Metaphysical Obfuscation in the Islamic World

#33, ThakurSahib:
I do not know whether Gill will answer your allegations but I want to debunk your confusion so that others do not get misled. You state:

``As Ibn `Arabi explains in his commentaries on the issue - there are 3 sources of knowledge. That which we are passed on, that which we discern (rationality), and that which we experience.``

I assert that with exception of the consequence of discernment, other two are imagination not knowledge. A scientific approach to life leaves imagination as not of concern, it focusses only on rationality - which is necessarily objective.

You start off this interesting piece Mr. Gill with a Sufi quote. Yet, for all your professed interest in Rumi and al-Ghazali, I don`t think you understand the connections you`re trying to force. Sufism is not metaphysics - it is not philosophy, not an inquiry, nor an explanation. It is not an apology.

There is a good reason why Islam`s best reformers, and most successful leaders, have had strong associations with Sufi ideas. Because they`re beautiful, and as Rumi explains in the very first sentences of his masterpiece - The Mathnawi - these are the ``roots of the roots of the roots of Religion.``

Some of your points are excellent - especially when you deal with Russell and the Greeks. But when you try to compare/contrast/explain/connect them with mystics, your comments betray your lack of understanding.

Rumi and other Sufi poets have consistently pounded and hammered theologians, and critical thinkers - and in that you`re spot on. But Sufism is not about leaving rationality wholesale. It`s about combining it with other sources of knowledge. As Ibn `Arabi explains in his commentaries on the issue - there are 3 sources of knowledge. That which we are passed on, that which we discern (rationality), and that which we experience. Sufism exhorts striking a balance between them, and at the very least acknowledging that they all exist. Rumi, Attar and Ibn` Arabi - arguably the three foremost writers of Sufi literature - keep drawing this distinction, and warning against the same pitfalls that I see in your work.

I think you will learn much more, and grow, by studying the Mathnawi. But then, if you`re as devoid of feeling as you profess, then maybe Betrand Russell is all that you can hope to grapple with. I`m sorry for you.

#31, ballukhan:
Thanks for the response to my post #28. I do not think I know anyone at Chowk, except you, who has an appreciation of the points I raised.

I would still like to divert your attention from God to the society. Everyone in every society realizes the practical impotence of the idea of God. This is so, inspite of all the violence that, you refer to, is committed by every group in every society in support of illusion/delusion/exploitation directed to preserve the licitly/illicitly acquired benefits by those groups. In practice every society and every individual does what it perceices will accrue maximum benefit to it, irrespective of God.

If you need to understand the objective conception of God, divested of exploitative elements, I refer you to the Upanishads (indeed, in contrast to other Hindu scriptures such as vedas and Puranas) and Bal Kand of Tulsidas Ramayan (yes, in contrast with the Uttar Kand of the same epic). But enough for the conception of God.

Leaving aside, Gill`s article, one can analyze the fatal flaws of Marxism as employed by Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao and show where a reasonable analysis was waylaid. Whether we can, in future, evolve a reinterpretation and its successful execution depends on the intensity of resurgent laissez faire capitalism in post Soviet Union era and the implied necessary injustice to the masses and, of course, is anybody`s guess.

Will be interested in your assessment.

#28 by Inquirer on March 29, 2004 9:12am PT
I agree to the bit about re-inerpretation. Yes, but that includes re-interpretation of ideology as a means of subjugation in the web of power ( relations of production needs to be supplemented in the new discourse). The ideology of a metaphysic being called GOD who is typically personified as a monarch/King/Father/Lover/Provider - a powerful provider to the weaklings called human beings- needs to be de-constructed along with its fantastic metaphysics that Gill`s article exemplifies.
It may appear simplistic- but the task is indeed daunting considering the number of people who still want to kill other humans to please the God.

#29:
Isphahani: You probably need to learn English as well as logical thinking to participate in a discussion this abstruse.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#27, ballukhan:
Yours is one way of looking at the issues. Your reference to connection with conception of God is only one aspect. And I must note that it is simplistic and inconsequential.

