Quantcast
Channel: Ismaili Gnosis
Viewing all 212 articles
Browse latest View live

“We come from the Light of God”: Birthday of Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni

$
0
0

Reblogged from Ismā‘īlī Gnosis:

Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post

“The Imām knows from which drop of sperm the Imām after him will come”

“His sperm was kneaded along with his intellect.”

“And we come from the Light of God.”

(Imām Ḥasan ‘alā dhikrihi al-salām)

December 13 marks the 77th birthday of Mawlānā Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī (Aga Khan IV), the Haḍir Imām (Present Imām) of the Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Muslims.  Imām Shāh Karīm is the forty-ninth hereditary Imām in direct lineal descent from Ḥaḍrat ‘Ali ibn Abi Ṭālib, the first of the Imāms in the Cycle of the Prophet Muḥammad.

Read more… 726 more words


Why Philosophy is Important

$
0
0

HC Image Dark Blue

“[Education] must also stimulate students to consider a variety of perspectives on some of the fundamental questions posed by the human condition: “What is truth?” “What is reality?” and “What are my duties to my fellow man, to my country and to God?”
- Imām Shāh Karīm al-Husaynī Āgā Khān IV,
(Aga Khan Academies Vision Statement, Click Here to Read)

Most people, when hearing the word philosophy, think of a highly abstract and purely theoretical body of ideas that have little or no impact upon their everyday lives. This may be true of the academic study of philosophy in some universities, but philosophy itself is embedded in all human activity – most people are simply unaware of it. Philosophy is ultimately about what is true, what is real, and what is good. It is philosophy that offers one an overarching framework to interpret and manage the other realms of human endeavor. Every person actually has a philosophy which is tacit and implicit in their entire way of living.

Some may think that philosophy is not based on “hard evidence” such as modern science. But they fail to notice that modern science – with its insistence that all truth be verified by empirical observations – is basing itself upon a purely philosophical claim (a claim that cannot be supported by empirical observation). The famous Cartesian slogan “I think therefore I am” is another statement about the nature of truth and reality. It implies, as a Cartesian may argue, that the realm of the mind is entirely separate from the external world. Some philosophers use this position to support materialism – the idea that only the external world is objectively real. But, if one’s philosophy exclusively affirms the reality of the physical world – made of matter, atoms, sub-atomic particles, etc., then everything beyond that – such as emotions, thoughts, intentions, values, and even consciousness – is unreal by implication. Thus, what is true logically points toward what is real. If someone were to claim that there is simply no such thing as universal truth – then they would have just declared a universal truth and contradicted themselves. 

At first glance, it may seem of little importance to us whether Plato is correct in his view that justice, compassion, beauty, or goodness are universal truths that exist independently of our physical world. On the other hand, if these are just conventions or constructs made up by human beings – then how could they possess any intrinsic “good” at all? Why should we care about doing “good” or being ethical – if ethics is just a matter of cultural norms, profit, nationalistic agenda, individual preference or moral relativism?

“To speak of end purposes, in turn, is to enter the realm of ethics. What are our ultimate goals? Whose interests do we seek to serve? How, in an increasingly cynical time, can we inspire people to a new set of aspirations—reaching beyond rampant materialism, the new relativism, self-serving individualism, and resurgent tribalism.”
- Imām Shāh Karīm al-Husaynī Āgā Khān IV
(Remarks at Evora University Symposium, February 12, 2006, Click Here to Read)

In the realm of religion and theology, philosophy must be used to understand statements such as “God exists” since this phrase already assumes a concept of “existence”, and a concept of “God”. But what does it mean “to exist”? And what is the nature of “God”? And how can one rationally support the “existence” of “God”? Philosophical theology may speak of God as the ultimate cause of all things that exist. In this case, the argument will focus on demonstrating why a series of causes and effects require a single first cause to keep them in existence at all times. Once again, such an argument will be philosophical – and employ concepts of cause, effect, and logical reasoning to make its case. The philosophical argument does not ignore empirical scientific evidence, but it can build upon it or generalize from it. For example, the fact that the spatial existence of certain quantum particles depend upon the observation of a conscious observer can be used to argue that mind or consciousness is more fundamental that matter (which, upon deeper analysis, is hardly “solid” at all).

Ultimately, philosophy is required to shed light on the key questions of truth, reality, and goodness. The question of truth concerns the very nature of knowledge (epistemology). Knowledge leads to the question of what is real (ontology). What is real leads to the question of what has value or goodness (ethics). What is good ultimately leads to the formation of one’s character. One’s character determines one’s actions, and therefore, one’s entire life. Philosophy, far from being a purely theoretical discipline, is actually a way of life.

The Ismā‘īlī Gnosis blog is dedicated to the explanation of Ismā‘īlī Muslim Philosophy – the philosophical insights of the Ismā‘īlī Imāms, theologians and thinkers throughout history – in a modern intellectual context. Seyyed Hossein Nasr best summarizes the imperatives of Ismā‘īlī philosophy as follows:

For the Ismā‘īlīs philosophy possesses essentially an esoteric, gnostic, and soteriological character and is not simply meant to be mental learning. It is related to the ḥaqīqah or truth at the heart of the Qurʾānic revelation, and therefore can be attained only after proper training of not solely the mind but also the whole of one’s being, which then makes one worthy of receiving knowledge from the representative of true gnosis, who is none other than the Imām or his representatives. The role of the Imām and the hierarchy of those who know at whose head he stands is, therefore, essential in the disciple’s gaining of authentic knowledge.”
- Seyyed Hossein Nasr,
(An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia Volume 2: Ismaili Thought in the Classical Age, 2)


Harvard University Course on Ismaili History and Thought in Spring 2014

$
0
0

3661

Harvard University is offering a university course called Ismaili History and Thought for the Spring 2014 semester beginning in January. The course is designed and taught by Professor Ali S. Asani (Professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic Religion and Cultures) and is open to Harvard undergraduate and graduate students.

The Ismā‘īlī Muslims constitute the second largest branch of Shī‘ī Islam and recognize the continuation of the spiritual and religious authority of the Prophet Muḥammad through his cousin and son-in-law ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib – whom they recognize as the first in a series of hereditary Imāms who are the sole legitimate authorities for the interpretation of Islam. This course deals with the history, doctrines, philosophies, rituals and devotional traditions of three major Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Muslim communities – the Nizari Ismā‘īlīs, the Tayyibi Ismā‘īlīs (Dawoodi Bohras), and the Druze. 

1) Introduction to the Ismā‘īlīs
2) History of the Ismā‘īlīs
3) Conceptions of Imamah
4) Messianic Doctrines

5) Theology, Philosophy and Exegesis
6) Ritual Practice and Devotional Traditions
7) Ismaili Communities in Contemporary Contexts

Course readings include the latest books, articles, and literature in the field of Ismaili studies and shed light upon many important issues such as the Ismā‘īlī doctrine of Imāmah – its evolution through history and articulation in different contexts, Ismā‘īlī philosophy, Ismā‘īlī ritual practice, the diversity of Ismā‘īlī devotional traditions, and the experience of Ismā‘īlī communities in modern times.

Click Here to see the official course description on Harvard’s website.


The Prophet Unveiled: What the Qur’an says about Muhammad

$
0
0

Muhammad

Contemporary discussions about the Prophet Muḥammad’s spiritual function, due to exoteric and literalist influences (such as Wahhabism or the Ahl al-Qur’ān school), have degenerated into a farce in which the Prophet is demoted to a mouthpiece or transmitter of the Qur’ān and nothing more. This conception reduces the august person of the Prophet Muḥammad to a ‘fax-machine’ and fails to appreciate the spiritual depth of his status as Rasūl Allāh (Messenger of God). This important article, published on the Milād al-Nabī – the birthday of the Prophet Muḥammad first commemorated by his spiritual heirs and progeny known as the Fatimid Imām-Caliphs) – seeks to unveil the metaphysical, spiritual, and religious status of the Prophet Muḥammad – based on a simple and straightforward analysis of the verses of the Holy Qur’ān. The article is divided into two sections – the Prophet-Believer Relationship and the God-Prophet Relationship. It will be shown that the Prophet Muḥammad is the “Messenger” (rasūl) of God who reveals not only the Qur’ān but God’s very “Personality” – His Names, Attributes and Qualities – to the Believers.

For Muslims, the findings of this article raise certain imperatives in belief and practice – since the Qur’ān is God’s revelation and its verses present a most exalted image of the Prophet Muḥammad whose presence must form the center of Muslim spiritual life. For academics and historians, this study reveals how the Qur’ān – the earliest piece of documentary evidence on the life of the Prophet – depicts how Muḥammad considered his spiritual status before God and his spiritual authority in relation to his followers. In both cases, it is clear that the original impulse of the faith that became known as Islam revolved around the person of the Prophet Muḥammad and not scripture, ḥadīth, law or scholars (‘ulamā’).

Today’s Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Muslims are often unfairly criticized for the respect, reverence, and love they show towards their present Imām – Mawlānā Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī Āgā Khān – based on the dubious and superficial notion that nothing should be accorded any reverence except God. However, if the Imām is the spiritual, religious and blood successor of the Prophet Muḥammad, then the Imāms would logically continue to perform all of the prophetic functions aside from the revelation of the Qur’ān. Accordingly if one accepts the principle of the Shī‘ī Imāmah, all the reverence due to the Prophet would be directed to the Imāms who are his spiritual heirs. Thus, it should be no surprise that the numerous spiritual responsibilities that the Qur’ān vests in the Prophet Muḥammad continue to be performed today by Imām Shāh Karim Āgā Khān IV – including the functions of guidance, guardianship, mercy, forgiveness, pardon, intercession, blessings, and purification. All of these various functions are attested to by Qur’anic verses quoted in this post.

The below diagram summarizes the two topics of this post – the Prophet-Believer relationship and the God-Prophet relationship. The inner circle lists of the Names of God and the outer circle lists each prophetic function in relation to the Believers in which the Prophet Muḥammad reveals one of the Names of God in his very person:

PMCircle

We encourage readers to scan through this post to get a better sense of the arguments and note the key Qur’ānic verses about Muḥammad’s spiritual status.

Part 1: The Prophet-Believer Relationship

The Comprehensive Mission of the Prophet Muḥammad:

Even as We have sent among you a Messenger from you, reciting to you Our Signs, and purifying you (yuzakkīkum), and teaching you (yu‘allimukum) the Book (al-kitāb) and Wisdom (al-ḥikmah), and teaching you that which you do not know.
- Holy Qur’ān 2:151 (see also 62:2, 3:164)

The above verse shows how the mission of Muḥammad includes much more than revealing the Qur’ān. In fact, only Muḥammad’s first duty – “reciting to you our Signs (ayāt)” – refers to the Qur’ān. The other duties of the Prophet included purification (tazkiyyah), teaching (ta‘līm) of the Book, teaching the inner Wisdom of the Book, and teaching the Believers new knowledge. Thus, the revelation of the Qur’ān comprises only one fourth of the Prophet’s overall mission.

The Prophet Muḥammad is the Guide of the Believers:

And verily you [Muḥammmad] surely guide to the Straight Path (ṣiraṭ al-mustaqīm).
- Holy Qur’ān 42:52

All Muslims pray for God to guide them to the Straight Path in every prayer. But the above verse, revealed to the Prophet, clearly shows that it is actually Muḥammad’s duty to “guide to the Straight Path”.

And We have sent down unto you (also) the Reminder; that you may explain clearly (li-tubayyina) to mankind what was sent down for them, and that they reflect .
- Holy Qur’ān 16:44 (see also 16:64, 14:4)

The above verse demonstrates how the Prophet – in addition to revealing the Qur’ān – must also provide the “explanation” (bayān) of the Qur’ān to the believers to foster their own reflections (fikr).

The Prophet Muḥammad’s Authority over the Believers is unlimited:

To obey the Prophet Muḥammad is to obey God Himself

He who obeys the Messenger, obeys God. - Holy Qur’ān 4:80

We sent a Messenger only to be obeyed by the permission of God.
- Holy Qur’ān 4:64

Verily, those who give their bay‘ah to you, they surely give their bay‘ah to God Himself.
- Holy Qur’ān 48:10

The above verses show that obedience to the Prophet Muḥammad is equal and tantamount to obedience to God. It logically follows that all orders in the Qur’ān to “obey God” are only fulfilled by obeying the Prophet Muḥammad.

So whatever the Messenger gives you, take it. And whatever he forbids you, abstain from it.
- Holy Qur’ān 59:7

The above verse indicates that it is indeed the Prophet Muḥammad who determines what is allowed and what is forbidden. Whatever the Prophet gives to the Believers – guidance, prescribed rituals, rules of behavior – must be followed.

The Prophet Muhammad has more authority and closeness to the Believers than their own souls:

The Prophet has more authority (awla) over the believers than their own souls.
- Holy Qur’ān 33:6

The Prophet is the Lord-Guardian of the Believers:

Verily, your Lord-Guardian (walī) is only God, His Messenger, and those who have faith, who establish regular prayers, and give the zakah while they bow down.
- Holy Qur’ān 5:55

The Prophet Muḥammad is the final judge and arbiter in all matters:

But no, by the Lord, they do not have faith, until they make you [Muḥammad] judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decrees, but they submit (to you) in full submission.
- Holy Qur’ān 4:65

Verily, We have sent down to you the Book with the Truth so that you judge between the people by what God as shown you.
- Holy Qur’ān 4:105

The answer of the Believers, when summoned to God and His Messenger, in order that he may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, “We hear and we obey”: it is such as these that will attain felicity.
- Holy Qur’ān 24:51

It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys God and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
- Holy Qur’ān 33:36

The above verses all describe the proper situation of the Believer in relation to the Prophet Muḥammad. Indeed, the very condition of having “faith” (īmān) is to wholeheartedly accept and submit to the judgment, decrees, and orders of the Prophet Muḥammad without any question.

 

The Prophet Muḥammad deserves undue respect, reverence and honour:

The believers are to honour and respect the Prophet Muhammad:

In order that you have faith in God and His Messenger, that ye may assist him and honour him, and praise Him morning and evening.
- Holy Qur’ān 48:9

Those who follow the Messenger, the ummī Prophet, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who have faith in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.
- Holy Qur’ān 7:157

The Believers must be humble and lower their voices in the presence of the Prophet Muḥammad:

O you who have faith! Do not be forward in the presence of God and His Messenger; but fear God: for God is He Who hears and knows all things.  O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as you may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and you perceive not. Those that lower their voices in the presence of God’s Messenger,- their hearts has Allah tested for piety: for them is Forgiveness and a great Reward.
-  Holy Qur’ān 49:1-3

The Prophet Muhammad embodies Divine Mercy and Forgiveness:

God loves and forgives the believers on the condition of obeying the Prophet Muhammad:

Say (O Muḥammad): “If ye do love God, Follow me: God will love you and forgive you your sins: For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
- Holy Qur’ān 3:31

God’s love and forgiveness reach the Believers only through their obedience to the Prophet Muḥammad. This shows how Muḥammad, in fact, serves as the “gate” and “channel” of God’s love and forgiveness.

Obedience to the Prophet Muhammad brings the Mercy of God to the Believers:

And obey God and the Messenger; that ye may obtain mercy.
- Holy Qur’ān 3:132

The Prophet Muhammad himself is God’s mercy to all worlds:

And we have only sent you [Muḥammad] as a Mercy to the worlds.
- Holy Qur’ān 21:107

 The Prophet Muḥammad is gentle out of God’s Mercy:

It is by the Mercy from God that you (O Muhammad) were gentle with them, for if you had been stern of heart they would have dispersed from around you.
- Holy Qur’ān 3:159

This verse establishes how the Prophet Muḥammad’s gentle qualities toward the Believers are actually expressions of the Mercy of God.  This suggests that the Prophet’s mercy is the manifestation of God’s mercy.

The Prophet Muḥammad is kind and merciful to the Believers:

There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] concerned over you and to the believers is kind (ra’ūf) and merciful (raḥīm).
- Holy Qur’ān 9:128

The presence of the Prophet Muḥhammad wards off God’s punishment:

But Allah would not punish them while you, [O Muhammad], are among them, and God would not punish them while they seek forgiveness.
- Holy Qur’ān 8:33

The Prophet Muḥammad seeks God’s forgiveness on behalf the Believers:

And if, when they wronged their souls, they had come to you, [O Muḥammad], and asked forgiveness of God and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found God Forgiving and Merciful.
- Holy Qur’ān 4:64

The above verse shows that a) when the Believers seek the forgiveness of God they must go into the physical presence of Muḥammad; b) Muḥammad must pray to God and seek God’s forgiveness for the Believers; and c) only after Muḥammad’s prayer for God’s forgiveness will the Believers have “found God Forgiving and Merciful”. This shows how the Prophet Muḥammad serves as the intercessor and mediator between God and the Believers with respect to God’s forgiveness and mercy.

Some people are too arrogant to accept the Prophet Muḥammad’s prayers for God’s forgiveness:

And when it is said to them, “Come, the Messenger of Allah will ask forgiveness for you,” they turn their heads aside and you see them evading while they are arrogant.
- Holy Qur’ān 63:5

Despite the Qur’ānic promise of the Prophet Muḥammad’s intercession and prayers, some people – even some Muslims today – are too arrogant to accept the reality and need for the Prophet’s special intercessory prayers.

The Prophet Muḥammad himself pardons and forgives the Believers for their sins and errors:

It is by the Mercy from God that you (O Muhammad) were gentle with them, for if you had been stern of heart they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon (‘afu ‘anhum) them and ask forgiveness (astaghfir lahum) for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And when you are resolved, then put your trust in God. Lo! God loveth those who put their trust (in Him).
- Holy Qur’ān 3:159

Hold to forgiveness (al-‘afū); command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant.
- Holy Qur’ān 7:199

The above verses also confirm how the Prophet Muḥammad has been commanded to pray to God on behalf of the Believers who are seeking God’s forgiveness. However, these verses also command the Prophet to perform another act of forgiveness or pardoning (indicated by the Arabic word ‘afwa – related to the Urdu word ma‘af). Therefore, the Prophet Muḥammad both a) seeks God’s forgiveness for the Believers as an intercessor and b) pardons the Believers by his own act of forgiveness (see also 5:13). Both forms of prophetic forgiveness are necessary.

The Prophet Muḥammad receives devotional offerings (ṣadaqah) from the Believers and thereby purifies, sanctifies, and blesses them with his special prayers:

The Believers must submit an offering to the Prophet Muḥammad before having a private meeting with him:

O ye who have faith! When you privately consult the Messenger, then present an offering (ṣadaqah) before your private consultation. That will be best for you, and purer for you. But if you find not (the means), God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
- Holy Qur’ān 58:12

This verse establishes how the Believers would seek to have private meetings (najwā) with the Prophet Muḥammad. The Qur’ān recommends that every Believer submit an offering (ṣadaqah) to the Prophet Muḥammad when having this special meeting – and that this offering is a means of purity (tahārah) for the Believers.

The Believer’s submissions of their wealth to the Prophet Muḥammad are the means to obtaining the Prophet’s special blessings and prayers:

And among the Arabs are those who have faith in God and the Last Day and take what they spend as a means of closeness toward God and the prayers/blessings (ṣalawāt) of the Messenger. Behold, it is indeed a means of closeness for them. God will make them enter in His Mercy. Indeed, God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.
- Holy Qur’ān 9:99

The above verse significantly confirms that some of the Arabs would give a portion of their wealth to the Prophet Muḥammad – as a means of attaining the Prophet’s prayers or blessings (ṣalawāt) and closeness to God. The verse encourages this practice of submitting offerings and states that as a result of spending one’s wealth, such people will be made to enter into God’s Mercy.

And (there are) others who have acknowledged their faults. They mixed a righteous action with another that was bad. It may be that Allah will relent toward them. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Take offerings (ṣadaqah) from their wealth, and purify and sanctify them by means of it. And pray/send blessings over them. Verily, your prayer/blessing is a source of peace (sakan) for them. And God is the Hearing, the Knowing.
- Holy Qur’ān 9:102-103

The next verses continue and describe those Believers who have performed good deeds, but also committed sins while acknowledging their faults. The Qur’ān orders such people – who have committed any kind of wrong-doing – to give an offering (ṣadaqah) from their wealth (amwāl) to the Prophet Muḥammad. The Prophet is then ordered to accept these offerings (ṣadaqah) and thereby purify and sanctify the Believers.  The Prophet Muḥammad is also told to give his special prayers or blessings upon the Believers – and that the special prayer of the Prophet is a source of peace (sakan) for them. This verse clearly indicates that it was the prophetic practice of Muḥammad to accept material offerings from the Believers and purify, sanctify, and pray/bless those who submitted such offerings.

The Prophet Muḥammad is a Light from God which clarifies all things:

O People of the Book! Now hath Our Messenger come unto you, clarifying for you much of what you used to hide of the Book, and forgiving much. Now there has come unto you a Light (nūr) from God and a manifest Book.
- Holy Qur’ān 5:15 (see also 5:19, 16:44, 16:64)

O Prophet! Lo! We have sent thee as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner and a summoner unto God by His permission and as a lamp that gives light (sirāj munīran).
- Holy Qur’ān 33:45-46

Those who disbelieve among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, were not going to depart (from their ways) until there should come to them the Clear Proof (al-bayyinah) – a Messenger from God reciting purified pages.
- Holy Qur’ān 98:1-2

The Prophet Muḥammad’s inner character is Sublime:

You [Muḥammad] are not, by the Favour of your Lord, possessed (majnūn). Verily, for you is an unfailing reward.  And you are surely upon exalted character (khulq ‘aẓīm).
- Holy Qur’ān 68:4

This verse refers to the Prophet’s character or inner constitution (khulq) as “sublime” (‘aẓīm). This is significant because the Qur’ān also refers to itself as “sublime” (‘aẓīm) and often mentions God as “the Sublime One” (al-‘aẓīm).

