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

cc_30

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    607
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from TryHard in Exposing Yassir Al-Habib   
    Allah's knowledge being infinite and independent of time is irrelevant here. That has no connection with how he treats his creatures in terms of reward and punishment. The point is: In Yasir's hadith, Allah would be punishing someone for something they have yet to do. As Allah says, "We do not punish until a warner is sent." (17:15) Divine Justice requires that a person actually commit a crime before punishment is given. If your and Yasir's logic is correct, shouldn't the Prophet (s) have killed Abu Bakr, Umar and A'isha for the crimes they would later commit after his death?
    I didn't say that Yasir quotes fabricated narrations. You said that all he's doing is reading "from our books." I simply pointed out that "our books" have hadiths which are incorrect. Not all of them are sahih, so claiming that he is just reading "our books" is not enough to give legitimacy to what he's saying.
    How do I not understand the importance of discussing the truth about Abu Bakr, Umar, etc.? Because I say it should be done in a tactful way that will actually reach the ears of the listener? :wacko: Come on, just because I don't do it in the X-rated Shirazi style doesn't mean I don't know its importance.
    Funny you would mention Ziyarat Ashura, considering that the names Yasir focuses on are not even mentioned in it. If he is a true follower of Ahlul-Bayt (عليه السلام), he should do la'an the way they did la'an. They don't mention the names of the first three, so neither should we.
  2. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from TryHard in Exposing Yassir Al-Habib   
    @Ismahan
    1) So if there's a possibility of a (at that time) innocent child becoming a Nasabi, that currently sinless child gets a finger inserted in its' behind to tempt it to homosexuality? All based on a possibility? This reveals how out of touch with aqeeda you Shirazis are. What happened to Divine Justice? God allows anal violations of newborns based on possibility?
    2) We have tons of ahadith in our books. You saying he is just reading "from our books" means nothing, because many of those ahadith are weak, fabrications, etc.
    Yassir claims that "Bakris" have made the three caliphs into idols. But he has turned this institution of focusing upon nothing but attacking them into his own God. We have a treasure trove of wisdom in terms of aqeedah, akhlaq, ma'arifah, etc and all this fool does is focus upon the "three idols."
    What a waste.
  3. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from TryHard in Exposing Yassir Al-Habib   
    1) Put in context or not, his comments are disgusting and utterly illogical. A shaytan comes to an innocent, sinless child and violates it to tempt it to homosexuality? Isn't one of the pillars of our madhhab divine justice? And accepting a title leads to being gay? What kind of proof is there for this non-sense? Please, since you are his fan and probably have access to the full video, post it and let's see what "proof" he brings for narrations that make Bukhari look like pure logic.
    2) I have only heard Shirazis claim Umar was gay. Can you show any credible, non-Shirazi scholar who has stated this?
    3) His entire method of debate is atrocious. He fails to understand that his words will not properly reach Sunnis. From birth, Sunnis are taught that the 3 caliphs are the best human beings after RasulAllah (saws) and beyond critique. If a person goes for 20, 30, 40 years believing this and all of a sudden hears "Umar used to be penetrated...(insert Yassir's filthy language here)" will that person's heart be even the slightest bit open to listening? Assume it is true that Umar was gay. That is not AT ALL the way to go about presenting the information. As I have said 1000 times, the methods of Sayyid Kamal get even finer points across and he does it with pure akhlaq. Sayyid Kamal has left the Sunnis absolutely speechless, and done it in a very respectful, compassionate, yet direct and firm way.
  4. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in What Is The Ruling For Apostasy?   
