Theological Debate Between the Mu'tazilites and the Ash'arites on the Relation of God to Time and Space

The Mu’tazilites said that God is above time and space. First part of this statement seems to have direct support from the Holy Quran. It says that “He is the First and the Last”, which means that He should not be construed in time-relating understanding. The second part, i.e. that God is above space, does not have the same degree of support from the Holy Quran.
Holding this in mind, the Mu’tazilites have to interpret some verses of the Holy Quran that is seemingly contradictory to what they hold. For example, they interpret istawa ‘ala al-Arsh (literally meaning ‘established on the Throne’), the famous phrase taken from surah Tha Ha, to mean istawla ‘ala al-Arsh which means to get mastery over the Throne which is understood as His Kingdom. If they do not do so, that is to explain the verse metaphorically, it will reduce the Deity to material being and, consequently, created being.
Since the Mu’tazilites insist to interpret istawa as istawla, it makes them involved in the problem of the whereabouts of God, which the Mu’tazilites themselves have different perspectives about this. Abu al-Hudhail al-Allaf and the majority of the Mu’tazilites hold that God is everywhere, that is, He is the Ruler of every place or His Rule governs eveery place. Another Mu’tazilites, such as Hisham al-Fuati and Abu Zufar, maintain that He is everywhere He is. In this two cases, the Mu’tazilites exhort to avoid physical, anthropological interpretation. The emphasize of the absoluteness of God is the central concern of Mu’tazilites.


This opinion that God is above space and metaphorical intrepretation of seemingly anthropomorphic verses contained in the Holy Quran are countered by al-Ash’ari. In the book which is said to have been written by him, al-Ibanah ‘an Ushul al-Diyanah*, istawa ‘ala al-arsh is interpreted as He has seated Himself on the Throne which is located above the seventh, i.e., in the highest place. To support this, he has utilized various proofs from the Holy Quran, the Prophet’s Tradition, the Ijma’ (Muslims consensus), philological proof, logical proof, and philosophical proof.
From surah Ghafir verses 36 and 37 “And Pharaoh said : O Haman! Build for me a tower that haply I may reach the roadx, the roads of the heavens, and may look upon the God of Moses though verily I think Him a liar”. Here, Pharaoh refutes that God is verily above the the heavens. From surah al-Mulk verse 16 “Have ye taken security from Him Who is in the heaven that He will not cause the earth to swallow you”. The heaven in this verse is interpreted to be the Throne of God which is above the seventh heaven.
Several Traditions is used to prove that God is on the throne which is above the heaven. Here are some of them: reported by Muslim that the Prophet has said: “God, may He be Exalted and High, descends every night to the lowest heaven, and then says: ‘Is there any body to seek favour from Me that I may give it and is there any body to beg pardon of me that I may pardon him’ and so on until the day dawns”; Abdullah son of al-Abbas is reported to have said: “Reflect on the creation of God and not on Him. For, there is between His Throne and the heaven a distance of one thousand years journey and God, may He be Exalted and High, is above that”; when a man came to the Prophet with a negress and said: “O Apostle of God! Verily I desire to liberate her by way of an atonement. Is it permissible for me to do so?” The Prophet of God said to her: “Where is God?”, she answered: “In the heaven”, the Prophet asked her again: “Who am I?”, she replied: “Thou art the apostle of God”. Then the Prophet of God said: “Set her free, for she is a believer”.
The consensus among Muslims that Jesus has been raised to the heaven and that it is allowed for them to raise their hands towards heaven while praying shows that God, the Exalted and the High, has seated Himself on the Throne which is above the seventh heaven. It is also a consensus among them to pray to God by saying “O! Dweller on the Throne”. And when they swear, they say: “By Him who screens Himself with the seven heavens”. From philological perspective, it is not acceptable to interpret istawa as to get mastery over the Throne. For, it will mean that He, the Exalted and the High, has also got mastery over the latrines insofar as He has got mastery over every thing, which no Muslim will consider it to be a valid statement. Istawa should not mean to get mastery, which can be used for anything, but must mean sitting, which is applied particularly to the Divine Throne.
Logically, if God is in every place, as held by the Mu’tazilites, then He, the Exalted and the High, will be in the womb of the Virgin Mary and the latrines, since both are places. But this, as it is clear, is no single Muslim would accept. Astronomically, by maintaining God’s transendence without seeing His imanence, the Mu’tazilites has reduced Him to mere an abstraction.
In response to these refutations, the Mu’tazilites said that God’s descending as quoted in some Prophet’s Tradition is not in conflict with what the Mu’tazilites hold. For, it is descending of the angels sent by God and not of God Himself. And so is the case with the fact that Jesus has been raised to the heaven, since for the Mu’tazilites the heaven is as much near to God as the earth or any other place. Concerning another Ijma’ of Muslims’ prayer, it is resulted from common notion to speak one greater in rank as one higher in place. Therefore, for Muslims, He has been metaphorically conceived as being in the highest place.
The followers of al-Ash’ari are not in agreement with so-called al-Ash’ari’s opinion explained above. One of the eminent Ash’arites, Imam al-Haramain, informed us as to al-Ash’ari’s thought concerning the meaning of istawa, saying that al-Ash’ari has said: “God was while there was no space. He then created the Throne and the Chair. And He was not in need of space. After the creation of space He remained exactly as He was before. And al-Istiwa’ is an attribute of God like His other attributes, and is also an action of His which He has done in relation to His Throne.”
Imam Haramain interpreted istawa as qahara wa ghalaba ‘ala meaning to get the upper hand or mastery over, not as istaqarra ‘ala meaning settling on. This second interpretation will reduce the Deity to the physical thing. To prove his statement, he has utilized several proofs. From the Holy Quran surah al-Hadid verse 4 “And He is with you wheresoever ye may be” and surah Ali Imran verse 33 “Is He Who is aware of the deserts of every soul?”, Imam Haramain inferred that God’s presence stated in the above verses can only understood as His knowledge and comprehension, for it is absurd to understand it as physical presence. Therefore, it is valid to interpret istawa as to get mastery over (al-qahru wa al-ghalabah). In Arabic literary, we can find word istawa which means to get mastery over the kingdom (ihtiwa’ ‘ala maqalid al-mulk and isti’la’ ‘ala al-riqab). All Muslims are united in belief that God is above direction, and the common conception that the Throne is the biggest thing in the realm of God is to emphasize God’s mastery over all things, big or small ones, by stating His control over the Biggest one. With regard to Prophet’s Traditions reporting God’s descending, it is His angels descending. For other Traditions which is ahad, i.e., not reported by many people, Imam Haramain considers those not sufficient in explaining the creed problems.
Another Ash’arites, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, insists that the anthropormist’s belief that God is sitting in His Throne is wrong according to reason and authority. Philosophically, God, the Exalted and the High, existed when there was no the Throne nor space, and He is independent of His creatures as He was. And also the sitter on the Throne necessitates two sides, suggesting that he is compound substance, and this is absolutely absurd with reference to the Deity.
The sitter on the Throne can move of cannot. If the first is the case, then He is like His creatures who have movements. If the latter, He becomes like a person with disability. Far be both from Him! God according to anthropomorphist either exists in every place of some particular places. If the former, then He will be also in the places of dirt, which is unacceptable. If the second alternative, there should be a reason in choosing one place to another. The settlers in a particular place cannot be god, for they must be subject to motion.
Al-Fakhr al-Razi also gives Quranic proofs to demonstrate the mistake of the anthropomorphist. Quoting the famous verse of God’s transendency “Naught is as His likeness”, he says that if sitting is excepted from this verse, it will mean that this verse is not absolute but relative and also sitting, which needs a body to sit, must be similar to that of His creature. Another verse which seems to justify anthropomorphic interpretation is “And eight will uphold the throne of their Lord that day above them”. If taken literally, this would that God needs His creatures, which the contrary is the truth, i.e., the creatures is in absolute need of Him. Prophet Abraham’s expression, as cited in the Holy Quran “He said: I love not things that set”, shows that He is not body. For, if He is so, what Abraham said will also be applcable to Him, since He is always invisible to our bare eyes.
Astronomically, considering globular nature of our earth, the above for us will be the beneath for those living in the antipode. And if He has direction, He will be above for some and beneath for others, which is not an acceptable statement. All Muslim is in one agreement that the verse “Say: He is Allah, the One” is the muhkamat (sound) verse, not the mutashabihat (ambivalent). Keeping this in mind, it is impossible to say that He has His own space, implying His bodiness. So based on the sound meaning of this verse, istiqrar (to rest at a place) for God is unreasonable.
So far as the ambivalent and ambiguous verses and Prophetic Traditions are concerned, there are two different opinions. The first hold that we should not try to interpret these verses. Instead, we have to be fully convinced that God is above time and space. As reported by al-Ghazali, al-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, who has collected thousands of Traditions of the Prophet, has only interpreted three Traditions concerning this problem and nothing more. This passive position, to say so, toward the mutashabihat was criticized by al-Fakhr al-Razi, regarding this as weak for several arguments; if we hold that God is above space and time, we will have believe that by istiwa’ God does not mean sitting, and this is what the ta’wil is all about; if we are not convinced that God is above time and space, we betray our ignorance of Him except that we say that God seem to mean something other than signification of the Holy Quran. But we do not venture to express it in many words to avoid the risk of that we fall into error. This view is imperfect, since if we affirms that God has revealed His word in Arabic language, we must know that most part of revelation is understandable to the Arabs. Because the word istiwa’ contains two meanings, istiqrar (to settle) and isti’la’ (to get master), and the former is absurd attributive to God, the latter is the only alternative meaning last to interpret the word istiwa’. The second tendency is to explain away the mutashabihat by the mean of ta’wil, which is, according to al-Fakhr al-Razi, inevitable.
Based on two opposite positions, al-Fakhr al-Razi made four different point to consider. First, we shall act up to both views severally and individually. Second, the exact opposite of the first. Third, we should choose authority prior to reason. And fourth, we choose the contrary. The first is preposterous and so is the second. The third cannot defended since affirmation of the authority needs reason. The only remaining choice is the judgment of reason in explaining the authority, for this reason then istiwa’ here means to get mastery.
The point which to explore by al-Fakhr al-Razi is that God is above space. The view that God is above place and time is also the view of another Sunni school, i. e. the Maturidites, as conserved by al-Nasafi in his book.

