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

What is Tashayyu' (Shi'ism)?

What are the criteria that must be fulfilled in order for a person to be classified as a "Shi'ite"?

Wasalam.

You may want to read this link ... http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/types/shiism.htm#r55

It contains some of the answers you are seeking. Take note of the excerpt below which you will find near the end of the article.

In the statements of Imam Baqir ('a) there are many instances in which the people are summoned to acquire their religious teachings from the Ahl al-Bayt as the sole source of authentic Sunnah and hadith. In a tradition it is reported that Imam Baqir ('a) said to Salamah ibn Kuhayl and Hakam ibn `Uyaynah:

You will not find in the east or the west any sound piece of knowledge except that which is drawn from us. [134]

In another statement referring to al-Hasan al-Basri, who was a well-known scholar of those times, the Imam said:

Let Hasan go wherever he may, by God, he would not find knowledge anywhere except here. [135]

In another tradition it is stated:

Let they people go wherever they may want, but, by God, the affair lies nowhere but here (i.e. his own house). [136]

These statements expressly call upon the people to consider the Ahl al-Bayt as the sole authority on religious teachings. The acceptance of such summons meant the acceptance of Shi`ism. In another statement Imam Muhammad Baqir declares:

The Household of Muhammad are the doors leading to Allah, who call the people to paradise and lead them towards it. [137]

In another tradition he states:

Everything that does not derive from this house is disastrous. [138]

Our purpose behind citing these statements is to make clear the decisive role that they played in the development of Shi`ism from a historical point of view.

Similarly in another statement Imam Muhammad Baqir is reported to have declared:

O people, where are you going, and where are you being led away? It is through us that God guided the first of you and it will be through us that the last one of you will be guided. [139]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is Tashayyu' (Shi'ism)?

What are the criteria that must be fulfilled in order for a person to be classified as a "Shi'ite"?

1 - [this is the MOST important one] Imam Ali [a] was the wasiy and rightful khalifah of the Prophet immediately after his death.

2 - [this is more of a corollary to 1, rather than an independent point] Belief that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were USURPERS of Khilafah (to say the least).

3 - Belief in the sinlessness and divine guidance of the Ahlulbayt (including the 12 Imams), hence giving them precedence over all other, including the sahabah, in matters of faith.

4 - Referring to ahadith whose chain of narration is mostly Imami Shi'a, and which terminates in either an Imam or the Prophet (i.e., referring to hadith found in Shi'i sources, as opposed to Sunni sources).

5 - Enmity and hatred towards Muawiyah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may want to read this link ... http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/types/shiism.htm#r55

It contains some of the answers you are seeking. Take note of the excerpt below which you will find near the end of the article.

In the statements of Imam Baqir ('a) there are many instances in which the people are summoned to acquire their religious teachings from the Ahl al-Bayt as the sole source of authentic Sunnah and hadith. In a tradition it is reported that Imam Baqir ('a) said to Salamah ibn Kuhayl and Hakam ibn `Uyaynah:

You will not find in the east or the west any sound piece of knowledge except that which is drawn from us. [134]

In another statement referring to al-Hasan al-Basri, who was a well-known scholar of those times, the Imam said:

Let Hasan go wherever he may, by God, he would not find knowledge anywhere except here. [135]

In another tradition it is stated:

Let they people go wherever they may want, but, by God, the affair lies nowhere but here (i.e. his own house). [136]

These statements expressly call upon the people to consider the Ahl al-Bayt as the sole authority on religious teachings. The acceptance of such summons meant the acceptance of Shi`ism. In another statement Imam Muhammad Baqir declares:

The Household of Muhammad are the doors leading to Allah, who call the people to paradise and lead them towards it. [137]

In another tradition he states:

Everything that does not derive from this house is disastrous. [138]

Our purpose behind citing these statements is to make clear the decisive role that they played in the development of Shi`ism from a historical point of view.

Similarly in another statement Imam Muhammad Baqir is reported to have declared:

O people, where are you going, and where are you being led away? It is through us that God guided the first of you and it will be through us that the last one of you will be guided. [139]

Now, all those ahadith make me wonder on what level we are to interpret them and on what level of meaning they were intended to be understood and whether or not they might have various meanings for people at various levels of spiritual attainment, virtue and understanding.

