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  
Casper

Ibn Arabi's devious beliefs

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In his commentary on Fusus Al Hikam for Ibn Arabi , Imam Khomeini leaved a whole chapter with clear deviations without any comment .

When you are commenting on a book , you have to correct what you find wrong , and you can add what you find worth for adding . If you leave something without a comment , that means you agree on it .

Some of the deviations found in the 25th chapter , The Seal of the Wisdom of Sublimity in the Word of Moses :

1- Ibn Arabi says that Pharao is an avatar of Allah (astaghfirullah) !

So the statement of Pharaoh, "I am your Lord most high," was valid. Although the source is from Allah, the form is Pharaoh's. He cut off the hands and feet, and crucified through a real source in false form in order to attain the ranks which are only attained by that act.

How come no one objected to that.

2- Ibn Arabi (la3) claims that Pharaoh (la3) died on Islam , which contradicts the narrations and the explanations of the Imams (pbuh) :

The consolation of Pharaoh was with the belief Allah gave him when he was drowning. So Allah took him pure and purified. There was no impurity in him since He took him in his belief before he had acquired any wrong actions. Islam effaces what was before it. He made him a sign of His concern so that none might despair of the mercy of Allah, for "no one despairs of solace from Allah except for the unbelievers." (12:87) If Pharaoh been of those who despair, he would not have embarked on belief.

... ... ...

Pharaoh was not certain that he would perish since he believed that he would not die until the moment actually reached him. He believed in the One in whom the Tribe of Israel believed, in certainty of his deliverance.

It was indeed certain, but it was in a form other than the one he wanted. He was saved from the punishment of the Next World in himself and his body was saved as Allah says, "Today We will save your body that you might be a sign for those after you," (10:92) because, if his form had vanished, his people might have said that he had gone into occultation. His known form appeared as a corpse that it might be known that it was really him. Deliverance was encompassed both in the senses and in the meaning.

The one who has the word of the punishment in the Other World realized for him will not believe, even if every ayat had been brought to him, "so that they might see the painful punishment," that is, taste the punishment of the Next World. Pharaoh left this class of people. This is the literal meaning of what the text of the Qur'an brought us. We say, and the matter belongs to Allah, that the fixed idea which the common people have regarding the wretchedness of Pharaoh is not based on anything in the divine text. As for his family, that is another judgement. This is not the place to mention it.

Imam Khumaini didn't object on Ibn Arabi that Pharaoh died on islam and have been saved from punishement in the Next World , ignoring the hadiths of AhlulBayt (pbuh) that clearly say that Pharaoh is a kafir from the people of Hell and ignoring the following verses :

Then, when they saw Our doom, they said: We believe in Allah only and reject (all) that we used to associate (with Him).

But their faith could not avail them when they saw Our doom. This is Allah's law which hath ever taken course for His bondmen. And then the disbelievers will be ruined.

and that God have denied on him his believe in the verse 10:91

And We made the children of Israel to pass through the sea, then Firon and his hosts followed them for oppression and tyranny; until when drowning overtook him, he said: I believe that there is no god but He in Whom the children of Israel believe and I am of those who submit.

What! now! and indeed you disobeyed before and you were of the mischief-makers.

Edited by -ZeinaB-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asalamu alaykum

care to give a link to the book , or a proper name to the book where AYatullah Sayed al khomeini comments on ibn arabis writings ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know an english online version of Imam Khomeini's commentary on Fusus Al Hikam . I have the book in Arabic , printed by Daralmahaja press (Lebanon , Haret Hreik) , the 7th row in this link .

Here is the link of englsih version of Fusus Al Hikam without Khomeini's commentary .

Edited by .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you are commenting on a book , you have to correct what you find wrong

I disagree with this, not commenting whether it is right or wrong doesn't show you agree or disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã

ÞÑÃÊ ÃáßÊÇÈ ÈÇááÛÉ ÃáÝÑäÓíÉ. ßÊÇÈ Ëãíä.

ÃãøÇ ÈÎÕæÕ ÊÓÇÄá ÃáÃÎ ÝáÇ ÃÌÏ ãÇ íÎÇáÝ ÃáÞÑÂä

ÓæÑÉ íæäÓ - ÓæÑÉ 10 - ÂíÉ 90

æÌÇæÒäÇ ÈÈäí ÇÓÑÇÆíá ÇáÈÍÑ ÝÇÊÈÚåã ÝÑÚæä æÌäæÏå ÈÛíÇ æÚÏæÇ ÍÊì ÇÐÇ ÇÏÑßå ÇáÛÑÞ ÞÇá ÇãäÊ Çäå áÇ Çáå ÇáÇ ÇáÐí ÇãäÊ Èå Èäæ ÇÓÑÇÆíá æÇäÇ ãä ÇáãÓáãíä

(salam)

I already read the book in French version. It is an invaluable book.

