Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

If Imam Ali (as) was the rightful caliph, why would the sahaba not hold that opinion? 

Why would the majority of Muslims reject this?

 

See how this sort of thinking is flawed? We can't assume just because some maraji teach it, this means that Islam is in accordance with it. Ayatollah Sadeq Shirazi, Ayatollah Sadiq Rouhani, Ayatollah Hammoud al-Amili, Sheikh Ishaq al Fayyadh.... these are all prominent scholars who are against this.

So what. 

But imam khomine and Mohhamad Hussain Tabatbie Ayatollah Bahjat all prays and promote ibne Arabi. In other words it means ibne has not said anything wrong. 

Now tell me where above mujtahids said something that is against shia Islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allamah Tabatabai, author of Tafsir Al-Mizan says: “How can one consider Ibn Arabi to be on the

path, while he considers Mutawakkil to be one of the apostles of God?”[12]
Was Ibn Arabi Shia or Sunni?
question
1- What is your viewpoint on whether Ibn Arabi was a Shia or Sunni?
2- Can all of the many things he has said that are in contradiction with the fundamentals of the Shia school of thought be considered out of dissimulation and not being aware of the truth and weakness in understanding?
Concise answer

The complicated personality and his attitude towards different great personalities of different sects has made it difficult to determine what sect Ibn Arabi belonged to, thus there are different viewpoints on this issue. Some say he was Sunni, some say he was a twelve imamer Shia, some say he was an Ismaili Shia, some say he was a Maleki, some say he was higher than to have been affiliated to any sect and some even say he didn’t belong to any particular sect. Nevertheless, his works and writings imply that he was a Hanbali Sunni, showing tendency to some Shia beliefs at times as well.

It should be noted that some, like Sheikh Baha’i, consider him to be Shia. In this case, one has no choice but to say that the things he sometimes says that are in total contradiction with fundamental beliefs of the Shia are all out of dissimulation.

Detailed Answer

Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Hatam Ta’i, also known as Abu Abdillah, Ibn Aflatun, Ibn Suraqah, Ibn Arabi, Sheikh Akbar and Muhyiddin is a descendant of Abdullah ibn Hatam, the brother of the famous sahabi, Uday ibn Hatam, and his family tree traces back to the great Hatam Ta’i. His father, Ali ibn Muhammad, was an ascetic fiqh and hadith scholar and imam who was considered a sufi. His mother was from the خولان tribe of the Ansar.

 

Ibn Arabi was born on the seventh of Ramadan, 560 (ah), in Murcia, a city in Andulus. He passed away on the eighth of Rabi’ul-Akhar of the year 638 (ah) in Damascus and was buried in the north of this city, in a place called Salehiyyah at the bottom of the mountain of Qasiyun.

 

He was a Hanbali and one of the greatest Islamic mystics ever; a mystic who has stirred much debate regarding his personality amongst those for and against him, sometimes making other mystics, wise-men, jurists, and scholars strong advocates of his, and sometimes antagonists.[1]

 

Although there are many sources that have mentioned his biography and described his personality, nevertheless, most of them are either biased in his favor or against it, making it hard to reach the truth about him. Sometimes he is considered one who has achieved the highest levels of spirituality and one of the apostles of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, while at other times being considered one who has turned away from religion and has innovated in it, misleading many as a result.

 

The best and most efficient way to get familiar with both his everyday life and personality, and with his spiritual character and what levels of spirituality he has achieved, is to refer to the writings and books he has left behind.

 

Now, keeping this little introduction in mind, we will engage in answering your question.

 

Was Ibn Arabi a Shia or Sunni?

 

In his books, cases can be seen that suggest he has spoken according to the Shia school of thought, to the extent that some have considered him to be Shia as a result.  Cases like what he has said in his book of Futuhat Makkiyyah, which is one of his most famous and important works. There, he says: “Ali ibn Abi Taleb is the closest individual to the prophet (pbuh) and the secret of all other prophets and apostles.”[2] Or like what he says about Imam Mahdi; that he is Allah's سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى vicegerent on the earth, from the progeny of Lady Fatimah (as) and that he shares the same name as the prophet (pbuh). Scholars such as Sheikh Baha’i have been surprised from this statement and concluded that he was Shia. Sheikh Baha’i, Ibn Fahd Hilli, Muhaddith Seyyid Jaza’eri and Qadhi Nurullah Tustari are some of those who have considered him to be Shia.[3]

 

Nevertheless, it must be noted that all the phrase “Ali ibn Abi Taleb is the closest to the prophet (pbuh) …” implies is that when it comes to generative authority (wilayah takwini), no one matches Imam Ali (as), not that he is the immediate successor to the prophet (pbuh). Many Sunnis, especially the Mu’tazilah and mystics believe that Imam Ali (as) was higher than everyone else, to the extent that Ibn Abil-Hadid, who was a Sunni Mu’tazili and has a very famous commentary on the Nahjul-Balaghah, says (in the opening of his book when praising Allah (swt)): “و الحمد لله الذی فضل المفضول علی الافضل لمصلحة[4] (All praise is due to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, who preferred and chose the lower [Abu Bakr] over the higher and more virtuous [Ali (as)] for a reason [that he knew of])”.

 

Secondly, even our Sunni brothers believe Imam Ali (as) to be their fourth khalifah, but that doesn’t make them Shia; therefore, just because one believes that Imam Ali (as) was a good person and that he was higher than others, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is Shia.

