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  
PeaceBrotherhood

Philosophy

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I wasn't answering your so called "question"

That's a pretty clever way of saying "I couldn't answer your question" :lol:..

You were pretty sure that I was wrong and were mocking me when I asked you to check with the Qum Hawza so I posted his post as "proof" because anyone who doesn't agree with WW is a liar and a wahabi so just to show you how exceedingly ignorant you are, I posted the opinion of a non-wahabi/non-liar etc etc.

Do you have any idea what you are actually talking about ? Or is it that you purposefully and deceitfully always try to twist other peoples words ? It's not that those who disagree with WW that are wahabbi-like in their thinking. It is those who consider belief in any sort of WW to be kufr that make use of wahabbi logic.

And I obviously don't agree with what he says.

Yeah, and mind telling us why exactly ? Which part of Yazdi's/Mulla Sadra's intepretation was wrong ? All he says is that every existent is dependent upon Allah [sWT]. If you disagree with this, then I think the tables may actually turn and it might be our turn to jump on the takfir, against those who reject such a important concept..

However, we may consider an acceptable interpretation which is propounded in transcendent philosophy [2] from which it is obtained that the existence of creatures in relation to God, the Exalted, is a relative and dependent existence, and to be precise it may be said that they are the very relation and dependence, and they have no independence of their own. That which is discovered by the gnostic is this very denial of the independence of other things [than God], which they call the denial of their real existence.

Explain Mulla Sadra's version. I asked you earlier but you ignored it.

Mulla Sadra's version will be explained as we discuss Yazdi's version first, since Yazdi = Mulla Sadra, fyi..

I just wanted to prove that Yazdi and Amuli have different versions of WW.

No - you wanted to prove that Yazdi has a more moderate acceptable intepretation, whereas Amuli & Mulla Sadra doesn't. And you failed in doing so, since it is Mulla Sadra and Yazdi who are one, and not Amuli and Mulla Sadra..

This is just to show people that all of you coming here and posting Yazdi's opinion as the ultimate truth are just endorsing one version of WW

No - we are posting this one version to show (ex-)wahabbis like yourself that there is more than one version to WW, and not all it's forms are heretical. At least now you finally acknowledge this fact :)

and even among the Shi'i scholars who endorse this concept, there are different versions and some of them are extremely sufi-ish

Sufi-ish ? By that I take it you mean the bad ones amongst them ?

There was not one person called Sufi. Sufi`ism is the name given to a group of people [P1] - each holding different beliefs to another [P2]. For this reason, it is a logical absurdity to state that all sufi's are bad [C].

If I call my radiator a "sufi", does that automatically make it "bad" as well ? Clearly not. You need to define sufi`ism first.

There are two ways of looking at the history of this group: Objectively [look at every person who called himself a sufi, and from that concote a definition - in which case you would realise that the difference between two "sufi's" can be so much so that you would identify them as different in essence] or use circular reasoning (as you are) [i.e first define sufi'ism to be bad, then label all the bad ones as sufi's, and all the not so bad ones as non-sufi's, and then come to the conclusion that all sufi's are bad]..

Evidently, you are prone to this type of circular reasoning, as that is exactly what you did with the Irfan/WW. You set out with a pre-conceived definition of it being "sufi-ish" (and consequently, "bad")..

So all that talk about how my-WW-is-not-the-same-as-the-sufis is total BS.

This is just hilarious: You - literally just - explicitly accepted that Y/MS interpretation is different to sufi's, so how can you contradict yourself so quickly ?

Also, your whole pathetic argument is based on the assumption that I agree with Yazdi's version of WW.

You mean to say you don't ? You don't agree that we are all dependent on Allah [sWT] (na`oudhu`billah)..

You are right that this was my assumption though, because I thought it was fairly obvious/safe assumption to make that. Guess I was wrong though :)..

It's amazing to what lengths you are willing to go to [i.e. kufr] just to not admit you were wrong in the first place..

Explain Mulla Sadra's version. I asked you earlier but you ignored it.

"Explain" Mulla Sadra's version ? If you are really sincere and want to understand it, read/study bidayat, asfar, mashair, etc. You say that as if you want me to sum up such a complex theory in a sentence or two, but then again, this is not suprising at all, as the philosophy-haters do tend to have such a short attention span (remind's me of the wah.. ah, nvm :P). You've also proven this by continually posting only one-liners from scholars work, which when isolated, will most likely portray the wrong idea (very similar to salafi tafseer btw)..

And I honestly don't believe you have any trouble in understanding Mulla Sadra's version (did I mention that Yazdi has the same intepretation btw :rolleyes: ?). Take for example the article short extract you posted. What was wrong with the reasoning in that ? May I ask if you read the entire article btw, or just the bit that you copied and pasted ? When you tell me to "explain.." you clearly mean that the conclusion it arrives at is kufr and that is what you want me to expound upon. In which case, I would redirect you to the section The Difference between Pantheism and the Unity of Being, in the same article that you quoted from ;)..

"Despite the differences among them, pantheists unanimously reject the theistic claim of the distinction between God and the world." This pantheistic view is identical with the view that Mulla Sadra has attributed to ignorant Sufis. He severely criticizes it..

This is a purely blasphemous and atheistic idea, and not a single soul, no matter how limited his knowledge might be, will ever acknowledge it.

For a more elaborate explication, see the lecture "The difference between pantheism, panentheism and wahdat al-wujud", by Dr. Karim Aghili. I can upload this for you if you want, if you can't find it online..

What is the Ithna Ashari position on Philosophy? it seems that this discussion is rather heated, so does it remain controversial within the community?

I don't believe any ithna ashari scholar is opposed to philosophy, subject to limits and bounds that is. Look at the work of early scholars like Sharif Murtadha's on epistemology, to Ayatullah Burujuredi (the ex-head of hawza). The problem is that the condition (it being subject to limits and bounds) is so obivous and applicable to nearly any practical concept that it goes without saying (most people just leave it out). This is where all the fuss comes in..

And it is only the over-zealous followers, wanna-be mujtahids, that make the commotion as well - never the wise scholars..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a pretty clever way of saying "I couldn't answer your question" :lol:..

No, it's a subtle way of saying that your question was too dumb to merit a reply.

Do you have any idea what you are actually talking about ? Or is it that you purposefully and deceitfully always try to twist other peoples words ? It's not that those who disagree with WW that are wahabbi-like in their thinking. It is those who consider belief in any sort of WW to be kufr that make use of wahabbi logic.

Look who is talking about deceit.

Scroll up a bit, please.

When I quoted Khomeini's verses, you first twisted it's meaning saying that he was condemning Hallaj. After I proved he wasn't, you started trying to change your stance and saying there was no proof that Hallaj was deviated. And I am the deceitful liar here.

However, we may consider an acceptable interpretation which is propounded in transcendent philosophy [2] from which it is obtained that the existence of creatures in relation to God, the Exalted, is a relative and dependent existence, and to be precise it may be said that they are the very relation and dependence, and they have no independence of their own. That which is discovered by the gnostic is this very denial of the independence of other things [than God], which they call the denial of their real existence.

That's nice and all. I agree that we are dependent on Allah but Mulla Sadra has concluded that:

Thus the Truth Almighty existentially leaves no space for other than Himself. In other words, the Truth Almighty is existent and other than Him is nonexistent.

Now whatever else you say or how much ever you try to twist my words, Mulla sadra says:

In other words, the Truth Almighty is existent and other than Him is nonexistent.

What does he mean by this?

Mulla Sadra's version will be explained as we discuss Yazdi's version first, since Yazdi = Mulla Sadra, fyi..

Yes, so I am discussing it. If both are the same, why do you have a problem with me quoting from Yazdi's source i.e. Mulla Sadra.

No - you wanted to prove that Yazdi has a more moderate acceptable intepretation, whereas Amuli & Mulla Sadra doesn't. And you failed in doing so, since it is Mulla Sadra and Yazdi who are one, and not Amuli and Mulla Sadra..

Maybe that is the case in the la-la land you live in.

No - we are posting this one version to show (ex-)wahabbis like yourself that there is more than one version to WW, and not all it's forms are heretical. At least now you finally acknowledge this fact :)

Considering that you people cannot even agree on what WW actually is, it's pretty lame to act all self-righteous and present it as the "ultimate truth".

Yazdi and Amuli have two different versions of the same "ultimate truth" LOL.

There was not one person called Sufi. Sufi`ism is the name given to a group of people [P1] - each holding different beliefs to another [P2]. For this reason, it is a logical absurdity to state that all sufi's are bad [C].

blah blah

Evidently, you are prone to this type of circular reasoning, as that is exactly what you did with the Irfan/WW. You set out with a pre-conceived definition of it being "sufi-ish" (and consequently, "bad")..

Now obviously you are smarter than Ayatullah Marashi Najafi[ar] who said this about the Sufis:

"ÚäÏí Çä ãÕíÈÉ ÇáÕæÝíÉ Úáì ÇáÇÓáÇã ãä ÃÚÙã ÇáãÕÇÆÈ,ÊåÏãÊ ÈåÇ ÃÑßÇäå æÇäËáã ÈäíÇäå æÙåÑ áí ÈÚÏ ÇáÝÍÕ ÇáÇßíÏ æÇáÊÌæá Ýí ãÖÇãíÑ ßáãÇÊåã æÇáæÞæÝ Úáì ãÇÝí ÎÈÇíÇ ãØÇáÈåã æÇáÚËæÑ Úáì ãÎÈíÇÊåã ÈÚÏ ÇáÇÌÊãÇÚ ÈÑÄÓÇÁ ÝÑÞåã Çä ÇáÏÇÁ ÓÑì Çáì ÇáÏíä ãä ÑåÈÉ ÇáäÕÇÑì ÝÊáÞÇå ÌãÚ ãä ÇáÚÇãÉ ßÇáÍÓä ÇáÈÕÑí æÇáÔÈáí æãÚÑæÝ æØÇææÓ æÇáÒåÑí æÌäíÏ æäÍæåã Ëã ÓÑì ãäåã Çáì ÇáÔíÚÉ ÍÊì ÑÞì ÔÃäåã æÚáÊ ÑÇíÇÊåã ÈÍíË ãÇÇÈÞæÇ ÍÌÑÇð ãä ÃÓÇÓ ÇáÏíä,ÃæáæÇ äÕæÕ ÇáßÊÇÈ æÇáÓäÉ æÎÇáÝæÇ ÇáÇÍßÇã ÇáÝØÑíÉ ÇáÚÞáíÉ æÇáÊÒãæÇ ÈæÍÏÉ ÇáæÌæÏ,Èá ÇáãæÌæÏ æÃÎÐ ÇáæÌåÉ Ýí ÇáÚÈÇÏÉ æÇáãÏÇæãÉ Úáì ÇáÇæÑÇÏ ÇáãÔÍæäÉ ÈÇáßÝÑ æÇáÇÈÇØíá ÇáÊí áÝÞÊåÇ ÑÄÓÇÄåã æÅáÊÒÇãåã ÈãÇíÓãæäå ÈÇáÐßÑ ÇáÎÝí ÇáÞáÈí ÔÇÑÚÇð ãä íãíä ÇáÞáÈ ÎÇÊãÇð ÈíÓÇÑå ãÚÈÑÇð Úäå ÈÇáÓÝÑ ãä ÇáÍÞ Çáì ÇáÎáÞ ÊÇÑÉ,æÇáÊäÒá ãä ÇáÞæÓ ÇáÕÚæÏí Çáì ÇáäÒæáí ÃÎÑì æÈÇáÚßÓ ãÚÈÑÇð Úäå ÈÇáÓÝÑ ãä ÇáÎáÞ Çáì ÇáÍÞ æÇáÚÑæÌ ãä ÇáÞæÓ ÇáäÒæáí Çáì ÇáÕÚæÏí ÇÎÑì ÝíÇááå ãä åÐå ÇáØÇãÇÊ...

