Do you think in your view, that the likes of Ibn Arabi and Co. should have just left the transmission of this class of knowledge as it were (oral and murshid to murid) and not make them easily available as it seems to be now? If yes, then how would you factor in those with this specialty knowledge passing away and it not being transmitted to the next generation?
There is no doubt certain knowledge should be classified and not divulge. It would have been appropriate such knowledge remain confine within a circle where those that we share or read it should have the capacity to absorb it without much rigour. The Holy Prophet(sae) do not share some certain knowledge with some of his companions because he knew that is not really "important" for them and he do share some that even the companion deem fit not to be general share at a time so that it can't be misconstrued, a case of declaration of saying Kallimat Sahada guaranteed Paradise in which Umar cautioned that might lead people to laziness comes to mind.
Huthaifah(ra) was single out for certain info that holy prophet (saw) didn't share with others sahabis and he vowed never to divulge it because such is not meant for public. Also, Abu hurairah(ra) said if were to divulge some of the knowledge he would be stoned. So this shows that some certain knowledge is better NOT written down because it will cause more damage than benefit, such is the Ibn Arabi books.
Yes, even Ibn Arabi said so in his Futuhat that what he had penned down was a drop and that no human language could adequately relay one's experiences, states, etc.
I believe Ibn Arabi and Co. were not fairly or kindly dealt with by Ibn Khaldun, because firstly, this type of knowledge wasn't and is still not meant for everyone. I do not believe that these men were trying to make converts or believers of everyone. They were catering to that niche group who could relate to their level and not the entire people.
I sincerely agree with you and what would you expect from somebody who is a area on interest doesn't align with Ibn Arabi and Co. Infact from my deduction Ibn Khaldun is only making a general fatwa on the danger of following books when it come to his third cycle of Muhajadat Kashf. I would have love him to juxtapose his opinion and that of Ibn Arabi on any contensius issue, bring out the evidence where the later is false, but he resulted in fatwa of outright condemnation. And you see the line of arguments normally follows by the sort of scholars is the same, outright rejection of any hadith the orthodox bring in support of their view. But the truth is, they will never understand the true import of such knowledge unless they toe such path. A case of Prophet Musaänd Hardrat Khidr comes to mind. Take also the meeting of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Arabi , the former clearly see the difference in their pursuit of the truth but acknowledge the supperiority of the later.
I believe that Ibn Khaldun was too cerebral, and tried to over-intellectualize a lot of the phenomena... Just as you could have a Wali of Allah break down what LAILLAHA ILALLAH means to one in a 2 volume book based on their experiences and stations and this could leave most people dumbfounded, so also I believe that Ibn Khaldun did not and could not understand the concept of WAHDAT AL WUJUD of Ibn Arabi; because though they are both Muslims under the umbrella of Islam and believe in LA ILLAHA ILALLAH, one understood it even further, in degrees way superseding the level of that time or even of this present time. You're spot on, the inability to relate with such deeper knowledge naturally brings about such resentment. But it is a fact that an intuitive knowledge that come thru Kashf would always superior to rationality, because ilham is a step further just like revelation is superior of all, and the case of Wahy Matlu - Holy Quran no be here, that can't even be compare with any other class of wahy. Such is the gradation of divine truth which I firmly believe in that hirachical order.
Honestly, there is no way the likes of Ibn Arabi could have been ordinary when one looks at the events before his birth and also how he lived his life to the very end!
May Allah bless them all as well as Ibn Khaldun, for I believe that this verse in Surah Al Kahf - Q18:68 played out to the T when one views Ibn Khaldun's stance...he was super brilliant at his professions, but Allah gives knowledge in varying degrees and to whomsoever He likes. [size=12pt You have sum it up with verse of the Holy Quran and I think this where the likes of Ibn Abbas realizes and stop shot of criticism unlike Ibn Khaldun. There must thorough understand of dichotomy in those knowledgeable and there space of usefulness. If ibn Khaldun has limited he criticism on the danger of such spreading without generally condemning it to be destroyed would have been a constructive criticism. But you see who is been spare of later Muslims criticism if not only the Holy Prophet (saw) even the Sahaba are not spare from later day scholars. So I take the views with pinch of salt. [/size]
Lol... I was trying to annotate the way she did, because am not used to it. and I was experimenting it with difference font sizesk not knowing I am spamming the thread big time. I was thinking I was just modifying a single post. It's very annoying seeing it later.
Lol... I was trying to annotate the way she did, because am not used to it. and I was experimenting it with difference font sizesk not knowing I am spamming the thread big time. I was thinking I was just modifying a single post. It's very annoying seeing it later.
