০৬ ই অক্টোবর, ২০১৭ দুপুর ২:০৪

লোনার বলেছেন: আপনি পড়েছেন, আপনার ভালো লাগলো, কাজে লাগলো - আমার লেখাটা সার্থক হলো! ধন্যবাদ!!

০৬ ই অক্টোবর, ২০১৭ বিকাল ৪:৫৯

লোনার বলেছেন: আমি তাকে না চিনলেও, সেটা বুঝি - আর সেজন্যই চিন্তাটা বেশী। উনি এই ব্লগে খুবই জনপ্রিয় ব্লগার। তার একটা কমেন্ট কাউকে ভুল ভাবে অনুপ্রাণিত করতে পারে।

আপনাকে অনেক ধন্যবাদ, আপনি পড়েছেন বলে!!

০৬ ই অক্টোবর, ২০১৭ রাত ৯:২৭

লোনার বলেছেন: আপনার বিস্তারিত মন্তব্য, মতামত ও আগ্রহের জন্য অনেক অনেক ধন্যবাদ!

০৬ ই অক্টোবর, ২০১৭ রাত ৯:৪৫

লোনার বলেছেন: ধন্যবাদ ভাই!

০৭ ই অক্টোবর, ২০১৭ সকাল ১০:৩১

লোনার বলেছেন: ভাই আবুহেনা মোঃ আশরাফুল ইসলাম, আপনি পড়েছেন এবং বুঝেছেন বলে আপনাকে অনেক ধন্যবাদ!

০৭ ই অক্টোবর, ২০১৭ দুপুর ১:২১

লোনার বলেছেন: আপনার মন্তব্যের জবাবে একটা গোটা পোস্টই হয়ে গেলো!

০৮ ই অক্টোবর, ২০১৭ সকাল ৯:৪৭

লোনার বলেছেন: আমার এই পোস্টটা ছিল সচেতনতা জাগানোর উদ্দেশ্যে লেখা - কারো সাথে কোন বিতর্কে যেতে চাই নি আমি। আমি তর্কে জিততেও চাই না। আমি শুধু চাই আমার মুসলিম ভাই-বোনেরা ভ্রান্তির গোলক ধাধা থেকে বেরিয়ে আসুক। আসলে যে কোন একটা ব্যাপরকে কে কিভাবে দেখবে, তা তার "worldview"-এর উপর নির্ভর করবে। একটা উদাহরণ দিচ্ছি: মুসলিম ইতিহাসবিদগণ সম্রাট আওরঙ্গজেবকে খুব সম্মান দিয়ে থাকেন, অথচ হিন্দুরা তাকে গালিগালাজ করে থাকেন! আবার দেখুন সম্রাট আকবরকে হিন্দুরা খুব ভক্তি-শ্রদ্ধা করে থাকেন, অথচ একটু সচেতন মুসলিমরা জানেন, তিনি উপমহাদেশে ইসলামকে প্রায় ধ্বংসের দ্বারপ্রান্তে নিয়ে গিয়েছিলেন। আমাদের সময়েই দেখুন, তসলিমা নাসরিনের কত কদর করে বিধর্মীরা, বিদেশীরা - কখনো ভেবেছেন কেন?

আপনি যাদের নাম উল্লেখ করেছেন, ইসলামের ১২টা বাজানোতে তাদের সবার কমবেশী ভূমিকা ছিল। আমি আপনাকে নীচে দু'টো দলিল দিচ্ছি - আপনার ও অন্যদের অবগতির জন্য। প্রথমটি "দর্শন" পড়াটা আহলুস সুন্নাহ্ ওয়া আল জামা'আর স্কলাররা কি চোখে দেখেন - সেটা বোঝার জন্য। আর দ্বিতীয়টি হচ্ছে আপনার দার্শনিক তালিকার সবচেয়ে প্রসিদ্ধ ব্যক্তি যিনি, তার সম্বন্ধে স্কলারদের অবস্থান কি ছিল তা বোঝার জন্য (আপনি হয়তো জেনে থাকবেন যে, ইমাম গাজ্জালী সহ বহু বড় বড় স্কলার ইবন সিনাকে "অমুসলিম" মনে করতেন তার অবিশ্বাসের জন্য)।

১
========

Question:

What is the ruling on studying philosophy? Please note that studying it is compulsory for us in Algeria.


Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

It should be understood what philosophy is and what its principles are, before stating what the ruling on studying it is, because passing a ruling on something is usually based on the way it is viewed.