æÑÃíÊ ÈÚÖ ãä ßÇä íÏÚì ÇáÝÖá ãäåã,íÌÚá ÈÖÇÚÉ ÊÑæíÌ ãÓáßå ÇãËÇá ãÇíÚÒì Çáíåã (Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã)"áäÇ ãÚ Çááå ÍÇáÇÊ ÝíåÇ åæ äÍä æäÍä åæ"æãÇ ÏÑì ÇáãÓßíä Ýí ÇáÚáã æÇáÊÊÈÚ æÇáÊËÈÊ æÇáÖÈØ Çä ßÊÇÈ ãÕÈÇÍ ÇáÔÑíÚÉ æãÇ íÔÈåå ãä ÇáßÊÈ ÇáãæÏÚÉ ÝíåÇ ÇãËÇá åÐå ÇáãäÇßíÑ ããÇ áÝÞÊåÇ ÃíÇÏí ÇáãÊÕæÝÉ Ýí ÇáÃÚÕÇÑ ÇáÓÇáÝÉ æÇÈÞÊåÇ áäÇ ÊÑÇËÇð...

Ëã Ãä ÔíæÚ ÇáÊÕæÝ æÈäÇÁ ÇáÎÇäÞÇåÇÊ ßÇä Ýí ÇáÞÑä ÇáÑÇÈÚ ÍíË Çä ÈÚÖ ÇáãÑÔÏíä ãä Çåá Ðáß ÇáÞÑä áãÇ ÑÃæÇ ÊÝää ÇáãÊßáãíä Ýí ÇáÚÞÇÆÏ ÝÇÞÊÈÓæÇ ãä ÝáÓÝÉ (ÝíËÇÛæÑÓ)æÊÇÈÚíå Ýí ÇáÇáåíÇÊ ÞæÇÚÏ æÇäÊÒÚæÇ ãä áÇåæÊíÇÊ Çåá ÇáßÊÇÈ æÇáæËäííä ÌãáÇð æÃáÈÓæåÇ áÈÇÓÇð ÇÓáÇãíÇð ÝÌÚáæåÇ ÚáãÇð ãÎÕæÕÇð ãíÒæå ÈÇÓã Úáã ÇáÊÕæÝ Ãæ ÇáÍÞíÞÉ Ãæ ÇáÈÇØä Ãæ ÇáÝÞÑ Ãæ ÇáÝäÇÁ Ãæ ÇáßÔÝ æÇáÔåæÏ.æÃáÝæÇ æÕäÝæÇ Ýí Ðáß ßÊÈÇð æÑÓÇÆá æßÇä ÇáÇãÑ ßÐáß Çáì Çä Íá ÇáÞÑä ÇáÎÇãÓ æãÇíáíå ãä ÇáÞÑæä,ÝÞÇã ÈÚÖ ÇáÏåÇÉ Ýí ÇáÊÕæÝ ÝÑÃæÇ ãÌÇáÇð ÑÍÈÇð æÓíÚÇð áÃä íÍæÒæÇ Èíä ÇáÌåÇá ãÞÇãÇð ÔÇãÎÇð ßãÞÇã ÇáäÈæÉ,Èá ÇáÇáæåíÉ ÈÇÓã ÇáæáÇíÉ æÇáÛæËíÉ æÇáÞØÈíÉ ÈÏÚæì ÇáÊÕÑÝ Ýí ÇáãáßæÊ ÈÇáÞæÉ ÇáÞÏÓíÉ,ÝßíÝ ÈÇáäÇÓæÊ,ÝæÓÚæÇ ÝáÓÝÉ ÇáÊÕæÝ ÈãÞÇáÇÊ ãÈäíÉ Úáì ãÒÎÑÝ ÇáÊÃæíáÇÊ æÇáßÔÝ ÇáÎíÇáí æÇáÇÍáÇã æÇáÇæåÇã ÝÃáÝæÇ ÇáßÊÈ ÇáãÊÙÇÝÑÉ ÇáßËíÑÉ ßßÊÇÈ ÇáÊÚÑÝ æÇáÏáÇáÉ æÇáÝÕæÕ æÔÑæÍå æÇáäÝÍÇÊ æÇáÑÔÍÇÊ æÇáãßÇÔÝÇÊ æÇáÇäÓÇä ÇáßÇãá æÇáÚæÇÑÝ æÇáãÚÇÑÝ æÇáÊÃæíáÇÊ æäÍæåÇ ãä ÇáÒÈÑ æÇáÇÓÝÇÑ ÇáãÍÔæÉ ÈÍßÇíÇÊ ãßÐæÈÉ æÞÖÇíÇ áÇãÝåæã áåÇ ÇáÈÊÉ...

ÝáãÇ ÑÇÌ ãÊÇÚåã æÐÇÚ ÐßÑåã æÑÇÞ ÓæÞåã ,ÊÔÈÚæÇ ÝÑÞÇð æÃÛÝáæÇ ÇáÚæÇã æÇáÓÝáÉ ÈÇáÍÏíË ÇáãæÖæÚ ÇáãÝÊÑì :"ÇáØÑÞ Çáì Çááå ÈÚÏÏ ÇäÝÇÓ ÇáÎáÇÆÞ"..

ÚÕãäÇ æÅíÇßã ãä ÊÓæíáÇÊ äÓÌÉ ÇáÚÑÝÇä æÍíßÉ ÇáÝáÓÝÉ æÇáÊÕæÝ æÌÚáäÇ æÅíÇßã ããä ÃäÇÎ ÇáãØíÉ ÈÃÈæÇÈ Çåá ÈíÊ ÑÓæá

And also smarter than Ayatullah Khoei [ar] who considers people who believed that the Sufis were najis.

Actually, most of our scholars have condemned Sufis and considered them heretics and najis.

So maybe all all them should have taken lessons from a brainac like you before coming to their false conclusions.

This is just hilarious: You - literally just - explicitly accepted that Y/MS interpretation is different to sufi's, so how can you contradict yourself so quickly ?

Ermm, I still maintain that the concept of WW has been taken from outsiders and have no mention in ahadith so why are you PMSing here that I have contradicted myself?

You mean to say you don't ? You don't agree that we are all dependent on Allah [sWT] (na`oudhu`billah)..

Where did I state that?

Guess I was wrong though :)..

As usual.

"Explain" Mulla Sadra's version ? If you are really sincere and want to understand it, read/study bidayat, asfar, mashair, etc.

Chickening out, are we?

Take for example the article short extract you posted. What was wrong with the reasoning in that ? May I ask if you read the entire article btw, or just the bit that you copied and pasted ?

I did read the whole article but that's the bit I disagree with so why don't you explain it to me?

I don't believe any ithna ashari scholar is opposed to philosophy, subject to limits and bounds that is. Look at the work of early scholars like Sharif Murtadha's on epistemology, to Ayatullah Burujuredi (the ex-head of hawza). The problem is that the condition (it being subject to limits and bounds) is so obivous and applicable to nearly any practical concept that it goes without saying (most people just leave it out). This is where all the fuss comes in..

And yet none of them propounded or accepted Wahdat al Wujud. Just goes on to prove what our scholars thought of this concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I quoted Khomeini's verses, you first twisted it's meaning saying that he was condemning Hallaj. After I proved he wasn't, you started trying to change your stance and saying there was no proof that Hallaj was deviated.

When did my intepretation of the poem change ? It remains the same, as I backed up my view with sufficient proof. You didn't prove anything: You merely posted someone elses intepretation of the poem. My loyalty is to evidence, not personalities.

And the comment about Hallaj not being deviated was a seperate remark (relating to the fact that you still haven't validated any of those ahadeeth yet).

In other words, the Truth Almighty is existent and other than Him is nonexistent.

What does he mean by this?

I'll break it down into chunks so it is easy to understand:

However, we may consider an acceptable interpretation which is propounded in transcendent philosophy [2] from which it is obtained that the existence of creatures in relation to God, the Exalted, is a relative and dependent existence, and to be precise it may be said that they are the very relation and dependence, and they have no independence of their own.

That which is discovered by the gnostic is this very denial of the independence of other things [than God],
which they call the denial of their
real existence
.

Can you try reading that slowly ?

Yes, so I am discussing it. If both are the same, why do you have a problem with me quoting from Yazdi's source i.e. Mulla Sadra.

I don't ? :huh:

Maybe that is the case in the la-la land you live in.

:)

Now obviously you are smarter than Ayatullah Marashi Najafi[ar] who said this about the Sufis:

And what does he say exactly ? I want a full translation btw, not just another isolated snippet..

And also smarter than Ayatullah Khoei [ar] who considers people who believed that the Sufis were najis.

Can you remember who I told you Khoei's [QS] Akhlaaq teacher was ?

Where did I state that?

"And I obviously don't agree with what he says"

"Also, your whole argument is based on the assumption that I agree with Yazdi's version of WW."

And yet none of them propounded or accepted Wahdat al Wujud. Just goes on to prove what our scholars thought of this concept.

Perhaps you will benefit from the following story:

A Dispute About Grapes Between An Iranian, A Turk And An Arab

I wonder whether you have ever heard this story. There were three men. One of them was an Iranian; another was a Turk and the third was an Arab. They were discussing what they should have for lunch. The Iranian said that angur would be quite suitable. The Arab said: "No, we would have inab." The Turk said: "No, I don't like either. We would have uzum." As they did not understand the language of each other, they differed. At last someone of them went out and brought grapes. Then they realized that all of them wanted the same thing.

To express the same thing there are different words in different languages. For example, the philosophers have a particular diction. They have their own terminology. Similarly the sufis have their own language. The jurists have their own terms. The poets have their own poetic diction. The Imams have their own separate style. Now we have to find out which one out of these three or four groups has a language closer to the language of those who are infallible and to the language of revelation. I do not think that any sensible person will deny that
Allah
exists and that He is the source and cause of all that exists. Nobody believes that you with your coat and pants are God, nor can any sensible person imagine that any man with a turban, a beard and a staff is
Allah
. Everybody knows that all men are creatures.

Anyhow the way in which the cause and effect are described and the impression that such description creates, often gives rise to disagreement. We should find out what those who belonged to the gnostic class actually wanted to say and what induced them to use questionable words and a vague style.

Edited by inshaAllah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My loyalty is to evidence, not personalities.

:lol: Indeed. You have demonstrated that in this thread quite well, haven't you? :rolleyes:

And the comment about Hallaj not being deviated was a seperate remark (relating to the fact that you still haven't validated any of those ahadeeth yet), which you then wrongfully (i.e. deceitfully) tried to twist to make mean that I "changed my view"..

Hallaj claimed to be GOD and you are unsure whether he was deviated or not. Mashallah.

I didn't just post ahadith, I also posted an extract from one of the works of Shaykh Tusi [ar] where he talks about the deviation of Hallaj [la].

I'll break it down into chunks so it is easy to understand

You are copy-pasting from random articles which are not answering my question.

Mulla Sadra says:

Thus the Truth Almighty existentially leaves no space for other than Himself. In other words, the Truth Almighty is existent and other than Him is nonexistent.

Why has he concluded that there is no existence except God?

And what does he say exactly ? I want a full translation btw, not just another isolated snippet..

This just proves that you aren't even reading my posts before replying. I have already posted this along with the translation.

Anyways, here you go:

I consider the calamity of sufism one of the greatest calamities on Islam . Its pillars were destroyed and its structure was blunted by it . After accurate examination , looking into the depths of their words and finding what they covered, after meeting the heads of their sects, it appeared to me that the disease was transmitted from the monkhood of the Christians and was captured by a bunch from the public like Hasan al Basri, al Shebli, Ma'ruf, Tawus, Junayd and their likes then transmitted from them to the Shias until their status and their flags were elevated so that they haven't kept a stone from the religion's structure . They interpreted the texts of Quran and Sunnat, got in conflict with the fitrah and rational rulings, believed in Wehdat al Wujud , and even Wehdat al Mawjud, and taking cant in worship and keeping on the zikrs charged with infidelity and untruths forged by their superiors and their commitment with what they call the "hidden zikr" beginning from the right of the heart and ending in its left expressed sometimes by the travel from the Haq to the creation and other times by the descending from the "Arc of Ascent" to that of descent, or vice versa expressed by travel from creation to Haq and ascending from the "Arc of Descent" to that of ascent ... May God help us from such deviations .

