Jump to content
Mansur Bakhtiari

Why do so many admire Ibn Arabi

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 1/23/2018 at 11:40 PM, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Found a translation of this poem and also a thread with the worst of his kufri remarks

I guess Wahdatul Wujood in itself validates idol worship (since everything is Allah astaghfirullah), but that poem must explain his love for the worshipers of the calf.

 

People of the wool often speak in the secret language that's only meant for the pure at heart. Instead of sayying heart they would say dog, words that sound alike. The secret language these people would use would be whatever the particular master would say use, in the case of the heart and dog, they would use the arabic language.

I thought I read somebody say that the arabic word* for pig was used, I don't know if that was meant for a joke or not because today, in America, very evil people are throwing the heads of pigs in places of worship.

There were many many people present at that place 1400 years ago, putting the  whole universe in its most perfect order and that very day and moment is being denied today. That place was *Ghadir Khuum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, silasun said:

Those two scholars are world leaders on the thought of Ibn Arabi. To see SCers with a little Arabic knowledge enter such a discussion is very disappointing, with all due respect.

Internet high schoolers think they know so much. It’s fun to play judge, jury, and executioner on whomever they like. 

At most, people here can form preliminary opinions, but not enough to form a decisive conclusion. You got to study this intensely for years.

Semester has started again people. Back to work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, silasun said:

Ayatollah Jawadi Amoli and Ayatollah HassanZadeh Amoli have both proven that he was a 12er Shia. He has works where he mentions the names of the 12 Imams. You can't take one book that is attributed to him in isolation and use that to reach a conclusion about a person. You would need to prove that it wasn't said out of taqiyyah (Sayyid Haydar Amuli R was executed for his views) and that it was actually written by him.

Those two scholars are world leaders on the thought of Ibn Arabi. To see SCers with a little Arabic knowledge enter such a discussion is very disappointing, with all due respect.

Interesting. So now we should ignore other scholars that called him a heretic and keep playing this game?

Or should we instead engage on a discussion discussing his views, and why we believe they are filled with kufr?

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, silasun said:

Ayatollah Jawadi Amoli and Ayatollah HassanZadeh Amoli have both proven that he was a 12er Shia. He has works where he mentions the names of the 12 Imams. You can't take one book that is attributed to him in isolation and use that to reach a conclusion about a person. You would need to prove that it wasn't said out of taqiyyah (Sayyid Haydar Amuli R was executed for his views) and that it was actually written by him.

Those two scholars are world leaders on the thought of Ibn Arabi. To see SCers with a little Arabic knowledge enter such a discussion is very disappointing, with all due respect.

I fail to see how that proves that Ibn Arabi was a 12er shi'i. Sufis generally hold ahlul bayt in high regard and many even hold the 12 imams in very high regard. In fact some believe in the existence of the 12th imam, some claimed that Al-Askari had more then one son. They would just say that the rafidah perverted the "true" teachings of the imams which in their opinion would be sunni sufism. I've heard that those scholars have "proven" ibn arabi was shia before but I haven't seen any evidence of that, can you provide any? Otherwise its a baseless claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...الامام الحسین علیه السلام: لا تتکلمن فیما لا یعنیک! فانی اخاف علیک الوزر. و لا تتکلمن فیما یعنیک حتی تری للکلام موضعاً؛ فرب متکلم قد تکلم بالحق فعیب

Edited by silasun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2018 at 7:07 PM, Intellectual Resistance said:

Haven't read his works, but if it is as i fear, then congratulations Shias for shooting yourselves in the foot [no surprise there]. You had perfect Tawheed and decided to follow a man many Ulema refer to as a Zindiq.  However if after gaining this knowledge it is just that his statements are taken out of context, then inshAllah i might post about it. At the moment undecided, though its worth posting about warnings.

A problem with certain Muslims apparently is taking words of philosophers over Quran and Hadith. I never thought it was widespread until a Shia convert on discord started obsessing over some Jewish philosopher Spinoza. Then someone told me there are a lot of Muslims becoming deviated by philosophy. "And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided."

