Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Philosophy And Wahdat Al-Wujud

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Posted

I don't know if I'm allowed to post this topic... but can anyone explain this theory to me? I do not like Ibn Arabi, and it seems like he invented Wahdat al Mawjud. Isn't this theory contradictory to tawheed'?

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Firstly, young man, this is way past your bed time. I must ask whats with Arabs and staying up so late? You lot are nocturnal :P

 

The following is a response from Ayatollah Sadiq al-Shirazi from a question sent to him regarding the topic you have raised:

 

 

Ayatollah Sadiq Shirazi:

"Bismillah

Salaam

The notion of wahdat al-wujood is nothing but the antithesis of Islam.

This is because there is no commonality – let alone wahdah – between the existence of creation and that of the Creator.

All the different versions of wahdat al-wujood are in contradiction with the categorical declarations made by the Almighty and the Ahl al-Bayt in this respect; and therefore all versions of the concept of wahdat al-wujood are kufr.

There are, however, some famous "Shi'a scholars" – as you put it – who believe in wahdat al-wujood; but by believing inwahdat al-wujood they are neither Shi’a nor Muslim. Amongst others, the eminent scholar Sayyid Muhammad Kadim Tabatab’ie Yazdi (the author of the authoritative work Orwat al-Wothqaa, the book that the maraje’ comment on and produce their risalah on the basis of) describes, in his Orwat al-Wothqaa, those who believe in wahdat al-wujood as kafirand consequently declares them as najis.

Some of them, in a bid to save their reputation and blend in with the Muslims, or being unawares of the essence of what they are saying, try to justify this false notion by saying there are different versions to it. But in fact the principle notion therein is totally false and rejected by Islam in no uncertain way.

It is enough that there is absolutely no mention of the notion of wahdat al-wujood, in the hadith of Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, given that we have inherited a massive bulk of hadith from Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them. If there was any truth and credibility to this concept, we would have had some references to or mention of this notion and the imams would have elaborated upon such a pivotal issue; but – low and behold – nothing of the sort!! If this concept had any truth in it, given its significance, you would have found half of al-Kafi and two-third of Bihar filled with hadith, statements, deliberations and explanations about this matter; but nothing of the sort!! Instead we have hadith after hadith, statement after statement, and explanation after explanation dismissing, refuting, and negating such a notion as that of wahdat al-wujood altogether. The endeavour of those who try to present this notion as Islamic is similar to that of the Christians who try to convince us that the notion of trinity is a Christian concept that was taught by Jesus Christ; this is when we find no shred of evidence in the bible to support of the notion of trinity!!

Allah’s final messenger, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and his pure family, warned of people who would be known as Sufis, who would wear suf (wool) in the summer as part of their discipline to counter their desires, who would come after him who would be deviant from Islam. The twelve divinely-appointed successors or ma'soom Imams proactively rejected this notion and those who adhered to it. At different times and occasions the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, went on to explain the principle of tawheed, to establish the standing of Islam on this issue, and refute the deviant claims made by others in this respect, which were surfacing at the time. These hadith and explanations are given in various works ranging from Nahj al-Balaghah [by Imam Ali] and al-Sahifah al-Sajjaadiyyah [by Imam Sajjad] to those such as al-Tawheed by al-Saduq, al-Bihar by al-Majlisi. In addition to numerous specific hadith that we have from our Imams to refute this notion, we also have numerous references to the Islamic tawheed that refute those false notions in most of the dua's or supplications!! For example look at the Du’a of the Day of Arafah, du’a#47 of al-Sahifah al-Sajjaadiyyah, or – now that we are in the Holy Month of Rajab – study the half-a-dozen or so du’as that are reported for this month – you will find them beautiful and also amazing in addressing the qualities and attributes of the Almighty in respect of tawheed, which at the same time proactively refute and rebuff any aspect of the notion of wahdat-al-wujood!!

Following from the lead of their ma'soom imams and the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, all true Shi'a scholars have – unanimously and vehemently – rejected this ludicrous notion throughout the ages, and they, citing relevant details, describe this notion as nothing but purely the teachings of Iblis (Satan), who has sworn to deviate mankind from the true path in any way he can.

Of course this notion is not particular to our time – or to the Islamic era – but its roots can be found in old eastern (Indian) religions the idea of which reached old Persia and Greek philosophies, such as plutonic philosophies, during the pre-Islamic era. In their bid to disperse the people from around the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, the Abbasid rulers systematically commissioned translators to have these philosophies translated from Greek to Arabic and circulated amongst the Muslims. The Abbasids were quite serious about this, and they founded the massive Dar al-Hikmah for this infamous task. [The project of translating those Greek works was first started by the Umayyad's rulers for the said purpose, but the project took second priority when the Umayyad dynasty began to crumble.] Those rulers could not imagine it in their wildest dreams how far-reaching and widespread this belief would become, and flourish even amongst the so-called Shi'a scholars one thousand years later.

The notion of wahdat al-wujood is so absurd that even, for the sake of argument, if we did not have all the hadith from the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, it would have been enough – to the sound mind – the declaration made by the Almighty in this respect in the Holy Qur’an: {there is nothing like His example} (42:11).

Furthermore, the notion of wahdat al-wujood – to the sound mind – is nothing but a figment of the imagination of the human mind, no matter how elaborate and detailed this imagination may be.

There could be countless thinkers contemplating the essence of the Almighty over countless number of years, but all those careful thoughts and deliberations cannot contain or encompass the essence of the Almighty. Whatever comes to the mind of man about the essence or likeness of the Almighty, we can certainly be assured of one thing – that that is NOT the Almighty.

The knowledge and understanding of the essence of Allah cannot be contained within the mind and understanding of man. Any understanding or possible imagination man can have about the Almighty, then that would NOT be Him and it would NOT be a correct reflection of the Almighty. That is why when the Almighty describes Himself to mankind, He resorts to declaring{there is nothing like His example}.

"The notion of the existence of Allah Almighty is simply beyond the imagination of the human mind", as the hadith and supplications declare. "Anything that the human mind can possibly think of or imagine, He is not that", the hadith stresses.

This is on the aspect of knowledge and understanding of the essence of the Almighty.

On the other hand, on the issue of union or wahdat, there is absolutely no commonality between everything that is created in existence, and the Creator; let alone there being any unity or wahdat between them. This is what the Sufis and the Aarifs claim, including the likes of Mulla Sadra. Please contemplate on this second point without us presenting further discussion......

[in his book “Insan-e Kamel”, p126, Sheikh Murteza Mutahari states: “. . . and some of those who believe in ‘Irfan and wahdat al-wujood, at certain stages, declare that they are God”!!]

Furthermore, contemplate about the hadith and supplication of Imam Jawad (the tenth imam) that addresses the Almighty: "O He who is sufficient (not in need) of everything, while everything in the heavens and earth is in need of Him.""

