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
Noor Taleb

[Closed/Review]Don’t judge me

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest Peace
9 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Much greater than yourself, not me. And yes, if one believes that our existence, and God’s being is one, then he ascribed a humanly quality to God

So which one is "One", Allah or the Universe? you've come full-circle. 

Remember Surah Ikhlas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, take this blow.

In the book of ʿāl-Ithnā ʿAshāriyah, page 33, by ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Mūḥāmad bin ʿāl-Ḥāsan ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl-Amili ʿāl-Tāmimī ʿāl-Yārbūʿī ʿāl-Rāyahī.

The author of ʿāl-Ḥādiqa said: that ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid, Iʿbn Bābawayh and Iʿbn Qūlāwayh say: that this deviant sect (Sufism) is from ġhūlāt - [and that] Mūḥyī ʿāl-Din Iʿbn Arābi, ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Aziz ʿāl-Nasfi and Abdul Rāzzaq ʿāl-Kāshani believe in Wāḥdat ʿāl-Wūjud, and that every creature is God - we seek refuge with Allah from these sayings!

Now, you’ve known that ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid, Iʿbn Bābawayh and Iʿbn Qūlāwayh call Sufism a deviant sect, and they seek refuge with Allah from their sayings [such as Wāḥdat ʿāl-Wūjud], so are they also immature?

BEZQf6J.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peace

It's important to recognize the significance of Tawhid. If the Universe (or "Creation") is separate in any sense, then you are setting up partners with Allah but claiming that the Universe is independent of Allah and therefore another God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

You can go with what Shāyḵḫ Aġha Būzurg said, and I’ll go with Shāyḵḫ Ḥūsāyn ʿāl-Nūri ʿāl-Ṭābarsi.

 But, the original point here is about Sufism, so let’s get back to that.

salams,

This is getting repetitive so I'll say it once more and hopefully the point is understood. Simply put, one of them is going to be right and the other wrong. Mirza Nuri authenticates the chain that we have in Hadiqa but simply authenticating the chain doesn't mean that the hadith is truly authentic, it hasn't:

  1. Taken into account the issues with authorship.
  2. Taken into account the manuscript issues indicating that these ahadith were added at a later date after the composition of the text itself.

So even though Mirza Nuri authenticates the chain, which very well might be authentic, the hadith itself is not authentic as it seems to have been appended to a book of unknown authorship, or was appended to a book of known authorship (that this book is actually by Muqaddis Ardabili but these ahadith were included afterwards), it just has a chain that Mirza Nuri authenticated. Beyond that, Mirza Nuri has relied on works of dubious authorship otherwise as well in his Mustadrak, notably Fiqh al-Ridha, we now have an issue of leniency present as well in a very late work so it becomes hard to have itminan that these ahadith are really from the Imams. It's not simply that you go with your scholar and I'll go with mine, one of them clearly seems to have the stronger stance and is the expert in this subject of bibliography despite the length of the other's title which you presented. The anti-Sufi material quoted within Hadiqat al-Shia is, therefore, unreliable, and the work itself is of dubious authorship. Hopefully you see that in mentioning Agha Buzurg, there are arguments the expert on this topic brings not just his name and title.

If this book remains as germane to your arguments against tasawwuf as it has been so far, then it merits further consideration and you can't simply return to using it in your arguments against tasawwuf.

38 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

According to you now, Shāyḵḫ Aġha Būzurg is immature.

I don't know if Agha Buzurg was part of Maktab e Tafkik or his stance on Sayyid Khomeini or anything like that, but I'm not calling people who disagreed with Sayyid Khomeini and Sayyid Tabatabai immature nor am I calling Maktab e Tafkik immature, I'm calling you immature.

19 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Now, take this blow.

In the book of ʿāl-Ithnā ʿAshāriyah, page 33, by ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Mūḥāmad bin ʿāl-Ḥāsan ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl-Amili.

The author of ʿāl-Ḥādiqa said: that ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid, Iʿbn Bābawayh and Iʿbn Qūlāwayh say: that this deviant sect from ġhūlāt [and that] Mūḥyī ʿāl-Din Iʿbn Arābi, ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Aziz ʿāl-Nasfi and Abdul Rāzzaq ʿāl-Kāshani believe in Wāḥdat ʿāl-Wūjud, and that every creature is God - we seek refuge with Allah from these sayings!