On 1/25/2018 at 12:20 AM, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Ibn Arabi said rafidah shia had the souls of dogs and pigs, he claimed God revealed it to him in fact. Can any fans of Ibn Arabi explain how they take religion from such a person? Frankly I don't see how shia can even respect him. 

Do you have a source for that? I've heard that everywhere but can't find a source.

On 1/25/2018 at 10:04 AM, silasun said:

Ayatollah Jawadi Amoli and Ayatollah HassanZadeh Amoli have both proven that he was a 12er Shia. He has works where he mentions the names of the 12 Imams. You can't take one book that is attributed to him in isolation and use that to reach a conclusion about a person. You would need to prove that it wasn't said out of taqiyyah (Sayyid Haydar Amuli R was executed for his views) and that it was actually written by him.

Those two scholars are world leaders on the thought of Ibn Arabi. To see SCers with a little Arabic knowledge enter such a discussion is very disappointing, with all due respect.

I know there are scholars who believe he was a 12er Shia, do you have any links to those specific scholars' discussions about him? I'd be interested. I think this refutes the question of him being Shia though http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa4018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 11:04 PM, Maki D Cabarete said:

People of the wool often speak in the secret language that's only meant for the pure at heart. Instead of sayying heart they would say dog, words that sound alike. The secret language these people would use would be whatever the particular master would say use, in the case of the heart and dog, they would use the arabic language.

I thought I read somebody say that the arabic word* for pig was used, I don't know if that was meant for a joke or not because today, in America, very evil people are throwing the heads of pigs in places of worship.

There were many many people present at that place 1400 years ago, putting the  whole universe in its most perfect order and that very day and moment is being denied today. That place was *Ghadir Khuum. 

Secret language of the people of the "wool," in making a point, is often intended for the time, place and person that it's intended for, after it reached its intended purpose, it can be discarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Do you have a source for that? I've heard that everywhere but can't find a source.

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/4688_الفتوحات-المكية-ابن-العربي-ج-٢/الصفحة_8
This is ibn arabi's work futuhat al-makiyya. I feel the people who say he was actually a 12er shia which I've seen no evidence of. The reality is Ibn Arabi was a man who believed God revealed to him that the rafidah have the souls of pigs. He also praises the enemies of ahlul bayt at length. He even considered Muawiyah and Mutawakkil to be saints of the highest order. My problem with ibn arabi fans is whenever anyway criticizes him they just retort "ahh you are not spiritually advanced to understand our great shaykh" even though the most erudite shia saints have harshly condemned ibn arabi and considered him a heretic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

My problem with ibn arabi fans is whenever anyway criticizes him they just retort "ahh you are not spiritually advanced to understand our great shaykh" even though the most erudite shia saints have harshly condemned ibn arabi and considered him a heretic.

But that is truth. Imagine talking to a person who has a PhD in Theoretical Physics and telling him you think his ideas are wrong, while you have only a basic understanding of physics. The problem isn't that it takes someone with an advanced philosophical background, the problem is that you think you can walk into a place where you don't belong and give your opinion. Not only do you need an extensive background in philosophy, 'ilm-ul-akhlaq AND historiography, you need to understand the conditions that were surrounding this guy. you also need to know how revered he was and the possibility of some of his works being altered by others.

I would also like to know who these "most erudite shia saints" are since I could give you a few names of very well known 'Urafaa that accept Ibn Arabi as a spiritual person and a Shia.

Here's what some of our 'Urafaa said about him:

Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Bahjat قدس سره الشريف:

عندما كان يُسئل عن (ابن عربي), فكان الشيخ بهجت يقول: إذا كان ما قاله ابن عربي موافقًا لكلام الله تعالى, وكلام أهل البيت – عليهم السلام- أخذنا بكلامه, وإذا كان يعارض كلام الله وكلام أهل البيت تركناه. انتهى.

