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
Sign in to follow this  
AlQaadim

What is your opinion on 'irfaan' (gnosis)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest shaheed-awwal

In His Name, the Lord of the Knowers

Salaams

(Before people start saying that Shabbir (shabbirh) is back to pointing fingers and losing the plot - just have a read of what I am writing - its very simple really - especially goes for you Br Abdul Hujjah, and Br Ali (the Admin).)

Firstly, as a preface, shall we say ;), people say my posts are long - this is because I want to avoid any misunderstanding in what I am saying - so please, please I beg you - read what I am writing.  Then comment.

Irfan, Sufiism, Mysticism, Gnosticism, these are words.  What is important, is to understand their meaning.  

As Brother Ehsan, so elequantly pointed out - the aim of every believer is to become as close to Allah as they possibly can on every level.

Let us now examine a few things.

Some of my esteemed brothers (and sisters), have issues with the concept of Wahdat al-Wujud, and with the whole Sayr Was-Suluk concept.

This is understandable, as the path of the 'urafa is not an easy one to tread, and historically people have called them all sorts of terrible things.  The path of the 'Aref cannot be tread alone, you must have a "preceptor" or a "mentor" or a "teacher" - it is only the most arrogant and most misguided who attempt to traverse this path alone, and genreally they become of the mufsedeen - the ones who corrupt the earth. (Either that or they go nuts! ;) There is proof of this available.)

We must examine the reasons why they have been called these terrible things, and why certain members of our board, have declared such people as mushrikeen (strangely enough without being admonished by the administration - but ce la vie, who am I to complain).

People generally take issue with that which they do not understand, that which they feel is beyond the realms of their own personal comprehension.

This is completely valid and completely understandable, which is why - there are many levels of tawheed, and as we know many levels of belief.

Just because someone has a concept of tawheed, which encompasses everything - a concept which has not been fully understood (Br Abdul Hujjah, I do appreciate your worries, but in all fairness - you have no knowledge of the Sayr of the 'Urafa, except that which you have read in various books - and that reading was done with a closed mind) it does not give them the right to complete write of that theory.  They should instead say this is a theory that they are interested in (for verily they are otherwise why the passion in insulting it) and that they will go and do some further research including asking those who know (a statement one my esteemed brothers on this forum uses as a part of a signature).

I remember, when we went into Irfan classes in Qum, when we were reading the Quran, Nahj ul-Balagha, and Books of Asfar by Mulla Safra(A), we were told in the early lessons to leave all our concepts outside with our shoes.

Why do you think this was?  This is because when you go on the Sayr, the Journey, you learn about the concept of La Ilaha Illah Allah completely.  

Initially, you are broken, the La Ilaha (NO GOD) concept is kicked in - followed by the revolution and confirmation of Illa Allah (EXCEPT Allah).

The aim is for complete annialation within the supreme and all-encompassing existance of Allah, and it is one of the best ways of understanding the all of the various sifaat of Allah (names and attributes of Allah).

Obviosyly, the concept of Irfan is far deeper than what I have put here - thousands of volumes have been written on the subject, and historically we can see (for example in the time of the assasins) that this mystical path can be a method to release the latent revolutionary potential of the true Islam.  This method is also one of the best ways to understand the concept of justice of Allah and of oppression.  

I would suggest, if you want to do justice to Irfan, instead of just mindlessly insulting it and claiming all sorts of bizzare things about it, then prior to declaring the 'Urafa - who incidently you couldn't understand with your current belief level.  (With all due respect, I'm not being arrogant as people may feel - I'm being realistic - you slander people who were 'Urafa and then expect people to be quiet - sorry no can do - I was martyred previously online because I defended the Ulema - I am ready to take that honour again.  For verily regardless of what anyone says - being martyred for the sake of Allah, be it virtual, or physical is indeed an honour that is from Allah).  Declaring the 'Urafa as mushrikeen is not only slanderous it is wrong, and it is an oppression on your part, try and do justice to the thoughts and concepts, and try to open your mind.  

I would even suggest a journey to Islamic Iran, or for you to find a mentor/preceptor or teacher, and once you have an open mind - to traverse the path.  Then if you still feel it is against Islam, at least you will have information from within.  But the critical thing is that you maintain at all times an open mind - with Allah and ONLY Allah - at the forefront.

If there is anyway this small student of Islam can assist you - you can contact me, I am at the service of the true Islam always.

Kalam, and Irfan can go hand in hand, but we've had the age old competition and debates between the Kalaami (theological) and the Irfani (mystical) schools of thought, yet never has one declared the other as mushrikeen.  We should learn from this.

Kalaam is more litteralistic, and Irfan is more metaphorical.  This is one of the main differences.

I implore you - and I have noticed that you do this frequently - do not go down a route, and insult that which you have absolute minimal knowledge of.

I leave you with a saying of Imam Ali(A):

"He who knows ('arafa) himself, can get to know his Lord".

I would suggest reflection, and deep contemplation, prior to more slanders against the Urafa.

This is a simple concept.  The concept of reflection prior to discussion is a very simple and logical concept.  

Irfan, on the other hand is NOT a simple concept.

Take heed the advise of this small servent of the Allmighty.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

Edited By shaheed-awwal on 1035477381

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah wha Salam!

Since I will be travelling for 1 week on saturday inshallah i cannot involve in this discussion any more. In fact i dont even need to...now people have involved which can make mountains move because of their faith...so this ant is not needed anymore. He just goes out and collects some savings (good deeds) for tomorrow (judgementday) and then returns to his anyhill (home).

So inshallah ill meet you in a week.....until then i let the ant kings and princesses take care of this ant hill ;)  :P (you know yourself who you are.. ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

786-110

(salam)

Shabbir, you make it extremely hard for people to take you seriously when you are slanderous...

(Br Abdul Hujjah, I do appreciate your worries, but in all fairness - you have no knowledge of the Sayr of the 'Urafa, except that which you have read in various books - and that reading was done with a closed mind)

Shabbir, why do u need to insult me, my mind is very open, my opinion is shared with many great ulema including Sayed Seestani, as you may have read my previous posts. Sayed Shirazi also agrees with my opinion, so does Sayed Fadhlullah, so does Sheikh Wahid al-Khurasani. Thats not 1, not 2, not 3, but FOUR (4) great scholars that back my opinion.

Wassalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shaheed-awwal

In His Name, the Lord of the Knowers!

Salaams

My esteemed brother, I appologise if I have made you feel upset, and have said anything slanderous to you - but based on the messages you have posted, especially in the past, and your opinions on the concepts of Wahdat al-Wujud and you play on words with Irfan and Sufism, as well as the "cleverly worded fatwa request" sent to Ayatullah Seestani(HA), I was forced to draw the conclusion, that your mind was closed to the concept of Irfan.

This is a negative opinion to have, and as a result will indeed prevent you from making progress, both intellectually in understanding these more complex concept, or indeed debating in a manner that is constructive.

Also your blanket labelling of all those who believe in Wahdat al-Wujud as people committing shirk, is unfair and indeed also slanderous.

