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  
Enlightened Follower

Is Rumi considered a heretic?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Kaya said:

The Qur'an mentions young boys like well kept pearls will serve the people of Paradise. 

So does the Qur'an actually mention wine in Paradise. 

So does the Qur'an mention chaste spouses in Paradise. 

See how insignificant are the things that bother you about his poetry? And remember you are a nobody while Ayatollah Khomeini founded an Islamic Republic, where alcholol, adultery, and homosexuality are forbidden. 

Get over the minute details and try to grasp the inner message!! 

What false equivalence. The young boys in Heaven aren't mentioned in homoerotic ways.

Wine in Heaven is different to wine in your poems, the wine in your poems is related to drunkiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sumerian said:

What false equivalence. The young boys in Heaven aren't mentioned in homoerotic ways.

Wine in Heaven is different to wine in your poems, the wine in your poems is related to drunkiness.

How sad to see a Shia brother follow in the footsteps of Wahhabis and call others heretics without looking into the matter more deeply. 

Just so you know, I follow Jaffari fiqh fully and am free from alcholol drinking or homosexuality.

The poem's use of these words are to explain certain divine truths which cannot be explained except by metaphorical language. 

Arifs have historically been among the most pious of all men. Dedicated to the religion. Accusing them of heresy is a betrayal of our scholars. 

The Qur'an tells us to investigate a matter deeply before reaching conclusions. And that talking badly behind a brothers back is the same as eating their rotting flesh. 

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us. 

Wassalam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

What false equivalence. The young boys in Heaven aren't mentioned in homoerotic ways.

Wine in Heaven is different to wine in your poems, the wine in your poems is related to drunkiness.

But it never means the drunkeness of wine of this world.

It means divine beauty makes one ectatic and saturated  out of Joy.

So this efdect seizing ones alertness out of joy on witnessing devine beauty is called drunkness.

Why did women Egypt cut their finger on seeing beauty of Hazrat yousf  as.

Do they were drunkn.What was that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hadi5 said:

But it never means the drunkeness of wine of this world.

It means divine beauty makes one ectatic and saturated  out of Joy.

So this efdect seizing ones alertness out of joy on witnessing devine beauty is called drunkness.

Why did women Egypt cut their finger on seeing beauty of Hazrat yousf  as.

Do they were drunkn.What was that effect.

I don't care what these poets mean, I'm saying it is inappropriate to use such terms to describe one's relationship with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). There are millions of words your beloved poet could have picked and he settled on wine and drinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kaya said:

The poem's use of these words are to explain certain divine truths which cannot be explained except by metaphorical language. 

Did the poet have to use fisq terms to explain these "divine truths"? Did he run out of words and he can only use such words? 

This reminds me of certain ghulaat who hide behind metaphors when you tell them what they believe is kufr. It is as if these people ran out of words to describe stuff and therefore could only settle on such phrases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

I don't care what these poets mean, I'm saying it is inappropriate to use such terms to describe one's relationship with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). There are millions of words your beloved poet could have picked and he settled on wine and drinking. 

He is master of the subject. So he has full right express divine beauty and its effect.

When you too will witness beauty of Allah and its effect you convey it in your way.

I suggest you to read Etiquettes of Salat by Khomeini ra where he conveyed how during salat Allahs beauty and Power kocks ones heart and Ruh.

Here he has not used term wine or lip or eyes which makes you uncomfortable.

May be it will help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

I don't care what these poets mean, I'm saying it is inappropriate to use such terms to describe one's relationship with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). There are millions of words your beloved poet could have picked and he settled on wine and drinking.

 

4 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Did the poet have to use fisq terms to explain these "divine truths"? Did he run out of words and he can only use such words? 

Here is a challenge for you - Describe the taste of honey to someone who never tasted anything sweet. Or describe a beautiful sound to someone who was born deaf. Or describe a flower's beauty to someone who was born blind.

Can you do it without resorting to some sort of metaphor? 

Some things are impossible to describe with words only. The meaning of words goes only as far as the experiences of that person. The word 'green' has no value to someone colorblind, because he never experienced green.

As for you aversion to the choice of words, you do not even fully comprehend what the Arifs are trying to describe. Did you reach their state so that you can suggest more proper metaphors? Remember words without experiences are meaningless. Did you ever experience what they are talking about?

And they use appropriate metaphors too sometimes. A common one they use is that of the 'Rose Garden'.

Wine is necessary as a metaphor because there is nothing else in nature that, when consumed, completely changes the perception of a person. The Arifs are saying that they've experienced a complete change in their perception that is impossible to explain otherwise.

15 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

This reminds me of certain ghulaat who hide behind metaphors when you tell them what they believe is kufr.

The Ghuulat are a completely different story.

The difference is that the Ghuulat did not keep the Sharia (praying, fasting, charity, etc.), while the Arifs keep the Sharia.

Therefore whatever the Ghuulat say is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The difference is that the Ghuulat did not keep the Sharia (praying, fasting, charity, etc.), while the Arifs keep the Sharia.