Is there way to delete those posts?
yes. You just highlight all the texts and delete them. But type dots ....., Emojis or any phrases before you click on submit button. Otherwise you may have trouble getting it done
Empiree: yes. You just highlight all the texts and delete them. But type dots ....., Emojis or any phrases before you click on submit button. Otherwise you may have trouble getting it done
OK thanks. I have done but still thinks if I can as well delete those dot too.
Thank you for replying and I look forward to reading more of your views on this. Do you believe that there are instances that requires one to have a living Sheikh or it's just not necessary in your view?
Ibn Khaldun didn't really say a Sheik is not needed in it's entirety. This can be observed in his description of the three cycles of mujahada. None of the previous scholars also completely denounced books as a source of spiritual knowledge.He even emphasized that a spiritual master is necessary in the third cycle which is mujahadat Al Kashif. The only issue with Ibn Khaldun is that he had issues with some sheikhs such as Al Arabi, he claimed some of their texts were full of Life and innovations. Ibn Khaldun had an issue with the Wadat Al Wujud concept espoused by Al- Arabi and his cohorts. This was the major sentiment that was carried into his examination of any of their works. Ibn Al- Arabi made some spurious claims which led to his harsh condemnation by Ibn Khaldun , for example he claimed to be the seal of saint hood. His theory of the perfect man seems problematic too, although I don't fully understand it. Ibn Khaldun also had his own issues, he didn't believe in the Mahdi, he claimed all Mahdi hadiths were forged. I believe it's better people know the kind of sheiks they follow. If a sheik follows a controversial doctrine, it's better to revert back to the Quran and Sunnah.
There is no doubt certain knowledge should be classified and not divulge. It would have been appropriate such knowledge remain confine within a circle where those that we share or read it should have the capacity to absorb it without much rigour. The Holy Prophet(sae) do not share some certain knowledge with some of his companions because he knew that is not really "important" for them and he do share some that even the companion deem fit not to be general share at a time so that it can't be misconstrued, a case of declaration of saying Kallimat Sahada guaranteed Paradise in which Umar cautioned that might lead people to laziness comes to mind.
Huthaifah(ra) was single out for certain info that holy prophet (saw) didn't share with others sahabis and he vowed never to divulge it because such is not meant for public. Also, Abu hurairah(ra) said if were to divulge some of the knowledge he would be stoned. So this shows that some certain knowledge is better NOT written down because it will cause more damage than benefit, such is the Ibn Arabi books.
Yes, as with most things, there are the positives and negatives, so with books, there isn't much control on who could lay their hands on such information, thereby misusing them.
Infact from my deduction Ibn Khaldun is only making a general fatwa on the danger of following books when it come to his third cycle of Muhajadat Kashf. I would have love him to juxtapose his opinion and that of Ibn Arabi on any contensius issue, bring out the evidence where the later is false, but he resulted in fatwa of outright condemnation. And you see the line of arguments normally follows by the sort of scholars is the same, outright rejection of any hadith the orthodox bring in support of their view. But the truth is, they will never understand the true import of such knowledge unless they toe such path. A case of Prophet Musaänd Hardrat Khidr comes to mind. Take also the meeting of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Arabi , the former clearly see the difference in their pursuit of the truth but acknowledge the supperiority of the later.
That's what I sought too, and I felt he swayed more towards some form of confirmation bias and never suggested any sound alternatives to his proposed fatwas and astringent condemnation of those personalities. Had he proposed alternatives, then that would have been better. But just as you stated, one who has not towed such path can't understand the import of such knowledge.
...the inability to relate with such deeper knowledge naturally brings about such resentment. But it is a fact that an intuitive knowledge that come thru Kashf would always superior to rationality, because ilham is a step further just like revelation is superior of all, and the case of Wahy Matlu - Holy Quran no be here, that can't even be compare with any other class of wahy. Such is the gradation of divine truth which I firmly believe in that hirachical order.
...the likes of Ibn Abbas realizes and stop shot of criticism unlike Ibn Khaldun. There must thorough understand of dichotomy in those knowledgeable and there space of usefulness. If ibn Khaldun has limited he criticism on the danger of such spreading without generally condemning it to be destroyed would have been a constructive criticism. But you see who is been spare of later Muslims criticism if not only the Holy Prophet (saw) even the Sahaba are not spare from later day scholars. So I take the views with pinch of salt.
Ibn Khaldun didn't really say a Sheik is not needed in it's entirety. This can be observed in his description of the three cycles of mujahada. None of the previous scholars also completely denounced books as a source of spiritual knowledge.He even emphasized that a spiritual master is necessary in the third cycle which is mujahadat Al Kashif. The only issue with Ibn Khaldun is that he had issues with some sheikhs such as Al Arabi, he claimed some of their texts were full of Life and innovations. Ibn Khaldun had an issue with the Wadat Al Wujud concept espoused by Al- Arabi and his cohorts. This was the major sentiment that was carried into his examination of any of their works.