Like I said, I am prepared to introduce you to people who can teach you and answer any query you may have about the finer points of Irfan, and you are welcome to come with me to the Islamic Republic, to meet students of the various Ulema - who you have said have strange opinions - Ulema such as the compiler of al-Mizan, Allamah Tabatabai(A), the great Mujahid, Ayatullah Shaheed Mutahhari(A), and off course our beloved Imam Khumayni(A).

Please discard that statement in my previous post if you find it offensive, it was not designed to offend, it was merely based on observation, take a second read the message, and then see what you say.

As for taking me seriously, quite frankly my beloved brother, this is a choice you have, I am merely giving you an option and an opportunity, and trying to prevent you from insulting Ulema and labeling them as Mushrikeen - which is something you have done - you cannot deny it.

Also if you are righteous, then why not ask Ayatullah Seestani(HA), Imam Khamenei(HA) and Ayatullah Fadhlullah(HA) as well as the other Maraje' regarding the validity of concepts such as Wahdat al-Wujud as understood and described by Imam al-Khumayni(A), Allamah Tabatabai(A), Shaheed Mutahhari(A), or even Mulla Sadra(A)?

Try not to put statements in such as "which are from Plato and Aristotle" into your "fatwa request" - which obviously confuse the issue, I am certain that the Ulema are well versed in the concepts taught in Asfar of Mulla Sadra(A).

This would be a valid question, and would hold some bearing.

I once again appologise to you if you feel that I have slandered you.  My intention was never to do this, and may Allah protect me from insulting my believing brother.  Amen.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillah wha Salam!

Just a last post for a week...then you will get rid of this bothering, unknowledgeable ant! :)

With all due respect bro. Abulhujjaj, Allah (swt) will judge me based on my intentions and not on fatwa. And beside every fatwa is uniqe, as in every situation has its own fatwa. Like yes it is haram to eat pig, but if you are straving to death it is almost the opposite, the n you must eat alittle to survive.

Let me put an example from the Prophet of Mercy pbuh , he was forgiven all his past and future sins, he has the highest rank possible and still nobody has ever worshipped like him. When he was asked about this he answer should i not be a grateful servant?

Please bro. abulhujjaj, i dont know much, my tongue cannot utter words of wisdom and what my mind does not understand i cannot belive in and follow, but dont call the person who tries to be a grateful servant, who tries to make every heart beat an act of worship,  who tries to worship Him because He deserves and because he loves Him a kufar or mushrik.

This has not to do with fatwas but with intention.

I also do taqleed of Seyyed Seestani....but i cannot belive that he would say it is haram to do the above which i have stated.

About the Wahdat al-Wujud...i dont understand it and since the kings and queens are around the small servants does not to answer it. But let me answer you personally...because I try to worhsip Him because He deserves it and i try to Love Him...no I dont think i am Allah (swt) becasue of that (istighfurllilah). If that is what  Wahdat Wujud means...

I just try to make every step i take, every breath i breath and every heart beat as an act of worship.

I know what irfan has done to me and to me it is to worship Him and try to Love Him....nothing more. Trying to get closer to Him.

I want love to stear my heart...not hate...that is what irfan teaches me....please give it a thought.

One more thing, bro. Abulhujjaj, you have slandered ulema and you have called belivers mushriks and kufar. If you are right may Allah (swt) the all-Merciful, the LOVING friend (wodod) forgive them, but if you lie may He forgive you, and may He forgive me if I have offended you in any way, and for the lack of knowledge my mind has and my tongue and hands to utter and write it down and may He learn me true islamic morals since I only wish to get closer to Him....ameen oh Lord of the Religion of Love, Mercy, Faith, Hope and Knowledge.

Any replies i re-direct to the kings and queens, and sis. Confusus has offered to accpet hate mails...so those send to her! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bismillah

(salam)

About the Wahdat al-Wujud...i dont understand it and since the kings and queens are around the small servants does not to answer it. But let me answer you personally...because I try to worhsip Him because He deserves it and i try to Love Him...no I dont think i am Allah (swt) becasue of that (istighfurllilah). If that is what  Wahdat Wujud means...

Well, congratulations Ehsan, you are following AhlulBayt and the Quran, the two weighty things, no this is not "Wahdat Wujud", this is Taqwa, peity, following AhlulBayt, inshallah we all do this.

However, as you pointed out you do not believe that you are part of Allah, which is what irfaan/sufism really is.  So we should not call it "irfaan" or "sufism" what your doing, but Islam...since we gain all our spiritual adivce from AhlulBayt, and not from some people that think they are part of God, like Ibn Sina, Ibn Arabi and Rumi.  in which both sufis and irfaanis get their "spiritual advice, in which all of whom where influenced by Plato and Aristotle as the question posed to Syed Seestani.  For e.g.

Ibn Arabi, the most infamous Sufi philosopher, including most of his heretical ideas in his book, the Bezels of Wisdom, which he alleged was given to him by the Prophet Muhammad  . He wrote:

"I saw the Prophet in a visitation granted to me in the latter part of Muharram in the year 627 A.H. in the city of Damascus. He had in his hand a book, and he said to me, 'This is the book of Bezels of Wisdom; take it and bring it to men, that they might benefit from it.'"

bismillah

وَقَالُوا لَا تَذَرُنَّ آلِهَتَكُمْ وَلَا تَذَرُنَّ وَدًّا وَلَا سُوَاعًا وَلَا يَغُوثَ وَيَعُوقَ وَنَسْرًا

And they (Noah's people) said, 'Do not abondon your gods, neither Wad, Suwa', Yaghooth, Ya'ooq nor Nasr.'"(71.23)

On which Ibn Arabi commented:

"If they (Noah's people) had abondoned them, they would have become ignorant of the Reality to the extent that they them, for in every object of worship there is a reflection of Reality, whether it be recognized or not."

Also, people unfortunately think Irfaan is just becoming more spiritual etc...if that is what you think it is well contine doing it...this is what Islam is not sufism/irfaan...since you are only gainin taqwa etc which is coming from AhlulBayt.

Unfortunately, shabbirh, it looks like you are the true follower of Sufism/Irfaan, as you believe you are part of God with the Wuhdut Wujud concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also your blanket labelling of all those who believe in Wahdat al-Wujud as people committing shirk, is unfair and indeed also slanderous.

Brother Shabbirh, Abdulhujjah has every right....and his opinion is also agree by Syed Seestani, Syed Al-Khoei, Shiek Wahid Khoransan, Syed Shirazi, and also many others.  Syed Aktar Rizvis (ra) - Im sure you have all heard of this great scholar  - More than one hundred books are to his credit; some of them have been translated into seventeen languages. He has been given Ijazah by fourteen Grand Ayatullahs for riwayah, Qazawah, and Umur-e-hasbiyah.