As for the question of the brother, I do not think that there is contradiction with Quran

And We brought the Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh with his hosts pursued them in rebellion and transgression, till, when the (fate of) drowning overtook him, he exclaimed: I believe that there is no Allah save Him in Whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of those who surrender (unto Him). (Quran, 10:90)

Edited by HusseinAliYounes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HusseinAliYounes

How on earth can you support Ibn Arabi's statement?!! it's rediculous. The verse is simply refering to what Pharoah said at the last moment, and not what Ibn Arabi's claimings, it doesnt say he will go to paradise after this life. Moreover why dont you complete the verse

ÂáÂäó æóÞóÏú ÚóÕóíúÊó ÞóÈúáõ æóßõäÊó ãöäó ÇáúãõÝúÓöÏöíäó !!

ÝóÇáúíóæúãó äõäóÌøöíßó ÈöÈóÏóäößó áöÊóßõæäó áöãóäú ÎóáúÝóßó ÂíóÉð æóÅöäøó ßóËöíÑðÇ ãøöäó ÇáäøóÇÓö Úóäú ÂíóÇÊöäóÇ áóÛóÇÝöáõæäó

"Today We will save your body that you might be a sign for those after you,"

The verse is clearly implying : Your body is what will be saved and not your sole.

because Allah also says "æáíÓÊ ÇáÊæÈÉ ááÐíä íÚãáæä ÇáÓíÆÇÊ ÍÊì ÇÐÇ ÍÖÑ ÇÍÏåã ÇáãæÊ ÞÇá Çäí ÊÈÊ ÇáÇä æáÇ ÇáÐíä íãæÊæä "

"æåã ßÝÇÑ ÇæáÆß ÇÚÊÏäÇ áåã ÚÐÇÈÇ ÇáíãÇ

"The forgiveness is not for those who do ill-deeds until, when death attendeth upon one of them, he saith: Lo! I repent now; nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers. For such We have prepared a painful doom".

other verses :

ÇáäøóÇÑõ íõÚúÑóÖõæäó ÚóáóíúåóÇ ÛõÏõæøðÇ æóÚóÔöíøðÇ æóíóæúãó ÊóÞõæãõ ÇáÓøóÇÚóÉõ ÃóÏúÎöáõæÇ Âáó ÝöÑúÚóæúäó ÃóÔóÏøó ÇáúÚóÐóÇÈö

ßóÐøóÈóÊú ÞóÈúáóåõãú Þóæúãõ äõæÍò æóÃóÕúÍóÇÈõ ÇáÑøóÓøö æóËóãõæÏõ

æóÚóÇÏñ æóÝöÑúÚóæúäõ æóÅöÎúæóÇäõ áõæØò

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

LOL, ibn A`rabi and his superlative philosophy. Now why would Allah even need to forgive His Own avatar??

Jesus Christ, an avatar of God, came to die for the sins of men. Any resemblances?

Zahraa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't seem to figure out if you're trying to attack ibn Arabi or Khomeini.

Either way, your argument is logically flawed. Just cuz I don't say something is wrong doesn't mean I think it's correct. Maybe he didn't consider it worth this time and energy. He'd much rather focus on the good.

God is All Knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I have strong faith and support in Imam Khomeini. However, that being said - he was not masoom. If he left out a criticism or two, it wasnt intentionally, it was simply a sincere mistake. You shouldn't take some sort of editorial error as tacit support for unusual beliefs. In fact, if you go through the entire copendium of books written by Imam Khomeini, you will not find a single statement, direct or otherwise, in support of any of these unusual beliefs of ibn Arabi.

-

rahat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HusseinAliYounes

How on earth can you support Ibn Arabi's statement?!! it's rediculous. The verse is simply refering to what Pharoah said at the last moment, and not what Ibn Arabi's claimings, it doesnt say he will go to paradise after this life. Moreover why dont you complete the verse

ÂáÂäó æóÞóÏú ÚóÕóíúÊó ÞóÈúáõ æóßõäÊó ãöäó ÇáúãõÝúÓöÏöíäó !!

