Men of reason and knowledge can easily understand the first type of rules through a verse, through a signal, through denotation, through inclusion, through necessitation and through the conclusion of the Nass. That is, every ayat has various meanings and edicts with respect to its sentence, signal, denotation, inclusion, necessitation and conclusion [To understand this point more clearly an example must be given: An Ayat of the Qur’an declares, “Do not say, ‘Ugh!’ to your parents!” What this Ayat points out through these words is: 1- The verse: Do not use this word “ugh!” towards your parents. 2- Signal: Do not use the words hat will hurt your parents’ hearts. This is what this ayat points out through these words. 3- Denotation: Do not do anything that may hurt your parents’ hearts. 4- Inclusion: Do not beat or kill your parents. 5- Necessitation: Do favors for your parents. 6- Conclusion: Offending your parents causes disasters; pleasing parents causes happiness. Six types of meanings, as exemplified above, have been derived from each ayat that communicates rules.]. (Nass) means ayats and hadiths with clear and obvious meanings.

The second type of rules in the Qur’an cannot be understood clearly. They can be derived through ijtihad [Ability to understand the meaning of symbolic ayats in the Qur’an.] and istinbat [It means to extract the essence of something.].

In the ahkam-i ijtihadiyya (rules of the second type that can be understood through ijtihad), any one of the Ashab-i kiram might disagree with the Prophet. Yet these rules could not have been defective or doubtful during the time of our Prophet because if a wrong ijtihad was formulated, Hadrat Jabrail would descend and the wrong ijtihad would immediately be corrected by Allahu ta’ala. In this way, right and wrong were immediately differentiated from each other on the spot. However, rules that were derived after our Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) honored the next world were not so, and the correct and incorrect ijtihads remained mixed. It is for this reason that it is necessary both to do and to believe in the rules that were derived during the time of wahy [Allah’s commands that come to prophets directly or through an angel. The entire Qur’an is wahy that has come through the angel Jabrail.]. It is necessary to do the rules that were derived after our Prophet also. Yet it does not spoil one’s iman to doubt about an ijtihad on which there has been no ijma [Unanimity of the Ashab al-kiram on a religious matter that has not been explained clearly in the Qur’an or hadiths.].

The third group of rules in the Qur’an are so profound, so well hidden that human power falls short of understanding and deriving them. They cannot be comprehended unless they are explained by Allahu ta’ala. And this fact has been shown and explained only to our Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). It has not been explained to anybody else. These rules also are derived from the Qur’an, yet since they have been explained by the Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), they are called Sunnat. Concerning the rules of the first and third types, nobody can disagree with the Prophet. All Muslims have to believe and follow them. But on the ahkam-i ijtihadiyya, every mujtahid [He who understands the hidden, symbolic meanings in the Qur’an.] has to follow the rule that he has derived. He cannot follow the rules of other mujtahids. A mujtahid cannot say that another mujtahid has gone wrong, or that he has dissented from the righteous way on account of his ijtihad. For each mujtahid, his own ijtihad is correct and right. Our Prophet used to command his Sahabis whom he sent to distant places to act according to the rules of the Qur’an on matters they would be confronted with, but if unable to find them in the Qur’an, to look them up in hadiths, and if unable to find them there, to act according to their own opinions and ijtihads. He used to forbid them from following others’ opinions and ijtihads, even if they were more learned and greater than themselves. No mujtahid, none of the Ashab-i kiram (radi Allahu ta’ala anhum ajmain) has ever discounted as wrong another’s ijtihads. They have not uttered such evil terms as ’sinner’ or ‘aberrant’ to those who disagreed with them.

The greatest of the mujtahids succeeding the Ashab-i kiram (radi Allahu ta’ala anhum ajmain) is Imam-i azam Abu Hanifa (radi Allahu ‘anh). This great leader had wara’ and taqwa in his every action. In everything he did he followed our Prophet in the fullest sense of the word. He reached such a high grade in ijtihad and istinbat that no one else could be compared with him.

[There had been people before him who were more learned and greater than he. Yet during their lifetimes aberrations had not spread; therefore, they had not prepared gauges to differentiate what was correct from what was incorrect. Instead they had dealt with more valuable matters].

