Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Ali-F

Why Do A Few 'shia' See Imam Khomeini As Kafir?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Asalamu alaykum..

I've asked a person, and he said, that Ayatollahs Khomeinis view on wahdat il wujood is kufr, and that he was kafir (those who belive in it is it too i.e Ayatollah Tabatabai, Ayatollah Behjat etc..).

What is there going on? It was a shia who told me this, actually a sheikh, can anyone clerify this?

Wa'salam

Edited by Muhammed Ali
title edited to add the word few and to add quote marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

You should find real sources before posting it here and not trust someone so quickly, even if he's Shi'i. Always double-check!

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

And those who speak evil things of the believing men and the believing women without their having earned (it), they are guilty indeed of a false accusation and a manifest sin. (Qur'an 33:58)

(wasalam)

Edited by Najib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Ayatollah Behjat etc..).

Does this person know what Ayatullah Behjat believed about Wahdat al-Wujood?

This is from Ayatullah Behjat's official website (for those who can understand Farsi), from an interview about him with Ayatullah Rayshahri:

http://www.bahjat.ir/index.php/2011-11-17-06-56-5/2011-11-17-08-00-05/2011-11-17-08-00-41/772-2011-11-17-07-54-39.html

از نظر علمی ایشان وحدت وجود را به معنای وحدت حقیقیه قبول نداشتند، من یک بار خودم از ایشان سؤال کردم که نظر شما راجع به این مسأله‌ای که شما فرمودید خود را قطعه‌ای از هستی دانستن این را من سؤال کردم چون بزرگانی بودند که ایشان هم با آنها هم ارتباط داشتند هم قائل به وحدت حقیقیه بودند، من می‌خواستم ببینم نظر ایشان چی هست

ایشان فرمودند که قائلین به وحدت وجود از یک جهت مُسیب هستند و از یک جهت مُخطئ، از آن جهت مسیب هستند که حقیقتاً جز خدا نمی‌بینند هرچه می‌بینند خداست و از جهتی مخطئ هستند در خطا هستند و آن اینکه تصوّر می‌کنند آنچه که می‌بینند واقعیت دارد. بعد ایشان توضیح می‌دادند که وحدت دو جور وحدت هست وحدت حقیقیه و وحدت حکمیه

وحدت حقیقیه که شماری از بزرگان که بعضی از همین بزرگانی هم که شما نام بردید معتقد به آن هستند ایشان می‌فرمودند که این خلاف کتاب و سنت هست و حتی اشاره می‌کردند به این آیه که کانا یأکلان الطعام، خود همین بزرگان که هستند برای چی نماز می‌خوانند برای چی گریه می‌کنند، فرمایش آیةالله بهجت است که من متن فرمایششان را در همین کتاب هم آوردم که بعضی از بزرگان هم نقل می‌کردند از آخوند خراسانی نقل کردند از آیةالله میلانی نقل کردند ایشان از آیةالله میلانی نقل می‌کردند که اگر کسانی که وحدت حقیقیه را می‌گویند اگر به لوازمش معتقد باشند این چیز نیست این کفر است و نمی‌شود که وحدت حقیقیه

ولی وحدت حکمیه یعنی ایشان مثال می‌زدند می‌گفتند برای اینکه مسأله روشن بشود مثل اینکه انسان در روز وقتی نگاه می‌کند ستاره نیست وقتی خورشید آمد ستاره‌ها را نمی‌بیند، این خیال می‌کند ستاره نیست نه در همین روز هم همان ستاره‌هایی هم که در شب هست در آسمان هست ولیکن تاریک نیست تا انسان آن ستاره‌ها را ببیند. انسان ممکن است در یک موقعیتی قرار بگیرد که هرچه می‌بیند مظهر خدا می‌بیند و غیر خدا چیزی نمی‌بیند یعنی خورشید وجود وقتی در دل انسان تجلّی کرد که به خورشید رسیدیم حافظ یک شعری دارد که می‌گوید پس از این نور به افلاک دهم از دل خویش که به خورشید رسیدیم و غبار آخر شد

وقتی که به آن مرحله‌ای از کمال می‌رسند که واقعاً قلب تجلی‌گاه خدا می‌شود انسان جز خدا چیزی نمی‌بیند مارأیت شیئاً الاّ ورأیت الله قبله معه وبعده، به آنجا می‌رسد آن وقت این تصور می‌کند که این ستاره‌ها نیستند در صورتی که ستاره‌ها هستند این حکمش است این وحدت حکمیه است. ایشان می‌فرماید وحدت حکمیه درست است ولی وحدت حقیقیه قبول نیست البته مسائل راجع به اینکه حالا کسی قائل به وحدت حقیقیه شد این حکمش چی هست آن باز یک مسائلی دارد که در جای خودش مطرح می‌شود

Wassalam

Edited by Aal-e-Imran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

You should find real sources before posting it here and not trust someone so quickly, even if he's Shi'i. Always double-check!