    1) Possibly because a Muslim, i.e. non-apostate, can also rebel against the state? Two things with different names can have similarities in their definitions. Wudhu and ghusl both involve washing parts of the body with water, but also have differences as well. If I'm not mistaken, a rebel against the state can be subject to several different punishments, ranging from crucifixion to being expelled, ie not killed, from the land in question? There is an ayah of Qur'an which discusses it, but I cannot remember it right off, and I would have to double check that it is what the 'ulema use for the scenario in question.
    2) I have not studied this properly, so I will refrain from commenting.
    3) I would like to see the ahadith as well. Since he mentioned Ayatullah Bahjat (ra), maybe he mentions some of them in his kharij lessons or detailed commentary on his fatawa?
  5. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in What Is The Ruling For Apostasy?   
    He may be looking at it from the perspective of multiple narrations. For example, in the ones quoted above, we read "Whoever rejects the prophethood of a prophet/messenger and considers him untrue, then his blood is lawful." Well, technically it is not "whoever," because the others further comment that a convert has time to repent if he/she so decides. Also in Sayyid Rizvi's book on apostasy, as was mentioned here, the apostasy must be public, but the narrations quoted don't mention it; from the ones above we could conclude that maybe just two adil witnesses confirming someone's apostasy is sufficient. So most likely, if the explanation I mentioned is correct, there are further narrations used to provide the additonal details, i.e. the person has to not only commit apostasy but also wage a type of war against the state/ummah.
    Don't think just because you've read a few ahadith you know better than him, wait until you see his evidence before accusing him of confusing terms. If I can find the site maybe you can email him and he can provide references for the additional details he provided.
  6. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in What Is The Ruling For Apostasy?   
    Ayatullah Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani's (ha) answers:
    http://islamquest.net/QuestionArchive/11724.ASPX
    Here he discusses Ayatullah bahjat's (ra) views on the fitri apostate:
    From these answers it is clear that the issue is more complicated than it first appears to be.
  7. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in What Is The Ruling For Apostasy?   
    There was a website I recently visited with Q&A on Islamic issues, I believe it was Shaykh Mansour Leghaei answering the questions. In one of them, about apostasy, he explained that it's not mere apostasy which leads to the death sentence, but rather it is apostasy combined with an actual rebellion against and attack on the Islamic state and/or community. Hence it is kind of like adultery in the sense that you are not killed for adultery per se, but rather adultery performed in such an animalistic way that four 'adil men witness the action. I tried to find the site but I couldn't, maybe someone who has also seen it can post the link inshaAllah.
  8. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Zaynab_fr in What is your opinion of Seyyed Hossein Nasr?   
    That's partially due to the fact that most traditional scholars do not study philosophy or irfan, at least not in any real depth. However, for those who do, they frequently study from "Sunnis" like Ibn Arabi, Khwajah Abdullah Ansari, Rumi and Hafiz, etc. So what Nasr claims he has done is not really all that special.
    To me, there are still several fundamental issues which show his lack of insight into things:
    1) His religious pluralism. The first principle of logic is that of non-contradiction, ie something cannot be A and not A at the same time. Ali cannot be Ali and not Ali at the same time. But Nasr, at least according to the article on his pluralism on al-Islam, believes that a Christian can believe in the crucifixion and a Muslim can deny and both are right. He can harp on some kind of special spiritual insight needed to understand such a thing, but it blatantly goes against the most basic principle of philosophy, which he is being presented as an expert in by some.
    2) His loathing of politics. See the aforementioned cheap shots he takes at Imam Khumayni (ra). Note the blatant absurdity in what he says. He says that all Sufi orders trace their "lineage" back to Imam Ali (as). At the same time, Imam Khumayni (ra) broke from tradition amongst the Sufi/'irfan masters and entered the realm of politics. Now, Nasr will certainly not deny that Imam Ali (as) spent a good part of his life involved in the socio-political affairs of the ummah. So: Imam Khumayni (ra) attempts to follow in the footsteps of the very first 'irfani master, and he is going against the standard of what Sufi teachers advocate and live by?? He goes back to the beginning of the chain and attempts to emulate it, and he is somehow at fault?
