Barakzai's Religious Discussions

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I wanted to talk about a piece below by Rumi, because I have problems with it and would appreciate feedback in regard to where holes in my logic might be. There is a reason for this, as I pour through Pashto poetry, a common name that pops up is that of Mansur Al Hallaj; he who famously exclaimed "Anna Al Haq!- I am The Truth" and found himself crucified. He and Rumi do not appear to be too far off in sentiment, and both were likely misunderstood by contemporaries. Nonetheless, I do think Rumi was taking over advantage of his poetic license. As an example, he says in the first line "I'm neither... Muslim." He knows that the general listener may bristle because all creation submits to God. Rumi is obviously writing an ode to He who is beyond creation, namely God himself, but he is inviting argument. Here is the piece:

What can be done, O believers, as I don't recognize myself?
I'm neither a Christian nor Jew, Magian nor Muslim.

I'm not of the East or West; neither land nor sea;
I'm not of Nature's mine; nor the stars in Heaven.

I'm not of earth, water, air or fire;
I'm not of Heaven, nor the dust on this carpet.

I'm not of India, China, Bulgaria nor Saqsin;
I'm not of the kingdom of Iraq, nor Khorasan.

I'm not of this world, nor the next, Paradise nor Hell;
I'm not of Adam, nor Eve, Eden nor Rizwan.

My place is in the Placeless, my trace in the Traceless;
I'm neither body nor soul, as I belong to the soul of the Beloved.

The actual farsi in the last line is: "Man khod jaan-e-jaanaanam." So the above Anglocized translation is incorrect. Rumi is actually doing what Hallaj did and saying: "I am the soul of the beloved itself."

Wherein does the problem lie?

First, He in whose Hands is the Soul of Muhammad (S) writes in Surah Al Shuarah:

"And the Poets― it is those straying in Evil, who follow them: (224) Seest thou not that they wander distracted in every valley?― (225) And that they say what they practise not?― (226) Except those who believe, work righteousness, engage much in the remembrance of Allah, and defend themselves after they are unjustly attacked."

And of course the last part of the argument "except those who believe, work righteousness, engage much in the remembrance of Allah" is no small caveat against attacking all poets as distracting poets.

What of Rumi and Al Hallaj though?

the problem rests in the line: Man khod jaan-e-jaanaanam

The Sufi Mystic is given too much creative license. We attack the Salafist for his over reliance in literalism... yet the other end of the spectrum is abundent liberalism that changes the sense of God's message.

Here is the brunt of my argument:

We all too often compare the polytheism of the Quraysh with Hinduism. This is a fallacy. The two religious ideologies are worlds apart with some semblances. The former does involve idol worship and obeiscance to elements of nature and uncreation. The latter though, is pantheism, and finds is cornerstone belief that all creation is a part of the great being Brahman and sprang from him.

So in this way, Rumi and Al Hallaj unwittingly promote pantheism and dilute the reforming monotheism that Muhammad (S) bought with Islam and the Quran.

If folks bristle at this criticism, remember that a large part of the criticism that the Quran levels at Christians is that they either misinterpret or knowingly expunge God's word. To provide a pertinent example, Christians cite the Biblical verse: "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) as an example that Christ was affirming the trinity. However, they fail to examine John 10:30 in the light of this other pertinent verse:

"That the all may be made one. Like thou Father art in me, I in thee, that they may be one in us. I in them, they in me, that they may be perfect in one" (John 17: 20-22)

The Biblical Gospel writers expressed similar sentiments to Rumi's own when attempting to convey "oneness" with God.

Finally, let us examine how the Quran itself address attempts by man to annoint himself as "one with God."

