Blessed Guru Nanak Jayanti …

The birthday of Guru Nanak (or, as some Muslims prefer to call him, Pir Nanak Shah) will be celebrated in a few days (on Monday) and so I would like to wish a blessed Guru Nanak Jayanti to all Sikh believers and to everyone else.

Celebrated Sufi Qawwali singer Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan once sang these lines based on a poem written by Guru Nanak himself.
Listen, reflect and enjoy.

Some call the Lord ‘Ram, Ram’, and some ‘Khuda’.
Some serve Him as ‘Gusain’, others as ‘Allah’.

In any case, He is the Cause of causes, and Generous.
He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us.

Some pilgrims bathe at sacred shrines, others go on Hajj to Mecca.
Some do devotional worship, whilst others bow their heads in prayer.

Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran.
Some wear blue robes, and some wear white.

Some call themselves Turk, and some call themselves Indian.
Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven.

Says Nanak, one who realizes the true command of God’s Will,
knows the secrets of his Lord Master.

Lal Shahbaz Qalandar

According to the traditional Muslim lunar calendar we have the 18th day of the month of Shaban today and many Pakistani Muslims consider this day to be the festival of a saint called Lal Shahbaz Qalandar.
Today the town of Sehwan, where the tomb of this wandering dervish is found, hosts many visitors from all over Pakistan, even from all over the world, partaking of both very spiritual and very worldly celebrations.

Lal Shahbaz Qalandar once roamed the Indian province of Sindh (now a part of Pakistan) as a missionary of Islam. Most historical details about his life and his teachings have been lost and gave room to numerous legends but what seems to be certain is that Lal Shahbaz Qalandar preached that the very essence of Islam is love:
Love for God, love for God´s prophet and his family, love for the friends of God and love for each fellow human being.

He gained a reputation of offering heartfelt sympathy and practical help to the ostracized and downtrodden of society and his tomb became a special place of reverence for the poorest of the poor, for members of the lowest castes, for trannies, for prostitutes and for others with a “bad reputation” in mainstream society.
It is also said that he preached the unity of all spiritual paths and therefore his tomb is not only visited by Muslims but is revered highly by Pakistan´s Hindu minority as well.

For the remembrance of this unique personality I want to introduce you to two Pakistani filmi songs, celebrating the miraculous help that Lal Shahbaz Qalandar and his dervishes give to opressed women.
Songs like these used to be very popular in Pakistan and they still are with many people but nowadays the social and religious establishment does not like them too much and there have been repeated tries of eliminating their existence.
You probably guess why: “Pagan saint worship”, “superstition”, “uncovered women dancing in lewd ways” etc. ….

Gender-Reassignment, 16th century

Khaled El-Rouayheb mentions the following in his brilliant work “Before Homosexuality In The Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800″:

The Damascene judge Muhammad Akmal Al-Din (d.1603) related at first hand a story that occurred in Damascus in 1545-46: a man loved a beardless bookbinder by the name of ‘Ali.
The latter actually turned out to be a hermaphrodite and was judged by physicians to be more a female than a male. A local judge subsequently declared the bookbinder to be a woman.
‘Ali promptly became ‘Alya (or ‘Aliyya) and could thus be married to his (or rather her) admirer.

Apologies

My sincere apologies to the few readers of my blog for.
I hope that you´re all still there and are still willing to visit this little virtual place from time to time.
I´ve been quite busy with some other things for some time and haven´t posted much during the past few weeks (and months).
But in my mind I already prepared some blogposts that will become manifest materia in the cause of the next fews days.

Atheists In Madina

At the very dawn of the reported codification of both Sunnism and Shiism we find as the spiritual and cultural centre of early Islam the city of Madina, and within its boundaries the mosque at the tomb of Prophet Muhammad.
The Madina of that time was a spiritual centre far away and quite independent from the centres of political power and emerging politicized imperial Islam in Syria and Mesopotamia.

During those years and in that city taught individuals highly respected by both todays Sunnis and Shiis, men bearing names like Muhammad Baqir and Jafar as-Sadiq.
As their students we also find the eminent founders of Sunni jurisprudence, like Abu Hanifah or Malik Ibn Anas.
And in their circles we even meet the first masters of what was later to become Sufism, medieval Philosophy and medieval Natural Sciences.

Something that fascinates me very much with regard to this Madina of early Islam is that in quite reliable reports concerning the luminaries teaching and studying in that city we also come across Atheists living and breathing freely within the city`s boundaries, expressing their ideas freely, frequenting the teaching sessions that the mentioned luminaries held in the mosque of the Prophet and having extensive intellectual discussions with them.

Can you imagine a modern Islamofascist state in which Atheists walk around freely, expressing their thoughts without fear and having intellectual discussions with the social and spiritual leaders of Islamofascism?
The pure idea of it is impossible, of course.
How different must the world of early Islam have been from what modern Salafis and the like want it to be!

One report, today especially known amongst Shiis, mentions a student of Jafar as-Sadiq once harshly rebuking an Atheist due to the latter`s expressions of disbelief.
The Atheist answered:

We would discuss this issue if you can marshal well founded cogent arguments, which we will admit, otherwise you have no right to interpolate without a ken for polemics. If you are of the company of Jafar Ibn Muhammad, it does not behove you to talk in the strain that you do, for his is not this mode of address, nor does he argue with us in such impropriety. He has heard more of our words than you have done, but he has never used any impropriety, nor has he ever retorted aggressively. He is very forbearing, dignified, reasonable and of mature intellect. He is never harsh nor touchy. He listens to our talk very attentively. He invites our arguments, so much so that when we have exhausted our armoury and we think to have silenced him, he, with a brief resume, stultifies all our reasoning and dumfounds us, so that we are left without a plank to answer the arguments of the revered personage. If you are of his company, then talk to us in the same strain.

Muslims And Pretzels

I just ate two wonderful German pretzels for breakfast.
And then I wondered where pretzels came from and had to look that up on wikipedia.
Some few lines there seemed interesting to me:

In the 16th century, the German tradition of eating pretzels during Good Friday dinner is introduced. It is said that the shape of the pretzel is like that of praying hands.[6] Within the Catholic church, pretzels are regarded as having religious significance for both ingredients and shape. Pretzels made with a simple recipe using only flour and water could be eaten during Lent, when European Christians were forbidden to eat eggs, lard, or dairy products like milk and butter. As time passed, pretzels became associated with both Lent and Easter. Pretzels were hidden on Easter morning just like eggs are hidden today and are particularly associated with Lent, fasting, and prayers before Easter.[7] The classic pretzel’s three-hole shape begins to take form. The three holes represent the Christian trinity of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” and pretzels are thought to bring luck, prosperity, and spiritual wholeness. The wedding phrase “tying the knot” got its start when a pretzel was used to tie the knot between two prominent families. The pretzel’s loops stood for everlasting love.

Given the latest fad of (highly qualified?) “Muslim scholars” pronouncing fatwas against such things as Yoga I now wonder if we will soon see a fatwa against pretzels.
It would just be logically consequent.
I guess I should start worrying about my soul while making my choices for breakfast … .

On the other hand some of us might still recall that former (equally highly qualified?) U.S. president George W. Bush once was almost killed by a pretzel and therefore at least some of the prominent fatwaists may intertpret pretzels as sanctified tools of jihâd.
Hmmm … .

Catholics, by the way, should better stop drinking coffee for breakfast. They should definitely follow Mormons and the like in prohibiting it, in my humble opinion. Coffee came to Europe from the blessed soil of the Ottoman Caliphate and, as you can read here, it has some very dubious Sufi connections.
Unfortunately, Pope Clement VII (1536-1605 CE) once officially declared coffee a Christian beverage and I assume that in this case his opinion will count for more than mine.

Makkah

A friend was so nice to send me the following quote. It is from the work of a Chinese man called Ong-Tae-Hae, written after his ten years long stay on the island of Java and describing the religious and cultural ideas and customs of the Javanese of the 18th century CE.
The book was translated into English and was published under the title “The Chinaman Abroad: or A Desultory Account of the Malayan Achipelago, Particularaly of Java”

MECCA, CALLED ALSO THE RESIDENCE OF BUDDHA:

On the shores of the western sea, is the residence of the true Buddha: the
hills are extremely high, and the whole ground is replenished with yellow
gold and beautiful gems; which are guarded by a […] hundred genii, so
that the treasures cannot be taken away.
The true cultivators of virtue may ascend to Mecca, and worship the real Buddha, when after several years of fasting they return, and recive the title of dukun, or doctor;
they can then […] bring down spirits, and […] subdue monsters, […] drive
away noxious influences, and […} behead demons. These dukuns carry rosaries in
their hands, and are very compassionate; so that all who see them
acknowledge their virtue.

To Read

Some evenings ago, sitting on my bed and reading a book, I had an epiphany. Due to some reason unknown to myself the true significance of what I was doing right there dawned on me.
I suddenly realized that I was parttaking in a great wonder that was only possible thanks to the unity of existence and thanks to the existence of God.
I realized what it truly means “to read”.

Someone some time ago had in his consciousness formulated abstract thoughts on the reality he lived in and he had decided to put these words into an immanent form – a specific system of signs – that would preserve these thoughts for future generations.
This form, this specific system of signs was creative language, made manifest in a book.
And I was able to perceive these thoughts from his consciousness through the medium of the language of this book and to transform it into a part of my consciousness and to relate it to the reality that I live in.

For a split second this realization dragged me away into a strangely illuminated state that is difficult to describe. After the split second had passed and I felt home again on my bed, the book in my hand, I understood that “to read” means, a Christian would say, to take part in an eucharistic act. It is an ingestion of spiritual substance that is only made possible through Allah and through His attributes.

If my individual consciousness, the individual consciousness of the writer of the book, the specific system of signs that he chose and that I perceived, his reality and my reality would not be grounded in One Single Being, “to read” and to know would be impossible.
Even more so, if this One Single Being would not be fully endowed with individuality, consciousness and perception, then “to read” and to know would be likewise impossible.

If my individual consciousness, the writer´s individual consciousness, the material realities of our life and the systems of signs by which we describe them would be but singular and isolated existents with no root in an ontologically and teleologically related true being, then no transmission of knowledge would ever be possible between these singular and isolated existents.

Therefore it should not surprise us at all that the Quran gives a tremendous importance to the act of reading. According to the Quran “to read” directly relates to very important metaphysical concepts.

The name of the Quran itself can be translated as “reading” and it can be interpreted as “the reading of the universal divine book, the kitâbullah.
The first verse of chapter 96 of the Quran commands us iqrâ bismi rabbika alladhî khalaq, meaning “read in the name of your Caretaker who created” or “read, endowed with the attributes of your Caretaker who created”.

The use of the verb “to read” directly points towards a very huge semantic net of phenomenologically related terms that have a central place in the quranic philosophy.
Besides the verb “to read” itself and the name al-Qurân these terms include kitâb (book), lawh (tablet), qalam (pen), kalima (word), qaul (speech) and the specific isolated letters – the huruf muqattaat - which precede some of the chapters of the Quran

The Arabic verb for “to read” itself, giving us the name of the Quran, also carries some more interesting shades of meaning which may give us some more hints on its primordial content.
The Arabic root Q-R-A can not only refer to “reading” or “recitation” but it likewise refers to “becoming pregnant or full of something” and to “retaining the seed of a male in the womb of a female”.

We may relate this to another important quranic key term:
The word dhikr, usually translated as “remembrance” and more encompassingly refering to the activation of the divine attributes in our mind and existence, shares its origins with the word dhakkar which refers to the generative organs of the male.

Action – Wisdom – Spirituality

Islamic Fundamentalism as we know it today of course did not appear out of nowhere. It has its history.

