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  
Bahadur Ali

Was Ibn 'Arabi a Shi'a in disguise?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

Ali Hashmi,

There is no need to slander my character with ur demeaning post, to call urself ignorant is being humble, to call others ignorant is slanderous on ur behalf, so please rethink ur style and maybe then someone might reply. You are no one to judge me, by comparing me to that sunni, ibn arabi, you dont know me. All the reading of ibn arabi i have to admit i have done on the net, is there anything wrong with that, if there is than maybe we should stop switching on our computers, and go out and find his hardbacks.

Every seems to say the Imams cursed only certain types of sufis, but if that was the case why didnt they praise the other types, whereas in the case of the iraqis, they praised many iraqis, some of the martyrs alongside the Imam Husayn (as) were Iraqi, how many sufis died along side Imam Husayn (as) ... is that zero u say ?? So please dont say only some sufis were cursed unless you can show me an authentic hadith stating that some sufis are the best servants of Allah, if this is the case, I will accept what u are saying, adn start accepting that some sufis are saintly, otherwise I will remain scornful of the forty day fasting, pistachio eating, hallucinating, dancing, and the wool wearing.

Wassalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I really did not think it would be taken offensively to such an extent. The comment of ignorant, was obviously a comparison with scholars, and if it can be proved elsewise, please do so. Im sure you will accept, those who are not scholars are ignorant in comparison to the scholars. I did not mean to judge you :) . Once again, it is seemed as such, an apology from me :) .

You are no one to judge me, by comparing me to that sunni, ibn arabi, you dont know me

Im sure ibn Arabi would feel the same way, except he is not here to defend himself.

Finally brother, I did not mean that we should not refer to the internet as a source altogether, but often people lead themselves into matters of controversy, thus reading material that is of the similar nature. Often we all get into reading articles, which are anti so and so and they are usually found on the internet. This is done by not observing the appropriate works of a person. This attitude has been adopted by our shia now a days. We tend to learn about people from those who are opposed to them. The correct manner would be (as we request our ahlay sunnah brothers and sisters time and time again), to refer to the actual works and books as a whole of the people we are trying to research. It would be more appropriate. If it is the case, that you have read the actual works of his, then please, I would request that you pass this knowledge foward to us.

Once again, no harm intended.

Ma3salaama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Br. Ali Hashmi,

Dotn let your prejudice towards anyone that criticizes anything make you come up with conclusions, FYI when I research something I research with an open mind, when i read the bible, i read it with the intention to convince myself to become a christian and when i read Sahih Bukhari I read it with the intention to find the righteous Islamic way. As for sufism, I researched mulla sadra by going to www.mullasadra.org. So please dont assume, Im not only reading anti sites, I do allow someone room to defend themselves. I have read many works on the ibn arabi society website, you are more than welcome to suggest other sites for me to visit to learn more.

Wassalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every seems to say the Imams cursed only certain types of sufis, but if that was the case why didnt they praise the other types, whereas in the case of the iraqis, they praised many iraqis, some of the martyrs alongside the Imam Husayn (as) were Iraqi, how many sufis died along side Imam Husayn (as) ... is that zero u say ?? So please dont say only some sufis were cursed unless you can show me an authentic hadith stating that some sufis are the best servants of Allah, if this is the case, I will accept what u are saying, adn start accepting that some sufis are saintly, otherwise I will remain scornful of the forty day fasting, pistachio eating, hallucinating, dancing, and the wool wearing.

(bismillah)

Salam

The Prince of the Belivers and the Master of the 'Urefa, Imam Ali(A) said:

"الصوفي من لبس الصوف على الصفا , واتبع(سلك) طريق المصطفى , وترك الدنيا وراء القفا ,وعنده يستوي الذهب والحجر والفضة والمدر , وإلا قالكلب الكوفي أفضل من ألف صوفي "

Translation:

"Sufi is one who wears Wool over Purity, follows the path of Moustafa(S), left the world behind his back and to him gold and rocks are equal, and so is silver and loam, otherwise one Kufi Dog, is better than 1000 Sufis"

Just as Aimmahli(A) cursed the some of the Iraqies and Sufis they also praised the others who where in the path of Allah(SWT).

As you see above Imam Ali(A) recognizes the true 'Aref or Sufi (whatever you wish to call him), while the ones being cursed where arrogant, usually having pride in wearing the Sufi cloak as a sign of piety and ascetism, while beneath they wore soft clothes. These where the wreteched type of Sufis who came and absued Imam Baqir(A) for working too much.

Right on hand now I also remember a hadith where a (wicked) Sufi came to Imam Ali(A) and asked why he doesn't wear the ascetic wool/sufi cloak where upon Imam Ali(A) lifted his shirt and showed that beneath his cloak, veiled from the eyes of people, he to bore the same difficulties of wearing this rough piece of clothing.