So if you pray and fast you can say whatever you like, under the guise that it means something different? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Did the poet have to use fisq terms to explain these "divine truths"? Did he run out of words and he can only use such words? 

This reminds me of certain ghulaat who hide behind metaphors when you tell them what they believe is kufr. It is as if these people ran out of words to describe stuff and therefore could only settle on such phrases. 

How can you explain the beauty of world or female and sky ,moon flowers to blind who have never seen it or smelled it.

You have to use some language that he understands so that you can convey it.

Even then you can never convey the real thing which you see.

Can we convey the feeling of pain or love in words to one who has never percieved it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

So if you pray and fast you can say whatever you like, under the guise that it means something different? 

Is that your opinion of Allamah Tabat'ai or Ayatollah Khomeini, the two greatest Arifs during the Islamic Revolution?

If someone keeps the Divine Law (Sharia), and has correct Theology (e.g. Oneness of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Wilayah, etc.), then who are you to judge whether they are heretics or not?

The prejudice of some people on this forum... 

Share this post


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

So if you pray and fast you can say whatever you like, under the guise that it means something different? 

What wrong they said.The followed and taught true Islam.And thank Allah we recognised them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mods will remove silly memes or joke replies in a serious topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

How is a verse that literally says khamr has "benefits for humans" selective reading and picking and choosing? It clearly signifies that there is nothing inherently wrong with wine and that wine is not pure evil. Also we know many jurists also do not even believe it is 'ayn al-najasah. As for it being a ni'mah from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) - some scholars understood madh (praise) from these set of verses, while some were subsequently forced to conclude that the positive impression of it in verse 67 is abrogated: 

وَإِنَّ لَكُمْ فِي الْأَنْعَامِ لَعِبْرَةً ۖ نُّسْقِيكُم مِّمَّا فِي بُطُونِهِ مِن بَيْنِ فَرْثٍ وَدَمٍ لَّبَنًا خَالِصًا سَائِغًا لِّلشَّارِبِينَ - 16:66

وَمِن ثَمَرَاتِ النَّخِيلِ وَالْأَعْنَابِ تَتَّخِذُونَ مِنْهُ سَكَرًا وَرِزْقًا حَسَنًا ۗ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ - 16:67

وَأَوْحَىٰ رَبُّكَ إِلَى النَّحْلِ أَنِ اتَّخِذِي مِنَ الْجِبَالِ بُيُوتًا وَمِنَ الشَّجَرِ وَمِمَّا يَعْرِشُونَ - 16:68

ثُمَّ كُلِي مِن كُلِّ الثَّمَرَاتِ فَاسْلُكِي سُبُلَ رَبِّكِ ذُلُلًا ۚ يَخْرُجُ مِن بُطُونِهَا شَرَابٌ مُّخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهُ فِيهِ شِفَاءٌ لِّلنَّاسِ ۗ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ - 16:69

Even Sayyid Khu'I is forced to address these verses and says these verses are not in context of mentioning ni'mah rather they are in context of mentioning Allah's qudrah. This explanation has flaws, since qudrah does not negate it also being about ni'mah, and even if it was just about qudrah it is absurd for someone to talk about their "power" and "might" by giving examples of something that is pure evil.

Just because it has benefits does not negate it being an evil product. 

Just a quick read in Wasa'il Al-Shi'a and you get the idea that whoever offers any sort of madh for such a drink is far from preaching the religion of Ahlul Bayt.

- رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): لعن الله الخمر، وعاصرها، وغارسها، وشاربها، وساقيها، وبائعها، ومشتريها، وآكل ثمنها، وحاملها، والمحمولة إليه

عنه (صلى الله عليه وآله): الخمر أم الفواحش وأكبر الكبائر

عنه (صلى الله عليه وآله): الخمر أم الخبائث

What more proof do you need for the evil nature of khamr? 

And I agree with the interpretation of Sayyed Al-Khoei, and there is nothing absurd with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) using such an example for his power, in fact He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said even more:

He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام say: Verily, Allah revealed to Musa عليه السلام and sent down in the Torah, “I am Allah, there is no God except Me. I created the creation, and I created good and I made it run upon the hands of those I love. Tuba is for those in whose hands I made it run upon. And I am Allah, there is no God except Me. I created the creation, and I created evil and made it run upon the hands of whomever I wanted. So, woe to those upon whose hands I made it run". (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 389)

4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

So if Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) can say there is wine in paradise, without the intoxication that exists in this world, why can't a mystic talk about a wine which also intoxicates but not of the nature that we are familiar with in this world? Why are you predicating the mystic's use of "wine" and "drunkenness" on what you understand to be from this world?

Why use such a metaphor in the first place? Did they run out of words to describe religion they had to resort to "wine" and "drinking" and "young boys" and other evil things?

4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

How is it a false analogy? My argument was not comparing a kabeerah with a non-sin, rather the argument was comparing a perception of something being qabeeh (I.e. your perception of wine) to a perception of another thing being qabeeh (I.e. someone else's perception of humans being compared to merchandise). A qabeeh is more general and inclusive of both sins and even many non-sins. So if you have a problem with someone using wine in their poetry because drinking wine is a qabeeh act, then someone can definitely deem it problematic to speak of human slaves in animal terminology or women as merchandise terminology because that is also qabeeh.