As initiators of that history we find certain intellectual circles around some remarkable Muslim thinkers of the 17th, 18th and 19th century. No matter which “line” of Fundamentalism we follow (Jamaat-i-Islami, Salafi or Wahhabi), it will always lead us back to the same remarkable individuals.

Amongst the most influential of these individuals we find in the 17th century Ibrahim al-Kurani (whose school had a profound influence on both Ibn Abdal Wahhab and Shah Waliullah in the 18th century) and in the 19th century the two friends Muhammad Abduh and Jamaladdin al-Afghani (who formed the basis of the tought of Rashid Rida, Hassan al Banna and the Ikhwan ul Muslimeen).

When we look at the circles around al-Kurani, Abduh and al-Afghani and delve into the thought of these individuals (and even, to a more limited extent, into the thought of Shah Waliullah, Ibn Abdal Wahhab and Hassan al Banna) we have to discover that while we can on the one hand certainly find therein certain fascistoid elements that finally made modern Fundamentalism and Extremism possible, on the other hand we will also find therein a very profound spirituality of the heart and a positively liberating approach to Islam and its sources.

Having made these observations we start to wonder:
What did todays Fundamentalists discard of the thought of al-Kurani, Abduh and al-Afghani so that they could become what they are?
What is it that was still known to the mentioned individuals and the circles around them that informed the spiritual and liberating aspects of their thought but which is totally missing in the current circles that now constantly give birth to new forms of Islamic Fundamentalism?

To find an answer to these questions we need to know that al-Kurani, his direct teachers and most of his pupils, as much as Abduh and al-Afghani owed a lot to a (these days) not too well known Muslim thinker – Jalal-al-din al-Dawani (d.1502)- who himself was part of a wider philosophical tradition that once flourished in the Persian city of Shiraz.
They had learned from pupils of this school of thought and they had quoted from his works or commented on them.

When we look at this philosophical tradition of Shiraz and compare it to both the thought of the mentioned early reformers and todays Fundamentalisms we see that it had two very decisive basic characterisics that it was able to present as very much in line with the philosophy of the Quran.
Two very decisive characteristics that still had a certain influence on the mentioned early reformers of the 17th, 18th and 19th century but which todays Fundamentalists resent as “un-islamic”.

——————————————————————————————————–

1. An open attitude towards “wisdom as such”:

Following the Quran, Dawani and his teachers held that Divine revelation shows itself in the wisdom and knowledge of all of humanity and it can not be reduced to a specific cultural or historical form.

Dawani and the other Shirazi philosophers therefore drew from a large amount of traditions of wisdom and respected all of them as being able to transmit truth.

Shirazi philosophy of the 15th and 16th century claims to finally derive from the revelation of the Quran but it has no problem with appreciating the insights of Greek Aristotelianism and Platonism, from ancient Persian philosophy and from Hermeticism.
It struggles to find the common core of revelation, philosophy and mysticism and to combine the knowledge found in the works of Avicenna, Suhrawardi al-Maqtul and Ibn Arabi (wo themselves had once struggled to find the common divine truth in several philosophical and spiritual traditions).

2. True philosophy and true ethics can not be developed without a true knowledge of existence:

Following the Quran and its interpretation by Suhrawardi, Ibn Arabi and the avicennan Nasir-al-Din Tusi, the Shirazi philosophers were of the opinion that to come to true knowledge of anything one has to develop a direct and unmediated experience of it. This led them to conclude that the final basis for a true philosophy and for true ethics has to be a direct spiritual realization of the true character of existence.
This also means that an ideal leader (whether a political, religious, ethical or social one) has to strive for such a realization.

Pure abstractions, pure tradition or pure dogma do not suffice to uphold specific philosophies, ethics, religions or political programs as true.
To be true, philosophies, ethics, religions and political programs HAVE to be rooted in a true knowledge of the character of existence.
——————————————————————————————————-

What these two characteristics ask for is a unity and balance of action, wisdom and spirituality informed by a true and direct knowledge of the unity of existence.

I think it is not difficult to see why the rejection of these two characteristics turned the Muslim reform movements of the 18th and 19th century into modern Islamic Fundamentalism:
It led some Muslim thinkers and activists to develop an epistemological shirk (“polytheism”, “idolatry”, “fragmentalism”) that separates action, wisdom and spirituality from their common relation to the true significance of existence and consequently also separates them from each other.

Those who break Allah´s covenant after it was ratified, and who separate what Allah ordered to be joined (yûSala) and who cause violence on earth – those are the losers. (Quran 2/27)

Aziz Istanbul

Turkish transsexual diva Bülent Ersoy has by some been called the best voice of Classical Turkish music. In recent years, though, she produced more scandals (political and private) than songs.

Here one of her older videos from the 90ies, celebrating her love for the ancient Ottoman capital, employing a good amount of islamicate romanticism.

The emergence of Muslim orthodoxy – some notes

Today, in the 21st century CE, we have a pretty good idea of what is usally called Muslim orthodoxy. When we handle words like “orthodox” and “heterodox” we usually know quite well what we refer to and even our listeners have a good impression of it.
These words have become self-explanatory.
No matter in which social circles, be they conservative or liberal, self-styled orthodox or self-styled heterodox.

What is often forgotten in this context is, however, that in fact these terms are not self-explanatory at all. They only receive their meaning in a historical context and their application is definitely connected to political power and agenda.
E.g. what was officially considered “Muslim orthodoxy” in the long years of the Fatimid Empire or under the rule of the Safawid Shah Ismail was definitely something very different from what is called “Muslim orthodoxy” today and was in many ways much more akin to certain modern day forms of esoteric Shiite syncretism (like the one practiced by Albanian Bektashis, Turkish Alevis, Iranian Ahl-e-Haqq or Indian Agakhanis).

Founders of todays orthodox Sunni schools of law were not at all considered orthodox during their own lifetimes. Large segments of the religious, political and cultural establishment saw them as highly heterodox.
The same is true for al-Ghazali, whom we may call the shapegiver of Sunni traditionalism.
And it is for Ibn Taimiyya, whom we may call the forefather of Sunni Salafism and Wahhabism.

The founders of todays orthodoxy developed their own position in a highly discoursive climate in which no position on theology, exegesis or jurisprudence was closed to discussion and no position was to be taken for granted.
Political support did waver easily from one position to the other and back.

That means, in essence, that the roots of todays orthodoxy are to be found not in opinions that were deemed orthodox since the times of prophet Muhammad but in apologetic intellectual responses that could only emerge at a time quite late in Islamic history.
E.g. the position of al-Ghazali was mainly a response to the philosophy of Ibn Rushd who thought of the Quran and Greek philosophy to be equally able to transmit eternal truths and who supported an enlightened rationalism.
In other parts of his work al-Ghazali mainly responds to the ideas of the Batiniyya who had synthesized the teachings of the Quran with ancient Neoplatonism, Hermeticism and Persian thought.

Ibn Rushd or the Batiniyya were not yet able to see their “syncretisms” as in itself problematic.
It was only through al-Ghazali´s response to both of them that the Islamic World came to view them as problematic and this informs Muslim ideas of orthodoxy up to today.

From these little observations we can discern that what is considered orthodox today was dependend on a cultural and historical process and is not a direct derivate of (for example) the position of the pious Salaf or the Ahl-ul-Bayt or whomever.

In “Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought” Daniel W. Brown has given us some great examples for how in the earliest centuries of islamic history virtually every detail of thought, including the relevance of certain scriptures and very basic theological and exegetical principles, has been in discussion and open to dispute. Other studies have shown us very well how even the limits and borders between the Muhammadan movement and other communities were not yet drawn “properly” in the earliest centuries of Islam and that there did exist a certain fluidity regarding religious and philosophical identities in many parts of the Islamic World.
At some point discussions regarding both these borders and theological, exegetical and jurisprudential principles reached their climax, it seems, and gave rise to schools, sects, philosophers, scholars, mystics, rationalists, heterodoxies and orthodoxies that, in some form or the other, continue up to modern times.

Al-Ghazali, Ibn Taimiyya, Abu Hanifah, Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Rushd, the Batiniyya, the Fatimids, the Safawids etc. … they all emerged equally and in discussion with each other in a religious, philosophical and ethical culture that has been in dynamic movement and change since the revelation of the Quran, has been highly productive ever since and will hopefully continue being in dynamic movement and change until the last days of humankind.

Don´t busy yourself …

From the Enchiridion of Epictetus (c.55 – c.135 CE):

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

Don´t busy yourself too much with things that will never be under your total control anyhow, concentrate on those things that are … .

Enchiridion and Quran

One more quote from the Enchiridion of Epictetus, a wonderfull little book that has a lot to teach to humankind.
Epictetus was not a Greek philosopher in the way many wrongfully imagine these thinkers. He was very close to the daily realities of existence.
Most of his life he spent as a slave in Rome, disabled since childhood by his crippled leg.
Read what he had to say on suffering:

“Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself.”

Also read these verses from the Quran, another wonderfull book that has a lot to teach:

“Wheresoever you may be, death will overtake you even if you are in fortresses built up strong and high! And if some good reaches them, they say, “This is from Allah,” but if some evil befalls them, they say, “This is from you. “Say: “All things are from Allah,” so what is wrong with these people that they fail to understand any word?
Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from your own selves. And We have sent you as a messenger to mankind, and Allah is Sufficient as a Witness.”

(4/78-79)

Thoughts on the Fatiha

Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem
Translation: With the Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Alhamdulillahi Rabb Al-alameen
Translation: Praise/Joy is to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds

Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem
Translation: The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful

Malik Yawm Al-Deen
Translation: Master of the day of judgement

Iyyaka naabudoo wa iyyaka nastaayeen
Translation: You Alone we serve and You Alone we ask for help

Ihdina as-siraut al mustaqeem; Siraut al-latheena an’aamta aalayhem; ghayr al-maghdoobi alayhem; wala ad-dauleen
Translation: Show us the upright path; The path of those upon whom you have bestowed Your blessings; Not the path of those on whom is anger; nor of those who stumble astray.

Al-Fatiha is probably the most well known chapter of the Quran, being the chapter that opens this book.
In “orthodox” Muslim practice it has a pivotal role since it is recited in every ritual prayer performed by all the “orthodox” schools.
It is also recited at many other occasions and is believed to convey blessings.
In Folk Islam it is often used in healing rituals and it also has a central role in mystical speculations.

Due to this the literal Arabic text of the Fatiha is probably known to most Muslims in this world and it is revered with religious awe.
Fewer, however, know its literal meaning.
And even fewer know the depth of knowledge that each word of this chapter can convey when we comprehend it.

The name of this chapter, Fatiha, is usually translated as “the Opening” and so its title does allude to the chapter´s role of opening the Quran, introducing the reader to the central philosophy of the book.
However, the Arabic root F-T-H from which this name derives also has other meanings.
In a verbal form it is also used in connection to the removal of a deceiving veil and (subsequently) to the recognition of the truth of being.

Reciting the Fatiha, the reader positions herself in front of the ultimate and absolute Being-as-such (called Allah) and declares that she, as part of a collective community, solely wants to serve this Being and solely looks out to Him.

This positioning of the human self is a crucial one. It is meant to totally change the human being´s outlook on her life and the world she lives in.
She realizes that she is not simply a singular and isolated atom but part of a universal reciprocity that is supported by one single Being.

This Being in Itself can not be grasped according to Its essence but it becomes perceivable through Its qualities, attributes,names.
It is with this idea (bi-ism-allah /with the name of Allah) that the Fatiha and the whole Quran begins and at the same moment it does declare that graciousness and mercy are two of these qualities.
Naturally so, since only through these qualities can existence derive benefits from absolute Being.