 

"Now, take this blow" is precisely the childish immaturity and obnoxious behaviour I'm referring to.

As far as I'm aware this quote isn't found in their surviving works, rather only within Hadiqa which suffers from the aforementioned problems. It, therefore, has no more weight to it than those ahadith you quoted being of such dubious origins.

38 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I couldn’t care less.

Evidently.

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

If you believe in Sufism, which I think you do, then it’s not “there will be no me,” you’re already a delusion, according to Sufi ‘saints..’ See for yourself!

I’bn Arābi said in ʿāl-Fūtūḥāt ʿāl-Mākkīyāh, (“the Illuminations of Mecca,”) volume 4, page 218.

“Thus, the existence is not [except] God, for there isn’t anything in the being, except for Him.”

Why do you take one sentence and not whole paragraph ? Because picking one sentence, may lead to many questions such as once Abu Hurairah said Prophet (PBUHHP) said: "Horse, women and House is bad omen". This was asked by Hazrat Ayesha (رضي الله عنه) upon that she said: "Abu Hurairah is liar, he came when Prophet (PBUHHP) was saying the last sentence, in fact Prophet (PBUHHP) said: "Jews say that Horse, Women and House is bad omen".

Write complete paragraph. One sentence does not give complete idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Mūllā Ṣadrā said in Asrār ʿāl-Ayāt, page 24.

“There isn’t [anything] in the existence, except for His self, qualities and acts, which are: an ‘envisage’ of His names, and a ‘manifestation’ of His qualities…”

That is the Haq. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 9:14 AM, Noor Taleb said:

When I first joined I created a havoc here but I think I’m still stuck ugh . Can some one explain to me this and also tell me where does our monotheism differ in this 

Indra is an aggregate of all the deva ideals, making him close to what one can identify a “supreme God” with. However, while seeing everything in one, we must never ignore them in separate as well - hence, Viśvedevas are always one in accord yet manifold and distinct, while overlapping in attributes or functions. That is the beauty of Vedic realism - otherwise it would have been just another panentheism or monotheism or any similar ism.

Hence, Indra is supreme above all. But it doesn’t mean that devas don’t exist and only Indra exists. That is where it escapes the dogmatism and blends well with the perceptional reality.

PLZ don’t JUDGE ME 

@aaaz1618 @Ashvazdanghe @Sirius_Bright @BowTie@Simon the Canaanite

The devas don't exist in Islam, you would know this if you studied Tawhid. I really don't understand why you continue have confusion over this obvious shirk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

The devas don't exist in Islam, you would know this if you studied Tawhid. I really don't understand why you continue have confusion over this obvious shirk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

This is getting repetitive so I'll say it once more and hopefully the point is understood. Simply put, one of them is going to be right and the other wrong. Mirza Nuri authenticates the chain that we have in Hadiqa but simply authenticating the chain doesn't mean that the hadith is truly authentic, it hasn't:

  1. Taken into account the issues with authorship.
  2. Taken into account the manuscript issues indicating that these ahadith were added at a later date after the composition of the text itself.

So even though Mirza Nuri authenticates the chain, which very well might be authentic, the hadith itself is not authentic as it seems to have been appended to a book of unknown authorship, or was appended to a book of known authorship (that this book is actually by Muqaddis Ardabili but these ahadith were included afterwards), it just has a chain that Mirza Nuri authenticated. Beyond that, Mirza Nuri has relied on works of dubious authorship otherwise as well in his Mustadrak, notably Fiqh al-Ridha, we now have an issue of leniency present as well in a very late work so it becomes hard to have itminan that these ahadith are really from the Imams. It's not simply that you go with your scholar and I'll go with mine, one of them clearly seems to have the stronger stance and is the expert in this subject of bibliography despite the length of the other's title which you presented. The anti-Sufi material quoted within Hadiqat al-Shia is, therefore, unreliable, and the work itself is of dubious authorship. Hopefully you see that in mentioning Agha Buzurg, there are arguments the expert on this topic brings not just his name and title.

If this book remains as germane to your arguments against tasawwuf as it has been so far, then it merits further consideration and you can't simply return to using it in your arguments against tasawwuf.

 

7 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

As far as I'm aware this quote isn't found in their surviving works, rather only within Hadiqa which suffers from the aforementioned problems. It, therefore, has no more weight to it than those ahadith you quoted being of such dubious origins.

