Metaphysical Obfuscation in the Islamic World

Naqshbandil

What is your interpretation of Wahdatul Wajood. Please dont paste 2 page article. Just in a few lines would be enough. Thank you.

According to Parvez, ``Sheikh Alla-uddin- Samanani (died 736 hijrah) framed the concept of wahadat-el-shuhud in contrast to ibn-Arabi`s wahadat-el-wujud. Mujaddad Alif Thani, Imam Sirhindi, popularized it in India. It is called the concept of ``hama az o`ast`` instead of ``hama o`ast`` (wahdat-el-wujud).
According to wahdat-el-wujud, no object has independent existence in the universe. Whatever exists in the universe of sense-perception is in reality God Itself, so much so, even a human being is also God. On the contrary, it is said on the basis of wahdat-el-shuhud that the universe itself is not God, it is God`s reflection. It is clear from this that the concept that the universe has no existence of its own is common to both wahdat-el-wujud and wahdat-el-shuhud......``

So what? These concepts are derived from neo-Platonism and are ancient history. Why are we still trapped in such outmoded and metaphysically intricate and intractable issues? This was one of the basic points of my paper. We are still hopelessly trapped in metaphysics and do not have time nor the will to devote attention to other worthwhile pursuits such as scientific research and discovery and the development of technology, for example. The Christian world has landed man on the moon, on the one hand, and split the atom on the other while the Muslim world, idly standing on the sidelines, is busy minimizing such activities and refuse to give up the unproductive and anachronistic beliefs and superstitions.

We cannot make our present life worthwhile and future enviable until we let our past go. It is good to know the past but useless to live in it. Develop new philosophy which is appropriate to modern times. Develop scientific and tehnological traditions which our metaphysical beliefs did not allow to germinate in the Muslim world. In short, start living in the present.

Those Chowk readers who can read and comprehend Urdu should read Parvez`s book ``Tassawaf ki Haqiqat`` with open minds and see what kind of beliefs most of us cherish.

Mohammad Gill

Inspite of all this `I am god, god is me`, etc, etc, etc....no one (Mr. J. Rumi included) has provided an explanation for the enormous human misery we witness daily.

- - - -

Gill sahab, since you appear to be interested in these matters, perhaps you may be interested to read this book: krishnamurti`s journal.

j. krishnamurti was the most famous mystic of modern times. In his journal he describes the `ecstacy` and other hapennings in his `enlightenment`. This is a serious book, not to be confused with popular religion books.

A weird book, but you`ll find it interesting.

Excerpts from “Krishnamurti’s Notebook”


1. There was, this morning that peculiar sacredness, filling the room. It had great penetrating power, entering into every corner of one’s being, filling, cleansing, making everything of itself…There was, it seemed, immense strength and vitality behind this ecstasy…It was a life in which nothing could perish.


2. As a stream of water gushes out from the side of a mountain, naturally and under pressure, this cheer was pouring out in great abundance, coming from nowhere and going nowhere, but the heart and mind would never be the same again.


3. Several times during the day, at odd moments, that benediction would come and pass away. . . That strange benediction comes when it will, but with each visitation, deep within, there is a transformation; it is never the same.


4. We were reading something, casually and remarking about the state of the world when suddenly and unexpectedly the room became full with that benediction, which has come so often now. The door was open in the little room and we were just going to eat when through the open door it came. One could literally, physically feel it, like a wave flowing into the room. It became “more” and “more” intense, the more is not comparatively used; it was something that was incredibly strong and immovable, with shattering power. Words are not the thing and the actual thing can never be put into words; it must be seen, heard and lived; then it has quite a different significance.


5. No brain could formulate such strength, with its strange intensity and solidity. It was there and no thought could invent it or dispel it . . . There was in this sternness, bliss. By the watch it “lasted” forty-five minutes with increasing intensity. The stream and the quiet night, with their brilliant stars, were within it.


