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  
Noor Taleb

[Closed/Review]Don’t judge me

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by Noor Taleb
Changes made

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Noor Taleb said:

Can some one explain to me this and also tell me where does our monotheism differ in this

Warm greetings! This isn’t Monotheism, it’s idol worship, coupled with polytheism and hundreds of deities.

ZXLg1JP.jpg

Even though, they may claim to believe in one God - which they don’t - they idolize Him, which is enough for one not to accept Hinduism.

Hinduism is merely a more straightforward (frank) version of Sufism. Sufi ‘saints’ also claim to believe in one God, but they mix multiple forms of philosophy in their beliefs - from Taoism, Buddhism and so on - they say that God manifests in everything (unity of essence) and that our existence, and His existence is one. Which is a form of polytheism.

And they also say that only God is existent, and that we’re a mere delusion - much like Sophism.

“[There] is nothing like Him,
and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.” [42:11]

Believing that everything is one is an illogical belief. They say: ‘The oneness in the form of abundance (multitude),’ and they give an example for that saying, that
God is the sea, and we’re the waves. The waves are above the sea, but in reality, it’s from (or it’s the) sea - and whenever a person becomes holier, he’ll be more
unified with the God.

The famous ʿārif (Sufi), Kāmal ʿāl-Ḥāydari said in his book, ʿāl-Irfān ʿāl-Shiʾi, page 253.

Thus, the true objective should be to go back to that origin, and the inclusion (and extinguishing) of ourselves in God, as does the drop in the sea, and this is the real meaning of fading the self, so there would be no problem after that if the drop (of water) was asked: “Who are you?” It would say: I am the sea!”

WfTIEMy.jpg 

I don’t think any sane person would believe in this nonsense.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aaaz1618 said:

There was a member who was good at explaining Hinduism last time, I can't remember who it was. Was it @HakimPtsid 

Nobody is judging, is your family from a Hindu background originally?

No they aren’t I’m way to curious for my own good 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monotheism means believing in one God. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. It says 'there is one God but has many forms' is shirk. They believe there is God in everything. We believe nothing can hold God. 

There's one sifat (characteristics) which highlights difference between Islam and other religion. 

Hulool - It means "entering". Nothing enters Allah nor does He enter anything or anybody. Therefore, the belief of Incarnation in any form is abhorrent to the conception of Divinity.

https://www.al-Islam.org/elements-Islamic-studies-allamah-saeed-akhtar-Rizvi/lesson-11-al-sifat-al-salbiyah

Share this post


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

the true objective should be to go back to that origin, and the inclusion (and extinguishing) of ourselves in God, as does the drop in the sea, and this is the real meaning of fading the self, so there would be no problem after that if the drop (of water) was asked: “Who are you?” It would sayI am the sea!”

You agree with this ? @Simon the Canaanite

Edited by Raheel Yunus

Share this post


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

You agree with this ? @Simon the Canaanite

No, I don’t. It’s kūfr and zāndaqa. I am against Sufism and Iʾrfān.

And I said at the bottom of that comment...

5 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I don’t think any sane person would believe in this nonsense.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Noor Taleb

What u are confused at is that you have listened to a belief that cannot explain itself completely. Indira and devas are not only two things. There is also a law that prevent them to speak to us. So, those who can't talk and communicate to you, why are you messing yourself with its thoughts. They are too weak to be called gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aaaz1618 said:

I can't take Hinduism seriously, I swear I saw someone 'feed' their avatar a sesame snap in the temple... You know... They sell those sesame snaps in my local Polski Sklep!

:hahaha: :hahaha::hahaha::hahaha:

Share this post


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

they say that God manifests in everything (unity of essence) and that our existence, and His existence is one. Which is a form of polytheism.

And they also say that only God is existent, and that we’re a mere delusion - much like Sophism.

“[There] is nothing like Him,
and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.” [42:11]

Believing that everything is one is an illogical belief. They say: ‘The oneness in the form of abundance (multitude),’ and they give an example for that saying, that
God is the sea, and we’re the waves. The waves are above the sea, but in reality, it’s from (or it’s the) sea - and whenever a person becomes holier, he’ll be more
unified with the God.

Do you think everything is separate from God?

Your comment seems to imply duotheism to me, saying that the universe is independent of God or that God is something in reality rather than being the reality.

Could you explain your view on Monotheism more for me? thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 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

Today, I thought over the question again, so came across following conclusions:

The difference between the creator and creation can be defined by the following four key factors:

1) Indivisibility, 

2) Independence

3) Infinite Power and

4) Incomprehensibility.

