Taqrib Journal 5

8/6/2019 Taqrib Journal 5

1/173


2/173

ISSN 1735-8140

Under the Auspices of: The World Forum for Proximity ofIslamic Schools of Thoughtyatullh Muammad Al Taskhr, Director

Managing Director: ujjatul Islm Al Aghar Awad

Editors-in-Chief: Shuja Ali MirzaSayyid usayn Hshim

Editor: Rizwan Rashid

Executive Manager: Muammad Hd Bbjnin

Editorial Board: Muzaffar IqbalMuhammad LegenhausenRoland PietschReza Shah-KazemiMuammad Jafar IlmQsim JawdSayyid Al Qul QarMahd Hdaw ehrnMuammad usayn lib

2009This edition first published in 2009

The opinions expressed in this journaldo not necessarily reflect those of the publisher.

Published byThe World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought

P.O. Box 15875-6995 Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran

Telephone +98 21 88822532, +98 251 7755464Fax +98 21 [email protected]

The World Forum for Proximityof Islamic Schools of Thought


3/173

3

Contents:

Editorial.............................................................................................................. 5VISION AND IDEAS ~Paradigms of Islamic Unity

Civilizational Dialogue and Mysticism: The HolyQurn and the Metaphysics of Ibn al-ArabReza Shah-Kazemi............................................................................................. 17The Voice of Unity: Unity of the Islamic Community

Muammad Wi-Zdeh Khursn..................................... ......................... 46The Social Dimensions of Wilyah

Mohammad Ali Shomali..................................... ........................................... .. 66EXPRESSION AND ARTS ~Paragons of Islamic Culture

International Quds Day: Re-emergence of a UnifyingSocial Order for the Ummah

Mansoor Limba ......................................... .......................................... .............. 82VOICES OF UNITY~Muslim Leaders in Contemporary History

Unity of the Islamic Schools of Thought According to

Imam Ms adrAbd al-Ram Abdhar..................................... ........................................... . 114Immah and Wilyah: Allmah Sharaf al-Dns UniqueApproach to Conciliation

Muammad Isq Dhkir.............................................................................. 131


4/173


5/173

5

Editorial

Religion is innate to the human condition and all men, to some extent,know what is meant when the word religion is mentioned. In all lan-guages, the same word is also used in its plural form as religions, and onceagain, the meaning is understood. What this simple fact tells us is thatwhen we observe a number of religions in human society we see them asentities that are different, unique, and countable. However, it also tells us

that there is something that is common to all of them; otherwise, we wouldnot be able to point to any one particular religion and claim that it is a re-ligion. Hence, there is a perspective in which every religion is unique, andthere is also a perspective in which the religions are the same and sharecommonalities.

Religions are unique vis--vis their particular form, their method, andtheir branches while they are the same in their essence, their origin-destination, and their root. Religions are the same in so far as they arefrom the same limitless Source of manifestation and His boundless treas-ures (khazinahu), while they are unique in so far as theyas manifestedformhave limits (bi qadarin malm) (cf. Qurn 15:21). Again, they are thesame in that they are revealed and radiate from the Light of the heavens and

the earth, but upon refraction, they differ in their intensities and colours.There is an aspect to all true religions where we are told not to differentiate,(l nufarriqu bayna aadin minhum, cf. 3:84; 2:136; 2:285; 4:152); and thenthere is another aspect to them that situates the religions and their founderswithin a hierarchy (faaln baahum al bain, cf. 2:253). yatullhJawd mul writes,

Religion is everywhere permeated by the kernel and the light, andsince light has degrees and levels of intensity and dimnessand asthe religious practice of individuals has degrees and levels of strengthand weaknessso too does religion itself have degrees of strengthand weakness; the principles of religion are like the intense light,while the branches [and precepts] of religion are like the weak light.1

A study of religions reveals that their multiplicity is gradational(tashkk) and not oppositional (tabyun). That is to say, divine relig-ions hold many of their doctrinal, ethical, legal, and jurisprudential

1 yatullh Jawd mul, Dn Shins, p. 71.


6/173

AL-TAQRIB

6

lines of thought in commonbut they are of various levels and de-grees: some are perfect while others are more perfect.2

The fact that religions are effectively of different levels or colours oflight does not harm their essential unity, nor does it negate the fact thatreligion as such is one single reality. Religion is like an existential universalor archetype that gives rise to numerous particulars or instances.

The use of the word religion in its plural form (religions) is withrespect to the perfection of religion on the plane [or arc] of descent.It is the manifestations of religion that undergo perfection; it is not

the case that religion was once imperfect and then became perfected,thereby reaching its most perfect and most complete level. That is tosay, the reality of religion is onesometimes the lower levels [of thissingle reality] become apparent, sometimes its intermediate levels de-scend, and sometimes its higher levels manifest themselves...3

By the same token, the essential unity of all religions does not denigratethe unique nature and identity of any one particular religion. In principle,this is because when each religion was revealed by God, it partook of Hiswill in a direct fashion. Whenever God sent a prophet with a new relig-ion, He did so in consonance with the fullness of His Identity and the di-vine I. God affirms this truth to the Prophet () in the Qurn in the fol-lowing manner:

!$tB ur$uZ=yr&`B=6s%`B@Aqw)rqRms9)mRr&Iwtms9)Hw)O$tRr&br7$$s

We did not send any apostle before you but We revealed to himthat There is no god except Me; so worship Me. (21:25)

This divine Identity or an of the Absolute and the fact that all of thedivine Names, despite their conceptual variances, refer to this one and onlyReality, means that the particular divine Name that a prophet is sent withto institute a different religion is shrouded in a cloak of absolutism.

Hence, every religion is intrinsically motivated to protect its integrity andgeniusgiving rise to a divinely sanctioned exclusivism on the level offorms. yatullh Jawdi mul explains this in this fashion:

2 Ibid. p. 205.3 Ibid. p. 73.


7/173

EDITORIAL

7

A religious person ... does not retreat from his beliefs and ideologicalstances on the doctrinal level, nor from his principled precepts onthe practical level.4

He also speaks about an exclusivism that is common to all true relig-ions whereby they distinguish themselves from error and disbelief in gen-eral. In this case all these religions, together, are seen as being examples ofthe single and perennial tradition of Islam and thereby as excluding orbeing opposed to the secular, atheistic, or humanistic perspective on reality.He writes:

God Immaculate speaks in two ways in the noble Qurn: 1 withinthe [religious] fold, whereby each and every one of the religiousschools of thought (madhhib) and divine religions (adyn), in itsown measure (andzeh), partakes of the truth in general; 2 withoutthe [religious] fold, whereby only the religion of Islam is the truthand everything outside of Islam is error and does not partake of thetruth at all; hence the fundamental existence of God and His unicity(tawd) is the truth, while heresy and polytheism (shirk) is error.5

In expounding upon this inclusive-exclusive dichotomy within religionand before setting forth some of the practical consequences of this idea,two important notes are in order. First, esoteric tendencies and an over-emphasis on inclusivism have led some thinkers to posit the equality of the

exclusivisms of all the various religions. In supporting their claims, suchthinkers sometimes refer to Ibn al-Arabs example of the water in the cupbecoming coloured by the colour of the cupthe water standing here forthe Absolute within, and the cup denoting the particular religion that car-ries the truth of the Absolute. It is inferred that what is important is thewatercontained in the cup and not the shape or colour of the specific cupin question, and that effectively, in so far as they are containers for water,all cups are the same and hence equal.

In his exceptional articleincluded in this issue of the journalDr.Reza Shah-Kazemi, an authority on Comparative Religion, uses the cup-water symbolism to first expound the positive meaning that one may takefrom this imagery:

4 Ibid. p.201.5 Ibid. p. 220. On the previous page Ay. Jawd set the stage for this comment of his in thesewords, God Immaculate, holds that the truth is commonly shared by all those who believein the general principles and original features of religion, while having faith in and practic-ing the same, even though they are made distinct from each other by way of their [particu-lar] methodology and [practical] law. But as for those who do not accept God, according tothe Qurn, So what is there after the truth except error? (10:32).


8/173

AL-TAQRIB

8

In terms of the image of the water and the cup, briefly alluded toabove: the cup might be seen to symbolize the form taken by Revela-tion, while water stands for the Essence of Revelation. Water, in it-self, is undifferentiated and unique, whilst undergoing an apparentchange of form and colour by virtue of the accidental shape and col-our of the receptacles into which it is poured. The receptacles, theforms of Revelation, are fashioned according to the specificities ofthe human communities to which the specific revealed message isaddressed:And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his

folk, that he might make the message clear for them (14:4). Just as humancommunities differ, so must the language of the message sent to

them: the cups cannot but differ. However, the one who knows wa-ter as it is in itself, that is, the essence of that which is revealed, andnot just its forms, will recognize this water in receptacles other thanhis own.

