perennialism (Nasr, Ling etl)

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by izz al-Din, Jun 9, 2017.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. izz al-Din

    izz al-Din Well-Known Member

    salaam e masnun
    i asked alan godlas, about what i mentioned below, and this the reply on his facebook page (log in to access his facebook page):

    ***

    Here is what I wrote:
    It is from Akhbar al-Hallaj, story 9. I was a plane at the time (that is probably why it did not reach you; the internet may have shut off as I was sending it), and so my resources were limited.
    You can find it and download it by googling
    " Abdullah Bin Tahir " and alhlaj
    put them in the same google search box make sure you copy
    it as I have written, including the quotes.
    It will come up first.


    salaam e masnun

    ishtraghi aqwal

    are there any quotes from Sufiyya e Kiraam, rahmatullahi ta'la alayhim ajma'in), to do with perennialism?

    i mean i know wahdat al-adyan as an aqida from within the Deen, [the meaning that Warners have been sent to all nations, previous to the final paradigm or dispensation, there are many Ayaat al-Karima that make this clear)]
    have any (a) validated other religions as a means of Falah, (in their changed or inverted state, (for eg., christianity, imkan of hinduism)?

    and also (b) after Islam in its final form, (and, also, especially, after the adherents of these inversions have heard of Islam and not investigated, even though the asl of these religions (hinduism, etc., are a question mark, but, possible, going by the oldest texts of the hindu religion, there are very clear references to monotheism), was indeed Islam anyway, and, so, as dispensations, abrogated?

    i was reading the quotes posted by the person who started this topic, could someone explain the first one, by Hallaj, the ta'wil?

    (and those that follow thereafter),

    the catholic templer Massignon, mentions in his book, and lings trans. of a poem by Hallaj that follows,

    (i: keller atleast points out chitticks mistranslation/misinterpretation
    of Ibn Arabi, mentioned in the first post and on masud khans site, (on the validity of all religions),


    if indeed this Hallaj quote is authentic?

    also, how does the misunderstanding of ikhtilaf e riwayat from Ibn Taymiyyah, and his error in ijtihad, about the Hellfire, compare to hansons "fatwa" on ling as an analogy?

    hanson mentioned the hetrodox opinion attributed to Ibn Taymiyya, (but, it is a false opinion, there is no doubt, about this. as these types of ijtihad that go against, ijma e qati, are placed in that category),

    but did not mention, the false opinion that ling and co., could associate themselves with, the Mujtahid Imams, whose misunderstanding of ikhtilaf e riwayat, that led to their false opinion, that other religions in whatever form they are in are valid for their adherents to atttain Falah, even though the Asl of these inversions where abrogated, contradicting the dharuriat e Din, and what has been the Aqida of the Ummat e Muslima, from the time of the Sahaba e Kiraam, radhiullahi ta'la alayhim ajma'in, that only Islam is valid now, that, ling could claim to follow, other then lings own interpretations of Qur'an al-Hakim, and Hadith al-Sharif, and made up interpretations of the aqwal of the Sufiyya e Kiraam.

    is there any opinion that accommodates ling and co., so that they can claim,
    that 'we are the new Sunni Muslims' (in their "super" amalgamation of all religions and one leader from the germanic race controlling them all, in a marxist style hippie love),

    replacing by their own claims the Beliefs that the Sahaba e Kiraam where taught, and we recieved, generation after generation through Isnad from them?

    or, indeed, even, Muslim, in a nominal sense?

    anyway, how does the Hallaj quote, differ from what nasr, (quoted after where, he is attributing to Allah Azza wa Jall, the beliefs that the christians made up for eg., of the trinity etc.,
    perhaps, even atributing falsehood to Allah Azza wa Jall ?),

    how does the nasr quote and hallaj quote, if indeed it is from hallaj, in the 1994 interview with the modernist christian, (i: i am against nasr and the templers/occult (with their different shades, organisations, etc., and control of all religions, through hook or by crook, regime, ambition), differ?
    below this quote and the poem from Hallaj:

    According to ‘Abd Allah ibn Tahir Azdi:

    I was quarreling with a Jew in the market of Baghdad, and I blurted out “dog!” Passing then by my side [Hallaj] regarded me with an angry air and told me: “Don’t make your dog bark so!” and he withdrew in haste. My quarrel ended, I went to find him and entered his home; but he looked away from me. I apologized and he calmed down. The he said to me “My son, the religious faiths, all of them, arise from God the Most High; He assigned to each group a creed, not of their own choice, but of His choice imposed on them…I would have you know that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the other religious denominations may be different names and contrasting appellations, but that their Goal, Himself, suffers neither difference nor contrast.”

