Songs of love and devotion

Hi Mushtaq

Thanks for replying.And keep up the good work,planting fruit trees.Plant as many as you can.

To continue on the origins of the word ``nazarene``,``nasrani``.It was actually the scholars of the dead sea scrolls who initially pointed out that infact``QURAN`` used this word 1500yrs ago when the christian kingdoms did not used this word as their identifying statement.The christian kingdoms until now are begining to understand what ``nasrani``,``nazareni`` actually stands for.

The amazing thing is even arabs who traded in the christian lands called them as the people of the cross and did not know what `NAZARENE`` of the bible ment.Quran began to identify these christians as nasrani(nasorean,nazarene)even though these people called themselves other than what Quran pointed out.

Dead sea scrolls clearly points out the monotheistic inclination of these early christians `NASRANI,NAZARENE`.The residents of Qumran community had believes similar to ours and clearly in the writtings of the times of prophet Essa ,document that he never thought of himself as son of God nor did he preached trinity.Until 72 AD when jerusilum was destroyed totally by romans Qumran community`s believes did not include jesus as son of God nor concept of trinity existed.The writtings from that time are a witness to this statement.It was actually after the destruction of jerusilum in72 AD that the Helenized form of christianity began to appear borrowing from mithraism and other helenic mythologies.

What I want to point out is 1500yrs ago Quran could have not forget these early christians the true followers of jesus in the midst of helenized christians.

The answer to your question ,should spirit or spirituality be redefined or not? my answer is yes.Because of this misconception everyboby is different in their believes.Nobody is even ready to listen to the other because their spirit is the true spirit and all other are false and hence gentiles.As long as this concept will remain in metaphysics the conflict will remain and killing oneanother in the name of religion will continue.

The world is unanimous in the concepts of physics,and lets not forget that all the concepts of physics were metaphysics initially and incited fearse rivalry.Many scholars died initially untill now.

Very soon this concept ``spirit`` ,``spirituality`` will enter the domain of physics.I as a physician ,am begining to foresee that,so I want to come out early and talk about it.

I think that the world is much closer together now, not because of metaphysics but because of physics.Our conflicts are metaphysical,and because as you pointed out that you had your own experiances then how can you make somebody to agree withyou and not penalise you.Your experiances are vital for you and you should have them ,and when I say redefine it ,what I mean is that their should be a universal way in which people could see what you mean and thence tolarate you or for that matter tolarate me.

There was only one Mohammad,one man named einstien and whosoever is doing what they have done is not because of same experiance but because of followership which helps to have same experiances.

Finally I was able to read your article at URL.Beautifully written indeed,your thoughts became much clearer.

I honor your experiances and your thoughts even though I might think differently,nevertheless your experiances and thoughts were invaluable to me.

Looking forward to discuss more

Salman

mushtaq farooqui reply#19

I could not find URL at the site you have mentioned.

Quran does not use the word ``christians``.This translation is an old attempt which is still accepted.Quran actually uses the word ``Nasrani`` or ``nassara``.Only untill recently it became clear as to why Quran has used this word and not christians.When the dead sea scrolls were discovered early last century(1940s)scholars were not fully able to translate all of them.In late 80s and early 90s the full translation started to come out.After that it became clear in the christian world that it was not the ``Cross`` which was the symbol of early christians but it was ``Fish`` which was their symbol.Jesus was called ``Jesus the Nazerene`` not because he was born in nazarath ,a town which did not exist when jesus was born but he was called nazarene because he used the symbol of fish.Hebrew and arabic are daughter languages of Aramaic and so both sound and also in many respects mean alike.THere is a place at the southern coast of sinai penensula which is called as ``Ras Nasrani``. This place has been inhabited by the ancesters of the locals who speak arabic and according to them the place is named because when you go out on the sea to fish you will see small fishs in groups passing by and as in their language small fish are called ``nasrani``this place came to be known as Ras Nasrani.This tells us that Quran already knew that true christians were not the people of the Cross but were the people of The Fish.Now if you read dead sea scroll it will become clear to you that they did not preach what is prevalent now.So if Quran was addressing ``Nasranies`` then it does not translate into polytheists.