If, for instance, all true knowledge is derived from the Aali Muhammad does that mean strictly speaking the persons of the historical Ahl ul-Bayt or the spiritual essence of the Ahl ul-Bayt and their heavenly metaphysical reality? After all, are there not ahadith that encourage to "seek knowledge even unto China" and also to "take truth where-ever you find it for it is the property of the Mu'mineen?" Furthermore, every nation has had it's Prophet and Messenger. Do we not have ahadith indicating that all the Prophets and Messengers knowledge was derived from the metaphysical reality of the Ahl ul-Bayt? In which case, would there not be remainders out there in the world that historically speaking would seem to come from a source other than the Aali Muhammad to one person, but to another who might be investigating and percieving on a wholly different level there is no contradiction at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The characteristics of a shia have been established, what next Imami_ali? ^_^

The previous posts clearly show that the brothers who oppose 'ibn Arabi lack the slightest knowledge of what a Shi'ite is, yet they come to classify others as to fit into the category of Shi'ism or not.

My reply will come shortly to continue the discussion insha'Allah as soon as I get some free time.

Wasalam

Edited by Imami_ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Brother, no Shi'ite in taqiyyah or an `arif would say that the souls of Imami rawafid are pigs and dogs, or that he is the seal of wilayat or that he doesn't need Imam az-Zaman (atf) to guide him (for which even Sayyed Haydar 'Amuli vehemently criticized him on this matter).

Sayyed Ja`far Murtadha al-`Amili has compiled the extracts from Ibn `Arabi's works (against the Shi'ites) in his book titled 'Ibn `Arabi was not a Shi'i'. It's available in Arabic here, if anyone is interested: http://yazeinab.org/arabic/aqaed/books/04/ibn-arabi/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Brother, no Shi'ite in taqiyyah or an `arif would say that the souls of Imami rawafid are pigs and dogs, or that he is the seal of wilayat or that he doesn't need Imam az-Zaman (atf) to guide him (for which even Sayyed Haydar 'Amuli vehemently criticized him on this matter).

Sayyed Ja`far Murtadha al-`Amili has compiled the extracts from Ibn `Arabi's works (against the Shi'ites) in his book titled 'Ibn `Arabi was not a Shi'i'. It's available in Arabic here, if anyone is interested: http://yazeinab.org/...s/04/ibn-arabi/

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Dear Brother SpIzo,

I do not wish to go into these details and explain the reality behind each one, as it is not the foundation of the discussion or argument.

First we must prove if the person does believe in the Wilaya of Ahlulbeit (as) or not, and then we could interpret his words accordingly.

This is exactly how we prove the infallibility of the Imams (as) primarily, and then we would justify any action that contradicts this firm belief and not the other way round.

Sayyed Haydar Amoli clearly justifies Ibn 'Arabi's claim that he (Ibn Arabi) is the seal of wilaya and explains it in a sense that does not contradict with Ibn Arabi's own belief that Imam al-Mahdi (aj) is the seal of the wilaya. Please refer to Sayyed Haydar Amoli's book ÌÇãÚ ÇáÃÓÑÇÑ æãäÈÚ ÇáÃäæÇÑ and you will find this very evident in his writings.

As for the claim that Ibn Arabi says he is not in the need of Imam al-Zaman (aj), it is as if you claim that the Shi'ites say that we are in no need of the Prophet (pbuh) when Imam Ali (as) is there.

Ibn Arabi proves the wilaya of Ahlulbeit (as) in all his works and clearly states that all existence is derived from Ali (as)'s existence, hence all is in need of Ali (as) [except the Prophet - saww - and Allah (swt)]. How could he believe in this and yet say he does not need Imam al-Zaman (aj)? Please bring forth your proof of your claim before accusing Ibn 'Arabi of such.

As for Sayyed Ja'far Mourtada (may Allah -swt- grant him long life), with all due respect, his book has nothing related with the original discussion of the basis of proving Ibn 'arabi's tashayyu'. The Sayyed's work is basically a compilation of separated texts found in the various books of Ibn 'Arabi, all which are evident to everyone who reads the books, so he did not bring anything new nor did he discover something that was hidden. All the Sayyed did was gather a paragraphs and phrases by ibn Arabi and collect them in that book. How is this related to the debate over Ibn Arabi's sect, I don't know?

Sayyed Ja'far is a historian, not a philosopher, nor a 'aref, and he himself told a person who asked him about a certain phrase in Imam Khomeini's book "adaabu-salat" that these people (philosophers and 'arefs) have their own terminology, and therefore one must compromise and understand their terminology before reading their books in order to understand them in the correct way. So I don't really know why Sayyed Ja'far Mourtada (may Allah protect him) wrote that book before studying the terminology of these people who he himself admits that he does not have adequate knowledge of. Anyways, I have not - till this moment - found any philosopher or 'aref give credit to that book, nor did I find one that even completed reading it as it was not related to the original argument.