 

Although Ibn Arabi has spoken in favor of Ali (as) here, he has also stated in Futuhat Makkiyyah that Abu Bakr’s caliphate was legitimate and that he was the khalifah after the prophet (pbuh).[5] Also, in another place in the same book, he emphasizes that Abu Bakr was higher than Ali (as) and that he was imam; he says: “The people know of Abu Bakr’s superiority over the rest and consider him to deserve the caliphate the most.”[6]

 

Once again, in the same book[7], he mentions Tirmidi’s narration and accepts that after the prophet (pbuh), the highest amongst the Muslims was Abu Bakr.  He also narrates poetry that conveys that no one falls between and separates Abu Bakr from his companion, the prophet (pbuh).[8]

 

There are also cases in his works that leave no doubt about him not being a Shia; he names individuals such as Muawiyyah and Mutawakkil and considers them to be Qutbs.  He says[9]: “TheQutb whom is referred to as the ghawth, is the point in which Allah's سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى looks at [channels His grace to], and in every era it is an individual who is one of the near ones to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and the highest in his time; some of them are those who have outer (Dhaheri) and inner (Bateni) caliphate and authority, like Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hasan, Muawiyyah ibn Yazid, Umar ibn Abdil-Aziz and Mutawakkil the Abbasid, while some only bear inner caliphate and authority, such as Ahmad ibn Harun Al-Rashid Al-Sibti and Abu Zayd Bastami; most Qutbs are like this.”

 

Taking this passage into consideration, a few questions come up:

 

Which of the Shias believe in the khalifahs he mentioned in that order? This passage is a clear instance of what Imam Ali (as) has said: “How sluggish this world is! It so sluggish to the extent that they have to say Ali and Muawiyyah, and put these two names next to each other!”[10]

 

Does the Shia believe in the inner and outer authority of a person like Umar ibn Abdil-Aziz?!

 

Is there any Shia who considers Mutawikkil, the enemy of the imams (as) to be an inner khalifah and can still count himself as a lover and friend of the Ahlul-Bayt?!

 

Haj Mirza Husein Nouri, a muhaddith (narrator of hadith) and skilled jurist (the teacher of Sheikh Abbas Qummi, author of the Mafatihul-Jinan) says: “Amongst all Sunni scholars and nawasib, Ibn Arabi has shown the most enmity towards the Shia. The reason being that in his Futuhat, when speaking of the different Qutbs, he has mentioned Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Imam Hasan, Umar ibn Abdil-Aziz and even Mutawakkil all in one line and next to each other and considered all of them to bear both inner and outer caliphate and authority, while Mutawakkil is the one who ordered Imam Husein’s grave to be destroyed and prevented the people from visiting it.”[11]

 

Allamah Tabatabai, author of Tafsir Al-Mizan says: “How can one consider Ibn Arabi to be on the

path, while he considers Mutawakkil to be one of the apostles of God?”[12]
Question translations in other languages

 

Ayatullah Ashtiyani says: “Ibn Arabi just doesn’t seem to want to get along with the Shia. It is like he hasn’t seen any hadiths from the imams (as). Of course, in very few cases when he does see a saying of the imams (as), that being from Sunni narrations, he honors and praises it to the extent that one thinks that not only was he a Shia, but a very firm and devout Shia drowning in Shiism [signifying his extremism in being a Shia]!”[13]

 

Therefore, if we reach the conclusion that he was actually a Shia, we have no choice but to say that everything he has said that contradicts Shia doctrine has been out of dissertation, as Sheikh Baha’i has claimed.  He says that since Ibn Arabi lived in an environment that had been under the rule of the Umayyid dynasty for years, he had no choice but to dissimulate[14], or we have to say that his books have been altered; some believe his Futuhat had two transcripts in which much of what was in the first was omitted, giving its place to other things that didn’t originally belong to it in the second. The hand-written version by Ibn Arabi himself is the second copy, and the first has been written by one of his followers during the lifetime of Ibn Arabi. The multiple copies that exist of this book, make it for sure that the book belongs to Ibn Arabi and that its attribution to him is correct, nevertheless, such a matter increases the chances of alteration actually having taken place. What Sha’rani says is interesting, and if what he says is true, it will be surprising how much of Futuhat doesn’t belong to Ibn Arabi himself; Sha’rani says[15]: “When I began summarizing Futuhat, I came across passages that I believed were in total contradiction with the most fundamental Islamic beliefs that all Muslims agree on, therefore, after some doubt and worry, I omitted them. One day, I shared this experience with Sheikh Shamsuddin (death: 955 ah) who had transcribed a copy of Futuhat  himself and compared it with the author’s copy in Quniyyah, and after reading his copy, found that these passages didn’t exist in his copy either.” Sha’rani says that he became certain that all copies of Futuhat that were common in Egypt at his time, consisted of portions and parts that had been added to the book in the author’s name and that the same had taken place for his other books like his Fusus.

 

For further information on Ibn Arabi, you can refer to the following books:

 

1- Mohsen Jahangiri, Ketabe Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi.

 

2- Davud Elhami, Jostoju dar Erfane Eslami.

 

3- Davud Elhami, Davarihaye Mutezadd Darbareye Ibn Arabi.

 

 

[1] Jalaluddin Ashtiyani, Sharhe Fususe Qeysari (introduction), pg. 13.

[2] Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi, Al-Futuhat Al-Makkiyyah, vol. 1, pg. 120. This is the wording used in the book: “و أقرب الناس إلیه( ای الی خاتم الانبیا) على بن أبى طالب وهو سر الأنبیاء أجمعین)

[3] Seyyid Mohammad Baqir Kharrazi, Article on Ibn Arabi being Shia in the Hizbollahtheological/philosophical periodical, pg. 64, no. 14, quoted by the book Majalese Sharhe Hale Ibn Arabi.

[4] Sharh ibn Abil-Hadid, vol. 1, pg. 3.

[5] Futuhat Makkiyyah, vol. 4, pg. 79, this is Ibn Arabi’s exact phrase: “هذا مما یدلک علی صحة خلافة ابی بکر الصدیق

[6] Ibid, vol. 3, pg. 372.