What a funny way to put. I love the false equivalence you used and justified by "perception". As if me and the mystics are only differed in our own personal perception. No bruv, wine is a qabeeh based on the hadith of the Prophet (saww) not based on my mind or urf or whatever. This is an objective truth. 

4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

First you say they are literal descriptions, then you say they are "like a" product or "like an" animal - which is the exact phrase you use to describe a metaphor (a simile is a type of metaphor). You are wrong - they are not words being used in their literal meanings. The word "vulva" is many times used by jurists figuratively to refer to haqq al-istimta' (the right of pleasure) and not its literal meaning. Shaykh Tusi in his al-Mabsut [http://lib.eshia.ir/10036/4/310]

فان البضع عبارة عن الاستمتاع

The (word) "vulva" is an expression for istimta' (seeking pleasure).

Below is a discussion by Shahid Thani in Sharh al-Lum'ah in which he contrasts the 'aqd of Nikah with the 'aqd of Bay' when explaining why the Wakil for the 'aqd of Nikah must mention who they are reciting the Nikah for as opposed to in the 'aqd of Bay' where this is not required - I am just quoting it partially:

و الفرق أن الزوجين في النكاح ركنان بمثابة الثمن و المثمن في البيع و لا بد من تسميتهما في البيع فكذا الزوجان في النكاح و لأن البيع يرد على المال و هو يقبل النقل من شخص إلى آخر فلا يمتنع أن يخاطب به الوكيل و إن لم يذكر‌ الموكل و النكاح يرد على البضع و هو لا يقبل النقل أصلا

And the difference is that: the two spouses in the Nikah are tantamount to the "money" and the "valued object" in Bay' where there is no choice but to mention both of them and likewise in Nikah the two spouses are the same; and because the Bay' occurs on wealth which is transferable from one person to another, there is no barrier in the Wakil speaking even if the Muwakkil is not mentioned, whereas Nikah happens on the Budh' (lit. vulva, figuratively: right of pleasure) and this is not transferable.

Source: http://ar.lib.eshia.ir/71567/2/72/

The physical "vulva" can literally and physically be transferred and moved (by moving around the woman) just like the money and object, but they are using it figuratively to refer to the right of pleasure - which is what the contract is taking place on. This is true even in the case of a Saghira with whom you are not even allowed to have intercourse with, yet you are performing the 'aqd on the Budh' (I.e. right of pleasure). 

Reminds me of the discussion from Kitab al-Hudud in the discussion of Qadhf on whether calling someone Dayyuth (someone who brings other men to have sex with his wife), Kashkhan (one who brings men to have sex with his daughters), or Qirnan (one who brings men to have sex with his sisters) result in the penalty of Qadhf or not - and that this depended on whether in the person's 'urf and perceptions it is seen as a mere vulgarity or it actually literally implies what it means. The point of this is that words, language and jargon need to be understood in their appropriate contexts before making any judgement.

Quite frankly, I could care less about Rumi or mystics in general as I have epistemic issues with their approach, especially with their interpretations of religious texts, but to go against them or anyone who has a specific jargon that they all share in common is the most stupid way of arguing against any group of people. So you should perhaps think about what a non-Muslim would say and think about it because as of now your way of arguing against some words used in poetry is potentially not very different to theirs as I have shown above.

Wasalam

You misunderstood what I meant and my bad for using the word "literally" liberally, my point was that it was an appropriate simile that describes the situation perfectly in that a woman in a marriage contract is treated like an object in a business contract (mahr in exchange for services) and so on. 

But these metaphors are not qaba'ih at all in the eyes of the Shari'ah, but wine is, so what you have done is create a false equivalence between terms the kuffar would be appalled to read and would be disgusted to read and my disgust at the description of the mystics. Their reason for disgust is because of their liberalism, my reason is because I believe wine and intoxication is evil based on the hadith of the Prophet.

And one question to you: do you believe in such thing as inappropriate jargon? Or is anything allowed to be used to describe religion as long as it is in the context of "jargon"?

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


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

Is that your opinion of Allamah Tabat'ai or Ayatollah Khomeini, the two greatest Arifs during the Islamic Revolution?

If someone keeps the Divine Law (Sharia), and has correct Theology (e.g. Oneness of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Wilayah, etc.), then who are you to judge whether they are heretics or not?

The prejudice of some people on this forum... 

Firstly my point was general rather than specific to two individuals.

Secondly, I didn't realize there was a ranking of urafa and that these two have been crowned as the greatest. Masha'Allah. 

Lastly, I never declared anyone a heretic.

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sumerian said:

I don't care what these poets mean, I'm saying it is inappropriate to use such terms to describe one's relationship with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). There are millions of words your beloved poet could have picked and he settled on wine and drinking. 

