http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Interdisiplin/message/2715

Tujuan Pendidikan?

Maka dari itu, tujuan pendidikan seharusnya adalah mengenal Allah SWT.

Semakin kenal seseorang Allah SWT, maka orang tersebut akan semakin
menyadari 'kehadiran'-Nya dalam setiap keadaan, sehingga terlindungi
dari sifat curang, mulai dari yang kecil sampai dengan yang besar.
Kedekatan dengan khaliq juga berdampak kepada semakin hebatnya daya
manfaat seseorang kepada lingkungannya, karena ilmu-Nya akan mengalir
deras kepada yang bersangkutan.

Sekarang ini pendidikan terlalu diarahkan ke tujuan-tujuan yang
sifatnya duniawi, jauh dari tujuan untuk mengenal Allah SWT.

Manifestasi tujuan duniawi dapat kita lihat pada tujuan pendek
pendidikan kita yang berorientasi pada nilai akademik semata (nilai
akademik pun hanya untuk mengukur kekuatan menghafal), sedangkan
tujuan akhirnya adalah uang dan status sosial.

Kesalahan tujuan jangka pendek pendidikan berakibat pada pendidikan
yang berbasis kepada kurikulum semata dan semakin menafikkan peran
guru. Ketika hal ini terjadi, guru hanya berperan sebatas sebagai
pengajar (yang hanya mengajarkan materi-materi pelajaran), tidak
sebagai pendidik (selain memberikan materi pelajaran, tapi juga
nilai-nilai lain, seperti etika, akhlak, ruh ilmu yang diajarkan dll).
Ini disebabkan kebijakan pemerintah yang lebih berminat mengalokasikan
dana untuk pembuatan buku-buku kurikulum yang tebal-tebal (sehingga
dapat dikorup), ketimbang memperbaiki kesejahteraan para guru.

Dampak ke siswa adalah mereka berorientasi sebatas pada materi
pelajaran akademik (yang berbasis kepada memorizing itu), sehingga
tidak heran kita temui para siswa kita tidak sungkan-sungkan untuk
mencontek ketika ujian atau doyan tawuran atau hidup secara hedonistik
atau menjadi para pembangkang. Hal tersebut disebabkan tidak
bersemainya nilai-nilai etika dan akhlaq pada lubuk hati mereka.
Cahaya Tuhan tidak menyinari hati mereka, disebabkan para guru tidak
dapat menjadi agen ilmu-Nya dengan baik; ilmu sebatas tertulis secara
kering di kertas, tidak pernah menyinari para siswa (bahkan mungkin
para gurunya sendiri).

Kesalahan tujuan jangka panjang pendidikan berakibat pada sifat tamak
para siswa. Bagi yang mengejar uang, maka mereka terkondisi sebagai
koruptor-koruptor ulung, jika bekerja di pemerintahan, dan menjadi
para kapitalis yang tidak berhati nurani, jika berada di swasta. Bagi
yang mengejar status sosial, misalnya dalam dunia sains dan teknologi,
mereka tidak sungkan-sungkan melakukan kecurangan-kecurangan demi
prestasi yang berakibat pada status sosial. Hal-hal tersebut sebagai
akumulasi akibat pendidikan yang tidak berupaya menghadirkan Allah
SWT. Output pendidikan sekuler menghasilkan para manusia yang tidak
mengenal etika, akhlaq dan cahaya ilmu, sehingga mereka berbuat
kerusakan, baik skala kecil atau pun besar.

Semoga era ini cepat berakhir ...

Wass.,

Agung

‘Ulema of Ahlu-s-Sunnah
in Defense of Ibn ‘Arabi

Salaam Allaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu,

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Majlis al-Ulema of the Italian Muslim Association for issuing this fatwa of refutation against the charges made by LaMole786, Farrukh and others who have been making false declarations regarding our beloved and esteemed Shaykh al-Akbar Muhiddin Ibn Arabi al-Hatimi at-Ta'i [may ALLAH be well pleased with him]. I am taking the liberty of forwarding this to the London-Net list which Farrukh also posted the anti-Ibn Arabi posts so that its members can benefit from it as well.

May ALLAH reward you a thousandfold in this life and the Hereafter for taking a stand against the misguidance of the enemies of Islam - the Wahabbi, Salafi and Saudi.

Fi Amman Allah,
from the servant of ALLAH,
Sayyedah Aeisha Muhammed al-Khayr

From: Majlis al-Ulema of the Italian Muslim Association
islam.inst@flashnet.it


This is a fatwa of refutation from the Mashaykh who sit in the Majlis of Ulema in Rome, written against false declarations by LaMole786 and Farrukh, may Allah lead them to tawbah and istighfar and bring them back to the sawa' Sabil.

May Allah protect this Ummah against those laypersons who, while being stonehearted to Rahmah and blinded to Haqq - dare opening their unlearnt tongues to spread lies against our noble forerinners Ulema' ul-Muhtadun, those awliya' of al-Rahman who are the heirs of Rushdah min al-Khulafa', the guardians of Sunnah and the listeners of secrets ar-Rabbaniyyah that are whispered between the veils.

Let you be informed, Brothers and Sisters, that no accuse against Shaykh al-Akbar Muhiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Hatimi at-Ta'i is supported by the consensus of this Ummah, that deliberately accusing him of kufr and being disrespectful to him is a sign of one misguided heretic sect, the one founder by sahibu-l-Fitnah Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani and even aggravated by Muhammad Ibn Abdi-l-Wahhab and his likes.

What LaMole786 says in his ignorance is an ugly accusation, frequently repeated by al-Mujassimah and their like, against one of the greatest 'Urafa' of Ahl al-Sunnah Shuyukh in the history of Islam.

Wahhabis hatred for Ahl as-Sufiyyah will undoubtedly cause statements of innovation and even kufr to come out of their mouths against ‘Awliya'Ullah al-muqarrabun. It must be noted that this sectarian attack against Shaykh Ibn al-‘Arabi is not limited to just him but to other great Mashaykh as well. Numerous Wahhabi ignoramuses have accused Ibn al-‘Arabi of kufr in their websites and books. We take refuge by Allah this garbage our eyes were compelled to read for the of abiding by the wajib kifayah of refutation of bid‘ah and dalalah.

Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, in his translation of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri’s “Umdat al-salik,” explains Ibn al-‘Arabi’s background and elaborates on why some people have misunderstood and misrepresented his true position:

“Muyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi is Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-‘Arabi, Abu Bakr Muhyi al-Din al-Hatimi al-Ta’i, The Greatest Sheikh (al-Shaykh al-Akbar), born in Murcia (in present-day Spain) in 560/1165. A “mujtahid” Imam in Sacred Law, Sufism, Qur’anic exegesis, hadith, and other Islamic sciences, and widely regarded as a friend (wali) of Allah Most High, he was the foremost representative of the Sufi school of the “oneness of being” (wahdat al-wujud), as well as a Muslim of strict literal observance of the prescriptions of the Qur’an and sunna. He first took they way of Sufism in A.H. 580, and in the years that followed authored some 600 books and treatises in the course of travels and residences in Fez, Tunis, Alexandria, Cairo, Mecca, Baghdad, Mosul, Konya, Aleppo, and finally Damascus, where he lived till the end of his life and completed his “al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya” [The Meccan Revelations] and “Fusus al-Hikam” [The Precious Stones of the ring-settings of the Wisdoms]. Since interest in his work continues among even non-Muslim scholars, a number of hermeneutical obstacles are worth mentioning here that have in some measure so far hindered serious efforts to understand the Sheikh’s works, by friend and foe alike.

The first lack of common ground with the author, who has written,

“We are a group whose works are unlawful to peruse, since the Sufis, one and all, use terms in technical senses by which they intend other than what is customarily meant by their usage among scholars, and those who interpret them according to their usual significance commit unbelief.”

While this may not be particularly intimidating to someone who is already an unbeliever, it does at least implicitly deny the validity of a do-it- yourself approach to the Sheikh’s thought and point up the relevance of the traditional maxim,

'Knowledge is to be taken from those who possess it.'

A related difficulty is that the context of much of Ibn al-‘Arabi’s “Futuhat” and other works is not only the outward Islamic sciences, but also their inner significance, not by any means an “esoteric symbolism” that nullifies the outward content of the Sheikh’s inquiries, but a dimension of depth, a reflective counterpart to their this-worldly significance whose place and existential context is the world of the spirit, to which the physical universe—in which many of his would-be interpreters are firmly enmeshed and know nothing besides, especially those who are atheists—is like a speck of dust in the sea. While the present discussion cannot adequately do justice to the topic, one may yet observe that the heart of someone familiar only with the “What will I eat,” “What will I say,” “Will it prove feasible,” and other physical and intellectual relations of instrumentality that make up this world is no more capable of real insight into the world of someone like the Sheikh than a person inches away from a giant picture is capable of “seeing” the picture he believes is “before his very eyes.” The way of Ibn al-‘Arabi is precisely a “way,” and if one has not traveled it or been trained to see as Ibn al-‘Arabi sees, one may well produce intelligent remarks about one’s perceptions of the matter, as attested to by a whole literature of “historical studies” of Sufism, but the fact remains that one does not see.

A third difficulty is he problem of spurious interpolations by copyists, as once happened to ‘Abd al-Wahhab Sha‘rani, who had to bring his own handwritten manuscript to court to prove he was innocent of the unbelief that enemies had inserted into his work and published in his name. The “Hashiya” of Ibn ‘Abidin notes that this has also happened to the “Fusus al- Hikam” of Ibn al-‘Arabi, the details being given in a promulgation by the Supreme Ottoman Sultanate exonerating the author of the statements of unbelief (kufr) it said that it was interpolated into the work. This is supported by the opinion of Mahmud Mahmud Ghurab, an Ibn al-‘Arabi specialist of Damascus who has published more than twelve books on the Sheikh’s thought, among them “al-Fiqh ‘ind al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi” [Sacred Law According to the Greatest Sheikh, Muhyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi], which clarifies Ibn al-‘Arabi’s position as a Zahiri Imam and mujtahid in Sacred Law; and “Sharh Fusus al-Hikam” [Exegesis of “The Precious Stones of the ring-settings of the Wisdoms], in which Ghurab indicates eighty-six passages of the “Fusus” that he believes are spurious, adducing that they contradict the letter and spirit of “al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya,” which must be given precedence because we possess a manuscript copy in the author’s own handwriting, while there are no such copies of the “Fusus.”

One may summarize the above-mentioned difficulties and others by the general observation that without a master with whom to read these texts, someone who has himself read them with a teacher aware of their place in the whole of the Sheikh’s work, one is in danger of projecting one’s own limitations onto the author. This happens in our times to various groups of interpreters, among them non-Muslim “sufis” who have posthumously made Ibn al-‘Arabi an "honorary syncretist", saying that he believed all religions to be equally valid and acceptable—which Ghurab says is an ignorant misreading, and to which the Sheikh himself furnishes a sufficient reply in his account of his convictions (‘aqida) at the first of the “Futuhat” where he says,

“Just as I charge Allah, His angels, His entire creation, and all of you to bear witness upon me that I affirm His Unity, so too I charge Him Most Glorious, His angels, His entire creation, and all of you to bear witness upon me that I believe in the one He has elected, chosen, and selected from all His existence, Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace, who He hassent to all mankind entirely (ila jami’ al-nas kaffatan) to bring good tidings and to warn and to call to Allah by His leave” (“al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya”).

Other interpreters who commit errors are well-meaning Muslims who do not and cannot understand the Sheikh’s words, which they read in their native Arabic as if it were a newspaper and then level accusations of unbelief against the author on the basis of what comes to their minds while doing so. For all groups of interpreters, there is a pressing need for scholarly modesty and candor about our exegetical limitations, and to draw attention to the fact that without a guide in reading the Sheikh’s thought, one is adrift in a sea of one’s own guesswork.

Aside from these basic hermeneutic requirements for reading the work of Ibn al-‘Arabi, other, existential qualifications are needed, for as mentioned above, the Sheikh’s method is a way, and as such entails not only curiosity, but commitment and most of all submission to Allah Most High as the Sheikh had submission to Him, namely through Islam—as well as other conditions mentioned by Ibn Hajar Haytami in a legal opinion in which, after noting that it is permissible or even meritorious (mustahabb) to read the Sheikh’s works, but only for the qualified, he writes:

“Imam Ibn al-‘Arabi has explicitly stated:

‘It is unlawful to read [the Sufis’] books unless one attains to their level of character and learns the meaning of their words in conformity with their technical usages, neither of which is found except in someone who has worked assiduously, rolled up his sleeves, abandoned the wrong, tightened his belt, filled himself replete with the outward Islamic sciences, and purified himself from every low trait connected with this world and the next. It is just such a person who comprehends what is being said and is allowed to enter when he stands at the door’.”

The Sheikh outlines what is entailed by “working assiduously” in a series of injunctions (wasaya) at the end of his “Futuhat” that virtually anyone can benefit from, and by which one may infer some of the outward details of the Sheikh’s way. By all accounts, he lived what he wrote in this respect, and his legacy bears eloquent testimony to it. He died in his home in Damascus, a copy of Ghazali’s “Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din” on his lap, in 638/1240.”

One can see that Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi was a great saint of Islam who adhered to the footsteps of the pious salaf us-salih. Unfortunately, many Muslims quote from non-Muslim sources and orientalist translators like William C. Chittick and Peter Lamborn Wilson to accuse Ibn al-‘Arabi of heresy. The ulema of Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jamma’ praised Ibn al-‘Arabi very much, and continue to praise him until this day.