    Don't get me wrong, the man is a very talented writer and he has done a lot for Islam in the West. I don't mean to say he is a completely evil person. But when I see blatant flaws in his thinking like this, and also his love for the Shah as mentioned by Imami_Ali, unfortunately I have to consider him misguided and be very careful in what I take from him.
  9. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from yousif. in Allamah Tabatabai and Ayatollah Khomeini   
    (bismillah)
    (salam)
    http://mohammadr.googlepages.com/AT_Algar.htm
  10. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Abeel_Ali_Muhammad in Are We Allowed To Add Wa Ajil Farajahum After Salawat In Prayers?   
    (bismillah)
    (salam)
    Q575: Is it allowable that one says "wa ajjil farajahum" (and hasten their advent) after pronouncing the blessing "Salawat" upon the Prophet (pbuh) in the testimony (Tashahud) of daily prayers?
    A: As an obligatory precaution, it must be avoided.
    http://www.saanei.org/bookdata.php?bid=1&id=109
  11. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Hameedeh in Who was Hafez?   
    What is the source for this statement?
    In Hafez wine is a symbol for Divine Love, as it is also in the Qur'an according to some narrations about the verse that the inhabitants of Paradise would be given a pure wine. Hence, this poem represents keeping the mysteries of Divine Love to oneself, for those who do not know its meanings will take it as blasphemous, etc. and possibly even persecute (see Hallaj). Hafiz is talking about hiding one's mystical inclinations, and if it has anything to do with the Muzaffarids capture of Shiraz, it is therefore due to the fact that that group did not tolerate esoteric interpretations and Hafiz was lamenting the fact that he would have to keep his beliefs and practices secret.
    And "a feeling" that Hafiz drank means nothing...I can have "a feeling" for anything
  12. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Hameedeh in Who was Hafez?   
    No and no. Imam Khomeini (ra) speaks of wine all the time in his poems, but God forbid anyone even dare to imply that he consumed alcohol. Similarly Hafez was a married man and lamented the death of his wife through his poems and until the end of his life. All of Hafez' references, whether to wine, boys, the Sheikh, the Zoroastrian priest, etc. are all metaphors related to Divine love, hypocrisy of religious leaders, etc.
    Do we not get upset when non-Muslims come with no knowledge trying to interpret the Qur'an according to their own way of thinking? Even if you think Hafez' metaphors are poorly chosen, you have to read him on his own terms, which are clearly metaphorical and are not to be taken literally. Therefore, Hafez was NOT gay and did NOT drink wine.
  13. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Hameedeh in Who was Hafez?   
    (bismillah)
    (salam)
    I guess Shaykh Rajabali Khayyat (ra) was just crazy then, huh, seeing that he called Hafiz a waliAllah who had a beautiful state in barzakh?
    And Allamah Tabatabai (ra), who used to explain Hafez' poems in a way that listeners said it was like the walls were vibrating with the truth of Hafez' words, he must have not been in a straight state of mind, since how could some "fag" poet actually know anything about tawhid, right?
    And Imam Khomeini (ra), and Shaheed Mutahari (ra)...man what were these guys thinking?
    There's probably some commentary by an actual Hafez scholar out there who properly explains the metaphorical nature of all these things, but hey who cares, if it makes me feel better to brand him with names, so be it!
  14. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Hameedeh in Apostacy   
    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...
  15. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Al Hadi in Philosophy And Wahdat Al-Wujud   
    If anyone wishes to take this topic seriously, consider the following (in addition to posting Shaykh Tehrani's (ha) article, ahsantum to those who did, as he is an 'alim who has actually taken the time to study this theory under scholars who themselves have studied and taught it for decades)
     