Secondly most of the verses were the rules of conduct in times of stress ie war,foreign policy

etc.These rules were not for the peace times that is why if you look at history,hadith,biographies etc non of the followers went out looking for unbelievers during peace time to kill them.

It is a wise idea to lay down rules of war and peace.And the rules of war should only be open for argument during war.Islam means Peace,and Allah being most powerful can most certainly do His own killing rather then tell us to do it for Him.

Your explanation of spirit, soul,noor,light is an old one .That is precisely what I have come across in every writting about it.Tell me what is your independent view not which already has prevailed for centuries.

After I see your response I will quote the verse which has sparked the old concept.But then I will also quote the most early meaning of the verse given by the very early scholar which actually should have been the concept of spirit and soul from the begining.

Mushtaq Farooqui # 19:

I know I saw the URL somewhere but cannot find it now. Would you kindly mention it here again?

rgds

t

mushtaq farooqui reply # 19

I am greatful for your reply. I am sorry for taking up issues ahead of what is yet to come latter from you.

I think both of us are talking the same .I agree with you as far as the source of the spirit or the soul is concerned but I am not sure whether we should stick to old school of thought.

I will hold my thoughts here and wait for next chapters .I may find my thoughts written in your words.If not I will forward a valid argument.

Thank you

PM

Thanks for responding.

You asked a very important question.``Redefine spirituality``.This question is very important because I think if we were to understand the meaning of spirituality it may bring all of us together.

This is what I think of spirituality.The basic unit of spirituality is the ``spirit``.What is spirit ? Does it really has a form as all of us believe based on our ancient inheritance.The ancient text is full of stories of spirits ,how their life is after death.Even our modern writers could not come up something of their own instead they also used ancient ideas on the spirit and spirituality.

I think otherwise,we should remove the idea of spirituality and spirit from the realm of Metaphysics and bring it in the domain of physics.

What is the need of a spirit to a man?Is it necessary for life?If it is necessary for the living then what is its use for the dead?

Redefine spirit and the things begin to fall in place on spirituality.I will try to prove that the spirit is not required for life and then what is it that we are calling spirit and should we agree to the new terminology?Because most of the readers at chowk are pakistanis and muslims therefore I will use the Quranic text to prove my point.(I am a Doctor by profession,I have seen so many dead that I can now appreciate what Quran has tried to say 1500yrs ago ``meri beash baha cheez yani rooh``)

There are four ways in which a mans life is terminated inthe text.The translation ia as under

``Tum mein sae jo mar jate haen uon kee rooh Hum kabz kar laty Haen aur jo marty nahen uon kee sotay maen kabz kertay hein aur jin kee likh chortay haen uon ko oos wakat taak chori rakhatay haen aur kooch roohon ko thoray arsy kay lea chor daytaay haen.Tum maen say jo akkal rakhatey haen uon kay lea is maen bohat nashania haen``

This may help us redefine Spirit.The very first thing this text tells you is that death is not the outcome of ``rooh kabz hona`` but rooh kabz hona is the event following death.The very next line will confirm this point when it say ``tum main jo marty naheh uon kee sotay......etc.By this text if the first line was not as I have put then all of us die when we sleep but then we all know that it is not correct,we are asleep and our bodies are performing all the functions of life.During this period the only thing missing is our ``rooh`` according to the text which all muslims believe.

When I sleep the only thing I am missing is the conscienceness of my surroundings.This suggest that it is my conscience which the text is referring to and the seat of that conscience is my brain and not my heart.So if I were to die would my conscience or rooh have a form or would it feel the need to have a form including mouth, nose, eyes as depicted by all ancient texts.Why would rooh,spirit,conscience need a nose when nose is meant for breathing or eyes when eyes are meant for seeing.Would the rooh choke if not had a nose or will bump into things if not had eyes.

I dont think so ,my conscience has a form which is me in physics and my thoughts which are a part of my conscience really do not have a physical form.This is what makes me better than the other species.

I think that what God means according to the Quranic text ``Meri baesh baha cheez yani Rooh`` is infinite conscience from which no knowledge can escape.We have a part of it therefore we can also know.

