Jump to content
E.L King

Sufism, poetry and fisq/kufr

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

@E.L King.

Mystic definition of wine. 

 this it is said that continued murraqaba(never keeping heart occupied by other than Allah) gradully lifts veil of ignorance till ultimately it is totally lifted. Then that innate love appears in its full splendour and leads man's conscience towards Allah. The mystic poets often figuratively call this divine love "wine". 

So please do not think this mystic  vine as physical thing that is haram. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@E.L King.

Mystic definition of wine. 

 this it is said that continued murraqaba(never keeping heart occupied by other than Allah) gradully lifts veil of ignorance till ultimately it is totally lifted. Then that innate love appears in its full splendour and leads man's conscience towards Allah. The mystic poets often figuratively call this divine love "wine". 

So please do not think this mystic  vine as physical thing that is haram. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, E.L King said:

Leave Imam Ali (as) and Ibn Muljim aside, Rumi is saying that anyone who is guilty is not really guilty because Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى has predestined this. This is jabr, and is harshly talked about in our narrations. Scholars called it kufr and zandaqa.

Surely Allah is He with Whom is the knowledge of the hour, and He sends down the rain and He knows what is in the wombs; and no one knows what he shall earn tomorrow; and no one knows in what land he shall die; surely Allah is knowing, Aware (31:34)

I am not defending the concept of Jabr, just saying that may be Rumi was talking about the knowledge of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This poem of Molavi indicated that he believed in ikhtiyar:

گفت سلطان بلک آنچ از نفس زاد

ریع تقصیرست و دخل اجتهاد

ورنه آدم کی بگفتی با خدا

ربنا انا ظلمنا نفسنا

خود بگفتی کین گناه از نفس بود

چون قضا این بود حزم ما چه سود

هم‌چو ابلیسی که گفت اغویتنی

تو شکستی جام و ما را می‌زنی

بل قضا حقست و جهد بنده حق

هین مباش اعور چو ابلیس خلق

در تردد مانده‌ایم اندر دو کار

این تردد کی بود بی‌اختیار

این کنم یا آن کنم او کی گود

که دو دست و پای او بسته بود

هیچ باشد این تردد بر سرم

که روم در بحر یا بالا پرم

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

پس تردد را بباید قدرتی

ورنه آن خنده بود بر سبلتی

بر قضا کم نه بهانه ای جوان

جرم خود را چون نهی بر دیگران

خون کند زید و قصاص او به عمر

می خورد عمرو و بر احمد حد خمر

گرد خود برگرد و جرم خود ببین

جنبش از خود بین و از سایه مبین

که نخواهد شد غلط پاداش میر

خصم را می‌داند آن میر بصیر

چون عسل خوردی نیامد تب به غیر

مزد روز تو نیامد شب به غیر

در چه کردی جهد کان وا تو نگشت

تو چه کاریدی که نامد ریع کشت

فعل تو که زاید از جان و تنت

هم‌چو فرزندت بگیرد دامنت

فعل را در غیب صورت می‌کنند

فعل دزدی را نه داری می‌زنند

دار کی ماند به دزدی لیک آن

هست تصویر خدای غیب‌دان

در دل شحنه چو حق الهام داد

که چنین صورت بساز از بهر داد

تا تو عالم باشی و عادل قضا

نامناسب چون دهد داد و سزا

Share this post


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

Surely Allah is He with Whom is the knowledge of the hour, and He sends down the rain and He knows what is in the wombs; and no one knows what he shall earn tomorrow; and no one knows in what land he shall die; surely Allah is knowing, Aware (31:34)

I am not defending the concept of Jabr, just saying that may be Rumi was talking about the knowledge of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى.

If you read the poem, you cannot come to that conclusion at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, E.L King said:

Which language? 

English, and If you have Urdu version, it will be more easy for me to grasp.

One more thing, and again without any intention of defending the ideology of Jabr, may be Rumi has said those words in light of this verse:

وَمَا تَشَاؤُونَ إِلَّا أَن يَشَاء اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ

Share this post


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

English, and If you have Urdu version, it will be more easy for me to grasp.

One more thing, and again without any intention of defending the ideology of Jabr, may be Rumi has said those words in light of this verse:

وَمَا تَشَاؤُونَ إِلَّا أَن يَشَاء اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ

http://rumiurdu.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/masnavi-book-1-68-ali-and-his-murderer.html?m=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder those who say these fuqaha do not have husn dhan realise that when someone says kufr, they are liable for it regardless of whether it is literal or not? 