    1-You do not simply kick back on a Sunday afternoon sipping tea and study wahdat ul-wujud. The works of Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, etc have numerous prerequisites for proper understanding, as do many heavy intellectual works, and therefore are not just simply "read." They employ specific terminology and concepts which, like any science, are not understood at first glance and require sometimes very in depth analysis and months, years, sometimes even decades of learning! This can be easily shown if anyone would like further evidence.
     
    2-Therefore, if anyone wants to bring Sayyid Sadiq or Shaykh Fayyadh's views, I will ask a simple question: under who, and for how long, did they study these texts? Who did they study Ash-Shifaa' of Ibn Sina under? Under who did they study Asfar al-Arba, a work which is only BEGUN after sometimes 7-8 years of previous study? Who did they study Ibn Arabi's magnum opus, Fusus ul-Hikam, under? If you want to establish their views as legitimate, haatu burhanakum in kuntum sadiqeen.
     
    3-Those scholars who HAVE studied this theory, have done so for numerous years, and sometimes decades, under scholars who have done the same. It is known that Imam Khumayni, Allamah Tabatabai, and contemporary scholars like Ayatullah Hasan Zadeh Amuli, Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli, Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari, and the aforementioned Ayatullah Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani (may Allah protect all of them) have dedicated countless hours to studying and teaching these works.
     
    Now, simple question. Regarding those who have studied these works in depth, for years on end, what conclusion do they come to? They are, after all, EASILY the experts on these works, considering the time and energy that has been put into studying and teaching them, which, from what I have seen, is not the case with Sayyid Sadiq, Ayatullah Fayyadh, etc. (if anyone has evidence to the contrary on this, please bring it forth) So, what do the experts say? Is it kufr? NO. On the contrary, they say that it is the PUREST expression of tawheed and as far away from shirk as one can get! 
     
    Yes, Sayyid Sadiq and Shaykh Fayyadh are very learned fuqaha who have spent many years studying and teaching fiqh in the hawza. They, however, are NOT experts on 'irfan and philosophy. If you want to understand the relevance of an idea, go to those who truly know and understand it. This is a very basic concept, and easy to grasp, as the whole idea of following a marja, which Shaykh Fayyadh and Sadiq Sadiq are clearly aware of, is centered around figuring out who is 'alam, or "most learned." So tell me, who is most learned about Ibn Arabi? Sh Fayyadh or Ayatullah Hasan Zadeh Amuli? Sayyid Sadiq or Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli?
     
    Let's do ourselves a favor and remain quiet on things we do not understand. 
  16. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Al Hadi in Exposing Yassir Al-Habib   
    Allah's knowledge being infinite and independent of time is irrelevant here. That has no connection with how he treats his creatures in terms of reward and punishment. The point is: In Yasir's hadith, Allah would be punishing someone for something they have yet to do. As Allah says, "We do not punish until a warner is sent." (17:15) Divine Justice requires that a person actually commit a crime before punishment is given. If your and Yasir's logic is correct, shouldn't the Prophet (s) have killed Abu Bakr, Umar and A'isha for the crimes they would later commit after his death?
    I didn't say that Yasir quotes fabricated narrations. You said that all he's doing is reading "from our books." I simply pointed out that "our books" have hadiths which are incorrect. Not all of them are sahih, so claiming that he is just reading "our books" is not enough to give legitimacy to what he's saying.
    How do I not understand the importance of discussing the truth about Abu Bakr, Umar, etc.? Because I say it should be done in a tactful way that will actually reach the ears of the listener? :wacko: Come on, just because I don't do it in the X-rated Shirazi style doesn't mean I don't know its importance.
    Funny you would mention Ziyarat Ashura, considering that the names Yasir focuses on are not even mentioned in it. If he is a true follower of Ahlul-Bayt (عليه السلام), he should do la'an the way they did la'an. They don't mention the names of the first three, so neither should we.
  17. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Al Hadi in Exposing Yassir Al-Habib   
    1) Put in context or not, his comments are disgusting and utterly illogical. A shaytan comes to an innocent, sinless child and violates it to tempt it to homosexuality? Isn't one of the pillars of our madhhab divine justice? And accepting a title leads to being gay? What kind of proof is there for this non-sense? Please, since you are his fan and probably have access to the full video, post it and let's see what "proof" he brings for narrations that make Bukhari look like pure logic.
    2) I have only heard Shirazis claim Umar was gay. Can you show any credible, non-Shirazi scholar who has stated this?
    3) His entire method of debate is atrocious. He fails to understand that his words will not properly reach Sunnis. From birth, Sunnis are taught that the 3 caliphs are the best human beings after RasulAllah (saws) and beyond critique. If a person goes for 20, 30, 40 years believing this and all of a sudden hears "Umar used to be penetrated...(insert Yassir's filthy language here)" will that person's heart be even the slightest bit open to listening? Assume it is true that Umar was gay. That is not AT ALL the way to go about presenting the information. As I have said 1000 times, the methods of Sayyid Kamal get even finer points across and he does it with pure akhlaq. Sayyid Kamal has left the Sunnis absolutely speechless, and done it in a very respectful, compassionate, yet direct and firm way.
  18. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from wolverine in Philosophy And Wahdat Al-Wujud   
    If anyone wishes to take this topic seriously, consider the following (in addition to posting Shaykh Tehrani's (ha) article, ahsantum to those who did, as he is an 'alim who has actually taken the time to study this theory under scholars who themselves have studied and taught it for decades)
     
