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

Wahdat-Al-Wujud

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In the name of Allah the beneficient the merciful,

Salamunalaykum,

 

1. Which marja's accepted it, and did ayatullah mutahari r.a (yes i know he was not a marja) accept it ?

2. If so, who gave them the right to ?

3. What are the key concepts in this theory ?

 

 

My initial feelings were, why on earth do people want to start inventing things in the religion, can we not just accept things as they are, but then i realized, perhaps i do not understand it, nor comprehend it, nor have dedicated time to read on it, so it would be unwise for me to speculate so early.

Edited by Tawheed313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You can start with this thread and let your 'initial feelings' aside for your own sake. May Allah bless you.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235022164-philosophy-and-wahdat-al-wujud/

 

wow. I forgot about that thread rofl I was such a jahil.

 

Still am but still... not like that. That's embarrassing. lol 

other threads I recommend brother Tawheed313:

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234975614-the-apostasy-of-soofees-sufi/

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234945391-pantheism-wihdat-al-wujud-and-wahdat-al-wujud/page-1

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234985566-logical-proof-of-wahdatal-wujood/

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234976856-wahdat-ul-wujood/

 

Keep in mind these are old threads, and the people who commented may have changed their opinion through time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're going to give Wahdat al-Wujood a chance but not "Ghuluww"? 

 

You're playing on words dear brother. Ghuluw is shirk, acts of extreme devotion such as tatbir i do not do not endorse, and ya ali madad i do not say is shirk but refrain from doing myself.

 

Wahdat al wujood i have no clue what it is, what it represents, and i am allowing myself to research on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

As someone who knows very little about Islamic philosophy, it always strikes me as weird that whenever it is brought up, this is the issue being discussed, all the while Christian philosophers are busy proving the existence of God and putting the atheists back in their place.

 

What a world.


In the name of Allah the beneficient the merciful,

Salamunalaykum,

 

1. Which marja's accepted it, and did ayatullah mutahari r.a (yes i know he was not a marja) accept it ?

 

wa 'alaykum assalam,

 

I would be very surprised if the shaykh didn't believe in it, he was very close to Allama Tabataba'i and sayed Khomayni, and I would imagine that everyone in those Irfani circles believes in it.

 

I once saw a video of sayed al-Haydari explaining it, I have to say, he didn't do the concept any favours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Shaykh al-Yazdi's said: There is no doubt that the ghulat (extremists), the khawarij and the nawaṣib are impure (najis). As regards to the mujassimah, the mujabbirah and those who believe in waḥdat al-wujūd from the Sufis: If they committed to the laws of Islam, then it is more assertive that they are not impure unless one knows that they commit to a decree of falsehood of their sect. (translation taken from MAFHJ)

 

Sayyed al-Khoei's opinion on this statement: http://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=514

Edited by The Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You're playing on words dear brother. Ghuluw is shirk, acts of extreme devotion such as tatbir i do not do not endorse, and ya ali madad i do not say is shirk but refrain from doing myself.

 

Wahdat al wujood i have no clue what it is, what it represents, and i am allowing myself to research on this issue.

No I'm not playing on any words. You don't even know what Ghuluww is if you think tatbeer is considered part of it. 

Instead of following a few random people with blogs and knowledge in "hadith science", you can research things for yourself instead of making 10 posts a day repeating the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm not playing on any words. You don't even know what Ghuluww is if you think tatbeer is considered part of it. 

Instead of following a few random people with blogs and knowledge in "hadith science", you can research things for yourself instead of making 10 posts a day repeating the same thing. 

 

I do not class tatbir as ghuluw in the classical sense. I have even differentiated it in my post:

 

"You're playing on words dear brother. Ghuluw is shirk, acts of extreme devotion such as tatbir i do not do not endorse, and ya ali madad i do not say is shirk but refrain from doing myself."

 

As you can see, i class tatbir as an act of extreme devotion, a clear instance of deviation but not ghuluw in the proper sense, perhaps ghuluw if you only use the literal translation to mean being excessive etc.  I hope i have clarified that for you.

 

I also do not follow random individuals who have their own blogs. My opinions come from a study of hadiths in Al Kafi, reading books, watching lectures, hearing arguments, and views held by some ulemaand mutjahids themselves - some of whom i have personally contacted.

 

I am always willing to be proven wrong.

 

Lastly, i know little about wahadat al wujud apart from the odd one or two points, and i get different sorts of answers when reading about it - that or i simply do not understand it. I have not devoted any time really to it, and i have no idea as to what it really means or represents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salamun Alaykum.  