[7] Ibid, vol. 2, pg. 125.

[8] Ibid, vol. 2, pg. 260

[9] Ibn Arabi, Futuhat, vol. 2, pg. 6.

[10] Ahmad Mudarres Wahid, Sharh Nahjul-Balaghah, vol. 2, pg. 237.

[11] Husein Nouri, Mustadrakul-Wasa’el, vol. 3, pg. 422.

[12] Mohammad Hosein Tehrani, Ruhe Mojarrad, pg. 436 (footnote).

[13] Ibid, pg. 46.

[14] Da’eratul Ma’arefe Tashayyo’ (The Shia Encyclopedia), vol. 1, pg. 347.

[15] M.M. Sharif, Tarikhe Falsafeh dar Eslam, vol. 1, pg. 564, quoted by Abdul-Wahhab Sha’rani, Al-Yawaqit wal-Jawahir, pp. 2-13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, power said:

Allamah Tabatabai, author of Tafsir Al-Mizan says: “How can one consider Ibn Arabi to be on the

path, while he considers Mutawakkil to be one of the apostles of God?”[12]
Was Ibn Arabi Shia or Sunni?
question
1- What is your viewpoint on whether Ibn Arabi was a Shia or Sunni?
2- Can all of the many things he has said that are in contradiction with the fundamentals of the Shia school of thought be considered out of dissimulation and not being aware of the truth and weakness in understanding?
Concise answer

The complicated personality and his attitude towards different great personalities of different sects has made it difficult to determine what sect Ibn Arabi belonged to, thus there are different viewpoints on this issue. Some say he was Sunni, some say he was a twelve imamer Shia, some say he was an Ismaili Shia, some say he was a Maleki, some say he was higher than to have been affiliated to any sect and some even say he didn’t belong to any particular sect. Nevertheless, his works and writings imply that he was a Hanbali Sunni, showing tendency to some Shia beliefs at times as well.

It should be noted that some, like Sheikh Baha’i, consider him to be Shia. In this case, one has no choice but to say that the things he sometimes says that are in total contradiction with fundamental beliefs of the Shia are all out of dissimulation.

Detailed Answer

Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Hatam Ta’i, also known as Abu Abdillah, Ibn Aflatun, Ibn Suraqah, Ibn Arabi, Sheikh Akbar and Muhyiddin is a descendant of Abdullah ibn Hatam, the brother of the famous sahabi, Uday ibn Hatam, and his family tree traces back to the great Hatam Ta’i. His father, Ali ibn Muhammad, was an ascetic fiqh and hadith scholar and imam who was considered a sufi. His mother was from the خولان tribe of the Ansar.

 

Ibn Arabi was born on the seventh of Ramadan, 560 (ah), in Murcia, a city in Andulus. He passed away on the eighth of Rabi’ul-Akhar of the year 638 (ah) in Damascus and was buried in the north of this city, in a place called Salehiyyah at the bottom of the mountain of Qasiyun.

 

He was a Hanbali and one of the greatest Islamic mystics ever; a mystic who has stirred much debate regarding his personality amongst those for and against him, sometimes making other mystics, wise-men, jurists, and scholars strong advocates of his, and sometimes antagonists.[1]

 

Although there are many sources that have mentioned his biography and described his personality, nevertheless, most of them are either biased in his favor or against it, making it hard to reach the truth about him. Sometimes he is considered one who has achieved the highest levels of spirituality and one of the apostles of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, while at other times being considered one who has turned away from religion and has innovated in it, misleading many as a result.

 

The best and most efficient way to get familiar with both his everyday life and personality, and with his spiritual character and what levels of spirituality he has achieved, is to refer to the writings and books he has left behind.

 

Now, keeping this little introduction in mind, we will engage in answering your question.

 

Was Ibn Arabi a Shia or Sunni?

 

In his books, cases can be seen that suggest he has spoken according to the Shia school of thought, to the extent that some have considered him to be Shia as a result.  Cases like what he has said in his book of Futuhat Makkiyyah, which is one of his most famous and important works. There, he says: “Ali ibn Abi Taleb is the closest individual to the prophet (pbuh) and the secret of all other prophets and apostles.”[2] Or like what he says about Imam Mahdi; that he is Allah's سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى vicegerent on the earth, from the progeny of Lady Fatimah (as) and that he shares the same name as the prophet (pbuh). Scholars such as Sheikh Baha’i have been surprised from this statement and concluded that he was Shia. Sheikh Baha’i, Ibn Fahd Hilli, Muhaddith Seyyid Jaza’eri and Qadhi Nurullah Tustari are some of those who have considered him to be Shia.[3]

 

Nevertheless, it must be noted that all the phrase “Ali ibn Abi Taleb is the closest to the prophet (pbuh) …” implies is that when it comes to generative authority (wilayah takwini), no one matches Imam Ali (as), not that he is the immediate successor to the prophet (pbuh). Many Sunnis, especially the Mu’tazilah and mystics believe that Imam Ali (as) was higher than everyone else, to the extent that Ibn Abil-Hadid, who was a Sunni Mu’tazili and has a very famous commentary on the Nahjul-Balaghah, says (in the opening of his book when praising Allah (swt)): “و الحمد لله الذی فضل المفضول علی الافضل لمصلحة[4] (All praise is due to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, who preferred and chose the lower [Abu Bakr] over the higher and more virtuous [Ali (as)] for a reason [that he knew of])”.

 

Secondly, even our Sunni brothers believe Imam Ali (as) to be their fourth khalifah, but that doesn’t make them Shia; therefore, just because one believes that Imam Ali (as) was a good person and that he was higher than others, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is Shia.