Our Majlis declares about the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah wa-l-Jama‘ah:

The prevalent verdict of Ahlu-s-Sunnah Ulema and their Jam'at is that Shaykh al-Akbar Muhi-d-Din Ibnu-l-Arabi was a mu’min, a zayd, an ‘alim, a faqih, a hafiz, a muhaddith, a Zahiri qadi and a mufassir of Qur'an. The mistake of calling him kafir or a mushrik (astaghfir-Ullah al-‘Azhim) started with Ibn Taymiyyah’s ignorance and survives in his misguided disciples. Ahl al-Tasawwuf wa-l-Ihsan agree on the fact he was a wali, having a high status by Allah. A relevant number of Mashaykh of Tasawwuf think he was a Qutb in his time, and turuq like ‘Alawiyyah and Darqawiyyah also think he was the Khatm al-Wilayyah al-Muhammadiyyah.

His doctrine of “wahdatu-l-wujud” is the more complete expression of manzilat al-ahadiyyah in a intoxicated and permanent maqam ar-Rububiyyah. Sober Mashaykh like ‘Ala-u-Dawlah as-Simnani criticized some points of his doctrine from a stricter Ash’ari point of view, but notwithstanding this, they were treating him with the maximum respect and never dared accusing him of kufr or bid'ah.

Imam Rabbani as-Sarhindi developed the sober doctrine of “wahdatu-s-shuhud,” but thid does not prevent him treating Ibn ‘Arabi as a great wali and a murshid kamil. One line of his “Futuhat” or “Fusus” is more valuable than all of the abstruse books by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, Albani and Qaradawi together.

A masterpiece of a refutation against those who falsely think about Ibn Taymiyyah as “’alim” and “mujaddid” and accept his baseless takfir against Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn al-‘Arabi is in the book Al-Ni’matu-l-Kubrah, by Imam Shihabu-d-Din Ahmad Ibn Hijr al-Haytami as-Shaf’i. This text is highly praised by Shaykh ‘Abdu-s-Samad Ibn Hamid, a Sunni scholar from Cameroon. Another precious work is "Maqalat as-Sunniyyah" by Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Harari.

Numberless Sunni Ulemas call Sidi Muhiddin “Shaykh al-Akbar”. His doctrine is praised and defended by numberless ulema, among which: Shaykh ‘Abdu-r-Razaq al-Kashani (Ta’wilat), Shaykh Sadru-d-Din al-Qunawi (Sharh Fusus al-Hikam), Jalalu-d-Din Rumi (Mathnawi and Diwan), Fakhru-d-Din al-Hamadani (Rub‘iyyat) Ibnu-l-Farid al-Misri (Ghazal), Mahmud Shahristani (Ghulshan-e Raz), ‘Abdu-l-Karim al-Jili (Al-Insan al-Kamil), Ibn Hamzah al-Fanari (Miftah al-Uns), Nuru-d-Din Jami (Nafahat al-Uns), Imam Rabbani (Maktubat, expecially letter 55 & 163, Muntahabat, Ta’idu Ahl as-Sunnah, and Ithbat an-Nubuwwah), Khalid al-Baghdadi (Ihtiqad-Nama, and Risalah fi Tahqiq ar-Rabitah), ‘Abdu-l-Ghani an-Nablusi (Fayd al-Muqbas, and Khulasah at-Tahqiq), Khwaja Muhammad Hasan Khan (Al-Usul al-Arba’h), Yusuf an-Nabhani (Khulasah al-Kalam, Hujjat-Ullahi ‘ala al-‘Alamin, and Shawaiq al-Haqq), Malik ibn Shaykh Dawud (Haqiqah al-Islamiyyah fi Raddi ‘ala al-Mazhaim al-Wahhabiyyah), Muhammad Hayat Sindi (Risalah Ghayah at- Tahqiq), Omar Nasfi (‘Aqaid an-Nasafiyyah), Shah Ghulam ‘Ali Dehlawi (Mukatib as-Sharifah), Ahmad Waliyy-Ullah Dehlawi (Al-Insaf, Ikd al-Jayyid, and Al-Mikyas), Ahmad Ibn Zayni Dahlan (Futuhat al-Islamiyyah, and Khulasah al-Kalam), Jajalu-d-Din as-Suyuti (Karasatu-t-Tanwir), Sulayman Ibn ‘Abdi-l-Wahhab (As-Shawaiq al-Ilahiyyah), Fadli-r-Rasul (Sayf al-Jabbar), the Egyptian Jami’at al-Madari (Nahs as-Sawiyyi fi Raddi ‘ala Sayyid Qutb wa Faisal Mawlawi), Ahmed Rida Khan Berlewi (Fatawah al-Haramayn), Siraju-Din ‘Ali Ushi (Nukbat al-Laali), Abu Muhammad al-Wailturi (Fatawah ‘Ulama’ al-Hind), Qadi Habib al-Haqq Permuli (Tanqid wa Tardid), Tahir Muhammad (Zahirat al-Fiqh al-Kubra), Muhammad Rebhami (Riyad an-Nasihin), Muhammad Yusuf al-Banuri (Al-Ustadh Mawdudi and Kashf as-Sublah), Sa‘id ar-Rahman at-Tirahi (Habl al-Matin), Muhammad Bawa Wiltori (Hidayah al-Muwaffiqin), ‘Abdu-l-Wahhab as-Shahrani (Tadhkirah al-Awliyyah, and Mizan al-Kubra) Mudarris Hamid-Ullah Najwi (Al-Basayr li-l-Munkir at-Tawassuli bi-Ahl al-Maqabir), Muhammad Khadimi (Al-Bariqah), Muhammad Birjiwi (Tariqah al-Muhammadiyyah), ‘Abdu-r-Rahman Kutti (Sabil an-Najat), Rauf Ahmad Mujaddid (Durr al-Ma’arif), Dawud ibn Said Sulayman (Al-Mihah al-Wahbiyyah), Dawud al-Musawi al-Baghdadi (Ashadd al-Jihad) Mahmud Effendi al-Alusi (Kashf an-Nur), Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdi-Lllah al-Khani (Al-Bahjah as-Saniyyah), Hasan Dhu Zajwa’i at-Turki (Ir‘am al-Murid), Hajj Ibrahim Yare as-Somali (Tarbiyyah ar-Rabbaniyyah), Shaykh Ibrahim al-Ahmadi al-Idris (Azhimah al-Qadr), Mo’allim Hussein al-Badawi as-Siddiqi (Kalimat al-Muhlasin), Ahmad ‘Ali al-Layji al-Katibi as-Shahir (Fajr as-Sadiq), ‘Abdu-l-Hakim al-Arwasi (Sa‘adah al-Abadiyyah, with tafsir by Shaykh Hilmi ‘Ishiq), Zahir Shah Ibn ‘Abdi-l-‘Azhim Miyanu-d-Din (Diya’ as-Sudur), Mustafa Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hasan al-Shati al-Hanbali (Nuqul as-Shari‘ah), Muhammad Najib al-Mati‘i al-Hanafi (Tathir al-Fu’ad), Taqiyyu-d-Din ‘Ali as-Sabaki (Shifa’ as-Siqam, and Intisar al-Awliyya’ ar-Rahman), Effendi Sadiq az-Zahawi (Fajru-s-Sadiq), Sulayman Islambuli (Miftah al-Falaq, and Khutbatu ‘Id al-Fitr), ‘Abdu-l-Majid Ibn Muhammad al-Khani (Sa’adah al-Abadiyyah), ‘Ali Muhammad al-Balkhi (Al-Hadiqah an-Nadiyya), Muhammad Mahbubu-l-Haqq Ansari (Hujjah al-Qati’ah), Qasim Ibn Qatalubgha’ al-Hanafi al-Bankoghi (Nur al-Yaqin), Qadi Habibu-l-Haqq Firmulewi (Dalayl al-Hujjaj), Ibn Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari, (Hikam, Lataif al-minan fi manaqibi Abi ‘Abbas wa Shaykhihi Abi Hasan, Miftah al-Falah wa Misbah al-Anwar, and Kitab at-Tanwir fi Isqah at-Tadbir), ‘Aziz Ahmad (Ta‘lim as-Shaykh Ahmad as-Sirhindi), Al-Aflaki (Manaqib al-‘Arifin), Muhammad ‘Abdu-l-Qayyum al-Qadiri al- Hazarawi (At-Tawassul bi-n-Nabi wa as-Salihin), Muhammad Hafiz at-Tijani (Ahl al-Haqq al-‘Arifun bi-Llah), ‘Abdu-s-Samad at-Tijani (Allah wa al-Rakam Sitta wa Sittin), and many others.