    Trans. Louis Massignon, Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr, p. 104.

    Then Mansur Hallaj recited the following poem:


    Earnest for truth, I thought on the religions:
    They are, I found, one root with many a branch.
    Therefore impose on no man a religion,
    Lest it should bar him from the firm-set root.
    Let the root claim him, a root wherein all heights
    And meanings are made clear, for him to grasp.

    Diwan al-Hallaj, trans. Martin Lings, Sufi Poems, p. 34.
     
  2. izz al-Din

    izz al-Din Well-Known Member

  3. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider اللَه المقدر والعالم شؤون لا تكثر لهمك ما قدر يكون

    yes very much
     
  4. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    his other works suggest he is a Shia. is he?
     
  5. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider اللَه المقدر والعالم شؤون لا تكثر لهمك ما قدر يكون

  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i read your post. in summary, the doubt has arisen out of various 'statements' of sufiya - whether in (mis)translation or imagination of orientalist/perennialists.

    first question - how authentic are 'quotes' attributed to hallaj; and for the sake of argument, it is proven beyond all doubt that it is indeed the kalam of hallaj, do the translators capture the figurative meaning of sufi poetry?

    i have read/seen articles/websites on mawlana rumi's and shaykh sa'adi's poetry, the authors of which are convinced that this decisive proof of homo-erotic poetry, because their [rumi/sa'adi] poems refer to the "beloved" in masculine! he even went to suggest that homosexuality was accepted norm in their society/age. [see a rebuttal in this article; with the usual disclaimer that i don't endorse the whole thing.]

    ----
    it sounds ridiculous to anyone whose native language is persian or urdu, to say that ghalib was a homosexual - as many of his memorable lines refer to his lover in masculine. this is standard usage in both languages.

    ----
    when such a simple thing can be misunderstood by the geniuses of the west, professors of martian jurisprudence and masters of plutonian sociology, little hope remains in case of religious interpretation, and particularly abstruse and problematic statements.

    ----
    the first step in suluk is correct aqidah. every major book of tasawwuf emphasises this point.


    first section of arbayin of ghazali, and his other books - kimya e sa'adat, iHya, and other manuals is about the correct aqidah.

    the whole of futuh al-ghayb of sayyidi ghawth al-a'azam shaykh abd al-Qadir jilani is about tawHid and adherence to the sunnah.

    and the classical manual of tasawwuf - the famed risalah of imam qushayri opens with this important statement:

    qushayri, p24.jpg

    ----
    as for the taymiyyan heresy of "extinguishing fire", imam subki wrote an epistle refuting it, and was discussed earlier in this post.
     
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  8. izz al-Din

    izz al-Din Well-Known Member

    salaam e masnun

    ishtraghi aqwal

    are there any quotes from Sufiyya e Kiraam, rahmatullahi ta'la alayhim ajma'in), to do with perennialism?

    i mean i know wahdat al-adyan as an aqida from within the Deen, [the meaning that Warners have been sent to all nations, previous to the final paradigm or dispensation, there are many Ayaat al-Karima that make this clear)]
    have any (a) validated other religions as a means of Falah, (in their changed or inverted state, (for eg., christianity, imkan of hinduism)?

    and also (b) after Islam in its final form, (and, also, especially, after the adherents of these inversions have heard of Islam and not investigated, even though the asl of these religions (hinduism, etc., are a question mark, but, possible, going by the oldest texts of the hindu religion, there are very clear references to monotheism), was indeed Islam anyway, and, so, as dispensations, abrogated?

    i was reading the quotes posted by the person who started this topic, could someone explain the first one, by Hallaj, the ta'wil?