    1-You do not simply kick back on a Sunday afternoon sipping tea and study wahdat ul-wujud. The works of Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, etc have numerous prerequisites for proper understanding, as do many heavy intellectual works, and therefore are not just simply "read." They employ specific terminology and concepts which, like any science, are not understood at first glance and require sometimes very in depth analysis and months, years, sometimes even decades of learning! This can be easily shown if anyone would like further evidence.
     
    2-Therefore, if anyone wants to bring Sayyid Sadiq or Shaykh Fayyadh's views, I will ask a simple question: under who, and for how long, did they study these texts? Who did they study Ash-Shifaa' of Ibn Sina under? Under who did they study Asfar al-Arba, a work which is only BEGUN after sometimes 7-8 years of previous study? Who did they study Ibn Arabi's magnum opus, Fusus ul-Hikam, under? If you want to establish their views as legitimate, haatu burhanakum in kuntum sadiqeen.
     
    3-Those scholars who HAVE studied this theory, have done so for numerous years, and sometimes decades, under scholars who have done the same. It is known that Imam Khumayni, Allamah Tabatabai, and contemporary scholars like Ayatullah Hasan Zadeh Amuli, Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli, Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari, and the aforementioned Ayatullah Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani (may Allah protect all of them) have dedicated countless hours to studying and teaching these works.
     
    Now, simple question. Regarding those who have studied these works in depth, for years on end, what conclusion do they come to? They are, after all, EASILY the experts on these works, considering the time and energy that has been put into studying and teaching them, which, from what I have seen, is not the case with Sayyid Sadiq, Ayatullah Fayyadh, etc. (if anyone has evidence to the contrary on this, please bring it forth) So, what do the experts say? Is it kufr? NO. On the contrary, they say that it is the PUREST expression of tawheed and as far away from shirk as one can get! 
     
    Yes, Sayyid Sadiq and Shaykh Fayyadh are very learned fuqaha who have spent many years studying and teaching fiqh in the hawza. They, however, are NOT experts on 'irfan and philosophy. If you want to understand the relevance of an idea, go to those who truly know and understand it. This is a very basic concept, and easy to grasp, as the whole idea of following a marja, which Shaykh Fayyadh and Sadiq Sadiq are clearly aware of, is centered around figuring out who is 'alam, or "most learned." So tell me, who is most learned about Ibn Arabi? Sh Fayyadh or Ayatullah Hasan Zadeh Amuli? Sayyid Sadiq or Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli?
     
    Let's do ourselves a favor and remain quiet on things we do not understand. 
  19. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Al Hadi in Exposing Yassir Al-Habib   
    Lol you may be right, but my whole point is: knowledge or no knowledge, he is a cancer
  20. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Al Hadi in Exposing Yassir Al-Habib   
    Shaytan spent 6000 years amongst angels worshipping Allah, and therefore has direct knowledge of things we only know conceptually.
    What's your point?
  21. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Al Hadi in Exposing Yassir Al-Habib   
    @Ismahan
    1) So if there's a possibility of a (at that time) innocent child becoming a Nasabi, that currently sinless child gets a finger inserted in its' behind to tempt it to homosexuality? All based on a possibility? This reveals how out of touch with aqeeda you Shirazis are. What happened to Divine Justice? God allows anal violations of newborns based on possibility?
    2) We have tons of ahadith in our books. You saying he is just reading "from our books" means nothing, because many of those ahadith are weak, fabrications, etc.
    Yassir claims that "Bakris" have made the three caliphs into idols. But he has turned this institution of focusing upon nothing but attacking them into his own God. We have a treasure trove of wisdom in terms of aqeedah, akhlaq, ma'arifah, etc and all this fool does is focus upon the "three idols."
    What a waste.
  22. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Al Hadi in Pictures Of Various 'Ulamaa [OFFICIAL THREAD]   
    Shaykh Hamid Parsania (ha) (student of Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli (ha))