 

Although Ibn Arabi has spoken in favor of Ali (as) here, he has also stated in Futuhat Makkiyyah that Abu Bakr’s caliphate was legitimate and that he was the khalifah after the prophet (pbuh).[5] Also, in another place in the same book, he emphasizes that Abu Bakr was higher than Ali (as) and that he was imam; he says: “The people know of Abu Bakr’s superiority over the rest and consider him to deserve the caliphate the most.”[6]

 

Once again, in the same book[7], he mentions Tirmidi’s narration and accepts that after the prophet (pbuh), the highest amongst the Muslims was Abu Bakr.  He also narrates poetry that conveys that no one falls between and separates Abu Bakr from his companion, the prophet (pbuh).[8]

 

There are also cases in his works that leave no doubt about him not being a Shia; he names individuals such as Muawiyyah and Mutawakkil and considers them to be Qutbs.  He says[9]: “TheQutb whom is referred to as the ghawth, is the point in which Allah's سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى looks at [channels His grace to], and in every era it is an individual who is one of the near ones to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and the highest in his time; some of them are those who have outer (Dhaheri) and inner (Bateni) caliphate and authority, like Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hasan, Muawiyyah ibn Yazid, Umar ibn Abdil-Aziz and Mutawakkil the Abbasid, while some only bear inner caliphate and authority, such as Ahmad ibn Harun Al-Rashid Al-Sibti and Abu Zayd Bastami; most Qutbs are like this.”

 

Taking this passage into consideration, a few questions come up:

 

Which of the Shias believe in the khalifahs he mentioned in that order? This passage is a clear instance of what Imam Ali (as) has said: “How sluggish this world is! It so sluggish to the extent that they have to say Ali and Muawiyyah, and put these two names next to each other!”[10]

 

Does the Shia believe in the inner and outer authority of a person like Umar ibn Abdil-Aziz?!

 

Is there any Shia who considers Mutawikkil, the enemy of the imams (as) to be an inner khalifah and can still count himself as a lover and friend of the Ahlul-Bayt?!

 

Haj Mirza Husein Nouri, a muhaddith (narrator of hadith) and skilled jurist (the teacher of Sheikh Abbas Qummi, author of the Mafatihul-Jinan) says: “Amongst all Sunni scholars and nawasib, Ibn Arabi has shown the most enmity towards the Shia. The reason being that in his Futuhat, when speaking of the different Qutbs, he has mentioned Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Imam Hasan, Umar ibn Abdil-Aziz and even Mutawakkil all in one line and next to each other and considered all of them to bear both inner and outer caliphate and authority, while Mutawakkil is the one who ordered Imam Husein’s grave to be destroyed and prevented the people from visiting it.”[11]

 

Allamah Tabatabai, author of Tafsir Al-Mizan says: “How can one consider Ibn Arabi to be on the

path, while he considers Mutawakkil to be one of the apostles of God?”[12]
Question translations in other languages

 

Ayatullah Ashtiyani says: “Ibn Arabi just doesn’t seem to want to get along with the Shia. It is like he hasn’t seen any hadiths from the imams (as). Of course, in very few cases when he does see a saying of the imams (as), that being from Sunni narrations, he honors and praises it to the extent that one thinks that not only was he a Shia, but a very firm and devout Shia drowning in Shiism [signifying his extremism in being a Shia]!”[13]

 

Therefore, if we reach the conclusion that he was actually a Shia, we have no choice but to say that everything he has said that contradicts Shia doctrine has been out of dissertation, as Sheikh Baha’i has claimed.  He says that since Ibn Arabi lived in an environment that had been under the rule of the Umayyid dynasty for years, he had no choice but to dissimulate[14], or we have to say that his books have been altered; some believe his Futuhat had two transcripts in which much of what was in the first was omitted, giving its place to other things that didn’t originally belong to it in the second. The hand-written version by Ibn Arabi himself is the second copy, and the first has been written by one of his followers during the lifetime of Ibn Arabi. The multiple copies that exist of this book, make it for sure that the book belongs to Ibn Arabi and that its attribution to him is correct, nevertheless, such a matter increases the chances of alteration actually having taken place. What Sha’rani says is interesting, and if what he says is true, it will be surprising how much of Futuhat doesn’t belong to Ibn Arabi himself; Sha’rani says[15]: “When I began summarizing Futuhat, I came across passages that I believed were in total contradiction with the most fundamental Islamic beliefs that all Muslims agree on, therefore, after some doubt and worry, I omitted them. One day, I shared this experience with Sheikh Shamsuddin (death: 955 ah) who had transcribed a copy of Futuhat  himself and compared it with the author’s copy in Quniyyah, and after reading his copy, found that these passages didn’t exist in his copy either.” Sha’rani says that he became certain that all copies of Futuhat that were common in Egypt at his time, consisted of portions and parts that had been added to the book in the author’s name and that the same had taken place for his other books like his Fusus.

 

For further information on Ibn Arabi, you can refer to the following books:

 

1- Mohsen Jahangiri, Ketabe Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi.

 

2- Davud Elhami, Jostoju dar Erfane Eslami.

 

3- Davud Elhami, Davarihaye Mutezadd Darbareye Ibn Arabi.

 

 

[1] Jalaluddin Ashtiyani, Sharhe Fususe Qeysari (introduction), pg. 13.

[2] Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi, Al-Futuhat Al-Makkiyyah, vol. 1, pg. 120. This is the wording used in the book: “و أقرب الناس إلیه( ای الی خاتم الانبیا) على بن أبى طالب وهو سر الأنبیاء أجمعین)

[3] Seyyid Mohammad Baqir Kharrazi, Article on Ibn Arabi being Shia in the Hizbollahtheological/philosophical periodical, pg. 64, no. 14, quoted by the book Majalese Sharhe Hale Ibn Arabi.