This graciousness and mercy is described through the Arabic root R-H-M, giving us the two divine attributes Rahman and Raheem. “Gracious” and “Merciful” are useful translations of these attributes but unfortunately they do not fully convey the meaning of this Arabic root which also gives us the Arabic word for the female womb.
Due to this linguistic connection it has often been stated in both Classical Islamic and modern Muslim literature that the mentioned two divine attributes have a particularly feminine and motherly character.
Allah relates to existence and humankind like an encompassing and guarding womb and like a caring and loving mother, despite the fact that He is envisioned as being beyond human gender and reproduction.

Accepting and declaring servantship to this absolute Being full of “motherly” graciousness and mercy also means to declare your wish to serve the will and purpose of this single Being.
It means to adopt characteristics of encompassing and guarding grace and mercy yourself and to actualize these characteristics in your own existence.
It means to follow the prophetic mission which in other verses of the Quran is directly described as “being a mercy to all worlds”.

This is done in joy (hamd), a joy due to a single Being that cherishes and sustains (R-B-B) all of existence, a joy due to realizing that all of existence derives from one single Being and that no part of existence is left alone and apart.

This joyful declaration finds its conclusion in one important realization of the declaring subject:

If there is such a single absolute Being that all of existence derives from, we can also be sure that the outcome of our existence will be a just one. In the sense that it will be an outcome in full accordance with the order (deen) of Being-As-Such and so we do not need to quarrel and bicker with it.

We can put all our trust in the ultimate Being.
Voluntarily serving Allah and His will and purpose, voluntarily following the prophetic mission to “be a mercy for all of existence” can we hope to experience many blessings and to procede in life with secure steps.

A poem

From Bâl-e-Jibrîl, a poetical work of the great Muslim thinker Sir Muhammad Iqbal:

ملااور بہشت

ميں بھي حاضر تھا وہاں ، ضبط سخن کر نہ سکا
حق سے جب حضرت ملا کو ملا حکم بہشت
عرض کي ميں نے ، الہي! مري تقصير معاف
خوش نہ آئيں گے اسے حور و شراب و لب کشت
نہيں فردوس مقام جدل و قال و اقول
بحث و تکرار اس اللہ کے بندے کي سرشت
ہے بد آموزي اقوام و ملل کام اس کا
اور جنت ميں نہ مسجد ، نہ کليسا ، نہ کنشت

Translation (by Naeem Siddiqui):

When in a vision I saw
A mullah ordered to paradise,
Unable to hold my tongue,
I said something in this wise:

‘Pardon me, O Lord,
For these bold words of mine,
But he will not be pleased
With the houris and the wine.

He loves to dispute and fight,
And furiously wrangle,
But paradise is no place
For this kind of jangle.

His task is to disunite
And leave people in the lurch,
But paradise has no temple,
No mosque and no church.’

Islamo – Confucianism

“Reflecting upon this Great Learning, we see that the principle of righteousness is refined and detailed. It reaches directly to the root origin, specifically clarifying the Real One, manifesting the light of clarity of the true Tao, and stamping out the mistakes and errors of the heretics.
In its quietude, it rests in the bosom; in its function, it fills the universe.
It penetrates fine dust, yet it is not tiny; it encloses heaven and earth, yet it is not vast.
It clears away and removes colors and guises, and it splits and dissolves emptiness and nonbeing.
This is because it fully returns at root to the fountainhead of clear virtue, guiding and leading the return to the path of the Real.
Thus may you escape and depart from the ocean of illusion and go back again to the other shore.”

These words are found at the beginning of “The Great Learning of the Pure and Real”, a 17th century CE explanation of Islam composed by the Chinese Muslim scholar Wang Tai-yu.
You can find this precious piece of classical Islamic thought in Sachiko Murata´s beautiful “Chinese Gleams of Sufi Light”, together with one more example of Chinese Muslim literature.

What is remarkable of “The Great Learning of the Pure and Real” is its constant use of Neo-Confucian terminology and ideas which entices our mind to view Islam from a perspective quite different from the one we got used to.

In fact, when Islam came to China and started to foster one of the biggest Muslim communities of the world it was regarded and regarded itself not so much as a “religion” in the modern western sense of the word but more as a philosophy in the manner of Buddhism, Daoism or Confucianism.
Just as with Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism it was aknowledged that Islam had important elements of spirituality and ritualism.
But its essence was understood as a philosophical reasoning, a succesfull line of argumentation, similar to and both in dialogue and competition with the thoughts springing from Gautama Buddha, Lao-Tzu and Confucius.

Two major intellectual schools of Chinese Muslim thought developed due to this understanding of Islam:

One that mainly understood Islam according to its commonalities and differences with Buddhist and Daoist thought, flourishing under the Sung dynasty and later still in vogue in the southern province of Yunnan and probably also influential in the rebellious uprisings for which Yunnanese Muslims were once known.

And another one that mainly saw Islam in its relation to Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism, flourishing in the north of China, in cities like Xian and Beijing, in a Muslim milieu surrounding aristocratic administrative powers.

Chinese Muslim intellectuals saw the Quran and classical Islamic literature as a source of a philosophical discoursivity that did not necessarily exclude other philosophies prevalent in ancient China.

Perceiving the Real

“Know that no substance or accident upon which the name existing falls posesses an independent ipseity such that it would be possible to regard its essence in its essence while ignoring its establisher and its existence-giver, for there is no atom of existence that is not encompassed by the light of the Real and contemplated by it.

So, everyone should contemplate his own essence and its establisher and existence-giver with a contemplation hallowed beyond the bodily parts and the senses.
However, most people do not have knowledge [Quran 7/187]; rather, they disbelieve in the encounter with their nourisher [Quran 32/10], not because some external preventer is realized, but rather because of the lack of inward eyesight, intellective hearing, and a heart dilated by the light of certainty (imân).

For the veil between the servants and their object of worship is neither heaven nor earth, land nor sea.
The veil is only ignorance and incapacity, or appetite (shahwah), wrath, and caprice (hawâ).”

from Iksîr al ‘arifîn (The Elixir of the Gnostics) by Mulla Sadra Shirazi

Authentic Knowledge

“Man is for us the most interesting being in the world. We, as human beings ourselves, want to know what we are and can be; but a constant occupation with man causes surfeit. It seems as if, in that occupation, the essential was missed. For man cannot be comprehended on the basis of himself, and as we confront man’s being there is disclosed the other through which he exists. For man as possible Existenz that is Transcendence but while man is in the world as a perceptive reality, Transcendence is, as if it were not there. Nor is it fathomable. Its being itself is doubtful. And yet all philosophising is directed towards the goal of achieving certainty about Transcendence.”

The above lines are the words of the German psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers, written down in his piece “On my philosophy” in 1941.
I use them here in an introductory way because these words express the essence of what this article is about.

The book known in this world as the Quran (“The Reading”) does suggest an answer to the paradox of human existence that Jaspers describes and equally does it suggest why this answer should be of importance to each and everyone of us and is far away from being only some abstract philosophical notion.

This answer may not be the only possible one but it certainly is one whose value can be explored and tested because it relates itself to every single human individual and does not exclude anyone.

Many have questioned the answer of the Quran (and, in fact, many other spiritual and philosophical works and possible answers) on the basis of the wrong assumption that this answer has to be an answer of “blind faith” that can not be verified by the individual.
In fact, however, the answer of the Quran does not need to be understood as one of “blind faith”.

What Jaspers calls the “goal of all philosophising” is called imân in the Quran.

Imân, although usually translated as “faith, belief”, had originally no basic meaning of “assumptionalism” at all (as many modern concepts of “belief” do) but is instead linguistically related to amn, meaning a peaceful state of safety.
Related words are also amniyat (security), amin (trustworthy, reliable) and amânat (trust).
A related linguistic cognate is also the commonly known Aramaic exclamation amen which originally just meant “certainly, surely”, affirming the statements made in Jewish and Christian prayers.
Very close cousins are also the Jewish terms emuna – whose actual meaning is “certainty”and which in the Bible is used in a similar way to imân in the Quran – and uman (“professional, someone who feels secure in doing something”).

All these words derive from the same semitic root ‘ – m – n, relating itself to issues of affirmation, safety, security and certainty.

Imân carries the basic meaning of that root. Thus imân in al-Quran originally could not mean “unverifiable blind faith”, even though modern discourses have given such a meaning to all defined “fields of belief”.
In the way the word is used in the Quran, and even as it is used as in many central and important works of classical Islamic thought, imân always refers to a secure confidence, a secure conviction manifested through the unveiling of Truth; it refers surely to what Jaspers called “achieving certainty about Transcendence”.

Additionally we also have to note that always is it stressed in the Quran, in numerous verses, that imân has to be connected to constructive actions.
Imân without constructive action will never be imân but only a lie to ones self.
Over and over are “those who have imân” explicitely characterized as those who ‘âmilu-s-sâlihât, who act in a good and constructive way, and as those they become recognizable in the world of phenomena.
Not by shallow words of religious confession but solely by their constructive actions.

In that sense, the quranic imân does not only never appear in the sense of “blind faith”, it also can never have meanings of a simple passive attitude.
It has its roots, its firm basis and its necessary outcome in activity.

Imân is the certainty and confidence from which constructive activity flows, it always leads to constructive actions and proves its existence to the outer world only through them.
So naturally imân is indeed very much connected to personal verification.

The question that then naturally arises is:
How does the human being come to this verification? What is the key to solving the human´s paradox?

The quranic answer, as we will see, is simple:
Verification comes through direct experience alone!

In fact, speaking philosophically, this is the only true type of verification possible. Experience is the only way by which true knowledge can be acquired.
Only through experience does knowledge enter into an interaction with our own self, without experience knowledge becomes mere superstition.
Through experience we can rely on our own, without experience we have to realy on others.

The big problem with the majority of human wisdom in this world – be it philosophical wisdom, religious wisdom, scientific wisdom, political wisdom or whatever – is that it largely ignores this fact.
We have largely become dependent on mediated, nonempirical knowledge.
This applies to the most common religious thoughts as much as to scientific or other nonspiritual systems.
We quite often believe things not out of personal experience but because we have been taught about them in the one way or the other through instances claiming to transmit something that once was experienced.
We experience this in school or university as much as we do in the church or mosque; in an exemplary way do we experience it every day in our reliance on modern media.

Only very few people within our societies actually bother to engage themselves with the knowledge received through those institutions in a meaningfull way, bother to try verifying this knowledge through their own experience.

The Quran contests such a way of mainly relying on mediated and nonempirical wisdom very strongly and calls it the antithesis of imân. Cultural and social traditions, authorities, majority notions are all not to be considered sources of true and certain knowledge if there is a lack of verification of this knowledge through direct and personal experience.
Even if they be legitimated by the authorities through an argument of religion, reason, necessity or whatever.

All kinds of hearsay are to be rebuked when they can not prove their truth within our own experiences and can not transform from hearsay into certainty.

“Don´t follow anything without your own knowledge. Truly, the hearing, the eyesight, the heart, all of these will be held responsible.”

(Quran, chapter 17, verse 36)

Constructing its system of verification, the Quran does also deconstruct the artificial opposition between so called spiritual and so called secular knowledge.

Knowledge either is verified through experience or it stays an assumption.
And this stays true for both spiritual and secular knowledge.
Scientific knowledge or political knowledge is here neither better nor worse than religious or philosophical knowledge.

Even the knowledge of the Quran itself is not better here.
Again, the quraan does not ask for unverifiable blind faith.