[Perhaps this is not the best translation for this beautiful and short hadith –
يا من يكفي من كل شئ و لا يكفي منه شئ ]

Also contemplate about the Qur'anic verse [i created you while you were not a thing]. (19:9)

And you will realize that in existence we have Allah, the Creator, and we have everything else, the created.

Those who believe in the notion of wahdat al-wujood have gone astray from the teachings of Islam and Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, perhaps due to the training they have been subjected to. By in believing in this ludicrous notion, the Sufis, Aarifs, and whoever "Shi'a scholars" believe in wahdat al-wujood have abandoned the most basic principle and teaching of Islam, and therefore have become completely deviant from this pure and beautiful religion. For example, in his tafsir al-Mizan, Sayyid Muhammad Hussein Tabataba'ie states something that reveals how deviant they have become. In volume 1, pp28-29 (Beirut edition, 1980) under commentary of surah al-Hamd, he states, "the path to Allah is two paths; the path of the believers, which is the shorter one, and the path of the non-believers, which is the longer."

We shall make no comment on this astonishing statement of his and leave you to contemplate on it.

Was-salaam

NB. This reply has been an extremely short response to your question, and it is not an all-comprehensive refutation ofwahdat al-wujood, but it is just to give an outline and a hint at the invalidity of the notion. A comprehensive refutation ofwahdat al-wujood would be beyond the scope of such a reply.

 
 
 
Please give me time to fetch the source for you later. I must now return to my all-nighter.

(wasalam)
*disappears into the shadows*
Edited by Ali Musaaa :)
Posted

Don't worry, I found it (the reply). And found hadiths' against this. Imam al-Hasan al-Askari (a.s) spoke of scholars who come in the end of times, and are inclined towards philosophy and tasawuff'.

Very scary this irfan' world, hopefully Hawza' of Najaf al-Ashraf stop it. Shiekh al-Fayadh (h.a) spoke out against it, and I found fatawa' from different maraji' on this.

(Arabic)

http://www.sistani.org/arabic/archive/257/

And I can get more fatwas' against this. Thanks.

Posted

problem is that people take the meaning of this to be literal and give their opinions and comments based on that

nobody thinks that this has anything to do with any kind of physical unity, rather this is about a unity of mind and heart where the Person thinks like the Quran is written 

it means complete stripping away from the self and the inclination of the self to anything but God 

people like to demonize what they dont understand and fear to grasp or conceive with their minds 

its nothing special in reality, it is just the persons mind becomes one with God and heart one with God so that there is no inclination to ANYTHING but God

what do you think the Imams were doing all their lives? they were fully connected with God to such an extent that everything else in this world appeared like a false dream 

how do you think Imam Ali was able to pray while they took out an arrow out of his leg that otherwise would have been difficult to do? 

dont demonize something you dont understand or take literally 

  • Veteran Member
Posted

A more objective response to this question from al-Islam.org:  

 

http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00054.html

Question

What is the ulama's view on "Wahdat-e Wujood"? Is it considered to be
"Kofr"? Are the believers in this concept "kafir"? I specially like to know
about Imam's ruling.

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

Answer

As to the issue of Wahdat-e-Wujood. Let me first tell you that there
is no consensus among Ulama on this question. It is perhaps the most
controversial issue among Muslim theologians and philosophers. Therefore
you should not expect it to be resolved in these few lines.

Since this issue belongs to the realm of I'ateghadat one cannot look for
Fatwa in this area. It is an obligation of each Muslim to understand what is
meant by Tawhid in Islam, for it is the bedrock of Islamic faith. But for you to
know where I am coming from let me say that I am convinced that without
believing in Wahdat-e-Wujood, Tawhid does not make sense. Be advised that Allah
is Ahad and his Ahadiyat as Masumin's (A) traditions explain is not a numerical
one. In other words he is not one as opposed to two for in that case he would be
in Arz (parallel to) of others. But if you note in the Holy Quran 58:7 Allah
(SWT) is mentioned as the fourth of the three, the sixth of the fifth and so on,
not the fourth of the four or sixth of the six.

Here are two major schools of thought with regard to Wahdat-e-Wujood, one
philosophical and one mystical. The philosophical school is mainly
associated with Mulla Sadra and the mystical with Ibn Arabi. The problem of the
One and the Many has always been at the heart of metaphysical thinking even
today those who could solve this problem have preferred to move into what they
call post metaphysical thinking which does not bother with this question. Even
political thought today is preoccupied with this problem, minorities' >rights,
diversity, multi-culturalism, marginalized and localized voices all are terms
used to discuss the problem of One and Many.

Mulla Sadra formulated a notion of Wahdat which has room of Kathrat (Many)
in Wahdat (One). He considered Wojood to be Tashkiki or Zu Marateb (of
different degrees and level). These levels all are Wujood and not non-Wujood but
at the same time their differences are real. He used analogy of light. A
candle's light is light and light of the Sun is also light and between them
infinite degrees of light. Each degree is distinct from others and at same
time one identity.

Ibn Arabi on the other hands formulated the theory of Wahdat Shakhsi-e-Wujood
(personal unity of Being). For him distinction in Being is meaningless and
arbitrary, there is no real distinction. The only distinction is the distinction
of Muhat and Muhit (no proper translation, literally means the circumscribed
one, and the circumscribing one). Both of these formulation have come under
sharp criticisms and attack from more traditional views. Certainly there are
many who believe this is Kufr. Mulla Sadra's view is these days receiving more
acceptance among traditionalists due to contributions of Imam Khomeini (ra),
Allameh Tabatabai (ra) and their students to understanding of his position. But
Ibn Arabi's view is still considered to be radical in contrast to Islam.

Since you wanted to know Imam Khomeini's opinion on this issue I should know
that he was a firm admirer of Ibn Arabi and his letter to Mikhail Gorbachov,
Russian president he referred to Ibn Arabi as "Abar Mard" (the greatest
man). Allameh Tabatabai was also Ibn Arabi's admirer he is said to have said
that "all writings on Islam are not worth of two sentences of Ibn Arabi's works
on Islam".

Of course as I said he has his own critics and without a serious and
systematic study of his idea under specialist scholars of his school of
thought, understanding his theory is impossible.

I strongly believe that the exploration of the question of the One and Many
from an Islamic perspective in lights of the idea of Wahdat-e-Wujood could
be a major contribution to the politics of Islam and human right in Islam. I
hope this is useful but if one does not have independent study of the issue,
this might seem confusing. In that case just ignore what I have said.

With regards,

Mohammad

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

Why do jurisprudents and theologians oppose the notion of wahdat al-wujud?

 

1. The notion of 'wahdat al-wujud' [unity of Being] is a monistic understanding of tawheed, the doctrine of oneness of God. It is considered one of the most fundamental concepts in mysticism and in mystical schools especially that of Ibn Arabi.  According to this principle, existence [wujud] is a single and eternal reality which is no one other than God. No one other God has real existence. Whatever comes to our sight are in reality various expressions of that single reality that have manifested in the form of things which are, in fact, the outward radiance of that One Being.

