Reply to Thread New Thread |
04-01-2011, 01:59 AM | #21 |
|
A couple of things id like to add to this discussion. I do agree with some here that the ‘Traditionalist school’ that includes Schuon and Guenon and their adherents do position ideas in a way that strikes me as a lot of fluff at times. Fluff finely spun with incredibly elegant language, but fluff the same. Schuon will construct an architecture of language to introduce an idea that can be conveyed simply and if it was conveyed simply its impact would lesson. The ‘prove’ for the essential worth of traditional religions and their thread is that if a traditional religion still exists then God has sanctified it and therefore it’s valid. Arguments have erupted in respect to religions like Manichaeism, since at one time they had millions of adherents and now they don’t, so conclusion, God did not like that religion. For all the grand words, I find the core argument here a little simplistic. If humanity continues to exist for another 2000 years, who’s to know what will thrive and what will die. To suggest that existence and/or longevity and/or amount of participants/adherents equals sanctity form God is, in my mind, a philosophical Pandora’s box into the nature and intent of God’s works and I’m wondering if it would ultimately be a gross exaggeration of a deterministic deity.
That being said, there is no question that Religion has rarely been investigated with the same intelligence as the Traditionalist School has. Schoun’s Introducing Islam was like nothing I ever read and even though I now roll my eyes at some of the dense language, there are moments of genius and an argument for a more sophisticated way of looking at religion. He has the ability to create distance on a subject matter to more effectively connect the dots with other ideas. I believe there are inherent similarities between religions and that divine unity is one that is shared by many but I’m not convinced that Islam supports this. I agree with Man Eating Lizard that many Traditionalists come to religion through the traditional school or their religion is floundering and then is revived through the school and that it’s the school that become the focus of the spirituality, and its insistence on finding a ‘traditional’ religion the result of its insistence. I’ve heard that Guenon wanted to enter Hinduism, but felt that as a European with out a caste he could not, rejected Catholicism not because of creed but because he felt that it was corrupted by modernism, and therefore chose Islam because there was still a traditional ethos and culture that surrounded it. Seems to me to be a rather wishy washy reason for choosing religion. That being said, Shuyab is a smart guy and I appreciate his point of view. When you navigate through them blinding lights, I think he’s got an interesting thing to say plenty of the time. And I agree with him on the Islam as “submission” and Islam as a community thing and how if you are going to recognize pre Islamic prophets as Muslims you have to come to terms with an “Islam” that relates to action and orientation which can be veiled by a multitude of expressions. That being said…no but seriously, in regards to the hostility towards Hinduism, its getting a little much don’t you think? Hindus are not the same sort of polytheists as discussed in your holy book in my mind. Many incredibly gifted Hindu sages have made arguments for divine unity and for a one true God but it is their religion to have representations and focal points. There are some Hindus who crudely fall into an individualistic spiritualism but I’ve seen some of you do the same with your Jinn talk and how your neighbour is one and his malice is causing you to do poorly in life. I guess an argument for the transcendent unity of religion is that we can be transcendently superstitious no matter what your religion. And one thing I think is kind of nice that some of the polytheists emphasize is a respect for your ancestor. When you recognize and respect a chain, stretching back, you’re more likely to recognize a chain across the present and into the future, hence unity. Being how most of you are from South Asia, maybe this would be a good point to remember, regardless of your pretensions for Arabic or Persian blood. In regards to nudity as defined relative to a culture, let’s not forget that cultures who have traditionally worn fewer clothes have done so for purely environmental reasons. To suggest that a culture in the heart of the Amazon is immodest lacks a little perspective. They would die if they wore what people wear in the middle east. The result is that what they see as nudity is different from what we do. Modesty has at its core intent, if one intends to be provocative, meaning they are expressing themselves in a vain way that leads with their sexuality, then they are immodest. But if there are wearing clothes that best suit their environment and their means of survival, without the intent to be provocative then that is far from immodest. Study the reason for modesty not its relative manifestation. |
|
04-01-2011, 04:45 AM | #22 |
|
|
|
04-01-2011, 11:30 AM | #23 |