I saw some of those who alleged credit, promoting his behavior by what is related to them like :"We have situations with God where He is us and we are Him" . The miserable in science, tracking, checking and control didn't know that the book of "Misbah al Shari'at" and similar books are deposited with such rejected grosses (Munkar) forged by the Sufis in the previous times and kept for us as an heritage .

The prevalence of mysticism and the building of Khanqahat (sufis ziqr places) was in the fourth century since some guiders from that century, when they saw the works of the scholastics (Ilm al Kalam scholars) in Aqaed , so they took rulings from Phythagora's philosophy and his followers in theology , and wrested from the theologies of the peoples of the book and the pagans phrases and that they covered it with Islamic clothes and made it a special science and distinguished it by the name of Ilm al Tasawuf (mysticism science) , The Truth, Al Baten, The Poverty, The Extinction, or Discovery and Witness (Al Kashf wal Shuhud) . They authored and classified this in books and letters until the fifth century and what followed from centuries, when some shrewd mysticism preachers they saw an open space to acquire between the ignorants a big position similar to that of prophethood, and even divinity, by the name of Wilayat (mandate), Ghawthiya (relief), Kutbiyat (polarity), in pretext of acting in the Malakut (world of the intellect) by holy forces , so how in the Nasut (the physical level and Human Realm) .

They expanded the philosophy of mysticism with editorials based on ornamental interpretations, fantasy disclosure (Kashf) , dreams and illusions . So they invented volumes of books like "Al Ta'arruf wal Dalalat" , "Al Fusus" and its explanations , Al Nafahat , Al Rashahat , Al Mukashafat , Al Insan al Kamel , "Al Awaref wal Ma'aref", the interpretations and its similars from scriptures loaded with false stories and issues with no concepts at all ...

When their ideology got spread and become mentioned , they divided into sects and deviated the public and the varmints with the invented and injected hadith : "The paths to God are in the number of the creations"

May God protect us from the Gnostic's weaving, and the philosopher's trappings and mysticism, and may He make us from those who follows AhlulBayt and those who don't know other than them. Amen.

Can you remember who I told you Khoei's [QS] Akhlaaq teacher was ?

Ayatullah Khoei considers sufis to be NAJIS and also doesn't endorse the concept of WW. Are you denying that after having read the extract from his book?

Please stop trying to cheat people.

"And I obviously don't agree with what he says"

"Also, your whole pathetic argument is based on the assumption that I agree with Yazdi's version of WW."

No one can deny that we are dependent on Allah [swt] but using this you conclude wrongly.

Perhaps you will benefit from the following story:

No, I am pretty sure I don't share the views of Najis kuffars like Hallaj who considered himself God.

Edited by inshaAllah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When we say that a man is a lion, it means that the man is brave, just like a lion. so, yes, in this c,,,avery is indeed a shared attribute but when we say that man is powerful, and Allah is powerful, we mean two different things. By the first we mean that man has ability to act, albeit in a limited form,

but by the second we mean that there are absolutely no limitations or restrictions on Allah's ability so the difference here is that by calling man powerful we are asserting the existence of an ability but by calling Allah powerful, we are denying anything to have an restriction on him

What you said doesnt really answer my question. but that doesnt matter really because there is something else on my mind.

i have been thinking about this issue and I have come to the conclusion that we believe in exactly the same thing. We are just expressing ourselves differently. this causes the confusion. the difference between me and you is that while I understand and agree with what you say you dont understand me and dont agree with what I say. But, what do you have to worry about? The important thing for you is that I agree with you!

by the way.. i am not Iranian.

Mulla Sadra says:

Thus the Truth Almighty existentially leaves no space for other than Himself. In other words, the Truth Almighty is existent and other than Him is nonexistent.

Why has he concluded that there is no existence except God?

because he believes in no god but God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salams,

thanks everyone for the interesting debate. i am relatively unschooled on the subject of falsafa. i had no idea that everything was so unsettled. i thought all the shias supported irfani concepts. the debate here has tossed me from one side to the other multiple times. i don't know that anyside won, it seems at an impasse at this point?

a couple of questions. first to whizbee and macisaac.

when the wayfarer annihilates his ego, merges with the Divine and declares "ana al-haqq," what exactly is going on here from your perspective? what is this psychological/spiritual state that the wayfarer is experiencing?

i have read light within me and some of the other titles, the journey of the wayfarer does not seem to be one of deviation. to the contrary he seems to quite thoroughly cleanse his soul of all the wicked impurities and desires that afflict ordinary humans. at the same time he cultivates in his spirit a desire to be close to Allah (swt) and to love Him deeply.

From the Islamic perspective, what do you think he is doing here that is haram? from my understanding it is this purification of the soul and this constant meditation on the love of Allah that causes the annihilation of his ego. why would Allah lead him astray after such sincere devotion? the shia urafa do not neglect their prayers or the other wajibats like the sufis do, so why, at the peak of their devotion, would Allah give them falsehood? i don't think the 'successful' wayfarer claims full comprehension of Allah (swt), doesn't he (or she) just claim total submission to the Will of Allah, experienced in the form of energy and merged consciousness? the description of the annihilation of the ego comes across as total submission.

to the persian shah, khadim and i think cyan something or other. what about the statement about mansour hallaj from Imam Zamana (as) that whizbee posted? the one that came from the THE TAWQEE OF IMAM-E-ZAMANA (A.S.) wherein he curses al-hallaj:

at one point in this debate the pro-irfan side made the claim that the anti-irfan side just misunderstands the claims of "ana al-haqq" and the concept of 'wahdat al-wujud.' we are told more or less that ana al-haqq simply means that the wayfarer perceives himself to be a wave on the ocean of existence, not the ocean itself. we are told that wahdat al-wujud does not mean that God is everything, it only means His Essence is behind all things (maintaining the separation b/t Creator and created). Wouldn't the Imam be privy to al-hallaj's precise meaning of ana al-haqq? why did Imam (as) curse him? why did khomeni (ra) liken himself to al-hallaj? is Imam's (as) statement not authentic?

as for mulla sadra (ra), he seems to clearly argue for a pantheistic conception of the universe, *or* a universe where creation is mere illusion. his statement is fairly absolute, there is no room for other than God, so it is not a matter of his creation being so insignificant as to not really count. we either don't exist, or we are part of him.

[from whizbee]mulla sadra says:

Thus the Truth Almighty existentially leaves no space for other than Himself. In other words, the Truth Almighty is existent and other than Him is nonexistent.

how does Mulla Sadra's idea coalesce with the hadiths brought up many posts ago that said something like this:

He is totally different from whatever is conceived, only that can be conceived which has the attribute of a created being and God is not like that. [al Kafi of Kulayni]

and this:

Verily, Allah is free from all [particular attributes] of His creature and His creatures are devoid [of His special attributes] [Tauhid of Saduq]

and this:

Whatever is found in the creature cannot be found in the Creator. And whatever possibly can be found in the creature cannot be found so in the Creator [ibid]

sorry to merely re-post what whizbee has already posted, but i think in light of these ahadith, it appears mullah sadra's conclusion that there is no space for anything other than Allah is in contradiction to the teachings of the Ahl al-bayt. isn't the limit of philosophy or irfan supposed to be what can be reached while still attached to the rope of the ahl al-bayt (as)?

if i remember correctly, in the beginning of LWM, i think mutahari's (ra) section, doesn't he use some of the writings of Sadra to describe the various stations of the wayfarer? i thought he said something about Sadra not diving into irfan until late in life, and i am just wondering if his late-life irfan experiences significantly changed his falsafa. it would be interesting to read the before and after.

anyway, i am still a novice student on the subject, but this thread has been educational and these were some of the questions that i feel have been left unanswered on both sides. fi aman Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't know that anyside won, it seems at an impasse at this point?

Nope. I have already said whatever I wanted to say, everyone decides for themselves after this point. If I was to post in reply to Whizbee's comments again, I would merely just be repeating myself for the 1034589735 time..

to the persian shah, khadim and i think cyan something or other. what about the statement about mansour hallaj from Imam Zamana that whizbee posted? the one that came from the THE TAWQEE OF IMAM-E-ZAMANA (A.S.) wherein he curses al-hallaj:

The hadeeth has [still] not been autheticated as of yet (despite my many requests for it to be so). Thus, it cannot be used as part of an argument either..

as for mulla sadra , he seems to clearly argue for a pantheistic conception of the universe

Nonsense.

Like I said to Whizbee as well, if you are interested in receiving your answer to this question, then listen to the lecture: "The difference between pantheism, panentheism and wahdat al-wujud", by Dr. Karim Aghili [Listen]..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have read light within me and some of the other titles, the journey of the wayfarer does not seem to be one of deviation. to the contrary he seems to quite thoroughly cleanse his soul of all the wicked impurities and desires that afflict ordinary humans. at the same time he cultivates in his spirit a desire to be close to Allah (swt) and to love Him deeply.

Salam,

Brother, you have answered the question for yourself.

why did khomeni (ra) liken himself to al-hallaj?

It is a FACT that Hallaj declared that he was GOD. Even if the tawqee is not "authentic" [i have sent an email to Ayatullah Sistani's office though I have a feeling that Agha Sistani's authority as a marja will be rejected if he authenticates it rather than doubting Hallaj's "innocence"], the excerpt from Shaykh Tusi [ar]'s book proves his deviation and corruption and it is being ignored, God knows why.

Also, please go through this if you are unconvinced about the corruption, lies and kufr of Hallaj [la]

3. Husain bin Mansur

Husain bin Mansur al-Hallaj was another liar, deviant and misguider from truth who claimed deputyship of His Eminence, the Awaited Imam (a.s). And he requested the prominent Shias to accept his deputyship. Therefore he sent a letter to Abu Sahl Nawbakhti and desired from him that he join him and promised to give him a lot of wealth.

Nawbakhti replied, “I am a person who is fond of bondmaids but my old age is an obstacle in my enjoyments. Every Friday I am compelled to dye my grey hair. So it would be very nice if you can make me needless of hair dye, save me from this expense and also make my beard black. If you do this I shall become your follower and it would also prove the veracity of your claim! Consequently I would become your greatest companion and propagator.”

Hallaj was perplexed by this demand of Nawbakhti and this incident became public knowledge. It became a topic of great amusement while the deceit and deviation of Hallaj became clear for the people.

An example of Hallaj's fraud is as follows: He invited an intelligent person to dinner. When he arrived at his place, Hallaj told him, “If I stretch my hands towards the river, I could catch a live fish from there.” Then he went into the room and came back with a big live fish in his hands and presented it to his guest saying, “This is my miracle.” Perchance there was a knock at the door from inside. Hallaj went inside and the guest also went inside the house to find behind the curtain a pool having many fishes. The guest also caught a fish brought it inside and placed it next to the fish Hallaj had brought. When Hallaj returned, the guest told him, “This is my miracle.” Hallaj was shocked and hastily expelled the guest from his house because he had detected his fraud.

Hallaj used to pose himself to be very pious and religious. He was seen in the mountains of Isfahan wearing tattered clothes and carrying a water-skin and a walking stick.