While the essence of the revealed religions is one, Shah-Kazemi is quick toremind us of the proper level at which we can say that all religions are one.It is not on the level of forms that they are one; rather, they are one in Godas their source. Hence, one can only differentiate and judge between themaccording to their forms and their efficacysince, in their content or es-sence, they are non-delimited and one. To repeat the same idea using thecup-water analogy, it can be said that it is the cup that is limited; it is lim-ited not only in its shape and colourwhich define the original genius ofthe religion in questionbut, like all worldly limitations, it is also limitedin time and by the intrinsic qualities of the temporal world such as change,mutation, and deterioration. Hence, the formal aspect of any religion,unlike its essential core, is open to degeneration from the outside, so tospeak. Given the ever-increasing degenerative and entropic forces of thelower and limited world of manifestation, even the best of cups are proneto decay, disrepair, and leaks. Therefore, while all cups hold water and giveit the appearance of a certain shape or colour, given the vicissitudes of time,some will do it better than others. It is because of Islams temporal posi-tioning as the last religion for humanity that it can be claimed that itscup is in better shape and has not degenerated as other formal religions.

It is also for this reason that one can make the intellectual argument thatdivine wisdom would prefer a container and vehicle that is the most sound;hence, the general divine will supports the use of this container for themasses at large in our time.

There is one other reason to give preference to Islam in our age. It has todo with the fact that, even on the exoteric and exclusive level, Islam has a


9/173

EDITORIAL

9

certain universality that includes other religions. In this regard, MartinLings writes:

It should be mentioned that there is a lesser universality as well as thegreater one which we have been considering. All mysticisms areequally universal in the greater sense in that they all lead to the OneTruth. But one feature of the originality of Islam, and therefore ofSufism, is what might be called a secondary universality, which is tobe explained above all by the fact that as the last Revelation of thiscycle of time it is necessarily something of a summing up. The Is-lamic credo is expressed by the Quran as beliefin God and His angelsand His books and His Messengers. (2:285) The following passage is alsosignificant in this context. Nothing comparable to it could be foundin either Judaism or Christianity, for example: For each We have ap-

pointed a law and a path; and if God had wished He would have madeyou one people. But He hath made you as ye are that He may put you to thetext in what He had given you. So vie with one another in good works.Unto God ye will all be brought back and He will then tell you about thosethings wherein ye differed. (5:48) Moreoverand this is why one speaksof a cycle of timethere is a certain coincidence between the lastand the first. With Islam the wheel has come full circle, or almost;and that is why it claims to be a return to the primordial religion,which gives it yet another aspect of universality. One of the charac-teristics of the Quran as the last Revelation is that at times it be-comes as it were transparent in order that the first Revelation mayshine through its verses...6

Another way of saying that Islam is more universal than the other existingworld religions is to say that it is closer to the essence of religion and theperennial tradition of Truth (dn al-aqq) that the Qurn speaks about.This explains the relatively-absolute superiority of the last religion, or moreaccurately, the fact that this last religion is the singularly greatest particular7of the pervasive or existential universal known as the dn al-aqq. By virtueof its essential identity with this universal, primordial, or ultimate Tradi-tion, Muammadan Islam becomes the ultimate and final point of refer-ence and actually protects and confers on the other preceding religions a

relative right to exist. (cf. Qurn 5:48).The second important point regarding the inclusive-exclusive dichot-

omy, or the question as to whether the religions are unique or the same, is

6What is Sufism?, p. 23.

7 The particular here refers to the individual or the referentthe midqof the existentialuniversalthe kull sa.


10/173

AL-TAQRIB

10

to know that the Islamic perspective would want to emphasize that Islamincludes, without contradiction, both of these perspectives at the sametime; and that it is wrong and even impossible to take any one without theother in any real way. Or to put it differently, the truth is neither this northat but an affair between the two affairs. The paramount importance ofthis truth calls for some further explanation.

In logic, the Principle of Contradiction states that contradictory state-ments cannot both at the same time be true. Hence, it is impossible topredicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, theabsence and the presence of the same quality. While this principle is defi-

nitely true, it does not alter the fact that in mans quest for the truth, hisresearches of the mind have led him to antithetical conclusions on a sin-gle issue. In such questions as the permanence or impermanence of thehuman soul, the predestination or freedom of the human will, the createdor uncreated nature of Holy Writ, and others, human inquiry that soughtrational and conceptual resolutions has been forced to accept one of theantithetical propositions at the expense of denying the other.

Modern digressions and debates on the validity of Dialetheism aside,the resolution to this paradox is found in the metaphysical and mysticaldoctrines of religion.8 The mystical approach, outwardly and simply, is torepeat the paradox and to deny, implicitly, the absolute truth to either side.In so doing, it encourages man to go beyond the dualisms of discursive ra-tional thought and to arrive at a unitive understandingby way of a directknowledge or tastingof the fundamental matters of being. Moreover, itattempts to overcome the dichotomy implicit in the knower-known para-digm and to achieve a vision of the unity that comprehends and composesall reality. Hence, the supra-rational mystical resolution of this paradox isbest accomplished by the perfect man who transcends the realm of multi-plicity until he is united with his Maker in such a fashion that he becomesGods eye, face, and hand on earth, and in short, His vicegerent (khalfah)and highest manifestation.

The metaphysical approach to the resolution begins by affirming thatthe Absolute Truth is God HimselfWho, in essence, is unknowable.9 It

8 In Islamic mystical writings, mention is often made of the doctrine of huwa-l huwa,popularized and given formal exposition by Ibn Arab. Similar ideas are expressed by the

Jainist principle ofAnekantavada. Traditional opposition to this idea on the part of reli-gious authorities is mostly due to its misuse at the hands of pseudo-mystics and antinomiancharlatans in religious attirewho were the relativist pluralists of their time.9 Absolute truth is the lot of no one; that is to say, there is no person or group that hasunderstood all of the truths of the world. This is because an individual or a group is limitedand finite, and no limited or finite being can comprehend the essence/crux (kunh) of the


11/173

EDITORIAL

11

goes on to postulate that this profound truth, where God is the ultimateMystery, must also spill over to the level of worldly truths and mustsomehow be reflected on the factual planeespecially when the factualevent concerns the Word of God, such as Jesus or the Qurn. In the case ofthe latter Word of God, the contradictory statements made by traditionalauthorities speak to this air of mystery: e.g., it was revealed in one night andit was revealed gradually; it is created and it is uncreated. A similar ambi-guity is found when it comes to the theomorphic nature of mancreatedfrom the Spirit of Godand his enactment of will in the world of manifes-tation. This is none other than the famous freewill-predestination issue,

which is beyond the rational pale of human inquiry and whose resolutionis alluded to by the ambiguous and somewhat mysterious statement that itis neither one nor the other; rather, it is an affair between the two affairs.What this implies is that the limits of human reason, as well as the necessityof belief in the unseen, demand that we allow for certain factual details toremain beyond our discursive reach, and, by first suspending logicaljudgement, try to achieve an inner supra-rational understanding of any fac-tual paradox or irresolvable dichotomy. Imam Khumayn spoke of thiswhen he said:

The creed of the middle position (amr bayn al-amrayn) is onewhich is affirmed by the way of the people of gnosis as well asby transcendental philosophy That which is the soundest ofviews and most secure from controversy and more in conso-nance with the religion oftawdis the creed of the illustriousgnostics and the people of the heart. However, this creed, onevery topic pertaining to the Divine teachings, stands in thecategory of simple and impossible (sahl wa mumtani) whoseunderstanding is not possible through discursive proofs andarguments and is unattainable without complete piety of theheart as well as Divine succour.10

Piety of the heart gives us the humility to know that we do not knowthat our knowledge is limited.11 This fundamental limitation means that

Unlimited. Hence, no one, by himself understands all the realities of the worldand conse-quently does not perceive Allah as-He-is. Dn Shins, p. 218.10 Sayyid Rullh al-Msaw al-Khumayn, Forty adth, adth 39.11 The limitation of knowledge is very different from the relativity of knowledge or the rela-tivity of truth that pervades all types of sceptism. The difference between the relativity ofknowledge and the relativity of truth lies in the fact that the former accepts, in principle, theactual existence of a concrete realitywhich is the object of knowledgeas well as the truthor falsity of propositions in reference to actuality, but then posits an inescapable uncertainty


12/173

AL-TAQRIB

12

there will always be differences and that when we attempt to make a judge-ment, we will always tend to fall on one side or the other of an irresolvabledichotomy. God says in His book:

@%Ng=9$#t$sN uqyJ9$#F{$#urzN=t=t9$#oypk9$#ur|MR r&/3trBtt/x8$t6$tB(#qR%x.mcq=tGs

Say, O God! Originator of the heavens and the earth, Knower ofthe sensible and the Unseen, You will judgebetween Your servants

concerning that about which they used to differ. (39:46)

The tone and gist of this verse and other similar verses is that differencesare a part of this earthly reality and that some of them will only be fullyresolved in the afterlife where the divine perspective that comprehends allperspectives and the total truth that comprehends all partial truths will be-come manifest.

