Ibn al-ʿArabī’s position on Aqida Khatm e Nabuwat

Book Review
by Abrar Ahmad Shahi
President, Ibn al-ʿArabī Foundation

Fifteen years ago, the Ibn al-ʿArabī Foundation was established with the vision that one day, even the general readership in Pakistan would be able to benefit from the teachings of Shaykh al-Akbar (الشيخ الأكبر). In 2007, we began publishing his writings in accessible and lucid translations, aligned with modern scholarly standards. To date, we have published over 29 books and treatises.

In 2020, the Turkish television series Diriliş: Ertuğrul introduced a fictional portrayal of Shaykh al-Akbar, which unexpectedly sparked widespread interest in his personality. For many, this was the first time they had even heard his esteemed name. By the grace of Allah (فضل الله), the name of Shaykh al-Akbar Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn al-ʿArabī (محيي الدين ابن العربي) is now familiar in streets and homes across the Muslim world. It is widely recognized that he was among the greatest friends of God (أولياء الله)—one of His elect (عباد الله المصطفين)—and that he was granted spiritual knowledge (العلوم الإلهية) unparalleled in its depth and precision.

However, this divinely inspired spread of his teachings has not been easy for certain ill-intentioned individuals to accept. Among these detractors is Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, whose longstanding opposition to Sufism (التصوف) is well known. In light of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s rising popularity, Ghamidi recently renewed his campaign against him by accusing the Shaykh—God forbid (نَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ)—of denying the finality of prophethood (خَتْمُ النُّبُوَّة). Ghamidi claims that Ibn al-ʿArabī believed only in the finality of legislative prophethood (النُّبُوَّة التَّشْرِيعِيَّة), while allegedly affirming the continuation of non-legislative prophethood (النُّبُوَّة غَيْر التَّشْرِيعِيَّة).

In truth, Ghamidi’s aim appears to be the misrepresentation of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s words to curb his increasing popularity. But his effort was ultimately futile, as numerous scholars stepped forward to defend the Shaykh. I too, a humble servant (هذا العاجز), took part in this defense, openly explaining that Ghamidi’s arguments rest on a misreading of literal expressions, and stem from a clear bias. Ibn al-ʿArabī’s position on the doctrine of finality of prophethood (عقيدة ختم النبوة) is explicit: after the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, no prophet (نبي) or messenger (رسول) can come.

The ḥadīth says: “I am the last of the prophets; there is no prophet or messenger after me.” (خاتم النبيين، لا نبي بعدي ولا رسول)
Shaykh al-Akbar has quoted this ḥadīth multiple times across his works.

In light of Ghamidi’s claims, the Ibn al-ʿArabī Foundation received numerous inquiries requesting a detailed response rooted in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s own writings. In response, we produced a series of five explanatory videos on our YouTube channel. These covered the key points necessary for understanding the Shaykh’s stance on finality of prophethood:

1. What is the definition of a prophet (نبي) according to Shaykh al-Akbar?
2. How does he define a messenger (رسول), and what is the difference between a prophet and a messenger?
3. What does “finality” (خَتْم) mean, and what is meant by the finality of prophethood (خَتْمُ النُّبُوَّة)?
4. What does Ibn al-ʿArabī mean by legislative (تَشْرِيعِيَّة) and non-legislative prophethood (غَيْر تَشْرِيعِيَّة)?
5. Is there any room in his writings for the appearance of a prophet (نبي) after the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ?

A proper understanding of these five points is essential to grasp the full scope of this topic.

Around the same time, Dr. Umair Siddiqi and Dr. Zahid Mughal also began writing in defense of the Shaykh, publishing a series of articles on Facebook that eventually culminated in the publication of this book. By the grace of God (بحمد الله), that book is now before us—and I have been asked to offer my thoughts on its contents in light of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s teachings.

I also feel it is important to provide a sincere review of this scholarly work, both to express the Ibn al-ʿArabī Foundation’s position and to contribute meaningfully to the discourse it has sparked.

It is important to mention here that before the book’s publication, we repeatedly requested Dr. Umair Siddiqi to share the manuscript with us. Our intention was to participate in this worthy endeavor by reviewing it, especially to point out any phrases or translations that might deviate from the Shaykh’s spiritual worldview. Unfortunately, this did not happen—and now, post-publication, we offer this review.

