Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Tenlai t1_j1jhw2q wrote

Just a random question here. Ibn is son Al is of/from Arabi is Arabic

Or am I wrong and La is of/ from

Thank you to anyone who responds. :)

48

Koth87 t1_j1jkejo wrote

Ibn - son (of)

al - the

'arabi - in this context, not the language "Arabic," but rather "Arabian" or "Arab"

"La" means "no"

Hope that helps :)

54

Tenlai t1_j1jmio3 wrote

Appreciate you.

11

doorbook t1_j1k2tj2 wrote

I think "Arabi" here is a name. Here is his full name,

Muḥammad ibn al-ʻArabī al-Ṭāʼī al-Ḥātimī

14

Koth87 t1_j1kv04a wrote

It is used as a name, but it has a meaning.

2

SaifEdinne t1_j1k35y2 wrote

'Arabi can also be a name and in this context I think it's a name.

4

ReaperX24 t1_j1luyxu wrote

Generally speaking, any name of Arabic origin has some meaning behind it. 'Just a name' is not really a thing over here, except for names which predate the Arabic language.

1

SaifEdinne t1_j1lyr4h wrote

I know that, but as you've pointed out Ibn stands for "son of".

So in this context, it's "son of 'Arabi". I never said it' s just a name, almost all names have a meaning. But here, the father is called 'Arabi and thus it says Ibn al-'Arabi (my neighbour's name is al-'Arabi)

2

ReaperX24 t1_j1lzs83 wrote

Oh, I get you now. I assumed this part was already clear, but you are right to point it out for those who weren't aware that it's a name.

1

galaxy7474 t1_j1o3s5n wrote

Ibn Arababi is the abbreviation of his full name Mohamed Ibn Arabi Literal translation would mean Mohamed son of arabi(arabian) would equate to something like Jhonny English for instance

1

[deleted] t1_j1jsgen wrote

[removed]

8

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j1kfkpp wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

PhoenixWrightFansFtw t1_j1krlsp wrote

Hey, i know that guy. He was in the nightmarish 700 hour long turkish drama about that 13th century turkish war hero everyone in turkey likes.

One of the better characters, gave a break from the cyclical drama to impart some wisdom.

Ertugrul's Resurrection is equal parts hilarious, great, and awful. Don't watch it unless you have a spare 700 hours lying around.

8

jagzgunz t1_j1kw45a wrote

It's actually a pretty well made show. You can watch in seasons like any other show. Mandatory 700 hrs is false.

11

PhoenixWrightFansFtw t1_j1l1qig wrote

The show itself is around 700 hours. You don't have to watch it all at once, but by the end that'a how much time you'll have lost, roughly.

5

[deleted] t1_j1l9rp4 wrote

Well yeah you don't have to watch 700h at once back to back lmao just watch it whenever you got time like with anything else

3

nzdennis t1_j1lbmri wrote

😂 I started to watch it, then I saw how many episodes there were and gave up. Ibn al'arabi is the most interesting character

3

PhoenixWrightFansFtw t1_j1mciwd wrote

It was a family thing to watch it for me. I wouldn't've watched it otherwise. I'm not sure whether or not to say I'm thankful I watched it. I enjoyed watching it, though.

1

Justythebear t1_j1isbt4 wrote

Wonderful! Thanks for sharing

1

Codename-Misfit t1_j1l5xab wrote

Excellent article! Has overtones of tantra, imo. Thanks for sharing.

Oh! And I wish you a merry christmas. 😀

1

Workng_Escape_5933 t1_j1urbca wrote

It is persian ... I can read the Poem that is on picture I am Persian ...and it is not true this picture is not orginal

1

ThighGarterMuse t1_j2ebxo4 wrote

“Within this union of feminine and masculine, an intimate space opens – one that is both creative and interpretive. Because in this communal horizon of intermingling, feminine and masculine identities are constantly reinterpreted rather than abolished. Instead, their relation is dialogical, since in their yoking together there is no domination of one over the other. Enmeshed as one in fleeting orgasmic pleasure compels the question ‘Who am I?’ within the bewilderment of sexual ecstasy. Ibn al-‘Arabi emphasises that the pleasure one experiences is the pleasure of encountering the divine.”