The Prophet Muḥammad is the Universal Witness of God over Humankind

So how [will it be] when We bring from every people (ummah) a witness (shahīd) and We bring you [O’ Muḥammad] against these [people] as a witness?
- Holy Qur’ān 4:41

This verse is one of the most mysterious in the entire Qur’ān. It indicates that on the Day of Judgment, the Prophet Muḥammad will be a witness over all of the witnesses of each nation or people. The Prophet’s role as universal witness suggests that he must remain spiritually present in the world at all times – in order to actually serve as a witness over the deeds of all human beings.

The Prophet Muḥammad receives grace, mercy, and knowledge from God:

And if it was not for the Grace of God upon you [O Muḥammad], and His Mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you. But they do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all. And God has revealed to you the Book and Wisdom and has taught you that which you did not know. And ever has the Grace of God upon you been great.
- Holy Qur’ān 4:113

The Prophet Muḥammad is inspired by God through the Holy Spirit and Light:

Your companion/master (ṣāḥib) is not astray or deceived. He does not speak out of caprice/desire (al-hawā). It is no less than inspired inspiration (waḥyun yūḥa).
- Holy Qur’ān 53:1-4

The Trustworthy Spirit (rū al-amīn) descended with it [the revelation] upon your heart (qalbika) so that you would be among the warners in clear Arabic language.
- Holy Qur’ān 26:192-194

And that We have inspired you [Muhammad] with a Spirit (rūḥ) from Our Command.  You did not know what was the Book (kitāb) and what was the Faith.  But We have made it a Light (nūr) by which We guide those of our Servants as We will. And verily, you guide to a Straight Path.
- Holy Qur’ān 42:52

These verses illustrate the nature of the divine inspiration (wahy; ta’yīd) which God has granted to the Prophet Muḥammad. Firstly, this inspiration is spiritual in nature and flows through Holy Spirit that comes from God’s Command. Secondly, the inspiration comes upon the Prophet through his heart – the spiritual faculty of the human soul – and not in the form of sounds, words, or letters. Thus, divine inspiration is not a form of verbal dictation – such an idea is a complete insult to the spiritual depth of the Prophet Muḥammad. Thirdly, the verses show how whatever Muḥammad says, does, or thinks is divinely-inspired – not only the revealed Qur’ān – but all of Muḥammad’s speech and guidance is guided by God and not from human whims or desires. This prophetic inspiration is continuous and not discrete – it does not cease or stop at one moment and resume at another – but continues like a stream. Finally, it is this inspiration or divine assistance granted to the Prophet Muḥammad that allows him to perform all of the above prophetic functions. The very soul of the Prophet Muḥammad is continuously inspired and guided through the Holy Spirit – this is what makes him more than an ordinary human being. From this we could even conclude that the Qur’ān and the very personality of the Prophet Muḥammad are manifestations of the same Holy Spirit that flows from the Command of God.

Below is a summary of the above Qur’ānic verses about the Prophet Muḥammad:

The Status of the Prophet Muḥammad in the Qur’ān:

  • The Prophet Muḥammad is inspired by the Holy Spirit (42:52, 26:192-194)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is a mercy (raḥmah) to the worlds (21:107)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is merciful (raḥīm) to the Believers (9:128)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is kind (ra’ūf) to the Believers (9:128)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is an honourable Messenger (rasūl karīm) (69:40; 81:19-21)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is light (nūr) from God (5:15) and a radiant lamp (sirāj munīr) (33:46)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad (like Prophet Abraham) is gentle (ḥalīm) to the Believers (11:75)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the possessor of power (dhū al-quwwah) (81:20-21)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the teacher (mu‘allim) of the Book and Wisdom and new knowledge (62:2; 3:164; 2:151)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad, like his predecessors, is patient (ṣabūr) (38:16, 46:34)
  • The Prophet is the witness (shahīd) of humankind on the Day of Judgment (2:143, 33:46; 4:41)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the guardian (walī) of the Believers (5:55)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad prays to God for the Believer’s forgiveness (4:64, 63:5, 3:159, 60:12)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad forgives the Believers (5:13; 3:159; 7:199)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad guides the Believers to the Straight Path (45:25)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad’s nature or character is sublime (‘aẓīm) (68:4)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the judge of the believers (4:65; 4:105; 24:51; 33:36)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad makes things clear to the Believers (5:15; 5:19; 16:44; 16:64; 14:4)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad purifies and sanctifies the believers (9:103)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad holds authority (awlā) over the Believers (33:6)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad summons the Believers to that which gives them life (8:24).
  • The Prophet Muḥammad recites the Signs of God (2:151).
  • The Prophet Muḥammadsends ṣalawāt (blessings, prayers) upon the Believers (9:103)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad receives offerings (ṣadaqa) from the Believers (9:103; 58:12)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad brings the people from darkness to Light (14:1; 14:5 65:11)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is a beautiful pattern for the Believers (33:21)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the object of great respect and veneration (48:9, 49:1-3)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad commands the lawful and forbids the wrong (7:157)
  • He who gives their allegiance (bay‘ah) to the Prophet Muḥammad has given it to God (48:10)
  • He who obeys the Prophet Muḥammad, obeys God (4:80; 4:64)

Part 2: The God-Prophet Relationship

When one examines the above verses in closer detail, it will become apparent that a number of the qualities, attributes, and functions that the Qur’ān gives to the Prophet Muḥammad are rooted in or identical to the Most Beautiful Names of God.

In one example, we are told that the duty of Muḥammad is not to guide the believers – but that it is God who guides whom He wills:

Their guidance is not your responsibility [O’ Muḥammad], but God guides whom He wills.
- Holy Qur’ān 2:272

But another verse – quoted earlier above – states that Muḥammad guides the people to the Straight Path:

And that We have inspired you [Muhammad] with a Spirit from Our Command.  You did not know what was the Book (kitāb) and what was the Faith.  But We have made it a Light (nūr) by which We guide those of our Servants as We will. And verily, you guide to a Straight Path.
- Holy Qur’ān 42:52

When both verses are taken in context, the only conclusion is that Muḥammad himself is guided by God directly through the Holy Spirit and that he in turn guides the Believers on God’s behalf. Therefore, God effectively guides people through the guidance of Muḥammad. Accordingly, Muḥammad’s guidance is the manifestation of God’s guidance and Muḥammad’s role as “the guide” (al-ḥādī) to the Straight Path is the reflection on earth of God’s Name al-Ḥādī.

A second example of the Prophet Muḥammad’s mediation in the manifestation of God’s acts is in the acceptance of the offerings (ṣadaqah) and repentance of the Believers: 

And (there are) others who have acknowledged their faults. They mixed a righteous action with another that was bad. It may be that Allah will relent toward them. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Take (khud) offerings (ṣadaqah) from their wealth (amwālihum), and purify and sanctify them by means of it. And pray/send blessings over them. Verily, your prayer/blessing is a source of peace (sakan) for them. And God is the Hearing, the Knowing. Do they not know that it is God who accepts repentance from His servants and takes the offerings (ya’khudu al-ṣadaqāt) and that it is God who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful?
- Holy Qur’ān 9:102-104

In the above verse, the Prophet Muḥammad is ordered to “Take (khud) offerings (ṣadaqah) from their wealth (amwālihum)”. But the next verse confirms that it is God who “takes the offerings (ya’khudu al-ṣadaqāt)”. Similarly, the Prophet Mūhammad is told to purify them (tuṭahhiruhum) and sanctify them (tuzakkiruhum) by means of this offering. Yet the Qur’ān also says that “God purifies (yuzakkī) whom He wills” (Qur’ān 24:21, see also 33:33). Once again, the only logical conclusion from such verses is that God purifies whom He wills through the Prophet Muḥammad’s act of purifying the Believers. Thus, Muḥammad is the intercessor, the means of approach (wasīlah) and wasīṭah between God and the Believers.

A third example is in verses that describe the nature of the Prophet Muḥammad with the same essential attributes of God Himself. In numerous Qur’ānic verses (see 9:117), God is referred to as “the Kind, the Merciful” (al-ra’ūf al-raḥīm). However, the below verse gives the exact same description of the Prophet Muḥammad:

There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] concerned over you and to the believers is kind (ra’ūf) and merciful (raḥīm).
- Holy Qur’ān 9:128

In this verse, the Prophet Muḥammad is described – in the exact same terms as the Names of God as “kind and merciful” (ra’ūf raḥīm). In similar fashion, the Qur’ān describes the inner nature of the Prophet as ‘aẓīm (sublime) – also one of the Names of God. In this respect, the Imām Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq has stated that God has in fact adorned the Prophet Muḥammad with His own Attributes:

Between Himself and them [his creatures], He placed one of their own species, clothing him in His own attributes of compassion and mercy.
- Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, (Reza Shah-Kazemi, Spiritual Quest, 25)

Perhaps the most enigmatic and mysterious Qur’ānic verse expressing the relationship between the Prophet Muḥammad and God is as follows. This verse was revealed on an occasion where the Prophet had to throw some stones to defend himself:

And you [Muḥammad] did not throw when you threw, but it was God who threw in order that He may test the Believers with a beautiful trial.
- Holy Qur’ān 8:17

On one hand, Muḥammad’s act of throwing the stones is affirmed “when you threw” and then negated “you did not throw” and attributed to God “but it was God who threw.” Thus, it is God who “threw” the stones through Muḥammad’s act of throwing the stones. Once again, this verse shows how God Himself acts by means of the act of Muḥammad. In Qur’ān 48:10 – referring to the Believer’s placing their hands under the Prophet Muḥammad’s hands in the act of bay‘ah, the Qur’ān states that “the Hand of God is upon their hands.” This is significant because in physical terms, it was the Prophet Muḥammad’s hand which was placed upon the hands of the Believers.  But the Qur’ān attributed to entire affair to God.

Thus, the Prophet Muḥammad is the instrument or intermediary through which God acts toward the Believers and also, in his own person, the highest reflection or manifestation of God’s Names and Attributes. This may seem contradictory at first – since the Prophet Muḥammad is a creature and servant (‘abd) of God. However, true and complete servitude (‘ibadah) before God implies the effacement of all individual egotism and impurity. Such a soul – which is completed effaced and humble before its Lord – becomes like a shiny and polished mirror in which God’s Attributes shine and are reflected.  In this respect, the Prophet Muḥammad is simultaneously the humblest servant of God and the highest locus of manifestation (maẓharor reflector of God’s Names and Attributes.  This also makes Muḥammad the best of all created beings and the intercessor and mediator par excellence between God and His creatures.

The Qur’ānic verses which demonstrate how the Prophet Muḥammad is both the intercessor between God and the Believers and the locus of manifestation (maẓhar) of God’s Names and Attributes are as follows:

The Relationship between God’s Attributes and the Prophet Muḥammad:

  • God is al-Raḥmān (The Merciful) and the Prophet Muḥammad is raḥmah (mercy) (21:107)
  • God is al-Raḥīm (The Beneficent) and the Prophet Muḥammad is raḥīm (9:128)
  • God is al-Ra’ūf (The Kind) and the Prophet Muḥammad is ra’uf (9:128)
  • God is al-Karim (The Generous) and the Prophet Muḥammad is karīm (69:40; 81:19-21)
  • God is al-Nūr (The Light) and the Prophet Muḥammad is nūr from God (5:15) and a radiant lamp (sirāj munīr) (33:46)
  • God is al-Ḥalīm (The Forbearing) and the Prophet Muḥammad is halīm (11:75)
  • God is al-Qawiy (The Strong) and the Prophet Muḥammad is dhū al-quwwah (81:20-21)
  • God is al-‘Ālim (the Knower) and the Prophet Muḥammad is the teacher (mu‘allim) of the Book and Wisdom and new knowledge (62:2; 3:164; 2:151)
  • God is al-Ṣabūr (The Patient) and the Prophets are ṣabūr (38:16, 46:34)
  • God is al-Shahīd (The Witness) and the Prophet is shahīd (witness) of humankind (2:143, 33:46; 4:41)
  • God is al-Walī (The Guardian) and the Prophet Muḥammad is the walī of the Believers (5:55)
  • God is al-Ghaffar (The Forgiver) and the Prophet Muḥammad asks for the believer’s forgiveness (4:64, 63:5, 3:159, 60:12)
  • God is al-‘Afū (The Pardoner) and the Prophet Muḥammad pardons the Believers (5:13; 3:159; 7:199)
  • God is al-Hādī (The Guide) and the Prophet Muḥammad guides to the Straight Path (45:25)
  • God is al-‘Aẓīm (The Great) and the Prophet Muḥammad’s nature is ‘aẓīm (68:4)
  • God is al-Ḥakam (The Judge) and the Prophet Muḥammad is the judge of the Believers (4:65; 4:105; 24:51; 33:36)
  • God is al-Mubayyin (The Clarifier) (5:75, 24:58) and the Prophet Muḥammad makes things clear (5:15; 5:19; 16:44; 16:64; 14:4)
  • God is al-Mutahhir (The Purifier) (4:49; 33:33) and the Prophet Muḥammad purifies the believers (9:103)
  • God is al-Mawlā (The Master) and the Prophet Muḥammad holds awlā (authority) over the Believers (33:6)
  • God is al-Muḥyī (The Giver of Life) and the Prophet Muḥammad summons the Believers to that which gives them life (8:24).
  • God recites His Signs (2:252; 3:108) and the Prophet Muḥammad recites His Signs (2:151).
  • God sends Ṣalawāt (blessings) and the Prophet Muḥammad sends ṣalawāt (9:103)
  • God receives ṣadaqah (9:104) when the Prophet Muḥammad receives ṣadaqah (9:103; 58:12)
  • God brings the people from darkness to Light (2:257) and the Prophet Muḥammad brings the people from darkness to Light (14:1; 14:5 65:11)
  • He who gives their allegiance (bay‘ah) to the Prophet Muḥammad has given it to God (48:10)
  • God commands the right and forbids the wrong (66:6) and the Prophet Muḥammad commands the lawful and forbids the wrong (7:157)
  • He who obeys the Prophet Muḥammad, obeys God (4:80; 4:64)
  • When Prophet Muḥammad threw stones, it was actually God who threw (8:17)

The below diagram summarizes the two topics of this post – the Prophet-Believer relationship and the God-Prophet relationship. The inner circle lists of the Names of God and the outer circle lists each prophetic function in relation to the Believers where the Prophet Muḥammad is manifesting one of the Names of God:

PMCircle

Conclusion: The Need for Muḥammad’s Successor

To summarize once again, the Qur’ān attributes the following descriptions, attributions, and functions to the Prophet Muḥammad:

  • The Prophet Muḥammad is inspired by the Holy Spirit (42:52, 26:192-194)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the mercy (raḥmah) to the worlds (21:107)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is merciful (raḥīm) to the Believers (9:128)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is kind (ra’ūf) the Believers (9:128)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is an honourable Messenger (rasūl karīm) (69:40; 81:19-21)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is light (nūr) from God (5:15) and a radiant lamp (sirāj munīr) (33:46)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad (like Prophet Abraham) is gentle (ḥalīm) to the Believers (11:75)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the possessor of power (dhū al-quwwah) (81:20-21)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the teacher (mu‘allim) of the Book and Wisdom and new knowledge (62:2; 3:164; 2:151)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad, like his predecessors, is patient (ṣabūr) (38:16, 46:34)
  • The Prophet is the witness (shahīd) of humankind on the Day of Judgment (2:143, 33:46; 4:41)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the guardian (walī) of the Believers (5:55)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad prays to God for the Believer’s forgiveness (4:64, 63:5, 3:159, 60:12)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad forgives the Believers (5:13; 3:159; 7:199)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad guides the Believers to the Straight Path (45:25)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad’s nature or character is sublime (‘aẓīm) (68:4)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the judge of the believers (4:65; 4:105; 24:51; 33:36)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad makes things clear to the Believers (5:15; 5:19; 16:44; 16:64; 14:4)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad purifies and sanctifies the believers (9:103)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad holds authority (awlā) over the Believers (33:6)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad summons the Believers to that which gives them life (8:24).
  • The Prophet Muḥammad recites the Signs of God (2:151).
  • The Prophet Muḥammad sends ṣalawāt (blessings, prayers) upon the Believers (9:103)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad receives offerings (ṣadaqa) from the Believers (9:103; 58:12)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad brings the people from darkness to Light (14:1; 14:5 65:11)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is a beautiful pattern for the Believers (33:21)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad is the object of great respect and veneration (48:9, 49:1-3)
  • The Prophet Muḥammad commands the lawful and forbids the wrong (7:157)
  • He who gives their allegiance (bay‘ah) to the Prophet Muḥammad has given it to God (48:10)
  • He who obeys the Prophet Muḥammad, obeys God (4:80; 4:64)

All of the above spiritual functions go far beyond the Prophet’s function of reciting and proclaiming the Qur’ān. In fact, these spiritual functions listed above fall under the category of walāyah (spiritual guardianship) and not that of legislative prophecy (nubuwwah) – which is only concerned with proclaiming the revelation. Simply focusing on a handful of the above spiritual functions of Muḥammad shows the need for a spiritual heir and successor to the Prophet.  If Muḥammad was responsible for guiding the Believers on behalf of God, praying for the Believer’s forgiveness (4:64), taking offerings from them to purify them (9:102-104) on God’s behalf, sending blessings upon them for their tranquility (9:103), judging between them (4:65), and accepting their obedience on behalf of God – all during his own time, does this not necessitate the presence of someone to perform these spiritual functions for the Believers in every age and time after the departure of the Prophet? If the answer is negative, then doesn’t this contradict the very justice of God? Why would God bless the people of one particular time and age with a person who performs all of the above functions and then deprive the countless number of human beings who live after him of the same blessing? The only logical conclusion is that a person like the Prophet Muḥammad must always be present in the world to continue his spiritual and religious mission.

The status of Muḥammad as the Seal of the Prophets only signifies the conclusion of scriptural revelation and legislative prophecy.  But Divine inspiration (ta’yīd) and spiritual guardianship (walāyah) must always continue – otherwise, humanity would be wholly deprived of Divine guidance. Thus, the successor of Muḥammad with respect to divine inspiration (ta’yīd) and the functions of walāyah – the person who continues to guide the Believers on God’s behalf, to pray for their forgiveness, to accept their offerings and purify them on God’s behalf, to send blessings upon them, to judge between them, and accept their obedience on behalf of God – is the hereditary Ismā‘īlī Imām from the progeny or Ahl al-Bayt of the Muḥammad.

There must also exist, by divine right, a continuation of at least a portion of the original link between man and God, much as it was when the prophet still lived.  In other words, the world at all times must have a prophetically inspired person who, as the heir of the prophet himself, carries on the principle of his rule in all those matters where his authority was once supreme… In the current historical era, this person is the Imām and he is of necessity a direct lineal descent of Muḥammad through his single, chosen heir and executor, ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib.
- Paul Walker, (Early Philosophical Shiism, 3-4)


Watch: Academic Lecture on the Ismaili Muslims and the Aga Khan

$
0
0

On Thursday, February 27, 2014, the Aga Khan IV – the 49th Hereditary Imam of the Ismaili Muslims is scheduled to deliver a speech at a joint session of the Canadian Parliament and Senate.

As this is a time when many people will be asking questions about the history, beliefs and practices of the Ismaiili Muslims and the role of the Aga Khan as their 49th hereditary Imam, we invite our readers to watch this November 2011 academic lecture at the University of Toronto – presented by Khalil Andani (Master’s Candidate at Harvard Divinity School).

The lecture covers the following themes:

  1. Locating the Ismaili Muslims within the Muslim Ummah
  2. Historical Snapshot of the Ismaili Imamat
  3. Isma’ili Da’wah and Esoteric Interpretation
  4. The Imamat and the Spiritual Role of the Imam
  5. Ismaili Muslim Praxis: Concept of Tariqah in Islam


An Ismaili Muslim Reconciliation of Creation and Evolution

$
0
0

aga-khan-with-son-and-gransons-in-various-editions

“It was this Islamic sense of unity in all forms of life which confirmed my father’s faith in a God-governed order. [Imam Sulṭān Muhammad Shāh] achieved a synthesis which enabled him to conciliate his faith in the Almighty as well as in Darwin’s theory of the origin of the species which swept across Europe in his youth and generated such heated debate.”
(Prince Sadruddin Āgā Khān describing the beliefs of his father Imam Sulṭān Muhammad Shāh)

The recent debate between the creationist museum and popular scientist raised the question of whether the monotheistic doctrine of creation is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution. This article reconciles the traditional doctrine of Creation found in monotheistic faiths with the theory of Evolution by refuting both creationism and naturalism (atheism) and integrating Ismā‘īlī Muslim metaphysics with modern science.

Over one thousand years ago, the Ismā‘īlī Muslim philosopher Sayyidnā Nāṣir-i Khusraw undertook the daunting task of reconciling and synthesizing the religious doctrines and science and philosophical views of his time in a great work called The Reconciliation of the Two Wisdoms (Jāmi‘ al-ḥikmatayn). Following the spirit of Sayyidnā Nāṣir, this article presents a reconciliation of the classical theistic doctrine of Creation and theory of Evolution in light of contemporary discussions of both theology and science.

The recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham only serves to perpetuate the misunderstandings between atheists, agnostics, scientists and people of faith. On one side, Ken Ham’s “creationism” amounts to total departure from the classical concepts of God and Creation found in most monotheistic faiths. On the other hand, most people interpret (sometimes tacitly) the theory of evolution within a purely materialist or naturalist worldview – in which physical reality is all that exists and where all aspects of living organisms are fully explained by Darwinian evolution. The proper reconciliation between a theistic worldview based on the reality of God’s creation and the scientifically grounded theory of evolution involve a return to the classical understanding of God and Creation found in the scholastic and philosophical traditions of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and an honest recognition of the limits of naturalism and the mechanistic concept of Nature. 