Even the shi‘ite Ruh-Ullah al-Musawi al-Khomeini praised Shaykh al-Akbar very much in his letter to Mikhail Gorbachev.

Many of these pro-Ibn Arabi books are forbidden by the so-called Saudi Dar al-Ifta’, but - al-hamdu Lillah - are preserved through a waqf from Shaykh al-Arwasi. We ask everyone who reads this message to recite al-Fatihah for his blessed soul.

May Allahu Ta’ala bless Shaykh al-Akbar Muhi-d-Din Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Hatimi at-Ta’i al-Andalusi and those who spoke the Haqq about this wali, and may Allah 'Azza wa Jall protect him from the false accusations and takfir by wahhabis, orientalists, and shayatin. Amin.

Shaykh Abu Ibrahim Ali Ibn Husseyn as-Siddiqi
Shaykh Abu Omar Abdul Hadi as-Shafi'i
Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Bukhari
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Majlis al-Ulema of the Italian Muslim Association
www.islam.italy.too.it
islam.inst@flashnet.it

‘Ulema of Ahlu-s-Sunnah
in Defense of Ibn ‘Arabi

Salaam Allaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu,

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Majlis al-Ulema of the Italian Muslim Association for issuing this fatwa of refutation against the charges made by LaMole786, Farrukh and others who have been making false declarations regarding our beloved and esteemed Shaykh al-Akbar Muhiddin Ibn Arabi al-Hatimi at-Ta'i [may ALLAH be well pleased with him]. I am taking the liberty of forwarding this to the London-Net list which Farrukh also posted the anti-Ibn Arabi posts so that its members can benefit from it as well.

May ALLAH reward you a thousandfold in this life and the Hereafter for taking a stand against the misguidance of the enemies of Islam - the Wahabbi, Salafi and Saudi.

Fi Amman Allah,
from the servant of ALLAH,
Sayyedah Aeisha Muhammed al-Khayr

From: Majlis al-Ulema of the Italian Muslim Association
islam.inst@flashnet.it


This is a fatwa of refutation from the Mashaykh who sit in the Majlis of Ulema in Rome, written against false declarations by LaMole786 and Farrukh, may Allah lead them to tawbah and istighfar and bring them back to the sawa' Sabil.

May Allah protect this Ummah against those laypersons who, while being stonehearted to Rahmah and blinded to Haqq - dare opening their unlearnt tongues to spread lies against our noble forerinners Ulema' ul-Muhtadun, those awliya' of al-Rahman who are the heirs of Rushdah min al-Khulafa', the guardians of Sunnah and the listeners of secrets ar-Rabbaniyyah that are whispered between the veils.

Let you be informed, Brothers and Sisters, that no accuse against Shaykh al-Akbar Muhiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Hatimi at-Ta'i is supported by the consensus of this Ummah, that deliberately accusing him of kufr and being disrespectful to him is a sign of one misguided heretic sect, the one founder by sahibu-l-Fitnah Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani and even aggravated by Muhammad Ibn Abdi-l-Wahhab and his likes.

What LaMole786 says in his ignorance is an ugly accusation, frequently repeated by al-Mujassimah and their like, against one of the greatest 'Urafa' of Ahl al-Sunnah Shuyukh in the history of Islam.

Wahhabis hatred for Ahl as-Sufiyyah will undoubtedly cause statements of innovation and even kufr to come out of their mouths against ‘Awliya'Ullah al-muqarrabun. It must be noted that this sectarian attack against Shaykh Ibn al-‘Arabi is not limited to just him but to other great Mashaykh as well. Numerous Wahhabi ignoramuses have accused Ibn al-‘Arabi of kufr in their websites and books. We take refuge by Allah this garbage our eyes were compelled to read for the of abiding by the wajib kifayah of refutation of bid‘ah and dalalah.

Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, in his translation of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri’s “Umdat al-salik,” explains Ibn al-‘Arabi’s background and elaborates on why some people have misunderstood and misrepresented his true position:

“Muyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi is Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-‘Arabi, Abu Bakr Muhyi al-Din al-Hatimi al-Ta’i, The Greatest Sheikh (al-Shaykh al-Akbar), born in Murcia (in present-day Spain) in 560/1165. A “mujtahid” Imam in Sacred Law, Sufism, Qur’anic exegesis, hadith, and other Islamic sciences, and widely regarded as a friend (wali) of Allah Most High, he was the foremost representative of the Sufi school of the “oneness of being” (wahdat al-wujud), as well as a Muslim of strict literal observance of the prescriptions of the Qur’an and sunna. He first took they way of Sufism in A.H. 580, and in the years that followed authored some 600 books and treatises in the course of travels and residences in Fez, Tunis, Alexandria, Cairo, Mecca, Baghdad, Mosul, Konya, Aleppo, and finally Damascus, where he lived till the end of his life and completed his “al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya” [The Meccan Revelations] and “Fusus al-Hikam” [The Precious Stones of the ring-settings of the Wisdoms]. Since interest in his work continues among even non-Muslim scholars, a number of hermeneutical obstacles are worth mentioning here that have in some measure so far hindered serious efforts to understand the Sheikh’s works, by friend and foe alike.