More importantly than any conclusion about theology, Gill`s write-up should be looked at from the point of view of recognizing the intensity of desire to suppress or support objective and liberal/tolerant understanding of the world around us.

It has been found that as any religious mode of understanding of the world concretizes the operational procedures it invariably falls victim to the ossification and obfuscation. Now, ossification is simply due to human institutional failures and not much can be done about it except institutionalizing intellectual vigilance. But generally, the obfuscation is very deliberate and done to keep people, in general down and deprived of the benefits that the obfuscators expropriate. I am using ``expropriate`` in Marxian sense.

Not to recognize this phenomenon is simply a long term folly. The Marxists made an attempt but they themselves were victims of the inner contradictions of the society which they were dead against.

ONLY A PROPER REINTERPRETATION OF THE SOCIETAL ANALYSIS BY MARX- WHICH WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM ENGELS-LENIN INTERPRETATION - CAN PREPARE THE FOUNDATION FOR A GENERAL ELIMINATION OF ALL RELIGIONS` OBFUSCATIONS (plurals deliberately used).

I am amazed that all this metaphysic nonsense still excites Gill- perhaps he still wants to cling on to that remote possibility of the concept of God. I would suggest that he sticks to Philosophy of Science.

#25, escapist:
Quite expectedly, the only thing you COULD UNDERSTAND in my comment was ``spellings.``

BUT DO NOT WORRY WITH UNITED STATES HELP THE FRAUD OF MULLAHS WILL SOON BE OVER.

Now do try to understand my comment I admire certain elements of Islam but it is leech of Mullahs who have been hate-worthy.

The only thing i notice in your post is that you are one of those piss ant fools who enjoy saying ``i win, i win cuz umm you uhhh ddin`t say your arguement correctly`` or ``ohhh u dont know how to spell!!`` those idiots and you need to just listen to the arguments and differing opinions and ``Not`` get into a contest about whos wrong or right because of bad spelling.

POSSIBLY FIRST CORRECT STEP AGAINST THE INCOMPETENTS:

Saudis suspend 900 imams for ‘negligence’

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia has suspended 900 imams and prayer leaders “for negligence”, Arab News reported on Wednesday, quoting the head of an advisory committee at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

“The reason for the suspension is that various flaws and shortcomings were noted, mainly to do with failure to do what is required of prayer leaders and sermon-givers,” said Saleh Al-Sadlan. He added that seminars were to be held to help those detected making frequent mistakes, the daily said. Al-Sadlan, a professor of law at Riyadhs Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University, said the advisory committee would have branches in every region of the kingdom. —AFP

There are commentors like escapist (#33), alchemy (#16), and urstruly(#15) in contrast with urstruly (#3) are ready to hand you the same fate as of Hallaj.

These people are living postive proof of the correcness of your thinking. But what can you expect out of people who confess they cannot spell!! Thie level of subtelty and sophistication and LIBERALITY of thought is beyond their ken.

I hope that there are more Muslims like you. Provided Muslim is not defined as a human who has blind faith in the largely rigmarole of religious documents.

The upsurge of scientific investigations during 700 to 1100 AD was not due to Islam but inspite of Islam. As soon as People like al Ghazali and his propmoters controlled the respect of people , probably by sword, they suppressed logical thinking.

Primary reason of the backwardness of Islamic populations is lack of open educational system and if the populations in Islamic nations fail to rise like the followers of Kleisthenes in Greece two thousand years ago did and dethrone the Mullahs they would have to catch up with the rest of the world at much greater cost.

One way to free the people from Islamic dogma is to take away the material properties from Masjids as was done by Mustafa Kemal Pasha in Turkey which is the only half-way civilized nation in Islamic fold.

Mr Gill.

As-salaamu 3alaykum wa-ra7matullaahi wa-barakaatuh

Exmination of the claim in the article.