Instead it promises to us that its teachings will proof themselves as true within the frame of our own perception:

“Thus do we display Our signs, so that they may say to you:`You have indeed studied!´ And so that we may give clarification to a people with knowledge”

(chapter 6, verse 105)

“We will show them Our signs in the utmost horizons and within their own selves, so that it will become clear to them that this is the truth. Is it not enough for them that your Nourisher is witness to all things?”

(chapter 41, verse 53)

“And on the earth are signs for those who wish to attain conviction. And also in your own selves. Can you not then use your perception?”

(chapter 51, verses 20-21)

There is, amongst the narrations that the Quran presents to us, one about an exemplary seeker of authentic knowledge.
He was, rightfully, never content with what people claimed to be true.
He wanted to find out on his own.
Even if that meant that in the end the knowledge that he gained set him apart from his own family and his own people and forced him into exile.

I am talking about the exemplary messenger Ibrahim (Abraham).

“When he said to his father and his nation: `What are these images to which you are so dedicated?´ They said: `We found our fathers serving them.´ He said: `You had been, you and your fathers, in obvious fallacy.´

chapter 21, verses 52 – 54

How could Ibrahim be able to speak like that and risk so much, despite the fact that the words that he spoke were contrary to what his family, his nation and his ancestors deemed to be taken for granted?
Because he dared to question everything that was taken for granted and coming from that position he observed existence and seeked to derive knowledge from his observances.

“And when Ibrahim said to his father Azar: `Do you take images as deities? Truly, I see you and your nation in obvious fallacy.´
In that way did we give to Ibrahim insight of the dominions of the skies and the earth, so that he may belong to those with certainty.
So when the night overshadowed him he saw a star and he said: `That is my Nourisher!´. But when the star set he said: `I do not love those that set!´
When he saw the moon rising he said: `That is my Nourisher!´ But when it set he said:
`If my Nourisher won´t guide me I will belong to the nation in fallacy.´
When he saw the sun rising, he said: `That is my Nourisher! That is bigger!´ But when it set, he said:
`Oh my nation, I renounce what you fractionalize. Being upright, I aim my expression to the one which brought forth the skies and the earth. And I don´t belong to those who fractionalize.”

chapter 6, verses 74-79

It did not impress Ibrahim at all that he was born into a certain worldview that all people around him shared and saw as common knowledge.
He had an impulse to understand observable existence on his own and to follow only the knowledge that he could authenticate by himself.

Few people are as bold as Ibrahim and are willing to seek knowledge on their own. To trust what is taken for granted or what others have told and taught us is much easier.

“And if they did an atrocious deed they said:`We found our fathers on it.´ and `Allah commanded us to do it.´ Say: `Allah does not command atrocious deeds! You say about Allah things of which you have no knowledge!”

chapter 7, verse 28

But, of course, religious people are not the only people on this earth taking things for granted, accepting information without further own investigation, just fitting in with the streams of what personal upbringing, peer group pressure, politics, media, educational institutes, ethical and moral standards around us and national or ethnic traditions shower on us. Most of what we claim to “know” is actually only what others had told us that they claimed to “know”.

We live in realms of unquestioned myths.
All of us.
No matter if we are a devout Taliban in Afghanistan or a devout leftist Democrat in Germany.
No matter if we are a believing Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia or a believing Atheist in Denmark.

But myths are not authentic knowledge. Even if the whole world around us adheres to a specific myth that should not make the myth relevant for us.
There are, however, a lot of logical fallacies that make us think that these myths may have a relevance for us.

In my “introductory words” I already remarked on the sad fact that majority opinions are quite often used to make an impression on us and also on how fallacious that can be.
But that is only one of the logical fallacies that may lead us to prefer unquestioned myths over authentic knowledge.
We can list up many more.

For example, authority always makes impression on us and makes us think that something that a person with a certain title or position expresses must be more relevant knowledge than what a person without these titles would express.
This authority does not always need to come with obvious power. It may also appear as a harmless public institution.
E.g. we rarely question what we learned at school. Only few of us would really dare to go through the experiments of Galileo Galilei or Newton on our own. Most of us simply hold as true what we are told at school about the character of our planet, our solar system or physical laws; not because we really have “knowledge” about these things but only because we developed a certain trust in the institution of school and we rarely meet people who would question that trust.
Actually, most of us will probably have no authentic knowledge about the nature of our planet.
We simply believe what we were told and what was never questioned.

These believes that we hold may not always be wrong.
I would assume that many of the believes that we hold thanks to our primary school education are probably right, at least to a certain extent.
But I have no authentic knowledge of that.

Not only do majority opinions and perceived personal or institutional authorities lead us to never let go of the myths that surround us.
We also fall prey to other logical fallacies.

The argumentum ad baculum, the argument by the stick/by force, is a common one. Questioning certain things may lead us into getting into conflict with force. And we dread that. Be it the force of the local gang of school hoodlums or the force of political or economical entities.
Questioning prevalent myths could sometimes mean that we have to fear violence or oppression, weak one or strong one, direct or indirect.

That was exactly what had happened to Ibrahim:

“They said: `Burn him up, and give support to your deities, if you want to do something.´”

chapter 21, verse 68

Sometimes we may not question our false knowledge because this could change our position within the social frame that we live in.
It could force us to adopt views and actions that our peergroups do not like. It could cut social associations that we may think of as worthy, we could loose social recognition and acceptance and could put us in one boat with despised people.
Just as it happened to the messenger Nûh (Noah):

“And so the nobles, those of his people who unthankfully rejected, said: `We do not see you as more than a human similar to us. We see that only those people have followed you who are quite obviously the most despised amongst us. And we do not see that you guys are in any way favoured above us. In fact, we think that you guys are liars.”

chapter 11 verse 27

Fear of emotional blackmailing may keep us from questioning what is taken for granted. Emotional blackmailing, as it was encountered by Mûsâ (Moses) when he finally came back from his exile with his newfound mission:

“[…] Did we not bring you up when you were a child? And did you not stay with us for many years of your life? And you did what you did? You belong to the unthankfull rejecting!”

chapter 26, verses 18-19

There are so many fears that we encounter when deciding to start a process of questioning and coming to authentic knowledge.

The worst of these fears, however, are not connected to the influence of our direct surroundings.
They are not connected to majority opinions or authorities, not to our peergroups or to those who have emotional influence on us.
The worst of these fears are connected to the chains that we ourselves put on us with all the expectations and believes that we either passively accepted from others or once even ourself fashioned for us and empowered in the cause of our lives.
We think that these expectations and believes define us and that not meeting them or clinging to them will diminish our value. Expectations about the people with whom we should fit in, the character traits we should posess, the responsibilities we should take on our shoulders, timeframes we should live up to, dependencies, the values that we believe in, the ethical and political ideas of which we are proud ….. all of these things of whom we think that we either simply have to live up to them because it is our duty or we want to live up to them because we think that they could give more honour and value to our personalities.
And we rarely question these things as well.

Fearing the expectations of others and seeing our own expectations and believes as unchangeable standards that we need to live up to in any case, however, so often keeps us from seeing the reality of choicefullness that is really available to us.
We are stupid enough to ignore our own choicefullness only because fashioned expectations are so dear to us.

We are exactly like the people whom Mûsâ had just led out of Egyptian oppression and slavery, where they were tortured and slaughtered, into the freedom of wandering and finding a new destination.
Well, as we know, human beings do not always want to get rid of their chains.
Sometimes being in chains seems safer and more comfortable than insecurities that can come with freedom.:

“And when you said: `Oh Mûsâ, we can not be satisfied with one food. So invite for us your Nourisher to bring forth for us from what the earth grows of vegetables, cucumber, legumes, lentils and onions.´ He said: `Do you exchange the shortdated/immediate for what is the best choice? Enter Egypt, there you will find what you ask for!´[…]”

chapter 2, verse 61

But if we really want to open up a pathway to our choicefullness and attain knowledge of who we are, what our boundaries truly are and what potentials we can actualize, then we just simply have to face these emotional and intellectual chains and shackles as illusory and selfproduced.
It is we who give power to them and make our own selves inable to face actual reality.

Says the Quran about selfproduced idols:

“Have you perceived the “Would be-ism” (laat) and the “Honour-ism” (‘uzzaa). And “Longing” (manaah), the third of the others. Are for you the generating and for Him the conceiving? That is then unjust apportionment.
Truly, these are not anything else but only names that you had named, you and your fathers. Allah did not descend with it any authority.
They only follow opinions and what the self desires. Although guidance had come to them from their Nourisher.
Or is to the human being what he wishes?”

chapter 53, verses 19-24

Thanks to a historicised approach onthe Quran the above verses have lost all immediate meaning within most of the current Sunni, Shii, Modernist, Progressive and Salafi approaches and translating and understanding them has been made difficult.
I personally know of only Mohammad Shaikh from “International Islamic Propagation Center” and Farouk A. Peru as current thinkers from the Islamic world who dared to bring back to these verses immediate meaning and a translation fitting that meaning.

But if we take its central part and contemplate on it, even we ourselves can come to understand their immediate meaning very clearly:

“Not anything else but only names that you named, you and your fathers!”
“With it not any authority!”
“Only opinions and what the self desires!”

These things keep us inauthentic and alienated from our own choicefullness.
We perceive them as overpowering controling pagan deities to whom we have to submit, but in reality they have no true authority.
Since we ourselves named them and gave them their position, we ourselves can also get rid of them.
They are not our Lords!

By contemplating them we can see that they only rise with our own choice to let them rise and that they will set as soon as we choose to let them set.
And like Ibrahim we can then say:

“I do not love those that set!”

Ibrahim was brave enough to dare to destroy the images that had been carved and worshipped, to demonstrate their weakness.
We also have to dare to destroy the images that we carved or that were carved for us to finally realize that in them is no real power at all.

To attain authentic knowledge we first have to question everything in a systematic analysis and there is nothing that is taboo to being questioned.
We can and have to analyze everything that we seem to know about our own existence and the existence of the world that surrounds us, to find out if we really know it or only seem to know it.

Thus, every authentic human philosophy, every authentic human knowledge needs to start with a deconstruction.
Like Phoenix it has to raise up from a total pile of ashes, so to speak.
Let´s first burn everything down to ashes. In the end we will see that this was necessary.

Descartes has done that, long before us, when he wrote:

“It is necessary once in one`s life to doubt of all things, so far as this is possible.”

To a certain extent he had been foreshadowed in these words by the theory and practice of medieval Muslim scholar and mystic Al-Ghazzali and the Christian churchfather St. Augustine.

There is no reason why we should not do like these three emminent thinkers of human history.

Mandi Safar

In the traditional Islamic calendar the month of Safar comes to an end in exactly these days and we just passed the last wednesday of that month (at least according to most calculations).

There are – in what is usually called “Folk Islam” – a large array of yearly observances and cyclical traditions that were respected for centuries and were important signposts of social culture but which rapidly are wiped out from the face of this world in exactly these decades.

The last wednesday of Safar is one of those yearly observances. In the Persianized Muslim world it was once known as Aakhri Charshamba, in Javanese it is known as Rebo Wekasan.
In Malay it was referd to as “Mandi Safar”, due to rituals that I will briefly describe some lines down from here.

To the growing Salafi/Wahhabi trend in Islam observances and traditions like these are manifestations of cultural and religious decay, they oppose a conception of Islam as merely a political ideology and are consequently deemed a harmful innovation departing from an imagined “true Islam”.
To the so called Progressive Muslims and related modernistic movements the mentioned traditions are largely mere cultural superstitions, obsolete in a modern world and not relevant to a rationalized and secularized discourse on spirituality.
And even many traditional and traditionalist Muslims have a problem with many traditional yearly observances in Folk Islam.
Due to their own struggle with Salafism and Modernism they neatly started to categorize Islamic traditions into those that can be defended according to parameters of the classical literary traditions of Islam and those that have to be stigmatized and left without defense since their support is mainly part of an oral tradition of the opressed classes.

