Faith
Practice Piety:
An Excerpt from the Maktubat-i
Imam-i Rabbani
Original:
The Great Mujaddid Ahmad Sirhindi
Translation
and Annotation: Irshad Alam
Published by:
Aklima Akter
Sufi Peace Mission
4A Gulshan Avenue
Gulshan 2
Dhaka 1212
Bangladesh
web:
www.sufipeace.org
Reviews
Sufi Irshad Alam has
produced an interesting and challenging translation of a part of the Maktubat-i
Imam-i Rabbani. In coming to grips with the difficulties of his version,
the reader may gain access to some of the meanings of Imam-i Rabbani.
Prof. Hamid Algar, Professor of Islamic Studies and
Persian, University of California at Berkeley
I congratulate you for this successful translation
from the Maktubat.
Sufi Shaykh Prof. Dr. Muhammad Masood Ahmed,
Editor of 12-volume encyclopedia (Urdu) and author of three books and numerous
articles on Imam Rabbani
I found the passages which I checked translated
accurately.
Prof. Yohanan Friedmann Author of Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi:
An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity,
Professor, Institute of Asian and African Studies, The Hebrew University,
Jerusalem, Israel
the translation is quite good and judicious
Prof. Sajjad H. Rizvi Lecturer in Islamic
Studies, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, United
Kingdom
marvelous
Prof. Alan Abdul-Haqq Godlas, Professor of Religion,
University of Georgia
Irshad Alam’s scholarly translation of
Sirhindi’s epistle and his commentary on it is a valuable source for any
serious student of sufism. But it is of special value for any follower of the
Naqshbandi tariqa, as it outlines some of the fundamental qualities of this
path, and the esoteric science by which the Naqshbandi masters guide their
disciples.
Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee, Naqshbandi sheikh and author, www.goldensufi.org
Sufi Irshad Alam has
produced a remarkable, fascinating and challenging translation of a part of the
Maktubat-i Imam-i Rabbani. In translating from Persian to English Sufi
Irshad Alam has overcome the difficulties of this great task and has enabled
the reader to gain approach to some of the meanings of Imam-i Rabbani. Sufi
Irshad Alam needs to be commended for his meticulous and painstaking
translation that produced this book. This book gives insights into the original
work done by the Great Mujaddid Ahmad Sirhindi. This book is concise and up to
the point covering a lot of material that is unknown to ordinary Muslims, as
well as scholars.
Prof. Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph.D., Islamic Research
Foundation International, Inc., www.irfi.org
This is a long awaited
important work in the history of Sufism which should be of interest to
disciples of the Mujaddid as well as others.
Laleh Bakhtiar, Ph. D. Author, Translator and
Editor of numerous Sufi and Islamic books, Kazi Publications Inc., www.kazi.org
In the beginning, I acknowledge the great debt
that I have to my sufi shaykh. It is he who taught me the inner meanings and
interpretations of the Maktubat-i Imam-i Rabbani.
To sufi shaykh Shah Muti Aftabi, who has been a
great teacher to me, although I never met him in person. I learned the text of
the Maktubat by studying the Persian original side by side with his
amazingly accurate Bengali translation.
To all my teachers in the Arabic and Persian
languages Dr. John Hayes, Sonia Shiri, Noha Radwan, Mavash Hariri and others.
To Dr. Giv Nassiri for reading most of this
manuscript of this book and diligently comparing with the original Persian and
writing an introduction.
To Prof. Hamid Algar, Sufi Shaykh Prof. Muhammad
Masood Ahmed, Prof. Yohanan Friedmann, Prof. Sajjad H. Rizvi for verifying a
few random parts of this book and writing reviews.
To Dr. Nazeer Ahmed, Rashid Patch, Grandmaster James
Harkins, Nasr Ullah, Sheikh Nur al-Jerrahi for giving me encouragement.
To Valerie Turner for editing and Sukomal Modak
and his brothers Satyajit and Souren for typesetting the book in LaTex.
And to my parents, for funding almost all the
expenses behind this book. And to Russell Bates, Semnani Foundation, and others
for making grants that paid for a part.
May they all be drenched by the energy and
blessings emanating from the Mujaddid.
Irshad Alam
I am dedicating this book to my parents who have nurtured
me with love and care. Abba! Amma! I love you!
I’m delighted to hear of the publication of the
book Faith Practice Piety that contains annotated translations from the Maktubat-i
Imam-i Rabbani. Irshad has been diligently learning the Maktubat and the
sufi path of the Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa under my guidance for the last
twenty years. I have also granted Irshad a permission or ijaza to teach
this tariqa as my deputy. May Allah grant him success in transmitting both the
verbal message and the spiritual transmission of this exalted tariqa. Amin!
Muhammad Mamunur Rashid
Kompong Sam, Cambodia
My sufi guide Muhammad Mamunur Rashid is a
living saint who is a teacher of the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi sufi tariqa and the
Grandshaykh or head of its Pure Mujaddidi branch. Originally from Bangladesh,
he has relocated to Cambodia following divine inspiration. He is now absorbed
in his mission to spread Universal Sufi Islam to Indo-China, China, Europe and
the rest of the world.
CONTENTS
Reviews i
Acknowledgments iv
Dedication v
Message from My Sufi Shaykh vi
About My Sufi Shaykh vi
Contents..............................................................................
1
Verification of the Translation...............................................
7
Foreword by the Translator..................................................
11
Confirming
the Accuracy:.............................
14
Suggestions
on the Annotations: ... 15
A Note on Technical Terms and Translation . 15
Birth and Family.................................................................
17
Prophecies on the Mujaddid.................................................
18
First Stage in Education....................................................... 20
Life in Agra........................................................................
20
Return to Sirhind.................................................................
22
Initial Sufi Training.............................................................
22
Khwaja Baqibillah’s Mission to India .... 24
The Meeting with Khwaja Baqibillah .... 27
The Exalted Ranks of the Great Mujaddid . . 29
The Birth of the Mujaddidi tariqa................................... 32
The Parting from This World.........................................
39
Writings.......................................................................
40
3
Preamble: Ode to Khwaja Baqibillah 45
Sufi Technical Terms.................................................... 47
Insertion of the End in the Beginning .... 51
Monist Ontologies......................................................... 56
Reviewing the Monist Ontologies................................... 57
Naqshbandi Science is Sublime......................................
61
Faith-The Sunni Creed................................................... 69
Existence......................................................................
70
A Review of Basic Concepts in Ontology . . 74
Uniqueness...................................................................
77
Knowledge: The Chrono-Epistemology ... 79
Speech and Time...........................................................
95
The Act and Time.........................................................
99
Incomparability............................................................ 103
Similarity is Merely Allegorical.................................... 107
Allegorical Verses may Not Be Interpreted. . 109
Rejection of Unificationism............................................. Ill
Changelessness............................................................ 113
Self-Sufficientness....................................................... 115
Perfection.................................................................... 117
The Maturudi School.................................................... 122
Etemalness and Beginninglessness................................ 123
All-Powerfulness and the philosophers ... 124
Taqlid................................................................................ 132
Ibn Arabi and Wahdat-i Wujud............................................ 135
Bringing-into-Existence...................................................... 139
Worldly Occasions and Their Effectivities . .
139
God Desires and Creates Both Good and Evil. 145
Eternal Bliss and Damnation............................................... 151
The Vision......................................................................... 155
Dispatch of the Prophets is Mercy................................ 158
Intellects and Revelation............................................. 161
Prescriptions of the Sharia Are Blessings . .
167
Revelation is True...................................................... 170
Punishment in the Grave............................................. 171
God May Judge or He May Forgive .... 172
The Day of Resurrection............................................. 173
The Reckoning, the Scale, the Bridge .... 175
Paradise and Hell Are Eternal...................................... 176
The Ulama is “More” Correct...................................... 184
Faith and Holding Enmity........................................... 185
Shias Wrongly Defame the Companions. . . 187
God’s “Personal” Enmity with Faithlessness . 189
The Faithless Will Not Receive Mercy . . . 190
All the Faithful Will Be Saved..................................... 192
Increase or Decrease of Faith....................................... 199
The Greatness of Imam Abu Hanifa .... 203
Miracles..................................................................... 208
Well-instructed Caliphs: Superiorities. . . . 209
The Companions: Their Disputes................................. 217
Practice........................................................................ 223
Ablution...................................................................... 224
Prayer.......................................................................... 224
Comments: The Purpose of Sufism................................ 228
7
Piety: The Purpose of the Tariqa 235
The Purpose of Sufism.................................................. 235
Naqshbandi tariqa Clings to the Sunna . . . 238
Loud Zikr.................................................................... 239
Songs, Dances, Ecstasies, Raptures................................ 243
Singing: Advice to his Pir’s Sons................................... 250
Mawluds...................................................................... 251
Inventing New Practices in the tariqa .... 253
Index 277
CHAPTER
PREFACES
Verification of the
Translation
Professor
Giv Nassiri compared this translation with the Persian original word-for-word
and wrote this review. He taught Persian language and literature at the
University of California from 1991 to 1996. Since 1996 he has taught courses
on Islam as an adjunct professor at the Graduate Theological Union and Pacific
School of Religion in Berkeley.
I have reviewed Mr. Irshad Alam’s translation of
the maktub or epistle 1.266 [Volume I, maktub #no. 266] of Imam-i Rabbani Ahmad
Sirhindi’s Maktubat [his magnus opus that is his collected letters]
that is in this book. I have checked it word-for- word in its entirety for accuracy
in translation from Persian to English. Mr. Irshad Alam is a sufi of the
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa of Imam-i Rabbani Sirhindi.
To the best of my knowledge this is the only
translation of an entire long maktub of Maktubat-i Imam-i Rabbani
translated directly from Persian to English.
The only other direct translation is one by
Professor Muhammad Abdul Haq Ansari in his work, Sufism and Shariah.
There he has translated a selection of passages of the Maktubat. Another
work of translation into English is by Süleyman Hilmi I§ik that is contained
in his book The Endless Bliss published by Hakikat Kitabevi in Turkey-in
fact, I was informed that Shaykh I§ik had translated the Persian Maktubat
into Turkish and his disciples re-translated part of that work into
English.However, the quality of that English translation is such that it’s unintelligible
to the native English readers. For that reason I have not attempted to compare
it with sufi Irshad’s present translation.
From strictly a translation point of view, I
believe this work can be characterized as one in which devotion and care to the
accuracy of the message of Imam-i Rabbani,Imam of sufi Irshad’s tariqa
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi, has led him to strike a distinctively fine and effective
balance between being literal and interpretive in his transla- tion.By so
doing, I believe, he has succeeded in providing accuracy and accessibility.
Before I further describe the quality of this
work of translation, I would like to point out that on a very few occasions
this balance between literal and interpretive sways in favor of one or the
other. But this is quite rare and when the text tends toward the literal, there
is proof of sufi Irshad’s care for accuracy and his fresh look at the
complexities of the classical Persian language, and when the text tends toward
the interpretive, his approach is to make the inherent difficulties of the text
accessible to a wider reader ship.
In an effort to clarify and
make accessible the difficult passages, at times the translation becomes
interpretive rather than literal; this does not in any way diminish its
devotion to conveying Sirhindi’s message literally and accurately. The rare use
of interpretive translation is an exception, not a rule, and that does not
diminish the work’s inspired and accurate translation of the sufi content.
On the other hand his
effort to maintain a balance between the literal and the interpretive
approaches on rare occasions also appears toward the literal, where the
master’s language is colloquial and idiomatic. Sufi Ir- shad’s literal
translation of such rare phrases is remarkable, given the amazing fact that he
has had no formal Persian language training and that his meticulous and
painstaking effort at an accurate translation is due to his devotion to the
Mujaddid, Imam of Irshad Alam’s sufi tariqa.
An important and valuable
characteristic of sufi Ir- shad’s translation is its meticulous attention to
the translation of technical sufi terminology. Use of accurate English
terminology for specific sufi terms is paramount in a successful and beneficial
translation of such primary manuscripts and sufi Irshad has achieved this task
with accuracy.
In addition to accurately
conveying Sirhindi’s terse and measured use of sufi terminology and concepts,
sufi Irshad, possibly because of his discipleship with his master, Imam-i
Rabbani, has conveyed the meanings of such terminology effectively and consistently.
sufi Irshad’s translation
also benefits from more recent standardization and refinement of Islamic
terminology in English, whereas ten to fifteen years ago there were wide
variations in the translations of the same terms and concepts. He appears to
meticulously follow Professor Chittick’s accurate and informed translation of
technical terms of Islamic disciplines.
As I mentioned above, sufi Irshad resolves
ambiguities of certain Persian sentences in the Maktubat through an
interpretive translation. The reader, while attempting to decipher the
interpretation of such complex discussions will gain insight into sufi
terminology and concepts. At times what appeared to me as too literal a
translation of a colloquial Persian term turned out to be a particular usage
attributed to the Great Mujaddid Imam-i Rabbani, members of his eponymous
tariqa the Mujaddidi, and some other sufis. For instance, in today’s Persian
usage “tavajjuh kardan” simply means “to pay attention or accept.” So,
I was initially quite surprised to find sufi Irshad’s translation into “to give
a face-tuming.”This is apparently a particular sufi practice expressed in that
context by Imam-i Rabbani. His use of the term refers to a sufi guide’s
practice of concentrating on the inner state of a disciple and by so doing also
ridding the disciple of any turbidity of the heart of discernment.
By way of conclusion, I must say that there are
a number of advantages inherent in this translation, which makes it a valuable
work for those serious about a sincere understanding of Imam-i Rabbani’s
writings. My endorsement relates only to the quality of the translation of the
maktub at hand, maktub 1.266- I’ve not reviewed sufi Irshad’s commentaries or
opinions or the translations from the other maktubs. Other reviewers may review
those.
Giv Nassiri
Adjunct Professor of Islamic Studies
Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA
Ph. D. Islamic and Persian Studies, Univer-
sity of California at Berkeley, 2002.
Doctorate in Islamic
studies obtained under the supervision of Prof Hamid Algar
Ph.D. exam in Persian
under the supervision of the late Professor Muhammad Ja far Mahjub
Thank you for your review
of my book. It is primarily the annotated translation of maktub or
epistle 1.266 (i.e., Volume I, maktub no.# 266) of the Maktubat-i Imam-i
Rabbani from the original Persian (mixed with Arabic.). I’ve also
translated sections from many other maktubs in order to explain the original
maktub. I am publishing this edition primarily for the reviewers. Based on your
feedback, I shall prepare the next edition for the public. So I would like to
request your help in my endeavor.
The translation of makub
1.266, which is most of this book, has been completely reviewed and compared word-by-word
with the original Persian by Professor Giv Nassiri Ph. D., of the Graduate
Theological Union in,- Berkeley, California. While none of the errors that he
found were significant in terms of accuracy, I have accepted some of the
suggestions that he made, in my quest to make this a perfect translation. Most
of his suggestions reflect differences of opinion between us rather than
errors or inaccuracies in the translation.
Professor Nassiri is an
Iranian scholar of Islam and sufism who, although bom a Shia, has rejected
Shiism and converted to mainstream Sunnism. He had started on the
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi sufi tariqa, taking his first bayat from a shaykh in
Turkey; he has now taken his second bayat from our tariqa. May the flow of faydh
and baraka that he is receiving from the Great Mujaddid via our tariqa
permeate this work!
I’m offering this book to
you with the greatest humility. I’m not at all an academic scholar; I’m only a
sufi and it’s a karamat, “miracle” of the Mujaddid performed through my
sufi teacher Grand shaykh Muhammad Ma- munur Rashid,-that I’ve been able to
translate this from the original languages without really “knowing” them; i.e.,
I know very little Persian and Arabic, so little that I can’t honestly claim
that I “know” them- I can neither speak nor write in them and; I can only read
them with the help of dictionaries. Still I have made this translation from
the Persian original, with the exception of a few lines that were not
intelligible in the manuscript, and most of these have been identified in the
footnotes. If you compare this translation with the original Persian, you will
also come to the conclusion that it is indeed a very accurate translation.
It’s not just a scholarly
work-it’s also a inspired sufi work, guided by the energy or faydh of the
Mujaddid that I receive by the mediation of my shaykh. So my shaykh’s
interpretation permeates this work.
In my translation, I’ve
tried to be as literal as possible; I’ve taken an interpretive meaning only
when the literal meaning is unintelligible. At the same time, I’ve been
extremely cautious so that I do not distort the Mujaddid. I’ve also broken up
the Mujaddid’s extremely long and convoluted sentences into smaller sentences
for the sake of clarity. However, the poems are usually interpretive.
As an example of my
translation style, I would point to the paragraph on section “Can Intellects
Guide Us Without Revelation” that starts with the sentence, “There are some
premises that the [sufi] masters hold as axiomatic truths.” If we look at the
original Persian text contained in the footnote below, we see that it’s untranslatable
“literally,” if by that term we mean word-for-word. And if you try, it would
come out as meaningless gibberish. Sol had to break up that sentence into many
smaller sentences. Yet I conveyed exactly what the Mujaddid said, nothing more
and nothing less (though in a more understandable format).
Yes! On the first look, it may seem as if I’m
only “interpreting” the original text, that it’s not a “literal” translation.
When Dr. Giv Nassiri was reviewing it, he had the same initial impression In
fact, he commented on the first sentence of that very paragraph, “Have you made
it up as an explanation? I don’t see anything like that in the [original
Persian] text.” So I pointed to the words muqaddamat-i musallama, which
appeared later in that long convoluted Persian original sentence. I had to create
a whole sentence to convey the meaning of that pair of words. So while
sometimes it may seem that I’ve taken an interpretive approach, in fact I’m
conveying the exact meaning of the original text. My translation is “more” in
one sense- it is far more understandable; though I have never changed the
message of the Mujaddid. After making the complete review, even Dr. Nassiri
agreed. He said, “At the first glance, it seemed that you were interpreting
the text in many places. But now I know that you’re really sticking to the
text.”
In the worldly measures, this translation is
accurate because what I lacked in language skills, I overcompensated for with
sheer hard work and religious devotion- this translation project is not just a
“project” for me, instead, as a devout disciple of the Mujaddidi tariqa, I see
it as a means to my salvation in the hereafter. In my first reading of the
maktubs that I’ve translated, I understood nothing. But I diligently checked
the meaning of every word in the dictionary and reference books, compared it
with the Bengali translation, and finally deciphered the meaning and arrived at
my translation. When I finished, I could read the Persian text, understand
everything, and explain it to others.
Of immense help has been the superb Bengali
translation of the Maktubat authored by sufi shaykh Shah Muhammad Muti
Ahmad Aftabi of Bangladesh, which he translated from the original Persian. He
learned the Maktubat from his father and shaykh Shah Muhammad Aftabuz-
zaman who in turn learned it from his shaykh, Hazrat Barkat Ali Shah Bezwari of
Kolkata, India. He was also a great saint and the Mujaddid guided him in his
work spiritually. He completed this work over the span of eighteen years;
whenever he could not understand something properly, he sat down in muraqaba
(passive meditation) and found his answer through ilham, (inspiration.).
So his translation has been an amazingly accurate work.
While I referred to the Bengali translation, I
translated from the original Persian and my translation is not at all a
re-translation from the Bengali translation. The Bengali translation was useful
in helping me to understand the Maktubat. I have also diligently
checked my translation with the Bengali translation and that has verified that
my finished translation is indeed accurate.
You may want to send me feedback by emails or by
letter after reviewing this book, according to the following terms.
Confirming the Accuracy:
I’ve translated it from the book Maktubat-i
Imam-i Rabbani edited by Nur Ahmad Amritsari published by Mak- taba’
Ahmadiya’ Mujaddidiya’ in Quetta, Pakistan in 1999. My translation is indexed
to that original book.
I have also used the Intikhab-i Maktubat-i Shaykh Ahmad
Sirhindi edited by the eminent scholar Fazlur Rahman and published by the
Iqbal Academy in Lahore, Pakistan. If you need a copy, you may contact them
and they may send scholars complimentary copies.
Suggestions on the Annotations:
I’ll appreciate any suggestions on the
annotation and explanation section. If you have any information on the sources
of the poems and quotations, I would appreciate your help. You may contact me
via email through the feedback button at www.sufipeace.org.
I am grateful for positive, constructive
criticism and I will appreciate all that you can offer, in an effort to make
the next edition of the book better. Thank you in advance!
Irshad Alam
Berkeley, California and Dhaka, Bangladesh
Email: mim786@gmail.com Web: www.sufipeace.org
A Note on Technical Terms and
Translation
Please note that I have followed Professor William
Chittick’s scheme of translation. Except for a few instances where there were
good reasons to do so (e.g., contingent instead of possible), I have
consistently followed Chittick’s translations for the technical words that he
introduces in his monumental translation of Ibn Arabi, The Sufi Path of
Knowledge 1 (abbreviated SPK), and revised in its sequel, The
Self-Disclosure of God [1]
[2]
(abbreviated SDG). I would suggest that readers refer to the SPK for the meanings
of the technical terms, but also refer to the appendix in the SDG where he
notes the changes he made in the second book. I have consistently used the
newer terms for the translated technical words. Alternatively, you may use the
“Index of Technical Terms” in SDG only, but then you may want to refer to the
SPK for the definitions of the technical terms.
The Mujaddid follows the general system of Ibn
Arabi. Although in many cases the Mujaddid holds very different opinions; still
Chittick’s translations of Ibn Arabi’s terms can correctly translate those
terms in almost all of those cases. If you are not well versed in the fundamental
concepts of Ibn Arabi, you may want to read this book alongside Chittick’s Sufi
Path of Knowledge, in which he explains them.
CHAPTER
LIFE OF THE MUJADDID
The Great Mujaddid Ahmad
Sirhindi was born in the city of Sirhind in East Punjab, India, at midnight on
a Friday night,1 14th Shawwal 971 hijri / 1564 CE.[3]
[4]
His full name was Badr al-Din Abu al-Barakat al Faruqi.[5] He is known better by two of
his titles, Mujaddid-i-Alfitham (Mujaddid or Renewer of the Second
Thousand Years) and Imam-i Rabbani (Leader sent by the Lord).
The Mujaddid’s father was
Hazrat Shaykh ‘Abd al- Ahad Faruqi who was an eminent scholar of his times and
a sufi Shaykh or teacher. Shaykh Abd al-Ahad was an initiate and caliph in both
the Chishti silsila or lineage in which his preceptor was Shaykh Rukn
al-Din, son of the celebrated ‘Abd al-Quddus Gangohi (d. 943/1537), and of the
Qadri, and the author of a number of monographs on sufism, especially on wahdat
al-wujud.
The Mujaddid was a
descendent of Caliph Umar Faruq with eighteen generations in-between, i.e., he
was a nineteenth- generation descendant. This the reason the Great Mujaddid is
sometimes called Ahmad Faruqi. Indeed, the Mujaddid was quite proud of his
Faruqi lineage, as evidenced by a few of his writings in the Maktubat. However,
his more common surname is “Sirhindi” that comes from the town of his birth.
According to the Mujaddidi
tradition, this holy child was born circumcised (just as the Prophet Muhammad,
(salam) was born). He did not cry like other children and he never dirtied his
clothes. [6]
The Prophet Muhammad
himself prophesied on the advent of the Mujaddid. In a hadith report narrated
by Imam Suyuti, the Prophet spoke thus,
At the head of the 11th century hijri, Allah
will send a man who is a dazzling light. His name will be the same as mine. He
will emerge between the reigns of two unjust rulers. Through his intercession,
countless people will be saved.
This saying indirectly
confirms the Mujaddidi belief that the Mujaddid is the greatest saint after the
companions and before Imam Mahdi. The greatest enemies of God are the ones whom
the Prophet specifically identified to be the enemies of God, e.g., Abu Jahl,
Pharaoh, and others. Similarly, the greatest friend of God is the one identified
by the Prophet as well.
Shaykh Abdul Ahad once had a dream,
The entire world is
engulfed in a deep darkness. Pigs, monkeys, and bears are attacking and
killing people. At that time, a ball of light emerged from his breast. In that
ball of light, there is a throne and a man of light was sitting there. All the
oppressors, transgressors, apostates are being slaughtered before him as sacrificial
animals. And someone is proclaiming in a thunderous voice,
“Say! Truth has been established and false
hood has been destroyed.”(Koran 17,80)
Hazrat Abdul Ahad went to
Shaykh Shah Kamal Kaithali for the interpretation of that dream. Hazrat
Kaithali interpreted,
You’ll have a son! All
unfaithfulness, polytheism, heresy, apostasy, and deviation from the prophetic
way, darkness, and corrupt customs- they all will die on his emergence. The
blessed tradition of Prophet Muhammad will be renewed.
When he was an infant, he
became very sick; and those around him had little hope that he would live. At
that time, the Qadri sufi saint Shah Kamal Kaithali arrived at Sirhind. His
father took the infant Mujaddid to Shah Kamal for his prayers and blessings.
Hazrat Shah Kamal was exceedingly delighted to see the holy child! He consoled
his father Shaykh Abdul Ahad, “Have no worry! Instead, have inner peace.
Because your son will have a long life and he’ll be a great scholar and a’rif,
knower of Allah!”
Out of his love and affection, Shah Kamal put
his blessed tongue into the mouth of the Mujaddid and he suckled on that tongue
for a long time. Hazrat Shah Kamal exclaimed, “This infant just attained the
complete kamalat, perfection in the Qadri tariqa!”
The Mujaddid received his early education at
home from his father and other scholars of Sirhind. He also memorized the
Koran at an early age.
Then he went to Sialkot and studied under a
number of eminent scholars. He learned hadith literature from Ya‘qub Sarfi
Kashmiri and logic from Mawlana Kamal Kashmiri. From Mawlana Qadi Bahlul
Badakshani, he learned and attained the Ijazat or certificate to teach advanced
texts of Koranic exegesis or tafsir (Wahidi and others) and hadith
iterature (Mishkat, Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Jami ‘l-Saghir of Suyuti and
others) After completing this stage of his formal education in just three
years, at the exceptionally early age of seventeen, he returned home to
Sirhind.
Some three years later, he came to the court of
the Mughal Emperor Akbar at Agra, possibly aided by an introduction from his
teacher Shaykh Ya‘qub. There he came to know the two brothers Faydi (d. 1004/
1595) and Abu’l Fadi (d. 1011/ 1602). The Mujaddid helped Faydi with composing
his Sawati’ ‘l-ilham- a commentary on the Qur’an written entirely with
dotless letters.
The Mujaddid’s dealings with Abu’l-Fadl were far
less harmonious. He felt that Abu’l-Fadl was so devoted to rational philosophy
that he cast doubt on the need for prophecy. So the Mujaddid attempted to
correct this tendency by referring him Ghazali’s al-Munqidh min al- Dalal.
Their disagreement culminated in a bitter public debate in which Abu’l-Fadl is
said to have abused generally respected scholars of Sunni Islam.
It was during his stay at Agra that Sirhindi wrote
his first work, an Arabic monograph titled Ithbat an-Nubuwwa. That book
was designed to reassert the necessity of belief in prophethood as a corollary
to belief in God, in the face of the skepticism fostered by Akbar’s syncretic
cult, the din-iilahi. That book’s preface tells us of the debate Shaykh
Ahmad had had with “a man [Abu ‘1-Fadl] who studied the science olfalsafa
... and led people astray, as well as straying himself, with respect to
prophethood and its attachment to a given person” (Ithbat an-Nubuwwa, pp.
11-13).[7]
The monograph named Ta’yid-i Ahl-i Sunnat (also
known as Radd-i Rawafidh or Kava’if-iShi’a) is also related to the
circumstances of the time. That book demolishes the Shia arguments and upholds
the doctrines of the mainstream Sunnis. Written some time after 995/1587, this
denunciation of Shi’ism was inspired by the sectarian polemics being exchanged
between the Shii ulama of Iran and their Sunni counterparts in Transoxiana;
Sirhindi endorsed the fatwa of the Bukharan scholars that condemned
Shi’is as kafir. This monograph also presaged the strong hostility to
Shi’ism that Shaykh Ahmad later bequeathed to the line of Naqshbandi tradition
descended from him, partly as a result of his exaltation of Abu Bakr as the
fountainhead of Naqshbani “sobriety.”
Eventually, the Mujaddid left Agra to return to
Sirhind. Precisely when he left Agra is unknown. It was his father who had come
to Agra to fetch him and so he left with his father. On the way, he stopped in
Thaneswar to marry the daughter of Shaykh Sultan, a local nobleman.
Having returned to Sirhind, the Mujaddid now
started the sufi textual dimension of his education. He studied with his
father. It may be noted that his father Shaykh Abdul Ahad was a firm believer
in wahdatul wujud. He used to say, “Whatever is seen is the One; only
the headings are different.”[8]
He was also the author of a number of monographs on wahdatul wujud. And
the young Mujaddid initially assimilated this with great enthusiasm.
With his father, the Mujaddid studied the
fundamental texts such as Ta‘arruf of a Kalabadhi (d. 390/1000), the Awarif
al-Ma ‘arif of Shihabuddin Suhrawardi and the Fusus al-Hikam of Ibn
Arabi (d. 638/1240).
It may be in this period that the Mujaddid wrote
his monograph Ma‘arif-i Ladunniya or it may even have been in the early
period of his discipleship with Khwaja Baqibillah. That book indicates that he
thoroughly studied Ibn Arabi in this period. He may have studied Ibn Arabi
before, but perhaps not in such great depth. The scholar Fazlur Rahman places
its time of writing much earlier but I believe that he has made a mistake.
At home, the Mujaddid learned the Sabri branch
of the Chishti tariqa from his father. He also learned the Qadri tariqa from him
as well. In the Mujaddidi tradition, it is said that he had already attained
perfection in the Qadri tariqa in his infancy from Shah Kamal Kaithali, so at
this time he really learned only the outward rules and methods of the Qadri
tariqa from his father.
The Mujaddid also attained the nisbat-ifardiyat,
the “transmission of solitariness” (fardiyat) from his father, [9]
which he had in turn acquired from Shah Kamal Kaithali.
He also attained perfection and the rank of a
deputy or khilafat in the Kubrawi and Suhrawardi[10] tariqas from Mawlana Ya‘qub
Sarfi. However, some scholars believe that it was his father who taught him the
Suhrawardi tariqa.[11]
Many other sufi Shaykhs taught him and so he attained perfection and was given
the rand of a deputy (khilafat) in fifteen tariqas.
The Shadhili tariqa may be included there as
well. Because the prayer, du’a-i hizbul bahar, is a wazifa or
litany of the Mujaddidi tariqa[12]
and that indicates that the Mujaddid may have been a shaykh of that Shadhili
tariqa as well. Later he learned the Naqshbandi tariqa (the sixteenth) and he
established the Mujaddidi tariqa(the seventeenth). So it is said that he had
attained perfection in seventeen tariqas altogether.
Khwaja Baqibillah’s Mission to
India
In the meantime, Khwaja Baqibillah embarked on
his journey to India. According to the Mujaddidi tradition, his mission was to
transmit the Naqshbandi nisbat to the saint who will be the Mujaddid of the
second millennium hijri. It was his teacher Shaykh Khwajegi Amkangi who had
entrusted him with this mission, however it was Khwaja Bahauddin Naqshband who
had given him this mission originally.
Once, Khwaja Baqibillah was visiting the shrine
of Khwaja Naqshband. He told Khwaja Baqibillah,
Soon a perfect vicegerent
of the prophet will be born in India. Such a great friend has never been bom
after the honorable companions. He is center of attention of all the friends.
They all are trying to bring him into their own silsilas (lineages) in the hope
that their silsilas would spread all over the world via him and would last
until the end of the world. The light of his good-guidance-giving would illuminate
all that is from the heavens to the earth and until the end of the world. I fervently
aspire that he would take up my silsila and I expect that my hope would be
fulfilled by the grace of God. So you should go to India and meet that friend.
Let it not happen that someone else would recruit him into their own silsila
before you. The transmission that the prophet granted Hazrat Abubakr, it has
reached me as an object left in trust and I have transmitted that to my
caliphs. Currently, this transmission is in the hands of the greatest caliph of
my silsila Khwajegi Amkangi. So
you should first go to
Khwajegi Amkangi and attain this transmission and then go to India and transmit
it to that man. Then that object left in trust would reach its true recipient.
In accordance with this instruction of Khwaja Naqshband,
Khwaja Baqibillah started his journey to Khwajegi Amkangi. Khwaja Naqshband
also informed Khwajegi Amkangi through a dream. On the way, Khwaja Baqibillah
had a dream where Khwajegi Amkangi told him, “Son! I am waiting for you.” When
he finally arrived, Khwajegi Amkangi spent three days with him in seclusion
and told him, “By the grace of Allah, the purpose for which Khwaja Naqshband
sent you here, your nutruring, that is now complete. Now take this transmission
and go to India, a great task is waiting for you there.”
ii
After he had been his shaykh for a long time, it
was Khwaja Baqibillah (qaf) who told Hazrat Mujaddid:
Once Hazrat Mawlana Khwajegi Amkangi(qaf)
instructed me, “Go to India! You’ll propagate this tariqa there!” I raised
objections, as I could not find any sign of competence in me. So my shaykh
asked me do istikhara [prayers to receive guidance from God through
dreams or inspirations] and I did so.
At night, I had a dream, “I saw a parrot. I
thought in my dream that if this parrot comes and sits on my hand then it would
be a sign
11 Muhammad
Ihsan, Rmvdatul Qayyumia where he draws reference to Khwaja Hashim
Kashmi, Barakatul Ahmadiya, I referred to the Bengali translation by
Mahbubur Rahman, Raojatul Kaiumiyah, Khulna: Al-Hakim Prokashoni,
Khulna, Bangladesh, 2004. pp. 82-3) that my journey to India would be a success. And as soon as I had
this idea in my mind, the parrot flew to me and sat on my hand. I put my saliva
in its beak. In return, it put sweet saliva in my mouth.”
When I had woken up in the
morning, I described that dream to Khwajegi Amkangi. He interpreted, “Parrot
is the symbol for India.[13]
You’ll go and nurture a great saint there. In return, he’ll also give you
spiritual nourishment. Indeed, he’ll enlighten the whole world.”
When I reached Sirhind on
the way, I had a dream in which someone told me, “You are now near a qutb,
pole.” He also showed me the face of that pole. In the morning, I visited all
the saints of Sirhind but none had the face that I saw in that dream. Then I
decided that the pole in my dream would emerge in the future. Then when you
came to me, I recognized that face in you and found that capability in you.
Another day I dreamt, “I’m
lighting up a huge lamp. That lamp is burning brighter and brighter every
moment. And that lamp is in turn lighting up hundreds and hundreds of new
lamps. And all those new lamps are also growing brighter and brighter every
moment. When I reached the outskirts of Sirhind, I saw that thousands and
thousands of lamps are burning in Sirhind.” Through this dream also, I believe
that I received Allah’s sign towards you.
The exchange of saliva and sugar between Khwaja
Baqibillah and the parrot later proved to be true. The Mujaddid learned all the
maqamat stations, of the knowledge of the Naqshbandi tariqa from Khwaja
Baqibillah, which explained why Khwaja Baqibillah in the dream put his saliva
in the beak of the parrot. Afterwards, Hazrat Mujaddid received advanced
stations, maqamat from Allah above and beyond all that was in the old
Naqshbandi tariqa. And he taught those to Khwaja Baqibillah. That explained why
the parrot in the dream put sugar into the mouth of Khwaja Baqibillah.
The Meeting with Khwaja
Baqibillah
When his father died in 1007/1597, Shaykh Ahmad
left Sirhind with the intention of performing the hajj. His route took him to
Delhi where he had a decisive encounter with the Naqshbandi saint Khwaja ‘Abd
al-Baqi (commonly known as Baqi Billah; d. 1012/1603).
In Delhi, the Mujaddid stayed with his intimate friend Mawlana
Hasan Kashmiri who took him to Hazrat Khwaja. When he looked at the Mujaddid
then known as Shaykh Ahmad, Khwaja Baqibillah instantaneously recognized Shaykh
Ahmad to be that parrot of his dream. He knew that Shaykh Ahmad is that
fortunate man who is the rightful heir to this exalted transmission, who is
that unique representative of the Blessed Prophet (salam), who is that
auspicious man for whom he had come to India. It was against Khwaja
Baqibillah’s nature to show interest to someone to make him his disciple. But
Shaykh Ahmad became an exception to that rule. He requested Shaykh Ahmad,
“Please be my guest in my khankah for a few days.”
Shaykh Ahmad promised to stay there for a week. But his
state, hal changed in a few days. Hazrat Khwaja’s jadhdhba affected him
powerfully. He requested Hazrat Khwaja to accept him as a disciple.
Normally Khwaja Baqibillah was very selective about
accepting new disciples. Indeed, he always made is- tikhara prayers,
seeking divine signs indicating whether or not he should accept that disciple.
But Shaykh Ahmad became an exception. The Khwaja immediately gave him bay at,
initiation and gave him the first lesson, zikr in the subtle center qalb,
heart. Immediately, his heart was filled with Naqshbandi nur, light. Shaykh Ahmad
wondered,
Wondrous creation are the Naqshbandi saints
They radiate light in a unique manner
They give away the fragrance of love to those
who don’t even seek
Can you find a more generous one anywhere in the
world? Where will you find someone who cares as much?
As much care as the Naqshbandis give
Baqi Billah was much impressed with his new
disciple concerning whom he wrote to one of his devotees,
A person from Sirhind by the name of Shaykh
Ahmad, highly knowledgeable and observant, has spent a few days with me ... it
seems that he may become a sun illuminating the world.
Shaykh Ahmad attained perfection, kamalat in the Naqshbandi
tariqa. Khwaja Baqibillah granted him khilafat, deputyship and ijazat,
mandate to teach as a shaykh. Then he returned to Sirhind, accompanied by a few
other disciples of Baqi Billah. There a near permanent state of ecstasy (istighraq)
caused him to retreat into seclusion, much to the disappointment of his
companions from Delhi. But once the ecstasy subsided, he began corresponding
with Baqi Billah in a series of letters that were at the origin of his
collected correspondence (the Maktubat contains a total of twenty-six
letters addressed to Baqi Billah). After an absence of one year, Shaykh Ahmad
paid a return visit to his preceptor in Delhi, and with some reluctance (that
he showed as a symbol of humility) accepted to train some disciples on his
behalf. Thereafter he communicated with Baqi Billah by letter, with the exception
of a final visit in 1012/1613; on the occasion of this meeting, the master
honored him by walking some distance to welcome him and he entrusted him with
the spiritual training of his sons.
The Exalted Ranks of the Great
Mujaddid
It’s a Mujaddidi belief that the Mujaddid was
not only the greatest waliAllah ever, but he more than that. Indeed, all
the kamalat of all the awliya of the Muhammadan community (after the
companions and before Imam Mahdi) were added together and given to him!
When non-sufis write on the Mujaddid, they
stress his struggle with the Emperors Akbar, Jahangir, and their
courtiers-because that is something that they can understand. But from the
sufi perspective, it is his sufi dimension, e.g. the energy and the blessings
that he radiates (jaydh va barakaiy that is more important.
This excerpt that describes a high rank of the
Mujaddid i.e. the guardianship (qayyumiyat). Hazrat Mujaddid wrote,
Once after the dhuhr
prayer, I was in meditation, muraqaba and someone was reciting the
Koran. Suddenly I noticed a heavenly robe hovering over me. An idea came upon
my mind that this “robe of guardianship” (qaiyu- miyat) is all the
creation. And I have been graced with this robe as I am the heir to the Last
Prophet (salam) and I faithfully follow him. Then the Merciful Prophet (salam)
appeared and tied a turban on my head by his own blessed hands; and
congratulated me on my elevation to the rank of the quardian (qaiyum).
What is a Qaiyum? About that, the Mujaddid’s son Khwaja
Muhammad MaThum wrote,
Qaiyum is the khalifa or deputy of Allah (SWT)
in this world.. All the poles (qutb, aqtab) and the substitutes (badal,
abdal) are in his circle of shadow. The pegs (watad, aw tad) are
within the boundaries of the perfection of the Qaiyum. All the people in the
entire world look towards him to fulfill their wishes and desires. He is the
qibla of attention for the entire world. The whole world exists because of his
holy person (dhat).
He further explained,
The habit of Allah (SWT) is
such that once- in-a-while after many ages, by His own Grace, the Haqq (SWT)
grants some knower, 'ari/. a portion from His own priceless Person and
makes him His deputy and caliph as thei.e., qaiyum. It is through the
intermediation of him [the Qaiyum] that the entire cosmos is sustained.
Indeed, as the Mujaddid explained in the Maktubat,
Allah granted three more his descendants the rank of Qaiyum, Guardian. And the
rank of Qaiyumiyat is above all the awliya and just below the rank of
the companions of the Generous Prophet (salam). And all the Qaiyums have been
created from residue of the dough of which the Prophet Muhammad was made.
Indeed, the Mujaddid himself declared, “I was created from the residue of the
dough of which was made Prophet Muhammad, the Beloved of God (salam).”
/footnoteHalat-i Mashaikh-i Naqshbandiya- Mujaddidiya, volume 2, pp.27-28
These first qayyum was the great mujaddid
Ahmad Sirhindi and the second was his son Khwaja Muhammad Ma‘sum. The third qayyum
was his son Khwaja Hujjatul- lah Naqshband and the fourth was his grandson
Khwaja Muhammad Zubair.
This story is narrated in the Rawdatul
Qaiyyumia about his elevation to the rank of the Mujaddid alfithani or
reformer of the second millenium Hijri.
It was hijri 1010 year, the
10th of the Islamic month of Rabiul Awwal, Friday night breaking into dawn. Shaykh
Ahmad was sitting in his room alone. It was then that the Prophet Muhammad
(salam) came there. Along with him came all the other prophets (salam), countless
angels and friends of Allah. By his own holy pair of hands, the Merciful
Prophet put a resplendent robe on him and told, “Shaykh Ahmad! As a symbol of
your being a Mujaddid, I’m putting this magnificent robe on you. From now on,
you’ll be known as the Mujaddid-i Alft Thani, “the Mujaddid of the
second millenium.” All the responsibility for my community (ummaf) in
both worldly mat-
ters and religious matters, is assigned to you.[14]
Usually prophets receive the position of
prophets at the age of forty. Hazrat Mujaddid had just reached forty and it was
at that age that, he received the position of the Mujaddid of the Second
Thousand Years.
The Birth of the Muj addidi
tariqa
The following story is well-known in the Muj addidi tradition.
It is quoted in the primary hagiographies of the Mujaddid by his caliphs
Badruddin Sirhindi and Hashim Kashmi and the secondary text Rawdatul
Qayyumiya.
14
Once, the Great Succor
Muhyiuddin Abdul Qadir Jilani was absorbed in muraqabah, meditation in
a forest. Suddenly, a light came down from the heavens and that light lighted
up the whole world. The Great Succor was informed that after five hundred
years, when polytheism and deviation from the prophetic way would spread
throughout the world,; a true friend [of Allah] would emerge. He would demolish
all polytheism and deviations and would resurrect the Muhammadan religion. His
companionship would be alchemical [i.e., it would transform base metal into
gold.]. And his sons and caliphs would serve the religion greatly.