Sayyid Ali Al-Qadhi (according to Sayyid Hashim Al-Haddad, another 'Arif, this is from the book Al-Rooh' Al-Mujarad):

لقد كان‌ سماحة‌ الحاجّ السيّد هاشم‌ الحدّاد قدّس‌ الله‌ روحه‌ يقول‌: كان‌ للمرحوم‌ السيّد (القاضي‌) اهتمام‌ كبير بمحيي‌ الدين‌ بن‌ عربي‌ وكتابه‌ « الفتوحات‌ المكّيّة‌ »، وكان‌ يقول‌: إنّ محيي‌ الدين‌ من‌ الكاملين‌، وهناك‌ في‌ فتوحاته‌ شواهد وأدلّة‌ جمّة‌ علي‌ كونه‌ من‌ الشيعة‌، وهناك‌ مطالب‌ كثيرة‌ فيه‌ تُناقض‌ الاُصول‌ المسلّمة‌ لاهل‌ السنّة‌. 
لقد كتب‌ محيي‌ الدين‌ كتاب‌ « الفتوحات‌ » في‌ مكّة‌ المكرّمة‌، ثمّ بسط‌ جميع‌ أوراقه‌ علي‌ سقف‌ الكعبة‌ وتركها سنة‌ لتمحي‌ المطالب‌ الباطلة‌ منها ـ إن‌ وجدت‌ بهطول‌ الامطار، فيتشخّص‌ الحقّ منها عن‌ الباطل‌. وبعد سنة‌ من‌ هطول‌ الامطار المتعاقبة‌ جمع‌ تلك‌ الاوراق‌ المنشورة‌ فشاهد أنّ كلمة‌ واحدة‌ منها لم‌ تُمحَ ولم‌ تُغسلْ.

Imam Al-Khumaini, this is an informative post, he talks about what the "praising" is, which you seem to misunderstand thoroughly:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But that is truth. Imagine talking to a person who has a PhD in Theoretical Physics and telling him you think his ideas are wrong, while you have only a basic understanding of physics. The problem isn't that it takes someone with an advanced philosophical background, the problem is that you think you can walk into a place where you don't belong and give your opinion. Not only do you need an extensive background in philosophy, 'ilm-ul-akhlaq AND historiography, you need to understand the conditions that were surrounding this guy. you also need to know how revered he was and the possibility of some of his works being altered by others.

You make it sound that this guy is so hard to understand that you really need to take PhD in philosophy and have high hikmah to understand anything of his work. Like person can't understand his work without any of these titles?

Do we have any early scholars that praise this man? It seem like speaking about him highly only happened in Al-Qadhi (ra), Bahjat (ra) and Khomeini (ra) time...

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

But that is truth. Imagine talking to a person who has a PhD in Theoretical Physics and telling him you think his ideas are wrong, while you have only a basic understanding of physics. The problem isn't that it takes someone with an advanced philosophical background, the problem is that you think you can walk into a place where you don't belong and give your opinion. Not only do you need an extensive background in philosophy, 'ilm-ul-akhlaq AND historiography, you need to understand the conditions that were surrounding this guy. you also need to know how revered he was and the possibility of some of his works being altered by others.

I would also like to know who these "most erudite shia saints" are since I could give you a few names of very well known 'Urafaa that accept Ibn Arabi as a spiritual person and a Shia.

 No it's not the truth at all. 'Allamah Al-Hur Al-'Amali was undoubtedly one of our greatest scholars. Check out his الرسالة الإثنى عشرية في الرد على الصوفية specifically his chapter on Ibn Arabi. This is my problem with sufis such as yourself is that you act like nobody can be against Ibn Arabi and his likes if they are knowledge it is a slap in the face to most of shia scholars who were against sufism historically especially pre-safavid scholars. Sufism (aka 'irfan) was mainly just a sunni thing. You also haven't presented any evidence ibn arabi was shia other saying some "urafa" said so. I prefer to take my spirituality from people who don't say rawfidh have the souls of pigs, especially not from a man who says Abu Bakr is sitting on the throne of Allah. 