    (and those that follow thereafter),

    the catholic templer Massignon, mentions in his book, and lings trans. of a poem by Hallaj that follows,

    (i: keller atleast points out chitticks mistranslation/misinterpretation
    of Ibn Arabi, mentioned in the first post and on masud khans site, (on the validity of all religions),


    if indeed this Hallaj quote is authentic?

    also, how does the misunderstanding of ikhtilaf e riwayat from Ibn Taymiyyah, and his error in ijtihad, about the Hellfire, compare to hansons "fatwa" on ling as an analogy?

    hanson mentioned the hetrodox opinion attributed to Ibn Taymiyya, (but, it is a false opinion, there is no doubt, about this. as these types of ijtihad that go against, ijma e qati, are placed in that category),

    but did not mention, the false opinion that ling and co., could associate themselves with, the Mujtahid Imams, whose misunderstanding of ikhtilaf e riwayat, that led to their false opinion, that other religions in whatever form they are in are valid for their adherents to atttain Falah, even though the Asl of these inversions where abrogated, contradicting the dharuriat e Din, and what has been the Aqida of the Ummat e Muslima, from the time of the Sahaba e Kiraam, radhiullahi ta'la alayhim ajma'in, that only Islam is valid now, that, ling could claim to follow, other then lings own interpretations of Qur'an al-Hakim, and Hadith al-Sharif, and made up interpretations of the aqwal of the Sufiyya e Kiraam.

    is there any opinion that accommodates ling and co., so that they can claim,
    that 'we are the new Sunni Muslims' (in their "super" amalgamation of all religions and one leader from the germanic race controlling them all, in a marxist style hippie love),

    replacing by their own claims the Beliefs that the Sahaba e Kiraam where taught, and we recieved, generation after generation through Isnad from them?

    or, indeed, even, Muslim, in a nominal sense?

    anyway, how does the Hallaj quote, differ from what nasr, (quoted after where, he is attributing to Allah Azza wa Jall, the beliefs that the christians made up for eg., of the trinity etc.,
    perhaps, even atributing falsehood to Allah Azza wa Jall ?),

    how does the nasr quote and hallaj quote, if indeed it is from hallaj, in the 1994 interview with the modernist christian, (i: i am against nasr and the templers/occult (with their different shades, organisations, etc., and control of all religions, through hook or by crook, regime, ambition), differ?
    below this quote and the poem from Hallaj:

    According to ‘Abd Allah ibn Tahir Azdi:

    I was quarreling with a Jew in the market of Baghdad, and I blurted out “dog!” Passing then by my side [Hallaj] regarded me with an angry air and told me: “Don’t make your dog bark so!” and he withdrew in haste. My quarrel ended, I went to find him and entered his home; but he looked away from me. I apologized and he calmed down. The he said to me “My son, the religious faiths, all of them, arise from God the Most High; He assigned to each group a creed, not of their own choice, but of His choice imposed on them…I would have you know that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the other religious denominations may be different names and contrasting appellations, but that their Goal, Himself, suffers neither difference nor contrast.”

    Trans. Louis Massignon, Hallaj: Mystic and Martyr, p. 104.

    Then Mansur Hallaj recited the following poem:


    Earnest for truth, I thought on the religions:
    They are, I found, one root with many a branch.
    Therefore impose on no man a religion,
    Lest it should bar him from the firm-set root.
    Let the root claim him, a root wherein all heights
    And meanings are made clear, for him to grasp.

    Diwan al-Hallaj, trans. Martin Lings, Sufi Poems, p. 34.