O Messenger, say: 'He is God, the One, the God Who is free of need for all things and of Whom all beings stand in need. No one is His offspring, and He is not the offspring of anyone, and He has no like or parallel." (112:14) "Pure and exalted is thy Lord, God the Powerful and Unique, Who is pure of what men in their ignorance ascribe to Him." (37:180)

"(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: 'We are sons of God, and his beloved.' Say: 'Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all).' (The Noble Quran, 5:18)"

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"

God contradicts Rumi and notes:
1) Man is created and God is far above his creation in majesty
2) Man cannot be one with God in the manner Rumi speaks because there is not any being like unto God.
3) Men ascribe certain traits to the God and man relationship but do so in ignorance.

In summary, Mansur Al hallaj and Rumi, and their modern adherents would do well to remember how Islam's central tenant, above all things is:

La illaha ill Allah: There is no God except the One God.

And that one ought to consider the illogic that Mansur Al Hallaj or Rumi were somehow closer to God, to the point of spiritual eclipse and oneness, than the Prophet himself. Why is this statement relevent? No where in any hadith literature is there a semblance given or is there any ambiguity given regarding God's relationship with the Prophet Muhammad (S). Of all human beings, why would Allah neglect to raise the Prophet to such a high statue so as to be "within the soul of The Beloved (God) himself."? No, on the contrary, the early literature and the sabahaa were extremely careful to always state: "He in whose hands is the soul of Muhammad!" They never equated the two souls or even bordered on pantheism. In fact, God himself indicates a high degree of control over the Prophet himself:

But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, say: "Bring us a Reading other than this or change this." Say: "It is not for me, of my own accord to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the Penalty of a Great Day (to come) (Surah Yunus Verse 15)

As a final example, let us see how the Prophet himself was so very cautious when addressing the relationship between the Creater and the created. Note how he discusses his own being versus how Rumi discusses his own being:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said. "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is. surely (Jesus.) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it. and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it." Abu Huraira added "If you wish. you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): -- 'And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them." (4.159) (See Fateh Al Bari. Page 302 Vol 7)

the Prophet (S) is extremely careful to never ever confuse his listenership about how close even he, the best of Creation, can come to God. His soul is at God's mercy and in God's hand.

[emkhan]

This is the most hard to discuss topic in the light of Quran and Hadith. Sufis' teachings have always been contradictory to the teachings of Islam.
Alchemist can put some light on it.

[Iqra]

Do you see any difference in the following translation:

What is to be done, O Moslems? For I do not recognize myself.
I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr, nor Moslem.

I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea;
I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling heavens.

I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire;
I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of entity.

I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulgaria, nor of Saqsin;
I am not of the kingdom of 'Iraqain, nor of the country of Khorasan.

I am not of this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of hell;
I am not of Adan, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan.

My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless;
'Tis neither body nor soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved.

I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one;
One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call.

He is the first, He is the last, He is the outward, He is the inward;
I know none other except 'Ya Hu" and 'Ya man Hu.'

I am intoxicated with Love's cup, the two worlds have passed out of my ken;
I have no business save carouse and revelry.

If once in my life I spent a moment without thee,
From that time and from that hour I repent my life.

If once in this world I win a moment with thee,
I will trample on both worlds, I will dance in triumph for ever.

O Shamsi Tabriz, I am so drunken in this world,
That except of drunkenness and revelry I have no tale to tell.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Do you see any difference in the following translation:

What is to be done, O Moslems? For I do not recognize myself.
I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr, nor Moslem.

I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea;
I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling heavens.

I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire;
I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of entity.

I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulgaria, nor of Saqsin;
I am not of the kingdom of 'Iraqain, nor of the country of Khorasan.

I am not of this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of hell;
I am not of Adan, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan.

My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless;
'Tis neither body nor soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved.

I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one;
One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call.

He is the first, He is the last, He is the outward, He is the inward;
I know none other except 'Ya Hu" and 'Ya man Hu.'

I am intoxicated with Love's cup, the two worlds have passed out of my ken;
I have no business save carouse and revelry.

If once in my life I spent a moment without thee,
From that time and from that hour I repent my life.