Wasalam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Dear Brother SpIzo,

Wa `Alaykum Salam wa rahmatullah,

I'm not a brother.

First we must prove if the person does believe in the Wilaya of Ahlulbeit (as) or not, and then we could interpret his words accordingly.

This is exactly how we prove the infallibility of the Imams (as) primarily, and then we would justify any action that contradicts this firm belief and not the other way round.

One of the ways to prove that a person believes in the wilayat is to see whether he disassociates from the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) - Ibn `Arabi, unfortunately, doesn't pass that test.

Anyone who claims to love both the Ahl al-Bayt (a) and their enemies is a hypocrite.

Sayyed Haydar Amoli clearly justifies Ibn 'Arabi's claim that he (Ibn Arabi) is the seal of wilaya and explains it in a sense that does not contradict with Ibn Arabi's own belief that Imam al-Mahdi (aj) is the seal of the wilaya. Please refer to Sayyed Haydar Amoli's book ÌÇãÚ ÇáÃÓÑÇÑ æãäÈÚ ÇáÃäæÇÑ and you will find this very evident in his writings.

Brother, can you cite me an example of one companion of the Aimmah (a) who stated that they are seal of wilayah while the Imams (a) were present?

As for the claim that Ibn Arabi says he is not in the need of Imam al-Zaman (aj), it is as if you claim that the Shi'ites say that we are in no need of the Prophet (pbuh) when Imam Ali (as) is there.

No Shi'ite states that. Moreover, even if this is true, then it was when the Prophet (s) was dead, and the successorship of the Prophet (s) was carried by Imam Ali (a). We cannot say that the Imam (atf) is dead, and now we have to refer to Ibn `Arabi for guidance and obtain teachings of Islam from him.

Ibn Arabi proves the wilaya of Ahlulbeit (as) in all his works and clearly states that all existence is derived from Ali (as)'s existence, hence all is in need of Ali (as)

Yet he proves the superiority of Abu Bakr and Umar too in his books and does not cite from Shi'ite sources [only Sunni sources]?

All the Sayyed did was gather a paragraphs and phrases by ibn Arabi and collect them in that book. How is this related to the debate over Ibn Arabi's sect, I don't know?

Correction: All the Sayyed does is gather paragraphs and phrases by Ibn `Arabi against the Shi'ites proving that he is not a Shi'i, which is very relevant to the discussion.

Sayyed Ja'far is a historian, not a philosopher, nor a 'aref,

Please tell me what does pigs and dogs mean in 'irfani/philosophical terminology - which Ibn `Arabi has used for the Imami rawafid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 - [this is the MOST important one] Imam Ali [a] was the wasiy and rightful khalifah of the Prophet immediately after his death.

2 - [this is more of a corollary to 1, rather than an independent point] Belief that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were USURPERS of Khilafah (to say the least).

3 - Belief in the sinlessness and divine guidance of the Ahlulbayt (including the 12 Imams), hence giving them precedence over all other, including the sahabah, in matters of faith.

4 - Referring to ahadith whose chain of narration is mostly Imami Shi'a, and which terminates in either an Imam or the Prophet (i.e., referring to hadith found in Shi'i sources, as opposed to Sunni sources).

5 - Enmity and hatred towards Muawiyah.

Nonsense. It is clear that your prejudice has clouded your judgement in formulating this list, as it is completely unreflective of the essential properties of tashayyu'. Rather than drawing up a sincere list of what they actually are, you just took in to consideration your goal of the criteria required to refute Ibn Arabi and wrote your list around that.

I don't think any sane person doubts that, Point 3 is the only essential property of the Shi'ite, namely the infallibility (`ismah) of the AhlulBayth [AS]. Points 1 and 2 can be considered as accidental properties at best, and 4 (and 5) are just mere [laughable] observations, not defining characteristics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. It is clear that your prejudice has clouded your judgement in formulating this list, as it is completely unreflective of the essential properties of tashayyu'. Rather than drawing up a sincere list of what they actually are, you just took in to consideration your goal of the criteria required to refute Ibn Arabi and wrote your list around that.

I don't think any sane person doubts that, Point 3 is the only essential property of the Shi'ite, namely the infallibility (`ismah) of the AhlulBayth [AS]. Points 1 and 2 can be considered as accidental properties at best, and 4 (and 5) are just mere [laughable] observations, not defining characteristics.

Believing Imam `Ali (as) to have been the rightful successor of the Prophet (pbuh) is at best an "accidental property" of Shiism?? How do you figure that one?