 

2. There are also some philosophical argument regarding unity of being though it is an argument that can be proved only through intellectual intuition. This argument is based on the “principiality of existence” and “conceptual commonality of existence”. Among the arguments put forth in this regard is that existence, in view of commonality of the concept of existence, should have a single reality because it is not possible to extract a single concept from different realities. As well, in order to reaffirm the notion of unity of being, they have resorted to the principle of “the truth in its simplicity is all things” ["بسيط الحقيقه كل الاشياء"].

 

3. There have been some jurisprudents and theologians who have trenchantly opposed the notion of unity of being with some of them considering it tantamount to shirk (polytheism). According to them, God is separated from things because the purity of God’s existence is not combinable with material existents.

 

4. It seems that the reason why some Muslim scholars have strongly opposed mystics and the notion of unity of being is the profundity or the complexity of the points raised in mysticism regarding the said notion. Meanwhile, some of those who claim to be mystics have failed to explain this concept in a proper way and a few others have not been able to comprehend and understand this precise notion because of their own incompetence and weakness.

 

5. Mulla Sadra being a philosopher as well as a mystic endeavored to clarify the meaning of the unity of being. He also struggled to do away with the spurious arguments and misgivings which were due, largely, to misunderstanding.  For example, in his Asfar Arba’ah (The Four Journeys) Mulla Sadra differentiates between pure and unfolded (munbasit) beings. The former is unlimited and absolute such as the existence of the One God and the latter is distributed among contingent or possible images (hayakil). When gnostics speak of unity of being and absolute being, they refer to the first meaning not the second one. This confusion between pure and unfolded existence has led some scholars to err about the notion or deny it or even excommunicate others.

 

Detailed Answer

The notion of 'wahdat al-wujud' [unity of Being] is a monistic understanding of tawheed, the doctrine of oneness of God. It is considered one of the most fundamental concepts in mysticism and in mystical schools especially that of Ibn Arabi.  According to this principle, existence [wujud] is a single and eternal reality which is none other than God. No one other God has real existence. Whatever comes to our sight are in reality various expressions of that single reality that have manifested in the form of things which are, in fact, the outward radiance of that One Being.

Therefore, we cannot divide being (wujud) into creator and created. Hence, we must believe in one real being that is God. He, the Exalted, sometimes descends and becomes like creatures.

Ibn Arabi says:

"فما وصفناه بوصف الاّ كنّا نحن ذلك الوصف، فوجودنا وجوده، ونحن مفتقر اليه من حيث وجودنا، و هو مفتقر الينا من حيث ظهوره لنفسه."

Translation: Whatever we speak of Him, We have in reality described ourselves and spoken of ourselves because our existence is His existence. We are in need of Him for our existence and He needs us to express Himself.”[1]

According to Ibn Arabi, God and creatures aren’t but one thing and they are in need of each other because they are the image of one reality. In fact, the creatures are not but the attributes and qualities of the Truth. However, the relationship between existence and God is a real relationship where the relationship between existence and creatures is figurative.

It is said in Futuhaat Makkiyah about “confusion”: The difference between confusion of ‘the people of God’ and ‘people of thought’: The men of wisdom say:

و فى كل شى له آية

تدل على انه واحد،

“There is a sign of Him in everything indicating that He is One.”

But the people of manifestation (tajalli) say:

و فى كل شى‏ء له آية

تدل على انه عينه

There is a sign of Him in everything indicating that He is the same as that.”

The fact is that there is none in the world of existence other than God and no one knows God except God Himself. Perhaps, it is for the same reason that people like Abu Yazid have said “I am Allah” and also those before him who have said “Glorified I am”.[2]

Finally, the most unequivocal statement by Ibn Arabi regarding unity of being and which has been criticized a lot are the following passage and poem in his , al-Fotuhat al-Makkiyah:

فسبحان من اظهر الاشياء و هو عينها

That is, purified and glorified is He Who made things appear and He is the same as those things.

فما نظرت عينى الى غير وجهه

و ما سمعت اذنى خلاف كلامه

فكل وجود كان فيه وجوده

و كل شخيص لم يزل فى منامه

That is, my eyes do not see anything but Him, and ears do not hear anything but His speech; hence everything exists in Him and everything rests in His restful place.[3]

Unity of being (wahdat al-wujud) being the basic axis of gnostic schools and religion means that every being which is seen in the world is nothing but the theophanies [tajalliyat] or Self-manifestation of God. It is incorrect to say that these are His creatures. In fact, these are not but Him. That is to say, instead of telling:

“I love the entire universe because the entire universe is His”, we must say “I love the entire universe because the entire is him.” As Shaykh Mahmood Shabistari, one of the eighth century gnostics has said:

جناب حضرت حق را “دويى” نيست

در آن حضرت من و ما و تويى نيست

من و ما و تو و او هست يك چيز

كه در وحدت نباشد هيچ تمييز

شود با وجه باقى، غير هالك

يكى گردد سلوك و سير و سالك[4]

The Truth is not but One; You, we and I are not but One, we, I, thou and He is not but one thing; There is no division in unity; The face of Truth is Lasting, others are wayfarers.

Imam Muhammad Ghazzali says: “Gnostics have flown to the pinnacle of truth from the bottom of figurativeness and after acquiring perfection, they themselves see clearly through this ascension that there is none in the realm of existence except God. All except God does perish. Not only at every time but eternally and permanently, everything has two faces, one towards the self, the other towards God. He is non-existent in terms of the first face. The conclusion is that there is no existent other than God and His face. كل شى هالك الاّ وجهه" ازلاً و ابداً.

For this reason, gnostics do not need to wait until the Day of Judgment in order to hear the call “Whose then will be the kingdom? – God's, the One, the Omnipotent.” In fact, this call never stops reverberating in their ears. They never understand from “Allahu Akbar” He is Greater than all others. That is never the case because there is no one in the realm of existence other than Him. So such a comparison is wrong; others cannot be in the company of Truth.[5]

It is necessary to note that the term “principiality of existence” is not seen in Mohyiddin ibn Arabi’s writings and words and such a term was not commonplace before him either. In fact, those who came later and embarked on explaining Ibn Arabi’s works and those of other mystics were inspired by Ibn Arabi’s teachings and began to use such terms.

Arguments on Unity of Being:

Philosopher-gnostics like Mulla Sadra and others have presented philosophical arguments which are based on the principiality of existence and conceptual commonality. Among the arguments mentioned is the following:  Keeping in view the conceptual commonality of existence, existence must be a single reality because extracting a single meaning from different realities is not possible.