|
I guess an argument for the transcendent unity of religion is that we can be transcendently superstitious no matter what your religion. I shall offer my two cents. My one friend calls Transcendental Unity of Religions as 'futile knowledge.' And after having read some books of Schuon- I must admit, there is no Jalal nor Jamal in the Perennialist philosophy. Rather there is something similar to a pathos there, what the Japanese call "mono no aware", for dying religions and traditions. I think thats all it really boils down to. I did a project on languages that are going 'extinct' and I found the same feeling there I felt while reading Schuon. Gai Eaton and others serve as a gateway into Islam, a type of dawah, but that's about it. Perennial philosophy is to intellectual, philosophy-loving types what Farrakhan and the Elijah Muhammad was to African Americans. It just is a stepping stone. I don't see the need to indict Schuon for his eccentricities- there are many unusual Muslims out there and in an ummah of 2 billion, its threat is marginal. Maybe in the past when the ummah was smaller, these things would be a scare- but now, I really think you have to stretch and inflate the threat thats really not as big a deal as atheist propaganda nor the distractions that lead us away from ibada. di. |
|
04-01-2011, 07:03 PM | #24 |
|
The Qur'an does not state that validity rests in more than one religious tradition, it says the religion with Allah is Islam. Now, I know you're a baatini and thus you interpret Islam in that statement as meaning "the primordial, formless truth" rather than the religion of Sayyidina Muhammad (salallahu alayhi wa sallam), but that is not how Muslims have traditionally interpreted that verse, or any other referring to the exclusiveness of Islam. Islam is the Deen of Allah(SWT), and it is not the religion of the Holy Messenger(SAW). Islam started with Adam(AS), its message was spread by the 124,000 prophets that Allah(SWT) sent to humankind to revive His Deen, as with time human beings get lost (meaning they lose direction) - Surah Al-Asr. With the Prophethood of His Beloved Messenger, Allah(SWT) completed / perfected His Deen. There is only one religion - i.e. Islam. That at various epochs, Islam degenerated into various forms involving shirk etc.. is the reason why Allah(SWT) sent His 124,000 prophets. Islam, therefore, does not abrogate any religion(s) as it is the only religion. Brotherly yours farook |
|
04-02-2011, 08:25 PM | #25 |
|
Asalamu 'alaykum,
I think it goes without saying that Schuon was eccentric. Those who are ill-disposed towards him from the outset will understand his proclivities as a mark of his deviance. For myself I think the majority of his writings are unparalleled for what they propose to be; that is to say, they are unparalleled in their attention to the primacy of metaphysical principles, and in their dialectical precision and sense of the sacred. That said, there are some aspects of Schuon's writing and personality that I don't give much attention to, simply because I feel they manifest more his particular human limitations. I don't ascribe these to vice, but to a sort of spiritual intoxication that took him beyond the parameters of the Law as we understand it. In any event the perennial wisdom is not reducible to Schuon but instead is the vocation of an intellectual school with roots in the most ancient philosophical traditions (If Muslims have read and benefited from Plato, an initiate in the Orphic esoterism, then I see no problem in benefitting from Schuon, or Shankara, or Kobo Daishi, etc.--truth is its own protector). Schuon left his indelible mark on formulations of perennial philosophy, but no one I know who ascribes to this school would say that his word is final. As I've explained to Hayraan on numerous occasions, the school is concerned with tahqiq; it is not another theology or ideological contrivance. To equate Schuon with Farrakhan and Elijah Muhammad betrays a lack of discernment verging on the consummate. To equate black nationalist theology and UFO speculation with a school of philosophy rooted in the heuristic teachings of Plato and Ibn 'Arabi is either tragic or comical. To dismiss perennial philosophy as antiquarianism or as a mere pathos for dying religions, while better than the former equation, is to admit to having only a superficial familiarity with their views. Also I cannot but wonder at the dismissal of the perennialists thesis as nothing more than doors to "official Islam"; that they have nothing to offer but "fluff" and that whatever good comes from them are a few meager converts from the West to add to the scorecard. Unless some serious arguments are presented or questions posed I'll leave this thread to its calumny and paroxysms of religious zeal. Shuayb |
|
04-03-2011, 02:06 AM | #26 |
|
Hmmm…a person who by his own behavior and words has made a mockery of his claims to be a Sufi “Shaykh” is an “eccentric”? It is a lack of “discernment” if we dare question the “tahqiq” of someone who proudly claims visions of the (naked) Virgin Mary as clinching evidence of his spiritual rank?