I love this is passage so much. I have experienced this kind of psychic change within myself when it comes to sexuality. I’m realizing the channel between the divine and certain kinds of orgasms. Even when stimulating oneself, I can feel the energy in my connection to spirit strengthening or weakening depending on what kind of intentions I set beforehand.

I really enjoyed this read 🤍

1

vegoku92 t1_j1lyic8 wrote

No, you destroy the dragon of chaos, you do not have sex with her.

−1

[deleted] t1_j1lafb5 wrote

[removed]

−2

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j1lhswa wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

Zanderax t1_j1jc7fx wrote

This article pegs itself as progressive but is in fact still very regressive.

> since the woman is the locus for existence of the children

Women aren't just baby machines, they should have their own existence and it shouldn't be assumed women want or need children to be satisfied in life.

> The greatest union is that between man and woman

This is very heteronormative. It doesnt seem very accepting at all to queer identities or relationships.

Feminism is trying to move us past religion, we shouldn't be looking backwards into historical religious beliefs for progress.

−65

ccattbbugg t1_j1jers5 wrote

The greatest union is any two living beings trapped in a cold and brutal reality choosing for the moment to be consentually loving and affectionate to one another

53

Zanderax t1_j1jfx3t wrote

Just two?

−30

ccattbbugg t1_j1k5mtm wrote

I dunno watchu doing tonight Santa? Need a chimney to come down?

7

Zanderax t1_j1k60ph wrote

I've got plenty already but thanks for the offer :P

2

ccattbbugg t1_j1k82ky wrote

That's alright, you get out there and show em the real North Pole

5

PacificBrim t1_j1kpjds wrote

Aaaaand you lost me

0

Zanderax t1_j1kptsj wrote

Whats wrong with dating multiple people at once? How does it affect you?

1

PacificBrim t1_j1kq7v5 wrote

It's not what I would consider the "greatest union". More often than not, they end poorly and there's always some kind of imbalance. People can make them work but I think there's a special kind of commitment and trust between 2 dedicated partners that isn't present in polyamory.

4

Zanderax t1_j1kqj0r wrote

Id partially agree. Polyamory does have more inherent risk but it also has more reward if you get it right. There is definitely more room to get it wrong. Id disagree though that there is anything inherent wrong or worse about multiple person relationships than 2 person.

Edit: also polyamory doesn't need to be one relationship with more than 2 people. It can also be a single person being in multiple one on one relationships at the same time.

5

panonius t1_j1lfzqp wrote

Ok, I'll bite. Explain how polyamory will optimize reproductive success for all involved in the relationship compared to an exclusive pairing. Please do gloss over the problem of inheritance.

−3

Zanderax t1_j1lggw2 wrote

You've made the incorrect assumption that the only measure of success for a relationship is reproduction. Relationships can be sucessful without children, I'm in multiple sucessful relationships, I have no children, and I'm sterile.

2

panonius t1_j1li3q2 wrote

Yeah, you could argue that a successful career need not involve money. However telling people they were wrong to assume that money is the expected reward sounds either dishonest or entitled.

−3

Zanderax t1_j1lipcu wrote

Thats doubly wrong and a terrible example that further proves my point. Assuming money is what defines a sucessful career is also a really bad assumption. It actually might be a worse assumption than assuming a sucessful relationship is one where you have kids.

A sucessful career is one that is fulfilling, challenging, worthwhile, and makes a difference. Sure money is involved and its a primary motivation for some but its hardly the first thing people think of when they think about a sucessful career

2

panonius t1_j1lkz9f wrote

Mhm, and all that talk about being paid a livable wage is just people focusing on the wrong things in life right?