[4] Sharh ibn Abil-Hadid, vol. 1, pg. 3.

[5] Futuhat Makkiyyah, vol. 4, pg. 79, this is Ibn Arabi’s exact phrase: “هذا مما یدلک علی صحة خلافة ابی بکر الصدیق

[6] Ibid, vol. 3, pg. 372.

[7] Ibid, vol. 2, pg. 125.

[8] Ibid, vol. 2, pg. 260

[9] Ibn Arabi, Futuhat, vol. 2, pg. 6.

[10] Ahmad Mudarres Wahid, Sharh Nahjul-Balaghah, vol. 2, pg. 237.

[11] Husein Nouri, Mustadrakul-Wasa’el, vol. 3, pg. 422.

[12] Mohammad Hosein Tehrani, Ruhe Mojarrad, pg. 436 (footnote).

[13] Ibid, pg. 46.

[14] Da’eratul Ma’arefe Tashayyo’ (The Shia Encyclopedia), vol. 1, pg. 347.

[15] M.M. Sharif, Tarikhe Falsafeh dar Eslam, vol. 1, pg. 564, quoted by Abdul-Wahhab Sha’rani, Al-Yawaqit wal-Jawahir, pp. 2-13.

The following  is the statement  of  Allama  Tabatbie regarding ibne Arabi. 

"Allamah Tabatabai once remarked that before meeting Qadhi, he had studied the Fusus al-Hikam of Ibn al-‘Arabi and thought that he knew it well. When he met this master of real spiritual authority he realised that he knew nothing. He also commented that when Mirza ‘Ali Qadi began to teach the Fusus it was as if all the walls of the room were speaking of the reality of gnosis and participating in his exposition."

At other place allama  says. 

"Muhyi al-Din was extremely close to Shi'ism. Generally speaking, the case of Shi'ism was different in early Islam and even in the subsequent centuries than it is today. Most prominent scholars and gnostics were actually Shia; however, they had no choice but to conceal their real faith (taqiyyah). They used to hide their actual beliefs so as to prevent external problems and conflicts. They would keep it in themselves and not reveal it except through secret words or hints "

Edited by islam25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Tanzeel means revelation lol.

https://quran.com/16/68-69

The "revelation" in this verse is not Tanzeel. It says awha, which is derived from wahy, which means inspired. The Quran is not inspired (wahy), it is Tanzeel. The bees didn't receive their own Quran, that's not what Allah says in this verse. It means that Allah basically put this fitra into the bee to, as the verse says, " "Take for yourself among the mountains, houses, and among the trees and [in] that which they construct."

first of all tell me that whether we are talking about tanzeel or sufism. I am not going to talk about what ibn arabi saw or didn't see in dream for the discussion is not about dream but what is real islam. As for you are going to tell me, I must make clear to you that tanzeel has same root as anzal which is often termed as came down, so wahy came down right and also rain comes down. This was about meaning of tanzeel. Now, as I already said dream is personal experience and non can say it's true or false for our approaches are limited. It is a personal matter but ilm can be verified as it is not personal but it's universal. So, talk about ilm and not things which are obscure. Am I clear!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, islam25 said:

The following  is the statement  of  Allama  Tabatbie regarding ibne Arabi. 

"Allamah Tabatabai once remarked that before meeting Qadhi, he had studied the Fusus al-Hikam of Ibn al-‘Arabi and thought that he knew it well. When he met this master of real spiritual authority he realised that he knew nothing. He also commented that when Mirza ‘Ali Qadi began to teach the Fusus it was as if all the walls of the room were speaking of the reality of gnosis and participating in his exposition."

At other place allama  says. 

"Muhyi al-Din was extremely close to Shi'ism. Generally speaking, the case of Shi'ism was different in early Islam and even in the subsequent centuries than it is today. Most prominent scholars and gnostics were actually Shia; however, they had no choice but to conceal their real faith (taqiyyah). They used to hide their actual beliefs so as to prevent external problems and conflicts. They would keep it in themselves and not reveal it except through secret words or hints "

 

 

 

 

 

Although Ibn Arabi has spoken in favor of Ali (as) here, he has also stated in Futuhat Makkiyyah that Abu Bakr’s caliphate was legitimate and that he was the khalifah after the prophet (pbuh)Also, in another place in the same book, he emphasizes that Abu Bakr was higher than Ali (as) and that he was imam; he says: “The people know of Abu Bakr’s superiority over the rest and consider him to deserve the caliphate the most.”

 

I have taken the above extract from the article that i had provided, did ibn Arabi say this under taqqiya? If so please provided source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 4:33 PM, Sindbad05 said:

first of all tell me that whether we are talking about tanzeel or sufism. I am not going to talk about what ibn arabi saw or didn't see in dream for the discussion is not about dream but what is real islam. As for you are going to tell me, I must make clear to you that tanzeel has same root as anzal which is often termed as came down, so wahy came down right and also rain comes down. This was about meaning of tanzeel. 

Ok forget the topic of Khomeini's [EDIT] commentary on Ibn Arabi's dream, lets focus on the question.

On 10/29/2017 at 4:33 PM, Sindbad05 said:

talk about ilm and not things which are obscure. Am I clear!!!!!

Sure. Allamah Ardebili was a prominent 16th century scholar, here's what he says on Sufism:


المولى العلامة الأردبيلي في حديقة الشيعة قال: وبالسند الصحيح عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر البزنطي، ومحمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع (١)، عن الرضا عليه السلام، أنه قال: " من ذكر عنده الصوفية ولم ينكرهم بلسانه وقلبه، فليس منا، ومن أنكرهم، فكأنما جاهد الكفار بين يدي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله

Allama Ardbili wrote in Hadiqat al Shia: And by a sahih (authentic) sanad (chain of narration) from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. abi Nusr al Bazanti, and Muhammad b. Ismail b. Bazi', from Imam al Redha (as) that he said: "One in whose presence the Sufis are mentioned but he does not denounce them with his tongue and heart, so he is not from us. And the one who denounces them, so he is like the one who fought the kuffar along the Prophet (pbuh)."

