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

Why do so many admire Ibn Arabi

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

My problem with ibn arabi fans is whenever anyway criticizes him they just retort "ahh you are not spiritually advanced to understand our great shaykh" even though the most erudite shia saints have harshly condemned ibn arabi and considered him a heretic.

But that is truth. Imagine talking to a person who has a PhD in Theoretical Physics and telling him you think his ideas are wrong, while you have only a basic understanding of physics. The problem isn't that it takes someone with an advanced philosophical background, the problem is that you think you can walk into a place where you don't belong and give your opinion. Not only do you need an extensive background in philosophy, 'ilm-ul-akhlaq AND historiography, you need to understand the conditions that were surrounding this guy. you also need to know how revered he was and the possibility of some of his works being altered by others.

I would also like to know who these "most erudite shia saints" are since I could give you a few names of very well known 'Urafaa that accept Ibn Arabi as a spiritual person and a Shia.

Here's what some of our 'Urafaa said about him:

Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Bahjat قدس سره الشريف:

عندما كان يُسئل عن (ابن عربي), فكان الشيخ بهجت يقول: إذا كان ما قاله ابن عربي موافقًا لكلام الله تعالى, وكلام أهل البيت – عليهم السلام- أخذنا بكلامه, وإذا كان يعارض كلام الله وكلام أهل البيت تركناه. انتهى.

Sayyid Ali Al-Qadhi (according to Sayyid Hashim Al-Haddad, another 'Arif, this is from the book Al-Rooh' Al-Mujarad):

لقد كان‌ سماحة‌ الحاجّ السيّد هاشم‌ الحدّاد قدّس‌ الله‌ روحه‌ يقول‌: كان‌ للمرحوم‌ السيّد (القاضي‌) اهتمام‌ كبير بمحيي‌ الدين‌ بن‌ عربي‌ وكتابه‌ « الفتوحات‌ المكّيّة‌ »، وكان‌ يقول‌: إنّ محيي‌ الدين‌ من‌ الكاملين‌، وهناك‌ في‌ فتوحاته‌ شواهد وأدلّة‌ جمّة‌ علي‌ كونه‌ من‌ الشيعة‌، وهناك‌ مطالب‌ كثيرة‌ فيه‌ تُناقض‌ الاُصول‌ المسلّمة‌ لاهل‌ السنّة‌. 
لقد كتب‌ محيي‌ الدين‌ كتاب‌ « الفتوحات‌ » في‌ مكّة‌ المكرّمة‌، ثمّ بسط‌ جميع‌ أوراقه‌ علي‌ سقف‌ الكعبة‌ وتركها سنة‌ لتمحي‌ المطالب‌ الباطلة‌ منها ـ إن‌ وجدت‌ بهطول‌ الامطار، فيتشخّص‌ الحقّ منها عن‌ الباطل‌. وبعد سنة‌ من‌ هطول‌ الامطار المتعاقبة‌ جمع‌ تلك‌ الاوراق‌ المنشورة‌ فشاهد أنّ كلمة‌ واحدة‌ منها لم‌ تُمحَ ولم‌ تُغسلْ.

Imam Al-Khumaini, this is an informative post, he talks about what the "praising" is, which you seem to misunderstand thoroughly:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But that is truth. Imagine talking to a person who has a PhD in Theoretical Physics and telling him you think his ideas are wrong, while you have only a basic understanding of physics. The problem isn't that it takes someone with an advanced philosophical background, the problem is that you think you can walk into a place where you don't belong and give your opinion. Not only do you need an extensive background in philosophy, 'ilm-ul-akhlaq AND historiography, you need to understand the conditions that were surrounding this guy. you also need to know how revered he was and the possibility of some of his works being altered by others.

You make it sound that this guy is so hard to understand that you really need to take PhD in philosophy and have high hikmah to understand anything of his work. Like person can't understand his work without any of these titles?

Do we have any early scholars that praise this man? It seem like speaking about him highly only happened in Al-Qadhi (ra), Bahjat (ra) and Khomeini (ra) time...

