[artofeyyy]

I heard a Muslim talk to a Christian gathering in which he spoke about the common values between Christianity and Islam, some people said he was a perennialist, I thought he was just doing dawa without first hitting them with you are going to hell. Saying to them you will go to hell unless you embrace Islam first, the first time you speak to someone might not work. Wisdom, subtlety and forethought are not to be condemned. Too much rigid thinking black and white going on amongst some people. I think they are arrogant and harsh.

[Qahtwugc]

I heard a Muslim talk to a Christian gathering in which he spoke about the common values between Christianity and Islam, some people said he was a perennialist, I thought he was just doing dawa without first hitting them with you are going to hell. Saying to them you will go to hell unless you embrace Islam first, the first time you speak to someone might not work. Wisdom, subtlety and forethought are not to be condemned. Too much rigid thinking black and white going on amongst some people. I think they are arrogant and harsh.

that is one person. why judgement on the rest? why are you assuming those who speak against perrenialism are automatically 'harsh' on non-Muslims?

i once gave dawah to a christian.
i don't think i even mentioned hell in it. it was an underhanded approach to draw him towards Islam using actual Islamic teachings and values. I hoped he would have a softer heart towards Islam at the end.

don't judge.

[jobsfancy]

I do not assume any of those things. I was mentioning in this thread that being 'soft' is not perenialist, and being harsh is not necessary in all times and in all places.

[illilmicy]

why is it important to discuss the aqeedah they died upon? using the same logic one can defend pretty much everyone out there whose last moments weren't filmed or transmitted through mutawatir narrations.
their works are here for everyone to read. and they have to be refuted.

they did the outsides of Islam

Allah knows about their insides and how they are with him

their books should not be read and should be considered as poison


Martin Lings was a nice old man and I hope he came to guidance.

[famosetroie]

another day another Hamza Yusuf thread

[chelviweeme]

they did the outsides of Islam

Allah knows about their insides and how they are with him

their books should not be read and should be considered as poison


Martin Lings was a nice old man and I hope he came to guidance.

If that was so true.. then Rene Guenon's books would not be taught in Darul Uloom Karachi... anyways I have gotten the answer to this question.. although I do not aspire to be a perrenialist, I feel that they are not kafir but rather innovators.. I think we should just leave this topic before it gets down into mundane arguments.

[HartOvara]

Rene Guenon's books would not be taught in Darul Uloom Deoband...

fascinating, which one?

[overavantstandard]

I feel that they are not kafir but rather innovators..

how did you come to that conclusion?

[WaysletlyLene]

they did the outsides of Islam

Allah knows about their insides and how they are with him

their books should not be read and should be considered as poison


Martin Lings was a nice old man and I hope he came to guidance.

again i wonder why you bring the author and his aqeedah on death bed when his books are discussed.

[CaseyFronczekHomie]

how did you come to that conclusion?

via hamza yusuf,.. im not asking you to accept my humble opinion.. but please do not act as if you have the authority to do takfir on anyone

[Buincchotourb]

fascinating, which one?

Please be more cautious before generalizing takfir.

Mufti Shafi Usmani and Mufti Taqi Usmani had introduced some of R. Guénon's works in the curriculum of Darul Uloom Karachi some years ago..

from

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...highlight=rene

[feroiodpiop]

About René Guénon you could check even wikipedia. ;-)

I don't remember if specifical mention of which works had been introduced in the curriculum was made in the book in which I've read it.
It's a book written by Muhammad Hasan Askari, who is described as being some teacher of Darul Uloom Karachi, and spoke about very dense points made by the Deobandi Akabir in addressing the Hindu books.
The books is made from a letter sent by this Muhammad Hasan Askari to Valsan, who is one of the most orthodox inheritors of Guénon's ideas - and I repeat one more time; I don't ascribe myself to these ideas, but let's don't throw away the baby with the dirty water, or as it is said.. ;-)

Hope this clears it up

[saruxanset]

how did you come to that conclusion?