Edited by Hameedeh
Insult against a marja was removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 7:37 PM, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Allama Ardbili wrote in Hadiqat al Shia: And by a sahih (authentic) sanad (chain of narration) from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. abi Nusr al Bazanti, and Muhammad b. Ismail b. Bazi', from Imam al Redha (as) that he said: "One in whose presence the Sufis are mentioned but he does not denounce them with his tongue and heart, so he is not from us. And the one who denounces them, so he is like the one who fought the kuffar along the Prophet (pbuh)."

As I already told you that I am against the term sufi being applied on people who are disciple of Marifah because the term is mostly applied to polytheistic sufism which is pantheistic. Now, there were many disciples of Marifah of Allah that were called as Sufis, but they did not claimed themselves except that they claimed we are followers of path or travellers and this term travellers refers to Sirat e Mustaqeem. So, they were victims of analogies of people and everyone claimed to be from their sect but none except those who knew about Sirat e mustaqeem had somewhat clear idea about them but for a time they kept silent because speaking about them could also bring fitna such as Mulla Sadra read and held ibn arabi as greatest among ordinary humans who gave such explanations to tauheed that in his opinion other did not gave. So, Mulla Sadra was dubbed as Mulhid what for? 

On 10/29/2017 at 7:37 PM, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Ok forget the topic of Khomeini's [EDIT] commentary on Ibn Arabi's dream, lets focus on the question

As for that video,  you yourself said it wasn't khomeni's words so you must say Allshayari's stupidity rather than using Khomeini.

Edited by Hameedeh
Insult against a marja was removed from the quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sindbad05 said:

 as Mulla Sadra read and held ibn arabi as greatest among ordinary humans who gave such explanations to tauheed that in his opinion other did not gave. So, Mulla Sadra was dubbed as Mulhid what for? 

 

  That does not mean that they agreed with him on everything? Please provide source reference anything that we can verify  of such claims ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, power said:

  That does not mean that they agreed with him on everything? Please provide source reference anything that we can verify  of such claims ? 

That is in the movie which Iranians made about Mullah Sadra, the actor playing the role said in dialogue that he consider Ibn Arabi to be a genius than others in the subject and praised of him. And, these movies are viewed by scholars too. Praising anyone does not mean that you also believe in his or her wrong theories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@power Greek philosophers were also genius and one among them was referred by Imam Jafar al Sadiq a.s when Imam pointed out towards his mistake and saying that he is was good thinker but made mistake here. For reference read "Superman in Islam" or "The great Muslim Scientist and Scholar" about Imam Sadiq a.s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

That is in the movie which Iranians made about Mullah Sadra, the actor playing the role said in dialogue that he consider Ibn Arabi to be a genius than others in the subject and praised of him. And, these movies are viewed by scholars too. Praising anyone does not mean that you also believe in his or her wrong theories. 

Where i'm coming from is: Ibn Arabi was not a Shia that's my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 6:22 AM, Sindbad05 said:

As for that video,  you yourself said it wasn't khomeni's words so you must say Allshayari's stupidity rather than using Khomeini.

Khomeini's words were that Allah revealed through Rasulullah (saw) his [EDIT] book Fusus al-Hikam lol. You yourself watched the video where you saw him quote directly from Khomeini's book.

 

On 10/30/2017 at 6:22 AM, Sindbad05 said:

As I already told you that I am against the term sufi being applied on people who are disciple of Marifah because the term is mostly applied to polytheistic sufism which is pantheistic. Now, there were many disciples of Marifah of Allah that were called as Sufis, but they did not claimed themselves except that they claimed we are followers of path or travellers and this term travellers refers to Sirat e Mustaqeem. So, they were victims of analogies of people and everyone claimed to be from their sect but none except those who knew about Sirat e mustaqeem had somewhat clear idea about them but for a time they kept silent because speaking about them could also bring fitna such as Mulla Sadra read and held ibn arabi as greatest among ordinary humans who gave such explanations to tauheed that in his opinion other did not gave. So, Mulla Sadra was dubbed as Mulhid what for? .

Ok, so I guess we can agree that the answer to the OP's question is a No, right?

Edited by Hameedeh
Insult to a marja was removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, power said:

Where i'm coming from is: Ibn Arabi was not a Shia that's my point. 

Bro, I cannot speak about a person about whom I have no knowledge. That is my stand. However, when I saw the map attributed to him, I said that how could any man on earth could draw such map. My focus is philosophy of a person and that define his character. Till today, I have not read about Ibn Arabi except a good thing in his quote and a map which is attributed to him (that seems to me wrong). So, I will conclude about him, when I have completely read about him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 11:40 AM, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Khomeini's words were that Allah revealed through Rasulullah (saw) his [EDIT] book Fusus al-Hikam lol. You yourself watched the video where you saw him quote directly from Khomeini's book.

Brother, I am not sure what are you jumping here and there....First, you said he lied about Ayotullah Khomeini and added things on his behalf and now you are saying that Ayotullah Khomeini has said such thing about that book. However, I have clearly said you that I have no remarks for personal experience except literal teachings which if are against Quran or Islam, you can come and talk about it and point out those points. If you are going to speak about dreams and after death of things then I would like to say you that it is hidden jurisdiction where neither I nor you could say anything. So, please speak about Ilm and not personal experience of dreams. 

