Peace Dauer
,
Sorry Dauer but I do not know of any reliable interpretations of Ibn Arabi's works [however I'll post up a link with some reliable interpretations of soem excerpts of his works, below], will let you know if I find any...
And in the meantime here's a quick bit of advice on orientalists interpretation of classical Islamic litterature and sources:
Islamic works can be verry subtle at times and the Quran and Sunnah can be misleading to those not intimately aquainted with it's sciences, thus orientalists have been known to misinterpret many Quranic verses, hadiths, and works of traditional Islamic Scholars; here is the observation of one Scholar of his scrutiny of orientalists interpretations and translations:
Apart form the original text of the Tahawiyya and Fiqh al-Akbar have any others been translated into English?
Wa alaikum salam,
Yes some have. Unfortunately done by orientalsits! I have the translation of the Wasiyya attributed to Imam al A'zam - but it is a poor translation done by an orientalist known as: A J Wensinck, 1st published in 1932 under the title: "Muslim Creed"
I also have Imam al-Taftazani's Sharh on Imam al-Nasafi's Aqeeda. This one is better and I haven't found many errors in it. It was done by: EE Elder, titled: "A Commentary on the Creed of Islam" in 170 pages.
Aqeeda Nasafi is available by another orientalist known as DB Macdonald in his: "Development of Muslim Theology"
If you know how engrossed these orientalists have been with Muslim Dogma, you will also know that they have translated the tampered al-Ibana of Imam al-Ash'ari, his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin (summary i think) and his Istihsan. They have also touched on works by Imam al-Ghazzali, Imam Abdal Qahir al-Baghdadi's Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, Ibn Qutayba's Ta'wil Mukhtalif al Hadith (in French), Imam al-Tabari's aqeeda (in French) and an abridged version of al-Hafiz ibn Asakir's Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (in defence of Imam al-Ash'ari by means of a posthumous refutation of Abu Ali al-Ahwazi - who was accused of lying), Imam al-Shahrastani's work on the 73 sects (al-Milal wal Nihal) has also been partially translated, etc etc.
There are also some orientalists who consider themselves as experts on the life and works of certain Imams. RM Frank has written a lot of articles on Imam al-Ash'ari and his school, G Makdisi thinks he is an expert on the Hanabila, specifically: Ibn Aqil, and Maqdisi's student: Merlin Swartz thinks he is an expert on the Hanbali: Ibn al Jawzi! An orientalist by the name of Wilfred Madelung also translated a portion from Tafsir al-Tabari (only 1 volume was published and it didn't even complete Sura al-Baqara)
What i have seen with a lot of these orientalist creatures is their lack of using correct words in translating certain words. Often they are too literal and because they lack true knowledge of Islamic terminology dependent on the field they have worked on, they give poor translations in certain passages. Reader beware when touching orientalist efforts!
Wassalam
Abul Hasan
[Scholar from a Sunni-site]
And regarding Chittiks, and other perrenialists claim that Ibn Arabi was a perrenialist himself; Chittick misinterpreted the original Ibn Arabi's works which clairified his view on it; [Charles le Gai Eaton] mistinterpreted Abdul Qadir AlJazahiri's works too and ommited some essential parts of it, which he based his supposed 'Islamic basis' for the universal validity of religions.
Here is a site that exposes the misinterpretations by Chitticks, and together with the original texts and interpretations, shows that Ibn-Arabi or Abdul Qadir AlJazahiri, far from being perrenialists, were strictly exclucivists like the rest of the traditional Scholars:
Universal Validity of Religions
There may be numerous statements of Ibn Arabi whcih perrenialists interpret in a perrenialistic/idolatrous [where anything that you worship [like any part of the creation] is essentially worshipping God too] way, but the above site exposes how such statements from great Sufi's like Arabi is iether misinterpreted/mistranslated or misunderstood as one is not aquainted with the proper sufi esoteric phrases, which really fits into the exoteric interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah.
The scholars of Sacred Law are unanimous about the abrogation of all other religions by Islam because it is the position of Islam itself. It only remains for the sincere Muslim to submit to, in which connection Ibn al-`Arabi has said:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
"Beware lest you ever say anything that does not conform to the pure Sacred Law. Know that the highest stage of the perfected ones (rijal) is the Sacred Law of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). And know that the esoteric that contravenes the exoteric is a fraud" (al-Burhani: al-Hall al-sadid, 32). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
In fact, one looks in vain in the works of Ibn al-`Arabi for the belief of the validity of currently existing non-Islamic religions, for this is kufr, as Imam Nawawi and the other Imams mentioned above unanimously concur. Traditional Islam certainly does not accept the suggestion that [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"it is true that many Muslims believe that the universality of guidance pertains only to pre-Qur'anic times, but others disagree; there is no 'orthodox' interpretation here that Muslims must accept" (Religious Diversity, 124). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Orthodoxy exists, it is unanimously agreed upon by the scholars of Muslims, and we have conveyed in Nawawi's words above that to believe anything else is unbelief. As for "others disagree," it is true, but is something that has waited for fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship down to the present century to be first promulgated in Cairo in the 1930s by the French convert to Islam Rene Gunon, and later by his student Frithjof Schuon and writers under him. Who else said it before? And if no one did, and everyone else considers it kufr, on what basis should it be accepted?[/FONT]
Universal Validity of Religions
hope that helps
Peace