The Pitfalls of Scriptural Literalism:

“…one would have to be rather simple to imagine that there could have been “days” before the creation of the sun, or that God literally planted an orchard with physical trees”
- David Bentley Hart

Genesis

Biblical literalism is a modern phenomenon that took hold among the Protestant Christians. Unlike the Catholics and Orthodox Christians, Protestants take the Bible alone as the sufficient authority in religious matters. In this context, certain groups of Protestants in the 18th century began to confine the interpretation of the Bible to its literal meaning. This happened because the interpretive mindsets of such people were conditioned and threatened by the scientific revolution – in which truth was recognized solely in terms of literal facts. However, Biblical literalism is inconsistent with both Christian tradition and human reason. 

The Christian Church Fathers did not take the verses of Genesis literally. In fact, they emphasized that one must interpret the Bible with resource to philosophy in order to perceive the spiritual truths embedded within its allegories. As Hart explains:

“The greatest Church Fathers, for instance, took it for granted that the creation narratives of Genesis could not be treated literally, at least not in the sense we give to that word today, but must be read allegorically—which, incidentally, does not mean read as stories with codes to be decrypted but simply read as stories whose value lies in the spiritual truths to which they can be seen as pointing. Origen of Alexandria (185–254), in many ways the father of patristic exegesis, remarked that one would have to be rather simple to imagine that there could have been “days” before the creation of the sun, or that God literally planted an orchard with physical trees whose fruits conferred wisdom or eternal life, or that God liked to amble through his garden in the gloaming, or that Adam could have hidden from him behind a tree; no one could doubt, he said, that these are figural tales, communicating spiritual mysteries, and certainly not historical records.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 25)

Secondly, the literal affirmation that God created the Universe in six days results in a contradiction. The simply reason being that if God is the creator of the universe, then He must also be the creator of time and space. Therefore, the divine creative act which originates time and space cannot itself be subject to time or take time to occur. St. Augustine recognized the contradiction in believing in a literal six day creation of the world when the word “day” means a twenty-four period.  Augustine instead believed that God created time with the creation of the universe and that the mention of six days of creation is an allegorical expression for minds that are too weak to understand the concept of God’s instantaneous creation.

Biblical literalists such as Ken Ham are out of line with both science and Christian exegetical tradition.  And yet, the view that God created the universe in six days continues to have a strong hold upon evangelical Christians all over the world.  This belief is ultimately rooted in a theologically deficient concept of God. The only solution against scriptural literalism is a return to the concept of God found in Classical Theism.

Classical Creation vs. Modern Creationism:

“God supports and sustains all existence at every moment by His will and His thought. Outside His will, outside His thought, all is nothing, even the things which seem to us absolutely self-evident such as space and time.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III

Classical_Theism

According to the classical theologians and philosophers of religions like Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is absolute, infinite, beyond space, time, and change. He is absolutely simple, and therefore transcends all duality or multiplicity. God is the uncaused and unconditioned reality that all things depend upon in order to exist. (For those who are doubtful, a philosophical proof of the existence of God will be offered in a forthcoming blog post). The classical concept of God as described here is common to Hindu, Greek, Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians and thinkers such as Plotinus, Augustine, Ramanuja, Shankara, al-Farabi, Avicenna, the Ismaili Muslim thinkers, Aquinas, and Maimonides. In the Ismā‘īlī Muslim tradition, this concept of God is conveyed by Imām Sulṭān Mūhammad Shāh in his Memoirs as follows:

“It is said that we live, move and have our being in God. We find this concept expressed often in the Qur’an, not in those words of course, but just as beautifully and more tersely… Thus Islam’s basic principle can only be defined as monorealism and not as monotheism. Consider, for example, the opening declaration of every Islamic prayer: “Allāhu-Akbar”. What does that mean? There can be no doubt that the second word of the declaration likens the character of Allah to a matrix which contains all and gives existence to the infinite, to space, to time, to the Universe, to all active and passive forces imaginable, to life and to the soul.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III, 
(Islam: The Religion of My Ancestors, extract from The Memoirs of Aga Khan: World Enough and Time)
Read the Full Source Here: http://www.nanowisdoms.org/nwblog/1225/ 

In the above passage, the Imām speaks of God as the Absolute Reality (Mono-Reality) “which contains and gives existence” to everything that exists and could exist – such as the infinite, space, time, the Universe, all that is imaginable, and the soul itself. Even things that appear to be self-existent such as abstract objects (i.e. mathematical truths) or the laws of physics, etc. depend upon God in order to exist. In this view – held by numerous world religions – God is not merely a “maximally great being”, a “supreme being”, a discrete thing, an object among others, or the “most perfect existent” among existents – since all of these notions contradict the infinite nature of God and restrict Him to finitude.

God…is not something posed over against the universe, in addition to it, nor is He the universe itself. He is not a “being,” at least not in the way that a tree, a shoemaker, or a god is a being; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are, or any sort of discrete object at all. Rather, all things that exist receive their being continuously from Him, who is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in Whom (to use the language of the Christian scriptures) all things live and move and have their being. In one sense He is “beyond being,” if by “being” one means the totality of discrete, finite things. In another sense He is “being itself,” in that He is the inexhaustible source of all reality, the Absolute upon which the contingent is always utterly dependent, the unity and simplicity that underlies and sustains the diversity of finite and composite things.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of : Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 30)

The concept of creation that corresponds to this classical concept of God is not a temporal act of “designing” or “making” or “beginning” something – in the ordinary sense of these terms as with human acts of designing or making. God creates all existence from nothing and His creative act transcends time and space – since time comes into being with the physical Universe. Therefore, one cannot presume that God creates the Universe at such and such time. It is equally invalid to hold that God’s creative act took a period of time – such as six days. The Qur’an states that God creates simply by saying the word “Be” – an instantaneous order like the twinkle of an eye. This concept of creation is also explained by Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh in his Memoirs:

“The creation according to Islam is not a unique act in a given time but a perpetual and constant event; and God supports and sustains all existence at every moment by His will and His thought. Outside His will, outside His thought, all is nothing, even the things which seem to us absolutely self-evident such as space and time. Allāh alone wishes: the Universe exists; and all manifestations are as a witness of the Divine will.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(Islam: The Religion of My Ancestors, extract from The Memoirs of Aga Khan: World Enough and Time)
Read the Full Source Here: http://www.nanowisdoms.org/nwblog/1225/ 

Creation is not an event in time – it is the eternal, timeless and continuous relationship between God and created beings – in which created beings are originated by God, dependent upon God, and supported by God at every single moment in which they have existence. A good metaphor for the relationship between the Creator and the act of Creation is that of a thinker and his thought, as opposed to a human being making an artefact. The appearance and continuation of a thought is directly dependent upon the thinker at all times:

“When you think, your thought becomes an idea. When God thinks, His thought becomes creation.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III, 
(Count Paroo, Subjects Discussed by the Religious Study Group of Mombasa, 1960, 21)

Another attractive notion was that of God creating the Universe and then letting it exist on its own, i.e. Deism. This philosophy was attractive in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But such a concept of God renders Him impotent and equates the mode of God’s existence with the mode of the existence of he Universe. If the Universe can exist without any involvement or relationship to the God who creates it, then such a Universe is also a god and one has effectively affirmed the existence of two gods. But in reality, the existence of the Universe is an existence that is entirely derivative and dependent upon God’s act of bestowing existence. This does not simply mean that God merely causes the Big Bang; it means that every temporal state of the Universe – in each moment of existence – is being granted its existence by God’s creative power. The Imām has articulated this very an idea in a newspaper article published in the British newspapers:

“I have, anyhow, met many persons nominally Christian who seem to think that in the beginning God created the world and then left it to its own devices. They seem to regard Him as a Being infinitely removed from them and their affairs. Whereas my Faith is, as you say yours is, that God is ever present, ever creative, and that His Providence sustains us in the smallest detail of our daily life.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(“Is Religion something special?”, Aga Khan III: Selected Speeches and Writings of Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah, ed. K.K. Aziz., Vol. II, 1410)
Read the Full Source Here: http://www.nanowisdoms.org/nwblog/10121/

A common believe today is the notion that God periodically intervenes with the Universe to tinker, adjust, or create new species or creatures. God is beyond space and time; there is no question of such Divine interventions occurring because created things already and always depend upon God to exist in the first place. 

It was necessary to lay out the concept of God and Creation in the preceding section because the concept of God held by the Creationists, Deists, and many others in modern times is diametrically opposed to the God of classical theism. The god of Creationism is not theologically identical to the God of Classical Theism. Creationism’s deity is not the Unconditioned Reality, Necessary Being or Ultimate Reality which grounds the existence of all beings. Instead, the god of Creationism is an “object” among objects, a “person” among persons, a “designer” who constructs creatures out of material that exists alongside him, and a “supreme being” among other beings that is subject to time and space. This god’s creative activities take place within time and space. This is why Creationists have no problem believing that creation occurs in six days and that the world is merely six thousand years old. The god of Creationism is not absolutely simple; he has personal and anthropomorphic attributes in the same manner as human beings – except without certain limitations. Ken Ham and those who share his views subscribe to a deficient and illogical concept of God. It is ironic that most contemporary atheists and scientists – including Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Hawking – have only engaged with the demiurgic deity of the creationists and not the God of Classical Theism. And yet, many religious people in modern times confuse this demiurge deity with the true God:

“Somehow, even in the minds of some Christians, God has come to be understood not as the truly transcendent source and end of all contingent reality, who creates through “donating” being to a natural order that is complete in itself, but only as a kind of supreme mechanical cause located somewhere within the continuum of nature. Which is only to say that, here at the far end of modernity, the concept of God is often just as obscure to those who want to believe as to those who want not to.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 28)

Some may think the distinction between the Creationist concept of God and the classical monotheistic concept of God is irrelevant to the issues of creation, science, and evolution. But nothing could be further from the truth. For the reconciliation of evolution and creation hinges upon how one envisions the relationship between God and Nature. 

The Fallacy of Darwinian Naturalism:

“The very notion of nature as a closed system entirely sufficient to itself is plainly one that cannot be verified, deductively or empirically, from within the system of nature.”
- David Bentley Hart

 “It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection… the usual view of evolution must be revised. It is not just a physical process.”
– Thomas Nagel (A Prominent Atheist Philosopher)

What Creationists and many naturalists share in common today is a flawed conception of Nature. Beginning in the seventeenth century – accompanied by technological advancement – many scientists came to hold a mechanized view of Nature. This view entails that Nature merely consists of “matter in motion” subject to the laws of physics – bits of matter inert of meaning and purpose which can be dominated, used, and controlled by an external agent, i.e. human beings or God:

“A mechanical order of Nature is one purged of life and inherent forces or principles. In its place, the mechanistic conception offers a view of inert nature composed of interchangeable parts and subject to externally imposed order and power.” (Meyer, Political Nature: Environmentalism and the Interpretation of Western Thought, 46)

“Western persons quickly acquired the habit of seeing the universe not simply as something that can be investigated according to a mechanistic paradigm, but as in fact a machine. They came to see nature not as a reality guided and unified from within by higher or more spiritual causes like formality and finality, but as something merely factitiously assembled and arranged from without by some combination of efficient forces, and perhaps by one supreme external efficient cause — a divine designer and maker, a demiurge, the god of the machine, whom even many pious Christians began to think of as God.” - David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God, 57-58)

It is within the context of a mechanistic view of nature – where the natural world is understood merely as “matter in motion” – that the theory of evolution was first introduced. Such a worldview, although completely arbitrary and not based on any actual evidence, led to the idea of God as an external designer or agent whose creative act is merely one of “interference” or “tinkering” with the natural order from outside of it as opposed to being the continuous source for its existence as in the classical conception.  This worldview is already one of “semi-naturalism” where God is only invoked to a) initiate the beginning of the Universe while remaining outside of it or b) interfere in the Universe to produce complex life. The Intelligent Design movement led by Paley is based on this notion of God as demiurgic designer as opposed to God as the Ground of Being. But Darwin’s theory of evolution showed that a demiurge that intervenes and designs life in the manner of human design is not actually required. The problem then comes down to interpretation – either one returns to a richer classical concept of God and Nature or one eliminates God entirely, adopts atheism, and holds to a mechanistic view of nature in which Darwinian evolution explains the existence of everything. As it will be seen, the second option leads to irrational absurdities.

The biggest problem with Darwinian evolution is not its scientific truth but the fact that the theory of evolution tends to be developed and interpreted within an atheistic worldview called “naturalism” or “materialism” – the idea that the natural or physical world is all that exists. When this worldview is combined with the theory of evolution, it results in an overarching claim – called “Darwinian Naturalism” – that all the features of life on earth can be explained by Darwinian physical processes alone.

But Darwinian naturalism remains flawed for two reasons. The first is that naturalism or materialism patently false. Naturalism – the belief that reality only consists of material or physical things lacks both empirical and rational proof. By definition, empirical methods can only affirm or deny the reality of empirical things – but cannot make claims about anything beyond the natural world. One cannot use the physical world to explain the existence of the physical world. There are also no deductive or philosophical proofs for the reality of naturalism. The claim that things are only real if they can be observed by empirical testing methods is not demonstrable empirically. That is to say, one cannot prove that “things are only real if proven empirically” by resorting to empirical evidence. Therefore, naturalism’s claim is circular and lacks intellectual and empirical basis. 

“The only fully consistent alternative to belief in God, properly understood, is some version of “materialism” or “physicalism” or (to use the term most widely preferred at present ) “naturalism”; and naturalism— the doctrine that there is nothing apart from the physical order, and certainly nothing supernatural— is an incorrigibly incoherent concept, and one that is ultimately indistinguishable from pure magical thinking. The very notion of nature as a closed system entirely sufficient to itself is plainly one that cannot be verified, deductively or empirically, from within the system of nature. It is a metaphysical (which is to say “extra-natural”) conclusion regarding the whole of reality, which neither reason nor experience legitimately warrants.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God, 17)

Finally, if naturalism were true, it would then follow that it could not be true. This is simply because, in a naturalist worldview, a person’s thoughts and thought-content are strictly determined by the laws of physics, brain chemistry and neural activity – as opposed to the truth or logic of the thought-content. Therefore, the very concept or idea of naturalism – under a naturalist worldview – must have been physically determined by material brain events caused by external stimuli responses and not its efficacy. But there is absolutely no proof that neural events can produce true ideas – especially when one denies that logic or truth has any other basis except the laws of physics and chemistry.

“If, moreover, naturalism is correct (however implausible that is), and if consciousness is then an essentially material phenomenon, then there is no reason to believe that our minds, having evolved purely through natural selection, could possibly be capable of knowing what is or is not true about reality as a whole. Our brains may necessarily have equipped us to recognize certain sorts of physical objects around us and enabled us to react to them; but, beyond that, we can assume only that nature will have selected just those behaviors in us most conducive to our survival, along with whatever structures of thought and belief might be essentially or accidentally associated with them, and there is no reason to suppose that such structures—even those that provide us with our notions of what constitutes a sound rational argument— have access to any abstract “truth” about the totality of things. This yields the delightful paradox that, if naturalism is true as a picture of reality, it is necessarily false as a philosophical precept; for no one’s belief in the truth of naturalism could correspond to reality except through a shocking coincidence (or, better, a miracle).”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 18)

Having shown the inadequacy of naturalism, where does this leave the theory of evolution? There is no reason to deny that organisms undergo change due to random mutations in their genetic code resulting from environmental factors. There is also no reason to deny that these changes are filtered by natural selection. However, this evolutionary picture of the world remains incomplete for two major reasons. The first is that the probability of conscious and rational human beings evolving from nothing based simply on random chance mutations is virtually non-existent. Even the generation of the first form of life on earth remains a mystery to scientists to this day. As a further example, Barrow and Tipler in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the Sun would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome to be on the order of 1 divided by 4-360 (110,000). This figure basically shows that the evolution of human beings by a purely physical Darwinian process is quite impossible. To date there are no mathematical probability models that verify the possibility of evolution propelled purely by natural selection and chance mutation.  The following statements by Thomas Nagel – a well known atheist – also voice the sheer improbability that human life and other forms of life evolved due to purely physical processes.

“But for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes… But it seems to me that, as it is usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense. It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selectionWhat is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a nonnegligible probability of being true.”
- Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 12)

“As I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we learn about the intricacy of the genetic code and its control of the chemical processes of life, the harder those problems seem.”
- Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 12)

“No viable account, even a purely speculative one, seems to be available of how a system as staggeringly functionally complex and information-rich as a self-reproducing cell, controlled by DNA, RNA, or some predecessor, could have arisen by chemical evolution alone from a dead environment. Recognition of the problem is not limited to the defenders of intelligent design. Although scientists continue to seek a purely chemical explanation of the origin of life, there are also card-carrying scientific naturalists like Francis Crick who say that it seems almost a miracle.
- Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 268)

The second problem with the Darwinian evolution theory is that it fails to account for the appearance of consciousness within all living things and particularly the reflective self-consciousness of human beings. Despite the weak arguments brought forth by materialists, conscious states simply cannot be reduced to brain activity. There are a number of reasons for this. One argument is that thoughts possess intentionality (i.e. thoughts are about something, i.e. an object, a person, etc) while brain activity, being purely material, is not. One cannot simply observe a scan of a person’s brain activity in terms of neurons and chemicals and then ascertain what they are thinking about. Secondly, the content of particular thoughts in areas like mathematics and logic is determined by the content of the preceding thoughts in the sequence (i.e. the logical sequence) and not brain states. If it were other than this – and thoughts were determined by physical states of the brain, then the mathematical truth of 2+2=4 would not depend on the truth of 2+2 but instead would depend on material brain activity alone in which case it could not be logically correct. Thirdly, we can only observe the physical world through conscious states such as sensation. We can only model and describe these physical observations through abstract models found in in mathematics (which is not empirical). Therefore, from an epistemological point of view, what we know directly and immediately are our conscious states and not the matter as such. Therefore, to reduce our conscious states to material events is illogical – since those material entities have no existence for us except through consciousness. Darwinian evolutionary theory has no answer at all for the appearance of consciousness let alone its explanation. The following statements from the prominent atheist Thomas Nagel confirm these arguments:

“If evolutionary biology is a physical theory—as it is generally taken to be— then it cannot account for the appearance of consciousness and of other phenomena that are not physically reducible. So if mind is a product of biological evolution—if organisms with mental life are not miraculous anomalies but an integral part of nature—then biology cannot be a purely physical science.”
- Thomas Nagel, (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 16)

“If one doubts the reducibility of the mental to the physical, and likewise of all those other things that go with the mental, such as value and meaning, then there is some reason to doubt that a reductive materialism can apply even in biology, and therefore reason to doubt that materialism can give an adequate account even of the physical world.”
- Thomas Nagel, (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 16)

“Since the conscious character of these organisms is one of their most important features, the explanation of the coming into existence of such creatures must include an explanation of the appearance of consciousness. That cannot be a separate question. An account of their biological evolution must explain the appearance of conscious organisms as such. Since a purely materialist explanation cannot do this, the materialist version of evolutionary theory cannot be the whole truth. Organisms such as ourselves do not just happen to be conscious; therefore no explanation even of the physical character of those organisms can be adequate which is not also an explanation of their mental character. In other words, materialism is incomplete even as a theory of the physical world, since the physical world includes conscious organisms among its most striking occupants.”
- Thomas Nagel, (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 31-32)

If naturalist evolution were true, and thought contents are reducible to or causedsolely by brain activity, then all human thought would be logically discontinuous. This is because our thoughts would be the result of purely physical evolutionary processes determined by the need to survive and not by the need to know things objectively or truthfully. There would be no reason to trust our cognitive faculties in providing an accurate picture of the world – since the Darwinian evolutionary process gives no guarantee of that.  Instead, affirming that our thoughts are identical to our brain activity resulting from Darwinian evolution implies that our thought content is certainly false – since it is based on purely physical brain chemistry and not the truth or logic of that thought content. But if this is the case, then how could naturalist evolution be true in the first place – since people would only this worldview due to physio-chemical brain processes and not because it is true or logical. Thus Nagel reminds us that:

“Evolutionary naturalism provides an account of our capacities that undermines their reliability, and in doing so undermines itself… Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific.”
- Thomas Nagel, (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 22-23)

The conclusion that follows from the above arguments is that the purely materialist and naturalist theory of evolution is incomplete due to its materialist underpinnings. The solution is not to deny biological evolution, but to revise by interpreting it according to a worldview that is not naturalist or materialist in its scope. In other words, there must be a dimension to evolution that transcends the physical world. This is the same conclusion reached by Thomas Nagel who writes:

“I conclude that something is missing from Darwinism, and from the standard biological conception of ourselves.”
- Thomas Nagel, (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 63)

“Biological evolution is responsible for the existence of conscious mental phenomena, but that since those phenomena are not physically explainable, the usual view of evolution must be revised. It is not just a physical process.”
- Thomas Nagel, (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 32)

If theory of naturalist Darwinian evolution is inadequate in explaining the appearance of life and conscious creatures like human beings, then it must be adjusted and modified rather than denied outright. This adjustment is as follows: instead of seeing emergence of life through evolution as purely the result of random chance, accidents, and “blind” processes, the evolutionary process must be seen as “purpose-driven” or “teleological.” The very fact that conscious creatures evolved – despite its sheer improbability – must mean that there are universal laws that are “built-in” or immanent in Nature that encourage and inevitably lead to the existence of life in general and conscious creatures in particular. Evolution must therefore include a non-physical dimension in addition to the laws of physics and chemistry and chance events in order to be rationally plausible. Consciousness – rather then being an accidental feature of living beings – is an essential feature of life and latently present in all things.