ÝóÇáúíóæúãó äõäóÌøöíßó ÈöÈóÏóäößó áöÊóßõæäó áöãóäú ÎóáúÝóßó ÂíóÉð æóÅöäøó ßóËöíÑðÇ ãøöäó ÇáäøóÇÓö Úóäú ÂíóÇÊöäóÇ áóÛóÇÝöáõæäó

"Today We will save your body that you might be a sign for those after you,"

The verse is clearly implying : Your body is what will be saved and not your sole.

because Allah also says "æáíÓÊ ÇáÊæÈÉ ááÐíä íÚãáæä ÇáÓíÆÇÊ ÍÊì ÇÐÇ ÍÖÑ ÇÍÏåã ÇáãæÊ ÞÇá Çäí ÊÈÊ ÇáÇä æáÇ ÇáÐíä íãæÊæä "

"æåã ßÝÇÑ ÇæáÆß ÇÚÊÏäÇ áåã ÚÐÇÈÇ ÇáíãÇ

"The forgiveness is not for those who do ill-deeds until, when death attendeth upon one of them, he saith: Lo! I repent now; nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers. For such We have prepared a painful doom".

other verses :

ÇáäøóÇÑõ íõÚúÑóÖõæäó ÚóáóíúåóÇ ÛõÏõæøðÇ æóÚóÔöíøðÇ æóíóæúãó ÊóÞõæãõ ÇáÓøóÇÚóÉõ ÃóÏúÎöáõæÇ Âáó ÝöÑúÚóæúäó ÃóÔóÏøó ÇáúÚóÐóÇÈö

ßóÐøóÈóÊú ÞóÈúáóåõãú Þóæúãõ äõæÍò æóÃóÕúÍóÇÈõ ÇáÑøóÓøö æóËóãõæÏõ

æóÚóÇÏñ æóÝöÑúÚóæúäõ æóÅöÎúæóÇäõ áõæØò

the question was:

2- Ibn Arabi (la3) claims that Pharaoh (la3) died on Islam , which contradicts the narrations and the explanations of the Imams

in my post, I quoted Ayat of Quran which stipulates clearly that Pharaoh died Moslem.

thus for me the polemic stops there. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmmm

Interesting!!!!

He could have died as believer (but he lived as a shere Kafir and that Kufr stands him with believers of the lowest cadre) but being an avatar needs to be looked into seriously. If ppl like Ibn el Arabi and Imam Khomenie do support the idea.... the actual words and expressions in the original language do need to be checked and not the translation... its my suggestion.

Any1 with the original text?????

Edited by tefi92

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commenting on a work involves commentary on all of it, and not leaving out parts for the reader to assume. If people have bothered to see some of the other works, for instance just take the Shi`i mujtahideen (Shaykh Mufeed on Shaykh Saduq (`alaihima al raHmah), they'd have observed that when people are in agreement with something, it is that part which is either left untouched or explained for easier and better understanding of the reader. And when the view presented is in opposition to that of the commentator, it is necessarily commented upon. If the person chooses not to, it implies a tacit agreement with the views stated.

That said, I cannot make out the purpose this thread seeks to achieve. To speculate and form one's own opinion on the work of a person who is no longer with us, to explain or defend (against allegations, if there are any), is only to let your imagination run riot and perhaps incur a sin in the process.

Better to give the late marja` the benefit of doubt.

W/S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

------------------

in my post, I quoted Ayat of Quran which stipulates clearly that Pharaoh died Moslem.

thus for me the polemic stops there.

-------------------------------------------------

come on !! The Ayah is ascribing the words to pharoah himself, it's not what Allah is saying...Allah is quoting Pharoa and rejecting his plea?!!!! ãÇ áßã ßíÝ ÊÍßãæä ¿!!

óAlso, didnt u read the rest of the verses that clearly shows ÇáäÇÑ یÚÑÖæä ÚáیåÇ ÛÏæÇ æ ÚÔیÇ which means he is in hell right now

I dont now how can some ignorants doubt in the Pharoah while 1/3 of the Quran is the story of Moses with Pharoah....

now I understand why people doubt in the position of Ahlulbayt, since only 20 verse clearly and plainly talks about them !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dot you should have quoted the whole passage:

When the sorcerers saw that, they recognized Musa's rank in knowledge and they saw that he possessed a power which was not mortal. If it had been within the power of a mortal, it would only belong to someone who could distinguish sure knowledge from imagination and illusion. So they believed in "the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Musa and Harun" - that is, the Lord to whom Musa and Harun summoned them because they knew that the people understood that they were not being called to Pharaoh. Pharaoh was in the position of authority, and he was the master of the moment since he was the Khalif with the sword, even though he broke the customary divine laws when he said, "I am your Lord most high" - i.e. since all are lords, (25) I am the highest of them through the power which you have outwardly given me over you. The sorcerers knew that he spoke the truth in what he said, and they did not deny it. They affirmed that to Pharaoh, and said, "You only judge in this passing life, so judge as you like, for the kingdom is yours." So the statement of Pharaoh, "I am your Lord most high," was valid. Although the source is from Allah, the form is Pharaoh's. He cut off the hands and feet, and crucified through a real source in false form in order to attain the ranks which are only attained by that act.

the is the footnote: 25. Lord being a relative name, demanding a subject, also because it means owner, so one says the lord of the house, the "lord" of a herd, etc. Also one who looks after, the "lord" of a child.