Knowledge makes you superior in all repect and this is what I think righteous stands for and not for what it has stood for so many centuries.

Now if the face of the spirit is this then it is very individual as the level or the state of your conscience depends on you surrounding so that you can only be aware up to a certain level even if you try your best ,that is the limit of an individual spirit.What ever you become aware of by a certain level that is your knowledge or spirituality.Now you would agree that if five individuals were to read a same book each will come up with different opinion,why is it so when the author is one ,story is one ,what the author meant he knows but why five different views.It is this individual awareness,conscience or in ancient words spirit and level of knowledge to appreciate the logic or in ancient words spirituality.This difference is not a fault of my own,this is exactly how we should be as the ``Great Conscience`` meant us to be .It is the knowledge which makes you righteous and knowledge is build from rationalism.

So you see spirituality and rationalism are in reality dependent on each other ,one would not survive without the other.Inherently conscience comes with a self destruct mechanism which the ancient called ``Evil``.

Qadeer (re. 15)

Thank you for the insights-- almost serendipitous in timing, as I am tackling Nietzche in a new light presently.

``Spiritualism, the ancient term and rationalism will never be able to separate because they arise from each other.``

hmmm... A happy harmony...something I`d like to believe, but can`t really get myself to, recently. Guess we need to define spiritualism a little further.

Will turn your ideas in my head a while, then respond if I feel there`s anything worthwhile to say.

regards,

PM

temporal

I am following that discussion but I want to talk about the issues that this article pointed out in the begining because I have to face them daily .Philosophising it for handful of intellectuals is not my goal. This medium is open to every body and perhaps philosophising it would make it beyond comprehension to many.I want to keep the issue simple.

PM,Saima

Spirit is the terminology of the ancient.In current times it does not do justice to what is happening around us.Spiritual(rohani) should be replaced by the modern term ``Conscience``.It is the state of complete awareness by utilizing all physical senses.One is not spiritual or conscience from birth it arrives gradually.Your senses of awareness gives you an experience around which you form your hypothesis.Since it is an individual determinant therefore it does not coincide with the other and hence makes us appear different.By the time you attain Ego you try to be spiritual or conscience but true spirituality or consciencessness arrives when you reach Superego.This is the state where I think submission begins.You than not only require a God to whom you should submit to but you also submit to every thing like hunger,pain,suffering,injustice,insults etc because it no longer bothers you because your experiance has made you learn that you cannot change much of it so you start submitting or in other words become spiritual.At the same time you begin to do another thing for which you are tuned to do and that is you start to give rationalism to your new found spiritualism.Here things start falling through the cracks and you begin to differ not just in opinions but also inyour submissions.

One thing we have to realize is that we dont receive our spirituality or conscience but we are tuned to it.It always come to every body no matter who he or she is.

Spiritualism, the ancient term and rationalism will never be able to separate because they arise from each other .

Modern term conscience and old term spirituality comes with a selfdestruct mechanism and we are all tuned to it.Spiritualism has also caused destruction in this world as did rationalism.

The reason for this destruction is because we misunderstood spirituality and I think that the time has come to start thinking of it in a different way.

qadeer #12:

There is an interesting discussion in the next board (What is lacking inside..) between Zahra, SameerJB and PM. Please have a look at it.

regards

t

PS: Sorry Mushtaq. Will look
forward to the other three instalments.

re. Saima, #

``Much as I am impressed by the achievement of rationalist thought, I am appalled by its brutality and single minded drive for material wealth. Its hedonist selfishness can destroy the world; yet so many of us dazzled by power forget the freedom of the spiritual life; its peace,

its sanctity.``

I agree, hedonsitic selfishness can, and does, destroy the world, and so many of us are dazzled by power and forget the spiritual life...

But I don`t agree that these are the products of rationalism, which is an essentially amoral (not immoral). I`d argue that they`re more likely the reactions to the exposure of empty and meaningless spirituality. Rationalism, as a religion, needs a vacuum for it`s propagation.

regards,

This is an interesting topic to discuss.There are several questions this article brought up and I think that it would only be fare to discuss each, one by one.