This should proove that just as there are some righteous Iraqies who for example didn't betray Imam Husayn(A) and his revolution, so there are some righteous Sufis/'Urefa (or whatever you want to call them) who have not abandoned the true faith for Allah(SWT).

Salam

me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

And that hadith is authentic is it ? :rolleyes: can you provide a reference. As you know the Messenger of Allah pbuh used to wear cotton, and he is our prime example, so i find this hadith hard to swallow, unless you can give me the ref. so i can look it up.

Wassalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

And that hadith is authentic is it ? :rolleyes: can you provide a reference. As you know the Messenger of Allah pbuh used to wear cotton, and he is our prime example, so i find this hadith hard to swallow, unless you can give me the ref. so i can look it up.

Wassalaam

There are other instances of this such as when Sufyan Thawri approached Imam Sadiq (A.S.) and reproached him for wearing nice clothes while he (Sufyan) wore humble clothing. Imam Sadiq (A.S.) opened his cloak and his clothes were really shotty looking i.e. holes and patches all over it. He then opened Sufyan Thawri's, who was accepted by many as being a renowned ascetic, cloak which revealed lavish clothes beneath.

We can not stereotype all Sufis as dervishes and hermits from the world. This deen reached the far corners of the world due to the missionary efforts of various tariqahs. Some of the most activist minded Muslims have been of the tariqah such as Shehu Uthman Dan Fodio, the Mahdi of Sudan, Allamah Maudoodi, Iqbal, too name a few. These men practised an evenly balanced deen and did much in the way of Allah. Were it not for some of the tariqah there are certain areas of India that would not know the name of Imam Kazim (A.S.) or in North Africa such as Mauritania where some would not know who Imam Sajjad (A.S.) was if not for the tariqah. I don't follow the tariqah but I know enough brothers and shaykhs who do to know these people are even minded and have much love for Ahlul Bayt (A.S.) and their followers. We really have to get out of this stereotyping people. We hate when people stereotype all Shi'a as worshipping Imam Ali (A.S.) or that Shi'a only make three prayers or that all Shi'a follow Imam Khomeini or that all Shi'a turn to Iran and Iraq for guidance. There is a middle way in everything.

Wa Salaam,

Djibril

May Allah bless you all

Edited by Bro.Djibril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Thank you for your effort Bro Djibril, it was worthwhile discussing with you, but I was wondering if you personally believe that Ibn al Arabi was shia or not ?

Remember guys this question is for bro Djibril, no WWW's allowed to respond.

Wassalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

Thank you for your effort Bro Djibril, it was worthwhile discussing with you, but I was wondering if you personally believe that Ibn al Arabi was shia or not ?

Remember guys this question is for bro Djibril, no WWW's allowed to respond.

Wassalaam

Wa Salaam,

Personally, it doesn't matter to me. I got passed the Shi'a/Sunni thing a while back when it comes to knowledge that can help me grow. I can learn from anybody who has knowledge that is backed up by substance. Like I said before I wouldn't be surprised if he were. In cases of those who are very spiritual/knowledgeable, certain lines of distinction become blurred and may not apply. I said all of that because I used to look at things as either Sunni or Shi'a. A developing phase if you will. When I made the transition from Ahlul Sunnah, it was either Sunni or Shi'a. I could only see the two extremes but as I began to meet more people, read more books, have even more life experiences than what I already had, it has become apparent to me that knowledge is not the exclusive copyright of any one group. Allah blesses and guides whom he wills. Look at it from this perspective, the Aimmah (A.S.) taught 400 usool, we only have a few left. It is possible that some of the tariqahs have other usool or knowledge which they picked up from the Aimmah (A.S.) and this knowledge is recognizeable to "those who know".

That's why it doesn't matter to me what Ibn Arabi really was because he transcended whatever labels people have tried to attach to him. If I were forced to make a decision I would consider him a Shi'a because from his writings and the writings of others, it appears that he met the criteria that the Prophet (S.A.W.) and the Aimmah (A.S.) defined for their Shi'a. I'm using Shi'a in its purely spiritual sense and not the politicized word that people throw around to show that they are revolutionary, militant, and someone to be feared. You can almost smell Ibn Arabi's words which is funny, I'll explain. He spoke much about walaya and one of the ways he broke it down (I may have said this earlier) was to call it a way of witnessing. When Yusef (A.S.) disappeared (think of Yusef A.S. as the Imam of our Age A.S.), Yacoob (A.S.) went through intense suffering, bereavement, longing, and desire for his beloved (A.S.). The true believer has an intense longing and desire to be with his Imam (A.S.) (some experience an emptiness despite all the rituals they practice and all the dua's they recite. It's because their heart is trying to guide them towards Allah's representative on earth. The hearts do yearn for the higher reality) which brings about close proximity with S.W.T. When Yacoob (A.S.) was brought the cloak of Yusef (A.S.), he smelled the cloak and he was made to see or come to realization about what was really the reality. In other words, man witnesses the reality when he acknowledges or sees or realizes the true spiritual pole which in our case would be Imam Mahdi (May Allah shower his blessings upon him and the rest of the awliya. We wait for his return). It is through this witnessing that we come into realization about our relationship with Allah. This is what I picked up from Ibn Arabi. Sunni or not, this is what I took from his writing on walaya. There is so much more, but once again, I have proven myself long winded and do not wish to bore anyone. My apologies for not responding with a simple yes or no but this is my view. I hope I'm not confusing you or anyone else. Sometimes, my thoughts run a 1,000,000 miles a second.

