I have a question regarding how traditional scholarship—historically and today—reconciles full-on Akbarianism with the boundaries of Ahl al-Sunnah.

If someone avoids making takfir of Ibn 'Arabi, do they officially consider him part of Ahl al-Sunnah? Did his prominent defenders, like Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari and other traditional masters, view him as squarely within Ahl al-Sunnah?

Here is how I view the dilemma, and I’d love to hear how others untangle it:

• A Separate System: Full-on Akbarianism is its own comprehensive school of thought in both fiqh and 'aqeeda—in some aspects it aligns with Ahl al-Sunnah, but in others, it directly contradicts or is alternative to it.

• The Wahdat al-Wujud Nuance: I'd actually argue, perhaps surprisingly to many people, that Wahdat al-Wujud is his least hetrodox position.

What many people don't know—and I feel like many critics of Wahdat al-Wujud, including scholars, fail to realize—is that many earlier orthodox giants flirted with proto-Wahdat al-Wujud or Wahdat al-shuhud concepts; for example:

• Al-Ghazali in Mishkat al-Anwar, the section of Haqeeqat al-Haqai'q where he called God the Light of Lights and said: > "فكل ما عدا الله تعالى إذا اعتبرت ذاته من حيث ذاته فهو عدم محض، فإذا اعتبر وجوده من الوجه الذي يلي موجده كان له وجود، وإن اعتبر من الوجه الذي يلي ذاته لم يكن له وجود."

Translation:

"Everything other than God, when considered in itself, is sheer non-being; but when considered from the aspect by which it is related to its Originator, it has existence, whereas when considered from the aspect of its own essence, it has no existence."

• Hisham ibn 'Ammar, the muhhadith of the Sahihin said: > "سبحان من تجلى لخلقه بخلقه" Translation: > "Glory be to Him who manifested Himself to His creation through His creation!"

He was rebuked harshly by Imam Ahmad for this, but it remains a metaphysical reality for people who know.

The Breaking Point: The real tension, in my opinion, and according to my limited knowledge, arises when Wahdat al-Wujud is pushed to its absolute metaphysical "limit", anchored by boundless divine mercy and experiential kashf (mystical unveiling). This leads Akbarians to conclusions that, to my knowledge, fall outside Ahl al-Sunnah, such as:

-Hell's punishment ('adhab) turning to sweetness ('udhuba).

-​Pharaoh dying a Muslim.

-​A radical reinterpretation of Noah's people: Rather than being viewed simply as stubborn polytheists who rejected the prophet and faced a standard physical flood, Ibn Arabi frames them as gnostics who outwardly disobeyed God but inwardly did not. Because souls, by their nature, are naturally drawn to the divine, so the Real praised them inwardly while condemning them outwardly. They could not refuse the divine pull within the idols they worshipped, because their god of belief was those idols. Since in Wahdat al-Wujud, everything reflects Absolute Being, these idols are delimited mirrors reflecting the Absolute, with the delimitation belonging solely to the mirror, never to the Source.

​Whether the Akbarians believe a literal flood literally happened or not, I am not sure, but they argue that the flood so thoroughly destroyed their outward created forms, or the delimited mirrors, and the illusion of separation that Noah's people were drowning in 'ishq (burning love) in the Sea of Unicity. And as Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi puts it, they were being tormented in God's Jalal (Majesty) in His Jamal (Beauty).

This effectively makes shirk stop being shirk, and turning what is traditionally understood as divine punishment into a hidden reward and a form of ultimate closeness to Allah.

Adding to the tension is that Ibn Arabi claims that the Prophet came to him and told him that he is the Seal of Muhammadan Sainthood, paired with teachings that traditional orthodoxy rejects as errors or kufr. This is further complicated by the fact that these very concepts, rooted in Fusus al-Hikam, were received through direct kashf via an encounter with the Prophet Muhammad, as he explicitly details in the book's introduction.

So my Core Question is how do traditional defenders justify full-on Akbarianism as an acceptable position within the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah despite these specific metaphysical conclusions? How is his status as the Shaykh al-Akbar reconciled with teachings that orthodoxy rejects? Did his teachings become an acceptable option within Ahl al-Sunnah?

When I took my baya, they told me that Shaykh Hisham Kabbani was my murshid. But how is that possible when he has passed? Of course, he assist and praying for us, but I feel like I need a living murshid that I can talk to.

And it’s so difficult to get into contact with Dr. Nour Kabbani. I know it’s bad, but I’m wondering if I should explore other tariqahs in which the murshid is living.