Ibn Ajiba on the Spiritual Guide

Ibn Ajiba:

What Sheikh Sharishi says about the necessity for spiritual guide (sheikh at-tarbiya) to be learned in both exoteric and esoteric sciences is correct. But as for the exoteric sciences, what is required is that he obtains the knowledge he requires for himself personally, and also that which his disciple will need as he travels the spiritual path – namely, the essential rulings concerning purification and prayer (at-tahara wa ‘s-salat), and the like; for many exoteric sciences have nothing to do with traversing the spiritual path to the King of Kings, such as the rulings of homicide cases, prescribed punishments, divorce, and manumission. Were things otherwise, many of the greatest and most renowned figures of the Way, paragons of virtue and true knowledge, would be thus demoted from their high ranks; for although many of them were well-versed in the Sacred Law, many others knew nothing of it save that which must necessarily be known by any Muslim.

I say that if you recognise this, you will recognise the falseness of the claim some people make that the spiritual guide must be proficient in all the Islamic sciences, such that if all these sciences were to disappear he alone would be able to revive them. How could this be, when many of those who were undisputed spiritual guides were unschooled?

In ‘Awarif al-Ma‘arif Suhrawardi quotes Bayazid al-Bistami as saying: ‘I kept the company of Abu Ali al-Masnadi, and I would teach him what he needed to fulfil his religious obligations, whilst he taught me pure tawhid and metaphysics.’

And it is well-known that Sheikh Ibn ‘Abbad (ar-Rundi) received his spiritual awakening at the hands of an unschooled man, as did Ghazzali. It is also known that Ghazwani was not well-versed in the exoteric sciences, and if anyone asked him a question concerning them, he would sent the questioner to his disciple al-Hibti.

Likewise, the guide of our guides, our master Abd ar-Rahman Majdhub, did not have knowledge of the exoteric sciences; and many of the greatest saints were unschooled – yet they were deeply steeped in the secrets of sainthood.

As for esoteric knowledge, the spiritual guide must be completely immersed in them, since the whole purpose of the spiritual guide (the ‘sheikh’ as the Folk call him) is to impart this knowledge, and the disciple only seeks the guide so that he might lead him along the spiritual path and teach him knowledge of the Way (tariqa) and the Supreme Truth (haqiqa). Therefore he must have perfect knowledge of God, His Attributes and Names and how they are manifested, and their meanings and details, and their benefits, wisdoms and secrets; and he must have perfect knowledge of the obstacles which lie on the spiritual path, and the ruses which the soul and Satan employ, and the different forms which spiritual experiences take, and the way in which spiritual stations are truly ascertained. And he must know all of this by direct taste and experience, so that if he is asked about the obstacles on the path and the way to avoid them, he is able to answer properly. And in addition to this, he must have the power and resolve to overcome all obstacles and go beyond all ties, both open and secret; and he must have a piercing insight by which he can ascertain the suitability and readiness of those who seek his guidance, so that he may deal with each one according to his particular status, and guide him to the shortest path to reach his Lord. This was said by al-Fassi.

As-Sahili said: ‘One of the necessary conditions of the spiritual guide is that he have enough knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah to fulfil his obligations as prescribed by the Sacred Law, and to guide him in his everyday affairs; and if this is complemented by the esoteric wisdom which God has bestowed upon him, he will thereby possess a light which will guide him amongst men, and lead him to a deep understanding of what the Quran and Sunnah say.’

And Abu ‘l-Hasan ash-Shadhili said: ‘Every spiritual guide from whom you do not receive graces from behind the veil, is not a true guide.’ Perhaps he means that the true spiritual guide gives aid to his disciple even when he is physically far from him. He also said: ‘By God, I can bring a man to God in a single breath.’ And Sheikh Abu Abbas (al-Mursi) said: ‘By God, nothing may occur between me and a man save that I look upon him, and thereby give him all the benefit he needs.’
And I say that we have personally met – praise be to God! – even in our time, men who give abundant benefit with a single glance; and we have kept their company and recognised that they are truly inheritors of Shadhili and Mursi – God be pleased with them all, and grant us to follow in their footsteps – Amen!