I am not going to explain what that means because it quite obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

"The forgiveness is not for those who do ill-deeds until, when death attendeth upon one of them, he saith: Lo! I repent now; nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers. For such We have prepared a painful doom".

What about a person who is a Kaffir all his life, and then converts and becomes a Muslim on his deathbed?

The verse talks of those who are believers before they are about to die, and then repent before they are about to die. It also talks about those who die in Kufr.

But what about Fir'awns case? Where he was a Kaffir his entire life, but then accepted Islam when he was about to die? Fir'awn was also a murderer, was he not? Can one be a murderer and mischief maker his entire life, and then convert and become a Muslim on his deathbed? Does it count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-salamu 'Alaykum,

Ibn 'Arabi (ra) has had a profound impact on Shi'ite philosophy and 'irfan. To try to marginalize him in the name of rigid exoterism only proves that one is ignorant of the history of orthodox Shi'ism and gnosis. The following text, "Jami' al-Asrar" is by Sayyid Haydar Amuli (ra) demonstrates to essential link between Shi'ism and the work of Ibn 'Arabi (ra):

http://www.al-islam.org/innersecretsofthepath/

One can also look to the most important Shi'ite philosopher in the history of Islam, Mulla Sadra (ra) to see another important scholar who took from Ibn 'Arabi's thought, and also the thought Suhrawardi (ra), Ibn Sina (ra), and others to formulate his al-hikmat al-muta 'aliyah or transcendent theosophy.

Tabataba'i (ra) and Khomeini (ra) Nasr and others are in an important line of Shi'ite gnostics that dates back to Imam 'Ali (as) and the Prophet (sal), that found its literary formulation from the pens of Ibn 'Arabi (ra) and Mulla Sadra (ra). They should be honored for preserving this most essential aspect of Islam, which moreover is not meant to be understood by everyone.

wa salam,

Abu Abdallah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn Arabi is deep. Many of us here do not nor will not understand him.

It was because of statements from those that did not understand philosophy or did not care to go deep into it that the Muslim Ummah declines in its philosophical and Scientific advances. I'm refering to Al Ghazali's famous fatwa way against Philosophy and anything linked to philosophy (which includes the sciences).

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I can't seem to figure out if you're trying to attack ibn Arabi or Khomeini.

Either way, your argument is logically flawed. Just cuz I don't say something is wrong doesn't mean I think it's correct. Maybe he didn't consider it worth this time and energy. He'd much rather focus on the good.

To me, these seem to be attacks on Imam Khomeini (qas) trying to find his mistakes and so on. Most of such people hate him and the Islamic government. They cannot stand his sucess. The fact is that Imam Khomeini (qas) did what no other scholar could do. He turned theory into practice. Implimented what scholars have preached for centuries. And they cant stand it.

They dont understand that the sucess of Imam Khomeini (qas) is the sucess of all scholars and the Marjiyah system and all Muslims in general and the Shia in particular.

If you think I am wrong just do a test. Ask the author of this thread to praise Imam Khomeni (qas) and his works and send blessings on him and curse on those who are against him. See the results.

WS

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

in order to enrich the debate, I think that it is instructive to look at this link.

this one also.

............................

I think that Ibn Arabi is an exceptional personality. Maybe we have difficulty in assimilating his papers. Thus it is more util in front of a difficult text, to ask to understand rather than to treat this immense wisdom by kafir.

Then exalted be Allah, the True King! And hasten not (O Muhammad) with the Qur'an ere its revelation hath been perfected unto thee, and say: My Lord! Increase me in knowledge. (Quran, 20:114)(æÞá ÑÈ ÒÏäí ÚáãÇ)
Edited by HusseinAliYounes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with this, not commenting whether it is right or wrong doesn't show you agree or disagree.

Either way, your argument is logically flawed. Just cuz I don't say something is wrong doesn't mean I think it's correct. Maybe he didn't consider it worth this time and energy. He'd much rather focus on the good.
I have strong faith and support in Imam Khomeini. However, that being said - he was not masoom. If he left out a criticism or two, it wasnt intentionally, it was simply a sincere mistake. You shouldn't take some sort of editorial error as tacit support for unusual beliefs.