Syed Aktar Rizvi has written on Wuhdut Wujud briefly and how it is "shirk" (following AbdulHujjahs argument) in his book "Day of Judgement":

SOUL, ACCORDING TO THE ‘SUFIYA’

Mystics of Islam, who are called ‘Sufiya’, had a belief which was borrowed from Hinduism and Christianity, and was gradually developed in succeeding centuries. They said that the soul was part of God. And not only soul, but every thing was part of God. When a part separates from “the absolute existence” (i.e., God) it gets different name and labels. And as soon as it relinquishes its separate identity, it again joins God. They use the example of river and waves. The waves are part and parcel of a river; when they apparently assume a separate identity, they are called ‘waves’; but even then they are no less a part of a river. When same waves come down and lose their separate identity, they become, and are called, a part of river. But in reality, they were river at all times and in every stage, though we failed to realize and appreciate this fact because of ‘optic allusion’.

This belief of theirs called [b:post_uid0]‘Wahdatul-wujud’[/b:post_uid0](one-ness of existence), and its motto is ‘Hame Uust’ (Everything is He)..........

The claimed openly that every stone, every idol, every animal and in short every thing was a part of God. Once a Sufi was sitting in a mosque when a dog entered and passed urine inside the ‘mehrab’ (the niche). The Sufi exclaimed. “Lo! You come into your own house and

make it unclean!’

There is no need to remind the you that this idea of ‘universality of godhead’ was diametrically opposed to the belief of the unity of god, which is the foundation of islam. [b:post_uid0]According to the Muslim scholars, such belief was the worst type of polytheism.[/b:post_uid0] It is in fact ‘pan-theism’. The idol worshippers pay homage to a limited

number of deities; these Sufis paid homage to everything in this world, including THEIR OWN SELF.

To counteract such belief, Muslim scholars coined together another phrase: ‘Hame Azust’ (Everything is from Him). It showed, in a nut-shell the Islamic belief that every thing in this world is created by Allah (and is not a part of Allah).

(Allamah Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi, 1998,p7-8)

So, AbdulHujjah does have a point.  People, if you are trying to worship Allah swt for the sake of Allah, and not only for the from fear of Hell, or for the reward of Paradise, then you are following AhlulBayt...this is not called irfaan/sufism, this is basically ISLAM.  If you believe in Wuhdut Wujud, as our sufi brother Shabbirh, then you are a true follower of irfaan/sufism, as Ibn Arabi, Ibn Sina and Rumi were.  

Wassalam

Edited By Ya Ali on 1035546521

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

Ya ali

Yes everyone has a right to his/her opinion,but not the right to call his /her shia brothers/sisters unbelievers.

I have read brother shabbir's post.

No where does it suggest what you are inferring.

I think what is happening here is some of you have taken a dislike to him on a personal level.....maybe with good reason.Thats your problem that you have to deal with.But this is obstructing a good discussion

You spend more time trying to find articles to dismiss his contribrution to the discussion,rather than getting your point of view across.

Every discussion board he post's you all attack why?

In calling him our" sufi brother" you are saying he is an unbeliever, this is haram.This is not acceptable , and I am still suprised it is allowed on this board.

If you dont like him ok,dont reply to his posts,but let others learn/or challenge what he has to say.

salams and duas

stay safe

me

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shaheed-awwal

In His Name, the Most High

Salaams

Firstly, I appologise once again for the length of my posting, certain allegations have been made against me with little evidence, and no knowledge, it is therefore neccessary for me to correct this misconceptions.

It is not the fact that I have been insulted that hurts me, it is the fact that my beloved brothers and sisters are being provided false and inaccurate information on the subject of Irfan, and that people are insisting that it is the same as the tasawwuf - something we have clearly said that it is not.

All those interested, I would suggest you read this post, and bear with this humble student of Islam's verbose style in writing.

I love this, this is what happens when people lack understanding of the finer concepts of Irfan and start to equate it to the misguided practices of Ahl at-Tasawwuf.

Firstly, I don't want to get into a long discussion, as it has been said previously if you are interested in getting into a long debate about Irfan, I am ready to take on anyone, and any question I am unable to elucidate, then we can ask the Senior 'Urafa in Qum, among whome was Imam al-Khumayni(A).

A couple of pre-conditions and scenarios need to be understood.

Firstly, I am certain that most people are unaware of the concept of Wahdat ul-Wujud.

Wahdat ul-Wujud, litterally mean the singluarity of existance.

It is indeed fair to say that everything [b:post_uid0]is a part of Allah, and a sign of Allah[/b:post_uid0] since as explained previously with quotes from the excellent work "The Light Within Me", by Brother/Sister Orion.

Think about it - just or a second.  If you are an entity separate from Allah, then that implies that Allah is limited, and is not within you.  The mere concept of placing such a limitation on Allah - well doesn't that constitute shirk?

The fact that you have quoted Allamah Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi®, regarding the concept of the Tasawwuf, and insist on equating the 'Urafa with the Sufis is testimony to the closed minded approach that people have regarding the 'Urafa.

I will quote from the Light Within Me, from the words of someone far closer to Allah than anyone on this board, Allamah Sayyed Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai:

The Islamic esoterics known as Irfan or gnosis is sometimes associated with Tasawwuf or mysticism whose certain rites and rituals are repugnant to Islam. However Shi'aism considers Islamic acts of worship to be sufficient for gaining proximity to Allah.

As for the various concepts, it is unfair for you to claim knowledge about them - and simple quote from the works of others, and then using those works out of context, to use them to place a doubt on those who believe in concepts that use the same terminology, but which are not the same thing.

For example, has anyone on this board - ever claimed that there is a problem with your belief?  No.  All I have ever said, for which I have appologised and justified my reasoning behind saying what I have said is that my respected Brother Abdul Hujjah was close minded when he read the books, and based on the contents of the messages written by both my respected Brothers, Abdul Hujjah and Ya Ali, you both seem adamant to equate the 'Urafa with the Ahl at-Tassawuf.  This is a problem that you must deal with.

No one is asking you to become 'Urafa, it is something that you can choose to do or choose to ignore, you do not have the right, however, to declare people who are far more learned than you are as people who associate partners with Allah.

The examples, that you have given quoted from Ibn Arabi, and his making statements regard Pharaoh's claim as God was correct, need to be understood in their context, for they are indeed used as example, it doesn't mean that Pharaoh was right, it means that there was truth in the statement, since everything is a sign of Allah.

Not everything Muhiyudeen ibn al-Arabi said is taken as correct, the priority is given to the works of Imam Ali(A), and the various adiyaat that we have from the Aimmah(A).

If you are sincere, and I make this offer now for the third time, I will not make it again.  If you are sincere and you want these concepts explained to you, with the opportunity to debate and discuss them with High 'Urafa, such as Ayatullah al-Udhma Behjat(HA), and others in the Islamic Seminary In Qum, then respond and such discussions can be initiated.  

I would however, ask you as a very small peice of work prior to troubling the Ayatullah(HA), and anyone else for that matter with questions that have already been answered to go and read a few books on the subject of 'Irfan.

I am providing a series of Links here, and I would suggest that they are read in the order in which they are presented.