“It is trivially true that if there are organisms capable of reason, the possibility of such organisms must have been there from the beginning. But if we believe in a natural order, then something about the world that eventually gave rise to rational beings must explain this possibility. Moreover, to explain not merely the possibility but the actuality of rational beings, the world must have properties that make their appearance not a complete accident: in some way the likelihood must have been latent in the nature of things.
- Thomas Nagel, (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 50)

This view of the Nature – where purpose, goals, and direction are inherent to the very substance of things in Nature – is actually a return to the pre-modern Aristotelian philosophy of Nature (this is not to deny modern science, but only certain philosophical ideas it gets interpreted within). This is not an absolute negation of the theory of evolution, but rather, a re-interpretation of evolution within a worldview that is neither naturalist/materialist nor mechanistic. Accordingly, Nature is no longer bits of moving matter subject to deterministic laws of physics or chemistry that needs to be given meaning from the outside, but a holistic system that contains inherent purpose and goal-directedness.  This is what Aristotelians call “teleology” and it amounts not to a denial of the theory of evolution, but rather, its completion.

This is a revision of the Darwinian picture rather than an outright denial of it. A teleological hypothesis will acknowledge that the details of that historical development are explained largely through natural selection among the available possibilities on the basis of reproductive fitness in changing environments. But even though natural selection partly determines the details of the forms of life and consciousness that exist, and the relations among them, the existence of the genetic material and the possible forms it makes available for selection have to be explained in some other way. The teleological hypothesis is that these things may be determined not merely by value-free chemistry and physics but also by something else, namely a cosmic predisposition to the formation of life, consciousness, and the value that is inseparable from themThe tendency for life to form may be a basic feature of the natural order, not explained by the nonteleological laws of physics and chemistry.
- Thomas Nagel, (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False, 68-69)

There are also prominent biologists and scientists who affirm teleological principles in Nature that have propelled the direction of evolution toward the appearance of human beings (or rational creatures like human beings). Stuart Kaufman has written about how reductionist natural selection alone is inadequate in explaining the order found in living things and that such order is due to “underlying ordering principles in biology.”  Simon Conway Morris has stated about Darwinian evolution that “it is after all only a mechanism, but if evolution is predictive, indeed possesses a logic, then evidently it is being governed by deeper principles.” Thus, a good number of scientists have argued for purpose, direction and teleology within Nature on empirical grounds just as Nagel has argued for this position on philosophical grounds.

Having refuted the dubious thesis of naturalism, shown the inadequacy of naturalist Darwinian evolution, and concluded that a mechanistic conception of Nature must give way to a teleological conception, we can now proceed to how a worldview based on Creation (and not Creationism) is reconciled with the teleological vision of the natural world.

“If ever we are to attain a final theory in biology, we will surely, surely have to understand the commingling of self-organization and selection. We will have to see that we are the natural expressions of a deeper order. Ultimately, we will discover in our creation myth that we are expected after all.
- Stewart Kaufman, (At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (1996), 112)

Nature as Divine Manifestation: The Confluence of Creation and Evolution

“Islam is fundamentally in its very nature a natural religion. Throughout the Qur’ān God’s signs (Ayats) are referred to as the natural phenomenon.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III

“Since the purpose of the natural kingdoms was the human species, the order of existence necessitated that first minerals, then plants, then animals and then human beings come into being.”
- Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī

Creation_Evolution

Having argued for a teleological view of Nature according to which the physical Universe is naturally predisposed towards the production of life, sentience and rational animals, i.e. human beings, we will now lay out the conception of Nature and evolution according to classical theism.

At the outset, let us clearly reject all attempts to infer that the purpose and intelligence manifest in Nature should be construed as evidence of a “Divine Designer” who has intervened in order to construct the complexity in living organisms. There is a great difference between the “design arguments” of Paley and the “teleological arguments” of Nāṣir-i Khusraw and Thomas Aquinas. The latter argument simply observes that things in the natural world move toward certain ends i.e. the production of life, order, consciousness, etc. and concludes that such intelligent activity within the natural world must be directed by the Divine Intellect. Meanwhile, the design argument infers that an external designer is required to construct complex organisms from bits of inert matter – in the manner that human beings design and construct machines. If the mechanistic picture of Nature is to be rejected, what would be the proper conception of Nature within a monotheistic framework?

At this point, it is perhaps best to illustrate in greater clarity the metaphysical relation between God and the Universe. Let us recall that the relationship between the Creator and the created reality is one of ontological dependence: all created reality is continuously receiving existence from God upon whom it always depends. God is the Ground of Being or the Unconditional Reality; He is neither “outside” the Universe nor is He dwelling or embodied “inside” it. But rather, God is at once transcendent and immanent. His Reality, being absolutely simple and unlimited, transcends all descriptions and likenesses. At the same time, God’s attributes are immanent in created reality – not by incarnation, but by the principle of reflection. That is to say, the Universe in its entirety is a limited reflection of God – insofar as He can be manifested.  This principle is expressed by the Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh in his Memoirs as below:

Imam Hassan has explained the Islamic doctrine of God and the Universe by analogy with the Sun and its reflection in the pool of a fountain; there is certainly a reflection or image of the Sun, but with what poverty and with what little reality; how small and pale is the likeness between this impalpable image and the immense, blazing, white-hot glory of the celestial sphere itself. Allāh is the Sun; and the Universe, as we know it in all its magnitude, and time, with its power, are nothing more than the reflection of the Absolute in the mirror of the fountain.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(Islam: The Religion of My Ancestors, extract from The Memoirs of Aga Khan: World Enough and Time)
Read the Full Source Here: http://www.nanowisdoms.org/nwblog/1225/

The analogy of the Sun and its reflection in a pool of a fountain is much more appropriate in describing the relations between God and the natural Universe than the analogy of a designer and the designed artifact. There are two features of the Sun-reflection analogy that convey the ontological and spiritual relationship between God and the Universe. Firstly, the existence of the image of the Sun in the water is entirely dependent upon the Sun. Compared to the Sun, the image or likeness of the Sun is of “little reality” since its own existence derives from that of the Sun at all moments. This conveys how the existence of the Universe is metaphysically dependent upon the Reality of God. Secondly, the Sun-reflection analogy means that the qualities or attributes of the Sun – such as its luminosity – are partially reflected within its image. Similarly, certain qualities or attributes of God are reflected in the created things of the natural world. This point is confirmed by the Qur’ān which refers to all kinds of natural phenomena as the “signs” (ayāt) of God. The present Imām of the Ismā‘īlī Muslims, Mawlana Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī, once said that “in Islam, the Divine is reflected in Nature’s creation” (see full speech).

Nature must therefore be conceived as a living system with built-in or inherent teleology, i.e. purpose, meaning. The reasons for this were given in the previous section and due to the fact that the mechanistic view of Nature is entirely outdated and no longer a tenable picture of physical reality. At the same time, this teleological Nature must also be understood as a reflection of God’s Names and Attributes – in other words, as a Divine manifestation or theophany. This does not mean that God has entered inside Nature or “intervened” to design Nature from the outside. It means that God’s qualities are ontologically and spiritual reflected in and as Nature – a reflection which comprises the very existence of Nature. On the same idea, Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh wrote that:

“Islam is fundamentally in its very nature a natural religion. Throughout the Qur’ān God’s signs (Ayats) are referred to as the natural phenomenon, the law and order of the universe, the exactitudes and consequences of the relations between natural phenomenon in cause and effect. Over and over, the stars, sun, moon, earthquakes, fruits of the earth and trees are mentioned as the signs of Divine power, Divine law and Divine order…Islam is a natural religion of which the Ayats are the Universe in which we live and move and have our being.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(“What have we forgotten in Islam”, Aga Khan III: Selected Speeches and Writings of Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah, Edited by K.K. Aziz., Vol II, 1290)
Read the Full Source Here: http://www.nanowisdoms.org/nwblog/1253/

The many features of Nature which human beings today take for granted are actually the signs of Divine Power and Divine Intelligence. What scientists today call the “laws of nature” and the laws of physics are patterns of regular behavior that natural things consistently observe.  This regularity is logical and intelligible – this is the only reason why scientists can describe it in mathematical terms. Such regularity – on a purely naturalistic worldview – has no basis or reason to occur. If a person who has faith in naturalism simply answers that the regularities within nature exist merely due to chance, such a view is ultimately untenable due to its sheer improbability.  It is one thing to win a lottery for which one had very slim chances a single time, and it is another thing to win the same lottery millions upon millions of times. The regularities within Nature are akin to the second case and therefore cannot be attributed to chance or randomness. Instead, the laws of Nature are manifestations of God’s Power and Intelligence – not an “intervention” from outside, but a reflection of them within.

Even if one affirms this theistic point of view, one can continue to study Nature as a closed system and analyze the various patterns, interactions, processes within Nature – as the scientific method does. Neverthless, the mechanistic view of Nature regards all natural phenomena as lifeless and soulless – being comprised of inert matter. But in the view of classical theism, all things in Nature possess “soul”. Thus, Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh writes that:

“Islamic doctrine goes further than the other great religions, for it proclaims the presence of the soul, perhaps minute but nevertheless existing in an embryonic state, in all existence — in matter, in animals, trees, and space itself. Every individual, every molecule, every atom has its own spiritual relationship with the All-Powerful Soul of God.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(Islam: The Religion of My Ancestors, extract from The Memoirs of Aga Khan: World Enough and Time)
Read the Full Source Here: http://www.nanowisdoms.org/nwblog/1225/

The idea of all things – even atoms or molecules – having souls may conjure up ideas of “ghosts” being present “inside” each and every bit of matter. But to think this way is to mistakenly appeal to the mechanistic view of Nature and matter. At the human level, the soul is the subject of self-consciousness who is a free agent with respect to human intellectual powers and acts. At the animal level, the soul is the consciousness of a particular animal with respect to its actions and behaviours. At the vegetative level (and all living things), the soul refers to the “organic wholeness” of a living organism – the unity that holds together and directs the various interdependent parts of the organism and is responsible for the organism’s ability to adapt and react to its environment. At the level of ‘inanimate objects’ such as minerals, molecules, atoms, etc, the soul refers to the form or structure of the material components of that object. For example, the soul or form of a water molecule is the particular pattern or structure in which the two hydrogen and oxygen atoms are bonded. One must note that pattern, structure or even shape is NOT the same as the material or matter that is shaped. There is a qualitative difference between the formal structure of an object and its constituent material parts. The parts of any object always exist in a certain structure – without which the object would no longer be essentially what it is. In terms of matter, the human brain and a sandbox are essentially the same – made out of the same essential material components (i.e. atoms, molecules). But what makes the human brain a most complex entity is its form or structure in which its material components are arranged. Thus, soul is an integral dimension of all things in Nature – mineral, living, animal, and human – while being present and actualized at various levels that depend upon the entity in question. In the case of human beings, would be more accurate to say that the living human body is a reflection or shadow of the human soul – as opposed to saying that the human soul dwells inside the human body.

Having established the status of Nature in the worldview of classical theism, we now turn to the question of the “origin of species” and “evolution” in such a framework. Everything in Nature – including atoms, molecules, minerals, living organisms, animals, and human beings – is a particular reflection of one or more of God’s Names and Attributes. For example, God’s power is reflected, albeit partially, in the waves of the ocean, storms, or even lightening. God’s stability is partially reflected in the stability of a rock. God’s life is reflected in living organisms to various degrees – from single celled bacteria to lions. In the theistic worldview, the human being is the comprehensive reflection of God due to his potential to reflect all of God’s Names and Attributes. Nevertheless, each species is a reflection of a particular combination of God’s Attributes. In philosophical terminology, a particular configuration of these Divine attributes manifested in a certain species is called “form”. The “form” is a spiritual blueprint or archetype of a species with respect to its defining or essential qualities. Every physical species on earth is a manifestation or reflection of a specific form. From the spiritual perspective, each species has its spiritual archetype or form that pre-exists in the spiritual realm and there are an infinite number of these forms. When the natural environment is suitable, these spiritual archetypes manifest as the physical species – in chronological order from less differentiated to more differentiated. 

In the celestial realm the species are never absent; their essential forms or archetypes reside there from an endless beginning. As earth ripens to receive them, each in its turn drops to the terrestrial plane and, donning the world’s fabric, gives rise to a new life form. The origin of species is metaphysical.  First a viable habitat must be devised, hence the inorganic universe is matured to the point where life can be sustained. And when living beings do arrive, they do so in a vaguely ascending order that passes from relatively undifferentiated organisms – though not simple ones; the electron microscope shows unicellular organisms to be astonishingly complicated to ones that are more complex. But there is no need to force the fossil record to show a univocal and continuous line. If the movement proceeds in jumps with whole categories of plants and animals bursting out at once without discernible predecessors, this presents no problem… If the tortoise turns up all at once in fossil remains or the spider appears simultaneously with its prey and with its faculty of weaving fully developed, such facts can be welcomed with smiles instead of puzzled brows. As for the variant forms which Darwinists must use to construct their largely hypothetical bridges between species, from the metaphysical perspective these appear as variations which the species in question allow. It is as if nature, always more prolific and life-loving than we had supposed, first staked out distinct species and then decided to ring changes on these by having each reflect the forms of the others insofar as it could do so without transgressing its own essential limits.”
- Huston Smith, (Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World’s Religions, 139-140)

The classical theistic view of the origin of species is very much consistent with the findings of modern science with respect to evolution. But it must be kept in mind – as argued before – that the mechanistic understanding of Nature is outdated and the purely materialistic and naturalistic view of reality is hopelessly and logically flawed. The key difference between this Islamic theistic view of the origin of the species and the naturalistic Darwinian view is that the former asserts that the appearance of rational creatures in the world was built-in to Nature and is the end goal of the evolutionary process. About nine hundred years ago, the famous Ismā‘īlī Muslim philosopher, astronomer and scientist, Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, explained the origin of the species and the creation of humankind in accordance with the metaphysical principles explained above. Consider the below passages from Ṭūsī’s most famous Ismā‘īlī work  known as Taṣawwurāt:

“The natural kingdoms began with solidification [of minerals], then [there came] plants, then animals and then human beings. The final stage of minerals was joined to the first stage of the plant kingdom, the final stage of the plant kingdom to the first stage of the animal kingdom, the final stage of the animal kingdom to the first stage of man, and the final stage of man to the first stage of the angelic kingdom. Since the chain of existence (silsila-yi wujūd), [causing] the return of all things to the Command of the Almighty, reached its completion in the perfect status of man, and since the ability to acquire such perfection, [consisting of diverse] intellectual conveniences and physical tools, was particular to man, it is clear that, although the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms preceded him in [the temporal order of] existence, the ultimate aim of all of them was him. And it is said, ‘the first in thought is the last in action.’”
- Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, (The Paradise of Submission, 29)

“The action of Nature upon matter lay in bringing into the reality of concrete existence the forms bestowed upon it by the [Universal] Soul. The final purpose of all such emanations was that [the natural kingdoms], beginning with minerals, would combine with the vegetative [realm], and [the vegetative realm combine] with the animal realm, and [the animal realm] be terminated by humankind.”
- Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, (The Paradise of Submission, 106)

“The purpose of the movements of the spheres was mixing of the elements of the natural kingdoms, and since the purpose of the natural kingdoms was the human species, the order of existence necessitated that first minerals, then plants, then animals and then human beings come into being. if there had been no minerals, plants could never have come into being, and had minerals, plants and animals not existed, neither could man have existed.”
- Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, (The Paradise of Submission, 68)

Evolutionary theory will continue to undergo more changes and modifications as human knowledge progresses. In fact, some biologists such as Stuart Kauffman and Simon Conway hold that random mutation is insufficient to explain the complexity of life and that matter must have self-organizing properties which are themselves rooted in a deeper order of things. But none of this contradicts the metaphysical origins of creatures as previously explained. Even if one grants all the key features of Darwinian evolution, it is the integral interpretation of this theory that is most important. Such an interpretation would have to account for the fact that purpose appears to be built into Nature – as some biologists now hold:

“If ever we are to attain a final theory in biology, we will surely, surely have to understand the commingling of self-organization and selection. We will have to see that we are the natural expressions of a deeper order. Ultimately, we will discover in our creation myth that we are expected after all.”
- Stuart Kauffman, (At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (1996), 112)

If the natural Universe is a reflective manifestation of God in fragmented multiplicity, and human beings are the reflective manifestation of God in comprehensive singularity, it follows that the human being is the manifestation of both God and the external Universe. Evolution by way of genetic mutations (either due to chance or due to self-organization potentials inhering in matter as Kauffman would argue) and their perpetuation via natural selection is the vehicle by which the Universe produces a creature who is best suited to survival in the natural environment. To use an analogy, the Universe or the external environment is like one mirror of God and the human form is another mirror of God. The evolutionary process of Darwinian natural selection is the mechanism by which these two mirrors are “brought into focus” such that the resulting creature – namely the human being – appears in the Universe. Once again, Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī helps summarize the metaphysics of this process as follows:

“When the effusive grace of the Divine Command fell upon the First Intellect, it did not halt there, but provoked the existence of another type of being, that is, the Universal Soul. Likewise, when it [the Command] fell from the First Intellect upon the Universal Soul, it did not halt there either, but it provoked another type of existence, that is, the spheres. And when it [the Command of God] fell from the spheres upon the elements, it did not halt there but provoke another type of existence, that is, the natural kingdoms. And [similarly], when it fell from the natural kingdoms upon the minerals, it did not halt there, but provoked another type of existence, that is, the plant kingdom. And when it fell upon the animal kingdom, it did not stop there, but provoked another type of existence, that is, humanity. But when it fell upon man, it stopped there, for the furthest reach and terminus of creation was sealed with him. Thus, man is a compendium (majmū‘ī) of all these stages and perfections, bearing within himself a likeness of the entire Cosmos, which is expressed by the marvels of his physical constitution and the amazing composition of his soul.”
- Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, (The Paradise of Submission, 169)

Creation_Evolution

The above diagram helps illustrate the manner in which both Creation and Evolution are processes within Nature. God, as the Unconditioned Reality, bestows existence upon all other realities and sustains them in being. The divine creative act of giving existence is called the Command of God, and the first conditioned reality with respect to metaphysical or essential causation is the Universal Intellect which contains the Forms of all things in oneness. Through the Universal Intellect, the Command of God manifests and emanates the Universal Soul – in which the celestial archetypes or Forms of all creatures are differentiated. The Universal Soul generates a shadow of itself – called Prime Matter – whose nature is simple receptivity, potency or passivity due to which that it cannot be observed empirically. Prime Matter receives the Forms which emanate and shine upon it from the Universal Soul.  In this process of continuous emanation (see above) or involution, the Prime Matter “evolves” into the Universal Body or Universal Matter [what medievals called the ‘spheres’] – identical with the quantum field or “vacuum energy” that physicists register as the boundary of empirical observation from which subatomic virtual particles “pop in and out” of existence. These particles are the Heisenberg potentialities – that receive the “forms” imprinted upon them from the Universal Soul by means of measurement interventions – and become actualized as discrete particles. This evolutionary process continues while being empowered by continuous emanation or involution, i.e. the manifestation of the Forms from the Universal Soul. Thus, Simon Conway, has said that “Darwinism not a total explanation? Why should it be? It is after all only a mechanism, but if evolution is predictive, indeed possesses a logic, then evidently it is being governed by deeper principles.” If biologists like Stuart Kaufman speak of the “self-organization” of matter, this is because they are detecting the effects of the Forms. These Forms cause matter to organize into more differentiated structures that are suited to the external environment and these are perpetuated by the process natural selection. The holistic structure (or “holon) of an organism is the “soul” (as explained above) and it is the soul that serves as the principle of the self-organization of matter into a complex “whole”. In the human being, this soul has reached the level of reflexive self-consciousness – or what is traditionally called “rational” (nāṭiqah) – that can in principle know and conceive the entirety of the Cosmos. Thus, the human being is the culmination and summation of both spiritual emanation and physical evolution. The human being continues to evolve with respect to consciousness until higher stages – the intellectual (‘aqlī), the inspired (ta’yīdī), and the Perfect Man (al-insān al-kāmil) or Universal Man (al-insān al-kull) – are actualized. The Universal Man is the most perfect manifestation of the Command of God, the Universal Intellect, and Universal Soul, through which everything in the Universe returns to its origin. 

Perhaps, it is no surprise that Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh, the forty-eight hereditary Imām of the Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Muslims, had already achieved a synthesis that reconciled his understanding of God’s creation with Darwin’s theory of the origin of the species:

“It was this Islamic sense of unity in all forms of life which confirmed my father’s faith in a God-governed order. He achieved a synthesis which enabled him to conciliate his faith in the Almighty as well as in Darwin’s theory of the origin of the species which swept across Europe in his youth and generated such heated debate. It was difficult for him to separate what he called proto-religion and proto-science: they made their journey like two streams, sometimes mingling, sometimes separating but running side by side… I have not forgotten his heated conversations with Professor Leakey in Nairobi when the first discoveries of the earliest remains of man were made in the Rift Valley.”
- Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan on his father Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh, (The Times, November 5, 1977)

For Further Reading:

Simon Conway Morris on the Limits of Darwinism
http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/feb/12/simon-conway-morris-darwin

Seyyed Hossein Nasr on Evolution and Islam
http://toorumer.blogspot.com/2010/08/evolution-and-islam-talk-with-dr-seyyed.html?m=1

Rodney Blackhirst on Evolutionism and Traditional Cosmology
http://www.religioperennis.org/documents/blacks/evolutionism.pdf

James Cutsinger on “Emanationist Evolution”
http://www.cutsinger.net/pdf/earth_as_it_is_in_heaven.pdf


“He who is above all else”: The Strongest Argument for the Existence of God

$
0
0

“I think that monotheistic religions, having a common reference to a single God, should and must dialogue. The three religions which Abraham inspired have many more common facets than those which divide them. Religion must be the means by which to affirm the ethical significance of existence, regardless of one’s profession of faith.”
- Imām Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī Āgā Khān IV, 

(Interview with Correre della Sera, Massimo Nava, October 22, 2001)

The concept of one God who transcends space, time, multiplicity, and contingency, and gives existence to all things is the foundation of the shared worldview of the monotheistic traditions including Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam. It is also the pivot around which people of all faiths should rally in order to oppose the atheistic, materialist, relativist and naturalist ideologies appealing to many people today. This article offers a strong deductive and philosophical argument for the existence of God. [If you think philosophy is unimportant or incapable of providing sound knowledge, then please read here first.] Contrary to what many modern people believe, the existence of God can be rationally and logically demonstrated: faith in God is not a matter of ‘blind faith’ or taqlid. According to Imām Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī Āgā Khān IV, logic underlines the very foundation of Islamic belief:

“You must have in every walk of your life a logical concept. This does not mean to wipe away faith, but the real principle of Islam is that faith is logical. Islam would not be what it is if it were not logical and this is something you must keep in mind. Because the very heart of Islam is logical. There is no hocus-pocus. There is no nonsense. It is clear and it is lucid and it is understandable.”
– Imām Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī Āgā Khān IV, 
(Speech to Students, Karachi, September 27, 1960; quoted in Mohib Ebrahim, Truth, Reality and Religion)

Two major reasons for the growing popularity of atheism and agnosticism among people today are that a) most people are not exposed to the classical concept of God within their own religious tradition and instead are made to believe in an anthropomorphic image of God and  b) the positive arguments for God’s existence are poorly understood and misrepresented by both atheists and people of faith.

