For those interested, you can find the work he or she referenced, Shish Fasl, here:
http://www.ismaili.net/Source/khusraw/n ... sraw3.html
As far as what the individual has said, while it intersects a great deal with early Ismaili philosophy, it implies some departures as well. Panentheism is an important part of the faith; understanding the difference between "God" and the "Godhead" is also an important part of the faith. And when I use the term "faith", I don't use it in a dogmatic fashion, I mean in terms of a consistent, logical, point of view. It's not about finding a "comfort level", it's about finding a coherent worldview. It's not about appealing to secular humanism, which is itself the product of bastardized Islamic philosophy (see Averroes, the founder of secularism, ironically a Muslim), it's about appealing to arguable proofs.
Indeed, our faith is human-centric not deity-centric, but one need to understand where those converge before trying to compare Ismailism to naturalism and empiricism. It is true Ismailism shares some grounds with those two, but it has much more in terms of difference. Once again, I am not claiming he or she falls short of some Ismaili ideal, rather I claim that such a worldview is inherently contradictory. Let me detail why, if I can briefly.
I hold agreement that Ismailism certainly does understand that our "actions, attitudes, behaviour, thinking" will shape our future. But Ismailism, while ascribing truth to other philosophies and other religions, also speaks of an age of purity when the entire world was Muslim, and that we will return to that. It existed solely in tawheed (Islamic monotheism), and that was the root of its happiness. Ismailism is not alone in this, for the Beauty has always been sought after by philosophers. But this sort of romanticism was denounced because it did not fit with post-Enlightenment ideas of a largely unknowable God. Philosopher Emmanuel Kant dealt a finishing blow by arguing that the only things that can be proven objectively (due to the fact it is impossible to imagine anything without them) is time and mass. But he didn't take it a step further, noting that both those things can be deduced to numbers (therefore, in reality all that is provable are numbers), and that a solely numerological argument can prove tawheed. The social implications of this are both complex as they are vast.
Indeed, we can see the world is slowly becoming more enlightened, as Ismailism has prophesied, in contrast to the multitude of doomsday Islamic sects. But naturalism and empiricism intrinsically point to materialism, which is the root of suffering, and this is the biggest reason why such views are diseased. It is tempting to say that our lives should be dedicated to the emancipation of human suffering, but we must understand that the endeavour does not and cannot by nature address the spiritual ills of mankind. Those familiar with European philosophy already know that European materialism climaxed with a young German philosopher, a member of the New Hegelian school in the West, named Karl Marx. If you want naturalism, Karl Marx is your man.
Yes, our entire goal in life is to bring happiness to the reality of this world, through social programs, education, and so many other things. We do centre on the human, not the unknowable. But that is but a finger on a hand, for our supreme goal as Ismailiyya is to emancipate the world from dogma and superstition, whether this comes in the form of religion, racism, misogyny, heterosexism, or classism. We don't do this, like a naturalist might, in refuting each and every one of these plagues. Rather, we destroy them at their insidious root, a tree of corruption with buds of false paradigms, dangerous assumptions, fruiting into explicable disbelief. The world and these ills exist for one and one only reason: the abandonment of Islamic monotheism. If the world believed in al-Haqq (Reality), such things as our teachers and philosophers have argued, will disappear. Al-Haqq is rejected because of the paradigms and assumptions this world has drowned itself into.
How does Islamic monotheism solve all these issues? That is beyond a post of this size, but reflect upon this story (as I remember it at least), not because it involves religious figures, but because of its inherent wisdom: Nasir-i Khusraw lived a portion of his live as an alcoholic. But in a dream came to him a religious figure (whom he never names), who proceeds to ask him why he has not sought religious knowledge. Nasir-i Khusraw says he will not do so until he can find a religion that numbs him like alcohol does, similar to what Hinduism and Buddhism try to achieve. The religious figure answers back that any religious figure which teaches numbing is misleading one, and that true enlightenment is to see the world and reality for what it is. Truth sets one free because of its inherent light; to degrade truth to the realm of the senses is a gross sin.
