Comments on: Ibn `Arabi’s Classifications of Tawhîd http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/ Religion, Politics, Hellenic and Semitic Philology, Archaeology and other random "stuff"... Sun, 22 Mar 2009 04:52:15 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: philomantis http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-219 philomantis Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:54:08 +0000 http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-219 Nuqtah, sorry I appear to have missed the comment of yours. I'd recommend you do neither, but rather read up on this <i>mas'alat al-fiqhîyyah</i> in the greatest detail possible :) Nuqtah, sorry I appear to have missed the comment of yours. I’d recommend you do neither, but rather read up on this mas’alat al-fiqhîyyah in the greatest detail possible :)

]]> By: abu nibras http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-211 abu nibras Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:54:27 +0000 http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-211 On classification of Tawhid http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=2439& On classification of Tawhid

http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=2439&amp;

]]> By: nuqtah http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-107 nuqtah Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:42:47 +0000 http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-107 akhi this may be slightly off-topic, but how do we make the 'above-mentioned' tawassul? do we say 'o prophet ask Allah to do such and such' or is it 'o Allah, I ask you by the right of your nabi'? akhi this may be slightly off-topic, but how do we make the ‘above-mentioned’ tawassul?

do we say ‘o prophet ask Allah to do such and such’

or is it ‘o Allah, I ask you by the right of your nabi’?

]]> By: philomantis http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-106 philomantis Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:22:48 +0000 http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-106 Shakeeb, what you say is not entirely accurate. While Ibn Taymîyyah did consider Tawassul through the dead pious ones an act transgressing the principles of <i>Tawhîd</i> he did not cast the people who do <i>Tawassul</i> through the Prophet (<i>sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam</i>) from the fold of Islam. I know you didn't say this explicitly, but it could be inferred from your comment and it is a common misunderstanding today. Please refer to the following from his <i>Majmû` Fatâwa</i>: ولم يقل أحد‏:‏ إن من قال بالقول الأول فقد كفر، ولا وجه لتكفيره، فإن هذه مسألة خفية، ليست أدلتها جلية ظاهرة، والكفر إنما يكون بإنكار ما علم من الدين ضرورة، أو بإنكار الأحكام المتواترة والمجمع عليها، ونحو ذلك‏.‏ واختلاف الناس فيما يشرع من الدعاء وما لا يشرع، "And no one says, 'He who says by this first statement* has committed <i>kufr</i>'. This is not a reason for <i>takfîr</i> upon such a one. For this matter is one of obscurity. It is not evidently clear. <i>Kufr</i> is rejection of knowledge which is necessary in religion, or rejection of the widely transmitted (<i>mutawâtir</i>) laws, or the joining of both, and the like. The people have differed regarding what is legislated in <i>du`â'</i> and what has not been legislated." * The "First statement" he refers to is the <i>du`â'</i> in at-Tirmithî's and Nasâ'î's Sunans: <b> اللّهم أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد، يا محمد، إني أتَشَفَّع بك في ردّ بَصَرى‏.‏ اللّهم شَفِّع نبيك في‏</b> "O Allâh, I ask of you and turn to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad. <b>O Muhammad, I seek your intercession in returning my sight.</b> O Allâh, may your Prophet intercede for me." So a big problem in our times is the tendency to make <i>takfîr</i> on such people, whereas, those making the <i>takfîr</i> don't even understand the very evidence they are using to substantiate that. One must also be reminded that Ibn Qudâmah who was greatly admired by Ibn Taymîyyah has implicitly encouraged making Tawassul at the grave of the Prophet (<i>sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam</i>) based on the story of `Utbî and the Bedouin. This is found in the chapter <i>Kitâb al-Hajj</i> in <i>al-Mughnî</i>. Shakeeb, what you say is not entirely accurate. While Ibn Taymîyyah did consider Tawassul through the dead pious ones an act transgressing the principles of Tawhîd he did not cast the people who do Tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) from the fold of Islam. I know you didn’t say this explicitly, but it could be inferred from your comment and it is a common misunderstanding today. Please refer to the following from his Majmû` Fatâwa:

ولم يقل أحد‏:‏ إن من قال بالقول الأول فقد كفر، ولا وجه لتكفيره، فإن هذه مسألة خفية، ليست أدلتها جلية ظاهرة، والكفر إنما يكون بإنكار ما علم من الدين ضرورة، أو بإنكار الأحكام المتواترة والمجمع عليها، ونحو ذلك‏.‏ واختلاف الناس فيما يشرع من الدعاء وما لا يشرع،

“And no one says, ‘He who says by this first statement* has committed kufr‘. This is not a reason for takfîr upon such a one. For this matter is one of obscurity. It is not evidently clear. Kufr is rejection of knowledge which is necessary in religion, or rejection of the widely transmitted (mutawâtir) laws, or the joining of both, and the like. The people have differed regarding what is legislated in du`â’ and what has not been legislated.”

