PSA for people in #Hyderabad. This place "Ali Forex" is run by a bunch of crooks and liars. They not only have the worst currency exchange rates, they also disrespect you and talk to you like you're their "baap ka naukar". Make this place famous.
Ḥāmid retweeted
You guys may know how heavily I dislike writing complete refutations - which are a waste of time most often because if the opponent can't grasp 1 critique why would he 10?
But at the same time if you don't remind an idiot that he is an idiot, other idiots may think that the first is smart so there we are; I'll go over every stupidity of al Najjar:
- First part is mostly correct. Except the last paragraph which is stupid beyond repair:
"Thus, the distinction between Allah's creation and the servant's acquisition does not establish any actual causal influence for the servant's power or will."
Why would the distinction between the two establish efficiency for the servant? That'd be the opposite of what is aimed at but worse - it'd just mean they are the same... so there wouldn't be a difference...
I can't fathom what was even attempted here.
- Worry not dear reader, far more nonsense will be present in the 2nd part, starting with:
"The difficulty with the Ashʿarī doctrine becomes apparent when the servant's power is denied any influence over the action attributed to the servant."
The difficulty with the ash'ari doctrine become apparent with... what the ash'ari doctrine postulates to begin with.
Amazing.
He then quotes 2 statements from ar Razi [poorly translated, we'll come back to that in a minute]:
"These admissions demonstrate the difficulty of affirming genuine ikhtiyār (choice) while maintaining that the servant's qudrah (power) and irādah (will) have no effect upon the action."
The 1st statement in arabic is as follows:
"فالإنسان مضطر في صورة مختار"
That he translated as:
"The human being is compelled while appearing to possess choice."
Small issue, while the first part is fine, why does he translate it as "appearing to possess choice" instead of "appearing [in the image of] as a choser"?
Because it serves his purpose. Ar Razi doesn't say we don't have a choice. He says that our choice is not useful, that our choice would always have been the same, but it's still a choice made by us - unlike what al Najjar tries to make him say.
The second text is clearer even since he states "compelled *in his choice*" -> so there's a choice.
Thus his claim that there's somewhat of a difficulty in affirming choice... waffling and inability to grasp arabic are the sole explanations as to why he assumed that.
He then quotes:
"... kasb is a name without anything corresponding to it."
The arabic is:
أن الكسب اسم بلا مسمى
A name without a named* [corresponding to it].
Wildly different, since then ar Razi is talking about kasb being an i'tibari without an extramental referent, whereas the majnun think this means:
"The fundamental objection is that naming the servant an acquirer does not explain how the servant exercises genuine choice when the servant's power contributes nothing to the occurrence of the action."
... ya Allah.
- 3rd part:
"The Ashʿarīs attempt to distinguish between Allah's creation of an action and the servant's acquisition of that same action by describing it as occurring under two different aspects of power."
... what is he even saying. His first part already showed that the distinction is in causal efficiency - that's it.
Nobody is trying to establish a distinction by talking about 2 qudrah. It's just an explanation.
His inability to comprehend goes further as he states:
"However, this explanation may be consistent with the Māturīdī position rather than the original Ashʿarī doctrine, because it appears to give the servant's power and will an actual role in bringing about the action."
Glad to see he knows it's an explanation. But he thinks that al Taftazani's statements "appear to give the servant power and will and actual role" [he just means they are causally efficient to some degree].
Well let's go back to what he said:
"The servant directing his power and will towards an action is acquisition, whereas Allah bringing that action into existence afterwards is creation."
Kasb is just a relation between the sifaat of the servant and a potential action, granting existence [wait... ain't that causal efficiency??????] is Allah's.
Shockingly [not], he does not ascribe causal efficiency to creatures. Meaning al Najjar does not reread himself or even think about what he is writing when it's literally right above and he just copied it. Glorious.
The sole reason he is confused is because they say that the matter is under 2 qudrah... even though they explain what the 2 qudrah are. But because the miskin thinks in terms of alfadh and not ma'ani [so qudrah = causal efficiency even when they literally state that's not the case here], he is confused and thinks they made a mistake.
He goes on and on:
"The difficulty is that the servant's power remains entirely without influence. Describing the action as occurring under two powers does not establish genuine participation when only one of those powers produces any effect."
Again with "the difficulty is the belief itself"... and why is he assuming that why we describe the action as falling under 2 power is because we want to posit a "genuine participation"? We don't, they literally make that clear by defining the terms!