All of these are closely connected and distinguish between Creator and creation. Now let us take the examples of Indira = Nature or the universe and Vedas = Elements of the universe.

Firstly, two things are only divisible if there be an intermediate thing which distinguishes them from each other with separate identity and if such thing is indivisible and nothing can divide it then it is one in whole. If you see Indira and Vedas, there is something which divides it, If you say that this is one and same thing, I would say that why you define it separately and would ask whether your religion that is Hinduism was mistakenly gave it two different descriptions in which case, and if so then what is the authenticity that its other beliefs are right ? and if you say it is divisible by law, then I must question who gave the law. and then it gives birth to a new question that is:--------------Dependence----so both of these cannot exist without each other and thus, It has----------Finite power---------and, I have completely understood that it is finite as I found out that what can make it useless that is Vedas without Indira are useless and Indira without Vedas are useless too. So, anything whose end you can determine you actually limited as you have simply defined its source of life and death, and you must know that anyone whose life and death is determined is creation not creator. Since, I have completely understood it, therefore, It is---------comprehensible---------as I know how it exists and how can it end....and anything whose cause of existence and cause of extinction is known is comprehensible and if you do not know such thing, then it is------------Incomprehensible. 

It may be not perfect answer but that is what I thought today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, aaaz1618 said:

I can't take Hinduism seriously, I swear I saw someone 'feed' their avatar a sesame snap in the temple... You know... They sell those sesame snaps in my local Polski Sklep!

Salam,

It appears ridiculous to you only because of your social conditioning.  

To make it more understandable: 

The idol is a concrete symbol of certain attributes of God (and ultimately God Himself or the Supreme Self).  The symbol of God allows you to focus your attention on something when your mind is scattered.  The symbol allows you to gather your dispersed energies and to focus your attention on one thing.   

When one offers food to the idol it is a ritual activity which meant to make you feel humble in front of God because food symbolizes your “illusory”, “separate” and “independent” self.  You are offering that to God.  You are giving it away, sacrificing it and acknowledging that only God is the true Self.  

I would hope you can find this meaningful in your own practice as a Muslim.  The form or the shape of a Hindu practice and an Islamic practice are different, but the essence and meaning is identical.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

I don’t think any sane person would believe in this nonsense.

Salamun alaykum,

unless he or she is a Sufi or an Arif.  :)

Simon,

If religion is not about surrendering your false sense of self to God (who is al-Haq and the Real “ana” or “I” since He said, “there is no God but I”),  then what is religion all about?

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

Warm greetings! This isn’t Monotheism, it’s idol worship, coupled with polytheism and hundreds of deities.

ZXLg1JP.jpg

Even though, they may claim to believe in one God - which they don’t - they idolize Him, which is enough for one not to accept Hinduism.

Hinduism is merely a more straightforward (frank) version of Sufism. Sufi ‘saints’ also claim to believe in one God, but they mix multiple forms of philosophy in their beliefs - from Taoism, Buddhism and so on - they say that God manifests in everything (unity of essence) and that our existence, and His existence is one. Which is a form of polytheism.

And they also say that only God is existent, and that we’re a mere delusion - much like Sophism.

“[There] is nothing like Him,
and He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.” [42:11]

Believing that everything is one is an illogical belief. They say: ‘The oneness in the form of abundance (multitude),’ and they give an example for that saying, that
God is the sea, and we’re the waves. The waves are above the sea, but in reality, it’s from (or it’s the) sea - and whenever a person becomes holier, he’ll be more
unified with the God.

The famous ʿārif (Sufi), Kāmal ʿāl-Ḥāydari said in his book, ʿāl-Irfān ʿāl-Shiʾi, page 253.

Thus, the true objective should be to go back to that origin, and the inclusion (and extinguishing) of ourselves in God, as does the drop in the sea, and this is the real meaning of fading the self, so there would be no problem after that if the drop (of water) was asked: “Who are you?” It would say: I am the sea!”

