Three Tales Of Sufi Wisdom

urstruly,
i am disappointed by your last post. vide

Prophets are both infallible and innocent [mas`um]. This is the aqidah of the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shiah therefore it is the aqidah of the vast majority of Muslims throughout history. Wahabis and a few modernists like Moududi, Syed Qutb and other deviants have dissented in this.

Shaykhs are not innocent [mas`um --and it has to be understood that innocence (`isma) here is a technical term with a specific definition in Shari`ah in this context: i.e. ma`sum means the impossibility of that person commiting any sin [as defined by Shariah Law], small or large or making any mistake in anything related to the religion ] in this sense yet they can be divinely protected [maHfuz] from error. In any case, a real Shaykh will also be an `alim and a commoner (vis-a-vis islamic religious sacred knowledge or `ilm) is not in a position to criticise the experts. (If they do their criticism carries no weight like a person who cannot even understand basic algebra criticising Newtonian laws of motion or calculus!)

Your post lacked basic Islamic adab towards the superiors of this religion.
You know the saying: bay-adab bay-muraad; baa-adab, baa-muraad!

malik99,

no one has ever--or is--advocating worshipping or doing sajdah to anyone other than Allah! Please do not read things into the tales which were neither contained therein nor implied nor intended.

The Absolute Ruler and One worthy of worship is Allah.

Tawassul in no way negates that or argues otherwise; if you think so, you have not understood tawassul.

I believe it is Iqbal`s shair -

yeh aik sajda jissay too giraN samajhta hay
deta hay hazar sajdoN say admee ko nijaat

I understand the context of this ongoing discussion about the importance of Sheikhs and Pirs. However, I just thought I would mention here that one of the most `brazen` aspect of Islam is that it frees us from the human heirarchies and shackles and makes us answerable only to Allah. It takes the fear of this world and its inhabitants out of our hearts.

Yes it is important to seek the aide and help of learned humans, and yes Sufis have played a crucial role in that regard, but unfortunately, human psyche is such that it makes gods out of humans. Gunj Baksh is one such example.

As Urstruly pointed out, extreme care should be taken in this regard.

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

talha,

You are absolutely right. I completely missed that point (Iblis`s refusal to bow before God`s wish), thanks for sharing. And the ! (in my first post) was for the wrongly written Quranic verses. I will have to agree, such articles should not have interacts, they kill the essence of these stories and malign the true relative meaning of spiritualism.

Anyway, thanks again :)

Peace

Neotherf

I did understand your point the first time, but I did not want to include everything in one post. I agree with your point. The path that Naqshbandi is suggesting to us i.e. ``Mureed>Shaykh>Prophet>Allah`` is extremely dangerous and may lead to the `Kufr` or worst `shirk` hence must be avoided. One should keep in mind that only entity in this universe who is infallible is Allah; prophets are fallible but definitely innocent; and so-called Sheykhs are neither infallible nor innocent. They are mere human beings with warts and all. Therefore, Naqshbandis suggestion that one must innihilate himself into Shiekh is extremely dangerous. The only Pir-e-Kamil (Perfect Sheikh) in this sense was Holy Prophet (pbuh) who was guided by Allah Himself through his fallibilities. But he is not among us anymore. Yet annihilating oneself into Prophet (pbuh) is correct and necessary according to one Hadith where Holy Prophet (pbuh) told that our Iman can only become perfect when our love for him transcends every other in the world. So in my opinion Sheikhs are just the stepping stones (as Fuzair mentioned in his post) to get to a destination. So a safe approach to reach Allah would be:

Momin>teacher1>teacher2>teacher3>.......teachern>Prophet(pbuh)>Allah

It is in the full capacity of our ultimate Maa`shooq (Allah) to guide us to Himself without any intermediaries, but only through Prophet and that is because of His love for the Prophet.

Mr Isphahani, your knowledge of water is not going to teach you religion in it`s entirety. Its funny that you actually wrote that. And yet you ignored your little knowledge of the Quran and then quote yet another verse out of context. There is no point in having a discussion when you are not willing to learn.
The ego does not let anyone go far in understanding.

Please, learn something about tawassul, or intermediation from the scholars and then blame Umar R.A. who spent his entire life with the Prophet of Islam. Or maybe you are one of those Umar haters. In that case I can quote Ali r.a. regarding tawassul. And if you care less about Ali R.A. then there is no point in quoting contemporary scholars either.
In that case lets end this pointless argument here. To you be your way and to me mine.

Urstruly, I agree with you in most cases. Thats exactly what I meant, perhaps i didnt clarify it much.