The first lack of common ground with the author, who has written,

“We are a group whose works are unlawful to peruse, since the Sufis, one and all, use terms in technical senses by which they intend other than what is customarily meant by their usage among scholars, and those who interpret them according to their usual significance commit unbelief.”

While this may not be particularly intimidating to someone who is already an unbeliever, it does at least implicitly deny the validity of a do-it- yourself approach to the Sheikh’s thought and point up the relevance of the traditional maxim,

'Knowledge is to be taken from those who possess it.'

A related difficulty is that the context of much of Ibn al-‘Arabi’s “Futuhat” and other works is not only the outward Islamic sciences, but also their inner significance, not by any means an “esoteric symbolism” that nullifies the outward content of the Sheikh’s inquiries, but a dimension of depth, a reflective counterpart to their this-worldly significance whose place and existential context is the world of the spirit, to which the physical universe—in which many of his would-be interpreters are firmly enmeshed and know nothing besides, especially those who are atheists—is like a speck of dust in the sea. While the present discussion cannot adequately do justice to the topic, one may yet observe that the heart of someone familiar only with the “What will I eat,” “What will I say,” “Will it prove feasible,” and other physical and intellectual relations of instrumentality that make up this world is no more capable of real insight into the world of someone like the Sheikh than a person inches away from a giant picture is capable of “seeing” the picture he believes is “before his very eyes.” The way of Ibn al-‘Arabi is precisely a “way,” and if one has not traveled it or been trained to see as Ibn al-‘Arabi sees, one may well produce intelligent remarks about one’s perceptions of the matter, as attested to by a whole literature of “historical studies” of Sufism, but the fact remains that one does not see.

A third difficulty is he problem of spurious interpolations by copyists, as once happened to ‘Abd al-Wahhab Sha‘rani, who had to bring his own handwritten manuscript to court to prove he was innocent of the unbelief that enemies had inserted into his work and published in his name. The “Hashiya” of Ibn ‘Abidin notes that this has also happened to the “Fusus al- Hikam” of Ibn al-‘Arabi, the details being given in a promulgation by the Supreme Ottoman Sultanate exonerating the author of the statements of unbelief (kufr) it said that it was interpolated into the work. This is supported by the opinion of Mahmud Mahmud Ghurab, an Ibn al-‘Arabi specialist of Damascus who has published more than twelve books on the Sheikh’s thought, among them “al-Fiqh ‘ind al-Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi” [Sacred Law According to the Greatest Sheikh, Muhyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi], which clarifies Ibn al-‘Arabi’s position as a Zahiri Imam and mujtahid in Sacred Law; and “Sharh Fusus al-Hikam” [Exegesis of “The Precious Stones of the ring-settings of the Wisdoms], in which Ghurab indicates eighty-six passages of the “Fusus” that he believes are spurious, adducing that they contradict the letter and spirit of “al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya,” which must be given precedence because we possess a manuscript copy in the author’s own handwriting, while there are no such copies of the “Fusus.”

One may summarize the above-mentioned difficulties and others by the general observation that without a master with whom to read these texts, someone who has himself read them with a teacher aware of their place in the whole of the Sheikh’s work, one is in danger of projecting one’s own limitations onto the author. This happens in our times to various groups of interpreters, among them non-Muslim “sufis” who have posthumously made Ibn al-‘Arabi an "honorary syncretist", saying that he believed all religions to be equally valid and acceptable—which Ghurab says is an ignorant misreading, and to which the Sheikh himself furnishes a sufficient reply in his account of his convictions (‘aqida) at the first of the “Futuhat” where he says,

“Just as I charge Allah, His angels, His entire creation, and all of you to bear witness upon me that I affirm His Unity, so too I charge Him Most Glorious, His angels, His entire creation, and all of you to bear witness upon me that I believe in the one He has elected, chosen, and selected from all His existence, Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace, who He hassent to all mankind entirely (ila jami’ al-nas kaffatan) to bring good tidings and to warn and to call to Allah by His leave” (“al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya”).

Other interpreters who commit errors are well-meaning Muslims who do not and cannot understand the Sheikh’s words, which they read in their native Arabic as if it were a newspaper and then level accusations of unbelief against the author on the basis of what comes to their minds while doing so. For all groups of interpreters, there is a pressing need for scholarly modesty and candor about our exegetical limitations, and to draw attention to the fact that without a guide in reading the Sheikh’s thought, one is adrift in a sea of one’s own guesswork.

Aside from these basic hermeneutic requirements for reading the work of Ibn al-‘Arabi, other, existential qualifications are needed, for as mentioned above, the Sheikh’s method is a way, and as such entails not only curiosity, but commitment and most of all submission to Allah Most High as the Sheikh had submission to Him, namely through Islam—as well as other conditions mentioned by Ibn Hajar Haytami in a legal opinion in which, after noting that it is permissible or even meritorious (mustahabb) to read the Sheikh’s works, but only for the qualified, he writes:

“Imam Ibn al-‘Arabi has explicitly stated:

‘It is unlawful to read [the Sufis’] books unless one attains to their level of character and learns the meaning of their words in conformity with their technical usages, neither of which is found except in someone who has worked assiduously, rolled up his sleeves, abandoned the wrong, tightened his belt, filled himself replete with the outward Islamic sciences, and purified himself from every low trait connected with this world and the next. It is just such a person who comprehends what is being said and is allowed to enter when he stands at the door’.”

The Sheikh outlines what is entailed by “working assiduously” in a series of injunctions (wasaya) at the end of his “Futuhat” that virtually anyone can benefit from, and by which one may infer some of the outward details of the Sheikh’s way. By all accounts, he lived what he wrote in this respect, and his legacy bears eloquent testimony to it. He died in his home in Damascus, a copy of Ghazali’s “Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din” on his lap, in 638/1240.”

One can see that Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi was a great saint of Islam who adhered to the footsteps of the pious salaf us-salih. Unfortunately, many Muslims quote from non-Muslim sources and orientalist translators like William C. Chittick and Peter Lamborn Wilson to accuse Ibn al-‘Arabi of heresy. The ulema of Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jamma’ praised Ibn al-‘Arabi very much, and continue to praise him until this day.

