DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - On Frithjof Schuon, The Messenger of Perennialism

**furillo** · 04-07-2011, 05:18 AM

[QUOTE]

Dear Hasan1,

Walaikumussalaam.

While Nasr certainly does have a long list of credentials, he is not, as far as I know, a peer-acknowledged ‘aalim in any of the Islamic sciences, which is not a criticism but also something to bear in mind when Nasr expresses views divergent from those generally accepted by the scholars of the Ahl as Sunnah wal Jama’ah.

Nasr has been acknowledged by those whom he studied under like Allama Tabatabai, a major traditonal philosopher and Shiah Scholar who mentioned something to the effect that "the torch of Hikmah has been successfully carried to the West by Seyyed Hossein Nasr", and Seyyid Kazim Assar even favored Nasr's knowledge of hikmat philosophy over Khomeini's knowledge of it (both of whom were Assar's students but at different times).....

As far as Sunni Scholars are scholars are concerned--scholars who appeal to me more as I am a Sunni--and perhaps the real 'peer acknowledge aalims' you are looking for, Nasr has been praised by the likes of SH. Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir (both in writings and in spoken words--see the acknowledgements in "The Essential Seyyed Hossein Nasr" and see the Youtube Zaytuna promos in which Nasr is speaking on behalf of the merits of Zaytuna college, a college that Nasr was aksed to give an inaugural lecture on Islamic Education.

I have heard the Umar Farooq Abdullah had called Nasr at one time "the sun and the moon of Islam in the West". TJ Winter admires Nasr's works and has quoted from them.

One of the reasons why Sh. Nuh Keller accepted Islam was through reading Nasr's "Religion and the Order of Nature", as acknowledged in his own autobiography.

I have personally heard Shaykh Ninowy praise some of Nasr's writings.

Now, while these scholars may not agree with some of Nasr's views, especially his approach to expounding the Quranic doctrine of the Univesality of Revelation, they still revere and respect him as an Islamic authority. If Nasr 'diverges' from there view, it is from the standpoint of intellectual interpretation which explicity respects the normative view and holds those normative views as binding on Muslims. I believe his perspective is within the scope of a valid ta'wil of the sources of Islam and from within the framework of the intellecutal traditions of Islam which include 'theroretical Sufism', etc.

It also goes without saying that Harvard degrees, while they do signify a certain intellectual status, do not by themselves bestow spiritual attainment or understanding, which are attainments (actually bestowals) of a different order altogether. What part of "Nasr is a Shadhili Shaykh" did you not understand? You may not accept this, but being recognized as a Sufi Shaykh by his mureeds and by other Sufi Shuyukh and the profound tarbiyya he has left in many of his students throughout the world, and the countless scholars, and good Muslims/Mu'mins/Muhsins and even Awliya that his Hand and Intellect has assisted--by the ithn of Allah swt-- in producing speak far greater regarding his spritual attainments then your denial of them.

Again this is not to belittle Nasr’s many achievements on their own level, but his credibility to speak authoritatively about Islam is justifiably questioned when he, for example, energetically and publically defends the Christian doctrines of divine incarnation and the Trinity. You say that one should not learn basic aqeedah from Nasr, which I would agree with, but reading such views one cannot help but wonder whether Nasr understands it himself. A good point but from what you have stated here, you have not understood entirely Nasr's perspective on the Trinity--which admittedly is scattered through hard to find articles. Read his "A Traditional Islamic View of Christianity" which is an article, I believe found in Muslim-Christian Encounters. In a lecture regarding his book "Knowledge and the Sacred", once Nasr did state--something to the effect of --"...that philosophically and metaphysically, I can understand the Nicene creed and how it upholds both Divine Unity and the Trinity, but this is rejected by me as a Muslim." I think Nasr's 'defense' of the Christian Trinity can be understood in different ways and on different levels of religious dialogue. He respects the trinitarian doctrine as a belief stemming from an authentic revelation while finding limitations in it, both from a metaphysical perspective, and from theologically Muslim perspective.....