This guy just quotes something to ignore it right after...
- 4th part, he apparently doesn't care about anything anymore. He's not even attempting to make the quotes relevant at this point:
"This explanation still fails to establish how the servant actually produces an action. A connection between power and action does not necessarily mean that the power influences the action."
The quote above is supposed to be talking about a failure in the definition of kasb... like how is that quote related? Not only is it not related, but it again assumes that we want to prove something that is the very opposite of our belief to begin with: Allah is the sole efficient cause.
It's the second time he asks this like a question: "but how are they going to prove that the creature is causally efficient in a sense"? Like does this idiot not understand what the whole purpose of occasionalism is to NOT ATTRIBUTE CAUSAL EFFICIENCY TO OTHER THAN ALLAH?
Ya Allah how can anyone write a refutation but he doesn't even grasp what he is refuting when it's one, if not the least complex postulation we have.
If he had kept to the topic of the part, then yes defining kasb may have some degree of complexity and indeed it may refer to 2 things... but then he should stick to that topic.
Then comes [finally] an argument on his part:
"If Allah creates both the action and the servant's will without the servant possessing any effective power, the apparent choice does not establish genuine ikhtiyār (choice)."
Now what he means by "genuine ikhtiyar" is unknown because he can't be bothered to define anything. I'll just assume he means causally efficient iradah.
And no shit it doesn't. That's again the opposite of what we want to prove so thanks for confirming we're doing great.
If he actually just meant "iradah" simpliciter... then what even is the relation between the two? This is just a hidden begging the question.
-Part 5:
"However, this distinction remains insufficient if the servant's power and will possess no actual taʾthīr (causal influence)."
The distinction he is talking about is between voluntary and involuntary actions.
All he is saying is: "your distinction doesn't work because you're wrong".
And the proof of that is...?
"The mere presence of power and will alongside an action cannot establish that the servant genuinely brings about the action."
BUT WE KEEP TELLING YOU THE SERVANT ISN'T THE ONE TO BRING THE ACTION YOU USELESS ****.
His entire argumentation is "you can't say that because the servant must be causally efficient to say that"... begging the question.
He ends the part saying:
"Therefore, distinguishing voluntary actions from involuntary actions does not remove the underlying difficulty of jabr (compulsion)."
It's not a difficulty, and jabr is not merely compulsion, it's compulsion in the absence of choice [which is also why he waffled in the 2nd part].
- Part 6, he states:
"However, the Qur'an affirms that Allah creates effects through the causes He has established."
Cool. Let us see Allah saying what he claimed: "Allah creates effects through [he means that the creature is causally efficient] the cause He has established:
1: "And We have sent down blessed water from the sky and caused gardens and grain to grow thereby."
Allah sends the water
Allah causes gardens and grain to grow
Correlation: Allah causes and gardens and grain to grow when he sends water down.
No mention of water being causally effective. No mention of the relation being one of causation rather than correlation.
Non-existent proof.
2: "Allah also describes sending winds, bringing down rain, and giving life to dead land through that water."
Same. What he has to do is prove that there is causation rather than correlation. Not just claim that.
But do not worry, the stupidity of al Najjar is not over as he already adressed my objection...:
"This interpretation is rejected because the Qur'an affirms that Allah brings about effects through created causes, while remaining their ultimate Creator."
... by falling right into begging the question once again. Amazing consistency I'll admit.
He then says:
"Furthermore, affirming that causes possess real effects does not require believing that they operate independently of Allah. Created causes may be incomplete, requiring additional conditions and the absence of obstacles. Allah can also prevent a cause from producing its usual effect."
Not only is it irrelevant, but it's also wrong and quite evidently so. Causal efficiency is nothing more than the granting of existence. Not only can 1 effect not be granted existence twice [can't make something existent become existent... because it already exists...], it can't be granted existence by 2 things since existence is a singular matter [can't grant half an existence, that means nothing]. So that leaves 1 cause / effect, so his defense is nonsense thrown just for the foolish ones.
- Part 7:
I'll have to quote a long passage because it's too funny:
"The meaning of the expression "what you do" depends upon the grammatical interpretation of the original Arabic.
If understood as referring to the actions themselves, it affirms that Allah creates human actions.