In oral lore, however, the last wednesday of Safar is connected to traditions concerning the imagined last days of the Prophet Muhammad. It was in the month of Safar that, according to some reports, he was suffering from his last disease which in the end led to him passing away from this world.
However, on the last wednesday of this month he was reported to have felt better for at least one day. For the first time since he fell ill, it is said, Prophet Muhammad got up from his bed, performed a ritual bath and displayed a happy and cheerful attitude, despite the fact that he already assumed death was coming for him and despite the fact that his community awaited future with depressed and fearful thoughts.

Due to this tradition, Folk Islam celebrated the last wednesday of Safar with ritual purifications(mandi = to bath, in Malay) and with cheerful and joyful activities like picnics at the riverside.
Not all of these activities were what one would call “spiritual” or “religious”. The mundane and the ethereal were deeply connected on those occasions.
But all of these activities were meant to reflect on the passing of time, on making new beginnings and purifying yourself and they were meant to stress that even in depressing and fearful times there is hope and reason to rejoice.
These activities put the celebrants in the position of an imagined Muhammad who never lost his trust in the unchanging Allah, despite all the insecurities of everchanging earthly life.

We can indeed cast doubts on the historical factuality surrounding the stories about the last days of noble Prophet Muhammad.

And many of the Southasian and Southeastasian traditions surrounding the joyful activities on that Last Wednesday surely do not derive from the earliest days of Islam and come from other cultural sources.
Some Malay traditions in particular most probably have their roots in an ancient cultural exchange that once took place between (Hindu) Tamil South India and a (once Indianized) Malay Peninsula; something that was used as an argument by a current Malaysian Majlis Fatwa to ban the tradition as “unislamic”.

However, historical factuality is not what I am concerned about when mourning the disappearance of folkislamic customs from this world.

I see the stigmatization and destruction of traditions like the Last Wednesday as manifestations of a fundamental and (in my eyes) very sad shift in the history of Islam.
This shift first of all came to be due to a process of defining Islam as a uniformous static and stagnant fixed (cultural-religious) “identity” which did not yet exist in the so called classical times and then, under political domination of exploiting powers, privileging the culture, traditions and interpretations of affluent Muslim social elites in close contact with colonial institutions over the culture, desires and perspectives of the “common people”.

Traditions like Aakhri Charshamba or Mandi Safar were able to survive centuries of changing Muslim rulers, just ones as much as tyrannical ones, of different sectarian affiliations, hoards of Muslim warriors roaming the land, hoards of Muslim preachers doing the same.
They were an integral part of folk spirituality for a very long period of Muslim history and as such they were an important part of an internal “Islamization” (or at least spiritualization) of rural everyday life and they had an important function in reminding the people of ethical, social and spiritual standards.
Nothing could seriously harm them, despite the fact that from very early days on have indeed been some people in Islam criticizing these traditions, describing them as harmful innovations, as departures from a imagined orthodoxy and orthopraxy etc..

For centuries nothing could take away the central social function and cultural importance from traditions like these.
But a shift that turned Islam into an “identity” in the modern sense of the word and that hen largely derived the boundaries of that identity from elitist discourses alone was able to take away all legitimacy from the perspectives of Folk Islam within a few decades.

Despite that irreversible shift I myself do still uphold that even when coming from a strictly quranic perspective we are still able to give legitimacy to the traditions of Folk Islam.
A legitimacy grounded in a basic right to selfexpression and cultural variety that the Quran definitely emphasizes.

Stigmatizing Folk Islam, in my eyes, is not a natural outcome of our search for “the Truth”, be it Islamic or otherwise.
It is not a natural outcome of a wish to establish better spiritual standards in the lives of human beings.
It is, however, a voluntary and deliberate choice for a culture/class based Chauvinism and a step towards a methodology of pure destruction and I deem both to be in itself antithetical to any possible conception of better spiritual standards and a search for “the Truth”.

These traditions may not be based on a historical factuality and they may indeed to a certain extent be obsolete in a modern world with a different relationship to the cycle of the year.
But they are grounded in a human desire to find spiritual beauty and meaning in our daily and yearly activities and to find symbols to connect the immanence of our existence to its transcendence.

To respect and support this desire means to flourish and to prosper, in my humble opinion.

We know pretty much for sure that a respect and support for exactly this desire was an important basis for the historical Islamic da’wah and the rapid spread of ethical and spiritual ideals of Islam in places like Southasia and Southeastasia.

Both legends and reliable historical accounts concerning the wellknown Muslim missionaries of South- and Southeastasia abound of reports on how these people adapted and assimilated local cultural forms, the desires of several social milieus and classes, preislamic spiritual practices and art to the ethical and spiritual ideals of Islam and only by doing so could they present Islam as a universal teaching that could have meaning to people from all backgrounds.
If there hadn´t been traditions like Mandi Safar at some point in history Malays probably wouldn´t be Muslims today.

That in itself characterizes stigmatizing and banning traditions like these in modern Muslim communities as a highly ironic, even comic, process.
Even more so, it exposes the modern “Fatwa business” as a pretty funny form of selfsabotage.
Todays Islam totally sabotages its own appeal by constantly being concerned about drawing borders and separating lines, instead of welcoming several colours and shades of creation with open arms just as earlier Muslims were able to do, just as the Quran would inspire us to do.

“Believers” and “Infidels”

In several current Muslim and Non-Muslim discourses it has become quite common to politicize certain verses
of the Quran.

In most English translations of these particular verses we read about so-called “infidels” and the politicized interpretation of these verses upholds the idea that “all Muslims” are commanded to violently fight those “infidels”.

Within Islam, upholders of several different politicized interpretations of these verses are neither in agreement with regards to whom these “infidels” actually are, nor whom the true “Muslims” are.
In effect they are also not in agreement regarding whom to fight and who has to fight.

Some radical interpreters uphold, for example, that all human beings who do not ascribe to a rigid puritanical and puristic interpretation of a quasi-Salafi Jihadist Islam should be seen as “infidels” and have to be fought as such by any means possible.
Other interpreters are of the opinion, that no confessing Muslim is an “infidel”, however, members of other religious communities are and have to be fought by any means possible.

Less politicized interpreters usually uphold the idea that Jews and Christians do not necessarily belong to the “infidels” mentioned in the Quran, while at the same time not all confessing Muslims are “true believers”.
Some say that the term “infidel” only refers to actual deliberate rejecters of Theism, to Atheists, and that fighting them becomes only necessary in a situation of selfdefence.
Some others even say that “fighting the infidels” only was a command for Prophet Muhammad and his companions and is not relevant in our modern times anymore.

These are but some of the many interpretations of the verses concerning the “fight against the infidels” that one is able to find in the current Muslim worldcommunity.

All these different groups of interpreters use one of several quite different parameters according to which they try to interpret the relevant quranic verses.
Usually these parameters are chosen quite deliberately (though not always conciously) since parameters of interpretation will define for which purpose a specific verse can be instrumentalized.
A modernist liberal Muslim will chose a different parameter than either a quasi-Salafi Jihadist or a perennialist Sufi and accordingly he will come to an interpretation that satisfies his general modernist liberal attitude.

My own reading of the relevant verses is certainly not more objective than that of other interpreters.
I am as much held in the captivity of my own subjectivity.

Still I think that it is not a too difficult task to try to come to a more immediate reading of the relevant verses, one that is more independent from a clear instrumentalization or politization.
Not an objective reading of the Quran as such – for something like that is impossible – but at least a reading that values the Quran´s capacity to present a selfsufficient and consistent argument.

In my eyes such a reading should be one that tries to stay as close as possible to the immediate linguistic , semantic and phenomenological structure of the Quran.

Trying to uphold a methodology that tries to develop such a reading I would like to present the following as a necessary basis-knowledge concerning quranic discussions of “faith” and “disbelief”:

The Arabic words that are so often translated with “disbelieve” and “infidels” all relate to the verb kafara.
The meaning of that verb has few to do with “disbelief” as we usually understand it. Quite often it is translated with “to reject, to conceal, to cover” and in classical Arabic it was mainly used in that sense.

The words often translated as “believe”, “believers” etc. all relate to the verb ‘amana and its linguistic root on which I already elaborated extensively in this lengthy post.
According to its linguistic root the verb means “to have conviction, to have certainty, to be safe, to offer safety”.
It is closely related to the Arabic word ‘amn (peace) und ‘amniyat (safety) and it is also related to the Hebrew word emuna (trust)

This alone can already demonstrate to us that quranic concepts of “faith” (imân) and “disbelief” (kufr) have in the end only very few to do with confessional affiliation but do speak a lot about basic human characteristics.

Even without much interpretation and without any linguistic knowledge do the following verses explain quite well what the real “diesbelief” is according to the Quran and how the “infidels” can be defined:

Amongst people there are some who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day;” but still they do not have faith (imân). Fain would they deceive Allah and those who have imân, but they only deceive themselves, and don´t realise it! In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is their penalty, because they are false.When it is said to them: “Don´t cause violence on the earth,” they say: “Why, we only want to do what is right!” Surely, they are the ones who make violence, but they don´t realise it.When it is said to them: “Have faith (imân) in a human way” They say: “Shall we believe as the fools believe?” Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know. (Quran 2/8-13)

We made a covenant with you, that you shall not shed your blood, nor shall you evict each other from your homes. You agreed and bore witness.Yet, here you are killing each other, and evicting some of you from their homes, banding against them sinfully and maliciously. Even when they surrendered, you demanded ransom from them. Evicting them was prohibited for you in the first place. Do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in another part? What should be the retribution for those among you who do this, except humiliation in this life, and a far worse retribution on the day of resurrection? Allah is never unaware of anything you do. Quran 2/84-85

Have you seen the one who denies Allah´s order?. It is the one who mistreats the orphans. And does not advocate the feeding of the poor. And woe to those praying who are totally heedless of their prayers.They only show off. And they deny help. (Quran 107)

A “believer”, on the other hand, has to posess these primary characteristics:

Servants of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant approach them, they only utter peace. (Quran 25/63)

And what lets you know the upward path? It is the freeing of slaves. Feeding, during the time of hardship,
the orphan who is your neighbour or the poor who is in need.
Only then will he belong to those who have faith (imân), who exhort one another to be steadfast, and exhort one another to be kind. (Quran 90/13-17)

Here we see that quranic definitions of true faith (imân) and true disbelief (kufr) mainly deal with ethical standards and can not be related to a mere lip service.
“Believers” and “infidels” are defined and recognized according to their ethical or unethical behavior in life.
They are not defined or recognized according to confessional or cultural affiliation!

To this effect we can also cite numerous other verses from the Quran which outnumber the verses talking about “fighting the infidels”.
From here it also becomes pretty obvious whom the Quran commands to fight and it is also pretty obvious why humanity should fight them.

From a Cham Muslim manuscript

“Pure Islam has four points:
Rather than utter with the tongue,
Attest in the heart;
Conduct one’s own practical piety,
Rather than follow traditional rules and chiefs.

The ruin of Islam also has four points:
One knows, but does not do;
One does without knowing;
One does not know and does not want to study;
One says one’s self is right and good and that others are wrong.”

as translated by William Collins in “The Chams of Cambodia”

Islam, Truth and Pluralism

I´d like to second and highlight some important statements that my friend Farouk just made in this post on his blog.
They are very crucial statements with regard to any tries of understanding the philosophy of the Quran:

“And what of Quran itself? What does it say about Muslims acting aloof towards others who wish to co-operate with them in the interest of social advancement?

