Talk:Sufi metaphysics

Fixing this article

I believe that a concerted effort needs to be made to save this article. This article is very hard to understand by someone who doesn't already know what the topic covers or who is not a Muslim. I have cleaned up some of the english, and added a lead which attempts to accurately summarize what's in the article for someone unfamiliar with the topic.

Sadly, there seems to be a strong bias by some to edit this article to simply make the whole concept of Wahdat-ul-Wujud look discredited rather than as a widespread and actively held philosophy.

I agree with Ali Hakim below, I also think it is quite valid to compare pantheism and panenthesis to wahdat-ul-wujood. This is most useful for non-Muslims who might better be able to understand wahdat-ul-wujood in the context of these two separate "western" philosophies. I believe it would be biased to leave this section out.

The section on Wahdat-ul-Shuhud needs expanded still and the final section is in terrible need of basic clean up also.

Hope this helps. Earthdirt 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can anyone tell me what in the world the following section of this article means? As far as I can tell it is nonsense. If someone can't clarify this passage it should be deleted, I have removed it for now. Also I moved the paragraph it ws in up from the last section to the section on "wahdat-ul-wujood" since the whole debate didn't need rehashed in the last section.:

By the act of creation through the word kun (be), Ibn Arabi means the descent of Absolute Existence into the determined beings through various stages. This gradual descent of the Absolute Existence is called tanazzulat al-khamsa (five descents) or ta'ayyunat al-khamsa (five determinations) in Sufi terminology.

Thanks, Earthdirt 03:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• • A brief interpretation of Ibn 'Arabi on this difficult subject, follows. God said, "Be!" [Arabic: kun] and the world was created. The creation process involved five stages of what could be called "emanations" which are emitted by the Absolute Existence, i.e., God or Allah (cf., Neoplatonism {"The One" and "Demiurge" sections}). The five stages of emanations are mentioned, but above passage does not describe them, rather it refers to their Arabic terms. The world so created is a "descent" or "determination" from the incomprehensable perfection of the Absolute. This replays the often discussed problem of the one and the many (the terms used by Greek philosophy), as here, the resultant many of this world derive by emanation from the One. But of course the change to an Islamic context and further elaboration by Ibn 'Arabi significantly alter its implications. Elfelix (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Abu Hafs Umar al-Suhrawardi and Abd-al-karim Jili were also proponents of apparentism." I've seen elsewhere this claim that Jili was a proponent of 'apparentism', but his work "Universal Man" (al insan al kamil) reads, on the contrary, as a very clear statement of 'wahdat al wujud'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.96.254 (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Discussed on the other article. Please don't add comments here. --Nkv 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be more info outlining the sufi/salafi debate on this issue.

Bias View in support of Wahdat ul Wujood

I don't see what's wrong with clarifying the differences. "Pantheism" is a rather specific philosophical position that developed quite independantly from Wahdat-ul-Wujood. There's nothing wrong with making a valid distinction between the two, as long as we note not everyone acknowledges this distinction. --> Ali Hakim

The following section talks about the difference between Wahdat-ul-Wujood and Pantheism. Certainly, someone who is in the favor of Wahdat-ul-Wujood ideology, is trying to twist the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wahdat-ul-Wujood&action=edit&section=2

This section should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibn Saeed (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

The fact is that Nejdi followers are so blinded in their hatred of Sufism, that they do not need proof or logic in their opposition. Pantheism might have got the name now, but is based on paganism, especially Hinduism. Spinoza clearly outlines Pantheism and is totally opposite of Wahdatul Wajood. Nejdi scholars spend a lot of their oil money to confuse Wahdatul Wajood with Pantheism, just to prove it against Islam and justify their persecution of sufies. Just go and read Pantheism directly instead of quoting what the children of Ibn Abdul Wahhab Nejdi says Hassanfarooqi (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Claims on connection with Hinduism

The article says Hindu philosophy had an effect, esp. translation of Upanishads to Arabic despite the fact that the concept was developed in Spain during the Muslim rule; much before Muslim rule in India. I would like some one to provide reliable sources confirming this "hindu-islam" connection. - Agnistus (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Claims on connection with Judaism

Like the claim of it being a Hindu concept, the claim of it being a Jewish concept is also just a propoganda of Nejd based Saudi Clerics. As for Hindu connection, Agnistus has correctly pointed out that Ibn Arabi was from Spain and never went to India, saw a Hindu, or read a Hindu book. The truth about Jewish connection is explained by Karen Armstrong in her book "A History of God". These were the times when Jews were persecuted in Europe and came to Spain to take refuge. Sufi concepts comforted their suffering, and modern day Kaballah was actually influenced by Sufi concepts. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://archives.dawn.com/2004/10/29/fea.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. TreyGeek (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

the title

Don't you think that the title of the article should be "Unity of Being" rather than "Sufi metaphysics"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.44.90 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally out of balance

This article currently has some seriously strange weighting, not least but a single mention of Al-Ghazali despite the fact that it was he who almost single-handedly integrated Sufism and its metaphysics into mainstream Islam. On the other hand, we have a deluge of lengthy opinions from figures of uncertain provenance. The article needs the former expanding, the latter drastically cutting. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)