As to 2, that is a logical following of 1, however, you certainly couldn't be a Shi`a believing that the first and second were of an exalted heavenly status and such as Ibn `Arabi goes on about in his books. As to 4, how is it a laughable observation to say that if you're going to believe in the twelve Imams (as), you aught to be following what they said, instead of never referring to their teachings but instead relying (more or less exclusively) on the narrations of the likes of Aisha and Abu Hurayra? And as to 5, while I wouldn't list it amongst the fundamentals of being Shi`i (though certainly it would come under the fundamental of bara'at against their enemies), there's just no way a lover of Mu`awiya (like the Sufi under discussion) could be considered a Shi`a.

Really guys, what does Ibn `Arabi have to have said for you to realize he wasn't a Shi`a? If he were to have said "I am not a Shi`a and I hate all of you Rawafidh pigs!! Abu Bakr was the soul of the Prophet (pbuh) and is in the highest station of heaven, I saw him there myself! All hail the Banu Umayya! Praise be to me, pillar of existence!!!" Would that have been enough? Or would you say "No brother, by not being Shi`a, he really meant he is not the Shi`a of Dajjal. By Rawafidh pigs, he meant those hypocrites who only pose as Shi`as but do not live the true teaching of tashayyu`. The line about Abu Bakr is clearly an interpolation by Sunnis, since what gnostic lover could reasonably believe such a thing. He must have originally been referring to the Imam. By hailing the Banu Umayyad, this was a usage of taqiyya, being the true Shi`a he was, what he really meant was "All _hypocrites_ hail the Banu Ummaya, who lead them to the hell fire". And by praising himself, well, as a non-`arif who has not tasted of its fruit you could not possibly understand what he meant by that, so discussing it with you is pointless."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is clear that your prejudice has clouded your judgement

And it is your profound ignorance that has clouded yours.

#1 on my list is absolutely necessary. No one can be Shi'a without believing it.

#2 is an immediate corollary of 1.

#3 we both agree on.

If you knew anything about Shi'a fiqh, you'd know why #4 is necessary.

#5 is absolutely essential since you cannot both love the Ahlulbayt and praise their enemies at the same time. Only if one is deeply ignorant of Islamic literature, and is unaware of who Muawiyah is, can he be an exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believing Imam `Ali to have been the rightful successor of the Prophet is at best an "accidental property" of Shiism?? How do you figure that one?

Why are you suprised ? Perhaps you don't know the technical philosophical meaning of an accidental property. If you hear a person say that "Ali ibn Abi Talib was the rightful successor of the Prophet", does this make them a Shi`a ? Or is it possible that a non-Shi`a could say this statement ? As is the case with the conclusion reached by many Western Orientalists. So it cannot be the primary defining characteristic. But if you hear a person say "Imam Ali [AS] was infallible", can you conclude from this alone that they are Shi`a ? In the case of Shi`a's who believe Imam Ali [AS] was the rightful successor, this is derived from the previous point and so is secondary to it.

As to 4, how is it a laughable observation to say that if you're going to believe in the twelve Imams , you aught to be following what they said, instead of never referring to their teachings but instead relying (more or less exclusively) on the narrations of the likes of Aisha and Abu Hurayra?

Slippery slope. "Aught to be following what they said" and "referring to ahadith whose chain of narration is mostly Imami Shi'a" are nowhere near the same thing, so don't create a straw man. Tabataba`i [QS], amongst other prominent shi`i `ulema, quoted from Sunni sources in his books also. Does this make him a non-Shi`a ? What about those who don't even write books ? There is no way you could propose this as a fundamental necessary requirement for being a Shi`a.

Really guys, what does Ibn `Arabi have to have said for you to realize he wasn't a Shi`a? If he were to have said "I am not a Shi`a and I hate all of you Rawafidh pigs!! Abu Bakr was the soul of the Prophet and is in the highest station of heaven, I saw him there myself! All hail the Banu Umayya! Praise be to me, pillar of existence!!!" Would that have been enough? Or would you say "No brother, by not being Shi`a, he really meant he is not the Shi`a of Dajjal. By Rawafidh pigs, he meant those hypocrites who only pose as Shi`as but do not live the true teaching of tashayyu`. The line about Abu Bakr is clearly an interpolation by Sunnis, since what gnostic lover could reasonably believe such a thing. He must have originally been referring to the Imam. By hailing the Banu Umayyad, this was a usage of taqiyya, being the true Shi`a he was, what he really meant was "All _hypocrites_ hail the Banu Ummaya, who lead them to the hell fire". And by praising himself, well, as a non-`arif who has not tasted of its fruit you could not possibly understand what he meant by that, so discussing it with you is pointless."