In this respect Nasr is of course faithfully following the teachings of his “Shaykh” Schuon, which raises the question of which (or whose) “Islam” is being presented in his many books? Error, even if presented beautifully and eloquently (and repeatedly), remains error. Nasr is the product of the Islamic Intellectual Tradition, as I have outlined already in a reply to you on another thread. His synthesis of perennialist metaphysical teachings and Islamic philosophy is one of the hallmarks of his thought, and demonstrates a 'perennial philosophy' (al-hikmataul khalida) in consonance with revealed Islamic principles, the tradition of theoretical Sufism and traditional Philosophy. You can take it or leave it, or just understand that this is one way a Muslim authority has dealt with issues pertaining to the universality of Islam, while maintaining his Muslim specificity.

As regards modern westerners, no amount of sympathy for their plight and desire to engage them justifies belittling the Divinely Willed status of Islam to make it on the same level as all other religions so that it becomes more acceptable to the “contents of their consciousness”. Westerners are not exceptions to the rest of humankind to whom ALLAH ‘Azz wa Jall sent his Habib (SallAllahu alayhi wa Sallam) and they - like the rest of us- need to strive to make themselves acceptable to ALLAH ‘Azz wa Jall so that he may out of His Mercy guide them to the Din of Islam. Yes Westerners "are not exceptions to the rest of humankind", to whom Allah (swt) did indeed send his Rasool e Pak (saw) to. But may I ask you exaclty how did Islam spread to these peoples? Was it through harsh tones of exclusivism, or the gentle presence of sanctity and an appeal to the most universal dimensions of Islam? I see Nasr's function in the West as expanding on this aspect of the discourse and dawah of Islam to and in the West.

Wa salaam,
Hasan
ps- Dear AkabirofDeoband: Nasr is not associated with Ismailis. His background is Ithna Ashari, while his Sufism is Shadhili, and within this context his fiqh is Maliki. The muqaddim of Shaykh Abu Bakr is Ithna Ashari, not Ismaili, although he works as a research assitant with the Ismaili Institute.

