I am revisiting this video AGAIN. This time I found some very useful ideas. There are plus and minus in this discussion. I now recommend this video to be watched by ALL who are passionate about metaphysics. 8:40 Ash'arism 10:00 al-Ghazali
To equate Ibni Arabi with neo platonics, or claiming Ibni Arabi was somehow influenced from them actually is not understanding Ibni Arabi..This is a common statement by some Orientalists, or even people like Abu Al-Ala Afifi but it is misconception. A figure like Ibnul Arabi who represents "ilm al Khasf, who himself claims that for him writing has been like giving birth of Devine illuminations, invoking influence from Plato or Plotinus is problematic. Imagine a person, who himself is saying that it took him only 11 days to write his book called Mevakiun Nucum, a book of 300 pages...he wrote his al Edbiratul ilahiyye in 4 days, Et Tenezzulatul Mevsiliyye in few days..el Jalal ve'l Jamal in only 1 day..We have to understand we are not talking about a normal scholar or philosopher that builds his scholarship through reading and lecures...Just let us remember his reply to Ibni Rush, the Yes and No..his explanation about NO tells you the difference. On other side, Ibni Arabi in various occasions alludes to some concepts or notions brought forward by some Muslims or Greek Philosophers...but often the purpose of that was to clarify things, to put things to the right order in metaphysical sense. There is no possibility for him to be influenced by Philosophers. Not because a muslim scholar cannot or should not be under the influence of non Muslims but because the type of "ilim" Ibni Arabi represents. This is the point which is most complicated part to understand for moderns like us.
Let's also remember that in Futuhat, Ibni Arabi also suggest for those who truly want to understand him that they should not try to approach him through the notions of the Philosophers.
THe Muslim mind is stuck in the 9th century when the traditionalist close the free thinking Ijtihad and till today we are still to scared to use it from fear being called Zandiq by the traditionalists...
your mind is stuck in bad scholarship and orientalist stereotypes...in any case the contraction was a kind of saving veil..we chose not to open the pandoras box..since the western world opened it we all have to deal with it , the msulims might suprise you as they might be the only ones who have the ideology and praxis to provide a soreal solution to the mess we are all in.
Is it not plausible that Ibn Arabi came across the works of Plato/Plotinus and re-imagined those ideas into something of his own making upon contemplation (of the Quran and select hadith) and his worldly and "other-worldly" experiences? If yes, one can say those works were a potential catalyst in his thought process or helped him in his expression of his own ideas (if they were not the initial catalyst) and thus may have been "influenced" to a certain degree. That degree of influence was obviously not 100% as if it was, he would be a Neoplatonist. Let's assume he was "influenced" by the works of Plato/Plotinus. Why is this a problem given it's plausible for people anywhere in the world or universe a Nabi did not reach (if you think Plato/Plotinus are not coming from a Nabi "tradition") in a given space/time to come to similar ideas through there own rational processes and worldly/"other-worldly" experiences/observations - vis-a-vis the Ibrahim A.S. process (Ibn Tufayl)?
Was Ibni Arabi influenced by Plato? This is the question. But the arguments of Hasan Spiker are quite demagogic and linear logic. If you deny this statement, you have Ashari attributes. This is dogmatic argument. To tackle the question we need to look at what really Ibni Arabi is. And unlike other scholars, Ibni Arabi help us understand this with his crystal clear statements. In Futuhat he puts people in 3 categories; the awam, the normal people, layman; the hawas, in which he puts fukaha, mutakallimun, philosophers, etc...and the last and highest level is for hawasul hawas, what he defines as Muhakkiq Sufis, people such as Bayazidi Bastami, Jouneydi Baghadi, Hakimi Tirmizi, etc. And definitely Ibni Arabi puts himself in this category. Now to expect Jounaydi Bahgdadi, or Ibni Arabi to be influenced by Plato or other Philosophers is really absurd..Its not understanding Ibni Arabi.
His ideas of COMMENSURABILITY is fallacious. This guy is not an authority in the Qur'an and hadiths. Very ignorant of WAHY. He needs to PROVE commensurability based on WAHY. not based on HIS opinions or ibn 'Arabi "illumination". He blames democratization of knowledge and modernism in order to justify his wrongs. This is the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Guys, look at his knowledge of the Qur'an and sound hadiths. He rarely quotes the Qur'an, let alone hadiths. If he debates with Saeed Foudeh, surely he shall be devastated easily.
Shaykh Spiker is a treasure.
I am revisiting this video AGAIN. This time I found some very useful ideas. There are plus and minus in this discussion. I now recommend this video to be watched by ALL who are passionate about metaphysics.
8:40 Ash'arism
10:00 al-Ghazali
Jazakallah Khair Shaykh.