Although following the “vocation of an intellectual school with roots in the most ancient philosophical traditions” and even “Plato, an initiate in the Orphic esoterism…” may sound mightily impressive in certain circles, for Muslims the greatest source of pride and happiness is being blessed with faith in the Revealed Din of Islam, which - contrary to the “tahqiq” of Schuon and the Perennialists- is the only Din which Allah Azza wa Jall has Himself protected to this day in the form it was first revealed and therefore cannot be equated with any other religion. Asalamu 'alaykum, |
|
04-03-2011, 03:12 AM | #27 |
|
Dear Hayraan,
I enjoy a fruitful discussion--one that benefits from the conventions established in 'ilm al-natiq. I cannot respond to a self-congratulating denunciation that spins my words. I would be happy to resume our discussion from last year. I replied to a post of yours and you disappeared. . . http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...-in-him/page14 I encourage everyone interested in this subject to skim through this thread since many of Hayaan's assumptions are addressed therein. Hopefully a more mature discussion can transpire. Shuayb |
|
04-03-2011, 06:03 AM | #28 |
|
Asalamu 'alaykum, |
|
04-03-2011, 09:10 AM | #29 |
|
Asalamu 'alaykum,
Hayraan wrote: Although following the “vocation of an intellectual school with roots in the most ancient philosophical traditions” and even “Plato, an initiate in the Orphic esoterism…” may sound mightily impressive in certain circles, for Muslims the greatest source of pride and happiness is being blessed with faith in the Revealed Din of Islam, which - contrary to the “tahqiq” of Schuon and the Perennialists- is the only Din which Allah Azza wa Jall has Himself protected to this day in the form it was first revealed and therefore cannot be equated with any other religion. His peremptory tropes aside Hayraan does raise the important question about the role and nature of intellectual exercises and disciplines in Islam. Does our religion demand only faith or does it also demand our intelligence? William Chittick, himself a Muslim and a product of a traditional education, has this to say on the subject: It is important to stress that no religion can survive, much less flourish, without a living intellectual tradition. This becomes clear as soon as we ask ourselves the questions: What was the intellectual tradition for? What function did it play in society? What was its goal? In other words: Why should people think? Why shouldn't they just blindly accept whatever they're told? The basic Muslim answer is that people should think because they must think, because they are thinking beings. They have no choice but to think, because God has given them minds and intelligence. Not only that, but in numerous Qur'anic verses God has commanded them to think and to employ their intelligence. To think properly a person must actually think, which is to say that conclusions must be reached by one's own intellectual struggle, not by someone else's. Any experienced teacher knows this perfectly well. (Science of the Cosmos, Science of the Soul, p. 5) I would add that the intellectual tradition does not only serve the need of apologetics but also serves as a framework for those of an intellective disposition to arrive at a sapiential realization of the haqiqah contained in La illaha illa 'Llah. Shuayb |
|
04-06-2011, 03:28 AM | #31 |
|
I asked a senior mureed of shaykh Nuh about him who also spent much time with these people in the UK and met Schuon and told me basically that ScHUon had gone astray as had his tariqa in the States. Asalamualaikaum. Thank you for this interesting note. Your point does seem to capture well one way of looking at the ambiguities and difficulties surrounding Schuon's life. There seems to be greatness in him, but also certain flaws in him as well. However, I am more interested in 'ideas' and 'doctrines', and do not like to get involved with 'ad hominem' attacks on personalities, especially those who have passed away. Yet, given how influential Schuon has become for those who admire his Sufi teachings, and how notorious he has become for those who believe him to be a charlottan, allow me to say the following. I myself have also met mureeds of Shaykh Isa (may Allah have mercy on him), all of whom have impeccable characters and adorn the prophetic virtues much better than many of the mureeds of other Shuyuukh and so I take with a grain of salt any condemnation of any person who has 'produced'--by the ithn of Allah swt-- good people. I also know Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr personally, and I know that he was a mureed of Shaykh Isa's for many decades and I honestly see no fault of character in Nasr, whatsoever. I even believe Nasr to be a Wali of Allah (swt)--may Allah preserve him. I have also heard of the many accounts of the palpable wilaya (sanctity) that many Muslims--and non-Muslims--felt from the presence of Martin Lings (Shaykh Abu Bakr )(ra), who is known to have been amongst the most loyal mureeds of Shaykh Isa till his dying day. As such, there is a lot of evidence for me to acknowledge Shaykh Isa as a genuine Shaykh as he produced such great men as Lings and Nasr, and even Gai Eaton, along with many other mureeds not well known who are now in their 50's etc. In this sense, I believe any honest and complete account of Schuon has to take all these elements into consideration. Nasr has written an article on Schuon in his latest book "Islam in the Modern World: Challenged by Modernism, Threatened by Fundamentalism, Keeping Faith with Tradition. Perhaps that can be of some benefit to those who may wish to balance the criticisms here, with the appraisals by Nasr. However, it