The answer :

Commenting on a work involves commentary on all of it, and not leaving out parts for the reader to assume. If people have bothered to see some of the other works, for instance just take the Shi`i mujtahideen (Shaykh Mufeed on Shaykh Saduq (`alaihima al raHmah), they'd have observed that when people are in agreement with something, it is that part which is either left untouched or explained for easier and better understanding of the reader. And when the view presented is in opposition to that of the commentator, it is necessarily commented upon. If the person chooses not to, it implies a tacit agreement with the views stated.

As the publisher's introduction says , this book was reviewd by Imam Khumayni for another time , in a story that I'll mention it in brief :

The original persian copy of the book was missed after an invasion by the Savak on his own library in his home situated in Yekhjal Kadi in Qom in 1374 H .

In 1362 , in Hamadan , a merchant went to a school to sell two books one of them was the Explanation of Fusus al Hikam and the other was an old book . A student in the hawza buyed them and noticed on the margin commentaries that ends with the Imam's signature . He took the books and gave them to Ayatullah Noury , Imam Jum'at in Hamadan who took them by his turn to Imam Khumayni .

After a suggestion from HujjatulIslam Ahmad Al Khumayni , the commentaries were copied then reviewed by Imam Khomeini and printed in the book : "Commentaries on Fusus Al Hikam wa Mesbah al Uns " , publisher's intro for Muhmmad Hasan Rahimyan , published by Pasdar Islam .

I think this and brother pheonix's answer are enough to end this point .

(salam)

What about a person who is a Kaffir all his life, and then converts and becomes a Muslim on his deathbed?

The verse talks of those who are believers before they are about to die, and then repent before they are about to die. It also talks about those who die in Kufr.

But what about Fir'awns case? Where he was a Kaffir his entire life, but then accepted Islam when he was about to die? Fir'awn was also a murderer, was he not? Can one be a murderer and mischief maker his entire life, and then convert and become a Muslim on his deathbed? Does it count?

Believing while dying after God's punishement isn't acceptable by God .

It seems that they trying to justificate his crimes : " He cut off the hands and feet, and crucified through a real source in false form in order to attain the ranks which are only attained by that act . "

Dot you should have quoted the whole passage:

The english version has an error in translation and in placing the dash " - " mark .

So they believed in "the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Musa and Harun" - that is, the Lord to whom Musa and Harun summoned them because they knew that the people understood that they were not being called to Pharaoh. Pharaoh was in the position of authority, and he was the master of the moment since he was the Khalif with the sword, even though he broke the customary divine laws when he said, "I am your Lord most high"

While the right translation from the Arabic version is like this :

Because Pharaoh was in the position of authority the master of the moment , and he was the Khalif with the sword - even though he broke the customary divine laws - , he said "I am your Lord most high" since all are lords, I am the highest of them through the power which you have outwardly given me over you

æ áãÇ ßÇä ÝÑÚæä Ýí ãäÕÈ ÇáÊøÍßøã ÕÇÍÈ ÇáæÞÊ , æ Ãäøå ÇáÎáíÝÉ ÈÇáÓíÝ - æ Çä ÌÇÑ ÈÇáÚÑÝ ÇáäÇãæÓí - áÐáß ÞÇá : (ÃäÇ ÑÈßã ÇáÃÚáì) Ãí æ Çä ßÇä Çáßá ÃÑÈÇÈÇ ÈäÓÈÉ ãÇ ÝÃäÇ ÇáÃÚáì ãäåã ÈãÇ ÃÚØíÊå (ÃæÚØíÊæåæ) Ýí ÇáÙÇåÑ ãä ÇáÊøÍßøã Ýíßã .

Khomeini's commentary on Fusus Al Hikam , Dar Al Mahajat Al Bayda' , Dar Al Rasool Al Akram (s) , p 316 .

the is the footnote: 25. Lord being a relative name, demanding a subject, also because it means owner, so one says the lord of the house, the "lord" of a herd, etc. Also one who looks after, the "lord" of a child.

I am not going to explain what that means because it quite obvious.

The footnotes are the author's notes or own opinion which doesn't go with what Ibn Arabi meant as all the shia , sunni , and sufi tafseer say that Pharaoh claimed to be a Lord and not a lord .

Then he went back hastily

Then he gathered (men) and called out.

And proclaimed: "I (Pharaoh) am your Lord the Highest."