May Allah bless you and all else on this board.

Wa Salaam,

Djibril

Edited by Bro.Djibril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Although I have decided not to get into these topics anymore, as the people who discuss it have insufficient knowledge of the material concerned with this issue, but I will add a little information here and there without the intention of discussion, rather to provide some background information for people to refer to.

Those who are interested and are able to read the Arabic language, could refer to the following topics opened previously and discussed about this matter:

الكبريت الأحمر في اثبات تشيع الشيخ الأكبر

http://www.hajr-netw...php?t=402980860

ما هو الإعتقاد الأصح بخصوص كتاب ( الفتوحات المكية )

http://www.hajr-netw...php?t=402982757

----

As for brother Abdulhujjah, with all due respect, it seems that you have not done well in your reading homework in regards to the topic of ibn Arabi, the proof for that is the following phrase that you stated:

(bismillah)

Ibnarabi was a full blown sunni, had he been a shia the wahabis who arethe biggest enemies of sufism wouldve used this as their strongestargument in countering sufism.

Wassalaam

If you refer to the writings of Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Taymiya, Ibn Katheer, Qubt al-Deen al-Yunani, al-Thahabi, and ibn Hajar al-Asqalani from the greatest sunni/wahabi scholars, you would realize how they tried very much to show a relationship between Shiism and Sufiism so that they would attack and slander the Shia's, and from those whom they mentioned as examples, was ibn Arabi [ra]. Also, refer to the phrase of Ibn Taymiya [la] where he says: Shiism is a bridge to Sufiism, and you will realize their great efforts in trying to connect these two ideologies together so that they attack Shiism, and till this day, the wahabi's accuse the Sufi's of being Shi'as under disguise, or at least related to Shi'as in their ideologies and thoughts.

---

A few brothers requested a list of Shi'a scholars who believe that Ibn Arabi [ra] was a Shi'ite, therefore I will provide you with a list of names of those scholars [and they are not limited to them only]:

1) Ahmad bin Fahd al-Helli.

2) Sayyed Muhammad Nur-Bakhsh.

3) Jalal-u-deen al dwani.

4) al-Qadhi Nur-Allah Al Tustari

5) Sheikh Baha'ul deen al-Ameli (Sheikh Baha'ei).

6) Allamah Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi.

7) Sheikh Abdul-Kareem al-Hendi.

8) Yusef al-Hasani al-San'ani.

9) Mulla Sadra al-Shirazi.

10) al-Qadhi Sa'eed al-Qummi

11) al-Mirza Muhammad al-Ekhbari (Muhadeth Naysaburi).

12) The great philosopher Abul-Hassan Chulwa al-Tabatabaei.

13) Sayyed Muhammad Saleh al-Khalkhali.

14) Sayyed Ali al-Qadhi.

15) Muhaqqeq Agha Burzug al-Tehrani.

16) Muhammad Husayn al-A'lami al-Yazdi.

17) Sheikh Muhammad Ali Shab Abaadi (Imam Khomeini (qas) teacher).

18) Sayyed Abul-Hassan al-Qazwini.

19) Sayyed Muhammad Husayn al-Tehrani.

20) Sayyed Ali Taqi al-Amin al-Tehrani.

21) Ayatollah Sheikh Hassan Zada Amoli.

22) Sayyed Hossein Nasr.

23) Na'eb al-Sadr al-Shirazi.

24) Sheikh Abdul-Razzaq al-Kashani.

25) Sayyed Haydar al-Amoli.

26) Sayyed Ali al-Hamadani.

27) Sa'en al-Deen ibn Turkah al-Esbahani.

28) Taj-deen al-Husayn al-Khawarezmi.

29) Sayyed Muhammad Nur-Bakhsh al-Qa'eni.

30) Sayyed Ne'mat Allah al-Wali.

31) al-Mawla al-Sufi al Tabrizi.

32) Qubt-aldeen al-Eshkuri.