From al-Futuhat al-Ilahiyya fi sharh al-Mabahith al-Asliyya.

Translator’s addendum:

Mere days he needs, not years and years
To keep our company;
And if he gains the goal he seeks,
God’s servant shall he be!

-Sheikh Ahmad al-Alawi.

The Prayer of Ibn Mashish

A nice rendition of Ibn Mashish's Salat, with a couple of nice images (sorry, I'm not really a film-maker...)

Sheikh ‘Adda on the Divine Name

The ‘A’ of Allah is my sword, the ‘H’ my mount,
The doubled ‘L’ the bridle I hold in my grasp:
My winged steed upon which I may rise
And reach the heights of the Lote-tree when I wish.

The Name of God is my essence and my spirit,
My sight, my ear, my speech, my inner eye’s light:
About it spin the realms of man and angel,
And from it all God’s servants did spring forth.

It is the Tablet reflecting Its light onto man,
It is the Pen which, in His wisdom, has dried;
His Qualities make the One Name into Names,
His Act is His alone when it is quickened.

The keys to every door lie hidden within It,
And it opens every sūra of His Book;
By It the breath is cleansed from foolish utterance,
And the heart delights in the intimacy of the Essence.

Invoke it, then, my friend, and find a marvel
Which spares thee any need to follow factions:
It is enough that It is Light, and Light shines forth
In hidden seclusion just as it does in the open.
Ponder this: wherever thou might think to turn,
His Face is there – in truth, and not mere words!

-'Adda Bentunis

Response to some issues raised by the previous post

The article I translated last week from the letters of Sidi Ahmad ibn Siddiq Ghumari seems to have raised one or two issues which might be worth addressing in a separate post. First of all, it was brought to my attention that Sheikh Gibril Haddad – may Allah preserve him – has written a short commentary on the letter I translated; I am not sure if he wrote it because someone showed him the translation I included on this site, or whether he had already written it as a response to the original letter when it was published, and I am afraid I do not have the address of the website where these comments were published; either way, the Sheikh’s comments were as follows:

The letter is thoroughly devoid of tahqiq and is merely Shaykh Ahmadal-Ghumari's opinion of Ibn al-Qayyim's opinion of Ibn Taymiyya's opinion.Yet the letter does make the important distinction that even though Shaykhal-Akbar's position and Ibn Taymiyya's position appear identical they differ fundamentally, in that the former's position is that the torment of hell does not end but that its pain is changed into bliss for its denizens whilethe latter built on some weak hadiths and aathaar that the fire of hell willbe extinguished. There is no full authoritative tahqiq on the issue I believe. Ibn al-Qayyim approached it in Hadi al-Arwah but he is overly preoccupied in justifying Ibn Taymiyya's position and defending him against Shaykh al-Islam al-Taqi al-Subki who denounced it in his Rasa'ilal-Subkiyya, in print, in which he considers Ibn Taymiyya's position a contradiction of the Qur'an tantamount to kufr, wAllahu a`lam.As for Shaykh Ahmad's disparagement of al-Subki and his son it is rejectedback to him as it shows poor judgment and only serves to ruin his own image.The unparalleled avalanche of criticism and refutations of Ibn Taymiyya both by his contemporaries and by later major authorities in comparison to thepraise heaped on al-Subki by his contemporaries *other* than his own son--such as Hafiz al-Dhahabi, for example, who considered him the greatest hafiz of his time--and later authorities, shows that al-Ghumari is leaguesoff the mark in his scoffing preference of Ibn Taymiyya over him. But Ghumari is known to be a rabid disparager of the Ash`ari School, and it is a mark of his imbalance that as much as he hates Ibn Taymiyya and reviles him in so many books of his, yet he hates the Ash`aris even more! He seems not to know that Hafiz al-San`ani the author of Subul al-Salam also authored a treatise in refutation of Ibn Taymiyya in respect to his belief in fana'al-nar--which al-Albani republished with a lengthy introduction- -among other such refutations. Yet, in the same book of al-Talidi, Ahmad al-Ghumari also heaps praises on al Albani.

