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 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...