Neotherf: Have you heard the story about Ibli`s tauheed? He never bowed down to anyone but Allah. It may appear to be true monotheism and may make sense, but he fell from divine favor because of that act.
The tauheed of other angels was favored because they bowed down to Adam. AND please ! don`t think i am asking us to bow to humans. I am just saying that Iblis can apparently talk sense, yet God may not approve of it. ``Satan seems to be talking sense here, which, he is not known for. ``

Peace

Thank you Urstruly, that was useful insight. But mind you, the point that was being made here holds validity too, good validity and without the slightest hint of exasperation, if that`s what you`ve detected. So, relax.

Naqshbandi sahib, since you are the writer, kindly shed some light on my question. Thanks in advance.

can someone please explain to me the moral of the second story?

thanks!

nice children fables, thanks naqsh

#1 says that reason is most likely due to satan, so ignore that and conform.

#2 says magic exists.

#3 says,
- there is muslim world, and then there is other.
- if you steal, you are damned to be polish?
- no magic here

First of all I have to say that perhaps Talha has a point and a lot of readers will not have the background to really understand the meanings. The explanations by Talha including the relation of hadith and Qur`anic verses by him to prove that nothing in these stories contradicts basic Islamic principles as Traditionally understood by the majority of Muslims who have also been Sufis was excellent.

Story A is illustrating the Sufi principle that there are 3 stages on the Path to Allah before one can have gnosis of Him directly:
1. Annihilation in the Sufi Shaykh (in the story Imam Junayd). The Sufi Shaykh then takes you to
2. Annihilation in the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Prophet then is the one who can connect you to the third and final stage
3. Annihilation in Allah.

That is the Path to Allah consists of going via the Shaykh to the Prophet alayhisalatu wa salam and via The Prophet to Allah.

Mureed>Shaykh>Prophet>Allah

This is commanded by the Qur`an in the advice to seek an intermediary (wasila)...

The second story, about Rumi, illustrates the existence of a higher knowledge beyond book learning which one can only learn from a Guide.

The third story illustrates the capacity of the awliya to help those who call upon them with the permission of Allah (and according to His Will NOT independently) in general and of Shaykh Abd al Qadir al Jilani quds sirruhu in particular.

here are my two stories of worldly wisdom:

1. ya `asif`

today i went to McDonald`s, recited Ya `asif` and the burger turned halal. i said ya `asif` again and the cashier did not ask for money. i said ya `asif` and i was transported to my office desk right away.

2. My project manager asked for the report, I handed him 20 blank sheets of paper. he asked what the hell is this. I said this is the project report but `you do not know`

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

Neotherf, Talha, and Asfand.

I wish to clarify some misunderstanding here. This misunderstanding arises when these stories are taken in their literal sense. Please understand that the most popular genre of the Middle Ages, especially, among Muslim writers has been the Allegories, Fables, Parables, Emblems, and Apologues. One must understand the nature and definition of these sub-genres first before reaching to any conclusion. The underlying purpose to use this genre has always been to convey the meaning of an abstract concept by giving it a visual shape. For example, honesty and truth are very abstract concepts. But when these concepts are described in the form of stories where animals can talk to each other, and characters where men have supernatural powers, they create a visual image of the concept in the mind of the reader. This is by far the most effective medium to convey a message about the abstract concepts. Some of the greatest writers of Muslim world like Saadi Shirazi and Rumi have used this genre to convey the messages of morality and Divinity to the people of their time. Even the great Divine books like Qura`n, Bible, Torah, and Geeta use this genre to convey their messages.

In the past, however, both writers and the readers knew that the characters and events in those fables were mere fiction, or a mixture of truth and fiction, whereas the ``moral`` of the story at the end was real. But over the time, as Muslims stopped putting premium on their faith and education, they started believing those fables as true – the fables where Pirs could fly and humans could walk in and out of heaven or hell like they were on educational tours became real for them and morals became fiction. Muslims (some of them) chose superstition and ignorance over the enlightenment that those fables were actually meant for. Islam in its very essence is the religion that is absolutely against the superstition and ignorance. But unfortunately, some of the opportunists are now using these fables as a part of faith. What could be more injustice to Allah and his Prophet (pbuh), than that? Our Prophet (pbuh) who was stoned, ex-communicated, tortured, and exiled could have simply walked on the water to convince people that the message he has brought is from Divinity; Instead he chose a life of hardship, simplicity, and necessitousness to prove that he can live by the message he is charged with delivering.

So I would request everyone here to just calm down and try to understand the ``moral` of these stories and not go into the devil of details.

#6 by dullabhatti on November 30, 2004 2:01pm PT

Behold the power of interpretation.....


One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river. ``Look at the fish swimming about,`` said Chuang Tzu, ``They are really enjoying themselves.``
``You are not a fish,`` replied the friend, ``So you can`t truly know that they are enjoying themselves.``

``You are not me,`` said Chuang Tzu. ``So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?``

The same story revisited in Zen.............and ofcourse the greatest gift of god- man`s intellectual faculty to come up with different interpretations of the same story........