Our Majlis declares about the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah wa-l-Jama‘ah:

The prevalent verdict of Ahlu-s-Sunnah Ulema and their Jam'at is that Shaykh al-Akbar Muhi-d-Din Ibnu-l-Arabi was a mu’min, a zayd, an ‘alim, a faqih, a hafiz, a muhaddith, a Zahiri qadi and a mufassir of Qur'an. The mistake of calling him kafir or a mushrik (astaghfir-Ullah al-‘Azhim) started with Ibn Taymiyyah’s ignorance and survives in his misguided disciples. Ahl al-Tasawwuf wa-l-Ihsan agree on the fact he was a wali, having a high status by Allah. A relevant number of Mashaykh of Tasawwuf think he was a Qutb in his time, and turuq like ‘Alawiyyah and Darqawiyyah also think he was the Khatm al-Wilayyah al-Muhammadiyyah.

His doctrine of “wahdatu-l-wujud” is the more complete expression of manzilat al-ahadiyyah in a intoxicated and permanent maqam ar-Rububiyyah. Sober Mashaykh like ‘Ala-u-Dawlah as-Simnani criticized some points of his doctrine from a stricter Ash’ari point of view, but notwithstanding this, they were treating him with the maximum respect and never dared accusing him of kufr or bid'ah.

Imam Rabbani as-Sarhindi developed the sober doctrine of “wahdatu-s-shuhud,” but thid does not prevent him treating Ibn ‘Arabi as a great wali and a murshid kamil. One line of his “Futuhat” or “Fusus” is more valuable than all of the abstruse books by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, Albani and Qaradawi together.

A masterpiece of a refutation against those who falsely think about Ibn Taymiyyah as “’alim” and “mujaddid” and accept his baseless takfir against Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn al-‘Arabi is in the book Al-Ni’matu-l-Kubrah, by Imam Shihabu-d-Din Ahmad Ibn Hijr al-Haytami as-Shaf’i. This text is highly praised by Shaykh ‘Abdu-s-Samad Ibn Hamid, a Sunni scholar from Cameroon. Another precious work is "Maqalat as-Sunniyyah" by Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Harari.

Numberless Sunni Ulemas call Sidi Muhiddin “Shaykh al-Akbar”. His doctrine is praised and defended by numberless ulema, among which: Shaykh ‘Abdu-r-Razaq al-Kashani (Ta’wilat), Shaykh Sadru-d-Din al-Qunawi (Sharh Fusus al-Hikam), Jalalu-d-Din Rumi (Mathnawi and Diwan), Fakhru-d-Din al-Hamadani (Rub‘iyyat) Ibnu-l-Farid al-Misri (Ghazal), Mahmud Shahristani (Ghulshan-e Raz), ‘Abdu-l-Karim al-Jili (Al-Insan al-Kamil), Ibn Hamzah al-Fanari (Miftah al-Uns), Nuru-d-Din Jami (Nafahat al-Uns), Imam Rabbani (Maktubat, expecially letter 55 & 163, Muntahabat, Ta’idu Ahl as-Sunnah, and Ithbat an-Nubuwwah), Khalid al-Baghdadi (Ihtiqad-Nama, and Risalah fi Tahqiq ar-Rabitah), ‘Abdu-l-Ghani an-Nablusi (Fayd al-Muqbas, and Khulasah at-Tahqiq), Khwaja Muhammad Hasan Khan (Al-Usul al-Arba’h), Yusuf an-Nabhani (Khulasah al-Kalam, Hujjat-Ullahi ‘ala al-‘Alamin, and Shawaiq al-Haqq), Malik ibn Shaykh Dawud (Haqiqah al-Islamiyyah fi Raddi ‘ala al-Mazhaim al-Wahhabiyyah), Muhammad Hayat Sindi (Risalah Ghayah at- Tahqiq), Omar Nasfi (‘Aqaid an-Nasafiyyah), Shah Ghulam ‘Ali Dehlawi (Mukatib as-Sharifah), Ahmad Waliyy-Ullah Dehlawi (Al-Insaf, Ikd al-Jayyid, and Al-Mikyas), Ahmad Ibn Zayni Dahlan (Futuhat al-Islamiyyah, and Khulasah al-Kalam), Jajalu-d-Din as-Suyuti (Karasatu-t-Tanwir), Sulayman Ibn ‘Abdi-l-Wahhab (As-Shawaiq al-Ilahiyyah), Fadli-r-Rasul (Sayf al-Jabbar), the Egyptian Jami’at al-Madari (Nahs as-Sawiyyi fi Raddi ‘ala Sayyid Qutb wa Faisal Mawlawi), Ahmed Rida Khan Berlewi (Fatawah al-Haramayn), Siraju-Din ‘Ali Ushi (Nukbat al-Laali), Abu Muhammad al-Wailturi (Fatawah ‘Ulama’ al-Hind), Qadi Habib al-Haqq Permuli (Tanqid wa Tardid), Tahir Muhammad (Zahirat al-Fiqh al-Kubra), Muhammad Rebhami (Riyad an-Nasihin), Muhammad Yusuf al-Banuri (Al-Ustadh Mawdudi and Kashf as-Sublah), Sa‘id ar-Rahman at-Tirahi (Habl al-Matin), Muhammad Bawa Wiltori (Hidayah al-Muwaffiqin), ‘Abdu-l-Wahhab as-Shahrani (Tadhkirah al-Awliyyah, and Mizan al-Kubra) Mudarris Hamid-Ullah Najwi (Al-Basayr li-l-Munkir at-Tawassuli bi-Ahl al-Maqabir), Muhammad Khadimi (Al-Bariqah), Muhammad Birjiwi (Tariqah al-Muhammadiyyah), ‘Abdu-r-Rahman Kutti (Sabil an-Najat), Rauf Ahmad Mujaddid (Durr al-Ma’arif), Dawud ibn Said Sulayman (Al-Mihah al-Wahbiyyah), Dawud al-Musawi al-Baghdadi (Ashadd al-Jihad) Mahmud Effendi al-Alusi (Kashf an-Nur), Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdi-Lllah al-Khani (Al-Bahjah as-Saniyyah), Hasan Dhu Zajwa’i at-Turki (Ir‘am al-Murid), Hajj Ibrahim Yare as-Somali (Tarbiyyah ar-Rabbaniyyah), Shaykh Ibrahim al-Ahmadi al-Idris (Azhimah al-Qadr), Mo’allim Hussein al-Badawi as-Siddiqi (Kalimat al-Muhlasin), Ahmad ‘Ali al-Layji al-Katibi as-Shahir (Fajr as-Sadiq), ‘Abdu-l-Hakim al-Arwasi (Sa‘adah al-Abadiyyah, with tafsir by Shaykh Hilmi ‘Ishiq), Zahir Shah Ibn ‘Abdi-l-‘Azhim Miyanu-d-Din (Diya’ as-Sudur), Mustafa Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hasan al-Shati al-Hanbali (Nuqul as-Shari‘ah), Muhammad Najib al-Mati‘i al-Hanafi (Tathir al-Fu’ad), Taqiyyu-d-Din ‘Ali as-Sabaki (Shifa’ as-Siqam, and Intisar al-Awliyya’ ar-Rahman), Effendi Sadiq az-Zahawi (Fajru-s-Sadiq), Sulayman Islambuli (Miftah al-Falaq, and Khutbatu ‘Id al-Fitr), ‘Abdu-l-Majid Ibn Muhammad al-Khani (Sa’adah al-Abadiyyah), ‘Ali Muhammad al-Balkhi (Al-Hadiqah an-Nadiyya), Muhammad Mahbubu-l-Haqq Ansari (Hujjah al-Qati’ah), Qasim Ibn Qatalubgha’ al-Hanafi al-Bankoghi (Nur al-Yaqin), Qadi Habibu-l-Haqq Firmulewi (Dalayl al-Hujjaj), Ibn Ata’ Allah al-Iskandari, (Hikam, Lataif al-minan fi manaqibi Abi ‘Abbas wa Shaykhihi Abi Hasan, Miftah al-Falah wa Misbah al-Anwar, and Kitab at-Tanwir fi Isqah at-Tadbir), ‘Aziz Ahmad (Ta‘lim as-Shaykh Ahmad as-Sirhindi), Al-Aflaki (Manaqib al-‘Arifin), Muhammad ‘Abdu-l-Qayyum al-Qadiri al- Hazarawi (At-Tawassul bi-n-Nabi wa as-Salihin), Muhammad Hafiz at-Tijani (Ahl al-Haqq al-‘Arifun bi-Llah), ‘Abdu-s-Samad at-Tijani (Allah wa al-Rakam Sitta wa Sittin), and many others.