Edited by Shi3i_jadeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

You make it sound that this guy is so hard to understand that you really need to take PhD in philosophy and have high hikmah to understand anything of his work. Like person can't understand his work without any of these titles?

Do we have any early scholars that praise this man? It seem like speaking about him highly only happened in Al-Qadhi (ra), Bahjat (ra) and Khomeini (ra) time...

But you do need a higher level of philosophy to understand him. The poems of Charles Baudelaire are a great example of how you need to be a high level academic to understand what he was trying to say. It took 100 years for Charles Baudelaire to be identified as an allegorist and not a symbolist. And that only happened because Walter Benjamin was deep into philosophy and politics.

If you have a deeper philosophical understanding you will interpret things differently. If I were to open the "Tao Te Ching" by Lao Tzu or the "Shobogenzo" by Dogen 4 years ago I would not understand it the same way I do right now, simply because I understand zen a tiny bit more.

You guys are making it seem as if we are saying that Ibn Arabi is 100% correct about EVERYTHING. He's a human just like any other human. Like Sheikh Saad Al-Mudaris said in the video I posted, if someone is 20% wrong and 80% right, why throw away everything he says just because of that 20%? Take what is good and leave what is bad. But the bigger problem lies in how you understand good and bad from your current level of knowledge.

I haven't looked into more people, mainly because Sayyid Ali Al-Qadi's words are enough for me. Maybe not to you, but a 'Aarif such as him, who has reached such a high level not only in 'Irfan but fiqh, philosophy and akhlaq, it's really hard to disregard what he says.

38 minutes ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

 No it's not the truth at all. 'Allamah Al-Hur Al-'Amali was undoubtedly one of our greatest scholars. Check out his الرسالة الإثنى عشرية في الرد على الصوفية specifically his chapter on Ibn Arabi. This is my problem with sufis such as yourself is that you act like nobody can be against Ibn Arabi and his likes if they are knowledge it is a slap in the face to most of shia scholars who were against sufism historically especially pre-safavid scholars. Sufism (aka 'irfan) was mainly just a sunni thing. You also haven't presented any evidence ibn arabi was shia other saying some "urafa" said so. I prefer to take my spirituality from people who don't say rawfidh have the souls of pigs, especially not from a man who says Abu Bakr is sitting on the throne of Allah. 

You are here making many assumptions from claiming that I am a Sufi and claiming that Sufism and Irfanism are the same thing. This simply proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Stay humble brother, don't get into discussions you don't have enough knowledge about. 

Those Urafaa were Shia Ulamaa that are still highly regarded in terms of philosophy, fiqh and akhlaq. Please do not speak ill of them because you are ignorant of their biography.

Imam Ali عليه السلام said, ((رحم الله أمرء عرف قدر نفسه))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

You are here making many assumptions from claiming that I am a Sufi and claiming that Sufism and Irfanism are the same thing. This simply proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Stay humble brother, don't get into discussions you don't have enough knowledge about. 

Those Urafaa were Shia Ulamaa that are still highly regarded in terms of philosophy, fiqh and akhlaq. Please do not speak ill of them because you are ignorant of their biography.

Imam Ali عليه السلام said, ((رحم الله أمرء عرف قدر نفسه))

Sufism and 'irfan really is the same thing, I guess you consider any of the shia ulama who were against irfan/sufism to simply be ignoramuses as well. Just because we don't take our spirituality from nawasib as you do doesn't make us morons. This sufi arrogance you are displaying is what really grinds my gears. Christians say the same thing about the trinity. Instead of actually answering criticism sufis usually do this, they just say you are too stupid to understand their "urafa".  

