Asif Naqshbandi January 29, 2007
#129 Posted by ZahraJ on February 5, 2007 12:10:11 am
Re: # 103
You have a great sense of humor. I guess sometimes it is a little misplaced :)
You have a great sense of humor. I guess sometimes it is a little misplaced :)
#130 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 12:40:04 am
kaalchakra,
Nasah is pretty spot on with his translation of Al-Ikhlas, though Urstruly is right that in Quran the third person singular is used. Nasah is also right that this is the `intellectual` understanding of this verse, while the `Mullah` understanding is what you lament that how did it get translated into ``there is only one true god and his name is allah?``.
Al-Ikhlas, to me, is the most effectively condensed explanation of man`s relationship with time & space, and with the ultimate reality of his existence. Further references towards each of this Surah`s individual components are sprinkled all over Quran.
The statement of ``He has no beginning, He has no end -- He is the ALL in ONE and He is the ONE in ALL`` relates to statements like ``He is Everywhere and He is Nowhere`` and ``He is Omnipotent and He is the Most Humble`` quoted several times in Quran (though perhaps not in this exact form) as well as the 99 names (or descriptions) of Allah. It all translates, at-least to me, to what I had said in # 105 that nothing separates any animate or inanimate object from God.
This brings us to the question of what Tauheed actually means. Going by the above argument that according to Al-Ikhlas, nothing separates any animate or inanimate object from God, it would mean `Oneness with Allah`, or `Total Submission to Allah`. This same interpretation is the basis of the Sufi literature in which it is called `Falsafa-e-Wahdanyat`
or `Philosophy of Unity with a single reality`. But Naqsh is more of an expert on the subject.
You may be familiar with Hussain Mansour bin Al-Hallaj, the great Islamic Saint said to be the founder of the Sufi train of thought to whom many miracles are attributed. He was declared a heretic for repeatedly uttering the words `Ana-ul-Haq` meaning `I am the Truth`. This was taken to mean that he was claiming to be God. He was ordered to either recant or go to the gallows but he still kept saying the same thing. It goes in Islamic tradition (Zikratul Anbia) that his limbs were torn apart, put in a sack, burnt and the ashes thrown in the Euphrates, but still the sound of Ana-ul-Haq kept resonating from his ashes. This episode is very controversial in modern Islam and references to Al-Hallaj are mostly considered heretical and bordering on Kufr. However it appears to me he had reached that ultimate state of `Unity with God` whereby he felt compelled to say `I am the Truth`.
Re use of the word in Quran, tauheed is a derivative of the arabic `Wahda` which simply means `One`, and is used several times, and explained, such as in the following prayer recited at Hajj:
``La ilaha illa Allah wahdahu la shareeka lah, lahu al-mulku wa lahu al-hamdu wa huwa `ala kulli shai`in qadir.``
(There is no god but Allah. He is One and has no partners. To Him belongs the sovereignty and all praise. He has ultimate and absolute power over all things.)
Finally, the word Allah is not interchangeable with God, again because of Al-Ikhlas`s definition that Allah is incomparable to anything, and unique. I believe that Allah is the `mysterious tune` that Einstein referred to in his famous quote.
Thanks all for your interest. Would love to have more insight from our learned interactors on the subject. I apologise to anyone to whom my sometimes unconventional interpretations may seem abhorrent.
Rgds.
Nasah is pretty spot on with his translation of Al-Ikhlas, though Urstruly is right that in Quran the third person singular is used. Nasah is also right that this is the `intellectual` understanding of this verse, while the `Mullah` understanding is what you lament that how did it get translated into ``there is only one true god and his name is allah?``.
Al-Ikhlas, to me, is the most effectively condensed explanation of man`s relationship with time & space, and with the ultimate reality of his existence. Further references towards each of this Surah`s individual components are sprinkled all over Quran.