On the Meaning of “God”:

Many theists and atheists of the modern age have utterly misunderstood the classical and traditional concept of God found in the intellectual and philosophical traditions of the world’s monotheistic religions. They instead tend to think of “God” as a “supreme being”, an “immaterial person”, an “intelligent designer”, “all-powerful agent”, or a “disembodied self” who exists either wholly outside of the Universe as an observer or within the Universe as its most exalted component, and does what He pleases at any given time. This sort of God is but an intellectual idol who resembles a human person except without human limitations. Belief in this sort of god is merely a form of “mono-polytheism”, “creationism” or “theistic personalism.” Both classical theists and atheists have rightly argued and rejected this sort of God:

The most pervasive error one encounters in contemporary arguments about belief in God–especially, but not exclusively, on the atheist side – is the habit of conceiving of God simply as some very large object or agency within the universe, or perhaps alongside the universe, a being among other beings, who differs from all other beings in magnitude, power, and duration, but not ontologically, and who is related to the world more or less as a craftsman is related to an artifact.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 32)

In classical theism, God is not a member or instance of the general category of “existence” – such that He is the “supreme being among beings.” But rather, God is the “Ground of Being” and the “Unconditioned Reality” that continuously creates, sustains and grounds the existence of everything that exists. The below diagram illustrates the difference between the concept of God in Classical Theism and the ideas found in more modern notions of creationism, deism, poly-monotheism, and the like:

Classical Theism Diagram

“It is said that we live, move and have our being in God. We find this concept expressed often in the Qur’an, not in those words of course, but just as beautifully and more tersely…Thus Islam’s basic principle can only be defined as monorealism and not as monotheism. Consider, for example, the opening declaration of every Islamic prayer: “Allāhu-Akbar”. What does that mean? There can be no doubt that the second word of the declaration likens the character of Allah to a matrix which contains all and gives existence to the infinite, to space, to time, to the Universe, to all active and passive forces imaginable, to life and to the soul… God supports and sustains all existence at every moment by His will and His thought. Outside His will, outside His thought, all is nothing, even the things which seem to us absolutely self-evident such as space and time.”
- Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah, (Memoirs of the Aga Khan: World Enough and Time)

This is the concept of God common to the classical tradition of Plato, Aristotle and, Plotinus, the medieval Islamic philosophical traditions of the Peripatetics and the Ismā‘īlīs, the Islamic mystical tradition of Ibn al-‘Arabī and the Akbarī school, the school of Mulla Sadra, the medieval Christian scholastic and mystical traditions of St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Thomas Aquinas and Meister Eckhart, the modern Christian theological tradition of Paul Tillich, Karl Rahner, and Elizabeth Johnson, and the contemporary Sufi, Twelver, and Ismā‘īlī Tariqahs of Islam.

This argument will demonstrate that there is one, single Absolute Reality upon which all existing things depend in all moments in which they exist; this Reality does not depend on anything else for its existence. It is therefore called “Unconditioned Reality” or “God”. The argument will further demonstrate that God or Unconditional Reality is absolutely simple, absolutely one or single, unrestricted and unbounded, and transcending time, space, and matter. Readers can find this argument presented in the works of Robert Spitzer and David Bentley Hart – whose books are referenced and quoted in the body of this post. The argument is a logical deductive argument – consisting of premises and conclusions that logically follow and not merely a series of rhetorical pronouncements or sound bites meant to affect and convince an audience.

The argument provided here is not new – different versions of it have been advanced by classical religious thinkers cited above. Its most famous proponent in the Islamic tradition was Ibn Sīnā; Ḥamīd al-Dīn al-Kirmānī in the Ismā‘īlī tradition; Thomas Aquinas in the Christian scholastic tradition; Moses Maimonides in Judaism. Nevertheless, it is necessary to re-examine one’s religious beliefs in the light of intellect, logic, reason and experience. This has been emphasized in the guidance of recent Ismā‘īlī Imāms – Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III and Imām Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī Āgā Khān IV:

“These religious principles of Ismailism are well known to you for you have heard them from me and through your fathers and grandfathers and from my father and grandfather until I fear that by long familiarity with these teachings some of you forget the necessity of re-examination of your heart and religious experience. 
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(Material Intelligence and Spiritual Enlightenment, Platinum Jubilee Message, 1955)

For readers who refuse to accept the validity of logical and philosophical deduction, and only recognize empirical evidence and inductive methods as a valid method of attaining knowledge, we ask you to skip to Section 8 and read our comments on empirical verification.

A medieval version of this argument based on Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūṣī is presented by al-Mabahathat here: http://kimiyagard.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/from-the-contingency-of-essences-to-the-existence-of-the-necessary/

The Argument for the Existence of God:

Quick Summary of Argument:

1. Reality consists of things whose existence at any given time depends upon (or is contingent upon) other things. For example, the existence of a cat is dependent, at all times, upon the existence of its cells and the arrangement (form) of its cells. The existence of its cells similarly depend upon molecules and their molecular structure. The existence of the molecules likewise depend upon atoms and the structure of the atoms, and so on. Each of these cases – the cat, the cells, the molecules, etc. are examples of conditioned realities  -  whose existence is dependent on other things or conditions. [Everything up to this point has been confirmed by empirical investigation].

2. Reality as a whole either contains a) conditioned realities only, or b) conditioned realities and at least one Unconditioned Reality (i.e. a reality whose existence depends on nothing else). Option a) is false because it entails the non-existence of all realities in reality – since conditioned realities lack the power to exist in and of themselves and must be grounded in existence by other things. (Read the full argument below for the exact details – including the infinite regress possibility). Therefore, Option b) is the necessary conclusion – there at least one unconditioned reality in all of reality.

3. An Unconditioned Reality, being uncaused and independent in its existence, has no parts and is absolutely simple by virtue of being uncaused and not dependent upon any combination of parts or properties. It then follows that there is only one Unconditioned Reality. This is because the existence of more than one Unconditioned Reality would necessitate that each Unconditioned Reality be composed of one common property and one differential property (to distinguish it from the rest) – but this would entail each of them being composed and therefore not actually Unconditioned Reality. Therefore, there is only one Unconditioned Reality.

4. It follows that all other realities in existence are conditioned realities whose existence depends on the Unconditioned Reality at all times. Therefore, Unconditioned Reality is the continuous Creator and Sustainer of all realities in existence. Unconditioned Reality, due to its simplicity, transcends space, time, and matter. Unconditioned Reality is also changeless and unlimited due to transcending time, space, and duality of any kind.

5. Finally, Unconditioned Reality – as the Creator and Sustainer of all realities – is the source or ground for all of the powers or qualities found in conditioned realities - such as existence, power, life, will, knowledge, beauty, compassion etc. This Unconditioned Reality – the Creator and Sustainer of all existing things at all times - is what we call “God” or “He who is above all else”. 

For a thorough and comprehensive version of this argument in all of its steps with accompanying diagrams, we encourage readers to continue scrolling down:

We first lay out the following two definitions:

A. Conditioned Reality (Contingent Being) is any reality (i.e. animal, plant, particle, wave, etc.) that depends on at least one other reality in order to exist at any given moment of its existence. An everyday example of a conditioned reality is a cat whose existence depends on the existence of cells and the structure of cells. The cells depend on the existence of molecules and the structure of molecules. The molecules depend on the existence and structure of atoms. The atoms depend on the existence and structure of sub-atomic particles, etc. Conditions means any reality upon which a conditioned reality depends upon for its existence. This applies to many things in our everyday experience – trees, plants, animals, tables, chairs, buildings, people – all of these are examples of Conditioned Realities because their own continual existence depends on the existence of other things. 

ConditionedReality(Image Source: http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=File:Metaphysics1.png)

Every Conditioned Reality is an effect of its cause(s) – the reality(s) it depends upon in order to exist. However, there are two types of causation – essential causation and accidental causation.

An accidental series of causes is like a series of fathers and sons – where the father begets the son. But the father, after begetting a son, may die the next day and the son can still continue to exist. The important thing to note is that in accidental causation, the continuous existence of a son at any time does not depend upon the existence of the father. The second type of causation is essential causation. In essential causation, the existence of the effect depends on the existence of the cause at all times, the effect is simultaneous with its cause, and the cause continues to produce the effect from moment to moment. Thus, every cause in an essential series derives its causal power from its own cause. Essential causation refers to the existence of any object in the here and now.

The cat example – where the cat’s existence always depends on the existence of its cells and the form or structure of the cells, etc. – is one of essential causation. If one alters the structure of the cat’s cells or molecules or atoms – or the larger web of conditions such the air, the earth, gravity, etc – all of which ground the existence of the cat in the here and now – the cat will no longer exist as a cat, nor will it have the power to produce effects of its own.

“If one considers the terms of one’s own existence, for instance, one sees that there is no sense in which one is ever self-existent; one is dependent on an incalculable number of ever greater and ever smaller finite conditions, some of which are temporal, and some of which definitely are not, and all of which are themselves dependent on yet further conditions. One is composed of parts, and those parts of smaller parts, and so on down to the subatomic level, which itself is a realm of contingently subsistent realities that flicker in and out of actuality, that have no ontological ground in themselves, and that are all embraced within a quantum field that contains no more of an essential rationale for its own existence than does any other physical reality. One also belongs to a wider world, upon all of whose physical systems one is also dependent in every moment, while that world is itself dependent upon an immense range of greater physical realities, and upon abstract mathematical and logical laws, and upon the whole contingent history of our quite unnecessary universe… In short, all finite things are always, in the present, being sustained in existence by conditions that they cannot have supplied for themselves , and that together compose a universe that, as a physical reality, lacks the obviously supernatural power necessary to exist on its own.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 105)

Both types of causation exist in the physical world, but this argument for the existence of Unconditioned Reality is based on essential causation of Conditioned Realities, not accidental causation that is related to the temporal origin of the physical Universe. For example, focusing on accidental causes will lead back in time to the Big Bang. But essential causation pertains to the causes of all things in the here and now at any given moment – regardless of whether the universe exists infinitely into the past or not. The networks of causes that ground the existence of the cat – such as its cells and cellular structure, molecules and molecular structures, atoms/atomic structures, sub-atomic articles, quantum particles, etc. – cause the cat to exist in the present moment and ground its existence; they are not temporal causes of the cat’s temporal origin. This is the grave error made by the New Atheist movement – where Richard Dawkins and his minions have utterly misunderstood the classical arguments for God’s existence because they failed to appreciate the concept of essential causation – which grounds the existence of something in the present and not in some distant past like the Big Bang. There are, of course, other logical reasons why the physical Universe cannot exist infinitely into the past and has a temporal beginning. But this argument is not concerned with that point and is independent of it. Even if the Universe was temporally infinite into the past – a chain of essential causes is still required to keep it in existence in every temporal instant.

B. Unconditioned Reality (Necessary Being or First Cause) is any reality that does not depend on another reality to exist; Unconditioned Reality is independently self-existent. At this point in the argument, Unconditioned Reality is being offered as a preliminary definition and the purpose of the first part of this argument is to demonstrate that at least one Unconditioned Reality necessarily exists.

1. Proof of at least one Unconditioned in all of existence:

Case #1: There are only Conditioned Realities in all reality (The Atheist Position: there is no god). There are two ways for this to occur – if there is a finite number of Conditioned Realities in all of existence OR if there is an infinite number of Conditioned Realities in existence.

Case #2: There is at least one Unconditioned Reality in reality (The Theist Position).

OptionsImage Source: http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=File:Metaphysics2.png

Please note that this is a disjunctive syllogism: either Case #1 is true or Case #2 is true, but they cannot both be true or both be false. And if one Claim is shown to be contradictory, then it is false and the other Claim is necessarily true.

We first consider Case #1 – that all reality is comprised of only Conditioned Realities. In this Case, there are two options – there is either a finite number of Conditioned Realities in existence or there is an infinite number of Conditioned Realities.

ConditionedRealities

1.1 The claim that reality only contains a finite number (let us call this finite number “X”) of Conditioned Realities (contingent beings) is false

FiniteConditionsImage Source: http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=File:Metaphysics4.png

Rationale: This is because the last or Xth Conditioned Reality in the network or chain of conditioned realities will require another reality for its conditions to be fulfilled.  However, since there are no other realities in existence after Xth Conditioned Reality (the last or fundamental condition), the Xth or final Conditioned Reality will not exist since it has no more Conditioned Realities to ground its existence – and therefore, all X Conditioned Realities (and thus everything) will not exist.  But things obviously do exist and so this option leads to an outright contradiction and must be rejected.

1.2 The claim that reality only contains a finite number of Conditioned Realities in a circular series is false.

CircularConditions

Rationale: This is because all Conditioned Realities (CR) in the circle depend upon another reality in the Circle for their existence. So any reality CR1 in a circle of Conditioned Realities depends upon CR2, CR3, and so on until CRx where Cx is dependent upon C1. Thus, any reality CX in a circle is actually dependent upon and caused by itself and have to be its own cause – which is absurdSecondly, a circle of Conditioned Realities cannot cause itself to exist since it only consists of X Conditioned Realities and the set of X Conditioned Realities is still conditioned reality.  Therefore, none of the Conditioned Realities in the circle have their conditions fulfilled and they will never exist. This means that nothing will exist at all. However, things obviously do exist and so this option leads to an outright contradiction and must be similarly rejected.

1.3 The claim that reality only contains an infinite number of Conditioned Realities in a linear series is false.

InfiniteConditions

Rationale: This is because each conditioned reality in the infinite series depends upon another Conditioned Reality for its existence – which in turn depends upon another. Any Conditioned Reality in the infinite series can only cause or fulfill the conditions of the next Conditioned Reality that depends upon it if its has actual existence itself. But the Conditioned Reality does not have actual existence because the Conditioned Reality it depends upon is itself dependent upon another Conditioned Reality and so on. Since the series of Conditioned Realities continues ad infinitum, no Conditioned Reality in the infinite series of conditions ever has its conditions fulfilled in order to exist and therefore lacks the causal power to ground other Conditioned Realities. Furthermore, the total set of an infinite number of Conditioned Realities is still only equivalent to Conditioned Reality. This results in the existence of nothing at all – as Conditioned Realities cannot cause themselves to exist. An essential causal series cannot continue for infinity because this would result in the non-existence of all members in the causal series. (An infinite series of dark moons positioned to shine upon one another will always remain dark). 

Please note, the impossibility of an infinite series of Conditioned Realities does not follow because infinite is impossible, but because an infinite number of Conditioned Realities still lacks the power to exist at all. For a more expanded discussion of why an infinite regress of Conditioned Realities cannot ground its own existence, see this post by al-Mubahathat: http://kimiyagard.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/on-the-infinite-regress-assumption/

1.4 Therefore, Claim #1 – There are only Conditioned Realities (the Atheist Position) in existence is false. This has been clearly established as per the above arguments.

RejectedAtheismImage Source: http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=File:Metaphysics8.png

1.5 Conclusion: There is at least one Unconditioned Reality (Necessary Being) in all of reality. This is because Claim #1 in all of its forms is shown to be false due to inherent contradictions. This leaves only the conclusion of Claim #2 – there must be at least one Unconditioned Reality in all of existence.

“In short, all finite things are always, in the present, being sustained in existence by conditions that they cannot have supplied for themselves, and that together compose a universe that, as a physical reality, lacks the obviously supernatural power necessary to exist on its own. Nowhere in any of that is a source of existence as such. It is this entire order of ubiquitous conditionality — this entire ensemble of dependent realities— that the classical arguments say cannot be reducible either to an infinite regress of contingent causes or to a first contingent cause. There must then be some truly unconditioned reality (which, by definition, cannot be temporal or spatial or in any sense finite) upon which all else depends; otherwise nothing could exist at all.
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 105)

Note: In the past, it was common for atheists to claim that the Universe as a whole is Unconditioned Reality. However, it should be noted that all of physical reality, i.e. the entire spatio-temporal Universe, is a Conditioned Reality and this can be demonstrated deductively (as below) due to the composite nature of the material Universe, i.e. anything which can be divided into parts or components is caused by those parts and therefore cannot truly be uncaused or unconditioned. In modern times, the conditioned nature of the Universe is obvious because contemporary cosmology has shown that the Universe has a beginning or is finite in in the past (see the work of Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth). Anything that has a finite past is conditioned or contingent in its existence and cannot be necessary or Unconditioned due to being finite. That being said, even if one does not admit the past finitude of the Universe, this argument remains valid.

At this point, the existence of one God has not been established; only the existence of at least one Unconditioned Reality is established. The argument now continues in order to demonstrate that there necessarily is only one Unconditioned Reality.

2. Proof that Unconditioned Reality is the Simplest Reality in all of existence

2.1 Unconditioned Reality cannot have any parts or components. This is because any reality which is composed of parts – whether they are material or non-material – would then be caused by those parts.  But Unconditioned Reality, by definition, has no cause and cannot be composed of any parts whatsoever.

The First is not divisible in thought into things which would constitute its substance. For it is impossible that each part of the explanation of the meaning of the First should denote of the parts by which the First’s substance is constituted. If this were the case, the parts which constitute its substance would be causes of its existence.”
- Abu Nasr al-Farabi, (On the Perfect State, 67)

Every composite thing is posterior to its components and dependent on them. But, as was shown above, God is the first being [and hence not dependent on anything].”
- St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa Theologica, 1.3.7)

2.2 Therefore, Unconditioned Reality is absolutely simple because it lacks parts, components, dimensions, etc. and therefore any kind of extrinsic boundaries (i.e. circles vs. squares; particles vs. waves; electrons vs. protons) or intrinsic boundaries (i.e. particular thoughts).

If God is to be understood as the unconditioned source of all things, rather than merely some very powerful but still ontologically dependent being, then any denial of divine simplicity is equivalent to a denial of God’s reality. This is obvious if one remembers what the argument from creaturely contingency to divine necessity implies. To be the first cause of the whole universal chain of per se causality, God must be wholly unconditioned in every sense. He cannot be composed of and so dependent upon severable constituents, physical or metaphysical, as then He would himself be conditional.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 134)

2.3 Expanded Explanation of Simplicity: Simplicity means to be lacking composition, components, parts or multiplicity of any kind. Simplicity utterly devoid of multiplicity entails the total absence of extrinsic (external) and intrinsic (internal) boundaries or limitations. All material objects have extrinsic boundaries or form – without which they would not be what they are. An example of extrinsic boundaries is the fact that a square is a square and therefore cannot be a circle – because a square and a circle each have external boundaries which define their existence. Another example in the material world is that of electrons vs. protons.  Electrons (which repel other electrons) are mutually exclusive with protons (which attract electrons) – something cannot be an electron and a proton at the same time and place.  A simpler reality is one that has less extrinsic/intrinsic boundaries than a given reality.  For example, particles and waves are mutually exclusive – waves exclude particles and vice versa. However, a photon can behave as a particle or as a wave in different situations.  This means that a photon is simpler reality than both particles and waves – because it does not have the formal boundaries of particles or waves and can take on the boundaries of either one. The photon can take on the properties of a particle or a wave and revert between the two without ceasing to be what it essentially is – a photon. In further examples, an electromagnetic field is simpler than electrons and protons (whose boundaries are mutually exclusive) because it allows for the interaction of protons and electrons. 

SimplicityExample

The above example shows how a simpler reality can ground/condition the existence of less simple realities and also interact with less simple realities. In other words, a simpler reality is compatible with (i.e. does not exclude the existence of) less simple realities. Another example is the act of thinking vs. the content of thoughts. A thought possesses particular boundaries due to its content. But a single act of thinking can hold and ground the existence of several different thoughts – without being limited or reduced to any particular thought. This shows that the act of thinking is a simpler reality than a particular thought. An example of the absence of intrinsic boundaries would be self-transparency – such as the human act of self-consciousness where such consciousness is aware of itself as being conscious.

 

3. Proof that there is only one, single, unique Unconditioned Reality:

3.1 If there are multiple Unconditioned Realities, they would each have to be absolutely simple (the simplest realities in all of existence) – as per the previous proof.

3.2 If there are multiple Unconditioned Realities, then there must be some difference or differentiating factor between each Unconditioned Reality. The existence of multiple Unconditioned Realities implies at least one factor that differentiates each Unconditioned Reality from the other. If one denies the presence of the said differentiating factor, then all of these Unconditioned Realities are one and the same.