Another fraud of Husain bin Mansur

He had instructed some of his disciples to conceal a quantity of sweet meat and bread at a particular spot in the desert. Then he took along some people with him and with his companions went to that same desert. When he reached that place, his disciple used to remark, “How nice it would have been if we had got bread and Halwa (sweet) right now, so that we could have enjoyed it.” At that time Hallaj would recede to a corner and pray two units of prayer and supplicate the Lord for bread and Halwa for the people. His disciple would intentionally wait for sometime as if waiting for the acceptance of prayers. Then he used to go to that place where bread and Halwa was buried and announce, “We have received this bread and Halwa as a result of the prayer of Hallaj.” Many gullible people used to be influenced by this fraud and it seemed to be an unnatural phenomenon and a miracle and they used to become such zealous disciple of his that they even sought his urine as means of cure.[1]

It is said that Hallaj also claimed divinity and one of his writing says as follows, “If one fasts for three days continuously without breaking it and then breaks it with three leaves of Chicory, the Almighty Allah would forever exempt him from keeping the fasts of the month of Ramadan! And anyone who recites a two-rakat (unit) prayer from sunset till the next morning, Allah would make him needless of prayer. One who donates all of ones property on a single day in charity would gain exemption from performing Hajj. And one who stays at the graves of martyrs in the Quraish cemetery for ten days, praying and fasting and breaking the fast only with some barley bread and salt he would be made needless of worship and obedience of Allah.”

Hallaj is credited with having started many innovations. His activities were reported to the Abbaside Caliph, Muqtadir, who had him arrested and executed in 309 A.H.

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/l...hdi/17.htm#p207

So now, we know for a fact that Hallaj was a najis kafir and still you have Khomeini comparing himself with Hallaj.

Also, although it is claimed that Irfan is nothing like Sufism, you will see Agha Mutahhari [ar] listing najis people like Hallaj and Abu Yazid Bistami as amongst the great urafa. These sufis believed in fana as in merging with God. WHY are they being included among the "urafa" if the fana of Irfan is nothing like the fana of Sufism?

As for what Sadra says, I have not posted a mystical view of his on WW, rather it is a philosophical one where he proves that the Truth Almighty existentially leaves no space for other than Himself. In other words, the Truth Almighty is existent and other than Him is nonexistent..

So there is no room for interpreting it as we want and getting out of the mess and that's why again, this point is being ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a FACT that Hallaj declared that he was GOD.

It is undisputed what he said, but your claim of what he meant is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, your accusation/takfir extended claim that what Hallaj meant = what Khomeini is even more absurd:

Khomeini
: I do not think that any sensible person will deny that
Allah
exists and that He is the source and cause of all that exists. Nobody believes that you with your coat and pants are God, nor can any sensible person imagine that any man with a turban, a beard and a staff is
Allah
. Everybody knows that all men are creatures.

Can you get any clearer ? Do you need me to spell this out for you ?

You may not know what Hallaj meant, but it becomes irrelevant in light of what Khomeini says here, and blows your argument out of the water of what he could have meant [i.e. kufr] - and likewise the argument of likening Khomeini to najis kafir, and in general, Irfan to Sufism..

Even if the tawqee is not "authentic" [i have sent an email to Ayatullah Sistani's office

Interesting. But why didn't you just get macisaac on it ?

As for what Sadra says, I have not posted a mystical view of his on WW, rather it is a philosophical one where he proves that

Truly you are deluded if you cannot see that more than half of the same article from which you are quoting from discusses "The Difference between Pantheism and the Unity of Being", but I doubt you shall ever retire from your wahabbistic ways of taking single quotes out of context. WW is hard enough to understand as it, and there is no doubt that to the laymen there may appear some resemblances with pantheism/panentheism, but perhaps it is for this very same reason that alot of effort has been dedicated by the scholars to cure these misconceptions. I have already shown you more than enough material to refute all your arguments, but you show no sincerity of actually wanting to learn as you ignore them all and only continue to shout your unsubstantiated extreme claims in an unscholarly fashion..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is undisputed what he said, but your claim of what he meant is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, your accusation/takfir extended claim that what Hallaj meant = what Khomeini is even more absurd:

So what did Hallaj [la] mean when he said this?

“If one fasts for three days continuously without breaking it and then breaks it with three leaves of Chicory, the Almighty Allah would forever exempt him from keeping the fasts of the month of Ramadan! And anyone who recites a two-rakat (unit) prayer from sunset till the next morning, Allah would make him needless of prayer. One who donates all of ones property on a single day in charity would gain exemption from performing Hajj. And one who stays at the graves of martyrs in the Quraish cemetery for ten days, praying and fasting and breaking the fast only with some barley bread and salt he would be made needless of worship and obedience of Allah.

Instead of ignoring my question this time, please answer it.

Also, how come a great scholar and companion of Imam Hasan al Askari [as] and Imam Mahdi [atfs] i.e. Abu Sahl Nawbakhti [ar] reject and ridicule Hallaj [la] if he was on the right path?

I haven't "understood" what he meant when he declared "I am the truth" or when he said that a person would be made "needless of worship and obedience of Allah".

Please elucidate.

And as for your accusation that I have said that Khomeini is the same as Hallaj [whatever that means :wacko:] is a lie and an accusation.

Can you get any clearer ? Do you need me to spell this out for you ?

It only gets clearer that Khomeini keeps contradicting himself.

You may not know what Hallaj meant, but it becomes irrelevant in light of what Khomeini says here, and blows your argument out of the water of what he could have meant [i.e. kufr] - and likewise the argument of likening Khomeini to najis kafir, and in general, Irfan to Sufism..

You ignored my reply when I posted Ayatullah Marashi Najafi's opinion on the Sufis. Also you ignored Ayatullah Khoei's explanation of how Sufis are najis. Another thing worth mentioning is that it is not Ayatullah Khoei only who believes that Sufis are najis. The excerpt posted was a commentary on Urwatul Wuthqaa in which, under the Bab of Najasah, it is mentioned that anyone who believes in fana, ittihad, hulul or tajassum is a kafir and hence najis.

So yes, Hallaj was najis.

Interesting. But why didn't you just get macisaac on it ?

Because I don't have the CON and he would want the chain to see if it's authentic or not.

Don't worry, I will definitely be posting Sistani's reply as and when it comes and then we will see.

And FYI, I did mention in the other thread that I have sent the Q to Sistani's office but now when I am repeating it, you find it "interesting". You make me repeat half the things I have said. Really shows how much you are reading my posts before replying.

Truly you are deluded if you cannot see that more than half of the same article from which you are quoting from discusses "The Difference between Pantheism and the Unity of Being", but I doubt you shall ever retire from your wahabbistic ways of taking single quotes out of context. WW is hard enough to understand as it, and there is no doubt that to the laymen there may appear some resemblances with pantheism/panentheism, but perhaps it is for this very same reason that alot of effort has been dedicated by the scholars to cure these misconceptions. I have already shown you more than enough material to refute all your arguments, but you show no sincerity of actually wanting to learn as you ignore them all and only continue to shout your unsubstantiated extreme claims in an unscholarly fashion..

Truly you have deluded yourself into believing that you have understood WW. Too bad for you that there are scholars who reject WW and also there are men who differ on what WW actually is [Amuli, Yazdi].

Also, it is interesting to note that while The Persian Shah is trying to ignore Sadra's conclusions by posting random excerpts, eThErEaL is defending it.

Just a recap of what Mulla Sadra has said:

In his Mafatia al-ghyab, he also emphasizes that: "In the world of being there is nothing save His ipseity, and the possible things are rays of His light and a drop of His ocean of being. Thus there is nothing in the world of being but Him

...

Mulla Sadra formulated his second argument in favor of the “unity of being” at the end of the issue of "cause and effect" in a chapter entitled fi dhikr namaì…[76]. In this argument, he uses the principle of "The Truth in its simplicity contains all things". The simplified version of this rule is as follows:

1-The Truth Almighty is the Necessary Being;

2- Every necessary being is "the simplest truth" and is existentially infinite;

3- No infinite thing allows any space for other than itself;

4-Thus the Truth Almighty existentially leaves no space for other than Himself. In other words, the Truth Almighty is existent and other than Him is nonexistent.

http://www.mullasadra.org/new_site/English...akai.htm#_edn25

Also,

Every creative being, whether human or not, manifests the attributes of God relative to the degree of intensity present within it.

http://www.mullasadra.org/New_site/English...ology/Quinn.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Mulla Sadra's view explained in detail: [Taken from a History of Muslim Philosophy]

Being is the same reality in all realms of existence; it is a single reality but with gradations and degrees of intensity. Just as we say the light of the sun, the light of a lamp, or the light of a glowworm, and mean the same subject, i.e., light, but with different predicates, i.e., under different conditions of manifestation, so in the case of Being, the being of God, of a man, of a tree, or of a heap of earth are all one Being or one reality but in various degrees of intensity of manifestation. Moreover, Being, no matter where it manifests itself, appears always with its attributes or armies (`asakir), as they are traditionally called, such as knowledge, will, power, etc. A stone, because it exists, is a manifestation of Being and, therefore, has knowledge, will, power, and intelligence like men or angels. However, since at the level of a stone the manifestation of Being is very weak, these attributes are hidden and not perceptible. The various beings in the world of manifestation are all limitations of the one reality or Being. These limitations are abstracted by the mind and become the forms of quiddities (mahiyyat) of things, and when transposed into the principial domain, they become the Platonic ideas or archetypes. Unlike Being which is objectively real and in fact is the reality of the cosmos, the mahiyya are accidents of Being abstracted by the mind without having a reality independent of Being. Even the archetypes (al-a'yan al-thabitah) possess a form of Being which in this case is God's knowledge of them. What distinguishes the earthly manifestation of things from their celestial archetypes is not a gradation of the mahiyydt from more subtle to more gross modes of existence, as certain followers of the Illuminationist school believe. Rather, it is the intensity of Being which determines the level of existence of each creature. If the light of Being shines upon the form or quiddity of a man with a greater intensity than now, he will become the man of the intermediate world (barzakh) and if the intensity is greater still he will become the celestial man identified with his heavenly archetype. Absolute Being itself,. which is the proper subject for metaphysics, is above all limitations and, therefore, above all forms or mahiyyat, above all substances and accidents. It is the "Form of forms" and the Agent of all acts. By manifesting Itself longitudinally (tdli) It brings into being the various orders of Being from the archangels to terrestrial creatures and by manifesting Itself latitudinally ('ardi) It creates the various members of each order of Being. Being is the reality of all things so that the knowledge of anything is ultimately the knowledge of Its being and, therefore, of Being Itself. Likewise, the archetypes exist eternally through God's knowledge of them; their being is in fact this very knowledge without which they would have no share whatsoever in Being. Since Being is unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity, it partakes of logical distinctions and divisions while remaining in essence indivisible and above all polarizations.

Also, Mulla Sadra's view on the hereafter.

Difference between paradise and hell lies in that the souls in paradise have the power to bring into being all the forms that are beautiful and pleasant, all the flowers and houris of paradise, while the impure souls in hell have only the power to bring into being ugly and unpleasant forms and are in fact forced to suffer by the very forms they will have created. Mulla Sadra adds, however, that ultimately the pains suffered in the inferno will come to an end and, as ibn 'Arabi had said, the fires of hell will freeze and all will return to the divine origin of things.

Mulla Sadra has explained this in his al-Mabda’ wa’l-Ma’ad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urufa speaking from angled statements.

The same angle of "He is the first and the last, the outward and the inward" "God is the light of the heavens and the earth", are statements that are true but only when seen in the proper angle. "the outward and the inward" means he is the inward to the outward, and the outward to the inward. It really denies the existence of anything other then him but from angle. Not all angles. Of course everything is not him in another sense. Urufa only speak of one sense. The speak from the same angle that he is the outward to the inward and the inward to the outward.

Also everything being finite manifestation of the divine names, we read in Quran "There is not a thing but with us is it's treasure, and we do not bring down except it a known measure" and we read in du'a kumail "by your names that have fill the foundations of all things"

As for Fana, the Quran says "to Allah and his Messenger". And we have the famous hadith Qudsi:

And there is nothing dearer among things that bring a servant of Mine near to Me than the obligations that I have assigned to him. And indeed he draws nearer to Me gradually through supererogatory acts until I love him, and when I love him, I become the hearing with which he hears, the sight wherewith he sees, the tongue wherewith he speaks, and the hand wherewith he holds, and if he calls Me, I answer him, and if he asks Me I grant him.