So Allah seized him because of the first (saying) and the last

Tafsir Al Qummi , Al Tusy and Fayd Al Kashany :

ÞÇá Úáí Èä ÇÈÑÇåíã Ýí Þæáå: { ÝÍÔÑ } [23] íÚäí ÝÑÚæä { ÝäÇÏì ÝÞÇá ÃäÇ ÑÈßã ÇáÃÚáì ÝÃÎÐå Çááå äßÇá ÇáÂÎÑÉ æÇáÃæáì } [23-25] æÇáäßÇá ÇáÚÞæÈÉ¡ æÇáÂÎÑÉ åæ Þæáå: { ÃäÇ ÑÈßã ÇáÃÚáì } æÇáÃæáì Þæáå: { ãÇ ÚáãÊ áßã ãä Åáå ÛíÑí } ¡ ÝÃåáßå Çááå ÈåÐíä ÇáÞæáíä.

Ali bin Ibrahim said in His saying : " he gathered" , He means Pharaoh . ( he called out.

and proclaimed: "I (Pharaoh) am your Lord the Highest." So Allah seized him (and made him) an example because of the first (saying) and the last ) He punished him for the last when he said : I'm you Lord the most High , and the first was : " I know not that ye have a God other than me " [28:38] , so God punished him because of these tow sayings .

In Al Khisal from Imam Baqer (pbuh) , it was between the two sayings 40 years .

In Al Janabizi's Tafseer : He meant that " The idols are your Gods and I am your God and the idol's God " .

Ibn Arabi in his Tafseer of Quran , he say that Pharao will enter hell because of his veilance in his ego .

From another side , he said like it was mentioned before , that he will enter paradise .

To combine between the two sayings , Pharaoh will enter hell to be purified then he will enter paradise .

Khumayni explains Ibn Arabi's view for Hell by :

"Fire is the image of God's anger , and its batin is mercy because it is created to save the people from the effects of their acts ."

" The division of the hereafter between hell and paradise , even if it was correct * , Hell in reality is the image of God's mercy for the people of Unitarianism (Tawheed) , because it attains them transcendantal ranks by throwing the and the dark forms and it makes them ready for Shafa'at . For the Shaykh (Ibn Arabi) and their followers , the same thing occurs for the infidels because suffer (Azab) is from sweet (Azb) like he have said in this book " .

* This statement may imply that it isn't ascertained for Imam Khumayni that there is hell and paradise :unsure:

In fact what the benifit of staying forever in hell when Ibn Arabi says " that the enjoyement of the people of hell in hell , when staying in it forever , isn't less than the enjoyement of the people of paradise in paradise ." [Al Rudud wal Nukud p 96]

In fact, if you go through the entire copendium of books written by Imam Khomeini, you will not find a single statement, direct or otherwise, in support of any of these unusual beliefs of ibn Arabi.

In fact there is many statements , that this topic is the simplest among them .

Edited by .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In fact there is many statements , that this topic is the simplest among them"

Please, do not hesitate to ellucidate them to us. I think your commentary is a little bit ridiculous. For example

"* This statement may imply that it isn't ascertained for Imam Khumayni that there is hell and paradise unsure.gif"

I mean what kind of [Edited Out] is that. I think your being entirely biased. You think that there was a Shia Marajah, recognized by dozens and dozens of our Fuqaha, who somehow "didn't believe in hell" - and some how, thousands of Ayatollahs, dozens of other Marajah, and hundreds of Millions of other regular Shias just "didn't notice" until we were astounded by your magnificient scholarhood?

No - I think the answer lies in you and your ability to selectively quote in a biased fashion.

-

rahat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The footnotes are the author's notes or own opinion which doesn't go with what Ibn Arabi meant as all the shia , sunni , and sufi tafseer say that Pharaoh claimed to be a Lord and not a lord .

the footnotes do seem to correrlate with ibn arabi's own words. i didnt quite understand what you were trying to say about the dahses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your commentary is a little bit ridiculous. For example

"* This statement may imply that it isn't ascertained for Imam Khumayni that there is hell and paradise unsure.gif"

I mean what kind of [Edited Out] is that. I think your being entirely biased. You think that there was a Shia Marajah, recognized by dozens and dozens of our Fuqaha, who somehow "didn't believe in hell" - and some how, thousands of Ayatollahs, dozens of other Marajah, and hundreds of Millions of other regular Shias just "didn't notice" until we were astounded by your magnificient scholarhood?

No - I think the answer lies in you and your ability to selectively quote in a biased fashion.

-

rahat

Brother I don't want to enter in a battle of fatwas .

Forget for an instance that Imam Khomeini is in the question , and try to be more objective .

Notice that I said : "It may imply" , and that I ended it in an "unsure" emoticon .

What you can understand from that statemnt , other than what I said ? At least for the first while anybody will think the same as I thinked .

It is up to you to refute me , and this is why I pointed to it without ascertaining it .

Edited by .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the footnotes do seem to correrlate with ibn arabi's own words.

