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

Philosophy

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

As salamu alaykum

I was watching an interview by the young shaykh AlSyed Qazwini the other day, and he informed that when one goes to Qom they are asked to decide which way they would like to focus in their studies, A) Quran wal Tafseer, 2) Fiqh wa Usool or 3) Philosophy. As such i assumed that philosophy is a universally accepted essential knowledge of religous studies.

However, when i spoke to one shaykh about study in hawza, he spoke a little about tafseer and alot about fiqh, and was a little bit dismissive when i asked about philosophy.

Are there some people among the ulema/marja3s who are not great supporters of Philosophy, or could it be that i must have just misunderstood the shaykh?

JazakAllah khair in advance for any replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

(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

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

  • Advanced Member
As salamu alaykum

I was watching an interview by the young shaykh AlSyed Qazwini the other day, and he informed that when one goes to Qom they are asked to decide which way they would like to focus in their studies, A) Quran wal Tafseer, 2) Fiqh wa Usool or 3) Philosophy. As such i assumed that philosophy is a universally accepted essential knowledge of religous studies.

However, when i spoke to one shaykh about study in hawza, he spoke a little about tafseer and alot about fiqh, and was a little bit dismissive when i asked about philosophy.

Are there some people among the ulema/marja3s who are not great supporters of Philosophy, or could it be that i must have just misunderstood the shaykh?

JazakAllah khair in advance for any replies.

Its all a question about whether you are interested in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
As salamu alaykum

I was watching an interview by the young shaykh AlSyed Qazwini the other day, and he informed that when one goes to Qom they are asked to decide which way they would like to focus in their studies, A) Quran wal Tafseer, 2) Fiqh wa Usool or 3) Philosophy. As such i assumed that philosophy is a universally accepted essential knowledge of religous studies.

However, when i spoke to one shaykh about study in hawza, he spoke a little about tafseer and alot about fiqh, and was a little bit dismissive when i asked about philosophy.

Are there some people among the ulema/marja3s who are not great supporters of Philosophy, or could it be that i must have just misunderstood the shaykh?

JazakAllah khair in advance for any replies.

There are scholars who believe that philosophy has no part to play in Shi'i Islam. They mainly object the philosophical trend of describing and defining God. They believe that we have too many ahadith which prohibit this. They are mainly based in Mashhad although you will find teachers in Najaf and Qum too who hold this view.

I can go into detail if you are interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

There were many scholars in the Shi'ite school of thought that rejected Philosophy, and they considered whoever studies it to have become astray, and others even considered that person to have become "najis" (impure), along with any other law that relates to the interaction with a "kafer" (infidel).

This view has, however, changed as time went by and scholars began accepting that Philosophy (the correct one) actually serves the religion to a certain extent, but not everyone can comprehend it, as many have studied it and really went astray due to it's deep concepts, therefore it is not recommended for those who do not comprehend it to study it, as it will lead them to the astray path.

I hope this answered your questions on a quick basis :)

Wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
There are scholars who believe that philosophy has no part to play in Shi'i Islam. They mainly object the philosophical trend of describing and defining God. They believe that we have too many ahadith which prohibit this. They are mainly based in Mashhad although you will find teachers in Najaf and Qum too who hold this view.

I can go into detail if you are interested.

Please do go into detail. This is something I really want to know. :)

And are the scholars hiding something by discouraging deep study?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

I don't understand those who are outright opposed to philosophy and critical thought, which are core to conviction and the essence thereof. Didn't Imam Ali [as] once state: "Philosophy is a tree that grows in the heart and bears its fruits in the tongue"? Faith bereft of philosophy and logic is by definition bereft of conviction and hence blind. One cannot appreciate the truth and its beauty in this way and as such cannot be condemned in the hereafter by a god which forbode contemplation. But the truth should by nature invite you to scrutinise it in every way and from every angle possible.

In any case, the issue is not black or white. I would suggest reading Imam Khomeini's [qs] chapter on Tafakkur (Contemplation) where he discusses the types of thinking which are halal and those which are haraam and the types of people which can benefit and those who won't derive use and instead stray: http://www.al-islam.org/fortyhadith/12.htm

APBA

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Please do go into detail. This is something I really want to know. :)

And are the scholars hiding something by discouraging deep study?

No. They are not "hiding" anything. Rather they themselves believe that Philosophy is nothing but a cobweb of terminologies and a waste of time. They believe that human 'aql is not competent enough to gauge the greatness of Allah because this is what the Imams [as] have told us.

From Tawheed of Shaykh Saduq [ar]:

Imam Ali [as] - Never gauge the greaness of Allah from your intellect lest you maybe among the destroyed ones.

From Bihar of Allamah Majlisi [ar]:

Regardless of the subtlety and precision of your thoughts ultimately they are only cretaures like you and return unto you.

They believe that when it comes to Allah, real knowledge lies only with the Ahlul Bayt [as] and it is deviation to look towards others/their own 'aql for this knowledge.

As I have mentioned you will find that the ulema of Mashhad are the ones who have this stance on the issue. Unfortunately because those in power are pro-philosophy the books of these scholars are not published on a real large scale or allowed to get too popular.

The scholar who was responsible for renewing this school of thought was Ayatullah Mirza Mahdi Isfahani [ar] who has met Imam [as] and attained guidance from him. Here is the incident of when he met Imam [as].

Obtain Knowledge Only Through Us, Ahlul Bayt (a.s)

A marhoom Ayatullah (r.a) was one of the well-known scholars of the last decades. He was a spiritual leader as well as a jurist. He was a great spiritual and moral influence for years upon the Hauz-e-Ilmia of Mashhad. The present great schools of thoughts are a result of his teachings. This was because all his life he stood like a firm barrier against narrow-mindedness and deviations. He considered the Holy Quran and the traditions of Ahlul Bayt (a.s) to be the only source of true Islam.

Most of the present Shia scholars and religious leaders had been his students. They have always followed his teachings.

When this great teacher was himself a student, all kinds of schools of thought had penetrated the academic world. For example, the philosophical school, the Gnostic and others. This scenario confused him to a great extent.

Being a revolutionary thinker, he could not decide upon the direction that he should take for spiritual advancement.

At last he prayed to Hazrat Vali Asr (a.s) and sought his help to find a way for him.

Hazrat (a.s) honored him by his presence when he was in Wadi-us-Salaam, Najaf sitting near the graves of Prophet Hud (a.s) and Prophet Saleh (a.s). Hazrat (a.s) met him and guided him too. . . When he called Imam (a.s) for help with his eyes filled with tears he was rewarded with the visit from Imam (a.s). He not only had the honor of seeing the Imam (a.s) with his own eyes but he was also cured of the disease of indecision.

When he awoke and looked at Hazrat (a.s) he saw a green band on the chest of Imam (a.s). It was 20 centimeters wide and 40 centimeters long. Inscribed upon it in luminous white were the following words:

“Seeking knowledge from sources other than Ahlul Bayt (a.s) is equivalent to denying us. And certainly I am established at present by Allah. And I am the Hujjat, the son of Hasan (al-Askari) (a.s).”

The word ‘Hujjat ibn al-Hasan’ was inscribed like a signature. After this, the Imam (a.s) disappeared from his sight.

The timely message of Hazrat (a.s) served like an ointment for his burnt heart. The correct path became manifest to him.

After this event of having been honored by the clear guidance of Imam (a.s), the respected scholar never referred to him by any other title except the title of “Master of All Sciences”.

After this, the Late Ayatullah came to Iran. In Iran, he began to teach religious students through a method purely based on the Quran and the traditions of Ahlul Bayt. His sole endeavor was to keep alive the knowledge and recognition of Ahlul Bayt (a.s).

(Quoted from Deen-e-Fitrat vol.1)

I know this is a rather touchy topic and it might ruffle a few feathers but I feel it's only fair that people get both sides of the story before they decide on what's right and what's wrong.

Salam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There is no doubt that philosophy [in it's true sense] is permitted, for it is nothing but logical inductions, even though one should bare in mind it is completely independent from religion, in the same way as biology, physics, maths, etc all is as well. However, some people try to use this fact (that it is independent from religion), as a method of luring people away from it, but they forget that medical studies & engineering also fall in this category, and yet none of them are haram, so why on earth would philosophy be too ? If we should stop practicing/learning philosophy because of this reason, label them kafir and then execute them all, then why shouldn't we also do the same to doctors & astronauts ? Evidently, this argument is clearly flawed..

No. They are not "hiding" anything. Rather they themselves believe that Philosophy is nothing but a cobweb of terminologies and a waste of time.

But it's not :) That's what you think it is..

They believe that human 'aql is not competent enough to gauge the greatness of Allah because this is what the Imams [as] have told us.

I don't see the point in mentioning this, other than to demonstrate your further ignorance of the subject; for philosophers also believe this. In fact, if you had even read any works of the philosophers, you will have realised that this is explicitly mentioned at the start of all the works too (and yes, they even quote the ahadeeth).

So then, so far you have defined philosophy to be a "cobweb of terminologies", "a waste of time" and "gauging the greatness of Allah". You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. By the last one you might have meant metaphysics (even that statement is not true for metaphysics either), but you should know that metaphysics is only one branch of philosophy..

I would also wonder whether the Arabic word for philosophy, i.e. "falsafa", even existed during the Imam's time... Now if the narration actually said something like hikma, wisdom, then that'd be different.

Intersting point you mention actually. If you are using this as a point to dismiss the hadeeth in favour of falsafa, then you must also dismiss all the ahadeeth condemning/prohibiting falsafa`, since the word didn't exist at the time, right ? :)

The scholar who was responsible for renewing this school of thought was Ayatullah Mirza Mahdi Isfahani [ar] who has met Imam [as] and attained guidance from him. Here is the incident of when he met Imam [as].

Nice to see how you resort to a scholar, "who has met the Imam [AS]" (I don't even know how you can make that claim), but if I were to resort to a scholar (namely those in my sig), then I would be flamed for doing so..

Unfortunately because those in power are pro-philosophy the books of these scholars are not published on a real large scale or allowed to get too popular.

1) They are not published on a large scale, not because they are sent for publishing and then "banned"/"not allowed", as you make it out to be. This is clearly a lie. If you are truthful, I challenge you to bring forth evidence of a case where this has happened then. They are not published on a large scale, due to the defective nature of their own school of thought. No one wise enough to read a few books would take up extremeist ideas like yours (By that I mean, were you guys still to be in power, you would have had great scholars like Khomeini, Mohammad Baqir Sadr, Tabatabai etc all executed)..

2) Those pro-philosophy "in power" have only really been so post-Iranian revolution. Upto then it has always been the other way around..

3) Unfortunately because those in power are pro-philosophy - All praise be to Allah [sWT]..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
No. They are not "hiding" anything. Rather they themselves believe that Philosophy is nothing but a cobweb of terminologies and a waste of time. They believe that human 'aql is not competent enough to gauge the greatness of Allah because this is what the Imams [as] have told us.