However, it may also refer to the objects produced by human actions, particularly the idols being carved and worshipped. This interpretation agrees with the context of the preceding verses concerning the objects that people worship. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān fī Taʾwīl al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 21/66)"
Did... he just admit admit that the action may refer to itself or the effect? Just like the jahmiyyah [us supposedly] 🤣
So long for proving us wrong.
Also we actually use this verse in the second meaning as actions in the purest sense are non-existent [relations] according to us...
But he goes on to say:
"Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) explained that even when the verse is understood as affirming Allah's creation of human actions, it does not contradict the servant's genuine participation in those actions.
Allah creates the servant and the servant's ABILITY to act. Therefore, affirming that Allah creates human actions does not require denying that humans act through the powers He has given them."
This is necessarily invalid because the created human action here, whether it refers to the specific act or the effect, neither are granted existence by Allah... the first is granted existence by an attribute which was granted existence by Allah but that justifies nothing. Nobody says "My grandmother gave birth to me" because she gave birth to my mother. The second is granted existence by the first, and that's worse.
He states:
"Likewise, the Qur'an affirms that Allah is the Creator of everything, without requiring that created beings have no actions or effects of their own."
He has yet to provide any statement that asha'irah reject creatures having actions or effects of their own... because that's simply does not exist except in causal terms.
Then he utters something whose comprehension is actual kufr based on what he's been saying all the time:
"The Qur'an even attributes khalq (creating or forming) to ʿĪsā عليه السلام when describing the formation of a bird from clay by Allah's permission"
Yes the qur'an attributes khalq to 'Issa(a.s). Does it attribute efficiency to him?
وَإِذۡ تَخۡلُقُ مِنَ ٱلطِّينِ كَهَيۡـَٔةِ ٱلطَّيۡرِ بِإِذۡنِي فَتَنفُخُ فِيهَا فَتَكُونُ طَيۡرَۢا بِإِذۡنِيۖ
Allah repeats twice - His will, not 'Issa(a.s.)'s will. His, Allah's.
This zindiq already makes it clear that he has an issue with causal efficiency both in terms of qudrah and iradah - so what he means by mentioning this verse against us is quite evident: 'Issa(a.s.)'s willed and created life. Actually. Not a correlation, actually creating life.
Not different than some christian heretics who believe the son is subordinate to the father, or actually some mushrikin who do istighatha do actually believe, he believes the same!
So much for all the waffling in that matter too!
As for the last part, it's wholly irrelevant since he does not define jabr as a doctrine to begin with, only gives the lexicon definition.
The Ashʿarī Doctrine of Kasb (Acquisition) and Aḥmad ʿIṣām al Najjār's Refutation
The Ashʿarī Belief That Humans Have No Control Over Their Actions
The Ashʿarīs believe that Allah alone creates human actions, while the servant's qudrah (power) and irādah (will) possess no actual influence in bringing those actions into existence. Instead, Allah creates both the action and the servant's power associated with it.
Al Rāzī (d. 606 AH) said the position of Abū al Ḥasan al Ashʿarī (d. 324 AH), stating: "According to his position, the servant's power has no influence whatsoever over his actions or any aspect of them.
Rather, Allah alone creates the action and also creates within the servant a power connected to it. However, this power plays no part in bringing the action into existence. This is the position of Abū al Ḥasan al Ashʿarī." (Al Arbaʿīn fī Uṣūl al Dīn, al Rāzī, 1/319)
Accordingly, the servant does not actually produce the action through personal power or will. Rather, the action is created entirely by Allah, while the servant's qudrah (power) merely accompanies it without causing it.
The Ashʿarīs refer to this relationship as kasb (acquisition), distinguishing between Allah as the Khāliq (Creator) of the action and the servant as its kāsib (acquirer).
Al Jurjānī (d. 816 AH) said: "The voluntary actions of servants occur through the power of Allah, the Exalted, alone, and their power has no influence upon them.
Rather, Allah has established the customary occurrence of power and choice in the servant. When there is no obstacle, He brings about the action alongside them, so the servant's action is created by Allah and acquired by the servant." (Sharḥ al Mawāqif, al Jurjānī, 8/145)
Thus, the distinction between Allah's creation and the servant's acquisition does not establish any actual causal influence for the servant's power or will.
Al Rāzī's Admission That Kasb (Acquisition) Leads to Jabr (Compulsion)
The difficulty with the Ashʿarī doctrine becomes apparent when the servant's power is denied any influence over the action attributed to the servant.