Al-Ghazaali said in al-Ihya’ (1/22): Philosophy is not one branch of knowledge, it is actually four:

1 – Geometry and mathematics: these are permissible as stated above, and there is no reason why they should not be studied unless there is the fear that one may overstep the mark and indulge in forbidden branches of knowledge, because most of those who study them overstep the mark and go on to innovations, thus the weak should be protected from them.

2 – Logic, which deals with the way in which evidence is to be used, the conditions of evidence being valid, the definition of what constitutes evidence and guidelines on the use of evidence. These come under the heading of ‘ilm al-kalaam.

3 – Theology, which is discussion of the essence and attributes of Allaah, which also comes under the heading of ‘ilm al-kalaam. The philosophers did not have any other kind of knowledge that was unique to them, rather they had some views and ideas which were unique to them, some of which constitute kufr and some bid’ah (innovation).

4 – Natural sciences, some of which go against sharee’ah, Islam and truth, so it is ignorance, not knowledge that may be mentioned alongside the other branches of knowledge. Some of it involves the discussion of the attributes of different elements and how one can be changed to another. This is similar to the way in which doctors examine the human body in particular, from the point of view of what makes it sick and what makes it healthy. They look at all the elements to see how they change and move. But medicine has an edge over the physical body in that it is needed, but there is no need for the study of nature. End quote.

In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1118-1121) it says:

Philosophy is a Greek word composed of two words. Philo originally meant selflessness, but Pythagoras turned it to mean love; and sophia which means wisdom. The word philosopher is derived from philosophy and means the lover of wisdom. But the meaning changed and came to mean wisdom.

Then the philosopher came to be called a wise man (hakeem). In the past the word philosophy referred to study of the basic principles, viewing knowledge as something based on rationality, the goal of which was the search for truth. For its supporters, philosophy is, as Dr. Tawfeeq al-Taweel described it: Rational examination, free from any restrictions and authority imposed on it from outside, and with the ability to go all the way on the basis of logic, propagating his view regardless of the difference between these (philosophical) views and what is customarily known, religious beliefs and the dictates of tradition, without being confronted or resisted or punished by any authority. In Aristotle’s view, the philosopher is of a higher status than a prophet, because the prophet understands things by means of imagination whereas the philosopher understands things by means of reason and contemplation. In their view, imagination is of a lower status than contemplation. Al-Faraabi agreed with Aristotle in viewing the philosopher as being of higher status than a prophet.

In this sense philosophy is opposed to wisdom, which in Islamic terminology refers to the Sunnah as defined by the majority of muhadditheen and fuqaha’, and in the sense of judgement, knowledge and proficiency, alongside moral guidelines which control the whims and desires of the self and keep it from doing haraam things. The wise man is the one who has these characteristics, hence philosophy, as defined by the philosophers, is one of the most dangerous falsehoods and most vicious in fighting faith and religion on the basis of logic, which it is very easy to use to confuse people in the name of reason, interpretation and metaphor that distort the religious texts.

Imam al-Shaafa’i said: The people did not become ignorant and begin to differ until they abandoned Arabic terminology and adopted the terminology of Aristotle. Even though philosophy existed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, India and Persia, it became most famous in Greece and became synonymous with that land, the reason being that the Greek philosophers were interested in transmitting it from the legacy of idolatrous peoples and the remnants of the divinely-revealed religions, benefiting from the scriptures of Ibraaheem and Moosa (peace be upon them) after the Greek victory over the Hebrews after the captivity in Babylon, and benefiting from the religion of Luqmaan the Wise. So there was a mixture of views that confirmed the divinity and Lordship of the Creator that was contaminated with idolatry. Therefore the Greek philosophy was in some ways a revival more than an innovation.

Ibn Abi’l-‘Izz, the commentator on al-Tahhaawiyyah, summed up the schools of philosophical thought about the five basic principles of religion in their view, as follows:

That God does exist but He has no reality or essence, and He does not know the details of His creation, but He does know about its general terms, thus they denied that He creates the deeds of His slaves. They also did not believe in His Books, as in their view God does not speak or talk, and the Qur’aan is just something that shines from active reasons into purified human hearts. Exalted be Allaah far above what they ascribe to Him. There is no separate entity that ascends or descends, rather in their view it is all ideas in the mind that do not exist in reality. The philosophers are the one who most deny the Last Day and its events. In their view Paradise and Hell are no more than parables for the masses to understand, but they have no reality beyond people’s minds.