It all depends on what you mean by philosophy. There is a difference between conjecture and philosophy. not all philosophers make mistakes, not all of them talk deeply about the essense of Allah. Rejecting philosophy becasue some make mistakes is like rejecting logic becasue some makes mistakes with it.

western philosophy deals with a wider range of subjects compared to islamic philosophy (eg ethics, art , politics etc..). islamic philosophy deals mainly with god.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
I would also wonder whether the Arabic word for philosophy, i.e. "falsafa", even existed during the Imam's (as) time... Now if the narration actually said something like hikma, wisdom, then that'd be different.

would it make a huge difference if the imams never mentioned it? did they teach the following terms with their modern meanings:

ilm ul rijal

mantiq

islamic economics

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

No. They are not "hiding" anything. Rather they themselves believe that Philosophy is nothing but a cobweb of terminologies and a waste of time. They believe that human 'aql is not competent enough to gauge the greatness of Allah because this is what the Imams [as] have told us.

The assumption here is that those who enter philosophy intend to encapsulate the Majesty of Allah [swt] on the plane of concepts with terms and definitions. However, this presumption is a big blunder on their part since no major Shi'i philosopher aims for this.

The Noble Qur’an is clear that Allah [swt] defies definition”. What the philosopher seeks to do is acknowledge the presence of Allah [swt] and posit the Essence, defend belief in the Creator against materialist attacks through rationality and enlighten those who seek more than blind belief. They do not seek to penetrate the Eternal Essence and dissect its subtleties, which is impossible - even perhaps for the Ahlul Bayt [as].

From Tawheed of Shaykh Saduq [ar]:

Imam Ali [as] - Never gauge the greaness of Allah from your intellect lest you maybe among the destroyed ones.

From Bihar of Allamah Majlisi [ar]:

Regardless of the subtlety and precision of your thoughts ultimately they are only cretaures like you and return unto you.

Yet, Imam al-Sadiq [as] is reported to have said the following:

“The most superior form of worship is perpetual contemplation on God and His Power.”

Usul al-Kafi, II, 55, hadith 6.

This conflict is a clear indication that the issue regarding philosophy and critical thought is not black and white but rather somewhere in between. Hence, I made a reference to Imam Khomeini’s [qs] discussion on the issue in my previous post, where he clarifies things.

They believe that when it comes to Allah, real knowledge lies only with the Ahlul Bayt [as] and it is deviation to look towards others/their own 'aql for this knowledge.

But here is another unwarranted assumption of theirs. They ought to know that to be a Shi’i philosopher does not mean to shun the Ahlul Bayt [as]. In other words, philosophy and the guidance of the Ahlul Bayt [as] are not mutually exclusive activities. What a blunder on their part!

Here’s an example. One of the greatest Muslim philosophers and one of the prides of Islamic civilisation was Ali Ibn Sina. It was he who first formulated one of the most powerful proofs for Allah’s [swt] presence. The principles on which he relied were, as he admitted, inspired by his reflections on the metaphysical teachings of Imam Ali [as]. Similarly, those of our philosophers who follow Ahlul Bayt [as] do not detach themselves from their teachings and wonder off in their own thoughts. This is a very silly assumption and characteristic of those who have shunned rationalistic thought and philosophy.

What's the reference of this hadith?

Sayings of Hazarat 'Alî. Translated by J.A. Chapman. Karachi: Muhammad Ashraf (ed.)

I have also seen it in 'Ali the Magnificent by Yousef N. Lalljee.

In both cases this hadith was cited among other well-known ahadith of the Imam [as] about knowledge and learning.

I would also wonder whether the Arabic word for philosophy, i.e. "falsafa", even existed during the Imam's (as) time... Now if the narration actually said something like hikma, wisdom, then that'd be different.

Well, as you are aware the Arabic word is linguistically almost identical to the greek word philosophia which means the 'love of wisdom'. As such the word existed before Imam Ali [as] was alive and he would no doubt have known this word. As for the exact Arabic term used, I don’t know. But what’s being conveyed in the hadith is what is important and if it is hikmah or wisdom then this is exactly what philosophy is meant to convey.

APBA

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
There is no doubt that philosophy [in it's true sense] is permitted, for it is nothing but logical inductions, even though one should bare in mind it is completely independent from religion, in the same way as biology, physics, maths, etc all is as well. However, some people try to use this fact (that it is independent from religion), as a method of luring people away from it, but they forget that medical studies & engineering also fall in this category, and yet none of them are haram, so why on earth would philosophy be too ?

Philosophy itself is not haram but philosophizing about God without backing up your stance with ahadith is wrong.

If we should stop practicing/learning philosophy because of this reason, label them kafir and then execute them all, then why shouldn't we also do the same to doctors & astronauts ? Evidently, this argument is clearly flawed..

And who said that philosophers are kafirs and should be executed? Dreaming up your own objections and answering them yourself?

I don't see the point in mentioning this, other than to demonstrate your further ignorance of the subject; for philosophers also believe this. In fact, if you had even read any works of the philosophers, you will have realised that this is explicitly mentioned at the start of all the works too (and yes, they even quote the ahadeeth).

And yet you cannot backup any of your philosophical theories with ahadith?

So then, so far you have defined philosophy to be a "cobweb of terminologies", "a waste of time" and "gauging the greatness of Allah". You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. By the last one you might have meant metaphysics (even that statement is not true for metaphysics either), but you should know that metaphysics is only one branch of philosophy..

Okay, I admit that philosophy is a very broad term so it may include a lot of things.

Let me clarify what I am speaking against - The philosophers have defined and described God using their own imaginations. Concepts like Wahdat al Wujud have absolutely NO backing from ahadith, rather we have ahadtih which contradict it's conclusions.

Intersting point you mention actually. If you are using this as a point to dismiss the hadeeth in favour of falsafa, then you must also dismiss all the ahadeeth condemning/prohibiting falsafa`, since the word didn't exist at the time, right ? :)

Which ahadith prohibit falsafa?

Nice to see how you resort to a scholar, "who has met the Imam [AS]" (I don't even know how you can make that claim), but if I were to resort to a scholar (namely those in my sig), then I would be flamed for doing so..

I could care less about what you make of it. That was for the benefit of the brother who asked me to elaborate.

1) They are not published on a large scale, not because they are sent for publishing and then "banned"/"not allowed", as you make it out to be. This is clearly a lie. If you are truthful, I challenge you to bring forth evidence of a case where this has happened then. They are not published on a large scale, due to the defective nature of their own school of thought. No one wise enough to read a few books would take up extremeist ideas like yours (By that I mean, were you guys still to be in power, you would have had great scholars like Khomeini, Mohammad Baqir Sadr, Tabatabai etc all executed)..

2) Those pro-philosophy "in power" have only really been so post-Iranian revolution. Upto then it has always been the other way around..

3) Unfortunately because those in power are pro-philosophy - All praise be to Allah [sWT]..

Indeed. Revile in your ignorance.

For anyone who wants to know how the "Islamic" Republic of Iran functions, trying living there and speaking against any concept that is endorsed by the rulers.

It all depends on what you mean by philosophy. There is a difference between conjecture and philosophy. not all philosophers make mistakes, not all of them talk deeply about the essense of Allah. Rejecting philosophy becasue some make mistakes is like rejecting logic becasue some makes mistakes with it.

But rejecting philosophizing about God because ahadith prohibit it is correct, right?

islamic philosophy deals mainly with god.

No, it doesn't. The book 'Divine Governance of the Human Kingdom' by Ibn Arabi has practically nothing to do with the nature of God. It is completely about human beings and our own qualities and attributes. But yes, the topic of discussion is the philosophers and their unislamic theories about Allah and his essence.

The assumption here is that those who enter philosophy intend to encapsulate the Majesty of Allah [swt] on the plane of concepts with terms and definitions. However, this presumption is a big blunder on their part since no major Shi'i philosopher aims for this.

The Noble Qur’an is clear that Allah [swt] defies definition”. What the philosopher seeks to do is acknowledge the presence of Allah [swt] and posit the Essence, defend belief in the Creator against materialist attacks through rationality and enlighten those who seek more than blind belief. They do not seek to penetrate the Eternal Essence and dissect its subtleties, which is impossible - even perhaps for the Ahlul Bayt [as].

No, that is not the assumption at all. The main objection is that using rational techniques to define and describe Allah without backing up every conclusion, every reasoning with ahadith is absolutely wrong and will lead to nothing but deviation and error.

Yet, Imam al-Sadiq [as] is reported to have said the following:

“The most superior form of worship is perpetual contemplation on God and His Power.”

Usul al-Kafi, II, 55, hadith 6.

The biggest blunder that people who support "Irfan"/Sufism make is that they believe that those who reject their [greek influenced] beliefs reject ma'rif of Allah. This is completely FALSE.

Ayatullah Isfahani has written books on how to gain recognition of and nearness to Allah but he has stressed on using only the methods of the Ahlul bayt [as] and not that of outsiders like the Sufis and the Greek philosophers.

One chapter from a book written by one of his students:

Meeting with Allah: Divine Cognition vis a vis Human Mysticism

But here is another unwarranted assumption of theirs. They ought to know that to be a Shi’i philosopher does not mean to shun the Ahlul Bayt [as]. In other words, philosophy and the guidance of the Ahlul Bayt [as] are not mutually exclusive activities. What a blunder on their part!

Here’s an example. One of the greatest Muslim philosophers and one of the prides of Islamic civilisation was Ali Ibn Sina. It was he who first formulated one of the most powerful proofs for Allah’s [swt] presence. The principles on which he relied were, as he admitted, inspired by his reflections on the metaphysical teachings of Imam Ali [as]. Similarly, those of our philosophers who follow Ahlul Bayt [as] do not detach themselves from their teachings and wonder off in their own thoughts. This is a very silly assumption and characteristic of those who have shunned rationalistic thought and philosophy.

If I ask you to back up the concepts of these philosophers with ahadith, will you be able to do so?

Also, rather off-topic, but the hadith you quoted in the video in your signature is not complete.

"Only love" is a Sufi concept. Imam Sadiq's hadith states: What is faith except love and hate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

No, that is not the assumption at all. The main objection is that using rational techniques to define and describe Allah without backing up every conclusion, every reasoning with ahadith is absolutely wrong and will lead to nothing but deviation and error.

Again, you re-affirm this (incorrect) assumption in your response. I will say again that it’s very naïve to suggest that the highest of our scholars disregard the Hadith in their methods and I have given an example through Ibn Sina vis a-vis the question of God to rebut the naïve illusion of the anti-philosophers.

Of course, Hadith cannot elaborate in syllogistic fashion everything we ought to believe about God but it will only provide the ‘general principles’ we ought to follow and these are clearly in abundance in both the Noble Qur’an and hadith, particularly Nahgul Balagha (see link below).

Philosophy is also especially important today for the survival and defense of Islamic Theism in an increasingly rationalistic and materialistic world. At any rate, the allegations made about philosophy are extremely naïve and exaggerated. If they are true then we must also accept that the bulk of our important scholars and ulama throughout Islamic history were actually infidels and kuffar. If it wasn’t for philsophers like Ayt. Khomeini, Ayt. Tababatai, Ayt. Baqir al-Sadr, Ayt. Mutahhari and others then we can be sure that Communism and Marxism would have taken sway in those lands. What would the anti-philosophers have done to satisfy the minds of our people? It is human nature to question and it is human nature to seek answers and this naturally leads to philosophical enquiry and then metaphysics, though boundaries are prescribed and all credible philsophers know this.