This can be considered a sort of relativismnot in its meaning of a rela-tivity of truth or knowledge but rather of a limitation of truthand itdoes help in removing apparent contradictions among religionsnot byresolving such contradictions but by deferring the resolution to a latertime or a higher plane. Hence, by trying to distance ourselves from logically

irresolvable dichotomies and keeping them in a shroud of mystery we arenot claiming that they are not understandable at all on earth, but rather,that they seem to sometimes involve contradictions that must be acceptedand must be put on the top shelf for a full resolution later.

or scepticism with regards to it or them. In the relativity of truth, however, actuality andrealityor the truth and falsity of propositionsare two mental constructs or two mentallyposited notions which have their locus in the minds and understandings of men and which,in the case where there is a change of mind, are themselves changed. So while the existence ofan absolute truth is agreed to, it is claimed that men do not have access to it in any authen-tic or integral fashion and, hence, it is never really known. In the case of religious pluralism,

this relativity of knowledge is used by John Hick to argue for the relativity of all religions. Itis claimed by Hick that the Real cannot be known in itself and when any religion claimsthat the Real has revealed itself, then such claims are false. The third type of relativity, thelimitation of knowledge, denies the first two forms, for it is asserted in the first place thatthere is an absolute and objectively existing reality, and in the second place, that man hasaccess to this reality and he can partake of it with certainty. The relativity comes in admit-ting that the reality is absolute, and as such, it is infinite and that man can only take andcomprehend a finite amount of it. Hence, the limited awareness of man with respect to theabsolute Truth is true and certain within the confines and delimitations of his knowledge.


13/173

EDITORIAL

13

Having stated the metaphysical approaches and mystical tendencies to-wards the problem of the irresolvable dichotomies such as the inclusivist-exclusivist debate in religion, it would help to shed further light upon theresolution that has been termed as the middle position. It is first impor-tant to note that the middle position is not the middle of two things so asto be a third point between two points. Neither is it the third of three posi-tions; on the contrary, it is the third of two things because it is not on theirplaneit transcends and comprehends them. The comprehensive distinc-tion of this level with respect to levels lower than it implies the higherlevels presence in the lower levels. This cannot be taken to mean, however,

that realities of the higher level are brought down to the level of the lowerso as to be counted as one of the existents of that lower level. It is for thissame reason that God, Who encompasses and is infinitely near all things,can never be said to be on a par with them,12 nor can He ever be enumer-ated along with them. The Qurn echoes this truth by, on the one hand,emphasizing Gods omnipresence and immanence, while on the other, re-futing the idea that God is rank and file with other things and that He sub-sists alongside the things that have effused from Himself. (cf. Qurn 57:4,5:73, 58:7).

If God is the proverbial fifth element that transcends the manifestedorder by quality and not quantity, then His knowledge, which is equivalentto His being, must be the same. His absolute and all-embracing knowledgecomprehends all partial knowledges and cognitive constructs. Any humanknowledge that tends towards the divine must also have this characteristicof transcending apparently disparate and opposing perspectives in agrander perspective that comprehends the lower ones. To those humanswho are situated on any of the lower perspectives, the higher one can seemnothing but perplexing.13 Hence, it is praiseworthy to ask God for this typeof perplexity that leads to greater and higher knowledge.14 This supra-perspective acknowledges and comprehends the lower while not being tiedand forced to accept any of its antithetical options. Hence, the affair be-

12 In the first khubah of the Nahj al-Balgha, Imam Al ( a) speaks of the enigmatic reality

of the Real in this way: He is with all things without being associated with them, [He] isother than all things without being apart from them (maa kulli shayin l bimuqranatin waghayru kulli shayin l bimuzyalatin).13 Imam Bqir (a) said: Allah is that Worshiped entity by whom creatures are awestruck(aliha) in perceiving His whatness and in comprehending His hownessthe Arabs say,aliha al-rajul(i.e. the man was awestruck) when he is perplexed about something and is notable to comprehend it in knowledge. (Bir al-anwr, vol. 3, p. 222)14 There is a famous saying that has been attributed to the Prophet () in which he is reportedto have said, O Lord increase me in perplexity in Thee.


14/173

AL-TAQRIB

14

tween the two affairs, is the right answer to such irresolvable dichotomies.It is far from the disabling relativism that comes with the simple ignoranceand confusion of scepticism; on the contrary, it is to have a sense of sacredambiguitythe mystery in which and through which we seek proximity toGod.

Perhaps the best word in English to describe this transcendent solutionis balance rather than middle. Balance is to the will what wisdom is tothe intellect. Hence, wisdomand the beauty that accompanies itare thethings that we require to overcome any undue stagnation in a lower knowl-edge and perspective. In the case of the inclusive-exclusive dichotomy, it is

wisdom which tells us where to inclusively enter into dialogue with peopleof other faiths, and also where to exclusively try to propagate our faith asthe truth that is better for the people of other faiths to accept.

Shah-Kazemi writes in his article:

In the verse... 16:125, wisdom (ikma) is given as the basis uponwhich dialogue should be conducted. The whole of the Qurn, readin depth and not just on the surface, gives us a divine source of wis-dom; imbibing from this source empowers and calibrates our effortsto engage in meaningful dialogue and to establish authentic modesof tolerance; it thus provides us, in the words of Tim Winter, with atranscendently-ordained tolerance.15 Wisdom is a quality and not anorder: it cannot be given as a blue-print, a set of rules and regula-

tions; it calls for human effort, a readiness to learn, it needs to becultivated, and it emerges as the fruit of reflection and action. As thewords of verse 16:125 tell us, we need wisdom and beautiful exhorta-tion, and we also need to know how to engage in dialogue on the ba-sis of that which is asan finest most excellent, or most beautifulin our own faith, if we are to authentically invite people to the pathof the Lord....This creative juxtaposition between dawa and dialogueindicates implicitly that, rather than being seen as two contrasting oreven antithetical modes of engaging with the Other, these two ele-ments can in fact be synthesized by wisdom...

A lack of wisdom causes us to miss the balance and to fall and tend to-wards one side more than the other. This, in turn, spurns those of the op-

posite perspective to further fortify their particular position and becomeformidable adversaries. This phenomena is not limited to religious de-nominations and can be found across the board of human civilization and

15 Tim Winter, Islam and the Threat of Europe in World Faiths Encounter, no.29, 2001, p.11.


15/173

EDITORIAL

15

experience16the events and personalities of the recent elections in Iranbeing no exception.17 Another example is the exoteric-esoteric dichotomy.When the higher wisdom and greater balance is lost sight of in this particu-lar polarization, the two sides fall prey to an absolutisation of their partialperspectives. The resulting myopia makes them blind to the third of thetwo positions. It is not surprising that we should be witness to manygroups in the modern worldmodernity being, by definition, an imbal-ancewho have gravitated to one extreme or another. In this regard men-tion might be made of: pseudo-Sufis, pluralist-relativists, apoliticalIslamologists, and the like on one side, and neo-Akhbaris, pietistic apolo-

gists, religious reformers, political activists, ... on the other.The schools of thought or sects within a religion, the madhhib, are like

religions within religions. Hence, the same principles of inclusion-exclusion apply to them as they did to religions, but to a lesser degree andin a slightly different way. There is the need to be inclusive and stress unity,while at the same time there is the necessary tendency towards exclusivenessthat guarantees the identity and integrity of the madhhab in question. It iswisdom that defines the limits and contours of where and how these twoopposing tendencies should be applied. It is with this higher perspectiveof wisdom that some of the leading ulamof our time like Imam Khu-mayn and others provided us with standards by which to successfully ac-complish this subtle balancing act. As Mansoor Limba reminds us in hisarticle in this issue, among the bold steps taken by Imam Khumayn wasthe declaration of Rab al-Awwal 12-17 as International Islamic UnityWeek and the opening of the Forum for the Proximity of Islamic Schoolsof Thought (Dar al-Taqrb bayn al-Madhhib al-Islm) [as well as] ... theconsecration of the last Friday of the fasting month of Raman as Inter-national Quds Day. Other such scholars and leaders include Imam Msadr and Allmah Sharaf al-Dn. In his article about Sharaf al-Dn in thisissue of the journal, Muammad Isq Dhkirwho himself holds the

16 The pendulum of public opinion, political leanings, and cultural trends on the sociallevel, as well as the pendulum of mood-swings, fluctuating convictions, and erratic moral

behaviour on the level of the individual also illustrate the inability of the vast majority of usto overcome the false dichotomy in question and to move towards the supra-formal thirdperspective that comprehends the lower two.17 The two tendencies in question here are represented by the following truths: 1) Absoluterule, governance, and dominion is with God, as He is omnipotent and the destiny of thecreatures is ultimately in His handshuman vagaries amounting to nothing in comparisonto His will; 2) Man is the vicegerent of God on earth, having been given the divinely or-dained freedom to choose truth over falsehood, goodness over evil, and beauty over ugli-nesssuch a sacred choice being paramount to His wish.


16/173

AL-TAQRIB

16

sanctioned exclusivist tendencies spoken of earlier and such as aim atprotecting the integrity of a particular madhhabquotes the Allmah assaying:

The time has now come when we must together find out how to savethe Muslims from division. In my opinion, this will not be achievedby the Shias renouncing their school of thought and following thepath of the majority; nor will it be achieved by the Ahl al-Sunnah re-nouncing their school of thought.18

Hence, it is important for the madhhib to maintain their integrity by

holding on to what has been authoritatively passed on to them throughtheir respective traditions, but at the same time, the demands of unity andinclusion into the single Ummah of Islam require that they do not involvethemselves in sectarian strife and subjective animosity. Wisdom demandsthat true intellectuality and objectivity come into playan objectivity thatallows for transcendence towards the third of the two and an intellectual-ity that knows that it does not know all. For it is only an intellect that isexistentially present to the sacred perplexity (taayyur) at play in the realmof manifestation that can remain eternally wondrous and perpetually inawe of its Creator. Ulimately, it is only a person possessing such an intellectthat can be a real Muslim, a true slave of God, and a bona fide abd Allh.