0

Zanderax t1_j1ll3w5 wrote

Notice how its a "living wage", i.e. a wage on which people can live while working and pursuing their career. The living wage is the bare minimum a job needs to pay to ensure the person doing it can continue living, its not a measure of success.

You're really bad at making arguments.

2

panonius t1_j1lm2y9 wrote

Nah, you are just arguing in bad faith. What you are defining is defined as subsistence wage. Living wage is defined as a minimum to live a basic but decent life. Also saying that money is not a measure of success anywhere in the western world is 100% bad faith.

1

Zanderax t1_j1lmgml wrote

Im not arguing in bad faith at all. Im pointing out the flaws in your arguments and you dont like it.

Reproduction is not the only measure of a sucessful relationship and for many its not a measure at all. Polyamorus relationships can be sucessful, some with children, some without children. As I said I personally have multiple sucessful relationships without children and I will never have children.

Additionally for same sex relationships naturally born children isn't possible and so clearly can't be the only measure of success.

2

[deleted] t1_j1lq4io wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j1lq97j wrote

[removed]

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j1qy4w4 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j1qy532 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

augustamunhoz t1_j1jhiol wrote

I love you 👏👏👏

−3

Zanderax t1_j1ji6ej wrote

I love you too but not exclusively!

−3

outlaw-s-t-a-r t1_j1k19yr wrote

I consider myself pc and progressive but this shit is exhausting.

24

Zanderax t1_j1k1si3 wrote

The existence of polyamory is exhausting?

−3

outlaw-s-t-a-r t1_j1kia5i wrote

You’re heart is in the right place, but your methods will not move the needle towards the right direction.

Best of luck!

5

Zanderax t1_j1kj3ac wrote

Im not sure I understand. What method are you talking about? I'm just talking about polyamory, i.e. dating multiple people at once.

0

Electrical-Screen-64 t1_j1jey67 wrote

Bad-faith and uncharitable arguments

21

Zanderax t1_j1jfuuf wrote

Could you be more descriptive?

−3

Electrical-Screen-64 t1_j1jk2au wrote

For the first quote - you are commenting about the statement as if it says "the woman is the locus for the existence of children and that is her only purpose and all women must fulfill this purpose" thus being uncharitable and responding to the article in bad faith.

7

Zanderax t1_j1jky8m wrote

I dont see how that is uncharitable. The article frames children as being essential to a woman's existence and hetero relationships as being the best form of relationship.

−2

hemannjo t1_j1k58d7 wrote

Something tells me that this person wouldn’t be downvoted like she has been had her comments been directed at a catholic thinker. For some reason islam gets a free pass.

−8

hali26 t1_j1k76dh wrote

“Islam gets a free pass”– are freaking kidding me?? When the f**k has Islam ever been given a free pass? It is constantly, incessantly, denigrated & condemned all over the world. The caucasity is unreal.

4

hemannjo t1_j1l9f6d wrote

Yeah, by conservatives. But on the topic of racism in Islamic countries, Islam’s history of slavery, apartheid, terrorism/religious wars, issues around gender equality and gender based segregation, the incredibly patriarchal nature of historical Islam etc, ‘liberals’ tend to be silent or apologetic. For example, the fact that liberals defend the hijab despite the fact that it is steeped in misogyny is, for me, the height of hypocrisy. The worst of it is that ‘liberals’ end up protecting the platforms and agendas of conservative and reactionary Muslim movements, while progressive Muslims and those who want to develop a self critical Islam compatible with western values, like Ghaleb Bencheikh, Malek Chebel, or even women of colour from Islamic societies speaking out against religious motivated injustices (ayaan hirsi Ali), are left without support. Why do liberal imams like Chalghoumi need to live under police protection exactly? When will Islam do its Vatican II?

2

[deleted] t1_j1lxdwq wrote

[removed]

−2

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j1qy884 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

0

Zanderax t1_j1kjh1t wrote

I think there are just a lot of social conservatives in this sub who get angry at queer people existing and women having rights.

2

notenoughroomtofitmy t1_j1jpg87 wrote

> we shouldn't be looking backwards into historical religious beliefs for progress.