endnote:
*It should be noted that what is contained within recent publication of this book should not always be attributed to al-Ash’ari, for it is reported that this book is fabricated under his name. For more proofs concerning this problem, see http://salafytobat.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/bukti-wahabi-selewengkan-fakta-kitab-al-ibanah-2/

Read More...

An Overview on Religious Pluralism*

For some people religious pluralism is a belief that conflicts existing between competing truth claims of religions can be overcome. It tries not to underestimate other religious traditions by finding common ground between one’s own tradition and others’, while neglecting the differences they consider to be not essential. This belief brings about an attitude that is the original objective of religious pluralism. However, in most cases this view have no theological basis within religious literal tradition.
The precondition for religious pluralism to exist is freedom of religion, that is, to equal rights of different religions within a society. Therefore, when this precondition is not fulfilled, by means of giving one religion more privilege or eliminating all religious activity, religious pluralism will soon disappear. Like what has happened to communist countries where religious activitiy is totally forbidden.
Many religion believers believe that religion pluralism means cooperation between religions and, hence, substituting rivalry spirit with more mutual understanding. For religious pluralism to happen there must be societal and theological modification within each religion.


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The origin of this thought might be traced to European history after reformation and enlightment in which a movement to reform abuses of Roman Catholic Church emerged. Roman Catholic had suppressed other religions like Islam and Judaism to the extent that the people of these religions cannot practice their religions freely. The Reformation which marked the emergence of Protestantism did not fully eliminate discrimination against the minor sects within Christianity and other religions. Since, in places, such as England, Scotland, and Ireland, Protestant Churches did the same things as their Catholic counterpart. Even smaller Protestant denominations in these countries sought freedom to North America when their freedom was limited, and again when these groups become dominant they did the same restriction to those outside their circle.
Founding Fathers of the United States were influenced by Protestant and freethinking philosopher like John Locke and Thomas Paine who insisted on tolerance and moderation in religion. This brought equality and freedom to the American constitution. Different religions are supposed to be treated equally. This does not mean that each people there has to believe that every religion is equally true, on the contrary, there are many religious institutions which claim to have way of salvation exclusively.