    ***

    In an interview in 1994, Nasr responds to John Hick’s
    assertion that the historical Jesus ‘did not think of
    himself as God, or the second person of the divine
    Trinity’ by stating that ‘as a Muslim scholar, I would
    say that this recent [historical] discovery confirms
    what the Quran says explicitly about Christ, that he
    is in fact a prophet and not the son of God’. Nasr
    does not accept, however, that God could allow ‘one of
    the major religions of the world’ to be ‘misguided for
    two thousand years’. He therefore insists that ‘even
    if this doctrine is not historically borne out by
    existing documents, it was divinely willed for
    Christians and of course not Muslims’ and so ‘as a
    Muslim’ he would ‘defend the traditional Christian
    understanding of that doctrine’. This concept is given
    in more detail by Nasr earlier in the interview, when
    he declares, ‘I believe that the sacred rites, the
    sacred scriptures, and also certain fundamental
    formulations of theology are divinely ordained within
    each religion by God’ (Aslan 1996: 268, 271f.). (The interview by Aslan of John Hicks and Nasr appears in The Islamic Quarterly. This journal is published by the Islamic Cultural Centre in London.)

    The ‘most profound encounter’ between Islam and other
    faiths for Nasr, however, is not theological. It
    occurs ‘on the level of esotericism, in the
    perspective of Sufism’ which he considers to be ‘the
    most universal affirmation of that perennial wisdom
    which stands at the heart of Islam and in fact all
    religion as such’. Nasr identifies this ‘perennial
    wisdom’ as ‘the supreme doctrine of Unity’ which Sufis
    refer to as ‘the religion of love’. He cites verses
    from Ibn al-‘Arab³’s Tarjum¢an al-Ashw¢aq, including
    the words, ‘I follow the religion of Love: whatever
    may Love’s camels take, that is my religion and my
    faith’. According to Nasr, this love is ‘the realised
    aspect of gnosis’ and ‘a transcendent knowledge that
    reveals the inner unity of all religions’. Hence Ibn
    al-‘Arab³, he opines, ‘asserts openly the doctrine of
    the universality of revelation’ (Nasr 1966a: 65).


    ***


    Farid al-Din 'Attar writes (and this is very mild compared to other parts of the poem),


    They left the Ka'bah for Rome’s boundaries.
    A gentle landscape of low hills and trees,
    Where, infinitely lovelier than the view,
    There sat a girl, a Christian girl who knew
    The secrets of her faith’s theology.
    A fairer child no man could hope to see—
    In beauty’s mansion she was like the a sun
    That never set—indeed the spoils she won
    Were headed by the sun himself, whose face
    Was pale with jealousy and sour disgrace
    The man about whose heart her ringlets curled
    Became a Christian and renounced the world…
    In turn the Shaykh’s disciples had their say,
    Love has no cure, and he could not obey.

    Mantiq al-tayr, trans. by Afkham Darbandi and **** Davis, pp. 58-60.


    Jalal al-Din Rumi writes:


    Having the same tongue is kinship and affinity,
    With those with whom no intimacy exists, a man is in prison.
    There are many Hindus and Turks with the same tongue,
    And oh, many a pair of Turks, strangers to each other.
    Hence the tongue of intimacy is something else,
    It is better to be of one heart than of one tongue.
    Without speech, without oath, without register,
    A hundred thousand interpreters from the heart arise.

    Mathnawi, trans. by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Pilgrimage of Life and the Wisdom of Rumi, pp. 96-97.

    ***

    Muhyi al-Din ibn Arabi writes:

    Receptive now my heart is for each form;
    For gazelles pasture, for monks a monastery,
    Temple for idols, Ka’bah to be rounded,
    Tables of Torah and script of Quran.
    My religion is love’s religion; where’er turn
    Her camels, that religion my religion is, my faith.
    An example is set us by Bishr, lover
    Of Hind and her sister, and likewise the loves
    Of Qays and Layla, of Mayya and Ghaylan.

    Tarjuman al-ashwaq, trans. by Martin Lings, Sufi Poems, p. 62.

    ***

    Mahmud Shabistari writes:

    I have seen that Christianity’s aim is real detachment;
    I’ve seen it as the breaking of the bonds of imitation.
    Sacred Unity’s courtyard in the monastery of Spirit
    where the Simurgh of the Everlasting makes Its nest.
    From God’s Spirit, Jesus, this work of detachment appeared,
    since he was manifested from the sacred Spirit.
    There is also a spirit from God within you;
    in which is found a trace of the Most Holy.
    If you should seek extinction of the earthly self,
    come into the chamber of the Holy Presence.
    Anyone who, angel-like, has detached from the earthly soul
    Will be risen, Jesus-like, to the fourth celestial realm.