They seem but they aren't . I told you why .

i didnt quite understand what you were trying to say about the dahses.

The right translation is that way :

Because Pharaoh was in the position of authority the master of the moment , and he was the Khalif with the sword - even though he broke the customary divine laws - , (for that) he said "I am your Lord most high" since all are lords, I am the highest of them through the power which you have outwardly given me over you

.

The english text is wrong in the translation since the arabic original text is :

æ áãÇ ßÇä ÝÑÚæä Ýí ãäÕÈ ÇáÊøÍßøã ÕÇÍÈ ÇáæÞÊ , æ Ãäøå ÇáÎáíÝÉ ÈÇáÓíÝ - æ Çä ÌÇÑ ÈÇáÚÑÝ ÇáäÇãæÓí - áÐáß ÞÇá : (ÃäÇ ÑÈßã ÇáÃÚáì) Ãí æ Çä ßÇä Çáßá ÃÑÈÇÈÇ ÈäÓÈÉ ãÇ ÝÃäÇ ÇáÃÚáì ãäåã ÈãÇ ÃÚØíÊå (ÃæÚØíÊæåæ) Ýí ÇáÙÇåÑ ãä ÇáÊøÍßøã Ýíßã .

It is written in Arabic : Li Zalika Kal

Its tranlation to english : For that He said

It is written in the english version : When he said .

Its tranlation in Arabic : Indama Kal .

The meaning is : Because Pharaoh was in the position of authority ... (for that ) he said "I am your Lord most high" .

What is in red is in contrast for being a Khalif .

Edited by .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading Imam Khumayni's books and I was surprised that he have so much believes strange to shia islam and that goes directly opposite with the hadiths of AhlulBayt (pbuh) .

I want to see if his believes are controversial but integral in the shia faith or they form a gnostic offshoot from shia islam .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the upcoming topic nshallah , but here is the main ones : Pantheism , Jaber , and imitating famous gnostics creeds in his poems and others ...

Edited by .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AlHamdulillah! The state of the ummah today.........

Hail the new-age Shi`ah of the Ahl al Bayt (as), rising in defence of and serving the cause of the deviated! And ahhh...........may Allah bless them and be pleased with them.. (ra) (ra) :wub:

Under

the pretext of their work not being in the range of understanding of the common man. 'Tis deep philosophy , man! Way too deep! Not Allah's Words, not the ma`Sumeen (as)'s!

More power to UNITY! Yay ^_^

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History is witness to enough number of Shi`ah-Sufi (whoever these are) philosophers, who denied (and deny?) the concept of an eternal Hell, just because there's no verse saying "they will abide therein forever", unlike the verses for Heaven. Now, I thought Allah said He'd never forgive deliberate shirk?

Likewise, there have been (are?) philosophers who believed that the `adhaab is actually going to taste like reward, sweet and invigorating.

Also, philosophers who do not even believe in a physical Heaven and Hell, just like the many who do not believe in physical resurrection.

Philosophy, a field much abused, could unveil a lot for man, if only people who take to it, would know how to keep to the Ahl al Bayt (as) and steer clear of satanic guiles.

I think this and brother pheonix's answer are enough to end this point .

sister :dry:

W/S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I was reading Imam Khumayni's books and I was surprised that he have so much believes strange to shia islam and that goes directly opposite with the hadiths of AhlulBayt pbuh.gif .

I want to see if his believes are controversial but integral in the shia faith or they form a gnostic offshoot from shia islam .

Well dot this should be interesting. Can you please show your proof that Khomeini's many beliefs go directly opposite with the hadiths of Ahlul bayt (as). In other words please show us the proofs as to how you can conclude that Khomeini believes directly opposite against what Ahlul Bayt (as) have taught in Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlHamdulillah! The state of the ummah today.........

Hail the new-age Shi`ah of the Ahl al Bayt (as), rising in defence of and serving the cause of the deviated! And ahhh...........may Allah bless them and be pleased with them.. (ra) (ra) :wub:

Well amongst the admirers of Ibn Arabi are Allama Tabatabai and Shahid Muttahari...plz read on:

In addition to formal learning, or what the traditional Muslin sources "acquired science" ('ilm-i husuli), Allamah Tabataba’i sought after that "immediate science" (‘ilmi-I-hudari) or gnosis through which knowledge turns into vision of the supernal realities. He was fortunate in finding a great master of Islamic gnosis, Mirza Al-Qadi, who initiated him into the Divine mysteries and guided him in his journey toward spiritual perfection. Allamah Tabataba’i once told me that before meeting Qadi he had studied the Fusus al-hikam of Ibn 'Arabi and thought that he knew it well. When he met this master of real spiritual authority he realised that he knew nothing. He also told me that when Mirza 'Ali Qadi began to teach the Fusus it was as if all the walls of the room were speaking of the reality of gnosis and participating in his exposition. Thanks to this master the years in Najaf became for Allamah Tabataba'i not only a period of intellectual attainment but also one of asceticism and spiritual practices, which enabled him to attain that state of spiritual realisation often referred to as becoming divorced from the darkness of material limitations (tajrid).

source: http://www.ummah.net/khoei/shia/author.htm

This clearly shows the esoteric level of Ibn Arabi's thoughts..Thats the reason Ibn Arabi's works are still taught in Hauze Ilmiya, Qum...