The statement of ``He has no beginning, He has no end -- He is the ALL in ONE and He is the ONE in ALL`` relates to statements like ``He is Everywhere and He is Nowhere`` and ``He is Omnipotent and He is the Most Humble`` quoted several times in Quran (though perhaps not in this exact form) as well as the 99 names (or descriptions) of Allah. It all translates, at-least to me, to what I had said in # 105 that nothing separates any animate or inanimate object from God.
This brings us to the question of what Tauheed actually means. Going by the above argument that according to Al-Ikhlas, nothing separates any animate or inanimate object from God, it would mean `Oneness with Allah`, or `Total Submission to Allah`. This same interpretation is the basis of the Sufi literature in which it is called `Falsafa-e-Wahdanyat`
or `Philosophy of Unity with a single reality`. But Naqsh is more of an expert on the subject.
You may be familiar with Hussain Mansour bin Al-Hallaj, the great Islamic Saint said to be the founder of the Sufi train of thought to whom many miracles are attributed. He was declared a heretic for repeatedly uttering the words `Ana-ul-Haq` meaning `I am the Truth`. This was taken to mean that he was claiming to be God. He was ordered to either recant or go to the gallows but he still kept saying the same thing. It goes in Islamic tradition (Zikratul Anbia) that his limbs were torn apart, put in a sack, burnt and the ashes thrown in the Euphrates, but still the sound of Ana-ul-Haq kept resonating from his ashes. This episode is very controversial in modern Islam and references to Al-Hallaj are mostly considered heretical and bordering on Kufr. However it appears to me he had reached that ultimate state of `Unity with God` whereby he felt compelled to say `I am the Truth`.
Re use of the word in Quran, tauheed is a derivative of the arabic `Wahda` which simply means `One`, and is used several times, and explained, such as in the following prayer recited at Hajj:
``La ilaha illa Allah wahdahu la shareeka lah, lahu al-mulku wa lahu al-hamdu wa huwa `ala kulli shai`in qadir.``
(There is no god but Allah. He is One and has no partners. To Him belongs the sovereignty and all praise. He has ultimate and absolute power over all things.)
Finally, the word Allah is not interchangeable with God, again because of Al-Ikhlas`s definition that Allah is incomparable to anything, and unique. I believe that Allah is the `mysterious tune` that Einstein referred to in his famous quote.
Thanks all for your interest. Would love to have more insight from our learned interactors on the subject. I apologise to anyone to whom my sometimes unconventional interpretations may seem abhorrent.
Rgds.
#131 Posted by Urstruly on February 5, 2007 8:04:31 am
Kalchakra
The concept of Tauheed i.e. Oneness of Creator is the raison d`etre of Islam and Qura`n. Tauheed is the message that was brought by close to 124,000 Prohets of God to every nation of humanity, starting from Adam (pbuh) and ending at Mohammad (pbuh).
In particular, Qura`n emphasises on no other concept more than the Tauheed. Qura`n has presented unrefutable arguments to every possible set of people - atheists, agnostics, deniers, Christians, Jews, naturalists, the people who look into macrocosm to find God, people who look into the microcosm to find God, and polytheists etc. each argument is different and tailored to address the people from these mindsets.
The first two set of beliefs that Islam puts forth are that ``There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad (pbuh) is his Prophet``. All other beliefs (close to 36) are a subset of this core belief. The third belief in this list is that ``Allah is Absolute``; which means that one has to have a belief that any idea that contrdicts the Absoluteness of Allah must be wrong. Therefore, such questions, where one asks whether God have parents, siblings, or offspring; does He eat, sleep, or procreate; what was before Him or what will be after Him; what is inside of Him or what is Outside of Him; is He bound by time and space are all invalid questions because such questions contradict His absoluteness. By the same token we Muslims are very sensitive to the notion of One in all and All in one (Zeemax should have been careful) because the extrapolation of this idea is the core reason behind Polytheism. Instead we Muslims prefer to say that everything belongs to Allah. Similarly, a question is why can`t we see God, the answer is that it contrdicts the principle of Absoluteness. Similarly, why can`t God have an image, because it contrdicts the principle of Absoluteness.