 

Wahdatul Wujud is acknowledged by people who want to feel God's presence HERE and NOW.  So if one does not yearn to feel His presence then it is pointless for him to accept Wahdatul Wujud.  But for those who yearn for His Presence HERE and NOW then they don't need much convincing to acknowledge Wahdatul Wujud.  

 

So here is the question to ask yourselves!  

 

Are you interested in rational arguments, debates, and trying to prove His existence??

 

If so, then you probably will not acknowledge wahdatul wujud... 

 

Or are you really just concerned about wanting to feel the Divine Presence ALREADY??

 

If so, then you will immediately acknowledge the Truth about Wahdatul Wujud.  

 

Some people are simply receptive to this and others are not.  If you feel drawn to this doctrine of wahdatul wujud then it is time for you to 1) search for a master like Hasan Zadeh Amuli, and pray to God for Him to guide you on the spiritual path.    

 

Ma'salama

MK  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

1. Which marja's accepted it, and did ayatullah mutahari r.a (yes i know he was not a marja) accept it ?

 

 

It doesn't matter which Marj'a accepted it or rejected it. It is more wise to see which Shi'i Philosopher (whether he was a Marj'a or not) accepted it or rejected it.

 

2. If so, who gave them the right to ?

 

Their intellect.

 

3. What are the key concepts in this theory ?

 

 

Depends on which of the 20+ definitions of Wahdat al-Wujud you are referring to.

 

but then i realized, perhaps i do not understand it, nor comprehend it, nor have dedicated time to read on it, so it would be unwise for me to speculate so early.

 

 

There are too many premises and readings required and involved in understanding this concept, and you won't find much material on it in English. Furthermore from all the past threads that were created on such topics over the years, it is obvious that this forum will not be able to give you sufficient answers either (a place where a scholar and a layman's opinion are treated the same, can't be a very fruitful place, and that is the nature of online forums). Try reading this as a start and see if you understand anything: The Fundamentality of Existence and the Subjectivity of Quiddity.

 

As I have understood it - with extremely limited readings on the subject, let alone an understanding of it - if one believes in Asalah al-Wujud (Fundamentality of Existence), they will be able to prove Wahdat al-Wujud. However if one does not reach that conclusion and instead believes in Asalah al-Mahiyyah (like Ayatullah Ghulam Raza Fayyazi, a well-known philosopher, logician and jurist in Qum, who has also debated Sayyid Ja'far Sayyidan of the Maktab Tafkik on the topic of 'Aql and its place in religion - he believes in something in the middle of these two Asl), you will generally reach the conclusion that there is no Wahdat al-Wujud (i.e. he doesn't believe in it, as I have been told by his student). Asalat al-Wujud seems to be generally accepted amongst the Shi'i philosophers today, and subsequently so is Wahdat al-Wujud.

 

Wassalam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

 

 

It doesn't matter which Marj'a accepted it or rejected it. It is more wise to see which Shi'i Philosopher (whether he was a Marj'a or not) accepted it or rejected it.

 

Salamun Alaykum. Just a question.

 

What if one isn't really a fan of philosophy in religion - or is of the belief that it is merely a tool which is fallible and cannot be used in a matter such a Tawheed, and the only way to find true Tawheed is through the Thaqalayn (strictly through the Holy Qur'an and Riwayat of Ahlulbayt)?

 

Should it really matter to him which Shi'i philosophers accepted it?

 

Wa Alaykum al Salam

Edited by The Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

He actually believes in the Asalah(fundementality) of Wujud (existence) and Mahiyyah (quiddity) together.

 

I was in a rush when I wrote that as I was off to someone's house, but I actually just got a moderator to make that edit. It was annoying me in the back of my mind the whole time I was out lol. As for his title, I have heard the term Ayatullah being used for him many times (more recently by a teacher at Muassasehye Imam who was quoting a lot from him in discussions pertaining to the spirit), alongside titles like Agha, Ustad (another common term I've heard used for him), Muhaqqiq and Sheikh.

 

What if one isn't really a fan of philosophy in religion

 

Anyone being a fan of it or not, doesn't add or subtract anything to the value of Philosophy.

 

or is of the belief that it is merely a tool which is fallible and cannot be used in a matter such a Tawheed, and the only way to find true Tawheed is through the Thaqalayn (strictly through the Holy Qur'an and Riwayat of Ahlulbayt)?