If once in this world I win a moment with thee,
I will trample on both worlds, I will dance in triumph for ever.

O Shamsi Tabriz, I am so drunken in this world,
That except of drunkenness and revelry I have no tale to tell.

They mistranslate the line in question.

[fzpz]

I think you answered yourself. I read it as a description of God. I = God. The description is pretty standard from a muslim perspective of God being greater than anything that humans know or can comprehend. The last could be read as him trying to get his head around the The rest is the usual poetic psychobabble (poetic license). I try not reading too much into poetry. Either way, Rumi was pretty devout.

My personal belief is that Islam is essentially a pantheistic idea (greater than religion), but it realises the need for oneness amongst human beings if there is ever to be a stable, peaceful, and functional existence. Not the free for all hippy type pantheism which degenerates into anarchism.

[ScimitarXEdge]

as someone who favors the Mu'tazilah approach I find some postulates and rhetoric of Sufis questionable and sometimes deplorable. However, as someone who comes from a family raised on Sufi admiration and lore; I also have a degree of sympathy and sensitivity towards Sufi ideas when there is merit to do so. Poetry but it's nature was never intended to be definitive declarations; but idioms which concentrate a myraid of concepts and ideas for their readers to explore.

The poetry of the Sufis; the genuine ones, the ones who emphasized true devotion to God and following the spiritual reallity of Tariqah, which is embodied in the dictates of Shari'ah were not claiming divinity or equating themselves with divinity, but were, out of their sheer quest for inner awakening of truth, trying to give a taste of what deep inside we should all already know. That by dint of being a Spiritual Being, there is the proverbial "thumb print" ....an aspect of the Divine that wells within all of us. It's just few of us truly recognize it, except by following the Sufi Path.

[Alchemist]

Whenever this argument comes up I am reminded of the time when I was at some Afghan Mujarad (bachelors) house. When a plate of apple was brought to us, one man took the apple and bit into it with his teeth, the other took the knife and began to peel the apple. The one said to the other, "What's the point of peeling it? the skin is good for you". The other argued back "The skin is unclean, so it is not good for you", then he looked at me to affirm his position, so I nodded yes, and the other looked at me and I nodded, yes to him too. They were both right. The microbes on the skin, could potentially boost his immune system, also the acid in his stomach would kill off whatever trace of microbes there is on the skin. But then the pesticides used on the apple don't easily wash off, but then the other trade off is that the skin is rich in fibre which is good for digestion. So really there is no point in bickering about this...rumi is right and so is barakzai right.
If rumi says he is not muslim or this or that, he is just rejecting the labels that people place too much emphasis on. You could call your self muslim, but you could potentially still end up in hell, you could call your self jew or christain, but you could potentially still end up in heaven. Allah won't go by where you are from, what you call your self, what society percieves of you, or how you identify yourself. He knows you better than that so all such knowledge of your lineage and tribe, and country are irrelevant and meaningless as to what your true essence is. Never the less, you still need an identity to function in this world.

Many people don't know this, but Rumi was a great scholar of Islam in his own time. At his prime, his class would hold 400 students of Ilm who would come from all over the world to study fiqh from him. He didn't recite poetry until way after the age of 40 and before that he had no inclination towards it nor any hints of talent in poetry. Rather whatever he spoke, was poetic in itself, and he only dictated but didn't write or frame his thoughts to expound on any time of philosophy per say. He was a devout and practicing Muslim all through out his life. There are two types of knowledge, an explicit and an implicit type. The second implicit type, falls under the category of esoteric knowledge, and the sufis refers to this as Ilm e Arifana...it is like scimitar said, something that is deep inside all of us but not many of as are able to touch upon it...it is beyound the constraints of time-space, and all creative energies are pulled from this collective unconscious. Our Prophet peace be upon him, was by far the only man, to be able to pull from both types of knowledge simultaneously, the other muslim character, who embodied the esoteric form was Khidr, another example would be haroon, alihi salam, brother of Musa, alihi salam. So the split between salafies and suffies is a split in the conscious of the ummah collectively, from two different approaches to the world. For the first half of his life, Rumi exercised his mind in one format of knowledge, an incident happened, and it changed his psychology, so it flipped to a different format, what flowed from his mouth later was not as structured, for formulated, or critical and thus considered 'spiritual' and 'universal'. I hold no pretense to understand this later esoteric form. Another contemporary alim who was also well versed with ilm e arafana was Ruhullah Khomaini ...he has a similar mystical poem ...but if I posted here, many won't understand it, most would condemn him. It's safer not to discuss these things, just for the sake of argumentation.