3.3 Any Unconditioned Reality that includes a differentiating factor cannot be a pure Unconditioned Reality. This is because an Unconditioned Reality that includes a differentiating factor is less simple than pure Unconditioned Reality because it would be composed of parts: Unconditioned Reality + differentiating factor.

3.4 There cannot be multiple Unconditioned Realities. If this were the case, each of these Unconditioned Realities would be composed of parts (Unconditioned Reality + differentiating factor). But anything composed of parts is caused by those parts and therefore cannot be Unconditional Reality since Unconditioned Reality is uncaused. For example, if we suppose that there are two Unconditioned Realities – then each of them would possess a common property shared between them and a unique property specific to each one. But this entails that each Unconditioned Reality is composed of two parts – unique property and shared property – and they would each be caused by those parts and therefore cannot be Unconditioned Reality.

Each one of them (i.e. the two gods) would have two parts – one of them common and the other specific – by which their essences would exist. So this would necessitate One who precedes both of them and who would be the One who gives to each of them what is specific to it.” 
- Sayyidnā Ḥamīd al-Dīn al-Kirmānī, (Rāḥat al-‘Aql, 142)

3.6 Conclusion: There is only one unique Unconditioned Reality in all of existencesince the existence of multiple Unconditioned Realities is impossible or contradictory – to the notion (in the previous proof) that Unconditioned Reality is the simplest reality in all of existence and has no parts.

 

4. Proof that the Unconditioned Reality is the continuous “Creator” and “Sustainer” of all realities in existence:

4.1 There is only one, single, and unique Unconditioned Reality in all of reality – as per the previous proof. This entails that:

4.2 All other realities in reality besides Unconditioned Reality are Conditioned Realities. Therefore:

4.3 Any Conditioned Reality in existence depends on Unconditioned Reality for the fulfillment of the conditions of its existence. The fulfillment of the conditions of an existent by the Unconditioned Reality can be variously called “creation”, “sustenance” or “actualization” – these being names of the same thing.

4.4 Conclusion: Unconditioned Reality is the continuous Creator and Sustainer of all realities in existence at any given moment – or nothing would exist at all. This Unconditioned Reality is what we call “God”.

“The Creator (the unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself) must be a continuous Creator (source of the ultimate fulfillment of conditions) of all else that is real at every moment it could cease to be real (i.e. at every moment of reality). Analogously speaking, if the Creator stopped “thinking” about us, we would literally lapse into nothingness.”
- Robert Spitzer, (New Proofs for the Existence of God, 143)

“The creation according to Islam is not a unique act in a given time but a perpetual and constant event; and God supports and sustains all existence at every moment by His will and His thought. Outside His will, outside His thought, all is nothing, even the things which seem to us absolutely self-evident such as space and time. Allah alone wishes: the Universe exists; and all manifestations are as a witness of the Divine will.”
- Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah, (Memoirs of the Aga Khan: World Enough and Time)

 

5. The Transcendence of Unconditioned Reality:

5.1 Unconditioned Reality is beyond matter, space, and time and is therefore changeless and immutable – this follows from the fact that it is absolutely simple and non-composite. All spatio-temporal realities are composite in their structure.

The principle of divine simplicity, moreover, carries with it certain inevitable metaphysical implications. One is that God is eternal, not in the sense of possessing limitless duration but in the sense of transcending time altogether. Time is the measure of finitude, of change, of the passage from potentiality to actuality. God, however, being infinite actual being, is necessarily what Sikhism calls the Akhal Purukh , the One beyond time, comprehending all times within His eternal “now”; all things are present to Him eternally in a simple act of perfect and immediate knowledge. Another implication is that God is in some sense impassible: that is, being beyond change, He also cannot be affected— or, to be more precise, modified— by anything outside Himself. For one thing, as He is the infinite sustaining source of all things, nothing could be “outside” of Him in that sense to begin with.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 136)

5.2 Unconditioned Reality is unrestricted and without limit – since it is not subject to any external or internal boundaries due to its absolute simplicity.

“God cannot change over time, moreover, as He would then be dependent upon the relation between some unrealized potentiality within Himself and some fuller actuality somehow “beyond” Himself into which He may yet evolve; again, He would then be a conditional being. He also must possess no limitations of any kind, intrinsic or extrinsic, that would exclude anything real from Him. Nothing that exists can be incompatible with the power of being that He is, as all comes from Him, and this means that He must transcend all those limits that alienate and exclude finite realities from one another, but in such a manner that He can embrace those finite realities in a more eminent way without contradiction… The infinite power of being— the power to be, without any reliance upon some other cause of being, as well as the power to impart being to creatures— must be of infinite capacity, which means infinite simplicity.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 135)

5.3 Unconditioned Reality is beyond all ontological duality such as body-soul, substance-attribute, essence-existence, form-matter, subject-object, etc. – since it is absolutely simple and beyond any kind of composition – both material and formal.  In this respect, the Imām of the Time refers to Unconditional Reality as “He Who is above all else” – the meaning of which Dr. Aziz Esmail explains:

This Ultimate Reality is often conceived as ‘transcendent’, or described as ‘He who is above all else — not because it is a reality spatially above the human habitat, but because it is above, i.e. goes beyond or transcends, all human categories. Being free from and prior to the dichotomy between subject and object, it is therefore also outside the frame of human discourse.” 
- Aziz Esmail, (‘Reason and Religion: The Old Argument Revisited’Ilm, Vol. 7, No. 3, Dec. 1981-Feb. 1982, pp. 32-40)

5.4 Unconditioned Reality is the ground or source of all universal qualities  - life, knowledge, power, will, intelligence, beauty, justice, compassion etc. found in existence - since every creative principle contains and encompasses its effects (formally, eminently, or virtually). The meaning of saying that “God is compassionate”, “God is knowing” or “God is just” is that compassion, knowledge, justice, power, etc. exist   The Thomist philosopher Edward Feser explains this as follows:

Recall the Aristotelian principle that a cause cannot give what it does not have, so that the cause of a feature must have that feature either “formally” or “eminently”; that is, if it does not have the feature itself (as a cigarette lighter, which causes fire, is not itself on fire), it must have the feature that is higher up in the hierarchy of attributes (as the cigarette lighter has the power to generate fire). But the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change, is the source of things coming to have the attributes they have. Hence, He has these attributes eminently if not formally. That includes every power, so that He is all-powerful. It also includes the intellect and will that human beings possess, so that He must be said to have intellect and will, and thus personality, in an analogical sense.”
- Edward Feser (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, 98)

 

6. Answers to Common Atheist Objections:

“If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause.”

Response: The above argument never took “everything has a cause” as its first premise. Instead, it distinguished between Conditioned Reality and Unconditioned Reality and proceeded to show, by disjunctive syllogism, that there must be at least one Unconditioned Reality in existence. It further used the very definition of Unconditioned Reality to deduce that there is but one unique Unconditioned Reality in all of existence. Even then, God as Unconditioned Reality is not a discrete “thing”, and so logically falls outside the domain of “everything has a cause.”

“If the concept of God were the concept simply of some demiurge— some conditioned being among other conditioned beings—then it would indeed be a concept requiring the supplement of some further causal explanation. But none of the enduring theistic faiths conceives of God in that way. The God they proclaim is not just some especially resplendent object among all the objects illuminated by the light of being, or any kind of object at all, but is himself the light of being. It makes perfect sense to ask what illuminates an object, but none to ask what illuminates light. It makes perfect sense to wonder why a contingent being exists, but none to wonder why Absolute Being “exists.” In any event, the “Who made God?” riposte to theism has never been favored by the more reflective kind of skeptic. It is the resort of the intellectually lazy. For one thing, it is an approach that already concedes the power of the argument against an infinite explanatory regress, which is definitely not a good first move for the committed unbeliever.
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 143)

 

“God is not empirically observable and therefore does not exist.”

Response: This object is assumes the truth of the principle of empirical verification: “A fact is only true if verified by empirical observation.” The new atheists make this the sole criterion for assessing all knowledge and all truth claims. However, there are four major problems with this line of thinking. Firstly, the principle of verification itself cannot be verified empirically. That is to say, the statement that “A fact is only true if verified by empirical observation” cannot be verified by empirical observation. There is no empirical observation that tells us that something is only true is verified empirically. So the entire principle of empiricism is based on faulty circular logic and must be dismissed. Secondly, empirical observation – even with the most sophisticated instrumentation – can only observe material things that undergo change. The only reason that physicists can observe anything at all is because change is taking place at all levels of the material world. For this reason, the scope of empirical observation is limited and will eventually reach a boundary. God is changeless and immutable. Therefore, He cannot be empirically observed by definition. This does not entail the non-existence of God, it entails the limited scope of empiricism as a method of knowing. Thirdly, the actual practice of science is not strictly empirical. Science includes an interplay of theory, mathematical modeling, empirical observation and trust. Certain branches of physics such as cosmology, quantum physics, astronomy rely heavily on mathematical modelling in order to produce theorems. Many scientific theories such as relativity, the Big Bang theory, etc., are the result of mathematical modelling and not pure empirical observation. Einstein himself never needed to set foot in a laboratory. Fourthly, many truths are deducted using axiomatic logic and not empirical testing. The Pythagorean theorem can only be proven mathematically and not empirically. No amount of empirical observations of triangles would ever constitute a proof of the theorem. Compared to logical and deductive proofs, empirical based proofs are at best probabilistic since the sample size can never include the entire set of testable samples.

 

“Causation is not universally true – it is invalidated by quantum physics”

Response: There are no exceptions to the rule of causality. Modern science has not detected or observed any cases where material things have no cause. Certain physicists such as Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have inappropriately and deceptively referred to empty space or the quantum vacuum energy as “nothing”; but this is simply no the case since the vacuum is not nothing, even empirically speaking. The quantum vacuum contains unstable energy subject to the laws of physics.

“Even the most fervent materialist must at least grant that quantum particles and functions are not causally independent in an ultimate sense; they do not literally emerge from nonexistence. Radioactive decay, for instance, still has to occur within radioactive material, and within a physical realm governed by mathematically describable laws. And whatever occurs within a quantum field or vacuum is dependent upon that field or vacuum (and that vacuum is not, as it happens, nothing). And all physical reality is contingent upon some cause of being as such, since existence is not an intrinsic physical property, and since no physical reality is logically necessary. Today’s more ingenious skeptics, however, do not attempt to search out some sort of specific exception to the universal rule of causality, because they understand that what might count as an exception will always be determined in advance by certain metaphysical prejudices.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 145)

 

“But causes are not simultaneous with their effects; causes must always precede the effect in time”

Response: A number of classical thinkers (Aristotle, Ibn Sina, Aquinas) and contemporary western philosophers have argued and demonstrated that causes are in fact simultaneous with their effects. While common people tend to see cause and effect as two temporal events, this is not actually the case when causation is examined in depth. Even Immanuel Kant admitted that causes are simultaneous with their effects – such as the case where a stove is causing an area to be heated or when a ball impresses a groove when it sits on a cushion.  In fact, all types of causation – even those that appear to be temporal – are in reducible to simultaneous causation. This is established by Mumford and Anjum in Getting Causes from Powers (see pp. 106-129). These authors look at several examples from everyday experience, biology, physics and agent causation and conclude that they are all cases of simultaneous causation. This is because an object is not truly a cause until the very instant that it is producing its effect. Before or after that time, the object is not a cause in any meaningful sense.

“We argued against Hume’s temporal priority condition in which the cause occurs before the effect. Causation, we insisted, involved simultaneity. The effect occurs at the same time as its cause.”
(Mumford, Anjum, Getting Causes from Powers, 230)

“Man has every reason to believe in the reality of causation: indeed, to take it as one of the most fundamental realities in the whole of existence… Causation is as real as anything we know. It is fundamental: an actual feature of this one true world.”
(Mumford, Anjum, Getting Causes from Powers, 237)

 

“Atheism is for more rational persons while theism is blind faith”

Response: The only logical alternative to theism is naturalism or physicalism – the belief that physical reality is all there is. However, there is much stronger support for theism than naturalism – for three reasons. Firstly, there are no deductive or empirical arguments for naturalism. Naturalism, as already mentioned, relies on empiricism which is unprovable and circular in its own logic. Furthermore, there is no way to actually prove or argue, from observations within the natural world, that the natural world is all that exists. Indeed, it is the atheist – not the theist – who holds his naturalist position out of ‘blind faith’ in the absence of good reasons or evidence. Naturalism, far from being a reasoned position, is merely a prejudice or assumption that one arbitrarily adopts. Secondly, naturalism is self-refuting because under the assumption of naturalism, the human mind is reducible to the brain which has evolved through natural selection for the sole purpose of survival and not to discover objective truth. This means that all thoughts, ideas, and intellectual worldviews are the result of brain neurobiological events that occur as the brain’s responses to stimuli and genes. As such, all ideas held by a person – under naturalism – are not held because of their truth or rationality but simply because of brain chemistry. This casts great doubt as to the accuracy of human scientific conclusions and knowledge in general – since it could only correspond to objective reality by some improbable miraculous coincidence. Under naturalism, it is the atheist who has “blind faith” that his own mental and intellectual convictions should be trusted in the first place.

Finally, naturalism ultimately amounts to saying that ‘things are just there’ as a brute fact without any final explanation because of its refusal to admit of anything beyond the natural world. Atheism at the end of the day is simply not provable and this should cast doubt on the very rationality of atheist belief which truly amounts to blind faith. Dr. James Cutsinger summarizes this point when he says:

“On the contrary, atheism is self-contradictory. Think about it. The atheist says, “There is no God.” Now anyone who says, “There is no _____,” is giving voice to what a logician would call a universal negative proposition, whatever might be placed in that blank. It’s negative because it says “no” and denies something, and it’s universal because the field it encompasses is unlimited. If I said, “There is no platypus in this chapel,” I would also be uttering a negative statement, but it wouldn’t be universal because the context would be restricted to this building, and we could verify, or disconfirm, the truth of my statement by arming everyone in the room with a flashlight, fanning out throughout the building, and engaging in a systematic platypus-hunting exercise. Notice, however, that when atheists say, “There is no God,” they’re not saying, “There’s no God in this chapel,” or “There’s no God in Greenville,” or “There’s no God in our galaxy.” They’re saying, “There is no God anywhere in the entire universe, no God at all wherever one might look throughout the full extent of reality.” But in doing so they’re implying that they’ve done the looking. They’ve carefully inspected all the nooks and crannies of existence, even as we’d need to inspect all the nooks and crannies of this building to know there’s no platypus in it. If however they’ve truly looked everywhere there is to look—if they can honestly say they’re personally acquainted with the full extent of reality—it follows that they must be omniscient. But omniscience is an attribute of God. Therefore, in saying “There is no God,” atheists are implicitly claiming to be God, and thus inevitably contradicting themselves.”
- James Cutsinger,  (The Sound of a Lecture Undelivered, Furman University, April 30, 2007)

 

7. The worldview of the First Cause/Unconditional Reality Argument is rationally superior to any naturalist worldview:

While there are no positive arguments for naturalism or atheism, there are good arguments for theism. The argument presented in this article is based on the concept of causality – which no one really disputes.

“All physical reality is logically contingent, and the existence of the contingent requires the Absolute as its source. Why the Absolute produces the contingent may be inconceivable for us; but that the contingent can exist only derivatively, receiving its existence from the Absolute, is a simple deduction of reason. Alternatively, reality is essentially absurd: absolute contingency, unconditional conditionality, an uncaused effect. And the antithesis between the two positions can never be made any less stark than that… The general argument from the contingent to the absolute, or from the conditioned to the unconditioned, is a powerful and cogent one. No attempt, philosophical or otherwise, to show that it is a confused argument, or logically insufficient, or susceptible of some purely physical answer has ever been impressively successful. Even if one does not accept its conclusions one still has absolutely no rational warrant for believing that materialism has any sort of logical superiority over theism; the classical argument is strong enough to show that naturalism is far and away a weaker, more incomplete, and more wilfully doctrinaire position than classical theism is. Naturalism, as I have said repeatedly, is a philosophy of the absurd, of the just-there-ness of what is certainly by its nature a contingent reality; it is, simply enough, an absurd philosophy.”
- David Bentley Hart, (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, 147-150)

 

8. Conclusion: Be in Harmony with God

The arguments presented in this article lead to the conclusion that there is one, single, unique, infinite Unconditioned Reality that continuously creates and sustains the existence of all things – space, time, matter, the Universe, consciousness, etc. As such, every reality in existence is a Conditioned Reality whose existence is ultimately dependent upon the absolute, and infinite Unconditioned Reality – what people of faith call “God”. Having accepted this metaphysical truth, one must realize that one’s own existence is contingent and ultimately dependent upon God. The next logical step is to live one’s life in total conformity with the realization of one’s utter dependence before the Divine. That is to say, one’s entire being – physical, mental, and spiritual – must be oriented towards God as the source of all existence by realizing one’s contingency or conditioned state before Him: for this is the essence of faith. Such an orientation brings one in harmony with God. And he who is in harmony with God, who is absolutely poor and humble before the unceasing existence that flows forth from the Unconditioned Reality – is “at one” with God and will be truly and deeply happy.

imamsmsgulge

“A man must be at one with God. This may sound old-fashioned to some people. A few may think that they do not believe in God, and some others that it matters little to the individual in his daily life how he stand with regard to Him. Ruling out the atheist, with whom a believer can no more argue than he can discuss color with a blind man, it is surely strange that a believer in an omnipotent and ever-present Deity should fail to realise that how we stand this instant and every instant toward Him matters to us more than anything else in the Universe. This is the fundamental question: Are you in harmony with God? If you are – you are happy.”
- Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah,
(“My Personal Life”, Aga Khan III: Selected Speeches and Writings, ed. K.K. Aziz, 866)


Video: Muslim-Christian Dialogue on Jesus featuring Sunni, Ismaili, Catholic and Protestant Interpretations

$
0
0

558862_10100218456005437_934285073_n

“I think that monotheistic religions, having a common reference to a single God, should and must dialogue. The three religions which Abraham inspired have many more common facets than those which divide them. Religion must be the means by which to affirm the ethical significance of existence, regardless of one’s profession of faith.”
- Imām Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī Āgā Khān IV, 

(Interview with Correre della Sera, Massimo Nava, October 22, 2001)

As the Easter Weekend approaches, it is an appropriate time for Christians and Muslims to read, reflect and understand their beliefs and views on the question of Jesus – his life, spiritual status, mission, and crucifixion – and explore both the difference and the commonality. Most interfaith dialogues between Christians and Muslims feature only the majority perspectives within each faith and neglect the views of Islam’s rich esoteric heritage – as manifest in Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Islam and Sufi Islam. In fact, an engagement between Christianity and the esoteric traditions of Islam can lead to a more fruitful and meaningful dialogue:

“It remains a question why discussions of the Islamic Jesus have not heretofore stressed the importance of the thought of these Ismā‘īlī scholars with regard to what is probably the great single obstacle in Muslim-Christian relations not to mention an extremely important feature of Muslim identity.”
(Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an, 95)

On Thursday, March 15, 2012, the University of Toronto and St. Michael’s College hosted “The Christology Symposium” – an academic forum featuring presentations on Jesus from Catholic, Protestant, Sunni Muslim and Ismā‘īlī Muslim perspectives followed by a panel discussion. The presentations consisted of the following:

1. “Roman Catholic Christology” (at 5:50) – Greg Rupik (PhD Candidate, University of Toronto)

529026_10100218454693067_1710221535_n

2. “Sunni Muslim Christology” (at 22:00) – Shabir Ally (PhD Candidate, University of Toronto)

529035_10100218456728987_1739111224_n

3. “Evangelical Christology” (at 39:15) – Dr. Tony Costa (PhD)

526201_10100218456958527_1405125058_n

4. “Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Muslim Christology” (at 57:30) – Khalil Andani (Master of Theological Studies Candidate, Harvard University)

523577_10100218458650137_1599461079_n

Khalil Andani’s presentation titled Shi‘a Isma‘ili Muslim Christology: Jesus in Classical Isma‘ili Thought summarized some of the classical Ismā‘īlī Muslm perspectives on Jesus which stem from the Fatimid Ismā‘īlī worldviews on the absolute transcendence of God, the Universal Intellect (al-‘aql al-kull), and the Cycles of the Natiqs (Prophets) and the Imams. His presentation explained the relationship between the spiritual nature and the human nature of the Prophets and Imams, highlighted the special role of Jesus in the Cycle of Prophethood, and offered a detailed examination of the crucifixion according to the Qur’an and Ismā‘īlī esoteric interpretations. The presentation concluded by sharing an Ismā‘īlī ta’wil (esoteric interpretation) of the Christian Cross and the Islamic Shahadah as outlined in the writings of Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani and Ja’far ibn Mansur al-Yaman which demonstrate the ecumenical and pluralistic approaches of the Fatimid Isma‘ili thinkers:

“…the conditions of the dialogue between Christianity and Islam change completely as soon as the interlocutor represents not legalistic Islam but this spiritual Islam, whether it be that of Sufism or of Shi‘ite gnosis.”
(Henry Corbin, Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth, Prologue)

Watch the full video of the Christology Symposium here (for slides, we recommend viewing on YouTube site and choosing 1080 quality):

Watch: Video of Khalil Andani’s Presentation - Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Muslim Christology (for slides, we recommend viewing on YouTube site and choosing 1080 quality):

Further Reading on the subject of Ismā‘īlī Muslim Christology can be found at:

  1. Henry Corbin, Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis, Tr. Ralph Manheim and James Morris, London: Kegan Paul International in association with Islamic Publications Ltd., 1983
  2. Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2009
  3. Khalil Andani, “They Killed Him Not”: The Crucifixion in Shi‘a Isma‘ili Islam
  4. Khalil Andani, “The Common Word”: Reflections on Muslim-Christian Dialogue
  5. Khalil Andani, The Metaphysics of the Common Word: A Dialogue of Eckhartian and Isma’ili Gnosis, Sacred Web Journals 2011 Part1Part2


Does the Soul Exist? Consciousness, Matter, and Quantum Physics

$
0
0

Consciousness

“Whatever may or may not be the soul’s future, there is one impregnable central fact in existence: that here and now, in this world, we have a soul which has a life of its own in its appreciation of truth, beauty, harmony and good against evil.”
- Imam Sultan Muḥammad Shah Aga Khan III

 

“The structure of quantum theory opens the door to the possibility that all causes and reasons need not be purely mechanical. Thoughts and intentions are themselves actual realities, and as such they ought to be able to have, in their own right, real actual consequences. Quantum theory allows this, and in actual scientific practice demands it.”
- Henry Stapp

The purpose of this article is to present some key arguments for existence of the human soul as an immaterial or “spiritual substance” (jawhar ruḥānī). Human soul and consciousness are neither identical to nor reducible to material objects such as brains, neuron firings, biochemistry, fundamental particles, etc. Of course, some materialists will claim that these arguments only leave us with a “body-soul dualism” in which spiritual substance and material substance are irreducibly different and unable to have interactions without violating the laws of physics. Therefore, we will conclude by offering a coherent model of soul-body dualism based on quantum physics by drawing on the work of physicist Henry Stapp.