33) Agha Ali Muddares al-Tehrani.

34) Sayyed Sadru-deen al-Sadr.

35) Sheikh Muhammad Husayn al-Fadhel al-Tuni.

36) Allamah Muhammad Husayn al-Tabetabaei.

37) Martyr Murtadha Mutahhari.

38) Imam Khomeini (qas).

39) Ayatollah Sheikh Jawadi Amoli.

40) Ayatollah Jalal al-Deen al-Ashtyani.

There are others which I don't have recorded now, but insha'Allah whenever there is chance I will add them to the list.

Do not forget me from your du'as,

Wasalam.

Edited by Imami_ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you posted that Sayyid Sistani (ha) believed Ibn Arabi was not Shia based upon a guess? Brother, this is not the way to have an academic discussion. Every point must have a proof, are we not the people of aql?

As for asking brother Imami_Ali, he has posted proofs for his statements in past discussions and I am blessed to know him personally and I know that he does not speak unless he can back up his statements. Rest assured, if you would like proof, he can give it. They are even possibly contained within the first two links he gave, my Arabic is not that strong so I cannot read them to know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Now please state all the Shia scholars that did or do NOT believe Ibn Arabi was a Shia..

Starting with Sayed Ali Sistani . .

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

I do not have a compiled list of the names of those who don't believe Ibn 'Arabi was not a Shi'ite. However, it is notable to say that many of our scholars hold this view (that Ibn Arabi was not a Shi'ite) but most of them are either not specialized in the field of philosophy/irfan, and based on this fact we conclude that their view is not as strong as those who are specialized in that field, such as the names that I mentioned in my previous post. Or they are those who based their conclusion on certain phrases mentioned in Ibn Arabi's book's that prove his Sunnism forget that the whole argument is that those exact phrases in praise of the enemies of Ahlulbeit (as) were mentioned in a state of taqiya, so how could they be used to prove his religion when nobody denies that he mentioned them rather he mentioned them under taqiya ?!

This is just like saying that Abu Taleb (ra) died as a non-Muslim because of what he used to mention throughout his life about the other religions and his denial of following the path of Prophet Muhammad (saw). How could we use his phrases to prove that he is non-Muslim when we state that those were mentioned under a case of taqiya ?

Quick note: If a name of a scholar isn't mentioned in the list, it doesn't necessarily follow that he does not believe that Ibn Arabi was a Shi'ite. Alot of scholars did not give their opinion in regards to this issue.

So you posted that Sayyid Sistani (ha) believed Ibn Arabi was not Shia based upon a guess? Brother, this is not the way to have an academic discussion. Every point must have a proof, are we not the people of aql?

As for asking brother Imami_Ali, he has posted proofs for his statements in past discussions and I am blessed to know him personally and I know that he does not speak unless he can back up his statements. Rest assured, if you would like proof, he can give it. They are even possibly contained within the first two links he gave, my Arabic is not that strong so I cannot read them to know for sure.

Habibi it is a blessing for me to know you personally, and I thank Allah [swt] for this great reward that He granted me.

What you mentioned in regards to the proof is correct, all the statements of those scholars (or most) are mentioned in the first link I posted. The rest will be completed soon insha'Allah and added.

Do not forget me from your du'as,

Wasalam.

Edited by Imami_ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

So that this thread does not remain on its dryness, which causes the heart to harden, it would be good to mention a few narrations that might soften the heart and wake us up from our ignorance, and I say this to myself before anyone else.

It is narrated that Imam al-Mahdi (aj) said:

ملعونٌ ملعونٌ من أخّر الغداة إلى أن تنقضي النجوم. (بحار الأنوار ج52 ص16)

He is cursed (twice) he who delays performing the early morning prayer until the stars disappear (the sun rises). (Bihar al-Anwar Ch.52, P.16)

SubhanAllah .. when looking at this narration .. Isn't it right to wonder: How many time was I cursed by the holy Imam (aj) for delaying my morning prayers ?! Imagine the Imam (as) coming up to you and saying May Allah [swt] curse you for doing a certain act .. ! Would you dare to ever repeat it again ?! Wouldn't it compel me and you to ask forgiveness day and night for committing such a crime ?! It would be right for us to cry blood over this state !

It is quite amazing how we cry out day and night: "O Allah! Curse those whom Ahlulbeit [as] have cursed" and we don't realize that we are asking Allah [swt] to curse ourselves as well .. !

I ask Allah [swt] to grant us the ability to wake up and perform these prayers on time, as well as all other prayers .. since the Imams [as] said: He will not receive our intercession whom neglects his prayers.

I ask Allah [swt] to soften my hard heart so that it may begin to accept His Mercy and realize His beauty so that I may be deserving of His forgiveness.

