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  
iceman

Is Ibn Sina considered a muslim?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Or is he considerred a kafir? Personally I believe he was a great man, one of the greatest people who ever lived. The Iranians claim him as one of their own, I think because his parents spoke farsi at home, The shias claim him as a shia. The turks claim him as their own since he was from bukhara. The afghans and uzbeks claim him too and of course, the Ismailis feel he is their man because Ibn Sina's father was Ismaili.

Well, he is claimed as a muslim by many muslims who keep saying that Islam and science are very compatible and intertwine and he is often mentioned as one of the greatest muslim scholars and scientists in history. But when he was alive he used to love the works of Aristotle as well and some people accused him of being an atheist because he didnt believe in heaven and hell after death!

So from a religious sectarian point of view what do you consider him? Muslim? Shia? Islmaili? Atheist? Agnostic? Kafir? Jinn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ibin Sina was a muslim. He was an Isma3eely. Some say he was a twelver. But he definitely was a muslim.

Wa salam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you say he was definately a muslim? Are you saying this just because you dont want to lose being affiliated with him perhaps? He was accused of being an atheist when he was alive because he thought heaven and hell were nonsense and just a fairytale. Are you saying someone who thinks like that is still a muslim? Or only if they are famous geniuses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam alykum..

Because thats a historical fact. Just refer to any authentic and unbiased biographies about Ibin Seena. Its insulting to suggest that Ave Sina was an atheist. He was one of the few Muslim philosophers who were successful in providing sufficient proof for the existence of God. As for why he was accused of being a kaffir, well, its simply  because he was a philosopher. All Muslim philosophers were accused of Kufur by the ignorant at some point in time, simply because in philosophy you are allowed to question the existence of God and say: Does God not exist and use the intellect. However, the ignorant among the Muslims (the wahhabies to name some) consider that a form of kuffur because of the following verse:

Can there be a doubt about Allaah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth?” [ibraaheem 14:10]

However, those ignorant few fail to understand that Allah in his book asks us to ponder and reason and arrive at the truth by way of deduction.

Furthermore, not only Ibin Sina was labelled a kafir. Fakhar Al deen Al razi (the author of Al tafseer al kabeer) and Al Gazally (the author of I7ya` al 3oloom) were also accused of kuffur by some simpletons, simply because they asked questions and arrived at the answers by "pontification" or because they were involved in philosophy.

Wa salam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hold on a second. I am not saying that there are NO historical records that assert that Ibn Sina was muslim but what I am examining is the possibility that he would not pass the test of being a muslim by the very definition of the word Muslim.

Now let me first explain my sentiments regarding the subject so there is no misunderstanding. If he were defined by the "muslims" of today as a kafir or an agnostic or an atheist even then it would not make me lose a grain of respect and admiration for the man. It is my impression that the kind of people who accuse others of being immoral, kafirs, innovators, heretics etc are almost always ignorant, jealous and fearful. It also seems to me that 99% of devout muslims between the start of Islam and today would accuse a free thinker like Ibn Sina of being a deviant kafir without a blink after hearing the basics about him. On this forum I have seen people accusing agha khanis of being non muslims and heretics, would they be silent in the case of Ibn Sina if he wasnt so respected? Besides being Ismaili he also used to love drinking and one little thing I have found out(Im sure there are lots others) is that he DID NOT BELIEVE IN HEAVEN AND HELL.

Now I see you conveniently avoided discussing this little fact about his rejection of the story of creation and the afterlife. If you or I rejected the concept of heaven and hell as mere fiction would we still be recognised as muslims by the people on this forum? Somehow I doubt it.

Here is my suspicion...history has been altered to wash away most accusations and determinations against Ibn Sina by religious authorities that he was an audacious kafir and a blasphemer by all the orthodox religious authorities that knew even a little bit about him. And the reason for that is that the man was such a giant among mens intellectually that if anyone accused him of being bad, they themselves would look bad. So perhaps there was this conspiracy of deception through the ages where people pretend that he was a full fledged muslim just to associate themselves with him as much as possible. :donno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I am sorry to barge in like this, but I would like to say that I also read that Ibn Sina, loved to drink wine, moreover he considered it completely legal because he was a philosopher. Also I read that he died using drugs. And he was somehow a womanizer. Now all of this makes him a :shaytan: but Mr. Iceman did you never think that perhaps people did insert these stories about Ibn Sina to make him look bad??????