WfTIEMy.jpg 

I don’t think any sane person would believe in this nonsense.

your talking on behalf of somebody else , and yet taking everything literally and completely misconstruing what somebody else believes while taking the judgemental form of wahabis

you take one verse of the Qur'an to make your argument, while ignoring a million others which you cannot explain "wherever you look is the face of your lord" "all things will perish except his face" and I can list another 100 if I was to list all the ones which you seem to disregard and fail to address

what about when Imam Ali said "I do not worship a God which I cannot see" when asked about his worship and if his perception of God

just because you don’t understand something don’t paint a whole community with the same brush so harshly and call them disbelievers , there is a verse of the Qur'an which says if you slander a Muslim that it is a great sin

somebody can argue that your belief is an materialistic-Islam which only believes in material literal dry version of religion ignoring the spiritual despite that so much of focus from the Ahlul Bayt and even Qur'an addresses the spiritual

Share this post


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

Salamun alaykum,

unless they a Sufi or an Arif.  :)

In ʿāl-Kāshkūl ʿāl-Mūsāmma Anīs ʿāl-Mūsāfir wā Jālis ʿāl-Ḥāḍhir, volume 3, page 1580, by ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Yūsuf ʿāl-Bāḥrani.

He narrates from the book of Ḥādiqat ʿāl-Shīʿa (page 605) by ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili, from ʿāl-Imam ʿāl-Riḍhā that 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.”

VNQWrJN.jpg

This is the truth. And there’s no sugarcoating in such things.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


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

In ʿāl-Kāshkūl ʿāl-Mūsāmma Anīs ʿāl-Mūsāfir wā Jālis ʿāl-Ḥāḍhir, volume 3, page 1580, by ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Yūsuf ʿāl-Bāḥrani.

He narrates from the book of Ḥādiqat ʿāl-Shīʿa (page 605) by ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili, from ʿāl-Imam ʿāl-Riḍhā that 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.”

How does Imam al-Ridha define Sufism? 

How do you, Simon the Canaanite, define Sufism?

Thanks

Share this post


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

In ʿāl-Kāshkūl ʿāl-Mūsāmma Anīs ʿāl-Mūsāfir wā Jālis ʿāl-Ḥāḍhir, volume 3, page 1580, by ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Yūsuf ʿāl-Bāḥrani.

He narrates from the book of Ḥādiqat ʿāl-Shīʿa (page 605) by ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili, from ʿāl-Imam ʿāl-Riḍhā that 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.”

VNQWrJN.jpg

This is the truth. And there’s no sugarcoating in such things.

He was either a Sufi doing Taqiyya or what he was referring rob sufism in a particular context.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the purpose of my life......

21 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

the true objective should be to go back to that origin, and the inclusion (and extinguishing) of ourselves in God, as does the drop in the sea, and this is the real meaning of fading the self, so there would be no problem after that if the drop (of water) was asked: “Who are you?” It would say: I am the sea!”

Please share with me what is the purpose of your life. @Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


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

In ʿāl-Kāshkūl ʿāl-Mūsāmma Anīs ʿāl-Mūsāfir wā Jālis ʿāl-Ḥāḍhir, volume 3, page 1580, by ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Yūsuf ʿāl-Bāḥrani.

He narrates from the book of Ḥādiqat ʿāl-Shīʿa (page 605) by ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili, from ʿāl-Imam ʿāl-Riḍhā that 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.”

/VNQWrJN.jpg

This is the truth. And there’s no sugarcoating in such things.

your using the same propaganda that CNN or FOX use when talking about Muslims for example when the word Jihad is used or terrorist or extremist

first of all how do u define a Sufi or arif? and how did the Imam use that word when defining it , cause I can bring u hadith qudsi narrated by Imam Ali that pretty much describe a modern definition of an Sufi or arif

for example the hadith of the ascension which is on al Islam dot org

your painting Sufis, Buddhists Hindus arifs al with the same brush, when your completely ignorign the thousands hadith which are in opposite of your view or argument which are verified Shia hadith

like the one where the Imam Ali meets some people who claim to be his followers, and he looks them up and down and corrects them saying don’t say ur my followers cause u bear none of their marks, and he describes dry lips from thirst and fasting, stomachs that touch their backbone from fasting and night prayers, and he says if the win was to blow them that it would move them cause they are psychically fray from fear of God and stress of the thought of hell

why do u ignore such hadith?

you are deceiving people

read the hadith al qudsi of the ascension where God describes to Muhammad((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) what is treu faith and true mumineen and what their lives are like , go read that

mods if you stop publishing my responses you will be responsible on day of judgement of obscuring the truth , everything I write is backed up by hadith which are verified Shia and from ahlul bat , im not giving my opinion or speaking from desires

believe me nobody wants to suffer and have a diffuclt life so why would I be defending this position , I am not some sadomasochist ,  am merely reflecting the words from hadith qudsi and Ahlul Bayt an

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 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

Everything you said regarding indra is wrong. Do you know according to Indian mythology anybody can become indra. Indra is only a post. Name of the present indra is Purandar.

