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.

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

``#13 by sameerJB on March 16, 2004 11:57pm PT

The problem with both Vedanta and its predecessor Mahayana from Muslims` point of view are obviously the fear and commands/ demands of allah - concepts central to Islam. Additionally, leaving god outiside does not help earning livelihood of lazy, lower IQ thinkers on the basis of chanting few words in the name of metaphysics, wahdat-al-wujood etc.``.

Sirjee,

So true. Irrefutable. But but but...

What about human follies like me?

Shoulder to cry.
To pass on the buck.
Fear of unpredictables.
To pass on the buck.
I did not do it Mama.
To pass on the buck.
Stand up and be true.
Naaah. Just pass on the buck.

Well then there is always ..those who know ..

For example ...there is urstrue... The pimp who ran away to US of A. But the pimp and whole of his past 100 and future 100 generations will do what?? (of course pimping). And.. be true (sic) muslims, and win.

Honestly, Muslims of urs` ilk did the best.. instilled fear. Why do you want to take away the credit? Perhaps it was the best marketing ploy ever.

Not that those who like Hing are any better. They tried for thousands of years telling the majority... you do not know.. you should listen and should obey.

Honest.. SameerJB. We are not upto it. We are chickens. You know it and I know it. I simply do not have the guts. What will you do do when 98.00% are like me. And there is only very few of you? Eh??

The pimp like Urs will rule ...Sell and earn on the double.

By the way.. Pimp is not lazy... I disagree with you on this one. He always is on the looks.. looks for those who leer.

Yogiraj

Echoboom-

Fantastic reply.

I find Gill`s thinking so incredibly narrow minded and obtuse that I didn`t even know where to begin. I think you described it succinctly.

The current stream of technological thinking has become so narrowly focused, it is solving the wrong problems. It is like someone climbing up a ladder very quickly, failing to note that the ladder is setup on the wrong wall.

Comments for Gill-

Current technological thinking must be balanced with a larger ``purpose-ful`` thinking. I am afraid Gill is back on the ``I can`t verify it so it is not true`` thinking of the narrow mind. A few years back, brain waves were considered superstitious, until somebody finally evolved the technology enough that they could be measured, and thus they became ``real``. Did they not exist before they could be measured? And the second question: since your belief is based on what can be verified, are you convinced that science today is so precise that it can verify everything that exists?

1-Know yourself

-Alchemy

Gill # 8

Sir, are you on funny cigarettes or something? It is you who started a discussion on these archaic subjects. Isn`t this article written by yourself or some invisible freind, whom only you can see, wrote it for you. Your whinning is totally misplaced. It is none other but you who bring up controversial topics between religion and science and then you yourself start whinning why people discuss such topics? Mashalla. bohat khoob. I don`t know who is stopping you to write on pure science- in the past there had been good discussion on such topics too.

..... beyond me...



Is My Reflection Not a Part of Me...


So what exactly is the Diff between Wahdat-ul-wajoud and Wahdat-ul-shahood..?

freethinker:

I am surprised that in describing the history of unity of truth as many call it, you ignored the most elaborate discussions and philosophical thoughts coming from Vedanta school of thoughts as non-dualism and dualism of reality and Buddhist Mahayana school of thought commonly known as ``form is empty, emptiness is form``. The non-dualism of Shankara is widely credited as the source of wahdat-al-wujood though Abu Muslim Sindhi who came in contact with Vedanta in Sindh and later became teacher or colleague of Ibn Arabi.

The non-dualism Vedanta by Shankara and later by his followers believed in the non-dual nature of visible reality and absolute or profound reality claiming visible as manifestation of profound reality. Similarly wahdat-al-shahood is fully based on dualism Vedanta. All Muslims have to do was to substitute word profound or absolute reality with allah or ``one`` - unity.

The Buddhist Mahayana school of thoughts predates Vedanta philosophies by several centuries and considered as the influential source of Vedanta. However, it comes closest to current understanding of neuropsyche in the sense that it cuts off useless concepts of profound, absolute, god and unity into a void - emptiness. The universe came out of a void and all realities are manifestation of void. Considered empty, void, devoid of shape and form lowers the importance of other world, god shod and all concepts of oneness as minor, irrelevent and pre-occupation with it essentially a waste of time and futile exercise.

