Songs of love and devotion

I find your observations compelling. But at the same time, they seem to be describing something rather than getting right to the heart of it - a common problem when writing of mystical concepts. Still, would love to discuss this with you. Please write at bina@chowk.com

Thanks,
Bina

Though I essentially agree with you that Islam has been coloured by a westernised view, I think that it has been coloured even more by the `male` point of view of all the interpretations or `igtihad` if you would like to call it that, of the various sheikhs, mullahs, muftis and what have you. Islam has taken quite a turn from what it used to be in the early days of the times of the prophet or even the 4 rightfully guided caliphs. Quran itself might not have changed, but you have so many different interpretations of it now, and not everyone is educated enough or even proficient enough in arabic to understand the original writings.

Liked your somewhat rhetorical questions though, they open many an avenue for constructive discussions. Looking forward to following the replies on your article.

Salam

``Islam granted rights to women, the likes of which the Western world is just now beginning to give to its women, more than a thousand years later. It was nothing less than revolutionary.``

Even if one were to agree that the rights granted to women under Islam were revolutionary in the 7th century, it is equally true that today it lags far behind in granting women the equality that they deserve. And the way the Saudis and the taliban interpret womens rights under Islam would probably be considered barbaric at any time. Why should an objective observer not conclude that Islam is less than fair to women, based on the observed behavior of these nations? What authority makes your interpretation of Islam a more ``correct`` one than the Saudis?

``If men are so superior, why does the point have to be emphasized so much?``

Let me point out the error of your reasoning here by asking you the following question: If the prophethood of Muhammed (PBUH) was so evident, why does it have to be emphasized so much?

I very much fear that this article is an exercise in post-facto rationalization.

Dear Mr. Farooqi,

You write:

“There are two traditions in Islamic thought: the ‘intellectual’ tradition and the ‘jurist’ tradition. The representatives of the ‘intellectual’ tradition ask the ‘why’ of things, and not simply the ‘how’. This is the ‘Hadith’. The representatives of the ‘jurist’ tradition tell the people ‘what’ they must do and not ask ‘why’. This is the ‘Sharia’ or the ‘Kalaam’.

Proponents of the ‘Kalaam’ have been called ``fundamentalist`` or “Islamist” or something equally strange by Westerners. But this imposes a category that does not, that cannot, exist in Islam. All Muslims believe in the Quran. By this definition all Muslims would have to be categorized as ‘fundamentalist’. A Muslim is a Muslim.”

You also write:

“All Muslims follow the Hadith and the Sharia:

This means that Islam can only be followed in its entirety.”

So, you have your own categories? Intellectuals, and jurists – and they are two different groups of people in Islam? But since Islam can only be followed in its entirety, how can a jurist who is not an intellectual implement sharia in its essence?

I agree with you that Islam is misunderstood and misrepresented in the west, but can you explain the behavior of proponents of ‘kalaam’ in Afghanistan? Quote me a Hadit or a Quranic verse which says that women are not be educated…. Or that women are not to take part in the economic development of a nation…Or that killing innocent men, women and children is OK by Islam….

Fair enough, you don’t like the term ‘fundamentalists’ - it is alien to Islam…. No worries, come up with your own term to describe them…

For God`s sake, man, come out of your ivory tower and try and deal with our problems. At the end of all the gibberish that you insist upon citing, your conclusion is still that the Shariah is the Shariah and if you don`t like it, then you just have to lump it. Why? Who said that the Quran is unalterable? Who said that the Quran itself is part of the Divine Essence? Not the Quran itself. If you had read more books on Islamic history you might have realised that the debate as to whether the Quran was created or uncreated formed a very important part of early Islamic intellectual development. I don`t want to love God. I don`t want to lose myself in the nameless wonders of cosmic contemplation. I want to live a decent human life. I want freedom of thought. I want dignity for my wife and daughter, all of which things your religion denies.

On a more intellectual (or even jurisprudential) plane, your basic assumption that law (as opposed to fundamental principles) remains unchanged and unchangable is where you go wrong. The Quran is a great document and tells us all sorts of good things but law either grows with the times or it dies. People like you avoid the sterility of choice that a blinkered view of Islam imposes by retreating into mysticism. Please, step out of your shell and realise that Islam does not have all the answers. Your Islam has failed for centuries and your pseudo-mysticism is simply a cop-out. If Islam is to be a vibrant and relevant force in todays world, it will only be because millions of ordinary Muslim reject your rigidities and instead try to do the best that they can to deal with the challenges of the modern world.

Oliver Wenderll Holmes once said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Islamic law is no exception.

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!

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.

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

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

:-)

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=

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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