The explanation for Intuition being self-evident was an absolutely amazing explanation.
Assalamualaikum beautiful discussion, when will the rest of the seminars be uploaded? Thank you!
To equate Ibni Arabi with neo platonics, or claiming Ibni Arabi was somehow influenced from them actually is not understanding Ibni Arabi..This is a common statement by some Orientalists, or even people like Abu Al-Ala Afifi but it is misconception. A figure like Ibnul Arabi who represents "ilm al Khasf, who himself claims that for him writing has been like giving birth of Devine illuminations, invoking influence from Plato or Plotinus is problematic. Imagine a person, who himself is saying that it took him only 11 days to write his book called Mevakiun Nucum, a book of 300 pages...he wrote his al Edbiratul ilahiyye in 4 days, Et Tenezzulatul Mevsiliyye in few days..el Jalal ve'l Jamal in only 1 day..We have to understand we are not talking about a normal scholar or philosopher that builds his scholarship through reading and lecures...Just let us remember his reply to Ibni Rush, the Yes and No..his explanation about NO tells you the difference. On other side, Ibni Arabi in various occasions alludes to some concepts or notions brought forward by some Muslims or Greek Philosophers...but often the purpose of that was to clarify things, to put things to the right order in metaphysical sense. There is no possibility for him to be influenced by Philosophers. Not because a muslim scholar cannot or should not be under the influence of non Muslims but because the type of "ilim" Ibni Arabi represents. This is the point which is most complicated part to understand for moderns like us.
Let's also remember that in Futuhat, Ibni Arabi also suggest for those who truly want to understand him that they should not try to approach him through the notions of the Philosophers.
3:50
Sabq lisan:. Tripartite soul should be intellectual, spirited and appetitive.
THe Muslim mind is stuck in the 9th century when the traditionalist close the free thinking Ijtihad and till today we are still to scared to use it from fear being called Zandiq by the traditionalists...
your mind is stuck in bad scholarship and orientalist stereotypes...in any case the contraction was a kind of saving veil..we chose not to open the pandoras box..since the western world opened it we all have to deal with it , the msulims might suprise you as they might be the only ones who have the ideology and praxis to provide a soreal solution to the mess we are all in.
Is it not plausible that Ibn Arabi came across the works of Plato/Plotinus and re-imagined those ideas into something of his own making upon contemplation (of the Quran and select hadith) and his worldly and "other-worldly" experiences? If yes, one can say those works were a potential catalyst in his thought process or helped him in his expression of his own ideas (if they were not the initial catalyst) and thus may have been "influenced" to a certain degree. That degree of influence was obviously not 100% as if it was, he would be a Neoplatonist. Let's assume he was "influenced" by the works of Plato/Plotinus. Why is this a problem given it's plausible for people anywhere in the world or universe a Nabi did not reach (if you think Plato/Plotinus are not coming from a Nabi "tradition") in a given space/time to come to similar ideas through there own rational processes and worldly/"other-worldly" experiences/observations - vis-a-vis the Ibrahim A.S. process (Ibn Tufayl)?
What’s the whatsapp group?
Launch event for classification of the sciences project ruclips.net/video/l_sr5nGhdMA/видео.html
Was Ibni Arabi influenced by Plato? This is the question. But the arguments of Hasan Spiker are quite demagogic and linear logic. If you deny this statement, you have Ashari attributes. This is dogmatic argument. To tackle the question we need to look at what really Ibni Arabi is. And unlike other scholars, Ibni Arabi help us understand this with his crystal clear statements. In Futuhat he puts people in 3 categories; the awam, the normal people, layman; the hawas, in which he puts fukaha, mutakallimun, philosophers, etc...and the last and highest level is for hawasul hawas, what he defines as Muhakkiq Sufis, people such as Bayazidi Bastami, Jouneydi Baghadi, Hakimi Tirmizi, etc. And definitely Ibni Arabi puts himself in this category. Now to expect Jounaydi Bahgdadi, or Ibni Arabi to be influenced by Plato or other Philosophers is really absurd..Its not understanding Ibni Arabi.
His ideas of COMMENSURABILITY is fallacious. This guy is not an authority in the Qur'an and hadiths. Very ignorant of WAHY. He needs to PROVE commensurability based on WAHY. not based on HIS opinions or ibn 'Arabi "illumination". He blames democratization of knowledge and modernism in order to justify his wrongs. This is the fallacy of two wrongs make a right.
Guys, look at his knowledge of the Qur'an and sound hadiths. He rarely quotes the Qur'an, let alone hadiths.
If he debates with Saeed Foudeh, surely he shall be devastated easily.
I believe you're unfair in your representation of Ibn Sina Shaykh