This is the same angle of Fana and this sort of language is found in other hadiths like Munajatal Shabaniya "until our hearts cross the veils of light and reach the source of grandeur and our souls become suspended in the honor of your holiness"

Regarding hajj which is traveling to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (pbuh), we read from misbahal Shariah:

leave everything that is other than Him in the valedictory circumambulation. Purify your soul and your innermost being for the meeting with Allah, on the day when you will meet Him when standing on Safa'.

Take on valour and honour from Allah by annihilating your attributes at Marwah.

The honour is the same honour in munajatal shabaniya and it's by annilating your attributes (Fana) and leaving the attributes of the light and knowledge and digninity and holiness and Aqel. There is basically soldiers of light and darkness, and once the light wins, this is called Fana, as nothing remains but the light.

This does not mean the person is fully Allah (swt) or something like that, it just means the attributes in him is all from treasures of God and he has annilated the darkness. "to bring the believers from the darkness to the light" "to Allah and his Messenger". There is still always room to increase in blessings and increase in the light, while Allah (swt) is infinite.

It's the proximity to Allah (swt) where only the light exists and the darkness gone (and there is degrees of light) that Rasool (pbuh) said regarding:

O Salman, whoever recognizes them as they should be recognized, and follows their example, befriends them and is free of their enemies, by Allah! he is one of us. He will return to where we return, and he will be where we are!" in misbahal shariah.

He because from ahlulbayt (as) because his whole existence is born from their light. There is ofcourse degrees of glory and ofcoruse Ahlulbayt (as) are always higher, but this is the meaning of "fana" in the Imam (as) or fana in "Allah and his MEssenger". Is basically destroying all the vices and leaving nothing but the virtues. Honour is said to belong to God all together and it's the Good word that rises. The Tayeb aspect of all belongs to Allah (swt). When the Tayeb Soul wins over the lower self, this Fana in Taha (pbuh) but not that one fully becomes Taha Glory, whom is far ahead of all, but that nothing but Glory aspect of the soul remains. Only the beauty of God and Glory of God remains.

This is the meaning of Fana. "annilating your attributes" is used by Imam Jaffar (as) and taking honour by it while honour belongs to God and the attributes that are of attributes of the light.

Once you get the angled statements from the Urufa, you will find the same thing is said in Quran and hadiths.

wa salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shia believe that not only is Allah imperceptible by the eyes, but also that His Essence (Dhat) cannot be imagined, thought, or described. Any imagination or perception of the Essence of Allah is a creation of our mind, and the Creator is far removed from such a perception. Thus, we have no way to comprehend His Essence. We only understand by reason that His Essence should be purified from two limits: non-existence and likeness. Due to His abundant signs, we know that He is not non-existent, and at the same time, we know that He has no similarity whatsoever with any type of existence that we know and comprehend. This implies that the Essence of Allah cannot be seen. Any thing that is limited to our faculty of sight is a created being and any created being needs a creator. Thus, if one could see his Lord by his eyes, then his eyes have made Him a created being like other beings. He who likens Him to His creatures has indeed taken associates with Allah.

Allah cannot be seen by eyes anywhere because He does not have any body and does not occupy any place, as He is the creator of body and place. He is exalted beyond the limitations of His own creations and is far removed from being enclosed in them. We may only see the manifestations of Allah, which are but His created signs. We can never, however, see His Essence.

Now, let us probe into the verse that is used by the Sunnis as proof of seeing the Essence of Allah:

"Some faces on that day (i.e., the Day of Judgment) will be radiant, looking towards their Lord. (75:22-23)"

According to Arabic lexicon, the word "Nadhira" that is used in the above verse does not necessarily imply "seeing". The Imams (A.S) have used other verses of Quran to support the definition of the word "Nadhira" in this verse as similar to the meaning of "Muntadhira", which means expecting, waiting, or looking forward to. On the commentary of this verse,

Imam Ali (A.S) said: "...The verse means looking forward to what Allah, the Mighty and the Majestic, has promised them. And the word 'Nadhira' sometimes means 'expecting/waiting/looking forward' ('al-Muntadhira'). Haven't you heard the saying of Allah: '(But I am going to send him a present) and I am looking forward (Nadhira) to what (answer) the ambassadors will return (27:35).' This means I am waiting (al-Muntadhira) for what the ambassadors will return. As for the verse: 'For indeed he saw him at a second descent. Near the Lote-tree of the uttermost boundary (53:13-14)', it means when Muhammad (S.A.W.) was near the Lote-tree of the uttermost boundary which none of His creations has passed it (saw Gabriel). It is His saying in the followed verses: '(His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong! For truly did he see one of the great signs of his Lord! (53:17-18)', he saw Gabriel in his shape twice. Verily Gabriel is a great creature and is from amongst the spiritual entities whose creation and shapes are not fully understood except by the Lord of the Universe."

- al-Ihtijaj, v1, p243

- Bihar al-Anwar, v90/93, p101, Hadith #1

In Arabic, often it is said: "Nadhartu Ilal-Hilal Falam Arahu" which means, "I looked towards the new moon (crescent) but I did not see it." Therefore, even according to the general Arabic usage of the term, the verse does not necessarily imply that they will see Allah.

In another Hadith on the commentary of the verse "Some faces on that day will be brilliant, looking towards their Lord", Imam Ali Ibn Musa al-Reza (A.S) said: "It means (their faces) are radiant and they are looking forward to the reward of their Lord."

- al-Ihtijaj, v2, p409

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p116, Hadith #19

- al-Amali, Shaikh Saduq, p409, Hadith #1

- al-Bihar, v4, p28, Hadith #3

Moreover, on the impermissibility of seeing the Essence of Allah, Quran states: "Visions can not reach Him while He reaches to all visions. (6:103)"

The word "visions" is not limited to solely seeing by eyes. It covers all types of vision and perception as it is used in a plural form in the verse. On the impossibility of seeing, visualizing, imagining, describing, or even cogitating Allah, Abu Hashim al-Ja'fari narrated: About the verse "Visions can not reach Him and He grasps all visions (6:103)", Imam al-Reza (A.S) said: "O Aba Hashim! The thinking/imagination of the mind is more delicate than the vision of the eyes. By your imagination, you can reach to India and other places that you have not entered and your eyes have not reached. Thus, when the thinking of minds can not reach Him, then how could the visions of eyes do so?"

- al-Kafi, v1, p99, Hadith #11

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p113, Hadith #12

- Bihar al-Anwar, v4, p39, Hadith #17

Similarly, he narrated:Imam al-Ridha (A.S) said: "Verily the imagination of the mind is more (powerful) than the vision of the eyes. Thus (the verse means) minds can not reach Him, and He reaches to all minds."

- al-Kafi, v1, p98, Hadith #10

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p112, Hadith #11

- Bihar al-Anwar, v4, p39, Hadith #16

Sulaiman Ibn Khalid narrated: Imam al-Sadiq (A.S) said: "Avoid pondering over (the Essence of) Allah, because pondering over (the Essence of) Allah would only increase deviation/error. Verily Allah cannot be reached by the sight (of minds) and cannot be described by proportion."

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p457, Hadith #14

- Wasa'il al-Shia, v16, p197, Hadith #21334

- Bihar al-Anwar, v3, p259, Hadith #4

Moreover, it is narrated: The Leader of the Faithful (A.S) said: "Whosoever ponders on the Essence of Allah, becomes an infidel (Zindiq)."

- al-Kafi, v8, p22

- Tuhaf al-Uqul, p196

- Bihar al-Anwar, v74, p287

About the verse "Now there have come to you Visions (Basa'ir) from your Lord. Thus, he who become more insightful (Absara) it will be for (the good of) his own soul, and he who becomes blind, it will be to his own (harm) (6:104)", Abdullah Ibn Sanan narrated: Explaining the verse, "Visions can not reach Him…", Imam al-Sadiq (A.S) said: It is (more generally) about the grasping/encompassing/comprehending (of Allah) by the mind. Haven't you seen His saying 'now have come to you Visions (Basa'ir) from your Lord?' This does not mean the vision of the eyes. And (His saying) 'he who become more insightful (Absara) it will be for his own (benefit)', does not mean sight by eyes, and (His saying) 'and he who becomes blind, it will be to his own (harm)' does not mean blinding the eyes. Verily it means encompassing by mind just as we say a person is insightful (Basir) in poetry, and the other person is insightful (Basir) in Fiqh... Verily Allah is most exalted to be seen by eyes."

- al-Kafi, v1, p98, Hadith #9

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p112, Hadith #10

- al-Ihtijaj, v2, p336

- Bihar al-Anwar, v4, p33, Hadith#6

Seeing Allah is impossible when the mind cannot encompass Him. In another Hadith, Ibrahim al-Karkhi narrated: I said to Ja'far Ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq (A.S): "There is a man who claims to see Allah in dream. How is this possible?" He (A.S) replied: "That man has no religion. Verily Allah can be seen neither in awareness, nor in dream, nor in this world, nor in the Hereafter."

- al-Amali, Shaikh Saduq, p610, Hadith #5

- Bihar al-Anwar, v4, p32, Hadith#7

Although the Hereafter may operate with different laws, there will be neither any change in the Essence of Allah, nor any change in the fact that everything other than Him is His creation and has no similarity to His Essence. That we cannot perceive Him will not change by our moving from this world to the Hereafter, as the Creator will not be limited by His creations, and His creations will not be able to violate the limits of the creation. If someone claims that he will be able to see his "god" in the hereafter by his eyes, it will mean that he will be able to bring his god to the level of creation. Either his eyes will catch the whole god, or he will see a part of his god. The former implies that his god is limited and the latter implies that his god has different parts and organs. Both cases are in contradiction with the Islamic belief that Allah, the Exalted, is Unlimited, and has no part or organ.

There is a very long but interesting Hadith from Imam Ali (A.S) in our reliable sources from which I only quote those parts that are related to our topic. Abi Mu'ammar al-Sa'dani narrated: A person came to Imam Ali (A.S) and said: "I have become doubtful about the book of Allah as I have found some of its verses contradict others." (He then quoted some of the verses of Quran that he thought contradictory.) Imam Ali (A.S) replied: "Verily in the Book of Allah each part confirms the other, and does not contradict one another, but you have not been granted the wisdom that benefits you... Avoid interpreting Quran by your opinion and you should obtain deep understanding of it from al-Ulamaa (i.e., the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt (A.S)). Verily there exist many revealed verses whose wordings have similarity with the saying of humankind, but since they are the saying of Allah, their interpretation (Ta'wil) do not have any similarity with the (interpretation of the) saying of humankind. Nothing in His creation is like Him. Moreover, His action has no resemblance with any actions of any human, and also, His saying has no similarity with the saying of any human... Thus do not liken the saying of Allah to the saying of any human or else you will perish and will go astray. (Then Imam Ali (A.S) explained to him the verses that he found contradictory among which are:) In addition, His saying: 'Nor is hidden from thy Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven (10:61)' proves nothing is hidden from our Lord. How could the creator of the things know not what He has created? And 'He is the (supreme) creator with (infinite) knowledge (36:81).' However, about His saying '(Allah) does not look (Nadhar) on them in the Day of Rising (3:77)' (which seems to be contradictory the previous verse) informs that He does not let any goodness reach them. When the Arabs say 'Fulan does not look upon us', they mean 'No goodness reaches to us on his side.' Thus, the 'Nadhar' (looking upon) from Allah to His creation is His Mercy for them. Also about the verse, 'Nay! Verily, that day they shall be veiled from their Lord (83:15)', it verily means that day they shall be veiled from the reward of their Lord.