Shawwl 1430/ October 2009

18 This echoes the famous statement of Imam Khumayn (r) in which he said that, thosewho wish to make Shias into Sunnis, or Sunnis into Shias, are neither. It is also the stand-ing policy of the present leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatullah Khamenei whosaid, I do not mean to say that Shias should convert to Sunni Islam or Sunnis should con-vert to Shia Islam. I do not intend to say that all religions should be amalgamated into onereligion. Rather, what I intend to say is that Shias and Sunnis should not make intellectualefforts only to lend credence to their own beliefs. (http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=868&Itemid=12)


17/173

17

Civilizational Dialogue and Mysticism:TheHoly Qurn and the Metaphysics of Ibn al-Arab*Reza Shah-Kazemi

Abstract:

This incisive article begins by noting the universality that subsists inthe esoteric core of all religions, but which is especially emphasisedeven in the exoteric aspects of Islamthe ultimate religion and finalsumming up. The paper makes the claim that the extent to whichthe religions of the Other are given recognition in the Qurn ren-ders this scripture unique among the great revelations of the world. Itcontinues by showing that this inclusiveness of Islam does not pre-clude exclusive claims that engender a religious identity for Muslimsand that allow for normativity as well as dawa. This Islamic juxtapo-sition between dawa and dialogue indicates implicitly that, ratherthan being seen as two contrasting or even antithetical modes of en-gaging with the Other, these two elements can in fact be synthesizedby wisdom. A dialogue based on wisdom would also be a form ofdialogue which contrasts quite sharply with a relativistic pluralismwhich, by reducing all religious beliefs to a presumptuous lowestcommon denominator, ends up by undermining the belief in thenormativity of religion. The kind of dawa-as-dialogue that is pro-posed in this article charts a middle path, avoiding two extremes: afundamentalist type ofdawa which alienates the Other on accountof its blatant exclusivity, and a pluralistic mode of dialogue whichcorrodes the Self on account of its thinly veiled assault on normativ-ity.

Keywords: Civilizational dialogue, Islamic mysticism, Qurnicuniversality, Ibn al-Arab,interfaith dialogue, Transcendent Unity ofReligions, religious pluralism.

CIVILIZED DIALOGUE AND THE HOLYQURN

The notion of civilizational dialogue has been proposed in recent yearsas an antidote to the poison disseminated by the sensational prophecy of

* This article first appeared in RELIGIONS: A Scholarly Journal Published by the DohaInternational Center for Interfaith Dialogue, Issue 1, 2009, pp.117-139.


18/173


19/173

CIVILIZATIONAL DIALOGUE AND MYSTICISM

19

`B urmGt#u,=yzNuqyJ9$#F{$#ur#n=Gz$#urN6GoY9 r&/3Ruq9r& ur4b)y79s;MtUytJ=y=j9

And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, andthe differences of your languages and colours. Indeed, herein are

signs for those who know. (30:22)

b)t%!$#(#qYtB#u%!$#ur(#r$yd3t|Z9$#ur79$#ur`tB z`tB#u!$$/Qqu9$#urzFy$#@Jtur$[s=|Ngn=sNd_r&yYOgn/uw ur$qyzNkn=twurNdcqRtts

Truly those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians, and theSabeanswhoever believeth in God and the Last Day and per-formeth virtuous deedssurely their reward is with their Lord,

and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve. (2:62)

(#q9q%$YtB#u!$$/!$tB urtAR&$uZs9)!$tBurtARnq)t ur$t6F{$#ur!$tB uruAr&4yqB4|ur!$tB uruAr&cq;Y9$#`BOgn/w-hxRtt/7tnr&OgYiB`twUurms9tbqK=B

Say: We believe in God, and that which was revealed unto Abra-ham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and thatwhich was given unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets fromtheir Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and

unto Him we have submitted. (2:136)


20/173

AL-TAQRIB

20

w ur(#q9pgB@dr&=tG69$#w)L9$$/}d`|m r&w)t%!$#(#qJn=sOgYB((#q9q% ur$ZtB#u%!$$/tAR&$uZs9)tAR& urN6s9)

$oYgs9)urN3gs9)urn ur`twUurms9tbqJ=BAnd do not hold discourse with the People of the Book except inthat which is finest, save with those who do wrong. And say: We

believe in that which hath been revealed to us and revealed to you.Our God and your God is one, and unto Him we surrender.

(29:46)

$#4n


21/173


21

gious diversity is of particular relevance at a time when various paradigmsof pluralism are being formulated and presented as a counter-weight to theclash of civilizations scenario. In the last of the verses cited above, 16:125,wisdom (ikma) is given as the basis upon which dialogue should be con-ducted. The whole of the Qurn, read in depth and not just on the surface,gives us a divine source of wisdom; imbibing from this source empowersand calibrates our efforts to engage in meaningful dialogue and to establishauthentic modes of tolerance; it thus provides us, in the words of Tim Win-ter, with a transcendently-ordained tolerance.2 Wisdom is a quality andnot an order: it cannot be given as a blue-print, a set of rules and regula-

tions; it calls for human effort, a readiness to learn, it needs to be culti-vated, and it emerges as the fruit of reflection and action. As the words ofverse 16:125 tell us, we need wisdom and beautiful exhortation, and we alsoneed to know how to engage in dialogue on the basis of that which is asanfinest most excellent, or most beautiful in our own faith, if we are toauthentically invite people to the path of the Lord. In other words, we arebeing encouraged to use wisdom, rather than any pre-determined set of in-structions, in order to discern the most appropriate manner of invitingpeople to the way of thy Lord, thus, how best to engage in dawa. But wealso need wisdom in order to discern that which is most excellent in thefaith of our interlocutors in dialogue. This creative juxtaposition betweendawa and dialogue indicates implicitly that, rather than being seen as twocontrasting or even antithetical modes of engaging with the Other, thesetwo elements can in fact be synthesized by wisdom: if ones dialogue withthe Other flows from the wellsprings of the wisdom of ones tradition, andif one makes an effort to understand the wisdomthat which is most ex-cellentin the beliefs of the Other, then this kind of dialogue will consti-tute, in and of itself, a most beautiful form ofdawa. For one will be mak-ing an effort to allow the wisdom of ones tradition to speak for itself; tobear witness to ones faith will here imply bearing witness to the wisdomconveyed by ones faith-tradition, that very wisdom which, due to its uni-versality and lack of prejudice, allows or compels us to recognize, affirmand engage with the wisdom contained within and expressed by other faith-

traditions. For, as the Prophet said, Wisdom is the lost camel (lla)of thebeliever: he has a right to it wherever he may find it. 3

2 Tim Winter, Islam and the Threat of Europe in World Faiths Encounter, no.29, 2001, p.11.3 This saying complements other well-known sayings of the Prophet concerning the need tosearch for knowledge from the cradle to the grave, even if the knowledge be in China, etc.See al-Ghazzls collection of such sayings, together with Qurnic verses and sayings of thesages, in his Kitb al-ilm, the first book of his monumental Iy ulm al-dn (Enlivening of


22/173

AL-TAQRIB

22

If wisdom is the lost property of the believer, this means that whereverwisdom is to be found, in whatever form, in whatever religion, philosophy,spirituality or literaturethat wisdom is ones own. It is thus an inestima-ble tool in the forging of an authentic civilization. One has to be preparedto recognize wisdom, as surely as one would recognize ones own camel,after searching for it. This translates into the attitude: whatever is wise is, bythat very fact, part of my faith as a believer: my belief in God as the sourceof all wisdom allows or compels me to recognize as mine whatever wis-dom there is in the entirety of time and space, in all religions and cultures.This does not mean that one appropriates to ones own selfwhether indi-

vidual or social or religiousthe wisdom of the Other; rather, it meansthat one recognizes the wisdom of the Other as being an expression of thewisdom of God, the one and only source of wisdom, however it be ex-pressed. How, then, is it mine? Insofar as ones identity is defined by onesrelationship with God as the source of all truth, beauty and wisdom, onesself will be, in that very measure, inextricably bound up with the wisdomone perceives, however alien be the context or culture in which it is ex-pressed. On the specifically Islamic level, such an approach produces thisattitude: that which is wise isby its essence if not its formIslamic. Itbelongs to us, and we identify with it. This contrasts with the prejudice:only that which is Islamicin its formis wise.

One should note that the universal vision of wisdom was at its strongestwhen Islamic civilization was at its most authentic and confidentwitnessthe extraordinary assimilation and transformation of the various ancientforms of wisdom in the early Abbsid period; this was an exemplificationof the calibrated appropriation and creative application of wisdomfromthe intellectual legacy of the Greeks, and the Persians, Indians and Egyp-tians, Mesopotamians, Assyrians, etc.on a grand, civilizational scale,transforming and enriching Muslim philosophy, science, and culture. 4 Bycontrast, it is the exclusivist, prejudiced approach to wisdom that prevailstoday, when Islamic civilization can hardly be said to exist anywhere. Itwould also appear to be the case that when Islamic civilization existed,dawa was not invested with the emotional intensity which it has acquiredin our times. Modernismwith its highly developed tools of propaganda,its tendencies of ideologization, bureaucratization, and uniformaliza-tionhas influenced Muslim thought and behaviour and made Muslim

the sciences of religion) translated by N.A. Faris as The Book of Knowledge (Lahore: Sh. Mu-hammad Ashraf, 1966).4 See the masterful work by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Science and Civilization in Islam (Cam-bridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1987, Introduction, pp.21-40.