Why when his son Ibrahim died, did our beloved Prophet Muhammad cry, a man of such knowledge and enlightenment? By did our sweet Zaynab hit her head so hard she began to bleed after almost her entire family was killed and imprisoned by the despotic Caliph Yazid I? Don't Eastern thinkers imply that attachment is the root of all suffering? Rather, monotheism is above all about attachment, and it is the falling of our world from its previous grace that has caused us to abuse attachment. If the materialists had it their way, Muhammad would never have cried, nor would have Jesus (the shortest and arguably most powerful line in the New Testament is "Jesus wept"). But we as Muslims know those tears pointed to al-Haqq, the absolute happiness (comprised of both sadness and joy) when one has come to terms with both what the world is, and what the world is yet to become. Naturalism and empiricism can tell us what the world is to a degree, but it cannot answer the questions of why nor of what the future holds.
Am I resorting to dogma at all here? Not at all. The idea that the universe was an intentional creation is ridiculous, Ismailism rejects that and always has. The universe exists because it had to, just as God in the al-Qur'an states that all exists for worship of Him. Who "Him" is precisely, is the path and struggle of our spiritual lives.
Belief in Allah
By the way, the work you quote, Shish Fasl, opens with the following line:
We say, by the generosity of the Lord of the time and the ties between him and humanity, the Imam Musatnsir bi'l-lah, - prayers of God be upon Him! - that eternal bliss (baqa) may be attained by the human soul (only) through the recognition of the oneness of God (tawhid). This is the knowledge of God, equally removed both from anthropomorphism (tashbih) and also from agnosticism (ta'til), which divests Him of His true attributes. Such faith (ithbat), free from both these errors, is the knowledge of God being one.
We say, by the generosity of the Lord of the time and the ties between him and humanity, the Imam Musatnsir bi'l-lah, - prayers of God be upon Him! - that eternal bliss (baqa) may be attained by the human soul (only) through the recognition of the oneness of God (tawhid). This is the knowledge of God, equally removed both from anthropomorphism (tashbih) and also from agnosticism (ta'til), which divests Him of His true attributes. Such faith (ithbat), free from both these errors, is the knowledge of God being one.
-
DilawarMomin
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:52 am
Enzuru,
Thanks for your response. And I respect your views though it might be different than mine. I won’t be able to address all the points you have mentioned because of the space constraint.
I am aware that my thoughts depart from early Ismaili philosophy or any conventional thinking. The ‘faith” in its broadest but religious context is fluid. It is true that fundamental principles of a particular religion won’t change but the understanding of those fundamentals evolves and develops depending o­n time and space. At a particular time in history we may have different understanding of the same fundamentals depending on geographical locations and may have different understanding of the fundamentals at the same geographical location at different time in history. So what kind of “coherent worldview” you are talking about?
You are Pashtun Ismaili, I am satpanthi Ismaili and we understand very well how the understanding of our fundamentals varies, historically and geographically. Of course we should be proud of our history, culture and thoughts, and we should explore and understand this diversity to create wisdom, strength and vision.
You state that our faith is human-centric not deity-centric. You also state that ‘tawheed’, the Islamic concept of monotheism, is the source of happiness, there by you put God on the center stage.
It looks like you are averse to Averroes from your statements with allegation that he bastardizes the Islamic philosophy. But Hazarat Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah has referred to him in his memoirs as ‘lbn-Rushd, the great Muslim philosopher, known to Europe as Averroes…’
You believe in Islamization of entire world in past (may be in metahistorical era) and in future (may be by ‘end time’). But this is not the peculiarity of Muslim thinking but is common in many belief systems including Christianity. This, for me, is illogical, irrational and exclusivist attitude and is contrary to your definition of ‘faith’. You think tawheed, Islamic monotheism, as the culmination of the concept of God. According to you ‘the world and these ills exist in the world is for o­ne and o­nly reason: the abandonment of Islamic monotheism’. I have never read this kind of ignorant statements. For your information I am quoting one statement from the Bhagavad-Gita, a Hindu scripture.
I (Ishvara) am transcendental, beyond both kshara (the fallible, perishable world) and akshara (the infallible).
Try to reflect o­n this verse in light of statements of Nassir Khushru from Shish Fasl.