Structure and Sources of the Book

Let us now turn to the structure of the book. It consists of 12 chapters (أبواب) and an introduction (مُقَدِّمَة). The introduction begins by explaining the reason for writing the book (سبب التأليف) and the methodological approach (المنهج). On pages 13–14, twelve questions are presented, which the entire book is dedicated to answering. Each chapter provides a detailed response to one of these twelve questions.

Following this, the authors explain the need and importance of the book. The primary objective is to make Shaykh Ibn al-ʿArabī’s (الشيخ ابن العربي) intellectual framework (نِظام الفِكر) accessible to the general reader. This is done in order to dispel the objections raised by critics and to clarify the truth. The methodology of the book emphasizes the theoretical structure of the Shaykh’s worldview, with explicit reference to al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya (الفتوحات المكية), indicating that the majority of the book’s content is derived from this monumental work. However, it also draws on other writings of the Shaykh.

At this point, it is necessary to consider which specific works of Shaykh al-Akbar have been cited in the references (مراجع) and what editions (طبعات) the authors have used. This gives a clearer picture of the scholarly rigor involved.

References and Sources (المراجع والمصادر) of Shaykh al-Akbar’s Works

The academic quality of any research can largely be gauged by the quality of its references (مراجع) and primary sources (مصادر). Since this book was written in Pakistan—where a dedicated institution (the Ibn al-ʿArabī Foundation) already exists for the study of the Shaykh’s works—it becomes important to evaluate which editions of his writings the authors have relied upon and why.

The order of referenced sources follows this pattern:

• Qur’anic sciences (عُلوم القرآن)

• Hadith sciences (عُلوم الحديث)

• Theology (علم الكلام)

• Principles of jurisprudence (أصول الفقه)

• Then the works and teachings of Shaykh al-Akbar (علوم الشيخ الأكبر، كُتب الشيخ الأكبر)

When it comes to Ibn al-ʿArabī’s own works, the first cited source is al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya (الفتوحات المكية). Surprisingly, the only edition referenced is the one published by Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya in Beirut (دار الكتب العلمية – بيروت). There is no mention of the critical edition by ʿUthmān Yaḥyā (عثمان يحيى), nor any reference to the superior edition edited by Ustadh Maḥmūd Ghurāb (الأستاذ محمود غراب).

Likewise, for other works of the Shaykh, most references are again to editions from Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya. What’s even more surprising is the complete omission of texts that have already been published in Pakistan—by the Ibn al-ʿArabī Foundation—with verified Arabic texts and accessible commentaries. These include Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam (فصوص الحكم), ʿAnqāʾ Mughrib (عنقاء مغرب), Rūḥ al-Quds (روح القدس), and others. Instead, inferior versions have been used as source texts. Later in the blog, we will also show how relying on flawed Arabic editions can severely distort the meanings of the Shaykh’s teachings.

Chapter 1: Biography and Scholarly Opinions

The first chapter of the book provides a brief biographical sketch of Shaykh al-Akbar and presents scholarly views (آراء العلماء) about him. This chapter is largely based on Maḥmūd Ghurāb’s book Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn al-ʿArabī: Tarjamat Ḥayātihi min Kalāmihi (الشيخ الأكبر ابن العربي: ترجمۃ حياته من كلامه), with references to other sources as well.

The chapter compiles opinions about the Shaykh from a wide range of scholars, including both admirers (المحبين) and critics (الناقدين). One particularly noteworthy section is dedicated to the perspectives of non-conformist (غير مقلد) scholars, which provides an interesting and insightful read.

Chapter 2: Background of Prophetic Discourse

The second chapter of the book deals with the background of the discourse on prophethood (مباحث النبوة). It opens with four foundational questions as discussed by Sunni scholars (علماء أهل السُنّة): the reality of prophethood (حقيقة النبوة), the possibility of prophethood (إمكان النبوة), the necessity of prophethood (ضرورة النبوة), and the affirmation of prophethood (إثبات النبوة).

Following this, the chapter addresses the linguistic and technical definitions (المعاني اللغوية والاصطلاحية) of both Nabī (نبي) and Rasūl (رسول). Given that the book is written to explore Shaykh al-Akbar’s view of prophethood, the reader naturally expects that these definitions would be explained from his perspective at the outset. However, one is left bewildered to find that after reading all 45 pages of this chapter, not even a single definition of Nabī or Rasūl is cited from the Shaykh himself.