I am back. Surprisingly, I rechecked Kitāb ʿāl-Ithnā ʿAshāriyah, and it’s as if ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl-Amili is replying to your questions. See for yourself!

Here (below) he says that Ṣūfis hate the Imams, in addition to their Shīʿa, and says that Nūṣb (1) is apparent in their books.

(1) Nūṣb: hatred of Ahlūl Bāyt and the Shīʿa.

xWlhVqQ.jpg

Here, he says that ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili transmitted the chain of the ḥādith from ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid.

icriTA6.jpg

Here, he says that Sufism is kūfr and mentions that some Ṣūfis try to doubt the nisbā of this book to him, and says that this is bāṭil, and then explains thoroughly.

JkvyMyA.jpg

Here, he mentions three more points (six in total) and says that ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid narrated this chain in his book, ʿāl-Rad ala Aṣḥāb ʿāl-Ḥāllaj.

from Abʾi-l Qasim J’afar bin Mūḥāmad bin Qūlāwayh, from his father, from Sʾad bin Abdillah bin Ahmad bin Mūḥāmad bin Isa, from ʿāl-Ḥūsāyn bin Saeed, that he said: I asked Abʾi-l Ḥāsan about Ṣūfis, he said: “No one believes in Sufism, except for a deception, misguidance or ḥāmaqa (imbecility/stupidity), as for he who named himself a Sufi for tāqīyyah, then there’s no ithm (sin) on him.”

Tell me... is the nisbā of ʿāl-Rad ala Aṣḥāb ʿāl-Ḥāllaj to ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid also doubted?

V0dWncK.jpg

Add to that, ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl-Amili is very close to the era of ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili, and as far as I remember, his father studied under him. And many scholars from Lebanon - which taught ʿāl-Ḥūrr - studied under him, so...

I’ll go with ʿāl-Ḥūrr and say that this is bāṭil, because the points he made are logical and valuable... also, he should be more knowledgeable about the teacher of his shūyuḵḫ than anyone else.

ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Ḥāsan Allahyāri mentions this here, and comments on it.

My mind is still unable to comprehend how one can respect someone that sees him as a pig.

PLTkEqz.jpg

I have yet to be that ‘high’ to understand that, if you know what I mean.

@Shams of tabriz You took the time to click “disagree” on every single post I made here. Congratulations, you win the internet.

Maʿa ʿāl Sālama.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

 

I am back. Surprisingly, I rechecked Kitāb ʿāl-Ithnā ʿAshāriyah, and it’s as if ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl-Amili is replying to your questions. See for yourself!

Here (below) he says that Ṣūfis hate the Imams, in addition to their Shīʿa, and says that Nūṣb (1) is apparent in their books.

(1) Nūṣb: hatred of Ahlūl Bāyt and the Shīʿa.

xWlhVqQ.jpg

Here, he says that ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili transmitted the chain of the ḥādith from ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid.

icriTA6.jpg

Here, he says that Sufism is kūfr and mentions that some Ṣūfis try to doubt the nisbā of this book to him, and says that this is bāṭil, and then explains thoroughly.

JkvyMyA.jpg

Here, he mentions three more points (six in total) and says that ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid narrated this chain in his book, ʿāl-Rad ala Aṣḥāb ʿāl-Ḥāllaj.

from Abʾi-l Qasim J’afar bin Mūḥāmad bin Qūlāwayh, from his father, from Sʾad bin Abdillah bin Ahmad bin Mūḥāmad bin Isa, from ʿāl-Ḥūsāyn bin Saeed, that he said: I asked Abʾi-l Ḥāsan about Ṣūfis, he said: “No one believes in Sufism, except for a deception, misguidance or ḥāmaqa (imbecility/stupidity), as for he who named himself a Sufi for tāqīyyah, then there’s no ithm (sin) on him.”

Tell me... is the nisbā of ʿāl-Rad ala Aṣḥāb ʿāl-Ḥāllaj to ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid also doubted?

V0dWncK.jpg

Add to that, ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl-Amili is very close to the era of ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili, and as far as I remember, his father studied under him. And many scholars from Lebanon - which taught ʿāl-Ḥūrr - studied under him, so...

