Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cc_30

  1. I would recommend having a look at the following articles, which were written by a research team associated with Ayatollah Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani (ha). https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa1027 http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa4761 A few highlights of these articles include the following: "In the early period of Islam also, a number of the enemies of Islam conspired against it by first accepting Islam and then turning away from it so as to weaken Muslims' faith. In order to prevent this threat, Islam prescribed capital punishment for apostasy, though it made also difficult to prove it so much so that only a limited number of people in the early period of Islam were sentenced to this punishment. Therefore, the psychological impact of this punishment rather than the punishment itself has brought about a healthy atmosphere for the general public." "From and Islamic perspective, an apostate is one who discovers the legitimacy of Islam and gains certainty in its truth, but unreasonably turns away from the religion." "A person who becomes an apostate as a result of being presented with fallacies and misguidedly accepting them (in private and without public exhibition), will be spared from punishment. In addition, should that individual return to Islam, the good deeds they performed prior to their apostasy will be preserved." Food for thought...
  2. Brother, you are ignoring my reply to your question(s) and bringing up completely new ones. I'll reply to these points once you address my response to your original questions. As far as your points on WF, first of all, calm down. I purposefully did not reply to those points because there are others on here more knowledgeable than me who can do a far better job with the particular details on that issue. And you tell me I have my "fingers in my ears" and I assume I am a "supporter of the Iranian government," Uhh, ok...
  3. Brother thuglife, The problem with this video and others from similar mentalities is that they are speaking about topics of which they have little knowledge. Studying Ibn Arabi, who has written literally thousands upon thousands of pages, is just like studying any other subject in the hawza: you need proper teachers, resources, and should spend time with the subject for a considerable amount of time. All of those who have done that come to opposite conclusions, i.e. Ibn Arabi is NOT a pantheist (believing everything is God), an enemy of Ahlul Bayt (as) (on the contrary, some believe he was a Shia and give very detailed proofs for why they believe this), or someone whose tawhid differed from that of Imam Sadiq (as). If we want knowledge on a topic, we have to go to those who are familiar with it. I have asked before and I'll ask again: for how long, and under who, did Allahyari, Mujtaba, etc. study these topics to speak with the authority they do on them? What weight does their position hold if they have not done so? Hawza students of 3-4 years are humble enough to keep quiet on issues because they recognize that their knowledge is nothing compared to their teachers. Did these guys study Ibn Arabi, Mulla Sadra, etc. for even a few months, let alone years? Until they can bring forth what level of credentials they have in this area, their words mean nothing, especially considering those who ARE experts in this area are claiming the exact opposite (see the comments of Imam Khumayni, Tabatabai, and contemporaries like Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli and Ayatullah Hasan Zadeh Amuli on this issue for the details and their evidences). Regarding the video of Ayatullah Khamena'i, I don't speak Farsi so I cannot claim to know exactly what he is saying, but I have read some of his works in English and have also read a lot of Rumi's works. Based on that, I am certain that he is not saying the words of Rumi are usul ad-din, but rather that many of Rumi's poems discuss usul ad-din and do so in an accurate way. If you read many of Rumi's poems, you will see that they strongly reflect the usul of Shi'ism rather than Sunnism. William Chittick's Sufi Path of Love has many of these poems, and he did an excellent job of presenting them by theme.
  4. Well brother, your question didn't have a question mark, so I took it as a statement, not a question. I have no problem answering it: no, I do not believe in relative morality in the Western sense. But in Islam there does exist, according to some narrations and as can be understood from certain verses like the one you quoted, the idea that as societies change, certain laws can also change. For example, in the never-ending chess debate, there is a narration in which Imam Sadiq (as) states that chess is forbidden because his society knew it as a gambling tool. Therefore, some fuqaha state that in today's world it is not so, and therefore it is no longer haram. On Ayatullah Sistani's website, there is a similar example in which the Prophet (s) declares a certain animal to be haram to eat, but an examination of the context reveals that it was said during a battle in which the Muslims were in need of that animal, so due to circumstances it was made temporarily haram. These are just two examples. The issue of laws being abrogated during just a 23 year period during the Prophet's (s) life is another. Could that verse not be implying a change similar to these? Doesn't abrogation prove that in one context, something is good, yet not good or not as good in another? Why can't it be the same for the time of Adam's (as) children, as that would clearly be a one time, limited exception?
