This paper examines the unique status of Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi, famously known as "Al-Shaykh al-Akbar" (The Greatest Master), within the intellectual and Sufi mystical landscape of Iran, with a particular focus on the contemporary era. Ibn Arabi has been the most influential Sufi mystic in the Islamic world, and specifically in Iran; his works have transcended the intellectual boundaries of numerous thinkers, profoundly impacting philosophers, theologians, and jurists alike. Consequently, while one group has elevated his stature to the title of "Muhyiddin" (The Reviver of Faith), another group has accused him of error and even heresy, dubbing him "Mumit al-Din" (The Destroyer of Faith).
The widespread reception of Ibn Arabi in Iran is best understood in comparison to his compatriot and contemporary, Ibn Rushd (Averroes). While Ibn Rushd’s Aristotelian rationalism took root in the Islamic West (Andalusia) and served as a precursor to Western modernity, it was Ibn Arabi’s Sufi mystical-intuitive thought that resonated in Iran, intertwining with Shi'a traditions and Sadraean philosophy. Renowned commentators such as Sayyid Haydar Amuli and Shah Nimatullah Wali sought to demonstrate—and even expand upon—the compatibility of his core doctrines (such as the Unity of Being and the Perfect Man) with Shi'a esoteric teachings.
Furthermore, this article addresses the critiques and challenges surrounding Ibn Arabi, which are classified into four general categories: 1) Religious critiques (concerning issues like the Unity of Being and Pharaoh’s faith at the time of death); 2) Shi'a theological and jurisprudential critiques (theologically regarding the infallibility of prophets and perceived anti-Shi'a sentiments, and jurisprudentially concerning issues like takattuf—folding hands—in prayer); 3) Modern intellectual and literary critiques (such as accusations of plagiarism, linguistic ambiguity, and phantasmagoric speculation); and 4) Political critiques (the so- called link between his doctrine of Wilayah and the contemporary theory of Wilayat-e Faqih). The third and fourth categories, which are largely modern and specific to contemporary Iran, constitute the primary focus of this article’s analysis and critique.
Ultimately, the author emphasizes that understanding Ibn Arabi necessitates an acquaintance with his internal logic and symbolic mystical language, as well as an "inner dialogue" with him. Ibn Arabi’s views and expressive style cannot be judged or measured through the lens of modern thought; indeed, his perspective on language is fundamentally opposed to that of analytic philosophers. In any event, Ibn Arabi is not merely a historical figure; his presence in contemporary Iranian literature, art, philosophy, and even politics remains vibrant and provocatively challenging.