If I ask you to back up the concepts of these philosophers with ahadith, will you be able to do so?

Again, you should not expect a hadith laid out in syllogistic fashion, which is naive since even the Qur'an doesn't do this with simple practises like Salah, but you should expect what I would call ‘general principles’ that guide our philosophy in the right direction. This is the meaning of ‘guidance’ which is different from ‘dictation’.

Now, I am not an expert in Islamic philosophy but I can say that everything I have learned about Tawheed corresponds to Qur’an and Hadith. For your information, read the chapter on ‘Theology and Metaphysics’: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/glimpses/2.htm

Also, rather off-topic, but the hadith you quoted in the video in your signature is not complete.

"Only love" is a Sufi concept. Imam Sadiq's hadith states: What is faith except love and hate.

I hope you enjoyed it.

I don't accept the Sufi notion of "only love". I believe that Divine Love is unlimited but conditional and human love should be accordingly.

As for the hadith, perhaps the one you think of is another, I don’t know. However, the one used has to my knowledge been checked with a Marja' for authenticity and integrity prior to use.

APBA

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
But rejecting philosophizing about God because ahadith prohibit it is correct, right?

No, it doesn't. The book 'Divine Governance of the Human Kingdom' by Ibn Arabi has practically nothing to do with the nature of God. It is completely about human beings and our own qualities and attributes. But yes, the topic of discussion is the philosophers and their unislamic theories about Allah and his essence.

what do you mean by philosophizing about god? if you mean discussing the proofs for the existence of his essense and attributes then that is not haraam. but if you mean discussing the nature of his essense then it cannot be done.

i dont know about the book by ibn arabi. i can look it up. but if you look at islamic philosophy taught in the hawza in qum it mainly focuses on the nature of existence itself and the proofs for the existence of god. compare that to the range of subjects taught in western philosophy courses.

sister can you actually prove with reliable references that the shia philosophers do something haraam? you are making claims but can you qoute something from ayatullah khomeini or his students to prove your point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Again, you re-affirm this (incorrect) assumption in your response. I will say again that it’s very naïve to suggest that the highest of our scholars disregard the Hadith in their methods and I have given an example through Ibn Sina vis a-vis the question of God to rebut the naïve illusion of the anti-philosophers.

Brother, it would be naïve to believe that men like Ibn Sina refered only to ahadith and worked within the Islamic guidelines. Anyone who will read their works can in no way deny the contradictions between their opinions and that given in ahadith. Rather these people were very heavily influenced by Greek Philosophy and their opinions reflect those of philosophers like Aristotle and not of ahadith.

This is an interesting read.

The Rational and Mystical Interpretations of Islam by A. E. Affifi

Of course, Hadith cannot elaborate in syllogistic fashion everything we ought to believe about God but it will only provide the ‘general principles’ we ought to follow and these are clearly in abundance in both the Noble Qur’an and hadith, particularly Nahgul Balagha (see link below).

I will disagree here. If you are saying that what the Imams [as] have told us in not enough for us and we need to use our own 'aql to go further, beyond what they have gone then no, I cannot possibly agree with that.

Philosophy is also especially important today for the survival and defense of Islamic Theism in an increasingly rationalistic and materialistic world. At any rate, the allegations made about philosophy are extremely naïve and exaggerated. If they are true then we must also accept that the bulk of our important scholars and ulama throughout Islamic history were actually infidels and kuffar. If it wasn’t for philsophers like Ayt. Khomeini, Ayt. Tababatai, Ayt. Baqir al-Sadr, Ayt. Mutahhari and others then we can be sure that Communism and Marxism would have taken sway in those lands. What would the anti-philosophers have done to satisfy the minds of our people? It is human nature to question and it is human nature to seek answers and this naturally leads to philosophical enquiry and then metaphysics, though boundaries are prescribed and all credible philsophers know this.

No one can deny that Allamah Tabataba'i [ar] and Ayatullah Mutahhari [ar] were great scholars and no one disagrees that they have done a lot for Islam. But when it comes to beliefs, it is the duty of each and everyone of us to see whether what they said was in accordance with the teachings of the Ahlul Bayt [as] or not.

Again, you should not expect a hadith laid out in syllogistic fashion, which is naive since even the Qur'an doesn't do this with simple practises like Salah, but you should expect what I would call ‘general principles’ that guide our philosophy in the right direction. This is the meaning of ‘guidance’ which is different from ‘dictation’.

Guidelines for general practices like Salah are not mentioned in the Quran but they are mentioned in ahadith so your comparison makes no sense.

I hope you enjoyed it.

Yes, it was a nicely made video and the backgrounds used are really beautiful.

As for the hadith, perhaps the one you think of is another, I don’t know. However, the one used has to my knowledge been checked with a Marja' for authenticity and integrity prior to use.

I believe it is the same hadith but it is sometimes used incompletely.

what do you mean by philosophizing about god? if you mean discussing the proofs for the existence of his essense and attributes then that is not haraam. but if you mean discussing the nature of his essense then it cannot be done.

What I mean is that we shouldn't use our own 'aql when it comes to Allah's existence and rather we should rely completely on the sayings of the Ahlul Bayt [as] and ignore all other external sources.

How many ahadith do we have that prohibit taking knowledge from other than the Ahlul Bayt? Many, way too many.

Here are just a few ones I use time and again here.

Imam Baqir [as] - You may go to the east and the west, you will never find correct knowledge except in the thing that emanates from us- the Ahlul Bayt [bihar V2 pg 92]

Imam Baqir [as] - But you will never find true and correct knowledge except that which people have acquired from us [bihar, V2, pg 94]

Imam Sadiq [as] - He has lied who enumerates himself as our Shia but holds on to the rope of someone other than us [ibid, pg 98]

Imam Ali [as] -O Kumayl, do not acquire except from us so that you may become one of us. [Was`ail ush-Shi'a, v. 18, p. 16]

Imam Baqir [as] - Everything that has emanated from other than this House, is invalid. [Was`ail ush-Shi'a, v. 18, p. 50]

Man, I have quoted these SO many times that I now know all of 'em by heart :mellow:

sister can you actually prove with reliable references that the shia philosophers do something haraam? you are making claims but can you qoute something from ayatullah khomeini or his students to prove your point?

Brother, saying that nothing exists except God is in line with ahadith? Which ahadith have stated this?

EDIT: "Only love" is a SUFI belief.

Moinuddin Chisti :

“Love all and hate none.

Mere talk of peace will avail you naught.

Mere talk of God and religion will not take you far.

Bring out all the latent powers of your being

and reveal the full magnificence of your immortal self"

Click here for the rest of the [Edited Out]py poetry

Rabi'a Al Adawiyya was asked, "Do you love God?" She answered "Yes." "Do you hate the devil?" She answered, "No, my love of God leaves me no time to hate the devil."

Edited by Whizbee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

How are all u guys? Well its been a while since i visited this section so let me make a comment on philosophy and its relationship to Islamic theology. Brothers you should understand what ulama mean by philosophy. First is religious philosophy which base itself on Islamic theology, e.g. since Quran says so then it is so and to clarify this point there is an old Christian saying that goes like this "philosophy is the maiden of theology". This school is similar to that of Ashaarite school of thought is Sunni Islam. The second philosophy is what we call secular philosophy which even thought talks about god but it does not base itself of tradition, e.g. Quran says so but why? Now you see the difference between the two the first assumes that there is a god NO QUESTION ASKED and Mohammad SAVV was the prophet of god NO QUESTION ASKED and Quran is the best book that ever will be NO QUESTION ASKED. On the other hand the second philosophy does not assume any of this but they don't reject it at the same time. I am a follower of the secular philosophy and study it in university. Greek philosophy and islamic philosophy is secular philosophy that need to be distinguished from some types of kalam and theology. Ibn Sina, Ibn Arabi, Mulla Sadra and so many other muslim philosophers are actually what we call secular philosophers.

Now the relationship between shiism (specially twelvers) and secular philosophy. Well the answer is very easy historically the relationship is very intimate and I mean very. And the proof of this is very easy and simple to find and that is most of the secular Muslim philosophers in the history of Islam are actually Shia. Dont believe me look it up and in some cases that they are Sunni the hold very Shia doctrines of aql and adalat. But whether every Shia ulama in history accepted philosophy well the answer is no you will always find people who reject and criticize it.

In the modern era. My brothers I give an advice on understanding any religion. No religion is ever static (meaning it did not change). It is impossible to keep a religion static (like wahabis want). This is a reality of any religion no matter what we want. The time politics and so many other factors come into place when dealing with religion. Twelver Shia were tradtionally a quietist religion, meaning that not only they despised and distance themselves from politics they preached the same massage to their followers. This behaviour came about because of two reasons, one was increasingly oppressive Sunnies and the bad history of our imams and politics, so the ulama came to associate politics with corruption and they were very much right on that. Even in modern day you will not find a politician no matter of his position that is not corrupt one way or another. Any way by coming of safavids that twelvers becoming a state religion which allowed the wide spread of usuli school of shia. Make no mistake that the reason Usuli school was favoured by safavids over akhbary school was political not because Usuli school was better in any way. Any way no matter what shia ulama still stayed away from politics in general. Until the contitutional revolution in Iran which saw ulama taking the front line in political views. If you are Iranian and studied in Iran you must have seen in school history books that Ayatollah Modarres Said: "Our religion is our politic and our politics is our religion". well you might thing that makes sence but this is only a distortion of one of Aristotle's quotation. But more or less such statement was never even thought of by traditional ulama. You see this political shia islam on the rise till the Iranian revolution but this is where it gets interesting. A lot of people see Ayatollah Khomeini's view as being hard line conservative, this image has been strengthen by western media. But the interesting point is that this image is absolutely wrong. Ayatollah Khomeini was not conservative (on political view but not on figh) and he was by no mean traditional in any way. he was on the far left and meaning he was on the opposite side of the traditional shias. I do not think any of you know how much Ayatollah Khoei hated Khomeini. In his two years in exile they hardly even said hello to eachother even they thought in the same place. Khoei belong to the traditional school where khomeini was on the opposite. The idea of Islamic government was heresy to traditional shia. Safavids begged the shia ulama to accept them as religiously legitimate government (the same way sunni legitimate their governments) But shia outrightly rejected the very idea. Sunni called us Rafidhi for one reason because we rejected the caliphs and I am dam proud of my forefathers for that. Any way the shiism that Khomeini introduced was a hybrid of shia theology (figh and etc) and sunni view of politics. And It is the Ashaarte school of sunni that Khomeini used which has a direct opposition on philosophy that more traditional shia like.

But there is far more to the story then simply what I have wrote. There is no way I can give you quotation on what I have wrote since i Have to quote 20 books and another 30 lectures and hours of contemplation on the subject and do not take what i have said at face value and research the subject but make sure to always try to be unbiased. You should read the work of Dr Soroush, www.drsoroush.com, and other Muslim philosophers such as Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr whom is a leading muslim philosopher and a dam good one too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Philosophy itself is not haram but philosophizing about God without backing up your stance with ahadith is wrong.