As for His saying 'Do ye feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes (as in an earthquake)? (67:16)' and His saying 'And He is Allah in the heavens and on earth (6:3)' and His saying 'The (Commands and Plans of the) Most Gracious is established on the Throne (20:5)' and His saying '(He is) the Evident and the Hidden (57:3)' and 'And He is with you wheresoever ye may be (57:4)' and His saying 'We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein (50:16)' Such is Allah, increased is His Blessing and is the most High. He is purified and exalted that anything should happen to Him from whatever happens to the creations, and He is subtle, well-aware, the Most Glorious, and the Most High ... (Verily the above verses mean) He is witness to all secret conversations, and He has authority over all affairs, and He is illuminator of everything, and planner of all the things. He, the High, the Great, is much exalted to than be on His throne. And about His saying: 'And thy Lord cometh, and His angels, rank upon rank (89:22)', and His saying: 'And now you have come to us alone as We created you for the first time (6:94)', and His saying: 'Will they wait (Yandhurun) until Allah comes to them in shades of clouds, with angels (2:210)' and His saying: 'Are they waiting to see if the angels come to them, or thy Lord comes, or certain of the Signs of thy Lord comes (6:158)', verily these are truth as Allah, the Mighty and the Majestic, said. However, the coming of Allah is not like the coming of His creation. You realized that there are many verses in Quran whose interpretations are different from their revealed appearance and are not similar to the saying of any human. I now inform you one aspect of (such a case) that will be sufficient for you, In-Shaa-Allah. It is regarding the saying of Ibrahim (mentioned in Quran:) 'I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me! (37:99)' Ibrahim's 'going' to His Lord is his turning to worship and his striving in obedience to achieve proximity to Allah. Don't you see that its interpretation is other than (the appearance of) its revelation? Also Allah said: 'and We sent down Iron, in which is great might (57:25)' which means weapons and other similar things, and His saying: 'Are they waiting to see if the angels (of punishment) come to them' is because they did not acknowledged Allah and His Apostle (S.A.W.) 'or thy Lord comes, or certain of the Signs of thy Lord comes (6:158)' means the punishment (of Allah) comes to them in this world as He punished the ancient nations, and this is the news that the Prophet gave about them. Then Allah states: 'the day that certain Signs of thy Lord do come, no good will it do to a soul to believe in them if he believed not before or if he did not earn good (deeds) in his (state of) faith (6:158)' Here 'before' means before the coming of His sign, and the sign is rising of sun from the west. It is sufficient for the people of understanding to know this would happen when the veils are removed and 'when they see that which was promised (of punishment is fulfilled) (19:75; 72:24)' and in another verse: 'But Allah came to them in such a way that they did not expect (59:2)' means Allah sent them (unexpected) punishment. And such is the bringing of their structures by Allah, as He said: 'Thus Allah brought forth their structures from their foundations (16:26).' This means sending the punishment... Thus, content yourself with what I described for you instead of what has occupied your mind due to (misunderstanding of) what Allah has described in His Book, and do not consider His saying like the sayings of any human, as He is the Greatest, the Most Glorious, and is Higher than what the describers describe, except for that which He has described Himself in His saying: 'Nothing is like Him and He is who hears and sees (42:11).' As for His saying: 'Nay, they deny the meeting (Liqaa) with their Lord (32:10)', meeting means resurrection and Allah has named it Liqaa (meeting/getting together). Such is when He mentions the believers: 'Those who bear in mind the certainty that they are to meet their Lord (2:46)', which means they are certain that they shall be resurrected, shall be gathered, shall be accounted, and shall be recompensed by reward or punishment. The word 'Dhann' here means certainty. The same goes for His saying: 'whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him do good (18:110)' and His saying: 'Those whose hopes are in the meeting with Allah (should know that) the term appointed by Allah is surely coming (29:5)', which means those who believe they shall be resurrected (should know that) verily the promise of Allah in terms of reward and punishment is coming. Thus, here Liqaa (meeting) does not mean "seeing"; rather, it means "rising". Therefore, know that in all places in the Book of Allah where Liqaa is used it means resurrection. Such is again the verse: 'Their salutation on the Day they meet Him will be: Peace! (33:44)' It means the faith does not leave their hearts on the Day of Judgment." The questioner said: "May Allah relieve you, O Commander of the Believers, as you relieved me. You, indeed, resolved my problem."

- Kitab al-Tawhid, pp 254-267, Hadith #5

- Bihar al-Anwar, v90/93, pp 127-140, Hadith #2

4 Seeing Allah by Heart

Unlike the mind and the eyes, the heart can 'see' Allah. Seeing Allah by heart is defined as recognizing Allah through His created signs such as His mercy, sovereignty, glory, etc. Once we recognize the signs of Allah in our heart and through our conscience, we have recognized Allah in our heart. This type of vision does not limit Allah since we do not perceive His Essence, and His Essence is not disclosed to us in any way. We only find in our conscience that, due to His signs, He is not non-existent and is not absent from us. Hisham narrated: Mu'awiya Ibn Wahab asked Imam al-Sadiq (A.S): "O son of the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.)! What do you say about the narration that states 'the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) saw His Lord in anyway he saw', and the narration which states 'people in paradise shall see their Lord in Paradise in anyway they shall see.'" He (A.S) replied: "Verily Muhammad (S.A.W.) did not see His Lord by the sight of his eyes. Verily seeing is of two types: seeing by eyes, and seeing by heart. Thus, (in the mentioned traditions) if one considers it seeing by heart, then it is correct. However, if one considers it seeing by eye, then he has certainly disbelieved in Allah and in His signs. This is because the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) said: 'He who likens Allah to His creations has indeed become a disbeliever.' Indeed, my father narrated me from his father from al-Husain Ibn Ali (A.S) who said, the Commander of Believers (A.S) was asked: 'Have you seen your Lord?' He (A.S) said: 'How could I worship the one I do not see? Eyes can not see Him in an eye-witnessing process, but the hearts can see Him through the reality of faith.'" Then the Imam (A.S) continued: "Any thing that the eye could reach is a created (being) and any created being needs a creator. Thus, (if one could see his Lord by his eye) the eye has made Him a created being, not eternal. He who likens Him to His creatures has indeed taken associates with Allah. Woe onto them! Haven't they heard that Allah said: 'Visions can not reach Him, and He reaches to all visions, and He is Subtle well-aware (of all things) (6:103)' and His saying: 'By no means canst thou see Me; But look upon the mount; if it abides in its place, then shalt thou see Me. When (the created light of) his Lord manifested to the Mount, He made it as dust (7:143)' Verily He revealed just an amount of His (created) light that could pass through the eye of a needle, which struck the mountain. 'And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: Glory be to Thee! To Thee I turned' from the saying of he who thinks you can be seen, and returned to my understanding of you that the sight can not reach you 'and I am the first to believe (7:143)' means the first to confess that you see and you are not seen."

- Kifayatul Athar, p260

- al-Bihar, v4, p54, Hadith #32

5 Visiting Allah

The Ahlul-Bayt (A.S) have also provided an in-depth interpretation regarding the topic of Visiting Allah. Here, I quote a number of traditions in this regard. In a very interesting tradition from Imam al-Ridha (A.S), which is widely reported in our Hadith literature, Abu Salt (ra) narrated:

I asked Ali Ibn Musa al-Reza (A.S): "O son of the Apostle of Allah! What do you say about that which is narrated by the people of Hadith that the believers will visit (Ziyarat) their Lord (Rabb) from their houses in Paradise?" He (A.S) said: "O Aba Salt! Verily Allah gave His Prophet, Muhammad (S.A.W.), superiority/excellence over all His creatures from the Prophets to the Angels. He made/defined obedience to him as obedience to Him, pledging oath to him as pledging to Him, and visiting (Ziyarat) him in this world and in the Hereafter as visiting Him. Allah, the Mighty and the Majestic, said: 'Whoever obeys the Apostle, he has indeed obeyed Allah (4:80)' and 'Verily those who pledge allegiance to you, they have indeed pledged allegiance to Allah; the Hand of Allah is over their hands (48:10)'. And the Prophet (S.A.W.) said: 'He who visits (Ziyarat) me in my life or after my death has indeed visited Allah.' In fact, the degree/level of the Prophet (S.A.W.) in the paradise is the highest (of all), and thus he who visits him in his degree from his house in Paradise has indeed visited Allah." I further asked the Imam: "O son of the Apostle of Allah! What is the meaning of the Hadith that (people) narrate: 'The reward of saying, there is no God but Allah, is looking toward the face of Allah.'" The Imam (A.S) replied: "He who attributes Allah a face like faces, has become a disbeliever. The face of Allah is His Prophets, His Apostles and His Proofs, peace be upon them, by whom people are attracted to Him and His religion and get to know Him. Allah, the Mighty and the Majestic, said: 'All that is over it shall perish, but shall remain the face of thy Lord, to Whom belong Majesty and Honor. (55:26-27)' Further Allah said: 'Everything shall perish but His face. (28:88)' Thus (the above Hadith means) looking toward the Apostles of Allah, His Prophets, and His Proofs in their degrees is a great reward for the believers in the Day of Judgment. And verily the Prophet (S.A.W.) said: 'He who hates my Ahlul-Bayt and my progeny, he shall not see me (i.e., shall not see my mercy) nor shall I see him (i.e., nor do I pay attention to him) on the Day of Judgment.' He (S.A.W.) also said: 'Verily amongst you are people who shall not see me after my departure.' O Aba Salt! Verily Allah cannot be described by place and cannot be captured by eyes or by thinking/imagination."

- al-Ihtijaj, v2, p408

- Uyun Akhbar al-Ridha, v1, p115, Hadith #3

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p117, Hadith #21

- al-Bihar, v4, p31, Hadith #6

We have numerous traditions stating that the Prophet (S.A.W.) and his Ahlul-Bayt (A.S) are the "face" of Allah, His "eye", His "tongue", and His "hand", etc. Allah is exalted beyond having organs, as He is the creator of the face, eye, tongue and hand. Whatever is other than Allah falls into the category of His creation, including what is called the "face of Allah", and Allah does not need any of His creation. Anywhere in the Quran where these words have been used for Allah actually refer to the best creation of Allah, and does not refer to His Essence. In fact, it is narrated that Imam Ali (A.S) unequivocally stated:Imam Ali (A.S) said: "Any verse in the Book of Allah where any of the words 'eye', 'face', 'hand', or 'side' is mentioned (for Allah) refers to al-Wali."

- Bihar al-Anwar, v25, p172

The word al-Wali means the friend of Allah who is authorized by Him over His creations. Thus, visiting Allah in this world and in the Day of Judgment is defined as seeing the face of Allah, that is, the light of Prophet Muhammad and his family, peace be upon them. The face is the means of identification. Thus, to know Allah, one should look at His face! This means that the proofs of Allah were the means of attraction towards Allah, and only through them, one could properly recognize Him. The meaning of the word "al-Hujja" (the Proof of Allah) refers to the same fact.

The verse 28:88 of Quran that was mentioned in the Hadith of Imam al-Ridha (A.S), "Everything shall perish but His face", does not prove eternity for the face of Allah. It rather gives evidence to the fact that the role of the Proofs of Allah does not come to end by the death of their bodies. In the commentary of the above verse, Imam al-Sadiq (A.S) said:"It means everything shall perish but His religion. The Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) and the Commander of Believers (A.S) were His religion and His face, and His eye amongst His servants, and His tongue by which He spoke, and His hand over His creatures. And we are the face of Allah by which (people) are turned/directed toward Allah. We are always present to His servants so long as Allah wishes to keep them, and afterwards Allah shall take us towards Himself and shall do with us what He pleases."

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p151, Hadith #7

- al-Bihar, v4, p7, Hadith #14

The fact that the light of Prophet Muhammad and his family (peace be upon them all) was the first creation of Allah is even acknowledged by the Sunnis. Of the traditions they have narrated in this regard is the following Hadith on the authority of Salman al-Farsi (R.A) who said:

I heard the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) saying: "I and Ali were one light in the hands of Allah fourteen thousand years (14,000) before He created Adam (A.S). When Allah created Adam (A.S) He divided that light into two parts, I being one part and Ali being the other."