The Chapter of Qura`n which has been discussed in several posts below is an affirmation of one`s belif in the Absoluteness of Allah. It is like an oath and that is the reason it starts with the word SAY:. It is an oath of one`s sincerity to the belief in Tauheed and Absoluteness. Hence the name of the chapter is ``Sincerity``. Here is the translation:
Sincerity (Al-Ikhlas) 112: 1-4
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
The concept of Tauheed i.e. Oneness of Creator is the raison d`etre of Islam and Qura`n. Tauheed is the message that was brought by close to 124,000 Prohets of God to every nation of humanity, starting from Adam (pbuh) and ending at Mohammad (pbuh).
In particular, Qura`n emphasises on no other concept more than the Tauheed. Qura`n has presented unrefutable arguments to every possible set of people - atheists, agnostics, deniers, Christians, Jews, naturalists, the people who look into macrocosm to find God, people who look into the microcosm to find God, and polytheists etc. each argument is different and tailored to address the people from these mindsets.
The first two set of beliefs that Islam puts forth are that ``There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad (pbuh) is his Prophet``. All other beliefs (close to 36) are a subset of this core belief. The third belief in this list is that ``Allah is Absolute``; which means that one has to have a belief that any idea that contrdicts the Absoluteness of Allah must be wrong. Therefore, such questions, where one asks whether God have parents, siblings, or offspring; does He eat, sleep, or procreate; what was before Him or what will be after Him; what is inside of Him or what is Outside of Him; is He bound by time and space are all invalid questions because such questions contradict His absoluteness. By the same token we Muslims are very sensitive to the notion of One in all and All in one (Zeemax should have been careful) because the extrapolation of this idea is the core reason behind Polytheism. Instead we Muslims prefer to say that everything belongs to Allah. Similarly, a question is why can`t we see God, the answer is that it contrdicts the principle of Absoluteness. Similarly, why can`t God have an image, because it contrdicts the principle of Absoluteness.
The Chapter of Qura`n which has been discussed in several posts below is an affirmation of one`s belif in the Absoluteness of Allah. It is like an oath and that is the reason it starts with the word SAY:. It is an oath of one`s sincerity to the belief in Tauheed and Absoluteness. Hence the name of the chapter is ``Sincerity``. Here is the translation:
Sincerity (Al-Ikhlas) 112: 1-4
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
#132 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 10:37:50 am
#131 by Urstruly,
...the extrapolation of this idea is the core reason behind Polytheism.
I stand humbly corrected. Though it was never the intention behind my reproducing Nasah`s interpretation of All in One and One in All. I just thought it is a simple way of describing the contention of Allah that ``I am closer to you than your jugular vein``.
But I sincerely apologise for any misunderstanding this may have caused. What you have said is correct.
Rgds.
...the extrapolation of this idea is the core reason behind Polytheism.
I stand humbly corrected. Though it was never the intention behind my reproducing Nasah`s interpretation of All in One and One in All. I just thought it is a simple way of describing the contention of Allah that ``I am closer to you than your jugular vein``.
But I sincerely apologise for any misunderstanding this may have caused. What you have said is correct.
Rgds.
#133 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 10:54:47 am
Zee, it was great that you wrote #132. I typed in the following a little while ago but didn`t post it, not wanting to appear to be putting words in your mouth. But please do feel free to provide corrections where necessary. Regards.
Ustruly
That was a great post. ``The only god is allah whose prophet is Mohammad`` indeeds seems to be the uniquely Islamic understanding of tauheed.
Without putting words in his mouth, Zee, IMHO, is unlikely to have any basic disagreement with that Islamic claim. Nor would he interpret tauheed to mean the actual freedom (in any real Islamic society) to assert that one is Allah. As such Hussain Mansour bin Al-Hallaj represented much more than just a heresy. He actually represented a full return to non-Islam.
Ustruly
That was a great post. ``The only god is allah whose prophet is Mohammad`` indeeds seems to be the uniquely Islamic understanding of tauheed.