Furthermore, these are not some sort of lowly fuqaha wherein they would claim someone like Ibn Arabi is a zindeeq (like Shaykh Al-Fayyadh said) is simply a lack of husn dhan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, E.L King said:

He is referring the incident in context with the historical records which mentions that Imam Ali knew that Ibn-e-Muljim will kill him. If I am remembering it correctly, once Imam Ali has expressed this news with his companion, who advised Imam Ali to kill Ibn-e-Muljim. Imam Ali replied him, do you want me to punish him before committing the crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, E.L King said:

I wonder those who say these fuqaha do not have husn dhan realise that when someone says kufr, they are liable for it regardless of whether it is literal or not? 

Furthermore, these are not some sort of lowly fuqaha wherein they would claim someone like Ibn Arabi is a zindeeq (like Shaykh Al-Fayyadh said) is simply a lack of husn dhan.

El king.

Shaykh Al Fayydh might feel that Ibne Arabi is zindiq. But there other scholars who have praised him most. Let us keep it on Allah to have final result 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

He is referring the incident in context with the historical records which mentions that Imam Ali knew that Ibn-e-Muljim will kill him. If I am remembering it correctly, once Imam Ali has expressed this news with his companion, who advised Imam Ali to kill Ibn-e-Muljim. Imam Ali replied him, do you want me to punish him before committing the crime?

I don't know why you are being apologetic my brother:

Did you not read this?

You art God's instrument, God's hand is the (real) agent:how should I assail and oppose God's instrument?’”

He (the knight) said, “For what reason, then, is retaliation(sanctioned)?” “It is from God, too,” said ‘Alí, “and that is a hidden mystery.

What does this tell you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, E.L King said:

I don't know why you are being apologetic my brother:

Did you not read this?

You art God's instrument, God's hand is the (real) agent:how should I assail and oppose God's instrument?’”

He (the knight) said, “For what reason, then, is retaliation(sanctioned)?” “It is from God, too,” said ‘Alí, “and that is a hidden mystery.

What does this tell you?

What you want to convey by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One early morning Ali went to Mosque of Kufa for prayers. There were some people in the mosque. One man was sleeping with his face downward. He had a hidden sword under him. His sword was poisoned. The man pretended to be sleeping. His name was Ibn Muljim.

Ali entered the mosque and began his prayers. While praying he bowed his head to Allah. From the back came lbn Muljim and with his poisoned sword struck a deadly blow on Ali. Ali fell down bleeding. Ibn Muljim ran away.

The other people saw this tragedy; they found Ali wounded and bleeding. He was bandaged.

Meanwhile, people outside the mosque saw Ibn Muljim running with a blood red sword in his hand. They ran after him. After much pursuing they caught him. Ibn Muljim was brought before Ali when Ali was still in the mosque.

Frightened, Ibn Muljim stood before Ali. His breathing was heavy because of the running. He was also thirsty, that Ali could see. Then Ali was taken to his house. There was much crying and weeping in whole Kufa. At this time milk was brought for Ali. He looked at the milk, and said, “Give a glass like this one to Ibn Muljim also, he is very thirsty.”

The milk was given to the culprit. He gratefully drank and quenched his thirst.

Ali died two days after because of the wound given by Ibn Muljim.

Moral:

To have mercy upon even your worst enemy is a great noble act.

https://www.al-islam.org/bilal-s-bedtime-stories-a-h-sheriff-a-s-alloo/ali-and-killer

@E.L King

12 hours ago, E.L King said:

You art God's instrument, God's hand is the (real) agent:how should I assail and oppose God's instrument?’”

You can understand this when you read this history books, here is a reference:

"Two types of traditions exist regarding Ali's awareness of his fate long before the assassination. This foreknowledge was through his own "premonition of it" or by Muhammad. Based on numerous traditions, Ali's beard staining with "blood flowing from his head" had been revealed by Muhammad or Ali. Another set of traditions by Muhammad says that "the most evil man among the ancients was he who had killed the camel of the prophet Salih and among his contemporaries, he who would kill Ali." The night of the assassination, Ali said that his fate was about to come true, and when he left home in the morning, "geese followed him, cackling" weeping for his funeral, as he said later." (Wikipedia)

I am not apologetic, but I definitely see the matter with reference to historical records.

Secondly, I do believe that without the will of Allah, nothing could happen. His will is necessary for everything to occur. :) And again, I am not defending here the philosophy of Jabr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

I am not apologetic, but I definitely see the matter with reference to historical records.

Secondly, I do believe that without the will of Allah, nothing could happen. His will is necessary for everything to occur. :) And again, I am not defending here the philosophy of Jabr.

Imam Ali (as) knowing he will be killed and Ibn Muljim being an instrument of Allah and that this action is from Allah not Ibn Muljim is different.

There is quite a difference.