I have quoted the above verse intentionally as we have a very strange notion about Hinduism. For more understanding read the concept of “advaita vad” and “Brahma” in Hinduism.
For me, understanding and analyzing the thoughts put forward by the philosophers from Thales to Avicenna, Al Ghazali, Averroes and agnostics like Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan and atheist like John Hospers and even ‘my man Karl Marks’ have provided me with tools to understand the Higher Principles. What we get out of the thoughts put forward by Al Ghazali that ‘the universe is created’ in refutation of thoughts of Avicenna, and the refutation by Averroes the arguments put forward by Al Ghazali by concluding that ‘the universe is eternal’? What difference does it make whether universe is created or eternal? It may impact our understanding of the concept of God (tawheed) inferring that God was not and became (creator) after creation or universe is co-eternal with God diluting His uniqueness (oneness). But does this impact His essence, His Being or our being? He is beyond all concepts and thought. You can o­nly say ‘He is’. But ‘is’ is a qualifying word and we have to remove it and that leaves us with “He”, free of, devoid of every thing. But He is beyond this “He” which still exist in my mind. And so on. All this thoughts, arguments, concepts, stories, allegories, even cosmogonical and eschatological ideas are no more than tools and tools are not The Truth. once you accept this and start accepting the different thoughts as nothing more than tools you will not have a feeling that particular persons thoughts are different than mine or are against that of mine or mine are superior than his or my belief system is ultimate and best or mine is the only way to the Truth. And the search for the Truth is very personal. We have to create our own personal world where we can practice our faith without disturbing others and without being disturbed by others. And this is what I mean by ‘comfort level’ or ‘comfort zone’ which is very personal. For this we don’t need coherent world view.
Only reason to state all this is to emphasize my point in the previous posting that compartmentalization of human society on the basis of belief system or culture and there by creating an exclusivist attitude is the cause of problems in this world. only statements saying that we believe in pluralistic world or attitude is not enough. You might have seen and gone through pain and suffering by seeing or knowing people killing others on the basis of religion or conviction or color or profession or geographical location. What are the reasons for this violence and inhuman behavior? Are naturalist, empiricists, humanist responsible? I fully understand that religious fanaticism is not the only reason or cause for this violent and inhuman behavior. But is it unreasonable to expect compassionate and ethical behavior from religious people who claim that faith base attitude makes people more human? In the end, I will repeat my statement. ‘The exclusivism of faithful, separatist behavior, supremacist thinking and fanatic attitude will destroy our existence’.
Thanks for your response. And I respect your views though it might be different than mine. I won’t be able to address all the points you have mentioned because of the space constraint.
I am aware that my thoughts depart from early Ismaili philosophy or any conventional thinking. The ‘faith” in its broadest but religious context is fluid. It is true that fundamental principles of a particular religion won’t change but the understanding of those fundamentals evolves and develops depending o­n time and space. At a particular time in history we may have different understanding of the same fundamentals depending on geographical locations and may have different understanding of the fundamentals at the same geographical location at different time in history. So what kind of “coherent worldview” you are talking about?
You are Pashtun Ismaili, I am satpanthi Ismaili and we understand very well how the understanding of our fundamentals varies, historically and geographically. Of course we should be proud of our history, culture and thoughts, and we should explore and understand this diversity to create wisdom, strength and vision.
You state that our faith is human-centric not deity-centric. You also state that ‘tawheed’, the Islamic concept of monotheism, is the source of happiness, there by you put God on the center stage.
It looks like you are averse to Averroes from your statements with allegation that he bastardizes the Islamic philosophy. But Hazarat Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah has referred to him in his memoirs as ‘lbn-Rushd, the great Muslim philosopher, known to Europe as Averroes…’
You believe in Islamization of entire world in past (may be in metahistorical era) and in future (may be by ‘end time’). But this is not the peculiarity of Muslim thinking but is common in many belief systems including Christianity. This, for me, is illogical, irrational and exclusivist attitude and is contrary to your definition of ‘faith’. You think tawheed, Islamic monotheism, as the culmination of the concept of God. According to you ‘the world and these ills exist in the world is for o­ne and o­nly reason: the abandonment of Islamic monotheism’. I have never read this kind of ignorant statements. For your information I am quoting one statement from the Bhagavad-Gita, a Hindu scripture.