LITERAL AND SPIRITUAL TRUTH
Religious pluralism does not say that all religions and sects within a religion are completely and equally true, for it is impossible for diametrically different faiths to be true at the same time. Like the Christians’ belief of Jesus’ crucifixion which all Muslims are convinced that he is saved and ascended. Surely, one of these conflicting faith is true and other false.
However many modern religious pluralists believe that there is no religion which can legitimately claim to preach the absolute truth. They base their opinion on the what they assume to be true, i.e., that religion is not precisely the revealed word of God. It is merely a humanly creative interpretation to it. Assuming active role of man in revelation and his imperfect nature, no single scriptural text is considered to fully originate from God, and, hence, it cannot perfectly explain God and His will. The whole truth—to say so—cannot be apprehended through only one religion. All religions share the same effort to catch that truth using their cultural and historical factors.
The notion of cultural and historical text is because religious pluralists find that almost all religious texts cannot avoid from being influenced from human-historical factors, and, they infer that there is nothing of these religious texts to be considered fully divine origin. Therefore, disticntion needs to be made between what is transcendent, and therefore permanent, and what is changeable.
Recently, religious pluralism has developed into its maximal form, that is, the view that all religions are equally true. This trend is brought about by post-modern philosophies, particularly deconstructionism. Many criticisms to this thought underline its self-contradictory tendency.
For about a century ago, liberals within Judaism and Christianity reform some of their faiths to make them compatible with religious pluralism. They maintain that their convictions are not the only way to salvation, rather they only believe that their religion are the most perfect revelation to the human kind. It should be noted that comparison implied in “the most perfect” means that there are many alternative, however imperfect, ways of salvation together with theirs. This thought enable them to assume that there is a common ground underlying all religions and that some aspects of God may be captured by other religion while are neglected within their own religions. They call this as theological humility compared to intellectual humility that every scientist should have, that is, admitting the possibility of other’s finding the truth.
However, conservatives in Christianity refuse these thoughts and still hold that their way is the only way to God, while many of them admit the different religious expressions and the new one will give new understanding to the dogmas.
To develop religious pluralism within every one’s religion has now become an obligation for many people. It is since our view of humanity has changed and requires a new approach to our life. The advance of science, development of information technology, and questions raised by modern philosophers have forced people to rethink their view regarding this world.
Retrospective form of religious pluralism can be found in many religions. That is to accept religion prior to one’s religion and reject religion which after one’s own. Such as three Abrahamic faith, Christianity can accept Judaism as the valid religion but reject Islam and consider it as heretical sect out of Christianity, and so is the case with Islam and Christianity.
In Greek and Roman era in which religion is polytheistic, pluralism was easily done by absorbing other gods originating from other tradition, or rarely they add new god adopted from others, into their own religion.

INTER-RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
Classical Christian view hold that Christianity is the only way through which God is reached, and if it is done, the result will be damnation. Christians believe that Jesus, God literally made flesh, was crucified to save human kind from such damnation and by accepting beliefs in Christianity a person could gain meaningful life and happines in the hereafter. All other people outside Christian are destined to damnation, this is what their doctrine, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, means.
For them the consequence of denying trinity is the eternal death. In spite of that some still regard Christianity as egalitarian, because it teaches that people potentially have the same opportunity to gain salvation through entering Christianity.
Traditional Christian will see religious pluralism in its maximal form as self-contradictory, because it is impossible for two competing claims of truth to be equally true. This view is also held by most Jews and Muslims. For Christians, Christianity is the most absolute revelation revealed to human kind, and other religions, although may have lesser revelation, are not equally true. So, to be pluralist means not to be Christian in full sense and vice versa.
Church is often identified as a hospital. The doctor will care a patient in the best-suited way according the condition of the patient, instead of following what a patient wants. And following what pluralist say will be similar to “pillow prophets” who prophesies what the king wanted to hear instead of sincerely telling God’s word. Thus, all Christians must invite human kind to Christianity which is the way to salvation.
To this view, it is a contradiction to acknowledge legitimacy of Christian’s practices while rejecting beliefs underlying them. If a person deny to believe that the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood, it means that he rejects it as unifying medium to God.
Currently, some Christians change their view on their religion and others and start to accept religious pluralism. This socially leads to reconciliation with other faith especially Judaism but theologically requires adjustment to their faith they hold before. Reconciliation between Judaism and Christianity is done by viewing the New Testament as extended covenant to cover non-Jews. It implies that Judaism is still the valid religion. Furthermore it allows relationship between both sides to improve. It also stresses Chritians’ regret of anti-Jewish attitude and of theology of “Replacement”. Many Christian groups of this kind, including Catholic Church and several large Protestant Churches, declare not to convert Jews to Christianity. Yet, for most Christians, including most conservative Protestant, New Testament is not an extended covenant as understood above.
The Eastern Orthodox Church views that Orthodox Church is the only salvation but, at the same time, does not limit God’s will to save whomsoever He pleases. This seemingly contradictory position is explained by comparing it to Noah’s Ark. It says that while Noah’s Ark is the safest place to go through the flood, it is within God’s power to save people outside the Ark. Keeping this in mind, Orthodox Christian must encourage people to take the safer path by which they will gain salvation. For the Orthodox the one and only thing leading to perdition is blasphemy against Holy Spirit. However, the question on human kind salvation is only secondary for them, stressing that one should care of own salvation more than other’s.
Islam, as other monotheistic religions, affirms that it is the only salvation way and considers other monotheistic faiths as valid, for they constitute the single Truth revealed through human history. The most important creed of Islam is witnessing that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad PBUH is His messenger. Renouncing this would mean entering hell.
But this apparently very exclusive claim does not mean intolerance to other religious traditions. On the contrary, Muslim history, mainly in golden era, witnessed very tolerant relationship with other religions. The Muslims ruler guaranteed the freedom of practicing other religion, which this is the very preaching of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, with taxation, namely jizyah. Minor religions, such as Mandeans, Zoroasterians, and Hindu, can still perform freely their religious activities, an obvious contradiction to what happened to Muslim minorities in the Europe Renaissance.
Islam has never instructed its adherents to forcibly convert non-Muslim into Islam, notwithstanding the widespread allegation that Islam is spread by sword. What truly happened is Islam extends together with Muslims’ conquest. The so-called persecution in Islamic history is due to cruel ruler and economic hardship.
Religious debates lived in the time of Muslim govermennt and resulted in many works which are interesting for many people learning theology. When this debate spread to the unlearned masses, rulers interfere to pacify them. As far as sects within Islam, there are various patterns. In some places, different sects can live harmoniously, while in others, especially when one sect is in power, clash cannot be avoided.
Baha’ism discourages the intolerance between religions, saying that God is one and has sent messengers through history, therefore we have to be united and give our love, reflecting God’s love, to people of all religions. Baha’ism has the concept of “Progressive Revelation” underlining the different stages undergone by humanity. Its founder, Baha’ullah, claims that he is one of the messengers sent to human kind and says whatever is said by any prophet must be true.
Hinduism is by nature a pluralistic religion. It may willingly recognize other religions’ degree of truth. It will easily subsume deities of religions into its system. This, in turn, makes the relationship between between Hindus and adherents of all religions harmonious.
However, this is not always the case. In India where Hindus become majority, there is grave conflict. The source of this conflict is said to be Muslims’ view that Hindus are the worst infidels. As response, Hindus view Muslims as hostile to their religion. Muslims built masjids in the place of temples, causing riots, such as what happened in 1992 at the Babri masjid.

