed to be a judge because I have a forgiving nature, but then no cases come before me to display that character, I remain forgiving. If a raincloud passes over a dry land and yet does not release one drop of water, it is still a raincloud. If a star like our sun has no planets, its rays are life-giving even when there is no life present to receive them. If I stay silent because there is no one around to hear me, that is no proof that I am bereft of speech.
I admire much of what Ibnul-‘Arabi has written and find it fascinating and useful. But this is an error, I am sorry to say, that ‘the seal of Muhammadan sainthood” would never make.
Download the PDF version for free at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’ān – Mont Redmond complete version, or purchase a hard copy at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’an: Redmond, Mont: 9781738842506: Books – Amazon.ca.