23/173


23

dawa much more like Christian missionary movements; in traditional Is-lam, the dawa that existed was far more low-key, personal and took theform of preaching through personal exampleit is not accidental, that, asThomas Arnolds masterly study reveals, the main missionaries of tradi-tional Islam were mystics and merchants.5 The emotional intensity withwhich dawa is invested in our times would appear to be, on the one hand,a function of the very weakness of Islamic culture, a defensive reflex used todisguise ones civilizational deficiencies; and on the other, it is a kind ofinverted image of the missionary Christian movements to which the Mus-lim world has been subjected in the past few centuries, a mimetic response

to ones erstwhile colonizers.One cannot deny, however, that dawa has always played a role in Mus-

lim culture, and that it has a role to play today. To ignore dawa, within aMuslim context,is to render questionable ones credentials as a valid inter-locutor on behalf of Islam.But one ought to be aware of the kind ofdawathat is appropriate in our times, and to seek to learn from the most subtleand refined spirituality of the Islamic tradition in order to make wisdomthe basis of ones dawa. The kind of dawa being proposed here is onewhich seeks to be true to the wisdom which flows from the Quranic mes-sage of religious diversity, a message read in depth, according to Sufi her-meneutics, and in particular the metaphysics of Ibn al-Arab.6 This wouldbe a form ofdawa which contrasts sharply with the kind of triumphalistpropaganda with which we are all too familiar in our times: a disdainfuland arrogant call, issuing from harshly exclusivist attitudes which manifestthe claim that my religion is alone right and all others are wrong. A dia-logue based on wisdom would also be a form of dialogue which contrastsquite sharply with a relativistic pluralism which, by reducing all religiousbeliefs to a presumptuous lowest common denominator, ends up by un-dermining ones belief in the normativity of ones religiona belief whichis so central to the upholding of ones faith with integrity. The kind ofdawa-as-dialogue being proposed here charts a middle path, avoiding twoextremes which are in fact closer to each other than is immediately obvious:a fundamentalist type ofdawa which alienates the Other on account of its

blatant exclusivity, and a pluralistic mode of dialogue which corrodes the

5 See Thomas Arnold, The Preaching of Islam (London: Luzac, 1935).6 See for a more extended discussion of Ibn al-Arabs principles of exegesis, in the contextof Sufi and postmodern hermeneutics, The Other in the Light of the One , chapter 1, The Her-menutics of Suspicion or of Sufism?, pp.1-73. See also our forthcoming paper, Beyond Po-lemics and Pluralism: The Universal Message of the Qurn, delivered at the conference: Al-Azhar and the WestBridges of Dialogue, Cairo, 5 January, 2009.


24/173

AL-TAQRIB

24

Self on account of its thinly veiled assault on normativity. An effective, re-alistic, and practical mode of dialogue must do justice both to the Selfwhich one ostensibly represents, and to the Other with whom one is in dia-logue; there has to be room for the expression of ones belief in the norma-tivity of ones traditionthe belief that ones religion is the best religion,failing which, one would not adhere to it. The right of the Other to bearwitness to his faith should, likewise, be respected.

The question might then be asked: how can these competing truth-claims be reconciled with the needs of dialoguewill the result not simplybe two mutually exclusive monologues engaging in an unseemly type of

competitive religion rather than respecting each other in an enriching dia-logue of comparative religion? There is an existential argument one canmake, whatever be the faith adhered to, on behalf of this exclusivist claim,and this argument is based on the fact that religion is not simply a concep-tual schema, it is a transformative power. In the clash between rival relig-ions, one is not only confronted by competing, mutually exclusive truth-claims; one is also presented with alternative paths to realization of a Real-ity which radically transcends all conceptually posited truths. Ones percep-tion of the truths which fashion and delineate ones path to Reality will bedeepened, and the truth-claims will be correspondingly corroborated, inproportion to ones progress along that path: therefore the claim that onesreligion is more true than other religions is a claim about the transforma-tive power which one has directly experienced, and it is this which bestowsan existential certaintyrather than any kind of logical infallibilityaboutones claim on behalf of the spiritual power of ones religion, a degree ofcertainty which is absent from a purely conceptual truth-claim one mightmake on behalf of the dogmas of ones religion. Religion is more aboutrealization than conceptualization; or rather, it is about an initial set ofconcepts which call out for spiritual action,7 and which find their con-summation in spiritual realization.8

7 Knowledge calls out for action, says Imam Al; if it is answered [it is of avail], otherwiseit departs. Cited in the compilation by Abd al-Wid mid, Ghurar al-ikam wa durar al-

kalim (given together with the Persian translation, under the title, Guftr-i Amr al-muminnAl, by Sayyid usayn Shaykhul-Islm) (Qom: Intishrt-i Anriyn, 2000), vol.2, p.993,no.21.8 In the words of Frithjof Schuon: The true and complete understanding of an idea goes farbeyond the first apprehension of the idea by the intelligence, although more often than notthis apprehension is taken for understanding itself. While it is true that the immediate evi-dence conveyed to us by any particular idea is, on its own level, a real understanding, therecan be no question of its embracing the whole extent of the idea since it is primarily the signof an aptitude to understand that idea in its completeness. Any truth can in fact be under-


25/173


25

The Buddhist notion of doctrineall doctrineas an upaya, a savingstrategy is an example of a wise doctrine which we might use here to helpexplain this point. This notion means, essentially, that all doctrines areveils which transmit some aspects of the truth while obscuring others: thecommunicable aspect of the truth in question is transmitted, but at theprice of obscuring its incommunicable dimension, if it be taken too seri-ously, that is: if the communicable aspect of the truth be taken as the wholetruth. The key spiritual function of doctrine is to point to a reality beyonditself, and is likened, within Buddhism, to a finger pointing at the moon:one is urged to look at the moon indicated by the finger, and not focus ex-

clusively on the finger.9 This reduction of the spiritual end to the concep-tual means is what fanatical dogmatism does; by contrast, a more suppleapproach to dogma results in seeing it as a means to an end: the dogma astheory leads to spiritual praxis, and moral transformation, thanks to whichthe eye of the heart is opened up, enabling it to see that Reality to whichthe dogma bears witness, but which it cannot encompass or exhaust.

In regard to the function of language in the search for truth, Rumimakes this point, which resonates with the idea of an upaya, and whichhighlights the need for spiritual action as an accompaniment to doctrinallearning:

Someone asked: Then what is the use of expressions and words?

The Master [i.e. Rm] answered: The use of words is that they setyou searching and excite you, not that the object of the quest shouldbe attained through words. If that were the case, there would be noneed for so much striving and self-naughting. Words are as when yousee afar off something moving; you run in the wake of it in order tosee it, it is not the case that you see it through its movement. Humanspeech too is inwardly the same; it excites you to seek the meaning,even though you do not see it in reality.

Rumi then reinforces the point, stressing the incommensurability be-tween the kind of learning that comes through reading, on the one hand,and the understanding that arises from the spiritual discipline of self-transcendence, on the other:

stood at different levels and according to different conceptual dimensions, that is to sayaccording to an indefinite number of modalities which correspond to all the possible as-pects, likewise indefinite in number, of the truth in question. This way of regarding ideasaccordingly leads to the question of spiritual realization, the doctrinal expressions of whichclearly illustrate the dimensional indefinity of theoretical conceptions. The TranscendentUnity of Religions (Tr. Peter Townsend) (London: Faber and Faber, 1953) p.17.9 Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro, Essays in Zen Buddhism (New York: Grover Press, 1961) p. 19.


26/173

AL-TAQRIB

26

Someone was saying: I have studied so many sciences and masteredso many ideas, yet it is still not known to me what that essence inman is that will remain forever, and I have not discovered it.The Master answered: If that had been knowable by means of wordsonly, you would not have needed to pass away from self and to suffersuch pains. It is necessary to endure so much for yourselfnotto re-main, so that you may know that thing which willremain.10

Similarly, another great Persian poet Abd al-Ramn Jm (d.1492), whomasterfully synthesised the esoteric teachings of the school of wadat al-wujdin his masterpiece, Lawi, expresses succinctly the transcendence of

this higher wisdom, in terms of which thoughtall thought, including thementally posited conceptions of the dogmas of religionis not just sur-passed, it is even rendered evil:

O heart, how long searching for perfection in school?How long perfecting the rules of philosophy and geometry?Any thought other than Gods remembrance is evil suggestion.11

It is this perspective which enables one to reconcile competing truthclaims within a unique Reality which transcends all such claims, that Real-ity to which the truths bear witness, to which they lead, and from whichthey receive all their value. The following words of the Qurn bear witnessto the unique Reality from which all religions derive: Our God and your God

is One (29:46); as for leading back to the same Reality: For each of you Wehave established a Law and a Path (5:48).