"I don't care what these poets mean" = "If those people are not using MY methods of speaking I don't want to hear it"

"It is inappropriate" according to who? 

"There are millions of words" I don't think you understand poetry, which is essentially why we're having this discussion.

Edited by Ibn Al-Shahid

Share this post


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

Firstly my point was general rather than specific to two individuals.

Secondly, I didn't realize there was a ranking of urafa and that these two have been crowned as the greatest. Masha'Allah. 

Lastly, I never declared anyone a heretic.

Wallahu a'lam 

 

Most of the urafas have used similar words  in their poetry over hundreds .Despite knowing some common people  criticise it.

Non of the Arif paid heed to what common people say.

Now do you mean all them are wrong and you are correct.

The are Arif means atrained highest position that common individual can achieve before Allah.

Now we common people who are drowned in all sorts of sin and ignorance criticise Arifs.

Does it hold sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

"I don't care what these poets mean" = "If those people are not using MY methods of speaking I don't want to hear it"

Correct. No issue here

20 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

"It is inappropriate" according to who? 

If you want to hear metaphors about love for young boys then that's your choice, but the Shari'ah considers things like drinking as khaba'ith and fawahish, and what these poets do is make these evil things seem like perfectly fine to describe religon as long as they are metaphors.

22 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

"There are millions of words" I don't think you understand poetry, which is essentially why we're having this discussion.

Alhamdulillah for that. The less I know about these poems the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Correct. No issue here

If you want to hear metaphors about love for young boys then that's your choice, but the Shari'ah considers things like drinking as khaba'ith and fawahish, and what these poets do is make these evil things seem like perfectly fine to describe religon as long as they are metaphors.

Alhamdulillah for that. The less I know about these poems the better.

Shariah consider drinking of wine as sin.

And using wine word to convey message is not sin.

I have read many poems of Khomeini and never come acroos any poem which has homosexual content.

Edited by islam25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Just because it has benefits does not negate it being an evil product. 

Yes, but it is not pure evil even in its worldly form in terms of what you can do with it - let alone in any other form - so stop treating it like it is.

Quote

Just a quick read in Wasa'il Al-Shi'a and you get the idea that whoever offers any sort of madh for such a drink is far from preaching the religion of Ahlul Bayt.

- رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): لعن الله الخمر، وعاصرها، وغارسها، وشاربها، وساقيها، وبائعها، ومشتريها، وآكل ثمنها، وحاملها، والمحمولة إليه

عنه (صلى الله عليه وآله): الخمر أم الفواحش وأكبر الكبائر

عنه (صلى الله عليه وآله): الخمر أم الخبائث

What more proof do you need for the evil nature of khamr? 

First of all, qubh and husn are applicable to actions, not to physical things. You don't say "dog is qabeeh" or "urine is qabeeh" - rather you attribute the qubh or husn to actions (even if you do attribute it to things, you presume some sort of action which is not being explicitly mentioned) - such as, it is qabeeh (purely as an example) to touch a wet dog, or it is qabeeh to drink urine, or it is qabeeh to drink khamr, or it is qabeeh to get drunk. So these narrations above cannot be used to prove the inherently evil nature of khamr - khamr is just a physical object, it is not "inherently" bad (what does that even mean - unless you alter the discussion to a theological point about all contingent beings deficient in their existence and so on, but that is irrelevant to the discussion of Shari'ah or poetry) and the Qur'an says there is good in it for humans (I.e. what they can do with it), but there is more harm than good in the way it can be used. Is it seriously that complicated to understand that the word khamr in these traditions is talking about the problems associated with what you do (I.e. actions that are qabeeh) with khamr of this world that intoxicates (in this world) and lead to problems? The first hadith is very clear about that. Or else, if the word khamr can only mean one specific meaning then why give the people of heaven the same khamr (using the same word) and why did the Imams use the word khamr in absolute terms here:

َ وَ لَيْسَ مِنْ مُؤْمِنٍ فِي الْجَنَّةِ إِلَّا وَ لَهُ جِنَانٌ كَثِيرَةٌ مَعْرُوشَاتٌ وَ غَيْرُ مَعْرُوشَاتٍ وَ أَنْهارٌ مِنْ خَمْرٍ وَ أَنْهَارٌ مِنْ مَاء

فَقَالَ هَذِهِ الْعُيُونُ الَّتِي ذَكَرَهَا اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ أَنْهَارٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ عَيْنٌ مِنْ مَاءٍ وَ عَيْنٌ مِنْ لَبَنٍ وَ عَيْنٌ مِنْ خَمْرٍ تَجْرِي فِي هَذَا النَّهَر

كُلِّ قَصْرٍ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْقُصُورِ أَرْبَعَةُ أَنْهَارٍ نَهَرٌ مِنْ عَسَلٍ وَ نَهَرٌ مِنْ خَمْرٍ وَ نَهَرٌ مِنْ لَبَنٍ وَ نَهَرٌ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَحْفُوفٌ بِالْأَشْجَار

You are going to say "they are not talking about the same khamr", "this khamr means something else", "it is the khamr of heaven which doesn't have the qualities of physical khamr of this world..." and so on. Essentially you will end up confessing that the word khamr can be used - in fact people of heaven will be drinking it - while not meaning the exact khamr of this world. So if this can be acknowledged, then the rest of your argument is baseless.