Sunni References:

- Mizan al-I'tidal, by al-Dhahabi, v1, p235

- Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p663, Tradition #1130

- al-Riyadh al-Nadhira, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, v2, p164, v3, p154

- History of Ibn Asakir

As mentioned in the previous section, seeing Allah by the heart means recognition/identification (Ma'rifa) of Allah through the heart. Now, according to the following traditions, the recognition of Allah is defined as the recognition of the light of Prophet Muhammad and his Ahlul-Bayt, peace be upon them. Salman al-Farsi (R.A) and Abu Dhar (R.A) both narrated: The Leader of the Faithful (A.S) said: "Certainly, no one's faith becomes complete until he knows me by the recognition of my light. Once he knows me by such recognition (Ma'rifat), his heart has passed Allah's test for (perfect) faith and Allah has opened his bosom for submission and has become cognizant (Arif) with vision. He who falls short of such recognition will (remain) doubtful. O Salman! O Jundab! Recognition (Ma'rifat) of my light is recognition of Allah (SWT), and recognition of Allah (SWT) is recognition of my light."

- Bihar al-Anwar, v26, p1, Hadith #1

Note that, the light of Allah is His creation. However, since we have no way to understand the Essence of Allah, and that the recognition of His Essence can only be purifying Him from anything that we understand, Allah has "defined" His recognition as the recognition of His greatest sign, that is the recognition of His light. This is as much as we can observe, and we are not able to see beyond this created light. This light, the first creation of Allah, is the light of the Prophet (S.A.W.) and his Ahlul-Bayt (A.S). A person who reaches to this light has reached to the climax of understanding Allah since he has recognized His greatest sign. Imam Hasan al-Askari (A.S) said: Imam al-Reza (A.S) said: "Allah is known/recognized by the signs and is proven by the indications."

- Tafsir Imam Hasan al-Askari (A.S), p50, Hadith #24

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p47, Hadith #9

- Bihar al-Anwar, v4, p303, Hadith #31

The greater the sign, the greater the recognition. A person who has recognized the greatest sign of Allah (i.e., the light of the Prophet (S.A.W.) and his Ahlul-Bayt (A.S)), has attained the greatest recognition (Ma'rifat) of Allah. Muhammad Ibn Muslim narrated:

Imam al-Baqir (A.S) said: "Avoid pondering on (the Essence of) Allah. However, when you intend to look towards His majesty, then look towards His greatest creation."

- al-Kafi, v1, p93, Hadith #7

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p457, Hadith #14

- Wasa'il al-Shia, v16, p195, Hadith #21327

Moreover, Salama Ibn Ataa narrated:Imam al-Sadiq (A.S) said: al-Husain Ibn Ali (A.S) said: "O People! Certainly Allah, the Glorious, created the servants so that they recognize/know Him, and when they recognize Him they serve/worship Him, and when they worship Him they will have no need to worship other than Him." At this time someone asked: "May my father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Son of the Apostle of Allah! What is the recognition (Ma'rifat) of Allah?" He (A.S) replied: "The recognition of the Imam of the time whose obedience is obligatory to People."

- Ilal al-Sharaye', part 1, p9, Hadith #1

- Kanz al-Fawa'id, v1, p328,

- Bihar al-Anwar, v23, p83, Hadith #22

- Tafsir Nur al-Thaqalain, under Verse 51:56

In another Hadith, Abi Basir narrated: Imam al-Sadiq (A.S) said: The Commander of Believers said: "I am the Guide, and the Guided, ... I am the leader of Believers towards Paradise. I am the Strong Rope of Allah, the trustworthiest handhold, and the word of Taqwa. I am the eye of Allah, His truthful tongue, and His hand. I am the side of Allah about whom (Allah) sates: 'Lest the soul should (then) say: 'Ah! Woe onto me that I neglected (my duty towards)/abandoned/abused the side of Allah (39:56).' I am the outstretched hand of Allah in Mercy over His creation, and I am the door of forgiveness. Whoever recognizes me and recognizes my rights has indeed recognized His Lord, because I am the Wasi of His Prophet on His Earth and His Proof over His creation. No one would deny this but he who has denied Allah and His Apostle."

- al-Ikhtisas, p248

- Kitab al-Tawhid, p164, Hadith #2

- Ma'ani al-Akhbar, p17, Hadith #14

- Bihar al-Anwar, v24, p198, Hadith #27

When something is very close to a person it will be on his side. Imam Ali is called the 'side' of Allah as he has become 'close' to Him through obedience so much so that neglecting his right would mean neglecting Allah's right, forsaking him would mean forsaking Allah, and recognizing him in heart would mean recognizing Allah in heart.

Moreover, they being the "eye" of Allah mean that the light of Prophet (S.A.W.) and his family are witness to mankind. Nonetheless, this does not mean Allah is in need of them for watching over the creation. Allah has full knowledge and is witness over all His creation. This rather means Allah has chosen them to be also witnesses to their acts much the same as He has chosen some angels to be witnesses over each and every action of the human being.

Similarly, they being the "tongue" of Allah clearly means that Allah speaks to mankind through them. They inform them of His orders and His commandments, explain His message, and protect His religion.

As for them being the outstretched "hand" of Allah in mercy, shows that the mercy of Allah reaches to His creation only through them. The hand can also refer to power. Allah shows His power through them. Certainly, Allah does not need anyone to work for Him; however, His glory is exalted to do simple jobs in person. He has created some servants and angels and has assigned them different duties, while He has full control above them. Moreover, He attributed their acts to Himself, as He has ordered them of those acts and He knows that they exactly follow His commandments.

Those who have denied the virtues of Ahlul-Bayt (A.S), could not explain the above-mentioned verses of Quran any other way except that they considered Allah as having a body complete with organs such as a face, hands, eyes, sides, etc. The essence of such a god can surely be seen. They have limited Allah to their faculties, and by claiming to see the Essence of Allah through their eyes, they have fallen into a clear kind of polytheism (Shirk).

May Allah grant us knowledge and Taqwa, save us from the Fitna of Satan, the accursed. May Allah hasten the advent of our Imam (A.S), and quench our thirst through his knowledge and his company.

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3332

Also from Itiqad al-Imamiyyah of Shaykh Saduq [ar].

As for the reports (akhbar) which lead ignorant persons to imagine that Allah is comparable to His creatures, their meanings can be understood by the significance of similar passages in the Qur'an. For example, in the Qur'an (we have): "Everything is perishable except His Face (wajh)" [28,88]. Now the meaning of wajh, in this context, is din (religion). And wajh is that whereby Allah is attained and wherewith one can turn to Him .

And in the Qur'an (we have): "On the day when the leg shall be bared and they shall be summoned to prostrate themselves, but they cannot; humbled shall be their eyes, and abasement shall overspread them for they had been summoned to prostrate themselves while they were yet unhurt" [68,42-43]. Now saq (leg) means the result or consummation of the affair and its intensity.

And (there occurs) in the Qur'an: "Lest a soul should say: Oh woe to me! for what I neglected in my duty (janb) towards Allah!" [39, 56]. Here janb means obedience.

And (we have) in the Qur'an: "And I breathed into it of My spirit" [15, 29]. Now that spirit (ruh) was created by Him, and Allah had breathed of it into Adam and Jesus. He only said: "My ruh" and He said: "My house"; "My slave", "My garden", "My fire", and "My earth".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allah (swt) cannot be fully preceived but vision is possible to it's degree. There are visions and experiences of Allah (swt) Light but just Allah (swt) cannot be fully perceived.

There is many hadith and du'as (see the Munajat of Zainal Abideen (as)) that talk about seeing Allah (swt). The only thing is we cannot fully see Allah (swt), not that any vision is not possible. Rather there is different levels of Vision of the Unseen, and different levels of the Unseen Glory, while Allah (swt) is infinite.

If you don't believe meeting Allah (swt), you've rejected one of the most fundemental beliefs in Quran, Just because full perception of Allah (swt) is not possible, doesn't mean we should reject any vision possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Musa (as) seeing, according to Du'a Seemat he saw what asked to see. It's unconceivable a Nabi would ask Allah (swt) to be fully shown as this is outside Tawheed. According to du'a Seemat he was shown a Glory beyond the all Angels (as).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what did Hallaj [la] mean when he said this?

Yet another nice devious attempt. We were talking about the saying "Ana al-Haqq", and now you suddenly try and change the statement under question ? Is that because you have nothing further to say on the issue and just wanted to avoid admitting you were wrong ?

Also, how come a great scholar and companion of Imam Hasan al Askari [as] and Imam Mahdi [atfs] i.e. Abu Sahl Nawbakhti [ar] reject and ridicule Hallaj [la] if he was on the right path?

I never said he was on the right path. You only incorrectly assumed this. I only defended that from him which maybe be common to us both. In fact, I haven't mentioned anything about him being on the right path or astray, but now that you mention it, I do consider him to have gone astray [but for reasons I haven't not stated yet]..

And before you say it, {a} just because a person is devious, this is not a proof for all his beliefs being devious and {b} just because two people (A & B) share the same belief, does not necessarily mean that B got his belief from the A.

And as for your accusation that I have said that Khomeini is the same as Hallaj [whatever that means ] is a lie and an accusation.

Uh..

Whizbee: So now, we know for a fact that Hallaj was a najis kafir and still you have Khomeini comparing himself with Hallaj.

You accept that {a} Hallaj is a najis kafir [Premise 1] and {b} Khomeini is comparing himself with Hallaj [Premise 2], thus you consider Khomeini a najis kafir. You are right that you didn't explicitly say this, but this is a definite [syl]logical deduction from your school of thought - so don't try to excape/run away from it. And fyi, the proponents of the school of seperation did not hide this fact either (read Khomeini pre-revolution)..

It only gets clearer that Khomeini keeps contradicting himself.

This is the root of the problem for the lock on your heart. You grab hold of the allegorical poems, and consider the firm statements and explanations as "contradictions" to them, just as an atheist may think there is a "contradiction" between the ayah's of the Qu`ran:

[3:7] He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages
that are
clear
in and by themselves -
and these are the essence of the divine writ
- as well as others that are
allegorical
.
Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ which has been expressed in
allegory
,
seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion
, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning. Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.

Hrmm: "seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion" - I couldn't have put it any better myself..

"messages that are clear in and by themselves - and these are the essence of the divine writ" - So when the firm message of Khomeini's rejection of any sort of shirk is made clear to you, by what logic do you ignore this [labelling it as "contradiction] and continue to consider him as kafir, because of allegorical poem, whose meaning you have no idea of ?

So by definition, nothing I say will help alleviate your sickness, since before anything has been said, you have already decided it is a contradiction if it is against your current conclusions..

[10:74] AND THEN, after him, We sent forth [other] apostles-each one unto his own people -and they brought them all evidence of the truth;
but they would not believe in anything to which they had once given the lie:
thus it is that We seal the hearts of such as [are wont to] transgress the bounds of what is right.

[16:108] They whose hearts and whose hearing and whose sight God has sealed -
it is they, they who are heedless !

Another example would be the wahabbi who considers "Ya Ali Madad" kufr, and any explanation showing that it isn't to be a contradiction to it..

Or the statment by Imam Ali [AS], that he is the "Eye of Allah [sWT]"..

These sufis believed in fana as in merging with God. WHY are they being included among the "urafa" if the fana of Irfan is nothing like the fana of Sufism?

As I just said, I know you will not accept the following, but I shall post it for the benefit of others:

Allamah Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai:
The chain of the teachers of gnosis goes back to Imam Ali. The number of the sufi orders which have taken part in imparting the mystic knowledge is more than 100, but the main orders are not more than 25. All these orders go back to Imam Ali. Almost all of them belong to the Sunni denomination. Only two or three of them are Shi'ite. Some of these orders are traced back through Ma'ruf Karkhi to Imam Ali Reza.
But we belong to none of these orders
and follow the directions of the late Akhund, who had nothing to do with these orders.