And also, among the principles reaffirming the notion of unity of being in philosophy is “the truth in its simplicity is all things”. That is to say, if the essence of simple (non-composite) truth did not include some realities, the simple truth would be compound, though by way of consideration, and combination is inconsistent with simplicity and abstractness. Hence, absolute truth incorporates and has the perfections of the entities in a simple (non-compsite) way.[6]

Jurists’ and Theologians’ argument in rejection of the notion of unity:

Some jurisprudents and theologians, whether Shia or Sunni or even some Christian theologians, have criticized Sufi and gnostic beliefs especially the notion of unity of being. Some have even excommunicated gnostics for holding such beliefs because they believed that such an idea is opposed to divine teaching. For example, the motto “there is no god but Allah” which is the first motto in Islam is opposed to “there is no existent (being) except Allah”. Because the first statement tells us not to worship and praise anything other than Allah e.g. idols, deities and objects but the second motto says that everything including the idols and deities are God and there is basically nothing other than God. In fact, it is God Who is worshipped in different ways and manners.

They have criticized what mystics have said: "سبحان من اظهر الاشياء و هو عينها" Glorified is He who made things manifest yet He is not but the same things. They have criticized mystics saying: ‘how can God be the same as the entities whereas some of them are mean, dirty, contaminated and impure? Such a statement amounts to infidelity (kufr).’

It should be noted that some gnostics have failed to explain their intention clearly and it is likely that some critics have not understood the mystics’ comments and statements properly and this has led them to object and criticize or even pass improper judgments about mystics in general and Ibn Arabi in particular. The discussion concerning unity of being is very difficult and precise. Not everyone can give a thorough explanation of it nor can he comprehend it.

Mulla Sadra is one of those philosophers and gnostics who endeavored to give a complete analysis of the notion of unity of being so as to prevent misconceptions and erroneous interpretations.

When it comes to how the reality of existence (haqiqat-i wujud) infiltrates definite beings and particular realities, Mulla Sadra says:

You should know that the reality of existence has three levels: The first level contains “existence” (wujud) itself and has no relation to anything other than itself.  From a theological point of view this existence is God, Who is absolute and distinct from and higher than His creation.  According to this view God is the absolute light (nur-i mutlaq) and for this reason is hidden from human intellect.

The second level pertains to the “unfolded existence” (wujud-i munbasit).  Existence at this level is still pure, meaning that it is still simple or unfolded and a single truth (haqiqat-i wahid). But apart from this, it has the potential of effusion to all directions.  From a theological point of view, it is the basis of the appearance and the manifestation of God.

The second level relates to “particular existences” (wujudat-i khas).  These things are the stages and the levels of the realization of the “unfolded existence”.  At each of these levels, when human intellect considers existence as an independent entity in relation to itself, it changes itself into quiddity. However, if quiddities that are formed in this way are compared to the “unfolded existence” (wujud-i munabasit), they are mere shadows.

The third level pertains to the “unfolded existence” (wujud-i munbasit).  Existence at this level is still pure, meaning that it is still simple or unfolded and a single truth (haqiqat-i wahid). But apart from this, it has the potential of effusion to all directions.  From a theological point of view, it is the basis of the appearance and the manifestation of God.

A man of knowledge and wisdom can discern the reality of being and its absoluteness at one glance and at the next glance he can see different and variant things.  He will see the truth behind the veil of variant things and realize that it is the “pure existence” (wujud-i mahd) and the “simple (non-composite) identity” (huwiyyat-i basitah), which has by no means any trace or sign of multiplicity (kithrat).  The reality of existence in this sense is “one” (wahid) with the “absolute unity” and is free from “absoluteness” (atlaq) and “determination” (taqyyid).  The reality of existence encompasses all levels and signs.[7]

Thereupon, he further adds to repel a misgiving:

It is proved that when the Necessary Truth is referred to as Absolute Truth (wajib-e mutlaq), they refer to existence in the first meaning, the abstract reality not the third and last meaning, or else the individual will be led astray as a result of not distinguishing between the two meanings. He will end up being an atheist, a permissive or someone who would believe that possible beings, which are imperfect, can be characteristic of divine attributes. [8]

 Else where Mulla Sadra discussing under the title “illusion and awakening” says:

Some so called Sufis or imitators who have not covered the path of gnostics and have not reached the rank of gnostics have, due to intellectual inability, ideological weakness and influence of illusion, thought that that Single Being who is described by gnostics as One and “Without Quiddity” and the “Invisible of the Invisibles” cannot practically materialize or manifest independently of theophanies and expressions. Rather what materializes is the realm of form and its spiritual and sensual powers and “Allah” is the Apparent of all, not a reality apart from them. And that Apparent of all is the reality of the major human being and the tangible Book, and this minor human being is a diminutive copy of that. This saying and belief is disbelief and pure heresy. Whoever has little knowledge and understanding will not utter such a thing. It is a slander and pure accusation to ascribe such a belief to Sufi veterans and their leaders. Their mind and conscience are pure from such words and it is likely that the cause of such ignorant conjectures could be a mistake in the application of the term of absolute existence which is sometimes applicable to the Truth and sometimes to absolute inclusiveness and sometimes to absolute rational generality.

It is appropriate to give an example of the difference between gnostics and other scholars due to misinterpretation or insufficiency of explanation or misunderstanding:

One of the books authored in rejection of gnosticism and mysticism is titled “Mesra’ al-Tasawuf” by Burhanuddin  Burqaei (888 – 809 A.H.). In that book, instances of such misconceptions have been mentioned, one of which is the following:

Shaykh Zaynuddin Abdur Rahim bin Al-Hasan Iraqi, whom Buaqaei calls Shaykh Al-Shuyukh, Shaykhul Islam and Memorizer of the Age says, about Ibn Arabi:

So these opponent of God, the Messenger of God and all believers came and endorsed the work of the Sufi school considering them to be among theologians and said: “In reality, gnostic is one who not only sees the truth in everything; but he also considers the truth to be the same as those things. Undoubtedly, he who says this is more polytheist than Jews and Christians. Because a Jew or a Christian may have worshipped a close servant of God and this Ibn Arabi considers worshipping a calf to be worship of God. In fact, his saying amounts to considering god to be the same as dog, pig, etc. and even the same as dirt. One of the knowledgeable scholars told me that he saw one of the followers of this cult in Alexandria who told him that God is the same as everything. A donkey was passing and I asked him: And this donkey also?! He answered: “Yes, this donkey and its stool!” I said: “This stool?!!” He said: “Yes, the stool also!! and ….”

In the West also, mystics’ view concerning mystical notions has been criticized owing, largely, to misconceptions. The notion of unity of being has been particularly the source of these objections.

Dr. Barnes, Birmingham bishop says: “In my view, all kinds of unity of being should be rejected because if man is really a part of God, the evil and impurity which are in man’s nature should also be in God.”[9]

Stace, a Christian theologian writes about the problem of the notion of unity of being as such:

“Apparently, we can find three main reasons for believers and monotheists’ pessimism towards unity of being. First, monotheism believes in a personified or personal God whereas Western thinkers believe in absolute non-personification.