Then the Great Succor
selected a khirqa, (a cloak with spiritual significance in the sufi
tradition) filled it up with his perfections and gave it to his son Tajuddin
Abdur Razzaq and said, “When that great man will emerge, then give him this
khirqa. That khirqa was transferred generation-to-generation and finally
reached the hands of his descendant and Caliph Shah Sikander Kaithali. He once
had a dream, “According to the instruction of the Great Succor, give that
khirqa to the Great Mujaddid Ahmad Sirhindi.” But Shah Sikander was reluctant
to part with this family heirloom.
So what ultimately happened
is that once, Hazrat Mujaddid was meditating in muraqaba or sufi
meditation; at that time, some one came and placed a emphkhirqa, an initiatic
cloak signifying spiritual maturity and khilafat, onto the shoulders of the
Mujaddid. That person was Hazrat Shah Sikander, grandson of the sufi saint Shah
Kamal Kaithali.
Hazrat Mujaddid opened his
eyes and seeing Hazrat Sikander, stood up and embraced him with humility and
courtesy. Hazrat Sikander said, “This khirqa originally belonged to my
ancestor, Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani. My grandfather had told me on his
deathbed, ‘Keep it for now! Whomever I’ll ask you to give it to, give it to
him!’ Indeed, this khirqa has been passed down in my family from generation to
generation in the same way. Now my saintly grandfather has appeared in my dream
several times and asked me to give it to you.
But I didn’t as I felt pain
at the thought of giving this family heirloom away. Finally, I’ve been severely
warned that if I don’t comply then my sufi transmission would be taken away as
a punishment. That’s why, I’ve finally come to you.”
Hazrat Mujaddid wore that
khirqa and retired to privacy. Then this idea floated on his mind, “The
practice of the sufi shaykhs is that when they present their khirqa to someone,
he becomes their deputy or ‘caliph.’ Or they give the khirqa as a first step,
and make him their caliph at the second stage.” Hazrat Mujaddid narrated, “As
soon as this idea came upon my mind, [all the saints in my Qadri silsila starting
from the founder] Hazrat Abdul Qadir Ji- lani to Hazrat Shah Kamal Kaithali
appeared and illuminated me with the lights of their nisbat.”
Then the Mujaddid thought,
“I’ve been nurtured by the the Naqshbandis! Still such a thing happened!” He
narrated, “In the mean time, all the saints in my Naqshbandi silsila from
Hazrat Khwaja Abdul Khaliq Gujdawani to Hazrat Khwaja Baqibillah, appeared and
asked, ‘Shaykh Ahmad attained his own perfection as well as the ability to
bring others to perfection, (kamal va takmil,) via our tariqa. So how is he
related to your tariqa?’ The saints of the Qadri tariqa replied, ‘He received
the first taste of the sweet from us.’”
By that, they alluded to an
incident in Hazrat Mujaddid’s childhood. Once, when the child Mujaddid had
become very sick, his father took him to Shah Kamal Kaithali, who was a saint
of the Qadri tariqa. The saint had put his tongue into the mouth of the newborn
and it started to suck on his tongue. And Shah Kamal exclaimed, “This infant
just attained the complete kamalat, perfection in the Qadri tariqa!”
In the meantime, the
masters of the Chishti tariqa came and claimed the Mujaddid for their own. They
reasoned, “His ancestors were servants of our tariqa.”
The masters of the Kubrawi,
Suhrawardi, and many other tariqas came as well. Each of them argued, “The
Mujaddid was a caliph in my tariqa before he was [even a disciple] ] for the
Naqshbandis.”
The masters of all the other
tariqas also appeared. They all wanted the Mujaddid to serve their tariqas.
Hazrat Mujaddid’s Caliph
Hazrat Badruddin Sirhindi quoted the Mujaddid in his book the Holy Hazrats
[Hazratul Quds] “At that time such a great number of spirits of the saints came
to Sirhind that they thronged all the buildings, streets, and open spaces of
the city. The saints were disputing among themselves so strongly that from dawn
it continued until the time of dhuhr, the noon prayer.”
It was at that time that
the spirit of the viceroy for both worlds, the prophet Muhammad (salam) came
and resolved the dispute with love and compassion for everyone. He stated, “All
of you! You may transmit the perfections of your transmissions totally to the
Mujaddid of the Second Thousand Years. He is the caliph of all of you. You will
all receive equal rewards from his good deeds. However, the Naqshbandi tariqa
originates from Hazrat Abu Bakr, the most exalted man after the prophets. And
it strictly clings to the sunna and assiduously casts off deviations. And so
that tariqa is most appropriate for the special service of renewal and revival
of Islam that he will render.”
So the dispute was finally
resolved! As per the prophet’s instruction, every imam of every tariqa
transmitted all the perfections of his own tariqa to the Mujaddid. Added to
that were the perfections and transmissions unique to the Mujaddid of the
Second Thousand Years. Also added were the unique perfections granted by the
Prophet (salam). Also added were the perfections unique to the Mujaddid,
namely, the perfections of the Guardian, the Imam, the Treasury of Mercy and
all others [Qaiyum, Imam, Khazinatu ’l-Rahmat\ As a result, a
new tariqa was born.
Due to his extreme adab, courtesy, the Mujaddid
still called this new Naqshbandi tariqa. However, within a few generations,
this tariqa was named Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi or Mujaddidi for short. And this
tariqa has two imams or founders, Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband being the first
imam and Hazrat Mujaddid being the second but more important imam. Although
this tariqa can be called “new” in the sense that it is “more” than the old
Naqshbandi tariqa, it’s not new in the sense that it is “different.” The base
of this tariqa is still the old Naqshbandi tariqa. If the old Naqshbandi tariqa
can be likened to a building, then it can be said that the Mujaddid renovated
the building by adding more floors to it. That is the way he interpreted it in
the Maktubat.
It should be noted that the
old Naqshbandi tariqa soon died out, as all the Naqshbandis adopted this more
energized version of the tariqa. With the exception of a few archaic
Naqshbandis in Chinese Turkistan, the old tariqa has ceased to exist;[15]
instead, their followers have taken bay at from a Mujaddidi shaykh. If you look
at their shajara, lineage tree you’ll find Hazrat Mujaddid there.
This tariqa may be called
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi instead of what it’s called traditionally, which is
Naqshbandi- Mujaddidi. The reason is that if you call it Naqshbandi- Muj
addidi, people often shorten it by calling it Naqshbandi and that is very
misleading. Now Hazrat Mujaddid could call it Naqshbandi because that was adab
for him. But now since so many great masters of our tariqa have adopted and
agreed to the new name, it may be lack of adab for us to call it by the old
name, because that would not showing the proper respect to the Mujaddid, the
pre-eminent saint in the Naqshbandi-Muj addidi silsila, indeed the closest
person to Allah after the prophets and before Imam Mahdi.
Who is the prophet of
Islam? Is he Prophet Muhammad or Prophet Abraham? The Koran says that Hazrat
Abraham was the first Muslim and ours is the same religion as his. Now can we
claim that Prophet Abraham is more important than Prophet Muhammad? Would that
not be a lack of adab for us? The relationship of Hazrat Naqshband and Hazrat
Mujaddid can be compared to the relationship between Hazrat Abraham and Hazrat
Muhammad. Yes! Prophet Muhammad shows great respect to Prophet Abaraham; but
that does not mean that Prophet Abraham is superior to Prophet Muhammad.
Instead, it only means that the Prophet had a great deal of adab. Similarly,
the fact that the Mujaddid shows a lot of respect to Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband
in the Maktubat only confirms the perfection of his adab. Islam should
be referred to as “Muhammadan” as opposed to “Abrahamic;” although both are
true. Similarly, this tariqa should be referred to as Mujaddidi as opposed to
Naqshbandi, although both are true.
Another reason why this tariqa should be called
Mujaddidi instead of Naqshbandi is that the system of lata’if or the
subtle center system for these two tariqas are also slightly different. The latifa
or subtle center called nafs is located near the navel in the archaic
Naqshbandi tariqa, but Hazrat Mujaddid changed that location to the center of
the forehead for the Mujaddidi tariqa.
Also, the number of maqamat, i.e., the
stations of spiritual enlightenment, are also vastly increased in the Mujaddidi
tariqa. Now most shaykhs never ascend to such sublime stations, so they do not
even know about these.
Since the Mujaddidi tariqa is so much superior,
all the Naqshbandis today, even those from Bukhara or Samarkand, (with the
exception of those archaic Naqshbandis in Chinese Turkestan) have adopted the
Mujaddidi tariqa instead. If you look at their lineage tree or shajara, you
will see Hazrat Mujaddid there.
After a life of great
service to Allah as well as His beloved humanity, the Great Mujaddid left this
world to meet his Maker at the age of sixty-three, the same age at which our
beloved Prophet (salam) left his earthly life. It was the early dawn of
Tuesday, the 28th or the 29th of Safar) [16] in 1034 AH/1624 CE. Inna
ULlahi wa inna ‘alaihi raji ‘un! Verily we are from Allah and verily we
will return to Him! His shrine has become a place of universal pilgrimage for
Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus-people of all religions go there to pay their homage
and drink that fragrant elixir wafting upward from his grave.
This is the translation of
a Persian poem on the grave of the Great Mujaddid:
by Abdul Ghani Dihlawi
O the sacred soil of the grave! [You ooze the
fragrance of] ambergris and musk!
Has become intoxicated by your [maddening]
aroma, the entire universe!
[God] the Cupbearer has nurtured you with such
frag rant essence! As a result, the people of the world!
Sane when they come to you, they leave as
drunks!
That mystery of paradise is your secret! [Such
that] the people on the surface of the earth!
[Having breathed] one breath from [that fragrance
from] you, blast off into a heavenly orbit [far above the land of sand and
dust!]
Before the Mujaddid, the progress for the
friends of Allah was limited to the level of “friendship,” walayat. Breaking
their rank, the Mujaddid progressed to the level of nubuwat, in the same
way that the four well-instructed caliphs also progressed to the level of nubuwat.
The magnum opus of the Mujaddid is the Maktubat-i-
Imam-i-Rabbani that contains a total of 536 maktubs that he sent to various
people. Among them, twenty six were written to his own sufi guide Khwaja
Baqibillah. One he wrote to the Emperor Jahangir. One he wrote to a Hindu named
Hari Rama. And the rest were written to his disciples and devotees including
two or three to his women disciples.
The Maktubat was divided into three volumes. The
first volume had three hundred and thirteen maktubs after the three hundred and
thirteen companions who fought in the battle of Badr. This number is also the
number of major prophets (rasul). This volume was called the Pearl of
Knoledge, Durru ’l-Ma ‘rifat and it was compiled by Khwaja Muhammad Jadid
Badakshi Talqani. The second volume, completed in 1019 hijri, was called the Light
of the Creation, Nuru ’l-Khala’iq compiled by Khwaja Abdul Hai. The
compiler was Khwaja Abdul Hai who was the son of the Mujaddid’s Khwaja Chakar
Hasari, wrote that the volume had ninety-nine maktubs as the number of the
attributive names (ism, sifat) of Allah is ninety- nine. In the preface,
he also wrote that he had completed it by the instruction of the Mujaddid’s
son Khwaja Muhammad Ma‘sum. The third volume, the Knowledge of the
Realities, Ma‘rifatul Haqa’iq, was compiled by Khwaja Muhammad Hashim.
Originally it had 114 mak- tubs that corresponds to the # number of the
chapters of the Koran; later 10 more were added. Since the Mujaddid died after
those ten maktubs, they were added instead of creating a new volume.
Additionally, the Mujaddid
also wrote seven monographs, risala on various topics. They are:
1.
Ithbat wa Nubuwwa: Why mankind needs prophetic revelation to know God. The
Mujaddid wrote it in Arabic, the Agra period, c.1585
2.
Ta’yyid-i Ahl-i Sunnai:'1 Refuting the Shia beliefs and establishing the
mainstream Sunnite creed. The Mujaddid wrote it in Persian, also in the Agra period.
3.
Ma ‘arif-i Ladunniya: Comments on Ibn Arabi, generally positive but sometimes
negative, even sarcastic; exaltedness of the Naqshbandi tariqa. Fa- zlur
Rahman puts it in the Agra period but he is obviously wrong; the book talks
about Naqshbandi tariqa. The Mujaddid wrote it in Persian early in the
Baqibillah period, 1597-1603.
4.
Ta ‘liqat bar Sharh-i Ruba ’iyat: Explains and comments on the Quatrains of
Khwaja Baqibillah; he showed it to the Khwaja. The Mujaddid wrote it in the
Baqibillah period in Persian.
5.
Mabda’ va Ma’ad'. There are 51 Minha or chapters on many topics. The
Mujaddid wrote it in the Baqibillah period, 1597-1603; but I think after Godgiven
Knowledge. It was also written in Persian. [17]
6.
Risala-i Tahliliya: Not Reviewed. The Mujaddid wrote it in Arabic.
7.
Mukashifat-i Ayniya’: Each chapter describes the hal on one of the 29 stations,
maqamat on the wayfaring, suluk of the Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa; he showed
it to the Khwaja; refers to the Mabda. The Mujaddid wrote it in the
later Baqibillah period, 1597-1603 in Persian.
This biography is partly sufi-inspiration taken
from the Mujaddidi book of hagiographies, Halat-i Masha ’ikh- i Naqshbandiya
Mujaddidiya and Rawdatul Qayyumia, Bengali translations, and partly
historical narratives taken from Fazlur Rahman, “Chapter 5: Shaikh Ahmad’s
Life,” in the Intikhab-i Maktubat-i Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, and Professor
Hamid Algar’s unpublished article, “Imam-i Rabbani”
Part I
CHAPTER
Preamble: Ode to Khwaja
Baqibillah
The Mujaddid wrote this maktub to Khwaja
Abdullah and Khwaja Ubaidullah , who were the two sons of his sufi teacher
Khwaja Baqibillah. Hazrat1 Mujaddid starts this maktub by showing
his respect to Khwaja Baqibillah. He first describes the exalted sufi
experiential knowledge that he gained and he acknowledges the sublime sufi
“states” that he experienced via the intermediation of Khwaja Baqibillah. He
recounts them as a mark of courtesy as he is writing to the sons of Khwaja
Baqibillah.
Praise, salutations, and conveyance of the in-
vitation toward God to the venerable and es-
teemed sons of my master! From my head
to feet, I am drowned in the beneficence (ih-
sari) of your great father [Khwaja Baqibillah] [18]
. From him, I accomplished the lessons Alef and
Beh of this tariqa and I learned the letters of the alphabet of this path. By
the blessing of his companionshipfs7//7bfl) [19]
I have attained the felicity (dawld) of
“insertion of the end in the beginning” (indiraj al- nihayat fi’l-bidaya’).
I found the felicity of “journeying in the homeland”[20] (safar dar watn) as
the alms [that he offered me] for serving him. His noble face-turning (tawajjuh)
for two and a half months made such an untrain- able[21]
person like myself [able to] receive the Naqshbandi
transmission (nisbat); it also granted me the gift of the elect presence
(hudur-i khass) of these great ones. How can I describe the
self-disclosures, the manifestations[22], the lights, the colors,
the “things without color,” and the “things without howness” (tajalliyat,
zuhu- rat, anwar, alwan, bi-rangiha, bi-kaifiha) that surfaced by his
intermediation [in this short span of time?] How can I explain them in de-
tail? [A 1.266,105.7-13] [23]
Face-turning (tawajjuh) is a sufi technical term.
Chittick translates this as “attentiveness” in The sufi Path of Knowledge-,
thus he alludes to its standard Persian meaning. But in The Self-Disclosures
of God, he translates it as “face-turning,” its literal meaning. The
section that follows elucidates the meaning of some of the more important
terms that the Mujaddid uses.
It is useful to first define the sufi technical
terms: energy or faydh, transmission or nisbat, presence or hudur,
faceturning or tawajjuh, companionship or suhbat, mediation or wasila.
These are all interrelated terms; they all refer to the experiential
supernatural “energy” or faydh of any sufi system or tariqa. This energy
flows in a supernatural channel or circuit from master to master in the lineage
or silsila.
Literally, faydh means effusion and this is how
Chittick translates it. In the sufi context, it refers to the supernatural
“energy” that flows from master to disciple. The American spiritual community
employs the word “energy” to mean this concept in their methods. I am also
using the word “energy,” as I find it more intuitive.
Literally, nisbat means “relationship.” In the sufi
context, it means the spiritual connection, the current of faydh
(analogous to a current of electricity) that flows from master to master in the
silsila along a supernatural circuit up to the disciple. Chittick translates it
as “relation” or “relationship,” and that is correct literally, but incorrect
in the sufi context. Some others translate it more accurately as “connection.”
The American spiritual community employs the word “transmission” to mean this
concept and this is also what I have chosen to use.
The sufi term bayat comes from Arabic
word for house, baif, it literally means, “the act of becoming a part of
the household [or the family].” It refers to “initiation,” the ceremony or
process by which one is connected to the nisbat of any sufi tariqa.
Generally in sufi tariqas, one holds the hands of his sufi shaykh and recites
a pledge. This process connects him to the nisbat. An English
translation for bayat may be “initiation,” but that word has a negative
connotation today because it has become associated with cults; so I sometimes
translate bayat by “opening,” meaning the process by which the door of
energy and blessing opens up to the disciple.
Hudur is literally translated as “presence. ” The presence of a
master refers to the domain where his faydh has an effect. Usually, it
is the strongest near the master.
Tawajjuh is literally translated as “face-turning.” It means,
“giving attention” in Persian/Arabic, but it also has a sufi technical meaning.
The master focuses his attention toward the disciple when he wants to give a
“face-turning” to a disciple. And in this way the disciple receives a powerful
burst of energy.
So the disciple is affected by “energy” (faydh)
from being in the “presence” (Juidur) of the master. He attains that
“presence” from being in the “companionship” (suh- bat) of the master. A
larger door of energy-transmission opens up to him when he takes the bayat.
Whatever energy he receives, he receives it via the mediation or wasila
of the master. Once in a while, the master gives him a “face-turning” or tawaijuh
and he receives a powerful burst of “energy.” When he is successful in attaining
a “transmission” or nisbat from the master, he is connected to the
continual flow of energy that flows from master to master in the “lineage” or
silsila an energy that flows along a supernatural channel.
Indeed, any lineage of any
inner discipline can be explained by the same paradigm of master-to-master metaphysical
transmission of energy. Examples include the the Jewish inner path Kabbalah,
the Hindu inner path Yoga, the Japanese inner path Zen, the Chinese inner paths
including their science of energy-cultivation through breaths called Chikung
and their system of internal martial arts like Taichi.
|
Arabic term |
English translation |
Electromagnetic analogy |
|
Faydh |
energy |
electrons, photons |
|
Hudur |
presence |
electromagnetic held |
|
Suhbat |
companionship |
being so near a magnet
that something gets magneti; |
|
Bay ya |
bayat |
clicking the switch on;
or physically turning on the t |
|
Was ila |
mediation |
node in a network |
|
tawajjuh |
face-turning |
pulse of laser, lightning
of static electricity |
|
Nisbat |
transmission |
electric current |
Table 3.1: Electromagnetic
Analogies
The name for the structured
method undertaken to reach God is suluk or wayfaring i.e. the curriculum
for each sufi tariqa. This is the first meaning of suluk. And just as
the curriculum of an educational institution is divided into courses or
grade-levels, the suluk or curriculum of a tariqa is also divided into
stations (maqam. plural maqamat). And these maqamat may
be traversed by two methods.
The first method is called suluk, meaning
wayfaring [by the seeker’s own efforts]. By this method, the sufi seeker or
student (murid, talib) takes the initiative to reach God through his own
arduous efforts. The second type is jadhdhba, in which God Himself
takes the initiative and attracts the seeker to Himself by his jadhd- attraction
) of love and the seeker reaches God effortlessly, by His grace. Therefore,
depending on the context, suluk may mean a structured system to reach
God for a particular tariqa, or one of the two methods that is employed in
those systems.
|
Arabic |
English |
sufi meaning |
Educational analogy |
|
suluk (first
meaning) |
Wayfaring- through-
a-structured- curriculum- to-reach- God |
structured,
methodical path of each tariqa |
Curriculum |
|
Maqam, pl. maqamat |
station |
each stage of
development |
grade level |
|
suluk (second
meaning) |
Wayfaring- by-the-
seeker’s- own-efforts |
One of the two
methods of wayfaring that involves arduous efforts (prayer, zikr, fasting,
etc.)to reach God |
hard rigorous studies |
|
jadhdhba |
attraction from God |
The other one
of the two methods of wayfaring where one progresses easily, without arduous
effort, by the elect grace of God |
easy studies, with a
superb teacher who explains things easily |
Table 3.2: Terms
for learning sufism
Insertion of the End in the
Beginning
Insertion of the end in the
beginning, or indiraj-i nihayat dar bidayat, is a traditional saying
that describes a unique characteristic of the Naqshbandi tariqa. The Mujaddid
himself explains why the method of this tariqa is called the “insertion of the
end in the beginning.” He wrote,
The shaykhs of the
Naqshbandi tariqa (qaf) have chosen to start their journey (sayr)
from the world of command. And they have followed that [journey] up by the
[journey in] the world of creation and that [journey] takes place next. That
[sequence] is in contrast to the shaykhs of the rest of the tariqas who begin
their journeys from the world of creation.
And after traversing the
world of creation, they place their feet into the world of command and arrive
at the station of attraction (jadhd- hba). It is for this reason that
the Naqshbandi tariqa is the nearest (aqrab) tariqa; and necessarily
the ends (nihayat) of the others have been inserted in their beginning (bidayat).
Can you foresee my rose-garden
How will it look in the spring?
[A 1.145,23.4-8]
Now what does the Mujaddid
really mean? What is journeying in the world of command? The usual method that
most tariqas employ at the beginning level is the method of suluk or
wayfaring . In that method, the subtle center of the soul, latifa-i nafs,
is illuminated first and the four elements, i.e., fire, air, water, and earth
elements are illuminated next. These five centers belong to the “world of
creation,” (’alam-i khalq). This world of creation is the seat of all
evil and corruption. The disciple takes a journey along the stations of the
sufi path, employing arduous, difficult practices, initially to cleanse those
subtle centers and then to progress beyond them-this is the method of suluk
or wayfaring.
The method of suluk is to be contrasted
with the method of jadhdhba. The Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa employs the
method of jadhdhba first-it starts with the cleansing of the subtle
center heart, qalb, and then proceeds sequentially to the four other
subtle centers of the “world of command” (’alam-i amrj. These are the
spirit or ruh, the secret heart or sirr, the arcanum or khafi,
and the super-arcanum or akhfa. The prototypes of these subtle centers
lie in the world of command that is nearer to the realm of God and so that
world is holy and pure-so these subtle centers are easier to purify. Also God’s
elect grace, as jadhdhba, purifies these centers easily and effortlessly.
This is called the method of jadhdhba.
The subtle center nafs or soul is a thing
of the world of creation; it is the seat of all evil and corruption; so aspirants
need to undertake difficult, arduous practices in order to purify their souls.
And this would take them a long time, if they even succeeded at all. After the
purification of the nafs, the aspirants undergo the purification of the
qalib or the “mold,” i.e., the physical body that consists of four
subtle centers distributed everywhere- they are the four elements: fire, water,
air, and earth. Naturally, all these centers of the world of creation take a
long time to cleanse. This method of “undertaking difficult, arduous practices
on the part of the aspirant” is called the method of suluk, or
wayfaring.
In the alternate method, that is the method of jadhdhba,
God attracts the aspirant to Himself through His love, and the aspirant
proceeds to God quickly and easily without any difficult practices. The five
subtle centers of the world of command are cleaned through the method of jadhdhba.
The prototypes of these subtle centers are in the divine la-makani or
spaceless world. The subtle centers in the human body are a mere reflection of
those sublime centers. Naturally, these subtle centers are cleansed quickly and
easily without any difficult, arduous practices on the part of the aspirant
because they are “essentially” pure.
The usual method of other
tariqas had been to cleanse the subtle centers of the world of creation before
the subtle centers of the world of command. Or undertake their suluk
before the jadhdhba. Following the usual methods, it takes aspirants
many years of arduous practice to complete their path. Many people either gave
up or died before they reached the end of the path.
|
Sequence |
Method |
World of the Subtle
Center |
Subtle Center |
|
1 |
wayfaring by the |
world of creation |
Soul or nafs |
|
2 |
seeker’s effort, or |
|
The four |
|
3 |
suluk |
|
elements: fire, |
|
4 |
|
|
air, water, earth |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
attraction from |
world of |
Super-arcanum or |
|
|
God, or jadhdhba |
command |
akhfa |
|
7 |
|
|
Arcanum or khafi |
|
8 |
|
|
Secret heart or sirr |
|
9 |
|
|
Spirit or ruh |
|
10 |
|
|
Heart or qalb |
Table 3.3: Sequence
in which the ten subtle centers are purified in other tariqas, e.g., Qadri,
Chishti, etc.
Note; In the Chishti
tariqa, the ten subtle centers exist as ten different steps, while in the Qadri
tariqa, the cleansing of the four elements is brought together as one step-their
seventh step.
Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband searched for an easier
way that would take the aspirants to Allah faster. So he begged Allah, “Allah!
Give me such a tariqa, whose students are not deprived of what they seek—You!”
Allah finally accepted his supplication and gave him the system of
God-realization that is the Naqshbandi tariqa. In this tariqa, the seeker’s
heart center, latifa al-qalb, is purified first, in the beginning of the
process. The origin of the heart center lies in the world of command, which is
the otherworldly realm that is nearer to God. So it is quite pure to begin
with. And therefore the heart center is purified easily. Then the seeker
purifies the other four lata’if of the world of command and continues on to the
nafs. Since all the lata’if of the world of command have already been purified,
the seeker already possesses a foundation on which to stand, his nafs is also
purified quite easily.
|
Sequence |
Method |
World where the subtle
center belongs originally |
Subtle center in the human
body |
|
1 |
|
|
heart or qalb |
|
2 |
|
|
spirit or ruh |
|
3 |
Attraction from |
world of |
secret heart or sirr |
|
4 |
God or jadhdhba |
command |
arcanum or khafi |
|
5 |
|
|
super-arcanum or akhfa |
|
6 |
|
world of creation |
soul or nafs |
|
|
wayfaring by the |
|
the four |
|
7-10 |
seeker’s effort, or |
|
elements: fire, |
|
|
suluk |
|
air, water, earth |
Table 3.4: Sequence
In Which The Ten Subtle Centers Are Purified In The Naqshbandi Tariqa
In the other tariqas, the jadhdhba
that is pure grace from God purifies the subtle centers of the world of command
after suluk, i.e., difficult, arduous effort on the part of the seeker,
who works to purify the five subtle centers of the world of creation. But in
the Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa, that jadhdhba comes at the very
beginning of the path. This is what “insertion of the end in the beginning”
means—jadhdhba before suluk, or the cleansing of the subtle
centers of the world of command before the subtle centers of the world of
creation.
Now, does the concept of indiraj-i
nihayat dar biday at mean that the new initiate of the Naqshbandi tariqa
is at the same level as the adepts in the other tariqas who have reached their
ends? The answer is no, because you cannot compare a new adept with an advanced
adept. But you can compare a new adept of the Naqshbandi tariqa with a new
adept in another tariqa. Then you will see that even a new adept of the
Naqshbandi tariqa has a portion of the gift that the adepts of the other
tariqas receive at the end of their path. Another way to look at it is that
while the new Naqshbandi adept may possess illumination of the heart, the
strength of his transmission (nisbat) is much weaker than the nisbat
of an advanced adept of the other tariqas who has also illuminated his heart,
but after years of arduous practice.
Still another way of
looking at it is that the jadhdhba that the aspirant realizes in the
beginning of the Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa is really the shadow (zill) of
the real jadhdhba that he realizes later. However, still he has received
a taste of it in the beginning of his path. As the Mujaddid explains,
The proposition “insertion of the end in the
beginning” (indiraj-i nihayat dar biday at) that proceed from these
[Naqshbandi] masters, some shaykhs of the other silsilas (qaf) wonder if it is
really true. They wonder what it really means.
And they do not agree with
the proposition that the beginner on this [Naqshbandi] tariqa is a peer of
those who have reached the end in the other tariqas. How surprising! How did
they interpret “insertion of the end in the beginning” to means that “the
beginner of this tariqa will be a peer of those who have reached the end in the
other tariqas?”
[The masters of the
Naqshbandi tariqa,] they have not said anything more than “insertion of the end
in the beginning.” What they have said does not indicate peerage.
Instead, it means that the
competent shaykh in this tariqa who has reached the end (muntahi), employs
his face-turning and power-of-intervention (tasarruf). And he bestows
the taste from his treasures that he had received in his last station in the
path, to the rightly-guided (rashid) beginner. And he puts the salty
taste of his own end into the beginning [of the beginner]. So where is the
peerage? Where is the room for a doubt? [A 2.43, 114.9-14]
Now Hazrat Mujaddid eulogizes his teacher by
recounting the knowledge that he learned from Khwaja Baqi- billah. He says
that he came to understand all the fine points of tawhid or monism and
all the fine variations in that doctrine via Khwaja Baqibillah’s
intermediation.
By the
blessing of his exalted face-turning, what subtle point remains within the
sciences of tawhid or monism, [and all its subtle variations e.g.,] ittihad
or unificationism, qurb or nearnessism, ma’iyat or withnessism, ihata
or encompassmentism, sarayan or penetra- tionism, etc. that he did
not disclose to me! Or he did not grant me the cognizance of its reality [i.e.,
the reality of any subtle point in those sciences of tawhid]\ [A 1.266,
105.12- 13]
Reviewing the Monist
Ontologies
Tawhid or monism refers to
the doctrine that God is “one” with the cosmos—many variant doctrines are put
together under the banner of tawhid.
One of these variants is ittihad
or unificationism — the doctrine that God is one and the same as the cosmos.
Chittick translates ittihad as “unificationism,” and that is its literal
meaning. Its technical meaning in sufi ontology is that God is merged in the
cosmos in such a way that these two cannot be distinguished from one another.
This is diametrically opposed to the Islamic doctrine that comes from the Koran
and the hadith literature, that God and the creation are distinct and separate.
Yes! If someone twists the
Koran and hadith literature to arrive at unificationism, he is indeed an
apostate. However, a sufi may “actually” see God merged in the cosmos in his
“subjective experience” and in that case he should be excused. The Mujaddid
explains that if some people such as many of the sufis following ittihad,
love a person in the extreme, i.e., God, they may not even notice the shadow.
Instead, they see only their beloved person and say that only the beloved
person exists. In that case, they may say that the shadow is “unified with”
that beloved person, or that the shadow does not exist at all; only their
beloved person exists. As the Mujaddid writes,
Mansur [Hallaj] who said “Anal
Haqq,” meant neither “I’m the Haqq” nor did he mean “I’m unified (miillahid)
with the Haqq”; for that would have made him into an apostate (kuff) who
would deserve (mujib) execution. Instead he meant that “I do not exist
and instead what [alone] exists is the Haqq (SWT)” In short, the sufis
recognize the things [of the world] as manifestations of the Haqq. (Almighty!
All-Holy!) And the locus [of manifestation] of the divine names and attributes.
However, that recognition lacks any taint of descent (tanaz- zul) or the
suspicion of change or substitution (taghayyur va labaddul).
It would be useful to
explain it with an example. If someone’s shadow falls somewhere, it cannot be
said that that shadow is “unified” with that person. Nor can it be said that
that person is “identical” ( ’ayniyyaf) with the shadow. Nor can it be
said that that person has made a “descent” (tanazzul) and appeared as
the shadow. Actually, that person is exactly what he was before, (sarafat-i
asalat- i khod) And the shadow has appeared without any “descent” or change
in him whatsoever.
There may be times that
some people do not at all see a shadow because they love the [original person]
extremely and the shadow is hidden from their sight. [As a result] they do not
see anything else but that person. In such a situation, they may say that “the
shadow is identical to that person.” [However, what they really] mean is that
“the shadow does not exist and the only thing that exists is that person.” [A
2.44, 116-7]
Therefore, if a sufi says
that he sees that the cosmos is “unified with” God, he should be excused from
the charge of apostasy.
The Mujaddid discusses more
on these monist sciences in his book Ta’liqat bar Sharh-Ruba’iyat
. His essential idea is
that these concepts that are in the Koran e.g., ihata, qurb, and others,
should be treated as mutashabihat or allegorical verses—only God and His
elect understand their hidden, mysterious meanings.
For example, ihata
or encompassmentism, is the doctrine that God encompasses the cosmos. The Koran
says, Take note! Verily He [Allah] encompasses everything (Koran
41:54). Many misguided sufis interpret “en- compassment” as a sort of a
“physical encompassment,” which is clearly wrong. However, encompassment may
indeed be interpreted in a way so as to conform to the sharia.
Hazrat Khwaja Muhammad
Ma‘thum who was the Mujaddid’s son and spiritual heir explained it even better
in his book Maktubat-i Ma’thumiya. It is written there that in a letter
to him, one of his disciples cited the verse Take note! Verily Allah
encompasses everything (Koran 54:41) and asks him to explain the nature of
this encompassment. In answer, Hazrat Ma’thum writes,
You should know that encompassment has two
meanings. [First,] you may bring encompassment down to “encompassment by
knowledge” (ihata-i ’ilmi). Some of the “verifiers” [muhaqqiqan or
God-realized sufis who have attained the sublime station of haqiqat and
“verified” this proposition via their experiential knowledge attained through
unveilings and mystic visions] hold this opinion. This is also in line with
what the noble Koran says, Verily! Indeed! Allah encompasses everything by
His Knowledge (Koran 65:12). Therefore there is no reason for you to
become bewildered or remain hesitant to accept it.
[Second,] you may also
interpret encompass- ment [literally] as “physical (bi-jism) encom-
passment.” Then I would point out that en- compassment and withness (ihata
va ma ’iyat) of the Haqq (SWT) is not the same as encom- passment of a body
by another body (jism bi-jism). [Such literal interpretation] would be
incompatiable with divine incomparability and holiness (tanzih va taqdis).
So this en- compassment should be classified as an allegory (mutashabihat).
[Then you may believe them] in the same way that you believe in [the
allegorical verses of the Koran that talk about God having] hands or a face.
Finally, the second Qayyum, Hazrat Ma’thum concludes,
He (SWT) is “all encompassing (muh.it)”
and “with us (ba ma)” but we should not be preoccupied with its nature (kayfiyat)”
7
7Khwaja Muhammad
Ma'thum, Maktubat-i Ma'thumiya, Volume III, maktub #16. I referred to
the bookMuntakhabat azMaktubat-i Ma'thumiya, (Istanbul: Ihlas Vakfl, 1979),
p. 248.
|
Arabic name |
English
translation Description |
|
Ittihad Ihata Qurb sarayan |
Uniflcationism God and the creation are unified Encompassmentism God
encompasses the entire creation Nearnessism God
is near everything in the creation Penetrationism God penetrates the creation as fragrance
penetrates the rose |
Table 3.5: Monist
Ontologies
Another ontology is qurb or
nearnessism—the doctrine that God is “near” the cosmos. As Allah says in the Koran,
VVb are nearer to him [man] than [man’s] jugular vein
(Koran 50:16). It should also be understood as a mutashabihat verse
whose meaning is beyond the limited human comprehension that most of us
possess.
Now what about the monist
ontologies that are not described in the Koran? One example is sarayan,
or penetrationism— the doctrine that God penetrates the cosmos like fragrance
penetrates the rose. The Mujaddid feels that even these verses should be
treated as mutashabihat. [24]
If we adopt this Mujaddidi
understanding, many of these monist ontologies can be brought within Islam.
The science of “oneness in
manyness” i.e., “seeing God in the many forms of the world,” or the science of
“manyness in oneness” i.e., “seeing the many forms of the world in God” are
the most sublime of the sciences that the other sufi masters teach. On the
other hand, the sciences that Khwaja Baqibillah taught the Mujaddid are far
more sublime than those false sciences of tawhid or monism; they propose
that God is beyond the cosmos.
Witnessing
“oneness in manyness” (wahdat darkathrat) or “manyness in oneness” (kathrat
dar wahdat) are only the preliminaries and beginnings (muqaddamat va
mubadi) of this science [the science of dualism that one realizes in this
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa]. In short, where the Naqshbandi transmission and
the elect presence (hudur-i khass) of these great ones [the masters of
the Naqshbandi tariqa] are present, there even a name of these [antisharia
monist] sciences should come to the tongue. Nor even a sign of these [false]
wit- nessings or unveilings [that suggest that God is identical with the
cosmos] should be discussed. If someone still does it, then [it means that]
his gaze is toward the low [levels of knowledge.]
Shuhud: Here witnessing or shuhud means
direct experiential knowledge. It is often used synonymously with unveiling,
i.e., kashf or mukashafa'[25]
another synonym is dhawq or “tasting.”
Now the Mujaddid extols the superiority of the
Naqshbandi tariqa, as being devoid of false sufi sciences that contravene the
sharia e.g., the doctrine that God is one with the cosmos, and because its
science is free from the abominable practices of the dancers who conduct
deviant sufi practices that contravene the sunna e.g., loud zikr, dancing,
singing, etc.
The abode of the practices
of these great ones [the masters of the Naqshbandi tariqa] is lofty! These
[practices] are not at all like [the practices of] the charlatans (-.arraqi)
[who disseminate false sufi sciences that contravene the sharia] or [the
practices of] the dancers [who conduct deviant sufi practices e.g. dancing
that contravene the sunna]. Since I have received such a kind of sublime
felicity [as the transmission of this most high Naqshbandi tariqa] from [your
father] Hazrat [Baqibillah] , then even if I lay my head on the feet of your
servants of your court, for them to trample upon it for my entire life, still
I would have done nothing!
The Mujaddid again engages is some polite
hyperbole. He apologizes for not being more attentive to the two sons of his
master and he shows his gratitude for his sufi brother Khwaja Husamuddin Ahmad
who has been taking care of those two brothers.
What shall I present about
my shortcomings? What shall I reveal of my shame? May the grant good
compensation to the Authority of the Gnostic Sciences, Khwaja Husamuddin Ahmad!
[26]
On our behalf, he has taken upon himself the charge of defective ones like us.
He has resolved to serve the servants of this exalted doorstep courageously.
And he has given reprieve to us, the ones who have gone astray from the path.
If there were a tongue on every hair on my
body
Still I would not be able to show a
thousandth of the gratitude that he deserves.
[A 1.266, 105.15-106.3]
Hazrat Mujaddid lays the groundwork for writing
this maktub; he recounts that Khwaja Baqibillah had him start teaching as a
sufi teacher to his two sons, and he had instructed him to take care of them.
Three times I have been
honored with the felicity of kissing the doorstep of his Hazrat [Baqibillah],
The last time, he told me, “I have become very weak physically and I don’t
expect to live much longer! Do look after my children!” Then he brought you
before him. At that time, you were with your wet- nurse. He instructed me to
give you my faceturning. At his instruction, I gave you my face-turning before
him. It was such a strong face-turning that clear traces of it were observed.
Next he instructed me to give a faceturning to your mother. At his
instruction, I also gave my face-turning to your mother while she was [behind a
curtain and] unseen.
I hope that by the blessing
of giving those face-turnings in his [Khwaja Baqibillah’s] presence, they [my
face-turnings] will bear many fruits.
Do not presume that I have
forgotten his instructions or his last wish. His instruction must be obeyed
and his last wish must be fulfilled! Nor am I neglecting them. Certainly not!
Instead I have been waiting for your sug- gestion and permission. Now I am
writing a few lines in the way of advice. [A 1.266, 106.3-10]
Trace (athar, pl. athar)
is term used by Ibn Arabi to refer to a phenomenon in the cosmos, i.e., the
things, the entities, the forms, and so forth. They are the “effects” of God
exercising His influence. Chittick translates athar as “effect” in SPK,
but he changes it to “trace” in SDG. He writes that the reason for this
was that “effect” hints toward a cause and effect relationship and that was inaccurate.
So “trace,” which lacks that connotation, is a more appropriate word.
Part II
CHAPTER
The Creed
The Mujaddid begins his lessons on the sharia and the
Naqshbandi tariqa, to the two sons of his shaykh by stressing the importance
of adhering to the creed of the mainstream Sunni community.
May
Allah (SWT) make you happy! Now listen with inner awareness ! For intelligent
people, the first obligation is to rectify their creed with the required
doctrines of the mainstream Sunni community (ahl-i sunnat va jama ‘at) that
is the saved sect (praise be to Allah who has kept me with it) and these
doctrines are indeed correct. Now I am clarifying some of these doctrines that
are somewhat hard to understand. [A 1.266, 106.10-13]
Sunnis-many people these days define Sunni by
what the Shias conceive to be Sunni, i.e., anyone who is not a Shia. Indeed,
the Shias hold that the Wahhabis, a non-
Sunni sect who call themselves Salafis, are the
most extreme Sunnis because they are strongly against the Shias. On the other
hand, what the Mujaddid means by Sunni is how the Sunni ulama define a
Sunni-someone who believes in the Sunni creed. Thus a Mutazila or a salafi,
although they are not Shia, still are not Sunni because they do not believe
in the necessary creed of the Sunnis.
These definitions/translations may be adopted:
mainstream
Sunni community: ahl-i sunnat va jama'at
Salafis: this includes all the reformist sects that believe in the
four caliphs but do not support the required tenets of the mainstream Sunni
community.
Shia/Mawdudists:
Those who denigrate the companions of Prophet Muhammad (including followers of
the modern Pakistani reformer Mawdudi, who denounces some of the companions in
his book Khilafat O Mulqiyat and elsewhere).
Table 4.1: The Sects of
Islam today
I have translated firqa ’ as “sect.”
While it is true that the term sect is somewhat outdated, and has a negative
connotation, I prefer it. In addition, it is still being used by some
first-class translators today. For example, Professor R. J. McCarthy uses it in
his superb translation, Al-Ghazali’s Path to Sufism.
The Mujaddid proposes that Allah exists by His
person (dhat), not by His existence (wujud). By this, he opposes
two groups. First, he opposes Imam Ashari and some sufis including Ibn Arabi,
who propose that divine existence is identical
to His person. Second, he opposes the Muslim philosophers of the faylasuf
tradition who proposed that God exists by His attribute of existence that is
“additional” to His existence 1
While thesefaylasufs called God the
“Necessary Being,” by this they meant “an actual being whose nonexistence is
not only ‘not a fact’ but an unthinkable absurdity.” However, those
philosophers also affirmed the attribute of existence of God and that He exists
by this attribute of existence. [27]
[28]
Indeed,Avicenna coined term wajib al-wujud,
but he meant that God only possessed the attribute of existence necessarily.