[b:post_uid0]

1/ The Holy Quran

2/ Nahj ul-Balagha of Imam AliÚáíå ÇáÓáÇã

3/ An Introduction to Irfan - Part 1

4/ An Introduction to Irfan - Part 2

5/ An Introduction to Irfan - Part 3

6/ An Introduction to Irfan - Part 4

7/ The Interior Life in Islam

8/ Sahifa as-Sajjadiyyah of Imam Ali ibn al-Husayn, Zayn al-AbedeenÚáíå ÇáÓáÇã

9/ Dua al-Kumayl

10/ The Light Within Me

11/ A Shi'ite Anthology

12/ Spiritual Journey of the Mystics (Suluk-i Arifan)

13/ Adabus Salat - The Disciplines of the Prayer - Imam KhumayniÚáíå ÇáÓáÇã

14/ Awsaf al Ashraf - The Attributes of the Noble - By Khwajah Nasir al Din al Tusi

15/ Soaring to the Only Beloved

16/ Self Building - An Islamic guide for Spiritual Migration towards God - By Ayatullah Ibrahim Amini

17/ The Spiritual Message of Shi'ism

18/ Tawassul

19/ Discourse on Patience - Part 1 of 7 - By Imam Khamenei(HA)

20/ Discourse on Patience - Part 2 of 7 - By Imam Khamenei(HA)

21/ Discourse on Patience - Part 3 of 7 - By Imam Khamenei(HA)

22/ Discourse on Patience - Part 4 of 7 - By Imam Khamenei(HA)

23/ Discourse on Patience - Part 5 of 7 - By Imam Khamenei(HA)

24/ Discourse on Patience - Part 6 of 7 - By Imam Khamenei(HA)

25/ Discourse on Patience - Part 7 of 7 - By Imam Khamenei(HA)

[/b:post_uid0]

I would suggest, that prior to making any more blanket and self-righteous statements on the subject of Irfan and Islamic Mysticism, you read the articles in the 25 links given to you above, read them throughly, and leave all your pre-conceptions and previous concepts behind, start a fresh, I would seriously reccomend the reading of the Quran, and of Sahifa as-Sajjadiyyah.

I am certain of what you my esteemed and vastly more learned brothers and sisters will think and say when you see that Shabbir is posting all sorts of links again, and getting somewhat irate - and I am not - I am just saddened that slander once again on shiachat is going unanswered by the administration, and hence this small student of Islam has compelled to defend it - but like I've said before - ce la vie.

Regardless,  to my respected and learned brothers, Abdul Hujjah and Ya Ali, I implore you - and tell you in no uncertain terms, you slanders upon Irfan, are tanamount to slanders upon the Urafa, including but definately not limited to the founder of the Islamic Revolution and the late Leader of the Muslim Ummah, Imam Sayyed Ruhullah al-Musawi al-Khumayni(A), and also go against the Leader of the Muslim Ummah, and the Protector of the Oppressed, Imam Sayyed Ali al-Husayni al-Khamenei(HA).

You have also insisted that Allamah Sayyed Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai(A) and Ayatullah Shaheed Mutahhari(A) had little knowledge of what they were saying, and that they were devient.

Why because they all believed in and [b:post_uid0]understood[/b:post_uid0] the concept of Wahdat ul-Wujud, a concept you simple claim to be able to comprehend.

Wahdat ul-Wujud is not a simple concept to grasp, but at the same time it is not so complex that a person cannot understand it - it is infact arguable that understanding and believing the concept of Wahdat ul-Wujud is the pinnacle of understanding Tawhid in the context of our limited existances - which are incidently nothing without Allah, this is an undisputable fact.

I would reccomend that you read a few books by Mulla Sadra(A), before condemning the guy as a mushrik, for you are indeed treading a very fine line - if you were a master of Philosophy and Gnosticism, and then you insisted on challenging the thoughts of Mulla Sadra(A), Allamah Tabatabi(A), Shaheed Mutahhari(A), Imam Khumayni(A) and Sayyed al-Qaid al-Khamenei(HA) as well as many many others, then I could tolerate it, and wouldn't write such a long and passionate reply to my respected brothers, but since it is a fact, and completely obvious from your words, that while you are probably more learned than this small student of Islam, you are not even worthy to be soil under the shoes of the various Ulema and 'Urafa that you have slandered and we have spoken about.

I would suggest, reading a little more on Mulla Sadra, ideally in the form of his Sharh on Usul al-Kafi, as well as his famous book of Tafsir "Mafatih al-Ghayb" - which you should be able to obtain in Arabic from Islamic Republic of Iran, or from a decent book shop in Beirut.

I would also once again implore not to insult that which you do not understand, and since it is clear form you passionate words, you really would like to understand it - since it seems to be something that you love to talk about - albeit from a point of little authentic knowledge - but never mind, insha Allah, Allah will guide you.

I would implore you, not to speak without knowledge, it is well know that if one does not know much about a subject, it is better that  they keep quiet or ask those who do know (at least those who know even a tiny bit more than you) - please do not feel that I am arrogant or that I am slandering you - you obviously do not understand these deeper concepts - and your knowledge of them is limited - this is obvious from your own words.

Regardless, if you are really interested, my offer is open - and will remain so - at least until I see the reply for this email from you, my esteemed brothers and sisters.  If you are interested in the science of Irfan, of Knowing God, Knowing Allah - then a journey can be arranged, you can visit Islamic Iran, and study about it - if you are sincere you will take this offer, and speak about the subject once you are more knowledgeable (although it must be pointed out - if you take this offer - to be just - you must clear your mind of all these misconceptions you have) - if you do not want to take the offer, then, since your knowledge on these matters is limited at best - (before you even think it, it is irrelevant if you know Arabic - Arabic is a language, one that can be mastered with enough effort, there are Iranians who know better Arabic than the Arabs themselves, this is a fact - most Arabs in fact speak pigeon Arabic ;)) I would suggest, for the integrity of your own belief, you cease to discuss subject of which you obviously have little understanding and which go far beyond your pale of knowledge.

Once you have made your decision, then let me know, and insha Allah we will arrage the journey if that is what you choose, if you choose to NOT take the offer, then I would request that you make a formal appology to the brothers and sisters on this board that you have slandered by calling them mushrikeen - something you have no right of doing - for indeed - if I was to take your doctrine to its logical conclusion - I can prove using Quran, and Logic that you are in fact committing shirk - but I will not do that, as I am not the sort of person who do that, there are certain ethical principles that I must adhere to as a Muslim, following the true Islam of Muhammad(S).

I look forward to your reply, either with a confirmation that you wish to take my offer, or with an appology.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

Edited By shaheed-awwal on 1035551134

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Brother Shabbir,

Salam o Alekum,

Let me ask you a simple question:

I can understand that everything is a Sign of God and that He is The Creator and Sustainer. But do you believe that a tree in your backyard is God the Almighty, Himself?

Yes or No.

Sincerely.

Edited By Orion on 1035555860

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shaheed-awwal

In His Name, the Most High

Salaams

You asked me, the following:

I can understand that everything is a Sign of God and that He is The Creator and Sustainer. But do you believe that a tree in your backyard is God the Almighty, Himself?

And I will try and answer what you have asked me.

Firstly, the tree in my back yard is definately a sign of Allah, but you take the question further and ask if it is Allah Himself.

Interesting, No, on its own it is not Allah, but in reality is Allah within and without that tree at the same time?  Indeed - definately.  