لا يوجد للتصوف وأهله في كتب الشيعة وكلام الأئمة عليهم السلام ذكرٌ إلا بالذم، وقد صنَّفوا في الرد عليهم كتباً متعددة ذكروا بعضها في فهرست كتب الشيعة... روى شيخنا الجليل الشيخ بهاء الدين محمد العاملي في كتاب الكشكول، قال: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: لا تقوم الساعة حتى يخرج قوم من أمتي اسمهم صوفية ليسوا مني، وإنهم يهود أمتي، وهم أضل من الكفار، وهم أهل النار )) ( رسالة الإثني عشرية في الرد على الصوفية (ص 13-16) المطبعة العلمية - قم - إيران، ط 1400هـ )

Edited by Shi3i_jadeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Sufism and 'irfan really is the same thing, I guess you consider any of the shia ulama who were against irfan/sufism to simply be ignoramuses as well. Just because we don't take our spirituality from nawasib as you do doesn't make us morons. This sufi arrogance you are displaying is what really grinds my gears. Christians say the same thing about the trinity. Instead of actually answering criticism sufis usually do this, they just say you are too stupid to understand their "urafa".  

لا يوجد للتصوف وأهله في كتب الشيعة وكلام الأئمة عليهم السلام ذكرٌ إلا بالذم، وقد صنَّفوا في الرد عليهم كتباً متعددة ذكروا بعضها في فهرست كتب الشيعة... روى شيخنا الجليل الشيخ بهاء الدين محمد العاملي في كتاب الكشكول، قال: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: لا تقوم الساعة حتى يخرج قوم من أمتي اسمهم صوفية ليسوا مني، وإنهم يهود أمتي، وهم أضل من الكفار، وهم أهل النار )) ( رسالة الإثني عشرية في الرد على الصوفية (ص 13-16) المطبعة العلمية - قم - إيران، ط 1400هـ )

Salam in my opinion Irfan & Sufism are two different thing they may be looks like each other at first but Irfan doesn't have any connection to current Sufism  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Sufism and 'irfan really is the same thing, I guess you consider any of the shia ulama who were against irfan/sufism to simply be ignoramuses as well. Just because we don't take our spirituality from nawasib as you do doesn't make us morons. This sufi arrogance you are displaying is what really grinds my gears. Christians say the same thing about the trinity. Instead of actually answering criticism sufis usually do this, they just say you are too stupid to understand their "urafa".  

لا يوجد للتصوف وأهله في كتب الشيعة وكلام الأئمة عليهم السلام ذكرٌ إلا بالذم، وقد صنَّفوا في الرد عليهم كتباً متعددة ذكروا بعضها في فهرست كتب الشيعة... روى شيخنا الجليل الشيخ بهاء الدين محمد العاملي في كتاب الكشكول، قال: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: لا تقوم الساعة حتى يخرج قوم من أمتي اسمهم صوفية ليسوا مني، وإنهم يهود أمتي، وهم أضل من الكفار، وهم أهل النار )) ( رسالة الإثني عشرية في الرد على الصوفية (ص 13-16) المطبعة العلمية - قم - إيران، ط 1400هـ )

Salam,

I did not call you stupid. I said you don't have enough knowledge in this section.

As for your quote, that is about Sufism. Please provide evidence of how 'Irfan and Sufism is one and the same. If you would like to create a dialogue then please let us begin with the history of Sufism and the history of 'Irfan. Provide sources from books on the origination of both and when each term came about. If you cannot do this, then you are not ready to argue about this topic.

Sahib Al-Mizan, Al-Alama Al-Tabatabai was a 'Aarif, so are you claiming he's a Sufi? What about Sayyid Ali Al-Qadhi? Sheikh Bahjat? Sayyid Hashim Al-Haddad? Sayyid Al-Khumaini? Sayyid Abd Al-Alaa Sabzawari? Sayyid Al-Kashmiri? Ismail Dulabi? Ali Rajab? Al Muqadas Al-Ardabili?

Are all these Sufis? Please understand that you will be held accountable for the words you speak. If you are claiming these great scholars have anything to do with Sufism then you need to back it up or ask Allah for forgiveness.