On the other hand, the created things may or may not possess the attribute of
existence- if they do possess that attribute then they exist.
|
faylasuf tradition |
Ashari / Ibn Arabi |
Mujaddid |
|
God’s existence is
“additional” to His |
God’s existence |
God exists “by” His |
|
person i.e. He exists by
that attribute of |
is “identical” |
person, not by His |
|
existence that is
additional to His person |
to His person |
attribute of existence |
Table 4.2: Three
Opinions in the Theory of Existence
You should know that Allah
(SWT) exists by His holy person (bi-dhat-i muqaddas-i khod mawjud ast)
and everything else exists by His bestowal of existence (ijad).[A
1.266,106.13- 14]
The Mujaddid writes that the ulama of the
mainstream Sunni community have proposed that God exists by His person, not by
His attribute of existence. He elaborates on this point in his monograph, Mabda
’ va Ma ‘ad and writes,
How eloquently have the
Sunni ulama said, “The existence of the Necessary (SWT) is additional (za’id)
to His (SWT) person (dhat)”
To claim that the existence
is identical to the person or to establish nothing beyond existence is a
result of a defect in the considerativo faculty (nazar).
Shaykh ‘Ala’uddawla
[Simnani] has said, “Beyond the world of existence lies the world of the
loving Lord (malikul wadud)” [Mabda‘ 11, 18.1-4]
In the Mabda’, he writes even more. The Mujaddid proposes
that God exists by his “person, dhat”, not by his “existence, wujud”.
He writes,
The Necessary Being (SWT)
is unique in that that He exists by His own person and He need not depend on
His [attribute of] existence in order to exist. It does not matter whether we
maintain that the divine existence is identical to the divine person ( ‘ain-i
dhat) or additional to the person (za’id-i dhat). [Mabda 19, 39]
He also writes,
The Haqq (SWT) exists by (mawjud)
by His own person (dhat), not by His existence (wujud). That is
unlike the others things that exist by existences. So He (SWT) does not need to
exist by His existence.
And he contrasts it with Ibn Arabi who proposes
that the divine existence is “identical” to the divine person
[Ibn Arabi] has proposed
that divine existence “identical ( ‘in) to the divine person, not “additional
(z.a'idj' to it. So God does not need to depend on something else to
exist.
Now the Mujaddid comments on this matter.
However, we need solid
evidence to prove that the divine existence is identical to the person. And
also we will have to face the opposition of many scholars of the mainstream
Sunni community. Because these great masters do not propose that the [divine]
existence is identical [to the divine person]. Instead they recognize the
[divine] existence to be “additional (z.a'idj' to [divine] person.
We should not forget that
if we rule on the “additionality of existence (ziyadat-i wujud)”, then
it necessitates that the Necessary needs others. However, if we propose on that
He (SWT) exists by His own person and take this existence as an “ordinary
qualifier ( ‘ard-i ‘am)” then it appears that the statement of many mu-
takallimun (kalam-scholars) of the “people of truth” is correct. And that
objection [to the Mujaddid’s proposition] that the opponents make on the ground
of [God] needing others vanishes. And the difference between these two
propositions becomes clear, i.e., [the proposition] that the Necessary (SWT)
exists by
His own person but [the divine attribute of]
existence truly cannot enter there and [the proposition] that He exists by His
own existence but this existence is established to be identical to His person.
Mujaddid
God exists by
His own existence but this existence is identical to His person
Table 4.3: Existence of
God: Ibn Arabi versus the Mujaddid
This
knowledge is an elect knowledge that Allah (SWT) has uniquely granted me.
Praise to Allah (SWT) for this [great gift], and salutation and peace to His
messenger} [Mabda 18, 38-9]
A Review of Basic Concepts in
Ontology
In Aristotelian ontology,
the first thing that we consider is “substance.” It refers to the things or
objects that the ontologist is concerned about, e.g., John, Robert, man, tiger,
and so on. “Primary substance” is any “individual thing,” e.g., a specific and unique
John, Robert, a particular man, a particular tiger, etc. “Secondary substance”
is what we get after abstracting one level, e.g., the class called man, or the
class called tiger, and so on.
Substance is called jawhar
is Arabic that originates. The Arabic word jawhar comes from Persian gawhar,
jewel. It refers to the idea that the substance is the most valuable thing,
i.e., the primary subject of consideration for the ontologist.
The Arabic philosophical
term mahiya, that literally means “what-is-it-ness,” is translated as
“essence” - in keeping with modern English usage. It means the definition of a
thing, i.e., the concept that defines a thing intrinsically or the set of
attributes that make a thing what it is necessarily. It consists of qualities
that are intrinsic to it, which are called “essential attributes.” For example,
all roses have petals. So the attribute of “having petals” is an essential
attribute of rose, and a part of the “essence” of rose.
Aristotle held that essence
is more important than existence. He reasoned that we ask the question “What is
it?” even before we ask “Does it exist?” Muslim philosophers who followed
Aristotle reasoned along the same lines. Averroes (Ibn Rushd), who lived in
medieval Spain, diverged from this trend and affirmed the primacy of existence
over essence. Mulla Sadra, the seventeenthcentury Muslim Iranian philosopher,
broke away from that tradition as well. Averroes and Mulla Sadra, they both
reasoned that only after we know that it exists, do we even bother to wonder,
“What is it?”
Attribute or sifat
refers to property of a thing. Sifat may be an intrinsic part of the
thing, i.e., a part of its essence, in which case it may be called an essential
attribute. Or it may be an accidental attribute, i.e., something that is not
an essential part of the essence but instead something accidental or
additional to it. In the case of an accidental attribute, the thing may or may
not possess that attribute and even if the thing does not have that attribute,
it is still that thing. For example, a rose may or may not possess the
attribute of being of the color red. Here, the color red is an “accidental
attribute” or an “accident” of the rose and not a part of the essence of the
rose. On the other hand, having petals is an “essential attribute” or part of
the essence of the rose.
When we talk about God, the
term attribute or sifat refers to a reified attribute that has external
existence. This is not at all like the human conception of attributes. However,
God does have other subtler forms of attributes that lack external existence
and are more like human attributes in that way. The first level of subtler
attribute is “mode” or shan and the second level that is even subtler is
“crossing-over” or i ‘tibar.
A “particular” or juz
‘iya is best defined by defining what it is not. It is not an abstraction;
it is something that is concrete. It is also not “multiply-instantiated” rather
it is one-of-a-kind or unique. For example, Socrates is “not an abstraction”;
instead he was concrete. Additionally, he was “not multiply-instantiated”;
rather he was unique. So Socrates is a “particular.”
A “universal” or kulliya
refers to the “universal” essence that is contained in a class, genus, or
species of primary substances. That is, the universal is something that is not
an individual, e.g., the class of beings called man (as opposed to the
particular individual named John).
Most scholars[29]
translate dhat as ’’essence,” especially when it refers to God; but I
am using “person.” In Islamic philosophy, dhat may mean any one of these
four things: 1) essence or mahiya, 2) existence or wujud, 3)
thatness or anniya, or 4) substance or jawhar. Instead of
preoccupying ourselves with the meaning of these terms, we ought to note that
while “essence or mahiya” is a mere concept that does not have
external existence, dhat is externally existent. This is one reason that
I have chosen to translate dhat of God, Who is necessarily externally
existent, with the word “person” rather than “essence.”
The Mujaddid stresses that
God is inherently unique; He is incomparable; He is transcendent.
He (SWT) is beyond the
beyond and then beyond the beyond and the beyond the beyond and still then
beyond the beyond. (faHua sub- hanaHu wara ’ al-wara ’ thumma wara ’ al-wara
’ thumma wara ’ al-wara ’ thumma wara ’ al-wara ’). [A 2.1,3.15]
Like His person, His
attributes and acts are also unique, incomparable, and transcendent.
The person, the attributes,
and the act of God are unique. No one can be “truly” associated with Him in
any matter—with respect to existence or with respect to something else.
However, we are not concerned with a nominal commonality or a verbal
correlation.
Note: Here I am translating
af‘al as “act” instead of “acts” when it comes in the context of how the
Mujaddid means it. While Imam Ashari understands it to mean multiple acts, the
Great Mujaddid understands it to mean one single all-inclusive act. God may
have such a nominal comparison but never a true comparison with the created
things.
His attributes and act
(like His person) are also “without what manner” (bi-chuni) and “without
how” (bi-cheguneh). They have no correlation with the attributes and
acts of contingent things. [A 1.266, 106.14-17]
The Mujaddid quotes this poem to illustrate it:
What will we say about the name of this
bird?
Who lives in the same nest along with the
‘anqa
Before man, it is named the ‘anqa
For my bird, that name is still hidden [30]
The Mujaddid writes more on the divine incomparability
in his Maktubat. There he wrote:
Allah is indeed perfect and
exalted (kamalahu subhanahu). However, He (SWT) is also beyond these
two attributes. Indeed, He (SWT) is beyond all the names and attributes (jami
‘il asma’ wa ’l-sifat), beyond all the modes and “crossing overs” (jami
‘il shu ’un wal i ‘tibarat), beyond manifestation and non-manifestation (zuhur
wa ’l-butun), beyond “coming out in the open” and “becoming hidden” (buruz
wa ’Ikumuri), beyond self-disclosures and manifestations (tajalliyat wa
’l-zuhurat), beyond all that where one arrives and where one is made to
arrive (mawsulin wa mafsulin), beyond witnessings and unveilings (mushadat
wa ’l-mukashafat), beyond all sensory things and intelligible things (mahsus
wa ’l-ma ‘qui), beyond all illusory things and imaginalized things (mawhum
wa ’l-mutakhayyal), and He
(SWT) is beyond the beyond,
then beyond the beyond and still then beyond the beyond. [A 2.1,3]
In the Mabda ’ va Ma ‘ad, the Mujaddid wrote,
We do not worship a God who
comes within the compass of witnessing (shuhud), can be seen, or can be
known or can be imagined or conceived. Because that what can be witnessed,
seen, known, imagined or conceived (mash-hud, mar‘i, ma‘lum, mawhum,
mutakhayyul)- that is a crafted and newly-originated (inasnii ‘ va
muhdath) thing just like him who witnesses, sees, knows, imagines or
conceives [i.e. man],
I am searching for that morsel
Which is more than a mouthful
[Mabda 20, 41]
The Mujaddid writes even
more on God’s incomparability with the creation in his monograph Mabda’ va
Ma‘ad. There he explains that the Koranic verses that compare God with the
creation are really allegorical verses.[31] He also explains that we
really do not know what those comparisons mean.[32]
Knowledge: The
Chrono-Epistemology
The Mujaddid offers his
unique solution to a quandary in the science of kalam, the science that
could be most likened to the Muslim analogue of theology. We hold that divine
knowledge never changes but we do see that the information on objects does
change with time (as the objects themselves undergo change), so how can this
contradiction be rationalized?
In answer, the Ashari
school of kalam proposes that while God does possess the attribute of knowledge
and that knowledge is indeed timeless, that divine mind possesses one piece of
information for each moment, for each object of knowledge. As a result, for
each object of knowledge, the knowledge, i.e., the sum total or the entire body
of information on it does not change; instead what may change is how that
knowledge relates to the object of knowledge. The information on that object
may change to a new and different piece of information as the moment of time
changes. Or in their terminology, the divine mind’s ta‘alluq or attachment
with the object shifts to a new ta ‘alluq as time changes. [33]
On the other hand, the
Mujaddid proposes a unique chrono-epistemology- that the divine mind “comes to
know” each object of knowledge for the entire eternity in only a single event.
Or in the Muj addidi terminology, the divine mind has only one ta ‘alluq
or attachment with each object for all of eternity.
Note: Is it correct to say
God “knows” or “has known?” From the standpoint of God, He may only “know,”
since He lives in a timeless realm. So in that context, I am using the term
“God knows.” However, from the viewpoint of man, “God has known.” Because when
He has known is in our past. So in that context, I am using “God has known.”
Note: Ta'alluq means
an attachment, deep connection, or relationship. But this attachment is from a
principal to the subsidiary; from the prototype to the shadow; from the
original to the derivative. In this context, it refers to the “the connection
through which (or roughly the event when) the divine mind comes to know the information
on the objects of divine knowledge.”
Now let’s go back to leam from the Mujaddid.
For example, let’s take the
attribute of knowledge. It is a divine attribute that is truly eternal (qadim)
and “indivisible” [34]
(basit-i) and it never has any multiplicity in that way [such that it
could be dissected into constituent parts such as, knowledge of moment 1,
knowledge of moment 2, and so on]. It is only “subjectively”(Z?z- i‘tibaf)
[in the sight of human beings who live in time] that it [the divine mind] has
multiple ta ‘alluq. [A 1.266, 106.17-,18]
It is only subjectively,
i.e., in the sight of human beings who live in time, that the divine mind has
multiple ta ‘alluq or attachments with an object of His knowledge. That
is, it is only subjectively that the divine mind comes to know each object of
God’s knowledge on a moment- by-moment basis. In that case, the divine mind has
one attachment or ta ‘alluq for each moment. For example, human beings
see that something happens to that object in moment 1, the next thing happens
in moment 2, and so on. So it seems that what God “comes to know” about that
object changing as time progresses. Actually, that interpretation is not true,
because God is timeless. Instead, what is true is that God comes to know each
object of His knowledge only once for all eternity and that single channel of
knowing includes all the information on that object for all eternity. That is,
God comes to know all the information on that object, all at once, in that
eternal timeless instant in which the object lives.
For there is only one
instance of being unveiled (inkishaf) that is indivisible (basit)-
all the knowledge from the beginning of eternity to the end of eternity has
been unveil in that same instance of unveiling. He has known everything in
their similar and contradictory states, universally, or particularly (kulliya
va juz’iya) for each specific moment in time- He has known all that in that
“indivisible” one- in-all (wahidbasit) [moment], [A 1.266,106.18- 20]
Here I am using the past
tense to refer to God’s knowledge. Yes! God only “knows” as He lives in a
realm which is the realm of perpetual present. But from the context of man, God
has “known” because when He came to know that, that time was in our past.
Above, the Mujaddid affirms
that God knows everything- both universals and particulars. That contradicts a
group otfaylasufs who proposed that God knows only the universals but
not the particulars.
Note: The philosophical
term “universal” describes a common attribute that refers to all the members of
a group, e.g., all tigers are brave. A “particular” describes one instance of
an attribute, e.g., Ali is brave. So those deviant philosophers proposed that
while God knows the universal: “All men will die one day;” He does not know the
particular, “The day when Ali will die.”
In that very same moment, he has known Zayd
[i.e., John Doe] both as existent and also as nonexistent, as an embryo and
also as a child, as young and also as old, as alive and also as dead, as
standing and also as sitting, as reclining and also as sitting, as laughing
and also as crying, in pleasure and pain, as exalted and also as ashamed, in
the grave (barzakh) and, also on the Day of the Mustering, in Paradise
and also immersed in pleasures.[A 1.266,107.1- 4]
There is no more than one ta
‘alluq for all the objects of God’s knowledge and that single ta‘alluq
attaches all the information on the objects of knowledge to divine knowledge
for all eternity. If there were multiple time-periods in the domain of God,
there could be multiple ta ‘alluqs. However, there is a single
all-inclusive time-period in the timeless domain of God, and so consequently,
there is only a single all-inclusive ta ‘alluq.
Therefore,
there is no more than one ta ‘alluq in that homestead. [And there is
only one ta‘alluq] since a multiplicity in the ta‘alluqs requires a
multiplicity in moments and a multiplicity in the peiod of time (azmaneh). [A
Yes! In the timeless domain
of God, there are no multiple moments; instead there is only one timeless
time-period that stretches from the beginning of eternity to the end of
eternity. So there are no “manyness” or no multiple time-periods; instead there
is only one all-inclusive eternal period of time.
However, there is nothing
but one-in-all “indivisible” moment (arum wahidatun basitun) from the
beginning of eternity until the end of eternity
[in the timeless domain of God], And there truly is no multiplicity in time
[since there is no more than a single eternal moment of time in the timeless
domain of God], For time does not flow before Him (SWT)- there is neither any
prior nor any posterior.[A
Consequently, there is only
one single all-inclusive all- encompassing all-spanning ta‘alluq. And that
ta‘alluq will be of an unknown nature from the viewpoint of us, the earthlings
who live in time.
Should we, in His mind, establish any ta
‘alluq to the objects of God’s Knowledge,[35] it will be a single ta
‘alluq, which will attach with itself all the information [to be known for
the entire eternity]. That ta‘alluq would also be “unknown in its
howness,” majhul al-kayfiyat, [i.e., of an unknown nature] And that
ta‘alluq can be qualified as bi-chuni va bi-cheguni, “without what
manner” and “without how,” just like with what the attribute of knowledge can
be qualified.[A 1.266, 107.7-8]
Naqid and didd'. it is useful to review our
logic and define the terms contradictory, naqid, and contrary, didd.
Contradictory or naqid means two opposites that cannot both be true (so
they are mutually exclusive), but at least one of them must be true (for they
are totally exhaustive). On the other hand, contrary or didd means two
opposites that are only mutually exclusive. Two contraries both cannot be true,
only one of them may be true; but they are not mutually exhaustive and
therefore both may be false. So “contradictory” is a subset of “contrary.”
Note that wahid has
been translated as “one-in-all.” It refers to a “one” that is “all-inclusive,”
one that maybe composed of components. It stands in contrast to ahad that
means an absolute or numerical oneness, i.e., “one- in-number.”
The two very similar terms bi-chuni
and bi-cheguni have been translated as “without what manner” and “without
how” respectively.
In the continuation of the
interpretation of the maktub, the Mujaddid next explains how God knows all the
information on an object for multiple moments simultaneously. To explain this,
he brings forth an example from Arabic grammar: “When a grammatically educated
man knows a word in Arabic, he simultaneously knows all the variant
morphological forms of that original word. So if a mere mortal can hold many
pieces of contradictory information in his mind concurrently, why can’t God?”
By way of an example, we
know that an individual [educated in Arabic grammar] knows an [Arabic] word in
the same moment [in its variant morphological forms, e.g., in the forms denoting]
several different parts of speech, several different tenses, or several
different moods. That is, at that same moment, he knows that word in its noun
forms, its verb forms, its preposition forms, its three-letter forms, its
four-letter forms, in its fully-declined forms or in its indeclinable forms, in
its diptote forms or non-diptote forms, in its trip tote forms or its
non-triptote forms. Or he may know it [that Arabic word] in its definite forms
or in its indefinite forms. Or he may know it in its present tense forms or in
its past tense forms. Or he may know it in its affirmative forms or in its
negative forms. So we can believe that the individual, at the same moment, sees
all these forms that are in different parts of speech and different moods reflected
in the mirror that is the prototype form. That is, all these contradictory
things may be present at the same time in the mind of a contingent being [a
man who is educated in Arabic grammar], or instead in the sight of a
contingent being [or man]. Then why should that be impossible even in the mind
of the Necessary whose analogy is most sublime? Allah has the highest analogy!
So how will be there a conflict? [A 1.266, 107.8-15]
The Mujaddid explains that
for an object, while the information on each particular moment in created
earthly time may be different than the information on another moment, still
that information is unique for each moment. And since God’s knowledge includes
both the earthly moment of time as well as the information for that moment of
time, there is no conflict. An easy way to visualize this may is to imagine
that there is a “snapshot” of the cosmos for each moment of time. And all these
snapshots are placed before God, who is timeless. So it is not that God knows
the “future”; rather past, present, and future are all placed before Him, who
lives in a timeless moment that is beyond time. This is much easier to visualize
when one reads the theory in modern physics that time is not indivisible, that
it is composed of “quanta” i.e., units called Planck time. Then one can easily
visualize that God, who is above time, has a “snapshot” of the cosmos placed
before Him for each quanta of time, i.e., Planck time. Ibn Arabi also believed
in a “quantum theory of time,” he refers to each quanta of time (or Planck
time) as al-zaman al-fard.w And it seems that the Muslim
kalam scholars, like the Asharis and ihe/hv- lasufs also believed in
this way.
You should
know that although it appears that there is a conflict, actually there is not
any conflict. This is because in one and the same moment, He knows Zayd both as
existent and nonexistent; He also knows in that same moment that Zayd came to
exist after 1000 AH, that Zayd had been nonexistent before and that Zayd ceased
to exist after 1100 AH. So there is actually no conflict [since those events
occur in different times.] The same reasoning can explain the other conflicts
[in this section on divine knowledge]. So understand! .[A
1.266, 107.15-19] {insert object
1-two diagrams}
The Mujaddid compares and
contrasts the three theories of time of the three schools: the faylasufs,
the Ashari and the Muj addidi school. First, the Islamicate philosophical
tradition or the. faylasuf tradition proposed that God lives in time and
He learns new things as they occur in time. Second, the Ashari tradition
proposes that while God is timeless Himself, His ta ‘alluq or “relationship
with a created thing” may shift to a new relationship over earthly time.
Third, the Mujaddid proposes that God’s knowledge is timeless; it does not
change over time. Since God lives in a timeless (la-zamani) domain, he
is not subservient to time and instead time is His cre-
10Chittick,
William, The Self-Disclosure of God, p. 98. ation. There is only a single, “indivisible,”
eternal period of time that may be “called a moment for the lack of a better
word; but it is not even a moment.” As my sufi shaykh explained, “In this
world, time is ever-flowing and there is really no ‘present’; it is either the
past or the future. We blink our eyes and things either happened before the
blink of our eye or will happen after the blink of our eye. On the other hand,
in the next world, there is neither past nor future. In that realm, there is
only one, uninterrupted, continuous period of time, it is the perpetual
present.” 11 Divine knowledge is time-
|
Philosophers |
Asharis Mujaddid |
|
God lives in
time and He learns new things as they occur in time. |
God’s knowledge is God’s knowledge is timeless itself. timeless; it does not However, the ta‘alluq change over time or relationship that because He already divine knowledge has
knows what happens with a created thing to
any object for each may shift to a new moment, from the relationship over beginning of eternity earthly time. For each
until the end of temporal object, eternity, divine knowledge knows
it through one ta ‘alluq for moment I, another ta‘alluq for
moment 2, and so on. |
Table 4.4: Chrono-epistemologies:
A Comparison
less. No part of His
knowledge is created in time or newly originated (hadith.). There are
many particulars of God’s all-encompassing knowledge- one particular for each
unique object of knowledge. And divine knowledge [36]
has one ta‘alluq for
each unique object of knowledge. In that context, divine knowledge has many ta
‘alluqs. That context stands in contrast to the Ashari context. In the
Ashari context, for each object, God’s knowledge has one ta‘alluq for
each moment of time. So each one of these Ashari ta ‘alluqs is newly
originated. But the Mu- jaddidi ta‘alluqs are different, they are
timeless.
This
verification clarifies that although God’s knowledge has many ta ‘alluq
with various particulars [of that knowledge where each particular refers to
the information for a unique moment of time], still knowledge is not tainted
by a taint of modification (taghayyur). [A
The chrono-epistemology of
the faylasufs is wrong. They maintained that God’s knowledge is created
in time, not timeless. God lives in time and He leams new things as time
progresses- things that He did not know beforehand,
And even a suspicion of
newly-originatedness (huduth) should not be found in that divine
attribute [of knowledge]as the philosophers- maintain. [A 1.266, 107.20-108.1]
The Mujaddid proposes that
God’s knowledge is primordial and none none should even suspect that even a
part of that knowledge is originated newly, i.e., God would leam something new
that He did not know beforehand. The philosophers of \hc faylasuf tradition
maintain that God lives in time and He comes to leam new information as time
elapses. But the Mujaddid denies that.
The Mujaddid continues,
When things are known one
after another you may conceive a change in the predestination.
[A 1.266, 108.1-2]
The Mujaddid explains that
when things are known one after another sequentially in a linear model of time,
we may conceive a change in predestination or God’s foreknowledge of future
things. That would be a chronoepistemology wherein God lives in time and comes
to know new information as He traverses through time- just like human beings
do.
However, the
chrono-epistemology that follows the Mujaddid’s verification is quite different
and there lies no possibility of new or modified information.
[On the other hand, in this
alternative scenario which is a holistic model of time,] all is known in a
single moment so there is no possibility of any modified or newly originated
information. [A 1.266, 108.2]
According to the Muj addidi
science, God lives in a timeless domain and so His Knowledge is also timeless.
God comes to know all and every bit of information encompassing past, present,
and future is in a single primordial moment so there is no possibility of
having any information that is modified in time.
Verification (tahqiq)
refers to the knowledge of the great sufis who have “verified” the truth of
their knowledge through unveiling, kashf, or direct vision or witnessing,
mushahadat. Epistemologically, this is contrasted with ijtihad,
individual striving for the interpretation of the law, and also with taqlid,
following the authority of the learned predecessors. In the Self-Disclosure
of God, Chittick introduces a new translation of this term, namely,
“realization”; this brings home the meaning of tahqiq more accurately.
But “realization” is a common word used in a number of non-technical senses. So
to avoid confusion, I employ the word that he used in the sufi Path of
Knowledge, “verification.”
Newly originated (hadith)
refers to something was not pri-mordially existent i.e. that has been created
in time. It is to be contrasted with eternal (qadim). Chittick
translates it as “temporally originated” in SPK; but he changes it to
“newly-arrived” in SDG. I am using “newly originated” instead.
If we agree to the Muj
addidi chrono-epistemology, the Ashari chrono-epistemology becomes irrelevant.
The Asharis propose their chrono-epistemology so that they can defend against
the arguments of the philosophers, “How can God know several conflicting pieces
of information for the same thing at the same time? Then there are conflicts.
Or how can He learn new knowledge? Then His knowledge is not unchanging.”
However, in the Mu- j addidi chrono-epistemology, there is no conflict because
God knows both the particular moment of time and the information on the object-
both pieces of information— for each moment of time in eternity.
So the Mujaddid continues,
That way, there is no need
to establish multiple ta ‘alluqs for it so that modification and
newly-originatedness (taghayyur va huduth) can be attributed to those ta'alluqs
instead of the attribute of knowledge. That is what some scholars of the
science of kalam propose in order to negate the reservations of the
philosophers. [A 1.266, 108.2-4]
The Mujaddid explains that
that way, there is no need to establish the Ashari chrono-epistemology where
there are multiple ta ‘alluqs for the divine attribute of knowledge. In
such a case, there would be one ta ‘alluq or “attachment of coming to
know” for each moment, for each object of divine knowledge. Ashari scholars of
the science of kalam propose this traditional chrono-epistemology so that they
could defend against the arguments of the faylasufs. who argued, “How
can the Asharis say that the divine knowledge becomes modified?” Therefore, in
this way, the Asharis would not have to say that the divine attribute of
knowledge itself undergoes modification. Instead, they could say that it is
those ta‘alluqs which become modified and are newly originated.
However, employing that Ashari
chrono-epistemology is not really necessary; the Mujaddid’s alternative chrono-
epistemology
On the other hand, when man looks at the world,
he indeed sees multiple ta‘alluq (each ta‘alluq for each event of coming
to know).
Take note! It is fine if we establish that objects
of God’s knowledge [i.e., man] themselves have multiple ta‘alluq. (Ari!
Agar ta ‘addud- i ta‘alluqat dar janib-i ma‘lumat ithbat ku- nim gunjaish
darad) [A 1.266, 108.4]
Yes ! Man indeed may come
to know each object of his knowledge through multiple channels of coming to
know, one channel for each moment. However, man is not like God. He is
Incomparable! He is timeless! He is beyond having any similarity with man, with
respect to time as in other matters. As the Mujaddid explained,
[God is] not a creature of time because time is
His creation (zamani nist keh zaman makhluq- i Ust\” [A 1.167, 50.9]
And God who is timeless
“comes to know” each object “only once” for the single timeless moment in the
necessary domain that comprises the entire eternity in the contingent domain.
On the other hand, man as a creature of time may come to know things through
many events or channels as he lives in time.
Another interpretation of the hard-to-interpret
line above may be as follows.
Yes! If we establish multiple ta‘alluq
[from divine knowledge] to the objects of God’s knowledge then it would be
fine. (Ari! Agar ta ‘addud- i ta‘alluqat dar janib-i ma‘lumat ithbat ku- nim
gunjaish darad) [A 1.266, 108.4]
This is a scenario where each ta ‘alluq
comes down to a unique object of God’s knowledge; and since there is more than
one object of God’s knowledge, there is more than one ta ‘alluq.
However, please remember that more than one ta ‘alluq from divine
knowledge to a certain object of God’s knowledge is not allowed in a scenario
in which each ta ‘alluq refers to a unique moment of time. This is
because there are no multiple moments of time; instead there is only one
’’indivisible” moment of time for God.
The Great Mujaddid describes elsewhere the timelessness
of God, as discussed in the above chrono-epistemology. He wrote, explained
above suffices.
You should know that among
those contingent beings who have realized the station of nearness (qurb)
of the divinity (ilahi) (SWT), those ones who have stepped their feet
outside the circle of contingentness (dai’ira’-i imkan) find the
beginningless beginning and the endless end (azal va abad) unified (muttahid)
together.
While on his stations of
ascent (maqamat- i ‘uruj) on the night of Heavenly Ascension (miraj),
Hazrat [Muhammad] the Seal of the Messengers (salam) found Hazrat Jonah in the
belly of the fish. And he found the storm of Hazrat Noah taking place, (salam)
And he saw the people of paradise in the paradise and the people of hell in
hell. He found five hundred years [of earthly time] equal to half a day after
entering the paradise. [The Prophet] saw a rich companion named Abdur Rahman
ibn Auf[37]
entering paradise late, so Hazrat Prophet asked him the reason for coming late
and he gave news of his own trials and tribulations ( ‘aqibat va mihn)
[that he suffered on the way.] He [the prophet] saw all that in one
moment—there was neither past nor future.
Through the grace of
[Prophet Muhammad] the Friend of Allah (sal), I have experienced such “states”
[i.e., unveilings and mystic visions] once in a while. [In one those mystic
visions,] I [the Mujaddid] saw the angels prostrating before Adam (salam) and
at that time their heads were not raised from the prostration. I saw the
angels of the [Highest Paradise] ‘illiyin not performing these prostrations,
they were not ordered to prostate. In my vision, they were absorbed [in seeing
that. All these past events as well as] all the happenings (ahwal) that
will happen in the last world, they were all seen in that same [one
single all-inclusive] moment.
God’s speech is one single utterance that is
indivisible and timeless. All the different worldly forms of divinity (e.g.,
the Koran, the Torah, the Gospels, etc.) have originated from that one single
indivisible utterance.
God’s speech (kalam)
is one indivisible utterance (kalam). From the beginning of eternity to
the end of eternity, God has spoken with that one utterance. If it is a
command, it has come from that [same utterance]. If it is a prohibition, it has
come from it as well. If it is a notification, it has been derived from it too.
If it is an inquiry, it is from the same place too. If it is hope, it has
acquired existence from it too. If it is anticipation, it is from it too. All
the revealed books and the delivered scriptures are a page of that indivisible
(firz- 5ZÏ)14 utterance. If it is the Torah, it has been transcribed
from it. If it is the Gospels, it has taken the sound of words from it. If it
is the Psalms of David, it has been copied from it. If it is the Furqan,15
it has been revealed from it.
By Allah! The divine speech!
It is truly one and that is all
Therefore, it is in its descent
13 Mabda ’ va Ma
‘ad, minha 40
ubasit is a
philosophical term that refers to s substance so elemental that it cannot be
subdivided any further
15 Koran,
literally means the criterion
that it traced different worldly
forms
[A 1.266, 108.4-10]
The Mujaddid corroborates the above explanation on divine
speech elsewhere. He writes,
The Haqq (SWT) has spoken
with only one one-in-all (wahid) utterance from the beginning of time
until the end of time (azal ta abad). That utterance cannot be
partitioned or subdivided. This is because it is impossible for the Almighty
to be silent or to be dumb. The surprising matter is that from the beginning of
time until the end of time there is only one one-in-all moment. It is because
time does not flow over the Exalted Lord. Clearly when it is all within one one-in-all
moment, what can take place but an utterance that is one-in-all and indivisible
(wahid basit). [Mabda 40, 62.1-4]
The Mujaddid now explains the timelessness of divine
speech.
The surprising matter is
that from the beginning of eternity until the end of eternity, there is only a
moment in that place [which is the realm of God.] Time does not flow over
Him (SWT). Within one moment, what can be spoken but one one-in-all
utterance that cannot be subdivided (kalam-i wahid-i basit)?
That one one-in-all utterance
has become the origin of so many types of [individual] utter- anees [each] in
the context of multiple ta ‘alluqs or “relationships”.
For example, if it has a ta
‘alluq of commandingness (ma‘mur), then a command originates. Or if
it has a ta ‘alluq of prohibitingness (manhi), then it is called
a prohibition (nihi). Or if it has a ta‘alluq of news-givingness (ikhbar),
then it becomes news. In short, [that God speaks on not only the news of
the present, but also] the news on the past and the future - that throws people
into confusion..
The priority and
posteriority of the ‘turner [of time]’ [God] (dal) indicates the
priority and posteriority of the ‘things that are turned [or put in sequence in
that linear time]’ (madlul). It is not something hard to understand! It
is so because the past and the future are special qualifiers (sifat-i
makhsus’-i dal) with which the ‘turner [of time]’ qualifies [or puts into
sequence the events in that linear time. And He qualifies the events] in that
moment that has been stretched (inbisat) [from a wholistic one-in-all
model of time into a linear model of time stretching from the beginning of eternity
to the end of eternity.]
And in the view of the
‘things that are turned [sequentially in that linear time] (madlul)', since
that moment [when God speaks] is unchanged and it [that timeless moment] has
not been stretched out (inbisat) [to create a linear time as it has been
stretched out in the mundane, temporal realm], then there is no past or future
there [in that timeless moment when God speaks.]
The philosophers say, “The
essence (mahiya) of a thing may have a distinct and separate (
‘alihadeh) [characteristic] with respect to [that thing’s] external
existence (wujud-i khariji). [However, the essence] may not have that
[same characteristic] with respect to [that thing’s] mental existence (wujud-i
dhihni)”
[So we see that] a thing
can have contradictions it its qualities and inseparable qualifications (tabayin-i
sifat va lawajim) with respect to its existence and it-ness (huwiyaf).
And we also see that] the
‘turner [of time]’ and the “things that are turned [sequentially in that linear
time]’ are [already] essentially separate from one another (dal va madlul
keh fi ’I haqiqat az yek digar juda ’ and).
Therefore, they are also
permitted [to differ in their qualities and inseparable qualifications] as in
the previous [illustration].
What has been told is that
it is only a moment from the beginning of eternity to the end of eternity. And
that [they have said one moment] is due to the insufficiency of the language (tangi-i
‘ibarat). Actually, we may not even say “one moment”. [That time period is
so infinitesimally short that] to call it even a moment would be hard.
The Mujaddid now teaches us about oneness of the
act(s) of God.
Likewise, God’s act (fa‘l,
af ‘al)is one. All His handiwork (masnu ‘at) from the beginning of
time to the end of time (azal ta abad) has come to exist by that one
act. This Koranic verse points toward that, Our command is none but a single
glance of the eye (Koran 54:50). Be it the giving of life or the giving of
death, it depends on that act. Be it the giving of pain or the giving of bliss,
it depends on that same act. Be it the bestowal of existence or the bestowal of
nonexistence, it has grown out of that act. So it is established that the
divine act(s) does not have multiple ta‘alluq or attachments [with the created
things]. Instead, all the created things from the beginning of time to the
end of time have come into existence in their unique times of existence by
that one ta ‘alluq [or attachment with the divine act(s)]. Like the
divine act, this [single one-in-all] ta‘alluq is ailso “without what
manner” and “without how” (bichun va bichugun.) For “what manner” cannot
be an analogy for that which is “without what manner.” None but the royal
chariot may carry the royal tributes! [A 1.266, 108.10-16]
In the same way as it is with divine knowledge,
God’s act is also one, indivisible and timeless. All the individual actions of
God that we see in the world, they have all originated from that one
all-including timeless act.
The Mujaddid now comments on the divine act(s).
Not understanding the
[chronological] reality of the act of the Haqq (SWT), Imam Abul Hasan Ashari
said that [the act(s) of] engendering is newly originated; and the [rest of
the] His (SWT) act(s) are newly originated as well. He did not understand that
these [what he understands to be the multiple activities of God] are really the
“traces” (athaf) of the beginningless one act of the Haqq (SWT), not
His multiple acts [themselves], [A 1.266,108.16- 18]
Imam Ashari proposed that act(s) of God are
newly originated or “created in time” and what appears to be human activity
is really the “direct” act(s) of God. On the other hand, Ibn Arabi proposed
that the divine act(s) is more remote and human activity is the self-disclosure
of divine act(s) instead of being divine act(s) themselves. The Mujaddid goes
even one more step in the direction of Ibn Arabi on the remoteness of the
divine act(s)—he proposes that the human activities are really the “traces” of
the self-disclosure of the act(s) instead of being the self-disclosure of the
act(s) “directly.”
That is, the Mujaddid proposes that God acts
through a one-in-all timeless all-inclusive act and it is not God directly
acting when human beings act, instead those human actions are the “traces” of
the timeless one-in-all divine act. That timeless one-in-all act self-disclose
into human activities that are multiple in number and created in time.
The Mujaddid continues his explanstion,
The same explanation
answers those sufis [like Ibn Arabi] who propose that the divine act
self-discloses [into human activity i.e., they
|
|
Imam Ashari |
Ibn Arabi |
Mujaddid |
|
|
Many-in-number |
|
|
|
Divine Act(s) |
and newly originated or
created in |
One-in-all and timeless |
One-in-all and timeless |
|
|
time |
|
Even more |
|
Human activity |
Direct, act(s) of God
directly |
Indirect, Self-disclosure |
indirect,
(self-disclosures |
|
|
of the Act(s) |
of the) “traces” |
|
|
|
|
“directly” |
of the act(s) |
Table 4.5: Reality
of the Act(s): Ashari, Ibn Arabi, Mujaddid
propose that human acts are
“directly” the selfdisclosures of divine act(s)]. They see only a one-in-all
divine act [reflected] in the mirror of the activity of the contingent beings
[i.e., man] in that homestead [of human activity].
Actually that
self-disclosure [that is human activity] is the self-disclosure of the “traces”
of the divine act, not the self-disclosure of the act itself. It is because the
engendering-act [is not reflected] in the mirrors that are newly originated
things. Neither is it manifested in the loci of manifestations that are
contingent things. It is because the engendering-act is an act of God that is
“without what manner,” “without how,” eternal and abiding in divine Person (bichuni,
bichuguni, qadim, qa’im bi- dhat-i U (SWT)).
In the close quarter
that is “outwardform” (sura)
How can meaning be contained!
In the hut of the beggars
What business does the sultan have!
[A 1.266, 108.18-109.3]
Ibn Arabi proposes that human activity is the
selfdisclosure of the divine act(s). The Mujaddid points out Ibn Arabi’s error
by clarifying that human activity is too gross to be the self-disclosure of the
divine act(s) “directly.” The divine act is sublime. And its self-disclosures
are also sublime- too sublime to be “acts of contingent beings.” Ibn Arabi
proposed that the “acts of contingent beings” are the self-disclosures of the
divine act(s) “itself.” Alternatively, the Mujaddid proposed that it could not
happen “directly”; instead, the “acts of contingent beings” are the
self-disclosures of the “traces” of the divine act.
|
The nature of the
self-disclosure. |
|
|
Ibn Arabi |
Mujaddid |
|
Direct; Human activities are
“directly” the self-disclosures of the divine act. |
Indirect; Human activities are the
self-disclosuresof the “traces” of the divine act. |
Table
4.6: How are human activities
self-disclosures of the one-and-all divine act?
So the Mujaddid proposes to modify Ibn Arabi.
I believe that a self-disclosure of the act and
attributes cannot be conceived without a selfdisclosure of the Person (SWT).
For, the act and attributes cannot be detached from the divine Person (SWT).
Therefore, the self-disclosures of [the acts’ and the attributes’] cannot be
conceived without the self-disclosure of the Person. What are indeed detached
from the Person (SWT) are the “shadows” (zill, zilal) of the act and
the “shadows” of the attributes. Therefore, those self-disclosures are the selfdisclosures
of the “shadows” of the act and the attributes, not of the act and attributes
themselves. But not everyone’s [e.g., Ibn Arabi’s] understanding can attain
this perfection [in knowledge!] This is the bounty of Allah! He grants it to
whomever He wills! Allah possesses magnificent bounties! (Koran 57:21).
[A 1.266, 109.3-.7]
So the Mujaddid
alternatively proposes that human activity is the self-disclosure of the
“shadows” of the act(s) and the attributes. He argues that since human acts are
not sublime enough to be the self-disclosures of God’s act(s) “directly,” it
can only be so “indirectly” by being the “shadows” of His self-disclosure. This
is a subtle point that Ibn Arabi did not understand when he proposed that
human activity is the self-disclosure of the divine act “directly.”
It may be noted that the
Mujaddid is saying the human activity is both self-disclosures of the “traces”
(athar) of the divine act and the self-disclosure of the “shadows” (zill',
plural, zilal, az.I al) of the act. They may be equivalent.
The Mujaddid teaches us on the incomparability
of God.
To proceed to the gist of the matter, He (SWT)
is not incarnated (hulul) into anything. Nor does anything dwell (hal)
in Him. However, He (SWT) encompasses (wasa ‘at) everything, is near (qurb)
everything and is with (ma ‘iyat) everything. However that
encompassment, nearness and withness are not within our defect- prone
comprehension. If they were, that would not be appropriate for His all-holy
person (janab) [for He is Incomparable!]. He is also beyond that which
He makes known through unveilings and witnessings. For the contingent beings
may not receive anything from the reality of His person, attributes, and act
except ignorance and bewilderment. You should bring faith in the Unseen
[Being—that is, God], [A 1.266, 109.7-11]
The Mujaddid says that God is far above what the
sufis may see in their spiritual sight. He believes that the contingent beings
cannot attain anything but ignorance and bewilderment when they try to
understand His person, His attributes, or His act. We have to attain faith in
God who is not seen, heard, or known. As the Koran says, Those who have faith
in the Unseen (Koran 2:3). Especially the sufis should take heed of this —
since they may often experience many interesting “witnessings,” i.e., mystic
visions in their wayfaring. They should not take heed of them for that is not
God, and it is God that they seek. [38]
Now the Mujaddid teaches us about the mystics visions
of God that sufis may see.
And everything that you may unveil or wit- nes s
[in your mystic visions as God,] you should obliterate that by bringing them
under the scope of “no” or “la” in the formula of negation, [la ilaha\.
[A 1.266, 109.11]
That is, when you say there
is no “god” (la ilaha), you may include all those that you unveil or
witness in that “god.” Now the Mujaddid quotes a poem to illustrate that none
may comprehend God.
None may hunt the phoenix
So pick up your trap
For you will find trapped in that trap
Nothing else but air
Now the Mujaddid quotes a
poem from his sufi mentor to illustrate his point.
This stanza from the Masnavi written by our
Hazrat [Baqibillah] fits here:
[In my journey], the throne of Self-
Sufficiency is ever higher [than what
I can attain].
Therefore, to me, to think of attaining it is
not appropriate [A 1.266,
109.12-13]
The above poem alludes to
the incomprehensible nature of God. The mind of man cannot comprehend God, who
is incomparable to the creation. He feels uncomfortable by this divine
incomparability. So he seeks comfort by creating concrete analogies for God-
this is why idolaters worship idols. He tries to bring God down into this
world, but actually He is too high, far above this temporal realm. The Mujaddid
illustrates this eternal human mind-set by the above poem by his sufi mentor.