* The “First statement” he refers to is the du`â’ in at-Tirmithî’s and Nasâ’î’s Sunans:

اللّهم أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد، يا محمد، إني أتَشَفَّع بك في ردّ بَصَرى‏.‏ اللّهم شَفِّع نبيك في‏

“O Allâh, I ask of you and turn to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad. O Muhammad, I seek your intercession in returning my sight. O Allâh, may your Prophet intercede for me.”

So a big problem in our times is the tendency to make takfîr on such people, whereas, those making the takfîr don’t even understand the very evidence they are using to substantiate that.

One must also be reminded that Ibn Qudâmah who was greatly admired by Ibn Taymîyyah has implicitly encouraged making Tawassul at the grave of the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) based on the story of `Utbî and the Bedouin. This is found in the chapter Kitâb al-Hajj in al-Mughnî.

]]> By: Shakeeb http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-105 Shakeeb Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:29:23 +0000 http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-105 The controversial topic is, Ibn Taymiyya considers those who invoke the dead( eg: Ya X Madad)as mushriks because according to him , its shirk in Uloohiyya because Du'a here is worship and this intercession according to him is the intercession of the pagan arabs. According to IT the pagans believed in rububiyya (If they are asked who created the heaven and the earth .....) but worshiped other than him to draw closer to him by seeking their intercession. So the reason the categorization is attacked is because those who attack permit this kind of intercession and do not hold it to be shirk.Those who attack the categorization also hold that the pagans did not believe that Allah created the heavens and the earth. The controversial topic is, Ibn Taymiyya considers those who invoke the dead( eg: Ya X Madad)as mushriks because according to him , its shirk in Uloohiyya because Du’a here is worship and this intercession according to him is the intercession of the pagan arabs.
According to IT the pagans believed in rububiyya (If they are asked who created the heaven and the earth …..) but worshiped other than him to draw closer to him by seeking their intercession.

So the reason the categorization is attacked is because those who attack permit this kind of intercession and do not hold it to be shirk.Those who attack the categorization also hold that the pagans did not believe that Allah created the heavens and the earth.

]]> By: nuqtah http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-100 nuqtah Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:15:25 +0000 http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-100 http://www.marifah.net/articles/divisionoftawhid-ahmadaldijwi.pdf ahh sidi fulaan! seems like this is an attack on ibn T's 'categorization' and the 'miscreants'. BUT I fail to see how his understading is any different from that of Ibn 'Arabi. http://www.marifah.net/articles/divisionoftawhid-ahmadaldijwi.pdf

ahh sidi fulaan! seems like this is an attack on ibn T’s ‘categorization’ and the ‘miscreants’.

BUT

I fail to see how his understading is any different from that of Ibn ‘Arabi.

]]> By: fulan http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-99 fulan Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:30:01 +0000 http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-99 to the poster above, it is not the triple categorisation per se which people have a problem with even the early sufi Abu Sa`id ibn Abi Khayr said: “tasawwuf is setting the soul in slavery to Allah (uluhiyya), attachment of the heart to the one true Lord (rububiyyah), and gazing upon Allah with entirety.” the problem is that some miscreants use this categorisation of Ibn T to attack others and label them mushriks..... and Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala knows best to the poster above, it is not the triple categorisation per se which people have a problem with

even the early sufi Abu Sa`id ibn Abi Khayr said:

“tasawwuf is setting the soul in slavery to Allah (uluhiyya), attachment of the heart to the one true Lord (rububiyyah), and gazing upon Allah with entirety.”

the problem is that some miscreants use this categorisation of Ibn T to attack others and label them mushriks…..

and Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala knows best

]]> By: nuqtah http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-49 nuqtah Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:30:56 +0000 http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/#comment-49 lol i've seen some really vitrolic articles bashing ibn tayimiah for his categorization. I wonder what their authors have to say about this? lol i’ve seen some really vitrolic articles bashing ibn tayimiah for his categorization. I wonder what their authors have to say about this?

]]>