btw, the very line you have quoted should be in full: wahi la makaN ke makiN huwe, sar e arsh takht nashiN huwe woh nabi hai jis ke haiN yeh makaN, woh khuda hai jis ka makaN nahiN ---- clearly, nabi is in makan and khuda is transcendent from makan. ---- wa billahi't tawfiq.
poetic expression should not be taken literally, much less a statement of aqidah. --- in which case: bacha jo talwoN ke un ka dhovan; bana woh jannat ka rang o roghan must mean that water washed off his blessed legs was used to irrigate paradise and "oil" it. --- sub'HanAllah. i shudder to think what people may do to ibn al-farid's poetry...
wohi la makan ke makeen hue sare 'arsh takht nasheen hue How can someone be a makeen if its LA-makan by definition? -------- Heard a completely out of the blues explanation of this from a very senior scholar, a khalifa of Mufti-e-Azam, and a very learned personality. But I wont write anything until I get a chanceto confirm whether what I've understood is correct or not and that chance may come soon, inshaAllah. one thing is certain, 'arsh is not in la-makan. Btw 'in' la-makan doesn't make sense - since nothing can be 'in' nowhere. Wassalaam.
if he really said it then we would also have to believe that arsh is also in la makan, sounds very strange. it might be a slip of tongue, or an effort to explain something that cannot be explained.
i was watching qtv today and the discussion was on the blessed night of Me3raj. it's astonishing that upon being asked, Mufti Suhail Raza Amjadi gave a tashreeh for la-makan as follows: the above is more or less verbatim quote of what i heard, and to be honest i was astonished that an Amjadi scholar, a mufti more so, would say something like this that is simply no different than the mujassim albani's aqidah which states that space finishes at a certain point, and then it's no-space-place or no-place-space (what ever you wanna call it) and that's where... according to this aqidah, la-makan is just another makan, with probably no air or atmosphere or something, and that's exactly what Suhail Raza said. again, the sad part is that the anchor asked him to explain la-makan Mufti Abu Bakr Shadhili was also seated there and didn't utter a squeak and 3arsh par tashreef-farma is really as bad as tashbeeh gets, based on my meager knowledge of Urdu am i over-reacting here or have they stopped teaching basic 3qaid to muftis in the mufti course, going overboard in commercial tasawwuf and na3t-khwani? is that what Ala Hazrat stated in his Qaware3 al-Qahhar?