An interesting concept to look at in Quran is the concept of ‘al-haqq’, loosely translated as ‘the truth’. Quran looks at itself as the truth (41/53) but also names God Himself as ‘the truth’ (22/6), telling us that Quran preaches a God who manifests in our lives. What’s more, Quran tells us that this ‘al-haqq’ descends from the heavens and flows in many streams. Doesn’t this tell us that God Himself acknowledges his presence in many streams of human thought?

Furthermore, Quran puts itself as the guardian or criteria of truth (25/1 and 5/48) but acknowledges that human beings are each given an expression and method (5/48 and 2/148). It tells us that whoever strives in God’s way will be guided onto God’s paths, in plural (29/69).

Objectors to my interpretation may raise the verse which asserts that Islam is the only religion in the sight of God (3/19). However, allow me to rebut by saying that Quran must be looked at as a harmonious whole, totally without contradictions (4/82). Quran preaches a plurality of religious approaches (2/62, 5/69 and 22/17) and so we must ask, what is meant by ‘islam’ in 3/19 mentioned above? Clearly, ‘islam’ here does not mean Islam as we know it but rather being peaceful with God and being good. From even it’s inherent meaning, ‘islam’ what brings ‘salaam’ (peace, fulfilment, wholeness) and Muslims in history have not always been true to this definition.

I consciously choose islam as my way of life due to the truth of Quran. However, I have no right to judge any peaceful individual and their choices. Nor do I have the justification to spurn any kind of co-operation which will bring about benefits to humankind. Benefits to humankind is a characteristic of the concept we analysed above, ‘al-haqq’. Therefore, it is something we must seek as we seek God Himself.”

Water and Wisdom

“The One who made the land a habitat, and the sky a structure, and He sent down (anzala) from the sky water with which He brought out fruit (thamarât) as a provision (rizq) to you. So do not make any equals with Allah while you now know.

And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down (nazalnâ) to Our servant, then produce something of a comparable shape, and call upon your witnesses other than Allah if you are sincere.
And if you cannot do this – and you will never be able to do this – then be made aware of the fire whose fuel is people and stones, prepared for the rejecters (kâfirûn).

But give good news to those who have faith (imân) and do good works that they will have estates with rivers flowing beneath. Every time they receive provision (rizqan) of its fruit (thamarat), they say: “This is what we have been provisioned (ruziqnâ) before,” and with it they are given its likeness . And there they will have purified spouses, and in it they will abide.”
(Quran 2/22-25)

In these verses we can find an interesting parallelism between phenomena of nature and the spiritual development of human beings.

There is a significant doubling and reworking of those specific words that you´ll find in brackets.

There is also an obvious comparison between processes observed in nature and spiritual processes. Revelation is likened to rain, both are “sent down”, both produce fruit, one in an earthly sense, the other in a spiritual one.

The passage stresses that since human beings can observe the divine work within the natural processes they should know enough to follow it, develop imân and good actions.
Denial of this principle means pain and destruction.
But accepting this principle will result in a continually nourished spiritual existence in unity with others whose selves have likewise been refined.

Contemplating the comparison made in these verses we may also become more aware of the ontological unity of existence. Due to this unity all of existence is built upon the same patterns.
The patterns observable in nature are the same that also underlie human selves.
Just as the soil and the roots that reach into it, human selves need a refreshing nourishment to prosper and grow and to transcend decay.

Theosis

Developing your self, evolving your self is a way of relating. You grow according to the way of how you relate to which things and which people and by what you take as the focus of all your relations.
A focus that will only be concerned with the apparently near world (dunya) can also only grow to an apparently near extent, a focus that will be about the last conclusion (akhirat) in the grand scheme will naturally lead towards growth into a grand direction.

According to the Quran, when imân is established in the heart of the human soul and becomes recognizable and active in her constructive ethical behavior, the human being enters a process of transformation of her existence.
As her certainty in the essence of her own existence grows and produces fruit, as she realizes that all of existence is established by one single essence and is interconnected in its servantship to that essence, she discovers the full potential of her own true self.

Both in her inner awareness and in her outward actions does she now join a universal reciprocity of all of existence.
By constantly developing the focus of her heart and constantly reforming all of her actions, she can now move towards attaining a spiritual and ethical station of taking part in the fullness of eternal being instead of fixating on a limited and stagnant existent.

To add some intriguing quranic reflections from esteemed Allama Seyyed Muhammad Hussayn Tabatabai:

“Never dies one whose hearts has been quickened by love,
inscribed is our immortality on the world’s tablet.” (Hafiz)

This principle is confirmed as a result of reflection and contemplation on the noble verses of the Quran. God says in one place in the Glorious Quran that the wayfarers slain in God’s way are immortal and that they never die:

“Don’t regard those who are killed in God’s way as dead; nay, they are alive and they receive their sustenance near their Lord.” ( Quran 3/169)

Elsewhere He states that “Everything is fated to perish save the Face of the Lord” (Quran 28/88)

And at another place He says: “Everything that is near the Lord is everlasting..” (Quran 16/96)

By putting these verses together side by side one comes to know that those who are alive and receive their sustenance and livelihood near their Lord are the ones referred to as the `Face of Allah’, who, as affirmed by explicit Qur’anic verses, are not subject to destruction and dissolution.

Moreover, one comes to know from the noble verses of the Quran that that which is meant by the indestructible Face of God, the Exalted, are the Divine Names (asma’ullah).

To explain, in another verse this `Face of God,’ which is imperishable and indestructible, has been interpreted as constituting the Divine Names, which are given the attributes of majesty and glory:

“All that is in it shall perish, but the Face of thy Lord, possessing Glory and Majesty, shall endure.” (Quran 55/26‑27)

All the exegetes of the Qur’an are unanimous that the word dhu (possessing) is the adjective for wajh (face).
Accordingly, the verse means: `the Face of your Lord, which possesses Glory and Majesty, is everlasting.’ As we know, the `face’ of everything is that wherewith one comes toface towards it. Hence the `face’ of every thing is that which manifests it (mazhar), and the `manifestations’ are the very Names of God wherewith all creatures face God.

The conclusion that follows is that all existents are subject to annihilation and dissolution excepts the Names of Divine Majesty and Beauty.
It follows from this that the wayfarers towards God who attain the felicitous station of `nay, they are alive, and they receive their sustenance near their Lord´ constitute the Names of Majesty and Beauty of the Lord, Almighty and Exalted.

– from Risâla e Lubb al Lubâb dar Sayr wa Sulûk e Ulu’l Albâb (Kernel of the Kernel Concerning the Wayfaring And Spiritual Journey Of The People Of Intellect)

Speech of the Heart

In my post on the occasion of Aakhri Charshamba/Mandi Safar I mentioned those men who are usually credited for the large and fast spread of Islam in South- and Southeast Asia and I mentioned how the approaches of these men differed significantly from the approach of our current Islamofascists.
These were men (and women), it seems, with an attitude full of peace, joy and love and the reports about them fit the quranic description “servants of the most gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant approach them, they only utter peace” (Quran 25/63).

One of those men was Amir Khusrau, who is said to have preached Islam in North India around the year 1300 CE.

Once Amir Khusrau was challenged by a Hindu. The Hindu did so in an honoured old form: He recited a part of the Geet Govind, the lifestory of Krishna. His recitation he had beautifully put into the melodious form of a râga and set to a capturing tâla (beat) to highlight the spiritual content of the Geet Govind.

How did Amir Khusrau respond to this challenge?
Did he rant about how music, singing and poetry are harâm in Islam, as todays selfstyled “pillars of virtue” do?
Did he complain about the impure nature of Hindu culture, as we are used from many of todays “preachers of Islam”?

Far from it. Amir Khusrau was deeply in love with Hindu culture and with Indian music.
The son of an immigrant from Turkic Central Asia was enarmoured very much with the ancient richness of the country he lived in.
Despite being a devout Muslim, always wayfaring towards Allah, constantly performing remembrance of Allah´s presence, he saw no conflict in engaging himself deeply and passionately with Indian culture.

He was a lover of music, saw its beauty as a manifestation of the Divine Names. For years he studied the refined classical music that was taught in the surrounding of Hindu temples.
He finally became such a specialist of this tradition that he was even able to give it further refinement.
He is credited with the invention of the modern tabla and the modern sitâr.
He is also said to have assimilated Central Asian/Persian forms of music, like the tarâna, into the râga system and since then these are an important part of Indian music.
Amir Khusrau musically merged two oceans into one.

Not only did he love Indian music, he even had a high respect for Hindu philosophy and spirituality, he learned from it and likewise saw this as no contradiction to his faith in Allah.
In his Mathnawi Nuh-Sipihr we can read:

“The Brahmans of India have greater wealth of philosophical thought than what Rumi had revealed to the World. As nobody has tried to learn from the Brahmans, their learning has not been revealed to the world.
I have done a bit of research in this matter and, after winning their confidence, I have gained some insight into their secrets of learning.”

How did such a man answer the challenge of the skillful Hindu singer?
Not by condemning him but by joining him.
By entering his own cultural discourse.

He sat down and himself composed a piece of music, matching the râga of the Hindu singer, with an equally capturing tâla.
But instead of singing the Geet Govind he sang an explanation of quranic monotheism that is since then known as Qaul Qalbana, as “the speech of the heart”.
Not only did his own heart speak by doing so, he also was able to capture the hearts of others.

Amir Khusrau´s composition, the Geet Govind as question and the Qaul Qalbana as its answer, is still known and loved by some even today.
In the above recording Munshi Raziuddin performs it with amazing style.

Islam and Buddhism throughout the Ages

Image: “Neobyzantine Tryptich” by Christina Varga

“There are numerous important terms known in the Islamic languages for which the Chinese [Muslim] authors had to find equivalents. What should be done, for example, with the word Allah? In Persian, the word is part of everyday speech, though people are just as likely to use the Persian equivalent (khudâ).
But there is no equivalent in Chinese. According to Tazaka, to render the concept of God Muslims used “heaven” in the Tang period (616-907) and both “heaven” and “Buddha” in the Sung dynasty (960-1279).”

- Chinese Gleams of Sufi Light by Schiko Murata

“Allah is not found here or there.
In fact, Allah is just an expression.
A name for humanity perfected,
possessing twenty attributes.
Buddhism and Islam are never different,
The colours are two, but the expression is one”

- from the words of Ki Ageng Pengging, around 1500 CE, Java

“Buddha spoke to me: `In this palace here man is brought to fall, it is a place of trial to him. Only the one who is brave and steadfast can leave this station behind.
And behind it you can find the peak of non-being.
But the one who will let himself get captured by delightful and charming things, he will slide down into an abyss of suffering, grief and sadness.
This here is only the paradise of wishes and desires; beyond it lies the station of nonbeing.
This here is a nest filled with uselss imaginations, a guesthouse destroying each of its guests by torture.
After this you will reach the garden of true joy and freedom, the world void of any imaginations and illusions, the place of unity and truth.”

- from the Amak-i Hayal of Sahbenderzade Ahmed Hilmi, an Ottoman mystic, written in 1908 CE

“In 1995, I accompanied Dr. Tirmiziou Diallo, the hereditary Sufi religious leader of Guinea, West Africa, to Dharamsala to meet with His Holiness. In the days prior to the audience, Dr. Diallo and I discussed further the meaning of “people of the Book.” He felt it refers to people who follow the “primordial tradition.” This can be called the wisdom of Allah or God, or as I suggested to him in Buddhist terms, primordial deep awareness. Thus he readily accepted that the primordial tradition of wisdom was revealed not only by Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, but also by Buddha. If people follow this innate primordial tradition and wisdom, they are “people of the Book.” But if they go against this basic good and wise nature of humankind and the universe, they are not “of the Book.””