IF you had read properly the previous posts.. you would have gone to another thread which explained this topic in a amazing manner... but I made is easy for you:

Asalamualaikum,

It has been some time since I posted on this thread regarding such complex and nuanced issues concerning perennialism and Islam (see post #63). Along with Shuayb's recent post, I really was intrigued by NurMuhammad12's above post. Allow me to respond briefly to each point with the intent of dialogue as I do believe they help the discussion along in a more positive manner; and in the spirit of the Quranic "ta'aruf" (recogntion and mutual understanding) as in the Suratul Hujaraat ("...And We made you into Nations and Tribes so that you may know one another (li ta'arafu).


NurMuhammad12 said: "1) The perennial philosophy is in fact well established in the Quran and Hadith. All of the prophets from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them all) are seen as Muslims and brought Islam in unique forms and languages at different times to different communities. All prophets taught their communities the message of tawhid. The reoccurring appearance of the message of tawhid among the prophets and after the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) the scholars and saints is the perennial philosophy or in Arabic al-hikmat al-khalidah. There is no reason to be scared of terms in western languages. Westerners are themselves scared of Arabic terms and make no effort to understand what is meant. Muslims should try not to make this same mistake."

My response: -This point I think is crucial for a Muslim honestly attempting to appreciate what 'perennial philosophy' means in a Muslim context. For Muslims seriously engaged with this term, the 'perennial philosphy' 'is' 'Islam' in its most universal and perennial understanding. It is the underlying wisdom (hikmah) of tawhid (the principle of Divine Unity) which is the source of anything that can be considered divine wisdom or divinely inspired wisdom in the specifically Muslim tradition, or in religius traditions preceding the Islam of Muhammad (saw). To reduce 'perennialism' to a 'universal validity thesis' as it concerns other religions from a Muslim point of view, and then to dismiss it because of this interpretation, does not do justice to the underlying intention of those Muslim scholars who advocate this term and position in their writings: such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Martin Lings, William Chittick, etc.
In all fairness to these above-mentioned scholars, any Muslim who wishes to refute their claims should try first understanding what these scholars are saying and then either demonstrate why you disagree or just simply not accept their positions, as their positions have nothing to do with aqeedah per se, as they are positions which are philosophical or metaphysical in nature. Nonetheless 'perennialism' has theological implications. As such, these notions may arguably compliment one's aqeedah (as they do persumably so for perennialist Muslims) or negatively as they do for most Muslims who understand religious truth in an 'exclusively' Islamic way (and there is nothing wrong with understanding religous truth in this manner--in fact their is much merit in this). In this sense, I can appreciate how the perennial philosphy appeals to certain Muslims as a metaphsyical principle which supports the Islamic understanding of tawhid much like how the esoteric notion of 'wahdatul wujud' compliments certain Sufis' theological understanding of tawhid rather then contravening it.

NurMuhammad12: "2) The only question is whether or not revealed religions before the Islam of the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) still lead to salvation and sanctity for the People of the Book. Diverse answers have in fact been given to this question by traditional Islamic scholars throughout the centuries."