Second, if, according to the notion of unity of being, the world and everything in it are godly, then in that case evil will also be godly.

Third, there is a strong feeling and also a staunch belief in all religion about God’s glory and omnipotence. This feeling is equal to the image that Rudolf Otto has of awe and solemnity. Mankind is nothing when compared to God. He is a sinful creature with barriers between him and God. He is impure and unforgiven. He is worthy of being called unjust and ignorant. Having said that , it is slanderous and heretic to claim that we are united with God in the sense of being one with Him. The difference between God and man and between God and the Universe is poles apart.[10]

It is, therefore, becoming clear why theologians and jurisprudents – Muslims and non-Muslims – are opposed to the notion of unity of being. It became clear that it is because of the profundity and ambiguity of the notion or the improper explanation of some claimants of mysticism and the complexity of the concept that many scholars have rejected the notion. The correct thing to do is not to tell anything regarding such concepts about which one lacks information. It is not good to accuse gnostics of heresy and atheism when one has not understood them properly. It is fair to say that he does not know anything rather than to excommunicate someone or consider him hypocrite.

 

[1] Mohyiddin Ibn Arabi, Fusuz al-Hekam p. 164.

[2] Mohyiddin Ibn Arabi, al-Fotuhat al-Makkiyah fi Asrar al-Malekiyah wa al-Makkiyah, vol.1, p. 272, chap.50.

[3] Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyah, vol.2, p. 459.

[4]  Shaykh Mahmood Shabistari, Gulshan Raz.

[5] Muhammad Ghazzali, Mishkatul Anwar, p. 150 – 152.

[6] Sayyid Yahya Yathrebi, Falsafa-e Irfan, pp. 127 – 128, Islamic Propagations Office of the Islamic Seminary of Qom, third edition, 1374 (1995).

[7] Mulla Sadra, al-Asfar al-arba'ah, vol. 1, p. 262.

[8] Ibid, p. 330.

[9] Bertrand Russell, Knowledge and Religion, p. 127, cited from the Philosophy of Mysticism, p. 173.

[10] Mysticism and Philosophy, p. 256, narrated by Sayyid Yahya Yathrebi, Philosophy of Mysticism, p. 173.

 

http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa1090

 

 

Recently we see an overt propagation going on in some religious websites and weblogs against mysticism and the mystics. In these websites, prominent figures like Allamah Tabatabai, Hasan Zadeh Amuli, Mulla Sadra, Hafiz Shirazi and Rumi Balkhi are openly insulted and derogatory words are used against them. As they claim, they are using traditions and narrations in their websites to denounce the mystics. Kindly, guide me in this regard.

Edited by PureEthics
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

(bismillah)

(salam)

DaBeast

My own view in a nutshell on your question: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235017313-tawil/?p=2672996

To understand it, or just to debunk it?

If the latter, don't bother - no need for somebody to explain a theory if, prior to understanding it, you have decided to debunk it.

If the former, then you need to be sincere and willing to take a very great number of hours studying the various concepts that come into the premises, which requires a decent amount of reading and discussing - especially if you have never really approached philosophy.

I don't like Democritus, but he turned out to be spot on with his atomic theory.

Truth and one's liking of the person who speaks it are two unrelated matters.

Might be.

But this can only be known after we have understood the theory.

As for post#3, then that sort of answer is both New Age www.Akhbarism (I found ḥadīth, therefore I know what I am talking about), itself a once-and-for-all debunked theory, or Taqlīd in ʿaqāʾid (my marjaʿ in fiqh says what I should believe in), which is arguably an error, since the marjaʿ in fiqh is not necessarily the marjaʿ in ʿaqāʾid.

ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī without a doubt had studied the aḥādīth on ʿaqīda far more than many of the fuqahā of his time, and he is well-known amongst the ʿulamā as an expert in that field as both a philosopher and a mutakallim.

A good example in our aḥādīth is Hishām b. Ḥakam. Not everybody was permitted by the Imām [a] to debate. But Hishām was not only permitted; he was encouraged.

So, even supposing taqlīd in ʿaqāʾid is the way to go - it ought to be of an expert, someone who knows the rational sciences.

(wasalam)

Ahsant brother. For example, like me, I am doing Taqlid of Sistani, but I also take liking to esoteric, mysticism, irfan etc of the greats such as Tabatabai and Behjat. May Allah bless all these magnificent Ulema. There knowledge on this matter is wonders. How their sense of intellect, theology, and philosophy worked to explain such concepts still baffles me to this day. SubhanAllah. Can anyone dare to show how such beings went against the teachings of Muhammad A.S?

(Wasalam)

Edited by PureEthics
  • Banned
Posted

It appears that nobody after the second post has even read Ali Musaaa :) 's post. Nobody has sufficiently proven that Sadiq Shirazi is wrong. And I doubt any of you will. He is probably the most orthodox Shia scholar today (along with Khorasani, Rouhani, and Sistani). Wahdat al-Wujud is not compliant with Tawhid according to those people I just mentioned or the great majority of scholars from other sects (except some Sufi tariqahs and Nizari Ismailism).

Please, if you want to argue for pantheism, I suggest you start with refuting basically all orthodox Muslim scholars from the various sects. Then, once that is complete (should take a few years at minimum) you should properly refute Mohammed and his successors from both sects (the Khalifas and the Shia Imams) since they were all opposed to pantheism as well. Once you have completed that, then you can finally say that you have more knowledge than your own prophet and imams and leave Islam for a more pantheistic religion such as Buddhism (they're more peaceful than some Hindus so I'd go for them ...)

Posted (edited)

.


(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Agora

 

I read Musa's post.

Very carefully.

I did not respond to it in particular, for two reasons:

First, he is a scholar, and I do not find pleasure in trying to argue that scholars are wrong in their judgements. It upsets me to see the scholar speak disparagingly about other revered scholars merely because they believe differently in the details. Either Ṣadūq [r] was a muqaṣṣir or Mufīd [r] was a ghālī. But I'd like to think they were both orthodox Imāmī despite their theological and methodological differences.

Second, he only provided a single argument against the doctrine and no other:

This is because there is no commonality – let alone wahdah – between the existence of creation and that of the Creator.

If you can identify a single other argument which actually entails the conclusion that it is inconsistent with Islam, please show it.

Except for that single argument, none of the others logically entail the conclusion.

As for the single argument provided, it is fallacious, as it assumes the very thing it attempts to prove, i.e. that there is no Unity [waḥda] of Existence.