Indra is not supreme lord. 

Edited by Raheel Yunus

Share this post


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

He was either a Sufi doing Taqiyya or what he was referring rob sufism in a particular context.

That’s hilariously laughable, thanks for the giggles. He’s not a ‘Sufi’ nor is he ‘robbing sufism in a particular context,’ the Holy Family said that Sufi individuals were their enemies.

In the Kāshkūl of ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Yūsuf ʿāl-Bāḥrani, volume 3, page 1581.

He narrates from the book of Ḥādiqat ʿāl-Shīʿa  (page 562-563) by ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili, that a man asked ʿāl-Imam ʿāl-Ṣādiq saying: “People appeared in this era named ʿāl-Ṣūfiyāh, what do you say about them?” the Imam replied: “They are our enemies.”

And in the previous narration, the Imam literally says at the end:

2 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

as for he who named himself a Sufi for tāqīyyah, then there’s no ithm (sin) on him.”

I hope you realize what you’re saying, because it doesn’t make sense, with all honesty.

  • The Imam says it’s ḥāmaqa (imbecility/stupidity) to believe in Sufism.
  • Then, says that there’s no issue if one does tāqīyyah in the name of Sufism.
  • Conclusion: he’s a Sufi?!

Do you think this makes sense?

2Ev2Gse.jpg

23 minutes ago, Raheel Yunus said:

This is the purpose of my life......

So, the purpose of your life is to say that you’re God? The ‘sea?!’

23 minutes ago, Raheel Yunus said:

Please share with me what is the purpose of your life. @Simon the Canaanite

To be a believer, and to warn people of such heretical beliefs, I imagine.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


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

the purpose of your life is to say that you’re God? The ‘sea?!’

You do not understand actually.

There will be no ME. When the drop become one with the sea the drop cease to exist.

8 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

To be a believer, and to warn people of such nonsensical beliefs, I imagine.

To believe in what ?

and what will happen when you become a believer ?

Share this post


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

In ʿāl-Kāshkūl ʿāl-Mūsāmma Anīs ʿāl-Mūsāfir wā Jālis ʿāl-Ḥāḍhir, volume 3, page 1580, by ʿāl-Shāyḵḫ Yūsuf ʿāl-Bāḥrani.

 He narrates from the book of Ḥādiqat ʿāl-Shīʿa (page 605) by ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili, from ʿāl-Imam ʿāl-Riḍhā that 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.”

Salams,

This tradition, and indeed the other traditions within Hadiqa, are problematic, as are the other ahadith quoted from without this work regarding the Sufis. There are two problems to note, one is that the authorship of Hadiqa is in dispute and Ardabili is whom we ascribe it to, but secondly this wouldn't make sense as Ardabili has held beliefs like Wahdatu l-Wujud, even if this book were by Muqaddis Ardabili, the ahadith would've been appended afterwards. Please refer to al-Dhari'ah v.6 pp.386-7 where Agha Buzurg explains these problems.

The critique you provide of wahdatu l-wujud is, frankly, one of the least serious ones I think I've ever read. I don't actually hold an opinion one way or the other on the topic as I haven't seriously considered the metaphysical positions of asalat al-wujud and asalat al-mahiyya which would be the preliminaries to this discussion from which one would be led to or away from this position (which has also appeared in a variety of iterations, all reduced by you above into a single formulation deemed rather hastily and ignorantly as kufr) as well as other fundamental topics to be considered before I were to even dream of making such a judgement. I also don't have the inclination to seriously discuss with you something you've already made your mind up is false and so immaturely at that. But I am curious about the following:

22 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

And they also say that only God is existent, and that we’re a mere delusion - much like Sophism.

Did you mean to say that this is sophistry and just misspoke, and if that then I'd need to ask which of their arguments you've read of those who hold this position to dismiss them with such certainty and whether you've actually read their explanation for verses like the one you've quoted? Or did you really mean to say that this position is like Sophism with a capital sigma, that is to say the pre-Socratic movement? You've left me quite curious.

wassalam

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raheel Yunus said:

There will be no ME.

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.”

FWys4F8.jpg

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…”

zm3Ufvb.jpg

4 minutes ago, Raheel Yunus said:

To believe in what ?

God.