Cut the rambling [Edited Out] and the jumping steps, as we are still discussing the preliminaries. I haven't made any statement regarding any of these issues yet, just a comment on fyst's criteria for being a shia..

And it is your profound ignorance that has clouded yours.

Ok, I'm looking forward to you enlightening me then..

#1 on my list is absolutely necessary. No one can be Shi'a without believing it.

Subhan`Allah! What a great explanation and proof. That line has just changed everything now..

#2 is an immediate corollary of 1.

My profound ignorance has just been cured..

If you knew anything about Shi'a fiqh, you'd know why #4 is necessary.

Great explanation..

Shi`a fiqh ? We are talking about aqaid here. See above about this point..

#5 is absolutely essential since you cannot both love the Ahlulbayt and praise their enemies at the same time. Only if one is deeply ignorant of Islamic literature, and is unaware of who Muawiyah is, can he be an exception.

Well, even macisaac disagrees with you on this one:

"And as to 5, while I wouldn't list it amongst the fundamentals of being Shi`i.."

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we say that Shia = belief in 5 ushuluddin & vice versa (belief in 5 ushuluddin = Shia)?

As additional notes, to differentiate with other sects, in the Imamah part, the Imams = 12 Imams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one wants to answer this question?

One may not become physically metamorphosed, but he may be mentally or spirituality transformed into an animal the like of which in wickedness and nastiness may not be found in the world. The Qur'an speaks of those "who are in worse errors" and who are lower than quadrupeds.[1] How can that happen? Man's personality depends on his ethical and spiritual qualities, without which he would be a beast. Thus, a defective man may be lowered to the level of a metamorphosed being. Some may think this a fancy, but it is real and true.

Someone said: "We had made a pilgrimage to Mecca along with
Imam Sajjad
and when we looked down at the Desert of Arafat it was full of Hajis (pilgrims). There were so many of them that year. The Imam said: "There is much uproar, but few are true pilgrims." The man says: "I don't know how the Imam gave me the insight, but when he asked me to look down again,
I saw a desert full of animals, like that in a zoo
, among whom a few human beings were moving about." The Imam told him how things looked to those who had a clear sight and were concerned with the inward concept of things.

- Mutahhari, "Perfect Man"

1) I was thinking of posting a larger extract, but then I would be practically quoting the entire article on metamorphosis (And I also remembered you have larger-than-one-sentence reading disorder anyway)..

2) Imam Sajjad [AS] called the Muslims zoo animals. Therefore, I conclude, he could not have been a Muslim..

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you suprised ? Perhaps you don't know the technical philosophical meaning of an accidental property. If you hear a person say that "Ali ibn Abi Talib was the rightful successor of the Prophet", does this make them a Shi`a ? Or is it possible that a non-Shi`a could say this statement ? As is the case with the conclusion reached by many Western Orientalists. So it cannot be the primary defining characteristic. But if you hear a person say "Imam Ali [AS] was infallible", can you conclude from this alone that they are Shi`a ? In the case of Shi`a's who believe Imam Ali [AS] was the rightful successor, this is derived from the previous point and so is secondary to it.

Nice obfuscation. Perhaps you've learned the meaning of that word in your study of philosophy too ;-)

A Shi`a must believe that the Imam is the rightful successor of the Prophet (pbuh) bi la fasl. One cannot be a Shi`a without believing that. If one does not believe it, one is not a Shi`a. Does that mean every person who believes it thus qualifies as a Shi`a? No, however it is still an esstential property of being one.

Think of it this way. Can you be a Muslim without believing that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet? Of course not, you have to believe that. Does that mean everyone who says "Muhammad rasullAllah" is thereby a Muslim? No, not necessarily. But minus it, there's no way he could be one.

Slippery slope. "Aught to be following what they said" and "referring to ahadith whose chain of narration is mostly Imami Shi'a" are nowhere near the same thing, so don't create a straw man. Tabataba`i [QS], amongst other prominent shi`i `ulema, quoted from Sunni sources in his books also. Does this make him a non-Shi`a ? What about those who don't even write books ? There is no way you could propose this as a fundamental necessary requirement for being a Shi`a.

Doesn't it stand to reason that you'll be taking your religious guidance from them? With Ibn `Arabi though, it appears that in all his vast work he does not once, not a single time, ever quote from a Shi`i source but rather exclusively uses Sunni ones. Comparing that to Sayyid Tabataba'i occasionally making reference to non-Imami works, while the bulk of his hadith citations will come from our sources is wide off the mark.

Well, even macisaac disagrees with you on this one:

"And as to 5, while I wouldn't list it amongst the fundamentals of being Shi`i.."