INTRA-RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
Before divided into sects, Christianity generally profess “one holy catholic and apostolic church”. It remains so until now in Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Episcopalians, and most Protestant Christian denominations. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox see each other as heterodox but still regard as Christian. Concerning Protestant, their view varies depend on Trinitarian in that Protestant.
Most fundamentalist Protestant Christian groups maintain that their churches is the only valid way to God and other churches are considered to be heretical, or even diabolic. This view is rejected by Neo-evangelical Protestant Christian Churches, regarding most Christianities as valid. They believe in unity of the Church.
In Islam there is no religious pluralism within different sects, for, there is no real difference between them.

*resumed from wikipedia free encyclopedia.

Read More...

John Hick on Religious Pluralism: a Summary

Exclusivism is natural inclination for those who live only in their own religion borders. But this tendency soon become criticized in finding other religions’ result of transforming human being from selfishness to divine awareness, moreover if values of various religions are regarded, both of which can be found in various religious traditions.
Having seen other religions contributions to the humanity, inclusivist have a tendency not to see other religious traditions to be less compared to his own. For illustration, a Buddhist may regard other religion as imperfect dharma. In the same way, Roman Catholic, while convinced that human salvation is entirely dependent on sacrifice of Christ, consider that all people can be saved by that sacrifice. We can summarize that inclusivism is a view that, while considering superiority of one’s own tradition, is commited not to underestimate others’ tradition

Although inclusivism is socially acceptable, but it is logically in problematic status. Religious pluralism tries to solve this by taking more radical position, that is, to consider other religions as the same soteriological way as one’s own. Each religions are considered to represent one consciousness of the divine. In religious texts, we find words to developed into inclusivist or pluralist understanding. For example, in New Testament we read that the Logos was “the light that lightens every man” (Jn. 1:9). And so is the case with Rumi’s statement which is, for many, considered to have pluralist significance. “The lamps are different but the light is the same; it comes from beyond”.
But so far, there is no single general agreement on how to define religious pluralism philosophically. This definition should be able to cover all phenomena in every religions and understand them as constituting one single divine reality.
One of the most promising manner, which can be found in every religions, is through distinction between God an sich and as humanly experienced. In religions can be found a common concept that can be represented by term the Real. In Arabic we know al-haqq; in Sanskrit sat; in English ultimate reality. In Hinduism, it is distinction between nirguna brahman (brahman beyond the scope of human concepts) and saguna brahman (brahman humanly experienced as personal deity). In Christianity, it is distinction between God in his eternal and God as known from within his creatured things. And so we find other religions.
From the modern point of view, first formulated by Immanuel Kant, we find that circumstance, in which we live, is abstracted by our mind through interpretative process before it comes to our awareness as concepts and ideas. And this can be utilized to read religious awareness which can be categorized into two groups; the Real as personal in theistic traditions and the Real as nonpersonal in nontheistic traditions.
But in religious history, there is no concept of God as abstract ultimate reality, instead it is always in particular concrete forms. Gods in religions are always understood by specific community in personal relationship and, therefore, historical. Yahveh as conceived by Jews cannot be regarded as the same as god in any other community. And so is the case with other religion.
In the seemingly nonpersonal gods as conceived, for example, by Hindus, there is concretization of that nonpersonal gods. They are experienced as universal transpersonal consciousness which give mean to one’s life.
The variety of religious experiences of the Real, as found in Hinduism and Buddhism, suggests that there is human contribution to those experiences. This can be proven by different meditation and scriptures read in every religion which result in different religious consciousness. So, Kantian thesis of interpretative process within human mind seems to be applicable to both personal modes of awareness of the Real and nonpersonal.
Another Kantian idea that seems to be applicable to the problem of the Real is the distinction between noumenon, which always means involvement of human interpretation, and phenomenon. There is no “pure” noumenon independent of human as knowing subject, because of the impossibility of that mode of knowing. The same is relevant to the problem of divine reality. The Real as it is cannot be experienced, for there is always interpretative involvement of human’s mind. As a result, we may assume that there is one divine noumenon, which can be explained, and different phenomena in religious traditions, each of which is constituting that one divine noumenon.
This pluralist interpretation is aimed to religiously describe the plurality of religions. For, if we use naturalistic approach to this plurality, we will arrive at conclusion of considering all religious phenomena as human illusion. To propose the divine noumenon is to defend religions in general by regarding them as manifestations and responses to the Real.
The most challenging disagreement to pluralist point of view comes from those who hold the exclusivist view of one’s own tradition. For pluralist view to be widely accepted, each person in one tradition must initiate to understand one’s tradition and modify one’s exclusivist view to be more universal and acceptable to all.