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

But that is truth. Imagine talking to a person who has a PhD in Theoretical Physics and telling him you think his ideas are wrong, while you have only a basic understanding of physics. The problem isn't that it takes someone with an advanced philosophical background, the problem is that you think you can walk into a place where you don't belong and give your opinion. Not only do you need an extensive background in philosophy, 'ilm-ul-akhlaq AND historiography, you need to understand the conditions that were surrounding this guy. you also need to know how revered he was and the possibility of some of his works being altered by others.

I would also like to know who these "most erudite shia saints" are since I could give you a few names of very well known 'Urafaa that accept Ibn Arabi as a spiritual person and a Shia.

 No it's not the truth at all. 'Allamah Al-Hur Al-'Amali was undoubtedly one of our greatest scholars. Check out his الرسالة الإثنى عشرية في الرد على الصوفية specifically his chapter on Ibn Arabi. This is my problem with sufis such as yourself is that you act like nobody can be against Ibn Arabi and his likes if they are knowledge it is a slap in the face to most of shia scholars who were against sufism historically especially pre-safavid scholars. Sufism (aka 'irfan) was mainly just a sunni thing. You also haven't presented any evidence ibn arabi was shia other saying some "urafa" said so. I prefer to take my spirituality from people who don't say rawfidh have the souls of pigs, especially not from a man who says Abu Bakr is sitting on the throne of Allah. 

Edited by Shi3i_jadeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

You make it sound that this guy is so hard to understand that you really need to take PhD in philosophy and have high hikmah to understand anything of his work. Like person can't understand his work without any of these titles?

Do we have any early scholars that praise this man? It seem like speaking about him highly only happened in Al-Qadhi (ra), Bahjat (ra) and Khomeini (ra) time...

But you do need a higher level of philosophy to understand him. The poems of Charles Baudelaire are a great example of how you need to be a high level academic to understand what he was trying to say. It took 100 years for Charles Baudelaire to be identified as an allegorist and not a symbolist. And that only happened because Walter Benjamin was deep into philosophy and politics.

If you have a deeper philosophical understanding you will interpret things differently. If I were to open the "Tao Te Ching" by Lao Tzu or the "Shobogenzo" by Dogen 4 years ago I would not understand it the same way I do right now, simply because I understand zen a tiny bit more.

You guys are making it seem as if we are saying that Ibn Arabi is 100% correct about EVERYTHING. He's a human just like any other human. Like Sheikh Saad Al-Mudaris said in the video I posted, if someone is 20% wrong and 80% right, why throw away everything he says just because of that 20%? Take what is good and leave what is bad. But the bigger problem lies in how you understand good and bad from your current level of knowledge.

I haven't looked into more people, mainly because Sayyid Ali Al-Qadi's words are enough for me. Maybe not to you, but a 'Aarif such as him, who has reached such a high level not only in 'Irfan but fiqh, philosophy and akhlaq, it's really hard to disregard what he says.

38 minutes ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

 No it's not the truth at all. 'Allamah Al-Hur Al-'Amali was undoubtedly one of our greatest scholars. Check out his الرسالة الإثنى عشرية في الرد على الصوفية specifically his chapter on Ibn Arabi. This is my problem with sufis such as yourself is that you act like nobody can be against Ibn Arabi and his likes if they are knowledge it is a slap in the face to most of shia scholars who were against sufism historically especially pre-safavid scholars. Sufism (aka 'irfan) was mainly just a sunni thing. You also haven't presented any evidence ibn arabi was shia other saying some "urafa" said so. I prefer to take my spirituality from people who don't say rawfidh have the souls of pigs, especially not from a man who says Abu Bakr is sitting on the throne of Allah. 

You are here making many assumptions from claiming that I am a Sufi and claiming that Sufism and Irfanism are the same thing. This simply proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Stay humble brother, don't get into discussions you don't have enough knowledge about. 

Those Urafaa were Shia Ulamaa that are still highly regarded in terms of philosophy, fiqh and akhlaq. Please do not speak ill of them because you are ignorant of their biography.