The problem with both Vedanta and its predecessor Mahayana from Muslims` point of view are obviously the fear and commands/ demands of allah - concepts central to Islam. Additionally, leaving god outiside does not help earning livelihood of lazy, lower IQ thinkers on the basis of chanting few words in the name of metaphysics, wahdat-al-wujood etc.

Yhe concept of soul actually predates concept of god. Soul is considered the earliest form of spirituality in priimitive world. This concept is essential to feeling invincible and immortal - a highly desirable thing. The concept of god was imposed on the concept of soul without diminishing the immortality feeling. It wasn`t very smart move because now people could claim god`s favorite, talking to god, savior of souls and middlemen. First you create an illusion of a river and then offer your illusory boat to cross this illusory river for a fee in the form of leadership or livelihood. The only form of immortality has been procreation all along but it can not be milked by a few. The eggs and sperms are the soul and nous (nafs). Unfortunately this basic science was not known to early theists and spiritualists and when they came to be known, the vested interests of the trinity and unity concepts created walls to protect their interests as spirituality, inner world, absolute reality, fear of god, revelatiions etc.

The bottomlime is that understanding sex answers most of the primitive fears which led to the classical concepts in the first place. No wonder the feel good chemicals released by the brain during orgasm, intercourse, drugs inspired feel-good, spirituality, meditation, praying, wahdat-al-wujood, oneness with the most powerful etc are essentially the same. Actually some university in Canada has tested protype spiritual machine which contains electrodes giving small voltage stimulating shocks to brain and cause heights of sporotuality in a hurry, like feeling light, feeling part of one big, seeing bright lights, illusions, hallucinations, orgasmic pleasure etc. So instead of going through whole blah blah of religions, metaphysics, churches and mosques, in future just put on spiritual helmet for few minutes per day or per week and cut all the crap.

Gill Saab:
You might find this of some interest. Coomaraswamy, Lings, and Guenon--Three modern-day giant scholars.

---

Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy was born in Ceylon, raised in England at his mother’s home after the death of his Tamil father when he was two, and studied at London University where he was awarded a doctorate in geology. Between 1906 and 1917 he made frequent trips to India and Ceylon, and became president of the Ceylon Reform Society, dedicated to the revitalization of Sinhalese culture, an aim that was also supported to the Theosophical Society in Ceylon since 1880. He joined the Theosophical Society in 1907. In 1917, as a conscientious objector to British conscription, he emigrated to the US where he became curator of the Indian and Asian sections of the Boston Museum of ugh he published various works in journals and presses of the Theosophical Society, he was critical of the movement, especially with regard to the understanding of the doctrine of reincarnation. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that his introduction to metaphysical thought and the idea of an essential unity underlying the mystical traditions of the world came to him through the Theosophical Society. From 1932 until his death, he concentrated his energies on writing about what he called the philosophia perennis. His works on Indian art continue to be highly respected by scholars. Fine Arts. AlthoRené Guénon came from a devout Catholic family and his early education was in Jesuit schools. He had a delicate personality, and when he felt that his teachers were persecuting him, his father had him transferred to the College Augustin-Thierry, where he completed baccalaureates in mathematics and philosophy. He was a brilliant student and won prizes in physics and Latin. He enrolled in the Collège Rollin in Paris, in 1904 to study mathematics, but withdrew after two years. In 1906 he became a protégé of Gérard Encausse, known as “Papus,” who was a co-founder of the Theosophical Society in France. Papus had split off from the Theosophical Society to form the Faculté des Sciences Hermétiques, and Guénon later disassociated himself from both. He vigorously condemned Theosophy in several of his writings, in which he claimed that it was based on a corruption of perennial first principles. Nevertheless, like Coomaraswamy, important ideas about metaphysics and the esoteric unity of religious traditions were introduced to him through Theosophy.5While in Paris, Guénon also joined other occultist groups and 5This point is emphasized by Quinn and others, but disputed by Kennedy. However, the reasons given by Kennedy pertain to the particular content of Guénon’s views, for example, that the characters identified by Guénon in his The Lord of the World (1927) are derived from “authentic” Jewish tradition rather than through visions as in the case of Madame Blavatsky, or that Guénon lent support to the Polaires, a group that sought to find a hidden utopia in the unexplored polar regions, at the same time that the Theosophical Society was promotingKrishnamurti as the World Savior. Aside from such differences about personalities, however, the structural similarities found among Theosophists and Traditionalists is striking.