    Gulshan-i raz, trans. Robert Darr, pp. 106-107.

    ***

    And finally, the eminent Amir ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza’iri:


    “Your God is One God; there is no god but He.” (Quran 2:163)

    “Say: It has been revealed unto me that you God is One God.” (Quran 21:108)

    “Say: I am only a man like you; it is revealed to me that your God is One God.”
    (Quran 18:110)
    “Proclaim that there is no god but Me.” (Quran 16:2)

    In these verses and in other analogous verses, God addresses all those who have been reached by the Quranic revelation or earlier revelations—Jews, Christians, Mazdeans, idolaters, Manicheans and other groups professing varied opinions and beliefs with respect to Him—to teach them that their God is One is spite of the divergences of their doctrines and creeds concerning Him. For His Essence is unique, and the divisions in relation to Him do not involve divisions of His Essential Reality. All the beliefs which are professed about him are for Him just different names. Now, the multiplicity of names does not imply multiplicity of the Named! He has a Name in all languages, which are infinite in number, but that does not affect His unicity.

    The preceding verses allude to that which is taught by the elite—that is, the Sufis—namely the transcendent unity of Being (wahdat al-wujud) and the fact that He is the Essence of everything “worshipped’ and that, consequently, whatever he may take as the object of his worship, every worshipper worships only Him, as is proved by the following verse: “And your Lord has decreed that you will worship only Him.” (Quran 17:23)…

    If what you think and believe is the same as what the people of the Sunnah say, know that He is that—and other than that! If you think and believe that He is what all the schools of Islam profess and believe—He is that, and He is other than that! If you think that He is what the diverse communities believe—Muslims, Christians, Jews, Mazdeans, polytheists and others—He is that and He is other than that! And if you think and believe what is professed by the Knowers par excellence—prophets, saints and angels—He is that! He is other than that! None of His creatures worships Him in all His aspects; none is unfaithful to Him in all His aspects. No one knows Him in all His aspects; no one is ignorant of Him in all His aspects…

    All of this is part of the secrets which it is proper to conceal from those who are not of our way…

    Kitab al-mawaqif, trans. by Michel Chodkiewicz, The Spiritual Writings of Amir ‘Abd al-Kader, pp. 130-132.

    ***

    (i:) the person who supports their beliefs, posted these quotes said:

    It is possible to supply you with numerous other sources of this nature. However, due to time constraints, I would recommend that the person who really wants to discover the pre-modern exposition of the perennial philosophy in Islam and among Muslims read.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    yes of course. but that is how he is known. for example, sir sayyid is a similar zindiq. we don't address them thus with respect, it is just their address.
     
  10. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    and bin bayyah, ali jifry and omar bin hafeez as well

    hamza would never jump so high if he didn't have an Arab spring supporting his weight.
     
    Aqdas likes this.
  11. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    Brother Abu Hasan - Can you also kindly remove the "sayyid" from his title that you referred him with as sayyid and kafir are mutually exclusive? Jazakallah
     
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    sayyid hossein nasr is a kafir.

    may Allah ta'ala protect us from such shayaTeen and their sidekicks (i.e., hamza hanson of california)
     
  13. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    shh....please don't laugh..
     
  14. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    this sounds ever so similar to hamza Yusuf saying:

    when you begin to look at the nuances of our traditions you find is that they are deeply compatible at those most basic fundamental levels as they are teaching universal truths, and they would not resonate in the millions of hearts if that were not true.
     