Quote

And I agree with the interpretation of Sayyed Al-Khoei, and there is nothing absurd with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) using such an example for his power, in fact He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said even more:

lol you agree with it just because it helps you get out of the dilemma? Khui's is the weakest of responses, even Tusi and others have responded better (which also shows that they initially realized praise can be understood from it). Or else you are saying the verses are saying, I created cattle for you, we gave you drink from their bellies, pure milk, we sent down rain and gave life through it, and we gave you the fruits of the palm trees and also grapevines so you can make evil intoxicants from it and get drunk on it - indeed there is a sign for people who reason.

If you keep reading the verses as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is enumerating His blessings, He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says:

أَفَبِنِعْمَةِ اللَّهِ يَجْحَدُونَ - 16:71

أَفَبِالْبَاطِلِ يُؤْمِنُونَ وَبِنِعْمَتِ اللَّهِ هُمْ يَكْفُرُونَ - 16:72

As I said, even if you say there is an aspect of qudrah in these verses, that doesn't negate the aspect of ni'mah - they are not mutually exclusive.

Quote

He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام say: Verily, Allah revealed to Musa عليه السلام and sent down in the Torah, “I am Allah, there is no God except Me. I created the creation, and I created good and I made it run upon the hands of those I love. Tuba is for those in whose hands I made it run upon. And I am Allah, there is no God except Me. I created the creation, and I created evil and made it run upon the hands of whomever I wanted. So, woe to those upon whose hands I made it run". (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 389)

The vast majority of Shi'a scholars do ta'weel of traditions (I.e. understand them figuratively) where creation of evil is attributed to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) - in fact you should ask Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) why He would apparently attribute the creation of evil (can't get any worse than that) to Himself such that every Shi'a scholar has had to do ta'weel and explain it away in non-literal meanings. 

Quote

Why use such a metaphor in the first place? Did they run out of words to describe religion they had to resort to "wine" and "drinking" and "young boys" and other evil things?

What's it to you - they can use what they want, it is their jargon, just like the philosophers have their own jargon, the jurists have their own jargon and so on. And as for their defense, their claim is that they cannot use other words as metaphors - these are the best words to convey what they are experiencing. What is even more appalling is that a lot of times these words are being used in poetry (as opposed to the works of philosophers and jurists) which is open to the use of creativity and instead you are giving them an issue with that - in poetry!

Quote

What a funny way to put. I love the false equivalence you used and justified by "perception". As if me and the mystics are only differed in our own personal perception. No bruv, wine is a qabeeh based on the hadith of the Prophet (saww) not based on my mind or urf or whatever. This is an objective truth. 

Just stop...you killing me now.

Quote

You misunderstood what I meant and my bad for using the word "literally" liberally, my point was that it was an appropriate simile that describes the situation perfectly in that a woman in a marriage contract is treated like an object in a business contract (mahr in exchange for services) and so on. 

And the mystic is using words which appropriately (yet figuratively) describes their situation.

Quote

But these metaphors are not qaba'ih at all in the eyes of the Shari'ah, but wine is,

You keep saying wine is qabeeh - listen, I already explained that the physical entity is not inherently qabeeh, actions are qabeeh or husn, and secondly the words (or more precisely, using the words) "wine" or "intoxicated" or "drunk" are not qabeeh either and neither is their meaning qabeeh in the eyes of the Shari'ah or even the laymen. What is qabeeh is the physical drinking of it (and other related laws). Wine and intoxication are not vulgar or profane words in the eyes of the Shari'a (even if they were at a certain point - which they never were - words can lose and gain connotations all the time). There is no difference in using the non-vulgar word wine as a metaphor for love with using the non-vulgar word lion as a metaphor for courage or the biological word vulva as a metaphor for right of pleasure.

Quote

so what you have done is create a false equivalence between terms the kuffar would be appalled to read and would be disgusted to read and my disgust at the description of the mystics. Their reason for disgust is because of their liberalism, my reason is because I believe wine and intoxication is evil based on the hadith of the Prophet.

Have you ever read the Kashkul works of the fuqaha - works written for leisure reading when students are tired and can relax themselves or when they are travelling - and seen the type of stuff they have mentioned in there, from jokes and stories about wine to homosexuality and what not? Go have a read of Sayyid Ni'matullah Jaza'iri's Zahr al-Rabi' and Yusuf Bahrani's Anis al-Musafir (he even quotes a homosexual themed story of Abu Nuwas in it vol 3, pg. 68) and you will find it filled with what you should describe as "filth", "qabeeh" and "evil".

Quote

And one question to you: do you believe in such thing as inappropriate jargon? Or is anything allowed to be used to describe religion as long as it is in the context of "jargon"?