 

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
Posted (edited)

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

The concept of "Wahdatul Wujood" is very much needed (nowadays) for us to think correctly about God.  Because unlike in other times everyone in the modern world is operating (by default) under a deistic worldview (without even being conscious of it).  In other words, anyone who opposes Wahdatul Wujud today is necessarily a deist (whether he realizes it or not).  "Wahdatul Wujud" (Oneness of Existence) is simply a philosophical replacement for the word "tawhid" (Principle of Oneness).  Also, there is nothing really to debate about.  One either accepts Wahdatul Wujood as soon as it is explained to him, or he doesn't accept it (it is something that our fitrah should accept immediately).  If it doesn't then either it has been introduced to us negatively as another form of pantheism or we are just too much after the world and not interested in God.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Posted

problem is that people take the meaning of this to be literal and give their opinions and comments based on that

nobody thinks that this has anything to do with any kind of physical unity, rather this is about a unity of mind and heart where the Person thinks like the Quran is written 

it means complete stripping away from the self and the inclination of the self to anything but God 

people like to demonize what they dont understand and fear to grasp or conceive with their minds 

its nothing special in reality, it is just the persons mind becomes one with God and heart one with God so that there is no inclination to ANYTHING but God

what do you think the Imams were doing all their lives? they were fully connected with God to such an extent that everything else in this world appeared like a false dream 

how do you think Imam Ali was able to pray while they took out an arrow out of his leg that otherwise would have been difficult to do? 

dont demonize something you dont understand or take literally 

A person's mind and heart never becomes " one with God"

That's not true man

Posted (edited)

Just to be clear, The Imams are slaves of Allah swt, note even dust compared to Allah swt - you can't even compare to Allah swt to begin with. They are powerless in the eyes of Allah swt, wept at night crying to Allah swt.

 

Allah swt is immaterial, has no form limit or confine, nor does he have incarnations or expressions.

 

I haven't had time to read about this concept, but i just wanted to make the above points clear.

 

"According to Ibn Arabi, God and creatures aren’t but one thing and they are in need of each other because they are the image of one reality. In fact, the creatures are not but the attributes and qualities of the Truth. However, the relationship between existence and God is a real relationship where the relationship between existence and creatures is figurative."

 

Allah swt needs no-one or nothing for his reality to be absolute. We need him for our reality to exist, he doesn't need us.  I am not liking all of this , Imams have power over all atoms, we pray and put our dua's to them to grant, Allah swt needs his creatures...

 

 

 

28_88.png

Do not worship anything besides God. He is the only God. Everything will be destroyed except God. To Him belongs Judgment and to Him you will all return.

 

Note, i am not debunking the whole theory. I am merely debunking any claim whatsoever that Allah swt needs his creatures in any way shape or form. Everything will be destroyed except Allah swt! Allah swt's existence is neccesary , our existence isn't, so how can Allah swt rely on our existence and how are we 'one reality'.

Edited by Logical Islamic
Posted (edited)

If anyone wishes to take this topic seriously, consider the following (in addition to posting Shaykh Tehrani's (ha) article, ahsantum to those who did, as he is an 'alim who has actually taken the time to study this theory under scholars who themselves have studied and taught it for decades)

 

1-You do not simply kick back on a Sunday afternoon sipping tea and study wahdat ul-wujud. The works of Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, etc have numerous prerequisites for proper understanding, as do many heavy intellectual works, and therefore are not just simply "read." They employ specific terminology and concepts which, like any science, are not understood at first glance and require sometimes very in depth analysis and months, years, sometimes even decades of learning! This can be easily shown if anyone would like further evidence.

 

2-Therefore, if anyone wants to bring Sayyid Sadiq or Shaykh Fayyadh's views, I will ask a simple question: under who, and for how long, did they study these texts? Who did they study Ash-Shifaa' of Ibn Sina under? Under who did they study Asfar al-Arba, a work which is only BEGUN after sometimes 7-8 years of previous study? Who did they study Ibn Arabi's magnum opus, Fusus ul-Hikam, under? If you want to establish their views as legitimate, haatu burhanakum in kuntum sadiqeen.

 

3-Those scholars who HAVE studied this theory, have done so for numerous years, and sometimes decades, under scholars who have done the same. It is known that Imam Khumayni, Allamah Tabatabai, and contemporary scholars like Ayatullah Hasan Zadeh Amuli, Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli, Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari, and the aforementioned Ayatullah Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani (may Allah protect all of them) have dedicated countless hours to studying and teaching these works.

 

Now, simple question. Regarding those who have studied these works in depth, for years on end, what conclusion do they come to? They are, after all, EASILY the experts on these works, considering the time and energy that has been put into studying and teaching them, which, from what I have seen, is not the case with Sayyid Sadiq, Ayatullah Fayyadh, etc. (if anyone has evidence to the contrary on this, please bring it forth) So, what do the experts say? Is it kufr? NO. On the contrary, they say that it is the PUREST expression of tawheed and as far away from shirk as one can get! 

 

Yes, Sayyid Sadiq and Shaykh Fayyadh are very learned fuqaha who have spent many years studying and teaching fiqh in the hawza. They, however, are NOT experts on 'irfan and philosophy. If you want to understand the relevance of an idea, go to those who truly know and understand it. This is a very basic concept, and easy to grasp, as the whole idea of following a marja, which Shaykh Fayyadh and Sadiq Sadiq are clearly aware of, is centered around figuring out who is 'alam, or "most learned." So tell me, who is most learned about Ibn Arabi? Sh Fayyadh or Ayatullah Hasan Zadeh Amuli? Sayyid Sadiq or Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli?

 

Let's do ourselves a favor and remain quiet on things we do not understand. 

(salam)

 

Wahdatul Wujood is a pretty simple idea.  It doesn't have to be studied for years upon years.  No one in his right mind should or would ever study something for years upon years unless he truly believed it was true!  If I were to ask you for example:  Who did you study under and for how many years? Do you agree with Wahdatul Wujood?

 

The only reason why you believe in the doctrine is probably because it simply (already) makes sense to you (you are attracted to it).   :)

So, one either accepts it or they don't.  No need to even try to justify it or try to defend it.  

Edited by eThErEaL
  • Advanced Member
Posted

(salam)

 

Wahdatul Wujood is a pretty simple idea.  It doesn't have to be studied for years upon years.  No one in their right mind should or would ever study something for years upon years unless they first agreed that it was correct!  If I were to ask you for example.  Do you agree that Wahdatul Wujood is correct or incorrect?  Who did you study under and for how many years did you study under that teacher?  

 

The only reason why you accept it is probably because it simply makes sense to you.   :)

So, one either understands it or they don't.  No need to even try to justify it or try to defend it.  