Edited by Ibn Al-Shahid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

But you do need a higher level of philosophy to understand him. The poems of Charles Baudelaire are a great example of how you need to be a high level academic to understand what he was trying to say. It took 100 years for Charles Baudelaire to be identified as an allegorist and not a symbolist. And that only happened because Walter Benjamin was deep into philosophy and politics.

The beauty with Hikmah that God have bestowed upon the person is that even if the person who never visited a school can understand his sayings or even better. So he does need to get his titles or have high understanding of philosophy. 

 

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Its what respected about him is his spirituality but we don't follow his teachings.

I donot what you mean. 

But most shia arifs have praised ibne Arabi  and even in qum books of ibne Arabi are taught in advanced stages of spirituality. 

Just your denial has no value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

I heard somewhere that Deobandi's respect Ibn Arabi no? I don't know much about all these subcontinent groups lol.

Your hating of ibne Arabi has no meaning. 

Since most shia arifs have praised ibne Arabi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam in my opinion Irfan & Sufism are two different thing they may be looks like each other at first but Irfan doesn't have any connection to current Sufism  .

Sofism and Irfan is same there no much difference. Both is based on spiritual purification and moral ethical perfection till ones eyes of heart open to see devine beauty. I have heared lecture of student of Ayatollah Bahjat ra over this subject. So definitely his statement is more valid than yours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Salam,

I did not call you stupid. I said you don't have enough knowledge in this section.

As for your quote, that is about Sufism. Please provide evidence of how 'Irfan and Sufism is one and the same. If you would like to create a dialogue then please let us begin with the history of Sufism and the history of 'Irfan. Provide sources from books on the origination of both and when each term came about. If you cannot do this, then you are not ready to argue about this topic.

Sahib Al-Mizan, Al-Alama Al-Tabatabai was a 'Aarif, so are you claiming he's a Sufi? What about Sayyid Ali Al-Qadhi? Sheikh Bahjat? Sayyid Hashim Al-Haddad? Sayyid Al-Khumaini? Sayyid Abd Al-Alaa Sabzawari? Sayyid Al-Kashmiri? Ismail Dulabi? Ali Rajab? Al Muqadas Al-Ardabili?

Are all these Sufis? Please understand that you will be held accountable for the words you speak. If you are claiming these great scholars have anything to do with Sufism then you need to back it up or ask Allah for forgiveness.

I gave heared lecture of student of Ayatollah Bahjat ra on sofism and Irfan. 

And according to him sofism and Irfan is same even if there is difference that is minor. 

And even Iranian channel praised Ayatollah Behjet ra by calling him sofi. 

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2018 at 4:15 AM, Reza said:

Internet high schoolers think they know so much. It’s fun to play judge, jury, and executioner on whomever they like. 

At most, people here can form preliminary opinions, but not enough to form a decisive conclusion. You got to study this intensely for years.

Semester has started again people. Back to work. 

I'm on the fence and don't have any opinion on this, however, i would like to know what you think of these strong comments made by one of the top three scholars at Najaf , the other of the three being Sayed Ali al-Sistani. 

Najaf_Marji.jpg

He is on the far left, and no prizes for guessing who the other three men are in this picture. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Fayadh

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/01/2018 at 4:53 AM, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

A problem with certain Muslims apparently is taking words of philosophers over Quran and Hadith. I never thought it was widespread until a Shia convert on discord started obsessing over some Jewish philosopher Spinoza. Then someone told me there are a lot of Muslims becoming deviated by philosophy. "And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided."

Why don't our Ulema gather together in a conference, discuss these issues, and then present us with a statement ? If they don't take any legitimate steps in trying to help layman like myself understand why heavy weights clash on Ibn Arabi, what is a layman like myself to think?

This isn't an issue like Tatbir, when things are clear and explicit and anyone can make their mind up by brute sense. This is complex philosophy, muddy waters.

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

×