The Greek philosophers still have an impact on all western philosophies and ideologies, ancient and modern. Indeed, most of the Islamic kalaami groups were influenced by them. The terminology of Islamic philosophy did not emerge as a branch of knowledge that is taught in the curriculum of Islamic studies until it was introduced by Shaykh Mustafa ‘Abd al-Razzaaq – the Shaykh of al-Azhar – as a reaction to western attacks on Islam based on the idea that Islam has no philosophy. But the fact of the matter is that philosophy is an alien entity in the body of Islam. There is no philosophy in Islam and there are no philosophers among Muslims in this deviant sense. Rather in Islam there is certain knowledge and prominent scholars who examine matters. Among the most famous philosophers who were nominally Muslims were al-Kindi, al-Faraabi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). End quote.

Secondly:

The majority of fuqaha’ have stated that it is haraam to study philosophy. Among their comments on that are the following:

1 – Ibn Nujaym (Hanafi) said in al-Ashbaah wa’l-Nazaa’im: Acquiring knowledge may be an individual obligation, which is as much as one needs for religious commitment to be sound; or it may be a communal obligation, which is in addition to the previous and is done for the benefit of others; or it may be recommended, which is studying fiqh and ‘ilm al-qalb (purification of the heart) in depth; or it may be haraam, which is learning philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology, geomancy, natural science and witchcraft. End quote from al-Ashbaah wa’l-Nazaa’ir ma’a Sharhiha: Ghamaz ‘Ayoon al-Basaa’ir by al-Hamawi (4/125).

2 – al-Dardeer (Maaliki) said in al-Sharh al-Kabeer, discussing the kind of knowledge which is a communal obligation: Such as studying sharee’ah, which is not an individual obligation, and which includes fiqh, tafseer, hadeeth and ‘aqeedah, and things that help with that such as (Arabic) grammar and literature, tafseer, mathematics and usool al-fiqh – not philosophy, astrology or ‘ilm al-kalaam, according to the most sound opinion.

Al-Dasooqi said in his Haashiyah (2/174): His phrase “according to the most sound opinion” means that it is forbidden to read the books of al-Baaji, Ibn al-‘Arabi and ‘Iyaad, unlike the one who says that it is essential to learn it in order to understand ‘aqeedah and basic religious issues. But al-Ghazaali said that the one who has knowledge of ‘ilm al-kalaam knows nothing of religious beliefs except the beliefs that the common people share, but they are distinguished by their ability to argue and debate.

3 – Zakariya al-Ansaari (Shaafa’i) said in Asna al-Mataalib (4/182): As for learning philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology, geomancy, natural science and witchcraft, it is haraam. End quote.

4 – al-Bahooti (Hanbali) said in Kashshaaf al-Qinaa’ (3/34): The opposite of shar’i knowledge is knowledge that is haraam or makrooh. Haraam knowledge is like ‘ilm al-kalaam in which they argue on the basis of pure reason or speak in a manner that contradicts sound, unambiguous reports. If they speak on the basis of reports only or on the basis of texts and rational thought that is in accordance with them, then this is the basis of religion and the way of ahl al-sunnah. This is what is meant by the words of Shaykh Taqiy al-Deen. In his commentary he explains that even better. [Haraam knowledge also includes] philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology and geomancy, as well as alchemy and natural sciences. End quote.

It should be noted that an exception from this prohibition is made for those who study it as a speciality in order to explain its deviations and refute the falsehoods that they stir up.

Thirdly:

If studying philosophy is compulsory, then you must beware of believing in any of its falsehoods or admiring its people. You should strive hard to acquire shar’i knowledge, especially that which has to do with ‘aqeedah (belief), so that you will develop immunity and resistance to specious arguments.

We ask Allaah to help and guide you.

And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A

Source: view this link

২
=================================
The Reality of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Famous Scientist and Philosopher

In the Name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful…

The famous fifth-century medical expert and philosopher, Ibn Sina, known to the West as “Avicenna”, is often credited as being one of the greatest Muslim scientists in history. His name is a celebrated one in many Muslim circles, and even hospitals and institutions of learning are named after him out of respect and admiration for his achievements.

While many Muslim scientists throughout history truly did pioneer many important medical and scientific breakthroughs, Muslims need to step back and re-examine what they have been led to believe about Ibn Sina specifically – Is it factually correct? Was he even a Muslim?

Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah on Ibn Sina

Aboo ‘Alee Al-Husayn ibn ‘Abdillaah ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Alee ibn Sina (d.428) was born to a severely deviant Ismaa’eelee (Shiite) family, known for their severe blasphemy and hypocrisy, as mentioned by Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah.[1] In fact, as Ibn Taymiyyah said:

وأحسن ما يُظهرون دين الرفض وهم في الباطن يُبطنون الكفر المحض

“The best thing they showed openly was ar-Rafdh (being Raafhidah Shiites), while they concealed pure, absolute disbelief inwardly.” [1]

Ibn Taymiyyah confirmed this by mentioning that Ibn Sina himself identified his own family, his father, and his brother to all be from this severely deviant group that was exposed and declared outside of Islam by many scholars.