Now first of all I should say that the Sheikh is absolutely right in saying that Sheikh Ahmad’s letter does not constitute any kind of argument or proof of the theological opinion in question; indeed it does not, and my intention in posting it was not to try and promote this opinion, because (a) I personally am not a follower of the views of Ibn Taymiyya/Ibn Qayyim, and (b) I do not find this issue particularly interesting. If I had wanted to do this, I would probably have translated Ibn Qayyim’s treatise on this matter, or given a link to a translation of it, or something. The actual reason I posted Sheikh Ahmad’s letter was more to do with the somewhat surprising attitude it expresses. I believe I made the mistake of assuming that Sheikh Ahmad is more well-known to English-speaking Muslims than is in fact the case; with this in mind, some additional background might valuably be provided here.
Those who are familiar with Sheikh Ahmad’s writings will know that when it came to debate and refutation, he was very much of the ‘no-punches pulled’ school of Shafi‘i, Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya of old, and – if we may say so – of more contemporary figures such as Sheikh Gibril himself. One of the figures for whom he reserved some of his harshest language was Ibn Taymiyya himself; some of the language he used against him, for example in what is otherwise perhaps his most important and useful work, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Imam al-‘Arifin, is scathing to the point of viciousness. When I obtained a copy of his collected letters, I was astonished to find several such letters in which he spoke more warmly of Ibn Taymiyya and seemed to back up some of his opinions. This showed me a side of Sheikh Ahmad which I had never seen before, and no passage was more astonishing to me than the one I translated last week. I remember reading it over and over again and being amazed, first by the fact that such an open enemy of Ibn Taymiyya would write so respectfully about one of his opinions, and secondly that an extreme literalist such as Ahmad ibn Siddiq would even hold such an opinion in the first place. I felt this alone was enough to make the passage interesting to those who are familiar with this figure, whether they are followers of his or not (I personally am not, generally speaking).

Secondly, I found it engaging that such figures as Ibn Arabi and Ibn Taymiyya – very much the ‘chalk and cheese’ of the history of Islamic thought – could, in this most unusual of cases, have come to such similar opinions, although of course they arrived at them by following very different roads. Regardless of what one thinks about the opinion in question, I again felt that this would be of interest for the small number of people who read this blog, who seem generally to be interested in such things.

As for Sheikh Ahmad’s comments about Imam Subki, although they are fairly restrained compared to his usual manner of dealing with those with whom he disagrees, I accept that some might find them disagreeable and disrespectful; but we should also remember that Sheikh Ahmad was also himself a scholar and muhaddith, and that on many occasions the language used by scholars amongst themselves can seem harsh. Imam Shafi’i made certain statements about Imam Malik in the course of disagreements he had with him which seem very strong and even disrespectful to our ears, and this is something which one comes up against time and again when reading works of scholarly refutation in all the Islamic sciences, even grammar; sometimes the only way to reconcile ourselves to these things is to say, ‘This is between the scholars, I’m staying out.’ (Of course, Sheikh Gibril is himself a scholar and so free to give his own opinions; these comments are not directed at him.) Whatever we might feel about Sheikh Ahmad’s attitudes and positions, I do not think it can be denied that he earned his stripes as a scholar and a muhaddith, and that he therefore might have felt he had the right to make critical statements about other scholars. Imam Subki himself is famous for saying of Ibn Taymiyya that ‘his learning exceeded his intelligence’ and for declaring him an unbeliever, which I’m sure seems very arrogant and offensive to the latter’s followers; but it was Subki’s right as a scholar to make such a statement about one of his peers.

As to Imam Subki’s refutation of the Ibn Qayyim/Ibn Taymiyya argument, as a layman I cannot appreciate the scholarly aspects of either – I cannot make any judgements about the soundness of the traditions narrated to support either position, for example – but solely in terms of the strength of arguments advanced it is difficult to declare Imam Subki the outright winner. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf wrote about the Ibn Taymiyya opinion that he was ‘dumbfounded by the strength of his arguments and the subtle points he brought up on the subject.’ This is essentially how I felt when I first read it, but as Sheikh Hamza continues:

His position is, however, heterodox, and thus rejected by almost all the scholars of Islam. And while some scholars anathematised him for his views, the majority recognized it was heterodox but rooted in a sophisticated ta’wil (interpretation) that was nonetheless incorrect.’

