From: [http://muridslog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/ibn-arabi-and-ibn-taymiyya-on-hereafter.html]
Shaykh Ahmad ibn Siddiq Ghumari:
Ibn Qayyim provided the proofs for the matter of hell’s coming to an end (fana an-nar) and did so in a perfectly sufficient manner, and some of the great gnostics followed him in this; and he affirmed that a day will come when watercress shall grow therein; although Sha‘rani answered this by saying that this refers solely to the highest lever wherein dwell the sinful believers, not the levels wherein the unbelievers dwell. The evidences regarding this are somewhat conflicting, yet the proofs of the opinion which states that hell will either come to an end in itself – as Ibn Qayyim maintains – or that the pain therein will end whilst the formal image of it remains – as the Shaykh al-Akbar (Ibn ‘Arabi) affirms – are stronger.
The sufficient proof of this is that God’s mercy is more powerful than His wrath, and always takes precedence over it; now this precedence and power would be meaningless if it were left unmanifested and if consequently the manifestation of wrath were not ended. When the manifestation of mercy is revealed to the denizens of hell and the manifestation of wrath ends for them, this will either take the form of the torment (‘adhab) becoming sweetness (‘udhuba) and the pain ending whilst its image remains in order that God’s warning be fulfilled, as the Shaykh al-Akbar maintains, or else it will take the form of the complete end of hell as others maintain. Yet this latter opinion could be reconciled with the opinion of the Shaykh al-Akbar by asserting that the meaning of the end of hell is the passing of its pain and torment, not the formal image of these things which will in fact then become bliss itself. Therefore the two opinions are essentially the same in my view, and this is our inclination – indeed, it is the conviction with which we stand before God Almighty.
And those who look to the inner meaning of this matter will come to know that nothing exists except the Act of God, first and last. As for Taqi ad-Din Subki’s attempted refutation of Ibn Taymiyya in this regard, I gained nothing from it when I read it twenty years ago, except the knowledge that Taqi ad-Din Subki – never mind his son Taj ad-Din – was not what I used to think of him, and certainly not what his son claimed about him. Back then, when I finished reading his work, I wrote a short rebuttal of it, the essence of which was the contention that between Subki and Ibn Taymiyya was a vast gulf of knowledge and strength of reasoning, and that the latter was leagues more knowledgeable than the former.
- Taken from the collected letters of Ahmad ibn Siddiq Ghumari, edited by A. Talidi.
Ibn Qayyim provided the proofs for the matter of hell’s coming to an end (fana an-nar) and did so in a perfectly sufficient manner, and some of the great gnostics followed him in this; and he affirmed that a day will come when watercress shall grow therein; although Sha‘rani answered this by saying that this refers solely to the highest lever wherein dwell the sinful believers, not the levels wherein the unbelievers dwell. The evidences regarding this are somewhat conflicting, yet the proofs of the opinion which states that hell will either come to an end in itself – as Ibn Qayyim maintains – or that the pain therein will end whilst the formal image of it remains – as the Shaykh al-Akbar (Ibn ‘Arabi) affirms – are stronger.
The sufficient proof of this is that God’s mercy is more powerful than His wrath, and always takes precedence over it; now this precedence and power would be meaningless if it were left unmanifested and if consequently the manifestation of wrath were not ended. When the manifestation of mercy is revealed to the denizens of hell and the manifestation of wrath ends for them, this will either take the form of the torment (‘adhab) becoming sweetness (‘udhuba) and the pain ending whilst its image remains in order that God’s warning be fulfilled, as the Shaykh al-Akbar maintains, or else it will take the form of the complete end of hell as others maintain. Yet this latter opinion could be reconciled with the opinion of the Shaykh al-Akbar by asserting that the meaning of the end of hell is the passing of its pain and torment, not the formal image of these things which will in fact then become bliss itself. Therefore the two opinions are essentially the same in my view, and this is our inclination – indeed, it is the conviction with which we stand before God Almighty.
And those who look to the inner meaning of this matter will come to know that nothing exists except the Act of God, first and last. As for Taqi ad-Din Subki’s attempted refutation of Ibn Taymiyya in this regard, I gained nothing from it when I read it twenty years ago, except the knowledge that Taqi ad-Din Subki – never mind his son Taj ad-Din – was not what I used to think of him, and certainly not what his son claimed about him. Back then, when I finished reading his work, I wrote a short rebuttal of it, the essence of which was the contention that between Subki and Ibn Taymiyya was a vast gulf of knowledge and strength of reasoning, and that the latter was leagues more knowledgeable than the former.
- Taken from the collected letters of Ahmad ibn Siddiq Ghumari, edited by A. Talidi.
No comments:
Post a Comment