4 minutes ago, Raheel Yunus said:

and what will happen when you become a believer ?

Believers will go to paradise. Disbelievers will go hellfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theObserver
2 minutes ago, Raheel Yunus said:

You do not understand actually.

There will be no ME. When the drop become one with the sea the drop cease to exist.

To believe in what ?

and what will happen when you become a believer ?

these things you are bickering about is philosophy that clearly if taken literally some people think kufr is being defined

we don’t speak like this , in this poetic philosophical words , in fact they probably even lose meaning when translated to english so don’t discuss these sayings of individuals

what we need to instead discuss is actual saying by Imams from their verified hadith and hadith al qudis and even excerpts from the Qur'an

not everyone understands poetry and philosophy cause they take everything literally so no need do discuss individual peoples utterances of combination of these things

one thing I want to attack from this person and correct is this whole "Sufis/arifs" believe in polytheistic gods or God , just because they talk about the names and attributes , which is not the case

nobody who reads surah ihlkaas every day and is the established order of their faith and pillars is then going to go and talk about multiple gods

when somebody says He is the Most Mercifull and He is the Truth or anything else doesnt mean they say "we believe in X number of gods" there is no Sufi even the crazy ones who say such things as that , u can’t put words in their mouth cause u have a bias and prejudice towards them

I am not a Sufi nor arif just to state the case , but I don’t like how people have this impression that anyone going spiritual immediately becomes a Hindu or Buddhist , you can’t say that abot people who don’t say that about themselves

your slandering Muslims which is a major sin

even the Qur'an says "oh you who believe verify what you have been told so that you may not make the mistake of slandering a good person/Muslim person , the slanderer will be punished...."

your going around saying somebody is this or that while your publically committing sin a major sin and not letting people defend themselves or explain themselves

and besides there is crazy people everywhere, even if somebody claims to me a mystic or arif or Sufi and says something like "yes I believe in 10000 gods" doesnt mean lal arifs or Sufis or mystics instantly fall under his claims

even Imam Ali said "when judging what somebody is saying do not look at who is saying it rather look at what is being said" and your looking at "WHO" is saying it instead of what is being said

you immediately jumping into assumptions and into slandering and accusations of something you don’t know nothing about , this is typical wahabi ideology

you make your judgements about people on heirsay which you don’t even know is truth

nobody is crazy enough to call themselves a Muslim read surah ikhlaas every day as every Muslim knows that Surah and then say they don’t believe in Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as one but as a 1000 gods

this is such ignorance your demonstrating , its sickening , you must be a horrible person to be aroun so judgemental and arrogant and stubborn and accusing people of things are so far from truth

I practise spirituality, do believe in 1 God? no I don’t believe in 1 God cause God is unique He isnt even 1 , if you number God you give space to 2 and 3 and 4 , He isnt even 1 he is UNIQUE unlike ANYTHING else , he is not numbered or limited in any way

HIS NAMES which in al kafi u can read are created BEFORE our universe but that is our only handle to Him, HE cannot be perceived or understood by our minds and our only means ot Him is what He has allowed us which is His names and Attributes

and ive met Sufis Shia and otherwise and to date I have not heard ONE say such nonsense as you keep accusing them off, your absolutely ignorant and wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes 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 believe in La ilaha illallah.

8 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

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…”

 

Share this post


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

Salam,

It appears ridiculous to you only because of your social conditioning.  

To make it more understandable: 

The idol is a concrete symbol of certain attributes of God (and ultimately God Himself or the Supreme Self).  The symbol of God allows you to focus your attention on something when your mind is scattered.  The symbol allows you to gather your dispersed energies and to focus your attention on one thing.   

When one offers food to the idol it is a ritual activity which meant to make you feel humble in front of God because food symbolizes your “illusory”, “separate” and “independent” self.  You are offering that to God.  You are giving it away, sacrificing it and acknowledging that only God is the true Self.  

I would hope you can find this meaningful in your own practice as a Muslim.  The form or the shape of a Hindu practice and an Islamic practice are different, but the essence and meaning is identical.

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

Share this post


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

This tradition, and indeed the other traditions within Hadiqa, are problematic, as are the other ahadith quoted from without this work regarding the Sufis. There are two problems to note, one is that the authorship of Hadiqa is in dispute and Arabili is whom we ascribe it to, but secondly this wouldn't make sense as Arabili has held beliefs like Wahdatu l-Wujud, even if this book were by Muqaddis Ardabili, the ahadith would've been appended afterwards. Please refer to al-Dhari'ah v.6 pp.386-7 where Agha Buzurg explains these problems.

ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili believed in Wāḥdat ʿāl-Wūjud? Bring me proof, because all I see now is the opposite.

And even if you brought proof, it means nothing... because scholars always change their opinions on things.

You speak Farsi well (I hope), and you went to Qom before, and I think you know that ʿāl-Fāyḍh ʿāl-Kāshani used to be a mūtāsawwif and then repented, and authored his book, ʿāl-Inṣaf (as a polemic/response to Irfan).

Regarding the authenticity of the āḥadith, Ḵḫātimatūl-Mūḥadithin, ʿāl-Hajj Mirza Ḥūsāyn ʿāl-Nūri, the teacher of Aġha Būzurg, would beg to differ.

He said in Mūstādrak ʿāl-Wāsa’il, volume 12, page 323, ḥādith(s) 14204, 14205 are sāḥih (the same ones I mentioned).

uEZ5edH.jpg

And I also hope you know that the famous Indian scholar, Sāyyid Dildār Ali Nāseerabādi ʿāl-Hindi disassociated himself from Ḥāydar ʿāl-Amūli and the belief of Wāḥdat ʿāl-Wūjud, as narrated by Sāyyid Ijāz Hussein ʿāl-Nāysabūri ʿāl-Kāntoūri in his book, Kāshf ʿāl-Hūjub wāl-Astār, 151, 734.

2EfcxjI.jpg

40 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

The critique you provide of wahdatu l-wujud is, frankly, one of the least serious ones I think I've ever read.

Apparently, taking the words of Ahlūl Bāyt is considered ‘the least serious’ now.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theObserver

have people here been to the ziyaraah? when you visit the different Imams those that have spiritual awakening those others senses

you can feel the spiritual vibes of each Imam as you visit their grave, you can feel how that vibe either rejects you (cause you do not resonate as same level) or accepts you(cause you resonate same level I.e you live the same life)

for example with the exception of Imam Husayn((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) when you visit the grave of Imam Ali((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) you feel so much heavy weight in that room the weight is so strong and so much pressure and difficulty that honestly those that can feel it have a hard time to bear it, you feel how much his body suffered in terms of how much intensity was in his life, this powerful heavy air

I was not able to stand there more than 15 mins I had to walk out, it was too much it almost put me to sleep, it was so heavy and burdening and difficult and just like squashing your body that it is unbearable for a long time unless you yourself bear that weight every day and it becomes a ease then you can enjoy and be healed by that light from him

with Imam Husayn((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) its different even though he had a suffering difficult end his demeanour is a welcoming all forgiving loving vibe that heals you and saddens you at the same time, even if you try not to break down in tears its really hard it eventually takes over and u sit there for hours crying even if you don’t want to, plus his grave site is magnetic you can stay there all night and day its this cool soft warm air that is like radiating at you and just makes you feel so safe and relaxed , it feels like if the whole world was falling apart but your next to that grave nothing will happen to you

but Imam Ali((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) his demenour is very selective he rejects so many people that come there and not because he rejects them himself but because their life their way of life is not in match to his, their direction is opposite so he is leaving you moving from you etc that how it feels his path is a heavy difficult path, moreso than all the other Imams or perhaps what is chosen to be radiated from him

I feel his grave is VERY selective who he accepts there and allows them to pray and ask for thier needs etc, but I feel that even those who can their needs and wants wont be to do with them, they will be asking things bigger than themselves like major world things helping people in need etc serious things , but bottom line meeting him can be very ostracizing

you can feel just HOW difficult his life was, it really was a heavy heavy burden from start to end, was not easy or there was no ease at any point in his life, he carried physical mental spiritual hardships that you can even bear them or what radiates from his body at his grave let alone if u were to actually try to bear them

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

Share this post


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

The famous ʿārif (Sufi), Kāmal ʿāl-Ḥāydari said in his book, ʿāl-Irfān ʿāl-Shiʾi, page 253.

Thus, the true objective should be to go back to that origin, and the inclusion (and extinguishing) of ourselves in God, as does the drop in the sea, and this is the real meaning of fading the self, so there would be no problem after that if the drop (of water) was asked: “Who are you?” It would say: I am the sea!”