I (Ishvara) am transcendental, beyond both kshara (the fallible, perishable world) and akshara (the infallible).
Try to reflect o­n this verse in light of statements of Nassir Khushru from Shish Fasl.
I have quoted the above verse intentionally as we have a very strange notion about Hinduism. For more understanding read the concept of “advaita vad” and “Brahma” in Hinduism.
For me, understanding and analyzing the thoughts put forward by the philosophers from Thales to Avicenna, Al Ghazali, Averroes and agnostics like Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan and atheist like John Hospers and even ‘my man Karl Marks’ have provided me with tools to understand the Higher Principles. What we get out of the thoughts put forward by Al Ghazali that ‘the universe is created’ in refutation of thoughts of Avicenna, and the refutation by Averroes the arguments put forward by Al Ghazali by concluding that ‘the universe is eternal’? What difference does it make whether universe is created or eternal? It may impact our understanding of the concept of God (tawheed) inferring that God was not and became (creator) after creation or universe is co-eternal with God diluting His uniqueness (oneness). But does this impact His essence, His Being or our being? He is beyond all concepts and thought. You can o­nly say ‘He is’. But ‘is’ is a qualifying word and we have to remove it and that leaves us with “He”, free of, devoid of every thing. But He is beyond this “He” which still exist in my mind. And so on. All this thoughts, arguments, concepts, stories, allegories, even cosmogonical and eschatological ideas are no more than tools and tools are not The Truth. once you accept this and start accepting the different thoughts as nothing more than tools you will not have a feeling that particular persons thoughts are different than mine or are against that of mine or mine are superior than his or my belief system is ultimate and best or mine is the only way to the Truth. And the search for the Truth is very personal. We have to create our own personal world where we can practice our faith without disturbing others and without being disturbed by others. And this is what I mean by ‘comfort level’ or ‘comfort zone’ which is very personal. For this we don’t need coherent world view.
Only reason to state all this is to emphasize my point in the previous posting that compartmentalization of human society on the basis of belief system or culture and there by creating an exclusivist attitude is the cause of problems in this world. only statements saying that we believe in pluralistic world or attitude is not enough. You might have seen and gone through pain and suffering by seeing or knowing people killing others on the basis of religion or conviction or color or profession or geographical location. What are the reasons for this violence and inhuman behavior? Are naturalist, empiricists, humanist responsible? I fully understand that religious fanaticism is not the only reason or cause for this violent and inhuman behavior. But is it unreasonable to expect compassionate and ethical behavior from religious people who claim that faith base attitude makes people more human? In the end, I will repeat my statement. ‘The exclusivism of faithful, separatist behavior, supremacist thinking and fanatic attitude will destroy our existence’.
Then don't even refer to Him as the Divine Essence. In fact, don't refer to Him at all (not even as 'Him').the Divine ESsence / Godhead is ultimately exalted above all names. He is nameless.
It is. But bear in mind that the same argument applies to the Divine Principle as well. At bottom, this means that you're not allowed to utter anything about Him whatsoever, not even regarding the fact that He is above all things. Consequently, even the distinction (in divinis) then comes to naught.The point about the letters of Allah being contingent and therefore the name Allah referring to a contingent entity is still a valid argument in articulating the transcendence of the Divine Principle above names
-
shiraz.virani
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:52 pm
Binom haiii koiiiiii.....Badnaam haiii koiiii [lol JK]
my dear brothers and their sisters, who is allah[swt] ?? I would say somebody whom we cant define in human language
The same allah gave us "AKL" so that we can use it to find GOD....but unfortunately humans use only half their brain [yes, its a scientific fact !!]