Elsewhere in the Maktubat, the Mujaddid
also writes on divine incomparability. He says that the sufis often see the
created things that are chun (with a manner or how i.e., comprehensible)
and mistake them for God, who is bichun (without what manner or
incomprehensible).
[O disciple!] There do not
find manyness in oneness (kathrat dar wahdat). And do not be content
with “witnessing the [created things which are] chun [with how] instead
of holding out for [God who is] bichun [without how] ! For what appears
in the mirror of chun is never bichun-, and what appears in
manyness is never the truly One (wahid haqiqi). [A 1.190,76.15- 17]
On God, the Mujaddid writes,
He [God] is blameless from
having a likeness or resemblance (shabh va manand) and absolved from
being a form or shape (shakl va mithal). Being a father or a son is not
possible for Him. How will it be possible for Him to have a peer or model (kafa
’at va tamaththul)! Even a taint of unification or incarnation (itti-
had va hulul) is considered improper for His honor and even a suspicion of
“coming out in the open” or “being hidden” (buruz va ku- mun) is
considered ugly for His holy person.
[A 1.167,50.11-14]
Note: Kumun means to become hidden (pinhan
shodari). Buruz means to come out to some foreign place (birun amadan)
and become clear, evident, and public (ashkara shodari).
Technically, kumun
means [for God] to come down (jdrvad amadan) and descend (nuzul)
to some thing and thus become hidden from His abode.
And, buruz means
[for God] to incarnate Himself in the creation and become clear, evident, and
public and thus manifest Himself (zuhur namudan hulul kardeh ashkara shodan)
in the body of something.[39]
Similarity is Merely
Allegorical
What does it mean when God says
that He is “near” everything, “with” everything and “embraces” everything? God
does describe Himself in a limited way in His revelation. For example, He
states, IVc are nearer to Him than his jugular vein (Koran 50:16). So we
must bring faith into that self-description. Still God is Incomparable to His
creation; His Incomparability transcends His Similarity—we do not know what
those self-descriptions really mean. So while we admit those divine
self-descriptions, we admit them only in a bi-la kayf (i.e., “without
how” manner).
Therefore, let us have
faith that He (SWT) encompasses (muhif) everything, is (qarib)
near everything, and is with (ba) everything. However, we do not know
what that encompass- ment, nearness, or withness (ihata va qurb va ma“iyat)
means. To say that it means cognitive encompassment or cognitive nearness, and
so forth, is like interpreting (ta’wil) the allegorical verses and I am
against interpreting the allegorical verses. [A 1.266, 109.14- 16]
What is the Muj addidi interpretation of withness (ma
‘iyat)1 The Mujaddid himself explains it.
Man cannot become the Haqq
(SWT), but by His grace, he is never separated (juda') from Him. Whomever
he loves, he is with him.” 18 Everything has realized the
relationship of “withness” with the Haqq (SWT) [in some way] but this
“withness” that grows (nashi’) from that “love” (hubb), is
something else. Until [that] “love” is found, no one will understand anything
about this withness (ma ‘iyaf). Just as [that] love has different
levels, in the same way that withness has also different levels in the same
way.
“This very withness” [i.e.,
the withness that comes from love] is that withness through which one purifies
oneself from reflectedness (zil- liyat) [by realizing a complete fana
fillah or annihilation in the ultimate prototype (asl) who is
Allah], And this very withness is that withness that is the medium through
which one may realize an effacement (idmihlal) in everything [i.e., a
state where the sufi effaces all created things from his mind as he has attained
a complete absorption in Allah or fana fiLlah.f[40]
This very withness is that
withness that takes away (muzil) man’s servanthood (riqqiyat) [to
someone other than Allah. Even that, man’s slavehood to Allah also becomes
perfect and he becomes wholly committed to Him, such that] the slightest slack
in that slavehood disappears and vanishes (muzil-i riqqiyat ast va
mushabbat-i hurumiyat [ast] dar ‘in ‘abdiyat).
This withness is that
withness which silences I-ness. (anaiyat) Instead, it negates I-ness on
the levels of perfection. [A 3.26, 67.7-12]
Allegorical Verses may Not Be
Interpreted
I have translated mutashabihat
verses as “allegorical” verses. Many people translate mutashabihat as
“ambiguous,” meaning “something that has one out of several possible meanings.”
I believe that “ambiguous” cannot be the correct translation of the Mujaddidi
meaning of the term “mutashabihat.” What the Mujaddid means by the term
mutashabihat is something much deeper, hidden, and mysterious. It is
really far deeper than even an allegory. However, the second meaning of
“allegorical” is “having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal
sense of a sacred text,” and that applies to mutashabihat. And so I am
using the word “allegorical” to translate it and the word “categorical” to
translate muhkam. Chittick also uses this scheme in one of his books.
The Mujaddid is against
interpreting the allegorical verses. He writes that the allegorical verses
indeed have profound meanings but they are much more than being merely
ambiguous; instead, they are deep, hidden, and mysterious. Those meanings are
revealed to the Prophet and the elect in his community. So anyone else may be
able to interpret them. So instead of trying to interpret those verses, the
common people should accept them as they are, i.e., bi-la kayf or
“howless.”
The Mujaddid teaches us about allegorical verses in his
monograph Mabda’ va Ma‘ad. He says,
I have been shown that the
terms nearness (qurb), withness (ma‘iyaf), and encompass- ment (ihata)
of the Haqq (SWT) that are in the Sagacious Koran are among the “allegorical”
or mutashabihat words of the Koran. [The words] hand or face [in the
Koran that refers to God having hands or a face are examples of such allegories.]
The words first (awwal), last (akhir), manifest (zahir),
nonmanifest (batin) and the likes of them are also the same.
So we say that the Haqq
(SWT) is “near” us, but we do not know what that nearness means. Similarly, we
say [that He is] the First but we do not know what does that “first” means. The
meaning of that nearness and firstness does not come within the bounds of our
knowledge or understanding (‘Um va fahm). The Haqq (SWT) is untainted
by those imperfections. And indeed [He is even] higher (bartar) than
that. And [He is indeed even higher than] that what we know through our unveilings
(kashf) and witnessings (mushahida). He (SWT) elevates Himself
higher than that and He is pure from thatas well.
Some sufis have realized
the meaning of “nearness” and “withness” through unveiling. They consider the
Haqq (SWT) to be “near us” and “with us” [spatially]. This is not proper! They
have stepped into the school of mujassima or
Corporealists. And some of
the ulama have interpreted those terms by allegorical interpretation (ta’wil).
For example, by “nearness,” some have meant “cognitive nearness” (qurb- i
‘ilmi). They have made allegories of that in the same way that they have
made an allegory of “hand” by “power” (qudrat) and “face” by “person.” (dhaf)
True knowledge is before
Allah (SWT) ! Peace towards those who follow guidance! [Mabda 35, 55-6] [41]
The Mujaddid rejects ittihad or
unificationism—the sufi science that says that God is “unified” (muttahid)
with the cosmos, i.e. God is merged in the cosmos in such a way that these two
cannot be distinguished from one another
He (SWT) is not unified
with (muttahid) anything else. Nor is anything unified with Him.
The Mujaddid then analyzes a sufi saying that
apparently proposes unificationism and demonstrates that it actually does not
do so.
That which people
understand to be ittihad or unificationism from the sayings of some
sufis is actually contrary to what they meant. For example, one such saying is
“When neediness is complete, it becomes Allah. Idha tamma ‘l-faqru, fa Hua
Allahu'' Although it seems to propose unificationism, what it really means
is that when [the sufi] completes faqr i.e., poverty or neediness [i.e
the sufi realizes that he needs Allah for everything as he has no resource of
his own] and [the sufi] realizes sheer nothingness (nisti-i mahd) [before
God], then nothing remains but Allah. It does not mean that the faqir
i.e., the needy becomes unified with God (bi-khuda) and becomes God
himself. For that would be apostasy and heresy. “The Exalted Lord is far
greater than what the transgressors imagine. ta ‘ala Llahu subhanaHu ‘amma
yatawah- hamu al-zalimuna ‘uluwwan kabira.”
Now the Mujaddid explains the mystery of Anal Haqq.
Our Hazrat Khwaja [Baqibillah]
(qaf) has said that “Anal Haqq” does not
mean, “I am God”; instead it means, “I am nothing and God [alone] exists.” [A
1.266, 109.16- 110.1]
My own shaykh in the sufi path, a living saint
in the lineage of the Great Mujaddid, explains the above in a greater detail
very eloquently- what Anal Haqq really means is,
I have lost my own
existence as I am overwhelmed by the sheerness of God’s existence. Now I do
not exist for only God exists. When I say “I,” I am not saying it on behalf of
myself. Instead, I am saying it on behalf of God.
Now I am just like the “burning bush”[42]
of
Hazrat Moses that cried
out, “Verily 1 am Allah!” (Koran 20:14, 28:30) That is, I am merely the
announcer here as the “burning bush” had been. Or I am merely the medium
through whom God speaks, like a loudspeaker is the medium through which the
announcer speaks. 22
The Mujaddid maintains that God experiences no change.
The
person, attributes or the act of God do not change or be substituted (taghayyur
va tabdil). So exalted is He whose person, attributes, and act(s) do not
change like the [person, attributes and acts of the] engendered things that
are newly originated (huduth-i al-akwan) do!
No aspect of God ever changes; neither His
person nor His attributes nor His act(s). Change is the lot of “newly
originated” things but God is too exalted to undergo change.
The
Mujaddid then interprets Ibn Arabi and defends him against the false charge of
contradicting the mainstream Sunni creed on the changelessness of God.
What the wujudi
sufis [who follow the Ibn Arabi doctrine of wahdatul wujud or existential
monism] establish as tanazzulat-i khamsa, the five descents, is not a
modification or substitution (taghayyur va tandil) in the Necessary (dar
martaba-i wujub), for that would
22note from
Bengali text v. V p. 85 [Mabda 35:55-56] means Mabda’ va Ma‘ad,
minha or chapter 35, pp. 55-56
be
apostasy and misguidance. Instead, they have relegated these descents onto the
levels of “manifestations” of the divine perfection (zuhurat-i kamal-i U).
That way a modification or substitution in the person, attributes or the act
of He (SWT) would not take place. [A 1.266, 110.1-5]
Ibn Arabi held that the creation, i.e., the
cosmos, emanates from God in five successive steps. These are emanations or
“descents” called tanazzulat-i khamsa.
|
Level of
descent |
Name of the descent
(emanation) |
What changes? |
|
1 |
Cognitive
undifferentiated entiflcation, ta‘ayyun-i ‘ilmi jumali |
Ideas in the mind of the
neces: |
|
2 |
Cognitive differentiated
entiflcation, ta ‘ayyun-i ‘ilmi tafsili |
As above |
|
3 |
Spiritual entiflcation, ta
‘ayyun-i ruhi |
Shadow of the necessary |
|
4 |
Imaginai entiflcation, ta‘ayyun-i
mithali |
As above |
|
5 |
Corporeous entiflcation,
ta‘ayyun-i jasadi |
As above |
Table 4.7: Ibn
Arabi’s Five Descents (Emanations) of the Necessary
Yes ! If you do interpret that to mean that God
Himself undergoes change, it would be a violation of the creed of the
mainstream Sunnis that says that God is changeless. However, the Mujaddid
interprets that Ibn Arabi must have meant that the “shadow” of God undergoes
those emanations, not God Himself who is beyond change. That is, what does
change is the “way that God manifests” Himself, not His person itself. So the
charges against Ibn Arabi that he contradicts the mainstream Sunni creed are
baseless.
The
Mujaddid seems to argue here in a reductio ad absurdum syllogism:
Islamic creed says that God is changeless. So if someone believes that God
Himself undergoes change, then he must be ruled faithless and misguided. So
if Ibn Arabi or anyone else interprets the five emanations or tanazzulat-i
khamsa’ as changes in God Himself, then he must be ruled an unbeliever. But
the Mujaddid consistently rules Ibn Arabi to be a great saint of Allah.
Therefore, Ibn Arabi could not have meant it as a “change in the Necessary.”
The Mujaddid states that
God is absolutely self-sufficient. He does not need anything from anyone.
He (SWT) is unboundedly self-sufficient (ghaniyy-
i
mutlaq) in His person, in His
attributes, and in His act. He does not need anything in any respect. Just as
He does not need anything for His existence, He does not need anything for His
manifestations (guhurat) either.
The Mujaddid then comments
on the Ibn Arabi proposition that God “needs” the created things to manifest
His perfections
That which is understood
from the statements of some sufis [e.g., Ibn Arabi] is that Allah needs us to
manifest the perfections of His names and attributes. I find it hard to buy a
proposition like that! I know that the purpose of the act of creation is that
the created thing would attain perfection, not that His (SWT) holy person would
attain perfection. As the Koran says, We have created man and the Jinn so
that they would worship Me (Koran 51:56). [Here I, the Mujaddid, interpret
“they would worship Me” as] “they would know Me.” Therefore, the purpose behind
creating man and Jinn is so that they would attain knowledge (ma‘rifaf).
That is, the purpose is “their [own]” perfection, not the perfection of
something that belongs to the Haqq (SWT). It comes in a hadith report where God
speaks in the first person: “I have created the created things for knowing.” [43]
Here too, “knowing” means that the created things may know. It does not mean
that God may be known and by this knowing God may attain some perfection.
“Allah (SWT) rises far above this!” [A 1.266, 110.5-,14]
Here the Mujaddid disagrees with Ibn Arabi. He
clarifies that actually it is the created things that need God to attain their
own perfections, not the other way round. As my sufi shaykh explains,
The purpose behind creating
man and Jinn is so that they desire to know God and attain perfection. We know
the well-known hadith report wherein God speaks in the first person, “I was a
Hidden Treasure. I wanted to be known. So I created the creation.” [44]
What God really means is, “Let the creation come to know Me and attain their
perfections. ” It is wrong to think that what He meant is, “Let Me, Allah,
become known to the creation and gain some perfection in this process.” This is
because Allah is self-sufficient. He rises far above such wrong conceptions. [45]
How does the Mujaddid jump
from “so that they would worship me” to “so that they would know me”? My sufi
shaykh’s companionship taught me the logic behind this connection between
“worship” and knowing. Yes! God has asked man to worship Him. But how will we
worship Him unless we “know” Him?” That may be the Mujaddid’s logic behind
interpreting “worshiping” as “knowing.” The pre-eminent Koranic exegete Ibn
Abbas also interpreted “worship Allah” as “know Allah” here. All later
commentators also interpreted it this way following his line of interpretation.
The Mujaddid states that
God is perfect and he elaborates on that perfection.
Allah is unblemished and
exonerated by all attribute of imperfection and all burn-mark of
newly-originatedness (huduth). He is not a body Himself; nor does He
possess a body (jism va jismani nisf). He transcends both space and time
(la-makani va la-zamaní).
The Mujaddid’s verification
confirms the ulama of the mainstream Sunni community. Their ulama says that God
possesses all the attributes in Himself in a non-entified manner except the
eight real attributes, sifat-i haqiqiya, which exist in Him with an
additional existence. The real attributes are eight according to the Maturidi
school of kalam, which the Mujaddid follows. The predominant Ashari School of
kalam has seven, as it leaves out “engenderingness” from the roll of the real
attributes. [46]
He possesses all the perfect attributes. Among
these, eight perfect attributes exist in Him with existence “additional (za’id)”
to the existence of the Person (SWT). They are: (1) livingness or life , hayat;
(2) knowingness or knowledge, ‘Um; (3) powerfulness or power, qudrat;
(4) desiringness or desire, irada’; (5)
seeing- ness or sight, basr; (6) hearingness, sama‘;
(7) speakingness or speech, kalam; and
(8) engenderingness, takwin.
|
Attribute |
Arabic/Persian name |
|
livingness or life |
hayat |
|
knowingness or knowledge |
‘ilm |
|
powerfulness or power |
qudrat |
|
desiringness or desire |
irada |
|
seeingness or sight |
basr |
|
hearingness |
sama |
|
speakingness or speech |
kalam |
|
engenderingness |
takwin |
Table
4.8: Eight real attributes [Sifat-i
haqiqiya]
Note: In Arabic, these attributes are called by
a morphological form which has dual meanings. For example, the attribute of
“being capable of speaking” is called kalam and that also means “speech”
or that what is being spoken. So people translate “the attribute of kalam”
as “speech” and that is misleading. Instead, the attribute of kalam may
be translated as the attribute of speakingness. It is true that there is no
such word in English called speakingness but the superb sufi translator
William Chittick uses newly coined words in this style.
Confirming the ulama of the
mainstream Sunni community, the Mujaddid proposes that the attributes of God
have an external existence, i.e., they do exist in the “outside, kharij”
He criticizes the position of Ibn Arabi who denied the “external” existence of
the Attributes [47]
and who said that they are merely “relationships” that God has with the cosmos
and those relationships exist only in the mind of God which is the abode of His
knowledge (film).
These
attributes do exist [and not merely cognitively in the mind of God, but] in
the “outside” (kharij) [i.e. in the real world outside the mind of God
with a true existence.”] It is not that they exist with an existence that is
additional to the existence of the Person only “cognitively” while they are
identical to the Person “externally”- like some sufis [who believe in wahdat
al-wujud, e.g., Ibn Arabi, Muinuddin Chishti, and many others] consider.[48]
They say:
By the intellect, all are other than the
attributes
By the verification; all are identical to Your
person
What they mean here is that
while they know by the intellect, i.e., intellectually from the kalam that
attributes are disjointed from the person of God, they know from their
“verification,” i.e., sufi experiential knowledge, that they are the same.
For example, the following sufi poem by Hazrat Muin- uddin
Chishti Ajmiri also supports the identity of the person of Allah and His
attributes.
I don’t see the
Attributes separate from the Person.
So wherever I look, I
don’t see anything but
God. [49]
The Mujaddid says that to reduce the existence
of divine attributes from external existence to cognitive existence, as Ibn
Arabi does, is really to deny the existence of the attributes. There are
several deviant sects of Islam who are recognized to have denied the existence
of the attributes, e.g., the Mutazilas, the philosophers, etc.
Even those deviant sects accepted the cognitive
existence of the attributes and only denied their external existence. So if
someone else [e.g., Ibn Arabi] accepts the cognitive existence of the
attributes but denies the external existence, he is indeed out of the
mainstream Sunni community just as those deviant sects are recognized to be.
It is really denying the
attributes (sifat), because even those who deny the attributes (i.e.,
the Mutazilas and the Faylsufs) have proposed that the person and the
attributes of God are cognitively “other” and externally “unified.” That is,
even they did not deny cognitive otherness and they did not propose that what
“they
understand” to be knowledge
is identical to what “they understand” to be the person, or power or desire.
They have only proposed that the Person and the attributes are identical in the
outside. Therefore, until they consider them “other” with respect to their
existence in the outside, they will not break away from the group that denies
the attributes. As you know, conceptual otherness is not a true difference! [A
1.266, 110.14-111.3]
It should be stressed that
the Mujaddid still did not consider Ibn Arabi to be out of the mainstream
Sunni community. As a sufi, he knew that Ibn Arabi did not arrive at it from
mis-interpretations of the Koran and the hadith but instead he “verified” that
science through his “unveilings,” which were erroneous in this case. And
errors in unveilings are excusable just as errors in scholastic interpretation
on the matters of the sharia law (ijtihad) are excusable.
Ulama of the manifest
knowledge: The domain of knowledge can be divided into two sub-domains. One is
the manifest knowledge (‘ilm-i zahir), the knowledge of the Koran,
hadith literature and all that can be derived from those sources employing
logic. The other is the non-manifest knowledge ( ‘ilm-i batin) that is
experiential knowledge derived through kashf, ilham, dhawq, shuhud,
etc. The ulama that deal with the Koran and hadith using logic are the ulama of
the manifest knowledge. They include jurists (fiiqaha), scholars of
hadith literature (muhaddith) exegetes of the Koran (mufassif), and
others. They are to be contrasted with the scholars of the non-manifest
knowledge who are the sufi masters.
The ulama of the manifest
knowledge say that the attributes exist “externally.” That is, the divine attributes
are not at all like “human attributes.” For human attributes also do not have
an external existence, only a conceptual existence. Instead, divine attributes
have a hypostasized or reified existence externally, just as the Platonic
archetypes do.
The Mujaddid’s verification
agrees with it but in maktub 1.234 he refines that position by saying that the
attributes have only “shadow” existence. He notes that both Ibn Arabi and the
mainstream Sunni ulama did not distinguish between the prototype existence and
the shadow existence and he believes that it caused the divergence of opinion
between them.
Note: The references from
the Maktubat-i Imam-i Rabbani will be described as two numbers separated
by a stop. The first number will be the volume number and the second number
will be the maktub number. For example, maktub 1.234 refers to maktub 234 in
the Volume 1
The
Mujaddid followed the Maturidi school of kalam as opposed to the Ashari school.
He writes on the superiority of the Maturidi school,
In a mystic vision, (waqi‘d)
Hazrat Prophet (salam) stated, “You are a mujathid of the science of kalam.”
After this incident, I started to form a distinct opinion in every matter of
kalam. For most of the matters on which there are differences between the
Ashari school and Maturidi school, at the first glance it seems that the truth
is along the Ashari line. But when it is contemplated with a fine perspicacity
and a keen gaze (hunur-ifirasat va huddat- i nazar), then it becomes
clear that the truth is along the Maturidi line. I believe that in all the
matters of kalam on which there is a dispute, the Maturidis are correct.
The truth is that because
they perfectly follow the shining Sunna, these [Maturidi] masters have attained
this high honor. Their opposition [in the mainstream Sunni community which is
the Asharis] have not been able to attain this as they gave pre-eminence to the
philosophical views. However, both of these groups are in the people of truth.
Eternalness and Beginninglessness
The
Mujaddid confirms that God and only God is eternal and beginningless. If
anyone believes that something other than God is also eternal or beginningless,
as the philosophers of üíq faylasuf
tradition (e.g., Avicenna, al- Farabi, and others) proposed, then he must be
ruled to be a faithless person.
He (SWT) is eternal and
beginningless (qadim va azalif Nothing else is established to be eternal
and beginningless. All the Muslims are unanimous on this. And they have declared
as unfaithful whosoever proposes that something other than the Haqq (SWT) is
eternal or beginningless. It is for this reason that Imam Ghazzali has
declared Avicenna, al-Farabi and everyone else to be faithless who proposes
that intellects, souls, hyles, or forms (yiufus, ‘uqul, haywula, surat)
are eternal. They also consider the heavens and everything else
in the heavens to be also eternal.
And he reconciles a statement of Ibn Arabi on
the eternity of the spirits to the mainstream Sunni creed.
Our Hazrat Khwaja
[Baqibillah] (qaf) has said that Shaykh Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi has proposed that
the spirits of the “perfect ones” [i.e., friends of Allah who have realized His
nearness] are eternal. [50]
This idea should be diverted from its outward meaning [i.e., it should not be
construed to mean that the spirits are co-etemal with God] and instead should
be taken in its “inner” (ta’wil) meaning [that is, for example, it may
be taken to mean that those spirits were the first things to be created.] In
that way, it [this proposition of Ibn Arabi] would not contradict the consensus
of opinion of the people of religion [in the proposition that nothing but God
is eternal], [A 1.266, 111.3-111.9]
All-Powerfulness and the
philosophers
The Mujaddid criticizes the deist doctrines of
the “philosophers” i.e., the philosophers of thefaylasuf tradition,
e.g., Avicenna, al-Farabi, Averrois and others.
The ancient Greek
philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, and others originated this lineage of thought
and Plotinus, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt in the third century CE,
developed it. Subsequently, philosophers of the Islamic tradition, such as
Avicenna, al-Farabi, and Averroës, added to and refined them to develop this faylasuf
tradition. The faylasuf called themselves Peripatetic or
Aristotelian, many people consider them instead Neoplatonic but really it is a
third tradition that synthesized the first two and added to them. [51]
They propose that God lives
in time and He created the cosmos with a single act that happened only once in
time and then he left all the day-to-day happenings to natural law that they
call the “Active Intellect.” That is, they were “deists,” who believed that God
is like a clockmaker who has made the mechanism that would run the clock and
then has let the clock run itself. Instead, Muslims (like Christians or Jews)
are “theists,” people who believe that God is a personal God who is intimately
connected to the day-to-day happenings of the world.
How is it that the Islamic
philosophers follow Aristotle? Is he not a “Western” philosopher? We usually
consider “Western” to be synonymous with “European.” So have Muslims borrowed
their philosophy from Christians? The answer is that Islamic philosophy is
indeed Western philosophy. In general, if one reads a survey book on Western philosophy
that covers the period before the middle ages, Islamic/Islamicate philosophers
are included there. In terms of philosophical tradition, philosophers divide
the world into three regions. First is the Western realm that includes Europe,
North Africa, and Western Asia to Iran- people there historically follows
“Western” philosophy. The second is India and the third is China. Although
there are differences between Indian and Chinese philosophy, still they share
some fundamen- tal characteristics and so they may be loosely grouped together
as Eastern philosophies.
Western philosophers are
dualists- they see the world as a dichotomy- something is either one or its
contrary- e.g., good or evil, white or black, beautiful or ugly, etc. This
dualist worldview went to the extreme in Iran, where their “prophets,” e.g.,
Zoroaster and Mani, even preached of two gods, one god as the creator of good
and the other god as creator of evil. In another time, this dualism went to the
extreme in northwest Europe—while the Romans saw nothing wrong with their
emperor being the chief priest, pontifus maximus; the people of
northwest Europe could never successfully integrate church and state together.
In contrast, Eastern
philosophers, both of the Indian tradition and the Chinese tradition, are
monists- they synthesize the opposites; to them, good and evil, God and the
creation, existence and nonexistence are not antitheses but parts of the same
whole. It is true that there are monist trends even in Western philosophy, e.g.,
Ibn Arabi or Spinoza; yet still this general observation holds. Many people
today do not understand this and even many publishers and bookstores in the
west classify books on Islam with books on “Eastern religion,” and group them
together with Hinduism and Buddhism.
While it is true that
Hinduism and Buddhism are indeed Eastern religions, Islam, like its two sister
religions, Christianity and Judaism, are not Eastern religions. All three of
them are “Western” religions and their philosophical traditions are in the
mainstream of the the Western philosophical tradition. Indeed, modern Europe
received its philosophical knowledge, even its knowledge of ancient Greek
philosophy, from the Muslims. It is the Muslim philosophers who translated and
studied and commented on the books of Plato, Aristotle, and others, and kept
that tradition alive. Europeans learned about Aristotle from the Arabic
translations of his original works, that were then retranslated into European
languages, as well as the translations of his Muslim commentators e.g.,
al-Farabi, Avicenna , Averroes, and others.
First, the Mujaddid affirms
the mainstream Sunni doctrine that God is all-powerful.
He (SWT) is the
all-powerful chooser (qadir- i mukhtar) He is unblemished by even a
taint of obligatedness (ijab) and exonerated from even a surmise of
compelledness (idtirar).
Then the Mujaddid begins his diatribe against
these philosophers of the. faylasuf tradition and their deist
doctrines.
The unwise (bi-khord) philosophers
consider obligatedness (ijab) to be [the epitome of] perfection. As a
result, they have negated free choice (ikhtiyar) from the Necessary
(SWT) and instead, they have established obligatedness.
These unwise ones consider the Necessary (SWT)
to be inoperative (ta ‘til)[52] and inactive except
that one single handiwork (masnu ‘) has come from Him (who is the
creator of the heavens and the earth). They even propose that He made that
[single handiwork] out of obligation. They relate the [continued] existence of
the newly originated things (wujud-i hawa- dith) to the “active
intellect ( ‘aql-ifa ‘al)”, which has not been even established to exist
except in their imagination! They have nothing to do with God in their
corrupted conception. Finding no other alternative, they turn to the active
intellect in their times of trouble but do not turn to the Haqq (SWT) since
they do not give Him any ability to intervene in the [continued] existence of
newly originated things. They say that it is the active intellect that brings
the newly originated things into existence.
These unfortunate ones (bi-dawlatari)
in stupidity and foolishness (bilahat) [i.e., the fay- lasuf]
are in the forefront of all misguided sects. Even the people without faith pray
to God for help. And supplicate to Him to remove their misfortunes—unlike
these unintelligent ones (safihan).
The Islamic belief is that
God is perfect and so He is beyond the imperfection of being obligated to do
anything in any way; in contrast, the faylasuf believe in obligationism.
So the Mujaddid says that these philosophers are not wise; they consider God’s
being obligated to do what He does as a fitting attribute for Him!
To the Mujaddid, the
faylasuf tradition philosophers are worse than the other misguided sects of
Islam for two reasons.
These worthless people have
two things more in misguidedness and foolishness (bilahat) than all [the
other misguided] sects. First, they do not believe, instead they deny the
revealed law and they stubbornly resist and hold en- mity to the message of the
messengers (ikhlibar- i mursala.) Second, they hierarchically arrange
some corrupted premises and manipulate some invalid proofs and visions (shawahid)
to prove their designs and baseless issues. In proving their designs, they
have become so stupid that they exceed all idiots in their stupidity. The
zodiac and the planets are perpetually unstable and wandering- still they hold
that their movements and positions cause all that happens. They have shut their
eyes before the Creator of the heavens, the giver of existence of the planets
and their mover and the director of their affairs and instead consider Him far
removed from their affairs. What unwise ones! What unfortunate ones! [The only
one] less intelligent (safih) is he who considers them intelligent and
wise!
First, they deny the
“revealed message” that the prophets brought forth. Second, they try to prove
their misbegotten beliefs via falsehood. He also decries their belief in
astrology that suggests that planets control the destiny; instead he suggests
that they turn to God who created the planets in the first place.
The
Mujaddid shows his scorn for all the sciences of the philosophers.
Among their codified and
systemic sciences is geometry that is totally useless. The sum of three angles
in a triangle is two right angles- what benefit does it have? Those theorems
that are close to their hearts33- what purpose do they serve?
Medicine, astronomy, and ethics
' 'shcikl ‘arusi va mamuni are
the best of their sciences and even that they have stolen from the revealed
books of the prophets who came before our prophet (salam). They use those
extracted fragments [from those divinely-revealed sciences] to spread their own
invalid sciences. Imam Ghazzali clarified it in his book Munqidh ‘an
al-Dalal.
34
To the Mujaddid, many of the sciences of the faylasuf
are useless. And the ones which are useful (medicine, astronomy, ethics)
have their origins in the divine revelation.
However, it must be
understood from the context that the Mujaddid villified geometry as “useless”
only because he could not find any practical use for it; and so he rejected the
study of geometry as an end in itself or as a means of God-realization. He found
practical use for some of the other sciences and claimed that those sciences
have divine origins. If the Mujaddid saw the practical uses for geometry, he
would respect that as well. So the Muj addidi view is that no science is worth
studying as an end in itself; instead they should help one either in one’s path
towards God-realization or in the practical world. And the only science one may
study for Godrealization is the science that is derived from the revealed
message of the prophets.
The Mujaddid eulogizes the
practice of taqlid, following authority of the prophets.
If the followers of godly religions and the
prophets (salam) err in their proofs and demonstrations,
34 Imam Ghazzali, Munqidh ‘an al-Dalal.
This translation is very good, R. 1. McCarthy, Al-Ghazali’s Path to Sufism,
(Louisville, Kentucky: Fons Vitae, 2000.
there is no fear. Since the
source of their practice is following authority (taqlid) of the prophets
(salam). They bring proofs and demonstrations to establish their purpose only
for the sake of added strength. Following the authority of the prophets is
sufficient for them, unlike these unfortunate ones [the philosophers]. They
leave aside following the authority of the prophets and instead rely on their
proofs to establish their argument. “[They are] misguided [themselves;]
therefore they misguide [others, who follow them, as well!]”35
The Mujaddid also expresses his scorn for the
philosophers’ conceit and their denial of the prophetic method.
When the invitation of Prophet
Hazrat Jesus (salam) reached Plato, 36
who was the giant among
these unfortunate people, he responded, “We are a group who has already been
guided! We do not need any more guidance!” How witless! [Jesus was] a man who
could perform feats that are beyond their medical science- resurrecting the
dead, healing those born blind, and healing the lepers! When they saw such a
man, they should have understood his [sublime inner] “state!” It is utmost
headstrongness and stupidity to answer without thinking.
35hadith: Dallufa-adlu [Muslim]
36Plato possibly here stands for the typical philosopher with
their characteristic mind-set the eminent philosopher by the name Plato died
long before Prophet Jesus. Another possibility is that it might mean Plotinus
(Flutinus), the third-century founder of Neoplatonism who influenced the Muslim
world so immensely.
Most of the letters of the word falasafah is safah [and that means
unintelligent]
Therefore, the dominant verdict [that the philosopher is] “unintelligent” is
the majority opinion
The Mujaddid continues to
denigrate the philosophers and mentions a book that exposes their errors.
May
Allah save us from the darkness of their ill-intentioned beliefs! These days my
son Muhammad Ma‘thum 37 has completed the book Jawahir-i Sharh-i
Mawaqif . 38 While studying this book, the ugly beliefs of these
unwise people have become clear and many benefits have come from it. Praise
be to Allah, who has guided us to toward this. We would not have been guided
had Allah not guided us! Verily the Messengers from our Lord came with the
truth! (Koran 7:43) [A 1.266, 111.9-113.3]
Taqlid is a fundamental Islamic concept that is very
important to the Mujaddid. Literally, the verb qalada means, “to put a
collar on.” It refers to putting a collar on a beast of burden so that he
cannot see left or right but moves
37Muhammad Ma'thum: Third son and the spiritual
heir of the Mujaddid 38The Jawahir by an unknown author seems
to be short version of Ali ibn Muhammad Jurjani (d. 818/1415), Sharh-i
Mawaqif', It is a commentary on the Mawaqif, the well-known book on
kalam and one of the best books on that subject in Arabic written by Qadi ‘Add
al-Din Abdur Rahman ibn Ahmad Iji (d. 818/1415.) (this footnote is taken from
Fazlur Rahman text, p. 70) blindly to wherever his driver
directs him. Figuratively it means “blind conformity” to the Prophet, the
Salaf, or the Pious Predecessors and others worthy of humble imitation.
The Mujaddid explains the concept of taqlid in
detail in his monograph Mabda’ va Ma‘ad.
He has an abundant share of the tariqa of the
sufis, indeed from the Islamic community (millat- i Islam) who
abundantly possess the fitrat, habit of taqlid [following the
authority of the predecessors] and the innate disposition (jibilla) of
imitation (mutaba ‘at) [of those worthy ones.].
Here the principal of affairs (madarikar)
is taqlid. And the taqlid of the prophets (salam) elevates one to
lofty levels (darajat) and imitation of the sufis brings one to the
greatest station of ascent (ma ‘arij) [from where he can make a high
ascent or ‘uruj],
Hazrat Abu Bakr the Truthful (dwad) is greatly
endowed with lhis//7/w. [And because of this fitrat,] without any delay,
he rushed to accept the felicity of attesting to the prophethood [of Hazrat
Muhammad (salam)] and became the leader of the truthful ones (ra’is-i
siddiqan). On the other hand, the accursed Abu Jahl had less receptivity to
taqlid and imitation. [As a result] he was not receptive to that
felicity and instead became the leader of the accursed ones.
The perfection that a disciple attains is
through the taqlid of his own pir or guide. A pir’s error is the
disciple’s correct method. Because of this, Hazrat Abu Bakr (dwad) used to seek
out the error of the Prophet (salam) and used to exclaim, ”How I wish that I
could be the error of Muhammad!”
Hazrat Prophet (salam) said
about Hazrat Bilal (Allah be satisfied with him!): ’’The sin of Bilal
is shin to Allah.” Hazrat Bilal was a native of Ethiopia [where Arabic was not
the mother-tongue and so] used to [mispronounce ash-hadu as] as-hadu
[pronouncing the shin] like sin during the prayer call (ad- han)
To God (Mighty! High!) that
as-hadu was ash-hadu. Therefore, this Bilal’s error is better
than other’s correct way. Like a poet has written:
Overwhelms it when you cry out ash- hadu
Bilal’s call as-hadu
Bar ash-hadi to khandeh Ze nida as-hadi Bilal
I have heard from an exalted man (‘aziz)
about [this characteristic of] a prayer (dua) that is suggested by the
sufi shaykhs, but in which the shaykh has made a mistake; and so he recites it
in the corrupted way. If their followers recite those prayers exactly the same
way (bi haman sarafat) [with the same mistake] that the shaykhs used to
recite them, then the recitation would be effective (ta’thir). On the
other hand, if they recite them correctly, then it would no longer be
effective.
May Allah (SWT) keep us
steadfast on imitating (taqlid) of the prophets and following (jnutaba‘at)
His friends (awliyd) by His love of His beloved [Prophet Muhammad] !
(salam) [Mabda 51, 75-76]
Ibn Arabi and Wahdat-i Wujud
The Mujaddid says that Ibn
Arabi leans toward obliga- tionism (ijab,) the doctrine of faefaylasuf
tradition philosophers. Obligationism says that God has no free will; instead
whatever He does, He is obligated to do it.
The expressions of Shaykh
Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi also point toward obligationism [the doctrine that
proposes that God is obliged to do whatever He does]. His interpretation of
“power” is analogous to the interpretation of the philosophers. In that
interpretation, it is not allowed that capable ones abandon actions. And he
[Ibn Arabi] holds that it is mandatory to act. [And since God is all-powerful,
He is obliged to act or to create.]
Please note that the Mujaddid always uses the
title “Shaykh” when referring to Ibn Arabi, thereby showing his respect for Ibn
Arabi. And he always uses the traditional term “quddisa sirruh, may his
secrets be sanctified” after Ibn Arabi’s name. That denotes that he considered
Ibn Arabi to be a great saint.
The Mujaddid expresses his
positive opinion of Ibn Arabi, and considers those statements of Ibn Arabi,
that made others think that he deviated from Islam as errors in unveilings; and
as such, excusable.
Amazing thing! That Shaykh
Muhiyuddin [Ibn Arabi] appears to be accepted by God in my [sufi mystic] vision
[i.e., unveilings or kashf] ! On the other hand, many of his ideas seem
to oppose the opinions of the “people of truth [53] ”!
And those [ideas] seem to
be erroneous and incorrect! However, errors in unveiling [that Shaykh Ibn Arabi
has for those few of his ideas] are excusable just as errors in strivings for
interpretation (ijtihad) [in the matters of the sharia] are not to be
blamed. This is my unique belief about Shaykh Muhyiuddin, “He is among the
accepted ones of God but I see his opinions that oppose [the consensus of
opinion of the ulama of the mainstream Sunni community] to be erroneous and
harmful [to the common people].”
Some sufis criticize (ta‘an)
and blame (mala- mat) this shaykh. And consider [all] his ideas to be
false (takhtiya). Some other sufis choose to follow the shaykh blindly
and consider all his ideas correct. And they [attempt to] establish the
“truth” (haqiqat) of that [Ibn Arabi’s] science through “[fraudulent]
proofs and [defective] visions” (dala’il va shawahid).
Those “proofs” (dala’il) are from the
realm of external knowledge, i.e., from the Koran and the hadith literature.
Those two sources are indeed true but they misinterpret that knowledge and are
so those proofs are unacceptable. Similarly those “witnessings” (shawahid)
are sufi mystic visions and unveilings that are subject to errors and so are
unreliable.
The Mujaddid continues,
However, there is no doubt
that both of these parties have chosen to follow the [two extremes of]
excessiveness and deficiency and (ifrat va tafrit) and remain far away
from the middle path. How can I deny the shaykh who is an accepted friend of
God only because of his errors in unveiling? On the other hand, how can I
blindly accept [certain parts of] his science that is far from being correct
and that is contrary to the opinions of the “people of truth” [i.e., the
rightly-guided ulama of the mainstream Sunni community]? The truth lies in the
middle. By His grace and generosity, Allah the Exalted has endowed me with that
knowledge.
|
Rejecting extremists: Ibn Taymiyya and followers |
The middle path: The Mujaddid |
Accepting extremists: Ibn Arabi’s followers |
|
Rejects all of Ibn |
Accepts most of Ibn |
Accepts all |
|
Arabi’s ideas |
Arabi ideas; “gently |
of Ibn Arabi’s |
|
completely |
criticizes” a few (but
still does not denounce him, as those are errors in unveilings and thus
excusable) |
ideas blindly |
Table 4.9: Ibn
Arabi: How Do They Consider Him?
It may be noted that many
of the ulama of the mainstream Sunnis have also proposed the same opinion on
Ibn Arabi. Many have also forbidden the common people to read Ibn Arabi books.
Because the common people would take his writings literally, and will not
understand its deep hidden meanings and thus would go astray.
Ta‘an is translated as “criticize.” In this context, ta‘an
means “gentle criticism”; it is not a type of “harsh denouncement.” And this is
how the Mujaddid criticizes Ibn Arabi; gently as opposed to harshly.
The Mujaddid reconciles Ibn
Arabi’s wahdat-i wu- jud
40
with
the ontology of the ulama of the mainstream Sunni community,
Take note! In the matter of
wahdat-i wujud, a large group in this sufi community concurs with the
Shaykh. Although the Shaykh has his unique style here, still they are unanimous
in the gist of the matter. [On the first look], this matter may appear to
contradict the opinion of the “people of truth.” Still one may pay attention
to it, as it deserves the effort for reconciliation. By the grace of Allah
(SWT), I have reconciled this matter in the Ta ‘liqat bar Sharh-i Ruba‘iyat
, [my monograph where I comment on the quatrains] of our Hazrat
[Baqibillah], There, I have reconciled this matter with the opinion of the
“people of truth.” And I have relegated the dispute between the two schools to
terminology. And I have resolved the mutual misgivings and suppositions in
such a way that no room for any doubt and
40 Wahdat-i wujud is the Persian equivalent of wahdat al-wujud and
this is the term that the Mujaddid uses, as he writes in Persian. ambiguity
to remain. The text [of my monograph the Ta ‘liqat] itself is the proof
of this for the reader! [A 1.266, 113.3-18]
The Mujaddid’s opinion on
Ibn Arabi in the above section is very important, as many “scholars” (who
never read the Mujaddid in the original Persian or even in an accurate
translation) believe that the Mujaddid’s criticism of Ibn Arabi was a “roaring
criticism.” Here it is clear that it was only a mild criticism of a small
fraction of Ibn Arabi’s views. And the Mujaddid considered even those few
errors to be “excusable” as they are errors in his unveilings. And he still
viewed Ibn Arabi as a great saint.
God has brought everything
into existence. He also sustains everything.
You should know that
contingent things, all of them- whether they be matters, accidents, bodies,
intellects, souls, celestial spheres or elements (jawahir, i‘rad, ajsam,
‘uqul, nu- fus, aflak, ‘anasif)- all are supported by the [power of]
bringing-into-existence of the all- powerful chooser (ijad-i qadir-i
mukhtaf) who has brought them from their concealment in nonexistence into
existence. As with their existence, they also need Him (SWT) for their
sustenance. [A 1.266, 113.18-114.1]
Worldly Occasions and Their
Effectivities
By His wisdom, God has
hidden Himself behind the curtain of worldly occasions; but wise men see that
curtain
as a proof of His existence.