The word "Sufi" means "One who is separate", and "Arif" means "One who is enlightened". Both are often interchangeably used. However, their actual meaning is misused for strangers. Such as those practicing "Separation from world", based on their own conjecture to which Qur'an replies: "The monasticism which they invented for themselves we did not enjoin upon them". In Islam, Ascesticism or Suf or Urf means "Be content with what you get, do not wish for more as it imposes more responsibilities and do not cry for less as it inculcates into you patience". Each thing has separate gifts but you have to be balanced with Shukur and Sabar. So, if Imam said: "Sufism is bad". Does it include all Sufis or a particular type of Sufis who were being mentioned to them. Sufi has no individual identity out of Islam, but if a person being a Muslim is termed as Sufi or Arif, you should not drive it to the meaning of flawed Sufi ideology that Qur'an has mentioned.

Like the above teaching of "Islam" was taken wrong that is "Separate" yourself. The teaching of perfection was also taken wrongly and often concepts of Hindus were taken as description of Real Sufi about perfection. But, the real teaching of Suf is as defined by Allah (عزّ وجلّ): "And color yourself with the color of God and which Color is better than this". Thus, coloring yourself does not mean that you literally color yourself like God but apply His orders in your life so that you will be content in your life. 

As Qur'an says: "This book has both apparent as well as implicit verses and those who have wrong in their minds take implicit verses (to find faults as their interpretation is not explicit)". So, all those who Hindu and polytheistic ideals tried to play with the teachings of Islam. But, you shall not take these words by those who are called Arifs or Sufi's as physically annihilation rather as Quranic description of "Following laws of Allah" unless they are explicit and with their tongues say "they will physically annihilate into God"....in which context it will be wrong belief. The words like "annihilation into God"....."Extinguishing ourselves in God" are not clear and, therefore, do not take sin upon you if you said something which they did not mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

38 minutes ago, Guest theObserver said:

the Qur'an says "oh you who believe verify what you have been told so that you may not make the mistake of slandering a good person/Muslim person , the slanderer will be punished...."

your going around saying somebody is this or that while your publically committing sin a major sin and not letting people defend themselves or explain themselves

I am not doing this.

38 minutes ago, Guest theObserver said:

who reads surah ihlkaas every day and is the established order of their faith and pillars is then going to go and talk about multiple gods

I am not talking about multiple Gods.

38 minutes ago, Guest theObserver said:

This is such ignorance your demonstrating , its sickening , you must be a horrible person to be aroun so judgemental and arrogant and stubborn and accusing people of things are so far from truth

I practise spirituality, do believe in 1 God? no I don’t believe in 1 God cause God is unique He isnt even 1 , if you number God you give space to 2 and 3 and 4 , He isnt even 1 he is UNIQUE unlike ANYTHING else , he is not numbered or limited in any way

HIS NAMES which in al kafi u can read are created BEFORE our universe but that is our only handle to Him, HE cannot be perceived or understood by our minds and our only means ot Him is what He has allowed us which is His names and Attributes

and ive met Sufis Shia and otherwise and to date I have not heard ONE say such nonsense as you keep accusing them off, your absolutely ignorant and wrong

Who is judging you or me ?

I do not call myself Sufi. 

Edited by Raheel Yunus

Share this post


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

ʿāl-Mūqāddas ʿāl-Ardābili believed in Wāḥdat ʿāl-Wūjud? Bring me proof, because all I see now is the opposite.

And even if you brought proof, it means nothing... because scholars always change their opinions on things.

You speak Farsi well (I hope), and you went to Qom before, and I think you know that ʿāl-Fāyḍh ʿāl-Kāshani used to be a mūtāsawwif and then repented, and authored his book, ʿāl-Inṣaf (as a polemic/response to Irfan).

Regarding the authenticity of the āḥadith, Ḵḫātimatūl-Mūḥadithin, ʿāl-Hajj Mirza Ḥūsāyn ʿāl-Nūri, the teacher of Aġha Būzurg, would beg to differ.

He said in Mūstādrak ʿāl-Wāsa’il, volume 12, page 323, ḥādith(s) 14204, 14205 are sāḥih (the same ones I mentioned).

And I also hope you know that the famous Indian scholar, Sāyyid Dildār Ali Nāseerabādi ʿāl-Hindi disassociated himself from Ḥāydar ʿāl-Amūli and the belief of Wāḥdat ʿāl-Wūjud, as narrated by Sāyyid Ijāz Hussein ʿāl-Nāysabūri ʿāl-Kāntoūri in his book, Kāshf ʿāl-Hūjub wāl-Astār, 151, 734.