 

I think that the thousands of pages and hours of classes taught on the subject beg to differ :-)

 

And, just for the record, I do not at all claim to understand it. Not even close! I incline towards it because there are other concepts and ideas presented by Mulla Sadra, Ibn Arabi, etc. which I feel I do understand to some extent, and which I believe are very insightful, correct, and even genius understandings of the teachings of Islam. But wahdat ul-wujud is far beyond me at this point :-(

Posted (edited)

I think that the thousands of pages and hours of classes taught on the subject beg to differ :-)

 

And, just for the record, I do not at all claim to understand it. Not even close! I incline towards it because there are other concepts and ideas presented by Mulla Sadra, Ibn Arabi, etc. which I feel I do understand to some extent, and which I believe are very insightful, correct, and even genius understandings of the teachings of Islam. But wahdat ul-wujud is far beyond me at this point :-(

You don't even feel you understand it theoretically?

 

And which concepts by Ibn Arabi do you feel you understand but which do not have any relevance with Wahdatul Wujood?

Edited by eThErEaL
  • Veteran Member
Posted

Sure is taqsiri in this thread.  :shifty:

 

 

But seriously please, brothers and sisters, before we even begin to discuss the subject of Wahdat al-Wujud, some facts must emphasized.The learned ulama are not completely unanimous in their opinions on this concept. That is to say, some believe in its principle while others, particularly the strongly exoteric leaning scholars, reject it. But even among those who believe in the notion of wahdat al-wujud, whether they be Shi'a or Sunni,  they don't always agree on the finer points of the doctrine. Allamah Tabatabai's understanding may not match how this or that Sufi sheikh or other Shi'ite alim understands it in its particulars, for instance. 

 

So, whether any of us are for it or against it, we must be clear what definition of wahdat al-wujud we are speaking of and according to whom. Then we can proceed to pick apart the particular definition we speak of in this case and whether or not it represents the train of thought of any legitimate historical school of thought. From there, we may examine any other historical and traditional interpretations of the concept which may exist and discuss those in further detail.

 

I say this because I feel, especially in the modern era, there are many pseudo-Sufis and mystics who peddle these doctrines like wahdat al-wujud but their understanding of it is not a traditional or historic Islamic point of view, and these so-called teachers sour the atmosphere for the true gnostics and Sufis by creating a caricature that stains their own image in the minds of other more exoterically minded scholars who might have otherwise been more open. Also, because of narrow understandings and just their own emotion getting the better of them, some polemicists against wahdat al-wujud or irfan in general have a deficient understanding of what they are arguing against and so to take their word for it when they say "this is what they teach and why it's wrong," can sometimes be a grave mistake. 

 

If we are going to discuss wahdat al-wujud, we must be clear on the definitions of various terms we use to describe the concept, who is giving these definitions, whether or not their authority to speak on these topics comes from a legitimate source and represents an historical view of scholars on the subject, and whether or not there are other definitions which themselves come from other historic schools of thought on the same issue.

  • Advanced Member
Posted

You don't even feel you understand it theoretically?

 

And which concepts by Ibn Arabi do you feel you understand but which do not have any relevance with Wahdatul Wujood?

 

The difference between theoretical understanding and ma'rifah is like comparing a drop of water to an ocean.

 

Even assuming my theoretical understanding has any value, it's nothing at the end of the day

  • Veteran Member
Posted

A person's mind and heart never becomes " one with God"

That's not true man

so what do you imagine when you read the words "one with God" 

what you seem to imagine is based on either your misunderstanding or your lack of understanding 

i already clarified to that there is no "physical unification" of any kind i said that the state of mind and heart resembles how God wants us to think and be, in that the person has no influence from an evil and is free from anything 

once evil is removed then there is only good left and justice left and mercy left and all the other names of God left in that person , and the person acts upon them , this is what it means to be purified 

this was the state of the Imams and what made them what they are 

  • Veteran Member
Posted

(bismillah)

 

In this video, Ayatollah Sayeed Kamal al-Haydari explains wahdat ul-wujud. There's two parts. 

 

Note: I don't belive in wahdat al-Wujud, but I am not against it. Nobody should be against something which they don't know. So, I advise you to read this topic carefully.

 

 

Posted (edited)

Imam al-Hasan a.-Askari (a.s) he said to Abi Hashem Al-Ja'afari(r.a):"O Ibn Al-Jaafari O Aba Hashem, there will come a time to the

people, their scholars are the most evil creation of Allah on the face of the earth, that is because they lean towards philosophy and aesceticism but they misguide our Shias and the ones who have our Wilaya, so if they reach a position they will not have enough of bribery,and if they betray that is because they worshipped God in fakery, by God they cut the routes for the true believers,and they call forth to the contribution of infidelity".

Safeenat Al- Bihaar Wa Madinat Al-Hukm Wal-Athaar v.2 p.57 p.58 v.4

Edited by DaBeast313
Posted (edited)

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

DaBeast

 

You are going through very dangerous territory with that sort of thinking.

 

Merely posting a khabar wāḥid to prove a point, without looking at other aḥādīth - especially more established ones in our classical compilations - which may shed light on what is and what is not meant here, without any investigation into the dalālat, without judging the hadīth with the Koran, without dirāya analysis, and finally without ʿaql, will cast you into absurdity.

 

(According to a critique I am currently reading, what you have posted cannot be found in texts prior to Muqaddas Ardibilī [r] of the Safavid era, even in the texts which the sanad purports to have contained this ḥadīth. If so, then you'd be relying pretty much on conjecture. Perhaps you can address this critique?).

 

 

*

 

However, I have noticed that some have made it a habit to prove points by merely posting ḥadīth.

So I would like to take a leaf from their book, and prove a point of my own.

 

 

 محمد عن أحمد عن ابن محبوب عن جميل بن صالح عن أبان بن تغلب عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قال: سألته عن الأرض على أي شيء هي؟ قال: هي على حوت قلت: فالحوت على أي شيء هو؟ قال: على الماء قلت: فالماء على أي شيء هو؟ قال: على صخرة قلت: فعلى أي شيء الصخرة؟ قال: على قرن ثور أملس قلت: فعلى أي شيء الثور؟ قال: على الثرى قلت: فعلى أي شيء الثرى؟ فقال: هيهات عند ذلك ضل علم العلما
Muhammad reported from Ahmad, from ibn Mahbub, from Jamil ibn Salih, from Aban ibn Taghlib, from Abu ‘Abd Allah (upon whom be peace), who said, I asked him about the earth: Upon which does it stand forth? To which he replied: It stands forth upon a whale. I asked: Upon which does the whale stand forth? To which he replied: Upon water. I asked: Upon which does water stand forth? To which he replied: Upon a rock. I asked: Upon which does the rock stand forth? To which he replied: Upon a bull’s smooth horn. I asked: Upon which does the bull stand forth? To which he replied: Upon the ground. I asked: Upon which does the ground stand forth? To which he replied: What an idea? Therewith is lost the knowledge of the men of knowledge.

 

Ṣaḥīḥ, and in al-Kāfī.

 

How does it sound for me to prove a point by merely posting it, without any examination?

Reasonable? Or blatantly absurd?

 

I will assert that this proves the Ahlulbayt [a] explained to us that a bull - that male cattle with horns - keeps the earth by carrying it on its horn.