- from A Buddhist View of Islam by Alexander Berzin

Dewa Ruci

In search of the “Water of Eternal Life”, Bhîma journeyed to the ground of the ocean and fought against the dragon.

In the deepest depths his will triumphed over the lower elements.

And Dewa Ruci – the inner divine self – appeared to him in a manifest form.

The Dewa Ruci spoke softly: …

“Consider yourself a shadow puppet
brought to the stage to play a part.
There is a crowd gathered together.
The light of the stage,
the lamp, is the sun and moon.

The screen is the empty world
beyond the reach of the intellect. …

… Most noble of all creatures,
Never lose vigilance; keep your thoughts unfragmented,
and your power unfragmented
over everything in the world.

The oneness of the true human being’s outlook
envelopes all that befalls humanity.

To become aware of the one high power
penetrating the whole universe of creation
is the most perfect of all aims.”

– from the Serat Cabolek of Raden Ngabehi Yasadipura I., Java, early 18th century CE, for more see here.

De-Essentialization

“The only passion that can animate our work today is a radical de-essentialization of “Islam” as collectively produced by Orientalists and, not at all surprising, the Militant Muslims.
Coming from two opposing ends, the Orientalists and the Militant Muslims mirror each other´s competing forces to tell the rest of the world what “Islam” is.
The visceral essentialization of selected remembrances from “Islamic” history, all politically mandated, into a politically potent “Islam”,
as the equally visceral essentialization of yet another set of selected remembrances from European and American history into “The West”,
have so far successfully barred our direct and unmitigated access to the specific existential realities of individual Muslims and particulars of the historically unfolding moments of the Qur`anic memory.
Without a radical deconstruction of “Islam”, as constructed by both the Orientalists and the Militant Muslims, we will never get close to specific moments of the Qur`anic memory that were historically produced, superseded, and then again reproduced, taking turn for yet another round pf superseding/reproducing – all historically conditioned, necessitated, materialized, and then in good or poor health subjected to death”

- Hamid Dabashi in “Truth and Narrative: The Untimely Thoughts of ‘Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadhani”

Maryam`s Gender

Very different from many Islamofascist discourses and even discourses of modern remnants of Muslim traditionalism, both the Quran and classical Islamic philosophy and theosophy hold that gender is something quite dynamic.
Genders are not different by essence but are ontologically and teleologically related due to their common root in a unity of being.

O mankind, be aware of your Caretaker who has created you from one single self and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and women; and be aware of Allah whom you ask about, and the relatives. Allah is watcher over you. (Quran 4/1)

Your creation and your resurrection is as one single self, truly Allah is He Who hears and sees. (Quran 31/28)

Gender is in the Quran seen as a manifestation of a primordial “duality in unity”, similar to the Chinese idea of Yin/Yang, but just like the Chinese idea of Yin and Yang we can not reduce this primordial duality to simple material entities.
It exists within every fraction of creation, even within our own selves. And of everything we have created pairs, so that you may contemplate. (Quran 51/49)
It by far transcends any biologisms and it is itself transcended by the final unity of being.

In classical quranic exegesis it is Maryam (Mary, the mother of Jesus) who is most often seen as the person whose life expresses this principle in the best way.

I´d like to cite some quranic verses, a wellknown and wellrespected Sunni tafsîr (exegesis) and the quote of a wellknown Sufi writer with regards to this.

When the woman from the house of Imran said: “My Caretaker, I have vowed to You what is in my womb, dedicated, so accept from me, You are the Hearer, the Knower.”
So when she delivered she said: “My Caretaker, I have delivered a female,” but Allah knew well of what she delivered, for the male is not like the female. “and I have named her Maryam, and I seek refuge for her and her progeny with You from the outcast devil.”
So her Caretaker accepted her a good acceptance, and made her grow into a good growth, and charged Zachariah with her. Every time Zachariah entered upon her in the temple enclosure, he found provisions with her. He said: “O Maryam, from where did you get this?” She said: “It is from Allah, Allah provides for whom He wishes without reckoning.” (Quran 3/35-37)

And the angels said: ‘O Maryam, Allah has chosen you and cleansed you, and He has chosen you above the women of the worlds.’
`O Maryam, be dutiful to your Caretaker and prostrate and kneel with those who kneel.” (Quran 3/42-43)

Next, a longing for a male child arose in her heart. Thus her imagination, firm resolution and expectation exercised an influence upon the fetus. Consequently, Maryam was born blessed with a virile disposition.[...] Maryam was a woman with the qualities of a man, as there are also men with an effeminate nature. This because by nature she looked out for Allah and centred all hopes in Him.
- From the Tawîl al Ahadîth of Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (1703-1762 CE)

When tomorrow on the Day of Resurrection the call goes up, ‘O men!’, the first person to step into the ranks of men will be the virgin Maryam.
- From the Tadhkirat al Awliyâ of Fariduddin Attar (ca. 1145-1221 CE)

Beauty and Fault

I just discovered this video of Farida Khanum, one of the best voices of Pakistan. She sings this beautiful marsiya on one of the remembered martyrs of the mythical battle of Karbala who were, as it is claimed, slain brutally for their fight for justice and freedom.

What I notice is that in the youtube comments to this marsiya some people mostly complain about the fact that Farida Khanum did not wear a headscarf while reciting this etc. instead of simply appreciating the beauty and emotion in her recital.

I can not tell you how much that saddens me and how much I feel that this proves the extremely bad state of the current so-called Muslim Ummah.
“Muslims” recognize the imagined or real faults of others before they recognize beauty and good intention …

Do you order the people to do good, but forget yourselves, while you are reading the book? Do you not understand? (Quran 2/44)

O you who have faith, let not a people belittle other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women belittle other women, for they may be better than they. Nor shall you mock one another, or call each other names. Evil indeed is the reversion to wickedness after attaining faith. And anyone who does not repent, then these are the transgressors.
O you who have faith, you shall avoid much suspicion, for some suspicion is sinful. And do not spy on one another, nor shall you backbite. Would any of you enjoy eating the flesh of his dead brother? You certainly would hate this. You shall observe God. God is Redeemer, Merciful. (Quran 49/11-12)

Please also note that just some decades ago videos of “not properly covered women” singing “religious songs” were pretty regular in South Asia and other parts of the Islamic world and there was only few fuzz about these kind of things.

Don´t get me wrong:
I am not per se against women wearing the headscarf.
But I am definitely against their idolization.

Idolizing a specific dresscode and positioning this idol high above the ethical standards of the Quran is the outcome of a pretty recent development in the Islamic world.
A development that certainly leads to Islam being emptied of any true spiritual or ethical content.

Maryam`s Pain

One of the verses of the Quran that have always impressed and touched me immensely.Concerning Maryam (traditionally Mary, mother of Jesus):

So she was pregnant with him, and she went to deliver in a far place.
Then the birth pains came to her, by the trunk of a palm tree. She said: “I wish I had died before this, and became totally forgotten!” (Quran 19/22-23)

There is a common misunderstanding especially about Islam but also spiritual faith in general – both spread by Muslims and Non-Muslims, religious and nonreligious people – that faith is very much about having to fulfill strict rules and leading a pure life far removed from basic human struggles, that it is something which treats human weaknesses not with much mercy and arrogantly looks down on them.

But that is certainly not the message of the Quran. The messengers, prophets and saints of the Quran all know the existential struggle of human life too well.
Suicidal thoughts, failures, being overcome by negative emotions, being close to giving up … .
They all know these states and Allah, as described in the Quran, understands these states very well and wants to heal them with His mercy and His care.

Maryam, especially, had to walk a rough road. First she had to overcome the negative emotions that ruled her at the time of labour. Then she had to return to her people, unmarried and with a newborn child, without any male support, and she was not at all greeted with warm and welcoming words.
But she never lost her trust in Allah and due to this, we read, she received help and was able to overcome all the sufferings and pains that she went through.

The Quran promises its readers that they are also able to overcome the sufferings, pains and existential struggles of their life and that they don´t need to feel defined or determined by them.
It presents them with a positive message that is centred on hope and in their darkest moments it speaks soothing words to them.

By the late morning.
And the night when it falls.
Your Caretaker has not left you, nor did He forget you.
And the outcome will be better for you than what comes first.
Your Caretaker will provide for you and you will be pleased.
Did he not find you an orphan and He sheltered you?
And He found you lost, and He guided you?
And He found you in need, so He gave you?
As for the orphan, you shall not make him sad.
And as for the beggar, you shall not reprimand.
And you shall proclaim the blessings of your Caretaker. (Quran 93)

Did We not relieve your chest,
And take from you your load,
Which had put strain on your back?
And We have raised your remembrance,
So with every hardship comes ease.
With every hardship comes ease.
So when you complete some work, continue to strive.
And you shall seek your Caretaker. (Quran 94)

Verse 4/34 and Domestic Violence

Men are supporters of wives because God has given some of them an advantage over others and because they spend of their wealth. So the ones who are in accord with morality are the ones who are morally obligated, the ones who guard the unseen of what God has kept safe. But those whose rebellion (nushûz) you fear, admonish them and abandon them in their sleeping place then hit/punish (daraba) them; and when they are obedient, sure look not for any against them; truly God is Lofty, Great. (Quran 4/34)

A controversial verse. Too often it has been used to legitimize domestic violence against women in Islam, too often it has been used to claim that Islam as such legitimizes such violence.

Others, like Laleh Bakhtiar or Edip Yüksel, try to posit a new translation of this verse. One that does not translate the verb daraba as “to hit, to punish” but simply as “to separate, to go away etc.”.

I would be more than happy to agree with the translations that Bakhtiar, Yüksel and some others give.
But, honestly, I can´t.
The problem is that to me it seems pretty forced and looks like a try of, as others have termed it, “whitewashing” the Quran.

It is true that in some instances in the Quran daraba does not mean “to punish” but e.g. “to separate”.
Unfortunately, in all occasions in which it does the verb comes with very specific post- or prepositions which are definitely lacking in 4/34.
Without these post- or prepositions the apparent Quranic use of the verb always implies an act of force, though not necessarily in the direct physical sense!

Other translators and commentators have however made the useful observation that the verb daraba always implies a singular and unrepeated onetime act of force, physical or other.
In contrast to this, to imply subsequent physical beatings the form darraba would correctly be used.
And while we have unsettling interpretations of men like Al-Ghazali or At-Tabari who indeed understood the verb as legitimizing physical violence against women, their understanding of the word had always been open to dispute, even in the classical times.
Alternative understandings have always been available.

Aside from that I would like to point out that to me the decisive word for the right understanding of this verse is not daraba but nushûz.

The word is often translated as “rebellion” etc. and when 4/34 is taken out of context it may thus indeed give the impression that according to the Quran women are commanded to obey their husbands in any case and when they do not it is legitimate to use violence against them.

But within the context of chapter 4 of the Quran such an understanding is total nonsense!

Nushûz is indeed an act of rebellion. But not in the sense of not agreeing with someone but in the sense of unrightfully setting oneself above others and their rights.
That is actually the direct meaning of the word.

The main topic of the chapter 4 of the Quran is marital and social harmony and the ethical duties, rules and laws that should be obeyed to keep this harmony intact.
This topic is also the context in which verse 34 appears.

In that context 4/34 does tell a wife to not unrightfully set herself above her husband and disobey the rules of harmony, otherwise her husband has the right to take consequences from that.

However, only some very few verses later, in 4/128, we are told that nushûz, abusing his wife and ignoring her rights, is also forbidden to the husband!
Nushûz is not a specific female crime, like some kind of anti-patriarchal disobedience.
Men can be as guilty of it and consequently women also have the right to take action against it.