No I do not believe there is such a thing as inappropriate jargon by the very fact that jargon is a specific convention constructed by a group of people to convey meanings amongst themselves - as long as those meanings do not tantamount to vulgarity, profanity, swear words (even in their own jargon and slang), then there is no issue with using any word as a jargon to describe religion or one's own personal experience. The group of people themselves can debate over whether a certain word is appropriate jargon or not - and it seems in the case of the mystics there hasn't been anyone who has disputed the use of wine and intoxication to convey their point.

- Never thought I'd see the day where I'd be defending Rumi and the mystics :hahaha:.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, islam25 said:

 

Most of the urafas have used similar words  in their poetry over hundreds .Despite knowing some common people  criticise it.

Non of the Arif paid heed to what common people say.

Now do you mean all them are wrong and you are correct.

The are Arif means atrained highest position that common individual can achieve before Allah.

Now we common people who are drowned in all sorts of sin and ignorance criticise Arifs.

Does it hold sense.

Perhaps this is where our differences lie. In my humble view the highest position is that of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and his progeny (عليه السلام) and the best words are the words of the Qur'an. 

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

Perhaps this is where our differences lie. In my humble view the highest position is that of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and his progeny (عليه السلام) and the best words are the words of the Qur'an. 

Wallahu a'lam 

Mr..

Just read it with open mind.

I never said Hihest position in Prophets.

Rather I used term highest rank in common people.

Share this post


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

Shariah consider drinking of wine as sin.

And using wine word to convey message is not sin.

Let's be clear that Sharia is what jurists has deduced from the Qur'an and the hadith. Not in it self the message of God. The Qur'an warns against alcohol for very good reasons, but does not explicitly forbid it. The ban on Alcohol is what jurists has deduced from the warnings in the Qur'an. However the Qur'an also uses the term "wine" as a poetic metaphor for Gods love, Gods grace. This is somewhat ironic because in the dunya alcohol brings you further away from God, but the metaphor holds when you apply the attributes of alcohol to the closeness of God. Like being "addicted" to Gods grace, being "intoxicated" with Gods love. I think that Imam Khomeini (May God be pleased with him) was using the metaphor in exactly this way as also did Rumi and Sufis like him.
I think that where the clerics of the “hadith current” get it wrong that they think that the deen is Shariah and Shariah is the deen. Shariah may be an important tool for keeping the weak on the right path, but Shariah is dead and vain with out the love and grace of God that mystics explore. Keeping all the rigid rules is not enough. You have to actively seek God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Revert1963 said:

but the metaphor holds when you apply the attributes of alcohol to the closeness of God. Like being "addicted" to Gods grace, being "intoxicated" with Gods love. 
 

You are right.

Hatef Isfahani, a famous poet and mystic, said in one of his poems that: when mystics/arifs use the words wine, glass, motrib (musician or singer), sāqi (cupbearer), moq (zoroastrian priest), monastery, shāhid (witness) and zonnār(a kind of belt worn by Christians), their intention is to implicitly talking about some mysteries...that He is one and there is no God but Him.

هاتف ارباب معرفت که گهی

مست خوانندشان و گه هشیار

از می و جام و ساقی و مطرب

از مغ و دیر و شاهد و زنار

هست ایشان را نهفته اسراری

که به ایما کنند گاه اظهار

Edited by shadow_of_light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Yes, but it is not pure evil even in its worldly form in terms of what you can do with it - let alone in any other form - so stop treating it like it is.

It is an evil that can be used for good.

7 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 

َ وَ لَيْسَ مِنْ مُؤْمِنٍ فِي الْجَنَّةِ إِلَّا وَ لَهُ جِنَانٌ كَثِيرَةٌ مَعْرُوشَاتٌ وَ غَيْرُ مَعْرُوشَاتٍ وَ أَنْهارٌ مِنْ خَمْرٍ وَ أَنْهَارٌ مِنْ مَاء

فَقَالَ هَذِهِ الْعُيُونُ الَّتِي ذَكَرَهَا اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ أَنْهَارٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ عَيْنٌ مِنْ مَاءٍ وَ عَيْنٌ مِنْ لَبَنٍ وَ عَيْنٌ مِنْ خَمْرٍ تَجْرِي فِي هَذَا النَّهَر

كُلِّ قَصْرٍ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْقُصُورِ أَرْبَعَةُ أَنْهَارٍ نَهَرٌ مِنْ عَسَلٍ وَ نَهَرٌ مِنْ خَمْرٍ وَ نَهَرٌ مِنْ لَبَنٍ وَ نَهَرٌ مِنْ مَاءٍ مَحْفُوفٌ بِالْأَشْجَار

You are going to say "they are not talking about the same khamr", "this khamr means something else", "it is the khamr of heaven which doesn't have the qualities of physical khamr of this world..." and so on. Essentially you will end up confessing that the word khamr can be used - in fact people of heaven will be drinking it - while not meaning the exact khamr of this world. So if this can be acknowledged, then the rest of your argument is baseless.

No, they are applicable to things as well. There are examples of scholars describing animals and things like foods, blood, bodily fluids etc.. as "khaba'ith".