It would also be beneficial to mention this another narration to show that love that the Imam [pbuh] carries towards us, especially in the time of occultation. He [pbuh] says:

إنّا غيرُ مهملين لمراعاتكم، ولا ناسين لذكركم .. ولولا ذلك لنزل بكم اللاّواء ، واصطلمكم الأعداء، فاتقوا الله جلّ جلاله وظاهرونا. (بحار الأنوار ج53 ص175)

We are neither negligent of caring for you nor forgetful of you; and ifit were not for that, hardship would have befallen you and the enemieswould have massacred you, so fear God and support us. (Bihar al-Anwar Ch.53, P.175)

I ask Allah [swt] to grant us the ability to thank Him for this great bounty, although we will never be able to thank Him enough for it .. and to strengthen our relationship with the Imam of our time in a way such that we treat him [pbuh] and deal with him as though he is between us, and not as though he is dead or in occultation away from us.

Wasalam

Edited by Imami_ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro/Sis Shiatobe, I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not attacking you. I am sorry I missed the point you were trying to make, but it did not come across that way. It seemed to me as if you were making a statement. I apologize if I offended you or disrespected you, that was not my intention, especially on the blessed day of Eid al-Fitr.

I think brother Imami_Ali answered your response perfectly, ie that most scholars remain silent because they recognize that it is not their specialty. Most of our scholars have only studied a bit of philosophy and most have not studied irfan. Therefore they are not in a position to make a judgment. As for those being led down the Sufi pathway, studying Ibn Arabi is not a joke, and if a Shia were to wish to study him, he or she would need to either be extremely careful or wait until a proper teacher can be found, someone who has studied directly under Allamah Tabatabai (ra) or his students in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scholars who beleive that ibn Arabi was NOT a Shi'a, and was certainly Sunni, are the following:

1) Ahmad bin Fahd al-Helli.

2) Sayyed Muhammad Nur-Bakhsh.

3) Jalal-u-deen al dwani.

4) al-Qadhi Nur-Allah Al Tustari

5) Sheikh Baha'ul deen al-Ameli (Sheikh Baha'ei).

6) Allamah Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi.

7) Sheikh Abdul-Kareem al-Hendi.

8) Yusef al-Hasani al-San'ani.

9) Mulla Sadra al-Shirazi.

10) al-Qadhi Sa'eed al-Qummi

11) al-Mirza Muhammad al-Ekhbari (Muhadeth Naysaburi).

12) The great philosopher Abul-Hassan Chulwa al-Tabatabaei.

13) Sayyed Muhammad Saleh al-Khalkhali.

14) Sayyed Ali al-Qadhi.

15) Muhaqqeq Agha Burzug al-Tehrani.

16) Muhammad Husayn al-A'lami al-Yazdi.

17) Sheikh Muhammad Ali Shab Abaadi (Imam Khomeini (qas) teacher).

18) Sayyed Abul-Hassan al-Qazwini.

19) Sayyed Muhammad Husayn al-Tehrani.

20) Sayyed Ali Taqi al-Amin al-Tehrani.

21) Ayatollah Sheikh Hassan Zada Amoli.

22) Sayyed Hossein Nasr.

23) Na'eb al-Sadr al-Shirazi.

24) Sheikh Abdul-Razzaq al-Kashani.

25) Sayyed Haydar al-Amoli.

26) Sayyed Ali al-Hamadani.

27) Sa'en al-Deen ibn Turkah al-Esbahani.

28) Taj-deen al-Husayn al-Khawarezmi.

29) Sayyed Muhammad Nur-Bakhsh al-Qa'eni.

30) Sayyed Ne'mat Allah al-Wali.

31) al-Mawla al-Sufi al Tabrizi.

32) Qubt-aldeen al-Eshkuri.

33) Agha Ali Muddares al-Tehrani.

34) Sayyed Sadru-deen al-Sadr.

35) Sheikh Muhammad Husayn al-Fadhel al-Tuni.

36) Allamah Muhammad Husayn al-Tabetabaei.

37) Martyr Murtadha Mutahhari.

38) Imam Khomeini (qas).

39) Ayatollah Sheikh Jawadi Amoli.

40) Ayatollah Jalal al-Deen al-Ashtyani.

There are others which I don't have recorded now, but insha'Allah whenever there is chance I will add them to the list.

Edited by fyst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and, of course, all the marja's throughout history, so to continue the list:

41) Ayatullah Sistani

42) Ayatullah Khamenei

43) Ayatullah Sadiq Shirazi

44) Ayatullah Muhammad Shirazi

45) Ayatullah Khoei

46) Ayatullah Jawad Tabrizi

47) Ayatullah Naser Makarem Shirazi

48) Ayatullah Behjat

49) Ayatullah Boroujerdi

50) Ayatullah Sadiq Rouhani

There are still others which I don't have recorded now, but insha'Allah whenever there is chance I will add them to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And some more scholars who believe that ibn Arabi was definitely NOT Shi'a:

51) Ayatullah Lankarani

52) Ayatullah Ali Golpaygani

53) Ayatullah Bashir Najafi

54) Ayatullah Vahid Khorasani

55) Ayatullah Kazem Haeri

To be continued . . . .