I am a born muslim not a muslim by choice,but any body who is any body by choice is perhaps better than I am because in order to choose one has to think hard.In a sense I would like to let go of my birth right for a while so that I could become an independent thinker and thence practice my choice.

Currently I am in a process of doing that,I may not be precise but I am trying.

I would begin with the issue of the translation of the text.I think translating any text into another language would alter the true spirit of the text and Quranic translations were no exceptions.I will present one example.

All of us are well aware of the very first revealation on the mount Hira.As a child we were told that it was amazing that the prophet who did not know how to read was commanded to read.But even after the revealation he could not read the written word others used to read it for him.Well if the commandment was truly ment to sound like as it is translated into many languages then history would have documented that the prophet started reading after that commandment.If you dig deep enough that was not what the commandment ment.In the biography of the prophet Mohd(pbuh) ibn-i-ishaq describes the society vividly.The parents of that time did not indulge there children in the attempt to master the trades of that time or the knowledge of the stars etc but were involved in the attempt to master the art of the tongue,vocabulary,poetry,rhetoric etc.Every big name of that time was a poet including the following

Abu Talab

Abu Sufian(well known)and his wife Hind

Abu Jahal

Abu Lahab and his wife

and so many more,all big names of that time mention in the islamic history were poets in their own class.In the midst of great poets of that time Mohammad(PBUH) started doing the same.I dont think that IQRA ment READ OR PARHO.Actually in URDU language it ment IRSHAD as if in MUSHAHIRA.To that he gave an appropriate answer that he cannot IRSHAD because he was not a poet.As it continues,he finally gave in and started saying Qalaam(in a poetic sense).The Biography continues that the prophet`s initial response to this event was that perhaps he has gone MAGNON(MAD)because that was exactly the understanding about a poet,the greatest poet of that time used to say that a Gin overcomes him and extracts the words out of his mouth.So Mohammeds(pbuh)initial response was exactly like that and thinking that he has gone Magnon he tried to jump from the cave in order to kill himself but was reassured by the archangle.Reading Ibn-i-ishaq and knowing about the society has transformed my perception completely because a poet can remain illetrate and not be able to read but could still come up with fasinating Qalaam.

Further pondering the text gives you a sense as to what was prevalent in that society.The text deals with issues as they appear or elaborating on the past but mostly present followed by future issues.

I think it was okay to compile it together initially at that time by the scholars of that time but latter it would have served its purpose better if it would have been categorized into the text which was pertinent to that times and the text which would be relavent to all times.

Because of this,here arises another problem

The problem to deal with the Question that Quran is against all religions and that it says that christians should be killed.I really could not come to this conclusion by reading Quran only because there are many verses where it has been revealed that

``any one among you who is either a muslim,or a jew ,or a christian or a star worshiper(I think the translators have put star worshipers in here because of there limitations ,but it should mean or translated as ,all other religions) as long as they believe in One God and the day of judgement ,We have a reward for them and they will not be disappointed.``

Is this a mistake or is this a mistranslation, does the God not know what a christian or a jew stands for,if He does He still includes all of them. This verse has been repeated atleast two times that I could remember.This I think is a verse which is for all times and hence should be officially acknowledged.The verses in which there has been referrances to misconduct of jews and how to deal with it was a reponse to the political situation which was prevalent at that time.It is an important part of history and probably will always remain.But now we are not in the same political situation,the movement is 1500yrs old now,it is well established,it does not require the policies of the begining,as far as my understanding of the Quranic text,Hadith and ibn-i-ishaq`s biography, all the religions and their followers were to be protected under the domain of Islamic state as dictated by the then available text and laws set forth by the Prophet(pbuh).The future of islamic state as set by the God was supposed to be different than what prevails now and I think the non-muslims should be helped to see that,but we are doing the opposite.

What ever the misunderstanding is, it is hurting the movement.

I think I should stop here because I am tired. The next Question about God being Wrathful,Severe needs to begin with another Question first.

``What is God``?

I will appologise in advance if I am upsetting somebody.My effort was not to do that.