Al Rāzī (d. 606 AH) acknowledged this consequence, stating: "The human being is compelled while appearing to possess choice." (Al Maṭālib al ʿĀliyah, al Rāzī, 3/60)
He further declared: "It is established that the actions of servants occur through the decree and determination of Allah, the Exalted, that the human being is compelled in his choice, and that nothing exists except compulsion." (Al Mabāḥith al Mashriqiyyah, al Rāzī, 2/544)
These admissions demonstrate the difficulty of affirming genuine ikhtiyār (choice) while maintaining that the servant's qudrah (power) and irādah (will) have no effect upon the action.
Consequently, al Rāzī concluded: "Upon this examination, it becomes apparent that kasb (acquisition) is a name without anything corresponding to it." (Muḥaṣṣal Afkār al Mutaqaddimīn, al Rāzī, p. 199)
The fundamental objection is that naming the servant an acquirer does not explain how the servant exercises genuine choice when the servant's power contributes nothing to the occurrence of the action.
The Attempt to Distinguish Between Allah's Creation and the Servant's Acquisition
The Ashʿarīs attempt to distinguish between Allah's creation of an action and the servant's acquisition of that same action by describing it as occurring under two different aspects of power.
Al Taftāzānī (d. 792 AH) explained: "The servant directing his power and will towards an action is acquisition, whereas Allah bringing that action into existence afterwards is creation.
Thus, one action falls under two powers in two different respects: under Allah's power in respect of creation, and under the servant's power in respect of acquisition." (Sharḥ al ʿAqāʾid al Nasafiyyah, al Taftāzānī, p. 287)
However, this explanation may be consistent with the Māturīdī position rather than the original Ashʿarī doctrine, because it appears to give the servant's power and will an actual role in bringing about the action.
Al Bājūrī (d. 1276 AH) likewise maintained that the same action falls under Allah's power through khalq (creation) and under the servant's power through kasb (acquisition), even though Allah alone independently creates the action. (Tuḥfat al Murīd ʿalā Jawharat al Tawḥīd, al Bājūrī, p. 175)
The difficulty is that the servant's power remains entirely without influence. Describing the action as occurring under two powers does not establish genuine participation when only one of those powers produces any effect.
The Failure to Establish a Meaningful Definition of Kasb (Acquisition)
Al Bājūrī (d. 1276 AH) explained that kasb (acquisition) may refer to the connection between the servant's created power and the action, or alternatively to the servant's created will.
He further explained that this connection is not itself created when understood merely as an iʿtibārī (conceptual) relationship. However, when acquisition is understood as the servant's created will, it is itself created by Allah. (Tuḥfat al Murīd ʿalā Jawharat al Tawḥīd, al Bājūrī, p. 176)
This explanation still fails to establish how the servant actually produces an action. A connection between power and action does not necessarily mean that the power influences the action.
Al Bājūrī consequently acknowledged: "In summary, the servant has no influence upon anything. Thus, he is compelled inwardly while appearing to possess choice outwardly." (Tuḥfat al Murīd ʿalā Jawharat al Tawḥīd, al Bājūrī, p. 176)
The distinction between inward compulsion and outward choice does not resolve the difficulty. If Allah creates both the action and the servant's will without the servant possessing any effective power, the apparent choice does not establish genuine ikhtiyār (choice).
Moreover, the claim that an action falls under two different powers does not establish that two effective causes produce it. A power that contributes nothing to an action cannot be treated as an independent cause of that action.
Consequently, kasb (acquisition), as understood in this doctrine, remains a name without a genuine causal reality. The servant is described as acquiring the action, but the acquisition neither produces nor influences it. (Tuḥfat al Murīd ʿalā Jawharat al Tawḥīd, al Bājūrī, pp. 176–177)
The Difference Between Voluntary and Involuntary Actions
The Ashʿarīs distinguish between al afʿāl al ikhtiyāriyyah (voluntary actions) and al afʿāl al iḍṭirāriyyah (involuntary actions), although both are created entirely by Allah.
Al Ṣāwī (d. 1241 AH) explained that involuntary actions include falling from a mountain or the movement of someone trembling, whereas voluntary actions are attributed to the servant through kasb (acquisition).