6. There was no reason for this ecstasy – to have a cause for joy is no longer joy; it was simply there and thought could not capture it and make it into a remembrance. It was too strong and active for thought to play with it and thought and feeling became very quiet and still. It came wave upon wave, a living thing which nothing could contain and with this joy there was benediction. It was all so utterly beyond all thought and demand.


7. One can never get used to any of these things for it is not a thing of habit and desire. It is always surprising, after it is over.


8. And as the evening advanced that otherness descended with exploding bliss and the brain was as motionless as those trees, without a single leaf stirring. Everything became more intense, every color, every shape and in that pale moonlight all the wayside puddles were the waters of life. Everything must go, be wiped away, not to receive it but the brain must be utterly still, sensitive, to watch, to see. Like a flood that covers the dry parched land it came full of delight and clarity and it stayed.


9. Understanding is not a gradual process to be gathered little by little, with care and patience. Understanding is now or never; it is a destructive flash, not a tame affair; it is this shattering that one is afraid of and so one avoids it, knowingly or unknowingly.

10. The moment one stepped out of the house, talking with another of quite different things, that otherness, that unknowable, was there. It was so unexpected, for one was in the midst of a serious conversation and it was there with such urgency. All talk came to an end, very easily and naturally. The other did not notice the change in the quality of the atmosphere, and went on saying something which needed no reply. We walked that whole mile almost without a word and we walked with it, under it, in it. It is wholly the unknown, though it comes and goes; all recognition has stopped for recognition is still the way of the known. Each time there is “greater” beauty and intensity and impenetrable strength. This is the nature of love too.


11. One has to be alone and quiet, then it is there.

gill sahib--by relying on the explanations of the orientalists in trying to understand the works of the great awliya--Sufis--you have, unsurprisingly, made a mess of things!

biggest of all is the identification of wahdat al wujud with pantheism or existential monism as it i also translated. If you are going to use Sufi technical terms then please also allow the Sufis to explain what they mean by these ideas themselves too:

Read this:

http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/ez/isl/0-IA/Wahdat%20al-Wujud%20expl.html

and also this:




Wahda al-Wujud or Oneness of Being

Perhaps the most famous misrepresentation of the Shaykh that resulted from the Fusus is the attribution to him of the doctrine of ``oneness of being`` (wahdat al-wujud) in the pantheistic sense of the immanence of the Deity in everything that exists. Al-Qari cites, for example, a verse of poetry which he references to the Fusus, stating:

Subhana man azhara al-ashya`a wa huwa `aynuha Glory to Him Who caused things to appear and is those very things!1

This attribution and others of its type are evidently spurious, and Ibn `Arabi`s `Aqida flatly contradicts them. Furthermore, verifying scholars such as Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi in his epistles, Shaykh `Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi in al-Radd al-Matin `ala Muntaqid al-`Arif Billah Muhyi al-Din and Idah al-Maqsud min Wahda al-Wujud, and al-Sha`rani in al-Yawaqit wa al-Jawahir and Tanbih al-Aghbiya` `ala Qatratin min Bahri `Ulum al-Awliya have rephrased Ibn `Arabi`s expression of ``oneness of being`` (wahdat al-wujud) as ``oneness of perception`` (wahdat al-shuhud) in the sense in which the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- defined excellence (ihsan) as ``worshipping Allah as if you see Him.``2 Al-Buti said:

What is the meaning of the expression ``oneness of perception``? When I interact with causes with full respect to Allah`s ways, His orders, and His Law, knowing that the sustenance that comes to me is from Allah; the felicity that enters my home is from Allah Almighty; my food is readied for me by Allah - I mean even the smallest details; the wealth with which I have been graced, comes from Allah; the illness that has been put in my being or that of a relative of mine comes from Allah Almighty; the cure that followed it is from Allah Almighty; my success in my studies is by Allah Almighty`s grant; the results which I have attained after obtaining my degrees and so forth, are from Allah Almighty`s grant - when the efficacy of causes melts away in my sight and I no longer see, behind them, other than the Causator Who is Allah Almighty: at that time, when you look right, you do not see except Allah`s Attributes, and when you look left, you do not see other than Allah`s Attributes. As much as you evolve in the world of causes, you do not see, through them, other than the Causator, Who is Allah. At that time you have become raised to what the spiritual masters have called oneness of perception. And this oneness of perception is what Allah`s Messenger -- Allah bless and greet him -- expressed by the word ihsan [which he defined to mean]: ``That you worship Allah as if you see him.`` You do not see the causes as a barrier between you and Allah. Rather, you see causes, in the context of this doctrine, very much like pure, transparent glass: the glass pane is present - no one denies it - but as much as you stare at it, you do not see anything except what is behind it. Is it not so? You only see what is behind it. The world is entirely made of glass panes in this fashion. You see in them Allah`s efficacy in permanence, so you are always with Allah Almighty. None has tasted the sweetness of belief unless he has reached that level of perception.

(from http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/ibn_arabi.htm)

No Muslim has believed that ``Man is actually a part of God``--this is Russell`s own interpretation of wahdat al wujud and it is wrong. Based on such an incorrect understanding of thi technical term of the sufis he then goes off to logically `refute` such ideas but his initial premise is false!!

Gill:

I look forward to reading your next articles in the series starting with metaphysics, namely astrology and then palmistry. Anyway, lets stick to this one for the time being. Metaphysics is as much a subject as palmistry or astrology except theists, monotheists in particular dont have the balls to say it. This topic belongs to philosophical thoughts whereby one obsolete philosophical thought is refusing to accept the genuine nature of other philosophical thoughts. It is inherent in metaphysics to detest and undermine all comeptitive and intelligent thoughts based on independent thinking and acquired knowledge. Not only that, it is also a mean to dominate and dictate by the people who would have been utter failure in all other meainingful disciplines and professions. Metaphysics is one subject where earning livelihood is strictly based upon donations, charity and begging by the laziest of the society. The Sufis did not earn livelihood by working yet many lived lavishly. They were idle and static concultants telling others to work hard and be good while themselves going ino recluse repeatedly for extended period. Some tried mountain caves, some tried standing on one foot in cold water and so on while their and their families livelihood was paid for by others.

So why should world respect these lazy bums more than the others? Religioin for one thing and poetry writings, the other. Just like it is good to be a manager or a director, it is good to be considered a sage, pir, sufi or religious scholar. Sorry Gill, I dont buy the collective thoughts of centuries by lazies, recluse, retards, ignorants etc over the collective thoughts of hard-working, thinking, serving humanity and leaving the world without leaving behind poetry which itself is a passtime of lazy people who hate to do something worthwhile and instead dreaming of thoughts and trying to put them in qafia, radeef, wazan blah blah...

Of course, lazy folks wont opt for neurobiology, neurochemistry, neuropyschology type disciplines to know and understand the working of human mind; they will opt for the practice of allah hoo, allah hoo until mind releases feel good chemical related to starving of oxygen. And then these lazy bums turn around and claim superiority of their ability to control mind into going to feel good state while they cant earn a penny with this mental masturbation unless using religion to fool people into donating money to their kitty. Every year, many of these metaphysicists from Pakistan get fixed income and go for hajj also from zakat fund. Amazing! how one can break the lock of the treasure chest in broad daylight with the help of Islam.

Gill

I am glad that you`ve mentioned Mujadid Alif Thaani and the concept of Wahdat-ul-Wajood at the same place. It is unfortunate how Quadianis have twisted the words of Mujadid to suite their own agenda. I have read some work of Mujadid related to the issue and found it to be absolutely of a different context. In addition, the formal recantation of Mujadid from his idea of ``continuation`` of revelation makes the things absolutely clear.