How is this possible?  

Very simple.  But before I elaborate, let me post a simple question.  Is there anyplace that Allah is not?  If you believe that there is a place that is not a part of Allah - a part of the whole - a place that can exist without Allah, then you are on very dangerous ground.

Let me elaborate.

If there was somewhere that existed without Allah, then it would imply that there is a non-Allah which sustains that place.  That would imply that the non-Allah entity has the power to sustain, that would imply a duality in the concept of God, hence you would be walking head long into the realms of shirk.

I know what you will say now - what if Allah gave it permission to exist without His presence.  This may well be the case, but it has to be part of Allah regardless, since the only True Existance is Allah, and without Him there is nothing.  Also the concept that Allah can create something that doesn't require Allah in order for its existance to be possible, is while valid - a completely void concept.  Since in doing so Allah Himself would create a duality, and hence go against His very nature.

In summary, the answer to your question, on a very superficial level and without going into it in much depth is:

No, I do not beleive that tree in my back garden is Allah, the All-Mighty himself, but I do believe that as well as being a sign of Allah it is With Allah and Allah is With It (i.e. they are one and the same - since the tree is not real and only Allah is real) - this is complex stuff - it may sound very trivial - but you are now going into the further reaches of tawheed - so if you perplexed by my answer - fair enough - tell me what you understood from it - and I will try elaborate if required.

Now its my turn ;)

The question, I would ask you, is this:

[b:post_uid0][i:post_uid0]"The tree you percieve in your back garden, is it real?  Are you real?  Is your house real?  What is real?[/i:post_uid0][/b:post_uid0]

I look forward to your reply.

With Salaams and and Dua's

Shabbir

Edited By shaheed-awwal on 1035557809

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam o Alekum,

I would take your answer as a "No".

We have already accepted that God is The Creator and Sustainer of everything and that everything is His Sign. I also understand that saying that some place is "devoid" of Allah will be confining Him to a place which will be wrong.

But the way you have answered the question can cause confusion in many minds. You could have just said "no" and walked away.

Now regarding your question:

"The tree you percieve in your back garden, is it real?  Are you real?  Is your house real?  What is real?

The answer will depend on what do you mean by "real"?

-If it means that it is real in the sence that we can touch it, feel it etc, or if it is made of atoms, yes it is real.

-If it means that it is real in the sence that how much value or significance it has, in comparison to God, or the reality of God, my answer would be no. The existence of these things is temporary, while God is permanent.

Again this is my understanding.

Khuda Hafiz.

Edited By Orion on 1035559293

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shaheed-awwal

In His Name, the Most High

Salaams

Your point is well taken, and thank you for the advice.

I must point out that, I feel it is required that when such a question is asked it is explained as fully as possible, hence my reason for the elaboration.

I didn't realise that it was confusing, and in that respect, I take you advice and will review my future postings.

Please pray that I am able to get my point accross in a manner that people may understand.

With Salaams and Dua's

Shabbir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Post Edited]

{Note from Moderator; Brother I will start with one warning, whatever opinion you have on marj'a, keep it for yourself, we have had enough of these "scholar-wars". Wasalam,Hezbullahi}

Edited By Hezbullahi on 1035644431

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as salaamu alaikum.

below you can read an  opinion on Wahdat-e Wujud taken from the Alim Network site.

masalama. Salik.

This question was kindly answered by Sayyed Mohammad Soleiman-Panah.

Regards

Abbas Jaffer

Acting Moderator - ABDG-A.

..................................................

.....................

Question

What is the ulama's view on "Wahdat-e Wujood"? Is it considered to be

"Kofr"? Are the believers  in this concept "kafir"? I specially like to know

about Imam's ruling.

..................................................

......................

Answer

As to the issue of Wahdat-e-Wujood. Let me first tell you that there

is no consensus among Ulama on this question. It is perhaps the most

controversial issue among Muslim theologians and philosophers. Therefore

you should not expect it to be resolved in these few lines.

Since this issue belongs to the realm of I'ateghadat one cannot look for

Fatwa in this area. It is an obligation of each Muslim to understand what is

meant by Tawhid in Islam, for it is the bedrock of Islamic faith. But for you to

know where I am coming from let me say that I am convinced that without

believing in Wahdat-e-Wujood, Tawhid does not make sense. Be advised that Allah

is Ahad and his Ahadiyat as Masumin's (A) traditions explain is not a numerical

one. In other words he is not one as opposed to two for in that case he would be

in Arz (parallel to) of others. But if you note in  the Holy Quran 58:7 Allah

(SWT) is mentioned as the fourth of the three, the sixth of the fifth and so on,

not  the fourth of the four or sixth of the six.  

Here are two major schools of thought with regard to Wahdat-e-Wujood, one

philosophical and one mystical. The philosophical school is mainly

associated with Mulla Sadra and the mystical with Ibn Arabi. The problem of the

One and the Many has always been at the heart of metaphysical thinking even

today those who could solve this problem have preferred to move into what they

call post metaphysical thinking which does not bother with this question. Even

political thought today is preoccupied with this problem, minorities' >rights,

diversity, multi-culturalism, marginalized and localized voices  all are terms

used to discuss the problem of One and Many.  

Mulla Sadra formulated a notion of Wahdat which has room of Kathrat (Many)

in Wahdat  (One). He considered Wojood to be Tashkiki or Zu Marateb (of

different degrees and level). These levels all are Wujood and not non-Wujood but

at the same time their differences are real. He used analogy of light. A

candle's light is light and light of the Sun is also light and between them

infinite degrees of light. Each degree is distinct from others and at same

time one identity.

Ibn Arabi on the other hands formulated the theory of Wahdat Shakhsi-e-Wujood

(personal unity of Being). For him distinction in Being is meaningless and

arbitrary, there is no real distinction. The only distinction is the distinction

of Muhat and Muhit  (no proper translation, literally means the circumscribed

one, and the circumscribing one). Both of these formulation have come under

sharp criticisms and attack from more traditional views. Certainly there are

many who believe this is Kufr. Mulla Sadra's view is these days receiving more

acceptance among traditionalists due to contributions of Imam Khomeini (ra),

Allameh Tabatabai (ra) and their students to understanding  of his position. But

Ibn Arabi's view is still considered to be radical in contrast to Islam.

Since you wanted to know Imam Khomeini's opinion on this issue I should know

that he was a firm admirer of Ibn Arabi and his letter to Mikhail Gorbachov,

Russian president he referred to Ibn Arabi as "Abar Mard" (the greatest

man). Allameh Tabatabai was also Ibn Arabi's admirer he is said to have said

that "all writings on Islam are not worth of two sentences of Ibn Arabi's works

on Islam".  

Of course as I said he has his own critics and without a serious and

systematic study of his idea under specialist scholars of his school of

thought, understanding his theory is impossible.

I strongly believe that the exploration of the question of the One and Many

from an Islamic perspective in lights of the idea of Wahdat-e-Wujood could

be a major contribution to the politics of Islam and human right in Islam. I

hope this is useful but if one does not have independent study of the issue,

this might seem confusing. In that case just ignore what I have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam

Brother Abdulhujjah

Please could you explain to me "the one existence theory" in your own words.(not a quote from a book) but your understanding of this theory.