  5. Brother, you know full well that a claim requires evidence. Your response reminds me of the whole theist-atheist discussion of "prove God exists" (atheist), followed by "prove to me He doesn't exist" (theist). Surely you can see how your claim requires proof? Let's not forget we are talking about Qur'an and its tafsir here. Interpreting the book of Allah (swt) is not a light matter…so, again, do you have any evidence for your statement?
  6. The verses he quoted do not directly show that God changes rules, but they reveal that hukm in its ultimate sense belongs to God, which implies that He can change it if He desires. The verse I quoted, and verses about abrogation, show that part of that ownership is in fact changing laws at times. Also, have you read the individual tafsir of each of those verses in al-Mizan? He may actually discuss the issue using other verses. We shouldn't say for sure until we have read each one. At times Tabatabai (ra) left certain discussions for one particular place in his tafsir to avoid repetition (see for example his discussion of 'Alif Lam Mim,' if I'm not mistaken…) As far as incest goes, it doesn't bother me if that what is what God decreed. A lot of times our objections to these things are more culture-based. For example, in the United States marrying one's cousin is a sign of being uneducated, white trash and there are jokes about Southerners doing it and ending up with mentally disabled children. Yet in the Arab and Muslim world it is practiced very commonly, especially amongst Sayyids. It was just one particular context. I'm not discounting the whole 'houri' idea, as it definitely could be a possibility, it just seems very far fetched to me, especially considering they are heavenly, otherworldly beings, and therefore would not possess the same anatomy as us, allowing birth to take place. Unless God somehow changed their constitution for earth. Who knows...
  7. This is not completely true. We know that during the Prophet's (saws) own life, laws were changed through abrogation. We also have verses like the following: And [i have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Allah and obey me. (3:50) So the point of Allamah Tabatabai (ra) stands as valid.
  8. I am not "narrating" it. I was quoting you. And now you are changing it. Your original post says that her forehead was struck. Now you are saying it was her "head." Which is it?
  9. Brother, this was the hadith you posted: "Zainab (sa) turned and saw the head of her brother, then hit her forehead on the front part of the Mahmil, until we saw blood coming out from under her veil." If she was wearing standard hijab, her forehead would be exposed. So in that case, her forehead would have simply bled, and there would be no need for mention of blood coming "from under her veil," unless she struck the part of her head that was covered by the "normal hijab." However, the narration does not say that she struck that part of her head. On a side note, what is your opinion of Shaykh Abbas al-Qummi, compiler of Mafatih ul-Jinan? Do you find him to be a trustworthy scholar?
  10. His character aside (I've never even met him), just looking at his posts on his Facebook page is very disturbing and reveals his mentality. Here are some recent examples: "If all Maraji Taqlid rule that Tatbir is Haram. We say goodbye to Taqlid, not Tatbir." "I find myself in love with every weak Hadith. I wonder why?!" "The sacred ritual of Tatbir in itself is Mustahab. However, due to the war against Tatbir from all sides and governments, it becomes Wajib to preserve and protect this sacred ritual. Tatbir is Wajib." When questioned about this, he followed up with: "I do not follow Maraji Taqlid with matters concerning the rituals of Imam Hussain (a.s) as they fall under the concept of Aqeeda and our duty towards such Aqeeda we hold." And last but certainly not least: "... And while the Prophet (saww) appoints Imam Ali (a.s) as his successor for the 100th time, 3 Sh*t-heads, yes, absolute Sh*t-heads, were appointing Abu Bakr the homosexual alcoholic instead. Do not tell us that we can't use such language against the killers of Fatima (a.s), because according to Islamic Law, if we saw a Nasibi... we have every right to kill him. I haven't killed. I just insulted." I censored the swear words there, he actually wrote them out. My apologies for posting such filthy language, but people need to realize how dangerous this man's ideas are.