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

And those who speak evil things of the believing men and the believing women without their having earned (it), they are guilty indeed of a false accusation and a manifest sin. (Qur'an 33:58)

(wasalam)

You are very true. And the sheikh who said this, said that in Khomeinis fafsir is is said "everything is Allah" etc? And, that the true thing is that everthing you see, is Allah swt, i.e that when you see it you regonize Allah swt?? What is wrong with Wahdat il wujood?

(salam)

Does this person know what Ayatullah Behjat believed about Wahdat al-Wujood?

This is from Ayatullah Behjat's official website (for those who can understand Farsi), from an interview about him with Ayatullah Rayshahri:

http://www.bahjat.ir...7-07-54-39.html

از نظر علمی ایشان وحدت وجود را به معنای وحدت حقیقیه قبول نداشتند، من یک بار خودم از ایشان سؤال کردم که نظر شما راجع به این مسأله‌ای که شما فرمودید خود را قطعه‌ای از هستی دانستن این را من سؤال کردم چون بزرگانی بودند که ایشان هم با آنها هم ارتباط داشتند هم قائل به وحدت حقیقیه بودند، من می‌خواستم ببینم نظر ایشان چی هست

ایشان فرمودند که قائلین به وحدت وجود از یک جهت مُسیب هستند و از یک جهت مُخطئ، از آن جهت مسیب هستند که حقیقتاً جز خدا نمی‌بینند هرچه می‌بینند خداست و از جهتی مخطئ هستند در خطا هستند و آن اینکه تصوّر می‌کنند آنچه که می‌بینند واقعیت دارد. بعد ایشان توضیح می‌دادند که وحدت دو جور وحدت هست وحدت حقیقیه و وحدت حکمیه

وحدت حقیقیه که شماری از بزرگان که بعضی از همین بزرگانی هم که شما نام بردید معتقد به آن هستند ایشان می‌فرمودند که این خلاف کتاب و سنت هست و حتی اشاره می‌کردند به این آیه که کانا یأکلان الطعام، خود همین بزرگان که هستند برای چی نماز می‌خوانند برای چی گریه می‌کنند، فرمایش آیةالله بهجت است که من متن فرمایششان را در همین کتاب هم آوردم که بعضی از بزرگان هم نقل می‌کردند از آخوند خراسانی نقل کردند از آیةالله میلانی نقل کردند ایشان از آیةالله میلانی نقل می‌کردند که اگر کسانی که وحدت حقیقیه را می‌گویند اگر به لوازمش معتقد باشند این چیز نیست این کفر است و نمی‌شود که وحدت حقیقیه

ولی وحدت حکمیه یعنی ایشان مثال می‌زدند می‌گفتند برای اینکه مسأله روشن بشود مثل اینکه انسان در روز وقتی نگاه می‌کند ستاره نیست وقتی خورشید آمد ستاره‌ها را نمی‌بیند، این خیال می‌کند ستاره نیست نه در همین روز هم همان ستاره‌هایی هم که در شب هست در آسمان هست ولیکن تاریک نیست تا انسان آن ستاره‌ها را ببیند. انسان ممکن است در یک موقعیتی قرار بگیرد که هرچه می‌بیند مظهر خدا می‌بیند و غیر خدا چیزی نمی‌بیند یعنی خورشید وجود وقتی در دل انسان تجلّی کرد که به خورشید رسیدیم حافظ یک شعری دارد که می‌گوید پس از این نور به افلاک دهم از دل خویش که به خورشید رسیدیم و غبار آخر شد

وقتی که به آن مرحله‌ای از کمال می‌رسند که واقعاً قلب تجلی‌گاه خدا می‌شود انسان جز خدا چیزی نمی‌بیند مارأیت شیئاً الاّ ورأیت الله قبله معه وبعده، به آنجا می‌رسد آن وقت این تصور می‌کند که این ستاره‌ها نیستند در صورتی که ستاره‌ها هستند این حکمش است این وحدت حکمیه است. ایشان می‌فرماید وحدت حکمیه درست است ولی وحدت حقیقیه قبول نیست البته مسائل راجع به اینکه حالا کسی قائل به وحدت حقیقیه شد این حکمش چی هست آن باز یک مسائلی دارد که در جای خودش مطرح می‌شود

Wassalam

Can you please translate?