Brother I do not mean to belittle you or insult you,far from it,If I have in my posts I ask for your forgiveness.

but.......brother now you still take no heed...you still use insultive words..and clearly are saying that your shia brothers and sisters are heading for damnation...

Please tell me brother how is one to react to this.

Your rhetoric is of a wahabi,you are a shia are you not?

salams and duas

take care

me

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a great deal of confusion about what wadhat al wujud really is.  Insh'Allah I would like to do the best I can with my limited knowledge to help sort out some of the issues.  Others who have chimed their voices into this discussion appear far more knowledgeable than me, so I am not at all sure how much I can contribute.  Insh'Allah, though, I will do my best.

The key to all of this confusion seems to be rooted in mixing up two key philosophical concepts: existence (wujud) and existent (mawjud).  Wujud is existence itself.  Mawjud is an existent - a thing which exists.  The true interpretation of wadhat al wujud is "one Existence" *NOT* "one Existent."  In other words, while it is the apogee of tawhid to say "all existence is Allah" it is vile shirk to say "every existent - every existing thing - is Allah."  This probably makes no sense, but perhaps a parallell example may help illustrate.  All knowledge is Allah's Knowledge.  Were we to deny this we would be ascribing ignorance and hence imperfection to Allah.  Hence, there is One Knowledge.  However, this does *NOT* mean that every knower is Allah.  That would be vile shirk.  Nor does it mean that every knower is All-Knowing like Allah.  All it means is that my finite knowledge is included within Allah's infinite knowledge while my ignorance is strictly my own.  Similarly, all existence is Allah's Existence.  To deny this would be to attribute a degree of nonbeing to Allah.  This is shirk.  Hence there is One Existence.  However, this does *NOT* mean that every mawjud/existent/existing thing is Allah.  It does not mean "I (or my cat, or my automobile, etc.) am Allah"  All it means is that my finite existence is included within Allah's Existence while my nonbeing is strictly my own.

In a nutshell:

Wadhat al wujud?  Yes.

Wadhat al mawjud?  No.

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutaheri, Tabatabaei, and khomeini accept the one existence theory (wahdatul wujud).

Seestani, Shirazi, Khoei, Subziwari, Gulpaygani e.t.c don't accept this theory.

One of these groups is right the rest are wrong. One path to paradise all the rest lead to damnation. Make a choice and follow it, I'm not speaking my own opinion, I've asked too many faqiihs about this issue and they have warned me that it's evil. Your marja3 says it's cool, mine says it's evil, thats as far as I can put it.

Brother Abdulhujjah,

(salam)

Sad, indeed very sad. You continue to attack the most noble Ulema of our time and blame them of believing in 'shirk' and 'evil' (astaghfarAllah). I think the problem is not with these Ulema but your bias and lack of understanding of the issues in question.

May Allah guide you.

Was-Salam.

Edited By Orion on 1035590128

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismallah

(salam)

I think the problem is not with these Ulema but your bias and lack of understanding of the issues in question

I guess Sued Aktar Rizvi is also bias and has a lack of undertstanding, as well as all the Ulema that AbdulHujjah has stated such as Syed Seestani, Syed Al-Khoei, Shiek Wahid Khorasan....look my brothers and sisters, i have asked marjei on this issue, and all their representatives, my friend just asked a Mujtahid the other day, and came to the same conclusion.  As AbdulHujjah stated, some Ulema say this is right, while others dont.....i guess that means all those who reject Wuhdut Wujud are bais????.....like Syed Aktar Rizvi??

SOUL, ACCORDING TO THE ‘SUFIYA’

Mystics of Islam, who are called ‘Sufiya’, had a belief which was borrowed from Hinduism and Christianity, and was gradually developed in succeeding centuries. They said that the soul was part of God. And not only soul, but every thing was part of God. When a part separates from “the absolute existence” (i.e., God) it gets different name and labels. And as soon as it relinquishes its separate identity, it again joins God. They use the example of river and waves. The waves are part and parcel of a river; when they apparently assume a separate identity, they are called ‘waves’; but even then they are no less a part of a river. When same waves come down and lose their separate identity, they become, and are called, a part of river. But in reality, they were river at all times and in every stage, though we failed to realize and appreciate this fact because of ‘optic allusion’.

This belief of theirs called ‘Wahdatul-wujud’(one-ness of existence), and its motto is ‘Hame Uust’ (Everything is He)..........

The claimed openly that every stone, every idol, every animal and in short every thing was a part of God. Once a Sufi was sitting in a mosque when a dog entered and passed urine inside the ‘mehrab’ (the niche). The Sufi exclaimed. “Lo! You come into your own house and

make it unclean!’

There is no need to remind the you that this idea of ‘universality of godhead’ was diametrically opposed to the belief of the unity of god, which is the foundation of islam. According to the Muslim scholars, such belief was the worst type of polytheism. It is in fact ‘pan-theism’. The idol worshippers pay homage to a limited

number of deities; these Sufis paid homage to everything in this world, including THEIR OWN SELF.

To counteract such belief, Muslim scholars coined together another phrase: ‘Hame Azust’ (Everything is from Him). It showed, in a nut-shell the Islamic belief that every thing in this world is created by Allah (and is not a part of Allah).

(Allamah Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi, 1998,p7-8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn Arabi, the most infamous Sufi philosopher, including most of his heretical ideas in his book, the Bezels of Wisdom, which he alleged was given to him by the Prophet Muhammad  . He wrote:

"I saw the Prophet in a visitation granted to me in the latter part of Muharram in the year 627 A.H. in the city of Damascus. He had in his hand a book, and he said to me, 'This is the book of Bezels of Wisdom; take it and bring it to men, that they might benefit from it.'"

وَقَالُوا لَا تَذَرُنَّ آلِهَتَكُمْ وَلَا تَذَرُنَّ وَدًّا وَلَا سُوَاعًا وَلَا يَغُوثَ وَيَعُوقَ وَنَسْرًا

And they (Noah's people) said, 'Do not abondon your gods, neither Wad, Suwa', Yaghooth, Ya'ooq nor Nasr.'"(71.23)

On which Ibn Arabi commented:

"If they (Noah's people) had abondoned them, they would have become ignorant of the Reality to the extent that they them, for in every object of worship there is a reflection of Reality, whether it be recognized or not."

Since you wanted to know Imam Khomeini's opinion on this issue I should know

that he was a firm admirer of Ibn Arabi and his letter to Mikhail Gorbachov,

Russian president he referred to Ibn Arabi as "Abar Mard" (the greatest

man). Allameh Tabatabai was also Ibn Arabi's admirer he is said to have said

that "all writings on Islam are not worth of two sentences of Ibn Arabi's works

on Islam".  

Well, i do not believe Ibn Arabi to be the greatest man!, or having anything go to do with Islam, and far from giving me spiritual advice, since AhlulBayt are my light, not Ibn Arabi who thought everything was God, incluiding the toilet seat (astagfriallah)

Some spiritual leaders hold that no mystic or gnostic system or programme was prescribed by Islam. The present gnostic system was invented by the mystics themselves; yet it has the approbation of Allah in the same way as monasticism was sanctioned by Allah after it had been introduced by the Christians into their religion with a view to propagate Christianity.

