For information on obtaining Existence and the Fall by Hamid Parsania see my June 10th post.

Wasalaam,

Irshaad

Katib

Katib

An interesting and refreshingly honest perspective.

“I just want to know it’s about more than hope of heaven or fear of hell”

Eventually it is - but the road there may pass through many landscapes - the Qur’an holds out a broad range of possibilities and potentials - we each decide according to our aspiration and capacity and circumstance (if and) where along the path we settle down - our halting place.

-Excellent reflections.
In this verse Allah has laid down an invitation to all people “Who answers the distressed one when he calls upon Him” then those who act upon such invitation , by answering such call of the distressed, must also manifest their true faith in actualy making effrots to remove such hardiship. But ultimately in all of these events, Allah is the one who relgulate and facilitate Man to achieve his deed towards the distressed and then Man would become “like the hand of God” for that reason we see the prounon in the verse as “Him” which refer to Allah.
God Bless
Katib

-Yes indeed, God’s throne is the heart of His true servents, as it is said in the hadeeth Qudsi

Very nice insight.

Katib

Please feel free to do so.

- Irshaad

Beautiful, truly beautiful. With your permission, insha Allah, I’d like to post this on my own blog.

Ma’as salama,
Abdur Rahman

A Children’s story

Good for those of us that don’t speak farsi.

He also has much to say of a religiosity which has devolved away from religion as a sacred science into an absolutism or fanaticism that is a parody of real religion, disconnected from any real comprehension of the metaphysical realities it supposedly follows and adheres to.

Thanks for your insightful elaboration and for questioning what I skirted around in my post. I grew up reading the works of the ulama you mention - their writings as well as their actions amidst the turbulence of their times had a profound impact upon me (and continue to do so) and certainly much of what I write emerges from that influence. I believe their engagement in the sphere of politics emerged in a cohesive and principled manner from their deep understanding of the religion. In other words, they lived their religion (not superficially but deeply, totally). They had a responsibility to their society and from this arose the necessity of action (long-term, patient, and steadfast action) and interaction with the dominant forces of the wider world - their metaphysics determined their methods and goals. They were those ulama…“who engage in deep-seated, knowledgeable, respectful, and sincere interaction with the text of the Qur’an (and other Islamic texts) and manifested approaches and solutions that truly and profoundly satisfy.”

However, the term ulama today refers to a vast range of scholars in the Sunni world as well as among the Shia, some of whom (due to violent and turbulent circumstances) are engaged in a somewhat frenzied, panicked, and impatient circle of action and reaction. In that impatience and under the immense pressure of western hegemonic ambitions, political ideology tends to rise hierarchically above the metaphysics of religion (the religion is re-interpreted to fit the ideology). “It becomes a matter where religion does not shape politics (politics does not unfold cohesively from the principles of the religion) but rather politics of desperation or outrage may shape and distort the interpretation of the religion - in this way religion and violent politics can, at times, become dangerously conflated (and dangerously intertwined with a misanthropic impulse to purge the society of non-conforming elements). But the root is politics (and fear), not religion.” (from Hermeneutics of Takfir)

Those whose actions arise from a real metaphysical connection and from truly profound readings of the Qur’an are in every age in the minority - but they are nevertheless present. As Imam Ali pointed out to Kumayl, this situation is not new:

“Here (and he pointed to his chest) is abundant knowledge. If only I could come upon people to bear it. Indeed I have come upon those who are not faithful to it - who took it hastily and did not imbibe and protect it (they sought it superficially, for their own ends). Such people seek to use the tools of religion for (advancement) in this world. They use the devices of belief as a means of attaining domination (and power) over God’s friends (through the authority of religion).” (Imam Ali - Nahjul Balagha)

These will play at politics or play with ideological interpretations and what they produce will be deeply dissatisfying.

The solutions to the problems of modernity also cannot be achieved by turning the clock back. We have to face modernity and provide alternatives rooted in the Qur’an and the Prophetic Way.