1) It claims that both plato and Aristotle belived in ``mind over matter``. This is an incorrect notion due to the fact that Artisotle belived in a strict code of emprisism and rationalism and was far less ``mystical`` than Plato. Although it is true that Plato was an unsober character at times what it came to his metaphysics construing realities as perfect shapes and ideas that existed ``in the heavens`` and those ideas having imperfect represnetations on this eart.

Although Phytogrous seems to have influnced plato, the same is not true of aristotle who did not belive that the soul could exist outside the body.

Just a correction of the Premise of the article.



2) ``The tragedy in the Muslim world that set it apart from
Europe and other growing civilizations was excessive
emphasis on metaphysics of religion compared with
other branches of knowledge which were practically
excluded from its culture. Metaphysics was the only
branch of philosophy that was accepted in the Muslim
world; other branches including logic and physical
sciences were denigrated if not totally prohibited.
Metaphysics became the epitome of philosophy in the
Muslim world. ``

The absurdity of this claim should be self apperent to any person who actually studies both Islamic and Western Civilizations and their history. Indeed it was the Christans who spend their time in great theological and metaphysical debates in the west, and resisted science until they were jolted into awakeness by the Italian Rennasuance ( I cant spell).

On the other hand the Islamic civilization had plent of progress in other brances of knowaldge, which included at times what this article may call ``Metaphysics``. Logic and physical sciences where not in the lest rejected. If one actually studies the roots of Usul al Fiqh it is apperent that espically the Shafi`i formation of the Usul in his ``Risala`` where heavly based on logic. As for other sciences it is self evident that Muslims had moderate advances for their times, only being outdone , at times, by China.

``Metaphysics as we have seen deals with the knowledge
of God, the ‘Absolute Reality�E and the otherworld. It
holds knowledge of the material world in low esteem``

This is as if to say that Tajweed deals with the knowladge of rules of beautful recitation and holds Fiqh in low esteem. This is an artifical dichotomy created in the mind of an indivudual not able to grasp realitiy except in the most smiplified conjectures.

``The knowledge based and derived from sense-perception
is unreliable according to the metaphysics of
religion. ``

Here what he is calling Metaphysics (a branch of Philosophy) is actually RATIONALISM, a branch of Epistmology (which is a branch of Philosophy). The two need not nessesarly have anything to do with each other.



``The human intellect by
the usual definition is lowlier than the mind``

He is using the term mind to mean soul here. I guess. In either case it is true, as the hadith ``Whatever comes to your Mind (about Allah) Know he is other than that`` , this is the closest to the meaning. As for in the hadith the term mind is used to mean ratioal faculty, unlike the greeks the arabs recogonised the mind as a rational functionary.


``In this way, majority of the Islamic thinkers and
philosophers got trapped in the otherworldliness.
Al-Ghazali condemned the philosophers and found
salvation in Sufism. He found his enlightenment only
after abandoning philosophy and the pursuit of
material knowledge. I have emphasized al-Ghazali’s
role in directing the Muslim world away from
rationalism in my previous papers also because he is
held in such an inimitable esteem in the Muslim world.
He is recognized as the Mujaddid (Revivalist) of the
first millennium. He denigrated philosophy and
physical sciences but embraced metaphysics
passionately. He thus demarcated a definite line of
thought for the subsequent theologians and
theosophists to follow. Every other form of knowledge
was kind of innovation. ``

This guy sounds like a neo mutlizilite.

Which is the problem. He has nothing against philosophy it seems, just platonic thought, which is the hallmark of the Mutuzillah. They held fast to Aristotlian logic, and made the blamepous statement taht the Quran is creation! All due to emphasis on ``this worldy knowladge``.

Where as if we translate the Platonic thought to our context, and keep it Islamic, since it is RATIONAL instead of Emprical (relying on what we see and touch), it can be used to justify the Dogmas of Islam, which is what Ghazzhali did indeed.