^^^^^ I'm becoming more and more a fan of brother Ali-F's defiant and aggressive quest to seek out the truth in all rifts, crevices and unvisited holes both real and imaginary. :D

Well, truth has to get up :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I believe there is a great misconception here, and Inshallah, I will try my best to fill in the vivid gaps in order to see the bigger picture clearly, despite my limited knowledge on this issue.

Moreover, I believe that the Sheik that told you this did not understand what Allama Khomenie meant in his belief of Wahdut Al-Wajud and I think he needs to go back and read more on it. Generally, the idea of Wahdut Al-Wajud, was coined by one of the Sufi masters by the name of Ibn Al-Arabi. It is also worth to mention before going into details on Wahdut Al-Wajud, that there is a great divide among the Shia scholars today, specifically in Qum and Najaf, about whether or not the teachings of Ibn Arabi in philosophy and Irfan should be taught in the Hawza seminaries or not. In Najaf, the teachings of Ibn Arabi are not taught, as Ayatollah Sheik Fayadth openly declared that Ibn Arabi is a Zindeeq a few years ago. However, in Qum, the scholars there general accept his teachings to be taught in the Hawza seminaries.

Moreover, as far as I know, even though that the concept Wahdut Al-Wajud has been coined by Ibn Arabi and later on developed by Sufis throughout time, the Shia scholars who adhere to the Irfanic teachings of Ibn Arabi still defined this concept quite differently than the Sufis did. Generally the Sufi groups(don't know which ones to be precise) developed this concept by saying that the idea of Wahdut Al-Wajud(the unity of existence) , is that nothing exists except Allah(swt), In other words, we as human beings and other creations, do not exist, but rather our existence is the existence of Allah(swt), which implies that every thing around you, including you and I , is part of Allah(swt) in it's physical sense(wal'yathobillah). This concept, the way these Sufis have developed it, is no doubt contradictory to the essence of Tawhid and leads to greater shirk and brings someone immediately out of the fold of Islam, because the Quran clearly mentions that Allah(swt) is separate from his creations.

In regards, to the Shia scholars who adhere to the teachings of Ibn Arabi, for example; Allama Khomanie, Allama Bahjat and Allama Tabatabi, they reject the Sufi developed definition of Wahdut Al-Wajud and define it differently in a way that does not necessarily contradict the teachings of Islam. For example, they state that the meaning of Wahdut Al-Wajud, implies that every thing that exists, all root back to Allah(swt). In other words, the existence of Human beings, the universe, the mountains and oceans, are all a manifestation of Allah's(swt) creations and power that generally implies that all of these creations root back to Allah(swt) alone as him being the one and only creator.

So basically, when they talk about Wahdut Al-Wajud(Unity of Existence) in their books, they do not literally mean that Allah(swt) and his creation are one as many people like that Sheik of yours have misunderstood it to be, but rather, that every single thing around us is a manifestation of Allah's(swt) creation and a proof for his existence in a way that all of his creations root back to him being as the one and only creator. Moreover, this definition that Khomanie believes in, clearly does not necessarily contradict Tawhid if it is not misinterpreted and taken in it's literal sense, and there is no problem with it.

In conclusion, I think it would be best to advice your Sheik to go and spend more time understanding how Khomanie defines Wahdut Al-Wajud before taking what he reads from his book in it's literal sense and coming to conclusions quickly, as clearly no doubt, he has misunderstood the concept. I am not defending Khomenie or those that share similar views as him, because I myself from the first place, entirely reject the irafanic teachings of Ibn Arabi and support the Fatwa of Sheik Al-Fayadth against his teachings being taught in the Hawza seminaries , but in order for one to be fair, they must refute any incorrect misconceptions that people might propagate against others, and in the case of Khomanie's definition of Wahdut Al-Wajud, there are many who have misunderstood his definition of this concept.

And Allah(swt) knows best

(wasalam)

Edited by PurifiedTruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I believe there is a great misconception here, and Inshallah, I will try my best to fill in the vivid gaps in order to see the bigger picture clearly, despite my limited knowledge on this issue.