Edited by fyst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And some more scholars who believe that ibn Arabi was definitely NOT Shi'a:

51) Ayatullah Lankarani

52) Ayatullah Ali Golpaygani

53) Ayatullah Bashir Najafi

54) Ayatullah Vahid Khorasani

55) Ayatullah Kazem Haeri

To be continued . . . .

Do you suffer from psychological problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

I have very limited knowledge on this subject but I am very curious about it, I would like to ask whether it even matters if he was a shia or a sunni, and can one reach such stations if one is a muslim but not a shia?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pathetic to Shi`as admiring such a deviated heretic who thought only the worse of them. If that character could be Shi`a, then who's next? Ibn Taymiyya was really an Imami in disguise?

As to that list Imami_ali has provided, where do you pull this stuff from? Going by the last such long list I remember from you (regarding the inclusion of the third shahada in adhan), I'd wonder what's your "criteria" for inclusion on this list? What is it, maybe that they made a mention of Ibn `Arabi (by name or vague allusion) somewhere in one of their books, and they didn't give la`na on him thus you've assumed they must think he was Shi`a?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Ikhwan,

Whilst I see we must retain an open mind when it comes to the status of someone and be careful from generalisations and accusations without substance which will only be to our detriment, I do find myself in a dilemma here.

For example, Brothers will warn me away from the pseudo-Akhbari group in India, and in order to identify if what is being told to me by the mainstream Shi'a community is true, what would be the correct course of action?

Naturally, it would be to check out this Psuedo-Akhbari group's website or books and see what they advocate, having done that I can also see that they are extremely shallow and lacking in substance, full of ghulat tendencies so on and so forth.

Now for the current situation that i find myself in, I am told by Shi'a Brothers more inclined to mysticism that Ibn Arabi was a Shi'a or at the very least, free of Nasibi tendencies and a pious man of God.

Yet when I turn to the works of Ibn Arabi, I find in him contempt for me as a Rafidhi and a Shi'a who disagrees with the Caliphate of other than the 12 Imams (as). When I bring these things to light, I am told that he was:

a) Either in Taqiyyah

´

or

B) These are not his works but merely ascribed to him.

This gets even more confusing due to several factors, because when I ask for evidence of such assertions I am told that

"Well, the following 'Ulema: fulan, fulan, fulan etc have said Ibn Arabi was a Shi'a and they would be more in a position to say so than you" (with fulan, I mean no disrespect to our 'Ulema whatsoever).

Yet, I am not particularly interested in this disagreement of my Marja'a over your Marja'a, I want to see evidence he was a Shi'a or at the very least not a source hostile to Shi'ism.

This is virtually akin to a future 'Alim claiming that Shaykh Nazim al-Haqqani (a contemporary Sunni Sufi) is secretly a Shi'ite and when asked for evidence responding that well he was in taqiyyah and so the hostile statements we have from him are fake and that we have no evidence proving his tashayyu.

As for the taqiyyah argument, anyone who debates with sunnis will know how frustrating this argument is, it gets no where.

A: We don't believe that

B: You do but you're doing Taqiyyah!

A: I swear on the Qur'an we don't do it, I can show you statements from our books!

B: Thats Taqiyyah as well!

With the case of Ibn Arabi it's similar

A: Ibn Arabi says such and such about those who reject Abu Bakr and Umar.

B: It's taqiyyah

A: He also says in his book that the Abu Bakr was created from the same substance as the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

A: It's Taqiyyah as well!

Please brothers how can we legitemately work on such a basis where our only daleel to support Ibn Arabi is statements of Scholars who produce no daleel for his tashayyu and our evidence against him exists in his works themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

a) Either in Taqiyyah

What they don't really answer though is why would have he had such a need for _that_ degree of taqiyya, especially considering there were other Shi`i `ulama writing books during the same time without such problems. And it's not just a few odd statements here and there that maybe one could interpret as being taqiyya statements to throw folks off, it's page after page, filled with all these wild statements about the supposedly exalted stations of Abu Bakr, `Umar, and of course, himself. Couple that with the derogatory and insulting statements he makes against Shi`as, the fact he only uses Sunni sources of hadith and from what I gather never quotes any Shi`a source, and the fundamental incompatibility of his panentheistic and Sufi beliefs with our theology and the strange claims he makes about himself, well what's left to salvage?

or

B) These are not his works but merely ascribed to him.