Even the shi‘ite Ruh-Ullah al-Musawi al-Khomeini praised Shaykh al-Akbar very much in his letter to Mikhail Gorbachev.

Many of these pro-Ibn Arabi books are forbidden by the so-called Saudi Dar al-Ifta’, but - al-hamdu Lillah - are preserved through a waqf from Shaykh al-Arwasi. We ask everyone who reads this message to recite al-Fatihah for his blessed soul.

May Allahu Ta’ala bless Shaykh al-Akbar Muhi-d-Din Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Hatimi at-Ta’i al-Andalusi and those who spoke the Haqq about this wali, and may Allah 'Azza wa Jall protect him from the false accusations and takfir by wahhabis, orientalists, and shayatin. Amin.

Shaykh Abu Ibrahim Ali Ibn Husseyn as-Siddiqi
Shaykh Abu Omar Abdul Hadi as-Shafi'i
Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Bukhari
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Majlis al-Ulema of the Italian Muslim Association
www.islam.italy.too.it
islam.inst@flashnet.it

Google memang dahsyat.

Berikut rumah kami di Depok.

Koordinat di Google Earth (Latitude, Longitude) = (6°22'11.62"S, 106°48'23.46"E)

Jakarta, 26 Agustus 2004

Barangkali ini adalah saat-saat saya tidak memiliki idealisme sedikitpun sejak SMA. Ketika SMA sampai dengan selesai kuliah S-2 di ITB, agaknya saya sangat keras kepala dengan idealisme sampe'2x sering konflik dengan orang lain.

Gimana juga, ya, bertahan dengan idealisme untuk tetap bertahan bekerja sebagai peneliti/dosen ? Gaji kecil (walaupun mungkin untuk ukuran 210 juta rakyat Indonesia besar juga), udah gitu diejek sana-sini sebagai PENGANGGURAN TERSELUBUNG. Yah ... inilah masyarakat kita; menganggap profesi ustadz, guru, dosen dst., sebgai profesi akhir karena gak ada pekerjaan lain !

Dua hari terakhir saya bertemu dengan kawan lama saya; beliau adalah FW, sekarang udah kerja di proXL; ck ...ck....ck ... tempat kerjanya nyaman minta ampun ! Gimana kagak jadi rebutan, tuh ! Padahal dulu saya yang jadi asisten dosen beliau di beberapa kuliah; dan ternyata si Ginanjar, FT'96, gurunya tentang LINUX & Java ! PAdahal gw tau banget si Ginanjar !

Saya akhir2x ini meratapi diri sendiri; sampe' kapan nasib saya akan seperti ini ? Akankah mengikuti jejak Pak Pantur dan Pak Hans yang berada dalam kesulitan ekonomi yang luar biasa; atau hrskah gw banting setir ke tempat2x yang basah ?

Ya, Allah ... bimbinglah hamba-Mu ini ...

Salam.

From:  "estananto"
Date:  Tue Apr 20, 2004  3:01 am
Subject:  Re: Perjalanan Ruhani dan Pemahaman Mengenai Teori Kuantum pada Setiap Manusia adalah Unik; was : Mengenai Perkataan Rumi


Dear mas moderator,

Saya sendiri bukan ahli fisika sehingga berani mengutip ucapan
Feynman. Juga bukan ahli tasawuf sehingga mengutip ucapan Rumi. Tapi
ketika saya membaca ungkapan keduanya, saya sadar bahwa segala macam
ilmu - termasuk sains - hanyalah tool (alat) yang bisa salah dan
bisa benar. Dulu orang percaya bumi datar, lalu katanya bumi bulat.

Dulu orang percaya bahwa matahari mengelilingi bumi, lalu ternyata
bumilah yang mengelilingi matahari. Dulu orang memuja teori Newton
yang memampukan orang membuat mesin, mobil, dan pesawat terbang,
kini orang beralih ke teori kuantum yang membingungkan buat orang
awam: kok ada dualisme partikel, bagaimana bisa?

Ilmu - termasuk sains - bukanlah tujuan, ia hanyalah tool untuk
menerangkan fenomena jagat raya. Alam semesta yang terkembang maupun
pengetahuan diri manusia tetaplah ada dan "menyediakan" dirinya
untuk diamati, "menyediakan" kesempatan bagi manusia untuk
menyaksikan kebesaran Tuhan. Dengan sains ada manusia yang bertambah
religius, tapi ada pula yang makin bertambah jauh dengan Tuhan, sama
halnya seperti kehidupan itu sendiri yang sifatnya adalah ujian.

Memutlakkan sains sebagai jalan pembuktian menurut saya adalah
riskan karena sains itu sendiri terus berkembang. Hari ini mungkin
ada mekanika kuantum lengkap dengan matematikanya, mungkin di masa
datang teori ini akan usang. Simaklah pernyataan Feynman ini: "The
basis of science is its ability to *predict*". Lebih lanjut Feynman
berkata: "Today we say that the law of relativity is supposed to be
true at all energies, but someday somebody may come along and say
how stupid we were. We do not know where we are "stupid" until
we "stick our neck out", and so the whole idea is to put our neck
out. And the only way to find out that we are wrong to find out
*what* our predisctions are. It is absolutely necessary to make
constructs."