He said that voluntary actions are created by Allah but are attributed to the servant because the servant's power and will are connected to them. He illustrated this distinction through the example of cutting with a knife, which occurs when the servant possesses the necessary power and will. (Sharḥ al Ṣāwī ʿalā Jawharat al Tawḥīd, Aḥmad al Ṣāwī, p. 241)
However, this distinction remains insufficient if the servant's power and will possess no actual taʾthīr (causal influence).
The mere presence of power and will alongside an action cannot establish that the servant genuinely brings about the action. Under the original Ashʿarī doctrine, Allah alone produces the action, while the servant's power contributes nothing towards its occurrence.
Therefore, distinguishing voluntary actions from involuntary actions does not remove the underlying difficulty of jabr (compulsion).
The Contradiction Between Kasb (Acquisition) and the Reality of Created Causes
The denial of causal influence in human actions follows from the wider Ashʿarī rejection of taʾthīr al asbāb (the causal influence of created causes).
According to this doctrine, created things do not actually produce effects in other created things. Instead, Allah creates effects when their respective causes are present, rather than through those causes.
Consequently, the servant's qudrah (power) and irādah (will) cannot influence an action any more than fire can influence burning or water can influence the growth of plants.
Al Ghazālī (d. 505 AH) maintained that kasb (acquisition) is merely the occurrence of the created action alongside the servant's power, without that power possessing any real influence over the action. (Al Iqtiṣād fī al Iʿtiqād, al Ghazālī, p. 55)
However, the Qur'an affirms that Allah creates effects through the causes He has established.
Allah says: "And We have sent down blessed water from the sky and caused gardens and grain to grow thereby." (Sūrat Qāf, 50:9)
Allah also describes sending winds, bringing down rain, and giving life to dead land through that water. (Sūrat al Furqān, 25:48–49; Sūrat al Rūm, 30:24)
The Ashʿarī interpretation treats these effects as occurring when the causes are present, not through the causes themselves.
This interpretation is rejected because the Qur'an affirms that Allah brings about effects through created causes, while remaining their ultimate Creator.
Furthermore, affirming that causes possess real effects does not require believing that they operate independently of Allah. Created causes may be incomplete, requiring additional conditions and the absence of obstacles. Allah can also prevent a cause from producing its usual effect.
Thus, recognising genuine taʾthīr (causal influence) in created things neither contradicts Allah's qudrah (power) nor establishes independent creators besides Him.
The same principle applies to human actions. Allah creates the servant, the servant's power, and the conditions through which actions occur, while the servant genuinely acts through the power Allah has created.
The Refutation of the Ashʿarī Interpretation of Allah's Creation of Human Actions
The Ashʿarīs use the following statement of Allah as evidence that human actions are created entirely by Allah:
"While Allah created you and what you do." (Qur'an 37:96)
The meaning of the expression "what you do" depends upon the grammatical interpretation of the original Arabic.
If understood as referring to the actions themselves, it affirms that Allah creates human actions.
However, it may also refer to the objects produced by human actions, particularly the idols being carved and worshipped. This interpretation agrees with the context of the preceding verses concerning the objects that people worship. (Jāmiʿ al Bayān fī Taʾwīl al Qurʾān, al Ṭabarī, 21/66)
Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) explained that even when the verse is understood as affirming Allah's creation of human actions, it does not contradict the servant's genuine participation in those actions.
Allah creates the servant and the servant's ABILITY to act. Therefore, affirming that Allah creates human actions does not require denying that humans act through the powers He has given them. (Minhāj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 3/337; 3/261)
Likewise, the Qur'an affirms that Allah is the Creator of everything, without requiring that created beings have no actions or effects of their own. (Sūrat al Furqān, 25:2; Sūrat al Zumar, 39:62)
The Qur'an even attributes khalq (creating or forming) to ʿĪsā عليه السلام when describing the formation of a bird from clay by Allah's permission. (Sūrat al Māʾidah, 5:110)
This does not establish that ʿĪsā عليه السلام possessed independent creative power. Rather, the term describes forming something through a power granted by Allah.
Therefore, there is no contradiction between affirming that Allah alone is the independent Creator and affirming that human beings genuinely act through the abilities He has created within them.
The Rejection of Jabr (Compulsion) by the Early Scholars
The doctrine of jabr (compulsion), which denies meaningful human choice and agency, also conflicts with statements transmitted from the early scholars.
