Ibn `Arabi’s Classifications of Tawhîd
It is interesting to note that Ibn Taymîyyah’s explanation of Tawhîd (Islamic monotheism) by designating 3 categories is not exclusive to him. Below are excerpts from Muhyî ad-Dîn ibn `Arabî’s work of Sufi enlightenment entitled al-Futûhât al-Makkîyyah.
Tawhîd ar-Rubûbîyyah
والفطرة علم التوحيد التي فطر الله الخلق عليها حين أشهدهم حين قبضهم من ظهورهم ألست بربكم قالوا بلى فشاهدوا الربوبية قبل كل شيء
“The nature is inclined to knowledge of at-Tawhîd which is the nature Allâh has placed in His creation from when they testified of Him (at the time of the pre-worldly covenent or mîthâq) until when they are siezed by their backs and asked, ‘Am I not your Lord?’ to which they will reply, ‘Indeed!’ Thus, they have testified to ar-Rubûbîyyah before everything.”
[al-Futûhât al-Makîyyah, Muhyî ad-Dîn ibn `Arabî]
Tawhîd al-Ulûhîyyah
وسمى مشركاً لكونه نسب الألوهية إلى غير الله مع الله
“And they are called mushrik due to their association of al-Ulûhîyyah to other than Allâh with Allâh..”
[al-Futûhât al-Makîyyah, Muhyî ad-Dîn ibn `Arabî]
Tawhîd al-Asmâ’ was-Siffât (also termed Tawhîd as-Siffât)
ومن أوتر بثلاث فهو توحيد الألوهة ومن أوتر بخمس فهو توحيد القلب ومن أوتر بسبع فهو توحيد الصفات ومن أوتر بتسع فقد جمع في كل ثلاث توحيد الذات وتوحيد الصفات وتوحيد الأفعال
“..and he who takes by the odd number of three, that is Tawhîd al-Ulûhîyyah; and who takes by the odd number of five, that is Tawhîd al-Qalb; and he who takes by the odd number of seven, that is Tawhîd as-Siffât; and who takes by the odd number of nine, then he has combined all three of the Tawhîd ath-Dhaat, and Tawhîd as-Siffât, and Tawhîd al-Af`âl)..”
[al-Futûhât al-Makîyyah, Muhyî ad-Dîn ibn `Arabî]
Finally, Ibn `Arabi went on to determine 36 categories of Tawhîd in all:
فإن الله تعالى يقول “وقضى ربك ألا تعبدوا إلا إياه” فما عبد فيما عبد إلا الله وهذا التوحيد على ستة وثلاثين أعني الواردة في القرآن
“Verily, Allâh has said {And your Lord has decreed that you shall not worship any other besides Him..} For there is not a worship in anything other than in worship of Allâh and this is at-Tawhîd which has 36 explanations deriving from the Qur’ân..”
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/trackback/
lol i’ve seen some really vitrolic articles bashing ibn tayimiah for his categorization. I wonder what their authors have to say about this?
to the poster above, it is not the triple categorisation per se which people have a problem with
even the early sufi Abu Sa`id ibn Abi Khayr said:
“tasawwuf is setting the soul in slavery to Allah (uluhiyya), attachment of the heart to the one true Lord (rububiyyah), and gazing upon Allah with entirety.”
the problem is that some miscreants use this categorisation of Ibn T to attack others and label them mushriks…..
and Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala knows best
http://www.marifah.net/articles/divisionoftawhid-ahmadaldijwi.pdf
ahh sidi fulaan! seems like this is an attack on ibn T’s ‘categorization’ and the ‘miscreants’.
BUT
I fail to see how his understading is any different from that of Ibn ‘Arabi.
The controversial topic is, Ibn Taymiyya considers those who invoke the dead( eg: Ya X Madad)as mushriks because according to him , its shirk in Uloohiyya because Du’a here is worship and this intercession according to him is the intercession of the pagan arabs.
According to IT the pagans believed in rububiyya (If they are asked who created the heaven and the earth …..) but worshiped other than him to draw closer to him by seeking their intercession.
So the reason the categorization is attacked is because those who attack permit this kind of intercession and do not hold it to be shirk.Those who attack the categorization also hold that the pagans did not believe that Allah created the heavens and the earth.
Shakeeb, what you say is not entirely accurate. While Ibn Taymîyyah did consider Tawassul through the dead pious ones an act transgressing the principles of Tawhîd he did not cast the people who do Tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) from the fold of Islam. I know you didn’t say this explicitly, but it could be inferred from your comment and it is a common misunderstanding today. Please refer to the following from his Majmû` Fatâwa:
ولم يقل أحد: إن من قال بالقول الأول فقد كفر، ولا وجه لتكفيره، فإن هذه مسألة خفية، ليست أدلتها جلية ظاهرة، والكفر إنما يكون بإنكار ما علم من الدين ضرورة، أو بإنكار الأحكام المتواترة والمجمع عليها، ونحو ذلك. واختلاف الناس فيما يشرع من الدعاء وما لا يشرع،
“And no one says, ‘He who says by this first statement* has committed kufr‘. This is not a reason for takfîr upon such a one. For this matter is one of obscurity. It is not evidently clear. Kufr is rejection of knowledge which is necessary in religion, or rejection of the widely transmitted (mutawâtir) laws, or the joining of both, and the like. The people have differed regarding what is legislated in du`â’ and what has not been legislated.”
* The “First statement” he refers to is the du`â’ in at-Tirmithî’s and Nasâ’î’s Sunans:
اللّهم أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد، يا محمد، إني أتَشَفَّع بك في ردّ بَصَرى. اللّهم شَفِّع نبيك في
“O Allâh, I ask of you and turn to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad. O Muhammad, I seek your intercession in returning my sight. O Allâh, may your Prophet intercede for me.”
So a big problem in our times is the tendency to make takfîr on such people, whereas, those making the takfîr don’t even understand the very evidence they are using to substantiate that.
One must also be reminded that Ibn Qudâmah who was greatly admired by Ibn Taymîyyah has implicitly encouraged making Tawassul at the grave of the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) based on the story of `Utbî and the Bedouin. This is found in the chapter Kitâb al-Hajj in al-Mughnî.
akhi this may be slightly off-topic, but how do we make the ‘above-mentioned’ tawassul?
do we say ‘o prophet ask Allah to do such and such’
or is it ‘o Allah, I ask you by the right of your nabi’?
On classification of Tawhid
http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=2439&
Nuqtah, sorry I appear to have missed the comment of yours. I’d recommend you do neither, but rather read up on this mas’alat al-fiqhîyyah in the greatest detail possible