  23. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from Al Hadi in Pictures Of Various 'Ulamaa [OFFICIAL THREAD]   
    Says the one posting pictures of an "alim" who uses filthy street language in his "lectures"
    "Ayatollah al-Pakistani" is....French???
    Anyways, ajarakumAllah to the brothers posting..indeed looking at the face of an 'alim is 'ibadah
    Ayatullah al-'Udhma Abdallah Jawadi Amuli (ha)

  24. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from shia farm girl in Philosophy And Wahdat Al-Wujud   
    The difference between theoretical understanding and ma'rifah is like comparing a drop of water to an ocean.
     
    Even assuming my theoretical understanding has any value, it's nothing at the end of the day
  25. Like
    cc_30 got a reaction from shia farm girl in Philosophy And Wahdat Al-Wujud   
    If anyone wishes to take this topic seriously, consider the following (in addition to posting Shaykh Tehrani's (ha) article, ahsantum to those who did, as he is an 'alim who has actually taken the time to study this theory under scholars who themselves have studied and taught it for decades)
     
    1-You do not simply kick back on a Sunday afternoon sipping tea and study wahdat ul-wujud. The works of Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, etc have numerous prerequisites for proper understanding, as do many heavy intellectual works, and therefore are not just simply "read." They employ specific terminology and concepts which, like any science, are not understood at first glance and require sometimes very in depth analysis and months, years, sometimes even decades of learning! This can be easily shown if anyone would like further evidence.
     
    2-Therefore, if anyone wants to bring Sayyid Sadiq or Shaykh Fayyadh's views, I will ask a simple question: under who, and for how long, did they study these texts? Who did they study Ash-Shifaa' of Ibn Sina under? Under who did they study Asfar al-Arba, a work which is only BEGUN after sometimes 7-8 years of previous study? Who did they study Ibn Arabi's magnum opus, Fusus ul-Hikam, under? If you want to establish their views as legitimate, haatu burhanakum in kuntum sadiqeen.
     
    3-Those scholars who HAVE studied this theory, have done so for numerous years, and sometimes decades, under scholars who have done the same. It is known that Imam Khumayni, Allamah Tabatabai, and contemporary scholars like Ayatullah Hasan Zadeh Amuli, Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli, Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari, and the aforementioned Ayatullah Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani (may Allah protect all of them) have dedicated countless hours to studying and teaching these works.
     
    Now, simple question. Regarding those who have studied these works in depth, for years on end, what conclusion do they come to? They are, after all, EASILY the experts on these works, considering the time and energy that has been put into studying and teaching them, which, from what I have seen, is not the case with Sayyid Sadiq, Ayatullah Fayyadh, etc. (if anyone has evidence to the contrary on this, please bring it forth) So, what do the experts say? Is it kufr? NO. On the contrary, they say that it is the PUREST expression of tawheed and as far away from shirk as one can get! 
     
    Yes, Sayyid Sadiq and Shaykh Fayyadh are very learned fuqaha who have spent many years studying and teaching fiqh in the hawza. They, however, are NOT experts on 'irfan and philosophy. If you want to understand the relevance of an idea, go to those who truly know and understand it. This is a very basic concept, and easy to grasp, as the whole idea of following a marja, which Shaykh Fayyadh and Sadiq Sadiq are clearly aware of, is centered around figuring out who is 'alam, or "most learned." So tell me, who is most learned about Ibn Arabi? Sh Fayyadh or Ayatullah Hasan Zadeh Amuli? Sayyid Sadiq or Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli?
     
    Let's do ourselves a favor and remain quiet on things we do not understand. 
×
×
  • Create New...