The scholars referenced in this chapter include:

• Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī’s Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid (شرح المقاصد)

• Kamāl ibn al-Humām’s al-Musāmarah and its commentary al-Musāyara (المسامرة، المسائرة)

• Imām Abū al-Barakāt al-Nasafī’s Tafsīr al-Nasafī (تفسير النسفي)

• Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī (تفسير البيضاوي)

• Imām al-Bazdawī and ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī

• Imām al-Ghazālī’s Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn (إحياء علوم الدين)

• Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr and Tafsīr al-Kabīr

• Imām Burhān al-Dīn al-Laqānī’s Jawharat al-Tawḥīd (جوهرة التوحيد)

• Views of Ibn Taymiyyah

• And the thoughts of Shāh Walī Allāh on the differences between Nabī and Rasūl

Several references from hadith collections are also cited. Yet, none of these reflect what the book promises: an exposition of Shaykh al-Akbar’s own view on prophethood. In our opinion, this is a flawed chapter—it adds to the confusion rather than resolving it. The reader walks away without a single definition that truly communicates what Shaykh al-Akbar intended.

Chapter 3: Shaykh al-Akbar’s View on Prophethood

The third chapter finally focuses on Shaykh Ibn al-ʿArabī’s conception of prophethood (تصور النبوة). The opening pages attempt to relate his idea of prophethood to his cosmology (تصور الكون), including the theory of emanation (نظرية الفيض) and the theory of creation (نظرية الخلق). However, no solid textual references from the Shaykh are provided here, making it difficult to evaluate or accept any of the interpretations. These introductory pages fail to communicate Ibn al-ʿArabī’s intent in any meaningful or verifiable way.

Beginning on page 120, under the heading General Prophethood or General Sainthood (النبوة العامة أو الولاية العامة), the real discussion of the Shaykh’s conception of prophethood begins. According to the Shaykh, there are two aspects of prophethood: the general (ʿām) and the specific (khāṣ). The general aspect—what we might call “sainthood” (ولاية) in Urdu—is not, in Ibn al-ʿArabī’s terminology, true nubūwa (نبوة). This form of “general prophethood” is a cosmic reality present throughout creation and is not connected to religious law (Sharīʿa). The topic is explored from multiple angles in an effort to help the general reader grasp the essence of what the Shaykh is expressing. This is the first chapter in which the reader is able to understand a core idea directly related to the Shaykh’s metaphysical worldview.

Following this, on page 142, the section Specific Prophethood or Legislative Prophethood (النبوة الخاصة أو النبوة التشريعية) begins. This is the form of prophethood for which the Shaykh uses the technical term Nabī (نبي), i.e., one who is given a Sharīʿa (شريعة). In Urdu, this refers to a prophet who receives divine law. By contrast, inspiration or revelation (ilhām [إلهام] and alqāʾ [إلقاء]) that does not include law is referred to as sainthood (walāya [ولاية]).

This section includes five passages from al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya (الفتوحات المكية) that discuss the difference between a Nabī and a Rasūl. However, the actual distinction between these terms is never clearly outlined. Worse still, in the previous chapter, the definitions given by traditional theologians were merely paraphrased as if they reflected the Shaykh’s views. The failure to clearly present Ibn al-ʿArabī’s unique definitions of Nabī and Rasūl remains a major flaw in this chapter.

Chapter 4: Shaykh al-Akbar and the Finality of Prophethood

The title of Chapter 4, Shaykh al-Akbar and the Finality of Prophethood (الشيخ الأكبر وخَتْم النبوة), clearly indicates that it will address the doctrine of Khatm al-Nubuwwa (خَتْم النبوة). This chapter gathers all the relevant references from Shaykh al-Akbar’s writings that affirm his belief in the finality of prophethood, asserting that the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets (خاتم النبيين) and that no prophet will come after him. The authors have done justice to this chapter, presenting comprehensive citations that leave no room for doubt or misunderstanding.

We consider this chapter the most successful in the entire book. While the authors still fall short of distinguishing between nubūwa and risāla in the Shaykh’s precise terms, overall, the treatment of khatm al-nubuwwa is satisfying.

Later in the chapter, the authors also include references from commentators (shāriḥīn – شارحين) of Ibn al-ʿArabī, ensuring that no one assumes these later scholars misunderstood his views. Citations are included from Imām al-Shaʿrānī (الإمام الشعراني), Mawlānā Jāmī (مولانا جامي), Imām ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī (الإمام عبد الغني النابلسي), and Shaykh Dāwūd Qayṣarī (الشيخ داود القيصري).