I’ll go with ʿāl-Ḥūrr and say that this is bāṭil, because the points he made are logical and valuable... also, he should be more knowledgeable about the teacher of his shūyuḵḫ than anyone else.

ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Ḥāsan Allahyāri mentions this here, and comments on it.

My mind is still unable to comprehend how one can respect someone that sees him as a pig.

PLTkEqz.jpg

I have yet to be that ‘high’ to understand that, if you know what I mean.

@Shams of tabriz You took the time to click “disagree” on every single post I made here. Congratulations, you win the internet.

Maʿa ʿāl Sālama.

Mine too disagree everywhere :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

So, you gave form to attributes of God ? How are you so sure that they look like what you have made out of mud ? If you say that you have seen it then show us as well and if you say, you have not then why it is so difficult for you to accept God and its attributes in your belief rather than giving them physically form which will eventually lead to misconceptions about God. 

No, God made sacred a form and prescribed us to use it in our ritual activities.  Now, in Islam we have the names of God that are expressed through written and oral speech.  

Let me ask you a question: Is Ar-Rahman Allah or not Allah?  Is ar-Rahman not expressed through the physical forms of that which is written and that which is spoken?

Now the Hindus believe that God chose and made sacred certain forms and that one should venerate God through them (like Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu etc).  One should not randomly choose just any object to venerate. It ought to be revealed and chosen by God.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

No, God made sacred a form and prescribed us to use it in our ritual activities.  Now, in Islam we have the names of God that are expressed through written and oral speech.  

Let me ask you a question: Is Ar-Rahman Allah or not Allah?  Is ar-Rahman not expressed through the physical forms of that which is written and that which is spoken?

Now the Hindus believe that God chose and made sacred certain forms and that one should venerate God through them (like Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu etc).  One should not randomly choose just any object to venerate. It ought to be revealed and chosen by God.

Oh so you agree with them ok 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Israelite
18 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

“Thus, the existence is not [except] God, for there isn’t anything in the being, except for Him.”

.......

“There isn’t [anything] in the existence, except for His self, qualities and acts, which are: an ‘envisage’ of His names, and a ‘manifestation’ of His qualities…”

Hi Simon, would you be able to explain to us what is Islamically incorrect about these statements? do you believe there are God's other than Allah? because your comments here imply that the universe is independent of Allah, which I find troubling. 

If you could explain how the Qur'an, the Twelve Imams and Sufis are all incorrect on this point? it would be potentially helpful. I don't want to commit shirk and I believe that it's wrong to consider the universe independent. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Israelite
16 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Much greater than yourself, not me. And yes, if one believes that our existence, and God’s existence is one, then he ascribed a humanly quality with God, and deserves to go to hell. Is that too hard to understand? I hope not.

So then, do you admit Sufis are right and that God is the only thing that is Real? because you've refuted yourself with this post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Guest theObserver said:

Imam husayns ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) I was there every night almost, Imam Ali((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) I only was able to bear one visit and was afraid to step back in, I felt rejected there

Salam you don't rejected at all but around Shrine of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) you fill glory of him but I think   there is not enough space for everyone but Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) shrine reminds us that his ship in stormy sea of this world is wider & faster than other Imams (عليه السلام) .

Share this post


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

No, God made sacred a form and prescribed us to use it in our ritual activities.  Now, in Islam we have the names of God that are expressed through written and oral speech.  

Let me ask you a question: Is Ar-Rahman Allah or not Allah?  Is ar-Rahman not expressed through the physical forms of that which is written and that which is spoken?

Now the Hindus believe that God chose and made sacred certain forms and that one should venerate God through them (like Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu etc).  One should not randomly choose just any object to venerate. It ought to be revealed and chosen by God.

There is difference between literal words and physical forms. With literal words, you cannot confine a existing thing in your imagination except that you know that it exists. In physical form, you contain a body and say that it looked exactly like that. Besides that, words are formless such as let us pick word God, in Arabic it is written as  اللہ in English written as "God" and in other languages with different set of words. Where as idols have same shape throughout the world and every Hindu whether it be in England or in India, uses same idol. That is why Allah (عزّ وجلّ) preferred words which serve the purpose of his knowledge that no one could sketch his being in imagination but be aware of his name. 