Zen Master lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. ``You have come a long way to visit me,`` he told the prowler, ``and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift.`` The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. ``Poor fellow,`` he mused, `` I wish I could give him this beautiful moon.``




People`s reactions to this story:

``First, be grateful to everyone: perhaps because the Master was before distracted by his material belongings, he never noticed the beauty around him. The thief in fact gave to the Master through his theft and maybe lost the sight of the Moon. Also, the beauty of nature is available to all - free and forever, and we forget this when we get caught up in the dazzle of our commercial society. ``

``The Zen master was not attached to any material possessions. He could even give away his clothes without thinking twice. What he would have liked to give the thief was not anything material, but his appreciation of nature or enlightenment.``

``The thief is poor because he does not understand what is of value in this life and what is not. The Zen Master is wealthy because he is content. The moon, I think, is a symbol of that contentment and peace.``

``This reminds me of the vicar in Les Miserables who tells the thief that giving him what the thief has tried to steal means that the thief now belongs to God. The clothing is only a thing, which means nothing to the Zen master, so he removes the dishonor of the theif`s act by giving him something. I think the moon represents the master`s internal spiriual connection, which is something he cannot give away; it is there for all who seek it. The Zen master realizes that he cannot just give spirituality away, as the vicar attempted in Les Miserables. In Judaism, there is the evil impulse and the good impulse in all men, and resisting the evil impulse requires active participation in seeking through prayer and study, so that the difference between good and evil impulses becomes obvious. The Zen Master was acting with loving kindness, which is an element of all major religions (unfortunately, it is not always practiced).``

``Material things mean nothing.... that is not wisdom that can be stolen, nor can it be easily given.``

``Its a nice story. My interpretations are thus: (1) Maybe the Zen master wants to give the moon since if the thief had the moon, he could make use of it while he was at job in night. So it would imply that we should try to give to other people things after a thought of what may be useful for them, and not just for sake of giving, unless (as in thi case) we do not have a choince or chance, (2) Second interpretation could be that when you give, you should give with all your heart, the best of what you can. the moon in this case, (3) Maybe the Zen master is talking of enlightening the thief, and the giving of moon signifies the bringing of light into his black nights... maybe you choose :))

``The master gives unto the thief the most that he can give materially. The one thing he can not give to the thief is that which he needs most; his own true nature. The moon represents our own true nature. The master`s gesture represents his attitude towards those not-enlightened. He does not look down on them, he does not hate enemies; he is beyond animosity brought from attachments and materialism. The gesture is also an example of this.``

``Material things are nice but fleeting, the understanding of matrial things is forever.``

``The Master and the thief walked beneath the same moon but the thief could not know the peace that the master held inside him. So their moons were, in fact, different. He was only giving to the poor.``

``I look at this story in the way that the Zen Master acknowledges that the thief came into to steal something, the Zen Master is enlightened in not only can he forgive the thief for breaking in and invading his personal space but does a greater act by giving him his cloth. Like the feeling of fullfilment that the Zen Master gets from the moon, there is nothing like the emotional fullfilment of acts of kindness to another and having the strenth to forgive others for wrongs done against you.``

``Most of these stories depict a wiser master who knows what is truly important. Here, the master feels sorry for the thief, it is painful to the master that the thief cannot appreciate what is freely provided by all things. Painful enough for the master to give the poor soul his clothes.``

``This is a story not of the power of posession, but the power to posses. The zen master has the ability to give away something to one who does not have the ability to acquire what he has. If the zen master could acquire the moon to give it away it would further his power to posses. This would connote a hierarchy distinguishing who has the ability to posses, but if the zen master could give the moon away then his power to posses would dissolve any hierarchy. Ultimately the power to posses is the downfall of humankind because it lends to the false belief that there is power in possession.``

``The zen master feels sorry for the thief whose contentment lies only in material possessions and not in appreciating priceless possesions he already has ... like the moon.``

``When sitting and watching the moon the zen master came to realize something about himself, that He did what gave him most happiness- giving the thief something that gave HIM happiness.So he mused, I wish I could give him the moon, for that which gives me so much happiness will surely give me more happiness when i give it to the one who craves others` possessions.``

``The zen master sits naked enjoying life in the moonlight; he has no concern for tomorrow when the sun might burn his skin or when other people might be nonplussed by his nakedness. Does he have no concern for self because he has no self. He seemed to be concerned for the thief`s self. Has he perhaps `one-upped` the thief with his superior magnanimity? Why does he assume that the thief cannot enjoy the moon? Is his zen correct-attitude zen or is it truly no mind?``

``The zen master has nothing and yet there is nothing he does not have.``

``The zen master has found a way of life that keeps him content, it is a simple life but he is happy. There are people who are still looking. The zen master wishes he could pass on this enlightenment that he has found to others. On a personal note - I am jealous of the zen master and am still trying to find my way of life.``
http://www.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/moon.html