Read More...

Unveiling the Truth: Sufism between Influences and Purity

Islam is a din rendered into English as religion. But different perspective as to what religion is between Islam and Western civilization undoubtedly results in misunderstandings retained for centuries. It follows that those who are used to see things from Western understanding and viewpoint would consider Sufism as the alien part of Islam. From their viewpoint it is understandable to do so, for they lack the complete comprehension of teachings of Islam.
They work behind their distorted presuppositions held for centuries of hatred toward Islam. Although the situation now is growing better, there remain misunderstandings of several concepts formulated by the Sufis of old, since they are seen outwardly, i.e., not understood within Islamic worldview. To equal, for example, wahdatul wujud understood by Sufis, with pantheism known to Western civilization is one of the consequence following from such situation, where, in fact, both are of very different nature.
In this paper I will first examine mysticism generally understood in its wide context. Next, I will try to trace the origin of word Sufi. As it will be soon discovered that this word was current even in the pre-Islamic days. I will try to show that, in the case of Sufism, the mere similarity is not sufficient to support theories of influence. It will be also proven that Islamic teaching itself is already full of Sufism, so to speak, both pratical or theoritical. Thus, it does not make sense to relate the appearance of Sufism within Islam only with something external to it.


UNDERSTANDING MYSTICISM
To talk about tasawuf in wider context means to talk of special sort of mysticism that belongs to Islam or Islamic tradition. Mysticism is derived from mystic originating from Greek mustikos, from mustēs which means “initiated person”, from muein which means “close the eyes or lips”, and “initiate”. From the very original Greek meaning we can infer that mysticism is related with something beyond the senses, that is, not able to to be understood by average approaches. And it is quite surprising that the Greek original also signifies initiated person which later in the context of sufism is comparable to the necessity of the spiritual guide (sheikh).
The other origin closely related to mysticism is mystery which is also of Greek origin, that is, mustērion which means simply “a revealed secret”. This means that mustērion, from which word mystery originates, is not something incomprehensible at all; it is a secret yet able to be comprehended if revealed.
Another definition offered to explain mysticism is given by a leading author on mysticism Evelyn Underhill. She describes it as “the art of union with Reality”, and, thus the mystic is “a person who has attained that union in greater or less degree; or who aims at and believes in such attainment”. The idea of the limitless Reality is not a concern of rational understanding, since its many shortcomings to prevent the perfect knowledge. It is rather of feeling and consciousness, which have fuller ability to grasp it. But this description does not make the way to understand mysticism easy, since the goal to which all the ways lead cannot be easily apprehended by “any normal mode of perception”, as Schimmel expresses it. It can only properly comprehended by spiritual experience that depends neither to sensual nor rational methods.
Spiritual experience can only be attained by disciplines of self-purifying (takhalli/via purgativa) from all other than Him. Then it leads a mystic to higher state of beautifying his heart, self, and soul resulting in divine love and gnosis (tahalli/via illuminativa). Upon completing this, a mystic’s journey will be entirely different, for, in this stage, there is nothing other than Him (tajalli/unio mystica).
There are two types of mysticism; that of infinity and of personality. The first type speaks of the infinite being which is conceived as limitless, spaceless, and even not being; since it does not belong to the same category to which human being is classified. Th e purest form of this type can be found in the Upanishads and the system of Plotinus. This kind is often forbidden for many people as it seemed to trivialize human values and, therefore, resulting in monism and pantheism which constitute great threat to human being taken as a whole. The idea of continuing creation held by this mysticism does not seem reconcilable with creatio ex-nihilo doctrine.
In opposite to the the first type the mysticism of personality stresses on human personality as understood from the name. God in this mysticism is perceived as Creator, Lord, and Beloved whereas human being is creature, slave, and lover. Both types hardly become separated independently not connected in each purest form. The contrary is the most cases. The modern historian classify these two types as mystic and prophetic. Such classification is not proper with the case of Islam, as seen later.
With regarding to Islam there is less distinction between two approaches or rather both are integrated. This fact makes the clear grouping between the two seems to be difficult or even impossible without falling into traps which make both not be correctly understood. In Islam both are equally strong.
Some modern scholars try to explain the nature of mysticism. William James gives an explanation that mysticism can be described by four things. Firstly, that it is the state of mental perception (noetic) rather than discursive knowledge. It is like revelations of direct experience. Secondly, the ineffability of explanating such mental perception, since it is a feeling state which cannot be exactly explained by words. Thirdly, the transiency of that mental insight. But the effect of it somehow can still be recovered. Fourthly, its passivity, that is, the mystic’s being passive while acquiring that insight. Another attempt to identify the natures of mysticism is done by R. M. Bucke. He asserts that mysticism has seven characteristics; the subjective light, moral elevation, intellectual illumination, sense of immortality, loss of fear of death, loss of sense of sin, and suddeness. And although these aspects exist undeniably in most types of mysticism, yet these two attempts are not fully comprehensive to determine the whole elements of mysticism. Since there remains many aspects of it have not been explained in these two yet.