God has made the existence
of the worldly occasions (asbab) a curtain for His activity and He has
made wisdom as the covering for His power. No! Instead, He has made worldly
occasions as the proof of the fixedness of His own activity. And He has made
wisdom as the medium for the existence [i.e., application] of His power.
The Mujaddid continues,
Possessors of sagacity are those whose insight
has been embellished by the kohl of following the authority of the prophets.
They know that worldly occasions and mediums need God for them to come into
existence and to remain existing. They obtain from Him even the slightest
degree of their fixedness and abidingness [thubut va qiyam\. In
actuality, they are really sheer inanimate things. How will they bring about
“traces” in other inanimate things like themselves? Or how will they effectuate
or originate them?
So there must be an all-powerful Being above
them who has brought them into existence and granted them their appropriate
perfections. It may be compared to the scenario where intelligent people see
inanimate things [such as puppets in a puppet show] acting and from that they
deduce that those things must have an actor or a mover [such as the puppeteer]
behind them. They do know that this act is not possible for it [to do on by
itself]. There must be an actor above them who has brought that act into existence.
So the act of an inanimate
thing is not a curtain hiding the real actor for the intelligent people. On
the contrary, when he sees the inanimate thing acting, it points toward the
real actor.
The same argument applies
here! Yes ¡Less intelligent people may indeed see the act of an inanimate thing
as a curtain for the act of the true actor. Since when he sees it acting, he
considers the sheer inanimate thing as the possessor of power and denies the
true actor. As God says in the Koran, It misguides many and guides many
(Koran 2:26). This knowledge of mine has been learned from the niche of
prophethood. Everyone’s knowledge does not reach there!
Wise men attain their
wisdom by following the authority of the prophets. They know that “worldly
occasions” prove the existence of their Creator. Worldly occasions lack any
power in and of themselves. So if their Creator did not possess power, how
else would worldly occasions attain power? Therefore, the fact that worldly occasions
“apparently” possess power establishes that there is a Supreme Being that is
giving them that power. It is like the puppet that acts in a puppet show,
thereby proving that there must be a puppeteer who is controlling the puppets,
and giving them their power to move.
41
41’’Worldly occasions” that are beings other than humans may
indeed be compared to puppets, but human beings are not mere puppets in the
Mujad-
There are many benefits of
having “worldly occasions” as intermediaries. As a proof, the Mujaddid cites
the story of Prophet Jacob in the noble Koran. He rebukes those who do not see
the need for worldly occasions. It is via the medium of those worldly
occasions that God Himself works. Our infinitely wise Lord employs worldly
occasions, as He knows that there is wisdom in it. Such is also the sunna of
the prophets.
There are many people who
consider the elimination of worldly occasions to be perfection.
First, they relate
everything to the Haqq (SWT) without any intermediary. They do not realize that
you eliminate wisdom when you eliminate worldly occasions. There is much benefit
and wholesomeness in this wisdom [i.e., worldly occasions]. Lord! You have
not created this in vain (Koran 3:191). The prophets held that all things
proceed from God; however, they still always employed worldly occasions as if
those were pious deeds. For example, in the case of Hazrat Jacob, he anticipated
danger and suggested to his sons: Sons! Don’t enter through a single door.
Instead, enter through different doors (Koran 12:67).
Yes! Prophet Jacob did
employ a “worldly occasion” for his sons’ safety; he did instruct them to enter
through different doors. He was afraid that someone will look at them with
“evil eyes” and harm them. So to avoid or, or at least to minimize the damage
to one son only, he suggested them to enter through different doors. But even
after employing that occasion, he put his trust and
didi scheme. Indeed, the Mujaddid grants human
beings far more freedom than Ashari does. See the section below entitled ”God the
Désirer and Creator of both Good and Evil.” faith in God. And that
attitude denotes the perfection of reliance on Allah. Ignorant people may think
that throwing up their hands, sitting still without making any effort, and
hoping that God will perform a miracle is the apogee of reliance on Allah.
However, that is not what God suggests and this is not what His messengers do.
Along with [employing]
these considerations (mara‘at) [i.e., worldly occasions, Jacob] relegated this
matter to the Haqq (SWT) and said, I will not be able to protect you from
Allah in any matter. Verily there is no ruling except that of Allah. On Him I
rely and on Him relies the reliant (Koran 12:67). The Haqq (SWT) was
pleased and He suggested that it came from Him and commented about Hazrat
Jacob, Verily he possesses knowledge for We taught him. However, most men do
not know this much (Koran 12:68). In the noble Koran, God Himself has also
indicated to our prophet to take up intermediaries, Dear Prophet! Allah and
your faithful followers suffice for you (Koran 8:64).
42
The Mujaddid supports the
ulama of the mainstream Sunni community by supporting the concept of
“effectivity”— the ability of contingent things to effect. Employing the power
to effect of the created things is not a negation of reliance on God. On the
contrary, it is a demonstratation of perfect reliance on God, who is the
Creator of that
42While most Koranic exegetes interpret this verse as
translated above, a minority interpret it differently, as For you and your
faithful followers, Allah is sufficient. Following the majority interpretation,
the Mujaddid suggests that this verse hints the Prophet to take benefit from
his companions as intermediaries. [IA] effectivity. And when He
wills, the worldly occasions become effective, and when He does not will it,
they do not become effective.
Now what remains is the
matter of “effectivities” (ta’thif) of the worldly occasions. It has
been narrated that the Haqq (SWT) sometimes does create effectivities in the
worldly occasions and so [in those cases] those things [worldly occasions] do
become effective. And other times, He does not create the effectivities in
them. Therefore, inevitably [in those cases] those things [worldly occasions]
do not show any effect.
It is apprpriate that the
Haqq (SWT) creates effectivities in worldly occasions some of the time and then
they become effective. And some other times, no effectivity manifests from
those [worldly occasions]. To deny absolutely the effectivity of worldly
occasions is evidence of intellectual arrogance. One must admit effectivities.
One should also admit that effectivities depend on God’s capability of bringing
things into existence, just as the worldly occasions do. This is my opinion on
this matter. AllahAllah (SWT) reveals the truth!
From the above, we can conclude that employing
worldly occasions does not negate reliance on Allah; on the contrary, it
denotes complete reliance on Allah.
This clarifies that
employing worldly occasions as intermediaries is not contrary to reliance on
Allah- although the “imperfect ones” [who have not realized the true knowledge]
may think otherwise. On the contrary, the perfection of reliance on Allah lies
in employing worldly occasions as intermediaries. Hazrat Jacob (salam) employed
worldly occasions, left everything to the Haqq (SWT), and then relied on Him.
As he [Prophet Jacob, (salam)] says in the Koran, I rely on Him and on Him
relies the reliant (Koran 12:67.) [A 1.266, 114.1-115.13]
God
Desires and Creates Both Good and Evil
The
Mujaddid affirms the mainstream Sunni creed that says that God creates both
good and evil. However, He is well pleased by good deeds and displeased by evil
deeds. This subtle difference between “desiring” and “good-pleasure” is hard to
understand- and has given birth to many schisms.
He (SWT) desires both good
and evil. And He creates both of them. However, He is well pleased by good
[deeds] and displeased by evil [deeds.] There is a subtle difference between
desiring (irada) and good pleasure (rida).
Out of all the sects of
Islam, Haqq (SWT) has given [only] the mainstream Sunni sect guidance on this
difference. The rest of the sects have not been given guidance on this
difference and so they have remained in error. Here, the [misguided sect named]
Mu- tazila says that man is the creator of his own actions. And it [the
Mutazila sect] finds that he [man] brings his own lack of faith or disobedience
into existence. [A 1.266, 115.13- 16]
The Mujaddid explains and
comments on Ibn Arabi’s proposition that good deeds come from God’s name, the
Guide, and bad deeds come from His name, the Misguider, and therefore, He is
obligated to like both good and evil equally; they both please God in the same
way. The Mujaddid rejects this proposition of Ibn Arabi and comments that this
view is similar to Oobligationism, a discredited heresy.
It is understood from what
Shaykh Muhiyud- din [Ibn Arabi] and his followers [who can be compared to
another misguided sect] 43
imply that faith and
wholesome deeds please the name the Guide in the same way that lack of faith
and disobedience please the name the Misguider. This proposition contradicts
the “people of truth.” And it [this proposition of Ibn Arabi] also is inclined
toward obligation- ism [the doctrine that God is obligated to do whatever He
does] ; He is obligated to be well pleased [at all activity] in the same way
that the sun’s rise and its illumination is pleasing to the sun. [A 1.266,
115.16-19]
My sufi shaykh interprets
this section above in the following way.
The sun rises and
illuminates the solar system whether it wants to or does not want to is
immaterial. Here, its volition is meaning-
43The Mujaddid here equates Ibn Arabi and his
followers with a sect. However, it should be noted that he means ’’sect” only
in an allegorical sense. For he always considers Ibn Arabi as a great master of
the mainstream Sunni community and his views that contradicts the mainstream
Sunni community as errors of unveilings and thus excusable. less.
Ibn Arabi says that those things, e.g., faith, wholesome deeds, lack of faith,
disobedience, etc. will please God in the same way. That is, God is obligated
to like all the deeds of man, good or bad; He has no choice in this matter,
since all actions of man proceed from God Himself [i.e., the good actions
proceed from His name the Guide, al-Hadi, and the bad actions proceed
from His name the Misguider, al-Mudill\. 44
The Mujaddid affirms that
God is the Creator of all actions, however; He has given man power and desire
so that he himself may choose whether to do a certain action or not. When he
does choose to do it, Allah creates that act.
Haqq (SWT) has given man
[the attributes of] power and desire so that he himself may choose to perform
the action [or not]. Creation of the action relates to Haqq (SWT). And kasb
or “earning the merit” [of the action as the wages of his free choice of
performing that action over not performing that action] relates to man. Such
is the habit (‘adat) of Allah (SWT). After man intends to act out an
action, Allah’s act of creation attaches itself (muta ‘allaq) to that
[intended] action. [A 1.266, 115.19-116.2]
And in this method God “creates” that intended
action.
The concept of kasb,
which means “acquisition,” or “earning merit,” comes fromkalam, the Muslim religious
science used to defend the traditional Islamic be-
44Muhammad
Mamunur Rashid, Islami Bishwas, p. 24 liefs against the
argumentations of the philosophers of \hcfaylasuf tradition and others.
In contrast to the Christian science of theology, the only purpose of kalam
was defensive, i.e. to defend against the arguments of the faylasufs and
others. Imam Ashari, the first person to systematize the mainstream Sunni
kalam, introduced this concept to answer this dilemma “God is the creator of
human actions. All human acts are actually divine act(s). So how can man be
penalized on account of God’s act? Would that not be injustice?” (Please note
that rewarding someone undeservedly is not injustice, it is God’s bounty-
punishing someone unjustly is the contentious issue.) On one extreme, the
deviant Jabariya or Compul- sionist sect held that God compels man to do
whatever he does- both good actions and bad actions. This would make God unjust
for His punishment of someone in the last world. On the other extreme, the
deviant The Mu- tazila sect held that God granted man absolute freedom in his
actions and man is the creator of his own actions, thus God would be unjust in
sending someone to hell on account of his actions. Thus God becomes less than
omnipotent, thus undeserving of His name all-powerful and not the Creator of
everything, and so undeserving of His name All-Creating.
|
Complusionists (Jabariya) |
Asharis (the dominant
mainstream Sunni school) |
Mutazilas |
|
Man has no |
Man has “limited” |
Man has complete |
|
free will |
free will |
free will |
Table
4.10: Free will of man: A
comparison of the three sects
In answer to both, Imam
Ashari, the predominant mainstream Sunni scholar of kalam, and his followers
introduced the concept of acquisition or kasb. They explained that
there is a distinction between the creation (khalq) and acquisition (kasb)
of an action. While God creates all human acts, man acquires his acts from Him.
Their viewpoint is summarized in this table. I also contrast the Ashari theory
with the Mutazila theory, to understand the former better. As the poet Rumi
wrote, “Things are known by their contraries!”
Now God has indeed given
man both power and desire, but how much? The official mainstream Sunni teaching
is that God has given man “limited free will.” Now what is the extent of this
“limited free will? How is it limited? Imam Ashari has given man a very limited
free will and the Mujaddid criticizes this in several of his maktubs. In
contrast, the Mujaddid grants man a truer free will, in line with the Maturudi
school of kalam that he followed. He proposes an ethics in which man is more
responsible for his actions than Ashari proposes- he theorizes that while man’s
act of choosing is “weaker” than God’s act of choosing, still it is sufficient
to do the act and therefore, it is man who is morally responsible for the
consequences of all his actions. Yes! Nonhuman “worldly occasions” may be
compared to “puppets.” However, human beings are not mere “puppets” with God
pulling the strings; they do possess a true “freedom” in their activity in the
stage of the world, although it is a stage that God has set up.
When man’s action proceeds
from [his own] act of intending and act of choosing (qasd va ikhtiyar),
then it is he who deserves the praise, censure, reward, or punishment (mad-
ha va dham va thawab va ‘iqab). It is said that man’s act of choosing is
“weak” (da’if). What does “weak” mean here? If it means
The Mutazila concept (where it differs from the
Asharis)
All power
belongs to God. Power is either a) original, i.e., eternal (qadim), or
b) derived, i.e., newly originated (hadith). Ashari agrees with all
Muslim sects that the power that man possesses is “derived”45 from
God. Where Ashari differs from the Mutazilas is that he proposes that the
original power alone is effective; the derived power can create nothing.
Ashari
proposed that God creates the actions that are performed by man; man is not
capable of creating any action.46 “There is no creator except God
and the actions of man are, therefore, His creation.”47 But man may
“acquire” God’s actions. Thus God is the creator and man is the “acquisitor” (muktasib)
of human actions.
How does
God create human acts? It is a two-part process.
Initiation
Part:
God
creates in man the power (qudra) to perform the act and the power to
make a free choice (ikhtiyar) between two actions.
Completion
Part: However, those two God-created human powers qudra and ikhtiyar
are not sufficient to do the act. Man still needs God to complete his act. Now
it is the habit or nature (‘add) of God to create the action
corresponding to the power and free choice of man. So God creates the act of
man.
The
Result: Therefore, it is God who performs all human acts, both as to initiation
and as to completion.
So how is
man responsible for that act, which is nominally attributed to him but is
actually God’s act? Because man has “acquired or earned” (kasb) the merit of
the act.
All Muslim
sects agree in that all power belongs to God and whatever power man has is
power derived from God. But the Mutazilas differ from the Asharis in the belief
that the “derived power” is sufficient to perform the human act; while the
Asharis believe that even that derived power is not sufficient, man still needs
God to perform the act for him
Mutazilas
proposed that the power that humans possess (although it is originally derived
from God) can indeed create and so man’s acts are his own acts.
Mutazilas
agree here.
Here the Mutazilas
do not need God to complete the human act. The “derived power” that man
possesses (that originally came from God) is sufficient to complete the human
act.
Thus man
is the creator of his own action.
Man is
totally free in all aspects of taking his act- in deciding between what act to
do, in intending to do the chosen action, and finally in completing the act,
(although it is God that originally granted man those powers
that human act of choosing
is “weaker” than the divine act of choosing, then it is correct. On the
contrary, if it means that human act of choosing is not sufficient to do the
act then it is not correct. Verily Allah (SWT) does not prescribe for someone
an act that is not within one’s realm of ability. He wants the easy act for
man, not the difficult act.[54]
[A 1.266, 116.2-6; FR 74.2-20]
|
Jabariya (Compulsionists) |
Asharis |
Mujaddid |
Mutazilas |
|
Absolutely no |
“limited” free |
“More and truer |
Complete free |
|
free will |
will |
free will” |
will |
Table
4.12: Free will of Man:
Comparison between the three sects and the Mujaddid
The Mujaddid proposes a “more and truer free
will” than the Asharis, but still less than the complete free will that the
Mutazilas propose.
The Mujaddid unveilings totally conform with the
mainstream Sunni creed—the faithful will enjoy an eternity of bliss and those
who are unfaithful to the core, lacking even a grain of faith, will suffer
eternal damnation.
The gist of the section is
that meting out an everlasting recompense for an action of temporary duration
is the “measuring out” (taqdir) by Haqq. He has decreed everlasting
punishment to be the proper recompense for lack of faith for a temporary
period of time [that is the earthly life]. And He has decreed everlasting bliss
to be the proper recompense for faith lasting for a temporary period of time
[that is the earthly life]- such is the “measuring out” of the Mighty and
Wise. [A 1.266, 116.6-8]
The Mujaddid justifies eternal bliss and
damnation. He argues that an “eternity” of bliss or pain is the proper
recompense for possessing faith in God or not; since God is so sublime.
By the grace of Allah, we
can also understand that it is He who is the Lord of all manifest and
nonmanifest bliss and it is He who brought the heavens and the earth into existence;
and also all the greatness and perfection that there is, all that is
established for Him. The recompense for exercising a lack of faith in Him would
also be a most severe punishment. And that punishment is eternal damnation.
Likewise, to have faith in
an unseen God who grants us so much bliss should have a great recompense. And
to hold Him to be True when the impediments of the [instigating] soul and Satan
exist should also have a great recompense. Indeed, their recompense should be
the greatest recompense. And that recompense should be everlasting bliss. So
faith is the cause of being granted that greatest recompense, which is
everlasting bliss! That re-
ally glorifies faith. Or
instead, that glorifies God who is the object of that faith.
Some shaykhs [e.g., Ibn
Arabi] have said that entrance into paradise truly depends on divine bounty.
[However, [while I, the Mujaddid, agree to it, I also propose that God] has
made it appear that it [entrance to paradise] depends on our faith ? and there
is a reason for Him doing so. And the reason is that we find the compensation
of our own acts to be more pleasurable. [So, we find paradise more pleasurable
when we know that it is the result of us having faith than when we know that
it is the result of divine bounty. Yes!] I consider that-entrance to paradise
depends on faith. [However, faith is merely an intermediary reason here, not
the ultimate reason.] And faith is His bounty and gift. [So ultimately,
entrance to paradise depends on divine bounty.] Similarly, entrance into hell
depends on faithlessness. And faithlessness grows out of the caprices of the
instigating soul. All the beautiful things that you receive are from Allah
and all the ugly things that you receive are from your own selves (Koran
4:79). [A 1.266, 116.8-16]
The Mujaddid refutes Ibn Arabi’s proposition on
the eternity on punishement. Ibn Arabi proposes that after suffering hellfire
for a long long time, everyone will be ultimately forgiven and granted paradise.
The Mujaddid disagrees with that and instead supports the consensus of
opinion of the ulama of the mainstream Sunni community- that the faithless will
suffer eternal damna- tion. He says it glorifies God to grant perpetual
paradise only to those who have faith in Him; and to send those who reject Him
to everlasting hell. Perpetuity in paradise or eternal damnation- such a
bountiful reward or severe punishment on account of possessing faith in God or
not, that only exalts God!
The Mujaddid explains that denial of God is such
an enormous sin that eternal damnation is its proper recompense. Here he again
contradicts Ibn Arabi and supports the ulama of the mainstream Sunni community.
You should know the
following. You may enter paradise only if you possess faith. [Faith is so
important that one receives such a great gift, like the gift of paradise, only
if one possesses faith. And the reason behind it] is really to glorify faith;
instead to glorify [God who is] the object of that faith. It is for this reason
that such an exalted wage is meted out [on account of faith ? it glorifies God
who is the object of that faith]. And you will enter hell if you lack faith.
[Faith is very critical! So critical! So critical that one receives the
dreadful punishment of eternal damnation for lacking faith. And the reason
behind that rule] is really to denigrate lack of faith and to venerate (tabjil)
Him [God], in whom is that lack of faith. It is for this reason that such a
severe and everlasting punishment is meted out. [A 1.266, 116.16-20]
Now the Mujaddid criticizes Ibn Arabi who denied
eternal damnation for the faithless and instead proposed that finally everyone
will enter paradise.
What some shaykhs [e.g., Ibn Arabi and his
followers] have said on it lacks this subtlety. Also, entrance to hell
corresponds to that [lack of faith] and those shaykhs interpretations do not
address this either. For entrance into hell truly depends on lack of faith.
Allah (SWT) inspires the truth! Such as this! [A 1.266, 116.20-117.2]
It is an article of faith of the mainstream
Sunni community that the faithful will “see” God in the last world. The
Mujaddid’s verification of this vision of Allah agrees with the mainstream
Sunni creed.
The faithful will see the
Haqq (SWT) in the last world in paradise. That vision will be “directionless” (bi-jihat);
“howless” (bi-kayfy. “without likeness” (bi-shabh) and “without
analogy” (bi-milhal). [A 1.266, 117.2-3]
The Mujaddid comments that all Muslim sects except
the mainstream Sunnis deny the vision. Even Ibn Arabi reduces the vision to a
“self-disclosure in the outward form.”
This
is such a matter that every sect, be it within our religion or out of it,
denies- except the mainstream Sunnis- they [those outside the mainstream Sunni sect
e.g., the Mutazi- las] do not permit a vision that is “directionless” and
“without what manner.” Even so, Shaykh Muhiyuddin Ibn Arabi has reduced this
next-worldly vision to a “self-disclosure in the outward form” (tajalli-i
suri) and he does not permit any self-disclosure except with this
[interpretation, that it is a] type [that is only in the outward form], [A
1.266, 117.3- 5]
The Mujaddid points out that the vision that the
mainstream Sunnis propose and the Mutazilas deny is different from what Ibn
Arabi calls the vision.
The Mutazilas deny the vision since they stress
the incomparability (tanzih) of God and deny His similarity (tashbih).
In the reductio ad absurdum syllogism, they argue in this line, “Since
God is incomparable, His vision also must be incomparable. Therefore, the
vision must be ‘directionless’ and ‘without what manner.’ However, we can not
‘see’ something that is ‘directionless’ or ‘without what manner.’ Therefore,
the vision must be an absurdity.”
Ibn Arabi says that if the Mutazilas conceived
the vision to be some kind of “self-disclosure in the outward form” like he
conceives, they would not have denied it. His conception of the self-disclosure
(that he calls selfdisclosure in the outward form or tajalli-i suri)
has both direction and “how”; so the Mutazilas would not have denied such a
type of self-disclosure.
One day, our Hazrat
[Baqibillah] quoted from the Shaykh [Ibn Arabi], “If the Mutazilas would not
confine this vision to the level of tanzih, i.e., divine incomparability
and instead would propose tashbih, i.e., divine similarity and would
recognize the vision to be this self-disclosure [in the outward form], they
would never deny this vision or consider it impossible. That is, their denial
is on the point of it [the vision] being directionless and without-how (bi-kayf)
[that is specific to the
level of tanzih]. However, that [self-disclosure] which the Mutazi- las
conceive] is not at all like this self-disclosure [in the outward form, which
I, Ibn Arabi, conceive], as this one has both direction and how.”[55]
[A 1.266, 117.5-9]
The Mujaddid points out that the
“self-disclosure in the outward form” of Ibn Arabi would not be a vision of God
at all. And if someone proposes that the vision is a sort of “self-disclosure
in the outward form,” then he is really denying that vision altogether and thus
denying the mainstream Sunni creed.
It should be bome in mind
that to drag down this last-worldly vision to a “self-disclosure as an outward
from (tajalli-i suurif’ [a selfdisclosure where God appears as a
physical form, which Ibn Arabi proposes] is really to deny this vision. It is
because although that [last-worldly] “self-disclosure in the outward form” is
different from this [worldly] “selfdisclosure in the outward form,” still it
is not the vision of the Haqq (SWT). [A 1.266,117.9- 11]
The faithful will see Him, lacking any “how”
But will neither perceive Him nor will take down
an image [of Him]
The poem above illustrates what the nature of
that vision would be. It would be just as the Mujaddid explained in his
monograph Mabda ’ va Ma ‘ad,
Tomorrow [on the Day of the
Resurrection] all the faithful will see the Haqq (SWT) with their [own
physical] eyes; but none will be able to perceive Him. Sight would not be
able to perceive Him (Koran 6:103).” [Mabda 42, 66.1-.3]
Dispatch of the Prophets is
Mercy
The Mujaddid discusses the benefit of sending
prophets to mankind. 51 To the Mujaddid, prophets are critical in
order to tell us about God and His attributes. While intellect is a proof, it
is only an incomplete proof. Therefore, the dispatch of the prophets is
critical.
The dispatch of the
prophets is an act of mercy to the inhabitants of the world. If these great
ones were not the intermediaries, then who would guide lost people like us
toward the knowledge of the person and the attributes of the Necessary
Existence (SWT)? Or who would distinguish between the things that please our
lord well and the things that do not please Him well? Without the support from
the light of their invitation toward God, our imperfect intellects are far
removed from this knowledge. And without following these great ones [who are
the prophets], our incomplete understandings cannot understand it. Yes! Intellect
is always a proof but it is an incomplete proof. It has not reached the level
of maturity. Dispatch of the prophets is the mature proof.
51 The
Mujaddid writes more on the same theme-the need for prophets-in his monograph Ithbat
wa Nubuwwat
That is why the
last-worldly reward and punishment depends on it.
The Mujaddid answers the question, “If one
disobeys the prophets, he is subject to punishment in the last world. If the
prophets did not warn him, God would not have punished him. So prophets can be
said to be the cause of his punishment. So how then, can the dispatch be termed
as an act of mercy?”
Question: Since the last-worldly punishment always depends
on this dispatch [of the prophets], how could one possibly call this dispatch a
“mercy to the inhabitants of the world?”
In answer, the Mujaddid first recounts all the
numerous benefits of the dispatch of the prophets.
Answer: This dispatch is identical to mercy, as it is
the worldly occasion, which leads to the knowledge of the person and the
attributes of the Necessary Existence (SWT), and that [knowledge] guarantees
felicity, both in this world and the next world. By this felicity of dispatch,
we attain the cognition of that which is appropriate to the Holy Majesty that
is He (SWT) from that which is inappropriate to the Holy Majesty that is He (SWT).
Our lame and blind intellect is branded by the brand of contingentness and
newly-originatedness! How will it know which name or attribute or [what is the
reality of the] act(s) that is appropriate to the Necessary Presence who is
necessarily eternal? So that it [our lame and blind intellect] may know which
ones [of the names, attributes, or act(s)] it should apply to
Him and which ones it
should not? On the contrary, due to its own imperfection, it [the intellect]
often considers perfection as imperfection; and imagines imperfection as
perfection.
I consider [the knowledge
of] this distinction above all obvious and hidden bliss. He is most unfortunate
who applies inappropriate things to the Person (SWT); and associates an
undeserved thing to His exalted presence. By this dispatch, [man can] separate
truth from falsehood. And he can distinguish right worship from the false
[worship]. Through the means of this dispatch, they [the prophets] invite man
to the Haqq (SWT), and bring the servants to felicity of the nearness and “arrival”
to the Master. Through the means of this dispatch, one may be informed on how
to well please the Master (lofty are His modes!) as it has been mentioned
before. And one can distinguish when one may intervene in the possession of the
Almighty and when one may not. There are many more benefits of this dispatch.
So it is now decided that the dispatch of the prophets is a mercy.
He notes that he who disobeys this dispatch has
only himself to blame for his punishment, not the dispatch. Therefore, the
dispatch is still mercy, as it has numerous benefits.
So one who obeys the
caprices of his instigating soul (nafs-i ammarah) is the one who
disparages this dispatch at the instigation of the accursed Satan and who does
not practice in accordance to the message of that dispatch. So why should that
dispatch be blamed there? Instead, why should not that [dispatch via the
prophets] still [be considered to] be mercy?
[A 1.266, 117.11-118.11, FR76.12-11.22]
Here the Mujaddid answers a question that is
extremely relevant to modem times, as many spiritually-minded people (“New
Agers” in America and elsewhere) ask, “Why do we need to bother with divine
Revelation? Why can’t we just follow our hearts instead?”
First, we need to note that the gods that many
of these new-agers follow are not even within their hearts but instead their nafs-i
ammarah, instigating souls. They do what they want to do, i.e., what their
instigating souls want to do. But even when some of them (the more spiritual
ones) do follow their hearts, even then they may be misguided. This is true
even for their masters who have some realization of God, or even sufi masters.
This is why we need to follow the divinely revealed code of conduct sent to the
prophets for our salvation.
Here, the Mujaddid explains that even the
purified intellects, even those of their masters who have “realized God,” are
not free from human frailties. And therefore, even the rulings derived by the
purified intellects of those masters (let alone the impure intellects of
ordinary people) are not reliable. Only the divine revelation that the
prophets receive is free from such errors and so is entirely reliable.
Question: The intellect is essentially imperfect and incomplete in
realizing the divine ml- ings in itself or by itself. Even then, having been
cleansed and purified [i.e., refined and polished] it [the intellect] does find
a correlation and conjunction (munasaba va illisa!) in an “other than
how” manner [i.e., it finds an unqualified connection] to the level of Neces-
saryness (wiijub). (SWT) As a result of that correlation and
conjunction, why can’t it [the intellect] acquire the divine injunctions from
there [i.e., from God directly and without the intermediation of any prophet]?
Why should there still be a need for a dispatch [by the prophets to mankind]
via the angels?
Answer: Although the intellect may create such a
correlation and conjunction [with God] still the ta ‘alluq, [the
intimate attachment that comes down to the intellect] from the “hylo- morphic
form” [i.e., the essence of an individual man who is receiving the knowledge]
does not completely disappear or disengage. So the faculty of imagination [that
is an integral part of the essence of man] is always holding fast onto it [the
intellect]. Illusions never leave the screen of its mind. The faculties of
anger and appetite are its constant companions. The vices of eager desire and
covetousness are its continual confidants. Absent- mindedness and forgetfulness
that are characteristics of man are squandered on it. Errors and mistakes that
are the lot of mankind do not leave it. Therefore intellect is not dependable.
And the rules derived by it are not well protected from the power of
imagination and the intervention of illusion. And they [those rules] are not
preserved from the taint of forgetfulness and the surmise of error. The case
of the angels is its contrary. They are pure from these ascriptions and
exonerated from these vices. Therefore, they are necessarily dependable. And
the rules derived by it [the method of transmission via the angels] are well
guarded from the taint of illusion and imagination and the surmise of
forgetfulness and error.
On the hylomorphic form, Aristotle proposed that
primary substances, i.e., individual things (e.g., the man Karim or the man
Zahir, the thing A or the thing B, etc.) are hylomorphic compounds made of
matter poured into the mold that is the “hylomorphic form” or pikar hayyu-
lani. So hylomorphic form means “essence” of a thing. In Ibn Arabi’s
ontology that follows that tradition here, the hylomorphic form is the “fixed
entity”[56]
and matter is wujud. Or the hylomorphic form is the “receptacle” or qabil
of divine wujud. Or the hylomorphic form is the “essence” while the
substance is the outer form, the sura. In this context, hylomorphic form
refers to the “essence” of man that includes human frailties like the vices of
forgetfulness, error, imagination, etc.
Another question, “It is the God-realized sufi
masters who have said sayings like ‘All is He (hama usf),’ T am the
Haqq {anal Haqqy T am the Exalted (subhani): etc. So why aren’t
they true?” The Mujaddid clarifies that even for those great masters, the
messages that they presume to be from God may be false. First, those messages
may have been corrupted during their transmission to those masters.
|
Metallic thing |
Individual thing |
Individual thing |
Outer form |
Outer form |
|
Mold |
Hylomorphic form |
Fixed entity |
Essence |
Reality (haqiqa) |
|
Metal |
Matter |
Wujud (existence of
God) |
|
|
Table 4.13: Things
and their compositions
There are some premises (like All is He, hama
list, subhani, anal haqq) that the [sufi] mas-
ters hold as axiomatic truths (muqaddamal-
i musallama.) [57]
They have been attained
by the way of illusion and imagination along
with other things. [So, necessarily] they are
far from the truth. Sometimes I sense that
when a science that is [really a body of] spir-
itual conjectures (bi-lalaqqii ruhani) is spiri-
tually received, that science is contaminated
with some of those false premises. That hap-
pens in that interval of time when the sensory
faculties spiritually take down that science.
At that time, some of those false premises
are sometimes unintentionally contaminated
with that science in a way that those premises
cannot be distinguished [from that science]
at that critical interval of time [of reception].
While in that state [of reception], sometimes
those [false premises] can be distinguished
[from that science that was originally received
from God] and some other times they can-
not be distinguished. Therefore, that science
[that was originally true and pure] has neces-
sarily attained the form of falsehood as it has
been contaminated with those false premises.
Therefore, none should rely on that [contam-
inated] science any longer.
Note: When the Mujaddid wrote it, he directed
this not only against the misguided sufis and “spirituals,’’but also against \hvjaylasuf
tradition philosophers. The misguided sufis believed that when they would
receive their “enlightenment,” they would attain an arrival (wasI) with
God; and through that relationship, they would establish a correlation with God
and receive knowledge from Him directly. In the same way, many of these faylasuf
tradition philosophers (Avicenna, al-Farabi, Ibn Bajjah et al) proposed that a
elect few may attain enlightenment through the acquisition of knowledge[58].
And when the enlighted minds of the seekers-of-knowledge will attain true
enlightenment, those minds will attain “conjunction (ittisaiy’ with the
active intellect. And then those “enlightened philosophers” will attain
knowledge directly from it.
Note: The Mujaddid writes in his monograph the Mabda’
va Ma‘ad [59]
that initially the heart receives a spiritual knowledge and it is only then
that the knowledge is transmitted to the sensory faculties. On the other hand,
the sensory organs receive a worldly knowledge first and it is only then that
knowledge is transmitted to the heart, which is the repository of conviction.
Probably, the Mujaddid means the same thing here that the heart receives this
science spiritually and then this science is transmitted to the sensory
organs. He may also mean that the heart is the repository of the conviction
that those are false premises and they ‘mix with that science while that
science is being transmitted from the heart to the sensory organs. Remember
that in Islamic sciences, especially in sufi epistemology, the heart, qalb
is the organ of cognition, not the brain.
Second, the Mujaddid explains that those
messages are corrupt because they have been received in an impure heart. Please
note that this argument is applicable in the case of masters who live their
lives outside the sharia. Yes! The Mujaddid says that these “God-realized” masters
may indeed receive inspirations, unveilings or perform miracles! However, one
must follow divine revelation in order to purify his “heart”- and it is not
the “soul,” nafs but the “heart,” qalb that is the primary organ
of realizing divine knowledge in the Islamic tradition. He explains that for
those masters, it is their “souls” that are purified but not their “hearts.”
They may attain miraculous powers and unveilings of the unseen world through
their purified souls but since their “hearts” are still impure, the messages
that they receive there are also impure and are not worthy of reliance.
Or I can say that the
cleansing and purification of the soul depends on practicing those wholesome
deeds that satisfy the Master and depend on the dispatch—as it has been narrated
before. Therefore, one may not realize the cleansing and purification without
the dispatch. The purification that the faithless and the corrupt attain [60]
is the purification of the soul only but not the purification of the heart. And
the purification of the soul alone does not increase anything but misguidance.
And it points to nowhere except damage. The unveilings of some unseen things
that come in the hand of the faithless and the corrupt is what leads one step
by step to ruin. Their result is badness and damages that group.
May Allah (SWT) save us
from these calamities by our reverence for the “prince of the prophets
[Muhammad]” (salam). [A 1.266, 118.11-119.11; FR 77.22-79.6]
Prescriptions of the Sharia
Are Blessings
The Mujaddid does not consider the imposition of
the divine commandments on us as a burden; instead, it is a blessing. The
Mujaddid notes that some people who reject the divine law ask the question,
“Why did God impose a burdensome law on us? Instead, why did he not let us
live like animals, unencumbered by any law?”
It is
clear from this verification that the prescription of the sharia that is
established by the prophetic method is also a blessing. It is not what the
heretics who reject the sharia consider.
In Arabic, taklif does mean
“prescription” but in Persian, the language of Islamic India, taklif
means, “burden.” So what in Arabic means “God has prescribed sharia for man”
means in Persian “God has burdened man with the sharia.”
They mistakenly think that
the word taklif, “prescription” derives from the word kulfat, “burden.”
And so they think this way but it is irrational. They argue, “Where is the kindness
of God if He would prescribe difficult deeds to people and say that if they
would do this difficult prescription then they would be sent to paradise and if
they do otherwise then they would be sent to hell? Why did He prescribe these
difficult things instead of letting us eat and sleep and do whatever we like?”
Now the Mujaddid answers why we should follow
the divine law. First, the intellect establishes the prescriptions of the law as
necessary. Those prescriptions are not at all a burden; instead they are
expressions of gratitude for God’s blessings to mankind.
These unfortunate and
unwise people do not seem to know that man’s intelligence requires people to
express gratitude [to God] for the blessings that they receive [from Him],
These prescriptions of the sharia are the clarification of this gratitude.
Therefore, intellect establishes “prescription” as necessary.
Second, the Mujaddid explains that the law makes
the world an orderly place.
Furthermore, the order of
the world depends on this prescription. If everyone were left to his own whim,
nothing but evil and corruption would appear. Every whimsical person would lay
his hands on other peoples’ bodies and properties. And depravity and corruption
would reign. They would destroy themselves and they would destroy him [on whom
they have laid their hands] ! May Allah save us! If the prohibition and the ban
by the sharia were not there! Your life lies in just retribution! Possessors
of intelligence! (Koran 2:179).
The drunk Ethiopian
would vomit in the Kaaba
If the cane of the judge
were not ruling
Third, the Mujaddid argues, “God is our absolute
owner. So whatever He has ordered us to do must be done without any question.
None may question whatever He does!”
Or I can also say that He
(SWT) is the unbounded possessor and people are His possessions. So whatever
ruling that He gives or whatever intervention He does to them are identical to
goodness and wholesomeness. So these rulings are devoid of and exonerated from
even a taint of injustice and corruption. None may question whatever He
does! (Koran 21:23).
Who has the courage ?
(In fear of Him!)
To open up his mouth!
Until he has submitted
to Him!
If He (SWT) would send
everyone to hell and decree eternal damnation, we may not protest against Him.
For that would not be a violation of the rights of others. Nor would there be
even a taint of injustice. [This is] unlike our possessions, which are truly
His possessions. Every use of that [divine possession by us] is transgression
in itself. That is because [Allah] the Master of the Sharia, has given us
those possessions for some wholesome purpose, although in reality, those are
His possessions. Therefore, our violation of them [the divine possessions or
rights] is permissible [only] to that extent that God the absolute and
unbounded owner permits it and remains indifferent to it. [A 1.266, 119.11-
120.10; FR 79.6-80.12]
The Revelation that the prophets of God receive
is indeed true.
What these great ones [the
prophets of God] (salam) delivered as decrees from God and clarification of the
rules, all that is true and conforms to true events.
Yes! The prophets may make errors, but that
error is only temporary. God does not allow them to remain in error for long.
For example, in the Koranic story of the Prophet Jonah (Koran 37:139-148), God
dispatched him to his people and entrusted him with the obligation of
prophethood. However, he was disheartened by his people’s adamant refusal to
heed the truth. In desperation, he left the area leaving his mission and his
people. God became angry at Hazrat Jonah and following the divine command, a
big fish devoured Hazrat Jonah. He then repented and was forgiven by Allah.
Another example lies in the Koranic story of Moses, who accidentally killed an
Egyptian trying to defend an Israelite (Koran 28:15).
Although they may err in
interpreting the rules, still they are not permitted to persist in their
errors. It is said that soon they would be made aware of their errors. And when
they realize that, they would be driven to that which is correct. So do not
count their errors! [A 1.266, 120.10-13; FR 79.6-80]
The punishment of the grave as prophesied by the Prophet
Muhammad is indeed true.
The
punishment in the grave for the faithless and for some of the sinners among the
faithful is true. For the truthful reporter (salam) has reported such. The
questioning in the grave of both the faithful and the faithless is also true.
The punishment in the grave is more like the punishment
of hell in its intensity.
The grave is the
intermediary realm between this world and the next world. In one respect, that
punishment [of the grave] can be correlated to a punishment of this world,
which is of limited duration. [Because both punishments are of limited
duration.] However, in another respect, it [the punishment of the grave] can be
correlated with the punishment in the next world, for it is really a punishment
of the next world [in its severity]. The generous verse Fire will be
presented to them in the morning and evening (Koran 40:46) was sent down in
reference to the punishment in the grave. Likewise, the “ease” of the grave has
two sides as well [a worldly side in that that ease- it is of limited duration
and an otherworldly side- in that the ease is heavenly], [A 1.266, 120.13-18;
FR 80]
God May Judge or He May
Forgive
Allah may forgive all the sins of some people and send them
to paradise directly.
The man whose errors and
mistakes Allah forgives by His perfect generosity and clemency, and does not
take account of his sins at all, is truly fortunate. Even if He does take
account, God shows him perfect generosity and expiates his sins by worldly
pain and suffering. If any sin is left, God expiates them by the pressure of
the grave and the sufferings he experiences there. Finally, God cleans and
purifies him and then dispatches him to the Plain of the Mustering.
Or He may not forgive him at all and punish him
in hellfire. However, all the faithful will be finally shown mercy! They will
be taken out of hell and granted paradise!
However, it would also be
justice if God does not do that and instead takes him on into the last world.
Woe to those humiliated sinners! However, if those sinners come from the people
of Islam, they will finally be shown mercy. And they will be protected from
everlasting punishment. This is the great grace of Allah! By the revered
status of the Prince of the Prophets [Muhammad] (salam) Please accept our
supplication, Lord! Complete our lights for us and grant us salvation!
Verily You are powerful over everything! (Koran 8:66). By Your love of the
Prince of the Messengers! Salutaion and peace be on him, on his progeny and on
them! [A 1.266, 120.18- 121.5]
The Mujaddid affirms the Day of Resurrection,
when all existence will be initially destroyed and later everyone will be
resurrected. This is contrary to the doctrine of the jaylasuf tradition
philosophers who believed that the cosmos would exist eternally.
The Day of Resurrection is
true. That day, all the heavens, the heavenly bodies, the earth, the mountains,
the seas, the animals, the plants, the mines- all will become nonexistent and
destroyed. The heavens will be snuffed out. The stars will be scattered and put
to flight.
The land and the mountains
will be swept away like dust. All of these will be brought into nonexistence
and annihilated at the first blow of the Horn. At the second blow [of the Hom],
everyone will be raised from their graves and assembled on the Plain of the
Mustering.
Now the Mujaddid comments on the faylasuf
tradition philosophers who deny the destruction of the cosmos. The Mujaddid
comments that they are denying the definitive plain texts (the Koran and the
hadith literature) and the consensus of opinion of the prophets by making that
claim and therefore even their claim to be Muslim is suspect.
The philosophers do not concede that the heavens
and the heavenly bodies will be brought to nonexistence. And they do not
consider the annihilation and corruption of those things possible. They say
that those things are beginningless and endless.
The Mujaddid observes the fact that the
philosophers of the later period of the. faylasuf tradition were even
bolder in asserting their anti-islamic doctrines. Still they claimed to be
Muslim and even practiced the rites of Islam!
