Barakzai's Religious Discussions

[ScimitarXEdge]

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.

This is a fair and valid argument; and another reason why I too am not always willing to accord lenience to Sufis just because of they're using metaphors or symbolic language. For symbolisms can get lost and eventually become obscured by heresy. However, there's an equal danger of trying to eradicate the use of such approaches entirely. There is this zeal for Tawhid, in a strict legalistic sense, but often at a cost of spiritual awakening; and I understand some people may disparage it as unnecessary or an irrelevant component of religious experience or perhaps they see the technical accuracies as so dire that it's a necessary sacrifice, but how one connects to the Divine: One's creator will ultimately impact how one walks in life. We understand that both deviations lead often to the same path, straying from Truth and dwelling in infamy. However, we musn't undermine the potential and the necessary essence of these tools in bringing people into the awareness of how close God really is to us if we just open our eyes and minds to Him. And in this sense, when used right, they bring people to the true meaning of Tawhid, not corrupt it.

[emkhan]

This is a fair and valid argument; and another reason why I too am not always willing to accord lenience to Sufis just because of they're using metaphors or symbolic language. For symbolisms can get lost and eventually become obscured by heresy. However, there's an equal danger of trying to eradicate the use of such approaches entirely. There is this zeal for but often at a cost of spiritual awakening; and I understand some people may disparage it as unnecessary or an irrelevant component of religious experience; but how one connects to the Divine, One's creator will ultimately impact how one walks in life. We understand that both deviations lead often to the same path, straying from Truth and dwelling in infamy. However, we musn't undermine the potential and the necessary essence of these tools in bringing people into the awareness of how close God really us if we just open our eyes and minds to Him. And in this sense, when used right, they bring people to the true meaning of Tawhid, not corrupt it.

True

[BarakzaiAbdali]

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).

Thank you, beautiful response. Ill read into your recommended sources. Dont think I was calling Rumi or Hallaj non Muslim as I am not a takfirist. As I stated, the initial line to anyone versed in any sort of poetry is not Rumi, or whoever wrote it, denouncing Islam, rather it appeared to be an obvious ode to the Creator who is not "one who submits." So that line itself was not as much an issue at all.

[کیش]

What's up with these Abu Dawud hadiths. This is the reason why I deny hadiths of people after Imam Muslim

Book 38, Number 4449:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal/ He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it.

Book 38, Number 4450:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

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

I guess the best answer I can give you is via the model of the clash some Protestants have with the iconagraphy of the catholics. The former view the latter as bordering on idol worship. Its not exactly the same... but it at least builds the bridge to give you an understanding. In Islam, the central thesis that the Quran posits is quiet simply:

The God (a literal translation of Al-Lah) is One. Moreover, he is the sole reality beyond the facade of creation. As you note below, this simple concept is what makes the Quran graspable.

The acceptance of this truth is important because the Quran goes on to define man's purpose:

"I created you to worship me."

Many take this word ibadaah (worship) misinterpret it as God simply wants a regimented militaristic world and demands all the lines of Muslims bowing in prayer.

This however, is not the case. Ibadaah, or the act of worship comes in so many different forms (.e.g establishing justice, dispensing to those in need, etc).

A part of this worship is to realize and accept this fundamental truth: God is One. If we fail to seek out this truth or do not accept it once it is brought to us, we do not live up that purpose above that God defined for us.

Basically: the quest for the truth a fundemental form of ibadaah (worship) and the most fundemental truth is God's oneness.

Acceptance of this paradigm then proceeds to acceptance of his logical set of commands brought through the Prophets. Once this is achieved, then execution of the law of the One God, the God of Moses, Jesus, Abaraham, Muhammad, shall allow man to live up to his full potential and be what God refers to in his Quran as God's "Khalifaah" or vice-regent, or caretaker in justice, of the world.

[emkhan]

Barakzai brother, do you listen to Dr Israr Ahmed ?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai brother, do you listen to Dr Israr Ahmed ?

I tend to read the primary sources such as the Quran itself, and then the 6 canonical hadith collections.
I dont listen to lectures, my preferred Islamic reading besides the Quran and the Canons is MM Al Azami's work.
It was through such work that I found and read the controversial work, Kitab al Masahif by ibn abi dawud.
I then began my foray into predominantly western/orientalist writings by folks like Goldziher, Schacht, Wansborough, Cook and Crone, Arthur Jeffrys, Puin, Burton, and Fedeli.
Reading these works and their divergent and contradictory theories strengthened my faith in the process of Jama al Quran. As the years went by and Crone and Cook became thoroughly debunked I felt much more comfortable.
It was truly, through this dangerous process that I do not recommend as it can possibly lead astray folks who are well meaning.
These readings venture into the complex topic of the seven Ahruf
Then, as I read Bukhari hadith, for instance, in one, an inheritor to the sahabaah is asked to read Surah Al Lail and he reads:
Wal- laylaay izaa yaghshaa; wan nahaaraay izaa thajalaah, waz zakra wal unsa. The governor indicates that he reads this way as well and it was the recension of ibn Masud.
When I first read these hadith, I was confused and did not understand what Bukhari was recording.

I recently had started to read the works of young American non Muslim scholar Jonathan Brown:

YouTube - A Brief History of Hadith Collection and Criticism 1/10

Sorry brother, being raised in the US, I tend to be a little odd in this way. It is not that I see these folks as superior in any way. In fact muslim Alim MM Al Azimi does a great job equalling and surpassing these orientalists.

[Mujib]

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?