A. What is “Soul”?

To begin, it is best to specify what we mean by “soul” (Arabic: nafs; Persian: jān) and for this we turn to the definitions of the human soul provided by the Ismā‘īlī Musim thinker Sayyidnā Nāṣir-i Khusraw and the eminent scholar of world religions Huston Smith:

“We know that within us there exists a conceptual faculty which is our own distinguishing property and that the ‘I-ness’ of each and every one of us resides there; moreover, all our actions and utterances issue from this conceptual faculty through its use of those organs which go to make up the human compound. Nor do animals possess this faculty. We know that within it is something through which the actions of the different parts of the body occur and that they do so because of its command and desire, and that ‘I-ness’ in the body belongs there. This ‘something’ is what we call ‘soul’ (nafs). It possesses knowledge of good and of bad. It is the locus of action. And so God says, ‘By a soul (nafs) and what fashioned  it, and then inspired it [to know] what is abominable and what is reverent within it’ (Qur’ān  91:7-8). The tongue ‘speaks’ at the command of the soul; it is the soul which stirs it to speech.”
- Sayyidnā Nāṣir-i Khusraw, (Jāmi‘ al-ḥikmatayn, trans. Ormsby, 97-99)

The above passages define the human soul as the subject or agent of human consciousness and action, which is also “self-conscious” of himself or herself as the “I”. This human soul or “I-ness” is the agent who experiences various conscious states such as sensations (i.e. perceiving something through the five senses), feelings (i.e. the feeling of pain, the feeling of pleasure, emotions), imagination (to represent something by means of an image derived from sensation), desires (the inclination for something), intentions (the will to do x), and thoughts (the conception of something or someone, a belief about something, step by step logical reasoning, etc).  Huston Smith provides a lucid explanation of how the human soul is the locus of personal identity that underlies all conscious states and physical flux:

The soul is the final locus of our individuality. Situated as it were behind the senses, it sees through the eyes without being seen, hears with the ears without itself being heard. Similarly it lies deeper than mind. If we equate mind with the stream of consciousness, the soul is the source of this stream; it is also its witness while never itself appearing within the stream as a datum to be observed. It underlies, in fact, not only the flux of mind but all the changes through which an individual passes; it thereby provides the sense in which these changes can be considered to be his. No collection of the traits I possess – my age, my appearance, what have you – constitutes the essential ‘me,’ for the traits change while I remain in some sense myself.”
- Huston Smith, (Forgotten Truth, 1985,63)

B. Arguments for the Immateriality of the Soul and Consciousness:

mindbrain

“Mechanists consider mind to be a part of the body, but this is a mistake. The brain is a part of the body, but mind and brain are not identical. The brain breathes mind like the lungs breathe air.”
- Huston Smith

The below arguments demonstrate that the human soul and its stream of conscious states (what can be called “mind”) are immaterial. By “immaterial”, we mean that the human soul and its consciousness is not reducible to the brain or any kind of material object.

1. Conscious states lack spatio-temporal properties: Thoughts, sensations, feelings, and intentions do not have mass, momentum, shape, spatial location, spatial extension, or temporal location and they are neither particles nor waves. Meanwhile, material objects do possess some spatio-temporal properties.  Since conscious states lack the properties of material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

“Matter is located in space; one can specify precisely where a given tree, let us say, resides. But if one asks where his perception of the tree is located he can expect difficulties. The difficulties increase if he asks how tall his perception of the tree is; not how tall is the tree he sees, but how tall is his seeing of it.”
- Huston Smith, (Forgotten Truth, 1985,67)

2. Conscious states are not divisible into material parts or components: Material objects are divisible into parts, but one cannot divide sensations like seeing redness, the feelings of joy, the intentions to stand up, or a logical deduction into material parts.  A red object may be material and contain parts, but the perception of the red object that occurs in the mind knows no such division. Since conscious states are not divisible as are material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

3. Conscious states have an “aboutness” or intentionality: a thought is about something, an idea is of something, a desire is for something, an image is an image of something, an abstract proposition refers to something. Meanwhile, material objects, i.e. tables, chairs, brain cells, do NOT possess any intentionality: they have no “aboutness” and do not refer to anything. Thus, while a belief or proposition in the mind can be true or false, a material brain state is neither true nor false due to lacking intentionality. Since conscious states have intentionality and material objects do not, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

4. Conscious states possess qualia or qualitative features: these qualia cannot be fully described by or reduced to the correlated physical brain activity that occurs at the same time as the conscious experience.  For example, one can know about every neuron firing that occurs in the brain when the colour red is being perceived, including the molecular composition of the red object represented mathematically, but none of this data will provide the actual experience of seeing red. Consequently, even if a person knows all of the empirical data about the colour red, they will still attain new knowledge when they actually perceive red in conscious experience. Since conscious states contain qualia and material objects lack qualia, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

5. Certain conscious states include abstract concepts and categories to immediately interpret sense-data. For example, when the conscious subject has the sensation or experience of touching an apple, he also interprets this sensation as signifying an actual external object as opposed to nothing more than an impression. Thus, the mind interprets sensory impressions by resorting to abstract concepts and imposing them upon the sense impression in order to situate the impression in an intelligible context. Another example is that when the conscious subject notices that two perceived objects are similar and two objects are different, the mind is resorting to abstract notions of similarity and difference to make this judgment.  But these abstract concepts – of similarity, difference, equality, inequality, etc. are not themselves material and cannot be provided or created by mere aggregates of material objects like atoms, molecule, cells or neurons. Indeed, the converse is more true – our very understanding of atoms, molecules or cells relies on abstract concepts to begin with. Since some conscious states employ abstract concepts that are not present in material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

6. Certain mental events, such as propositional thought processes, are logically ordered: With respect to abstract propositions in the mind there is a logical relationship between the content of one thought and the content of the subsequent thought.  For example, two plus two equals four or “All men are mortals; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal” are propositions whose content is determined by logic and not by neuro-biological brain events.  Meanwhile, neuron firings in the brain are organically related and not related conceptually or logically. But the thought content of abstract propositions are related logically and conceptually.  Therefore, certain mental states such as rational and logical thought are clearly not governed by the same parameters as the corresponding brain events (if there is such a correlation). Since conscious thinking has logical form and structure while material brain states do not, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

7. The correlation between conscious experience and neuro-biological brain events breaks down in several cases. Scientists have so far discovered a correlation between certain conscious states and neurobiological brain events. This correlation should, however, be expected if consciousness is immaterial and has causal influence on the states of the brain. Nevertheless, certain kinds of conscious experience which are more intense, transpersonal or transcendent (than ordinary conscious states) are inversely correlated with brain activity because they take place with less or diminished brain activity.  Some examples given by Bernardo Kastrup are listed below:

a)      Fainting caused by asphyxiation or other restrictions of blood flow to the brain is known to sometimes induce intense transpersonal experiences and states of non-locality.

b)      Pilots undergoing G-force induced loss of consciousness – where blood is forced out of the brain, significantly reducing its metabolism – report experiences similar to Near Death Experiences. (Whinnery and Whinnery 1990)

c)      Certain Yogic breathing practices increase blood alkalinity levels, thereby constricting blood vessels in the brain and causing hypoxia and dissociation. This leads to significant transpersonal and non-local out of body experiences. (Taylor 1994)

d)     Psychedelic substances cause intense, non-local transpersonal experiences (Strassman et al, 2008). But a recent study showed that these substances do not increase brain activity, they actually decrease brain activity by decreasing cerebral blood flow, where the magnitude of decrease predicted the intensity of the conscious experience.

e)      Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) can inhibit cortical function in certain locations of the brain and subjects reported Out of Body Experiences when neural activity in the angular gyrus of patients with epilepsy was inhibited in this way.

The full descriptions of the above examoles are given here.

8. Near Death Experiences occur when there is no brain activity at all: Near Death Experiences, perhaps the most intense and transcendent of reported transpersonal experiences of consciousness, occur when the subjects are brain dead and brain activity is totally flat. While scientists have tried to attribute the cause of NDEs to anoxia of the brain, release of endomorphines, or fear of death, a recent study published in the Lancet December 2001 Issue called “Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest; a prospective study in the Netherlands” put these theories to rest. The author of this peer reviewed NDE study, Pim Van Lommel, writes that:

Out Of Body Experience

“In our prospective study of patients that have been clinically dead (VF on the ECG) no electric activity of the cortex of the brain (flat EEG) must have been possible, but also the abolition of brain stem activity like the loss of the corneareflex, fixed dilated pupils and the loss of the gag reflex is a clinical finding in those patients. However, patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their “dead” body. Because of the sometimes reported and verifiable out-of -body experiences, like the case of the dentures reported in our study, we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last second of this period.  So we have to conclude that NDE in our study was experienced during a transient functional loss of all functions of the cortex and of the brainstem. It is important to mention that there is a well documented report of a patient with constant registration of the EEG during cerebral surgery for an gigantic cerebral aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees, she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. There is also a theory that consciousness can be experienced independently from the normal body-linked waking consciousness. The current concept in medical science states that consciousness is the product of the brain. This concept, however, has never been scientifically proven.”
- Pim Van Lommel
(http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm)

The main author of the Lancet study, Van Lommel, concludes that prominent atheist Michael Shermer’s view that consciousness is material is incorrect and contrary to the results of his study:

“Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia).” 
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

9. In human beings, consciousness is self-aware or self-reflexive: Consciousness in the human being is self-aware; that is to say, human beings are not only conscious, but they are conscious of their consciousness. A person has a direct knowledge of his or her own selfhood or “I-ness”, as Aristotle writes:

“There is something in us which is aware that we are in activity, and so we are aware that we are sensing and we would be thinking that we are thinking.” 
- Aristotle, (Nicomachean Ethics, 10.9.1170a31-3)

The “I-ness” of each human is his rational soul (nafs al-nāṭiqah) and this self-aware rational soul is, in no way, reducible to the brain or matter in general. This is evident for the simple reason that material things, including whatever the human brain is composed of, totally lack the property of being self-aware. Materialists like to argue that a complex arrangement of matter can somehow magically produce consciousness but offer no explanation of how unconscious, unaware material entities produce immaterial and qualitative conscious experience, let alone self-aware consciousness.

“But if someone says that it is not so, but that atoms or other partless units can produce the soul by coming together in unity and identity of experience, he could be refuted by their juxtaposition, and not a complete one, since nothing which is one and united with itself in identity of experience can come from bodies which are incapable of unification and sensation, but soul is united in itself in identity of experience.
- Plotinus, (Ennead 4.3.1-6, tr. Armstrong)

Since human consciousness is self-aware while material objects are not self aware, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

10. There exists no material explanation of how the material brain can solely create or produce subjective consciousness – this is known as the “Hard Problem”:

“The Hard Problem is explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation. The problem is hard because no one knows what a solution would look like or even is a genuine scientific problem in the first place. And not surprisingly everyone agrees that the hard problem (if it is a problem) is a mystery.”
- Steven Pinker, (The Mystery of Consciousness, Mind & Body Special Issue of Time Magazine, January 29, 2007)

 

C. The Soul, Brain, and Quantum Physics:

WaveCollapse

“Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the laws of physics.”
- Henry Stapp

Materialists like Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris immediately dismiss the possibility of an immaterial soul or mind that interacts with the brain and the physical body. They argue this on the grounds of classical physics according to which the activity of the soul or any other immaterial entity upon the brain violates the law of conservation of energy. They conclude that matter is the fundamental reality of human beings and of the entire Universe:

“The prevailing wisdom, variously expressed and argued for is materialism: there is one sort of stuff, namely matter – the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology – and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain. According to the materialists, we can (in principle!) account for every mental phenomenon using the same physical principles, laws, and raw materials that suffice to explain radioactivity, continental drift, photosynthesis, reproduction, nutrition, and growth.”
- Daniel Dennet, (Consciousness Explained, 1991, 33)

What is often ignored today is how Dennet, Dawkins, Sam Harris and the materialists fail to realize that their entire argument for materialism and the denial of the soul is based on an outdated “classical physics” paradigm that was overturned in the 20th century with the advent of quantum physics. The general thinking of many people, however, is still shaped by classical physics and for this reason alone, materialism seems like the most scientific worldview. Thus Henry Stapp comments that the materialist argument against soul-body dualism falls apart in the face of contemporary physics:

This argument depends on identifying ‘standard physics’ with classical physics. The argument collapses when one goes over to contemporary physics, in which, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, trajectories of particles are replaced by cloud-like structures, and in which conscious choices can influence physically described activity without violating the conservation laws or any other laws of quantum physics. Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the laws of physics.”
- Henry Stapp, (Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer, 1997, 81)

At the quantum level, subatomic particles like electrons do not exist concretely; instead, they exist in a state of potentiality. For example, the electron at the quantum level does not occupy a fixed position or a momentum. Instead, the electron occupies an entire range of possible positions – and the evolution of these possibilities over time can be described by a wave function called the Schrödinger equation:

“The quantum state of a single elementary particle can be visualized, roughly, as a continuous cloud of (complex) numbers, one assigned to every point in three dimensional space. This cloud of numbers evolves in time and, taken as a whole, it determines, at each instant, for each allowed process 1 action, an associated set of alternative possible experiential outcomes or feedbacks, and the ‘probability of finding (i.e., experiencing)’ that particular outcome.”
- Henry Stapp, (Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer, 1997,25)

It is only the act of measurement or observation by a conscious observer that 1) assigns concrete probabilities to each possible position, and 2) selects one of the possible positions of the electron and actualizes this possibility as a physical event. Prior to observation, there is no “matter stuff” but only “possibilities”, as Stapp writes:

[R]eality is not made out of any material substance, but rather out of ‘events’ (actions) and ‘potentialities’ for these events to occur. Potentialities are not material realities, and there is no logical requirement that they be simply additive.”
- Henry Stapp, (Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer, 1997,26)

Material substance, as such, does not exist without an observation or act of human consciousness. It is therefore nonsensical to argue that material substances, like the aggregation of atoms, molecules and neurons can produce consciousness. Material objects, prior to conscious observation, exist only as wave-like potentialities and nothing more. The act of observation or measurement by a conscious agent is what reduces the potentialities into actualities, as Schrödinger himself writes about some particle x when it is observed at position K – prior to which particle x has no definite existence except in a cloud of potentialities:

“[I]t is then quite clear that a measurement of x affects not only (as is always said) p [ x’s momentum], but also x itself. You have not found a particle at K’ [ x’s definite position], you have produced one there!… Before the second measurement, it is ubiquitous in the cloud (it is not a particle at all).”
- Erwin Schrodinger, (The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Dublin Seminars, 1995, 106)

Now, the above is especially true of the human brain. The brain, prior to being collapsed into an actual physical state by an act of consciousness or soul, exists only as a “superimposition”,i.e. several possible physical states or potentialities described by a wave function since “according to quantum theory, the state of the brain can become a cloudlike quantum mixture of many different classically describable brain states.” (Stapp, 2007, 31).

The human soul, through its conscious stream of thoughts, intentions, sensations, etc. collapses the wave function of the brain in order to produce an actual physical state of the brain with its neuro-chemistry. Thus, it is the immaterial human soul or consciousness which acts upon the set of possible physical states of the brain and reduces these to an actual physical state: “At each occurrence of a conscious thought, the set of possibilities is reduced to the subset compatible with the occurring increment of knowledge” (Ibid., 52).

This quantum mind-body model, in which human thoughts can cause the occurrence of specific neural activity in the brain, is corroborated by a recent study at UCLA published in Nature 467 (28 October 2010) which shows that human beings can control neuron firings with their thoughts.  The authors of the study write in the abstract that:

“Recording from single neurons in patients implanted with intracranial electrodes for clinical reasons here we demonstrate that humans can regulate the activity of their neurons in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) to alter the outcome of the contest between external images and their internal representation…  Subjects reliably regulated, often on the first trial, the firing rate of their neurons, increasing the rate of some while simultaneously decreasing the rate of others.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7319/full/nature09510.html

This quantum soul-body model is not a Cartesian dualism where a wholly different spiritual substance and material substance interact; on the contrary, there is no purely material substance as such prior to conscious observation. What is perceived as material substance is already actualized by and infused with immaterial consciousness and form. Sayyidnā Nāṣir-i Khusraw expressed similar intuitions a thousand years ago when he claimed that the material human body in and of itself is not a substance at all, and that it is man’s immaterial human soul, in its act of knowing, that endows the body with life and substance.  

“[I]t is the soul which keeps our bodies alive and that the souls of our bodies subsist by themselves. The soul is a substance and self-subsistent, the mover and keeper alive of the body. The body is not a substance, nor self-subsistent, nor is it the mover of a substance, since the mover by necessity is [another] substance. As for the statement that the action of the soul does not come into existence without a body, the answer is that the action of the soul is to know, and in order to know it does not need a body. But when the soul wants to portray [the form of] that knowledge on a [material] body, it seeks the help of the [human] body which is linked to it, and it is able to do this because of compatibility [between the two bodies]. Ask so that you may know! Comprehend so that you may be liberated!”
- Sayyidnā Nāṣir-i Khusraw, (Knowledge and Liberation, 49-50)

The existence of the human soul is a spiritual substance that is neither identical to nor reducible to the physical brain or any other material object. As conveyed by Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh, the forty-eight hereditary Imam of the Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Muslims, the existence of this ineffaceable human soul is the fundamental fact of all human existence:

“Whatever may or may not be the soul’s future, there is one impregnable central fact in existence: that here and now, in this world, we have a soul which has a life of its own in its appreciation of truth, beauty, harmony and good against evil… But the fundamental point of each message if carefully studied is that man’s greatest of all treasures, the greatest of all his possessions, was the inherent, ineffaceable, everlasting nobility of his own soul. In it there was for ever a spark of true divinity which could conquer all the antagonistic and debasing elements in nature. And let me once more stress that this faith in the soul of man expressed in a great variety of ways — in prose and verse, in art and architecture — was not simply a religious or mystic faith but an all-embracing and immediate contact with a fact which, in every human being, is the central fact of existence.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(“Hafiz and the Place of Iranian Culture in the World”, London November 9, 1936: http://www.nanowisdoms.org/nwblog/1273/)


Does the Soul Exist? Consciousness, Brain and Quantum Physics

$
0
0

Consciousness

“Whatever may or may not be the soul’s future, there is one impregnable central fact in existence: that here and now, in this world, we have a soul which has a life of its own in its appreciation of truth, beauty, harmony and good against evil.”
- Imam Sultan Muḥammad Shah Aga Khan III

 

“The structure of quantum theory opens the door to the possibility that all causes and reasons need not be purely mechanical. Thoughts and intentions are themselves actual realities, and as such they ought to be able to have, in their own right, real actual consequences. Quantum theory allows this, and in actual scientific practice demands it.”
- Henry Stapp

The purpose of this article is to present some key arguments for the existence of the human soul as an immaterial or “spiritual substance” (jawhar ruḥānī). Human soul and consciousness are neither identical to nor reducible to material objects such as brains, neuron firings, biochemistry, fundamental particles, etc. Of course, some materialists will claim that these arguments only leave us with a “body-soul dualism” in which spiritual substance and material substance are irreducibly different and unable to have interactions without violating the laws of physics. Therefore, we will conclude by offering a coherent model of soul-body interaction based on quantum physics by drawing on the work of physicist Henry Stapp.