Under the pretext of their work not being in the range of understanding of the common man. 'Tis deep philosophy , man! Way too deep! Not Allah's Words, not the ma`Sumeen (as)'s!

Philosophy is indeed a very deep and confusing branch of knowledge..thats the reason past ulemas discouraged people to study philosophy..even now only those students with excellent wisdom are allowed to study philosophy..one of my friends in Qum who wanted to study phil from a scholar was asked to bring a letter from his principal permitting him to attend philosophical classes..

the mircale of Quran and Hadiths is that they can be understood by a common man to a greatest philisopher and each one will recieve guidance according to his/her "fahm"..

So comparing those two will not logical..

More power to UNITY! Yay ^_^

Ibn Arabi's work is respected due to it's sheer academic excellence not coz of Sunni-Shia unity sake...We shud try to acquire good knowledge from anyone on this earth and shud filter off the bad scum that comes along with it..

Edited by Abbas_Zaidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah) (salam) ,

I think that before even considereing what dear Mr.Dot says to be true, that one actually read the portions of Fusus al-hikam by Ibn Arabi, especially those portions that dear Mr.Dot has criticized Khomeini for:

www.amislam.com/fusus

- (as)

daudtaft

Edited by daudtaft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well amongst the admirers of Ibn Arabi are Allama Tabatabai and Shahid Muttahari...

So?

Philosophy is indeed a very deep and confusing branch of knowledge..thats the reason past ulemas discouraged people to study philosophy..even now only those students with excellent wisdom are allowed to study philosophy..one of my friends in Qum who wanted to study phil from a scholar was asked to bring a letter from his principal permitting him to attend philosophical classes..

Philosophy is deep and confusing, and which did leave many confused. At the Hawzah, you have to obviously have a firm grip on other subjects to be able to take up a subject like Falsafah and then `Irfan. Mantiq, I guess :unsure:

The state of gnosis is not attained by reading ibn A`rabi or any other, but by allowing your soul to move out of the place which is alien to it and to go back to its habitat, to open it to Allah and His signs, His words and the words of His Chosen Ones (which are anyway, His Own). When the efforts are sincere and the longing for Him so desperate, such that to commune with Him becomes your only purpose and goal, the veils are removed and this dunya automatically divorced. This is essential for philosophical learning. It is not that every person cannot understand philosophy because it is such a deep science; rather it is to what lengths a person is willing to go. Certainly you have to proceed gradually, but spiritual awakening is not limited to those who attend the Hawzah, and study a certain class of subjects. Philosophy is USool, USool is philosophy.

However, gnosticism and the realisation of hidden secrets is not just achieved by a Muslim, but by any person who detaches himself from the world and learns to rule over his body (hunger, less sleep etc); the ruH then sees what the body would not allow it to, and gains such powers as not just to witness what belongs to the other realm but also control other people's lives if it so wishes.

the mircale of Quran and Hadiths is that they can be understood by a common man to a greatest philisopher and each one will recieve guidance according to his/her "fahm"..

So comparing those two will not logical..

No.

The Qur'an is not understood by everyone. Its apparent as well as the literal and the metaphorical, is understood by all REASONABLE people, and its concealed is understood by all who study the tafseer/ta'weel/tanzeel. Of course, the level of understanding will be according to the fahm and Hikmah one has, but then Allah increases for the one who is sincere.

Besides, the aHadeeth and ad`eeyah in themselves are the greatest philosophical works after the Qur'an. Philosophy stems from the Qur'an and the traditions/supplications/invocations. Where do you draw the line by saying that the comparison is not logical?

Ibn Arabi's work is respected due to it's sheer academic excellence not coz of Sunni-Shia unity sake...

How did you come to this conclusion that what you have assumed is what I had meant?

We shud try to acquire good knowledge from anyone on this earth and shud filter off the bad scum that comes along with it..

And why are you telling me what I had already told you long back? Do you believe in what you have written over here? 'Cause by your own definition, this too is hypocrisy.

Again!

W/S

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...