ON LEXICAL ORIGIN OF SUFI
With regard to Islam, tasawuf has been the generally accepted name for mysticism. However, some writers use tasawuf, which is derivative of sufi, as translation of English mysticism. This rendering, though loosely understandable, is not the correct one; for it is from Islamic Tradition that word tasawuf owes its existence, and hence should be grasped in Islamic context. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent historical and semantical meaning contained in word mysticism as understood in Western history when talking about Islamic mysticism, tasawuf, or, later in the early 19th century, sufism. The last has now become the common word in English-using literatures for denoting mysticism in Islam.
Scholars on Sufism, and so did the Sufi of old, have different opinions as to from what root this word originates. Some assert that it comes from safa which means purity, “the sufis was so named because the purity of their inmost ground and the cleanness of their traces”. Others say that it has its origin from al-saff al-awwal which means the first rank signifying that they are in the first rank before God. Others would say it is derived from ahl al-suffah, which originally signifies the people of the Bench, Prophet’s Companions living poverty life and always attached to spend their time in worshiping God.
It is worth noting that there is an attempt from European scholar to ascribe the origin of word sufi to Greek sophos relating with teosophist. But this, as supposed, can no longer be maintained, since it seems to be impossible philologically.
But of these origins, the most acceptable morphologically is that it is from suf, which means woolen garment. Although the last signifies only to the external aspect of sufism, it is common at the time when this term came to exist to refer to men by their outer appearance rather than their attributes and traits, just like al-Quran referring to the Companions of the Jesus Christ by al-hawariyyin alluding to their white garb rather than their virtues.
This does not necessarily mean to decrease spiritual significance of this word and to disregard other three words’ meaning, since:
“Those who relate them to the Bench and to wool express the outward aspect of their conditions: for they were people who had left this world, departed from their homes, fled from their compaions. They wandered about the land, mortifying the carnal desires, and making naked the body; they took of this world’s good only so much as is indispensable for covering the nakedness and allaying hunger.”
Furthermore, al-Kalabadhi clarifies that, although these words seem to be different, their meanings indicate the same. For, he adds, “If the term is taken from al-safa (purity) and al-safwah (tha choosen), then it would be safawiyah; if it is connected to al-saff (rank) or al-suffah (bench), it would be saffiyah or suffiyah; and it is possible that preceding of wawu over ya’ in the word sufiyah and its addition in words saffiyah and suffiyah is because of passing from mouth to mouth (tadawul al-alsun)”.
Abu Nasr al-Sarraj, one of the earliest writers on sufism, reports that the word sufi was common in the pre-Islamic days (ashr jahily), that is, by implication, already known in the Prophet’s life. To support his view on this matter he quotes from the History of Mecca by Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar that there were times in Mecca in which everybody left and no one left there to honor the Ka’bah and in these times a Sufi used to come from another place to the Ka’bah in prescribed manner. Thus the term Sufi at that time had the similar significance as the word hanif who is one practicing the religion of Abraham.
If it is so, then why is it not prevalent in the days of Prophet and his Companions? Al-Sarraj argues that it is because the honor of being Prophet’s Companions is the highest honor that no body would ever think to call them other than their being so. In spite of that, their spirituality is of high rank to be the inspiration for next people.

INFLUENCES ON SUFISM
So far as influences toward sufism is concerned, there are several theories. E. H. Palmer considers that sufism is a developed form of primeval religion of the Aryan race. Sufism, thus, is merely considered as a sort Iranian development within Islamic spirituality. And so is the case with Thoulk who identifies the origin of sufism to Zoroastrian with the argument that many of Zoroastrians living in the northern Iran from which early Sufi leaders came and some of the Sufi path founder was of Zoroastrian origin. In spite of these arguments they argue with, we still cannot say that sufism is simply of Iranian sort of spirituality dressed in Arabic, since there were many sufi leaders who lived in Syria, Egypt, and other parts of Islamic world, even some of them are more influential.
Some are convinced that sufism is of Christian origin. This opinion is held even by seemingly moderate Western scholar on sufism, R. A. Nicholson. He writes: “We have seen that the woollen dress, from which the name 'Sufi' is derived, is of Christian origin: vows of silence, litanies (dhikr), and other ascetic practices may be traced to the same source”, and “It must also be allowed that the ascetic movement was inspired by Christian ideals, and contrasted sharply with the active and pleasure-loving spirit of Islam.” But this similarity by which Nicholson maintains his view is no longer valid if we read verses from al-Quran which lucidly elucidates that: “And nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say: ‘We are Christians’. because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant”, “And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognize the truth; they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.” Besides, there is a number of Quranic Verses and Prophetic Traditions which command to live in this world while remembering its transience and forbid from fully absorbed in the worldly life.
Scholars, like Goldziher who is a Jew, are convinced that sufism has been influenced to the great extent by jewish teachings. One of the arguments they propose to establish their view is that many Jews who converted to Islam fabricated many sayings later known as israiliyyat. The other argument they employ to assure their opinion is that incarnation theory of sufism is similar to the antropomorphism tendency within Jew tradition. But, again, the mere similarity does not prove that there is influence. The so-called sufism theory is alien to the core teachings of true sufism, and therefore cannot show any influence toward it.
One more theory is given to trace the origin of sufism. It traces origin of sufism back to Indian Civilization, that is to say that elements of Hindu and Budha had been absorbed into sufism. They argue that annihilation (fana’) in sufi tradition is comparable to the concept of nirvana within Buddhism and Hinduism. And so is the thought of incarnation (hulul) and union (ittihad) ascribed to sufism with reincarnation of souls (tanasukh) of Indian belief. From these resemblances we cannot arbitrarily infer that sufism has been affected by Hinduism or Buddhism.
Another influence from which sufism is identified to be developed is neoplatonism. This so-called influence of neoplatonism is detected by the prominence of literary tradition, containing mystical ideas, translated into Syrian from Greek through which the doctrines of emanation, illumination, gnosis, and ecstasy were transmitted. In addition to his opinion about Christian origin of sufism, he assuredly writes that “Neoplatonism poured into Islam a large tincture of the same mystical element in which Christianity was already steeped”. That Greek thought had permeated some aspects of theosophical sufism is undeniable. However, it should be noticed that it does not necessarily mean that the so-called theosophist merely adopted Greek concepts without appropriating them into their own system of thought; and it is also possible, viewing the conceptual possibilities contained within al-Quran and Prophet’s Tradition, that they just borrow Greek terms to give an explanation of concepts already included in the Two Sources.