  15. abdarrashid

    abdarrashid Active Member

    Perennialist:

    Perennial philosophy is ultimately Platonic in its epistemic foundations, and so the Aristotelian approach which undergirds 'Asharite theology cannot be summoned to make heads or tails of dialectic of the perennialist thesis. The dialectics of perennial philosophy operate primarily on the principial level, and so its central claims cannot be verified unless one already accepts its epistemological starting point.

    http://marifah.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5095&st=30
     
  16. abdarrashid

    abdarrashid Active Member

    What this perennialists wrote, does not come as a surprise, look at what one their leaders says,

    In an interview in 1994, Nasr responds to John Hick’s
    assertion that the historical Jesus ‘did not think of
    himself as God, or the second person of the divine
    Trinity’ by stating that ‘as a Muslim scholar, I would
    say that this recent [historical] discovery confirms
    what the Quran says explicitly about Christ, that he
    is in fact a prophet and not the son of God’. Nasr
    does not accept, however, that God could allow ‘one of
    the major religions of the world’ to be ‘misguided for
    two thousand years’. He therefore insists that ‘even
    if this doctrine is not historically borne out by
    existing documents, it was divinely willed for
    Christians and of course not Muslims’ and so ‘as a
    Muslim’ he would ‘defend the traditional Christian
    understanding of that doctrine’. This concept is given
    in more detail by Nasr earlier in the interview, when
    he declares, ‘I believe that the sacred rites, the
    sacred scriptures, and also certain fundamental
    formulations of theology are divinely ordained within
    each religion by God’ (Aslan 1996: 268, 271f.).
     
  17. abdarrashid

    abdarrashid Active Member

    In this exchange, a perennialist uses secular materialist mumbo jumbo to explain the "Abrahimic" tradition in doing so he tries to justify their own beliefs. He goes further and tries to undermine the Qur'an al-Hakim just to subtantiate the claim of christains and by that their own TUR claims of salvation for everyone. This particular individual is perhaps a good example of what all of these people believe at some level, giving materialists credibility with their conjecture so as to advance their own beliefs, they are into proseltysing their religion amoungst Muslims, because of people like hanson and others, and they do so with their ignorance, arrogance, dishonesty and stupidity.
    Just to point out winter has something on masud khans site about the Qur'an al-Majid and early christianity, he mentions that this is what is being alluded to. I read it maybe 8 to 10 years ago, so i dont know if it is still on the site. If anyone can post the link here for this article by winter or any other information about the early christians and the Qur'an al-Karim, i appreciate it.

    ***
    Perennialist says,

    It is the view of those who affirm the perennial philosophy that the "Face" God adopts in relation to each community is colored by that community's particular ethnic genius, climate and temperament, this is the human margin. In Islam a discourse is favored that emphasizes primary causes almost to the extent that secondary causes are negated. In this respect the revealed discourse of Islam goes beyond the ancient Israelite religion, which began as henotheism and later developed into various forms of monotheism. Later on this religion developed into Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity respectively. The Qur'an favors a Jewish-Christian Christology and opposes the simple identification Christology of the Great Church, or the Gentile Church. A good deal of this is semantical, as is clear to anyone who has studied this material outside an apologetic environment. So Islam can be understood as a continuation and development of the ancient Israelite religion. These variations of what we might call "Abrahamic monotheism" are terrestrial embodiments of the "primordial covenant" spoken of in Sufi discourse.*

    "Shirk" and "kufr" are nebulous terms, and are understood variously depending upon whether one is approaching a definition from a jurisprudential, theological, or philosophical point of view. Even within one of these domains the terms have a variety of applications and qualifiers. It is really a lengthy discussion as to whether or not the Trinity is out and out kufr since the Qur'an seems unaware of the theological specificity of this doctrine as expressed in orthodox Christian theology, nor for that matter the nuanced understanding of Jesus hypostatic union with the Son, the Second person of the Trinity. The Qur'an seems to be dismissing certain local, and crude, understandings of these doctrines, since they are too easily misappropriated by the common believer.*

    I am running out of time. perhaps I'll respond more fully in a few days when I return. . .
    http://marifah.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5095&st=30
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
  18. abdarrashid

    abdarrashid Active Member

    Last edited: Jun 24, 2012
  19. abdarrashid

    abdarrashid Active Member

    Why is it interesting?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  20. ahlus-sunnah

    ahlus-sunnah Veteran

    Hmm ... Interesting ...
     

Share This Page