However, your post, if I am reading it correctly, seemed to imply that the place to find those ‘ulama who have gone deep into the heart of texts, is not in the circles ‘ulama with political inclinations. While I absolutely agree that politics is dangerous business, which one should never seek; it seems to me that the some of the most insightful Muslim thinkers in our era have been involved in the political scene. Ayatullah Mutahhari comes to mind here as a rare hybrid of activist and philosopher, and I think he ranks among the greatest Muslim ‘ulama/intellectuals of our age. If there are people who have bridged the gap between the two classes, he would certainly be among them. Deeply rooted in the traditional sciences, while fluent also with the modern thought in the form of a Bertrand Russel or Will Durant. Likewise, Ayatullah Baqir Sadr is another figure that comes to mind. And, of course, Imam Khomeini; I dont think one can argue, after reading a text of his, like Forty Hadith, or after reading some of his poetry, that he never “goes beyond the text that he reads.”

I certainly don’t mean to make this into a political discussion, and I can understand your hesitancy with respect to discussing individual figures who are in most cases quite controversial. However, it seems to me, that in an era in which the West seeks to impose, with an iron fist, its political structures, the ‘ulama are required to respond in some way. Why then, seek depth exlusively from those who avoid shouldering political responsibility (though often it is for very good reason)?

What I find fascinating is the claim made by many that modernity is the grand and of course exclusive path towards plurarlity and diversity. One of the greatest ironies of modernity is that for all its rhetoric of plurarlism, it has in practice been utterly homogenizing. I live in Los Angeles and there is starbucks, I go to China and there is starbucks, I go to Mecca and there is starbucks. Modernity, it seems, allows for superficial difference; I drink Coke and you Pepsi. But in an era no longer guided by the pursuit of truth, one can’t really expect meaningful difference. This, it seems to me, is the malaise of modernity.

On a somewhat different note, I find it discouraging that a figure, the likes of Abdulkarim Soroush, paraded in the West as the “Martin Luther of Islam” and the “most important Islamic reformer,” might yield such a superficial understanding of modernity. To the many seeking to reform Islam, I wonder how they imagine reformed Islam might avoid the pitfalls to which modernity has succumb. Of course, this is the last concern of the West, who in their lavish appelations are motivated almost entirely by an attempt to empty Islam of any metaphysical content, such that Islam is defined simply as the evolving spectrum of beliefs to which Muslims adhere.

Katib

To Katib: Thanks - I don’t know that there’s anything left for me to add after your very clear explanation….so I won’t….

- Irshaad

Your’s was an interesting post - I suppose part of the apathy arises from the complexity of making political change in an age where lobbyists and corporate influence are significant determining factors in policy creation - individuals wonder how they can compete against such behemoth generators of influence. Another aspect is that individual lives are busy, bust, busy - when spare time arises people look for family time or entertainment - not the stress of politics especially in light of their own perceived powerlessness. Grassroots movements that slowly build empowerment and momentum may be more likely to succeed in involving individuals slowly over time.

I really enjoyed your posting; particularly your posting regarding the predominance of hierarchies in international relations. I am am thinking specifically of trade agreements that dismantle collective blue collar power (i.e. labour unions).

I recently posted a like-minded post that focuses on the depoliticization of contemporary society and our generation. You can read it at:
http://winstoninwonderland.blogspot.com

- Muslims consider such doctrine to be accidental and not essential to Jesus message; of love and peace. Muslims believe in Jesus message which should be the main focus of all disputing parties, Muslims, Christians, Jews and others.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

-It is important to figure out one concern here that is; who was first in existence; was it God or His Word. If we assume it is the Word of God was first in existence then this follows that “God” was caused by His word. But this is not possible for God is a Necessary Being who has no cause. Therefore there is only one other possibility left which is; God existed before His Word and He caused the existence of His word. So the Word of God is a manifestation of His actions and therefore it is added to His essence and not His essence. So God is the source of all things including His word, mercy, love, wrath, etc. so if we say “In the beginning was the Word” this dose not mean that the Word is God Himself rather it means that the “Word was with God” or related to His actions, as the same verse indicate. And if we say “and the Word was God” it dose not mean that the Word is the essence of God, for it is refuted by the second part of this verse “and the Word was with God” where clearly says that the Word was with God which means if something is with something else, then that something can not be itself; it means there are two separate entities; the Word and God in this case. Hence the Word of God is different from the essence of God. We can easily conclude that “Jesus” is another manifestation of the “Word of God”

This is only an opinion which is not meant to demean our Christian brothers rather it is only within the rights of our intellect to understand these concepts. In fact Irshaad’s post was very dignifying in content to Jesus more than many writings, about Jesus, offered by Christians today.