04-07-2011, 05:18 AM	#39
furillo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 439 Senior Member	[QUOTE] Dear Hasan1, Walaikumussalaam. While Nasr certainly does have a long list of credentials, he is not, as far as I know, a peer-acknowledged ‘aalim in any of the Islamic sciences, which is not a criticism but also something to bear in mind when Nasr expresses views divergent from those generally accepted by the scholars of the Ahl as Sunnah wal Jama’ah. Nasr has been acknowledged by those whom he studied under like Allama Tabatabai, a major traditonal philosopher and Shiah Scholar who mentioned something to the effect that "the torch of Hikmah has been successfully carried to the West by Seyyed Hossein Nasr", and Seyyid Kazim Assar even favored Nasr's knowledge of hikmat philosophy over Khomeini's knowledge of it (both of whom were Assar's students but at different times)..... As far as Sunni Scholars are scholars are concerned--scholars who appeal to me more as I am a Sunni--and perhaps the real 'peer acknowledge aalims' you are looking for, Nasr has been praised by the likes of SH. Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir (both in writings and in spoken words--see the acknowledgements in "The Essential Seyyed Hossein Nasr" and see the Youtube Zaytuna promos in which Nasr is speaking on behalf of the merits of Zaytuna college, a college that Nasr was aksed to give an inaugural lecture on Islamic Education. I have heard the Umar Farooq Abdullah had called Nasr at one time "the sun and the moon of Islam in the West". TJ Winter admires Nasr's works and has quoted from them. One of the reasons why Sh. Nuh Keller accepted Islam was through reading Nasr's "Religion and the Order of Nature", as acknowledged in his own autobiography. I have personally heard Shaykh Ninowy praise some of Nasr's writings. Now, while these scholars may not agree with some of Nasr's views, especially his approach to expounding the Quranic doctrine of the Univesality of Revelation, they still revere and respect him as an Islamic authority. If Nasr 'diverges' from there view, it is from the standpoint of intellectual interpretation which explicity respects the normative view and holds those normative views as binding on Muslims. I believe his perspective is within the scope of a valid ta'wil of the sources of Islam and from within the framework of the intellecutal traditions of Islam which include 'theroretical Sufism', etc. It also goes without saying that Harvard degrees, while they do signify a certain intellectual status, do not by themselves bestow spiritual attainment or understanding, which are attainments (actually bestowals) of a different order altogether. What part of "Nasr is a Shadhili Shaykh" did you not understand? You may not accept this, but being recognized as a Sufi Shaykh by his mureeds and by other Sufi Shuyukh and the profound tarbiyya he has left in many of his students throughout the world, and the countless scholars, and good Muslims/Mu'mins/Muhsins and even Awliya that his Hand and Intellect has assisted--by the ithn of Allah swt-- in producing speak far greater regarding his spritual attainments then your denial of them. Again this is not to belittle Nasr’s many achievements on their own level, but his credibility to speak authoritatively about Islam is justifiably questioned when he, for example, energetically and publically defends the Christian doctrines of divine incarnation and the Trinity. You say that one should not learn basic aqeedah from Nasr, which I would agree with, but reading such views one cannot help but wonder whether Nasr understands it himself. A good point but from what you have stated here, you have not understood entirely Nasr's perspective on the Trinity--which admittedly is scattered through hard to find articles. Read his "A Traditional Islamic View of Christianity" which is an article, I believe found in Muslim-Christian Encounters. In a lecture regarding his book "Knowledge and the Sacred", once Nasr did state--something to the effect of --"...that philosophically and metaphysically, I can understand the Nicene creed and how it upholds both Divine Unity and the Trinity, but this is rejected by me as a Muslim." I think Nasr's 'defense' of the Christian Trinity can be understood in different ways and on different levels of religious dialogue. He respects the trinitarian doctrine as a belief stemming from an authentic revelation while finding limitations in it, both from a metaphysical perspective, and from theologically Muslim perspective..... In this respect Nasr is of course faithfully following the teachings of his “Shaykh” Schuon, which raises the question of which (or whose) “Islam” is being presented in his many books? Error, even if presented beautifully and eloquently (and repeatedly), remains error. Nasr is the product of the Islamic Intellectual Tradition, as I have outlined already in a reply to you on another thread. His synthesis of perennialist metaphysical teachings and Islamic philosophy is one of the hallmarks of his thought, and demonstrates a 'perennial philosophy' (al-hikmataul khalida) in consonance with revealed Islamic principles, the tradition of theoretical Sufism and traditional Philosophy. You can take it or leave it, or just understand that this is one way a Muslim authority has dealt with issues pertaining to the universality of Islam, while maintaining his Muslim specificity. As regards modern westerners, no amount of sympathy for their plight and desire to engage them justifies belittling the Divinely Willed status of Islam to make it on the same level as all other religions so that it becomes more acceptable to the “contents of their consciousness”. Westerners are not exceptions to the rest of humankind to whom ALLAH ‘Azz wa Jall sent his Habib (SallAllahu alayhi wa Sallam) and they - like the rest of us- need to strive to make themselves acceptable to ALLAH ‘Azz wa Jall so that he may out of His Mercy guide them to the Din of Islam. Yes Westerners "are not exceptions to the rest of humankind", to whom Allah (swt) did indeed send his Rasool e Pak (saw) to. But may I ask you exaclty how did Islam spread to these peoples? Was it through harsh tones of exclusivism, or the gentle presence of sanctity and an appeal to the most universal dimensions of Islam? I see Nasr's function in the West as expanding on this aspect of the discourse and dawah of Islam to and in the West. Wa salaam, Hasan ps- Dear AkabirofDeoband: Nasr is not associated with Ismailis. His background is Ithna Ashari, while his Sufism is Shadhili, and within this context his fiqh is Maliki. The muqaddim of Shaykh Abu Bakr is Ithna Ashari, not Ismaili, although he works as a research assitant with the Ismaili Institute.
	Quote