Without putting words in his mouth, Zee, IMHO, is unlikely to have any basic disagreement with that Islamic claim. Nor would he interpret tauheed to mean the actual freedom (in any real Islamic society) to assert that one is Allah. As such Hussain Mansour bin Al-Hallaj represented much more than just a heresy. He actually represented a full return to non-Islam.
#134 Posted by sattar2 on February 5, 2007 10:58:23 am
Re #103 Kulharee,
Relevant issues … although not expected to get straight answers from ullema and faithful members of the ummah here ...
Dear Prophet (pbuh) and early Muslims too faced similar persecution as they followed message of Islam. The system then had become too corrupt to be reformed from within, and was eventually dismantled with patience, effort, sacrifices, and more. Same is the case now.
This explains the manner in which ullema have united against Ahmadi-Muslims. Ullema have thrown Quran behind their backs and continue to violate Islamic teachings in most basic manner. This underscores how teachings of Islam have suffered at the hands of its own followers … very much the way teachings of Judaism had suffered at the hands of its own ullema during the times of Christ (pbuh). And hence the ahadith about reappearance of Christ …
In context of reappearance of Christ, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesized that ullema of his followers in the latter days would be Allah’s vilest creations. Your post supports fulfillment of the Prophet’s words … even as they continue to humor Zahra …
#135 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 11:19:19 am
#133 by kaalchakra
Kaal,
He actually represented a full return to non-Islam.
I`m not too sure about that. Perhaps he didn`t. Perhaps he did. I don`t know.
I once mentioned on these boards that my Father is an Islamic scholar (He used to be an agnostic whilst living in Quebec in the 50s but that`s another story). I never believed him nor listened to him but when he turned 70 (Mashallah he is still kicking ass at 83), he thought he was going to die soon. So he wrote a letter (no phonecall ... but a letter) to all of us sons and a daughter living abroad as well as our young cousins etc. In those six pages he explained what it was all about. What I felt striking and somewhat repelling was that he did not state anything as expression of any opinions of his, but a statement of the absolute reality. I confronted him over this and invoked Al-Hallaj. Here he stopped me firmly with a lot of sadness in his eyes. He said that where Al-Hallaj had reached, don`t even tread towards that path. Because one step further, is `Kufr`.
I took him on his word. I don`t go towards that direction anymore. I didn`t ask him to elaborate further though I wanted to, but I saw clearly he was badly shaken.
Kaalchakra, this is a very complex matter. The further you peel off the layers, the further you get into an abyss. I would rather take the blind faith in Allah & conduct as prescribed by Him. It is sufficient for me.
When Kerry Packer was dead for 8 minutes, and people asked him about it, he had said `` I was on the other side, and there was nothing there``.
Again my profuse apologies should I have treaded on any sensitive issues.
Kaal,
He actually represented a full return to non-Islam.
I`m not too sure about that. Perhaps he didn`t. Perhaps he did. I don`t know.
I once mentioned on these boards that my Father is an Islamic scholar (He used to be an agnostic whilst living in Quebec in the 50s but that`s another story). I never believed him nor listened to him but when he turned 70 (Mashallah he is still kicking ass at 83), he thought he was going to die soon. So he wrote a letter (no phonecall ... but a letter) to all of us sons and a daughter living abroad as well as our young cousins etc. In those six pages he explained what it was all about. What I felt striking and somewhat repelling was that he did not state anything as expression of any opinions of his, but a statement of the absolute reality. I confronted him over this and invoked Al-Hallaj. Here he stopped me firmly with a lot of sadness in his eyes. He said that where Al-Hallaj had reached, don`t even tread towards that path. Because one step further, is `Kufr`.
I took him on his word. I don`t go towards that direction anymore. I didn`t ask him to elaborate further though I wanted to, but I saw clearly he was badly shaken.
Kaalchakra, this is a very complex matter. The further you peel off the layers, the further you get into an abyss. I would rather take the blind faith in Allah & conduct as prescribed by Him. It is sufficient for me.
When Kerry Packer was dead for 8 minutes, and people asked him about it, he had said `` I was on the other side, and there was nothing there``.