is also quite evident, from the multiple--albeit not entirely reliable--third party stories (which would not hold up in a court of Islamic Law) regaridng some of the very strange things that happened in Bloomington, the Indiana city where Schuon in his 80's retired to and then passed away in his early 90's. From the mureeds who gave their hand of bayah to either Lings or Nasr after such controversies and whom I have personal contact with, there is no exact consensus on 'what exaclty went wrong' in Bloomington, although for most of them Schuon is still revered as an authentic Shaykh. As such, I tend to favor the understanding that Shuayb states that certain of Schuon's actions towards the end of his life deviated from the Sunnah and can be explained with recourse to the 'Divine attraction' position that Schuon felt which caused him to overlook the real needs of his mureeds in the States. With that said, I can entirely understand why those who do not like his teachings, who see them as entirely against Islamic principles, choose to anethametize him and ridicule him in such a venue with the intention of trying to warn other Mulsims to be careful of his teachings, since as one argument may surmise, 'Allah allowed the potential dangers in his teachings to reflect in his actions'. However, this line of reasoning is not entirely accurate as such dubious actions occurred towards the end of Schuon's life, and before that it is well known--by his mureeds-- that Schuon, since the 1930's has upheld and enjoined the Shariah very scrupolously--even till his dying day--again, apart from the strange actions in his 80's and 90's. To say that he 'strayed' is a good way of putting it, as it may imply that he was conducting himself as a Sufi master with mureeds within an Islamic framework for over 50 years prior to such events that occurred in the States. But to say that 'his tariqa in the US strayed' is not the entire truth of the matter either, since Nasr represents him. His branch in the States--along with Lings' branch in England--still uphold the Shariah--and arguably even more intensely after what occurred in Bloomington--as any real Sufi Tariqa does to the present. I can see why the Bloomington branch is held to blame, along with a very aging Schuon, but to anethamatize Schuon's whole life and personality because of certain actions is honestly unbecomming of a venue that labels itself as a "resource for orthodox Islamic teachings". My advice to the moderators are: please continue to propagate Islamic teachings by expounding principles and teachings of the scholars of our great tradition, as you have been. I have learned a lot from the many threads I have read here. Barakallahufeek for that. Even take certain ideas to task, as you are in other threads, but I personally think it is a mistake for moderators to continue such kinds of threads that attack personalities. If Allah has exposed something of this man, than masha'Allah, Allah (swt) made a malamatti out of Schuon, whether he intended this himself or not. I pray Allah does not expose my limitations or even sins to other people. But there is no need to parade the limitations and even mistakes of other personalities in this manner on this forum. My advice here is to leave that to Allah (swt) on the Day of Judgement and just engage in debate of ideas and demonstrate any perceived deviancy in perennialism etc through virtuous discourse. May Allah guide us all to His Straight Path, and shield us from error through the blessings of His Beloved Prophet (saw). ameen, Hasan |
|
04-06-2011, 03:41 AM | #32 |
|
|
|
04-06-2011, 05:04 AM | #33 |
|
A point well taken Sidi. An akhira of falah is what we all seek. And some seek qurb here and now.
However, as I mentioned in the previous reply it is not as simple as that when it comes to Schuon and the legacy of his branch of the Shadhiliya tariqa (what you term 'schuon's fraternity' since you do not recognize it as a tariqa). If Lings and Nasr are men of Allah (swt), as I--and others--contend, and if they do see their relationship with Schuon as 'spritiually decisive'--to quote Hayraan from another post--then the hands that they gave bayat to was a hand--at one point in time atleast--that was sufficently able to place their own hands in the Prophet's Hands (saw) and lead them to Divine Proximity, and allow them to return in order to guide many others to that Ocean of Tawhid, that is Man's Origin and Return. Being guided to any Tariqa is a blessing. Please do not damn others who are in one when you do not know them sufficiently. One must be both gratefull of such blessings yet mindful of any problems and deviations that any tariqa can succumb to. At this point in the history of the tariqa you are referring to, a potential aspirant would not be giving their hand to Schuon but to the likes of Lings and Nasr. And I see no problem with that. One takes one's tassawuf from those who have tasted nearness and wilaya. And one continues to benefit from them so long as they adhere to and enjoin the Sharia on their mureeds. "Verliy, those who struggle in Us, surely we will guide them to our paths (subulana)" Allahu yahdi may-ya shaa'u ala siratim-mustaqim, hasan |
|
04-06-2011, 04:16 PM | #34 |
|
|
|
04-07-2011, 12:06 AM | #35 |
|
|
|
04-07-2011, 12:46 AM | #36 |
|
|
|
04-07-2011, 12:55 AM | #37 |
|
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Hayraan |
|
04-07-2011, 01:29 AM | #38 |
|
Dear Hasan1, Error, even if presented beautifully and eloquently (and repeatedly), remains error. Not sure where to go from here Hayraan. . . |
|
04-07-2011, 05:18 AM | #39 |
|
[QUOTE]
Dear Hasan1, 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. |
|
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|