Moreover, I believe that the Sheik that told you this did not understand what Allama Khomenie meant in his belief of Wahdut Al-Wajud and I think he needs to go back and read more on it. Generally, the idea of Wahdut Al-Wajud, was coined by one of the Sufi masters by the name of Ibn Al-Arabi. It is also worth to mention before going into details on Wahdut Al-Wajud, that there is a great divide among the Shia scholars today, specifically in Qum and Najaf, about whether or not the teachings of Ibn Arabi in philosophy and Irfan should be taught in the Hawza seminaries or not. In Najaf, the teachings of Ibn Arabi are not taught, as Ayatollah Sheik Fayadth openly declared that Ibn Arabi is a Zindeeq a few years ago. However, in Qum, the scholars there general accept his teachings to be taught in the Hawza seminaries.

Moreover, as far as I know, even though that the concept Wahdut Al-Wajud has been coined by Ibn Arabi and later on developed by Sufis throughout time, the Shia scholars who adhere to the Irfanic teachings still defined this concept quite differently than the Sufis did. Generally the Sufi groups(don't know which ones to be precise) developed this concept by saying that the idea of Wahdut Al-Wajud(the unity of existence) , is that nothing exists except Allah(swt), In other words, we as human beings and other creations, do not exist, but rather our existence is the existence of Allah(swt), which implies that every thing around you, including you and I , is part of Allah(swt) in it's physical sense(wal'yathobillah). This concept, the way these Sufis have developed it, is no doubt contradictory to the essence of Tawhid and leads to greater shirk and brings someone immediately out of the fold of Islam, because the Quran clearly mentions that Allah(swt) is separate from his creations.

In regards, to the Shia scholars who adhere to the teachings of Ibn Arabi, for example; Allama Khomanie, Allama Bahjat and Allama Tabatabi, they reject the Sufi developed definition of Wahdut Al-Wajud and define it differently in a way that does not necessarily contradict the teachings of Islam. For example, they state that the meaning of Wahdut Al-Wajud, implies that every thing that exists, all root back to Allah(swt). In other words, the existence of Human beings, the universe, the mountains and oceans, are all a manifestation of Allah's(swt) creations and power that generally implies that all of these creations root back to Allah(swt) alone as him being the one and only creator.

So basically, when they talk about Wahdut Al-Wajud(Unity of Existence) in their books, they do not literally mean that Allah(swt) and his creation are one as many people like that Sheik of yours have misunderstood it to be, but rather, that every single thing around us is a manifestation of Allah's(swt) creation and a proof for his existence in a way that all of his creations root back to him being as the one and only creator. Moreover, this definition that Khomanie believes in, clearly does not necessarily contradict Tawhid if it is not misinterpreted and taken in it's literal sense, and there is no problem with it.

In conclusion, I think it would be best to advice your Sheik to go and spend more time understanding how Khomanie defines Wahdut Al-Wajud before taking what he reads from his book in it's literal sense and coming to conclusions quickly, as clearly no doubt, he has misunderstood the concept. I am not defending Khomenie or those that share similar views as him, because I myself from the first place, entirely reject the irafanic teachings of Ibn Arabi and support the Fatwa of Sheik Al-Fayadth against his teachings being taught in the Hawza seminaries , but in order for one to be fair, they must refute any incorrect misconceptions that people might propagate against others, and in the case of Khomanie's definition of Wahdut Al-Wajud, there are many who have misunderstood his definition of this concept.

And Allah(swt) knows best

(wasalam)

I liked your post brother. To me, I think I actual follow what they believe. May I know the argument or why you are against this erfanic idea?

To all: This is an interesting read: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/islamic_gnosis_wisdom/5.htm

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked your post brother. To me, I think I actual follow what they believe. May I know the argument or why you are against this erfanic idea?

To all: This is an interesting read: http://www.al-islam....is_wisdom/5.htm

(bismillah)

(salam) bro

Generally I don't reject Irfan(Gnosis) in it's ideal form. In fact, Irfan is the structure of Islam, and without it, Islam cannot exist. The word Irfan is derived from the Arabic "Ma'rifat" or defined as "Getting to know" which implies to Allah(swt). In other words, Irfan in islam refers to Ma'rifat illah, or getting to know Allah(swt). So there is no doubt, that Irfan has a place in Islam, and if it did not have a place in Islam, then it would be impossible for one to know Allah(swt). In other words, saying that one is a Muslim while they reject Irfan is an oxymoron statement and illogical.