Chapter 5: Legislative and Non-Legislative Prophethood

This chapter addresses the distinction between legislative and non-legislative prophethood, beginning with a discussion of certain technical issues. It proceeds to describe the various forms of non-legislative prophethood. In the Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya, Shaykh [Ibn al-ʿArabī] states:

“There are two kinds of prophets [anbiyāʾ (الأنبياء)]: those who are given a sharīʿa (شريعة), and those who are not. Among the prophets who were given a sharīʿa, there are two types: those whose sharīʿa was exclusively for themselves, and those whose sharīʿa was applicable to others as well—these are called messengers [rusul (رسل)].” [al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya]

Based on this statement, the discussion on non-legislative prophethood unfolds. The authors extract three cases of non-legislative prophecy from Shaykh’s writings:

1. Prophets who received legislative prophethood but will return in a non-legislative capacity, such as Jesus [ʿĪsā (عيسى)] after the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ.
2. Prophets who were not themselves recipients of divine law, but followed a law-bearing messenger, like Aaron [Hārūn (هارون)].
3. The third case proposed by the authors identifies those with universal prophethood [nubuwwa ʿāmma (النبوة العامة)] as non-legislative prophets. This interpretation, however, seems incongruent with the writings of Shaykh al-Akbar and is therefore rejected. In our view, there are only two legitimate types of non-legislative prophethood, as explicitly stated by Ibn al-ʿArabī, and any hypothetical third form lacks textual support.

Following this, arguments are presented to support the non-legislative prophethood of Jesus and Aaron, which are insightful and worth studying.

From page 188 onwards, the chapter discusses universal prophethood [nubuwwa ʿāmma (النبوة العامة)], a concept that refers to an ongoing communication throughout all of creation. In Urdu, this is often labeled as ilhām (الہام), ilqāʾ (القاء), wijdān (وجدان), or intuitive knowledge. For these, the terms revelation [waḥy (وحي)] and prophet [nabī (نبي)] are not used in Urdu, as they are reserved for technical definitions.

Ibn al-ʿArabī, however, uses these terms according to their lexical meanings in Arabic. This has led the authors to erroneously propose a third type of non-legislative prophet, one whose status is extended to all of creation. According to our understanding of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s writings, no such classification exists. In Urdu, nubuwwa ʿāmma should be translated as wilāya (ولایہ) or ilhām (الہام) to prevent misinterpretation. The person with such a quality cannot be called a prophet [nabī] in any case, but rather a saint [walī (ولي)].

One critical passage from the Shaykh is worth emphasizing:

“Dreams are part of the components of prophethood [nubuwwa], but we do not call the one who dreams a prophet [nabī]. This is the same case with universal prophethood [nubuwwa ʿāmma]; it is of a similar nature.”

This very point was exploited by the Qādiyānīs to construct their claim around Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a shadow or metaphorical prophet [nabī ẓillī burūzī]. Hence, clarifying the boundaries is necessary.

Ibn al-ʿArabī himself closed the door to such misunderstandings when he said:

“The door of prophethood [bāb al-nubuwwa (باب النبوة)] has been sealed, just as the door of messengership [bāb al-risāla (باب الرسالة)] has been sealed. And by this I mean legislative prophethood [nubuwwa al-tashrīʿ (نبوة التشريع)]. What remains now is only inheritance [al-wirātha (الوراثة)] until the Day of Resurrection. The Messenger of God ﷺ said: ‘Prophethood and messengership have ended; there is no prophet [nabī] or messenger [rasūl] after me.’”

On the Confusion Between Nabī and Rasūl — and Translation Errors

At this point, the Shaykh distinguishes between the prophet [nabī], messenger [rasūl], and saint [walī]. He states:

“What distinguishes the prophet from the saint [walī] is the revelation of law [waḥy bi-l-tashrīʿ (الوحي بالتشريع)]; only a prophet receives it, and only a messenger legislates it. He makes things lawful and unlawful and brings all forms of revelation [waḥy (وحي)]. The saints [awliyāʾ] have no share in this matter…”

Despite this, because the authors failed to define the terms nabī and rasūl according to Ibn al-ʿArabī’s own terminology in the second chapter, they proceed through the subsequent chapters treating them as synonymous. This leads to frequent translation errors.

For instance, on page 194, the Arabic text is misquoted due to reliance on a poor edition, and the translation misrepresents the original meaning. The terms yusharraʿu (يشرَّعُ) and yusharriʿu (يشرِّعُ) are both rendered incorrectly, causing the authors to portray both nabī and rasūl as lawgivers. However, Ibn al-ʿArabī maintains a clear distinction between the two.