Salam.

[کیش]

73 sects of Islam, only only one going to heaven, choose one

[emkhan]

Alchemist, these type of beliefs you can not prove them in the light of Quran and hadith.
I am not saying it is right or wrong but such beliefs are self created on one's own understanding and approach.
Is sufism not more close to Budhism or the spiritual side of hinduism or christianity?
A sufi would never talk about the Shariah laws or implementation though it is the mandatory article of faith and Muhammad's s.a.w whole life is a struggle for the establishing of a society which is based on the pure Quranic principles whether it is economic, social, political, judicial, war fare or any.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Whenever this argument comes up I am reminded of the time when I was at some Afghan Mujarad (bachelors) house. When a plate of apple was brought to us, one man took the apple and bit into it with his teeth, the other took the knife and began to peel the apple. The one said to the other, "What's the point of peeling it? the skin is good for you". The other argued back "The skin is unclean, so it is not good for you", then he looked at me to affirm his position, so I nodded yes, and the other looked at me and I nodded, yes to him too. They were both right. The microbes on the skin, could potentially boost his immune system, also the acid in his stomach would kill off whatever trace of microbes there is on the skin. But then the pesticides used on the apple don't easily wash off, but then the other trade off is that the skin is rich in fibre which is good for digestion. So really there is no point in bickering about this...rumi is right and so is barakzai right.
If rumi says he is not muslim or this or that, he is just rejecting the labels that people place too much emphasis on. You could call your self muslim, but you could potentially still end up in hell, you could call your self jew or christain, but you could potentially still end up in heaven. Allah won't go by where you are from, what you call your self, what society percieves of you, or how you identify yourself. He knows you better than that so all such knowledge of your lineage and tribe, and country are irrelevant and meaningless as to what your true essence is. Never the less, you still need an identity to function in this world.

Many people don't know this, but Rumi was a great scholar of Islam in his own time. At his prime, his class would hold 400 students of Ilm who would come from all over the world to study fiqh from him. He didn't recite poetry until way after the age of 40 and before that he had no inclination towards it nor any hints of talent in poetry. Rather whatever he spoke, was poetic in itself, and he only dictated but didn't write or frame his thoughts to expound on any time of philosophy per say. He was a devout and practicing Muslim all through out his life. There are two types of knowledge, an explicit and an implicit type. The second implicit type, falls under the category of esoteric knowledge, and the sufis refers to this as Ilm e Arifana...it is like scimitar said, something that is deep inside all of us but not many of as are able to touch upon it...it is beyound the constraints of time-space, and all creative energies are pulled from this collective unconscious. Our Prophet peace be upon him, was by far the only man, to be able to pull from both types of knowledge simultaneously, the other muslim character, who embodied the esoteric form was Khidr, another example would be haroon, alihi salam, brother of Musa, alihi salam. So the split between salafies and suffies is a split in the conscious of the ummah collectively, from two different approaches to the world. For the first half of his life, Rumi exercised his mind in one format of knowledge, an incident happened, and it changed his psychology, so it flipped to a different format, what flowed from his mouth later was not as structured, for formulated, or critical and thus considered 'spiritual' and 'universal'. I hold no pretense to understand this later esoteric form. Another contemporary alim who was also well versed with ilm e arafana was Ruhullah Khomaini ...he has a similar mystical poem ...but if I posted here, many won't understand it, most would condemn him. It's safer not to discuss these things, just for the sake of argumentation.