Although they say all this,
the later ones, out of their own witlessness, claim to be included in the class
of the people of Islam and even observe some of the rules of Islam.
He finds it surprising that even many sincere
Muslims support those philosophers of the faylasuf tradition when its
adherents deny definitive articles of the Islamic faith derived from the Koran
and the hadith literature.
It is surprising that some
among the people of Islam believe these interpretations of theirs to be true.
And they consider it wrong to criticize or condemn them whilst they deny
definitive plain texts [the Koran and the hadith literature]. And they
contradict the consensus of opinion of the prophets (salam).
The Mujaddid brings his proofs for the
destruction of the cosmos from the Koran.
Allah
has said, When the sun would be covered and the stars would be made turbid
(Koran 81:1-2). And Allah has said, When the heavens will be pierced and
they will listen to their Lord; that would be the right thing for them
(Koran 84:1-2). And Allah has also said, The heavens will open up and sprout
many doors (Koran 78:19), i.e., the heavens will be pierced. There are many
such evidences in the Koran.
In conclusion, he again suspects their claim to
be Muslims since he believes that the denial of the philosophers of such a
fundamental Muslim creed takes them outside the boundaries of Islam.
They
do not realize that reciting the “verse of witnessing” is not sufficient for
Islam. They are also required to attest to all the necessary doctrines in the
religion. Also, they must be exonerated from faithlessness; [in their hearts]
Islam will not form its form until then. Else all efforts [to get closer to
Allah] will be in vain! [A 1.266, 121.5-17]
The Reckoning, the Scale, the
Bridge
The Mujaddid confirms the mainstream Sunni creed
and declares the Reckoning, the Scale, and the Bridge to be true.
The Reckoning (hisab),
the Scale (mizan), and the Bridge (siraf) are true, as the
truthful re- porter [Prophet Muhammad] (salam) has reported.
The Mujaddid explains the critical importance of
following authority or taqlid of the prophets: The prophetic method is
beyond the intellectual method. Even when denied by the intellect, we should
still believe in divine revelation derived by the prophetic method.
People ignorant of the
prophetic method may consider the existence of these things far-fetched but that
should not even be taken into account. For the prophetic method is beyond the
intellectual method. To corroborate the true news of the prophets by the
intellectual gaze is, in effect, to deny the prophetic method. There [in the
realm of religion], one “transacts business” by following authority. They do
not know that the prophetic method is opposed to the intellectual method.
Indeed, the intellectual method alone may not guide one to that exalted
destination [where one realizes knowledge of God] unless knowledge that came
from the prophets (taqlid) corroborates that [knowledge that one has
attained through the intellectual method.]. Opposition is one thing and not
arriving is another thing. One may oppose after one arrives. [A 1.266, 121.17-
122.3; FR 82.7-16]
The Mujaddid agrees with the mainstream Sunni
creed and affirms that paradise and hell exist; and that they will remain for
eternity.
Paradise and hell indeed
exist. After the Reckoning on the Day of Resurrection, one group will be sent
to paradise and another group will be sent to hell. The reward and punishment
there will be for eternity without end; it will never end- as the assured and
definitive plain texts have indicated.
The Mujaddid now comments on Ibn Arabi’s
proposition that the punishment in hell is only temporary- all sinners will be
finally forgiven. The Mujaddid proves that while all sinners who possess even a
grain of faith will be finally forgiven, still those who are truly unfaithful
will suffer eternal damnation.
In his book the Fusus
al-Hikam, the author [Ibn Arabi] writes that everyone’s end result will be
mercy. My Mercy embraces everything (Koran 7:156). He establishes that
the faithless will suffer for three ages in the hell. He says that after that,
the fire will become cool and peaceful for them, as it became for Hazrat
Abraham. He holds that to break divine threats [for punishment] is permissible.
He says that none among the “people of the heart” [i.e., sufis] agree to
eternal damnation for the faithless. In this matter too, he has strayed far
from the correct position. He does not recognize that the embrace of mercy that
includes both the faithful and the faithless is only for this world. In the
last world, the faithless will not even find the smell of mercy. As Allah (SWT)
says, Verily none would lack hope from the Spirit [i.e., God] except
the faithless (Koran 12:87). Allah also said, My Mercy embraces
everything. So We will ordain these
[good things] for those
who venerate [61] Me, pay zakat and
believe in my verses (Koran 7:156). The Shaykh recites the first verse but
does not invoke the second verse. Allah has also said, Verily the Mercy of
Allah is to the pious (Koran 7:56)
Here is one more verse
[that they misinterpret], Do not think that Allah will break the promise to
his Prophet (Koran 14:47). This verse should not mislead one into thinking
that it points specifically toward the breaking of promises. Maybe God has
mentioned only the breaking of promises because what He means here includes
both helping the prophets and their prevailing over the faithless. Actually,
this verse contains both the promise of rewards and the threat of punishment-
promise to the prophets and threat to the faithless. They say that [rather,
misinterpret this verse to mean] that this generous verse negates both the
promise of rewards and the threat of punishment- promise to the prophets and
threat to the faithless. So [actually] this verse proves the Shaykh wrong, not
right.
Also, he who threatens
punishment and does not carry it out is just as much a liar as he who breaks
his promise of reward; he would not be worthy of being God(SWT).
[This is to say] as if He knew from pre-eternity
that “I would not exact eternal damnation on the disbelievers,” nevertheless-
for some beneficial consideration contrary to His [pre-eternal] knowledge, He
has then said that He would not exact everlasting punishment. To propose such a
view of God is of utmost abhorrence.
Exalted is your Lord who
is the Lord of Exaltation from with what that they qualify Him [i.e., the evil attributes like being a liar] and
peace be on His emissary (Koran 37:180-181).
For these reasons, this Ibn Arabi proposition
should not be accepted. First, it is only his “unveiling” and an unveiling may
be indeed false. Second, it contradicts the consensus of opinion of all
Muslims.
That the “people of the
heart” unanimously agree on, that the faithless will not suffer eternal
damnation, is only an unveiling of the Shaykh [Ibn Arabi], There is a high
possibility that an unveiling is erroneous. So that unveiling should not even
be counted. This opinion of his also contradicts the consensus of opinion of
the Muslims [as all Muslim ulama have a consensus of opinion on the proposition
that the truly faithless will suffer eternal damnation.] [A 122.3-123.2; FR
82.16-84.1]
Ibn Arabi claimed that all the “people of the
heart,” i.e., the sufis who have attained knowledge from God from an inner
realization, agree that the faithless will not suffer eternal damnation. The
Mujaddid points out that even if that were true, that the entire “spiritual
[community]” agree on that, that knowledge is not the incontrovertibly true
knowledge that the prophets receive, instead it is only an unveiling- derived
knowledge that is prone to error. On the other hand, the ulama say the truly
faithless will indeed suffer eternal damnation. And the ulama derive their
knowledge from the prophetic revelation that is indeed incontrovertibly true
knowledge Therefore, one should disregard what Ibn Arabi said and instead
believe what the ulama said which is that the truly faithless will suffer
eternal damnation.
CHAPTER
Angels
The Mujaddid discusses the angels and says,
Angels
are servants of God who are preserved from sins and protected from errors and
forgetfulness. As the Koran says, They do not rebel against the commands of
Allah and they do what has been commanded to them (Koran 66:6). They are
pure from [the blemish that is the need of] eating and drinking [which is the
characteristic of the creatures of the lower corporeal realm]. And they are
unattached and exonerated from a conjugal relationship [that is another
characteristic of those lower beings],
Angels are neither male nor female. So why did
God use the masculine gender for them in the Koran? The Mujaddid explains that
question here.
God uses masculine personal pronouns for them in
the Sagacious Koran (al-Quran al-Hakim) because of the nobility of the
male over the female. It is in line with God’s using the masculine pronoun to
refer to Himself.
Therefore, that should not be construed to mean that the
angels are male.
The Mujaddid believes that angels can be
prophets as well.
God has elected a few among
them [the angels] for Messengerhood, just like He has ennobled a few humans
with this felicity as well. As the Koran says, Allah chooses His Messengers
from the angels and humans(Koran 22:75).
The Mujaddid affirms that the human prophets are
ranked higher than even the elect angels who are not prophets.
Most of the ulama among the “people of truth”
hold that the elect among humans are superior to the elect among the angels.
Imam Ghaz- zali, Imam of the Two Holy Cities,1 and [Ibn Arabi], the
author of the Meccan Revelations - they both proposed the superiority of
the elect angels over the elect humans. What appears to me is that the
friendship that the angels possess is superior to the friendship that the humans
possess [i.e., the elect angels are closer to God than the elect human beings].
Nevertheless, prophethood and messengerhood are on an [exalted] rank that the
angels may [62]
not reach. That rank arises from the element of earth that is in the lot of humans
only. [63]
The Mujaddid affirms that the prophet is far
more exalted in his rank than the friends of Allah, and this is in agreement
with the opinion of the majority of the ulama. Here he contradicts Ibn Arabi
who says that the friend, wali is nearer to God than the prophet in his
prophetic dimension. (Remember! A prophet is a wali too!) It is because
the focus of the prophet is toward the people while the focus of the friend is
toward God[64]
It has also been made
manifest to me that the perfection of friendship has no comparison to the
perfection of prophethood. Alas! This relationship is like the relationship of
a drop of water to the ocean. Therefore, the adornment that comes from
prophethood is far superior to the adornment that comes from friendship. So,
absolute superiority belongs to the prophets. Angels [who are not prophets
themselves] are superior to the [human] prophets only in certain aspects. What
the majority of the ulama has said is indeed correct. Praise is to Allah who
has kept me with them! It is clear from this verification that no friend may
reach the rank of any prophet. On the contrary, the head of that friend will
always remain below the feet of the prophet. [A 1.266, 123.2- 16]
The Mujaddid finds the ulama to be more
“correct” in their interpretation of religion than the sufis.
You should know that in all
the matters where the ulama and the sufis differ, when I observe it well then I
find truth to lie with the ulama.
And this is because the ulama follow the
prophets in their quest for the truth- they arrive at the truth by extracting
information from the level of prophethood, i.e., from divine revelation that
is preserved from error. On the other hand, the sufis attain their information
from the level of friendship, i.e., from the unveilings and witnessings of the
friends, and this is prone to error. Therefore, the information that the
prophets attain through divine revelation, wahi, is far more correct
than the information that the sufis attain through unveiling and inspiration, kashf
va ilham. The ulama obtain their information by employing reason to that
divine revelation and as a corollary, their information is also more correct
than sufi inspirations.
Its mystery is that the
gaze of the ulama, as they follow the prophets (salam), penetrates the
perfection of prophethood and its science. On the other hand, the gaze of the
sufis is focused on the perfections of friendship and its science. Therefore,
necessarily, the science that is taken from the niche of prophethood is more
correct and truer than that which has been taken from the level of friendship.
I have included the verification of some of this science in the maktub that I
have written to
my rightly guided son on
the tariqa. [65]
If you are not clear, you may refer there [to that maktub], [A 1.266,
123.16-124.6]
The Mujaddid defines faith as attesting to all
the required doctrines of Islam. Faith refers to the “attestation by the heart”
of all the required and well-known matters of the religion that has reached us.
Verbal attestation is also a pillar of the faith but sometimes that may be
omitted [under extenuating circumstances, e.g., where it is dangerous to admit
it].
Faith
is the attesting by heart in all [the articles of the faith that are] required
and well accepted. It is said that verbal attestation is also a pillar of the
faith that [sometimes] may be omitted.
While the Mujaddid encourages us to harbor
enmity toward faithlessness, this must be interpreted in the light of his
times. At that time, ideas that compromised the purity of Islam were prevalent;
indeed, as a result, Islam in India faced an existential threat. The Emperors
Akbar and Jahangir synthesized the principles and the practices of Islam with
other religions like Hinduism and Jainism and arrived at a corrupted version of
Islam, which is not really Islam at all. The Mujaddid stresses that there is no
joining the truth with the untruth. And we should hold enmity against all
beliefs that go against Islam.
A signpost of this
attestation is to proclaim distance (tabarri) from faithlessness; and to
detest lack of faith and
all the characteristic and necessary things of faithlessness, e.g., tying
religious belts to mark one as an adherent to a different religion, etc. May
Allah (SWT) save us [from doing that!]. If someone claims this attestation [of
faith] but still does not distance himself from faithlessness, then he believes
in two religions and so he is branded with the burning nametag of apostasy.
Truly, the ruling on him is
the ruling of a hypocrite. He is neither with this group, nor is he with
that group (Koran 4:143) . Therefore, in order to realize true faith,
there is no alternative to distancing oneself from faithlessness. The lowest
form of that distance is distance by the heart. The highest form of that
distance is distance by both the heart and the body (qaUb.) Here
distancing one means holding enmity (dushmani) against the enemies of
the Haqq. That should be done with the heart only if there is an apprehension
that they would harm us. Otherwise, that should be done with both the heart and
the mold when there is no such apprehension.
The Koran says, Prophet!
Struggle with the faithless and the hypocrites and treat them harshly
(Koran 9:73). For love for God and love for the Prophet does not materialize
without holding enmity against their enemies.
Nearness is not possible
Without “enmity” [A 1.266, 124.6-
Shias Wrongly Defame the
Companions
The Mujaddid demonstrates that it is wrong to hold enmity
against the companions.
Here it is true that the
Shias apply this saying [that “being a friend is not possible without holding
enmity”] to the friendship with the Prophet’s family. They hold that a precondition
of that friendship is enmity to the [first] three caliphs [Hazrat Abu Bakr,
Hazrat Umar, and Hazrat Uthman] and the other companions [who are outside the
Prophet’s family], That interpretation is not really correct, as the
pre-condition is the “enmity to their enemies,” not the “unbounded enmity to
everyone else” [except the Prophet’s family].
No intelligent person with
a sense of justice would ever allow that the companions of the Prophet (salam)
would hold enmity against the family of the Prophet. Instead, these great men
spent their properties and even themselves for the love of the Prophet; and
sacrificed their exalted rank and leadership. So how can one relate enmity of
the Prophet’s family to them? How it is possible when definitive plain texts
(the Koran and the hadith literature) establish the love of the near ones to
that great man; and have made their love [love of the companions] as the wage
[from us] of their invitation [of us] toward God.
As Allah has said, Say: Ido
not seek anything from you as its wage except support for my near ones. [I
do not seek anything from you, the members of the Muhammadan community, except
support for my family-members, as the wage of the prophetic invitation], We will
increase the rewards for him who will practice good deeds (Koran 42:23).
Therefore, instead of holding enmity against the
noble companions, you may hold enmity against the enemies of God! The Mujaddid
comments elsewhere[66]
that while the Shias are always calumniating against the companions (who served
the prophet) they never vilify his enemies, such as Abu Jahl (who was the
principal enemy of the Prophet).
Now the Mujaddid brings the example of the
Prophet Abraham. He became a friend Allah by his enmity to the enemies of
Allah. The Mujaddid interprets the saying “Being a friend is not possible
without holding enmity” to mean that that enmity is toward the enemies of Allah,
not toward those who the Shias detest the first three caliphs and the
companions in general.
Prophet Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful
(salam), has attained such greatness that he has become the trunk of the tree
of the prophets by [virtue of] his enmity to His enemies. It is for this reason
that Allah said, Nerily for you there is a beautiful model [example] in
Abraham and those who are with him. They told their people “Verily we are
enemies to you and those who you worship in lieu of Allah. We reject you. An
everlasting enmity and a wrathful relationship has begun between you and us
until you bring faith in one Allah ” (Koran 60:4). I see no other practice
as good as this enmity [to the enemies of God] to realize the satisfaction of
God. [A 1.266, 124.11- 125.4]
God’s “Personal” Enmity with
Faithlessness
The Mujaddid explains why the faithless will
suffer eternal damnation in the last world; it is because His enmity with
faithlessness is personal (i.e., related to His person) while his displeasure
with the evil deeds is related to His Attributes.
I find
that the Haqq (SWT) has a personal (dhati) enmity with the faithless and
faithlessness. And the external (afaqi) idols, e.g., Lat or Uzzah [and
other pagan deities] and their worshippers are the “personal” enemies of the
Haqq (SWT). Eternal hellfire is the recompense for this abominable act. On the
other hand, the human caprices that are the internal (anfusi) idols of
the instigating soul; and all other bad deeds are not like that. For God’s
enmity and wrathfulness with them is not “personal” wrath. Instead, the wrath
[that God has with them] relates to [His] attributes. If there is a punishment
or rebuke, then it is [imposed as a recompense] for their actions. That is why
eternal damnation is not the recompense for such sinful acts. Instead, He may
forgive them [even without any punishment at all] if He so desires. [A 1.266,
125.4- 9; FR 87.2-10]
The Faithless Will Not
Receive Mercy
The Mujaddid confirms the mainstream Sunni creed
and establishes that the truly faithless will not receive divine mercy in the
last world; they will suffer eternal damnation. This is because God’s enmity
with the polytheists is “personal,” while His enmity with the faithful sinners
is “attributive.”
You
should know that since it is established that God’s enmity with the faithless
and faithlessness is “personal,” His merciful attributes would not nullify His
“personal” enmity in the last world. For what relates to the person is
mightier and higher than what relates to the attributes. So that what is
established by the attributes may not replace what is established by the person
(dhal.) In a hadith report in which God speaks in the first person, ”My
Mercy precedes My Wrath.” [67]
refers to attributive wrath that is the lot of the sinful faithful, not the
“personal” wrath that is the lot of the polytheists.
Now the Mujaddid verifies how the faithless
receive divine mercy in this world while God is “personally” angry with them.
He establishes by the Koran that that mercy is really only a mercy in
appearance but actually divine wrath.
Question: In your above verification, the faithless do
receive divine mercy in this world. So how can the attribute of mercy negate
“personal” enmity in this world?
Answer:
The mercy that the faithless
receive in this world is merely in appearance or outward form. Actually, they
are divine plans that take them step-by-step to ruin. As Allah has said, Do
they calculate that the respite that ITc are giving them with property
and children is helping them by taking them to good? Nay! For they do not
understand! (Koran 23:55-56). It also says in the Koran, We will take
them step by step [to ruin] in a manner that they would not understand.
Verily My scheme is strong (Koran 7:182-183), and that establishes that
meaning as well. So understand! [A 1.266, 125.9-19; FR 87.10- 88.2]
Now the critical question is, who is truly
faithless? Is anyone who does not have a “tribal” affiliation with Islam
faithless? Let us look in the Mazharian Exegesis, Tafsir al-Mazhari ,
written by the eminent nineteenthcentury Hanafi scholar and Muj addidi sufi
shaykh Qazi Sanaullah Panipathi. Hazrat Qazi Sanaullah is a highly acclaimed
scholar who is greatly respected in Turkey, the Indian subcontinent, and many
other countries that follow the Hanafi school. He named this exegesis after his
sufi shaykh Mirza Mazhar Jan-i Janan Shahid who is found in almost all
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi silsilas. He named this exegesis after his shaykh because
it was his shaykh’s spiritual nurturing that enabled him to realize true
knowledge. The great scholar says in interpreting the verse, Verily there
are many among the People of the Book who have brought faith in Allah and what
We have revealed unto you and what We have revealed unto them, in the spirit of
veneration of Allah; and do not sell Allah ’s verses at a meager price. For
them, there is a great bounty as their wage with their Lord (Koran 3:199).
Explaining this verse, Qazi Sanaullah Panipathi writes that it was revealed on
the occasion of the death of Negus, the King of Ethiopia [who believed in the
Prophet Muhammad being a messenger from Allah, i.e., Islam, but still followed
his Christian practices]. The Prophet prayed the janazah prayer for him
in Medinah. Upon seeing this, the hypocrites started to ridicule, “Look!
Muhammad is now praying for a Christian!” [68] The exegete explains, “All
the People of the Book are not faithless. There are many among them who have
faith. They possess the correct conception of the person and the attributes of
Allah. They have faith in the Koran, and in the previously revealed heavenly
books: the Torah, the Psalms of David, and the Gospels. Before Allah, there is
a great prize for those among the People of the Book who have brought faith.”
Now according to the exegesis of this eminent scholar, Allah and the Prophet Muhammad
(salam) appear to be more generous in expanding the definition of “the
faithful” than many “tribal” Muslims.[69]
All the Faithful Will Be
Saved
Here the Mujaddid establishes that everyone who
possesses even a grain of faith, even if they have committed grave sins and
have been sent to hell, will be finally forgiven and allowed to enter
paradise.
Question: Eternal
damnation in hell is the recompense for lack of faith. However, what about that
faithful person who observes the rites of the faithless and glorifies their customs?
The ulama rule him to be an unfaithful person and include him among the apostates.
Most of the Muslims in India are afflicted with this calamity. So by the
juridical proclamation of the ulama (fatwa), they should be afflicted
with endless punishment in the last world. On the other hand, it comes in sound
hadith reports that if someone possesses even a grain of faith in his heart
then he will be taken out of hell and will not suffer everlasting punishment.
What is your verification of this matter?
The Mujaddid clarifies that while those who are
unfaithful to their cores will suffer eternal damnation; those who possess
even a particle of faith (even after practicing other religions) will be
finally forgiven and granted paradise.
Answer: If he is “completely unfaithful” (kafir-
i mahd), then everlasting punishment is indeed his lot.
(May Allah (SWT) save us from that grave predicament!) However, if he has even
a grain of faith left [even] after taking up the customs of the faithless, he
will [still] be taken out of hell [after a limited time of chastisement]. By
the blessing of that grain of faith, there is hope that he will be delivered
from eternal damnation. And he will be saved from permanent imprisonment [in
hell].
The Mujaddid verifies that only the punishment
of hellfire may wipe out the sin of faithlessness. That means that a person
who has committed a sin of faithlessness and died before repenting, will have
to face punishment in hell for a finite amount of time to expiate for his sin
of faithlessness, though he will still be taken out hell after some time unless
he is completely and totally faithless without even a particle of faith in him.
Once I was visiting a sick
man who was on the verge of death. When I became aware of his “state,” I saw
that his heart is very dark. Although I gave him a face-turning to remove that
darkness, it failed to do that. After giving him a lot of face-turnings, I
realized that that darkness arises from his hidden quality of lack of faith.
The origin of that turbidity is his friendship with the faithless and faithlessness.
Numerous face-turnings could not remove that darkness. For only the punishment
of fire that is the recompense of lack of faith may purify the heart from that
darkness.
I also realized that if
that person has even a grain of faith, then by its blessing he would finally be
taken out of hell.
You should pray the funeral prayer, janazah,
for even nominal Muslims, i.e., Muslims who profess faith but still observe the
rites of the faithless peoples.
When I witnessed such a state [of merely nominal
faith] in him, I seriously questioned whether or not I should pray his janazah
[funeral prayer]. After I had concentrated on this matter, it appeared that I
should indeed pray his janazah. Therefore, you should pray the janazah
for even such a Muslim who possesses faith but still observes the rites of the
faithless and glorifies their holy days. They should not be left as
disbelievers [for the disbelivers to perform their customs on them] - as the
people do these days. One should harbor the hope that by the blessing of that
[grain of] faith they would finally be saved from eternal damnation.
There is no forgiveness for the faithless
people. If he were a faithless person in his core, eternal damnation would be
his lot. If he has even a grain of faith in him, he will suffer only a
temporary punishment in hell. However, in any case, the faithless people will
indeed be punished.
So now we know that there
is no forgiveness or relief for the unfaithful. Verily Allah will not
forgive the polytheists (Koran 4:48). If he is totally unfaithful, endless
punishment is the recompense for his lack of faith. On the other hand, if he
has even a grain of faith then a temporary punishment in hell will be his
recompense. For the rest of the major sins, Allah may forgive or He may punish,
as He chooses. I believe that punishment in hell- be it temporary or eternal is
the lot of lack of faith [“itself”] and the “attributes” of lack of faith. Its verification
will come soon [in the question and answer section below the next paragraph],
A truly faithful person, even if he has committed major
sins, will never suffer punishment in hell.
Allah may forgive the major
sinners [of those who possess faith] if they repent. Or He may forgive [them]
through [someone else’s] intercession. Or He may forgive by His own
forgiveness and grace. Or He may forgive [them after they suffer] worldly pain
and ordeals. Or He may forgive [them after] the hardships and agony of death.
For the rest, I hope that
He would deem their punishment in the grave as sufficient punishment. Or in
addition to that punishment, He would complete their punishment by the
[painful] circumstances of the Day of Resurrection and the sufferings of that
day. Thus He will not leave any sin that would need the punishment of hell [to
expiate it].
Its proof is the word of
Allah, Those who have brought faith and have not clothed their faith by
transgression (zulm) they are the ones for whom there is security.
(Koran 6:83) Here transgression means ascribing a partner to Allah. Allah
(SWT) is most knowledgable on the realities of things, all of them.
My sufi shaykh explained
that the sins for which even a person of faith would suffer hellfire (e.g., murder,
theft, etc.) are not the sin of faithlessness; they are still close to the sin
of faithlessness.
Now the Mujaddid verifies
his previously mentioned proposition that “punishment in hell- be it temporary
or eternal- is the lot of those who lack faith [‘itself’] and the ‘attributes’
of the lack of faith.” While a sinful faithful person may still suffer in
hellfire, the Mujaddid establishes that the sins that he commits must possess
the attributes of the lack of faith.
Question: What if someone mentions that punishment in hell
comes as the compensa- tion for many other sinful acts in addition to the act
of lacking faith? For example, the Almighty has said, Whosoever murders a
faithful person intentionally, he will be in the Gehenna[70]
(Koran 4:93). It comes in the hadith literature that whosoever prays
an obligatory prayer late without an excuse will suffer punishment in hell for
one era. Therefore [it is established that] the punishment in hell is not the
outcome for only the people without faith. [Therefore, how can you claim what
you claimed a few paragraphs before, that the punishment in hell- be it
temporary or eternal- is the lot of those who lack faith “itself” and the “attributes”
of that lack of faith.]
Answer: My answer is that “he who murders intentionally”
refers to that murderer who believes that murder is lawful. And the Koranic
exegetes have explained that he who considers murder to be lawful is a
faithless person. Those sins, for which the punishment of hell has been
decreed, are not devoid of the taint of the attribute of faithlessness.
Examples of such sins are to belittle that sin, to lack compunction having done
that sin, or to hold the rules and regulations of the sharia in contempt.
The Prophet has promised salvation for all his true
followers- they will all directly go to paradise. That establishes the
verification of the Mujaddid that all the truly faithful will go to paradise
without any punishment in hellfire.
The Prophet says in a
hadith report, “I shall intercede for the major sinners of my community.” [71]
[72]
He says in another place, “My community is the community that has been shown
mercy. There is no punishment for them in the last world” 11 and
others. The following Koranic verse clarifies this meaning, Those who have
brought faith and have not polluted their faith by transgression, they are the
ones for whom there is security (Koran 6:83).
Now the Mujaddid comments
on the case of polytheists who lacked the mental competence or who have not
been warned through a prophet. God is just and He cannot be expected to punish
people who lacked the mental competence, e.g., the children of polytheists or
insane polytheists. God has also promised in the Koran, I will not punish
anyone until I have dispatched a Messenger [to warn him] (Koran 17:15).
Therefore, additionally, He cannot be expected to punish people who have not
been warned through a prophet. So He may not punish the polytheists who lived
in the mountains away from people and the message of the prophets, or the
polytheists who lived in an era without a prophet, and so have not been warned
through a prophet, and other such groups.
The situation of the
children of the polytheists, those who live in mountaintops [away from people
and the message of the prophets] and the polytheists who lived in an era without
a prophet [and so haven not been warned through a prophet]-1 have demonstrated
them
clearly in the maktub that
I have written to my son Muhammad Said.[73] So you may study it there.
[A 1.266, 125.19-127.12; FR 88.2- 90.12]
In that maktub, the
Mujaddid proposes that on the Day of the Mustering (qiyamaf), those two
groups of people would be meted out their rewards and punishment and then
destroyed, just as it would be in the case of animals.
The Mujaddid discusses both
Imam Shafi‘i and Imam Abu Hanifa’s positions on the question of whether faith
may remain the same or may vary for a faithful person. He makes an analysis and
argues in support of Imam Abu Hanifa’s position that faith remains the same
amount.
The ulama diverge on [the question of] whether
or not faith can increase or decrease in amount. The Great Imam [Abu Hanifa]
the Kufi (dwad) has stated, “Faith neither increases nor decreases.” On the
othet hand, Imam Shafi‘i says, “It increases and decreases.”
Faith’s
Increase or Decrease
Faith is
an all or nothing thing; Faith itself may either though its brightness may
increase or decrease increase or decrease
Table 5.1: Faith’s
Increase or Decrease The Mujaddid
agrees that faith may not increase or decrease; what may do so is the
“brightness” of that faith.
There is no doubt that
faith is the expression of attestation or certitude by the heart and so an
increase or decrease does not apply there. For that which may increase or
decrease is within the realm of uncertainty. In short, doing wholesome deeds
brightens that certitude and doing unwholesome deeds makes that certitude
turbid. Therefore, an increase or decrease in faith refers to the “brightness”
of that certitude, not that certitude itself.
Some people may call this “brightness” to be “more” in
faith, and vice versa.
Some call a bright and
illuminated certitude “more” compared to a certitude that lacks brightness and
illumination. Some others do not even consider a certitude lacking brightness
to be certitude at all; they consider only a bright certitude to be certitude
and a certitude lacking brightness as imperfect. Some others have sharp gazes
and they see that this increase or decrease refers to the “attribute” of the
certitude, not to the certitude itself. Necessarily, they say that certitude
itself may not be “more” or imperfect.
Now the Mujaddid shows through an analogy that those people
are more accurate who say that faith may vary only in the brightness, not in
the amount
An analogy for this is two
comparable mirrors that differ in brightness and illumination.
And someone observes the brighter mirror that
reflects better and says, “This mirror is ‘more’ than the mirror that is less
bright and reflects less.” Someone else says, “Both the mirrors are equal;
neither one is more or less than the other. Their difference in brightness and
reflectivity refers to the ‘attributes’ of those two mirrors.” Therefore the
vision of the second person is correct and pierces the reality of the matter.
On the other hand, the vision of the first person is limited to the surface. It
does not go from the attribute to the essence of the matter.
Allah raises the levels
of those among you who have broughtfaith and have been awarded knowledge. (Koran 58:11).
So the Mujaddid says that Imam Abu Hanifa was right when he
said that faith neither increases nor decreases.
There are people who oppose
Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion that faith does not increase or decrease. However, I
have demolished their arguments by that what I have revealed in this
verification. Faith of the common faithful (that changes phases) [and so is
less than perfect faith] cannot be compared to the faith of the prophets
(salam) [whose faith is the perfect faith].
The Mujaddid clarifies that “more” faith means “brighter”
faith.
The faith of the prophets that is perfectly
bright and illuminated is far more fruitful and productive that the faith of
the common faithful that is dark and turbid. They differ in their levels and
so on. The faith of Abu Bakr (dwad) weighs more than the faith of all the
Muslims added together.[74]
Here the word “more” should be interpreted in terms of its brightness and
illumination. And that increase should be relegated to its [the faith’s]
perfect attributes.
Now the Mujaddid explains the “increase or decrease in
faith” with a paradigm from the humanness of the prophets.
Please note that prophets
are equal to the common people in terms of their humanness. Both in terms of
their outer bodies [that are human] and inner essences [that are human as
well], both the classes are the same. However, the prophets are ranked higher
in excellence in terms of their perfect attributes. He who does not possess
those perfect attributes is out of that class. And he is devoid of the unique
perfections and excellences of that class. Even with this difference, there is
neither an increase nor a decrease in their humanness. So none may say that
they increase or decrease in their humanness. Allah (SWT) inspires what is
correct!
Some interpret the term “attestation of the
faith” by the meaning that is commonly used in logic but the Mujaddid
disagrees.
By the term “attestation of
the faith,” some mean attestation as used in the terminology of the science of
logic. That “attestation” includes both surmise and certitude. By this
interpretation, faith may indeed increase or decrease. However, the truth is
that what is meant by the term “attestation” here is certitude and obedience
of the heart, not its general (‘am) meaning that includes surmise (zanri)
with it.
Now the Mujaddid reconciles two seemingly contradictory
statements of Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafi‘i.
The
Great Imam [Abu Hanifa] the Kufi has said, “I am truly a person of faith.” On
the other hand, Imam Shafi‘i has said, “Allah willing, I am a person of
faith.” Actually, they differ only in manner of speech. The first school
considers the “faith of the [present] state.” The second school considers [the
state on] the return [of the soul to God on death], which is at the end of all
deeds. However, it is better to exclude doubt [i.e., the expression “Allah
willing”] here. It is not hidden from the just! [A 1.266, 127.12-129.3; FR
90.12- 92.8]
The Greatness of Imam Abu
Hanifa
It may be noted that the Great Mujaddid held the
Great Imam in the highest respect. He writes in his monograph Mabda ’ va Ma
‘ad on the greatness of Imam Abu Hanifa:
How
can I write about the lofty stature of Imam Abu Hanifa! (dwad) He was the greatest
of these great ones! The Supreme Imam (imam al- ‘azam) ! The leader of
the perfect ones! Be it in knowledge, be it in abstinence (warn’) or be
it in Godwariness, (taqwa) he was greater than all the mujatahid
imams, [75] more
than Shafi‘i, or Malik or Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Imam Shafi‘i said, “The fuqaha,
[the scholars of Islamic jurisprudence] all of them are family members (fiyal)
of Abu Hanifa who depend on him for their living.” (alfuqaha'-u kulluhum
‘iyalu Abi Hanifa.)
It is said that when Imam
Shafi‘i used to visit the mausoleum of Imam Abu Hanifa, then he used to reject
his own ijtihad [or interpretations in Islamic practice] and stopped
observing his own practice [that contradicted the ijtihad of the Great Imam],
And he used to say, ”It embarasses me that in his presence I do anything that
is contrary to his decision.” [At that time] he used to suspend both reciting
Sura Fatiha when praying behind a imam and reciting the du ‘a qunut in
the fajr prayer. It was Shafi‘i who could properly appreciate his
greatness.
When Hazrat Jesus (salam)
will descend [to the earth] in the future, he will practice according to the
school (jnadh-hab) of Abu Hanifa. Khwaja Muhammad Pars a (qaf) wrote in
the Fusul-i Sitta, ’’This very honor (buzurgi) is enough for him
that one of the great (‘ulu’l ‘azam) prophets will practice according to
his school. A thousand other honors cannot be compared to this honor.”
Our Hazrat Khwaja [Baqibillah] (qaf) said:
’’For some time, I used to
disagree with the Imam [Abu Hanifa] and recite Sura Fatiha [when praying
following an imam]. Finally, I saw the Great Imam in a dream one night.
I saw he came to me clothed
in a resplendent robe and recited a qasida,
This signification is
sufficient
That there have been
many friends of God in my school
After that, I stopped
reciting Sura Fatiha behind the Imam.” [Mabda 28, 49.8-50]
The Mujaddid discusses his insight into the
important matter in jurisprudence of reciting Sura Fatiha behind an imam. The
Hanafi school says that the imam’s recitation of Sura Fatiha in the salat is
sufficient, so the followers should remain silent. Shafi‘i school as well as
all the other schools say that the followers must also recite Sura Fatiha- they
draw their decision from a well-known hadith, “There is no salat without Sura
Fatiha. La salata ilia bi-fatihatu’l kitab. [Bukhari, Muslim]” The Mujaddid
demonstrates that the decision of the Hanafi school is correct here.
For a long time, I had been
wishing so that I could find an acceptable reason in the Hanafi school for
reciting Sura Fatiha when praying behind a imam. Because reciting the Koran
when following the imam is obligatory (fardh) at all times. So it does
not seem intelligent to reject real recitation (qirat haqiqi) and
practice virtual recitation (qiral hukmi). At the same time, it comes in
the hadith, “There is no salat without Sura Fatiha.” [76]
However, since I follow the
Hanafi school, I decided not to stop reciting Sura Fatiha. And I started to
count it as a kind of disciplined training and striving (riyadat va
mujahida). Because rejecting one school of sharia in favor of another
school is a type of rejection (ilhad).
At last, through the grace
of following the Hanafi school, the Haqq (SWT) revealed the true meaning (haqiqat)
of not reciting Sura Fatiha behind an imam. And through my insight (nazar-i
basirat), I learned that virtual recitation is better than real recitation.
Because the imam and the followers, they both mutually agree (ittifaq)
to stand together as supplicants (munajat) [in the salat]. As it is
said, For the worshipper in salat supplicates to his Lord, [lianna
al-musalliya yunaji rab- bahu].
In salat, [the followers]
make the imam their spokesman. So whatever speech the imam recites during the
salat, he recites it on behalf of the group. It is like when a group of people
appears before a magnanimous king to fulfill a need of theirs and elects a
spokesman among themselves so that he can request it on behalf of everyone
there. In such a setting, if someone else also talks while the spokesman is
talking, that would be considered poor manners and that could displease the
king. Therefore, the virtual speech (lakallam-i hukmi) of this group
through the spokesman is better than real speech (lakallam-i haqiqi) of
those people [individually]. It is analogous to the situation when the group
recites [the Koran] (qirat) praying behind an imam — it [everyone
reciting individually] would disturb the peace (shaghab), lack manners
and create disunity (tafriq).
Many of the matters on
which the Hanafi and the Shafi‘i schools differ are of this type. The Shafi‘i
school takes into account the matter’s outer and formal aspect (zahir va
surat) but the Hanafi school takes into account its inner essential (batin
va haqiqat) aspect.
It was revealed to me that
in the divergences of opinions in kalam, the truth is on the Hanafi side. For
example, they recognize God’s [attribute of] engenderingness (takwiri)
as a real attribute (sifat-i haqiqi) while apparently it seems that
engenderingness [is not a real attribute; instead it] is the result of the
attributes of power and will (qudrat va irada). However, we learn via
fine consideration and the light of perspicacity (daqt-i nazar va nur-ifi-
rasat) that engenderingness is a distinct and separate (‘alihadeh)
attribute. Other matters may be solved through this analogy. In most of the
matters where the jurists diverge (khilafiyat- ifiqhi), the Hanafi
school is right. Only in a few matters, the Shafi‘is are right. [Mabda
28, 47-8]
The Mujaddid establishes the “miracle of the
prophets” and “miracle of the friends.” The Mutazilas and a few other misguided
sects deny them.
The karamats
or “miracles of the friends of Allah” are true. So many instances of the
“breaking of habit” [77]
have taken place by the friends that they have become a regular habit of
theirs. Denying it would be like denying knowledge that is habitual and
self-evident (daruri). [78]
The prophets are required to demonstrate to the
people that they are prophets. Therefore, prophets must claim that they are
indeed prophets. And they may show miracles to the people to prove that they
have God-given powers. These are parts of the prophetic call. However, the
friends (awliya) are commanded to keep themselves hidden. And miracles
are not at all a requirement of friendship (walayat). The friends
preach as a representative (naib), of the prophet and their miracles or karamats
only prove that they sincerely follow their prophet.
[However, while the]
“miracles of the prophets” (mu jiza) are an integral part (maqrun)
of the invitation of the prophets, the miracles of the friends are not so.
Instead, those [miracles of the friends] prove (maqrun) that [those
friends] acknowledge and follow the authority of their prophet. So you should
not suspect that those two, the “miracles of the prophets” and the “miracles of
the friends,” are false- as the deniers [materialists who deny supernatural
events like mu’jiza and karamat, e.g., the Mutazila] maintain. [A
1.266, 129.3-6]
Well-instructed Caliphs:
Superiorities
The Mujaddid affirms the mainstream Sunni creed that says
that the order of superiority of the well-instructed caliphs is in accordance
to the order of their caliphates.
The order of superiority among the
well-instructed 18 caliphs is in accordance to the order of their
caliphates.
He first establishes the superiority of the Caliph Abu Bakr
and the Caliph Umar.
The
superiority of the Two Shaykhs [Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar] has been established
by the consensus of opinion of the companions and the followers.
Imam Ashari agrees to the superiority of the Two
Shaykhs.
Many of the great imams
have transmitted it as well. One of them is Imam Shafi‘i. The [79]
great Imam Abul Hasan Ashari said, “Verily to recognize the superior qualities (tafdiT)
of Abu Bakr followed by Umar over the rest of the community is definitive.”
Imam Dhahabi concurs to it.
Imam Dhahabi[80]
said, “Many people including numerous numbers of the Shias have narrated from
Ali that since the time when he was the caliph and ruler, ‘Verily Abu Bakr and
Umar are the most superior in the community.’” He [Imam Dhahabi] added that
more than eighty people have narrated it from Ali. ”He [Hazrat Ali] had even
named many of them. Then he [Hazrat Ali] had added, ‘May Allah punishes the
dissenters, the rawafid, for they have shown ignorance!’”
Imam Bukhari confirms by a narration from Hazrat Ali.
Imam Bukhari narrates from
Hazrat Ali, “Verily the most excellent man after the Prophet is Abu Bakr, next
is Umar and the rest are after them.” According to the narration, at that point
Hazrat Ali’s son Hazrat Muhammad ibn Hanafiya had interjected, “Next is you?”
Hazrat Ali then replied [twice for emphasis,] “I am only an ordinary Muslim! I
am an ordinary Muslim!” [81]
Imam Dhahabi also concurs by a narration from Hazrat Ali.
Imam Dhahabi and others have narrated sound
reports from Hazrat Ali, “Be forewarned! It has reached me that many people
elevate me over the two [i.e., Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar], And if someone
does elevate me over them, he is a slanderer (muftaf). [I will punish]
him the same way as [I would punish] a slanderer.
Imam Darriqtani narrates another saying from
Hazrat Ali.
It has been narrated in Darruqtani
[82]
from Hazrat Ali, “Let me find no one who gives me superiority to Abu Bakr or
Umar. Be forewarned! I shall whip him just like a slanderer.”
There has been so many such hadith reports from Hazrat Ali
that even many Shias agree on the superiority of the Two Shaykhs.
So many sayings like this
are narrated from Hazrat Ali and from many other companions that there is no
room for anyone to deny this. It has even reached the point that a prominent
Shia named Abdur Razzaq[83]
says, “I hold the Two Shaykhs as the best. For Ali has given them superiority
over himself. Else I would not have given them superiority. This sin is
sufficient [to ruin] me—that I love him but I act against him.” All these are
taken from the
book the Siwa ‘iq. [84]
Now the Mujaddid establishes the superiority of
Hazrat Uthman over Hazrat Ali.
Now what comes is the
matter of superiority of Hazrat Uthman versus Hazrat Ali. Most of the ulama of
the mainstream Sunni community hold the opinion that Hazrat Uthman is next in
excellence to the two shaykhs and then comes Hazrat Ali. The imams of the four
schools of jurisprudence are agreed on this. Imam Malik was initially hesitant
on granting superiority to Hazrat Uthman. However, Qadi ‘Ayyad [85]
reports that Imam Malik later reversed himself in his position regarding the
superiority of Hazrat Uthman. And Imam Qurtubi said, “This is true! Allah willing!”