Imam Ali عليه السلام said, ((رحم الله أمرء عرف قدر نفسه))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

You are here making many assumptions from claiming that I am a Sufi and claiming that Sufism and Irfanism are the same thing. This simply proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Stay humble brother, don't get into discussions you don't have enough knowledge about. 

Those Urafaa were Shia Ulamaa that are still highly regarded in terms of philosophy, fiqh and akhlaq. Please do not speak ill of them because you are ignorant of their biography.

Imam Ali عليه السلام said, ((رحم الله أمرء عرف قدر نفسه))

Sufism and 'irfan really is the same thing, I guess you consider any of the shia ulama who were against irfan/sufism to simply be ignoramuses as well. Just because we don't take our spirituality from nawasib as you do doesn't make us morons. This sufi arrogance you are displaying is what really grinds my gears. Christians say the same thing about the trinity. Instead of actually answering criticism sufis usually do this, they just say you are too stupid to understand their "urafa".  

لا يوجد للتصوف وأهله في كتب الشيعة وكلام الأئمة عليهم السلام ذكرٌ إلا بالذم، وقد صنَّفوا في الرد عليهم كتباً متعددة ذكروا بعضها في فهرست كتب الشيعة... روى شيخنا الجليل الشيخ بهاء الدين محمد العاملي في كتاب الكشكول، قال: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: لا تقوم الساعة حتى يخرج قوم من أمتي اسمهم صوفية ليسوا مني، وإنهم يهود أمتي، وهم أضل من الكفار، وهم أهل النار )) ( رسالة الإثني عشرية في الرد على الصوفية (ص 13-16) المطبعة العلمية - قم - إيران، ط 1400هـ )

Edited by Shi3i_jadeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Sufism and 'irfan really is the same thing, I guess you consider any of the shia ulama who were against irfan/sufism to simply be ignoramuses as well. Just because we don't take our spirituality from nawasib as you do doesn't make us morons. This sufi arrogance you are displaying is what really grinds my gears. Christians say the same thing about the trinity. Instead of actually answering criticism sufis usually do this, they just say you are too stupid to understand their "urafa".  

لا يوجد للتصوف وأهله في كتب الشيعة وكلام الأئمة عليهم السلام ذكرٌ إلا بالذم، وقد صنَّفوا في الرد عليهم كتباً متعددة ذكروا بعضها في فهرست كتب الشيعة... روى شيخنا الجليل الشيخ بهاء الدين محمد العاملي في كتاب الكشكول، قال: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: لا تقوم الساعة حتى يخرج قوم من أمتي اسمهم صوفية ليسوا مني، وإنهم يهود أمتي، وهم أضل من الكفار، وهم أهل النار )) ( رسالة الإثني عشرية في الرد على الصوفية (ص 13-16) المطبعة العلمية - قم - إيران، ط 1400هـ )

Salam in my opinion Irfan & Sufism are two different thing they may be looks like each other at first but Irfan doesn't have any connection to current Sufism  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Sufism and 'irfan really is the same thing, I guess you consider any of the shia ulama who were against irfan/sufism to simply be ignoramuses as well. Just because we don't take our spirituality from nawasib as you do doesn't make us morons. This sufi arrogance you are displaying is what really grinds my gears. Christians say the same thing about the trinity. Instead of actually answering criticism sufis usually do this, they just say you are too stupid to understand their "urafa".  

لا يوجد للتصوف وأهله في كتب الشيعة وكلام الأئمة عليهم السلام ذكرٌ إلا بالذم، وقد صنَّفوا في الرد عليهم كتباً متعددة ذكروا بعضها في فهرست كتب الشيعة... روى شيخنا الجليل الشيخ بهاء الدين محمد العاملي في كتاب الكشكول، قال: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: لا تقوم الساعة حتى يخرج قوم من أمتي اسمهم صوفية ليسوا مني، وإنهم يهود أمتي، وهم أضل من الكفار، وهم أهل النار )) ( رسالة الإثني عشرية في الرد على الصوفية (ص 13-16) المطبعة العلمية - قم - إيران، ط 1400هـ )

Salam,

I did not call you stupid. I said you don't have enough knowledge in this section.