If the paths revealed by God are different and divergent, then they can-not but be accompanied by divergent truth-claims, that is, claims pertain-ing to ways of conceiving and realizing the truth; but insofar as this truth isbut the conceptual expression of an ultimate Reality, and insofar as thisReality is posited as the alpha and omega of all things, the divergent con-ceptual claims to truth converge on a unique Realitythat of God, the ul-timate truth, the ultimate Realityboth truth and reality being in fact syn-thesised in the Arabic name of God, al-aqq, The Real/The True. If thesource and the summit of the divergent paths is a single, unique Reality, itis this oneness of the Real which must take ontological precedence over the

competing epistemological claims to truth. In other words, Being precedesthought; thought is consummated in Being.12 The mutually exclusive truth

10The Discourses of Rm(Fhi m fhi)(tr. A.J. Arberry), (London: John Murray, 1961), p.202.11 This is from William Chitticks translation of the Lawi, in Chinese Gleams of Sufi Light,Sachiko Murata (Albany: SUNY, 2000),p.138.12 This is the very opposite of the Cartesian axiom: I think, therefore I am. Here, thoughttrumps being, individual conceptualisation precedes universal reality. Subjectivism, indi-


27/173


27

claims, in their purely conceptual form, might be seen as so many unavoid-able shadows cast by the divinely-willed diversity of religious paths; thesediverse paths, in turn, can be envisaged as so many lights emanating fromthe one and only Light, this unique Light being refracted into differentcolours by the prism of relativity, and these differently coloured lights thencrystallising in the forms of the various religions, according to this symbol-ism.13

Red, blue and green lights remain lights even while of necessity exclud-ing each other: no light can be identified with another, except insofar aseach is identified with light as such, and not as such and such a light. Here,

the Essence of the Real, or the Absolute, is represented by light as such, andthe religions can be seen as colours adding to that light something of theirown relativity, even while being the vehicles of that light. As will be seenbelow, this means of reconciling outwardly divergent religious formswithin a unitive spiritual essence evokes Ibn al-Arabs image of the cupbeing coloured by the drink it contains. The waterstanding here for theAbsolutewithin the cupthe particular religionbecomes coloured bythe colour of the cup; but this is so only extrinsically, and from the humanpoint of view; for intrinsically, and from the divine point of viewsub spe-cie aeternitatisthe water remains colourless.

Returning to the idea of dawa-as-dialogue, in the Christian context,those most opposed to the reductionistic tendencies of the kind of plural-ism associated with John Hick argue forcefully that a Christian has boththe right and the duty to bear witness to his faith: to some degree at least,and in some manner, implicit or explicit, it becomes ones duty to inviteothers to study and investigate the wisdom that is available within onesown faith. As mentioned above, this is a crucial prerequisite for anyonewho wishes to engage in dialogue on behalf of a particular faith: to repre-sent that faith must mean to re-present it, to present its wisdom, beauty

vidualism, rationalismall are contained in this error, and reinforce its basic tendency,which is to reverse the traditional, normal subordination of human thought to divine Real-ity.13

Schuon refers to the distinction between metaphysics and ordinary religious knowledge interms of uncoloured light, and particular colours: If an example may be drawn from thesensory sphere to illustrate the difference between metaphysical and religious knowledge, itmay be said that the former, which can be called esoteric when it is manifested through areligious symbolism, is conscious of the colourless essence of light and of its character ofpure luminosity; a given religious belief, on the other hand, will assert that light is red andnot green, whereas another belief will assert the opposite; both will be right in so far as theydistinguish light from darkness but not in so far as they identify it with a particular colour.Transcendent Unity, p.10.


28/173

AL-TAQRIB

28

but also, its normativity, failing which one will not be seen as a valid inter-locutor within the tradition one seeks to represent.

It might be objected here: it is impossible to meet every type of criterionwhich the different schools of thought within any given religious traditionmay propose for one to be deemed a valid interlocutor on behalf of thatfaith. Whilst this is true, it is nonetheless worth making the effort to reduceas far as possible the basis upon which ones credentials as a valid interlocu-tor would be rejected by ones co-religionists. And one of the main bases forthis rejection is, without doubt, the perception that those engaged in dia-logue are so intent on reaching out to the Other that they do not suffi-

ciently respect the integrity of the Selfthat is, they inadequately upholdthe normativity of the tradition ostensibly being represented in dialogue.This is a factor which cannot be ignored if one is concerned with a dialoguethat aims to be effective, not just in the debating halls of academia, but alsoin the wider world, wherein the overwhelming majority of believers withinthe various religions believe deeply in the normativity of their particularreligion.

How, then, can the Muslim engaged in dialogue cultivate that wisdomwhich perceives the truth, the holiness, and the beauty that is containedwithin the religions of the Other, whilst simultaneously upholding thenormativity of his faith, and the specificity of his identity? 14 The percep-tion of the validity of other, alien forms of religious belief acquires a par-ticular acuteness in the light of the following saying of the Prophetwhichexists in slightly different variants, in the most canonical of adth collec-tionsand which concerns the possibility of seeing God in the Hereafter.The Muslims are confronted by a theophany of their Lord, whom they donot recognize: I am your Lord, He says to them. We seek refuge in Godfrom you, they reply, we do not associate anything with our Lord. ThenGod asks them: Is there any sign (ya) between you and Him by means ofwhich you might recognize Him? They reply in the affirmative, and thenall is revealed, and they all try to prostrate to Him. Finally, as regards thispart of the scene, He transforms Himself into the form in which they sawHim the first time,15 and He says: I am your Lord, and they reply: Youare our Lord!.16

14 This is one of the central questions which we posed and tried to answer in The Other in theLight of the One, pp.117-139; 185-209; 234-266.15The wording here is extremely important: wa qad taawwala f ratihi allat rahu fhawwal marra.16 This version of the saying comes in the ah Muslim (Cairo: s al-Bb al-Halab, n.d.),chapter entitledMarifa tarq al-ruy (knowledge of the way of vision), vol. 1, p. 94.


29/173


29

How, then, is one to recognize the divine face in the traditions of theOther; how does one recognize this lost camelthe wisdom containedwithin the religions of the Other? For this wisdom may well be expressed informs of divine self-manifestation which are not only alien, but, in addi-tion, so unlike ones own received wisdom that one takes refuge from themin ones own God. If believers on the Day of Judgement are unable to rec-ognize God in anything other than the forms of their own beliefs, throughthe blinkers of their own prejudices, how can believers, here and now, en-sure that they do not fall into this same trap?

Evidently, prejudice is one of the main obstacles in the path of any dia-

logue which aims at discovering the wisdom of the Other; however, one ofthe principal problems arising out of the removal of prejudice towards theOther is the weakening of the identity of the Self. 17 How can we reach outto the Other in an unprejudiced manner, without this absence of prejudicediluting or subverting our own sense of identity? Or again: How can we beuniversalist in our spiritual vision, without sacrificing the specificity of ourfaith and praxis?

It is our contention here that in the Islamic tradition, the Sufi school ofthought associated with Muy al-Dn Ibn al-Arab, known in Sufism asthe greatest shaykh (al-Shaykh al-Akbar)18 can be of considerable value inhelping to cultivate the wisdom which synthesizes the two principles inquestion here: an unprejudiced, universalist, supra-confessional view ofspirituality, on the one hand; and a normative approach to the specificityand particularity of ones own faith, praxis, and identity on the other. It ispossible to arrive at an inclusive perspective, one which, however paradoxi-cally, includes exclusivism; this is a perspective which transcends the falsedichotomy, so often encountered in our times, between a fanatical exclusiv-ism which disdains all but ones own faith, and a relativistic inclusivismwhich fatally undermines the integrity of ones own faith. Upholding theintegrity of ones faith is difficult if not impossible without a definitive,clearly delineated identity, which in its very specificity and particularitycannot but exclude elements of the Other on the plane of religious form;by religious form is meant not just legal and ritual forms but also concep-

17 Self is given in capitals only as a parallel to the use of the capital O for Other; what ismeant here is the empirical self, the individual as such, and its communitarian extension,and not the universal Selfhood of the Real (nafs al-aqq, as Ibn al-Arab calls it), at oncetranscendent and immanent.18 For the most comprehensive biography of this seminal figure, see Claude Addas, Quest forthe Red Sulphur (Tr. Peter Kingsley) (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1993); for a conciseoverview of Ibn al-Arabs thought, see Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Three Muslim Sages (Lahore:Suhail Academy, 1988 repr), ch. 3, Ibn Arab and the Sufis, pp. 83121.


30/173

AL-TAQRIB

30

tual and doctrinal forms. However, all such forms are radically tran-scended, objectively, by the divine essence of the religions; and all themodes of identity commensurate with these forms are just as radically dis-solved, subjectively, within the consciousness of one whose soul has beeneffaced within that essence. These are natural corollaries of Ibn al-Arabscomplex and challenging perspective on the dynamics of religious con-sciousness.