Ibn Al- Arabi made some spurious claims which led to his harsh condemnation by Ibn Khaldun , for example he claimed to be the seal of saint hood.
Yes, one could argue the "contentious" nature of such a bold stance, but the question remains that who, over the centuries, has come close to the profundity of his kind and degree of knowledge?
His theory of the perfect man seems problematic too, although I don't fully understand it.
Insan Al Kamil is an honorific for RasulAllah (S.A.W.) that has its offshoot from Surah Al Ahzab, Q33.21; where Allah eternally placed him on a pedestal as a poster of perfection for all who aspire nearness to Him, remember Him very much as well as look forward to the last day. Insan Al Kamil as a concept - briefly - is the one who has successfully achieved self-realization, self-conquest, a perfectly polished mirror that reflects the Tajalli of Allah's divine names and attributes and is a true bridge (isthmus) between heaven and earth.
Ibn Khaldun also had his own issues, he didn't believe in the Mahdi, he claimed all Mahdi hadiths were forged.
...and that is why I believe that he not having realized/lived the path through any means or Tariqah in order to critique those personalities, came in heavily biased...a huge departure from Al Ghazali with the philosophers... Ibn Khaldun did not also believe in the concept of a Qutb (pole) as he was completely dismissive of it, attributing it and such other concepts as the creations of "simpletons" and "idiots" who are devoted to Sufism.
I believe it's better people know the kind of sheiks they follow. If a sheik follows a controversial doctrine, it's better to revert back to the Quran and Sunnah.
Yes, yes, and yes! As has been enumerated quite a couple of times on this thread by Shaikh Empiree, LadunaI, Ikupakuti, and a host of others, one needs to have a firm foundation and grasp of Fiqh (Jurisprudence) before anything else.
Empiree: PERMISSIBILITY OF SENDING ANY SALAWAT UPON HOLY PROPHET( SAW).
A friend wrote this and I think it is very important for every student who always seeks knowledge with references. I enjoin you all to read this research work with a sincere and critical mind.
OTHER SALAWAAT ASIDE IBRAHIMIYYAH, ANYTHING WRONG?
.BismiLahir Rahmaanir Raheem.
" ﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺍﻣﺮﺉ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻮﻯ "
My argument on ACCEPTANCE OF ANY SALAAH (Sala ala nabiy) in Islaam is not in favour of anyone or group. I hope this is clear to those who have read my past commentaries. All I have said was not an ordinary wordcraft of mine, but the sayings of Salaf Scholars of which no one can ever beat down their views except by vibrant calls of knowledge. In Islaam , Allah has blessed us with Scholars - 'Ulamaa' who have knowledge of what Allaah says and what His prophet says. Alhamdullaahi, they are practising it. We derive this wisdom from the hadeeth. Prophet gave us a hint on this Rahmat so that we will know that we can gain from their scholarly stated words and their views are welcomed in this deen.
"...the best knower of Halaal and Haram on my umma is Mu'aaz bn Jabal, & The best reciter of Al-Qur'an is Ubayy bn Ka'b, & the best knower of Law of inheritance is Zaydu...." Does the case of Mu'aaz in the hadeeth mean we follow him in Haram and halaal?? So, know that you can't be self-dependant in the knowledge of this deen and we can emulate scholars in their GOOD sayings and deeds. If not, we don't need Tafseer; we dont need Hadeeth explanatory books.What is ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻉ meant for?
The Issue Asalatu for the prophet by other expression is a subject matterof Ibaadat in jurisprudence ( way of worship) not 'aqeedat ( Islamic ideaology). By this, you can never say that any other asalatu , except Ibrahimiyyat is a way to hell. For (by that statement ) you have legislated without a single verse from any of shari'ah source and that is a great sin.
Allaah says:
"And, for your tongues describe, do not utter lie, (saying) This is lawful and this is unlawful, in order to forge a lie against Allah; surely those who forge the lie against Allah shall not prosper" {AN-NAHAL 116}.
Many people claim that Asalatu by other expression was alien to any of Sohabat or Ulamaa because none of them in the best 3 centuries did so. I will just urge us all generally (including me) that before we can say anything in Islam , we need some apparatus in knowledge. The worse part is that : we dont have it yet, we just deny the sayings of those who have it such as our scholars that I quoted ever before.
Imama Shaafi'ee (Died 204 AH), in his book Ar-Risaalat, Page 90 {Daarul Aqeedat publisher} writes :
This is neither Solatul faatih nor Ibrahimiyyat. Is Imam Shaafi'ee not a salaf? Is he not in the first 3 centuries? Does that mean he will go to hell? Has that meant he didn't follow the prophet?