 

 

Philosophy as a tool, primary relies on the intellect. How can you use this same "fallible" tool, to prove without a doubt the reliability of the Qur'an, Riwayat of the Ahl ul-Bayt, Tawheed, Ma'ad, necessity of Prophethood and Imamah and many other things, but when it comes to certain other matters, all of a sudden this "fallible" tool (whose merits have clearly been described in numerous narrations) becomes a problem? What is your standard?

 

Should it really matter to him which Shi'i philosophers accepted it?
 

Common sense (i.e. of the rational people) dictates that you go to the experts in any given field.

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

Most philosophers in the west don't believe in God, should people in the west not believe in God due to the philosophers?

 

Could you please bring a reference for your claim first and also please elaborate whether these are philosophers of religion or just philosophers of any subject (for example, why should I care if a philosopher of language doesn't believe in God)? As for your second claim, you are talking about mere belief in God, which is not something restricted to the expertise of a philosopher, scientist, carpenter or whoever, so there is no reason for people in the West to not believe in a God because some philosopher didn't believe in Him. However, details regarding God from a specific perspective, can definitely be restricted to an expert who has a distinct approach to the subject, such as a philosopher, or a mutakallim. Which is why I don't understand this complete out-right rejection of Wahdat al-Wujud by some individuals on this forum. They quote and reference individuals who are academically completely irrelevant when it comes to the subject (in order to reject it). Instead of seeing that those whose expertise is in this specific area tend to lean towards it, and have the humility to rather not take a position on it at all, they are more willing to completely reject it without understanding anything about it at all. I don't have any position on it, I don't believe I need to have a position on it until I have actually studied it and understood it. But that doesn't mean I reject it and launch a campaign against the scholars who believe in it (which some individuals unfortunately do).

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why has Mohammad been called God's light in the Quran?

 


(salam)

 

 

Could you please bring a reference for your claim first and also please elaborate whether these are philosophers of religion or just philosophers of any subject (for example, why should I care if a philosopher of language doesn't believe in God)? As for your second claim, you are talking about mere belief in God, which is not something restricted to the expertise of a philosopher, scientist, carpenter or whoever, so there is no reason for people in the West to not believe in a God because some philosopher didn't believe in Him. However, details regarding God from a specific perspective, can definitely be restricted to an expert who has a distinct approach to the subject, such as a philosopher, or a mutakallim. Which is why I don't understand this complete out-right rejection of Wahdat al-Wujud by some individuals on this forum. They quote and reference individuals who are academically completely irrelevant when it comes to the subject (in order to reject it). Instead of seeing that those whose expertise is in this specific area tend to lean towards it, and have the humility to rather not take a position on it at all, they are more willing to completely reject it without understanding anything about it at all. I don't have any position on it, I don't believe I need to have a position on it until I have actually studied it and understood it. But that doesn't mean I reject it and launch a campaign against the scholars who believe in it (which some individuals unfortunately do).

 

Wassalam

Salam

 

I don't have the reference. I remember hearing it in a debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Philosophy as a tool, primary relies on the intellect. How can you use this same "fallible" tool, to prove without a doubt the reliability of the Qur'an, Riwayat of the Ahl ul-Bayt, Tawheed, Ma'ad, necessity of Prophethood and Imamah and many other things, but when it comes to certain other matters, all of a sudden this "fallible" tool (whose merits have clearly been described in numerous narrations) becomes a problem? What is your standard?

 

 

Common sense (i.e. of the rational people) dictates that you go to the experts in any given field.

 

Wassalam

 

Slamun Alaykum. Brother how can you compare the two? Proving the reliability Holy Qur'an through rationality is different to believing in a concept and calling it Tawheed. You're not going to be asked on the Day of Judgement whether you prove the reliability of the Holy Qur'an, you are going to be asked about your Tawheed, and basing your Tawheed on a fallible tool, is a risky thing I must say, and I believe true Tawheed can only be accessed through the Holy Qur'an and Riwayat of Ahlulbayt, for they are infallible, and 'aql can be used to determine the reliability of these hadiths, so it is used as a tool, and not the base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue is quite similar to the issue of Ahlulbayt in Quran and mutuwatir agreed upon hadiths. A lot of people don't see it because they don't want to accept it. It's not due to them being incapable of understanding and perceiving the proofs, it's due to their hearts inclining to denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

I don't have the reference. I remember hearing it in a debate.

 

Great...well the PhilPapers (with its flaws and all) survey suggests that 73% of philosophers of religion are theists.