``Wahdat-al-Wujud (Existential Unity)

If man is actually part of God, the evil in man is
also in God. (Bertrand Russell, 8) ``

Wahdat al Wujud does NOT mean man is a part of God! This person seems to be taking his din from Kafir Philosophers. The Quran Calls the Kafirs Blind Deaf and Dumb. We do not need to ape them. His explination of Wahdat al Wujud comes from Russell?

``Usually the words used to describe metaphysical
concepts are the familiar ones but when they are
strung into sentences and assembled together to
describe metaphysical concepts, the whole usually
becomes a meaningless jumble which can be interpreted
in numerous and sometimes contradictory ways.``

Confusing to whom? The General Theory of relitivity of Einstine is confusing to everyone but a select group of people. When it was first published only 8 Mathamatians could understand it. It used common words and numbers, strung into..... you get the picture.

``There is a Persian idiom which summarizes the essence
of wahdat-al-wujud. This is “Hama O’ast�E(Every thing
is from Him or every thing belongs to Him). According
to this thinking, all the living things have unity of
being.``

This is nonsense. This person has obiously never read Ibn Al Arabi and moreover never studied him under a Sheikh. The point is not that we all have the same being, or that we are the same as being as Allah (astugfurllah) the point is that the only Nessesary being is Allah , and that we are in existance because of him, and through him.

``The
culmination of human life is to seek one-ness with God
or to get merged in Him (Fana-fi-Allah). ``

Fana as I have been explained is not oness with God , it is the elimination of the Ego, or the Self so as to ``see`` God. Not with Ones eyes but with the Ruh. And this is attested to in the first hadith in Saheeh Muslim. Please refer to it. No man can claim to be one with God unless it is poetic licence, as if to say ``I love my wife so much, she is I and I am her``, but you and your wife are not the same, it is merely a poetic lience to describe longing.

`` A good
example of this kind of thinking was Hallaj who had
pronounced Ana-al-Haq (I am God or I am one with God)
in a ‘state of deep absorption�E He was declared an
apostate and hanged. ``

Declared an Apostate by whom? HIS OWN SHEIKH! And as for his saying ``I deserve to die because......`` that is nothing more than word from a convicted man.

As for this mistake, if a mistake in Tassuwuf (and Islamic science) is enough to say that the entire science is useless, then the mistakes of including Isralieyat (basless tales from Jews) in Tafsir books would mean that the entire science of Tafsir is uselss. Consider it

``Another great follower of ibn-Arabi was the celebrated
Maulana Rumi. According to Hitti (2), “Al-Rumi shares
with ibn-Arabi theories of existentialist monism. He
identifies himself with nature, following a system of
transmigration, and rejoices not in a personal life
continuing beyond the grave but in self-integration in
the person of Godhead``

Again he takes his din from a Kafir (Hitti). What would you say of one who lets the bliind deaf and dumb clean his house? What would you say of one that lets the blind deaf and dumb lead him in his din?

``Finally, I want to quote Parvez, a modernist Islamic
scholar and reformer, who has severely criticized
tasawwuf. According to him (3), the qualities and
essentials of Sufism are as follows: ``

People, do you know who Parvez is? He is a Quran only heritic. Why would one take din for such people?

No wonder the author is so confused, his sources are wack.

The underlying bottom line in this article is a strong neo mutizillite bias. Let us be reminanded that the Mutizillah have vanished from this earth by the grace of Allah, and those people trying to bring the dead back from its grave should be condemned and called what they truly are, hertics. I am sure the author would have a lot to say about the Quran and if it is created or uncreated.

Mr. Gill,

I think this is one of your most well put together article.

Rest Later,

Mr. Gill,

I think this is one of your most well put together articles.

Rest Later,

Article is interesting though it needs an integrative thread and confinement to have adequate focus. I had suggested to Chowk people to limit the initiating statements to less than a thousand words but to no avail. Gill Sahab, you would have bebenfitted from that restriction.
But more than the article the discussion is unusually good. Thanks, to the participants. If I find time - in a timely manner! - I would comment on interactions.