Salams,

I've given you a link to al-Dhari'ah, you can read Agha Buzurg's explanation of all of the following there. Additionally just because Mirza Nuri (ar) said the sanad is sahih it doesn't mean we can actually have itminan that this is from the Imam, there are two remaining issues that go unaddressed which were brought up by his student student, Agha Buzurg, who was an expert when it came to manuscripts and subjects in the study of bibliography and whose points haven't been dismissed just because his teacher with a very long title said the ahadith were sahih. Additionally, Mirza Nuri is known to have quoted sources in Mustadrak al-Wasa'il which Ulama do not depend on, like Fiqh al-Ridha. The authorship debate of the book still stands and even if that is resolved then the other works of Muqaddis Ardabili as it seems promoted wahdatu l-wujud in his other works. Agha Buzurg additionally concludes that these traditions were appended to the book after its initial authorship, that the text is muharraf. And were we to determine which belief Muqaddis Ardabili actually ended up holding, we'd need to see which of his books were written when chronologically and with this book we run into that problem of authorship once again which likely makes it difficult for us to figure out when it was written. I think you've completely misunderstood the point of saying Muqaddis Ardabili believed in wahdatu l-wujud as well, it isn't to drop the names of major scholars who believed in it, somehow making it correct -- as you seem to be doing in the opposite direction to prove this stance wrong (and I hope you really do get to read those Indian scholars you quoted whose significance is much greater than a screenshot for a shiachat thread).

I'm also not sure where you got that I've spent time in Qom, I haven't been east of London since I was five, let alone having had the tawfiq to preform ziyarah, let alone having gone for studies anywhere.

32 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Apparently, taking the words of Ahlūl Bāyt is considered ‘the least serious’ now.

In the way you did, yes, entirely. It was non-serious and immature, and doing it to condemn theologians and philosophers much greater than yourself, who had a familiarity with hadith, to hell is perhaps the most obnoxious thing I've seen in a very long time. There is no consideration at all for the hadith, whether its authenticity or its meaning, and such a hasty desire to condemn those whom you had disagreed with. So yes, this thread and your posts elsewhere have truly been some of the least serious treatments I've ever seen on these topics. Have a care, please.

Share this post


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

I've given you a link to al-Dhari'ah, you can read Agha Buzurg's explanation of all of the following there. Additionally just because Mirza Nuri (ar) said the sanad is sahih it doesn't mean we can actually have itminan that this is from the Imam, there are two remaining issues that go unaddressed which were brought up by his student student, Agha Buzurg, who was an expert when it came to manuscripts and subjects in the study of bibliography and whose points haven't been dismissed just because his teacher with a very long title said the ahadith were sahih. Additionally, Mirza Nuri is known to have quoted sources in Mustadrak al-Wasa'il which Ulama do not depend on, like Fiqh al-Ridha. The authorship debate of the book still stands and even if that is resolved then the other works of Muqaddis Ardabili as it seems promoted wahdatu l-wujud in his other works. Agha Buzurg additionally concludes that these traditions were appended to the book after its initial authorship, that the text is muharraf. And were we to determine which belief Muqaddis Ardabili actually ended up holding, we'd need to see which of his books were written when chronologically and with this book we run into that problem of authorship once again which likely makes it difficult for us to figure out when it was written. I think you've completely misunderstood the point of saying Muqaddis Ardabili believed in wahdatu l-wujud as well, it isn't to drop the names of major scholars who believed in it, somehow making it correct -- as you seem to be doing in the opposite direction to prove this stance wrong (and I hope you really do get to read those Indian scholars you quoted whose significance is much greater than a screenshot for a shiachat thread).

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.

Shāyḵḫ Aġha Būzurg said in Ṭābaqat A’laam ʿāl-Shīʿa, 1282, about Khomeini...

And he has [the book] Sirūl-Ṣālah, which has the smell of Irfan coming from it.

ULtF7Jf.jpg

You speak Arabic, and you know that such phrases are used for a derogatory purpose. Add to that, it was known that Shāyḵḫ Aġha Būzurg was against Irfan.

According to you now, Shāyḵḫ Aġha Būzurg is immature.

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

In the way you did, yes, entirely. It was non-serious and immature, and doing it to condemn theologians and philosophers much greater than yourself, who had a familiarity with hadith, to hell is perhaps the most obnoxious thing I've seen in a very long time.

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.

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

So yes, this thread and your posts elsewhere have truly been some of the least serious treatments I've ever seen on these topics. Have a care, please.

I couldn’t care less.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...