[After giving a lengthy explanation of each preceptor in his chain:]

This is the chain of my preceptors which goes back to the above mentioned weaver through the late Shushtari.

(xxi) Preceptor and Spiritual Guide, Rules of Attaining Spiritual Perfection, Light Within Me

Also note that Tabataba`i's [QS] chain of teachers/preceptors goes back through the late Haji Mirza Ali Agha Qazi, who was also the teacher of many other notable scholars, like Sayed Al-Khoei [QS]..

You ignored my reply when I posted Ayatullah Marashi Najafi's opinion on the Sufis. Also you ignored Ayatullah Khoei's explanation of how Sufis are najis.

No - these Ayatullahs give a proper explanation of the deviants they label Sufi's - hence clearly defining the term. And I am in full agreement with what they say, so what is the problem ? To borrow a phrase from Khomeini: "No sensible person in their right mind would suggest such a thing". It is, however, only over-zealous ignoramus's seeking to create fitna and attach the label of kufr to very top scholars which fail to comprehend the basic rules of critical thinking and apply qiyas, to extend the takfir to everything which is called/linked to a sufi. I have already explained this principle in a previous post, so I am not going to go into detail into it again..

We have all already rejected such sufi's/ideas, so I don't know what the reason is behind your desperate persistence to continually attach these heresies to us (other than to create fitna and deception).

The excerpt posted was a commentary on Urwatul Wuthqaa in which, under the Bab of Najasah, it is mentioned that anyone who believes in fana, ittihad, hulul or tajassum is a kafir and hence najis.

Again, only fana as defined in the excerpt. Clearly not the fana, as say for example, defined by Tabataba`i [QS] in Lubb Al-Lubb - wouldn't you agree ? And no-one here is claiming to believe in "ittihad, julul or tajassum", so I don't even know why you bothered mentioning them. In fact, if you look in one of my previous posts, I posted an extract which showed that even Ibn Arabi himself defended his beliefs as being different to these, as accused by Ibn Taymiyyah..

Truly you have deluded yourself into believing that you have understood WW.

There is no such thing as WW. Please see my posts in the other thread.

Too bad for you that there are scholars who reject WW

No - they only reject it insofar as their own understanding of it perceives it as incorrect.

and also there are men who differ on what WW actually is [Amuli, Yazdi].

Again, if you knew what the nature of "WW" actually was, you would also understand the reason for these differences..

Because I don't have the CON and he would want the chain to see if it's authentic or not.

You mean to say the hadeeth is missing it's isnaad ? You knew this, and yet continued to use it as part of your argument ?

Just a recap of what Mulla Sadra has said:

Taking single-liners out of context (especially on a very complex idea) and thus annihilating their meaning is only the wahabbi-way to go about things, and as the Qu`ran puts it, you are only "seeking out what is bound to create confusion"..

Oh, and what you posted in #118 is very ironic btw (seeing/visiting Allah [sWT], the story of Musa [AS], etc), as it just echoes exactly the Irfani beliefs (see: Mutahhari, Ashna`i ba Ulum-e Islami, Ch1). Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot..

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my objections which were completely ignored and still remain unanswered.

Mulla Sadra:

Being is the same reality in all realms of existence; it is a single reality but with gradations and degrees of intensity. Just as we say the light of the sun, the light of a lamp, or the light of a glowworm, and mean the same subject, i.e., light, but with different predicates, i.e., under different conditions of manifestation, so in the case of Being, the being of God, of a man, of a tree, or of a heap of earth are all one Being or one reality but in various degrees of intensity of manifestation. Moreover, Being, no matter where it manifests itself, appears always with its attributes or armies (`asakir), as they are traditionally called, such as knowledge, will, power, etc. A stone, because it exists, is a manifestation of Being and, therefore, has knowledge, will, power, and intelligence like men or angels. However, since at the level of a stone the manifestation of Being is very weak, these attributes are hidden and not perceptible. The various beings in the world of manifestation are all limitations of the one reality or Being.

Also:

Mulla Sadra adds, however, that ultimately the pains suffered in the inferno will come to an end and, as ibn 'Arabi had said, the fires of hell will freeze and all will return to the divine origin of things.

What does he mean? This is not a "one-liner" now, is it? It is a complete explanation.

Also, now seeing no way out, The Persian Shah [grudgingly] accepts that Hallaj as deviated. And yet Ayatullah Mutahhri says:

8. Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj:

Now famous simply as al-Hallaj, he is one of the most controversial mystics of the Islamic world. The shathiyyat uttered by him are many, and he was accused of apostasy and claiming divinity. The jurisprudents pronounced him an apostate and he was crucified during the reign of the 'Abbasid caliph al-Muqtadir. The 'urafa' themselves accuse him of disclosing spiritual secrets. Hafiz has this to say about him:

He said, that friend, who was raised high on the cross,

His crime was that he used to reveal secrets.

Some consider him no more than a juggler, but the 'urafa' themselves absolve him and say that the statements of al-Hallaj and Bayazid that gave the impression of unbelief were made when they were beside themselves in the state of 'intoxication'.

Al-Hallaj is remembered by the 'urafa' as a martyr. He was executed in 309/913. [15]

So a man who believed that you become needless of the worship of Allah is an arif.

Also, for the people claiming that we are against ma'rif of Allah and rejecting seeing Allah [through the heart], the article I posted shows that we don't. What I have posted is my exact stance on the subject.

It's just that we don't believe in the Irfan of Hallaj and Ibn Arabi and so they misunderstand us and start brining up "arguments" against us and saying things like "nice way to shoot yourself in the foot.." when actually we accept the Irfan of the Ahlul Bayt [as] and reject the gnosis of najis kafirs [very much unlike them]

Oh and just one more thing.

And no-one here is claiming to believe in "ittihad, julul or tajassum",

It's not "julul", its hulul. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who have the love of Ahl e Bait can study anything and progress with new and better ways to succeed the humanrace.

Whereas a person who has hatered can learn the whole of Quran but still go no where around it!

So the point i make in just 2 lines is that we can master any subject with the love of the Ahl e bait in the hearts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so am i right to say that this entire argument can be summarised by the reliability of this hallaj fella, and of ibn arabi, and sina?

ive read the whole thread and it seems the pro-this-certain-part-of-philosophy scholars (led by ayatollah khomeini) say he was reliable (although ayatollah khomeini contradicts himself loads of times so you could "prove" he believes anything)

the other side (led by older scholars and possibly even imam mehdi (af) himself) say hallaj was a fraud, sis whizbee and macisaac seem to be of the opinion that we shouldnt mess around with all this mucky terminology and concepts etc, when we can just go straight to the source i.e. the ahlebeyt for guidance

it seems to me that more evidence has been presented proving the dodginess of hallaj and ibn arabi (who thinks 1, 2 and 3 and muawiyyah (LA OTP) were great and we are all pigs btw) than has been proven that they were decent, reliable people, except scholars like ayatollah mutahari who count hallaj as amongst the urefa.

the only conclusion i can draw from this discussion is that we shouldnt rely on sufis to define shia beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that all the discussion about Hallaj and Ibn 'Arabi, for the most part, has diverted the topic of the thread to something entirely different.

The topic is supposed to be about philosophy, not 'irfan... and yet Whizbee has successfully redirected the discussion to 'irfan and attempted to equal philosophy entirely with 'irfan. More importantly, Whizbee has attempted to redefine 'irfan as Sufism and thus all those who have tasked themselves with defending philosophy have of necessity been forced to try to redirect this discussion away from Sufism/'irfan and back to philosophy and have ultimately grown fed up with it. Thus leading partisans of Whizbee and macisaac to believe that philosophy has been discredited. It has not. Furthermore, neither has 'irfan. Certain people have merely tired of continuing arguments/discourse with people that show no room for open dialogue and refuse to accept anything but their own definitions.

I'm not sure what relevance Mansur al-Hallaj should even have to the discussion of philsophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallaj, was indeed an Arif and therefore must be respected. But we should not follow his teachings because he was discourteous to God by not following His Laws. This is the opinion Ibn-Arabi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that all the discussion about Hallaj and Ibn 'Arabi, for the most part, has diverted the topic of the thread to something entirely different.

The topic is supposed to be about philosophy, not 'irfan... and yet Whizbee has successfully redirected the discussion to 'irfan and attempted to equal philosophy entirely with 'irfan. More importantly, Whizbee has attempted to redefine 'irfan as Sufism and thus all those who have tasked themselves with defending philosophy have of necessity been forced to try to redirect this discussion away from Sufism/'irfan and back to philosophy and have ultimately grown fed up with it. Thus leading partisans of Whizbee and macisaac to believe that philosophy has been discredited. It has not. Furthermore, neither has 'irfan. Certain people have merely tired of continuing arguments/discourse with people that show no room for open dialogue and refuse to accept anything but their own definitions.

I'm not sure what relevance Mansur al-Hallaj should even have to the discussion of philsophy.

Asalamu 'alaykum,

I am new to the forum and haven't been able to follow the heated diatribes above (nor do I want to since they are filled with bad adab), so please forgive if my posts miss their marks. Also, I haven't studied Islamic philosophy in too much depth, so please also forgive the occassional slips and correct me if you feel the need. I was intrigued by Zenshiite's post since I have always thought of the inner connection between philosophy (falsafah) on the one hand and sufism-'irfan on the other. The relevance of Hallaj to philosophy, and by Hallaj we mean the doctrine associated by the famous statement "ana al-Haqq", is the Hallajian understanding of the nature of the Self; if we speak about being (wujud), shouldn't we also speak about consciousness (shuhud)? It seems to me that Hallaj, and most of the Sufi's that I've studied, believe that at root the knowing subject, when all traces of ego-complex are removed, is nothing save God; hence "I am Truth", or more precisely, "that which says 'I' cannot but be God." Now philosophical inquiry can only be meaningful if the knowing subject is rooted, beyond all hujub, in God, unless we wish to posit a kind of dualism that would ultimately break philosophy down into a kind of rationalism. It is for the above stated reason that I believe Hallaj is very important to philosophy.

Wa 'Llahu a'lam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asalamu 'alaykum,

I am new to the forum and haven't been able to follow the heated diatribes above (nor do I want to since they are filled with bad adab), so please forgive if my posts miss their marks. Also, I haven't studied Islamic philosophy in too much depth, so please also forgive the occassional slips and correct me if you feel the need. I was intrigued by Zenshiite's post since I have always thought of the inner connection between philosophy (falsafah) on the one hand and sufism-'irfan on the other. The relevance of Hallaj to philosophy, and by Hallaj we mean the doctrine associated by the famous statement "ana al-Haqq", is the Hallajian understanding of the nature of the Self; if we speak about being (wujud), shouldn't we also speak about consciousness (shuhud)? It seems to me that Hallaj, and most of the Sufi's that I've studied, believe that at root the knowing subject, when all traces of ego-complex are removed, is nothing save God; hence "I am Truth", or more precisely, "that which says 'I' cannot but be God." Now philosophical inquiry can only be meaningful if the knowing subject is rooted, beyond all hujub, in God, unless we wish to posit a kind of dualism that would ultimately break philosophy down into a kind of rationalism. It is for the above stated reason that I believe Hallaj is very important to philosophy.

Wa 'Llahu a'lam

His best known written work is the Kitab al Tawasin , in it there is a chapter that has a conversation between Satan (Iblis) and God, where Satan refuses to bow to Adam, although God asks him to do so. His refusal is due to a misconceived idea of God's uniqueness and because of his refusal to abandon himself to God in love. Hallaj criticizes the depth of his love/respect. Al-Hallaj stated in this book [6]:

If you do not recognize God, at least recognise His sign, I am the creative truth -Ana al-Haqq-, because through the truth, I am eternal truth. My friends and teachers are Iblis (Satan) and Pharaoh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...