ISLAM AND SUFISM
For some, it sounds somewhat strange to question relationship between sufism and Islam. But it is incumbent upon us to clarify this issue, since there are many misunderstandings on sufism from our muslim brothers. Read, for example, Abdurrahman al-Wakil’s book entitled Hadzihi Hiya al-Sufiyyahin which he writes:
“It is an obligation for Sheikh to invite his followers back to Islam; believing in al-Quran and the Prophet’s Tradition; disbelieving the Sufis and their idolatrous legacy. And if their followers do not accept Allah swt as the only God, His book as the only guide, His messenger as the only model, then he must go to Allah swt. and leave this position and its idols; the curse of Allah is upon them”
First of all it is essential to state that sufism is an integral part of Islam. It is no more than an interiorization of Islam, as Schimmel rightly puts it, or practice of the shari’ah at the station of ihsan, as formulated by al-Attas. It is very easy to trace the Sufi’s thought and practices back to the Sources of Islam, that is, al-Quran and Hadith of the Prophet. And, once again, Schimmel correctly notes that “In fact, the quintessence of the long history of Sufism is to express anew, in different formulation, the overwhelming truth that ‘there is no deity but Allah’ and to realize that He alone can be the object of worship”. Keeping this in mind, we should be able to see the position of tasawuf within Islamic context. It is just like fiqh; while the latter is concerned with outer aspect of Islam, the former is concerned with the inner aspect of it. Both are, so to speak, dynamic. Denying one of them means rejecting half of Islam. As alluded to in al-Quran: “Eschew all sin, open or secret” , there are two kind of sins; open or outer sin and secret or inner sin. The first-mentioned is of fiqh matter, so is the latter of tasawuf matter.
As far as the measurement by which Sufis judge their insights, it is a fact that they draw theirs first and foremost from al-Quran and Prophet’s tradition. Both constitute guides par excellence for every Sufi. If the ma’rifah is the highest goal toward which a Sufi should walk, then al-Quran is the only means by which he can know Him and has formed the cornerstone for all mystical doctrines. Sufis also are also inspired by the Prophet through whom al-Quran was revealed. He is the first link in the spiritual chain of sufism.
Al-Attas guidedly states:
“Tasawuf is none other than the intensification of shari’ah upon one’s self; it is the expression of ihsan in the ‘abd; it is ‘ibadah fortified and enlightened by intellectual discernment leading to spiritual apprehension of realities; it is the practice of the shari’ah at the station of ihsan; it is established upon certainty as it is based upon hikmah and al-ilm al-ladunniyy—wisdom and spiritual knowledge which God grants to whomsoever He pleases of the elect among His servants. ... Its technical vocabulary is derived from its chief Source, the Holy Qur’an, and its interpretation and practice is grounded upon the Sunnah.”
The core concept upon which tasawuf is based is concept of covenant sealed between God and pre-existent human being, in which human being acknowledged Allah swt. as their Lord as referred to in al-Quran:
“When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam--from their loins--their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"--They said: "Yea! we do testify!" (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "of this we were never mindful."
This, too, is related with the very essential purpose for which human being and jinn are created. Allah swt. says in al-Quran: “I have only created the Jinn and Man that they may serve Me” . Ibadah in its profoundest sense ultimately means ma’rifah (knowledge), so that His purpose of creation is for the creature to know Him, as He says in Holy Tradition (hadith qudsiyy): “I was a Hidden treasure, and I desired to be known, so I created creation that I might be known”. Such knowledge can only be obtain by the ways commanded in the shari’ah; both obligatory and supererogation. Of this, He sayas in Holy Tradition:
“My Servant ceases not to draw nigh unto Me by supererogatory worship until I love him; and when I love him I am his ear, so that he hears by Me, and his eye, so that he sees by Me, and his tongue, so that he speaks by Me, and his hand so that he takes by Me.”
Observing these facts, i.e., al-Quran and Hadith talking of these so-called theosophical concepts, we should be aware that the very essential of Two Sources is pregnant with such teachings, and thus avoid us from being unduly influenced by theories of influences conveyed by orientalists and their followers.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ali, Sayyid Nur bin Sayyid. al-Tasawuf al-Syar’i Alladzi Yajhaluhu Katsirun min Mudda’iihi wa Munataqidiih. Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah: Beirut. 2000.
al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naquib. Islam and Secularism. ISTAC: Kuala Lumpur. 1993.
-----, Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam. ISTAC: Kuala Lumpur. 2001.
al-Baalbaki, Rohi. Al-Mawrid: A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary. Dar el-Ilm Lilmalayin: Beirut. 1995.
Delafield, John. Mysticism and Its Results Being an Inquiry into the Uses and Abuses of Secrecy. Edwards and Blushnell: New York. 1857.
Dictionary version 1.0.2. Oxford American Dictionary. Apple Computer Inc.
Field, Claud. Mystics and Saints of Islam. Francis Griffiths: London. 1910.
Hamiduddin, M. Early Sufis: Doctrine, in A History of Muslim Philosophy. Edited by M. M. Sharif. vol I. Adam Publisher: New Delhi. 2001.
al-Kalabadhi, Abu Bakr. al-Ta’arruf li Madhhab Ahl al-Tasawwuf. Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah: Beirut. 1993.
Nicholson, Reynold A. The Mystics of Islam. Routledge Keegan Paul: London. 1914.
Qasim, Abdul Hakim Abdul Ghani. Al-Madhahib Al-Sufiyyah wa Madarisuha. Maktabah Madbuli: Cairo. 1999.
Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimension of Islam. Yoda Press: New Delhi.
al-Taftazani, Abu al-Wafa. Madkhal ila al-Tasawwuf al-Islami. Dar al-Thaqafah: Cairo. 1979.
Underhill, Evelyn. Pratical Mysticism: A Little Book for Normal People. E.P. Dutton and Company: New York. 1915.
al-Wakil, Abdurrahman. Hadzihi Hiya al-Sufiyyah. Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah: Beirut. 1979.

Read More...

On Origin and Earliest Usage of Term Sufi

There have been many written on Sufism. And from its very nature, it is understandable to see this subject understood differently and, even, in contradictory manner. To write on this subject is, as Schimmel puts it, an almost impossible task. Therefore, this very short essay merely tries to search the origin of word sufism and to trace its earliest usage.
Of three words—tasawuf, Sufi, and Sufiyah—the seconds seem to exist earlier. This is, in my opinion, due to the fact that it is the most appropriate word from which we can derive the other. Scholars on Sufism have different opinions as to from what root this word originates. Some assert that it originates from الصفو which means purity, others that it originates from الصف which refers to their being's first rank before God, others says that this name comes from اهل الصفة which means the people of the bench referring to those pious poor living in Medina. Even some Western scholars strangely try to relate this word to the Greek sophos which, I argue, must not be known to the earliest Sufis. These so-called roots of tasawuf soon cannot be defended in morphological structure of Arabic. If we are to trace the origin of these opinions we can read, for example, al-Kalabadhi's al-Ta'arruf, one of the earliest sources on tasawuf, which mentions, in first chapter concerning Sufiyyah and why they are so named, some sayings of Sufis; each tries to convey Sufi according to their own preferences. And this does not necessarily mean that they were conveying the morphological root of Sufi.