Edited by Hameedeh
Insult to a marja was removed from the quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Brother, I am not sure what are you jumping here and there....First, you said he lied about Ayotullah Khomeini and added things on his behalf and now you are saying that Ayotullah Khomeini has said such thing about that book. However, I have clearly said you that I have no remarks for personal experience except literal teachings which if are against Quran or Islam, you can come and talk about it and point out those points. If you are going to speak about dreams and after death of things then I would like to say you that it is hidden jurisdiction where neither I nor you could say anything. So, please speak about Ilm and not personal experience of dreams. 

Brother, the problem with the dream is not that Ibn Arabi saw the Nabi (saw). The problem is Khomeini (who believes Ibn Arabi was Shia), literally says Ibn Arabi recieved revelation from Allah. How can anyone with a sane mind accept this.

Edited by Mansur Bakhtiari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Brother, the problem with the dream is not that Ibn Arabi saw the Nabi (saw). The problem is Khomeini (who believes Ibn Arabi was Shia), literally recieved revelation from Allah. How can anyone with a sane mind accept this.

First of all, this liar who is already known as liar "Allahyari" is in no position to talk about Ayotullah Khomeini for he lied about Hadith of Sharoosi al Shamasi that never exists. Secondly, there can be two possibilities namely the book which he provides contain additional pages which he has inserted in it and these are not words of Ayotullah Khomeini. Lastly, Ayotullah Khomeini might have concluded through his observations that Ibn Arabi was a Shia such as many people in Sub-continent consider Lal Qalandar Shahbaz as Shia but Hindus consider him as deity. You can google for this fact. And if Ayotullah Khomeini has said that his book is revelation then know that Quran says about Prophet: "Teach them book and Wisdom".....and thus, Ayotullah Khomeini has only called revelation to that part of book which contains wisdom as "revelation" itself is "heavenly gift" gifted by Allah. 

Now, I think that you are "Allahyaris" fan and I do not like that "Donkey". So, please do not take his name before me. 

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 12:41 PM, Sindbad05 said:

. Secondly, there can be two possibilities namely the book which he provides contain additional pages which he has inserted in it and these are not words of Ayotullah Khomeini.

Let me see if I can find the book online

On 10/30/2017 at 12:41 PM, Sindbad05 said:

And if Ayotullah Khomeini has said that his book is revelation then know that Quran says about Prophet: "Teach them book and Wisdom".....and thus, Ayotullah Khomeini has only called revelation to that part of book which contains wisdom as "Wisdom" itself is "heavenly gift" gifted by Allah. 

Not the meaning of Tanzeel but still. When Khomeini said that it is a Tanzeel, he was criticizing another scholar who called the dream of Ibn Arabi Ta'beer (an expression from Rasulullah (saw). He said this isn't just the Rasul (saw) praising him, this is a revelation of Allah through the Rasul (saw). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mansur Bakhtiari Also, Imam Ali a.s said: "Allah has written haq on the tongue of Momin and if he calls a wall be gold, it becomes gold". While Imam Ali a.s said that wall became gold so the man asked that Ya Ali a.s, you did not call this wall for it and it became gold. Imam Ali a.s said: "I am Amir al Momineen". So, If Iqbal, Bulleh Shah and any other poet or philosopher says truth then know that truth is from Allah. Allah says: "Sins are your causing and goodness is from me". 

Please come out of criticizing Khomeini bro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Let me see if I can find the book online

Not the meaning of Tanzeel but still. When Khomeini said that it is a Tanzeel, he was criticizing another scholar who called the dream of Ibn Arabi Ta'beer (an expression from Rasulullah (saw). He said this isn't just the Rasul (saw) praising him, this is a revelation of Allah through the Rasul (saw). 

 

Yeah bring me book in english and I will gladly speak further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Yeah bring me book in english and I will gladly speak further. 

Unfortunately it's not available in english, though I did check in Arabic.

 

قوله : بتعبيرك إيّاه ، أقول ليس ما ذكر تعبيراً بل تنزيل فانّ ما تلّقاه سرّ أهل المعرفة من الكمّل في الحضرة الغيبيّة الروحانيّة لا يكون له صورة مثاليّة أو ملكيّة فإذا تصوّر في الحضرة الخياليّة بصورة مناسبة مثالية

Allahyari's translation is perfect. The book he used wasn't a different book, it was directly from Khomeini's commentary on Ibn Arabi's book. (http://ablibrary.net/عربي/الكتب/12350_تعليقات على شرح فصوص الحكم ومصباح الأنس(1)/الصفحة_49)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Unfortunately it's not available in english, though I did check in Arabic.

 

قوله : بتعبيرك إيّاه ، أقول ليس ما ذكر تعبيراً بل تنزيل فانّ ما تلّقاه سرّ أهل المعرفة من الكمّل في الحضرة الغيبيّة الروحانيّة لا يكون له صورة مثاليّة أو ملكيّة فإذا تصوّر في الحضرة الخياليّة بصورة مناسبة مثالية

Allahyari's translation is perfect. The book he used wasn't a different book, it was directly from Khomeini's commentary on Ibn Arabi's book. (http://ablibrary.net/عربي/الكتب/12350_تعليقات على شرح فصوص الحكم ومصباح الأنس(1)/الصفحة_49)

:hahaha: Yeah like Sharoosi al Shamasi :hahaha:.

No problem pal, as said, I again request you speak about Ilm which is universal and not about personal experiences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sindbad05 said:

:hahaha: Yeah like Sharoosi al Shamasi :hahaha:.

Uhh.... its right there on the link lol. You don't have to assume the worst.

Just now, Sindbad05 said:

No problem pal, as said, I again request you speak about Ilm which is universal and not about personal experiences. 