My response: -When the term 'perennial philosophy' is expanded and understood explicitly as "that timeless truth and divine Wisdom which is the source of all 'authentic revelations'"--to quote Nasr--then it is only natural for Muslims to ask how does this understanding of 'perennial philosophy' pertain to how Muslims scholars of the Islamic tradition have understood the idea of salvation and sanctity in 'authentic religions' preceding Islam? Does this recognition of theunderlying Divine Truth beyond the forms of all authentic religions 'validate' all religions preceding Islam as fully or as in equal standing with the Islam of Muhammad (saw) for Muslims?
To say the least, if the above understanding of perennial philosophy is accepted by a Muslim, then his/her understanding of the nature of salvation and sanctification becomes more nuanced and universalist. And it can be argued that there have been multiple nuanced answers to this question by our scholars in the past; positions that compliment or serve as a framework for perennialist Muslims (read universalists) to make their respective cases.
In this light, I thing that the Islamic answer to such approaches can be seen to be multi-leveled. On one level, the level of praxis and fiqh, the madhahab are unanimous in that the Shariah of Islam is binding on Muslims, and that this is their path to salvation. On another level of Quranic discourse and Islamic understanding, Allah (swt) has mentioned in the Quran (2:62 which has been given a lot of treamtent already here) that along with Muslims, Jews and Christians, and Sabians, and in essence, any one who believes in Allah (the Divine Principle and Reality) and the Last Day (which could more univiersally be understood as human accountability) and who are virtuous (any one who practices righteousness) can in principle be saved by Allah (swt)--regardless of what other belief they may uphold. So on the one hand, other religions are 'not valid' for Muslims to follow, while on another level, there seems to be 'some sort of validity'--on the level of religous truth and salvation-- which remains in other religions and applies to non-Muslims in particular as opposed to Muslims: both positions of which are supported by numerous verses in the Quran.
This understanding is in consonance with Nasr's claim that "Among revealed scriptures in the world, the Quran can be said to be THE MOST universalist and THE LEAST exclusivist". It is this nuanced unviersalism and explicit particularism that gives the Quran a theological flexibility when it comes to the 'status' of the religous other: a flexibility not found in other religions. And this I believe has to do with Islam's Finality, a finality which can be appreciated on both an exclusive level and on a universal level. On the more particular and exclusive level, Islam's finality for Muslims means that it is the MOST complete, MOST perfected form of the 'religion of God' (Din Allah). On the more universal level, Islam's finality for Muslims can mean that it has the quality of integrating and synthesizing the divine wisdom of other religions into its own revealed worldview. This is, I believe, how Nasr and others understand the role of the perennial philosophy in Islam. If hikmah (wisdom) is the 'lost treasure' of the believer', and 'he has right to it wherever he may find it' according to a hadith, than a believer can discover that 'lost treasure' in the teachings of the religions which--or in the teachings of religous adherents who--preceeded Islam....

NurMuhammad12: "3) These include, all non-Muslims are going to hell, non-Muslim People of the Book who have not encountered Islam may be pardoned by God, non-Muslim People of the Book must follow the guidance of their religion (i.e. have faith and do good works) and will be judged according to it just like Muslims on the Day of Judgement and will receive either Heaven or Hell, and numerous other positions that fall in between these."

My response: -Here the issue of 'validity' and how a Muslim may understand this term in the case of non-Muslims is the main concern and issue of contention. And it may be argued by certain Muslim expositors of perennial philosophy, that to the extent that non-Muslims uphold, to the best of their ability, the teachings of the 'original revelation' given to the Prophets who founded their respective religons, it is to this extent that they will be judged (IA positively), along with being given a kind of divine 'amnesty' for not recognizing (or being ignorant of) the truth of the Islam of Muhammad (saw)[as we find in the classical position of Imam al-Ghazali's]....

NurMuhammad12: "4) Most contemporary expositors of the perennial philosophy believe that man must follow a revealed religion to attain salvation and not a man made religion or philosophy and certainly not satanism. The living revealed religions essentially include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Chinese tradition (Confucianism/Taoism), and the Primal Religions (i.e. Native American, Aboriginal and African religions, Shinto, etc.). At the very least, many Islamic scholars would say that these religions are valid for those who have not encountered Islam, especially Judaism and Christianity."

My response: -The expansion of the 'revealed religions' to include the likes of Buddhism and Hinduism, etc is something that would be contended by many Muslims, although there is enough precedent in the Islamic tradition by our scholars in previous centuries who lived in India and China to favor this position. And from the point of oview of 'islah' or 'context'--that is, our current context of living in a multi-religious, globalized world as Muslim minorities--such an islah, would favor such a positive inclusion. "And of the messengers, some We have told thee about (oh Muhammad-saw-) and others We have not"-Quran ( for the actual reference, see a previous post that cites this verse)....

NurMuhammad12: "5) Christians consider Jesus (peace be upon him) to be a part of the Trinity and the Son of God, while Muslims consider him to be a prophet and messenger, as well as the spirit and word of God. In a similar manner, Hindus may call Krishna an avatar and the Greeks may call Hermes a god, but Muslims can understand them to be prophets and messengers of God that their communities include in their pantheons that are of course foreign to the Quranic understanding of tawhid. In other words, the original message of a Krishna may have been completely in accord with the message of the Quran, just as Jesus' message was and is, but was articulated differently by their communities. In any case, we know that every nation was sent a messenger."