Al-Tabarsi says:

 هو الخالص من شائب ينغص، وهو على ثلاثة أقسام، الطيب المستلذ، والطيب الجائز (أي في الشرع الشريف)، والطيب الطاهر (أي غير النجس والمتنجس)، والأصل (أي في اللغة) هو المستلذ، إلا انه وصف به الطاهر، والجائز، تشبيها، إذ ما يزجر عنه العقل أو الشرع كالذي تكرهه النفس وتنصرف عنه (إلى أن قال): واصل الباب الطيب خلاف الخبيث.

Therefore it is appropriate to label such things as khabeeth and qabeeh, because they are the opposite of the tayyib.

And let me ask you a question: why did the Prophet (saww) curse khamr itself in the hadith, and not just its drinker? 

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


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

It is an evil that can be used for good.

It is a neutral liquid that can be used for more harm than good (when used in the meaning of what it constitutes in this world).

Quote

No, they are applicable to things as well. There are examples of scholars describing animals and things like foods, blood, bodily fluids etc.. as "khaba'ith".

Al-Tabarsi says:

 هو الخالص من شائب ينغص، وهو على ثلاثة أقسام، الطيب المستلذ، والطيب الجائز (أي في الشرع الشريف)، والطيب الطاهر (أي غير النجس والمتنجس)، والأصل (أي في اللغة) هو المستلذ، إلا انه وصف به الطاهر، والجائز، تشبيها، إذ ما يزجر عنه العقل أو الشرع كالذي تكرهه النفس وتنصرف عنه (إلى أن قال): واصل الباب الطيب خلاف الخبيث.

Therefore it is appropriate to label such things as khabeeth and qabeeh, because they are the opposite of the tayyib.

Qabeeh and khabeeth are not the same thing. Unfortunately it is difficult to render their meanings in Arabic, but khabeeth is simply something disliked, something along the lines of "bad" - the opposite of tayyib (good and pleasant) - the Arabs would describe snakes and scorpion as khabeeth, the hadith even refer to things we are allowed to eat such as onions or garlic as khabeeth:

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ: سَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ أَكْلِ الثُّومِ فَقَالَ إِنَّمَا نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص‏ عَنْهُ لِرِيحِهِ فَقَالَ مَنْ أَكَلَ هَذِهِ الْبَقْلَةَ الْخَبِيثَةَ فَلَا يَقْرَبْ مَسْجِدَنَا فَأَمَّا مَنْ أَكَلَهُ وَ لَمْ يَأْتِ الْمَسْجِدَ فَلَا بَأْسَ

Or a tradition from Imam Ridha (a) where he says if I come into power as a caliph, I will most surely eat food that is khabeeth (source: http://lib.eshia.ir/27049/1/115)

والله لئن صرت إلى هذا الأمر لآكلن الخبيث بعد الطيب، ولألبسن الخشن بعد اللين، ولأتعبن بعد الدعة

In other words, khabeeth in its most literal meaning simply means something disliked, lowly and bad, hence it can be used to describe physical things and also actions which are permissible, makruh, haram or even wajib (a very bad tasting medicine for example that must be taken to save your life). ٍIn the Qur'an and hadith it is used in this very simple 'urfi meaning - there is no technical fiqhi meaning given to this word, as confessed by the jurists themselves and many will even tell you that the identification of what is khabeeth is subjective. So just because something is called khabeeth in some hadith doesn't automatically mean the word can't be used to describe some religious meaning and personal experience, that too via metaphors. In the example of the poems of the mystics, the word khamr or even the idea of being drunk and intoxication is not even being used in its worldly meaning (which should really be enough to end the discussion) and it is only being used as a metaphor, and on top of that its aspect of khibatha which is limited to this world - such as the fact that it results in disputes, heedlessness of Allah etc. - is not being intended (hence the phrase, it is the mother of khaba'ith, meaning drinking it in this world results in other khabeeth or kabeera acts), in fact the complete opposite meaning is being intended in their poetry. Otherwise you would be inserting your own bias meanings into their poetry at that point and judging them for something they are not saying.

Qubh is the opposite of husn - something which transgresses the boundaries of justice and identifying this in external reality depends on a case by case basis of what object or action we are looking at. While 'urf may use it to describe forms of physical objects (their surah) and as well as actions (af'aal) just like the word khabeeth, the physical liquid khamr is not described as qabeeh in any authoritative religious source. There is nothing qabeeh about its physical form, it is just a liquid. What is qabeeh are the actions associated with it - hence while you can say al-khamr khabeeth, you will not generally say al-khamr qabeeh - instead what you will say is shurb al-khamr qabeeh. Even if you end up seeing 'urf say al-khamr qabeeh, this is not absurd since 'urf omits words all the time - you can say pasta is unhealthy, when in reality you are trying to say "eating pasta is unhealthy". My previous post was about this - it was about how the terms husn and qubh are used in theology and law, where they are restricted to describing actions - the whole reason why things even become haram and the whole reason why khamr is even seen as a negative entity in the minds of Muslims. The ruling of "haram" is only applicable to physical actions not to physical entities and things only become haram when Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) see enough harm and qubh in people engaging in any given action associated with that thing.