As for your quote, that is about Sufism. Please provide evidence of how 'Irfan and Sufism is one and the same. If you would like to create a dialogue then please let us begin with the history of Sufism and the history of 'Irfan. Provide sources from books on the origination of both and when each term came about. If you cannot do this, then you are not ready to argue about this topic.

Sahib Al-Mizan, Al-Alama Al-Tabatabai was a 'Aarif, so are you claiming he's a Sufi? What about Sayyid Ali Al-Qadhi? Sheikh Bahjat? Sayyid Hashim Al-Haddad? Sayyid Al-Khumaini? Sayyid Abd Al-Alaa Sabzawari? Sayyid Al-Kashmiri? Ismail Dulabi? Ali Rajab? Al Muqadas Al-Ardabili?

Are all these Sufis? Please understand that you will be held accountable for the words you speak. If you are claiming these great scholars have anything to do with Sufism then you need to back it up or ask Allah for forgiveness.

Edited by Ibn Al-Shahid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

But you do need a higher level of philosophy to understand him. The poems of Charles Baudelaire are a great example of how you need to be a high level academic to understand what he was trying to say. It took 100 years for Charles Baudelaire to be identified as an allegorist and not a symbolist. And that only happened because Walter Benjamin was deep into philosophy and politics.

The beauty with Hikmah that God have bestowed upon the person is that even if the person who never visited a school can understand his sayings or even better. So he does need to get his titles or have high understanding of philosophy. 

 

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Its what respected about him is his spirituality but we don't follow his teachings.

I donot what you mean. 

But most shia arifs have praised ibne Arabi  and even in qum books of ibne Arabi are taught in advanced stages of spirituality. 

Just your denial has no value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

I heard somewhere that Deobandi's respect Ibn Arabi no? I don't know much about all these subcontinent groups lol.

Your hating of ibne Arabi has no meaning. 

Since most shia arifs have praised ibne Arabi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam in my opinion Irfan & Sufism are two different thing they may be looks like each other at first but Irfan doesn't have any connection to current Sufism  .

Sofism and Irfan is same there no much difference. Both is based on spiritual purification and moral ethical perfection till ones eyes of heart open to see devine beauty. I have heared lecture of student of Ayatollah Bahjat ra over this subject. So definitely his statement is more valid than yours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Salam,

I did not call you stupid. I said you don't have enough knowledge in this section.

As for your quote, that is about Sufism. Please provide evidence of how 'Irfan and Sufism is one and the same. If you would like to create a dialogue then please let us begin with the history of Sufism and the history of 'Irfan. Provide sources from books on the origination of both and when each term came about. If you cannot do this, then you are not ready to argue about this topic.

Sahib Al-Mizan, Al-Alama Al-Tabatabai was a 'Aarif, so are you claiming he's a Sufi? What about Sayyid Ali Al-Qadhi? Sheikh Bahjat? Sayyid Hashim Al-Haddad? Sayyid Al-Khumaini? Sayyid Abd Al-Alaa Sabzawari? Sayyid Al-Kashmiri? Ismail Dulabi? Ali Rajab? Al Muqadas Al-Ardabili?

Are all these Sufis? Please understand that you will be held accountable for the words you speak. If you are claiming these great scholars have anything to do with Sufism then you need to back it up or ask Allah for forgiveness.

I gave heared lecture of student of Ayatollah Bahjat ra on sofism and Irfan. 

And according to him sofism and Irfan is same even if there is difference that is minor. 

And even Iranian channel praised Ayatollah Behjet ra by calling him sofi. 

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2018 at 4:15 AM, Reza said:

Internet high schoolers think they know so much. It’s fun to play judge, jury, and executioner on whomever they like. 

At most, people here can form preliminary opinions, but not enough to form a decisive conclusion. You got to study this intensely for years.

Semester has started again people. Back to work. 

I'm on the fence and don't have any opinion on this, however, i would like to know what you think of these strong comments made by one of the top three scholars at Najaf , the other of the three being Sayed Ali al-Sistani. 