Again my profuse apologies should I have treaded on any sensitive issues.
#136 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 11:20:14 am
Just to show how far poor Hussain Mansour bin Al-Hallaj had strayed from Islam consider the basic mahavakyas (Great Aphorisms) of Hinduism - which is complete polytheism and full shirk:
Aphorism 1: The Ultimate Knowledge/Truth/Consciousness is God.
Aphorism 2: I am God.
Aphorism 3: You are That.
Aphorism 4: This Atman is God.
Aphorism 1: The Ultimate Knowledge/Truth/Consciousness is God.
Aphorism 2: I am God.
Aphorism 3: You are That.
Aphorism 4: This Atman is God.
#137 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 11:24:25 am
... add on #135 ... (forgot to write).
Still, Iqbal`s ``Khudi ko kar bulund itna key har taqdeer sey pehley; Khuda bandey sey khud poochey bata teri raza kya hai?`` makes one wonder what the hell did he mean by that?
Still, Iqbal`s ``Khudi ko kar bulund itna key har taqdeer sey pehley; Khuda bandey sey khud poochey bata teri raza kya hai?`` makes one wonder what the hell did he mean by that?
#140 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 11:38:51 am
#138 by kaalchakra
No. Iqbal was not a poet at all. Iqbal was a Mussalman ... no other Mussalman like him.
No. Iqbal was not a poet at all. Iqbal was a Mussalman ... no other Mussalman like him.
#141 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 11:42:20 am
Kaal,
I`m still pondering over this:
The Fourfold Negation:
The Buddha denied that we exist, denied that we do not exist, denied that we both exist and do not exist, and denied that we neither exist nor do not exist.
Do you know what it`s about?
I`m still pondering over this:
The Fourfold Negation:
The Buddha denied that we exist, denied that we do not exist, denied that we both exist and do not exist, and denied that we neither exist nor do not exist.
Do you know what it`s about?
#142 Posted by Urstruly on February 5, 2007 11:50:22 am
Zeemax & Kaal
Even if we give the benefit of doubt to Hallaj and assume that he was only being too philosophical (being on opium or bhang, being too full of himself, or simply having mind altering delusions could be some other possible explanations) it is no brainer that he violated another one of the oath that a Muslim makes with Allah. The oath is in the Chapter Al-Kafiroon (Atheists; Disbelievers). Here is the translation of the Chapter/oath:
AL-KAFIROON (THE DISBELIEVERS, ATHEISTS)
Say: O unbelievers!
I do not serve that which you serve,
Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
This oath stipulates in no uncertain terms, our relationship with God and this relationship is only and only that of a servant or a worshipper; no matter what we do we cannot become Him or part of Him. Mansur Hallaj claimed to be the Absolute Truth, which violates the first oath that we discussed in the post below, because only Absolute is the Allah Himself.
Look at the title of this Chapter i.e. Atheists or Disbelivers. Almost every Ateists whom you will ask will claim that he belives in nothing, but in fact that is his belief. Hence Qura`n puts forth such a forcefull and irrefutable argument to atheists that only a stubborn one would claim that he can`t see the point. Elsewhere in Qura`n Allah challenges atheists that this Cosmos is the proof of His existence, what is the proof that you have. Such challenge can only come from the Devine. The text of the chapter makes it clear how disbelivers worship their own stubborness and hold it as a god itself.
Even if we give the benefit of doubt to Hallaj and assume that he was only being too philosophical (being on opium or bhang, being too full of himself, or simply having mind altering delusions could be some other possible explanations) it is no brainer that he violated another one of the oath that a Muslim makes with Allah. The oath is in the Chapter Al-Kafiroon (Atheists; Disbelievers). Here is the translation of the Chapter/oath:
AL-KAFIROON (THE DISBELIEVERS, ATHEISTS)
Say: O unbelievers!