It seems that Sheikh Ahmad was similarly impressed with the arguments – even though they were made by a man he considered to be a great enemy of his, and even though those who know the Sheikh’s works will testify that he was hardly a bleeding-heart liberal when it came to his view of unbelievers, such that he might have been inclined to give preference to the argument for emotional reasons – and since he was not inclined to bend to any number of scholars if he felt the truth lay elsewhere than in their hands, he felt no need to accept a refutation which in his eyes was less well-argued.

For me the great irony here, which was another reason I felt people might be interested in the article, is that Ibn Taymiyya, the man castigated by so many for his ‘literalism’, is here placed on the side of his own bête noire, Ibn Arabi, the metaphysician and mystic, whilst on the other side we have the great Ashari theologian castigating him for his lack of literalism. I find this similar to what Sheikh Sa‘id Ramadan Buti does in his important work as-Salafiyya, quoting passages of Ibn Taymiyya which the uninformed might take to be the work of an advocate of wahdat al-wujud like Ibn ‘Arabi. Many people have simplistic idea of Ibn Taymiyya – this is true of both his most loyal followers and his harshest opponents – and I think it is nice to see him in a different light sometimes.

I do not think that it is a bad thing that Sheikh Ahmad, who as we have seen was capable of excessive partisanship and vicious invective, was also capable, on occasion and seemingly almost despite himself, of giving his opponents their due and acknowledging their efforts or their learning, or that he was even concerned with reconciling the views of thinkers who on the surface seem to be so far apart that any reconciliation would be utterly impossible. Such efforts – regardless of their specific content – exhibit an admirable level of objectivity and detachment, which is something we could all learn from.

Of Books and Men

‘Abd al-Karim al-Jili:

I say unto thee: The levels of certitude alluded to by the terms ‘knowledge of certitude’ (‘ilm al-yaqin), ‘vision of certitude’ (‘ayn al-yaqin) and ‘experiential realisation of certitude’ (haqq al-yaqin), which we have said are the ultimate benefit to be obtained from reading books (of metaphysics and spiritual realities), are almost impossible to attain – not the slightest amount of them – by means of even a lifetime of pious works.

I have seen young men of my brethren on the Path, by means of reading such books for even a few days, reach that which men devoted to pious works could not reach in forty or fifty years, even though they themselves were the cause for these young men to come to the Path; for when they limited themselves only to their way of action, whilst these young men read books of metaphysics and spiritual realities and understood them, they fell short of their full potential, and these young men became the true elders, whilst the elders became youngsters to them. One such as these said:

I adopted all my fathers in full trust,
And there is no doubt that I am the exemplar for all fathers.

This verse was composed by a certain Sheikh’s disciple, whose works in the Path were known to us to consist of nothing more than reading books of metaphysics and spiritual realities, until he reached a level of knowledge in this field such as was not reached by a great many of his predecessors. His name was Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad al-Hakkak, and he composed many verses concerning the science of metaphysics and spiritual realities; and whoever finds his collected poems and recognises their worth is lucky indeed!

I have only related to thee all of these stories in the preamble of this book in order to make thee understand the value of this science and its great eminence, that thou might yearn to attain unto this noble art by reading these books, applying them, and discussing them with those who are experts in them wherever they might be; for a man such as one of them might benefit thee with a single word more than all the books in the world could benefit thee in an entire lifetime. This is because what thou takest from books is dependent on thine understanding, whilst if a man who ‘knows through God’ (‘arif bi‘Llah) wishes thee to understand the matter as it actually is, he imparteth unto thee his own understanding of it – and what a difference there is between thine understanding and his!

For those of deep understanding, to read books of metaphysics and spiritual realities is superior to the pious acts of the ‘Wayfarers to God’ (as-salikin); and to sit with the Folk of God and keep good conduct with them is superior to reading all the books there are. I counsel thee, and I counsel thee again, to keep reading books of metaphysics and spiritual realities, and to act in conformity with the knowledge they impart; for in doing this, thou shalt achieve thy purpose and attain unto knowledge of thy God – if He so willeth!

(Maratib al-Wujud wa Haqiqatu kulli Mawjud)