If someone had a gun pointed at me, and I knew he is wrongfully going to kill me, can I say Allah killed me? That would be jabr. 

I'm not sure how you do not see this as jabr or atleast saying that Allah is responsible for the sins of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look how clear the follow-up is, he is saying this is Allah's act itself.

If He takes offence at His own act, (yet) He causes gardens (of good) to grow from that taking offence. It beseems Him to take offence at His own act, in as much as in vengeance and mercy He is One.

Astaghfirullah. A'udhu billah from the words of men at what they ascribe to Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Look how clear the follow-up is, he is saying this is Allah's act itself.

If He takes offence at His own act, (yet) He causes gardens (of good) to grow from that taking offence. It beseems Him to take offence at His own act, in as much as in vengeance and mercy He is One.

Astaghfirullah. A'udhu billah from the words of men at what they ascribe to Him.

If you see the commentary of Arifs every act is Allah's and every name is Allah's. One one that is in play is Allah.

Share this post


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

If you see the commentary of Arifs every act is Allah's and every name is Allah's. One one that is in play is Allah.

Astaghfirullah from that belief. And Sayyed Al-Khoei talked about this belief and said it is deviant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, E.L King said:

Astaghfirullah from that belief. And Sayyed Al-Khoei talked about this belief and said it is deviant.

It is deviant just think over. 

It said when veils from heart of Arif gets lifted he sees nothing but Allah in play. 

Definitely we will deny it because we do not see. But Arifs universal see one thing that is Allah in play.

Howa Awwalu hua Aakhiru hua zahiru huwa batin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to say what Molavi says about Ibn-e Muljam is true but read the text below:

 جماعة متفرقين روي ان امير المؤمنين (ع) كلما راى عبد الرحمن بن ملجم المرادي قال لمن حوله هذا قاتلي فقال له قائل فلا تقتله يا امير المؤمنين فقال (ع) كيف اقتل قاتلي كيف ارد قضاء الله ولما اختار الله

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m013/11/no1188.html

From other poems of Molavi, it is clear that he didnt believe in Jabr.

Share this post


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

Please refer to me to that part of Ayotullah Tabataba'i poetic verse so that I may understand it fully and get the gist of his poetry. 

Sindbad. 

This is the link where Mohammad hussein Tabatbie ra himself and his son recites poetry of Tabatbie. 

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D0SYGixWZxeE&ved=0ahUKEwiF14zWoKLXAhWLK48KHZJrCZQQwqsBCGswEw&usg=AOvVaw0WwFZIVLkm-CaW4yMWOPKa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Black and White is arguing with MR/MRS colorful. :pushup:

17 hours ago, E.L King said:

My question is this: is this how Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى would want us to worship Him? By "non-literally" speaking about ourselves committing kufr and fisq? 

Are you defining how humans should express their devotion to their creator excluding what the religion states?. Stating, IS THIS HOW, is implying your knowing Allah more then the rest, this in it self can be Kufr.

The use of US is a contradiction, considering, you do not agree to it, thus, the accusation would be, those who follow the gnostic path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E.L King said:

So what is your personal opinion on these references in poetry? I prefer poetry which talks about Allah in a clear manner, this type of poetry became popular amongst some Shi'i mystics during the Safawi era, to which Al-Majlisi criticised these books, like Masnavi, as containing deviant beliefs.

Brother Masnavi Rumi is another thing and this is from another poet which you showed me and I do not form a judgement just by watching one thing which is attributed to certain poet.  It needs clarification whether it belonged to that poet or not. Rumi was although a Sunni mystical poet and I have neither affirmative nor negative feelings about him until I completely know him because it is morally wrong to consider someone wrong even before you haven't researched about him. Albeit, I think you are very wrong in your thoughts about Ayotullah Tabataba'i if you knowingly considered him wrong although I told you that metaphor is part of poetry. 

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!