Secondly, in Islam, the sacred personalities following Allah (عزّ وجلّ) forbade to depict themselves with portraits or idols, the reason of this is that it brings bad practices such as some considering the idols begin to assume or imagine form of God as well and think that He is conceivable which is indeed wrong. Besides, idols are made out of mud and the person is not like the idol nor idol is like the person. But, words are original such as Muhammad is name of Prophet and it will always be his name, no artist can make it or break it, it will always be like this stored in minds and used in tongues. So, it would have been better if you would have venerated God through the names of Shiva and Krishna instead of bowing before their idols.

Edited by Flying_Eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

There is difference between literal words and physical forms. With literal words, you cannot confine a existing thing in your imagination except that you know that it exists. In physical form, you contain a body and say that it looked exactly like that. Besides that, words are formless such as let us pick word God, in Arabic it is written as  اللہ in English written as "God" and in other languages with different set of words. Where as idols have same shape throughout the world and every Hindu whether it be in England or in India, uses same idol. That is why Allah (عزّ وجلّ) preferred words which serve the purpose of his knowledge that no one could sketch his being in imagination but be aware of his name. 

Secondly, in Islam, the sacred personalities following Allah (عزّ وجلّ) forbade to depict themselves with portraits or idols, the reason of this is that it brings bad practices such as some considering the idols begin to assume or imagine form of God as well and think that He is conceivable which is indeed wrong. Besides, idols are made out of mud and the person is not like the idol nor idol is like the person. But, words are original such as Muhammad is name of Prophet and it will always be his name, no artist can make it or break it, it will always be like this stored in minds and used in tongues. So, it would have been better if you would have venerated God through the names of Shiva and Krishna instead of bowing before their idols.

MashAllah !!!!!!!

:cryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Here, he says that Sufism is kūfr and mentions that some Ṣūfis try to doubt the nisbā of this book to him, and says that this is bāṭil, and then explains thoroughly.

Here, he mentions three more points (six in total) and says that ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid narrated this chain in his book, ʿāl-Rad ala Aṣḥāb ʿāl-Ḥāllaj.

from Abʾi-l Qasim J’afar bin Mūḥāmad bin Qūlāwayh, from his father, from Sʾad bin Abdillah bin Ahmad bin Mūḥāmad bin Isa, from ʿāl-Ḥūsāyn bin Saeed, that he said: I asked Abʾi-l Ḥāsan about Ṣūfis, he said: “No one believes in Sufism, except for a deception, misguidance or ḥāmaqa (imbecility/stupidity), as for he who named himself a Sufi for tāqīyyah, then there’s no ithm (sin) on him.”

 Tell me... is the nisbā of ʿāl-Rad ala Aṣḥāb ʿāl-Ḥāllaj to ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Mūfid also doubted?

Add to that, ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl-Amili is very close to the era of ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili, and as far as I remember, his father studied under him. And many scholars from Lebanon - which taught ʿāl-Ḥūrr - studied under him, so...

 I’ll go with ʿāl-Ḥūrr and say that this is bāṭil, because the points he made are logical and valuable... also, he should be more knowledgeable about the teacher of his shūyuḵḫ than anyone else.

 ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Ḥāsan Allahyāri mentions this here, and comments on it.

Salams,

So then I presume you haven't read al-Dhari'ah yet because Sh. Hurr al-Amili's view was mentioned in it along with an argument from the editor why it isn't strong:

Quote

والجواب عن الأولى ان الشيخ الحر المتوفى (١١٠٤) وصاحب " اللؤلؤة " المتوفى (١١٨٦)ينسبانه إلى المحقق الأردبيلي فيكون تأليفه قبل (٩٠٣) الذي توفى فيها الأردبيلي ولكن الميرمعصوم على المتوفى (١٣٤٤) نقل في " طرائق الحقائق " عن المحقق السبزواري المتوفى(١٠٩٠) نفيه عنه ونسبته إلى المولى معز الدين الأردستاني، ونقل أيضا من المولى محمودالخراساني أن الحديقة ألفت في الهند ثم ألحقت بها رد الصوفية ونسبت إلى المولى الأردبيليفيكون تأليفه في (١٠٥٨) وقد نقل عن المجلسي أيضا نفيه عن الأردبيلي.
فنقول (أولا) انا نرى النافين له عن الأردبيلي أقرب إلى زمان التأليف من المثبتين له (وثانيا) انا لمنجد نسخة من الحديقة يكون تأريخها قبل (١٠٥٨) ولم نجد نسخة منها منسوبة إلى المولىالأردبيلي قبل (١٠٧٨) أي عشرين سنة بعد التأليف الثاني (وثالثا) انا نعلم أن نهضة الفقهاء ضدالتصوف انما اتسعت نطاقها في النصف الثاني من القرن الحادي عشر وما بعدها حتى دعىالعلامة المجلسي إلى تبرئة والده عن التصوف كما أشير إليه في (ج ٤ - ص ٤٩٧) وأما قبل ذلكالتأريخ فقد كانت التصوف هي طريقة رجال البلاط ومذهب الحكومة وما كان لاحد حق الاعتراضعليها.