The narration you quoted is also very clear in condemning the associating actions to khamr:

لعن الله الخمر، وعاصرها، وغارسها، وشاربها، وساقيها، وبائعها، ومشتريها، وآكل ثمنها، وحاملها، والمحمولة إليه

Even the two narrations that say Khamr is the mother of fawahish, khaba'ith and kaba'ir - do you think khamr just sitting there on its own in some bottle will result in all those things, or rather drinking it, carrying it, making it, selling it, buying it, etc. will lead to these problems?

Quote

And let me ask you a question: why did the Prophet (saww) curse khamr itself in the hadith, and not just its drinker? 

I've already written briefly about the meaning of la'n in one of my earlier posts on ShiaChat - meaning to be expelled, dismissed and discarded. Regardless, it doesn't change anything, no one is saying the khamr of this world is to be embraced and loved. It is to be stayed away from by all means - even though it has benefits for humans and jurisprudentially there is room to make some positive use of it, but whatever is in the hadith is talking about a physical drink of this world. The mystics are simply using that word as a metaphor to convey another meaning.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like many of you don’t care for the history or culture of a civilization, Ibn Taymiyya considered mystics as heretics and also labeled Ibn Sina pretty much anyone in the Islamic Golden Age as a Kaffir this seems to be the trend. Even if some poet or scholar says something you disagree with why call them a heretic? Why not look at them for their contributions or legacy?

Share this post


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

It seems like many of you don’t care for the history or culture of a civilization, Ibn Taymiyya considered mystics as heretics and also labeled Ibn Sina pretty much anyone in the Islamic Golden Age as a Kaffir this seems to be the trend. Even if some poet or scholar says something you disagree with why call them a heretic? Why not look at them for their contributions or legacy?

Not saying I support one side or the other, but I believe those who are calling Rumi or any other of these other "mystics" heretics ARE looking (to some level) at their contributions. They feel their contributions (and beliefs) are heretical. 

Edited by AStruggler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

It seems like many of you don’t care for the history or culture of a civilization, Ibn Taymiyya considered mystics as heretics and also labeled Ibn Sina pretty much anyone in the Islamic Golden Age as a Kaffir this seems to be the trend. Even if some poet or scholar says something you disagree with why call them a heretic? Why not look at them for their contributions or legacy?

Salam officially Ayt Makarem Shirazi & Ayt Nouri Hamedani didn't call Moulana as heretic 

پاسخ آیت‌الله مکارم شیرازی به پرسش مطرح شده چنین بوده است: با توجه به اینکه این کار سبب ترویج فرقه ضاله صوفیه می‌شود، شرعاً جایز نیست و باید از آن خودداری کرد.

Response of Ayt Makarem Shirazi to question about making movie about Moulan: " in consideration that this work will lead to spreading deviated Sufi cult , based on Sharia it's not permissible and must avoid it "

همچنین آیت‌الله نوری همدانی نیز درباره ساخت این فیلم اینگونه پاسخ داد: این دو نفر نامبرده از اعیان صوفیه مهستند و ما برای این مطلب مدارک مقتضی از کتاب‌های خودشان داریم. اساسا فرقه صوفیه یکی از فرقه‌های ضالّه و مضلّه است که با تشکیلات قطب‌ سازی و مرشدبازی به جنگ اسلام ناب که اسلام قرآن و اهل بیت عصمت(ع) آمده‌اند و امام صادق(ع)   درباره صوفیه فرموده‌اند: آنها دشمنان ما هستند. ترویج آنها به هر شکل باشد جایز نیست و حرام است.

Also Ayt Nouri Hamedani about making this movie said : these two persons from elites of Sufis and we have many evidences from their books . basically Sufi cult is one of deviated cults and deviator  that making "Qutb bazi" & "Murshed bazi " are coming to fight of pure Islam and Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) and Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) said about Sufis : they are our enemies ,presenting them in any form is not premissible and it's Haram 

https://www.irna.ir/news/83490371/نگاه-رسانه-های-داخلی-به-ماجراهای-فیلم-شمس-و-مولانا

https://www.isna.ir/news/98070201415/آیت-الله-مکارم-شیرازی-ساخت-فیلم-شمس-تبریزی-حرام-است

12 hours ago, AStruggler said:

Not saying I support one side or the other, but I believe those who are calling Rumi or any other of these other "mystics" heretics ARE looking (to some level) at their contributions. They feel their contributions (and beliefs) are heretical. 

also all experts in Iran are saying that making this movie is based on Turkish propaganda to shows Moulana as a Turkish poet that has no connection to Iran.

https://www.irna.ir/news/83490371/نگاه-رسانه-های-داخلی-به-ماجراهای-فیلم-شمس-و-مولانا

https://www.isna.ir/news/98070201415/آیت-الله-مکارم-شیرازی-ساخت-فیلم-شمس-تبریزی-حرام-است

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...