   -M H Tabatabai

I think i will stick to AhlulBayt and the Quran, the weighty things, and not some ancient Greek Philosophy that Ibn Arabi, "the greatest man" follow, with the concept of wuhdul wujud, in which marjei reject, as stated by AbdulHujjah, this is my opinion, i am not being bias, and this is the same opinion that Syed Aktar Rizvi holds.

Inshallah i have not offended anyone, this was not my intention.

Wassalam

Edited By Ya Ali on 1035593848

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Sued Aktar Rizvi is also bias and has a lack of undertstanding, as well as all the Ulema that AbdulHujjah has stated such as Syed Seestani, Syed Al-Khoei, Shiek Wahid Khorasan....look my brothers and sisters, i have asked marjei on this issue, and all their representatives, my friend just asked a Mujtahid the other day, and came to the same conclusion.  As AbdulHujjah stated, some Ulema say this is right, while others dont.....i guess that means all those who reject Wuhdut Wujud are bais????.....like Syed Aktar Rizvi??

Ya Ali,

Salam o Alekum,

I am not calling Ulema biased, I am calling AbdulHujjah as biased since in the past he has attacked some of these Ulema for other reasons, reasons other than the issue of "Wahdut al-Wajud". So he is against these Ulema for various reasons.

The question is: How much do we understand "Wahdut al-Wajud" and what proof do we have that some of the most noble Shia Ulema of our time believed in "Wahdut al-Wajud", the same way as the Sufi believe or as Syed Akhtar Rizvi has defined and explained?

Khuda Hafiz

Edited By Orion on 1035595639

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imam Khomeini (ra) writes:

[b:post_uid0]"It is not right to repudiate a science if one is ignorant of one of these sciences and to be irreverent towards one who is learned in it. In the same way as a sound intellect considers the affirmation of something that one does not know as an ethical vice, so also is the denial of something one has no conception of; rather the latter attitude is worse and more vicious.

If God, Blessed and Exalted, should ask, for instance, "You did not know the meaning of the unity of being (wahdat al-wujud) in accordance with the doctrine of the hukama' and neither did you receive instruction concerning it from those adept in it, nor did you study that science and its preliminaries. Then why did you blindly accuse them of unbelief and insult them?" What answer shall one have to give in God's sacred presence except bending down one's head in shame? Of course, a pretext such as "I thought it to be so" will not be acceptable. Every discipline has certain essentials and preliminaries, without whose knowledge it is not possible to understand its conclusions. This is especially true of such a subtle issue as this whose actual reality and meaning is not well understood even after a lifetime of effort, and here you are who want to apprehend with your inadequate intellect after reading, for instance, a book or two or some verses out of al-Rumi's Mathnawi something the philosophers and the hukama' have been discussing for several thousand years and dissecting its issues. Obviously you will not make anything out of it:

"May God have mercy upon the man who knows his own worth and does not transgress his limits". [Al-'Amili, Ghurar al-hikam, "bab al-ra']

Similarly, if a pseudo-philosopher or mystic were to be asked, `On what religious basis did you call the fuqaha' superficial and extroversive, finding fault with them or, rather, with a branch of religious sciences brought by the prophets (A) from the Lord of all lords for the perfection of human souls, denying its worth and insulting them? On what rational and shar'i grounds did you consider affront towards a group of scholars and legists as permissible?" What answer will he offer in the presence of God, Blessed and Exalted, except bowing his head in shame and discredit?"[/b:post_uid0]

Edited By Orion on 1035595037

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AbdulHujjah and YaAli invoke the support of the ulema for their position.  AbdulHujjah even goes so far as to list a Q&A reply by Ayatullah Seestani's office as "sufficient" evidence for all those doing his taqlid that believing in wadhat al wujud is haram on them.  Aren't we forgetting that wadhat al wujud is not a matter of taqlid.  Taqlid is in matters of sharia and furu - not for matters of aqidah and usul.  However, the issue of wadhat al wujud (and any other issue of metaphysics) falls in the aqidah/usul category.  While Agha Seestani may certainly expound his view on the matter (or rather on the *specific question* as it is *specifically worded*) to his followers, this cannot be taken as a fatwa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

786-110

(salam)

the issue of wadhat al wujud (and any other issue of metaphysics) falls in the aqidah/usul category

I am so glad you said this.......So you've admitted a irfaanis aqidah differs from a normal muslims. Don't worry Mutaheri shares the same view with you, keeping in mind he said "Of course, there is a world of difference between the tawhid of the 'arif and the general view of tawhid."

Wassalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[post edited]

{Note from Moderator; Brother I will start with one warning, whatever opinion you have on marj'a, keep it for yourself, we have had enough of these "scholar-wars". Wasalam,Hezbullahi}

Edited By Hezbullahi on 1035646125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bismillah

(salam)

what proof do we have that some of the most noble Shia Ulema of our time believed in "Wahdut al-Wajud", the same way as the Sufi believe or as Syed Akhtar Rizvi has defined and explained?

Part of a speech by Shiek Muhammad Ali Shomali on Irfan is quoted below....Islamic Sciences in Qum and Meshad, and at the University of Tehran.

For example if we look at the waves in the ocean - they are all different but if we go beyond the differences we can readies that they are nothing other than ocean - it is just the ocean that has different manifestations

Noew lets see what Syed Aktar Rizvi says...

SOUL, ACCORDING TO THE ‘SUFIYA’

Mystics of Islam, who are called ‘Sufiya’, had a belief which was borrowed from Hinduism and Christianity, and was gradually developed in succeeding centuries. They said that the soul was part of God. And not only soul, but every thing was part of God. When a part separates from “the absolute existence” (i.e., God) it gets different name and labels. And as soon as it relinquishes its separate identity, it again joins God. [b:post_uid0]They use the example of river and waves. The waves are part and parcel of a river; when they apparently assume a separate identity, they are called ‘waves’; but even then they are no less a part of a river. When same waves come down and lose their separate identity, they become, and are called, a part of river. But in reality, they were river at all times and in every stage, though we failed to realize and appreciate this fact because of ‘optic allusion’. [/b:post_uid0]

[b:post_uid0]This belief of theirs called ‘Wahdatul-wujud’(one-ness of existence), and its motto is ‘Hame Uust’ (Everything is He).......... [/b:post_uid0]

There is no need to remind the you that this idea of ‘universality of godhead’ was diametrically opposed to the belief of the unity of god, which is the foundation of islam. [b:post_uid0]According to the Muslim scholars, such belief was the worst type of polytheism.[/b:post_uid0]

(Allamah Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi, 1998,p7-8)  

Wassalam

Edited By Ya Ali on 1035602770

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest YA ZAHRA

Assalaamu Alaikum

Taken from Ayatollah Shirazi (ra):

The Sufis are many groups and sects and in general they may be categorised in two broad categories.  One are those who use Sufism for self-discipline but adhere to the teachings of Islam and its laws and Shari’ah.