I am looking for Ikupakuti's post where he talked about Balkis (wife of nabi Sulaimon) being half human/half Jinn. This alfa seems to disagree with that but upon listening to him further it looks like they are actually saying the same thing.
I am looking for Ikupakuti's post where he talked about Balkis (wife of nabi Sulaimon) being half human/half Jinn. This alfa seems to disagree with that but upon listening to him further it looks like they are actually saying the same thing.
I was carried away for few mins staring at my screen when I was page 145 (last page) with ikupakuti's comment but showing 2017 and the last comment (showing recent post). Took me a while to figure out it is attachment. I thought ikupakuti returned to leave the comment lol
Empiree: I was carried away for few mins staring at my screen when I was page 145 (last page) with ikupakuti's comment but showing 2017 and the last comment (showing recent post). Took me a while to figure out it is attachment. I thought ikupakuti returned to leave the comment lol
Sheikh Isa Akin dele narrated his experience during Ruqya on a lady who has not given birth but she already looks like "adelebo". During Ruqya, a male Jinn inside her claimed the lady is his wife and that she already has 4 kids for him. While Sheikh is talking to the Jinn the lady's breast started shaking up and down. Sheikh asked what's that?. Jinn said her babies are breastfeeding that's why her breast dropped like adelebo. Sheikh Akindele said this is a new experience for him.
But the clause here is that the babies are Jinn. Their "mother" doesn't see them. That's, she doesn't have kids physically in this planet earth. The reason she came for Ruqya was because men picked her and dumped her. Obviously this is due to the Jinn (oko oru). This is why I'm not sure of Balkis being half human/Jinn.
Salam Alaikum and Jumma Mubarak, Alhajiemeritus and Everyone.
@ Alhajiemeritus, could you please expand further on this, please? No doubt, this is a contentious topic but it would be very beneficial to learn from others' point of view/reasons.
Empiree: Sheikh Isa Akin dele narrated his experience during Ruqya on a lady who has not given birth but she already looks like "adelebo". During Ruqya, a male Jinn inside her claimed the lady is his wife and that she already has 4 kids for him. While Sheikh is talking to the Jinn the lady's breast started shaking up and down. Sheikh asked what's that?. Jinn said her babies are breastfeeding that's why her breast dropped like adelebo. Sheikh Akindele said this is a new experience for him.
But the clause here is that the babies are Jinn. Their "mother" doesn't see them. That's, she doesn't have kids physically in this planet earth. The reason she came for Ruqya was because men picked her and dumped her. Obviously this is due to the Jinn (oko oru). This is why I'm not sure of Balkis being half human/Jinn.
To somewhat buttress on this phenomenon/point: I personally know of a lady who never goes broke because of the jinn husband. He provides her with money whenever she's broke. He promised to be there for her every wants and needs, provided she doesn't "cheat" on him by marrying a human man, but later down the line, he modified it to be that: she can date other men but no marriage. then to she can marry but he will always have to partake in their sexual intercourse! She is very aware of his presence in her life and is not afraid because according to her, he has been in her family for a very long time and he takes care of her wants and needs!
Family members who tried ruqyah on her some time back were seriously dealt with by this her "husband".
As of now, she said she's not interested in letting him go because he provides all she wants/needs! She does date human men but within her, she knows it is heading nowhere!
To somewhat buttress on this phenomenon/point: I personally know of a lady who never goes broke because of the jinn husband. He provides her with money whenever she's broke. He promised to be there for her every wants and needs, provided she doesn't "cheat" on him by marrying a human man, but later down the line, he modified it to be that: she can date other men but no marriage. then to she can marry but he will always have to partake in their sexual intercourse! She is very aware of his presence in her life and is not afraid because according to her, he has been in her family for a very long time and he takes care of her wants and needs!
Family members who tried ruqyah on her some time back were seriously dealt with by this her "husband".
As of now, she said she's not interested in letting him go because he provides all she wants/needs! She does date human men but within her, she knows it is heading nowhere!
wow. Subhanallah.
In as much she's not interested in marriage with human man I think there is little family can do. She had physical kids?.
Salam Alaikum and Jumma Mubarak, Alhajiemeritus and Everyone.
@ Alhajiemeritus, could you please expand further on this, please? No doubt, this is a contentious topic but it would be very beneficial to learn from others' point of view/reasons.
Thank you.
Wa alaykum Salam wa rahama. Jinns can have sex with humans (males or females) but it can not lead to pregnancy because of our genetic incompatibility. Fertilization only takes place when it involves 2 highly similar species. Since we are highly dissimilar with djinns, fertilization can not take place even when there is sex involved. Allahu Alam.
I wish so too!