This metaphysicalor supra-confessionalperspective of Ibn al-Arabshould be seen as a kind of interpretive prolongation of the spiritual trajec-tories opened up by the Qurn, and not simply as the product of his own

speculative genius, however undeniable that genius is. Within this perspec-tive there is a clearly defined relationship between form and essence; as willbe demonstrated below, his elaboration on this basic distinction flows fromthe clear distinction established in the Qurn between the essence of relig-ionwhich is uniqueand its formswhich are diverse. Verses such asthe following should be borne in mind:

*tuN3s9z`iBe$!$#$tB4urm/%[nqR%!$#ur!$uZymrr&y7s9)$tB ur$uZ urm/tLd t/)4yqB ur#|ur(b r&(#qK% r&te$!$#w ur

(#q%xtGs?mHe hath ordained for you of the religion (min al-dn) that which Hecommended unto Noah, and that which We reveal to thee [Mu-hammad], and that which We commended unto Abraham and

Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not dividedtherein ... (42:13)

@%$YtB#u!$$/!$tB urtAR&$uZn=t!$tB urtARn?tzNd t/)@yJ)ur

t,ys)urU

q)tur$t7F{$#ur!$tB uruAr&4yqB4|ur cq;Y9$#ur`BNgn/w-hxRtt/7ym r&OgYiB`stRurms9tbqJ=B


31/173


31

Say: We believe in God and that which is revealed unto us, andthat which is revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and

Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given unto Moses and Je-sus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction be-

tween any of them, and unto Him we have submitted. (3:84)

$BA$s)y7s9w)$tBs%@%@=9`By7=7s%Naught is said unto thee [Muhammad] but what was said unto the

Messengers before thee. (41:43)

It is that essential religion (al-dn) which was conveyed to all the Mes-sengers, whence the lack of differentiation between them on the highestlevel: the Muslim is not permitted to make an essential distinction betweenany of them: we make no distinction between any of them (3:84; 2:136; 2:285;4:152)

Understanding this distinction between the essence of religion and itsforms is crucial for those engaged in dialogue; a correct understanding ofthis fundamental distinction enables one to engage in dialogue with wis-dom, and on the basis of a principled universality; this, in contrast to anunprincipled or rootless syncretism, and in contrast to a well-meaning butultimately corrosive relativistic pluralism. Syncretistic universalism stems

from a sentimental and superficial assimilation of the sacred; it thus has nointellectual or metaphysical principle which can discern authentic religionfrom spurious cults, on the one hand, and, on the other, maintain a totalcommitment to ones own religion whilst opening up to the religions ofthe Other. In syncretism, indiscriminate openness to all sacred forms ingeneralor what are deemed to be suchcannot but entail a disintegrationof the specific form of ones own religion. Principled universality, by con-trast, leads to an intensification of commitment to ones own religion; thesense of the sacred and the need to follow the path delineated by ones ownreligion not only coexist, but each may be said to be asine qua non for thetransformative power of other. For effective access to the sacred is granted,not by an abstract, purely discursive conception of the sacred in general,

but by entering into the concrete, specific forms of the sacred which arebestowed by the grace inherent within ones own sacred tradition. Fromthis spiritual process of plumbing the depths of the sacred emerges thecomprehension that there is no access to the essence of the sacred, above allreligious forms, except by means of those authentic formal manifestationsof the Essence: the divinely revealed religions. Such a perspective flows


32/173

AL-TAQRIB

32

naturally from reflection upon the meaning of the verses from the Qurncited above, and in particular, 5:48: For each of you We have established a Lawand a Path.Had God willed, He could have made you one community. But thatHe might try you by that which He hath given you [He hath made you as youare]. So vie with one another in good works

This minimal definition of authenticitytrue religion being thatwhich is divinely revealedderives from Ibn al-Arabs criterion, whichwill be elaborated upon below. We are using this criterion to distinguishtrue from false religion, in the full knowledge that authenticity or ortho-doxy as defined within each true religion will have its own distinctive and

irreducible criteria. In this connection it is worth noting that there wasnever any central ecclesiastical authority in Islam, comparable to theChurch in Christianity, charged with the duty of dogmatically imposinginfallible doctrine. According to a well-known saying in Islam: The diver-gences of the learned (al-ulam) are a mercy.19 This saying can be seen asmanifesting the ecumenical spirit proper to Islam; orthodoxy qua doctrinalform has a wide compass, its essence being the attestation of the oneness ofGod and of Muammad as His messenger, these comprising the sha-hdatayn, or dual testimony. Accordingly, in Islamic civilization, a widevariety of theological doctrine, philosophical speculation, mystical inspira-tion and metaphysical exposition was acceptable so long as the Shara, theSacred Law, was upheld. We might speculate here that the principle of thesaying quoted above can also, by transposition, be applied to the religionsthemselves: the divergences of the religions constitute a mercy. This mercyis expressed in the divine will for religion to be characterised by a diversityof paths: Had God willed, He could have made you one community.

The capacity to recognise other religions as valid, without detriment tothe commitment to ones own religion, evidently requires a certain spiritualsuppleness; minimally, it requires a sense of the sacred and an inkling ofthe universality of revelation; at its most profound, it is the fruit of spiri-tual vision. With the help of Ibn al-Arabs doctrine, itself evidently thefruit of just such vision,20 we can arrive at a conception of a principleduniversality, that is, an awareness of the universality of religion which nei-

ther violates the principles of ones own religion, nor dilutes the content ofones own religious identity.

19 Ikhtilf al-ulam rama. This is often cited as a adth, but is more authoritatively as-cribed to al-Shfi.20 Ibn al-Arab claims that everything he wrote was contained in his first vision of the gloryof His Face; all his discourse is only the differentiation of the all-inclusive reality which wascontained in that look at the One Reality. Sufi Path, op. cit., p.xiv.


33/173


33

UNIVERSALITY AND IDENTITY

The relationship between the perception of religious universality and theimperatives of ones identity is brought into sharp focus by Ibn al-Arab inhis account of his spiritual ascension (mirj), an account describing one ofthe spiritual peaks of his inner life.21 In this spiritual ascentdistinguishedfrom that of the Prophet, which was both bodily and spiritualhe rises upto a spiritual degree which is revealed as his own deepest essence. But onecan hardly speak of personal pronouns such as his at this level of spiritualexperience: whatever belongs to him, whatever pertains to his identity, is

dissolved in the very process of the ascent itself. At the climax of this as-cent, he exclaims: Enough, enough! My bodily elements are filled up, andmy place cannot contain me!, and then tells us: God removed from me mycontingent dimension. Thus I attained in this nocturnal journey the innerrealities of all the Names and I saw them returning to One Subject and OneEntity: that Subject was what I witnessed and that Entity was my Being. Formy voyage was only in myself and pointed to myself, and through this Icame to know that I was a pure servant without a trace of lordship in meat all.22

It is of note that immediately following this extraordinary revelation ofthe deepest reality of his selfhood within the divine reality, Ibn al-Arabshould proclaim, not the secret of oneness with God, or his Lordship in

the manner of a allj who ecstatically declared an al-aqq (I am theTruth), but the very opposite: he came to know through this journey thathe was a pure servant (abd), without any trace of lordship (rubbiyya). Thehighest realization is accompanied by the deepest humility. Self-effacement,rather than self-glorification, is the fruit of this degree of spiritual station,the very opposite to what one might have imagined. It is the essence or

sirrsecret or mysteryof consciousness within the soul of the saint

21 The following pages contain reflections on material which can be found elaborated ingreater detail in our Paths to TranscendenceAccording to Shankara, Ibn Arabi and MeisterEckhart(Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2006), pp.69-129.22 James Morris, Ibn al-Arabis Spiritual Ascension, in M. Chodkiewicz (ed.), Les Illumina-

tions de La Mecque/The Meccan Illuminations (Paris: Sindbad, 1988), p.380. One is reminded bythe words my place cannot contain me of Rumis lines: What is to be done, O Muslims?For I do not recognise myself? I am not Christian, nor Jew; not Zoroastrian, nor Muslim.This is a succinct expression of the transcendence of all religious identity in the bosom ofthe unitive state, which is alluded to later in the poem:I have put duality aside ... 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. [paraphrasing 57:2]. SelectedPoems from the Dvn-i Shamsi Tabriz (Ed. And Tr. R.A. Nicholson [translation modified])(Cambridge: CUP, 1977), pp.125, 127.


34/173

AL-TAQRIB

34

that, alone, can grasp the truth that it is not conditioned by the soul. Theconsciousness within the soul knows that it is not of the soulthis beingone of the reasons why this inmost degree of consciousness is referred to asa secret: its immanent, divine identity is veiled from the soul of which it isthe conscious centre. Herein lies one of the meanings of the Sufi saying: theSufi is in the world but not of it.