Good, so why are you continuing your rant then ?

And who said that philosophers are kafirs and should be executed? Dreaming up your own objections and answering them yourself?

Er, you did. Since you agree with the execution of Hallaj [1], and believe that "Irfan = Sufi`ism" [2] (:wacko:) [i.e. Irfan is the same erroneous concepts as contested in Sufi'sm, such as incarnationism, heresy, anthropormorphism, pantheism, etc], we can also conclude that you agree with the execution of all those who believed in Irfan too - Tabataba`i [QS], Khomeini [QS], etc..

So to escape from this dilemma you have either of two solutions: {a} - Accept the kufr/pantheistic ideas of Hallaj, or {b} Accept that Tabatabai didn't believe in the same pantheistic ideas/kufr as Hallaj (i.e. Irfan, is not Sufi`ism)..

I always find it amusing how some people like to attach the label of heresy to one of the biggest Qu`ran exegesists..

I think you will find that it is you who has been "dreaming" the whole time..

And yet you cannot backup any of your philosophical theories with ahadith?

Back what up with ahadeeth ? I said that you will find the same ahadeeth quoted at the start or end of all the major philosophical works too, those which elaborate on the desirable and forbidden contemplation (which shows that they are working within Islamic guidlines). And if you want proof, just pick up a copy of Asfar, Isharat, etc..

Brother, it would be naïve to believe that men like Ibn Sina refered only to ahadith and worked within the Islamic guidelines.

And why would that be ? Let's take a more recent example: Tabataba`i [QS]. Do you believe that his bidayat al-hikmah is also a piece of kufr ? Which part/concept exactly ?

Anyone who will read their works can in no way deny the contradictions between their opinions and that given in ahadith.

I doubt that you have actually read their works, perhaps maybe only to the level of a a wahabbi reading shia ahadeeth.

And what contradictions are you talking about exactly ? More importantly, at times it may appear to us laymen that even the most experienced jurists contract the ahadeeth (just try reaidng macisaac's fiqhi ahadeeth's thread, and compare that with Al-Sistani's risalah), so what makes you think you are qualified to comment on the works of the top Islamic philosophers, when you don't do the same for the jurists ? Does this place them [the jurists] as working outside the Islamic guidelines as well ?

For anyone who wants to know how the "Islamic" Republic of Iran functions, trying living there and speaking against any concept that is endorsed by the rulers.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. But have you ? (i.e. have you "lived there and spoken against any concept that is endorsed by the ruler") ? :)

You are seriously deluded in thinking that Khamenei is just standing on the top of the Milad Tower with a whip 24/7, like Pharoah, punishing anyone who doesn't believe in his heretical ideas. Your stance has blinded you..

And you sidestepped the question very slyly. So, I will ask again: you stated that such tafkiki books are "not allowed" to be published, and all the scholars in the largest shia religious learning center in the world are "forced" into thinking heretical ideas: I want proof..

How many ahadith do we have that prohibit taking knowledge from other than the Ahlul Bayt? Many, way too many.

Here are just a few ones I use time and again here.

With this sort of interpretation of the ahadeeth, you would have been better off born a salafi. In fact, it is people like you who held up the progress of the development of modern education in Islamic societies, believing that we should only read the Qu`ran. And this was exactly the case in Iran upto a few centuries ago (i.e. they only read the Qu`ran in "schools". Everything else was "haram", because it was taken from "other" than the Ahlulbayth [AS])..

So now, beside sending Tabataba`i (:lol:) to the gallows for being a mushrik, the philosophers & the jurists, you have also sent all the researchers, doctors, engineers, mathematicians, geographist etc as well with them. Why ? Because I'm pretty sure you won't find in the ahadeeth the fact that the mitral valve is situated between the left atrium and left ventricle in the heart [doctors], nor the fact that all boolean operators can be replaced with a single operator (nand) [engineers], nor the fact that the second derivative of an equation determines the nature of a turning point [mathematicians], nor the fact that Caracas is the capital of Venezuela [geographists]. The list just goes on and on. Have all these researchers & surgeons who saved lives committed a haram act, because they didn't take their knowledge from Man la yahduruh al-Faqih, Al-Kafi, or Surah Al-Baqarah ?

Do you see how many illogical conlusions your wahabbi-esque hatred for mystics has lead you to believe in ? I could help you understand these ahadeeth (in light of other ahadeeth), but your problem is so serious that you oughta just take some time out to reflect a little more..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Good, so why are you continuing your rant then ?

I believe I made myself perfectly clear but maybe you are slow and need things to be repeated for you. I don't really mind though so it's all good.

Philosophy itself is not haram but philosophizing about God without backing up your stance with ahadith is wrong.
Let me clarify what I am speaking against - The philosophers have defined and described God using their own imaginations. Concepts like Wahdat al Wujud have absolutely NO backing from ahadith, rather we have ahadtih which contradict it's conclusions.
Er, you did. Since you agree with the execution of Hallaj [1], and believe that "Irfan = Sufi`ism" [2] (:wacko:) [i.e. Irfan is the same erroneous concepts as contested in Sufi'sm, such as incarnationism, heresy, anthropormorphism, pantheism, etc], we can also conclude that you agree with the execution of all those who believed in Irfan too - Tabataba`i [QS], Khomeini [QS], etc..

So to escape from this dilemma you have either of two solutions: {a} - Accept the kufr/pantheistic ideas of Hallaj, or {b} Accept that Tabatabai didn't believe in the same pantheistic ideas/kufr as Hallaj (i.e. Irfan, is not Sufi`ism)..

*sigh* Again, I repeat.

No one can deny that Allamah Tabataba'i [ar] and Ayatullah Mutahhari [ar] were great scholars and no one disagrees that they have done a lot for Islam. But when it comes to beliefs, it is the duty of each and everyone of us to see whether what they said was in accordance with the teachings of the Ahlul Bayt [as] or not.

So obviously I don't believe that Hallaj and Allamah Tabataba'i [ar] can even be compared because the latter was a Shi'a but it seems to me that this concept is too hard for you to grasp.

And I am not the one who says that Irfan has been influenced by the Sufis. Ayatullah Muthhari [ar] does.

This ends our brief history of 'irfan, covering the period from its beginnings until the close of the 9th/15th century. We chose to end at this point because, in our view, from the 10th/16th century onwards 'irfan took on a different form. Up until this time the learned and academic figures of 'irfan had all been members of regular sufi orders and the poles (aqtab) or masters of the sufi orders were great academic figures of 'irfan, to whom we owe the great mystic works. Around the beginning of the 10th/16th century, however, this began to change.

Firstly, the masters of the sufi orders were no longer possessed of the academic prominence of their forerunners. It may be said that from this time onwards formal sufism lost itself in customs, outward aspects, occasionally of an innovative nature (bid'ah).

Secondly, scholars who were not members of any formal sufi order began to show profound learning in the theoretical 'irfan of Ibn al-'Arabi, such that none from amongst the sufi orders could match them. Examples of such scholars are Sadr al-Muta'allihin of Shiraz (d. 1050/1640), his pupil Fayd Kashani (d. 1091/1680), and Fayd's own pupil Qadi Sa'id Qummi (d. 1103/1691). The knowledge of each of these of the theoretical 'irfan of Ibn al-'Arabi exceeded that of the poles or masters of any sufi order of their times, while they themselves were not attached to any of the sufi orders. Moreover, this is a development that has continued down to the present day, as can be seen in the examples of the late Aqa-Muhammad Rida Qumsheh'i and the late Aqa Mirza Hashim Rashti. These two scholars of the last hundred years were both experts in the field of theoretical 'irfan, yet they too were not members of any sufi order.

On the whole, it can be said that it was from the time of Muhyi al-Din ibn al-'Arabi, who laid the foundations of theoretical 'irfan and philosophized 'irfan, that the seed of this new development was sown.

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/irfan.htm

As for calling concepts like Wahdat al Wujud, "shirk" and opposing your "Irfan", I am not the first one to do it. Many of our scholars considered the concept of "Nothing exists except God" to be shirk.

Let's see now:

This belief of theirs called "Wahdatul-Wujut” (one-ness of existence), and its motto is "Home Uust" (Everything is He). They assert that Pharaoh and other people who claimed to be gods were telling the truth; their only crime was that they leaked the secret, and that is why they were condemned. They claimed openly that every stone, every idol, every animal and, in short, every thing was a part of God. Once a Sufi was sitting in a mosque when a dog entered and passed urine inside the 'mehrab' (the niche). The Sufi exclaimed: "Lo! You come into your own bouse and make it unclean!" With such generous distribution of godhead' it was to be expected that many of them would claim to be gods. And they did. During the heyday of Sufism, this belief served as a screen to hide every type of immorality Quite young initiates were used for homosexuality. The explanation was that it was not the beauty of the flesh they were after, rather they were seeing in,it the divine beauty! There is no need to remind the readers that this idea of 'universality-of godhead' was diametrically opposed to the belief of the Unity of God; which is the Foundation of Islam. According to the Muslim scholars, such belief was the worst type of polytheism It is in fact 'pan-theism' The idol-worshippers pay homage to a limited number of deities; these Sufis paid homage to every thing in this world, including their own self. To counteract such belief, the Muslim scholars coined another phrase: "Hame Azusf (Everything is From Him) It showed, in a nut-shell, the Islamic belief that every thing in this world is created by Allah (and it is not a part of Allah). Many scholars, during the heyday of Sufism, felt compelled to use the phrases and language of the Sufis, to make their talks and writings intelligible to the masses. And, as the majority of those scholars remained aloof from the hocus-pocus of the worldly; affairs, spending their lives in pursuit of religious knowledge and seeking the pleasure of Allah, some people thought that those scholars also were followers of Sufism. But nothing could be further from truth.

- Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi

Let's just say that I'm in GOOD company :)

Back what up with ahadeeth ? I said that you will find the same ahadeeth quoted at the start or end of all the major philosophical works too, those which elaborate on the desirable and forbidden contemplation (which shows that they are working within Islamic guidlines). And if you want proof, just pick up a copy of Asfar, Isharat, etc..

All I want is a hadith saying that nothing exists except God. Simple and straight. Just ONE hadith.

And why would that be ? Let's take a more recent example: Tabataba`i [QS]. Do you believe that his bidayat al-hikmah is also a piece of kufr ? Which part/concept exactly ?

How about we go step by step?

Ayatullah Mutahhari says:

For the 'arif, tawhid means that the ultimate reality is only God, and everything other than God is mere appearance, not reality. The 'arif's tawhid means that 'other than God there is nothing'.

Post the hadith I asked for and then we proceed.

And what contradictions are you talking about exactly ? More importantly, at times it may appear to us laymen that even the most experienced jurists contract the ahadeeth (just try reaidng macisaac's fiqhi ahadeeth's thread, and compare that with Al-Sistani's risalah), so what makes you think you are qualified to comment on the works of the top Islamic philosophers, when you don't do the same for the jurists ? Does this place them [the jurists] as working outside the Islamic guidelines as well ?

Nonsense.