The idea of ``continuation of revelation`` goes way back 500-700 years before Mujadid when Muslim philosophers started pondering the question of ``Wahdat-ul-Wajood`` and issues of Taqdeer (i.e. absoluteness of God – meaning that God has the absolute control over everything and nothing happens unless he pre-approves it). The discussions on these two topics lead to two ideas:

1. The concept of Wahdat-ul-Wajud lead to the corollary, which in Bertrand Russell`s words is `` If man is actually part of God, the evil in man is also in God``. This lead to the anomaly that why man should be held accountable for something he has no control over. Man, therefore, should not be punished by God for a sin that he commits.

2. The concept of Taqdeer, which is a basic belief of Muslim faith lead to the idea which can be paraphrased in these words: `` If nothing happens without the pre-approval of God, then an idea in our mind can also not come into being without his pre-approval ergo any idea that comes to our mind as a matter of fact is nothing but a revelation. Which means that the process of ``revelation`` never stopped – even though the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was the last prophet of God``.

Muslim philosophers, however, rejected the corollaries of these two philosophical concepts, because those ideas did not corroborate the facts on the ground.

As for the accountability for the sins is concerned God has explicitly told us about the right way and the wrong way and left the choice upon us. But because of His divine absoluteness He knows in advance what choice we would make. So during the lifetime man does some good deeds and some bad deeds and at the End a balance sheet is produced before him and he is judged on the basis of that. In addition to that there is immense benevolence of God Who may forgive one even if his balance sheet was checkered. So even if we accept the philosophical corollary as discussed above we still have two choices –either lead a life as we choose or lead a life as He has told us to lead. The prudent way will be to do what He has told us to do. That is the reason Muslim philosophers declared the line of thinking on the basis of Wahdut-ul wajud as un-Islamic.

As for the issue of ``revelation`` is concerned, although the corollary makes sense but it does not corroborate with the facts on the ground. If any idea that comes to our mind is a ``revelation`` then an idea that comes into donkey`s mind as an urge to eat grass to satisfy its hunger must also be a ``revelation``. So where do we draw the line then? For that we must look into the divine guidance itself, which tells us that the time of ``prophetic revelations`` has ended as the last of all Prophet (pbuh) has already been descended among us. After him (pbuh) there will be no more prophetic revelations. Hence we can divide revelations in two groups (a) the prophetic revelations through which God deliver His Guidance to us (b) Non- prophetic ``revelations`` through which we understand our universe and surroundings, resolve problems while interacting within the system, and implement His guidance.

So non-prophetic revelations are nothing but a tool to interact and survive in the universe as an organism and in no way lead us to declare ourselves prophets.

Gill sahib:
You have arrived!

This is the best article you have posted in the series. This is how it should be. Islam or muslim bashing would not get one anywhere.

A book on Ghazali has hit the stands ( maybe 2 years or so ago) and it is worth reading. Like Iqbal, I too have issues with Ghazali, but the fact that he makes one think and ponder is a reward itself.

Islam is the only religion which lays equal emphasis on spiritual as well as temporal.

What rumi wrote 700 years ago, and the passage which you have quoted, has also been celebrated by iqbal in his famous lectures ( can`t recall the exact title right now)

MehfilaiN brham kray hai ganjfaa baaz-e khiyaal
haiN vraQ grdanee-ay nairnG-e yk but-khana hum.

and:

Hai paray sarhad-e idraak sey upnaa masjood
Qiblay ko ahle nazar Qiblaa numa kehtay haiN

and:

NaheeN kuchh subhh-O zunnaar kay phhunday meiN geeraa-ee
vafaadaaree meiN shaikh O Brhaman kee aazmaish hay.

--Ghalib all three above.

and:
``this, above all, to thine own-self be true``--shakespeare.

AND to top it all:

``kalaam karO, kay pehchaanay jaaO aur LikhhO kay zindaa rahO``
Hazrat O Maulaana Ali ibne-abi Taalib.

Mubarak-sudd-mubarak.

and let me add insult to the injury - scientists have only discovered in last year that about 85% of universe is made up of dark matter and energy and no one has the slightest clue what that is. Obfuscate that.