DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**antipenq** · 10-20-2011, 03:44 AM

My understanding is that both We (deobandis) and Salafis are correct in our views.

1) We say that whatever Ibn Arabi (RA) said was in a state of jazb OR it has different meanings than what is apparent.

2) Salafis go by his apparent meanings and say he was a mushrik.

I think both will be accepted by Allah.

Simple.

Assalam O Alaikum wr wb

1.If a Hindu claims that Adi Shankara (a Wahdat ul wujoodi mythologist of Hindu tradition) was a monotheist in his heart but he was in the state of 'Jazb' while he was presenting his arguments for pantheism , what will you tell him?

2.Any text can be interpreted in any way in the light of subjective thoughts and preconceived notions if one stops taking the apparent meanings. (As Iqbal says that whenever you see a person starts doing esoteric interpretation of some texts,rest assured that he does not want to understand it or act on it)

3.Sharia has to deal with the Dhahir and a Hukam applies to the Dhahiri state. A faqih never deals with the internal state of the object (may be because even logically it will be a violation of Occam's Razor) while giving a fatwa.

4.So whoever did his Takfeer was perfectly justified in doing so.

10-20-2011, 03:44 AM	#12
antipenq Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 394 Senior Member	My understanding is that both We (deobandis) and Salafis are correct in our views. 1) We say that whatever Ibn Arabi (RA) said was in a state of jazb OR it has different meanings than what is apparent. 2) Salafis go by his apparent meanings and say he was a mushrik. I think both will be accepted by Allah. Simple. Assalam O Alaikum wr wb 1.If a Hindu claims that Adi Shankara (a Wahdat ul wujoodi mythologist of Hindu tradition) was a monotheist in his heart but he was in the state of 'Jazb' while he was presenting his arguments for pantheism , what will you tell him? 2.Any text can be interpreted in any way in the light of subjective thoughts and preconceived notions if one stops taking the apparent meanings. (As Iqbal says that whenever you see a person starts doing esoteric interpretation of some texts,rest assured that he does not want to understand it or act on it) 3.Sharia has to deal with the Dhahir and a Hukam applies to the Dhahiri state. A faqih never deals with the internal state of the object (may be because even logically it will be a violation of Occam's Razor) while giving a fatwa. 4.So whoever did his Takfeer was perfectly justified in doing so.
	Quote