Ibn Taymiyyah further detailed how Ibn Sina attempted to blend what he learned from the deviant claimants to Islam, the Mu’tazliah and Raafidhah, with the polytheistic philosophy of Aristotle, and when he did so he deviated even further, inventing new sets of beliefs so blasphemous that they surpassed some of the falsehood of the Jahmiyyah and even the pagan philosophers themselves! [2]

After listing a number of Ibn Sina’s philosophical deviations, Ibn Taymiyyah went on to say:

لا يقوله إلا من هو من أجهل الناس وأضلهم وأشبههم بالبهائم من الحيوان

No one says these things other than the most ignorant of people, the most astray, and those who most resemble farm animals! [3]

The Great Scholar Ibn al-Qayyim on Ibn Sina

And the great scholar, Ibn Qayyim al-Jowziyyah, said:

He (Ibn Sina) was from the Qaraamitah Baatiniyyah [Sect], those who do not believe in a beginning (of the creation) nor an end, nor do they believe in a Lord of the creation, nor any prophet sent from Allaah, the Most High.

Such deviant hypocrites (zanaadiqah) pretend to be Raafidhah, whilst they conceal pure, absolute disbelief inwardly, claiming to be descendants of the family of the Messenger (may Allaah raise his rank and grant him and his family peace). He and his family are all free of them in terms of both lineage and religion… [4]

Ibn al-Qayyim also referred to Ibn Sina as the imaam of the severe deviants (إمام الملحدين), and said, “This deviant and his followers are disbelievers in Allaah, the Angels, the Books, the Messengers, and the Last Day.” [5] Read this article to find out how he came to this conclusion.

Comparing Ibn Sina’s and other philosophers’ disbelief to that of the pagan Arabs of pre-Islamic Makkah, he concluded that the beliefs of the pagan Arabs were less offensive than the beliefs of Ibn Sina and the philosophers. [6]

He further compared the blasphemy of the most deviant of the Jahmiyyah cults to the ideas of Ibn Sina and concluded that Ibn Sina’s beliefs were even more deviant.[7]

After explaining how Ibn Sina denied basic pillars of belief, he concluded with the verdict:

فالرجل معطل مشرك جاحد للنبوات والمعاد، لا مبدأ عنده، ولا معاد، ولا رسول ولا كتاب

The man was a denier (of Allaah’s Attributes), a polytheist, a rejecter of matters related to prophethood and the Ma’aad (the Last Day), having no belief in the beginning or end of creation, nor any belief in a messenger or a book. [8]

For those who wish for more specific information on the heretical blasphemy of Ibn Sina, they are welcome to investigate the detailed documentation of how he rejected each pillar of Faith, one by one, explained by Ibn al-Qayyim himself. [9]

Other Scholars on Ibn Sina

Ibn Hajr quotes an early Shaafi’ee scholar, Ibn Abid-Damm al-Hamawee, as saying:

All the scholars have agreed that Ibn Sina held that the universe was infinite and there would be no physical resurrection, while he did not reject (the concept of) a spiritual resurrection, and that he is reported to have said that Allaah does not know every detailed piece of knowledge, rather He knows things in general.

Thus, the scholars of his time and those after him whose statements are relied upon in all matters have spoken decisively about his disbelief and the disbelief of Aboo Nasr al-Farabi as well, due to their positions on these matters in contradiction to the beliefs of the Muslims. [10]

One of today’s senior scholars, a member of the Permanent Committee for Research and Fatwaa in Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan (may Allaah preserve him), was asked about someone who praises Ibn Sina and lists him among the scholars of Islam. He replied:

He is one of two cases:

1. He may be ignorant, and thus he does not know about the condition of Ibn Sina. Such a person has no right to speak, rather he must keep silent.

2. Or perhaps he knows about Ibn Sina and his teachings of disbelief and he agrees with him, praising him for that reason. In this case, his ruling is the same ruling as Ibn Sina (i.e. disbeliever), and refuge with Allah is sought. This is because he has agreed with him and praised him for that (his disbelief).

So this is a very serious issue!

However, some people may praise Ibn Sina strictly because he was a doctor. This is a worldly profession, and he was really a doctor. However, there were many non-Muslim doctors more proficient in the medical field than him, so why the specific focus on Ibn Sina? They say: “Because he ascribed to Islam, and so this is something for Muslims to be proud of.”