Stop pretending that you don't know that there are scholars who oppose your ideas. If it *solely* me who opposed your precious works, then your argument would be valid. Now that is NOT the case of course but you like living in your dreamworld and calling me a "wahhabi" when what I say is the view of many learned scholars.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. But have you ? (i.e. have you "lived there and spoken against any concept that is endorsed by the ruler") ? :)

Explain. I'm really interested.

You are seriously deluded in thinking that Khamenei is just standing on the top of the Milad Tower with a whip 24/7, like Pharoah, punishing anyone who doesn't believe in his heretical ideas.

No, I am not.

And you sidestepped the question very slyly. So, I will ask again: you stated that such tafkiki books are "not allowed" to be published, and all the scholars in the largest shia religious learning center in the world are "forced" into thinking heretical ideas: I want proof..

Are you blind, deaf and dumb? Don't you read of scholars being put into prison/house arrest for speaking against the Government? What "proof" is it that you are looking for?

With this sort of interpretation of the ahadeeth, you would have been better off born a salafi. In fact, it is people like you who held up the progress of the development of modern education in Islamic societies, believing that we should only read the Qu`ran. And this was exactly the case in Iran upto a few centuries ago (i.e. they only read the Qu`ran in "schools". Everything else was "haram", because it was taken from "other" than the Ahlulbayth [AS])..

So now, beside sending Tabataba`i (:lol:) to the gallows for being a mushrik, the philosophers & the jurists, you have also sent all the researchers, doctors, engineers, mathematicians, geographist etc as well with them. Why ? Because I'm pretty sure you won't find in the ahadeeth the fact that the mitral valve is situated between the left atrium and left ventricle in the heart [doctors], nor the fact that all boolean operators can be replaced with a single operator (nand) [engineers], nor the fact that the second derivative of an equation determines the nature of a turning point [mathematicians], nor the fact that Caracas is the capital of Venezuela [geographists]. The list just goes on and on. Have all these researchers & surgeons who saved lives committed a haram act, because they didn't take their knowledge from Man la yahduruh al-Faqih, Al-Kafi, or Surah Al-Baqarah ?

Please don't give me this BS.

Although real, correct knowledge of all sciences are with the Ahlul Bayt [as], we stress so much on only taking knowledge of Allah from the Ahlul Bayt because this is about our beliefs. How can we risk something like our understanding of Allah by referring to others for it's knowledge? We may take knowledge of matters unrelated to our beliefs from a non-muslim knowing that even if it turns out to be wrong, it doesn't affect what matters the most. Our beliefs.

When you are relying on your own 'aql, you can never be certain that what conclusions you reach will be correct.

Do you see how many illogical conlusions your wahabbi-esque hatred for mystics has lead you to believe in ? I could help you understand these ahadeeth (in light of other ahadeeth), but your problem is so serious that you oughta just take some time out to reflect a little more..

If I really did care about your "mystics", I would now be trying to annihilate myself and merge with Allah. :lol:

Thank you but no thank you.

And just for everyone's information, The Persian Shah is unique, in the sense that he opposes the Sufis yet endorses the views of Khomeini and company whereas other supporters of "Irfan" praise Sufi "saints" and defend them.

Here's an example.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1604889

And here's another.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1715935

Edited by Whizbee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
All I want is a hadith saying that nothing exists except God. Simple and straight. Just ONE hadith.

How about we go step by step?

Ayatullah Mutahhari says:

For the 'arif, tawhid means that the ultimate reality is only God, and everything other than God is mere appearance, not reality. The 'arif's tawhid means that 'other than God there is nothing'.

Post the hadith I asked for and then we proceed.

Forget about Hadith and Quranic verses! the very sentence of Tawheed.

"There is no god but God!" Everything other than God, in principle, can be taken as a god. Therefore everything is negated through the "no god" part of that sentence.

We dont even have to look at hadith to know that only God exists. The Quran says that everything is the face of God.

[2:115]wherever you turn there is the face of GOD

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

To make it simple; Philosophy is not the means to reach proximity to God. It is only clarification of thinking. You find proximity when you feel spiritual, and that spirituality comes from following what He has ordained. To become spiritual you do not need all these concepts of philosophy, spirituality comes from Him when we do what He has ordered.

However at the same time I hold the opinion that studying philosophy has no harms as long as it is within the pretext of Islamic guidelines by the Aimmah [a].

Thts my 2 rupees

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
And what contradictions are you talking about exactly ? More importantly, at times it may appear to us laymen that even the most experienced jurists contract the ahadeeth (just try reaidng macisaac's fiqhi ahadeeth's thread, and compare that with Al-Sistani's risalah), so what makes you think you are qualified to comment on the works of the top Islamic philosophers, when you don't do the same for the jurists ? Does this place them [the jurists] as working outside the Islamic guidelines as well ?

Taqleed is haraam in beliefs. .while for fiqh, we have to follow the jurists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
*sigh* Again, I repeat.

You can "say" all you want, and even put "[ar]" after the names too, but this doesn't mean anything. For even in the same post you posit that Ayatullah Mutahhari is a mushrik:

Ayatullah Mutahhari says:

For the 'arif, tawhid means that the ultimate reality is only God, and everything other than God is mere appearance, not reality. The 'arif's tawhid means that 'other than God there is nothing'.

As for calling concepts like Wahdat al Wujud, "shirk" and opposing your "Irfan", I am not the first one to do it. Many of our scholars considered the concept of "Nothing exists except God" to be shirk.

:)

I believe I set out a perfect syllogostic argument in the start of post #20 which requires no repetition. Your only two options are: Either give up the belief that mutasawwifun are kafir, or give up the belief that Irfan is tassawuf. You simply cannot hold both these beliefs, and simultaneously believe that Tabataba`i et al was not a mushrik.

How about we go step by step?

Sure, I'll take the next step for you then:

Imam Ali (pbuh) states "God has appeared so very great in the eyes of the men of truth that everything else, whatsoever, seems small and unimportant to them." It is a general rule that when you compare two things the greatness depends on the size of the one who does the comparison. Looking on the side of the smaller, the other being may seem very great, and looking on the side of the larger, on the other hand, the other being may seem very small. Therefore, when you believe in the greatness and superiority of God, all other things will look so very small, insignificant, and unnoticeable. Sadi, (the great Iranian poet) in his 'Boostan' states that mystics believe that nothing exists but God. One of the meanings of 'existential unity' is that when a mystic believes God as the supreme being, he denies existence of anything else. He believes that "If existence means 'He', whatever else but 'He' is nonexistent". Sadi on the same line states that only those who understand the truth will realize the meaning of his words while others will criticize him.
He then continues that the people who are used to reasoning say that if there is nothing but God, then what are the Earth and the Sun and the human beings and animals, whose existence can be reasoned and understood by man.
Sadi then states that, "I do not mean that those other things do not exist, but I mean that when I come to know God as the Greatest Being, nothing else is worth being called existent. When you say 'God is Most Great', from the bottom of your heart, His greatness materializes in your heart, and when it does, no one else will seem great to you.
It would, then, then be impossible to be afraid of anyone. You will never bend down before any one. That is how serving God results in freedom." To be a slave of God is, naturally, accompanied by freedom, freedom from serving anyone but God. Anyone but God may wrongfully seem great to us, and that's why we become a servant of him. All other statements of glorification of God that we state in salat, such as 'glory be to
Allah
', 'glorified be
Allah
', 'glory be to my Great Lord and due to His favour do I glorify Him', 'glory be to my Most High Lord and due to His favour do I glorify Him' - all these statements are certain codes that show His greatness.

Spiritual Discourses, page 52/53

It is shame that you only quote a small snippet from Mutahhari, and then somehow find it in yourself to conclude that he is a kafir; if only you had read the rest of that book too (LWM). I could quote a lot of similar passages like the one above from that same book explaning the arif's tawhid as well..

But like I have said may times: This is exactly how wahabbi's do it too. Quote one snippet, and they are done..

...

- Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi

Let's just say that I'm in GOOD company

You are guilty of qiyas here. You state a few erroneous examples of some sufi's, and then conclude that not only all sufi's are like this, but all arif's too (Since you believe that Irfan = Sufi'ism) :wacko: This is the same as wahabbi's: They will find one guy who calls himself a shia, and whom proclaims that Ali ibn Abi Talib [AS] is God (na'oudhu'billah), and then they conclude that all shia are kafir based on that. Hopefully you can see the flaw in your argument, and understand why I keep telling you that you are using wahabbi-tactics etc. If not, then you must also agree with the wahabbi view that all shia are kafir too :P..

All I want is a hadith saying that nothing exists except God. Simple and straight. Just ONE hadith.

How about an ayah and the statement of tawhid ? I have already explained one meaing of this phrase, but I shall also show you another meaning as well:

Premise 1: There is no God, but Allah.

Premise 2:

45:23 - Hast thou seen him who maketh his desire his god ?

25:43 - Hast thou seen him who chooseth for his god his own lust?

Hence, we arrive at the highest level of the urafa` - fana` (annihilation). Who has experienced "no God but Allah [sWT]" ? He who has no desires of course. This is what fana means: to remove all desires from one self, and it is these people who have really reached the stage of experiencing tawhid; not like us sinners who's hearts are blackened with desires ("gods") and are thus are guilty of shirk. This is what is know as shirk-e khafi (concealed shirk) amongst the arifeen..

We may take knowledge of matters unrelated to our beliefs from a non-muslim knowing that even if it turns out to be wrong, it doesn't affect what matters the most. Our beliefs.

If this is your argument, then I'm sure you will admit that it is was not to be found in any of the ahadeeth narrated. None of them recognise any seperation between knowledge "relating to beliefs", and knowledge "not relating to beliefs": only & simply just "knowledge". Thus, this interpretation is considered from your own 'aql, so I find it amusing how you immediately make the following statement:

When you are relying on your own 'aql, you can never be certain that what conclusions you reach will be correct.

Not realising you are guilty of what you have just stated. Surely there is no greater blindeness than this paragraph..

And just for everyone's information, The Persian Shah is unique, in the sense that he opposes the Sufis yet endorses the views of Khomeini and company whereas other supporters of "Irfan" praise Sufi "saints" and defend them.

Here's an example.

And here's another.

Nice ad hominem attack, but you should know that I recognised the flaw in those arguments, which is also why I took down my largest post [the review of the ahadeeth] on the subject a few weeks ago (I actually laughed when I read it, not believing that I wrote it). In fact, I was planning to rewrite it but I have not found the time yet. Insha`Allah, soon. Most likely, it is probably all because I was talking to macisaac back then way too much, and not thinking for myself :P Allahu A`lam - I am not infallible either. The best way to summarise it is what you wrote in the other thread:

Or maybe he changed his position later on? That is not possible?

With Prayers For Your Success,

The Persian Shah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Forget about Hadith and Quranic verses! the very sentence of Tawheed.

"There is no god but God!" Everything other than God, in principle, can be taken as a god. Therefore everything is negated through the "no god" part of that sentence.

Sorry. Request denied. LOL.

We dont even have to look at hadith to know that only God exists. The Quran says that everything is the face of God.

YOU don't have to look at hadith. I, on the other hand, am bereft of the arrogance that you Sufis possess. I need the Aimmah [as] to explain what the Quran means.

You can "say" all you want, and even put "[ar]" after the names too, but this doesn't mean anything.