Hadrat Imam-i Shafi’i [The leader of the Shafi’i madhhab, which is one of the four righteous madhhabs in Islam.] said, “All mujtahids are Imam-i azam Abu Hanifa’s children.” He said this because he understood something of the genius of this great leader of ijtihad. Hadrat ‘Isa (Jesus), after descending from heaven in a time close to the end of the world, will act according to Hadrat Muhammad’s Shariat and will derive rules from the Qur’an. Hadrat Muhammad Parisa, one of the great Islamic savants, says, “All the rules which such a great Prophet as Hadrat ‘Isa will derive through ijtihad will be in agreement with the rules in the Hanafi madhhab; that is, they will conform with the great leader’s ijtihad.” This shows how accurate and how correct the great leader’s ijtihad is. The awliya [ Person or persons whom Allah loves.] said that they saw through the heart’s eye that the Hanafi madhhab was like an ocean, while the other madhhabs were like small rills and brooks. Hadrat Imam-i azam Abu Hanifa surpassed everybody also in following the sunnat in his ijtihad, and he took even Mursal [ Kinds of hadiths are explained in the second fascicle of Endless Bliss.] hadiths as well as Musnad [ Kinds of hadiths are explained in the second fascicle of Endless Bliss.] hadiths as documents. He also held the words of the Ashab-i kiram superior to his own opinions and findings. He understood better than anybody else the greatness of the grades which the Ashab-i kiram (radi Allahu ta’ala anhum ajmain) had attained by having the honor of being together with our Prophet (sall Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). No other mujtahid was able to do so. Those who say that Imam-i azam derived rules from his own mind, that he was not dependent upon the Qur’an and hadiths are disparaging millions of Muslims, who have been worshipping for centuries on the earth, with having been on a wrong and fabricated path and even with having been outside of Islam. Only block-headed and ignorant people who are unaware of their own ignorance or the enemies of Islam, who want to demolish, to spoil Islam, will say something of this sort. A few ignorant people, a few zindiqs, memorizing a few hadiths and presuming that Islam is no more than that, deny the rules of which they have not heard and of which they have no knowledge. Yes, an insect that has remained in the cavity of a rock will consider the earth and the sky as consisting of only that hole.

The chief of the Ahl as-sunnat and the founder of fiqh is Imam-i azam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullahu ta’ala ‘alaih). Three-fourths of the rules of Islam that are carried out all over the world belong to him. He also has a share in the remaining one-fourth. He is the host, the chief of the family in the Islamic Shariat. All the other mujtahids are his children.

[All the rules which a mujtahid has derived are called a Madhhab. Out of hundreds of Ahl as-sunnat madhhabs, today, only four Imams’ madhhabs have been transferred into books, and the others have been partly forgotten. The names and the dates of the deaths of the four Imams are: Abu Hanifa 150, Malik bin Anas Asbahi 179, Muhammad Shafi’i 274, and Ahmad bin Hanbel 241.

Non-mujtahids have to follow one of these four madhhabs in all their actions and worships. This means to say that our Prophet’s (sall Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) way is the way shown by the Qur’an, and the hadiths, in other words, by the sunnat and by the ijtihad of the mujtahids. Besides these three documents, there is Ijma’-i ummat, which is, as it is written under the subject of ‘Imprisonment’ in Ibni Abidin, the words of the Ashab-i kiram (rahmat Allahu ta’ala ‘alaihim ajmain) and those of the Tabiin [A person who saw the Prophet at least once when he was alive is called a Sahabi. It goes without saying that a disbeliever could not be a Sahabi or Ashab. Ashab means Muslims who saw the Prophet at least once. All of the Ashab are called Ashab al-kiram. When we say Ashab al-kiram, we mean all the Muslims who were with him, spoke to him, listened to him, or, at least, saw him. If a person did not see the Prophet, but if he saw one of the Ashab al-kiram, he is called a Tabi’. The plural form of Tabi’ is Tabiin. When we say the Tabiin, we mean all the Muslims each of whom saw one Sahabi at least once. A person who saw one of the Tabiin is called Taba’-i-Tabiin. When we say Salaf-i-salihin, we mean the Ashab al-kiram, the Tabiin and the Taba’-i-Tabiin. ]. That is, they are the things which none of them refuted or denied upon seeing them. The Shiites’ claim in the book Minhaj-us-salihin is not correct. They say it is not permissible to adapt ourselves to a dead person.]