Quite the taking my words out of context. I said that it would be subsumed under the general bara'at against all enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt. Meaning yes, a Shi`a must have bara'at from that mal`un, but he must also have bara'at from all their enemies, not only him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one wants to answer this question? :huh:

According to him.

It means they're Inward has similar appearance to that of a pig or dog.

It means they are dirty with being in love of this world...

As both of these are Najis, people in love with this world appear as pigs or dogs, to some people whom God shows the Spiritual state of people.

I don't know if God shows certain people the state of others, but as for the appearance of people in love with this world, then we read in Misbahal Shariah:

The Messenger of Allah said, 'Love of this world is the fount of every error;' and elsewhere, 'This world is a corpse; whoever seeks it is like a dog.'

Also, I remember reading a tradition from Rasool (saw) about "The when the beasts are gathered", about how different people of the Ummma would appear in different forms on the Day of judgment.

Therefore in gnostic terminology, it refers to one of the Mathals one occupies in the Barzakh reality. Khomeini (qas) has said that in fact, there is not just on Barzakh form, but multiple barzakh forms, for people whom are deviated off the path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means they're Inward has similar appearance to that of a pig or dog.

Brother, he wasn't talking about people who were sinners.

He also says in the book "Fotoohat Al Makkyah" when discussing a group of "pious" people called "Arrajabyoon" and how they have special powers..:

"They were able to see people's real personalities and expose their hidden beliefs, and they could see the "Rawafidh" or the Shias who had not exposed their faith in the form of PIGS.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030903075748/http://www.al-hewar.com/eng/showthread.php?s=&threadid=288

So he makes a blanket statement against the Shi'as, not those who were sinners or hypocrites or whatever, just those who happened to be Shi'i.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, he wasn't talking about people who were sinners.

He also says in the book "Fotoohat Al Makkyah" when discussing a group of "pious" people called "Arrajabyoon" and how they have special powers..:

"They were able to see people's real personalities and expose their hidden beliefs, and they could see the "Rawafidh" or the Shias who had not exposed their faith in the form of PIGS.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030903075748/http://www.al-hewar.com/eng/showthread.php?s=&threadid=288

So he makes a blanket statement against the Shi'as, not those who were sinners or hypocrites or whatever, just those who happened to be Shi'i.

Yes according to that statement, generally the Shia/Rawafid hidding their faith were in that form.

The question was asked about what the terminology means in gnostic terms though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes according to that statement, generally the Shia/Rawafid hidding their faith were in that form.

:unsure:

The question was asked about what the terminology means in gnostic terms though.

No, he called the Shi'as in taqiyyah, "pigs" and the question asked was what he meant in "irfani" terms when he called the "rawafidh" "pigs" and "dogs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes according to that statement, generally the Shia/Rawafid hidding their faith were in that form.

That's amusing, though, considering people are arguing here that Ibn `Arabi was a Shi'ite in taqiyyah. That'd mean he witnessed his soul as that of a pig/dog?

Secondly, why only the Shi'is? Why not the Sunnis? Are all the Sunnis holy and pious? Funny, Abu Bakr who snatches the right of Fatima (sa) is at the peak of piety, while the soul of Shi'ites [rawafid] are in the form of pigs and dogs.

Edited by SpIzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:unsure:

Salam Sis,

What's bothering you? I didn't say it's true, but would it bother you if it was? As for being in love of this world, what the heck was the reason why our Imams (as) found no helpers, and why did Imam Hadi (as) say he was betrayed by everyone whom he relied upon?

Reality is most Muslims love this world or you telling me this sorry state is because we loved God, Rasool and Jihaad in Sabeelalah like the blessed helpers of Mohammad (saw)?

As you use to say, not even 313 true believers yet, or else we would have Imam Mahdi (as). I don't know if there is less then that, but if we loved God, the Messenger (pbuh) and Jihaad in Sabeelalah, as you use to always say (if we are True Shia, true believers, Spiritually ready), our Imam (as) would be here.

This is was in the context about why we should not rise till Imam Mahdi (as) and instead prepare ourselves inwardly for him.

No, he called the Shi'as in taqiyyah, "pigs" and the question asked was what he meant in "irfani" terms when he called the "rawafidh" "pigs" and "dogs".

Yes in Irfani terms, this is what I explained, that there are Amthal to everyone in the Barzakh. In fact amthal as I have said before in other threads are display of knowledge of God. That is it displays forms of evil and good which have no reality but from his judgment which is but himself. Different beauties, different glories, they all display inward states.... This is why our good acts will take on many forms in barzakh and Akheera.

Therefore this is what it means in gnostic terms.

