for some years now, i have been discussing this with friends (who happen to be ulama and muftis) and been telling them. the first time i read this risalah with dr. saeed's commentary a few years ago, i couldn't believe my eyes. he tries to prove the opposite of what shaykh sayyid sharif says - and the irony is, while he claims to "clarify," he actually convolutes a clear explanation of allamah sharif of the issue.
and foudeh deliberately misrepresented sharif jurjani. see in his muqaddimah of fat'h al wadud, i have already quoted that according to foudeh's retelling he rejected that such meaning could be understood only by kashf and then he wrote citing him from ahmadnagari's dustur al-ulama: === and in dustur al-ulama, this passage is preceded by the acknowledgement that not everything that is experienced can be captured in words and written down. clearly slapping foudeh's claim on his own face. the tyranny is that foudeh forcibly tries to use sharif jurjani for his own purpose, whereas what foudeh refutes is what sharif jurjani has himself said. moreover, the above paragraph is dishonestly cited - only to suit his purpose. here is what we see from ahmadnagari's dustur v3 p.306 sharif jurjani, first acknowledges that it cannot be comprehended (idraak) except by those who are at a high level of understanding and knowledge (ulu'l abSar) - however, he says, let me try to explain some portion, which can be translated into words. and in the end, he emphasises that - this is how the research scholars (muhaqqiqun) of our mashayikh understood - and that it cannot be known except by those who have reached an exceeding high level of knowledge (rasikhun fi'l ilm). and ahmadnagari, explains this last statement as: "it is obvious that this state, condition (Tawr) is beyond any state taht the intellect can reach - except that it can be fathom'd only by beholding (i.e. supra-intellectual vision) and not by rational arguments. --- and when you read foudeh's citation and what he attributes sharif jurjani - and read the full citation you see a whale of a difference. this is daylight robbery. we ask Allah ta'ala to keep us honest. wa billahi't tawfiq.
sh. foudeh is a good mutakallim of our time - but we do not accept his word as final and he can stumble hard at times, when he tries reasoning by himself (i.e. when he is not reliant on ulama such as imam sanusi etc). i have seen that he is not always accurate and can stumble on fallacies. sometimes, his annotations are confusing. he does make mistakes and even makes allegations on ulama like ibn qudamah, which do not hold water when held under the lens of research. i wanted to reply on one of the threads, where he CITED ibn qudamah and deliberately read it in poor light whereas it was obligatory on him to read it with husn zann that he accords ash'ari imams. clearly he is not above ta'ssub. and at times when he refutes his adversaries behaves like them in taking things literally ignoring or refusing to accept any interpretation. at times his vehemence in justifying his viewpoint is so heavily reliant on 'cause-effect' and what he deems as 'rational', i.e. anything that cannot be explained in the framework of written kalam works is dismissed as "against naql". for example in the muqaddimah of fat'h al-wadud: he doesn't accept those who say: the meaning of wahdat al-wujud is difficult to comprehend except by kashf or ilham (divine inspiration). why? because according to foudeh: akabir such as saduddin taftazani, adud al-iji and sayyid sharif read these words and understood and explained it as we (i.e. foudeh and co) understand it - therefore those who say that the meaning of wahdat al-wujud is difficult to understand, and far from comprehension except by way of kashf and ilham. this is an absolutely useless argument - as it is mere claim without proof. either foudeh rejects that kashf and ilham are valid among muslims, thereby happily following the mutazili principles. or he rejects that those who claim kashf and ilham. where did foudeh get the knowledge that those people who claimed kashf and ilham were lying or just bluffing and their word cannot be taken against his literal reading? why then he toils day and night on ta'wil of sifaat? he must reject ta'wil outright. what would his argument be if a salafi posits this - by replacing wahdat al-wujud with aayat al-sifaat? he then slips on a fallacy saying one who says that either claims kashf for himself! hold on, moment. did that person CLAIM kashf for himself? if not, by what rights do you gratuitously attribute such a thing and then proceed to burn the strawman? ---- so who is doing taqlid here? is it binding on us to say ONLY what sharif jurjani said or iji said or taftazani said? or do you bind yourself to accept EVERY THING they have said without any question and have NEVER declined any of their opinions? then why such appeal to authority here? what if taftazani, jurjani and iji made a mistake? is it possible or not? if it is possible, then why dismiss those who say that it is "difficult to understand"? how stupid an argument it is to dismiss acknowledgement of ignorance ONLY to force one's opinion on others! what will foudeh say when the same thing is said when he is challenged about the "kunh" or quiddity of the dhat or sifat of Allah ta'ala? that it cannot be understood? fa huwa mujarrad da'awa bilaa daleel (if you present naqli proof, you have accepted yourself that there are things you accept beyond the rational argument) foudeh goes on about why it is invalid, and from a rational argument, it is exceedingly silly. ---- book learning can only take you so far. but then foudeh wouldn't mind because anything not found in books is out of his syllabus! as for wahdat al-wujud - he forcibly tried to prove that sharif jurjani held the opposite position and i felt that he tried to put words in imam jurjani's mouth. on p9 he projects his own view on sharif jurjani: he says: allamah jujrani has explained what the people of wahdat-wujud say according to their own intended meaning (muraadihim). he did not say: "indeed understanding their intended meaning and imagining cannot be complete except by kashf" --- did sharif say that someone told him this and he rejected it? it is a strawman! just because sharif did not comment on this, foudeh projected it upon his own view and what he deems is a valid critique. it would be valid ONLY if allamah sharif had dismissed possibility of kashf or that you cannot speak about it except within the framework of the terminology of sufis. this argument is absurd.
What I've heard is (don't shoot the messenger), that the position is bidah but it doesn't take you out of Ahlus Sunnah. This came from a student of Sh Saeed Foudah. As for the Habaib, they believe in and teach the superiority of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr but they don't tabdi anyone whol holds a different position. E.g. if someone claimed Sayyiduna Ali was superior, they wouldn't have a problem.