The Mujaddid establishes that Imam Abu Hanifa
also supported the superiority of Hazrat Uthman. He clarifies a statement of
Abu Hanifa that can be interpreted to deny that superiority. That statement may
be misconstrued to mean that the Imam only believed that the two later ones
only deserved love; they did not deserve to be considered superior. But the
Mujaddid rationalizes that statement and demonstrates that the Imam must have
agreed to their superiority as well.
From
the following statement, it seems that the great Imam Abu Hanifa was hesitant
on granting superiority to Hazrat Uthman. He said, “A signpost of being in the
mainstream Sunni community is to grant superiority to the Two Shaykhs and to love
the Two Later Ones.” In consideration, I believe that this statement should be
applied in a different context. Many disputes and conflicts appeared during
the reigns of the Two Later Ones. And the hearts of men were turbid. In those
circumstances, the great Imam applied the term “love” toward the Two Later
Ones. And he made friendship with them a signpost of the sunna. It is not that
he had even a taint of hesitation [on the superiority of Hazrat Uth- man]. How
could he have a hesitation? For the books of the Hanafite School are replete
with the statement “the order of superiority of the caliphs is in accordance of
their order of succession.” In short, the superiority of the Two Shaykhs is yaqini,
certain. However, the superiority of Hazrat Uthman lacks that [certitude].
The Mujaddid affirms that the Shias indeed possess faith
although they are deviants.
Therefore, it should be
borne in mind that people who deny the superiority of Hazrat Uthman (or deny
the superiority of the Two Shaykhs additionally) should not be ruled faithless.
However, we should consider them to be deviants who have fallen astray. For
the ulama has differed in ruling them faithless. And there are strong
reservations if they are definitively unanimous in this [ruling]. Such a denier
is, in effect, no different than the worthless Yazid. However, they [the ulama]
have stopped short of cursing even him, out of caution [as Yazid may have
repented before dying].
The Mujaddid demonstrates that defaming any of the companions
is an abominable sin.
The pain that Hazrat
Prophet feels on account of the well-instructed caliphs is the same pain that
he feels on account of the two imams. The Prophet said, “By Allah! By Allah! My
companions! Do not mistreat them! Whosoever will love them, he will love them
for his love for me. And whosoever will hold enmity to them, they will hold
that enmity for his enmity toward me. Whosoever will hurt them, he will hurt
me. And whosoever will hurt me, will hurt Allah. And whosoever hurts Allah,
Allah will catch him quickly.” [86]
For Allah said, Verily whosoever hurts Allah or his Prophet, Allah will
curse him in this world and in the next world. (Koran 33:57).
The Mujaddid explains that while it is true that Hazrat Ali
has been praised the most in the hadith literature, still he is not superior to
his three predecessor caliphs.
In his Sharh-i Aqa’id-i Nasafi, Mawlana
Saidud- din [87]
talks about “justice” on this [order of] superiority. However, what he
considers justice is far from justice. And the manner in which he has
overturned this [order of superiority] is fruitless. For it is decided by the
ulama that the subject of superiority is the plentitude of rewards before God.
It is not superiority with
respect to praise for excellences or virtues that the rational thinkers employ
as the criterion [but not the ulama]. Instead, it is so because the pious
predecessors and the followers have transmitted far more praises for the
excellences and virtues for Hazrat Ali, the Commander of the Faithful, than
any other companion. It has even reached the point that Imam Ahmad has said,
“No companion has been praised for his virtues as much as Ali.” Even then, he
himself still rules toward the superiority of the three caliphs.
Therefore, it is understood
that the subject of superiority is something else beyond excellences and
virtues. Only the witnesses of the treasury of divine revelation [i.e., the companions]
have been able to realize it in form or in indication. They are the companions
of the Prophet.
The author of the Sharh-i
‘Aqa’id-i Nasafi said, “If the subject of superiority is the amount of
reward then there is scope for hesitation.” This statement should be rejected
because hesitation would be relevant only then when we could not have learned
it from the author of the sharia [Prophet Muhammad] directly or indirectly. If
we have indeed known it, why hesitate? And if we have not known it, why rule
toward superiority at all?
He who considers everyone
as equal and the excellence of one with respect to another as meaningless talk
is the one who talks mean- inglessly. He is indeed the one who talks
meaninglessly who considers the consensus of opinion of the “people of truth”
as meaningless talk. Unless misunderstanding the word fadl, excellence
has taken him to such fuduli or meaningless position.
Now the Mujaddid comments on what Ibn Arabi said on this
order of superiority.
The author [Ibn Arabi]
writes in the Futuhat- i Makkiya, “The order of their caliphates is in
accordance to the order of their 17ife-spans.” This saying of his does not
point toward them being equal because the matter of caliphate is one thing and
the arguments about superiority are another thing.
Much of Ibn Arabi’s science is derived from false unveilings
or sufi ecstatic utterances. That portion should be rejected.
Even if we agree that this
does point toward them being equal, even then this saying of his as well the
other similar sayings should be considered as ecstatic utterances (shathiyat).
And that should not be accepted. Much of his [Ibn Arabi’s]
unveiling-derived science (ma ‘arif- i kashfi) has strayed away from the
science of the [mainstream] Sunni community; that is far from being correct. So
none should follow that false [portion of the Ibn Arabi] science except a
person sick in heart or a blind
follower. [A 1.266, 129.6-131.18; FR 92-95]
The Companions: Their
Disputes
The Mujaddid confirms the mainstream Sunni
creed; he holds that we should love all the companions and hold malice toward
none. The conflict that arose amongst them arose because of their error in
their ijtihad, “strivings for interpretations,” not because they were
evil in heart. Therefore, their errors should be excused.
The disputes and conflicts that occurred among
the companions should be held with a purely good interpretation. They [those
disputes] must be kept far from caprices and chauvinism. Imam Taftazani had an
excessive love for Hazrat Ali but still he said, “The disputes and fights did
not take place on the question of winning the caliphate. On the contrary, they
occurred due to their errors in their ijtihad, interpretation.”
It is written in the [Koranic exegesis] Hashia’
al-Khiyali, [88]
“Verily [Hazrat] Muwawiya and the warring rebels were loyal. They recognized
Hazrat Ali as the best person of the time and the rightful candidate to be the
Imam. But they had a reservation, as he did not take retribution from the
killers of Hazrat Uthman.
He quotes from Hazrat Ali in the [exegesis] Hashiya’-i
Qurra’-i Kamal ;[89]
“Those who are fighting us are our brothers. They are neither faithless nor
corrupt. For what they are doing is in accordance to their interpretation
(tawil). There is no doubt that errors in interpretation,
ijtihad, are beyond blame. And they are raised above denunciation and
condemnation.
You should remember all the companions fondly,
out of deference of the right of their companionship to the best of men
(salam). You should love them for our love for the Prophet. The Prophet said,
“Whosoever will love them, he will love them for his love of me; and whosoever
will hold enmity to them will hold that for his enmity to me.” [90]
What it means is the love that relates to me is the same love that relates to
the companions and the enmity that relates to me is the same enmity that relates
to the companions.”
We have no friendship with
them who fought with Hazrat Ali. Still, they are the companions of the Prophet
and we have been commanded to love them and forbidden to hurt or hate them. So
we have no choice but to love them all for our love for the prophet (salam).
And [we have no choice but] to refrain from hurting or hating them since that
hurt and hate ultimately reaches that leader [the Prophet Muhammad (salam)].
However, we call those who
were right as those who were right and call those who were wrong as those who
were wrong. Hazrat Ali was on the right path and his opponents were on the
wrong path. To say any more is babbling. The verification of this discourse is
in detail in the maktub that I have written to Khwaja Muhammad Ashraf.[91]
If you have any question, please refer there.. [A 1.266, 131.18-132.15; FR
95-96]
Part III
CHAPTER
Practice
The second necessary component of Islam is the
practice of the sharia. So having rectified the sharia, practicing the practice
would be the next step.
After
rectifying the creed, you should learn the rules of the science of
jurisprudence. One should not neglect learning the science of jurisprudence,
e.g., what is obligatory or fard, incumbent or wajib, lawful or
halal, unlawful or haram, sunna, suspicious or mushtabah, reprehensible
or makruh, etc. It is also required that you practice that which this
science establishes. You should determine which ones are the required
practices from the books of jurisprudence. A complete attempt to practice good
deeds should be observed. Prayer is the foundation of religion. Now I am
recounting a summary of its excellences and pillars. So listen!
The Mujaddid explains how to make ablution properly since ablution
is the key to prayer.
First, it is important to
perform the ablution completely. It is required that you wash each limb three
times completely and perfectly, so that the method of the sunna is observed.
While wiping off the head, the entire head should be done. You should take care
to wipe the ears and the neck well. While cleansing in between the toes, you
should wash by the small finger of the left hand starting from the small toe of
the left foot. You should be careful to do it right.
You should not consider
taking up mustahab deeds insignificant. God likes mustahab deeds;
practicing mustahab pleases Him. If you can learn of one single act that
brings God’s satisfaction and love in exchange of the entire world, capture
that spoil of war! This exchange can be compared to an exchange in which
someone buys some priceless jewels for a few pieces of broken earthenware! Or
an exchange in which one loses his spirit for a cheap inanimate thing!
The Mujaddid now explains how to perform a proper prayer,
which is the fundamental practice of Islam.
After a perfect
purification and a complete ablution, you should make the intention for the
prayer. Prayer is the heavenly ascension or miraj for the faithful. You
should take care to perform the obligatory prayers only in a congregation so
that not even the first glorification or takbir with the imam is
missed. You should pray in the mustahab time. 1 And you
should perform the pious deed of reciting the sunna amount of the [Koranic]
Recitation. [92]
[93]
You should remain
motionless when you bow or prostrate, for most narrations consider it
obligatory or incumbent. Stand straight while standing so that all the bones
return to their own places. It is necessary to become motionless for a few
moments right after standing and you should practice that too. It may be
obligatory, incumbent or sunna- there is a divergence in opinion here.
Likewise, you should stay motionless while sitting between the two
prostrations- as while standing.
While bowing or
prostrating, you should repeat the glorifications or tasbih three times
or at most up to seven times or eleven times- there is a divergence of opinion
here too. The imam should repeat the glorifications taking
into consideration the state of the followers.
I am ashamed when an able
person praying alone repeats the least number of glorifications; if he can at
all, he should repeat it five or seven times.
While prostrating, [the
bodily part] that is nearer to the ground should be laid on the ground first.
Therefore, lay the two knees on the ground first. Next, lay down the two hands.
Next lay down the nose and then the forehead. While laying down the knees and
the hands, lay down the right limbs first. While raising the head, the bodily
part that is nearer to the sky should be raised first. Therefore, first raise
your forehead!
You should “stitch” your
gaze on the seat of prostration. While bowing, you should look toward your own
feet. While prostrating, look at the tip of the nose. While sitting, you should
look toward your two hands or your sides. When instead of being scattered, the
gaze will be focused and “stitched” to the above-mentioned points, only then
will the prayer be performed with concentration. And a prayer with humility
will be realized- which is what has been narrated by the Prophet (salam).
It is sunna to keep the
fingers spread out while bowing and to keep them together while prostrating.
Those [acts] have been decreed to be pious deeds. Closing and opening the fingers
has a purpose. Observing its benefits, the Master of the Sharia [Prophet
Muhammad] has instituted those practices. I see no benefit equal to following
the ‘master of the sharia’ [Prophet Muhammad] (salam).
All these rules have been
written in the books of jurisprudence in detail and clearly. My intention
behind mentioning them here is so that you long to practice these according to
the science of jurisprudence. By the grace of the Prince of the Messengers
[Muhammad], may Allah (SWT) grant us the opportunity to rectify our creed in the
religion, and you as well! And then to practice wholesome deeds according to
the science of the sharia! May the most bountiful salutations and the most
perfect peace offerings be on him and all his progeny!
If you long to leam the
excellences of prayer and find its perfections, then study the three maktubs [94]
dispatched in sequence one after another. The first maktub has been written to
my son Muhammad Sadiq. The second maktub is for Mir Muhammad Numan and the
third is for Shaykh Taj. [A 1.266, 132.15- 134.8; FR 96-99.3]
Now why does the Mujaddid specifically mention prayer (and
ablution that is its prerequisite) in this section, among so many other acts of
worship? The first reason may be that the five-time- daily obligatory prayer is
the fundamental practice of Islam. However, even more important may be the
reason that we must possess piety or ikhlas during our prayer if we want
God to accept that prayer. Piety is critical for prayer to be accepted; maybe
that is why the Mujaddid is bundling these sections together.
Comments: The Purpose of
Sufism
The following writing by my sufi shaykh
clarifies the purpose of the tariqa according to the Mujaddid. Sufism or tariqa
is merely a technology to realize pious intention, as clarified by my shaykh,
who explains,
How to
attain the pious intention? Intention originates in the heart. Pronouncing the
intention is not obligatory. Intention in the heart is what is obligatory. It
is obligatory to make a proper intention before performing any act of worship.
It is in the hadith that all acts will be judged according to the intention behind
them [Bukhari], The heart is the seat of intention of all acts, be they good or
evil. Satan, the sworn enemy of man, makes it his home and whispers evil
suggestions to him. As long as Satan can rule over the heart, pious intention
cannot grow there. Since Satan has made the human heart his home, it is impure.
Intention of the impure heart must be impure. Therefore, in order to purify the
heart, Satan must be driven out of there. Only then there can be pious
intention behind acts. It is said in the hadith, “Satan sits in the hearts of
men. If the heart is engaged in zikr of Allah, then Satan flees it. Instead if
the heart is heedless from zikr, then Satan stays there and whispers evil suggestions”
[Bukhari],
Satan tries his best to
interrupt our prayers. He knows that if our prayer is purely pious, i.e.,
realizing the good-pleasure of God is the sole objective of that prayer, then
he will be unable to defeat the power from Allah that we will gain through that
properly performed prayer. It is only when our Prayer, the essence of all
devotional acts, is done with a purely pious intention, that then we are able
to abstain from all acts that Allah detests. Allah has stated, Verily
prayer restrains from shameful and unjust ¿zctó(Koran 29:45). Allah accepts
our prayer only when the devotee purifies his body, clothes, and mind. And his
intention being only the satisfaction of Allah, he performs all the pillars of
the prayer properly. Allah is Pure. Only the pure may succeed in worshiping
Him. Not only the body; the mind of the devotee should be pure as well.
Ablution or bathing creates outer purity. And the zikr of Allah that takes
place in the heart creates inner purity. Therefore, the heart should always be
doing the zikr of Allah spontaneously. And this zikr should be permanent.
Whenever the heart is heedless of the zikr of Allah, Satan will rule it. He
will then contaminate the heart that is the source of all good acts of man. And
by ruining man’s single-minded attention to Allah during prayer, he will
destroy it. Prayer is the key to salvation from all evil acts. It says in the
hadith: “A prayer is not accepted without a presence of the heart.” [95]
And Allah has stated: And establish prayer in order to do my zikr (Koran
20:14).
To repel this satanic threat, we must learn ‘Um
al-qalb, the “knowledge of the heart.” Then our hearts will always be
immersed in the never- ending zikr of Allah and thus we can save ourselves from
this dangerous predicament. So we should seek the help of an authority on the
“knowledge of the heart.” The “real” sufi shaykh is an authority on this
knowledge.
The purpose behind enrolling in any sufi tariqa
is to attain nothing else but ikhlas or “purely pious intention,” i.e.,
a true and godly intention. It is not those perverted aims with which many
people throng the khanqas of the sufi shaykhs so often [e.g., to cure diseases,
win worldly advancement, etc. through the spiritual powers of the shaykh]. And
many people who call themselves sufi shaykhs nurture these aims, which are far
from the true aim for which people should come to sufi shaykhs.
Now we understand why it is necessary to enroll
in one of the many tariqas of the sufis. The purpose is to enable us to follow
the sharia completely. Unless one enrolls in a sufi tariqa and learns the
“knowledge of the heart” from this “educational institution,” one may not be
able to realize “purely pious intention.” By this interpretation, sufi tariqas
are servants of the sharia.” And this is the purpose of true tasawwuf. [96]
Khanqa-i Mojaddediya), being continuously reprinted since
1980)
PartIV
CHAPTER
Piety:
The Purpose of the Tariqa
The third necessary component of Islam, after
rectifying the creed and beginning to practice the practice, is engaging in
the practices of sufism or tariqa, so that we may realize true piety. We
realize piety when whatever we do; we do it for Allah — attaining the good
pleasure of Allah becomes the purpose (niyaf) behind all our deeds.
First, we need to attain
the two wings of belief and practice. Next, there lies the [task of wayfaring
in the] exalted sufi tariqas if divine grace guides us there. The purpose is
not that anything additional to belief and practice is attained or something
new comes in hand. Instead, the purpose is to strengthen the belief to one of
certitude and inner peace, so that the skepticism of the skeptic may not void
it, and the objection of the charlatan may not invali-
date it.
The leg that is
“reasoning ” is like a wooden leg
[that is unstable]
Those who seek
“reasoning” lack the “stability.”
Note: This poem in original Persian is as below:
pa-i istidlal-i chubin ast
va mustadill bi tamkin.
Here the Mujaddid paraphrases a Rumi poem
(that he also quotes verbatim in maktub
1.92):
pa-i istidlalyan-i chubin bud
pa-i chubin sakht bi tamkin bud
The leg of those who
engage in ’’reasoning” is wooden
The wooden leg is entirely unstable
My sufi shaykh explained that “stability” here
refers to attaining ikhlas or piety; and that level of piety is realized
when one travels on the path of sufi wayfaring and attains the station of the
“heart in inner peace,” or qalb-i salim [at the completion of the ninth
step, ‘annihilation in the messenger’ or fana’ fi ’l-rasul, in the
Mujaddidi wayfaring or suluk]. This saying means that those who seek
reasoning lack a heart that is in inner peace.
The Mujaddid continues on the benefits of sufi
wayfaring. And its ultimate benefit is the realization of “inner peace.” He
says that gimmicks like “seeing unseen lights and colors” i.e., the
supernatural experiences like seeing lights and colors that normal people
cannot see but sufis endowed with the power of kashf, unveiling or
ethereal vision can see, are not at all the purpose of sufism — these are
actually unimportant things.
The Koran says, Take note! It is in the zikr
of Allah that the heart finds inner peace(Koran 13:28). The practice also
becomes easy and spontaneous. Laziness and rebelliousness that originates from
the instigating [soul] is eliminated.
It is not the purpose of the sufi wayfarer to
witness unseen forms and shapes or to behold lights and colors. For these are
games and joys!
What is the purpose of learning sufism? Is it to
attain supernatural experiences like seeing forms, shapes, lights, and colors
that are ordinarily invisible? Some sufis erroneously believe that having such
supernatural experiences is the purpose of sufism. The Mujaddid ridicules them
and wonders, if seeing shapes and lights is what they want then why are they
not satisfied with seeing shapes and lights that are ordinarily visible.
Instead why are they doing arduous sufi practices in order to see lights and colors
that are ordinarily invisible.
What wrong do the “sensory” forms and lights do?
So that someone would forgo them, and undertake self-mortifications and
difficult practices (baryadat va mujahadat), in the hope of seeing the
unseen forms and lights?
Yes! These misguided sufis argue that seeing
those unseen lights may beneficial because they proove that supernatural
things, e.g., God, angels, paradise, hell, do exist. However, the Mujadaddi
counters them by noting that even the existence of ordinarily visible lights
and colors prove that a Creator exists who has created them.
Indeed these forms [that
can be seen by everyone] and those forms [that can only be seen by those
enlightened sufis] and these lights and those lights- all are the creation of
the Haqq (SWT) and signifiers of His existence.
[A 1.266, 134.8-16; FR 99.4-100.4]
Therefore, seeing supernatural things cannot be a valid
purpose of sufism.
Naqshbandi tariqa Clings to
the Sunna
The Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa is the most excellent
tariqa, as it strictly conforms to the sunna.
Of all the sufi tariqas,
choosing the Naqshbandi tariqa is the best and most advisable as their great
masters cling to the sunna and cast off all deviations (bid‘at). For
this reason, if the felicity of following the sunna enriches them but they do
not gain any “[sufi ethe- real/physical symptom or] state,” still they are
happy.
On the other hand, if
[such] a state contributes to the slackening of the following [of the sunna]
they do not like those states. For this reason, they do not permit singing and
dancing [that are the accepted practices of many other tariqas]. And they do
not consider the states that result from those [practices such as singing and
dancing] as credible, [i.e., divinely inspired], Instead, they even consider
loud zikr as a deviation [i.e., a bad deviation or bad bid‘at\ and they
prohibit it. And they do not turn toward the fruits [i.e., states] that those
practices produce. [A 1.266, 134.16-135.1; FR 100.4-12]
Now the Mujaddid explains this important point
of loud zikr.
Once we were present in his
[Khwaja Baqi- billah’s] service, in a gathering for meal. A devotee of our
Hazrat Khwaja named Shaykh Kamal pronounced the name “Allah” aloud at the start
of the meal. Hazrat [Baqibillah] was displeased to such an extent that he
rebuked him [shaykh Kamal] strongly and told us to forbid him [shaykh Kamal]
from coming to his meal gatherings. I have heard from Hazrat [Baqibillah] that
once Hazrat Khwaja Naqsh- band gathered the ulama of Bukhara together and took
them to the khanqa [or sufi cloister or center] of Hazrat Amir Kulal to
forbid him from loud zikr. The ulama told Hazrat Amir Kulal, “Loud zikr is a
deviation. Do not practice it!” In answer, he stated, “[All right!] I will not
practice it [anymore]!”. [A 1.266, 135.1-6; FR 100.4-12]
A fundamental rule of the
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa is that all zikr should be done in silence. Allah
stated, Do zikr of your Lord within yourself (Koran 7:205). But can a
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi practice loud zikr at all, or even once in a while? The
answer is a resounding “No!”
The Mujaddid strongly forbids them to practice
loud zikr. He stresses that in addition of this practice being in violation of
the sharia, it is also in violation of the tariqa. Now what if someone claims
that some of the predecessor masters of the Naqshbandi tariqa used to practice
loud zikr? So why can we not? Yes! It is true that these masters in the
Naqshbandi line, Hazrat Abu Yusuf Hamadani, Khwaja Mahmud Injir Fagnawi, Khwaja
Az- izan Ali Ramitani, and Khwaja Sayyid Amir Kulal zRG used to practice loud
zikr. However, they are not at all members of the Naqshbandi tariqa- that
tariqa did not even exist at that time. The Naqshbandi tariqa starts with
Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband, our first imam and he has forbidden it. More
importantly, our second imam, the Great Mujaddid Ahmad Sirhindi also forbade it
in many different places in his writings. Yes! It is established beyond doubt
that these practices such as loud zikr, singing, and dancing violate the
fundamental rules of this “most high tariqa”. Now there may be other
interpretations of the sharia or the hadith literature that approve those practices.
However, the followers of this exalted Mujaddidi- Naqshbandi tariqa should
still abstain from these practices so as to abide by the rules established the
two imams of this tariqa.
What is the history of loud zikr among the khwa-
jegan masters and their predecessors who are in our silsila and who
preceded the formation of the Naqshbandi tariqa? Hazrat Bayazid Bistami Khwaja
Abu Yusuf Hamadani’s method was loud zikr. But it was Hazrat Khidr who taught
Khwaja Abdul Khaliq Ghujdawani first and it was by the method of “silent zikr.”
When Khwaja Ghujdawani became the disciple of Khwaja Hamadani, Khwaja Hamadani
told him, “Do zikr as Hazrat Khidr (salam) taught you.” Khwaja Ghujdawani’s
successor Khwaja Arif Riwagiri also followed his master. But it was his
successor Khwaja Mahmud Injir Fagnawi who first introduced loud zikr in that
lineage of Hazrat Ghujdawani. And Khwaja Fag- nawi’s successor Khwaja Azizan
Ali Ramitani also practiced loud zikr. And so did Hazrat Amir Kulal, until
Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband and the ulama of Bukhara forbade him to do so, as it
is a blameworthy deviation.
The sharia proscribes loud
zikr and so this practice invited many critiques. In a council of the ulama,
the Sun of the Imams, Hazrat Halwani, asked him, “Why do you practice loud
zikr?” Hazrat Fagnawi answered,
I do loud zikr to awaken those asleep, to inform
the heedless, to hold fast to the sharia and the tariqa, to bring people to
this path and to make them desire God-realization (haqiqaf).
Once he was asked,
Who can do loud zikr?” So
he answered, “He whose tongue is free from lying and backbiting, who esophagus
is free from haram and suspicious food, whose heart is pure from vanity and
hypocrisy, and whose head has not been lowered to anyone except Allah, it is he
who can do loud zikr.[97]
Now can this be construed
to mean that loud zikr may be re-introduced today for the Naqshbandis? No!
Because the above statement makes it clear that loud zikr was practiced as an
exceptional measure and it was allowed only for an exceptional person, even for
them- masters in our silsila who preceded the formation of the Naqshbandi
tariqa. However, when our first imam Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshban formalized this
tariqa, he absolutely forbade loud zikr as a rule of this tariqa. And our
second imam sustained this ban. So the present day Naqshbandis may not even
quote them to legitimize loud zikr.
Indeed, this ban on public display includes all
supererogatory practices. As a general rule, my sufi shaykh has taught me to
perform all supererogatory prayers at home instead of in mosques. He even
taught us to hide our prayer beads from public eyes. And he taught us that if
in a mosque or in public we do our tariqa’s silent zikr with prayer beads, we
should hide those prayer beads. For example, I often used to close my eyes and
meditate in public but the shaykh told me that I should not do that in public
because then people would wonder what I am doing; it would make our acts of
worship public. The only time that we, the adepts of the Mujaddidi tariqa, may
close our eyes and meditate in public is in our sitting meditations (muraqabas)
that are done after the dawn (fajr) and sunset (maghrib) prayers.
Following the rules of the tariqa, I always hide
my prayer beads while doing zikr in public, on buses or mass transport in the
United States and someone once suggested that I should not hide my prayer
beads because showing them may help delivering the message, i.e., if people ask
what I am doing, I could explain it and that would be another way to spread
Islam and the tariqa. When I asked him, my shaykh overruled it and said that
the rule of this tariqa is that all acts of worship should be khafi
i.e., not only silent but also hidden from the public. Therefore, it is a rule
of the tariqa to hide all our supererogatory practices- they should not only
be silent but also hidden from the public. And the tariqa-rules must be
meticulously observed to receive the faydh and baraka from the
tariqa.
Songs, Dances, Ecstasies,
Raptures
If you practice sufi songs
and dances, you may still experience strong hal or states but those states
produced by these non-sharia practices are evil. In another mak- tub, the
Mujaddid compares the relative merits of prayer versus singing and dancing
according to the sharia. He concludes that hal produced by prayer is superior
to the hal produced by singing and dancing in the same way that prayer is a
more meritorious act than singing and dancing.
When the great ones of this
tariqa have forbidden even loud zikr so strongly, what can one say about
songs, dances, ecstasies, and raptures (yvajd va tawajid)\ I consider
the states and raptures (mawajid) that emerge by non-permissible means
as a kind istidraj [practice] that leads step by step to ruin. States
and longings (ahwal va adhwaq) come in the hands even for the people of istidraj
or people who practice occult that lead them step- by-step to ruin. They see
the unveilings of tawhid (kashf-i tawhid). And they see [God] unveiled
in the mirror that is the forms of the world and they also identify Him with
those forms.
Yes! Tawhid is
unveiled before these misguided people as well- it is experienced by many
mystics of many other religions. Let us read the following example from the
Hindu scriptures. In the Chandogya Upanishad [98] Sve- taketu asks his father
the Rishi (sage) Aruni, “How shall I see the immortal divine Being?” Aruni
threw some salt into a container of water and asked Svetaketu, “Son! Can you
tell where the salt went? You will not see any salt anywhere. Instead taste the
water! Then you will experience the presence of salt in every drop of that
water. In the same way, Truth [i.e., God] is everywhere. You cannot see Him in
the creation, but you can experience Him there through meditation. That is why,
son, I say ‘Thou art Him.’”
So the Mujaddid says that realizing tawhid
(i.e., that God and the creation, all are the same) is not the purpose of
God-realization- instead it is the spontaneous observance of the sharia that
is the destination.
The sages of Greece and the
yogis and the Brahmins of India are also among these people [who practiced
occult] that led them step- by-step to ruin. The sign that the states are real
[i.e., of divine origin] is that those [states] conform to the science of the
sharia and keep people away from taking up forbidden and questionable
practices. [A 1.266, 135.6-10]
Yes! That is the real purpose of a spiritual
quest according to the Mujaddid. It is to purify the inner realm so that man
spontaneously observes the sharia. So if the practices of any “God-realized
master” do not accomplish it, then that establishes that that practice is not
of divine origin.
The Mujaddid writes more on the same theme elsewhere
in the Maktubat.
It is because the Brahmins
and yogis of India and the philosophers of Greece have had plenty of the likes
of these self-disclosures in [physical] form, imaginai unveilings, and monist
ideas (tajalli-i suri, mukashafat-i mithali, ‘ulum-i tawhidi); but they
have received nothing but negativity and dishonor (raswa ‘i) as a
result and nothing but remoteness (bu ‘d) and disappointment (hammam)
in their lot. [A 1.237,37.15-17]
Singing and dancing do violate the sharia. The
Mujaddid now cites from the Koran, hadith, and opinion of the Salaf, the pious
predecessors.
You should know that
singings and dancing are really parts of “games and joys.” Allah has stated, Among
people, whosoever buys a game of words (Koran 31:6), and this verse has
been revealed to forbid singing. Mujahid, who was the student of Ibn Abbas, and
a preeminent follower, has said that the “game of words” means
“singing” here. It is written in the Koranic exegesis Madarik[99]
that “game of words” means “tales told at a night party” and singing.
[These two great scholars among the companions], Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masud , [100]
both swear, “Verily it is singing.” Mujahid [101] has interpreted
the Koranic phrase who does not witness falsehood (Koran 35:72) as referring
to singing.
Imam of Guidance Abu Mansur
Maturidi [102]
says, “Whosoever praises a qari [reciter of the Koran] of our times by
saying ‘You recited well!’- [that means that he approves of that qari’s
‘singing’ the verses of the Koran and that is haram since singing in all forms
is haram and so, since he approves a haram act] he becomes an apostate, his
wife gets an [automatic] divorce[103] [as he would have become
an apostate] and Allah makes all his good deeds come to naught [as he would
have become an apostate].” [A 1.266, 135.10-16]
Imam Maturidi’s argument seems to be this: The
qari of his time used to recite the Koran in a melodious-like singing. And
singing is haram, even if someone sings the verses of the Koran. So if someone
approved that qari’s “singing” the verses of the Koran and that is haram, then
he would be approving a haram act. And since he approved a haram act, he would
leave the folds of Islam. According to the sharia, if a Muslim leaves the fold
of Islam, his marriage becomes null and void, i.e., wife gets an automatic
divorce. Also, all his good deeds are erased from the records.
Abu Nasiruddin Dubusi
narrates the following from Qadi Zahiruddin Khwarizmi. [104] He said, “He who listens
to a singer or someone else singing a song or he who sees a forbidden act and
likes it, he would immediately become an apostate in our opinion. It does not
matter whether he believes in it [i.e., believes that that forbidden act is
permissible] as a matter of creed or not. [105] [106] [107] [By “merely liking” that
forbidden act] he invalidates a ruling of the sharia. And he who invalidates a
ruling of the sharia no longer remains a faithful [Muslim] before the four
interpreter Imams.
10 Allah will not accept any of his good deeds.
All his good deeds will come to naught.” May Allah save us from this!
The jurists have narrated
so many prohibitions on singing that there are just too many to number. Even
then if someone quotes abrogated hadith reports or rarely transmitted
narrations to establish that singing is allowable, then you should not even
consider it. For no jurist in any time or place has ever made a juridical
pronouncement that singing is allowed or that dancing or footwork is permis
sible- the Great Imam Diyauddin Shami 11 wrote thus in his book the Multaqat.
Now the Mujaddid answers the question, “But many
eminent sufis of the past used to practice these deviant practices. So why
should they not be lawful?” The Mujaddid explains that the practices of the
sufis are not evidence for lawfulness; instead, it is the opinions of the jurists
and the scholars of the fiqh or the law of the sharia, that establish
something to be lawful.
Practices of the sufis are
not proofs of lawfulness or unlawfulness. Is it not enough that we consider
them [those sufis] excusable, do not blame them, and leave their matter to God?
Here the opinion of [jurists like] Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Abu Yusuf, or Imam
Muhammad [108]
is relevant, not the practice of [sufis like] Abu Bakr Shibli or Abul Hasan
Nuri. [109]
This time the Mujaddid answers the question,
“The masters of many tariqas used to practice these “deviant” practices. So
why can we not?” The Mujaddid answers that those master’s practices should not
be a pretext because they practiced them only when “overwhelmed” by their
“states.” So today’s sufis, who do not attain those sublime “states” and are
not at all overwhelmed by those “states,” may not use their predecessor’s
practices as excuses.
The immature sufis of this
age have brought singing and dancing into their religion and community under
the pretext that their own pirs practiced them. Even more, they have made them
into pious deeds and acts of wor-
ship. They are the ones
who take their religion as games and joys (Koran 25:72), refers to those
who are present in gatherings of singing.
The Mujaddid finds it horrible to glorify
singing and dancing.
We learn from the preceding
narrations that whosoever considers an unlawful act to be right leaves the fold
of Islam and becomes an apostate; now you can imagine how horrible is it to
glorify the gathering of singing and dancing, let alone to consider them pious
deeds or acts of worship! Praise and glory be on Allah! Our pirs [i.e the great
shaykhs of the Naqshbandi tariqa] are free from these [deviant practices] ! And
they have not guided us, their followers, into doing taqlid of them
[i.e. following them] into these [deviant practices] either [with them being
our role models!]. [A 1.266,135.16-136.15; FR 101-102.15]
It may be noted here that
while jurists hold singing to be haram, hadith scholars often approve of it.
Even Hazrat Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dihlavi, the eminent hadith scholar and
disciple of the Mujaddid, approves of songs in his book the Path of Prophethood
or Madarij-i Nubuwat, which is a biography on the life of Prophet Muhammad
(salam.). It is possible that this book was written before he became a disciple
of the Mujaddid. In any case, he has the right to differ from the Mujaddid as
he was a great hadith scholar himself. However, what is certain is that songs
are forbidden as practices of this tariqa, even if one could find an acceptable
reason for singing in the sharia.
Now disciples in tariqas other than the
Naqshbandi (e.g. Chishti, Shadhili, etc.) may ask, “Many of our predecessor
shaykhs used to practice singing, dancing, etc. so why can we not?” The
Mujaddid explains it in another maktub, [110] by explaining that those
shaykhs engaged in those anti-sharia practices only when predominated by their
“states.” Since they cannot control themselves in that state, they are excused.
However, their followers who practice those anti-sharia practices are not in
that state and so they are not excused- even they should not engage in those
practices. However, in the case of the Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa, even that
suspicion is not available as none of its predecessor shaykhs used to indulge
in these deviant practices.
Singing: Advice to his Pir’s
Sons
In addition to the practices of loud zikr,
singing and dancing violate the fundamental method of the Mujaddidi-
Naqshbandi tariqa. They are blameworthy deviations from the practices of the
tariqa.
I have heard that you two,
the two sons of my venerable master, have taken a fancy toward singing. And you
set up gatherings Thursday nights [111] for singing songs and
reciting qasi- das. Most of our sufi brothers are agreeing to this practice! [A
1.266, 136.15-17]
The Mujaddid so strongly forbade them because
these naats and qasidas (types of poems) were being indeed recited with
musical instruments—i have learned it from my living tradition, from my shaykh
who leamt it from another shaykh [112] who in turn learned this
from his sil- sila. Sunni ulama usually approve singing songs and reciting
qasidas without musical instruments, especially in a mawlud. However, my shaykh
added that the main person in the gathering (usually the shaykh), should not
participate in singing—then the sunna will be observed because the prophet did
not practice singing.
While previously, the
Mujaddid forbade singing as it violated the sharia, now he is forbidding it as
a violation of the Naqshbandi tariqa. He argues that it would be introducing a
new alien practice in this tariqa and that is as bad as introducing such
practices in the sharia.
Did the Mujaddid forbid all
mawluds? No! It should be noted Mujaddid is not condemning all mawlud celebrations,
instead only those celebrations where singing with musical instruments takes
place, as it violates the sharia, and those where singing songs are performed
as practices of this tariqa, as that violates the Naqshbandi tariqa. The ulama
have generally approved singing naats and qasidas when sung with voice only and
without musical instruments. Elsewhere in the Maktubat, the Mujaddid
discusses more on what types of mawluds are permitted and what types are not.
There, he responds to a question posed by a disciple,
In the matter of recitation of the Mawlud, you
have asked, “Regarding reciting the Koran with a melodious voice and reciting
qasidas in praise and eulogy of the prophet (qasa'id-i na‘at va manqabat),
what stricture is there?”
In answer, the Mujaddid describes the practices that are
forbidden in mawlud.
What is forbidden is the
mispronunciation and changing of the sounds of the Koran. Also forbidden is the
addition [to the recitation, the practice] of taking into account the musical
modes. And [also disallowed is the recitation that is] outside of the way of a
normal voice (tardid-i sawt) but instead the way of singing sweetly; And
[also forbidden is hand clapping- practices like this are not allowed even in
poetry- [recitation].
Now the Mujaddid discusses the strictures that regulate the
proper forms of the mawlud.
If you recite in such a way
that no phonetic corruption in the proper [method of pronunciation] of the
Koran takes place; and when the qasidas are recited, the above-mentioned
prohibitions are not broken and additionally [they are recited] with the right
intention [i.e., to become closer to God, instead of having fun] then they may
be permitted.
Then the Mujaddid voices his apprehension that if mawluds
are celebrated at all, they would ultimately lead to deviations.
Sir! The idea comes to my
mind that until this door is completely closed, idiots [who practice deviant
forms of mawlid] will not be stopped. If you permit a little of it, that will
lead to more of it [being practiced], A little will increase to a lot! It is a
well-known saying. [A 3.72, 157.8-14]
Now remember that the Mujaddid approves of
mawluds when done in the sunna format. He now only voices his apprehensions
that even proper forms of mawluds will degenerate into deviant forms of mawluds.
Inventing New Practices in
the tariqa
The Mujaddid cautions his sufi brothers against
inventing new practices in the Naqshandi tariqa. He says,
Surprise! A thousand
surprises! The disciples of the other silsilas take these things up on the
pretext that it is the practice of their own pirs. And they ward off the
reverence for the sharia by the practice of their own pirs although even that
is not really true. What excuse would our sufi brothers [113] give for taking up this
practice? On one hand, it destroys the reverence for the sharia! On the other
hand, it is contrary to their pir’s practice! Neither the people of the sharia
are pleased with this practice, nor are the people of the tariqa!
The Mujaddid has always
held the opinion that inventing deviations (bid‘at) in the tariqa is
just as sinful an act as introducing deviations in the sharia. That is why he
denounces introducing singing and dancing in this tariqa which is inventing new
practices in the tariqa.
Even if it were not
violating the sharia, it would be inventing (ihdath) a new practice into
the tariqa and that alone is abominable! So how can it be that that gathering
[of singing with musical instruments that you are holding is] acceptable to the
sharia?
Therefore, the Mujaddid forbids these new
inventions in the tariqa.
I firmly believe that the esteemed Mirza Jiu
18 is not pleased with this practice. He is not
openly forbidding it only for the sake of adab, courtesy. It is also for
that reason that he is not forbidding the sufi brothers from going to these
gatherings. I do not anticipate going there [to your khanqa in Delhi] soon. So
I have collected my thoughts and written a few lines. You should take this
lesson [that is in this maktub] in the company of Mirza Jiu and read this
letter in front of him from beginning to end. [A 1.266, 136.17-end-of-maktub]
What does the Mujaddid mean by the term “pir”
here? What does he mean when he claims that none of our predecessor pirs used
to engage in singing [with musical instruments] or dancing? “Pir” is a Persian
word that literally means “elder”; however, in its technical meaning, it is
synonymous with the Arabic “shaykh” or another Persian word, bozorg. In
Iran and the Indian subcontinent, “pir” also means “guide in the tariqa”- it is
a synonym for the Arabic “shaykh” in this technical sense, as well as
literally. In this maktub, the Mujaddid is referring to his predecessor shaykhs
in the Naqshbandi tariqa.
18another name for Khwaja Husamuddin Ahmed
Here, one may comment that
many shaykhs who are listed in the ‘lineage tree’ or the shajara of this tariqa
like Hazrat Sayyid Amir Kulal and several of his predecessors used to practice
loud zikr. (However, this maktub shows that Hazrat Bahauddin persuaded Hazrat
Amir Kulal to give up loud zikr.) So why does the Mujaddid make the “false
claim” that our pirs did not practice these? Did the Mujaddid not know the
history of his tariqa? The answer is that although these elders are listed in
the shajara or the lineage tree of the tariqa, still they are not
members in the Naqshbandi tariqa “technically.” This is because the tariqa
starts with the founder, the Imam who formalizes the rules of the tariqa and
who is a primary source of the energy and blessings, faydh va baraka, of
that tariqa. Our tariqa, the Mujaddidi- Naqshbandi tariqa, like several other
tariqas, has two Imams: the first Imam is Bahauddin Naqshband and the second
Imam is the Great Mujaddid Ahmad Sirhindi. So technically, the elders who are
in our silsila but are before Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband are not elders of our
tariqa and so the Mujaddid does not even consider their practices as models of
our practices. They are not at all our role models in defining the rules of the
tariqa. It is the two Imams who make these rules.
The term silsila
literally means chain and it has two technical meanings in the sufi science.
First, it means the shajara or the lineage tree, i.e., the list of consecutive
masters in the tariqa- that cannot be the meaning here as some early masters in
this shajara of this tariqa, prior to the formation of the tariqa by
Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband, indeed practiced loud zikr. So here, this term can
only have its second meaning, whereby it is synonymous to tariqa- a formalized
system of teaching “knowledge of the heart.” Here it refers to this
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa that was originally instituted by its first Imam
Hazrat Bahauddin Naqshband and later renewed, re-invigorated and expanded by
its second Imam Hazrat the Great Mujaddid Ahmad Sirhindi.
Part V
CHAPTER
Rules of the Tariqa
What to do when one seeks to follow the sufi
path and reach God? One may learn from the personal experience of the Mujaddid.
He writes in his monograph Mabda’ va Ma ‘ad about how he started his own
sufi journey.
When I experienced the
desire for this path, divine grace (ilahi) (SWT) took me to a caliph of
the family of the khwaja hazrats (qaf). It is from there that I attained
the tariqa of these masters and I clung to his companionship. [Mabda’ 1, 3.1-4]
Yes! In order to attain Allah, one must attain
the companionship of an authorized deputy or khalifa of any of the sufi
tariqas and learn from him.