The basic message of the Qur'an is simple and easy to understand because it is has been made simple and easy and because man's innate nature (fitra) allows him to easily relate and connect to this message. The monotheism revealed in Sura al-Ikhlas (Qul huwallahu ahad) is simple. But there are various levels of understanding, and there are layers of meaning in the Qur'an. There are several Qur'anic sciences and these require deep study to master. One who does not master them is not fit to interpret the Qur'an. The average intelligent human being can understand the basic Islamic tenets revealed in the Qur'an and its basic message, but deducing legal rulings or doctrine is beyond the capacity of non-scholars.

We do have brains, but our brains are only limited to the knowledge and experience we've acquired. And as human beings there is only so much knowledge and experience we have time for. Most of us work and/or go to school and have families; we don't have time to become Islamic scholars. As such we rely on scholars. This is how the world works: non-scholars/experts rely on scholars/experts. We can't all be teachers, doctors, mechanics, plumbers, etc., and so we need teachers, doctors, mechanics, plumbers. If all of us, for example, had the attitude "Medicine is natural and simple and I have a brain," imagine the trouble and harm this would cause.

[Mujib]

Dr. Jonathan Brown is a Muslim.

[faye]

The basic message of the Qur'an is simple and easy to understand because it is has been made simple and easy and because man's innate nature (fitra) allows him to easily relate and connect to this message. The monotheism revealed in Sura al-Ikhlas (Qul huwallahu ahad) is simple. But there are various levels of understanding, and there are layers of meaning in the Qur'an. There are several Qur'anic sciences and these require deep study to master. One who does not master them is not fit to interpret the Qur'an. The average intelligent human being can understand the basic Islamic tenets revealed in the Qur'an and its basic message, but deducing legal rulings or doctrine is beyond the capacity of non-scholars.

We do have brains, but our brains are only limited to the knowledge and experience we've acquired. And as human beings there is only so much knowledge and experience we have time for. Most of us work and/or go to school and have families; we don't have time to become Islamic scholars. As such we rely on scholars. This is how the world works: non-scholars/experts rely on scholars/experts. We can't all be teachers, doctors, mechanics, plumbers, etc., and so we need teachers, doctors, mechanics, plumbers. If all of us, for example, had the attitude "Medicine is natural and simple and I have a brain," imagine the trouble and harm this would cause.

personally i don't believe our brains are that limited or our imagination would not enable us to comprehend information that is new, so that even if a scholar were to tell you something you would be unable to envisage their meanings.
the aboriginal people of australia survived here for at least 40,000 years with their own knowledge of how to survive and learning the technique.
i am interested in the islamic cosmological doctrines. looks very interesting, mujib. are the sciences from mohammads words?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Dr. Jonathan Brown is a Muslim.

Really? Did he convert? I had no idea. Thats awesome.

[faye]

b.a. please don't assume i have been indoctrinated by christianity. i have been more interested in eastern religions and many varied philosophies.
i would have to research more to understand the statement, i created you to worship me. like you say it involves seeking for truth as well. i will delve deeper.. sir.
for me, at the moment consciousness is invisible and i am consciousness and that consciousness is the creator, creation=one/unity.
is what i see and experience, illusion?? that is the question...i like that idea.

[randolph85]

maybe i am not deep enough for sufi style poetry because i see hints of disbelief in them, though this poem by rumi clears some things up...

Man banda-ye qur'ānam, agar jān dāram
man khāk-e rah-e muhammad-e mukhtāram
gar naql konad joz īn kas az goftāram
bēzāram azō waz-īn sokhan bēzāram.

I am the servant of the Qur'an as long as I have life.
I am the dust on the path of Muhammad, the Chosen One.
If anyone quotes anything except this from my sayings,
I am quit of him and outraged by these words.

[Michin Khel]

Rumi zmonj awadas wo? Rozay bay newlalay? Hajj ta kala talay wo? Zakat ba warkawalay?...if answer is no then he should be considered a fitna.

[ScimitarXEdge]

blaaaah

Ok hold on there, merely because Sufism is esoteric, this does not make it some complicated, specialized system of information in which experimental data, practical research and emprical data, such as would be required in Engineering or Medicine; as such things required in real world situations. No Bridges has ever collapsed because someone opined an idea of the mystical outside of the boundaries of a Shaikh.; only proverbial bridges of breaking free from the Demogogic Monopoly these Shayukh claim.


This doesn't disregard the importance of learned Individuals in thsi field; but merely to say their knowledge is not some exclusive privilege which is restricted to only them. The absurd analogy of comparing Experimentally based formation which requires sophisticated methods to analyze, to sufism or mystical experience is so intellectually dishonest and logically false that is borders on nefarious and corrupt.

AT BEST, such levels of specialization are more comparable to studying Law, Psychology, Sociology or even Philosophy. Such systems of knowledge have individuals who studied such fields with extensive expertise, and their understandngs benefit in providing a comprehensive, extensive and learned depth of comprehension in their fields; but their fields themselves are approachable enough by lay men that an intuitive understanding of their material is accessible to the masses. The real meritn of a Shaikh has over the lay in these matters is that their conclusions bear more weight because of their comprehensive understanding.

Physical and Natural Sciences require RIGOROUS, inductive , reductive and deductive methods of proof. Where is this in Suloook Al Salik? To Compare Such Sciences with Islamic Sciences is merely to retain this pattern of stagnant psychological and spiritual brainwashing and nepotism which robs people of their own connection to the Grand, the Supreme and gives disproportionate power to those who are merely mortals like ourselves.

Not even Rumis words are infallible and he is open to critique and praise by Savants and the Lay Alike.

Only When something comes DIRECTLY from the Divine can the unquestionability of a postulate be surmised. Until then the access to the Divine is open to all, not only those who spent 20 years in a seminary

please keep your mentally enslaved dogma for the mureeds who don't know any better.