For further interest I will be posting the full version of this opinion regarding the “Father of Jesus from an Islamic perspective”

Thanks
Katib
alislam@sympatico.ca

However, Jesus is most certainly God made flesh, as St. John mentions in John 1:1 and also verse 14

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

You should read Matthew Slcik’s information on Christianity for Muslims. I think it will be eye opening for you.

http://www.carm.org/islam.htm

Thanks for the good post.

Please do let me know whatever you find out. In the meantime I’ll take some of the points raised in this discussion and post them as a blog post here in the hope that someone who knows more about this subject will comment. We can continue our discussion there.

Wasalaam,

Irshaad

““Do not call anyone on earth “Father” for you have only one Father and HE is in heaven.” (Matthew 23: 9)
-Very important passage; If you look at the pronoun after “for” and before “have” it is in the third person as “you” which mean Jesus is referring to his father as their father as in “for you have only one “Father” this means that Jesus’ father is also their father. But Christian say that “Father” has only one son “Jesus” but Jesus seems to consider “father” as his and theirs. Therefore “Father” must mean something other than the common father who would beget a son.

“Unless the original Aramaic word in these other passages (translated as father) suggested something more serious than a common term for dad or father.”
- Yes it makes sense, the word “father” aught to mean something more that the common usage of Father; very important.
I will look into it more and will share it you in the future in Sha’a Allah, and I hope you do too.
Many thanks
Katib

However, the word Abba for Father (when referring to God) appears only 3 times in the New Testament (Jesus says it only once). If Abba was used at every mention of the word father, it should have appeared many, many more times. The question becomes what was the original Aramaic word used for those other occurrences of father (including John 10:30) and why did the original translators/scribes retain Abba in some few places but not in numerous other places? I don’t know the answer to this question but will look further into it - if there is someone who does know please comment.

Another interesting statement of Jesus is this: “Do not call anyone on earth “Father” for you have only one Father and HE is in heaven.” (Matthew 23: 9) Here, Jesus is restricting use of the term “Father” (whatever the original Aramaic is) exclusively for God. Why would he do this if he was in fact using a common daily word by which people referred to their fathers? This would be equivalent to asking people not to refer to their fathers as “dad” anymore. Unless the original Aramaic word in these other passages (translated as father) suggested something more serious than a common term for dad or father. At this point it’s a question. Katib/Yunis, you certainly raised an interesting point - if you come across any further information on the Aramaic-Arabic do let me know. Many thanks.

wasalaam,

Irshaad

Thanks for your comment. You are quite right about the uncertainty in translation - the current versions of Jesus’ words in the Bible are often translations from Latin or Greek which in turn were translations from the original Aramaic. I preferred to leave the passage as people are used to seeing it and infer a different meaning from the context and from possibly similar concepts in Islam.
Wasalaam,

Irshaad

Katib

Thanks for your kind comment - your own website looks to be quit fascinating, as well.

wasalaam,

Irshaad

God Bless

Katib

Wasalaam,

Irshaad

And if I remember correctly, the Qur’an was compiled with the first revelations placed in the back of the book. So the ones that touched you so deeply were the first revealed words of sublime beauty and truth.

May Allah guide you on your journey/

Ya Haqq!

You have always been very kind and encouraging in your comments on Islam from inside - much appreciated - hopefully you’ll find this site worthwhile as well - although I don’t imagine I’ll be able to be nearly as prolific as you are on your excellent blog.

Wasalaam

it is a wonderful effort. we need those raw thoughts to be written down. i missed ur thoughts and new articles in islam from inside. its definitely one of the best site that engage on a different dimension.

May Allah continue shower thoughts and inspirations to you.

peace.