If you actually contextualize the writing of Sh. al-Hurr al-Amili and other Safavid writers their takfir of the Sufis makes sense considering the anti-Sufi policies of the day however how likely is it that this can be retroactively applied is different. Sh. Mufid had a treatise against the tasawwuf of al-Hallaj but considering the general reaction Muslims had to him it isn't particularly surprising, but it's manifestly erroneous to think that the entirety of tasawwuf affirmed the beliefs of al-Hallaj -- if we want to presume them false, and Sh. Mufid's position against al-Hallaj makes sense considering many of his own stances and his position as a mutakallim. A failure to contextualize results in the conflating of all tasawwuf with al-Hallaj's, makes us fail to understand why Sh. al-Hurr al-Amili held this anti-Sufi stance (and used any and everything to support at as we find), and at the end of the day it doesn't resolve the truth or falsity of the claims.

Beyond that, resolving one problem by ascribing the authorship to al-Muqaddas al-Ardabili doesn't actually fix the problem as I've said before multiple times that:

  1. There is doubt whether the anti-Sufi sections were part of the original compilation or added in afterwards -- based on problems with manuscripts.
  2. If the book is indeed by al-Muqaddas al-Ardabili and not al-Ardistani, it makes it even less likely that the anti-Sufi sections were part of the original compilation as he seems to have actually believed in some philosophical positions like wahdatu l-wujud. I would once again hope that you actually refer to al-Dhari'a but if you haven't yet I shouldn't hold out faith you will, he indicates his belief in wahdatu l-wujud his hashiya on Sharh al-Tajrid (wherein he states that God is himself the reality of existence, which is one, while existence as a general concept is a mental abstraction), as the editor then says "والقائل بوحدة الوجود لا يعترض على الصوفية بمثل هذه الاعتراضات".

The dhann is yet to be cleared regarding this.

20 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I didn’t runaway. I just got bored, and I’ll reply to what he said later.

 

16 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I am back. Surprisingly, I rechecked Kitāb ʿāl-Ithnā ʿAshāriyah, and it’s as if ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl-Amili is replying to your questions. See for yourself!

It's a pity you have so much ego in a discussion, that prejudices one to arguing for themselves and not the truth of the matter. Decidedly pitiable.

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Salams,

So then I presume you haven't read al-Dhari'ah yet because Sh. Hurr al-Amili's view was mentioned in it along with an argument from the editor why it isn't strong:

If you actually contextualize the writing of Sh. al-Hurr al-Amili and other Safavid writers their takfir of the Sufis makes sense considering the anti-Sufi policies of the day however how likely is it that this can be retroactively applied is different. Sh. Mufid had a treatise against the tasawwuf of al-Hallaj but considering the general reaction Muslims had to him it isn't particularly surprising, but it's manifestly erroneous to think that the entirety of tasawwuf affirmed the beliefs of al-Hallaj -- if we want to presume them false, and Sh. Mufid's position against al-Hallaj makes sense considering many of his own stances and his position as a mutakallim. A failure to contextualize results in the conflating of all tasawwuf with al-Hallaj's, makes us fail to understand why Sh. al-Hurr al-Amili held this anti-Sufi stance (and used any and everything to support at as we find), and at the end of the day it doesn't resolve the truth or falsity of the claims.