Najaf_Marji.jpg

He is on the far left, and no prizes for guessing who the other three men are in this picture. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Fayadh

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/01/2018 at 4:53 AM, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

A problem with certain Muslims apparently is taking words of philosophers over Quran and Hadith. I never thought it was widespread until a Shia convert on discord started obsessing over some Jewish philosopher Spinoza. Then someone told me there are a lot of Muslims becoming deviated by philosophy. "And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided."

Why don't our Ulema gather together in a conference, discuss these issues, and then present us with a statement ? If they don't take any legitimate steps in trying to help layman like myself understand why heavy weights clash on Ibn Arabi, what is a layman like myself to think?

This isn't an issue like Tatbir, when things are clear and explicit and anyone can make their mind up by brute sense. This is complex philosophy, muddy waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Salam,

I did not call you stupid. I said you don't have enough knowledge in this section.

As for your quote, that is about Sufism. Please provide evidence of how 'Irfan and Sufism is one and the same. If you would like to create a dialogue then please let us begin with the history of Sufism and the history of 'Irfan. Provide sources from books on the origination of both and when each term came about. If you cannot do this, then you are not ready to argue about this topic.

Sahib Al-Mizan, Al-Alama Al-Tabatabai was a 'Aarif, so are you claiming he's a Sufi? What about Sayyid Ali Al-Qadhi? Sheikh Bahjat? Sayyid Hashim Al-Haddad? Sayyid Al-Khumaini? Sayyid Abd Al-Alaa Sabzawari? Sayyid Al-Kashmiri? Ismail Dulabi? Ali Rajab? Al Muqadas Al-Ardabili?

Are all these Sufis? Please understand that you will be held accountable for the words you speak. If you are claiming these great scholars have anything to do with Sufism then you need to back it up or ask Allah for forgiveness.

If they are followers of the metaphysics of Ibn Arabi they are undoubtedly sufis. You can see what the other brother said regarding Bahjat. Sayyed Haydar Amuli believed "Every true Sufi is a Shi'ite, and every true Shi'ite is a Sufi." Honestly if you are trying to deny those scholars are sufis especially someone like Bahjat well you are showing your ignorance on the issue. I don't reject anything that is termed "sufism/irfan" because many of those things are found in the teachings of the imams such as inner struggle against the nafs. You can watch the video of shaykh fayyadh that was linked. He called ibn arabi a zindiq. 
https://books.google.com/books?id=BMNQNOHXKOMC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=true+sufism+is+"shi+ism"&source=web&ots=imGXm6A0oO&sig=x1yNGzuhCVr-f642lUuF24mpRaY&hl=en#v=onepage&q=true sufism is "shi ism"&f=false
took that from another shiachat thread.

Edited by Shi3i_jadeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Why don't our Ulema gather together in a conference, discuss these issues, and then present us with a statement ? If they don't take any legitimate steps in trying to help layman like myself understand why heavy weights clash on Ibn Arabi, what is a layman like myself to think?

This isn't an issue like Tatbir, when things are clear and explicit and anyone can make their mind up by brute sense. This is complex philosophy, muddy waters.

According to arifs the ibne Arabi was great scholar and arifs. And his books are taught in advanced stages of spirituality. We find in writings of Imam khomine ra praising ibne Arabi extraordinarily. So some ordinary persons criticising on ibne Arabi carry no weight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

If they are followers of the metaphysics of Ibn Arabi they are undoubtedly sufis. You can see what the other brother said regarding Bahjat. Sayyed Haydar Amuli believed "Every true Sufi is a Shi'ite, and every true Shi'ite is a Sufi." Honestly if you are trying to deny those scholars are sufis especially someone like Bahjat well you are showing your ignorance on the issue. I don't reject anything that is termed "sufism/irfan" because many of those things are found in the teachings of the imams such as inner struggle against the nafs. You can watch the video of shaykh fayyadh that was linked. He called ibn arabi a zindiq. 
https://books.google.com/books?id=BMNQNOHXKOMC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=true+sufism+is+"shi+ism"&source=web&ots=imGXm6A0oO&sig=x1yNGzuhCVr-f642lUuF24mpRaY&hl=en#v=onepage&q=true sufism is "shi ism"&f=false
took that from another shiachat thread.