You suggest that people only admire him and consider him a muslim because he had great thoughts........ well there is another possibility people worried about a muslim being soooo clever that they made up awfull stories about him, just to make him a :shaytan: in the eyes of the other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or is he considerred a kafir? Personally I believe he was a great man, one of the greatest people who ever lived. The Iranians claim him as one of their own, I think because his parents spoke farsi at home, The shias claim him as a shia. The turks claim him as their own since he was from bukhara.  The afghans and uzbeks claim him too and of course, the Ismailis feel he is their man because Ibn Sina's father was Ismaili.

Well, he is claimed as a muslim by many muslims who keep saying that Islam and science are very compatible and intertwine and he is often mentioned as one of the greatest muslim scholars and scientists in history. But when he was alive he used to love the works of Aristotle as well and some people accused him of being an atheist because he didnt believe in heaven and hell after death!

So from a religious sectarian point of view what do you consider him? Muslim? Shia? Islmaili? Atheist? Agnostic? Kafir? Jinn?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Assalamu alaikum

Most Sunnis do not consider him to be a Muslim for he held some heterodox beliefs. Al Ghazali says in his Al-Munqidh minad Dalal (Deliverance from Error) pg 44-45 that it is obligatory to consider Ibn Sina Kafir for three beliefs he had: 1. The world is beginningless and eternal (like Allah) 2. Allah has a general idea of what is destroyed and created and does not know the details 3. There is no bodily reserruction.

Assalamu alaikum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.............and one little thing I have found out(Im sure there are lots others) is that he DID NOT BELIEVE IN HEAVEN AND HELL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then you and I have found out very different things. From what I have read, he believed in Heaven and Hell, but as abstract entities. He believed in only spiritual resurrection, not physical. Now since he believed in Ma'aad, as twisted as the belief might be (and very common amongst philosophers), he cannot be denied his identity as a Muslim.

This point has been covered in the above post too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assalamu alaikum

Most Sunnis do not consider him to be a Muslim for he held some heterodox beliefs. Al Ghazali says in his Al-Munqidh minad Dalal (Deliverance from Error) pg 44-45 that it is obligatory to consider Ibn Sina Kafir for three beliefs he had: 1. The world is beginningless and eternal (like Allah) 2. Allah has a general idea of what is destroyed and created and does not know the details 3. There is no bodily reserruction.

Assalamu alaikum

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you saying it is just sunnis that consider Ibn Sina Kafir and in General Shias consider him fully Muslim then? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

I am sorry to barge in like this, but I would like to say that I also read that Ibn Sina, loved to drink wine, moreover he considered it completely legal because he was a philosopher. Also I read that he died using drugs. And he was somehow a womanizer. Now all of this makes him a  :shaytan:  but Mr. Iceman did you never think that perhaps people did insert these stories about Ibn Sina to make him look bad??????

Ok it is possible that some stories were inserted to make him look bad. Now the question becomes how to prove or disprove this assumption.

You suggest that people only admire him and consider him a muslim because he had great thoughts........ well there is another possibility people worried about a muslim being soooo clever that they made up awfull stories about him, just to make him a  :shaytan:  in the eyes of the other people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well it is obvious that most people would want to be as closely affiliated with someone so clever and great as they possibly could. The Persians for instance make a huge deal about him being Iranian and not arab, pointing to the fact that ethnically he was as Persian as they come and that his mothertongue was Farsi. The Persians will tell you that he only learned the arabic language later on in life after being goaded and challenged. Then you have the turks who will say that ethnically he was Uzbek from Bukhara/Samarkand and that he just happened to speak farsi because the Perian Empire was so widespread that time, and the turks will say that by blood he was more "turkic" than "Iranic". And of course you have Ismailis who will pooh pooh sunnis and regular shias and make a big deal out of the fact that he was an Ismaili specifically and not just a plain shia.

But you say that someone non muslim will also want to make a big deal out of him not being "muslim" and bring up facts of his shaitaan like activities but who would that be? Who is it that had control over historical records who was NON MUSLIM and would want Ibn Sina to appear as a non muslim by falsifying historical facts? Hindus? Pagans? Christians? Jews?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam alykum...

Admirable sentiments indeed. :)

I was not aware of such "facts". Therefore, could you please provide some sources showing that Ibin Seena used to drink wine and that he rejected heaven and hell?

Wa salam....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.afghanland.com/history/ibnsina.html

There are numerous mentions made to Ibn Sina drinking wine at night as a stimulant to help him study and in more than a few places I have repeatedly heard "his passion for wine and women is as well known as his intellectual works".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you and I have found out very different things. From what I have read, he believed in Heaven and Hell, but as abstract entities. He believed in only spiritual resurrection, not physical. Now since he believed in Ma'aad, as twisted as the belief might be (and very common amongst philosophers), he cannot be denied his identity as a Muslim.