Page 195 presents a similar issue, stating:

“To establish a sharīʿa is a prerogative of the prophet and messenger alone.”

This, again, conflates the roles, even though Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Arabic maintains the separation.

Legal Terminology Must Not Be Applied to Non-Prophets

Ibn al-ʿArabī firmly states that technical terms such as nabī, nubuwwa, and waḥy are to be applied only to those who have received divine legislation. He writes:

“The names nubuwwa and nabī are to be used solely for the one given a divine law [ṣāḥib al-sharīʿa (صاحب الشريعة)]. It is no longer permissible to apply these terms to anyone else.” (Page 193)

And further:

“We have refrained from using the term nubuwwa for what we call universal prophethood [nubuwwa ʿāmma], precisely so that no one would mistakenly believe such a person to be a real prophet.” (Page 201)

He continues:

“A good dream is a type of prophethood, but the dreamer is not a prophet.”
“Know this: what we receive from God is ilhām [inspiration], not waḥy [revelation], because the path of waḥy was sealed with the death of the Prophet ﷺ.” (Page 162)

Use of These Terms in Urdu

It is essential to understand that while Ibn al-ʿArabī uses terms like waḥy, nubuwwa ʿāmma, or even awliyāʾ al-anbiyāʾ in their lexical Arabic meanings, these must not be transferred into Urdu in a technical sense. In Urdu, these terms have exclusive legal and theological connotations, and misusing them can lead to significant doctrinal confusion.

Thus, in Urdu translations, such expressions should be rendered using words like ilhām (الہام), wilāya (ولایت), khabar (خبر), wijdān (وجدان), or ilqāʾ (القاء)—not nubuwwa (نبوت) or waḥy (وحی).

Chapter 7: The Hierarchy of Stations of Beatitude (Maqāmāt al-Saʿāda)

This chapter explores the hierarchical order of spiritual stations, presented through diagrams and conceptual models to illustrate Ibn al-ʿArabī’s perspective. Terms like risāla [رسالة], nubuwwa [نبوة], walāya [ولاية], and īmān [إيمان] are discussed in relation to each other.

The chapter then touches on the doctrine of the superiority of prophets (afḍaliyyat al-anbiyāʾ – [أفضلية الأنبياء]), concluding that no non-prophet, regardless of his spiritual stature, can access the experiential realities or gnosis (maʿārif – [معارف]) specific to prophets. The appropriate stance in this matter is one of reverence [أدب] and silence [صمت].

Ibn al-ʿArabī writes:

“I was present in a gathering of gnostics (ʿārifīn – [عارفين]) where one person asked another: ‘From what station did Moses (peace be upon him) ask to see God?’ The other replied: ‘From the station of longing (maqām al-shawq – [مقام الشوق]).’ I (Ibn al-ʿArabī) interjected: ‘Do not speak in this way, for the endpoint of the saints is the starting point of the prophets. No saint has any tasting (dhawq – [ذوق]) or knowledge of the states of prophets related to legislation. And the rule of sainthood is that we speak from tasting; since we are not prophets or messengers ([نبي] / [رسول]), how can we claim to know from which station Moses made his request to behold God?’” (p. 262)

This chapter is filled with such profound reflections and is crucial for understanding the Shaykh’s outlook. It concludes with a comprehensive and moving tribute to the Seal of the Prophets [خاتم النبيين], Muḥammad ﷺ, proclaiming him the Imam of all the prophets [إمام الأنبياء].

The chapter later addresses a common confusion regarding whether a prophet or a saint is superior. There is no doubt that the prophet [نبي] is superior to the saint [ولي], but some ill-informed individuals misinterpret Ibn al-ʿArabī’s words to mislead the public. The text also briefly addresses the concept of Khatm al-Awliyāʾ [خاتم الأولياء], which Ibn al-ʿArabī discusses in his work ʿAnqāʾ al-Maghrib [عنقاء المغرب], now available in Urdu translation by the Ibn al-ʿArabī Foundation.

Chapter 8: The Legal Status of Unveiling (Kashf – [كشف]) and Inspiration (Ilhām – [إلهام])

This chapter assesses the legal status of spiritual unveiling and divine inspiration. The authors have diligently extracted valuable gems from the writings of the Shaykh, which will surely benefit attentive readers.