Sure. http://corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=نزل

I searched nazal, the root word for tanzeel. Every single verse of the Quran with this word is there. Show me one verse where a non-prophet received revelation (tanzeel) from Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Uhh.... its right there on the link lol. You don't have to assume the worst.

Sure. http://corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=نزل

I searched nazal, the root word for tanzeel. Every single verse of the Quran with this word is there. Show me one verse where a non-prophet received revelation (tanzeel) from Allah.

Bro, a honey bee, Hazrat Maryam a.s that I will give you a son and she was not prophet and whale that swallowed Hazrat Yunus a.s. Bro, listen, I do not know where are you going and what you want to say.....But I am constantly been saying you that talk on anything from Ibn-e-Arabi which is wrong and Ayotullah Khomeini had said it right. Alright. Show me if you can please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mansur Bakhtiari But I categorically say that Quran is divine book revealed upon Prophet and Ibn-e-Arabi is an ordinary human and his book is not Quran. Quran is source of all wisdom and mother of all books.  

I think that you are taking me to a place where I should admit that Ibn-e-Arabi is Rasool (nauzbillah). I detest this idea, if you have this intent. He is not a rasool. However, if he has said anything in his book which is wise, he has learnt it from Islam and Islam is within Quran and Quran is (revelation). Alright. Am I clear or should I be more precise and clear as Crystal ? 

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mansur Bakhtiari What is your agenda ? 

Tell me, if you want me to tick best answer for you....

1) Khomeini is not Muslim because he praised Ibn-e-Arabi.

2) Ibn Arabi is not Muslim because someone dubbed him as Sufi and since Khomeini praised him so he should also be not a Muslim....

While, I know that Khomeini did a great service to Islam and about Ibn-e-Arabi, I do not have any knowledge. Tell me what should I choose for you....I will choose whatever you say if you have Ilm-e-Ghaib and tell me what I ate today afternoon. Lolz. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • What kind of Internet restrictions exist in Iran? Do they have a "great firewall" like China?
    • By the way, do you have any good experience (I don't mean you took a certain module or class in medical school on behavioral health but then became a professional in an unrelated field like cardiology or something like that) or are involved in the behavioral health field? If so then I don't need to lecture you on the fact  that cases like abuse or forcing a certain lifestyle on someone (ironically sometimes there is consent from the other party on the new lifestyle being pushed on them) are not things that spontaneously occur and often times have complex psychological variables behind them.   Your anecdotes may suggest otherwise, but I know of anecdotes where on the surface it appeared that the man was "forcing" his wife to become a housewife and abandon her career. Since from the perspective of some but not all feminist Muslim women they cannot believe that a woman is willing to give up on a career and become a housewife, so they resort to calling the hubby oppressive and insist he is forcing something on his wife. But in the cases I know of if you look more closely without any bias it was evident that there was a decent amount of willing consent on the wife's part and the "force" element was not really there and at most the hubby acted "suggestive" but the whole decision to abandon her career was largely the wife's decision regardless.    And heck even sometimes just as how a husband might backbite his wife to his community and friends to gain their sympathies due to him being sick of his wife, sometimes the same thing can occur in reverse if the wife feels she will gain some genuine sympathy.   Even if a person is your best friend and you visit her house every weekend there are things that you don't know and may not ever know about her marital relationship and that knowing these things may change the picture completely. So I would advise to not rush to hasty conclusions. That is not to say that there are not genuine cases of abuse and force in marital relationships, but that there is no greater epidemic of it due to complexities in relationships. Again, if you are involved or have good experience in the field of behavioral health then I don't think I need to tell you this. 
    • That's exactly the point, I explicitly typed above the concept of a miracle: An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency. Yes, they have been documented by historical excavations, well, some. Are you referring here to the primitive senses? Most of the records of the ancient world, used to think that earth was a flat piece of land/disk. Today this contradicts many laws (e.g Gravity). https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/earth_from_the_iss.jpg?itok=mDRiVgnr Even refraction of light wasn't known much, other than seeing it, it was not known as a physical concept when light refracts from a plane. Snell's law for example was not perceived by the senses, rather Mathematics through an equation which was: (index of refraction1)*(Sin[theta]1)= (index of refraction2)*(sin[theta]2). Was this through primitive senses? I don't think so. Even the rotation of the Sun, it clearly was never thought it moved, rather that Earth rotates (after the discovery) around Sun ONLY. Solar/Lunar Eclipse defined this. Even the fact that their planetary orbits are not perceived by the senses.  Senses are limited.
    • Yes good! When Dawkin will be sent to Hell, he will feel that someone is playing Hallucination on him. Very good. I want to see him passing these theories there. "Deaf, dumb, and blind,
      They will not return (to the path)." Quran (2:18)
    • Tafakkur is a deed. Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 190:
      إِنَّ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ لَآيَاتٍ لِّأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men who understand.
      (English - Shakir) Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 191:
      الَّذِينَ يَذْكُرُونَ اللَّهَ قِيَامًا وَقُعُودًا وَعَلَىٰ جُنُوبِهِمْ وَيَتَفَكَّرُونَ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ رَبَّنَا مَا خَلَقْتَ هَٰذَا بَاطِلًا سُبْحَانَكَ فَقِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ Those who remember Allah standing and sitting and lying on their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth: Our Lord! Thou hast not created this in vain! Glory be to Thee; save us then from the chastisement of the fire:
      (English - Shakir) You can see brother, dhikr & tafakkur are deeds. Salat (prayer) is also a form of dhikr, Quran is dhikr. Surah Taha, Verse 14:
      إِنَّنِي أَنَا اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا أَنَا فَاعْبُدْنِي وَأَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِذِكْرِي Surely I am Allah, there is no god but I, therefore serve Me and keep up prayer for My remembrance:
      (English - Shakir)
×