You are accusing me of being a hypocrite. I genuinely respect Ayatullah Mutahhari and when I affix [ar] after his name, I really do want Allah to have mercy on him.

For even in the same post you posit that Ayatullah Mutahhari is a mushrik:

I quoted Ayatullah Mutahhari and you ignored the quote.

Agha says:

On the whole, it can be said that it was from the time of Muhyi al-Din ibn al-'Arabi, who laid the foundations of theoretical 'irfan and philosophized 'irfan, that the seed of this new development was sown.

So the foundation was laid by the great Ibn Arabi who happens to be a sufi and yet Irfan and Sufism have nothing in common? :blink:

I believe I set out a perfect syllogostic argument in the start of post #20 which requires no repetition. Your only two options are: Either give up the belief that mutasawwifun are kafir, or give up the belief that Irfan is tassawuf. You simply cannot hold both these beliefs, and simultaneously believe that Tabataba`i et al was not a mushrik.

No. YOU have two options. Either you agree with Agha Mutahhari and stop condemning Ibn Arabi for having deviant beliefs or you accept that what the Ayatullah says is wrong.

And if you choose the former, tell me what is your view on Ibn Arabi? Wanna talk about his "merits"? I am always game for that.

Imam Ali (pbuh) states "God has appeared so very great in the eyes of the men of truth that everything else, whatsoever, seems small and unimportant to them."

blah

blah

blah

I could quote a lot of similar passages like the one above from that same book explaning the arif's tawhid as well..

So let me get this straight. You do NOT believe that nothing exists except God? Or am I mistaken?

Please don't ignore this question because now the whole debate rests on your answer.
(Since you believe that Irfan = Sufi'ism) :wacko:

Ayatullah Mutahhari [ar] suggests that Ibn Arabi is the founder of Irfan. Not me.
How about an ayah and the statement of tawhid ? I have already explained one meaing of this phrase, but I shall also show you another meaning as well:

Premise 1: There is no
God
, but
Allah
.

Premise 2:

45:23 - Hast thou seen him who maketh his desire
his god
?

25:43 - Hast thou seen him who chooseth for
his god
his own lust?

Hence, we arrive at the highest level of the urafa` - fana` (annihilation). Who has experienced "no God but
Allah
[sWT]" ? He who has no desires of course. This is what fana means: to remove all desires from one self, and it is these people who have really reached the stage of experiencing tawhid; not like us sinners who's hearts are blackened with desires ("gods") and are thus are guilty of shirk. This is what is know as shirk-e khafi (concealed shirk) amongst the arifeen..

You are mistaken about what is meant by fana. Anyhow, as I said, do you agree that there are things which exist besides God. Yes or No?
Hence, we arrive at the highest level of the urafa` - fana` (annihilation). Who has experienced "no God but
Allah
[sWT]" ? He who has no desires of course. This is what fana means: to remove all desires from one self, and it is these people who have really reached the stage of experiencing tawhid; not like us sinners who's hearts are blackened with desires ("gods") and are thus are guilty of shirk. This is what is know as shirk-e khafi (concealed shirk) amongst the arifeen..

Please post ahadith where our Aimmah [as] have spoken about annihilation. Thanks in advance.
If this is your argument, then I'm sure you will admit that it is was not to be found in any of the ahadeeth narrated. None of them recognise any seperation between knowledge "relating to beliefs", and knowledge "not relating to beliefs": only & simply just "knowledge". Thus, this interpretation is considered from your own 'aql, so I find it amusing how you immediately make the following statement:

According to another hadith from Imam Mahdi [as]:

Seeking ma'rif [knowledge/recognition of
Allah
] from sources other than Ahlul Bayt is equivalent to denying us.

So although any knowledge not acquired from the Ahlul Bayt [as] cannot be called correct with certainty, we also are asked to acquire knowledge from others [hadith - even if you have to go to China]. However the prohibition on acquiring knowledge of
Allah
from others is clear from the hadith that I quoted.
Not realising you are guilty of what you have just stated. Surely there is no greater blindeness than this paragraph..

That's what you think.
Nice ad hominem attack, but you should know that I recognised the flaw in those arguments,

Better late than never.
In fact, I was planning to rewrite it but I have not found the time yet. Insha`
Allah
, soon.

I would like to know your stance on the issue now as it is related to the topic.

Salam.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

Despite my special interest in 'Irfan and Philosophy I'm in no way an expert on the subjects in the formal sense. However, what they have offered me is a much more natural, intuitive, direct and doubtfree conception of truth or Islam, to such an extent that I often realise that everything I learn about reality I somehow already knew. Its basis on primordial cognition is then for me the biggest proof of the truth of this methodology and its being the core essence and objective of all religion and hence the real intention of Allah [swt]. On that basis, Whizbee, I don't think you've really shown a reasonable understanding of Shi’i ‘Irfan or its objective. Rather you seem to have simply and casually identified and equated it with classical Sufism and its whimsical character.

I want to make the following final points to address some of your apparent misconceptions:

1) If one studies the science of ‘Irfan one cannot fail to realise that the Prophets [pbut] and Imams [as] were themselves nothing but the primary Gnosics; their infallibility and perfection, their self-less habits and conduct, their surreal attitudes in prayer, their perpetual Jihad al-Nafs (spiritual struggle of self-mastery), their holistic vision through connection with the unseen Reality. Now:

(i) they were supposed to be the exemplary figures for their followers, and;

(ii) they demonstrated the characteristics of what we call Gnostics today, albeit at a higher level.

How then can we possibly claim that they didn't endorse this path, at least in practise if not in explicit and syllogistic theory fashion? I firmly believe this is the transcendent Islam which the Imam [aj] will bring and which we’re told many of us will find unrecognisably different from the dry earthly Islam to which many people are accustomed to but bored of (and hence fail to practise) today.

2) The concept of fana’ or annihilation is nothing but the state of divine intoxication of the soul by virtue of its supreme proximity to God, which is the core objective of all religions. It is not the denial of one’s concrete existence. To give you an analogous by inherently imperfect example: it is like when a person is sometimes absorbed in a task with laser-like concentration such that his attention is undivided but rather united on this one object. The Prophet [pbuh] infamously said about Imam Ali [as]:

"Whoever wants to see a dead man walking, let him see Ali Ibn Abi Talib"

3) Ibn ‘Arabi may have been the formal founder of the school of ‘Irfan though most Sufi order (exc. Naqshabandi) trace their roots to the teachings of Imams Ali and Ja’ffar al-Sadiq [as], even if they have deviated from their true teachings.

4) I will repeat that divine philosophy is not completely detached from the teachings of the Imams [as] nor is it without boundaries. Rather, it seeks prove the existence of God and posit the Essence and no more. In this relation all major concepts are not without their corresponding basis in the teachings of the Ahlul-Bayt [as]. The Qur'an and Nahgul Balagha in particular are gushing with metaphysics and urge us to ponder the Divine Essence. Countless examples and references can be cited in this regard.

5) The Shi’i philosophers do not endorse Ibn’Arabi’s extremist conception of Wahdat (shakhsiat or identity) al-Wujud. Rather, they have adopted Mullah Sadra’s more reasonable formulation of Wahdat (tashkik or gradation) al Wujud:

Ibn ‘Arabi’s, may God bless him, view is Wahdat shaksiat al Wujood – personal unity of existence. That in reality there’s no essential distinction between us and Allah [swt]. That in reality nothing exists but Allah [swt]. That everything other than Him is an illusion and fantasy. Whatever is seen beside Allah [swt] is therefore nothing but Allah [swt] himself. Astagfarullah! This is the most extreme form of wahdat al-wujood and is not acceptable to most Muslims.

However, the most reasonable form of Wahdat al-Wujud, which is according to Mullah Sadra’s transcendent philosophy, is that of wahdat tashkik al-wujood. In other words wujud is of different degrees and levels. These levels are Wujood but at the same time their differences are real! So we do exist. Mullah Sadra explains this using the idea of light. He says the candle’s light is light and the sun’s light is light and between them there are infinite degrees of light. So while there is distinction the identity of light at the end of the day is the same.

In practical and mystical terms this means that the spiritual traveller reaches a station in which he sees nothing but Allah [swt] in everything as all things fade into the existence of Allah [swt] like the fading of a weak light before the light of the sun. The Gnostic sees vividly how everything belongs to Allah [swt] and that there’s no independence from him – this is what’s really meant by annihilation in Allah [swt]. In other words, the successful gnostic/believer witnesses the manifestations of the following verses in the greatest clarity to the extent of his capacity:

All praise belongs to Allah, lord of the worlds… [1:2]

Allah! There is no god but He! To Him belong the most Beautiful Names. [20:8]

He is the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward... (57:3)

And to God belong the East and the West; whither so ever you turn, there is the Face of God ... (2:115)

I hope this helps.

APBA

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On that basis, Whizbee, I don't think you've really shown a reasonable understanding of Shi’i ‘Irfan or its objective. Rather you seem to have simply and casually identified and equated it with classical Sufism and its whimsical character.

No, you have understood my stance incorrectly.

I am all for gnosis and in no way am I trying to undermine or deny it's importance.

As you really beautifully put it, it is a much more natural, intuitive, direct and doubtfree conception of truth or Islam, to such an extent that I often realise that everything I learn about reality I somehow already knew. That is a very good description, mashallah.

If you have checked the link I had posted, it also talks about gnosis, albeit not of the Sufi kind. We differ when it comes to the concept of liqa'Allah.

Meeting with Allah in the school of revelation, as stated earlier, is a level higher than divine recognition that is gained by Allah’s introduction and His manifestation on the hearts of His servants. Moreover, this definition is the action of Allah and the servant does not have any role in it except to put himself in the place of this recognition through obedience, obeisance and acting on the obligatory and recommended commands.

Of course, it should be borne in mind that this recognition is gained by preserving the levels of the creature and the Creator (i.e. the creature remains a creature and a distinct entity from the Creator). For, if the creature loses his identity as a creature and merges with the Creator’s existence, there would not remain any duality for which recognition would be called for. Basically, such talks that existence is one and that of the Creator, and the only difference between the Truth and His creatures is that of determination and non-determination, limitations and absoluteness, etc. do not hold water at all in the school of revelation. The Holy Quran and traditions of the infallible Imams (‘a) have clearly refuted such concepts and called for a distinction between the Creator and His creatures and that there exists no similarity whatsoever between the two. The school of revelation considers the existence of creatures bonded to the Creator’s Will (mashiyah) and Intention (iradah), both of which are the actions of Allah. By His Intention, He initiates a creation that did not have any prior existence and brings it forth from the realm of non-existence. Similarly, whenever He pleases, He destroys this creature which He had granted existence.

http://www.al-islam.org/salaat/4.htm

I only avoid calling this gnosis, "Irfan", because I believe that what Irfan we have today is not what our Imams [as] taught because some of the concepts are really messed up.