Islamic religion has come to us through these four documents. These four documents are called “Adilla-i Shariyya.” Everything outside these are bidat, irreligiousness, and false. The inspirations and the kashfs that occur to the hearts of great men of tasawwuf [see articles 35 and 40, respectively] cannot be proofs or documents for the rules of the Shariat. [Kashf will be explained in the following pages.] Correctness of kashfs and inspirations is judged by their compatibility with the Shariat. An Awliya who is in high grade of the tariqat or wilayat has to follow a mujtahid, like Muslims in lower grades. The Awliya such as Bastami, Junaid, Jalaladdin-i Rumi and Muhyiddin-i Arabi were raised in rank by adapting themselves to a madhhab as everybody did. Sticking to the rules of the Shariat is like planting a tree. The knowledge, the marifat, the kashfs and tajallis, the divine love and muhabbat-i zatiyya [Love for only Allah without including His attributes. Divine love is love for Allah together with His attributes.] that occur to the Awliya are like the fruits of this tree. Yes, the purpose in planting the tree is to get the fruit. But, it is necessary to first plant the tree for obtaining the fruit. That is, unless there is iman and the rules of the Shariat are carried out, there can be no tasawwuf, tariqat or awliya. Those who claim so are zindiqs [A person who endeavors to defend and spread his own thoughts under the name of Islam, though they are, in fact, incompatible with Islam.] and irreligious. We should be aware of such people more than we would be of a lion. A lion will only take away our life. But such people will take away our faith and iman. [It is written in the book Maraj-ul-Bahrayn, which quotes Ahmad Zarruq as saying that Imam-i Malik (rahmat Allahu ta’ala ‘alaih) said: “Anybody who dives into tasawwuf without learning fiqh becomes a zindiq (renegade); and anybody who learns fiqh and yet is not aware of tasawwuf, goes astray; but those who obtain knowledge of both fiqh and tasawwuf attain the truth. Anybody who learns fiqh correctly and who tastes the sweetness of tasawwuf becomes a ‘perfect kamil’.” All the early men of tasawwuf were in the madhhab of a scholar of fiqh before they attained perfection. The statement, “People of tasawwuf don’t have a madhhab” does not mean that they left their madhhabs, but rather it means that they knew all the madhhabs and that they always took into consideration all of them. They performed their duties according to what was best and what was on the safe side. Junaid-i Baghdadi was in the madhhab of Sufyan-i Sawri; Abdul Qadir Geilani (Jilani) was a Hanbali; Abu Bakr Shibli was a Maliki; Imam-i Rabbani and Jariri were in the madhhab of Hanafi; Haris-i Muhasibi was a Shafi’i (Qaddas-Allahu ta’ala Asrarahum/may Allahu ta’ala make their secrets very sacred.)]

Excellent elaboration on Ghazali definition of madhabs, which clearly reitreate my conviction of the contingency of any Madhab in relation to the Ultimate Truth. No Madhab should claim an exclusivity to the gate of salvation of Man.

Thanks

Katib

Excellent insights on the notion of “Ideology” versus “knowledge”
Thank you.

A.H.
Katib

Very well expressed and rightfully identify the criminal elements in this struggle, the Zionist state and the various Palastinian movements, who have been exploiting the casue of the Palastinian people to their own political gains.

Katib

The Amerindians recognized objects in their purity functioning practically and symbolically and at the same time. Juxtapostioning in life is health promoting in the mind which is why some art, just for art’s sake, is so satisfying.

Your essay is well written. Being dyslexic it is rare I come across a read which speaks so clearly at first sight. Your research, knowledge and awareness pierce through. Thank you very much.
Linda

Thanks for your comment.

Avicenna’s visionary recitals and Shurawardi’s metaphysics also delve deeply into this subject. As well, Najm Kobra, Semnani, Lahiji, Shabestari and many others have commented extensively on the congruences between man’s inner nature and the spiritual geography of seven heavens recorded in the Qur’an and in the statements of the Imams. Often, this is portrayed in terms of very detailed and specific visionary experiences described in terms of the seven prophets of one’s being, or seven realms of light, or seven valleys representing spiritual states and metaphysical realms. There is a very vibrant, rich, and fascinating literature available on this subject - one which, I am sure Baha’u'llah would have been aware of, although he has a tendency to write in generalities rather than in the comprehensive and thoroughly elaborated manner of these earlier authors.

Baha’u'llah is describing in a summary form one version of the inner states of the seeker in terms of a journey through seven valleys. The book “Existence and the Fall” however, touches this subject in terms of attempting to clarify the metaphysical geography, the multi-layered hierarchical terrain, the layered structure of reality spoken of in the Qur’an and commented upon by so many generations of scholars and visionary seekers.

I would recommend reading as many of the above mentioned authors as possible if for no other reason than to gain an appreciation for the depth and breadth of metaphysical commentary available in the Islamic tradition.

Any thoughts on that?

Very informative essay and well researched. I have learned more about the Aboriginal people. Thank you.

Katib

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.