This point has been covered in the above post too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well do you or do you not admit that Ibn Sina rejected the punishment/reward system in the afterlife that is based on a person's sins and good deeds? Because him rejecting that outright means that he rejects those verses in the Quran that deal directly with such. Now that makes him a heretic, a kafir. It doesnt make me personally think any less of him at all. In fact in my opinion these perfectly legitimate thoughts of his are just a sign of his free thinking.

I am not denying his identity as a Muslim and I am not trying to bestow an identity of Muslim on him either. I am suspicious of two things. Firstly that certain people in history as well as today are making him seem a lot more orthodox muslim than he really was. Why would they do that? Because they want to be associated with his greatness, his intellect and his vast appeal to scientists, philosophers and doctors rather than shunning him. Secondly I am also beginning to suspect that being a philosopher that he may have felt a lot more than heaven and hell was illogical and false but he was afraid to express that for fear of being persecuted for being vocal with those beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying it is just sunnis that consider Ibn Sina Kafir and in General Shias consider him fully Muslim then? :huh:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what Shiahs consider him, but Sunnis do not consider him a Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Abu 'Ali al-Husain ibn 'Abdullah ibn Sina was born in Iran and went to school in Najaf (Howza).

To judge him Muslim or not based on what Sunni say is meaningless because according to some Sunnis Shi'as are Kafir too.

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn Sina's father and brother were Ismailies. However, Ibn Sina mentioned he did not share their doctrine - with regards to the Universal Intellect and the Universal Soul. And Ibn Sina if he was an Ismaili would have declared his allegience to the Ismaili Imam of his time.

Ibn Sina was a Muslim philosopher. The philosophers, the Ismailies and Sufis do not beleive in a literal hellfire and literal paradise - how does that make us not Muslim?

Ibn Sina had a philosophy that consisted of Ten Intelligences - Ten Souls - and Ten Spheres. This paralleled other philosophical systems such as Al-Farabi's.

As for the stories about his wine and womanizing...plz quote or cite authentic sources.

How was Ibn Sina not a Muslim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn Sina bases much of work on Ibn Farabi (9 intellects...) which can ultimately be traced down to neoplatonic philosophy (Greek).

Even Shi'a do not believe of a "physical" Heaven/Hell.

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How was Ibn Sina not a Muslim?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to Ghazali he was not a Muslim for three beliefs: 1. The world is beginningless and eternal (like Allah) 2. Allah has a general idea of what is destroyed and created and does not know the details 3. There is no bodily reserruction [Al-Munqidh minad Dalal (Deliverance from Error) pg 44-45].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Ghazali he was not a Muslim for three beliefs:  1. The world is beginningless and eternal (like Allah) 2. Allah has a general idea of what is destroyed and created and does not know the details 3. There is no bodily reserruction [Al-Munqidh minad Dalal (Deliverance from Error) pg 44-45].

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Sunni believe the Qur'an is eternal (uncreated) like Allah

2. Sunni regard the gift of Allah given to man, 'Aql as usless

3. Sunni believe we will be able to SEE Allah in Paradise.

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We believe that the quraan is an atribute of Allah not his creationg

Syed Qutb's quote for the intelect and Islam is sufficient proof agaisnt ure batil claim

Yeah, we do not lie about hte hadith and quraan to better fit our beliefs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you agree that the faithful will not die in paradise and that they will have eternal life? does that make them eternal like Allah?

no because

Allah has no beginning and no end which makes him eternal

We had a beginning but we have no end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you agree that the faithful will not die in paradise and that they will have eternal life? does that make them eternal like Allah?

no because

Allah has no beginning and no end which makes him eternal

We had a beginning but we have no end

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew someone make that argument, that's why I said in quotes "UNCREATED."

So tell me Bengali, how will you see Allah in Paradise?

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as i know, anyone who says la ilaha illa Allah muhammad rasul Allah or comes from a muslim father is a muslim. having weird ideas or committing sins does not make someone unmuslim (unless they completely apostize). being muslim is not just a religious identity but also a social identity, and if he weren't muslim, and part of the growth of the muslim ummah, we wouldn't be talking about him. he was undoubtedly one of us.