Salam. 

I have gone through some of works on sofism and Irfan. Undoubtedly sofism and Irfan is real understanding of Islam. 

And definitely it seems irfan and sofism is same.

But in unfortunately  common masses sofism is liked to sunni sect and Irfan to shia sect. 

But in reality  both sofism and Irfan are one in its teachings principles and and goal. 

As you mentioned  Hyder Amoli  rightly said that "every

true sofi is shiate and every true shiate is sofi "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

And rest is not real understanding of Islam?

It is real understanding because it is what Imams of Ahlulbayt as taught. 

If you something more real then let us know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, islam25 said:

It is gradually achieving Taqwa and progressing through stages of 

Tasleem, Raza, Itminaan ,Shahood and Fana.

 

What I mean is that what does it mean to you not real understanding of Islam. Is Islam understood by stages of process that Sufi's defines? Or is it not actually very simplistic even the layman person who read Qur'an can real understand and practice Islam, without knowing anything about Tasleem, Raza, Itminaan, Shahood and Fana?

 

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

What I mean is that what does it mean to you not real understanding of Islam. Is Islam understood by stages of process that Sufi's defines? Or is it not actually very simplistic even the layman person who read Qur'an can real understand and practice Islam, without knowing anything about Tasleem, Raza, Itminaan, Shahood and Fana?

 

Definitely every one can who try by following Quran  .

But sofis and Arifs did it and  they achieved the goal. And they conveyed information in simpler and mother tongue. 

So why shoud I talk bad or criticise them. You and me too have potential to achieve Taqwa and purify ourself from all sins and achieve heart which contain nothing but love for Allah. 

But we still love worldly things and passions of nafs and not Allah despite reading Quran and life history of Ahlulbayt as. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

If anyone ِis interested in learning the arguments of Wahdat al-Wujud (which has various interpretations to begin with), they have no choice but to start from the very basic question of Asalat al-Wujud (fundamentality or primacy of existence). If you accept this premise, you are most likely going to end up agreeing with Wahdat al-Wujud (even if you differ in some details of it or in the way you present your opinion regarding it), but if you reject it, then I'm not sure how you could accept Wahdat al-Wujud (unless you mean something completely else by it).

The rational arguments for Asalat al-Wujud are not weak by any sense of the word, and post-Sadra this has now become the mainstream understanding amongst Shi'i philosophers, and many non-Muslims agree with it too (although once again, their understanding may slightly different and thus results in different practical implications. A decent paper to read is this: Sadra and Existentialism). If a sound argument is brought for you, your intellect will have no choice but to accept it, unless you begin questioning your own intellect, in which case you have no basis to even be a Muslim or believe in a God.

Instead of wasting time over Ibn 'Arabi and getting into highly polemical discussions about what someone meant or didn't mean (something this very specific topic on this forum has seen for a well over a decade), time will be better spent discussing these premises and that way members can actually learn a new thing or two as well.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 7:36 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

If anyone ِis interested in learning the arguments of Wahdat al-Wujud (which has various interpretations to begin with), they have no choice but to start from the very basic question of Asalat al-Wujud (fundamentality or primacy of existence). If you accept this premise, you are most likely going to end up agreeing with Wahdat al-Wujud (even if you differ in some details of it or in the way you present your opinion regarding it), but if you reject it, then I'm not sure how you could accept Wahdat al-Wujud (unless you mean something completely else by it).

The rational arguments for Asalat al-Wujud are not weak by any sense of the word, and post-Sadra this has now become the mainstream understanding amongst Shi'i philosophers, and many non-Muslims agree with it too (although once again, their understanding may slightly different and thus results in different practical implications. A decent paper to read is this: Sadra and Existentialism). If a sound argument is brought for you, your intellect will have no choice but to accept it, unless you begin questioning your own intellect, in which case you have no basis to even be a Muslim or believe in a God.

Instead of wasting time over Ibn 'Arabi and getting into highly polemical discussions about what someone meant or didn't mean (something this very specific topic on this forum has seen for a well over a decade), time will be better spent discussing these premises and that way members can actually learn a new thing or two as well.