There remains one word widely considered as morphological origin of Sufi which is, it is argued, the most appropriate words to be the root of word Sufi. This word is الصوف which means woolen garment worn originally by those living an ascetic life. Although the word الصوف only express the outward aspect of Sufi's life, but this very word originally relates strongly to those people of the bench who were:
“People who had left this world, departed from their homes, fled from their companions. They wandered about the land, mortifying the carnal desires, and making naked the body; they took of this world's good only so much as is indispensable for covering the nakedness and allaying hunger.”
The tendency to refer to men by their specific conventional garb rather than by specific attributes and traits is also evident in Holy Quran itself. After quoting from Holy Quran: “wa qal al-hawariyyun”, al-Sarraj says that Holy Quran emphasizes that the Companions of Jesus Christ were referred to by their white garb rather than their virtous traits.
So far as to when word Sufi dates back, there are many views. Considering the fact that the earliest sources of Sufism do not go beyond the fourth/tenth century, some scholars maintains that this word was only apparent after this century or, at best, second/eighth century. But, this word, though not as widely used as in the later centuries, was current in the pre-Islamic days. Abu Nasr al-Sarraj, quoting Ibn Ishaq's History of Mecca and others, insists that there was a period in the history of Mecca when everybody had gone away from Mecca so that nobody was left there to pay homage to the Ka'bah and to go round it. During these days a Sufi used to come from a distant place in order to go round the Ka'bah in the prescribed manner. If this story is true then it is evident that the word sufi was current in the pre-Islamic days, and was used for men of excellence and virtue.
In spite of these various opinions about its origin and earliest usage, Sufism, by spirit, was present at the time of revelation and then practiced by the Companions. Sufism is of spirit more than just a name or clothing a woolen garment.
References:
Ibn Taymiyah, Ahmad. Al-Sufiyyah wa al-Fuqara'. Jeddah: Dar al-Madani.
Kalabadhi, Abu Bakr Muhammad al-. Al-Ta'aruf li Madhhabi Ahl al-Tasawwuf. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al- Ilmiyah. 1993.
Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimension of Islam. New Delhi: Yoda Press.
Sharif, M. M (ed). A History of Muslim Philosophy. Delhi: Adam Publishers. 2001.
Taftazani, Abu al-Wafa al-. Madkhal ila al-Tasawwuf al-Islami. Cairo: Dar al-Thaqafah. 1979.

Read More...

What Parents Do Here

In Indonesia, larger part of population lives in rural area. Consequently most of them live their life traditionally. Yet, it's undeniable that information technology has brought about big change in some aspect of their life.
As far as parent-and-children relationship is concerned, relatively, there are no dramatic differences. This we can divide into two extreme positions and from which then to draw some types of such relationship.
These two extremes are parents who are fully totalitarian in their relationship with their children and parents who are extremely liberal in their way conducting their relationship with them. Of course, we'll feel difficult to find such extreme kinds.
Typically, traditional family- like such of Javanese and Madurese-will demand from their young people to respect everyone older then them, with special emphasize on someone who births you. This in itself is good and, I think, no parent would deny that they hope their children to respect them. And this is very natural inclination of human being. Everyone who has good character will do it.
This had happened for long time and, to some extent, is still happening these days. To respect our parents, for religious people, is to obey one of the most highlighted commands in the Scripture, regardless of what our faith may be, I'm sure that every religion will stress this matter. Even, when you have no religious alliance, you will naturally find-or more precisely feel-that somehow to respect your parents is your obligation. It is our natural tendency to feel it, sown by God out of His bounty for the believer or misunderstably existed within us for the atheist.

But then, when their children grow up and start to have ability to understand this world sometime differently from their parents' way of thinking, and then to choose their own choices, something will happen; conflict, either openly or secretly.
And this, it seems to me so, will occur more often in Indonesian traditional society which there is almost no limitation for information coming from 'outside'. There will be clash of cultures, that is, between traditional culture and modern culture brought by information technology. However, this is not the case in many traditional families, moreover in families living in city, town, or suburb. This is because, I think, they are less traditional. By traditional families I mean those who bear their traditional norms as unchangeable things and no one should try to change, moreover their children. The more inclined they are to their tradition, the more traditional they are.
For families living in urban area to give more tolerance to their children is considerably easy. This might be due to openness of information they and their children can gain. For, someone who knows more will become more tolerance, this at least in many cases. This freedom is a wise to choose if accompanied with consultative function from parents.
On the contrary, freedom to choose is somewhat luxurious stuff for many children originating from rural and traditional family. For them, in many cases, it's not easy to make their own decisions. In most instances, they can't decide many things relating to theirselves. Their parents do it all, for their good, they would say. However for some people to decide by their selves makes them more comfort. They don't have to always rely on their parents to decide something and this, in effect, will get them more prepared in facing future. Nevertheless we can hardly find parents from traditional family-in the sense we mention above-to give their children more freedom. This attitude is because parents traditionally intuitively want to see their children happy but, sadly, from their version of happiness. They almost won't, in some cases, even listen to their children what happiness for them is. It’s all about monologue, while the dialog is always the best. The other reason might be that children-until they get married-in traditional family is more dependent economically to their parents resulting in other dependences. That's why children being independent from their parents have freer choice.
Actually, this time in which informations flood us and it's seemingly impossible to control and sort them for our children, it seems the best for parents to let their children make their own choice while listening, talking each other and advising. This will make them more responsible and independent. Added to this, if they make choices they need, they will be mentally healthier and don't need to find out their identity along their life. For, as Candy Natazia said, the choices you made in life define who you are and what you stand for.

Read More...