Next, the chapter examines the expression “awliyāʾ al-anbiyāʾ” [أولياء الأنبياء] and then turns to Ibn al-ʿArabī’s understanding of the sources of Islamic law (maṣādir al-sharīʿa – [مصادر الشريعة]). He recognizes only three: the Qurʾān [القرآن], the Sunnah [السنة], and Consensus (ijmāʿ – [إجماع]). He explicitly rejects analogical reasoning (qiyās – [قياس]) as an independent legal source.

Chapter 9: Responses to Critics of Ibn al-ʿArabī

This chapter addresses the objections raised by prominent contemporary critics of Shaykh al-Akbar, such as Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Ḥāfiẓ Zubair. The authors carefully present their contradictions and respond to them. The chapter also outlines the stance of Ibn Taymiyya [ابن تيمية], who engaged with Ibn al-ʿArabī’s views critically.

Chapter 10: The Case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qādiyānī

This crucial chapter deals with the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qādiyān, such as his explicit claim to prophethood [نبوة], his takfīr [تكفير] of those who denied him, and his attempts to abrogate [نسخ] or alter the divine law (sharīʿa – [شريعة]). These claims are categorically refuted using Ibn al-ʿArabī’s framework, emphasizing the finality of Muḥammad’s ﷺ legislative and spiritual mission [الرسالة التشريعية والروحية].

Chapters 11 & 12: Further Responses to Critics

The final two chapters focus in more depth on contemporary critiques, particularly addressing the positions of Ḥāfiẓ Zubair and Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. Their misreadings [تحريف] and misinterpretations [تأويلات باطلة] are analyzed and critiqued.

Conclusion

The essence of our commentary is this: the book does justice to its subject. It revolves primarily around five foundational concepts. If the reader grasps these, the rest of the material becomes accessible:

1. The definition of nabī [نبي] and rasūl [رسول]
2. The distinction between nubuwwa [نبوة] and risāla [رسالة]
3. The difference between nubuwwa ʿāmma [نبوة عامة] and nubuwwa khāṣṣa [نبوة خاصة]
4. The categorization of legislative and non-legislative prophets [نبي تشريعي وغير تشريعي]
5. The concept of khatm [ختم] and the finality of prophethood [ختم النبوة]
6. In our view, the book falls short in explicitly clarifying Ibn al-ʿArabī’s definition of nabī and rasūl, which leaves the reader uncertain at key moments. However, regarding the other terms and concepts, it succeeds in presenting the Shaykh’s perspective quite well.

Conclusion
Critique: Weaknesses and Strengths

Weaknesses:

• Use of unreliable Arabic editions (particularly from Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya [دار الكتب العلمية])

• Arabic quotations are sometimes rendered without proper diacritics [تشكيل] or orthography [إملاء]

• The key shortcoming is the failure to clearly define nabī and rasūl from Ibn al-ʿArabī’s perspective, leaving the reader vulnerable to misinterpretation

Strengths:

• High-quality Urdu font, imported paper, excellent printing, and reasonable price

• Successfully conveys Ibn al-ʿArabī’s general worldview [رؤية كونية] in an accessible form, making complex mystical ideas [معاني صوفية] more approachable for the Urdu-speaking public

In closing, I extend heartfelt congratulations to the authors, Dr. Muhammad Zahid Siddiq Mughal and Dr. Umair Mahmood Siddiqi, for this monumental and historic effort in compiling and clarifying Ibn al-ʿArabī’s nuanced views on prophethood [النبوة]. May God reward them abundantly and allow us to continue benefiting from the luminous sciences of Shaykh al-Akbar [الشيخ الأكبر].

Abrar Ahmad Shahi
Ibn al-ʿArabī Foundation

Works Cited

Addas, Claude. “The Muhammadian House: Ibn ʿArabī’s Concept of Ahl al-Bayt.” Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi Society, 14 Jan. 2020.

“Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya.” Hurqalya Publications: Center for Shaykhī and Bābī-Bahā’ī Studies. Ed. Stephen Lambden.

“Ibn Arabi.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Apr. 2025.

“Khatm e Nabuwat.” IslamiEducation, 17 Jan. 2014.

Lambden, Stephen. “Muhammad ibn Ali, Muḥyi al-Dīn Ibn al-Arabī (Damascus, Syria 638/1240).” Hurqalya Publications: Center for Shaykhī and Bābī-Bahā’ī Studies, 20 Nov. 2017.

“Seal of the Prophets.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 1 Apr. 2025.

“40 Hadith Establishing the Finality of Prophethood.” Muslim Skeptic, 6 May 2023.