The difference arises on which type of source is the best Irfan or which type of source is the best to lead us to know Allah(swt). in Shia Imami Islam, we believe that the only correct Irfan to get to know Allah(swt) is through the Quran and the teachings of the Ahlulbayt(as). The Sunnis on the other hand believe, that the only Irfan to get to know Allah(swt) is through the Quran and the teachings of the "companions". With that being said, from a Shia standpoint, we can both agree that the type of Irfan that the Sunnis follow is deviant so when someone says they reject Irfan, it means they reject one specific type of Irfan while they accept another type, and in our case as Shias, we reject the Irfan that is defined by the Sunnis, because we believe that the companions are not the right source of knowledge to Allah(swt).

In regards to the philosophical and Irfanic teachings of Ibn Arabi, some Shia scholars adhere to them , while others reject them. Those scholars that adhere to them as I mentioned earlier, are Allama Khomanie, Bahjat, Yaqoobi and Tabatabi. Those who reject his teachings are Sayed Ali Sistani, Sayed Sadeq Al-Shirazi, Shiek Ishak Al-Faydth, Sayed Sadeq Roohani and Sayed Wahid Al-Khorasani. As for me, I stand in the same position as those scholars that reject his teachings, specifically with my Marja'; Sayed Sadiq Al-Shirazi. There are some reasons why I reject the Irfanic and philosophical teachings of Ibn Arabi, One being, he was not a Shia. In other words, there are no official records that stated he accepted the Wilayah of Amir Al-Momineen(as) during any time of his life, but instead, outwardly believed in the Sunnism(Not exactly too sure what specific Aqeedah though). With that being said, he was clearly a deviant person, and died a death similar to the death of the ignorance(jahliyah). In other words, he was an unbeliever, so like those scholars that reject him, I cannot accept the idea that we should learn parts of Islam from scholars who had no relations from the Ahlulbayt. After all, the Imams(as) were very clear that they are the only source of knowledge to Allah(swt) after the Quran, and since Ibn Arabi was not a Shia, then his teachings are foreign to the Ahlulbayt. Another reason that I hold this position, is because I do not see the necessity of having his teachings in the first place. We have enough resources from our classical scholars and as well as from our modern scholars to learn about Irfan and philosophy in it's correct form and the most aligned with the teachings of the Ahlulbayt, so I do not see the great importance of his works held in our school, especially for a fact that he was not a Shia. One other reason that I reject him, is because in his works, he holds beliefs that are contradictory to the beliefs of our classical scholars. As far as I know, even the scholars I mentioned that adhere to his work reject any of his works that are contradictory to our classical teachings and simply on take his teachings that are accepted in our school, but I could be wrong on that , as I am not sure as to what extent they accept his work.

To simplify everything in a few sentences, I don't necessarily reject Irfan, but I reject it's form if it doesn't root back from the teachings of the Ahlulbayt(as). So basically, there really isn't necessarily any ideological differences between me and you as we both believe in the same Irfan, and that is via the teachings of the Ahlulbayt and the Quran. The difference might arise between us if you accept the teachings of Ibn Arabi or not, because I entirely reject it. Moreover, as far as I know, there are Shias that believe that the teachings of Ibn Arabi is part of their Aqeedah and I do not agree with them ideologically because I reject him entirely.

Hopefully this response helped answer your question and Allah(swt) knows best

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam) bro

Generally I don't reject Irfan(Gnosis) in it's ideal form. In fact, Irfan is the structure of Islam, and without it, Islam cannot exist. The word Irfan is derived from the Arabic "Ma'rifat" or defined as "Getting to know" which implies to Allah(swt). In other words, Irfan in islam refers to Ma'rifat illah, or getting to know Allah(swt). So there is no doubt, that Irfan has a place in Islam, and if it did not have a place in Islam, then it would be impossible for one to know Allah(swt). In other words, saying that one is a Muslim while they reject Irfan is an oxymoron statement and illogical.

The difference arises on which type of source is the best Irfan or which type of source is the best to lead us to know Allah(swt). in Shia Imami Islam, we believe that the only correct Irfan to get to know Allah(swt) is through the Quran and the teachings of the Ahlulbayt(as). The Sunnis on the other hand believe, that the only Irfan to get to know Allah(swt) is through the Quran and the teachings of the "companions". With that being said, from a Shia standpoint, we can both agree that the type of Irfan that the Sunnis follow is deviant so when someone says they reject Irfan, it means they reject one specific type of Irfan while they accept another type, and in our case as Shias, we reject the Irfan that is defined by the Sunnis, because we believe that the companions are not the right source of knowledge to Allah(swt).