He became a Freemason.

Although Guénon never renounced Freemasonry as he did Theosophy and continued throughout his life to write on Masonic themes and symbolism, although after leaving Paris, he did not participate in Masonic activities, and his continued interest seems to have been purely intellectual. In 1912 he embraced Islam, and through Abdul-Hadi, a Swedish initiate, he joined the Sufi order of the Egyptian master Shaykh `Abd al-Rahman `Illaysh al-Kabir. After a short stint as instructor of philosophy in Algeria, Guénon entered the doctoral program in Sanskrit at the Sorbonne where he studied with Stanislav Levi. Although he did not complete his doctorate, apparently because he refused to provide the required references and notes for his thesis, the dissertation was published to general scholarly acclaim as Introduction générale à l`étude des Doctrines hindoues (1921). After the death of his French wife, he moved to Cairo in 1930 where he remarried, had four children, became an Egyptian citizen known as Shaykh `Abd al-Wahid Yahya and remained for the rest of his life. He is the author of twenty-nine books and roughly five hundred articles and reviews. Coomaraswamy and Guénon corresponded and attracted a number of followers, a number of which became influential authors and promoters of traditionalism, including Frithjof Schuon, Titus Burkhardt, Marco Pallis, Martin Lings, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Huston Smith, and others. These writers defend a number of common doctrines: Tradition is the continuity of Revelation: an uninterrupted transmission, through innumerable generations, of the spiritual and cosmological principles, sciences and laws resulting from a revealed religion: nothing is neglected, from the establishment of social orders and codes of conduct to the canons regulating the arts and architecture, ornamentation and dress; it includes the mathematical, physical, medical and psychological sciences, encompassing moreover those deriving from celestial movements. What contrasts it totally with our modem learning, which is a closed system materially, is its reference to all things back to superior planes of being, and eventually to ultimate Principles: considerations entirely unknown to modern man.,

65 6Whitehall Perry, in The Unanimous Tradition: Essays On The Essential Unity Of All Religions, ed. Ranjit Fernando (The Sri Lanka Institute of Traditional Studies Press, 1999).

---

Gill saab.
You pose yourself as a free-thinker. Fine. Why are you so consumed and obsessed that muslims should give up which are, according to your ``freethinking``, ``old`` ideas.

Please just share your skepticism and doubts only. We will understand that you are going thru some personal trials and tribulations..but for Allah & Mohammeds(pbuh) sake do not preach to muslims.

You sound like a Dad who himself being a successful and highly paid engineer (poor soul) tries to force his son to learn mathematics and science. The son on the other hand has no interest at all in such ``garbage`` but still wants to write like Manto someday.

Manto was always perplexed when someone asked him as to what he ``does``. ``jee mein afsaana nigaar hooN``. `jee voh tO thheek hai , mgar aap krtay kyaa haiN`? they would still insist.

Mulla Nasruddin was very very fond of Halvaa. Once he was at the grocer and enquired if the grocer carried soojee, yes the grocer replied. The mullaa asked for sugar, milk, pistaas,and ghee to which , one by one, the grocers said yes to all the ingredients needed for halwa.

The mulla then innocently said to the grocer:``tO phir tum upnay liyay halvaa banaa kay kyooN naheeN khaa laitay``.

It seem like you want to do your internet psycho-analysis. Won`t work, by this cyber-referendum. Not by books. You must go quiet till you start hearing yourself--the innermost of yourself. It is necessary to sound-proof yourself. The outside din is that of science , technology, & secularism. It won`t let you hear yourself think--not for free, not for any price.

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.