  11. Bismillah Perhaps the best way to address this topic is to address the "controversial" verses head on. Unfortunately in our very non-academic, instant gratification obsessed modern world people tend to just want quick, easy answers without really properly looking into things. In the case of the controversial "kill them wherever you find them" (9:5) verse, this is exactly what has happened, but fortunately the solution is very, very simple: read the verses before and after it. So, let's have a look. 9:1 [This is] a [declaration of] repudiation by Allah and His Apostle [addressed] to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty: Right away, we realize there is a context to the verse in question (9:5). We realize that these verses are not dealing with all polytheists, but rather those who have a treaty with the Prophet (s), let alone all non-Muslims, infidels, or whatever Fox News would like you to believe. 9:2 Travel [unmolested] in the land for four months, but know that you cannot thwart Allah, and that Allah shall disgrace the faithless. 9:3 [This is] an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to all the people on the day of the greater Hajj: that Allah and His Apostle repudiate the polytheists: If you repent that is better for you; but if you turn your backs [on Allah], know that you cannot thwart Allah, and inform the faithless of a painful punishment 9:4 (barring the polytheists with whom you have made a treaty, and who did not violate any [of its terms] with you, nor backed anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them until [the end of] its term. Indeed Allah loves the Godwary) 9:3 [This is] an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to all the people on the day of the greater Hajj: that Allah and His Apostle repudiate the polytheists: If you repent that is better for you; but if you turn your backs [on Allah], know that you cannot thwart Allah, and inform the faithless of a painful punishment Therefore, when we read the "kill them whoever you find them" verse, we realize it is only talking about a specific group: people who had rejected or violated peace treaties with the Muslims, and were therefore at war with them. Those who hate and actively preach against Islam make this verse appear to be a universal declaration of death to all non-Muslims, but just reading the preceding verses makes it very, very clear that they were limited to the time of the Prophet (s), and even then only applied to a specific group within a group, i.e. those who were working against the establishment of peace between the Muslims and others. So, 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and maintain the prayer and give the zakat, then let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful. The verse alone appears frightening, yes, and it is a perfect tool of propaganda. But the previous verses make clear who "the polytheists" are in verse 5. We can even go onward to verse 6, which makes it even more clear: 9:6 If any of the polytheists seeks asylum from you, grant him asylum until he hears the Word of Allah. Then convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. So much for killing all the polytheists! Had that been the case, the polytheist in question would either have to convert or be killed, since not converting would mean he has remained in his polytheism. Further, if Muslims were indeed supposed to kill all polytheists, how could they have a "place of safety" to return to? The Muslims would be obliged by these very verses to attack it, not return someone safely to it! I hope this helps to clarify things. There are other points that can be mentioned, but I think this is hopefully a good start...
  12. So if the announcement was delayed, people were prevented from knowing it was Eid, and therefore fasted on Eid, which is haram…?
  13. Where did we even imply we are "privy to certain knowledges" others don't know? On the contrary, I have shared videos, articles, book recommendations, etc in the hope that you all will actually study these issues and not make baseless accusations. You were asked by several posters to back your claims about Light Within Me. You never did. I asked you to explain your background reading in the field several time, and you ignored me. This would be a perfect time to bring credit to your case, as it would show you have researched the field and therefore hold some weight in the discussion! Yet we are in danger of becoming "too arrogant," making "assumptions," and having a "poetic faith"? OK... :wacko:
  14. I agree with you. I hate debating, and my preference has always been calm, focused, truth-seeking discussion. However, my temper rises when I see people doing the things that are happening in this thread. I don't want it to be this way, but what can we do?
  15. They are, of their own free will, coming into this thread and commenting on this issue, posting quotes, and even saying they have read Light Within Me. This clearly shows they are interested. Sure, they may not "need" irfan in their lives, and I agree that that is fine. What is NOT fine, however, is to accuse individuals of kufr, shirk, or "Shia hating" when the accuser has not even properly studied the issue at hand. This is what the Wahhabis do, and to see our own doing it is disturbing, to say the least. Regarding DaBeasts age, wow way to shoot the guy down! That's pretty rude of you to assume he can't discuss any issues just because of his age. I ultimately disagree with him, but he has brought some good questions (like tracking down the Fusus quote he did) and from his posts I would not have at all assumed he was 15. I've met 15 year olds far more mature and even knowledgeable than some 50 year olds, so to harp on his age is kind of silly. Let the brother debate and ask questions. How else will he learn?
  16. I have a better idea: why don't we read books by maraja, mujtahids in irfan, and PhD holding scholars? These people have studied these works for decades. You guys read a paragraph or two and are ready to denounce someone a mushrik or a kafir. Unbelievable. Did you not see where I told you that lengthy works have been written by scholars attempting to prove Ibn Arabis tashayyu? Did you even try to find them? Or did you just ignore it and find a thread of people who know nothing and haven't even read one of his books calling him a Shia hater. You guys are so stubborn. Proof is offered to you and you just completely ignore it. In a discussion, do you have any idea how rude that is and how arrogant it appears?