I do not serve that which you serve,
Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
This oath stipulates in no uncertain terms, our relationship with God and this relationship is only and only that of a servant or a worshipper; no matter what we do we cannot become Him or part of Him. Mansur Hallaj claimed to be the Absolute Truth, which violates the first oath that we discussed in the post below, because only Absolute is the Allah Himself.
Look at the title of this Chapter i.e. Atheists or Disbelivers. Almost every Ateists whom you will ask will claim that he belives in nothing, but in fact that is his belief. Hence Qura`n puts forth such a forcefull and irrefutable argument to atheists that only a stubborn one would claim that he can`t see the point. Elsewhere in Qura`n Allah challenges atheists that this Cosmos is the proof of His existence, what is the proof that you have. Such challenge can only come from the Devine. The text of the chapter makes it clear how disbelivers worship their own stubborness and hold it as a god itself.
#143 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 11:59:27 am
Zee
can`t claim to comprehend the Great Buddha`s mind, and some Buddhist would know better, but it may be related to the basic Indian idea that God/Ultimate Reality can be ``known`` ONLY through negation....the moment you begin to ``describe`` God, you have fully lost Him/It.
So the Indian sages would traditionally describe the absolute, the transcendental, infinite reality as neti, neti (not this, not this).
May be the Buddha was telling us that the question of existence or nonexistence cannot be settled by us humans in an absolute sense, since absolute knowledge is simply beyond human ken. (Having just lost my younger sister - I loved her very much - I think I have a sense of what he meant, although I do not ``understand`` it).
Urstruly
I know...there is a reason why this whole nautanki of Sufism is beneath contempt.
can`t claim to comprehend the Great Buddha`s mind, and some Buddhist would know better, but it may be related to the basic Indian idea that God/Ultimate Reality can be ``known`` ONLY through negation....the moment you begin to ``describe`` God, you have fully lost Him/It.
So the Indian sages would traditionally describe the absolute, the transcendental, infinite reality as neti, neti (not this, not this).
May be the Buddha was telling us that the question of existence or nonexistence cannot be settled by us humans in an absolute sense, since absolute knowledge is simply beyond human ken. (Having just lost my younger sister - I loved her very much - I think I have a sense of what he meant, although I do not ``understand`` it).
Urstruly
I know...there is a reason why this whole nautanki of Sufism is beneath contempt.
#144 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 12:05:49 pm
#142 by Urstruly
Again, Urstruly is right. Learning from experience, one gets to the knowledge that there are many things beyond a person`s will and reach no matter what, and indeed a person is quite helpless at times till he calls upon Allah. And then, miracles begin to occur.
There have been many such instances in my life. Whenever I have called upon Allah to help when I was in dire straits, I have always come out ahead through doors opening from all directions clearly showing me which to take, when it would have been a matter of seconds for me to miss them altogether and back to misery.
So, I have Faith. That is enough. Intellect counts for nothing. Allah does. Too many questions lead to kufr. I really believe that.
Again, Urstruly is right. Learning from experience, one gets to the knowledge that there are many things beyond a person`s will and reach no matter what, and indeed a person is quite helpless at times till he calls upon Allah. And then, miracles begin to occur.
There have been many such instances in my life. Whenever I have called upon Allah to help when I was in dire straits, I have always come out ahead through doors opening from all directions clearly showing me which to take, when it would have been a matter of seconds for me to miss them altogether and back to misery.
So, I have Faith. That is enough. Intellect counts for nothing. Allah does. Too many questions lead to kufr. I really believe that.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: Mr Masadi: and one... Musharraf's Resignation and Beyond
- hurricane: Laddu bhai, unfortunately the only... Is this Amnesia or
- hurricane: Laddu bhai, You are right... Is this Amnesia or
- tahmed32: Mr.TNI Masadi: Thanks for... Musharraf's Resignation and Beyond
- ajeya: #31 masadi I reserve the... Musharraf's Resignation and Beyond
- ajeya: #30 masadi [However your mind... Musharraf's Resignation and Beyond
- laddu: Guru ji, I beg to... Is this Amnesia or
- masadi: You all take it... Musharraf's Resignation and Beyond








reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content