From which sufi tariqa should one learn? There
are many tariqas and each one of them has their unique method for
God-realization. However, as the Mujaddid says,
Know that the tariqa which is the nearest, foremost,
most appropriate, strongest, most reliable, wisest, truest, most just,
highest, greatest, most elevated, and most perfect (aqrab, asbaq, awfaq,
awthaq, aslam, ahkam, asdaq, adall, a‘la, ajall, arfa‘, akmal) is the most
distinguished Naqshbandi tariqa. May Allah (SWT) sanctify the spirits of its
family-members and the secrets of its adherents! [A 1.290, 90.7-9]
Why? The Mujaddid also explains the reason that has carried
this tariqa to such greatness. It is because this tariqa strictly follows the
sunna.
All the greatness of this
tariqa and the high status of these masters result because this tariqa firmly
follows the shining sunna (salam) and stays away from displeasing deviations.
They are those for whom the end has been inserted in the beginning, as [it
happened] for the honored companions (dwad)! [A 1.290,190]
What is the first zikr of the Naqshbandi tariqa?
That is the zikr of the name of the person (ism-i dhat) i.e., “Allah.
.. Allah... Allah... ” And that is the first zikr that the Mujaddid learned
from his guide Hazrat Baqibillah. The Mujaddid writes,
Brother! May Allah show you
the straight path! When by the divine grace,! experienced a raving madness for
this [sufi] path, he guided me to our shaykh, our Mawla, our Imam shaykh
Muhammad al-Baqi who was a celebrated caliph of the family of the great
Naqshbandi hazrats. He was the asylum of the friends [of Allah], one who is
aware of the reality, (walayatpanah, haqiqat-i agalï), guide to the
tariqa where the end has been inserted in the beginning and which connects one
to the path towards the degrees of friendship [of Allah], the supporter [of the
religion that leads one to] the goodpleasure of God (hadi-i tariq-i
indiraj-i ni- hayat fi’l bidayat wa ila al-sabil al-mawsil ila darajat
al-walayat, mu ’ayyid al-ridan) [A 1.290,190]
Yes! That is the initial zikr of this tariqa. It is “Allah.
.. Allah... .Allah.” It is not Haqq, Hayy, Qayyum or any other name.
Now what is the proper method of zikr in this Mujaddidi-
Naqshbandi tariqa? We know one thing for sure that the zikr of the Muj addidi
tariqa is always silent. We need to know it so that we can easily detect if some
shaykh is following a deviant practice or the unadulterated
Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi practice. The Mujaddid explains how to do the zikr:
Praise be to Allah who is the Lord of the worlds!
Salutation and peace be upon the Prince of the
Prophets, his progeny and his pure companions!
Know and be aware that your felicity (sa
‘adat), instead the felicity of every child of Adam, and success and
salvation (durustagari) for everyone, lies in the zikr of his object of
worship (ilahi) (SWT). As much as possible, you should keep yourself
“drowned” in the zikr of God all the time; you should not permit yourself even
one moment’s heedlessness.
Praise be to the Allah (SWT)! What a divine
grant of good fortune! This perpetual zikr (dawam-i dhikf) is realized
right in the beginning of the tariqa of the khwajegan hazrats. (qaf).
[While this perpetual zikr is realized at the “end” of the other tariqas, it is
realized in the “beginning” of this Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa] as “insertion
of the end in the beginning.” (indiraj al-nihayatfi-’l bidayat), [which
is a uniquely distinguishing characteristic of this tariqa].
Therefore, the students
should choose this ‘most high tariqa’, as it is the best and the most appropriate.
Even more, it is obligatory and incumbent (wajib va lazim). So [now] you
should turn your focus of attention (qibla-i tawajjuh) away from all
[the other] directions and instead turn your face totally towards the exalted
persons (janab) of these masters of the ‘most high tariqa’. And beseech
fervently [assistance for God-realization] from the inner realms (batin)
of these great ones.
Some argue, “Loud zikr also
used to be a Naqshbandi practice. Many shaykhs of this tariqa used to practice
it in the past. So we are only re-introducing them. So why should it be
blamed?” The answer is two-fold. First, is the case in which these masters are
in the silsila of our tariqa but before the formation of the tariqa, that we
have already discussed. Second, when it was indeed practiced after the
formation of our tariqa, the answer is that the practice of the deviant
branches of the tariqa should not be our model. Even in the Maktubat,
Hazrat Mujaddid cautions many Naqshbandis who practiced loud zikr — and states
that — they are the deviant branches of the tariqa unfit to be our role models.
This also proves that loud zikr among Naqshbandis was rampant even at that
time; it is not a new deviation, rather it is a very old and common deviation
among the Naqshbandis. The argument that because others have done it or do, it
is acceptable, is known to be false and countless examples can be given to
illustrate the faulty logic of this justification. Furthermore, the Mujaddid
guarantees that those who participate in deviant practices are in fact blocked
from receiving any faydh or baraka of the tariqa. Neither do they
reach any hal of the tariqa; any hal they may receive is really
a deception that leads step-by-step to ruin (istidraf).
Some modern-day
nontraditional Naqshbandi shaykhs argue, “While silent zikr was appropriate in
the past, with the change of time, the rules need to be changed. We feel that
loud zikr is appropriate for the current time.” In answer, we may remind
ourselves why all these deviant practices, e.g., loud zikr, singing, dancing,
and so forth, are forbidden in this tariqa. A fundamental rule of this tariqa
is strict ( ‘azimat) adherence to the sunna. Loud zikr is a deviation (bid‘at)
from the sunna, and that is why it is prohibited, in contrast to the rules of
the other tariqas, which do not follow the sunna as “strictly.” As the Mujaddid
wrote,
Know! To attain the tariqa
of the khwajegan hazrats, (qaf), you should believe in the beliefs of
the mainstream Sunni community and observe the shining sunna of the Chosen One
(on its owner [Prophet Muhammad] be salutations, peace and benediction!). And
you should avoid the deviations [to the sunna or bid‘at\ and the
caprices of the [instigating] soul. And you should practice “strictly” ( ‘az-
imat) as much as possible. And you should remain cautious of a relaxed (rukh.sal)
practice. [A 1.290, 95.7-10]
Yes! Loud zikr and singing
may be allowed by some ulama as a “relaxed” (rukh.sal) practice. But the
heart of the Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa is to “strictly” (‘az- imat)
follow the sharia and sunna, and this is why these practices are banned in this
tariqa. The Mujaddid explains the message of the Naqshbandi masters again,
Brother! The great ones of
the Most High Naqshbandi tariqa (qaf) cling to the shining sunna and choose a
“strict” ( ‘azimat) practice [over a relaxed (rukh.sal)
practice]. Along with adhering to [the sunna] and choosing [a strict practice],
if they are ennobled by states and raptures (hal va mawajid) then they
consider it to be a tremendous bliss.
On the other hand, if they
realize those states and raptures but find themselves slackening in adhering to
[the sunna] and choosing that [strict practice], then they do not like those
states and do not want those raptures. Instead, they consider that slackening
to be a sign of their own badness. [A 1.237, 37.12- 15]
This above section is an
especially relevant response to today’s nontraditional Naqshbandi sufi shaykhs
who say that these deviant practices are needed to attract people to the tariqa
today. Yes ! It is true that practices like loud zikr produce stronger hal
(although only temporarily ). And singing may attract people. But true
Naqshbandis would not like that hal and attraction produced by those deviant
practices; instead they would consider that slackening of the sunna to be a
sign of their own weakness.
The Mujaddid again wrote on the importance of avoiding a
“relaxed” practice of the sharia in this tariqa.
Therefore, as a choice, the
tariqa that would be the most appropriate and best suited is the one which
requires you to observe the sunna and which conforms to the injunctions of the
sharia. That tariqa is the tariqa of the Naqsh- bandi masters. These great ones
have included the sunna and left out deviations from this tariqa. As much as
possible, they do not permit a “relaxed” (rukhsat) practice even when
that appears to benefit the inner realm. On the other hand, they maintain a
strict (‘azi- mat) practice even when that appears to harm that inner
realm. [A 1.243, 43.12-16]
Yes! Loud zikr indeed produces a stronger hal
and so it appears to benefit the inner realm. And so many tariqas do permit
this. However, even so, the Naqshbandi masters prohibit those deviant
practices.
Still another maktub forbids loud zikr and all
its deviations as being in violation of a core value of this tariqa, which is
to observe the sunna. This maktub was written to Khwaja Muhammad Qasim, the son
of Khwa- jegi Amkangi. And Khwaja Amkangi was the pir of Khwaja Baqibillah . It
shows that these deviations have been creeping into this tariqa from a long
time.
You may know that the
Naqshbandi tariqa has attained superiority and has been elevated to a high rank
because this tariqa firmly follows the sunna and meticulously avoids all deviations.
It is for this reason, the great ones of this Most High tariqa have avoided
loud (jahr) zikr and instead directed towards silent (khafi)
zikr. And they have forbidden songs, dances, ecstasies, and raptures (sama ‘
va raqs va wajd va tawajud) that did not exist in the time of that Great
Leader [Prophet Muhammad] (salam) or in the times of the well-instructed
caliphs (dwad) Seclusion and forty-day retreats (arba ’in) were not
practiced in the time of the Great Master, instead they have chosen seclusion
within congregation (khalwat dar anju- man).
Consequently, commitment
[to the sunna] has yielded great results and avoidance [of deviations] has
given them abundant rewards. It is for this reason that the end of other
[tariqas] has been inserted in the beginning for these masters and their
transmission (nisbat) is higher than all other transmissions. Their
message is the medicine for the heart!
And their blessed gaze (nazar-i
shan) is medicine for illness of the diseases of mental worri- ness (‘ilal-i
ma‘nuya). And the face-turning of their noble presence (tawajjuh-i
wajih) saves the seekers from the captivation of the two worlds [of
creation, this world and the last world.]. Their power to elevate [others on
the sufi path] (himmat-i rafi ‘) carries the seekers from the perigee of
contingentness (imkan) to the apogee of Necessaryness (wujub).
Naqshbandis are such amazing leaders of the
caravan!
They lead from the hidden path to the sanctuary
of the caravan!
The attraction (jadhdhba) that come from their companionship, from the
heart of the wayfarer!
Carries off any whispering of seclusion (khalwat) or thought of chilla (forty-day
retreats or arba ‘in)
In these times, that
transmission (nisbat) has become as rare as the phoenix! And some from
this grade [of nontraditional Naqshbandi shaykhs] have not found that great
treasure and have been deprived of this rare bliss. They have looked around
everywhere for these jewels but of no avail. So finally they have become
contented with pieces of broken earthenware, or like children, they have found
comfort in walnuts and raisins. Many of them have been confused and perturbed
and so they have left the method of their own [tariqa’s] past masters. And some
times, they try to find peace through loud zikr. Other times, they search for
comfort in songs and dances (sama‘ va raqs). Since they have failed to
find seclusion in the congregation (khalwat dar anjuman), they have
instituted forty-day retreats in seclusion (arba‘ in-i khalwat). It is
even more surprising that they believe they are completing and perfecting this
noble nisbat (transmission) with these newly- invented practices (bid‘at).
And they consider this destruction as renovation. May the Haqq (SWT) give them
a sense of justice! And may He put a few of the perfections of the great ones
of this tariqa into the heads of the souls [of these deviant Naqshbandis !] By
the letters Nun and Saad [in the Koran]! For Your love for the prophet and his
noble progeny (salam)!
At this time, these new
practices (muhdathat) are being instituted. And even the original tariqa
of these great ones has been concealed. And both the commoners and the elite
are practicing newly-instituted practices. And they are deviating from the
original and ancient tariqa. So the idea came to my mind that I should inform
the servants of your sublime court of all these matters ! And by that bring
some of the pain in my heart out in the open!
I do not know in which
group these sufi comrades of your court belong? Which tribe?
I can’t sleep [at night] worrying on this
In whose lap am I sleeping happily
My supplication to Allah
(SWT) is that He saves you from this catastrophe! And He preserves your noble
court from including these false practices!
Sir! Newly-instituted and
invented practices (ihdalh va ibda’ ) have become so prevalent in this
tariqa that if those who are against this tariqa say that this is the tariqa
that includes newly- invented practices (bid‘at) and excludes sunna then
they would have a point! [A 1.168, 52.6-53.12]
Yes! Practices like loud zikr, songs, dances,
ecstasies and raptures may be allowed by many scholars, however; these
practices do contravene the sunna and are new additions to Islam that emerged
after the time of the prophet and the companions. And because the Naqsh- bandis
“strictly” follow the sunna, they forbid these practices while other tariqas
who maintain only a “relaxed” practice may still practice them.
Here is another prohibition of loud zikr.
You have also asked, “You
[the Mujaddid] forbid loud (jahf) zikr as it is a deviation (bid‘at).
However, it produces a taste and longing for God (dhawq va shawq).
And you do not forbid other things that were not there in the time of that
Great Leader [Prophet Muhammad] (salam), for example the [the outfit called] fardi,
shawl and shalwar.”
Sir! The acts of that Great
Leader (salam) are of two types [the first type is performed as an act] of
worship ( ‘¡badal). [and the second type is performed as an act ] of custom
and habit (‘urfva ‘add).
The acts of worship, if you
contravene them, then I consider it a reprehensible deviation (bid‘at-ha-i
mankur). And I proclaim that they are forbidden. Because “instituting a new
practice” (ihdath) in religion is exceedingly wicked (murud).
On the other hand, if you
contravene the acts that are performed as customs and habits, then I do not
consider it to be a reprehensible deviation. And I do not proclaim it to be
prohibited, as it is not connected to the religion.
[A 1.231,22.2-8]
Yes! With the changed times, Naqshbandi shaykhs
can make some changes in the practice. But that does not extend to a
fundamental practice like loud zikr. That is forever forbidden for Naqshbandis,
even though that practice may be highly effective in producing a “taste” and
“longing” for God.
Another prohibition on loud zikr follows,
Know that the tariqa of the
khwajegan hazrats (qaf) is the nearest (aqrab) among the
tariqas that connects one (mawsila) [to God], And the end (nihayat)
of others has been inserted in the beginning (bidayat) of these masters.
And their transmission (nisbat) is above (fawqa)
all other transmissions.
This tariqa has realized
all these [excellences] because it clings to the sunna and discards deviations.
As much as possible, they do not permit a “relaxed” (rukhsat) practice
even when it seems to benefit the inner realm (batin).
And they do not give up a
“strict” practice (‘azimat), even when they consider it to be harmful to
their journey (sayrat) [on the sufi path].
They place the “states and
raptures” (ahwal va mawajid) below the rules of the sharia [in
importance]. They consider [sufi experiences like] “longings” and the sufi
ideas (adhwaq va ma‘arif) to be servants of the science of the sharia.
They do not exchange the precious jewels of the sharia for walnuts and raisins
as children do, or ecstasies or deep states (wajd va hal-i ghaus) [as
the deviant ones among the sufis do]. And they do not become deceived or
charmed by false sufi expressions (tarahat). They do not leave the nass
[the Koran and the hadith] to become engaged in the /hvsi the book Fusus
al-Hikam by Ibn Arabi.]. And they do not revere the Futuhat-i Makkiya [or
the Meccan Revelation of Ibn Arabi.] more than the Futuhat-i Madaniya
[the Medinan Revelations, i.e., the hadith].
Their state (hal) is
permanent (dawain) and their time (waqt) is perpetual. While the
selfdisclosure of the person of God (tajalli-i dhati) that the others
experience is [transient] like the flash of a lightning, what these masters
experience is permanent. And these exalted ones do not even take into account
that selfdisclosure which disappears the next moment after its appearance.
Allah has said about them, They are such men whom trade and business cannot
distract from the zikr of Allah. (Koran 37:24)
However, everyone cannot
empathize with the “tastings” (dhawq) that these great ones experience.
For this reason, many defective ones may deny many of the perfections of this
most distinguished Naqshbandi tariqa.
If a defective one blames on this group a
defect!
Allah forbid! I will bite my tongue from these
complaints !
[A 1.131,9.4-10.15]
Yes! Many such “defective”
nontraditional Naqshbandi shaykhs do make the claim that the traditional Naqshbandi
practice of silent zikr is ineffective. This is because those shaykhs are
incompetent, not because the practice of this tariqa is ineffective. The
Mujaddid continues his sermon,
See! Some of the later caliphs of this most
distinguished Naqshbandi tariqa have instituted new practices (ihdath)
into this tariqa and have lost the true method of these great ones [who
preceded them in this Naqshbandi tariqa]. Many of the disciples [of these deviant
Naqshbandi shaykhs] hold the belief that they [those deviant nontraditional
Naqshbandi shaykhs] are making this tariqa perfect by these newly-instituted
practices.
God forbid! Never! It is an exceedingly arrogant
claim that they are making! On the contrary, they are ruining and losing it
[this Naqshbandi tariqa, by these newly-instituted practices.] [A 1.131,
9.4-10.15]
another writing in which the Mujaddid prohibits
loud zikr, because it violates the sharia and the sunna, follows,
The great ones of this most distinguished [Naqshbandi]
tariqa make the states and raptures (hal va mawajid) subservient to the
rules of the sharia. And make the longings and sufi ideas (adhwaq va ma
‘arif) subservient to the science of the religion. They do not act like
children and so they do not exchange the priceless jewels of the sharia with
walnuts and raisins [as children do] or ecstasies and states [as the deviant
sufis do] (yvajd va hal). And they are not deceived or charmed by the
false sufi expressions (tarahat). They do not accept the states (ahwal)
that are attained by practices that violate the sharia or contravene the shining
sunna. Nor do they even want them. This attitude of theirs has even reached the
point that they do not permit singing and dancing (sama‘ va raqs).
Neither do they even approach loud zikr. [A 1.221, 7.18-8.2]
Here is still another writing on “strict”
practice and deviant practices like loud zikr, singing, and dancing.
Therefore, the “nearest” (aqrab)
tariqa of all the tariqas is that tariqa in which the opposition to the
[instigating] soul is the most. There is no doubt that opposing the
[instigating] soul is more in the Most High Naqshbandi tariqa than in the other
tariqas. That is why these masters have chosen a “strict” practice and
discarded a “relaxed” practice. Everyone knows that a “strict” practice
includes discarding both the forbidden [or haram] (muharram) and the
superfluous (fuduT). [114]
And this is in contrast to a “relaxed” practice that discards only the
forbidden things.
If someone says that one
may undertake “strict” practices even in the other tariqas, I would answer that
most tariqas include singing and dancing (sama‘ va raqs), which may be
considered at most “relaxed” practices only through much deceptive
argumentation They [the other tariqas] cannot be called “strict” at all.
What the Mujaddid means by
a “strict practice” is a practice that strictly follows the sunna. On the
other hand, what the common people mean is a practice that is difficult and
hard-to-so. According to the way the Mujaddid defines the term “strict,”- that
is, following the sunna strictly ? those deviant tariqas cannot be at all
called “strict.”
The Mujaddid reiterates that point here.
Loud zikr is something that
is just like that. It cannot be thought of as being anything more than a
“relaxed” practice shaykhs of other sil- silas [that are not Naqshbandi] have
instituted new practices (umur-i muhdath) into their own tariqas [and
they were only] intending to improve [their own tariqas.] Those [practices are
really forbidden or haram according to the sharia and they] may [at most] be
ruled “relaxed” [practices and even that] after a lot of rectification (tashih),
[manipulative reasoning and stretching].
The masters of our most
high [Naqshbandi] silsila are their antithesis. They do not permit even the
slightest deviation (mukhalifat) from the sunna. And they do not support
any newly instituted or invented practice (ibda’ va ihdath). Consequently,
opposition to the [instigating] soul is complete in this tariqa.
Therefore, it is the
“nearest” (aqrab) tariqa. And it is the best and most appropriate tariqa
for a seeker to choose. Because the path towards their final point is the
“nearest” and what they seek (matlab) on [their sufi path towards]
perfection is high.
Some of their caliphs of the later times has
left the fundamental principles (awda‘) that these masters have laid
down and instead they have instituted new practices (ihdath) in this
tariqa. And they have chosen singing, dancing, and loud zikr (sama‘, raqs,
jahr).
They imagine that they are perfecting and completing
(takmil va tatmim) this tariqa with these newly instituted and invented
practices (muh- dathat va mubda‘at). They do not know that destroying
the “fundamental principles” (awda ‘at) of the tariqa will kill the
tariqa. [A 1.286, 52.14-53.7]
Some nontraditional Naqshbandi shaykhs claim
that with these newly-invented practices, they are modernizing the tariqa to
fit the current place and time. The above text may be a proper response to
them.
Prohibitions of deviations like loud zikr,
singing with musical instruments, etc. are so critically important that the
Mujaddid repeats this point in another maktub sent to Khwaja Husamuddin Ahmad
in the khanqa of the sons of Khwaja Baqibillah . There he says that deviations
in the tariqa are just as bad as deviations in the sharia. He again stresses
the prohibition on loud zikr as well as songs and dances as practices of the
tariqa. He even maintains that it is such a grave misdeed, that if the two sons
of his teacher Khwaja Baqibillah persist in those anti-tariqa and anti-sharia
practices,; he will cut off all relations with them. Additionally, he forbids
loud zikr in many other places as well and not as a temporary prohibition, but
instead as a permanent ban, as it violates the very fundamentals of this
tariqa, as well as the sharia, as he interprets it. He wrote,
Honored Sir! Instituting
new practices (ih- dath) in the tariqa, I see as a ‘[blameworthy]
deviation’ (bid‘at) and no lesser a deviation than inventing new
practices in the religion (din). The blessings (barakat) of the
tariqa will pour [onto the seekers via the transmission channel] until new
practices are instituted therein. When new practices (amr-i muh- dath)
are instituted in the tariqa, then the channel of energy and blessings is
blocked. So it is “the most important of the important matters” (ahammi-muhim)
that we preserve [the traditions of] this tariqa and it is indispensable to
desist from violating its [traditions] (ijtinab az mukhalafat-i tariqat).
Therefore, wherever,
whomever you may see indulging [in acts that] violate [the traditions of] this
tariqa, you should forbid him strongly and strengthen this tariqa. [A 1.267,
76.5-10]
Yes! The Mujaddid guarantees that those deviant
nontra- ditional Naqshbandi shaykhs practicing loud zikr in the name of the
Naqshbandi tariqa, along with their disciples, are not receiving any energy
transmission or blessings from our tariqa. It is important for us to forbid
them strongly and strengthen the Mujaddidi-Naqshbandi tariqa! May Allah help us
and grant us success! Amin!
Index
Ta‘liqatbarSharh-iRuba‘iyat, 138(jod s
knowledge
Upanishad, chandogya, 244 universals and particu-
Tafsir al-Mazhari, 191 lars,
82
Bridge, the(sirat), 175 Greece, philosophers, 245
Creed
Mainstream Sunni, 69
damnation, eternal, 151-155, 169, 177-180, 195 due to personal
enmity, 189
faith (lack of), 192
justification, 152
dancing, 275
desire
hell, eternity, 177-180 Hinduism, meditation, 244 hisab,
175
hypocrite, 186
India, Brahmins and yogis,
245
Islam
sects, 70
knowledge
additional attribute, 118 Koran, 19, 59-61, 99,
103, 104,107,113,116, 132, 141-143, 145, 153,158,169-173, 175, 177, 178,181,
182,186,188,191, 192,195-198,201, 214, 229, 230,237, 239, 245,249, 271
life
additional attribute, 118 meditation
Hindu, 244 Mujaddid
attribute, 120 Mutazila
attribute, 120
Naqshbandi tariqa is the best, 260 Mujaddid
starts, 259
ontological terms
definitions of, 74-77 ontology
Aristotle, 74
paradise, eternity, 177 particular (definition), 76 persons
Arabi, Ibn, 70
Mujaddid’s criticism, 138
attribute, 122
Hanifa, Abu, 212
Saiduddin, Mawlana, 214
Abbas, Ibn, 117
Abdullah, Khwaja, 45
Abu Bakr, 209, 210
Abu Hanifa, Imam, 248
Abu Yusuf, 248
Ahmad, Khwaja Husamud- din, 63, 254, 275
al-Farabi, 123,124,127 Ali, 210
Amkangi, Khwajegi, 265 Arabi, Ibn, 73, 119,120,
124, 153, 182
Aristotle, 74, 75, 124, 125
Aruni, 244
Ashari, Imam, 70, 210
Averrois, 75, 124, 127
Avicenna, 71, 123, 124, 127
Baqibillah, Khwaja, 45, 56,61,63,64,105,
112,124,138,156,
205,239,260,265, 275
Bukhari, Imam, 210
Chishti, Muinuddin, 119
poem, 120
Dhahabi, Imam, 210
Dubusi, Abu Nasirud- din, 246
Fagnawi, Khwaja, 240
Ghazzali, Imam, 130
Hallaj, Mansur, 58
Hamadani, Abu Yusuf, 240
Hanifa, Abu, 203
Hanifa, Abu Imam, 208
Ibn Abbas, 245
Ibn Masud, 245
Jesus, 131, 204
Juwaini, ‘Abd al-Malik, 182
Plato, 124, 131
Plotinus, 124, 125
Qasim, Muhammad, 265
Ramitani, Khwaja Mahmud
Injir, 240
Rumi, 149, 236
Rushd, Ibn, 75, 124
Shafi‘i, 203
Shafi‘i, Imam, 208
Shami, Diyauddin, 247 Shibli, Abu Bakr, 248
Simnani, ‘Ala’uddawla, 72
Svetaketu, 244
Ubaidullah, Khwaja, 45
Umar, 209, 210
power additional attribute, 118
practice
and sufism, 235
Khwarizmi, Qadi Zahirud- of Islam, 223-230
din, 246 prayer
Kulal, Sayyid Amir, 239, how to do it, 224-227
240 presence
Ma‘thum, Khwaja Muham- definition, 48 mad, 59,
132
Maturidi, Imam, 246
Mawdudi, 70
McCarthy, R. J., 70
Muhammad ibn Hanafiya, 210
Muhammad, Imam, 248 Reckoning (hisab), 175
Mujahid, 245
Mulla Sadra, 75 Sadiq, Khwaja Muhammad,
Nuri, Abul Hasan, 248 185
science of jurisprudence, you should learn, 223 sight
additional attribute, 118 singing, 275 sirat, 175
speech
additional attribute, 118 stability
attaining piety, 236 substance
definition, 74 sufism
purpose, 228
purpose, to realize pi
ous intention, 230
sunna, 263
Sunni
beliefs, 263
creed, 69
definition, 69, 70 transmission, 48 ulama
superior to the sufis, 184 wayfaring (Mujaddidi), 236
zikr, 237
'William Chittick, The Sufi Path of
Knowledge, (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989).
[2]William Chittick, The Self-Disclosure of God,
(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998).
[3] Friday night in the traditional Muslim calendar is
Thursday night in the modern western calender because a Muslim day starts at
the previous day’s sunset. Halat-i Mashaikh, Tazkirah-i Imam Rabbani
both say at midnight.
[4]A11 dates in this biography are from the unpublished
article “Imam-i Rabbani” by Professor Hamid Algar.
[5]Fazlur Rahman, Intikhab-i Maktubat-i Shaykh
Ahmad Sirhindi, p. 73.
[6]Ihsan, Abul Fayz Kamaluddin Muhammad, Rmvdatul
Qayyumiya, Bengali translation, p. 70
[7]Quoted by Dr Hamid Algar in “Imam-i Rabbani”, an
unpublished paper
[8]Nure Sirhind, p. 22.
[9] Mabda ’ va Ma ‘ad, Minha 1
[11]Rawdatul Qayyumiya
[12]Although I have not found any documentary
evidence supporting it, I feel that the Mujaddid attained perfection in the Shadhili
tariqa and the Shadhili transmission is contained in the Mujaddidi tariqa. I
feel it because the Shadhili litany Hizb al-Bahr is a litany in this tariqa as
well. Now in the Mujaddidi tariqa, this is not a everyday litany as in the
Shadhili tariqa, but instead it may be done on occasion with the shaykh’s
permission. My Shaykh says that according to the tariqa rules, the permission
to recite this litany may be granted only to the missionaries of this tariqa to
realize success in their mission. However, Professor Algar told me that many
tariqas recite the hizb al-bahr although they may not have any initiatic
connection to the Shadhili tariqa.
[13]In olden times, India was known for its parrots.
Even the Masnavi of Mawlana Rumi has stories about the parrots of India.
[14]Rawdatul Qayyumia, pp. 99-100, 104
uHazratu ’l-Quds written
by the Mujaddid’s devoted disciple and caliph Hazrat Badruddin Sirhindi and Zubdatu
’l-Maqamat by Hazrat Hashim Kashmi and from which it has been quoted in the
traditional hagiographies the Rawdatu ’l-Qayyumia’ and the Halat-i
Masha’ikh-i Naqshbandiya Mu- jaddidiya
[15] Source: Hamid Algar, the premier academic
researcher on this tariqa in the West.
[16]Due to disagreement on when the moon of Safar
was sighted, there is dispute on the lunar date of death
'When used before a personal name, Hazrat
(Arabic Hadrat) is an honorific title akin to ’’Venerable” or ”His Eminence.”
It is used before the name of the prophets as well as other holy men and women
in the Islamic tradition in the Indian subcontinent. The Mujaddid also uses
’’Hazrat” before the names and attributes of God, but I omit them to avoid
confusion.
[19]companionship, suhba, refers to companionship
with a spiritual master by dint of which energy and blessings flow into the
disciple and he attains spiritual growth
journeying in the homeland, or safar dar watan is another traditional
saying in the Naqshbandi tariqa. One meaning is the aspirant’s ’’spiritual
journey” within the microcosm of his own being
[21]untrainable, or na qabil: qabil is term used by
Ibn Arabi to mean ’’receptacle” of God’s manifestation. Here the Mujaddid is
saying, out of humility, that he is incapable of being a ’’receptacle” i.e.,
he is untrainable. See William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989) pp. 91-92, hereafter
referred to as SPK
[22] Self-disclosures, or tajalliyat, and
manifestations, or zuhurat, are God’s display of Himself in the created
things and their understandings and insights. SPK, pp. 91-92
[23][A 1.266, 105.7-13]: A refers to the Amritsari
edition of the Maktubat-i Imam-i Rabbani, 1.266 refers to the maktub
#266 in the volume 1,105 is the page number, 7-13 means line # 7 to 13
[24]Ahmad Sirhindi, Ta’liqat bar Sharh-i
Ruba’iyat, I referred to the unpublished translation into Bengali by
Mawlana Mominul Haq, 2005.
[25]For more on witnessing (shuhud) and unveiling
(kashf, mukashafah), see SPK, pp. 225-228. Note that SPK shows that mushahada
is often used to mean kashf or mukashafah, i.e., ’’unveiling” (SPK, p. 277).
[26]Khwaja Husamuddin Ahmad was an eminent disciple
of Khwaja Baqibillah, the Mujaddid’s shaykh.
[28]Fazlur Rahman, p. 4-5. (English section of the
book)
[29]The philosopher Majid Fakhry also uses
’’person.”
[30] This poem is quoted in the Fazlur Rahman text
but not in the Amritsari
text
[31]Mabda ’ va Ma ‘ad, minha 35
[32]Mabda ’ va Ma ‘ad, minha 60
[33] This explanation is based upon what I
understood from the text; the eminent scholar Fazlur Rahman explains it in the
same way in his book the Selected Letters of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, pp.
66-67.
indivisible (basit) literally means a ’’simple
thing”- a philosophical concept that refers to a thing so elemental that it cannot
be subdivided any further.
[35]Ma‘lumat (objects of God’s Knowledge) is a term
used by Ibn Arabi. Sometimes, Ibn Arabi also uses this term synonymously with
the term ’’nonexistent things” (ma'dumat). See SPK, p. 11.
[36] sufi Shaykh Muhammad Mamunur Rashid, in a
discussion with the author in 1998 in his khanqa in Dhaka, Bangladesh
[37]Refers to the hadith report, ’’The rich will
enter paradise five-hundred years after the poor.” This is reason this rich
companion, Abdur Rahman ibn Auf, is reaching paradise late.
[38]Indivisible (basit) literally means a ’’simple
thing,” a philosophical concept in which a substance cannot be subdivided into
components.
[39]A synonym for the Koran; literally, the
’’Distinguisher,” meaning that which distinguishes between good and evil.
18Ibn Arabi said that divine act(s) self-disclose into human
acts. Please see SPK, 208-209.
19Mohammad Mamunur Rashid, Islami Biswas (Serhind
Prakashan,1998), p. 14
[42] hadith: Al-mar’uma'a man ahabba [Bukhari,
Muslim}
[43]hadith: fa-khalaqtu al-khalq li-‘arafa [Mulla
‘All Qari\
[44]hadith: kuntu kandhan makhfiyan. fa-ahbabtu
an a'rafa. fa-khalaqtu al-khalq li- ‘arafa [Ibn Arabi]
[45]Muhammad Mamunur Rashid, Islami Bishwas,
p. 16
[46]Please see the Mujaddid’s monograph Mabda’ va
Ma’ad, minha or chapter 41 where he explains the error of the Asharis.
[47] The Mutazilas and the faylasufs also deny the
external existence of the Attributes
[48]Please see SPK p. 5 for Ibn Arabi’s position
[49] Sifat va dhat az ham juda nemibinam - Be har
che minegaram juz Khuda namibinam
[Jehadul Islam edited Diwan-i Muinuddin, p. 154]
[50]This proposition of Ibn Arabi is found in the Tafsir
Ibn Arabi under Sura Dahr, however some scholars belive that that
tafsir was actually written by Kamaluddin Abdul-Razzaq ibn Abi Ghanaim al-Kashi
(d. 736/1336). Some other scholars believe that it was written by Imam Ali ibn
Muhammad al- Bagdadi al-Sufi popularly known as al-Khazin (d. 741/1341)
[51] That is the view of Fazlur Rahman in the Selected
Letters of Ahmad Sirhindi (Lahore: Iqbal Academy Pakistan, 1984)
[52]Inoperativity [ta‘til]: the doctrine
where God has nothing to do.
[53]People of truth (ahl-i haqq): The Mujaddid seems
to mean the ulama of the mainstream Sunni community ( ‘ulama-i ahl-i Sunnat val
jama'at) by this term. Please note that the mainstream Sunnis exclude deviant
sects such as Wahhabis or Salafis, and the Mutazilas who may still accept the
four caliphs
[54]The Mujaddid discusses more on predestination in
maktub 1.289
[55]For more of his writings on the vision, see the
Mujaddid’s monograph Mabda’ va Ma’ad, Minhas i.e., chapters 20 and 42;
and also maktub 3.44
[56]On fixed entities (a'yan thabita), see
SPK p. 89. For a definition of ’’fixed entity” see SPK, pps. 11-12, pps. 83-86.
[57]muqaddamat-i musallama (premises that [sufi] masters accept generally
and hold as axiomatic truths.) Musallama means premises that are accepted
and held as axiomatic truths by the ’’experts and the elite,” in this context
’’sufi masters,” as opposed to the common people in general
[58]Fakhry, Majid, A History of Islamic
Philosophy, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004) p. 271
[59] Ahmad Sirhindi, Mabda’ va Ma ‘ad, minha
43; I referred to the Bengali translation p. 97
[60]Elsewhere in the Maktubat, the Mujaddid
writes that although the yogis and Brahmins of India engage in many arduous
practices to attain God, they have come to naught, as those practices were not
in conformity of the sharia
[61]The Koranic word khawf is usually
translated as ’’fear” but I believe that the word that is more accurate in this
context, is ’’veneration, awe, reverence or adoration” the respect mixed with
fear that one experiences before a mighty and majestic power like God.
'imam of the Two Holy Cities (Imam
al-Haramayn): ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Abdullah luwaini (d. 478 / 1085-86
[63]The Mujaddid writes more about the superiority
of elect man over the angels in The Mabda’ va Ma‘ad, Minha i.e., chapter
23
[65]Maktub 1.260 written to Khwaja Muhammad Sadiq.
[66]Maktubat-i Imam-i Rabbani
[67]hadith: sabaqat rahmata adhabi [Bukhari,
Muslim]
[68]The Bengali text of the Tafsir al-Mazhari
says ’’Jew” but that is clearly an error
[69]Qadi Sanaullah Panipathi, Tafsir al-Mazhari,
I referred to the Bengali translation, Kayi Chanaullaha Panipathi, Taphsire
Mayhari, (Dhaka: Hakimabada Khankaye Mojaddediya) p. 199
[71]hadith: shafa'ati lahil
al-kaba’ir min ummati [Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud]
[73]Maktub 1.259
[74] well-known hadith
[75]mujatahid imams refers to the four leaders of
flqh, the science of Islamic jurisprudence i.e. Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik,
Ahmad ibn Hanbal. They founded four eponymous schools of law
[76]hadith: la salata ilia bi-fatihati’l kitab
[Bukhari, Muslim]
[77]The breaking of habits (khawariq al-'adah)
is an Ibn Arabi term that means miracles; see SPK, p. 99
[78]In this context, darurimeans
’’self-evident.” The scholar R. 1. McCarthy has done the same in a similar
context. See McCarthy, Al-Ghazali’s Path to Sufism, p. 87n31
18well-instructed (rashidiri): Rashidin is usually
translated as ’’rightly- guided.” However, I offer an alternative I translate rushd
as good-instruction and hidayat as good-guidance. Rushd means
specific good instructions for doing worldly deeds, whereas hidayat
refers to a more ’’spiritual” guidance guidance of the spirit toward God
[80]Imam Dhahabi Imam ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad
Dhahabi
[81]Imam Bukhari, Tarikh-i Bukhari, a ’’less
than sahih” hadith report collection by Imam Bukhari
[82] Imam
Darruqtani, Sunan-i Darruqtani, a well-known book of hadith collection
[83] Abdur
Razzaq: A prominent Shia scholar quoted in the classical book the Siwa ‘iq
[84]Shaykh Shihabuddin Ahmad ibn Hajjar, al-Sawa’iq
al-Muhriqa’ al- Radd ‘Ala Ahl al-Bida’
[85] Qadi ‘Ayyad was an eminent scholar of hadith
[86]Allah! Allah! Fi ashabi! La tattakhuzuhum
ghardan min ba ‘di. Fa-man ahabbahum, fa-bi-hubbi ahabbahum. Wa man abghadahum,
fa-bi-bughdi abghadahum. Wa man adhahum, fa-qad adhani! Wa man adhani, fa-qad
adhiLlah. Wa man adhiLlah, fa-yushaka an yakhuzuhu. [Tirmidhi]
[87]Mawlana Sa‘ad al-Din, Sharh-i Aqa’id-i Nasafi
[Commentary on the Creed of Nasafi] - it is a commentary on the original book
written by Muhammad ibn Abu al-Fadl Burhan Nasafi (d. 791 / 1390)
[88] ‘Ali ibn Musa al-Khiyali, Hashia’ al-Khiyali
[89]Kamal al-Din Isma'il. Hashiya’-i Qurra’-i
Kamal
[90]hadith: man ahabbahum, fa-bi-hubbi ahabbahum.
Wa man abghadahum, fa-bi-bughdi abghadahum. [Tirmidhi]
[91]maktub 1.251
'The Mujaddid wrote in the Maktubat that the
early part of the allotted time period of prayer should be held to be the
mustahab time except that the isha, night prayer, should be delayed in the
winter months until one-third of the night has passed. However, many ulama also
suggest that during the summer months, the dhuhr prayer should be delayed a
little bit as well.
[93] It is sunna to recite a long chapter (from the
beginning of the Koran until Sura Buruj) in fajr, the morning prayer; a
medium-length chapter (from Sura Buruj until Sura Bayyinah) for dhuhr,
the noon prayer, ‘asr or late-afternoon prayer, and isha’, the
night prayer; and a short chapter (from Sura Bayyinah until the end of the
Koran) in maghrib, the sunset prayer in the obligatory cycles, rak'ats
of the prayer.
[94]maktub 1.260 (written to his son Muhammad
Sadiq,), 1.262 (to his caliph or ordained deputy Mir Muhammad Numan) and 1.263
(to his caliph Shaykh Taj)
[95]hadith: La salata ilia bi-huduril qalb
[96] Muhammad Mamunur Rashid, Patha Parichiti,
originally written in Bengali and also its English translation The Path (Dhaka:
Hakimabad
[97] Halat-i
Mashaikh-i Naqshbandiya Mujaddidiya, I referred to the Bengali translation, Maolana Mohammad
Hasan Naksbandi Mujaddedi, Halate Mashayekhe Naksbandiya Mujaddediya,
(Dhaka: Barakatiya Darul Ulum, 1997), V. I, p. 178, pp. 192-193; p. 196
[98] an
ancient Hindu scripture that is the source of Vedanta monist tradition
[99] ‘Abdullah
ibn Ahmad Nasafl, Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqa’iq al-Tawil
[100] Ibn
Abbas and Ibn Masud were companions and great scholars and Koranic commentators
[101]Mujahid: An early Koranic commentator of the
generation after the companions
[102]Abu Mansur Maturidi was the founder of one of
the two major schools of kalam (apologetics or defensive dogmatic theology); it
is the dominant school in Transoxiana (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan region) and
India. Abul Hasan Ashari founded the other school that is dominant in the rest
of the world. The Mujaddid followed the Maturidite school, on whose excellence
he writes in his monograph the Mabda’ va Ma‘ad, Minha i.e., chapter 28
[103] According
to the sharia, if a Muslim leaves the fold of Islam, his marriage becomes null
and void, i.e., the wife is automatically divorced. Also, all his good deeds
are erased from the records
[104] Abu
Nasiruddin Dubusi and Qadi Zahiruddin Khawarizmi were Islamic
scholars
[105] According
to the sharia, one who believes a haram act to be halal leaves the folds of
Islam. However, if he does carry out that act believing it to be haram, he
becomes guilty of that sin but he still remains a Muslim
[106]Interpreter Imam (mujtahid imam): This refers to
the imams who founded the four schools of interpretation, i.e., Abu Hanifa,
Shafi‘i, Malik, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal
nDiya’ al-din Shami was a great scholar, and qadi of Delhi. He was a
contemporary of sufl shaykh Nizamuddin Chishti (d. 725 / 1325). His book Nisab
al-Ihtisab is held in high esteem ( Fazlur Rahman, p. 102)
[108]Imam Abu Hanifa was the founder of the Hanafi
school of jurisprudence, and Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad were two of his
greatest disciples
[109] Abu Bakr Shibli and Abul Hasan Nuri were
eminent sufi masters
[110]maktub 1.291, Volume III, Bengali textp. 189
[111]In the Muslim tradition, the day starts with
sunset and continues until the next sunset. First comes Friday night, then
comes the Friday day. So the Muslim Friday night is the Western Thursday night
[112]I learned it from my shaykh Muhammad Mamunur
Rashid in his Khanqa in Dhaka in a private conversation in 1998. He in turn
learned it from Shah Muti Aftabi, the translator of the Bengali Maktubat, in a
private meeting in Sabhar, Dhaka in the 1980s
[113] sufi brother (yar): Literally yar means friend.
But here, as well as in other places, the Mujaddid seems to mean his brothers
in the tariqa, i.e., other students of Khwaja Baqibillah
[114] superflous practices mean those practices that
are mubah in the sharia, i.e., a practice that is permitted but has neither any
merit in it nor any bad consequence