    • NO, IT IS HARAM. SENDING GIFT TO HER AND CONGRATULATING HER FOR HER FALLACIOUS MARRIAGE IS ALSO HARAM.
    • Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib(as)   I have avoided the discussion of “The God” and aspects and working, so we do not get distracted and dwell in the realm( of Evil, Mercy, Love, help, present/absent, why does he not act, or why he/ she is silent, why allow all this, that is going on ) that is out of our domain for this discussion at this point in time. If there is a need, I(Layman opinion) will say, The one who  created me, doesn't owe me anything, beyond guidance. If anything exists it's the lack of follow through or rejection of the guidance. I.e. If the humans allow conditions to develop, and there is oppression. Where is God is not the question. Question, is Humanity has been guided at two levels ( inner and outer), rejection of both is the issue not why God does not take away this evil person that we elected or tolerated until he/she turned on us(we were fine up untill it was happening to others). We human need to do our job, instead of having entitlement mentality, and deflect it to it's your fault God., where are you and why you do not help. We have been helped. Intellect/Guidance( brief understanding, as a layman). Maybe not the best example but it will suffice, We would not expect the Mars rover to dwell in the realm of our working, instead it should be concerned with its prime directive, and we are to provide it guidance to accomplish its work. There are may misunderstanding, in  definition, version, understanding due to linguistic, terminology(old/new), cultural (East/West) and lack of Conceptual discussion at the basic fundamental level instead of technicalities and mechanic(which is subconsciously embedded in the way we have been groomed in schools and universities). A charged and contentious environment does not help in getting to any resolution. It's usually tit for tat, and pride get in the way in different threads a that were responding to targeted and side issue out of context. No one to the best of my knowledge and understanding denies we are limited creations in all  aspects. Your creation and Your surrounding creation(s) , are proof of something that  can not be denied. So, there is a Cause, the unlimited, infinitely powerful, Unknown/Unseen Source of all this. What you(non Muslims) call that source is not relevant - you can call it a system,  I call it God. So, there are no Atheists or Agnostic here. What an Atheist/ Agnostic may be, saying is that they do not believe in the God of Islam as “presented “or as understood or as described. That is a very different issue. But this issue, gets mixed up with other issues dealing with the mechanics in other threads which are on specific topics. Getting back to the Topic. We turn now to Stephen Hawking. He proposes M-theory, a variant of string theory, to explain the origins of the universe. The conclusion of his last book, The Grand Design, states:
      Stephen Hawking is a SME ( Subject Matter Expert) in his field of Study. If he gave his scientific theory and left it at that. I would not care nor it should be my concern, as there are many SMEs and have their theories in the Scientific world about may things.  His connecting it to and concluding that there is no need for god( his understanding of what god is to him). Is the issue, I am highlighting it not only because of what he said, because he or people like him are followed and the laypeople use these ideas to formulate their ideology. This is something, prevalent, using  fiction which they call ‘Science” as a tool to attack Divine Religion. This is where this talk and connection / implication that this is the god and of you can’t pray to or ask for help form gravity, or physical laws are not empathetic, and are cold  and have no concern for the humans ….This connection makes no sense. Comparing apples and oranges and mixing stuff that is confusing. This mentally is delusional and it stems out of misunderstanding of the concepts of pray, or help, mercy, etc..or implications that ignorant people believe in miracles and angels. Or we can’t carbon date the text, or evidence of such and such event. In short ignorant conclusions by apparently learned people in their field of study Trickle down effect, and the lay Atheists/Agnostics take these talking point and formulate an opinion and argument with it. Objectivity is also an issue, here. Double standards. Scientific theories are not subject to the same rigorous, and shredding mentality.   Its 5000, 2000, 1400 old stuff, we are Technically advanced. We forget that this advancement is in Technology,(only). The basic alphabet  in terms of Social behavior, is as old as the cave people.  Moving beyond, Mechanics, working, Techinacilities and this attitude of the best generation to exist, every preceding generation had the same attitude. and we will be looked at and our theories considers as old and outdated by the new generations.  Its a Point is time assessment.  What are the benefits of the revealed information- i.e Revealed to us through our struggle and study through discovery of us and whats around us.? Do we follow the Laws, derived from this new knowledge?  If not what are we rally arguing about. If a person can't even at least in Theory acknowledge the laws of Nature for our(Humanity)  Benefit. If you were to do that, you may rethink you position, because you may realize that you have been arguing against something that Natural laws actually prove.  This is what concerns me, at this point. Why can't the objective, learned and "technically" advanced people  see that and make this connection? Technical stuff/mechanic, of Biological change, next stage, or toasters, cars, bridges, space race, new medicine and quest of the common animal are of what consequence except for knocking a book or theory of descent or maybe some new medicine may develop form the finding. If the theory of micro evolution is inserted here, its argues that we will always be a step behind and they(Virus) will mutate, or accomplishing something making life better and having some toys and pride issues over other nations that we went to pluto..so what ?  How does this help us , solving the social problems of Humanity? (That is what Divine Religion is about).. Is there a comprehensive Social theory under development due to above technical advancements. ?  Is there a comprehensive Social theory out there? (maybe not to the liking of the people due to Nurture, but is there)  
    • The nature of the Existence is to exist. Thats all.
    • If the father doesn't approve of it, and didn't leave the door open for further contact, then that's it. They are not being disrespectful. Saying "no" should not forcibly come with an explanation, thus you can't demand it nor force them to listen to you. It is called freedom, and that is more sacred than anything you can tell them.
×