2) The concept of fana’ or annihilation is nothing but the state of divine intoxication of the soul by virtue of its supreme proximity to God, which is the core objective of all religions. It is not the denial of one’s concrete existence. To give you an analogous by inherently imperfect example: it is like when a person is sometimes absorbed in a task with laser-like concentration such that his attention is undivided but rather united on this one object. The Prophet [pbuh] infamously said about Imam Ali [as]:

"Whoever wants to see a dead man walking, let him see Ali Ibn Abi Talib"

Did Imam Ali [as] or the Prophet [saw] or any of the Aimmah [as] ever declare that "anal haq"?

No.

But Syed Khomeini did.

Farigh az Khud shudam wa koos anal haq bezadam.

Hamchu Mansoor kharidar sare dar shudam.

I forget my own existence and proclaimed the slogan -'I am the truth', and like the Mansoor Hallaj volunteered my self for hanging

Not only is he calling himself "the truth", he also mentions Mansoor Hallaj [la], a man cursed by our Imams [as].

Is this the gnosis of the Aimmah [as]?

3) Ibn ‘Arabi may have been the formal founder of the school of ‘Irfan though most Sufi order (exc. Naqshabandi) trace their roots to the teachings of Imams Ali and Ja’ffar al-Sadiq [as], even if they have deviated from their true teachings.

I would like proof for that.

Countless examples and references can be cited in this regard.

Then I would like you to cite them.

Ibn ‘Arabi’s, may God bless him, view is Wahdat shaksiat al Wujood – personal unity of existence.

I don't think Allah will bless a freak like him.

Mullah Sadra explains this using the idea of light. He says the candle’s light is light and the sun’s light is light and between them there are infinite degrees of light. So while there is distinction the identity of light at the end of the day is the same.

And he is wrong.

Because Allah can never be inside the creatures and the creatures can never be inside Allah. They are distinct and separate. Allah is too far high above his creatures. I can post many ahadith which state this.

And to God belong the East and the West; whither so ever you turn, there is the Face of God ... (2:115)

Tafsir of the verse.

Ibn Abbas says that this verse concerns the change of the Qiblah. When Muslims' Qiblah was changed from Jerusalem to the Ka'bah, the Jews tried to reject it by objecting to the Muslims and demanding of them how the Qiblah could be changed. This verse was revealed and replied to their objection that the East and the West of the world belong to Allah. [Majma'-ul-Bayan, vol. 1, p. 191]

Another tradition indicates that this verse has been revealed regarding ' the recommended prayers '. It refers to this meaning that one can pray his supererogatory prayers in any direction that his mount moves towards, even if he is facing opposite to the Qiblah. [Manhaj-us-Sadiqin, vol. 1, p. 348, & AbulfuTuh-Razi, vol. 1, p. 302]

Some others have narrated from Jabir who said that the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) once sent some of the Muslims to fight in a war. When the dark of night fell and they wanted to pray their night prayer they could not confirm the correct direction of the Qiblah. Then, every one used an approximate direction towards the Qiblah and offered his prayers. At the break of dawn they found out that they had prayed towards a direction other than the Qiblah. They informed the holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) about it and the above verse was revealed declaring that their prayers were all correct in such a condition. [Tafsir-ut-Tibyan, vol. 1, p. 424 & Tafsir Nimunah, vol. 1, p. 413]

Muhammad ibn al Husayn said: "It was written to al Abdu ‘s-Salih: 'A man prays in a cloudy day in an open space and he does not know the (direction of) qiblah, he prays; and when he finished his prayer, the sun appears and (he finds that) he had prayed against qiblah. Should he regard his prayer (as valid) or should he repeat it?' He wrote: 'He should repeat it if the time (of prayer) is not over. Does he not know that Allah says – and His word is true: therefore, whither you turn, thither is Allah’s face?' " [at Tahdhib]

al‑Baqir (a.s.) said about the word of Allah: And Allah's is the East and the West . . . : Allah has revealed this verse especially for the voluntary prayer; therefore, whither you turn, thither is Allah's face; surely Allah is Ample‑giving, Knowing. And the Apostle of Allah prayed on his camel by making gestures (for the actions of the prayer) wherever it turned to, when he proceeded to Khaybar, and also when he returned from Mecca - and the Ka'bah was behind his back." [al‑'Ayyashi]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Because Allah can never be inside the creatures and the creatures can never be inside Allah. They are distinct and separate. Allah is too far high above his creatures. I can post many a hadith which state this.

No one is saying God is inside creation, or outside creation. but it seems that you are tacitly saying God is outside creation since you seem to imply that God is absolutely distinct from the creation which exists.

If God is completely distinct and completely separate from creation then how does God have attributes which are not completely separate from the attributes found in creation?

For instance, creatures are wise. and God is Absolutely-Wise. creatures are powerful. And God is Absolutely-powerful. creatures are High and God is Absolutely High.

What is the point of using the words "Powerful","Wise" and "High" in the descriptions "Absolutely Powerful","Absolutely Wise", and Absolutely High" if the meaning of "Absolute" is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the attributes found in creation? If there was absolutely no connection whatsoever between God and creation then it would be sufficient to call God just the Absolute.

The upshot of all this is to say that God is not absolutely distinct from creation. Yes God is distinct, but not in all respects. So if you have hadith showing that there is distinction, keep in mind that there are hadith showing that God is also similar. The hadith that talk about separation and distance are with respect to God's Essence or Oneness or His Absoluteness. The hadith that talk about His similarity are with respect to God's Attributes like Hearing, Seeing, ect..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

ARasa'il ATawhidiyyah is full of narrations.

On being 'in' creation:

In Nahjul-Balaghah, and also in Al-Tawhid, through isnad to Imam al-Sadiq (a), the Imam quotes Imam Ali (a) addressing Dha`lab thus: “ He is in all things, neither mixed in them, nor distinguished from them.”

In Al-Tawhid, through isnad to Aws who cites Imam Ali (a) saying, “Rather, He is in all things without a means.” Such a meaning and anything close to it is consecutively reported in many sermons and statements.

These have to be read bearing in mind what ethereal has said.

''By You Names which fill the foundations of all things... By Your Greatness that fills all things'' - Dua Kumail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
No one is saying God is inside creation, or outside creation. but it seems that you are tacitly saying God is outside creation since you seem to imply that God is absolutely distinct from the creation which exists.

He is. That's what ahadith state.

If God is completely distinct and completely separate from creation then how does God have attributes which are not completely separate from the attributes found in creation?

He doesn't.

For instance, creatures are wise. and God is Absolutely-Wise. creatures are powerful. And God is Absolutely-powerful. creatures are High and God is Absolutely High.

What is the point of using the words "Powerful","Wise" and "High" in the descriptions "Absolutely Powerful","Absolutely Wise", and Absolutely High" if the meaning of "Absolute" is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the attributes found in creation? If there was absolutely no connection whatsoever between God and creation then it would be sufficient to call God just the Absolute.

The upshot of all this is to say that God is not absolutely distinct from creation. Yes God is distinct, but not in all respects. So if you have hadith showing that there is distinction, keep in mind that there are hadith showing that God is also similar. The hadith that talk about separation and distance are with respect to God's Essence or Oneness or His Absoluteness. The hadith that talk about His similarity are with respect to God's Attributes like Hearing, Seeing, ect..

No. You are mistaken.

ÝóãóÚÇäöì ÇáúÎóáúÞö Úóäúåõ ãóäúÝöíøóÉ.

The meanings appropriate for the human-beings are not applicable to God. [Tauhid of Shaykh Saduq]

æó ÅöäøóãÇ Óõãøöìó Çááåõ ÚÇáöãÇð áöÃóäøóåõ áÇ íóÌúåóáõ ÔóíúÆÇð. ÝóÞóÏú ÌóãóÚó ÇáúÎÇáöÞõ æó ÇáúãóÎúáõæÞõ ÇöÓúãó ÇáúÚöáúãö æó ÇÎúÊóáóÝó

ÇáúãóÚúäóì....ÝóÞóÏú ÌóãóÚúäóÇ ÇáÅöÓúãó ÈöÇáÓøóãöíÚö æóÇÎúÊóáóÝó ÇáúãóÚúäì. æó åßóÐóÇ ÇáúÈóÕöíÑ.

God is named as ‘The Knower’ because He is not ignorant of anything. So verily, the name ‘Knowledge’ is common for both the Creator and the creature but the meaning differs in the case of both......Thus, the name ‘Hearer’ is common for both but the meaning differs. The same is true for the name ‘Seer’. [uyoon Akhbar al-Ridha of Shaykh Saduq]

ãõÈÇÆöäñ áöÌóãíÚö ãÇ ÃóÍúÏóËó Ýöì ÇáÕøöÝÇÊ.

God's attributes are disparate from all creatable beings. [Tauhid of Shaykh Saduq]

æó åõæó ÎöáÇÝõ ãÇ íõÚÞóá

ÅäøóãÇ íõÚúÞóáõ ãÇ ÂÇäó ÈöÕöÝóÉö ÇáãóÎúáõæÞö æó áóíúÓó Çááåõ ÂóÐáöß.

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]

ãõÍóÑøóãñ Úóáóì ÇáúÞõáõæÈö Ãóäú ÊõãóËøöáóå¡õ æó Úóáóì ÇáúÃóæúåÇãö Ãóäú ÊóÍõÏøóåõ¡ æó Úóáóì ÇáÖøóãÇÆöÑ Ãäú Êõßóæøöäóåõ. Ìóáøó æó ÚóÒøó

Úóäú ÃóÏÇÊö ÎóáúÞöåö æó ÓöãÇÊö ÈóÑöíøóÊöå æó ÊóÚÇáì Úóäú Ðóáößó ÚõáõæøÇð ÂóÈíÑÇð.

It has been made unlawful for hearts to find any semblance for Him, unlawful for the imagination to fix any limit for Him and unlawful for the consciousness to create Him [as existent in imagination]. Great and Exalted is He above any compensation by the created, and above the signs of His creation. He is far, far above this, far too far above. [ibid]

Åäøó Çááå ÊóÈÇÑóßó æó ÊóÚÇáì Îöáúæñ ãöäú ÎóáúÞöå æó ÎóáúÞõåõ Îöáúæñ ãöäúåõ.

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

Ýóßõáøõ ãÇ Ýöì ÇáúÎóáúÞö áÇ íõæÌóÏõ Ýöì ÎÇáöÞöå æó Âõáøõ ãÇ íõãúßöäõ Ýöíå íóãúÊóäöÚõ ãöäú ÕÇäöÚöå.

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]

ÓóãöíúÚñ áÇó ÈöãöËúáö ÓóãúÚö ÇáÓøÇãöÚöíúäö.

He is ‘The Hearer’ but not like other hearers. [Tauhid of Saduq]

ARasa'il ATawhidiyyah is full of narrations.

On being 'in' creation:

In Nahjul-Balaghah, and also in Al-Tawhid, through isnad to Imam al-Sadiq (a), the Imam quotes Imam Ali (a) addressing Dha`lab thus: “ He is in all things, neither mixed in them, nor distinguished from them.”

I searched for this hadith and this is what I found.

Things are not mixed with Him and nor is He indifferent about them.

Check H 349, Ch. 22, h 4.

http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:_UhCU.../part3-ch22.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
He is. That's what ahadith state.

yes, exactly! He is! so why God you insist on saying things which imply that God is outside of creation?

He doesn't.

Then you are just confused.