In regards to the philosophical and Irfanic teachings of Ibn Arabi, some Shia scholars adhere to them , while others reject them. Those scholars that adhere to them as I mentioned earlier, are Allama Khomanie, Bahjat, Yaqoobi and Tabatabi. Those who reject his teachings are Sayed Ali Sistani, Sayed Sadeq Al-Shirazi, Shiek Ishak Al-Faydth, Sayed Sadeq Roohani and Sayed Wahid Al-Khorasani. As for me, I stand in the same position as those scholars that reject his teachings, specifically with my Marja'; Sayed Sadiq Al-Shirazi. There are some reasons why I reject the Irfanic and philosophical teachings of Ibn Arabi, One being, he was not a Shia. In other words, there are no official records that stated he accepted the Wilayah of Amir Al-Momineen(as) during any time of his life, but instead, outwardly believed in the Sunnism(Not exactly too sure what specific Aqeedah though). With that being said, he was clearly a deviant person, and died a death similar to the death of the ignorance(jahliyah). In other words, he was an unbeliever, so like those scholars that reject him, I cannot accept the idea that we should learn parts of Islam from scholars who had no relations from the Ahlulbayt. After all, the Imams(as) were very clear that they are the only source of knowledge to Allah(swt) after the Quran, and since Ibn Arabi was not a Shia, then his teachings are foreign to the Ahlulbayt. Another reason that I hold this position, is because I do not see the necessity of having his teachings in the first place. We have enough resources from our classical scholars and as well as from our modern scholars to learn about Irfan and philosophy in it's correct form and the most aligned with the teachings of the Ahlulbayt, so I do not see the great importance of his works held in our school, especially for a fact that he was not a Shia. One other reason that I reject him, is because in his works, he holds beliefs that are contradictory to the beliefs of our classical scholars. As far as I know, even the scholars I mentioned that adhere to his work reject any of his works that are contradictory to our classical teachings and simply on take his teachings that are accepted in our school, but I could be wrong on that , as I am not sure as to what extent they accept his work.

To simplify everything in a few sentences, I don't necessarily reject Irfan, but I reject it's form if it doesn't root back from the teachings of the Ahlulbayt(as). So basically, there really isn't necessarily any ideological differences between me and you as we both believe in the same Irfan, and that is via the teachings of the Ahlulbayt and the Quran. The difference might arise between us if you accept the teachings of Ibn Arabi or not, because I entirely reject it. Moreover, as far as I know, there are Shias that believe that the teachings of Ibn Arabi is part of their Aqeedah and I do not agree with them ideologically because I reject him entirely.

Hopefully this response helped answer your question and Allah(swt) knows best

(wasalam)

The thing is though, what the scholars who accept Wahdut Al-Wajud did, was they dont get arabi's interpretation of it, they get it by our imams standards. It makes sense to how they describe this idealism. I believe there is nothing wrong with it, and these scholars who accept this views obviously would have backings from our imams who had the same interpretation, otherwise they wouldnt accept it in the first place. What im getting from you is that whether or not if this Wahdut Al-Wajud makes sense, you dont accept it because its previous form came from a nonshia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is though, what the scholars who accept Wahdut Al-Wajud did, was they dont get arabi's interpretation of it, they get it by our imams standards. It makes sense to how they describe this idealism. I believe there is nothing wrong with it, and these scholars who accept this views obviously would have backings from our imams who had the same interpretation, otherwise they wouldnt accept it in the first place. What im getting from you is that whether or not if this Wahdut Al-Wajud makes sense, you dont accept it because its previous form came from a nonshia?

I think you misunderstood me. As I mentioned earlier, based on my current knowledge on the Issue, that the concept of Wahdut Al-Wajud defined by Khomanie and those that share the similar view is acceptable ,since it does not contradict the teachings of the Ahlulbayt(as). I will re-quote what I said here:

In regards, to the Shia scholars who adhere to the teachings of Ibn Arabi, for example; Allama Khomanie, Allama Bahjat and Allama Tabatabi, they reject the Sufi developed definition of Wahdut Al-Wajud and define it differently in a way that does not necessarily contradict the teachings of Islam. For example, they state that the meaning of Wahdut Al-Wajud, implies that every thing that exists, all root back to Allah(swt). In other words, the existence of Human beings, the universe, the mountains and oceans, are all a manifestation of Allah's(swt) creations and power that generally implies that all of these creations root back to Allah(swt) alone as him being the one and only creator.