Would you agree with me?

Or would you disabuse me of this notion by appealing to the discoveries of 'deviant' pagan, Muslim, Christian, and atheist philosophers and materialist scientists who proved through ʿaql and analysis that this picture is False, and therefore that is not what the ḥadīth means?

Will you trump the truths of science and intellect with a khabar wāḥid or will you interpret khabar wāḥid in light of science and intellect?

How fallacious to think that, just because one does not like a portion of what they believe in - i.e. they are 'deviants' - that all their ideas are misguided by default.

 

 

*

 

 

Learn to be rational, brother.

Want to be rational.

Everyone has their textual references, their holy book, their holy men, their deities, even their mystical experiences.

But only with ʿaql Truth is distinguished from Falsehood.

The āyāt and aḥādīth for ʿaqlī reflection and against non-reflective compliance are mutawātir beyond anything.

Every ḥadīth of the Imām [a] is consistent with and derived from ʿaql, and so can only be properly understood through ʿaql.

The ʿaql is the inner prophet, per ḥadīth.

It is wrong to disobey one's inner prophet.

N.B. one should not mistake 'inner prophet' with 'inner feeling' or ʿaql with raʿy.

Islam commands us to act on the former, which is objective and necessary, and avoid the latter, which is subjective and contingent.

Nobody should conflate the two, or argue against ʿaql using arguments against raʾy.

 

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
Posted

I can get many hadiths' from our old books that tells us not to he Sufi' inclined. This Wahdat al-Wujud was never taught by Shiekh al-Mufid (r.a) and our other Qudama', it came from Tassawuf'. I have heard it is not permissible to think about the Entity of Allah (s.w.t), it leads to tahluka.

  • Veteran Member
Posted

I can get many hadiths' from our old books that tells us not to he Sufi' inclined. This Wahdat al-Wujud was never taught by Shiekh al-Mufid (r.a) and our other Qudama', it came from Tassawuf'. I have heard it is not permissible to think about the Entity of Allah (s.w.t), it leads to tahluka.

If it is Batil then why this thread?

Posted

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

DaBeast

 

I've read those aḥādīth.

My case is in particular for the attack against philosophy and philosophical waḥdat ul wujūd.

 

Shaykh Mufīd taught us things which his predecessors had not taught.

Does that mean he was an innovator?

Shaykh Mufīd was influenced by the Muʿtazila.

Is that a bad thing? What happened to seek knowledge wherever it comes from? What happened to look at the speech not the speaker? Are these not the teachings of our Imams?

 

 


I have heard it is not permissible to think about the Entity Essence (dhāt) of Alla

 

It's actually a ḥadīth.

I'm afraid I don't have time to delve into this ḥadīth.

All I should say now is: one can't just form a vague notion of what this ḥadīth means and then apply it to a theory one doesn't know much about.

Just one difficulty is the word dhāt - normally translated essence. What does it mean?

It has to be understand what essence means, before one can apply that word properly.

Recall the Imāms [a] said their ḥadīth is difficult.

It's easy to see that their ḥadīth on ʿaqīda is by far the most complex, subtle and intricate.

One ought not expect that the first unreflected thing that comes to one's mind is actually what they intended.

Hence, I humbly humbly, but firmly firmly advise you to do any of the following:

 

1. Suspend judgement

or

2. Undergo adequate education until you reach a level where your opinion has intellectual value

or

3. Do taqlīd (if you really must) of those who are considered aʿlam in this field

 

This is what ʿaql tells us to do: don't pre-judge, or come to knowledge and then judge, or defer to someone who has the most knowledge and let them judge.

 

 

(Wasalam)

Posted

Yes, listen to the speech not the speaker. But remember, they are decievers (according to Imam al-Hadi (a.s), and we should not take their beliefs. Our beliefs are outlined by the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w) and his Pure Progeny, there is no need to make theories made up by people such ad Ibn Arabi.

Posted (edited)

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

DaBeast

 

You can't say "look to the speech and not the speaker", but then say, "if the speaker is a deceiver, don't look to the speech".

 

You're being inconsistent, which is irrational.

Inconsistency is a deep flaw.

Shīʿas rightfully accuse people of inconsistency when they say things like the unlimited God can be comprehended by our limited vision, or the unchanging God dies.

So one ought to beware of inconsistency in one's own pronouncements as well.

Inconsistent statements are never True.

 

 

إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَأٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا

Fisq does not entail the Falsity of their speech.

The Koran attests to that as much as the ḥadīth of Amīr al-Muʾminīn [a] and ʿaql itself, the inner prophet.

The ḥadīth of Imām Hādī [a] should not be read as going against this verse, i.e. it should not be read as forbidding us taking ideas spoken by fāsiq individuals if, after examination, we have rational grounds to believe that those ideas are True.

 

 

I don't have time to pursue this further, so our dialogue ends.

I have offered my arguments and I have criticised the counter-arguments.

I have advised you with goodwill, which a Muslim does for another Muslim, and I believe the advice to have been sincere, rational and good.

It's of course up to you how you treat this advice.

 

في أمان الله

 

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
Posted (edited)

The difference between theoretical understanding and ma'rifah is like comparing a drop of water to an ocean.

Even assuming my theoretical understanding has any value, it's nothing at the end of the day

So, are you saying that the theoretical understanding of Wahdatul Wujood (you have) is not enough for you to judge whether it is correct or incorrect? Edited by eThErEaL
  • Veteran Member
Posted

Existence is one meaning no

Matter to where it applies. Created things are weak existents depending in totality on the aboslute perfection. This is wahdatul wujud which separates created with creation yet keeps one existence which all things depend on.

Posted (edited)

(Bismillah)

(Salam)

Wahdatul Wujud simply means there is One God, the Absolute. If God exists He exists absolutely. If God is beautiful, He is absolutely beautiful. If He is powerful, He is absolutely powerful, if knowing, He is absolutely knowing etc etc.

To all those who have trouble with "Wahdatul Wujood", do you, in any way, disagree with the fact that God is One and that He is Absolutely One? What does "Absolutely One" mean to you anyway?

Edited by eThErEaL
  • Advanced Member
Posted

(bismillah)

(salam)

Beast

I just wanted to say that not understanding a belief fully does not render it incorrect.

Imam Ali (AS) said, ‘He who thinks perceives.’[Nahj al-Balagha, Letter 31]

Imam Hasan (AS) said, ‘Thinking is the life of the heart of the cognizant.’[bihar al-Anwar, v. 78, p. 115, no. 11]

Just think and inshallah all will become crystal clear.

(wasalam)

Posted

Existence is one meaning no

Matter to where it applies. Created things are weak existents depending in totality on the aboslute perfection. This is wahdatul wujud which separates created with creation yet keeps one existence which all things depend on.

We say Allah (s.w.t) created existence and he is noffected by anything and is Above All.

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...