 

Slamun Alaykum. Brother how can you compare the two? Proving the reliability Holy Qur'an through rationality is different to believing in a concept and calling it Tawheed. You're not going to be asked on the Day of Judgement whether you prove the reliability of the Holy Qur'an, you are going to be asked about your Tawheed, and basing your Tawheed on a fallible tool, is a risky thing I must say, and I believe true Tawheed can only be accessed through the Holy Qur'an and Riwayat of Ahlulbayt, for they are infallible, and 'aql can be used to determine the reliability of these hadiths, so it is used as a tool, and not the base.

 

I don't think you understood me. Comparing what two? I didn't compare anything, I'm simply talking about one tool and only its usage in different matters. I simply said, how are you using your 'Aql (a fallible tool, like you call it) to determine the reliability of these hadith, or to even understand that something or someone is infallible, with so much certainty, but when you use the same fallible tool to prove other matters (be it a matter pertaining to God), you have an issue? What is your standard? Why do you have so much certainty using this fallible tool when you prove the infallibility of the Qur'an or the Imams (upon which you believe in hundred of matters, often times blindly), but when you prove something else that isn't in the Qur'an or Hadith (according to you of course), you have an issue?

Suppose, that we had no narrations regarding the meaning of the verses that talk about the body parts of Allah [swt] - that the narrations were all lost, not recorded or destroyed. Now we, using our 'aql, prove (see any theology book) that it is impossible for God to have body parts, and based on this pure rational conclusion we happen to go and explain those verses away differently. Do you think that would have been problematic?

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I don't think you understood me. Comparing what two? I didn't compare anything, I'm simply talking about one tool and only its usage in different matters. I simply said, how are you using your 'Aql (a fallible tool, like you call it) to determine the reliability of these hadith, or to even understand that something or someone is infallible, with so much certainty, but when you use the same fallible tool to prove other matters, you have an issue? What is your standard? Why do you have so much certainty using this fallible tool when you prove the infallibility of the Qur'an or the Imams, but when you prove something else that isn't in the Qur'an or Hadith (according to you of course), you have an issue?

 

Because if I prove the reliability of the Holy Qur'an and hadith, I would have no reason to use any other tool after it has been made explicit and clear by the two sources which have been proven to be reliable through this tools. The "tool" has its place and time, wouldn't you say?

 

I am merely stating what some tafkeek scholars state, quoting Nader Zaveri:

 

The Tafkeeki school of thought believes that the existence of Allah is basic and intuitive, and the reality can only be accessed through infallible knowledge derived from explicit saying of the Imams. Muhammad Rida al-Haakimi was not opposed to falsafa, but he was of the view that it is fallible, whereas only Qur'an and ahaadeeth are infallible.

 

 

Would you be against such a statement? Why or why not?

 

Suppose, that we had no narrations regarding the meaning of the verses that talk about the body parts of Allah [swt] - that the narrations were all lost, not recorded or destroyed. Now we, using our 'aql, prove (see any theology book) that it is impossible for God to have body parts, and based on this pure rational conclusion we happen to go and explain those verses away differently. Do you think that would have been problematic?

 

This is a difficult question and I would personally refrain from having an opinion, because the Ahlulbayt, in my mind, are the true interpreters of the Holy Qur'an and if there is a verse which no tafsir has been given to, by the Ahlulbayt, especially in a matter of aqeeda like this, then I will have to refrain from having an opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

 

Because if I prove the reliability of the Holy Qur'an and hadith, I would have no reason to use any other tool after it has been made explicit and clear by the two sources which have been proven to be reliable through this tools. The "tool" has its place and time, wouldn't you say?

 

 

So you basically use a fallible tool to prove the reliability of the Qur'an and Hadith - and while you do that, you do not question your fallible tool at all, but when you use the same tool to prove other things that are also of religious nature, you have to start questioning its time and place? What is its time and place, can you inform me and prove it with some solid premises and not just blanket statements? How do you know that its the intellect's place to prove the reliability of the Qur'an and Hadith to begin with? Maybe it has no right to prove such a thing?

 

I am merely stating what some tafkeek scholars state, quoting Nader Zaveri: Would you be against such a statement? Why or why not?

 

I really think the Maktab Tafkik is very misunderstood, particularly since their own scholars are not all on the same page. I have the debate of Jafar Sayyidan (who I would label as a philosopher) with Ghulam Raza Fayyazi and Hamid Parsania sitting on my desktop. Sayyidan also agrees that if the 'Aql reaches a conclusion (has Qat', premises are all certain etc.) and it goes against what the apparent verses or narrations are saying, then you have to do ta'weel of your Qat' to reconcile it with Wahi and that he never said anything contrary to that (he says those who suggest that he has the view that you have to discard your 'Aql and Qat' in this case, are very childish). His real issue as seen from this debate is that instead of always doing ta'weel hastily, it is imperative to go and re-investigate your premises and whether they truly were certain or not.