Edited by BintAlHoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Shi'a do not believe of a "physical" Heaven/Hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL Now do we really? both this world and the Next are material, even if they be of different matter (the original matter being the same). The bounties of Heaven and the chastisements of Hell are physical. The haudh of Kauthar is physical, the river Khair is physical, Tuba is physical, the fruits and palaces are physical; the Fire is physical, the snakes and scorpions are physical, the tree of Zaqqum is physical, the festering water :sick: is physical. Now since these constitute a part of Heaven and Hell, both these places would be termed "physical". It's a different matter altogether that the bounties or punishments are either our deeds themselves or the consequence of our deeds or both. Of course what the actual reality is will never be known in this world.

Wassalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL Now do we really? both this world and the Next are material, even if they be of different matter (the original matter being the same). The bounties of Heaven and the chastisements of Hell are physical. The haudh of Kauthar is physical, the river Khair is physical, Tuba is physical, the fruits and palaces are physical; the Fire is physical, the snakes and scorpions are physical, the tree of Zaqqum is physical, the festering water :sick: is physical. Now since these constitute a part of Heaven and Hell, both these places would be termed "physical". It's a different matter altogether that the bounties or punishments are either our deeds themselves or the consequence of our deeds or both. Of course what the actual reality is will never be known in this world.

Wassalaam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Physical in this world has 3 Dimenstions (mass and volume). The next world quite possible as theorized by physicist may be 4 Dimensional (like our dreams); hyperspace.

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ If you are talking from the point of view of Physics, then physicists already talk in terms of space-time, time being the 4th dimension, and the talk is about this world. Does time have a physical reality? :donno: And the theories which are floating around certainly have many more dimensions in space-time, what with 7, 10 and even 26 dimensions being conceptualised. Although all could just be different ways of looking at the same theory.

Anyhow physics is not a strong area with me, so I just hope what I said was nothing wrong. :unsure: I think I get what you meant to say.

W/S

Edited by phoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abu Ali Hussein ibn Sina-e Balkhi was an ethnic Persian from Khorassan. His father, Sina of Balkh, was a very famous Ismaili schollar of back then.

- he was no "Turk" or "Uzbek", because there were no Turks in Bukhara back then. The first established Turkish nation wa sthat of the Ghaznavids, and as we all know, Avicenna was opposed to them and thus fled to the Persian Buyyids.

- he was no "Afghan", because Afghan is a synonym for "Pashtun". As we all know, he was not a Pashtun.

As for his faith:

Avicenna was born and raised as an Ismaili Shia, but he rejected his father's faith. Intead, he became a "Mut'azilit", a very liberal and modern school of thought, opposed to orthodox Sunnism and Shiism. Mut'azilis were neither Sunnis nor Shias, because they were not interested in Arab clan-wars. They concentrated on fundamental elements of Islam and tried to modernize it.

Along with Avicenna, other famous Mut'azilis were al-Kindi, al-Farabi, ibn-Rushd, and the Abbasid Khalif Mamun al-Rashid.

Mutazili belief is very easy:

- there is no heaven, no hell, no angels, no devil, no "hidden Imams", no Imams, etc etc etc. All of these words are man-made and have nothing to do with Islam.

- the Quran is not the "eternal word of God", but a created man-made work, discribing the mythical visions of the prophet

- "human logic" is more important than "religious laws", be it the Quran or Hadiths

That's why the Mutazilis called themselvs "Ahl ul-Aql" (followers of human logic) ... in contrary to that, Ahmad ibn Hanbal rejected the Mutazili faith and called himself "Ahl al-Sunna" ("not a follower of human logic, but follower of traditions and legends"). That's where the word "Sunni" comes from.

The Mutazilis and Mamun al-Rashid were fierced enemies of Sunnis: Ahmad ibn Hanbal was imprisoned and tortured, and all other clerics had to swear that they only promote Mutazili teachings.

However, onyla few years later, the Abbasid Khalif Mutawakil was "converted" by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and thus, orthodox Sunnism became the leading faith in the Islamic world. All Mutazilis were either killed and were forced to leave.

Although the Mutazilis ruled the Islamic world for a very short time, they changed the course of mankind ... Mutazili schollars, such as Kindi or ibn-Rushd, influenced Europe's Renaissance ... others influenced many later kings and schollars, such as Shah Abbas the Great (Safawid era) or Sayed Jamal ud-Din Afghani, Islam's last great philosopher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ibn Sina was a Muslim philosopher. The philosophers, the Ismailies and Sufis do not beleive in a literal hellfire and literal paradise - how does that make us not Muslim?