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he called the Shi'as in taqiyyah, "pigs" and the question asked was what he meant in "irfani" terms when he called the "rawafidh" "pigs" and "dogs".

Yes, although we know it means something derogatory even from an irfani/philosophical perspective, no doubt; what I was asking was on imami_ali's point that Sayyed Ja'far just took phrases from Ibn `Arabi's book randomly without understanding what it means, since he isn't an `aarif or a philosopher. My question was a counter argument, what else could it ['pig' or 'dog'] mean if not for something demeaning and humiliating for the Shi'ites? [lest, it refers to a thing of beauty in the world of sufis - which we, laypeople, unfortunately, cannot fathom].

Edited by SpIzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's amusing, though, considering people are arguing here that Ibn `Arabi was a Shi'ite in taqiyyah. That'd be mean he witnessed his soul as that of a pig/dog?

No the logic does not follow unless it was stated the reason why they were pigs was due to Taqiyah.

Secondly, why only the Shi'is? Why not the Sunnis? Are all the Sunnis holy and pious? Funny, Abu Bakr who snatches the right of Fatima (sa) is at the peak of piety, while the soul of Shi'ites [rawafid] are in the form of pigs and dogs.

Why does it matter whom he mentions... if you look for dogma in his writtings, whether your Shia or Sunni, you will go crazy. One place he says the closest to Messenger (saw) is Ali (as) and another place says no one knows the Messenger (saw) but Abu Baker. You have to pick and choose whether sunni or shia. He belittles and redicules the basis of Fiqh of all Sunnis in that same book, and shows how dogmatically blind they are and how they would reject a person if he comes disclosing Shariah by reality (ie. would reject Imam Mahdi (as) or rather any True Khalifa of God). In fact, he shows in that book the basis of Islamic Shariah has to be based on someone whom sees the reality of it, and can prove it by reality to himself and others. If your Sunni, you say why or why, didn't we follow a person whom God made aware of the Haq of Shariah when there was one?

As I said before, if you look at all what he proves, you will see Imamate only (as far Shiism and Sunnism is concerned). If you look at all what he claims, then you will see both Sunnism and Shiism.

But he himself said in one his writtings he is not here to prove things by way of traditons, rather by tasting. And Imamate and Wilayah is of the the tasting proofs, but can the same be said about assertions.

I am not saying he is shia or sunni, but I'm just saying this is the reason why some people think he is Shia. Because he proves it. And also as I mentioned, it's because they conclude only a Shia can be an Aref and conclude on the basis of his knowledge he is an Arif.

Aref = A. B = Shia.

A --> B (An Arif must be Shia)

A. (He is An Arif)

Therefore B.

It's A therefore B. Not Shia therefore Aref.

They don't go that route, that he said this and this about Imam Ali (as), hence he is Shia, then he is an Aref.

Now the argument, can be put on it's head. Not B, implies Not A. If he is not a Shia, then he is not an Aref. He is not a Shia. Therefore, he is not an Arif.

They are identical arguments, but it's what you conclude first that matters.

You determine he is not Shia by what points to Sunnism. Technically, there is possibility of hiding his faith, and I mentioned a possible reason for this. It has nothing to do with saving his life, but everything to do with manifesting the truth without the dogmatic way of doing it (This is my religion, I am going to prove it (don't mind my bias), here is the proof, we are right approach) I mean people of all religions do this and no one ever picks up one of these books and is convinced that way. They come to religions from other reasons.

Ibn Arabi without this dogmatic approach just presents a way of tasting of what he sees as truths, either you taste or not, if you taste and realize the reality of what he's saying , well then Wilayah among other things will proven to you without the dogmatic approach. When someone comes with a dogmatic approach, people often feel offended and don't really like to hear what the other person is saying.

Therefore this is sort of way has it's benefits as I said.

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the logic does not follow unless it was stated the reason why they were pigs was due to Taqiyah.

That's silly, since Ibn `Arabi doesn't give any reason in that quote, as to why the Shi'ites were pigs due to Taqiyyah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice obfuscation.

Clarification, I'm sure you meant :P..

Perhaps you've learned the meaning of that word in your study of philosophy too ;-)

Er, yea. Where else would I learn it ?

Think of it this way. Can you be a Muslim without believing that Muhammad is a prophet? Of course not, you have to believe that. Does that mean everyone who says "Muhammad rasullAllah" is thereby a Muslim? No, not necessarily. But minus it, there's no way he could be one.