Mushtaq - I enjoyed reading the write-up, but I would like to see you or anyone here post a reply to `fhn` who made some interesting points. Also, I look forward to the remaining parts of the puzzle.

fhn - Liked the quote, ``the life of the law has not been logic but experience`` because I am a firm believer in the power and influence of experience. Logic is not always logical, sometimes it is, ``ill-logical-logic`` a term I coined.

As for Islamic Law... well, who sat and put that together? A bunch of men, based on what another bunch of men said?

=zensufi.com=

Saima ji

Rational spirituality is the key! The rationality is founded by the borders of the Shar`iah as delineated by the fuqaha; and within this wide framework you have tariqat-tassawuf `Islamic spirituality`--that is why, almost all of the great fuqaha and mutakkalameen have also been grea sufis. Even Mawlana Rumi was a jurist for 40 years! That is why one of the great Sufis said that shar`iat without tariqat is hypocrisy and tariqat without shariat is zindeeqat [heresy]!

We must have a balance, a middle way between the heart and the intellect. That is the way of Islam :-)

Accha hai ke rehay aql paasbaan e dil

Par kabhi issay tanhaa bhi choR day

(apologise if misquote of Iqbal)

Remember--as all of the sufis have said, sometimes you have to let your Heart take you into places the intellect cannot go:

Bay-khatr kood paRa aatish-e-nimrood mein ishq

aql hai mahv-e-tamaasha, lab-e-baam abhi!

Iqbal

:-)

Beautiful! Brilliant article! I`m so glad that someone has finally posted such a wonderful article about Traditional Islam on this forum and especially from the point of view of Tassawuf.

I agree with nearly everything in your article but just have a few additions which I hope you will bear!

1. The traditional ulama and the Mashaikh of Ahle Sunnah w`al Jama`ah have identified the First Intellect, the First Soul, the First (Created) Light [Aql-e- Awwal, RooH-e-Awwal, Noor-e-Awwal] and the Qalam [Pen] all with the Haqiqat Muhammadi sal allahu alayhi wa sallam; that is, the Muhammadan Reality for in the hadith related by Hazrat Jabir Our Master Sayyidina Muhammad alayhi salaatosalaam said in answer to a question, ``O Jabir the first thing which Allah created was the Noor of your Prophet.`` (I think Hazrat Shaikh Abd al Qadir al Jilani radhi Allah anhu explains this, that the first of creation was Our Prophet Muhammad alayhi salaato salaam in The Secret of Secrets, if I remember correctly.)

The only thing I disagree with you--not on my own opinions but because it is what is the orthodox opinion of Ahle Sunnah wal JamaaH is that you seem to be arguing for perrenialism (i.e. that validity of all religions)--unless I have misunderstood your article in which case i apologise--and perrenialism is an un-Islamic belief. Shaikh Nuh Hah Meem Keller, the Maliki scholar and Shadhili (?) Sufi (and convert) has answered this point beautifully and comprehensively in this article which I refer you to:

``On the validity of all religions

in the thought of ibn Al-`Arabi and Emir `Abd al-Qadir

a letter to `Abd al-Matin

(c) Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1996`` which can be found at http://www.come.to/masud.khan

wa alaykum salaam

Asif Naqshbandi al Hanafi al Maturidi

Mushtaque:

You say, “This article contains the writings of authors who have looked deep into the vision of Islam, within the Islamic tradition itself, and it is it is precisely this vision that can provide us with the self reflection of the Muslims own traditions.”

If we consider Islam universal and timeless what does this confined and restrictive introspection says?

rgds

t

PS: Look forward to the remaining three parts.

Mushtaq

I find your ideas beautiful and soul-stirring.

The need for God is across civilizations, cultures, times and races. Much that is beautiful
in human thought is spiritual.

Much as I am impressed by the achievement of rationalist thought, I am appalled by its brutality and single minded drive for material wealth. Its hedonist selfishness can destroy the world; yet so many of us dazzled by power forget the freedom of the spiritual life; its peace, its sanctity.

Thanks for an alternative view-point; we dont have to be either rationalists or spiritualists to get fulfillment in life; to start with I want to explore!