Looking back towards religious motivations to imbibe progressive outlooks works to some extent with religious people on the fence. It makes things relatable to religious folks, and makes them open up to the new way of looking at things rather than defensively close their outlook and feel persecuted.

Heteronormative stance is wrong by today’s western standards where the primary goal of a relationship is emotional fulfillment of the couple, but had a more rational basis in the past (and some societies today) with most cultures seeing marriage as a union between two people for practical purposes like progeny, strategic alliance, asset allocation and preservation etc, with “love” being secondary motivation at best. This is exemplified by how “union by love” are seen as pure, idealistic inspirations in middle eastern and some Asian (not East Asian specifically, geographically Asian) cultures because these types of relationships weren’t commonplace and hence had many metaphors and allegories attributed to them.

Goes without saying, I’m not saying any of the above “wrong” things are actually correct. We have evolved to see the flaws in those types of thinking, which is great.

One can dismiss 99.9999% of historical content because it doesn’t fit the modern progressive standards. But a stable progressive society isn’t built in isolation, we need inspirations and connections to our cumulative past to justify our reasons for being better today. You and I might not need this, but many people do.

19

Zanderax t1_j1jq142 wrote

Thats a fair and reasoned argument. I would definitely prefer regressive Muslims to become more progressive even if it they dont fully reach equality and fairness. Its moving in the right direction but should still be open to criticism.

−5

aviatorlj t1_j1jyshd wrote

Why do you assume the Western way to he superior if people lead happy lives with a basis in their local tradition? This thread's comments are dripping with Western hubris, as if our way over the last ten tears is enlightened and true where foreign culture is "backwards" from where we are.

The West is depressed, anxious, and suffering from widescale apathy for the things that used to give life meaning, such as family and religion. We try to fill the hole with empty dopamine loops and substances like alcohol or weed, or addictions like sex, porn, or endless scrolling.

How dare we say that we have it right, and that other cultures are wrong?

24

Zanderax t1_j1k03wo wrote

Im just talking about queer acceptance and equal rights for all. I dont think queer people or women in conservative Muslim are happy being oppressed. If oppression of minorities is part of your culture then yes I am comfortable saying that part of your culture is bad.

Its not a western thing, lots of western countries are still queerphobic and misogynistic. Its just at this moment in history most western countries are more progressive than non-western countries. That's a recent phenomenon though, 50 years ago western societies were pretty oppressive to queer people and women as well.

The ideal is freedom for all. Every culture should be accepted as long as they can coexist. If your culture is oppressive and stopping people from living their life the way they want then thats not good.

11

ShunyShock t1_j1k1vd8 wrote

There needs to be a more clear definition of oppression, and we need more political freedom in order to allow people to choose exactly what you’re saying, more political freedom will allow people to choose to be either socially conservative or liberal. People need to be allowed to choose to be misogynistic. That is the nature of freedom, and if women want to choose to be “oppressed”, that’s okay too. :)

3

Zanderax t1_j1k35ha wrote

By oppression I mean anything that prevents people from living as they wish. At the extreme end this can be laws and extra-legal actions like lynching or mob violence. Towards the more moderate end can be housing, medical, and employment discrimination or social ostracisation.

In many countries it is still illegal to be gay and the punishments can be prison or death. Presenting with non-traditional gender identity in public leads to mob violence and death. Apostasy is still a crime in many countries. Clothing is legally regulated in many countries, especially for women. In many places sex outside of marriage is still illegal. Drug use is still criminalised in most of the world.

These are the kinds of things that I mean when I say oppression. A free society is one that allow everyone to live their lives as they wish without interference from others. An oppressive society is one that regulates how people live their lives and punishes those who dont conform.