Beyond that, resolving one problem by ascribing the authorship to al-Muqaddas al-Ardabili doesn't actually fix the problem as I've said before multiple times that:

  1. There is doubt whether the anti-Sufi sections were part of the original compilation or added in afterwards -- based on problems with manuscripts.
  2. If the book is indeed by al-Muqaddas al-Ardabili and not al-Ardistani, it makes it even less likely that the anti-Sufi sections were part of the original compilation as he seems to have actually believed in some philosophical positions like wahdatu l-wujud. I would once again hope that you actually refer to al-Dhari'a but if you haven't yet I shouldn't hold out faith you will, he indicates his belief in wahdatu l-wujud his hashiya on Sharh al-Tajrid (wherein he states that God is himself the reality of existence, which is one, while existence as a general concept is a mental abstraction), as the editor then says "والقائل بوحدة الوجود لا يعترض على الصوفية بمثل هذه الاعتراضات".

The dhann is yet to be cleared regarding this.

 

It's a pity you have so much ego in a discussion, that prejudices one to arguing for themselves and not the truth of the matter. Decidedly pitiable.

I’ll go with ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl- Amili.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I’ll go with ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl- Amili.

I suppose if you think the esteemed ِعالحور عالأمل's (unless you meant الحر العاملي, which would be "al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī" or maybe even "ʾal-Ḥurr ʾal-ʿĀmilī", but definitely not "ʿāl-Ḥūrr ʿāl- Amili") just saying it was by al-Ardabili is stronger than the material evidence we have from the manuscripts of this book in terms of dating, who it was that other contemporaneous scholars believed to be the author which is more in line with the manuscript evidence, in terms of what was originally a part of the book and what seems to be later additions to it, and what the supposed author actually believed with which we might judge that to be true or not.

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mullā Ṣadrā lists animals in al-Asfār, volume 3, page 136 (other prints differ..)

And he created different animals, and dispersed therein [every kind] of moving creature, some are edible - and the cattle [in it] he created for you warmth, and benefits - from it you eat, and some are for riding and adornment. The horses and mules for you to ride and [as] adornment, some it are for carrying, and it carries your loads to a land you could not have reached, except with difficulty to yourselves, indeed your Lord is kind and merciful. And some are for prettifying and comfort. And for you in it is beauty, when you are comfortably riding it, and some are for marriage, and God created for you from yourselves mates, and some are for clothing...

Hadi Sabzavari says: (1) In the inclusion of [it] among the animals, is a nice indication to that women, for the weakness of their minds, rigidness to understand the juz’iyat and their desire for the ornaments of the dunya, they almost joined the silent animals, really and sincerely [!] Most of them are like moving animals, but [He] gave them the look of humans, so that he [the human] doesn’t loathe/be disgusted from accompanying them, and [so that] he becomes interested in marrying them. And from here, the side of men prevailed upon our laws, and [it] gave them power over [women] in many rulings, such as: divorce, recalcitrance (nushuz), idḵḫāl al-ḍhārar alā al-ḍhārar and other than that, unlike some religions...

Here is the version of shiaonlinelibrary.

K5jYsuQ.jpg

And this is one of the many reasons why I am against Mullā Ṣadrā. No āḵḫlaq with Sayyida Fatima al-Zahra.

Also, the underlined word “some” is an indication to multiple things - so, it seems like Mullā Ṣadrā believes that we can “marry” real animals...

(not ones according to his definition of females - real ones, such as: dogs, horses and so on).

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Israelite
5 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

....

Hi Simon, I would appreciate you not ignore my previous question. Your help would be appreciated, in explaining my questions: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235063020-don%E2%80%99t-judge-me/?do=findComment&comment=3229410

Share this post


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

Hi Simon, I would appreciate you not ignore my previous question. Your help would be appreciated, in explaining my questions: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235063020-don%E2%80%99t-judge-me/?do=findComment&comment=3229410

I did not ignore your previous question. I was replying to other comments, sorry.

I disagree with the statements, because they emphasize that our existence,
and the existence of God is one - by believing in that, one is ascribing a quality of ours to God, which is polytheistic.

Nothing of ours can be compared or likened to God.

Do you speak Arabic?

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

Clearly, I for one do not judge you, my friend. My days late interaction with your thread is evidence of that. :woot:

That seems like '' I don't freaking care that you exist'' to me. :woot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I did not ignore your previous question. I was replying to other comments, sorry.

I disagree with the statements, because they emphasize that our existence,
and the existence of God is one - by believing in that, one is ascribing a quality of ours to God, which is polytheistic.

Nothing of ours can be compared or likened to God.

Do you speak Arabic?

I appreciate your help 

THANK YOU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...