No. You are mistaken.

ok, let us see what our hadith have to say.

The meanings appropriate for the human-beings are not applicable to God. [Tauhid of Shaykh Saduq]

Yes. so how are we mistaken again?

God is named as ‘The Knower’ because He is not ignorant of anything. So verily, the name ‘Knowledge’ is common for both the Creator and the creature but the meaning differs in the case of both......Thus, the name ‘Hearer’ is common for both but the meaning differs. The same is true for the name ‘Seer’. [uyoon Akhbar al-Ridha of Shaykh Saduq]

yes. This proves our point we have been making all along. What do you think we have said that contradicts this hadith?

God's attributes are disparate from all creatable beings. [Tauhid of Shaykh Saduq]

Yes. Thats exactly why we don't say that God is simply knowing. Rather we say God is All-Knowing or Absolutely Knowing. So we already know that God's attributes are disparate from creation. we mentioned that in the previous post.

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]

Why do you state the obvious? Do you really think we are this ignorant? Have you not read our posts? This is referring to God in Himself (Essence). ;)

It has been made unlawful for hearts to find any semblance for Him, unlawful for the imagination to fix any limit for Him and unlawful for the consciousness to create Him [as existent in imagination]. Great and Exalted is He above any compensation by the created, and above the signs of His creation. He is far, far above this, far too far above. [ibid]

This is why we say God is Absolutely Knowing or Absolutely .so and so...

We know that we are not pantheists right? you know we believe in the concpet of Tanzih right?

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

yes. :squeez: and this goes against what we are saying how in precisely what way?

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]

your stating the obvious. We seriously hope you don't think we are that ignorant. you are gonna have to do better than that. You need to start answering our questions and stop hiding behind hadith which we ALL accept and know about.

He is ‘The Hearer’ but not like other hearers. [Tauhid of Saduq]

yes that is why we say He is All Hearing. But try to answer answer our question without hiding behind hadith we ALL accept and know about: why call Him "Hearing" at all if His Hearing is not anything like our hearing? We know there is Absolutely no difference between His Hearing and our hearing. After all this is why we use the word Absolute when we talk about His hearing. But why use hearing at all?

Now all one can say about God is what He is not (if all one accepts is God's Transcendence and Distance) then this would imply that s/he does not have any relationship whatsoever with God > which would imply that s/he really doesn't understand God > which would imply s/he doesn't believe in God.

Take Care

MK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
You are accusing me of being a hypocrite. I genuinely respect Ayatullah Mutahhari and when I affix [ar] after his name, I really do want Allah to have mercy on him.

QUOTE

For even in the same post you posit that Ayatullah Mutahhari is a mushrik:

I quoted Ayatullah Mutahhari and you ignored the quote.

Agha says:

QUOTE

On the whole, it can be said that it was from the time of Muhyi al-Din ibn al-'Arabi, who laid the foundations of theoretical 'irfan and philosophized 'irfan, that the seed of this new development was sown.

I don't think you understand. That's not the quote I quoted from you (and don't pretend you didn't know). Just in case you missed it, here is what you quoted from the Ayatullah:

For the 'arif, tawhid means that the ultimate reality is only God, and everything other than God is mere appearance, not reality. The 'arif's tawhid means that 'other than God there is nothing'.

And then you proceeded to say that:

As for calling concepts like Wahdat al Wujud, "shirk" and opposing your "Irfan", I am not the first one to do it. Many of our scholars considered the concept of "Nothing exists except God" to be shirk.

That's pretty much explicitly calling him a mushrik..

But not only that, in your last post you [also explicitly] imply that Khomeini [QS] holds belief that are "cursed by the Imams [AS]"..

So the foundation was laid by the great Ibn Arabi who happens to be a sufi and yet Irfan and Sufism have nothing in common?

That is correct. Sufi'ism & Irfan do have some things in common. Even before when I was wahabbi in my thinking (just like you) against the sufi's, I still accepted this fact. The following is a statement which I made many times:

Irfan = Irfan

Sufi'ism = Irfan + Rubbish

Either you agree with Agha Mutahhari and stop condemning Ibn Arabi for having deviant beliefs or you accept that what the Ayatullah says is wrong.

When did I explicitly say that about Ibn Arabi ? And yes, I do wish to talk about this, but not in this thread (which if you have forgotten is called "Philosophy") and not right now at all in general, because I am particularly busy atm and this is something which will take up a considerable amount of time if I want it to be done properly and not rushed.

So let me get this straight. You do NOT believe that nothing exists except God? Or am I mistaken?

Please don't ignore this question because now the whole debate rests on your answer.

There is no doubt that "nothing exists except God" in the literal sense (which you are so insistent on saying it is the only meaning), is kufr. What I am trying to do however, is show you that there are other meanings to this though, and this is the belief of accomplished arifs like Tabataba`i [QS] etc..

You are mistaken about what is meant by fana.

No, I am 100% sure I am not "mistaken" about what is fana, but I am 100% sure you are mistaken about what is meant by the term. Please read Tabataba`i's [QS] discourse on this concept in LWM and then you will understand what I mean.

Anyhow, as I said, do you agree that there are things which exist besides God. Yes or No?

Was Sa`di's explanation not clear enough for you ?

Sadi then states that, "I do not mean that those other things do not exist..

Please post ahadith where our Aimmah [as] have spoken about annihilation. Thanks in advance.

Er, I just quoted you an ayah ? :lol:

It is only wahabbi-thinking people like you who cling to the name of the concept and not the concept itself. Did you know that "Wahdat Al-Wujud" was never employed as a technical term until Ibn Taymiyyah used it so ? I do not know the origin of the word fana`, but the concept it symbolises (that of removing all shirk-e khafi), is not only without a doubt a valid Islamic one, but also one that is given very high priority.

However the prohibition on acquiring knowledge of Allah from others is clear from the hadith that I quoted.

O' Rly ? And which one is that ?

Anyhow, this topic deserves a thread in itself, and if you want, we should continue this somewhere else.

I forget my own existence and proclaimed the slogan -'I am the truth', and like the Mansoor Hallaj volunteered my self for hanging

Not only is he calling himself "the truth", he also mentions Mansoor Hallaj [la], a man cursed by our Imams [as].

Is this the gnosis of the Aimmah [as]?

The way you try to use this poem symbolises your ignorance on this topic. Khomeini is not prasing Hallaj here, he is condemning him. Perhaps if you stopped reading LWM like a wahhabi (only read a couple of single sentences on their own which imply kufr), you would understand this:

(xxiii, xxiv, xxv) Remembrance, Recollection, Evil thoughts

These three stages are of great importance for the purpose of achieving the objective. Many people who fail to reach their destination either stop at one of these stages or go astray while on their way to them.
The dangers which these stages imply are idol-worship, star-worship, fire-worship and occasionally heresy, Pharaonism,
claim of incarnation and identification with God
, denial of being obligated to abide by religious injunctions and regarding everything lawful
. We will discuss briefly all these dangers. Let us first talk about incarnation and identification with God, which is the greatest danger and is caused by devilish insinuation when the mind is not free from evil thoughts.

As the spiritual traveler is not out of the valley of ostentation, he may be led in the wake of the manifestation of Divine names or attributes to believe (God forbid) t
hat
Allah
has dwelt in him
.
That is what is meant by incarnation,
which amounts to infidelity and polytheism
, while the belief in the unity of
Allah
nullifies every concept of pluralism,
and considers every existence
in comparison to
the existence of
Allah
a mere fantasy
and everything existing a mere shadow. When the spiritual traveler attains to this stage, he annihilates his existence and does not perceive anything existing except
Allah
.

[NB: The part in green relates back to your question about "nothing exists but Allah"]

In light of this explanation by Tabataba`i (which explicitly condemns Hallaj's saying as well), it is evidently clear that what Khomeini [QS] was saying, is not that forgetting your own existence is a good thing, but it is a bad thing (the word "forgetting" itself does not imply an accomplishment, it implies a mistake). You will understand this better if you read the section in LWM that explains how the path to Allah [sWT] is very narrow, and easy to fall off.

However, I believe that Mutahhari is the most successful one to deal with this issue, where he describes explicitly the likes of Hallaj, who went to the extreme:

Imam Ali, makes a statement in Nahjul-Balaghah saying that "Let it be death but not humiliation" [Hikmat, 396]. Our mystics taught us excellent, distinguishing lessons.
But unfortunately, sometimes their trainings
, under the influenece of Christianity, Buddhism & Manichaeism teachings
go far too much on the matter of fighting and struggle against self-desires and advocating self forgetting and ignoring oneself
. Had they paid attention to Islamic lessons, they would have realised that Islam is after killing one aspect of the self and reviving another aspect. Islam encourages forgetting the mean animal self, but searches for a kind of rebirth in you. Islam advocates another self, another way of living to replace your old behavioural attitudes. It was about twelve years ago when I came to understand that Eghbal has the same idea. His theory of 'self-philosophy' suggests that you should regain your inner self or your human self.
In fact, Islam states that one of the ways of God's
punishments
is to become a kind of human being
who forgets the self altogether
. "And do not be like those who forget
Allah
's Rememberance, so
Allah
caused them to forget themselves"
[surah Al-Hashr, Verse 19]
.

At this point in time, we can conclude for the 103459873456346th time, you are nothing but a wahhabi :P

Edited by The Persian Shah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
ARasa'il ATawhidiyyah is full of narrations.

On being 'in' creation:

In Nahjul-Balaghah, and also in Al-Tawhid, through isnad to Imam al-Sadiq (a), the Imam quotes Imam Ali (a) addressing Dha`lab thus: “ He is in all things, neither mixed in them, nor distinguished from them.”

I searched for this hadith and this is what I found.

Things are not mixed with Him and nor is He indifferent about them.

Check H 349, Ch. 22, h 4.

http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:_UhCU.../part3-ch22.htm

Thats an inaccurate translation.

This is the arabic:

Ýí ÇáÇÔíÇÁ ßáåÇ ÛíÑ ãÊãÇÒÌ ÈåÇ æáÇ ÈÇÆä ãäåÇ

(He is) in all things, not mixed with them, and not separate from them

D/l Usul Kafi from here. Its a better translation.

And in Tawhid pg 306 and AlAmali pg 423:

ÏÇÎá Ýí ÇáÇÔíÇÁ áÇ ßÔíÁ Ýí ÔíÁ ÏÇÎá , æÎÇÑÌ ãäåÇ áÇ ßÔíÁ ãä ÔíÁ ÎÇÑÌ

He is in all things, not like other things are in things. He is outside of them, not like other things are outside things

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I searched for this hadith and this is what I found.

Things are not mixed with Him and nor is He indifferent about them.

Check H 349, Ch. 22, h 4.

http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:_UhCU.../part3-ch22.htm

Thats an inaccurate translation.

This is the arabic:

Ýí ÇáÇÔíÇÁ ßáåÇ ÛíÑ ãÊãÇÒÌ ÈåÇ æáÇ ÈÇÆä ãäåÇ

(He is) in all things, not mixed with them, and not separate from them

D/l Usul Kafi from here. Its a better translation.

Doesn't proves anything. The narration is marfu.

w/s

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.


×
×
  • Create New...