They'll say that Fusus al-Hikam (which he claimed to be a divine revelation) has corruptions to the text, but the thing is, much if not most of the weirdest stuff of his is from Futuhat al-Makkiyya, of which we apparently have an autographed manuscript of the work from none other than Ibn Arabi himself. Kind of hard to argue against the authenticity of that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

786-92-110

Sayyed Mohammad baqer As Sadr view on Sufism :

finalement j'ai demandé à sayed sadr son opinion sur les confréries "soufis": il répondit:

"ils présentent des aspects positifs et d'autres négatifs, ce qui est positif c'est l'enseignement spirituel qui incite l'être humain à renoncer à tous ce qui est artificiel ici bas. ce qui est négatif c'est l'isolation et la fuite devant les responsabilités etc. mais l'islam comme nous le savons accepte le positif et rejette tout ce qui est négatif.

http://gadir.free.fr/fr/Tijani/html/fre/librari/Al-Tijani/006.htm

My Translation :

"Finally I asked Sayed Sadr about his opinion on "Sufis" brotherhoods: He replied:

" They presents some positive aspects and other negative aspects, the positive point is the spiritual teachings which incites the human beeing to renounce at anything about this artificial world. the negative aspect is the Isolation and the running away of responsibilities etc. but as we know, in islam anything positive is accepted and anything negative is rejected "

Smauoi Tijjani who is born and fed in a Tijjani-Sufi environment says :

" The "tijani" Order is widely spread in morocco, algeria, tunisia, libya, soudan, egypte and mainly in sénégal, ( cameroon and nigeria as well!) and those who are attached to it are sometimes fanatics, they didn't visit the graves of other saints and they pretend that all other saints transmitted their wisdom from one to another communiqué leur sagesse, whereas "cheikh ahmed tijani" received his own wisdom directly from holy prophet (pbuh)- though he was born 13 centuries later after the demise of Holy prophet.

sometimes it was reported that sheikh ahmed tijani communicated oftenly with holy prophet - (pbuh)- by speaking to him directly instead of dreams. as well the famous supplication formulated by cheikh ahmed tijani worths 40 entire recitation of qur'an ( :shaytan: ).

thus i grew up with these beliefs like any other of our young men. we were sunni muslims applying the rituals of Imam Malik ibn Anas, the Imam of the "MADINA".

In north Africa, we are spitted in various sufi ordres . In gafsa (tunisia) we have the "tijaniyya", the "kadiriyya", (Abdal kadr Jilani), the "rahmaniyya",the "soulaïmyya" and the "issawyya" (Jesuits).

...

apart of their negative aspects , these sufis ordres played an important role in the preservation of religious rituals and for the safeguarding of respect to the saints .

Also in this speech about khomeyni, Sufism and Irfan by my Dear African brother from QOM ,

http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=92a252166a1641ae953e

We can see that Tassawuf and Irfan are two different and distinct things, Sufism has been corrupted due to their cohabitation and mix-up with christians monasteries from turkey to Andalousia, The Middle age Monacal seclusions, Jesus Passion of Christ which led to the concept of ZANJEER and the bloodshed of the Akhbari mallangs..., as well as other defects increpted by some Isra'iliyats like the Kabbalah mysticism ( the Kabbalh itself beeing a melting pot of all the satanism from CAIN to NAMROOD in BABYLON to PHARAOH in EGYPT... they melted some of all these insanities in their beliefs. This way, Shaytan frayed his path and started propagating his false and fake garbage that is fair seeming for them.

Also, the learned Shia Scholar and mystic from lebanon, SHEIKH NABIL BADRAWI, who wrote the "Introduction to Du'a Al kumayl" in the french Edition of Al bouraq , says under the authority of a prophetic hadith which is as follow : " Allah can assist this religion by the way of a Scelerate ( Faajr ) to convey the truth to anyone who deserves it " ( I just quotes him , he didn't gave any reference of the hadith the authentic narration was attributed to hypocrits who can sometime tell the truth).

Now, What is the problem with "THE IMAM" KHOMEYNI speaking good about some positive aspects of MUHYI EDDINE IBN AL ARABI's thoughts in gnosticism and the Hadith of Our IMAMS (as) prohibiting to follow SUFI beliefs ??? Wether IBN ARABI was a SUFI or SHIA doing Taqleed Where is the Problem talking about his gnostic Views ???

SOME PEOPLE LIKES ARGUING AND QUARELLING EVERY DAY ON BASELESS ISSUES TO DISCREDIT THE MAN OF THIS CENTURY, AYATOLLAH AL OZMA MUSTAPHA RUHOLLAH AL MOUSSAVI AL IMAM SAYYED KHOMEYNI (RAHIMAHULLAH ). Thanks to Allah (swt) THIS MAN AND HIS ISLAMIC REVOLUTION LEADERSHIP WAS PART OF MY GUIDANCE IN SHIA ISLAM and May Allah BLESS HIS SOUL AND BESTOWS HIS GRACE AND MERCY UPON HIM ENDLESSLY.