I do not dispute this. Which is why it is still a property, but it derives from the other one (logically prior), so that means it is accidental to it. Please read page 17 for an explanation of the terms before you argue with me about what I said: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/books/dansh.pdf

Doesn't it stand to reason that you'll be taking your religious guidance from them? With Ibn `Arabi though, it appears that in all his vast work he does not once, not a single time, ever quote from a Shi`i source but rather exclusively uses Sunni ones. Comparing that to Sayyid Tabataba'i occasionally making reference to non-Imami works, while the bulk of his hadith citations will come from our sources is wide off the mark.

You need to come out of this false dichotomy. It is not true that the matn of a hadith, whose sanad according to ilm ar-rijal, does not traverse through all 100% Imami's narrators, even though it may terminate at an Infallible [AS] (don't forget that the termination of Sunni sources, the Prophet [sAWS] is also infallible btw) is necessarily false and vice versa. Didn't you recently write some sort of radd in conformity with this idea btw ?

And just for the record, there are several risalah's and sections of Al-Mizan where mostly non-Shia poets and people are quoted..

And it has been narrated through a chain of authorities in Sunni sources that [the Prophet (S) said]:

áóæáÇó ÊóßúËöíÑñ Ýöí ßóáÇóãößõãú¡ æóÊóãúÑöíÌñ Ýí ÞõáõæÈößõãú áóÑóÃóíúÊõãú ãóÇ ÃóÑóí¡ æóáóÓóãöÚúÊõãú ãóÇ ÃóÓúãóÚõ

And were it not for this loquacity of yours and this agitation and disturbance in your hearts, you would indeed see what I see and hear what I hear.

In any case, I don't possess the capability to continue the rest of the [actual] discussion (looking over the primary sources), so I'll leave it to you and Imami_ali. It is possible that he may even disagree with me on the preliminary issue of the criteria of shi`i..

Nice try. But not good enough.

Nothing is ever good enough for you..

The Imams, unlike Ibn Arabi, didn't point at the Shi'is from amongst the Muslims and say that they are pigs and dogs.

The Imam pointed a selection of the Muslims from all the Muslims, just as Ibn Arabi pointed out a selection of the Shi`ite from all the Shi`ite..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"They were able to see people's real personalities and expose their hidden beliefs, and they could see the "Rawafidh" or the Shias who had not exposed their faith in the form of PIGS.

So he makes a blanket statement against the Shi'as, not those who were sinners or hypocrites or whatever, just those who happened to be Shi'i.

No, he doesn't. He speaks about those who he can SEE, just exactly like the Imam and his companion who speak about those who they can SEE..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he didn't, you did:

Salam SpIzo.

Definitely take a Logic Class. It will really help you not do these sort of conclusions.

Or atleast read about the common fallacies.

But I will give you identical statement. If someone said:

Imam Ali (as) condemned the people of Kufa, it would not mean it's due to being from Kufa. That's not what makes the condemned.

Likewise, if we condemn tyrants whom were from Bani Ummaya, it won't mean the reason they are condemned is because they are from Bani-Umma.

Therefore, like wise, if I say he is generally condemning Shias whom are doing Taqiya, it would not mean it's due Taqiya.

Edited by Awakened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely take a Logic Class. It will really help you not do these sort of conclusions.

How about you take one for yourself, since you seem to be utterly confused. :)

Therefore, like wise, if I say he is generally condemning Shias whom are doing Taqiya, it would not mean it's due Taqiya.

So, according to him or you, those Shi'ites who are not in taqiyyah, their souls are not in the form of a pig?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you take one for yourself, since you seem to be utterly confused. :)

Salam I did, and I realize fallacies all the time now. I often point them out when my family makes them.

Trust me, if you take one, it really helps...

So, according to him or you, those Shi'ites who are not in taqiyyah, their souls are not in the form of a pig?

That can't be concluded from the statement.

As for what I think, then I think there are good people and bad people of all faiths. Are there some Shias whom love this world? Yes.

I generally like to think most Shias are good people but to be honest I don't know anymore. The verse from Quran that whomever wants this world being condemned to hell and the Holy Prophet (saw) saying whomever wakes up aspiring for other then God (I mean this would include Hooris too!) is among the losers and Trangressors... It really makes me think, who the heck is guided from us, I am certainly not out of the realm of Fisq... I don't think I only want Allah (swt) when I get up. I want to do well in University, I want a nice beautiful religious wife, and I probably still want Houris in Janna, and this all waking up aspiring for other then God? And I don't think much of us get up aspiring for only God.

Here is the quote from Misbahal Shariah (This book is like a big burden that is super hard to carry and makes wonder if maybe this is the reason why some rejected):

The Holy Prophet said, 'Whoever wakes up in the morning aspiring for something other than Allah has become among the losers and transgressors.'

Edited by Awakened

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...