4/128 also tells us that instead of falling into nushûz and to counter it both husband and wife should try to restore the sulh (harmony, just peace, balance) in their relationship.

4/34 does specify the cconsequences that the husband may take from his wife´s nushûz.
Admonition, denying cozy company and force are the three steps that he can take, one after the other.
The Quran does not directly limit the cause that the wife may take or may not take in the case of her husband´s nushûz.

General limitations on both husbands and wives are given due to the general ethical standards of the Quran (which always imply to respect the other human being and to not abuse him/her).

In 4/35 it is additionally stated that in the general case of discord both husband and wife should not try to take action on their own but only with the judgement of members of each ones party, always trying to seek peaceful restoration and good action.

Here we can clearly see that chapter 4 is not at all meant to legitimize marital abuse but it is meant to do the direct opposit.

Nushûz, setting yourself above your spouse and his/her rights, is forbidden to both the husband and the wife in a relationship!

Both are allowed to take consequences – only within the general ethical framework of the quranic teachings – should their spouse nevertheless abuse them and ignore their rights and both are commanded to do so while refering to the judgment of other members of each ones party and while explicitely seeking sulh (harmony, just peace, balance).

Chapter 4 also clearly tells us, in 4/75-77, that believers are commanded to fight for the rights of all opressed men AND women and children and to “restrain their own hands”.

And it is clear that chapter 4 can not be understood without the general Quranic vision of an ideal relationship between spouses, as described in 30/21.

And from His signs is that He created for you mates from yourselves that you may reside with them, and He placed between you affection and mercy. In that are signs for a people who reflect. (Quran 30/21)

Mujarrabat

I have to admit that due to the way I read the Quran – with my passion for ancient and modern existential philosophy and always seeking ethical and spiritual advice – it does seem very strange to me at times to recite specific quranic verses or Divine Names to further the fertility of my garden.

But things like that were done in the Islamic World for ages and I also have to admit that my own estrangement with practices like these has a lot to do with the fact that I grew up in a modern world that became unable to perceive the cosmos as enchanted and as directly manifesting divine order and NOT because I may be, as I try to convince myself, closer to the the original intentions of the Quran.

Mujarrabat means something like “time tested recipes”.
The term refers to small “magical handbooks” for everyday life that were once quite known in the whole of the Islamic World.
“Time tested” because centuries of experience showed them to be of good use, as people claim.
They were even taught in many traditional Muslim schools from West Africa to Indonesia and their successfull use had been a certain factor in the spread of Islam itself.
To both todays Muslim Islamofascists and Modernists they are nothing but primitive superstition, of course.

Mujarrabat do exactly what I hinted at in the first sentence of this post. Many of them mostly use quranic verses, Divine Names and letter calculations to give to their readers solutions for the basic problems of their life.
Out of the verses, names and letters they create litanies, diagrams and talismans, following specific mathematical and metaphysical rules.

Most of the Mujarrabat are based on the theories of Ahmad al-Buni (13th century CE) a mathematician and metaphysician who saw himself as belonging to the school of the Spanish Muslim theosophist Shaykh ul Akbar Muhyyiddin Ibn al Arabi.
Ibn-al-Arabi`s theosophy was mainly based on his insight that all the manifold phenomena of existence go back to Divine Unity and are unified in it, created and continuously interconnected by the merciful breath of Divine Unity.

Al-Buni used this insight to find comfort and direct help for everyday activities.
Allah, he seems to claim, is not removed from anything that might bother the human mind. And contemplating Him and deriving from the knowledge of His attributes means to directly influence the cause of things was to al-Buni a natural outcome of theology and theosophy.
Furthermore, Ibn-al-Arabi and al-Buni thought of the world as divine speech. Just as they saw the Quran as a divine text.
Quran and world are thus based on the same divine grammar and so quranic words have to be able to both mirror and influence the mechanisms of life.

Al-Buni did not consider his ideas “magic” in the modern sense of the word. He saw them as Ilm us Simiyah, knowledge of Divine Attributes and their imprint on existence.

His ideas, the books of his school (notably the Shams-ul-Ma`arif) and the mujarrabat that were based on them arose in times in which people did not perceive a dichotomy between secular science and spiritual science.

Astrology and Astronomy were not seen as in opposition to each other but as two sides of the same coin, both studying the same cosmical order going back to the same Divinity that equally created human fates and celestial movements.
All branches of knowledge – including such ” mundane trivialities” as agricultural, medical and everyday knowhow – were seen as finding both their source and their highest conclusion in theology.
It was therefore quite logical that the mujarrabat would sometimes make equal use of “magical squares” as they would of solid herbal or surgical knowledge.

In the context of their emergence it was quite unthinkable to deem the mujarrabat as such as something superstitious or irrational.
Rather they were seen as an expression of the weight of Divine presence at all times and under all circumstances.
And they taught their readers to focus on the idea that Divine help was always available.

In that context the attitudes of Salafis and Modernists have to seem much more “superstitious” since they seem to suggest that God´s mercy is unable to directly attend to the sorrows of the common people and is only designed to further grand political and social ideologies.

Of course, there are certain aspects in the use of the mujarrabat and related works that can easily be seen as leading into what is classically seen as superstition and which is certainly in contradiction with the philosophy of the Quran.
Not always have, for example, the litanies and diagrams been used for purposes in line with the teachings of the Quran. I myself have a Turkish collection of mujarrabat on my bookshelf which, amongst other things, suggests using specific incantations to e.g. force an unrelated woman into sexual passion.
Additionally, many users of the mujarrabat entirely lost knowledge of the intrinsic connection between theology, theosophy and theurgical practice and replace it with a fetishistic belief in things as such and a desire for power and material posession.

These aspects, however, do certainly not derive from the original theories of Ahmad al-Buni and they also do not have to be seen as an essential part of the mujarrabat tradition.
There is something much more essential within this and related traditions, something that has given an important contribution to both the inner content and the outer form of the spiritual practices of the Islamic World.

As the Deobandi scholar Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (1863-1943 CE) once wrote:

I observe that lot of people are expecting that their self-reformation (islah) will happen by the spiritual attention of a pious person. They also expect that by reciting special litanies or by amulets their lower self (nafs) will be fixed to act on the path, and they will not have to do anything.

The islah-e-nafs (reformation of the human self) does not happen without struggling and striving!

Spiritual attention and litanies are for increasing the luminosity of a reformed nafs.
They open the path in forward direction. (Mawaiz-e-Ashrafiya, Vol.11)

Nowruz

What a colour everywhere I see, Oh mother, what a colour;
I’ve found the beloved, yes I found him,
In my courtyard;
[...]
Oh beloved, please dye me in yourself;
Dye me in the colour of the spring, beloved;
What a colour, Oh, what a colour.

– Qawwali by Ameer Khusrau

Finally, spring has arrived and we just passed the equinox.
I can´t tell you how much I yearned for this day.

At least this year the grey German winter really got equally on my nerves and on my mood and I really rejoiced when the first sunny day and the first little flowers appeared.

The rhythm of nature and the yearly reappearance of its abundance is truly something to be appreciated.
From now on till September the daylight times will be longer than the nights and I am so thankful for that.

Spring equinox is a celebrated traditional festival in many Muslim societies with a Persian cultural influence, from the European Balkan Peninsula to Western China.
It used to be an old pre-Islamic Iranian New Year celebration but was adapted by later Muslim cultures, being the basis for a Muslim sun calendar running in parallel with the religious lunar calendar.
It is known as Nowruz (Persian), Newroz (Kurdish), Nevruz (Anatolian Turkish), Noruz (Uyghur Turkish) and by similar names, all deriving from an old Iranian word refering to the “new day”.

In all societies in which it is known the observances surrounding Nowruz centre around celebrating the new rebirth of nature and natural abundance, enjoying the developing lush green flora and the enlivened fauna.
Picnics and trips to the countryside are common Nowruz activities for the urban people.
Fairs are usually held around this time.

In Iran it is common to set up the Haft Sîn, a table with seven items whose Persian names start with the Arabic letter sîn.
The tradition may have Zoroastrian roots but it is now meant to signify the seven heavens of creation.
In Afghanistan people instead serve the Haft Meywa, seven fruits.

Kurds celebrate the festival by lighting big Newroz fires and dancing around them and they have turned the celebration into an important symbol for their own cultural identity which is often seen in antagonism to both the official policies of the Turkish state and (especially for Alevi Kurds) orthodox Sunnism.

In the cause of the centuries folk religion started to connect Nowruz to many Muslim legends and traditions. Both the meaning and the form of Nowruz were “converted”. The triumph of the light of the day over the darkness of the night could now be interpreted as a sign for the triumph of the Divine light over the darkness of evil and ignorance.

Especially in Shii Folk Islam Nowruz is seen as connected to the traditions of the direct descendants of Prophet Muhammad. In the heterodox Shiism of Alevis, Bektahis and Nusayris it is even considered to be one of the most important festivals of the year.
It is identified as the birthday of Imamat (spiritual authority) and therefore Bektashis and Alevis in Turkey and Albania call it Sultan Nevruz.
It is also an important festival in the esoteric Shiism of the Ismailis where it is seen as an occasion for renewing spiritual covenants and for invoking Allah for material and spiritual gifts in the new year.

The orthodox Muslim elites have of course always been critical of the mingling of Nowruz with Muslim motives and some even forbid the celebrations altogether.

But, as Ayatollah Makarim Shirazi remarked,
“the Festival of Nowruz is a festival of nature in the world of creation; it is the day when winter ends and spring blossoms with its natural life by the command of Allah. It is the time when the leaves of the trees begin to sprout their buds and the flowers begin to bring forth their bulbs in preparation of their blooming; it is a time when a movement towards life takes hold of all of creation and thus we, the believers, should be in harmony with this event of the creation as this is equivalent to being in sync with the tradition (Sunnat) of Allah.”

The Beneficent.
He has taught the Qur’an.
He created the human being.
He taught him insight
The sun and the moon are perfectly calculated.
And the stars and the trees prostrate.
And He uplifted the sky and He established the balance.
Do not transgress in the balance.
Observe the balance strictly, and do not fall short thereof
And the Earth He has made for all creatures.
In it are fruits, and sheathed date palms.
Husked grain and scented herb.
So which of your Caretaker’s favors will you deny? (Quran 55/1-13)

Forgetting Your Own Self

Like the example of satan, when he says to the human being: “Reject,” then as soon as he rejects, he says: “I disown you. I fear Allah, the Caretaker of the worlds.”
Truly, the destiny for both of them is the fire, abiding therein. And such is the recompense for the oppressors.

O you who believe, be aware of Allah, and let every self examine what it has put forth for tomorrow. And be aware of Allah; Allah is fully aware of everything you do.
And do not be like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget their own selves. These are the rebellious transgressors.
(Quran 59/16-19)

An interesting passage from the Quran, following a discussion on hypocrisy.

We learn from this passage that according to the Quran presenting yourself as Godfearing but denying your responsibilities towards others is hypocrisy and satanic behaviour par excellence.
Both expressing and following such an attitude is characterized as oppression and its retribution is fiery.

We also learn that there is an intrinsic connection between awareness of Allah and awareness of ones own self, as much as between forgetting Allah and forgetting our own self.
We may relate this to the following verses of the Quran:

And We have created the human being and We know what his self whispers to him, and We are closer to him than his jugular vein.
(Quran 50/16)

Why is this intrinsic connection between awareness of Allah and awareness of ones own self related so specifically to satan´s religious hypocrisy?
Other verses include further elaborations on this topic.
I will deal with them in a following post.