Moreover, I only condemned the definition of it from the Sufis that developed it because as I stated earlier, their definition of it contradicts the essence of Tawhid when they say claim that nothing exists except for Allah(swt).

Hopefully I made a clarification on that.

Edited by PurifiedTruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstood me. As I mentioned earlier, based on my current knowledge on the Issue, that the concept of Wahdut Al-Wajud defined by Khomanie and those that share the similar view is acceptable ,since it does not contradict the teachings of the Ahlulbayt(as). I will re-quote what I said here:

Moreover, I only condemned the definition of it from the Sufis that developed it because as I stated earlier, their definition of it contradicts the essence of Tawhid when they say claim that nothing exists except for Allah(swt).

Hopefully I made a clarification on that.

Gotcha! Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PurifiedTruth, thanks for your replay, it was nice to read.

But I have some questions.

1. Isn't it true, that most scholars have said, that Ibn Arabi was a shia, and he lived under tagiyaah? I know that I read this somewhere.

2. So, if the problem is with Ibn Arabi - who say, that the scholars (who took things from Ibn Arabi) - only took the 'good things' and not the kufr, etc.

3. So, Ayatollah Khomeini etc. have the statement, that irfan, where you use quran and ahlulbayt as is the true?

And, do you have sources? Not because I say you lie, but so I can use it in the future, wa'salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PurifiedTruth, thanks for your replay, it was nice to read.

But I have some questions.

1. Isn't it true, that most scholars have said, that Ibn Arabi was a shia, and he lived under tagiyaah? I know that I read this somewhere.

incorrect

2. So, if the problem is with Ibn Arabi - who say, that the scholars (who took things from Ibn Arabi) - only took the 'good things' and not the kufr, etc.

Ibn Arabi said he had a vision in which Shia were looking like pigs. Wihdatul wujoud is the saying of pantheism, that we are all Him, the hell and heaven and everything is Him because He is the absolute truth while everything else is a delusion. Syed Khomaini said that Allah names manifest in everything , to be honest though, I have not read all of his books but some of his books that i've read makes it hard to define what he really believed in.

3. So, Ayatollah Khomeini etc. have the statement, that irfan, where you use quran and ahlulbayt as is the true?

And, do you have sources? Not because I say you lie, but so I can use it in the future, wa'salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn Sohan, so, there is scholars who say he is shia? E.g Ayatollah Amuli'. So, what I say, is that yes, both sides have their opinion on Ibn Arabi. Some say he is kafir, others maybe no. Who say, that you can't take the not-kafir things from Ibn Arabi? But, Allahu Al3am.

The thing with that Ibn Arabi said that shia looked like pigs, actually I dunno if it is true, and if the other side say he was a shia - one can maybe say, that it was tagiyaah'

But Allahu Al3am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fadak TV??????!?!?!?

Well, thats was I said. It is a bit confusing, because some scholars also say, that he was a shia, etc. so there is no agreement in this issue, but as I said, who say, that you can't take the non-kufr from Ibn Arabi? Allah u al3am, and which scholar did replay back to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with it?

"Look at what is being said, not who is saying it." - Imam Ali (a)

Thanks for the hadith, May Allah swt bless you.. Can Ayatollah Khomeini ra etc. not use this on Ibn Arabi in his non-kufr sayings?

Edited by Ali-F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. But Khamenei isn't the only scholar out there, you know. Several scholars reject the teachings of ibn arabi.

First of all, why don't you say "Ayatollah" or sayeed Khomeini? Anyways, that's your view.

Well, scholars rejected him, and others didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's forbidden for us to declare someone as an infidel. It's the right only God can utilize. In the absence of His representative, it's forbidden for us to declare someone as an infidel may he be a terrorist.

 

Moreover, Ayatollah Imam Khomeini was a great leader. He was a man of vision and wisdom. May his soul rest in peace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

therefore being Kharjii is not a sect it is a character. There are Sunni Kharjiies and Shia Kharjiites (though much less in number). Many Shias call me muqassir and blah blah blah but who cares. You talked a Shia Kharjii :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...