We say: Islam is free from him, and Islam does not need him!

To conclude: He is not to be praised or spoken of highly because he was one of the Baatiniyyah [Cult], a severely deviant philosopher who claimed that the universe may be infinite (having no beginning or end). [11]

Also, Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez ar-Raajihee explained why Muslims who know about him are required to consider him a disbeliever. [click here]

Naming Schools and Hospitals After Ibn Sina?

Additionally, Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan, Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, and others mentioned that it is not permissible to name schools, hospitals, or health clinics after him (in his honor). [click here]

Modern Attempts to Include Ibn Sina Among the Muslim Scientists

Muslims today may come across unreliable websites and other sources of misinformation claiming that Ibn Sina was a great Muslim scientist and/or scholar. Some clinics and schools in the Muslim lands are even named after him to honor him, which is not permissible, as mentioned by Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan.

What exactly is the cause of this serious mistake? It could be rooted in one or any number of the following causes:

Speaking / writing about matters without knowledge of the Religion
Passing on information carelessly
Intended promotion of the Shiite Religion
Intended promotion of philosophy as an Islamic science
Gross neglect or total lack of concern for issues of ‘aqeedah (belief)
Blind ambition to please everyone
Justifying what people have already said or written

Muslims who have mistakenly praised this severely deviant disbelieving philosopher, Ibn Sina, are urged to hasten to repent to Allah and free themselves of this serious error, lest they be counted alongside of Ibn Sina as a disbeliever in this life and the Next, and refuge with Allaah is sought.

And Allaah knows best.

Written by: Moosaa Richardson

তথ্যসূত্র: view this link

০৭ ই অক্টোবর, ২০১৭ রাত ৯:২০

লোনার বলেছেন: পড়ার জন্য অনেক ধন্যবাদ আপনাকে...!

০৭ ই অক্টোবর, ২০১৭ রাত ১০:৪৫

লোনার বলেছেন: ইংরেজিতে একটা স্ল্যাঙ্গ আছে: "farting around"। কেউ যখন কারণে অকারণে সর্বত্র কথা বলে বেড়ায় বা ফোড়ন কেটে বেড়ায়, তখন হয়তো অন্য কেউ তাতে বিরক্ত হয়ে বলে: He is farting around। আপনি হয়তো তেমন একটা বিরক্তি থেকেই মন্তব্যের কথাগুলো বলেছেন। কিন্তু রাসূল (সা.) একটা হাদীস আছে যেখানে তিনি বলেন: “যে ব্যক্তি আল্লাহ ও পরকালের প্রতি ঈমান রাখে সে যেন আত্মীয়তার সম্পর্ক বজায় রাখে। যে ব্যক্তি আল্লাহ ও আখিরাতের জীবনে বিশ্বাসী সে যেন হয় ভালো কথা বলে, অন্যথায় চুপ থাকে।” [বুখারী ও মুসলিম] সেক্ষেত্রে বিশ্বাসী মুসলিম হিসাবে, বিরক্ত হলেও আপনার চুপ থাকাটা উত্তম ছিল!
তাছাড়া একটা বিখ্যাত কোটেশন আছে: The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference। আমি কথাটা মনে প্রাণে বিশ্বাস করি! কাউকে ঘৃণা করলেও তাকে এক ধরনের গুরুত্ব দেয়া হয় - তার চেয়ে ignore করাটা অনেক প্রজ্ঞার পরিচায়ক!
পোস্ট পড়ার জন্য ধন্যবাদ! জাযাকাল্লাহু খাইরা!!

০১ লা জানুয়ারি, ২০১৮ রাত ১০:১২

লোনার বলেছেন: কে কি "মনে করলেন" তাতে কিছু আসে যায় না - তবে, কুর'আন ও সুন্নাহর দলিল অনুযায়ী কেউ যদি অমুসলিম সাব্যস্ত হন, তবে তাকে অমুসলিম বলতে হবে বৈকি!

২০ শে ফেব্রুয়ারি, ২০১৮ সকাল ১১:১৭

লোনার বলেছেন: বুঝলাম!

২০ শে ফেব্রুয়ারি, ২০১৮ দুপুর ১২:২৪

লোনার বলেছেন: ইন শা 'আল্লাহ্!

২০ শে ফেব্রুয়ারি, ২০১৮ বিকাল ৪:৩০

লোনার বলেছেন: আপনাকেও, কষ্ট করে পড়ার জন্য অনেক ধন্যবাদ!