The reason why we are told to meditate is that we can use that other part of brain that lies useless [just like our appendix]..........Well get this straight, its not easy !
meditation is not easy ....but once a person reach that level he can transmit waves through his brain and contact whoever he/she wants or in other words unearth several mysteries.....lemme give you an example
sometimes we dream of somethings in our sleep that occurs 2-3 days after we saw it in our dream....It might have happened to you and almost all those who use AKL , remember this ......even as we sleep our BRAIN never sleeps
........the unique or extraordinary thing that seperates us from others is our BRAIN
sometimes some dream of handing a newspaper to hazar imam, some think that they are sitting right beside hazar imam in a plane.....well ofcourse its not us but it is that person through whom we are seeing this and feeling this.....I myself has felt this when i used to perform bandagi but that was just once, which means you have to open your brain and that happens when you control your brain
Hope i answered your question
my dear brothers and their sisters, who is allah[swt] ?? I would say somebody whom we cant define in human language
The same allah gave us "AKL" so that we can use it to find GOD....but unfortunately humans use only half their brain [yes, its a scientific fact !!]
The reason why we are told to meditate is that we can use that other part of brain that lies useless [just like our appendix
]..........Well get this straight, its not easy !meditation is not easy ....but once a person reach that level he can transmit waves through his brain and contact whoever he/she wants or in other words unearth several mysteries.....lemme give you an example
sometimes we dream of somethings in our sleep that occurs 2-3 days after we saw it in our dream....It might have happened to you and almost all those who use AKL , remember this ......even as we sleep our BRAIN never sleeps
........the unique or extraordinary thing that seperates us from others is our BRAINsometimes some dream of handing a newspaper to hazar imam, some think that they are sitting right beside hazar imam in a plane.....well ofcourse its not us but it is that person through whom we are seeing this and feeling this.....I myself has felt this when i used to perform bandagi but that was just once, which means you have to open your brain and that happens when you control your brain
Hope i answered your question
when we attribute to God any kind of qualities we will be makingshiraz.virani wrote:...
my dear brothers and their sisters, who is allah[swt] ?? I would say somebody whom we cant define in human language
some value judgement, i.e., putting some standards outside God according to
which we judge God’s nature and behaviour. To make such a standard, we
must make a comparison. To make comparisons, we have to comprehend the
nature of things we are comparing, and see what they are and what are their
functions. This cannot be applied to God, because first we cannot compare
God with any thing and, secondly, we are not capable of understanding God’s
nature. Here a caution is necessary. What we are doing is showing that human terms and vocabulary cannot rightly be applied to God. Human languages deal with
the material world and material beings living within time, while God is immaterial and immortal and eternal. But since there is no other way to convey to man the idea of God and that he is just and perfect… etc, except by using human languag.
Wakeup before it's too late for you veru!!!!!
-
shiraz.virani
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:52 pm
when we attribute to God any kind of qualities we will be making
some value judgement, i.e., putting some standards outside God according to which we judge God’s nature and behaviour. To make such a standard, we must make a comparison. To make comparisons, we have to comprehend the nature of things we are comparing, and see what they are and what are their functions. This cannot be applied to God, because first we cannot compare God with any thing and, secondly, we are not capable of understanding God’s nature. Here a caution is necessary. What we are doing is showing that human terms and vocabulary cannot rightly be applied to God. Human languages deal with the material world and material beings living within time, while God is immaterial and immortal and eternal. But since there is no other way to convey to man the idea of God and that he is just and perfect… etc, except by using human language.
I dunno what you're trying to prove @ above but i think it compliments to whatever i asked/said i.e ..how do you define god ? ......there is no absolute definition for allah[swt] as he said in his own book = he is above all .......so whatever human beings think of him he is far more better than that
, and thats what iam trying to prove !! -
DilawarMomin
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:52 am
-
shiraz.virani
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:52 pm
well I dont see every single woman on this planet as my sister , thats the reason why i said " my dear brothers and their sisters "...well thats a general term bhai, nothing personal !shiraz.virani wrote:
"my dear brothers and their sisters,"
what is the meaning of this phrase?
sabko behen banaunga toh shaadi kisse karunga
-
DilawarMomin
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:52 am
-
shiraz.virani
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:52 pm
Thanks Shiraz for your explanation and enlightening me. I didn't knew that Islam allows or permit to marry ones brothers sister.
Glad you asked , yes its halaal to marry your cousin brothers sister..........bcoz cousin brother is not the real blood brother
When i say my dear brothers thats doesnt mean that you are my blood brother but brother in faith