Nasehat dari orang yang pertama kali mengatakan "there is a plenty
room in the bottom" 20 tahun lalu ini tentu bagi saya sebagai orang
awam sungguh luar biasa. Dia menyadari kekurangan sains yang
digelutinya dan tidak menepuk dada bahwa sainsnya *pasti* benar dan
yang lain salah. Mekanika kuantum tidak bisa digunakan - ini
intrepretasi saya terhadap pendapat Feynman - untuk segala kasus.

Orang dulu tidak punya teori mekanika kuantum atau fisika matematik
atau dalil-dalil filsafat yang canggih tapi ada juga orang2 yang
merenungi penciptaan sampai akhirnya mereka "sampai". Kerendah-
hatian Feynman mengajarkan saya bahwa sains sebagai hasil karya
manusia punya keterbatasan yang someday mungkin akan ditemukan,
karena ia hanya perkiraan, bukan pemastian.

Sikap Feynman ini juga dianut banyak orang bijak. Dalam tradisi
Islam dikenal empat mazhab hukum, yaitu Hanafi, Maliki, Syafii, dan
Hambali. Walaupun banyak pendapat mereka dalam menafsirkan agama
bisa berlainan, namun mereka tetap menghargai satu sama lain dan
mengatakan secara eksplisit bahwa mereka bisa salah. Ulama zaman
dahulu selalu mengakhiri artikelnya dengan "wallahu a'lam", yang
artinya "dan Tuhan mengetahui" untuk menyatakan ketidaktahuannya.

Sikap terbuka - dengan demikian - menjadi kunci bagi terwujudnya
kemajuan sains. Bukan mutlak2an yang akhirnya mengarah ke nuansa
saling tuduh yang sangat jauh dari etika ilmiah. Saya merasa sebagai
individu memiliki keterbatasan mencerna kebenaran hanya dengan akal,
seperti yang dikatakan Rumi sebagai "pencarian cendekiawan". Adakah
yang bisa memaparkan Cinta Tuhan dalam persamaan fisika matematik?
Untuk "stick our neck out" seperti kata Feynman, memang dibutuhkan
orang dari berbagai disiplin ilmu. Untuk itulah, saya sangat
berharap agar mas moderator bisa menjalankan fungsi beliau untuk
memoderatori orang-orang ini agar terjadi dialog yang pas. Bukan
pengarahan langsung ke suatu pendapat tertentu.

Salam,

Nano

NB: mas Agung, saya bukan orang IT walaupun bekerja di lapangan IT.
Dulu saya benar pernah mengambil master di Karlsruhe, tapi bukan di
University of Karlsruhe, melainkan University of Applied Sciences di
sana. Saat ini saya sangat membutuhkan pencerahan untuk Quantum
Cellular Automata (QCA).

John Baez Opinion's about Quantum Cellular Automata:

[spr] Quantum cellular automata
John Baez baez@galaxy.ucr.edu
Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:42:39 +0000 (UTC)
Previous message: [spr] Re: Bell's theorem and Universe as a CA idea
Next message: [spr] Re: Bell's theorem and Universe as a CA idea
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]


In article ,

Greg Kuperberg wrote:

>>[Moderator's note: the problem is not so much "morals" as that
>>nobody has described how modelling the universe as a CA is supposed
>>to get around the fundamental indeterminacy of QM while still
>>agreeing with experiment. - jb]
>I don't know why people keep overlooking the notion of a quantum
>cellular automaton.

Some people do, but lots of people don't... and certainly not me!

The reason why I made the above remark was that we were talking
about attempts to model the world as an ordinary *classical*
cellular automaton. There are people who really want to do this,
and who scorn the thought of resorting to a *quantum* cellular automaton.
These people are even somewhat influential - though more
among computer scientists and hobbyists than among physicists.
The main two are Ed Fredkin and Stephen Wolfram.
There are two obvious difficulties that any attempt to
model the world as a cellular automaton must overcome:
The first is Bell's theorem. The second is the fact that
a lattice lacks symmetry under rotations and Lorentz boosts.
To get around the first problem one can use a quantum cellular
automaton. However, some people regard this as cheating.

In his book "A New Kind of Science", Wolfram attempts to get
around this problem while still working with classical
cellular automata. I don't really understand this attempt.
To get around the second problem, one can invent cellular automata
that exhibit *approximate* rotation and Lorentz symmetry, at least
when viewed at large length scales. This is another subject,
which I won't talk about here.

So, who invented the idea of a quantum cellular automaton?

Feynman's "quantum checkerboard" model of spinors in 2d spacetime,
dating back at least to 1965, is a nice *example* of a quantum
cellular automaton:

R. Feynman and A. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals,
McGraw-Hill, 1965.

In 1980 Benioff showed you could simulate a *classical* Turing
machine using quantum mechanics:

P. Benioff, "The Computer as a Physical System: A Microscopic Quantum
Mechanical Hamiltonian Model of Computers as Represented by Turing
Machines," Journal of Statistical Physics, Vol. 22 (1980), pp. 563-591.
and in 1982 Feynman showed that classical Turing machines can't
simulate quantum systems without an exponential slowdown:
Richard Feynman, "Simulating Physics with Computers," Optics News
Vol. 11 (1982), pp. 467-488.

But when did people first say the words "quantum cellular automaton"?
Deutsch invented "quantum circuits" around 1989:

D. Deutsch, Quantum computational networks, Proc. Roy. Soc. London
Ser. A, 425 (1989), pp. 73-90.
Norm Margolus certainly was speaking about quantum cellular
automata in this 1990 paper:

N. Margolus, Parallel quantum computation, in W. H. Zurek, ed.,
Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, vol. VIII,
pp. 273-87, Addison-Wesley, 1990, also available as

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/margolus91parallel.html

But I don't see the actual phrase "quantum cellular
automaton" in here!

Oh well... it doesn't really matter who first uttered the
phrase. The important thing is that people have been studying
quantum cellular automaton for quite a while now. This thesis
is a nice introduction to the subject:
Wim van Dam, Quantum cellular automata, Master's Thesis,
University of Nijmegen, Netherlands, 1996,

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/vandam96quantum.html

and it also describes a universal quantum cellular automaton,
which simulates any other with only a linear slowdown.
Here's a nice website on quantum cellular automata, with an
emphasis on how you might actually build them with quantum dots:

http://www.nd.edu/~qcahome/

Both these have a bunch of references to other papers.

>If you want to connect physics to CAs, why not also
>connect physics to QCAs?

Indeed! To quote the master:

"I'm not happy with all the analyses that go with just
the classical theory, because nature isn't classical, dammit!"
- Richard Feynman, "Simulating Physics with Computers"

Hallo !! I'm here !!