The particular dynamics of being within the ontology of Ibn al-Arabhelps us to understand why specificity and self-effacement should be thenatural expressions of universality and self-realization; these dynamics alsohelp us to see the intimate relationship between the deconstruction of iden-

tity and the perception of the universality of religion, as well as the neces-sity for the reconstruction or restitution of identity within a specific reli-gious matrix. These religious corollaries of Being will be explored later inthis section. For the moment, attention is to be focused on the fact that atthe very summit of this spiritual ascent to ultimate reality and self-realization, Ibn al-Arab receives from that Reality the verse of the Qurn(cited above):

@%$YtB#u!$$/!$tB urtAR&$uZn=t!$tB urtARn?tzNd t/)@yJ)ur

t,

ys

)

ur

Uq

)

t

ur

$

t7

F{

$#

ur

!$

tB

ur

u

Ar

&

4

yq

B

4

|

ur

cq;Y9$#ur`BNgn/w-hxRtt/7ym r&OgYiB`stRurms9tbqJ=B

Say: We believe in God and that which is revealed unto us, andthat which is revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and

Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given unto Moses and Je-sus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction be-

tween any of them, and unto Him we have submitted. (3:84)

He then adds these words: Henceforth I knew that I am the totality of

those (prophets) who were mentioned to me (in this verse); and also: Hegave me all the Signs in this Sign.23

Since the word for sign is the same as that for verse (ya), this can alsobe taken to mean that all revealed verses are implicitly contained in thisverse which establishes the universality and unity of the essence of the reli-23 Quoted in J.W.Morris, Ibn al-Arabs Ascension, p.379.


35/173


35

gious message, despite the outward differentiation of its formal expression.This last point is clearly implied in another account of a spiritual ascent, inwhich Ibn al-Arab encountered the Prophet amidst a group of otherprophets and is asked by him: What was it that made you consider us asmany?

To which Ibn al-Arab replies: Precisely (the different scriptures andteachings) we took (from you).24

Heavily implied in the Prophets rhetorical question is the intrinsicunity of all the revelations. This principle is expressed in the followingverse of the Qurn (cited above), which Ibn al-Arab quotes and then

comments upon:

*tuN3s9z`iBe$!$#$tB4urm/%[nqR%!$#ur!$uZymrr&y7s9)$tB ur$uZ urm/tLd t/)4yqB ur#|ur(b r&(#qK% r&te$!$#w ur

(#q%xtGs?mHe hath ordained for you of the religion that which He com-

mended unto Noah, and that which We reveal to thee [Muham-mad], and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses

and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not dividedtherein. (42:13)

Then he quotes from another verse, mentioning further prophets, andconcluding: Those are they whom God has guided, so follow their guidance.(6:90) He comments as follows:

This is the path that brings together every prophet and messenger. Itis the performance of religion, scattering not concerning it and com-ing together in it. It is that concerning which Bukhr wrote a chap-ter entitled, The chapter on what has come concerning the fact thatthe religions of the prophets is one. He brought the article whichmakes the word religion definite, because all religion comes fromGod, even if some of the rulings are diverse. Everyone is commandedto perform the religion and to come together in it ... As for the rul-ings which are diverse, that is because of the Law which God assignedto each one of the messengers. He said, For each of you We have estab-lished a Law and a Path. Had God willed, He could have made you one

24 Quoted in J.W. Morris, The Spiritual Ascension: Ibn al-Arab and the Mirj,Journal ofthe American Oriental Society, vol.108, 1988, p.75.


36/173

AL-TAQRIB

36

community. (5:48). If He had done that, your revealed Laws would notbe diverse, just as they are not diverse in the fact that you have beencommanded to come together and to perform them.25

One sees clearly that Ibn al-Arab is suggesting here a distinction be-tween religion as such, on the one hand, and such and such a religion, onthe other; it is religion as such that warrants the definite article (al-dn). Butsuch and such a religion, far from being marginalised in this perspective, isendowed with an imperatively binding nature by virtue of the absolutenessof its own essence, that is, by virtue of being not other than religion assuch. For, on the one hand, religion as such, al-dn, is the inner substanceand inalienable reality of such and such a religion; and on the other, it isimpossible to practise religion as such without adhering to such and such areligion. Apprehending the universal essence of religion, far from preclud-ing particularity and exclusivity of formal adherence, in fact requires thisadherence: to attain the essence one must grasp, in depth, the form bywhich the essence reveals itself. This is why, in the passage quoted above,Ibn al-Arab continues by stressing the specific path proper to the finalProphet. It is that path for which he was singled out to the exclusion ofeveryone else. It is the Koran, Gods firm cord and all-comprehensive Law.This is indicated in His words, This is My straight path, so follow it, andfollow not diverse paths, lest they scatter you from its road (6:153).26

This straight path both excludes and includes all other paths: excludesby way of specific beliefs and practices, and includes by virtue of the singleEssence to which the path leads, and from which it began. But one cannotreach the end of the path without traversing its specific trajectory, withoutkeeping within its boundaries, and thus making sure that one does notstray into other paths: And each one has a direction (wijha) toward which heturns. So vie with one another in good works ... (2:148). One is instructed toturn towards ones particular goal, in a particular direction, and this is de-spite the fact that the Qurn tells us that Wherever ye turn, there is the Face ofGod(2:115). The ubiquity of the divine Face, then, does not imply that, inones formal worship, the direction in which one turns to pray is of noconsequence. For the Qurn also says: Turn your face toward the sacred

mosque, and wherever you may be, turn your faces toward it [when you pray].(2:144)

25 Cited in William C. Chittick, The Sufi Path of KnowledgeIbn al-Arabs Metaphysics ofImagination (Albany: SUNY, 1989) p.303 (translation modified).26 Ibid.


37/173


37

For Ibn al-Arab, such combinations of principial universality andpractical specificity are paradoxical expressions of a principle that goes tothe very heart of his ontology, his understanding of the nature of reality:for part of the perfection or completeness of Beingis the existence of im-perfection, or incompleteness within it ()failing which Being would be incomplete by virtue of the absence of in-completeness within it.27 This is an example of the bringing together of op-posites ( jam bayn al-iddayn) which is emphasised repeatedly in the writ-ings of Ibn al-Arab, pertaining to the paradoxes required on the level oflanguage, if one is to do justice to the complexities of existence. Just as

completeness requires and is not contradicted by incompleteness, so theincomparability (tanzh) of God requires and is not contradicted by compa-rability (tashbh), universality requires and is not contradicted by particular-ity, inclusivity requires and is not contradicted by exclusivity, and nonde-limitation (ilq)requires and is not contradicted by delimitation (taqyd).

Returning to the direction in which one must pray: on the one hand,the instruction to turn in a specific direction does not eliminate the prop-erty of Gods Face being wherever you turn. On the other, the fact thatGod is there wherever one turns nonetheless implies the bestowal of a spe-cific felicity (sada) as the consequence of turning in a particular direc-tion for prayer. Hence for you He combined delimitation and nondelimi-tation, just as for Himself He combined incomparability and similarity. Hesaid; Nothing is like Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing (42:11).28

Nothing is like Him: this denial of similarity, this expression of puretanzh or transcendence, is immediately followed by an apparent contradic-tion of this very incomparability, for He is the Hearing, the Seeing. Ashuman beings also hear and see, this statement inescapably entails establish-ing modes of similarity or comparability between man and God. Ibn al-Arab, however, does not allow the mind to be restricted by this conceptualantimony, but rather takes advantage of the appearance of contradiction,using it as a platform from which to rise to an intuitive synthesis betweenthese two opposing principles: the divine incomparability is perfect onlywhen it is not conditioned by the very fact of being unconditioned by simi-

larity, and vice versa. The divine nondelimitation is only properly graspedin the light of delimitation, and vice versa. This paradox is powerfully de-livered in the following passage:

27 Ibid., p. 296.28Sufi Path, op. cit., p.11.


38/173

AL-TAQRIB

38

He is not declared incomparable in any manner that will removeHim from similarity, nor is He declared similar in any manner thatwould remove Him from incomparability. So do not declare Himnondelimited and thus delimited by being distinguished from de-limitation! For if He is distinguished then He is delimited by Hisnondelimitation. And if He is delimited by His nondelimitation,then He is not He.29

Without possessing or manifesting an aspect of finitude, God cannot beregarded as infinite; without assuming a mode of delimitation He cannotbe nondelimited; without the relative, He cannot be Absolute. Without the

innumerable manifestations of these apparent contradictions of His ownuniqueness, without such multiplicity within unity, and unity within mul-tiplicity, He is not He. The very infinitude of the inner richness of unicityoverflows as the outward deployment of inexhaustible self-disclosures; thisprocess is described as the tajall or uhr (theophanic revela-tion/manifestation). It is a process wherein no repetition is possible (l tak-rr f al-tajall); each phenomenon is unique in time, space and quality. Inthis complex and subtle conception ofwujd, there is no contradiction be-tween asserting the uniqueness of each phenomenoneach distinct locusfor the manifestation of Being, each maharfor the uhror tajallof theone and only Realityandthe all-encompassing unity of being which tran-scends all phenomena. Multiplicity is comprised within unity, and unity is

displayed by multiplicity.This ontological perspective is to be applied on the plane of religion:

there is no contradiction between asserting the uniqueness of a particularreligion, on the one hand, and affirming the all-encompassing principle ofreligion which transcends the forms assumed by religion, on the other. Thetranscendence in question leaves intact the formal differences of the relig-ions; for, these differences, defining the uniqueness of each religion, are bythat very token irreducible; the formal differences can only be transcendedin spiritual realization of the Essence, or at least, an intuition of this Es-sence. They cannot be abolished on their own level in a pseudo-esotericquest for the supra-formal essence. For these differences are divinely willed;religious diversity expresses a particular mo

Documents

Taqrib Journal 5