Abū Bakr al Khallāl (d. 311 AH) narrated that Abū Bakr al Marwadhī (d. 275 AH) was informed of a man who said: "Allah compels His servants." He rejected this expression and instructed that it should not be said, referring instead to Allah's statement: "He misguides whom He wills and guides whom He wills." (Sūrat al Naḥl 16:93) (Al Sunnah, Abū Bakr al Khallāl, p. 920)
Another narration reports that when Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH) was informed of someone saying that Allah compelled His servants to obey Him, he responded: "How terrible is what he has said!" (Al Sunnah, Abū Bakr al Khallāl, p. 921)
Al Awzāʿī (d. 157 AH) likewise rejected this terminology, stating: "I know of no foundation for compulsion in the Qur'an or Sunnah. However, I affirm divine decree, determination, creation, and the natural disposition." (Al Sunnah, Abū Bakr al Khallāl, p. 923)
The rejection of jabr (compulsion) does not entail denying Allah's qadar (divine decree) or khalq (creation). Rather, Allah creates the servant, the servant's qudrah (power), and the conditions necessary for action, while the servant genuinely acts through that created power.
The fundamental distinction is therefore between affirming Allah as the Creator of human actions and denying that the servant possesses any genuine influence in performing them.
The Ashʿarī doctrine of kasb (acquisition) fails to establish this distinction because it attributes actions to the servant while simultaneously denying the servant's power any actual effect upon them. (Ḥurriyyat al Irādah bayna Ahl al Ḥadīth wa al Ashāʿirah wa al Muʿtazilah wa al Shīʿah, Aḥmad ʿIṣām al Najjār, pp. 113–122)
I personally have never seen or heard of a girl enter a marriage against the wishes of her wali who was happy about it years later.
Don't get me wrong - the nikah itself is valid. But it is a recipe for disaster.
I’ve seen several cases where a boy and a girl have been in a relationship for years, but they will not get married because their families won’t allow it. Unfortunately, these families don’t have an issue with the impermissible relationship but get angry at the idea of marriage.
In this case, although it is not ideal or optimal, the Hanafi position, which is backed by a group of reputable scholars of the pious Salaf, is the solution.
Yes, in an ideal situation, nikah should be performed with a wali. It is important, no doubt. Every sister should marry with the backing of her family, for therein lies her protection. But unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world, and people genuinely face extreme difficulties. In such situations, the Hanafi position is a suitable option.
Today, I learnt that Salafis who make the use of logic haram in issues of creed make it wajib in issues of morality. To them, saying something is moral because Allah said so is illogical and not enough.
Ḥāmid retweeted
"You can't win with Islamists. If they kill Kuffar, they consider it a victory. If they die while killing Kuffar or are killed by Kuffar, they still consider it a victory because they consider themselves martyrs for Allah. Can’t reason with such a cult."
It's unfortunate that the desire to be more merciful than the Most Merciful Himself has led many Muslims to disbelief and made them worthy of the hellfire.
May Allah protect us from such misguidance.
يوجد حوالي 6.5 مليار إنسان غير مسلم الآن في الأرض؛ الذي أفهمه من الشرع أن أغلبهم لن يدخلوا النار!
#مجالس_الحكم
The "big victory" where the invaders they invited are going back 🤡
BIG: US forces exit Iraq by tomorrow after 20+ years, ending a presence where 4,500 Americans died.
Iran-backed groups call it "a historic victory" and "a crushing defeat for the American project."
Iraqi security officials warn the withdrawal is premature.
The last US soldier killed in Iraq died in July during a drone detonation near Erbil.
Seven of 18 US service members killed in this year's Iran war died in Iraq.
Source: Reuters
When certain modern 'scholars' try to challenge the issue of the eternity of the fire, many 'traditionalists' are quick to aggressively call them out. However, the same 'traditionalists' are quite lax when it comes to holding the same energy for past figures with the same views.
Everytime I come across something from Ibn Al-Farid, I'm confused if he was in a deep spiritual state or just plain downbad.
Ḥāmid retweeted
The Judgment of Ahl al-Kashf upon “Ahl al-Kashf”
The Sufi ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla al-Simnānī—who did a 40-day khalwa 300×—called Ibn ʿArabī misguided. He said had he not recognized the statement as Ibn ʿArabī’s own handwriting, he would have said that Ibn ʿArabī had never wrote it.
