Salam.

I dont disagree, but once again, as I pointed out verbal license can have lasting effects. Islamic exegetes were especially keen to avoid the sort of language that would border on the vagaries of "I and my Father are one." This is not the simple equivalent of whether to eat Apple peel or not. The words of said great scholar has a lasting impact on how one views their relationship with the divine. Muhammad (S) words that are carefully preserved never indicate a unity of his soul with God's own being in any way. This distinction is key toward avoiding the corruption of tauhid in any way.

[emkhan]

I dont disagree, but once again, as I pointed out verbal license can have lasting effects. Islamic exegetes were especially keen to avoid the sort of language that would border on the vagaries of "I and my Father are one." This is not the simple equivalent of whether to eat Apple peel or not. The words of said great scholar has a lasting impact on how one views their relationship with the divine. Muhammad (S) words that are carefully preserved never indicate a unity of his soul with God's own being in any way. This distinction is key toward avoiding the corruption of tauhid in any way.

Exactly brother, Thats why the word "Father" was never used in the holy Quran.
Sufis use language carelessly and thus misslead millions of people

[emkhan]

Because of this word Father, the whole Christian community is going astray...
So using words carefully is the fundamental thing.

[faye]

it sounds to me as though he transcended matter and experienced oneness with the creator. isn't that the aim for all of us?

[Mujib]

When our knowledge of something is incomplete, as is the case in most things, we must refer to scholars. We should not make judgments based upon our own opinions and understanding. Mawlana Rumi (ra) is a recognized saint in Islam. He is loved and revered by Muslims East and West. And so – and this is the case with all well-known scholars and saints – if there is something he said, or is reported to have said, which we do not understand, we should ask the scholars. This is especially true with the words of the great Sufis, as Sufi terminology, and the science of Sufism itself, is complex.

First and foremost, the poem in discussion is not a poem of Mawlana Rumi (ra). Dr. Ibrahim Gamard, a Rumi scholar and Mawlawi Sufi, includes this poem amongst poems that are not genuine Rumi poems. He says:

Some anti-Islamic writers have even claimed or suggested that Rumi really wasn't a Muslim, because they falsely believed that the line, "I am not a Christian, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, or a Muslim" expressed Rumi's true attitude toward Islam. But as I said, this poem is not in the earliest manuscripts and so is not a genuine Rumi poem. Nicholson first published a translation of this line [na tarsâ na yahûd-am man na gabr-am na musalmân-am] in 1898, but he admitted that, "The original text does not occur in any of the editions or MSS. used by me" (p. 281). ("Rumi and Self-Discovery")

R.A. Nicholson’s translation is entitled Selected Poems from the Divani Shamsi Tabriz.

As for the line in question, it is not “Man khod jaan-e-jaanaanam”; it reads: “Na tan bashad na jan bashad ki man az jan-i janan-am.” The talk, in Sufi literature, of “unity” (ittihad), “indwelling” (hulul), “annihilation” (fana’), etc., is not to be interpreted literally. Reaching unity does not mean that the Sufi (lover) literally becomes part of God (Beloved) or the shaykh (beloved). The great Sufi master Imam Ibn `Ata' Illah (ra) said: "Your reaching Allah is your reaching the knowledge of Him, for other than that, Our Lord is too exalted for anything to be joined with Him or for Him to be joined with anything" (Reliance of the Traveller).

[faye]

well i make judgements based on my own understanding and experience because i have a brain and i use it mujib. if i am wrong , ok, i give it another shot. maybe with more contemplation, reading, experiences and the growth of understanding, i may one day get it right. i am not personally interested to have someone else be my brain.
i read that the quaran is said to be given to people by allah and is made simple so they can understand it. so how come they need all these interpreters?