  17. Brother, does the Qur'an contradict itself when in one verse it says there is no shafa'ah and then turns around and says there is shafa'ah? Just because on the surface it seems there is a contradiction doesn't mean there is. It seems you are just making accusations without reflecting at all on what you're reading. And, with all due respect, how dare you make a claim about someone's beliefs when you have not even started to study them? I have given you, in this thread and others, articles to read, videos to watch, and you guys just keep coming back with the same rhetoric. It's honestly pathetic. You have virtually no knowledge of what you are talking about here. Remember, you are talking about a fellow Muslim, and you will be accountable for these words on the Day of Judgment. Be careful. And yes, in some narrations, wahjullah is Ahlul Bayt (as). However, if you study narrations carefully you see that verses can have multiple meanings. In that verse, it cannot always be Ahlul-Bayt (as). Why? It says, wherever ('ayna maa) you turn, there is the face of Allah. So if I turn in the direction of a Wahhabi, he is/is from Ahlul-Bayt (as)? Clearly not... If you brothers are not going to approach this subject with a little more humility and maturity, I'm not going to waste my time with this.
  18. If he was truly a pantheist, why would he be asking God for something? If he believes he, and all other things, are literally God, then prayer makes no sense, because the one praying and the one being prayed to are separate beings. But in pantheism all is literally God. Same with Satan. If Ibn Arabi was a pantheist, he would believe he is God, Satan is God (naudhubillah), and so on, so ask for protection from Satan? Regarding the verse, look at it carefully. It doesn't just say, "you threw, and God gave you the power to do it." It goes further and both affirms and denies that the Prophet (saws) threw, but only affirms that God did. Combine that verse with the following: So wherever you [might] turn, there is the Face of Allah (2:115) and [He is] the Manifest (57:3) Reflect on these verses and I think you will start to see what Ibn Arabi means by sayings like "there is nothing but Allah" He, like many other thinkers using a deep, rich language like Arabic may say things that, if taken literally, seem like kufr. But I emphasize again, just as I said earlier, that he, just like any thinker, cannot be understood by reading random quotes. If you want to understand his thought, you need to read the controversial, the non-controversial, and other things in between. Doing so, you will clearly see that many accusations made against him are completely false. You and others could start with the following: http://www.mohammedrustom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Ibn-Arabis-Ontology-and-Pantheism-JIP-2-2006.pdf
  19. Yes, Ibn Arabi has many sayings like that. However, he also has sayings like the following, taken from the opening sentences of the book you are quoting (Fusus al-Hikam): Does that sound like pantheism? Does that sound like a man who literally believes everything is identical to God? He is clearly referring to multiple, separate beings. How to resolve the two statements, then? I'll ask you a simple question. What do you understand from the following ayah? Why is the Prophet's (saws) role in throwing being both affirmed AND denied by God?
  20. Brother NaveenHussain- I'll await your answers to my four questions (in post #55) before we proceed further. I don't want this conversation to be going in a million directions with no focus, as this is an important topic.
  21. In regards to your question, it contains two things you haven't defined yet, so I can't answer it. What do you mean by "fake spirituality," and which "Sunni Sufis" are you referring to? I tried to answer the latter point by explaining to you that a lot of them are really Shia, according to some scholars of this field, but I guess that didn't suffice. I am also awaiting the parts of Light Within Me which you found to be a "shirkfest" And, I also asked you to explain the extent of your studies which would allow you to refer to certain figures as "rejectors" who "speculate"…I await your answer on that as well
  22. Ahsant, I am happy to see someone who is approaching this issue with humility. Even for myself, I don't necessarily I say I believe in concepts like wahdat ul-wujud, as I don't claim to understand them. Recently on Facebook Shaykh Hamid Waqar mentioned that Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli (ha) said it took him 20 years to understand the definition of wahdat ul-wujud, let alone the concept…20 years! I think the key is just to be open-minded and humble, and recognize the decades scholars have put into studying these subjects. It's not that easy to just dismiss such work as "kufr" or "shirk." And it becomes even more dangerous to do so when we consider the riwayat we have which speak of the aimmah (as) possessing knowledge which, if was shared, would be met with accusations of kufr and shirk. The similarity between the two scenarios is very thought-provoking.
  • Create New...