Wasalam

Late reply but you are right I got carried away. I just don't like when people act like all shia ulama were basically followers of irfan historically and those who were against 'irfan were basically just idiots. Anyway, do you know about view of shaykh ahmad ahsa'i on this issue (asalat al-wujud and wahdatul wujud)? 

Edited by Shi3i_jadeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 10:36 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

If anyone ِis interested in learning the arguments of Wahdat al-Wujud (which has various interpretations to begin with), they have no choice but to start from the very basic question of Asalat al-Wujud (fundamentality or primacy of existence). If you accept this premise, you are most likely going to end up agreeing with Wahdat al-Wujud (even if you differ in some details of it or in the way you present your opinion regarding it), but if you reject it, then I'm not sure how you could accept Wahdat al-Wujud (unless you mean something completely else by it).

The rational arguments for Asalat al-Wujud are not weak by any sense of the word, and post-Sadra this has now become the mainstream understanding amongst Shi'i philosophers, and many non-Muslims agree with it too (although once again, their understanding may slightly different and thus results in different practical implications. A decent paper to read is this: Sadra and Existentialism). If a sound argument is brought for you, your intellect will have no choice but to accept it, unless you begin questioning your own intellect, in which case you have no basis to even be a Muslim or believe in a God.

Instead of wasting time over Ibn 'Arabi and getting into highly polemical discussions about what someone meant or didn't mean (something this very specific topic on this forum has seen for a well over a decade), time will be better spent discussing these premises and that way members can actually learn a new thing or two as well.

Wasalam

Salaam Alaikum 

Yes sir, I'm interested in learning the arguments of wahdat al-wujud also asalat al-wujud. Thinking it will help in the understanding of the West today in much of the "grass root" learning.

Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 10:36 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

If anyone ِis interested in learning the arguments of Wahdat al-Wujud (which has various interpretations to begin with), they have no choice but to start from the very basic question of Asalat al-Wujud (fundamentality or primacy of existence). If you accept this premise, you are most likely going to end up agreeing with Wahdat al-Wujud (even if you differ in some details of it or in the way you present your opinion regarding it), but if you reject it, then I'm not sure how you could accept Wahdat al-Wujud (unless you mean something completely else by it).

The rational arguments for Asalat al-Wujud are not weak by any sense of the word, and post-Sadra this has now become the mainstream understanding amongst Shi'i philosophers, and many non-Muslims agree with it too (although once again, their understanding may slightly different and thus results in different practical implications. A decent paper to read is this: Sadra and Existentialism). If a sound argument is brought for you, your intellect will have no choice but to accept it, unless you begin questioning your own intellect, in which case you have no basis to even be a Muslim or believe in a God.

Instead of wasting time over Ibn 'Arabi and getting into highly polemical discussions about what someone meant or didn't mean (something this very specific topic on this forum has seen for a well over a decade), time will be better spent discussing these premises and that way members can actually learn a new thing or two as well.

Wasalam

Salaam Alaikum 

Are you aware of any Pholosophical or Theological barometer, atmosphere or climate, positive or negative, surrounding Mulla Sadra (1572 - 1640) change in Pholosophical theory from (primacy of essence) to (primacy of existence)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because he had a massive impact on the Ottoman Caliphate which in turn influenced Muslim thought and gave him popularity. Dawud Qaysari for example was the first Shayk Ul Islam of the ottoman caliphate and wrote the most famous 'Muqadimah' to Fusus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 10:43 PM, Maki D Cabarete said:

It's said that Ibn Arabi and Shahab Suhrawardi was together once and their meeting was held in complete silence. After the meeting, both was asked separately, what they thought about each other. Do anyone here know what each of them said about the other?

Both Shahab Suhrawardi and Ibn Arabi were great *Illuminationist in Islam.

We should be asking ourselves, what is that.*

the true story is about meeting of ibn sin  & abulsaeid  that at the end ibn sina said he sees what we know & Abu saeid said he knows what we see.

its a famous story in persian literature.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...