And there are some of them who are not considered as Muslims for their deviated and false belief.  In particular are those sects who believe in [b:post_uid0] Wahdat-el-Wujud [/b:post_uid0] or Pantheism.  They are not considered to be Muslims.  They too say to the Muslims you do not appreciate what we are saying, when confronted about their beliefs.  They say, "Everything is Allah. There is no reality other than Allah, and this is the meaning of La Ilah Illa-Llah.  What we see around us is just illusion, whereas in fact there is nothing around us except Allah."

Great Shi'a scholars and jurists have decreed that Sufism is false and Kufr . . . . See for example Orwat-ol-Wothqa by Sayyed Muhammad Kaadhem Yazdi.  Given the importance of the book almost every Shi'a Faqih and Jurist has written commentary on the Orwat-ol-Wothqa.  In Orwat-ol-Wothqa, Ayatollah Sayyed Muhammad Kaadhem Yazdi states that those Sufis who practice their beliefs of Wahdat-el-Wujud are even considered as Najis!]

Furthermore there are many hadeeths from Ahl-ul-Bayt (peace be upon them all) strongly condemning Sufism.

One of the first people who used the Sufi during the Islamic era was Abu Hashim al-Kufi who lived during the time of Imam Ja'far al-Saadiq.  The imam, peace be upon him, describes Abu Hashim of Kufa as follows:

"He is of a severely corrupt Aqidah and he is the one who has innovated a new math-hab called Sufism, which he has made it (his math-hab) as a means to present his devious Aqidah."  

[sheikh al-Hurr al-Aameli, "Al-Ithna Ashareyyah"; p 33.  and "Hadeeqat-ul-Shi'a", p 564.]

Imam Redha, peace be upon him says:

"No one takes up Sufism except for (the reason of) deception, or misguidedness, or stupidity."  

[safeenat-ol-Behaar; vol. 2, p 58].

In one hadeeth, Imam Hassan al-Askari (peace be upon him) says:

"The Sufis are all our opponents and their practice is opposite to ours and in fact they are none but the Christians and Zoroastrians of this Ummah."  

[safeenat-ol-Behaar; vol. 2, p 58].

Wasalam

Edited By YA ZAHRA on 1035606185

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Ok, Now I have a question...

WHY DO OUR ULAMAS CONTRADICTS (each others) TOO MUCH??

They contradict in each and every matter...

I willn't take the names, but there are two distinct groups (in Ulamas as well as here in this forum)..

WHY WHY?

One says, It is Shirk other practice it..

One says Your Imam (leading the prayer) must be a twelver Shia... Other says He can be a sunni...(for the matter of unity)

One says Qama zani is Haram, Other one says it is of great reward..

God there is a whole long list....

Why is it so? we have same Quran, same sources (Imams), same hadiths, same scholars (saduq, Majlisi) then why?

This is really a matter of shame  :(

[i'm thinking of changing my title [i:post_uid1]The Mystic King..[/i:post_uid1] , please suggest a good one for me]

ma salama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

786-110

(salam)

وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنتَ عَلَيْهَا إِلاَّ لِنَعْلَمَ مَن يَتَّبِعُ الرَّسُولَ مِمَّن يَنقَلِبُ عَلَى عَقِبَيْهِ وَإِن كَانَتْ لَكَبِيرَةً إِلاَّ عَلَى الَّذِينَ هَدَى اللّهُ وَمَا كَانَ اللّهُ لِيُضِيعَ إِيمَانَكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ بِالنَّاسِ لَرَؤُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ

2:143  and We did not make that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom Allah has guided aright; and Allah was not going to make your faith to be fruitless; most surely Allah is Affectionate, Merciful to the people.

So you see brother peer sahib,Allah (SWT) wants us to be able to distinguish what is true in the thickest fog. I suggest you read the light within me, and give your opinion.

The Holy Quran and Ahlul Bait are sufficient, we are not in need of an ismaili like ibn sina and sunni like ibn arabi.

Wassalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest socrates

Salam,

Peer Syed Sahib, the contradiction in terms of fiqh is because of different value given to different traditions.

For example, take the famous example of anal sex. In some hadith, an Imam has allowed it. In other hadith, he has disallowed it. Now the hard job for the mujtahid is to determine which one has been made in taqiyyah, and which one is the true opinion. Two researches may reach different conclusions based on what they consider to be reliable evidence. That is why you should select your marja based on what methodology he uses to derive his rulings. None of the things they disagree on is of fundamental issue, anyway.

About issues such as the one in question here, you should know that this is not an issue which every person can understand, infact it is an issue which few can comprehend, and it is also a matter of faith. In our school of thought, it is prohibited to emulate in matters of faith, and one must through research find out what the truth is. Therefore the value of a researcher, such as a Marja', is marginal and only serves as an additional opinion, but not as absolute truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

786-110

(salam)

Subhanallah,

socrates Posted on Oct. 26 2002,12:51

Therefore the value of a researcher, such as a Marja', is marginal and only serves as an additional opinion, but not as absolute truth.

If Khomeini & co. say something it becomes gospel, if others say it, it becomes marginally accepted.

I've written this before and I'll write it again, Mutaheri says: "Of course, there is a world of difference between the tawhid of the 'arif and the general view of tawhid."

قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ

2:256 truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error.

Different 3aqidah indeed, there is no ambiguity it's clear as a water, You SAY HE IS ONE (ISLAM), or you SAY there is NO ONE but HE (IRFAAN).

Wassalaam

Edited By Abdulhujjah on 1035623280

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest socrates

Salam,

Please read the posts properly, and with the intention of understanding, rather than just making an argument. Did you bother to read what I actually said? I told you that in our school of thought, it is not permitted to emulate in matters of faith. What anyone says is not "THE" truth. It is an opinion, among others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Thanks for the replies bros..

But bro. socrates, the thing is not easy like the way you have explained :)

Just imagine, ok lets take the example of Qama zani , ok?

'A' says - it is haram

'B' says - doing it is of great reward, and pray for me after doing this.

----

Now, you see the contradiction?? Lets say, in real Qama isn't  haram(mustahab).. then what about 'A' ?? He went against the Law of Allah [i:post_uid1]( and dont make halal things haram over yourselves and vice versa)[/i:post_uid1] .. and what about all those peoples who were in the taqleed of 'A' ?

And if Qama zani in real is haram, then.. what about Mr. 'B' ? He declared 'Haram' thing as Mustahab, and encouraged people to commit haram acts??! ..what would happen to 'B' and his followers (muqallids) ?

-------

A says- you can pray behind a sunni Imam and can even fold your hands for the sake of unity..

B says - NO, He must be a twelver shia.

-------

A says- This Wahdatul Wajud concept is completely Shirk and thus its follower is a Kafir..

B says - Mr B follows it himself

-------

A says- You cannot in anyways abolish your child

B says- It is allowed (in the case of over population etc )

Ahhh so you see...

If u are following ONE, then you are negating the other one (and even believes that he is a Mushrik, sometimes)

Its so much confusing and really a tough topic to deal with!

ma salama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...