In fact, this makes you much smarter than orthodx Muslims, like Imamis or Sunnis. In fact, the belief in "hell" and "heaven" is one of the most hillarious concepts in Islam. It is contraciting itself, and it does not make sense.

Let me give you an example:

Muslims believe that "God is omnisciant", which means that he knows EVERYTHING, INCLUDING the future. If God were not able to know the future, he would be no "God".

So that automatically means that God knows your destiniation even BEFORE he creates you. That means that God knows wether you'll be "good" or "bad" even BEFORE he creates you. And that means that God already knows wether you'll go to hell or heaven, even BEFORE he creates you.

The concept of "free will" is not of importance in this dicussion, because it does not matter wether you "choose" to be bad or good ... in both cases, God knows it already, even BEFORE you make your choice.

Now the question is: what kind of a dirty, ugly, sadist God creates humans just to let them burn in hell?! Although he knows that you're going to be bad and that you're going to burn in hell, he STILL creates you. This is a clear contradiction to the idea that God is "loving".

So, there are only a very few answers to this questions, and only ONE is correct:

- God does NOT KNOW the future, which would mean that he is not "God"

- God is a sadist creature that just creates man to let him brun in hell; God is not "loving"

- THERE IS NO HELL

Avicenna, philosophers, Sufis, Ismailis, and all other intelligent people choose the 3rd answer: there is no hell! Because that's the only answer that does not contradict the idea of an "omnisciant and loving God".

The concept of "hell and heaven" is a system that is supposed to control humanity. Taking a look at the human evolution, mankind itself is still a "child" ... and the same way one scares children with stories about "wolves" and "witches" to PROTECT them, the story of "heaven and hell2 was created to protect humans: to prevent them to commit murder or other crimes. It is nothing else but an education system to keep humans under control.

200 years ago, 3 great personalities introduced another concept that was supposed to replace the old dogma. Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud introduced the concept of "humanism" ... a system that is supposed to TEACH humans.

You can compare it to the life of a human being:

- as a child, the human being needs strict laws to keep him under control and to protect him

- as a young adult, he needs to question the stories he was told before (Santa Clause, witches, ghosts, etc) and he needs to be tought how to behave and how to interact with the community

- as a young man, he is already a part of the community, and he needs to work to improve the community

- and so on

With Friedrich Feuerbach and Karl Marx, the world has reached the "young adult" era ... it's time to question and to reject the old stories we were told by Mullahs and other clerics ... there IS NO HIDDEN IMAM, there IS NO HEAVEN OR HELL.

Avicenna and the "Mut-azilis" realied this more than 1000 ago ... but unfortunatly, there were more dumb children (orthodox Sunnis and Shias) in the world than intelligent young adults (Mutazilis, Sufis).

Today, the situation has changed ... while the west has already reached other stages, the Islamic world is still stuck in the "child" stage ... it's time to change that!

Edited by Abu-Sayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ If you are talking from the point of view of Physics, then physicists already talk in terms of space-time, time being the 4th dimension, and the talk is about this world. Does time have a physical reality? :donno: And the theories which are floating around certainly have many more dimensions in space-time, what with 7, 10 and even 26 dimensions being conceptualised. Although all could just be different ways of looking at the same theory.

Anyhow physics is not a strong area with me, so I just hope what I said was nothing wrong. :unsure: I think I get what you meant to say.

W/S

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I wasn't quite done with my response. I should have added that Heaven is nearness to Allah, and hell is being further from Allah.

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or is he considerred a kafir? Personally I believe he was a great man, one of the greatest people who ever lived. The Iranians claim him as one of their own, I think because his parents spoke farsi at home, The shias claim him as a shia. The turks claim him as their own since he was from bukhara.  The afghans and uzbeks claim him too and of course, the Ismailis feel he is their man because Ibn Sina's father was Ismaili.

Well, he is claimed as a muslim by many muslims who keep saying that Islam and science are very compatible and intertwine and he is often mentioned as one of the greatest muslim scholars and scientists in history. But when he was alive he used to love the works of Aristotle as well and some people accused him of being an atheist because he didnt believe in heaven and hell after death!

So from a religious sectarian point of view what do you consider him? Muslim? Shia? Islmaili? Atheist? Agnostic? Kafir? Jinn?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bukhara may be in Uzbekistan, but the population is Persian(Tajik); as is Samarqand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bukhara may be in Uzbekistan, but the population is Persian(Tajik); as is Samarqand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Persian by tongue, uzbek(turk) by blood as alleged by the turks who associate themselves with him.

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...