Me: -It is here where it is the normative Muslim perspective to interpret such divergences negatively rather than in a more congenial and complimentary manner as do Muslim perennialists. If Muslim perennialists could demonstrate how non-Muslim teachings regarding the Trinity--for example--do not violate tawhid, or rather support it in some fashion, this would bridge a gap of misunderstanding, perhaps between the two religions in the spirit of the Quranic ta'aruf. However, I personally feel that apart from appreciating the underlying symbolisms involved regarding a 'trinity' and 'unity', the 'relationality' of the Persons of the orthodox Christian Trinity contradict any means of 'reconcilliation' between Muslims and Christians on this matter. And I believe this is Divinely Intended by Allah (swt). I suppose one can understand this Divine Providence of antinomy either negatively--as clear cut kufr from a normative Muslim perspective; or positively in a very esoteric sense--as a Divinely willed diversity of expression of divine revelation--as a perennialist Muslim might....

NurMuhammad12: "6) To this we will add that the Absolute or the One God is still seen as transcending a particular avatar or deity in these religions. They have the One God who is All-Powerful, All-Knowing, etc., but lesser manifestations or signs that are much like the idea of the Names, the Books, the Angels, or Signs of God in Islam. We should be fair to other religions and the people who practice them if we want non-Muslims to be fair to Islam and us."

Me: -This point is well taken, and it would be in the spirit, proper to the Quranic "ta'aruf" (mutual understanding) for Muslims to acknowledge this, even if they disagree or reject the beliefs of the other as errors (or disbelief). Appreciating that such teachings of the other, that in principle, may in some way, shape or form, derive from an authentic revelation, is to give the 'benefit of the doubt' (husni zunn) to the religious other. As such, it is also a way to appreciate the sense of the sacred in the other. Such a trait is more befitting a Muslim, then a non-Muslim as the Quran and the Islamic teachings (hadith included) are more inclusive and appreciative of other revealed religions and their teachings than their teachings are of us.

Finally, and by way of returning to the actual title of this thread, I think perennialism is too nuanced to be placed in a cut-and-dry category of kufr. My position still remains--as in post #63--that it is a kind of 'bidaa' in regards to the novelty and explicitness of its expression, but not necessarily a bidaa in a negative sense, much like how when wahdatul wujud was first expressed it was a 'bidaa', but was eventually integrated as an esoteric teaching into many Sufi tariqas in Islamic history......

Allahu Alam.
Wa-salamualaikum,

Hasan

from:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...highlight=rene

[stutnerman]

via hamza yusuf,.. im not asking you to accept my humble opinion.. but please do not act as if you have the authority to do takfir on anyone

why does a simple question make me a takfeeri?

[ButKnillinoi]

IF you had read properly the previous posts.. you would have gone to another thread which explained this topic in a amazing manner... but I made is easy for you:



from:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...highlight=rene

scholars over layman any day.

[AdipexAdipex]

True. Scholars over Layman any day.

[pobrierce]

how did you come to that conclusion?

You implied that they were kafirs.. hence the rebuke. Sorry for my misunderstanding if your reply was not as such.

[KneefeZes]

You implied that they were kafirs.. hence the rebuke. Sorry for my misunderstanding if your reply was not as such.

well i follow the opinion of the ulema who said they are kafir - and these ulema have that authority.

your 'rebuke' i've seen plenty of times before. its borne out of an individualistic interpretation of Islam which is reflected upon others. there is no use of an emotional argument in an academic discussion.

[mpegdvdclip]

Well I follow the opinion of certain ulema that they are not kafirs, because it is better to include than exclude. Like I said, I am not asking for you to agree with me. I was just lost about this issue, and this thread along with a few others have shed some light. The fact that Perrenialists are Kafir or not does not make me a kafir, since I am not one of them, rather I have a friend who is.

[h0ldem]

again i wonder why you bring the author and his aqeedah on death bed when his books are discussed.

criticize wrong ideas, criticize wrong books, but its better to leave dead people alone if there is any doubt over them