8

ShunyShock t1_j1kfe8q wrote

Legalize all of those things, murder and assault are still illegal. If someone kills a gay person, the law must be impartial enough to rehabilitate and exact some sort of justice upon them. Freedom. We cannot go as low as to make laws in order to try to control or “stop” hate against any kind of group. That in itself is oppression against people who “hate” any kind of group. Freedom of choice, expression, and speech is extremely important. We cannot take this away from the people. People are allowed to hate, what they are not allowed is to hurt. Business owners are allowed to discriminate, that is their freedom of expression. If you want to be able to buy from whomever you want, then we need to set up federally made stores. The more choice people have, the more the people will be able to legitimately choose to be good, because they’re not being forced to. When you make hate illegal, the people push back even more and rebel, this is not how you make change, just like beating your child doesn’t make change. You cannot force the hand of the people.

Government must be small, impartial, and enthusiastic about their support of freedom, and supportive of the progression of science because this will also make the world and even better place; and they must be enthusiastic about the support of furthering even more human life, because the more life there is, the higher the probability of good change in the world their is, sure the same goes for bad, but I’d rather have a higher margin for good, than a declining one.

I’d say we need to keep oppression as a social issue, and eliminate it from politics. Love one another as you would like to be loved. Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you. Once we establish proper freedom and small government in the country, then we will have eliminated oppression completely from government. Which is why we must firstly focus on freedom. Then we can genuinely talk about oppression in social circles, and why we must treat each other correctly. :)

−7

Zanderax t1_j1kk6pu wrote

Couldn't disagree with this more. They had to criminalise discrimination because it was destroying society.

4

ShunyShock t1_j1kvz4r wrote

Explain more please! :)

2

Zanderax t1_j1kwzp2 wrote

Ill talk specifically about the US because it is the most well known but you will find similar experiences throughout the world. The 1960s civil rights movement has been sanitised by modern education white media as a peaceful transition, it was anything but. Race riots were getting out of hand and the unrest spread across the United states. Turns out when you systemtically discriminate against a group of people for long enough those people get sick of it. When they get sick of it for long enough they justifiably become violent.

The civil rights act wasn't an act of compassion or a concession made to the civil rights movement because it was the right thing to do. It was fought for and won by violence.

2

chippy94 t1_j1l0huv wrote

This reads like it was written by someone who hasn't heard of Popper's paradox of tolerance.

"If we’re asked to tolerate an idea or policy that operates at the expense of someone else’s existence or well-being — i.e., any supremacist ideology, or any other thought that threatens someone’s existence on basis of identity — our obligation is actually not to tolerate it, in the name of maintaining democratic ideals."

Further we need a government or system big/strong enough to allow for this.

https://www.politicalempathyproject.org/blog-posts/karl-poppers-paradox-of-tolerance-and-what-it-teaches-us-about-political-polarization

4

Zanderax t1_j1l7q8x wrote

I do wonder if I'm wasting my time engaging in good faith phlisophical arguments on this sub as many people just seem both ignorant and bigoted.

4

sheriffceph t1_j1n3zmo wrote

I've read through most of this thread and I thought you had a good go at arguing it well. The downvote crowd was uncalled for. I'd ask you though, what did you expect? It's a divisive subject that people believe passionately, dare I say religiously about. Both parties are going to find the other sides views repugnant.

2

sheriffceph t1_j1n2o8i wrote

Cheers for posting that, I didn't know about it but it hits at the heart of the unease I've felt about discussing certain subjects.

1

sihtotnidaertnod t1_j1k860j wrote

Bold of you to assume that a bygone age is problematic for being different than current sensibilities

5

Zanderax t1_j1k8za3 wrote

Its not an assumption, historical evidence indicates that progressive positions such as gender equality and queer acceptance were much less in the past than the present. Queer people and women in history faced oppression and progress on their acceptance is quite recent.

Obviously this depends on the time and place in history you are talking about but generally acceptance of women and queer people was much lower

10

sihtotnidaertnod t1_j1k9jvo wrote

My comment was on how silly it is to judge previous eras by current sensibilities. It’s like scoffing at the first lightbulb.

But, accordingly, current norms and ideas are equally pants-on-head-dumb, too, by the standards of future generations.

3