(SHIA) HENRI CORBIN ( ex-33° FREE-MASONIC MASTER ), in HIS FAMOUS WORK, " IN IRANIAN ISLAM " Praised IBN ARABI, TABATABA'IY..., (SUNNI) RENE GUENON ( Abdul Wahid Yahya ), ( Ex- 33° FREE-MASONIC MASTER ) too, now Some people Argue that Both CORBIN and GUENON were just doing the MASONIC "Taqiyya" in reverse ... !!!

FOR THE TIME BEEING, I CANNOT THINK OF IBN AL ARABI AS A SHIA, BUT THERE IS NO PROBLEM FOR ME LEARNING EVERYTHING GOOD FROM HIS BOOKS THE SAME WAY I CAN LEARN FROM LAO TSEU THE POLYTHEIST BOUDDHIST, SITTING BULL THE APACHE CHIEF...

and of Course, I do appreciate some of IBN ARABI's Legacy mainly his book about the letters AYN, LAAM and MEEM :) !

Ma'a Salam

Edited by mohalamine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã

It is quite interesting to see a few brothers on this forum developing their own two-way discussions where they would talk to themselves, then object to themselves, then refute that objection.

This is not an argument, nor is it a proper way to discuss matters, and it is the same sickness that many people suffer from when it comes to topics such as Ibn Arabi's Shi'ism. It is as though people get shocked about his writing to the extent that they begin talking to themselves, and it might even reach the point where a person would punch his own face over the argument !

Anyways,

A sufficient reply will be presented soon to clarify a few misconceptions that are very evident in the last few posts, but after I finish my obligatory daily duties.

Do not forget me from your du'as,

Wasalam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you suffer from psychological problems?

Yeah, it's a condition called Exposing People's BS Disorder.

I am told by Shi'a Brothers more inclined to mysticism that Ibn Arabi was a Shi'a

Those who say that ibn Arabi was actually Shi'a are either stunningly ignorant, deeply delusional, or insane. It is understandable to assume that a Shi'a in taqiyyah would hide his beliefs and not express enmity towards the caliphs, but it's insane to assume that he would go so far as claiming that Shi'as are essentially dogs and pigs, that Umar is superior to the Prophet, and that Mu'awiyah is beyond reproach. Taqiyaah means to CONCEAL your beliefs -- it doesn't mean to promote the polar OPPOSITE of your beliefs.

As for the quotes from ibn Arabi regularly provided by these ignorant Shi'as to show that he had Shi'a beliefs, many of them are completely fabricated. For example, in the first link provided by Imami_ali in post # 83 that supposedly shows which of our scholars claimed that ibn Arabi was Shi'a, we see this quote taken from ibn Arabi's Futuhat as evidence of his Shi'i beliefs:

قال رحمه الله في الباب 366 من الكتاب المذكور: ((إن لله خليفة يخرج من عترة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم من ولد فاطمة يواطئ إسمه إسم رسول الله، جده الحسين بن علي عليهما السلام

http://www.hajr-network.net/hajrvb/showthread.php?t=402980860&page=2

It is saying that ibn Arabi wrote in his Futuhat (Chapter 366), that the Mahdi will be a descendant of "Husayn bin Ali, peace be upon them both". This is a purely Shi'a belief, since Sunnis believe that Imam Mahdi will be a descendant of Imam Hasan.

But when we read the actual Futuhat, Chapter 366, we see this instead:

انّ للّه خليفة يخرج وقد امتلأت الارض جورا وظلما فيملؤها قسطا وعدلا لو لم يبق من الدنيا إلا يوم واحد طول الله ذلك اليوم حتى يلى هذا الخليفة من عترة رسول الله صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم من ولد فاطمة يواطئ اسمه اسم رسول الله صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم جده الحسن بن على بن أبي طالب يبايع بين الركن والمقام يشبه رسول الله صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم

http://www.ibnalarabi.com/maktaba/futuhat.asp?ID=1782

Here it clearly states that the Mahdi will be a descendant of "Hasan bin Ali b. Abi Talib", which is perfectly in line with Sunni beliefs, as expected.

In fact, anyone who has ever read his works can see perfectly clearly that he was 100% Sunni. Every single hadith that he quotes is taken from the primary Sunni texts. If he were Shi'a, then, in all his extensive writings, would there not be one, just one, hadith taken from a primary Shi'i source?

But there isn't any. That's how much of a Shi'a he is.

Edited by fyst

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...