 

This is a difficult question and I would personally refrain from having an opinion, because the Ahlulbayt, in my mind, are the true interpreters of the Holy Qur'an and if there is a verse which no tafsir has been given to, by the Ahlulbayt, especially in a matter of aqeeda like this, then I will have to refrain from having an opinion. 

 
That's fine and that is your own personal limitation, but don't prohibit the rest of the intellectual Shi'i world to not have an opinion on it, especially if it becomes as clear as daylight for them. You really need to read and study the narrations regarding our 'Aql and recognize its position. You also seem to have a weird impression of Shi'i philosophers, as if they are cut off from the Ahl ul-Bayt or something. . . 

Wassalam
Edited by Ibn al-Hussain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

So you basically use a fallible tool to prove the reliability of the Qur'an and Hadith - and while you do that, you do not question your fallible tool at all, but when you use the same tool to prove other things that are also of religious nature, you have to start questioning its time and place? What is its time and place, can you inform me and prove it with some solid premises and not just blanket statements? How do you know that its the intellect's place to prove the reliability of the Qur'an and Hadith to begin with? Maybe it has no right to prove such a thing?

 

Because the chance of this fallible tool being wrong here is very low, because it is being used alongside other tools - and this is where I think its time and place should be. It should not be the basis of our religion, it is only a tool among other tools that is used to strengthen our aqeeda, for example, to show why a certain hadith makes sense aql-wise whilst another doesn't.

 

 

I really think the Maktab Tafkik is very misunderstood, particularly since their own scholars are not all on the same page. I have the debate of Jafar Sayyidan (who I would label as a philosopher) with Ghulam Raza Fayyazi and Hamid Parsania sitting on my desktop. Sayyidan also agrees that if the 'Aql reaches a conclusion (has Qat', premises are all certain etc.) and it goes against what the apparent verses or narrations are saying, then you have to do ta'weel of your Qat' to reconcile it with Wahi and that he never said anything contrary to that (he says those who suggest that he has the view that you have to discard your 'Aql and Qat' in this case, are very childish). His real issue as seen from this debate is that instead of always doing ta'weel hastily, it is imperative to go and re-investigate your premises and whether they truly were certain or not.

 

Very interesting, thanks brother.

 

 

That's fine and that is your own personal limitation, but don't prohibit the rest of the intellectual Shi'i world to not have an opinion on it, especially if it becomes as clear as daylight for them. You really need to read and study the narrations regarding our 'Aql and recognize its position. You also seem to have a weird impression of Shi'i philosophers, as if they are cut off from the Ahl ul-Bayt or something. . . 

Wassalam

 

Indeed brother, from among these intellectuals are mu'mineen whom insha Allah, Allah will bless them with Jannah. All my posts were not written with the intention of demonising these individuals, or I'm right and everyone else is wrong, the intention is for me to gain knowledge about this issue.

 

Wa Alaykum al Salam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Searching for God is in our fitra and recognizing him only depends on our intellect. The 'real' intellect imo is not fallible. How could otherwise ppl find God if they never heard about Him? Is that in accordance with the justice of Allah swt?

I know 'unreligious' ppl but they all believe in one higher power,energy or a first starter/cause. And they acknowledge this not through the Qur'an or any other holy book let alone prophets.Their intellect leads them to that conclusions...long before they would take a step to religion.

From the very,very bit what I've read about wahdat-al wujud it's basically what Allah states in 28:88

'And do not invoke with Allah another deity. There is no deity except Him. Everything will be destroyed except His Face. His is the judgement, and to Him you will be returned.'

Kulli shay halikun ila wajhi...that means there will be only Him remaining and this to my poor understanding is what the shi'i philosophers logically break down with term whadat al-wujud.

Allah knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

'And do not invoke with Allah another deity. There is no deity except Him. Everything will be destroyed except His Face. His is the judgement, and to Him you will be returned.'

Kulli shay halikun ila wajhi...that means there will be only Him remaining and this to my poor understanding is what the shi'i philosophers logically break down with term whadat al-wujud.

Allah knows.

 

Allah's Face is the Ahlulbayt as per the riwayat. I fail to see how one can prove Wahdat al-Wujud using Qur'an and Hadith alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...