A. What is “Soul”?

To begin, it is best to specify what we mean by “soul” (Arabic: nafs; Persian: jān) and for this we turn to the definitions of the human soul provided by the Ismā‘īlī Musim thinker Sayyidnā Nāṣir-i Khusraw and the eminent scholar of world religions Huston Smith:

“We know that within us there exists a conceptual faculty which is our own distinguishing property and that the ‘I-ness’ of each and every one of us resides there; moreover, all our actions and utterances issue from this conceptual faculty through its use of those organs which go to make up the human compound. Nor do animals possess this faculty. We know that within it is something through which the actions of the different parts of the body occur and that they do so because of its command and desire, and that ‘I-ness’ in the body belongs there. This ‘something’ is what we call ‘soul’ (nafs). It possesses knowledge of good and of bad. It is the locus of action. And so God says, ‘By a soul (nafs) and what fashioned  it, and then inspired it [to know] what is abominable and what is reverent within it’ (Qur’ān  91:7-8). The tongue ‘speaks’ at the command of the soul; it is the soul which stirs it to speech.”
- Sayyidnā Nāṣir-i Khusraw, (Jāmi‘ al-ḥikmatayn, trans. Ormsby, 97-99)

The above passages define the human soul as the subject or agent of human consciousness and action, which is also “self-conscious” of himself or herself as the “I”. This human soul or “I-ness” is the agent who experiences various conscious states such as sensations (i.e. perceiving something through the five senses), feelings (i.e. the feeling of pain, the feeling of pleasure, emotions), imagination (to represent something by means of an image derived from sensation), desires (the inclination for something), intentions (the will to do x), and thoughts (the conception of something or someone, a belief about something, step by step logical reasoning, etc).  Huston Smith provides a lucid explanation of how the human soul is the locus of personal identity that underlies all conscious states and physical flux:

The soul is the final locus of our individuality. Situated as it were behind the senses, it sees through the eyes without being seen, hears with the ears without itself being heard. Similarly it lies deeper than mind. If we equate mind with the stream of consciousness, the soul is the source of this stream; it is also its witness while never itself appearing within the stream as a datum to be observed. It underlies, in fact, not only the flux of mind but all the changes through which an individual passes; it thereby provides the sense in which these changes can be considered to be his. No collection of the traits I possess – my age, my appearance, what have you – constitutes the essential ‘me,’ for the traits change while I remain in some sense myself.”
- Huston Smith, (Forgotten Truth, 1985,63)

B. Arguments for the Immateriality of the Soul and Consciousness:

mindbrain

“Mechanists consider mind to be a part of the body, but this is a mistake. The brain is a part of the body, but mind and brain are not identical. The brain breathes mind like the lungs breathe air.”
- Huston Smith

The below arguments demonstrate that the human soul and its stream of conscious states (what can be called “mind”) are immaterial. By “immaterial”, we mean that the human soul and its consciousness is not reducible to the brain or any kind of material object.

1. Conscious states lack spatio-temporal properties: Thoughts, sensations, feelings, and intentions do not have mass, momentum, shape, spatial location, spatial extension, or temporal location and they are neither particles nor waves. Meanwhile, material objects do possess some spatio-temporal properties.  Since conscious states lack the properties of material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

“Matter is located in space; one can specify precisely where a given tree, let us say, resides. But if one asks where his perception of the tree is located he can expect difficulties. The difficulties increase if he asks how tall his perception of the tree is; not how tall is the tree he sees, but how tall is his seeing of it.”
- Huston Smith, (Forgotten Truth, 1985,67)

2. Conscious states are not divisible into material parts or components: Material objects are divisible into parts, but one cannot divide sensations like seeing redness, the feelings of joy, the intentions to stand up, or a logical deduction into material parts.  A red object may be material and contain parts, but the perception of the red object that occurs in the mind knows no such division. Since conscious states are not divisible as are material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

3. Conscious states have an “aboutness” or intentionality: a thought is about something, an idea is of something, a desire is for something, an image is an image of something, an abstract proposition refers to something. Meanwhile, material objects, i.e. tables, chairs, brain cells, do NOT possess any intentionality: they have no “aboutness” and do not refer to anything. Thus, while a belief or proposition in the mind can be true or false, a material brain state is neither true nor false due to lacking intentionality. Since conscious states have intentionality and material objects do not, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

4. Conscious states possess qualia or qualitative features: these qualia cannot be fully described by or reduced to the correlated physical brain activity that occurs at the same time as the conscious experience.  For example, one can know about every neuron firing that occurs in the brain when the colour red is being perceived, including the molecular composition of the red object represented mathematically, but none of this data will provide the actual experience of seeing red. Consequently, even if a person knows all of the empirical data about the colour red, they will still attain new knowledge when they actually perceive red in conscious experience. Since conscious states contain qualia and material objects lack qualia, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

5. Certain conscious states include abstract concepts and categories to immediately interpret sense-data. For example, when the conscious subject has the sensation or experience of touching an apple, he also interprets this sensation as signifying an actual external object as opposed to nothing more than an impression. Thus, the mind interprets sensory impressions by resorting to abstract concepts and imposing them upon the sense impression in order to situate the impression in an intelligible context. Another example is that when the conscious subject notices that two perceived objects are similar and two objects are different, the mind is resorting to abstract notions of similarity and difference to make this judgment.  But these abstract concepts – of similarity, difference, equality, inequality, etc. are not themselves material and cannot be provided or created by mere aggregates of material objects like atoms, molecule, cells or neurons. Indeed, the converse is more true – our very understanding of atoms, molecules or cells relies on abstract concepts to begin with. Since some conscious states employ abstract concepts that are not present in material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

6. Certain mental events, such as propositional thought processes, are logically ordered: With respect to abstract propositions in the mind there is a logical relationship between the content of one thought and the content of the subsequent thought.  For example, two plus two equals four or “All men are mortals; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal” are propositions whose content is determined by logic and not by neuro-biological brain events.  Meanwhile, neuron firings in the brain are organically related and not related conceptually or logically. But the thought content of abstract propositions are related logically and conceptually.  Therefore, certain mental states such as rational and logical thought are clearly not governed by the same parameters as the corresponding brain events (if there is such a correlation). Since conscious thinking has logical form and structure while material brain states do not, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

7. The correlation between conscious experience and neuro-biological brain events breaks down in several cases. Scientists have so far discovered a correlation between certain conscious states and neurobiological brain events. This correlation should, however, be expected if consciousness is immaterial and has causal influence on the states of the brain. Nevertheless, certain kinds of conscious experience which are more intense, transpersonal or transcendent (than ordinary conscious states) are inversely correlated with brain activity because they take place with less or diminished brain activity.  Some examples given by Bernardo Kastrup are listed below:

a)      Fainting caused by asphyxiation or other restrictions of blood flow to the brain is known to sometimes induce intense transpersonal experiences and states of non-locality.

b)      Pilots undergoing G-force induced loss of consciousness – where blood is forced out of the brain, significantly reducing its metabolism – report experiences similar to Near Death Experiences. (Whinnery and Whinnery 1990)

c)      Certain Yogic breathing practices increase blood alkalinity levels, thereby constricting blood vessels in the brain and causing hypoxia and dissociation. This leads to significant transpersonal and non-local out of body experiences. (Taylor 1994)

d)     Psychedelic substances cause intense, non-local transpersonal experiences (Strassman et al, 2008). But a recent study showed that these substances do not increase brain activity, they actually decrease brain activity by decreasing cerebral blood flow, where the magnitude of decrease predicted the intensity of the conscious experience.

e)      Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) can inhibit cortical function in certain locations of the brain and subjects reported Out of Body Experiences when neural activity in the angular gyrus of patients with epilepsy was inhibited in this way.

The full descriptions of the above examples are given here.

8. Near Death Experiences occur when there is no brain activity at all: Near Death Experiences, perhaps the most intense and transcendent of reported transpersonal experiences of consciousness, occur when the subjects are brain dead and brain activity is totally flat. While scientists have tried to attribute the cause of NDEs to anoxia of the brain, release of endomorphines, or fear of death, a recent study published in the Lancet December 2001 Issue called “Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest; a prospective study in the Netherlands” put these theories to rest. The author of this peer reviewed NDE study, Pim Van Lommel, writes that:

Out Of Body Experience

“In our prospective study of patients that have been clinically dead (VF on the ECG) no electric activity of the cortex of the brain (flat EEG) must have been possible, but also the abolition of brain stem activity like the loss of the corneareflex, fixed dilated pupils and the loss of the gag reflex is a clinical finding in those patients. However, patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their “dead” body. Because of the sometimes reported and verifiable out-of -body experiences, like the case of the dentures reported in our study, we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last second of this period.  So we have to conclude that NDE in our study was experienced during a transient functional loss of all functions of the cortex and of the brainstem. It is important to mention that there is a well documented report of a patient with constant registration of the EEG during cerebral surgery for an gigantic cerebral aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees, she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. There is also a theory that consciousness can be experienced independently from the normal body-linked waking consciousness. The current concept in medical science states that consciousness is the product of the brain. This concept, however, has never been scientifically proven.”
- Pim Van Lommel
(http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm)

The main author of the Lancet study, Van Lommel, concludes that prominent atheist Michael Shermer’s view that consciousness is material is incorrect and contrary to the results of his study:

“Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia).” 
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

9. In human beings, consciousness is self-aware or self-reflexive: Consciousness in the human being is self-aware; that is to say, human beings are not only conscious, but they are conscious of their consciousness. A person has a direct knowledge of his or her own selfhood or “I-ness”, as Aristotle writes:

“There is something in us which is aware that we are in activity, and so we are aware that we are sensing and we would be thinking that we are thinking.” 
- Aristotle, (Nicomachean Ethics, 10.9.1170a31-3)

The “I-ness” of each human is his rational soul (nafs al-nāṭiqah) and this self-aware rational soul is, in no way, reducible to the brain or matter in general. This is evident for the simple reason that material things, including whatever the human brain is composed of, totally lack the property of being self-aware. Materialists like to argue that a complex arrangement of matter can somehow magically produce consciousness but offer no explanation of how unconscious, unaware material entities produce immaterial and qualitative conscious experience, let alone self-aware consciousness.

“But if someone says that it is not so, but that atoms or other partless units can produce the soul by coming together in unity and identity of experience, he could be refuted by their juxtaposition, and not a complete one, since nothing which is one and united with itself in identity of experience can come from bodies which are incapable of unification and sensation, but soul is united in itself in identity of experience.
- Plotinus, (Ennead 4.3.1-6, tr. Armstrong)

Since human consciousness is self-aware while material objects are not self aware, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

10. There exists no material explanation of how the material brain can solely create or produce subjective consciousness – this is known as the “Hard Problem”:

“The Hard Problem is explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation. The problem is hard because no one knows what a solution would look like or even is a genuine scientific problem in the first place. And not surprisingly everyone agrees that the hard problem (if it is a problem) is a mystery.”
- Steven Pinker, (The Mystery of Consciousness, Mind & Body Special Issue of Time Magazine, January 29, 2007)

 

C. The Soul, Brain, and Quantum Physics:

WaveCollapse

“Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the laws of physics.”
- Henry Stapp

Materialists like Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris immediately dismiss the possibility of an immaterial soul or mind that interacts with the brain and the physical body. They argue this on the grounds of classical physics according to which the activity of the soul or any other immaterial entity upon the brain violates the law of conservation of energy. They conclude that matter is the fundamental reality of human beings and of the entire Universe:

“The prevailing wisdom, variously expressed and argued for is materialism: there is one sort of stuff, namely matter – the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology – and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain. According to the materialists, we can (in principle!) account for every mental phenomenon using the same physical principles, laws, and raw materials that suffice to explain radioactivity, continental drift, photosynthesis, reproduction, nutrition, and growth.”
- Daniel Dennet, (Consciousness Explained, 1991, 33)

What is often ignored today is how Dennet, Dawkins, Sam Harris and the materialists fail to realize that their entire argument for materialism and the denial of the soul is based on an outdated “classical physics” paradigm that was overturned in the 20th century with the advent of quantum physics. The general thinking of many people, however, is still shaped by classical physics and for this reason alone, materialism seems like the most scientific worldview. Thus Henry Stapp comments that the materialist argument against soul-body dualism falls apart in the face of contemporary physics:

This argument depends on identifying ‘standard physics’ with classical physics. The argument collapses when one goes over to contemporary physics, in which, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, trajectories of particles are replaced by cloud-like structures, and in which conscious choices can influence physically described activity without violating the conservation laws or any other laws of quantum physics. Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the laws of physics.”
- Henry Stapp, (Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer, 1997, 81)

At the quantum level, subatomic particles like electrons do not exist concretely; instead, they exist in a state of potentiality. For example, the electron at the quantum level does not occupy a fixed position or a momentum. Instead, the electron occupies an entire range of possible positions – and the evolution of these possibilities over time can be described by a wave function called the Schrödinger equation:

“The quantum state of a single elementary particle can be visualized, roughly, as a continuous cloud of (complex) numbers, one assigned to every point in three dimensional space. This cloud of numbers evolves in time and, taken as a whole, it determines, at each instant, for each allowed process 1 action, an associated set of alternative possible experiential outcomes or feedbacks, and the ‘probability of finding (i.e., experiencing)’ that particular outcome.”
- Henry Stapp, (Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer, 1997,25)

It is only the act of measurement or observation by a conscious observer that 1) assigns concrete probabilities to each possible position, and 2) selects one of the possible positions of the electron and actualizes this possibility as a physical event. Prior to observation, there is no “matter stuff” but only “possibilities”, as Stapp writes:

[R]eality is not made out of any material substance, but rather out of ‘events’ (actions) and ‘potentialities’ for these events to occur. Potentialities are not material realities, and there is no logical requirement that they be simply additive.”
- Henry Stapp, (Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer, 1997,26)

Material substance, as such, does not exist without an observation or act of human consciousness. It is therefore nonsensical to argue that material substances, like the aggregation of atoms, molecules and neurons can produce consciousness. Material objects, prior to conscious observation, exist only as wave-like potentialities and nothing more. The act of observation or measurement by a conscious agent is what reduces the potentialities into actualities, as Schrödinger himself writes about some particle x when it is observed at position K – prior to which particle x has no definite existence except in a cloud of potentialities:

“[I]t is then quite clear that a measurement of x affects not only (as is always said) p [ x’s momentum], but also x itself. You have not found a particle at K’ [ x’s definite position], you have produced one there!… Before the second measurement, it is ubiquitous in the cloud (it is not a particle at all).”
- Erwin Schrodinger, (The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Dublin Seminars, 1995, 106)

Now, the above is especially true of the human brain. The brain, prior to being collapsed into an actual physical state by an act of consciousness or soul, exists only as a “superimposition”,i.e. several possible physical states or potentialities described by a wave function since “according to quantum theory, the state of the brain can become a cloudlike quantum mixture of many different classically describable brain states.” (Stapp, 2007, 31).

The human soul, through its conscious stream of thoughts, intentions, sensations, etc. collapses the wave function of the brain in order to produce an actual physical state of the brain with its neuro-chemistry. Thus, it is the immaterial human soul or consciousness which acts upon the set of possible physical states of the brain and reduces these to an actual physical state: “At each occurrence of a conscious thought, the set of possibilities is reduced to the subset compatible with the occurring increment of knowledge” (Ibid., 52).

This quantum mind-body model, in which human thoughts can cause the occurrence of specific neural activity in the brain, is corroborated by a recent study at UCLA published in Nature 467 (28 October 2010) which shows that human beings can control neuron firings with their thoughts.  The authors of the study write in the abstract that:

“Recording from single neurons in patients implanted with intracranial electrodes for clinical reasons here we demonstrate that humans can regulate the activity of their neurons in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) to alter the outcome of the contest between external images and their internal representation…  Subjects reliably regulated, often on the first trial, the firing rate of their neurons, increasing the rate of some while simultaneously decreasing the rate of others.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7319/full/nature09510.html

This quantum soul-body model is not a Cartesian dualism where a wholly different spiritual substance and material substance interact; on the contrary, there is no purely material substance as such prior to conscious observation. What is perceived as material substance is already actualized by and infused with immaterial consciousness and form. Sayyidnā Nāṣir-i Khusraw expressed similar intuitions a thousand years ago when he claimed that the material human body in and of itself is not a substance at all, and that it is man’s immaterial human soul, in its act of knowing, that endows the body with life and substance.  

“[I]t is the soul which keeps our bodies alive and that the souls of our bodies subsist by themselves. The soul is a substance and self-subsistent, the mover and keeper alive of the body. The body is not a substance, nor self-subsistent, nor is it the mover of a substance, since the mover by necessity is [another] substance. As for the statement that the action of the soul does not come into existence without a body, the answer is that the action of the soul is to know, and in order to know it does not need a body. But when the soul wants to portray [the form of] that knowledge on a [material] body, it seeks the help of the [human] body which is linked to it, and it is able to do this because of compatibility [between the two bodies]. Ask so that you may know! Comprehend so that you may be liberated!”
- Sayyidnā Nāṣir-i Khusraw, (Knowledge and Liberation, 49-50)

The existence of the human soul is a spiritual substance that is neither identical to nor reducible to the physical brain or any other material object. As conveyed by Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh, the forty-eight hereditary Imam of the Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Muslims, the existence of this ineffaceable human soul is the fundamental fact of all human existence:

“Whatever may or may not be the soul’s future, there is one impregnable central fact in existence: that here and now, in this world, we have a soul which has a life of its own in its appreciation of truth, beauty, harmony and good against evil… But the fundamental point of each message if carefully studied is that man’s greatest of all treasures, the greatest of all his possessions, was the inherent, ineffaceable, everlasting nobility of his own soul. In it there was for ever a spark of true divinity which could conquer all the antagonistic and debasing elements in nature. And let me once more stress that this faith in the soul of man expressed in a great variety of ways — in prose and verse, in art and architecture — was not simply a religious or mystic faith but an all-embracing and immediate contact with a fact which, in every human being, is the central fact of existence.”
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(“Hafiz and the Place of Iranian Culture in the World”, London November 9, 1936: http://www.nanowisdoms.org/nwblog/1273/)


Imam al-Husayn and Karbala

$
0
0

Battle of Karbala

“We are the House of Muhammad and as such are more entitled to the authority (walāyah) of this affair over you than these pretenders who claim what does not belong to them… By God there is no son of a Prophet other than me among you and among the peoples from East to West.”
- Imām al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī

Monday, June 2 (3rd Shaban) marked the birth anniversary of Imām al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī, the second hereditary Imām of the Shī‘ī Muslims.  The tenth day of Muḥarram, known as the Day of ‘Āshūra’ is when the Battle of Karbala took place, which the Imām al-Ḥusayn with his family and supporters, was brutally massacred by the armies of Yazīd ibn Mu‘āwiya ibn Abī Sufyān.

Read more about the esoteric meaning of Imām al-Ḥusayn and the Battle of Karbala.

The Imām and the Adversary (ḍidd):

“When I ask you to read Kisso (the account of the events at Karbala) it is not because those who read it will go to Paradise, but that you may ponder over it and know the unbelievers fought us. These Prophets and Imāms knew what was going to happen, yet we are not allowed to reveal the mysteries of the Unseen (ghayb).”
- Imām Āgā Shāh ‘Alī Shāh Āgā Khān II,
(transl. Rai Gulamali Kassam Shivji, Calgary November 1989)

The Battle of Karbala, from the esoteric perspective, was the manifestation of the opposition that takes place in every age and time between the forces of the Imām of the Time and the forces of his Adversity (ḍidd). Just as the Imām of the Time is the inheritor of Haḍrat Adam and the vicegerent of God on earth, the Adversary (ḍidd) is the inheritor of Iblīs and the devil (shayṭān) among human beings.  

“Likewise did We appoint for every Messenger an enemy: devils (shayāṭīna) among mankind and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone.”
- Holy Quran 6:112

Likewise, century after century, and epoch after epoch, every time has its Iblīs, may God’s curses be upon him, and its Adam, may God’s prayers be upon him.”
- al-Mu’ayyad al-Shirāzī, (Majālis al-Mu’ayyadiyyah, Vol. II, Majlis No. 11, 71)

The Ismā‘īlī Imāms have also referred to this Adversary or Iblis of the Time as the “pharaoh” who tries to lead people astray in the age of every Imām.

There is a physical and spiritual pharaoh in the cycle of every Imām. By means of the power and influence of his defiled soul he leads astray the simple-minded servants who are not yet firm-footed on the way of the bearer of truth, diverting them from the path of the most sublime paradise and supreme heaven to the nethermost hell, which is the land of the hypocrites (munafiqan).”
- Imām Islāmshāh,

(Seven Aphorisms, quoted in The Ismailis in the Middle Ages, 107)

Just as the Imām is the bearer of the light of walāyah which bring human beings closer to God, the Adversary manifests the darknesses of the “counter-walāyah” which leads people astray. As al-Mu’ayyad al-Shirāzī explains, the Imām and his hierarchy (ḥudūd) of spiritual teachers are the embodiment of virtues known as the Adamic Forms (al-ṣuwar al-ādamiyyah) and they are opposed by the Adversary and his counter-hierarchy of deceptors who embody the decadent vices known as Satanic Shapes (al-ashkāl al-shayṭāniyyah). In other words, there exist the Imāms of Truth (a’immat al-ḥaqq) as well as the imāms of going astray (a’immat al-ḍalāl).

“The masters of resemblance are the false imāms (a’immat al-bāṭil), who are established opposite to the true Imāms (a’immat al-ḥaqq), and the creation of humankind, only resembling the real creation of God, and they (the false imāms) are apparitions (ashbāh) without spirits (arwāḥ). Meaning, God did not breath into them the Spirit of True Life (rūḥ al-ḥayāt al-ḥaqīqiyyah) with the designation (naṣṣ) from the Messenger of God.”
- al-Mu’ayyad al-Shirāzī, (Majālis al-Mu’ayyadiyyah, Vol. I, Majlis No. 25, 124)

The difference between the true Imām and the Adversary – the false imām – is that the true Imām is inspired by the Holy Spirit (al-mu’ayyad bi’l-rūḥ al-quds) while the false imām attempts to imitate the true Imām and usurp his rights.  This opposition even existed in the eras of the Imāms who preceded the Prophet Muḥammad and Imām ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. For example, Mawlānā Hāshim ibn ‘Abd Manāf (the great grandfather of the Prophet) was the Imām of his time and his Adversary was his own his half-brother Umayyah – whom he banished from Mecca. There was similar opposition between Mawlānā ‘Abd al-Muṭālib (the grandfather of the Prophet) and the Adversary of his age who was Ḥarb ibn Umayyah – particularly over the custodianship of the Ka‘ba. At the time of the Prophet Muḥammad, the Adversary or the imām of falsehood was none other than Abū Sufyān ibn Harb – who led the Quraysh in opposing the Prophet.  In the time of Imām ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, the Adversary was Mu‘āwiya ibn Abī Sufyān. And so, in the time of Imām al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī, the Adversary was Yazīd ibn Mu‘āwiya ibn Abī Sufyān. The opposition between the true Imām, who has the rank of Adam, and his Adversary (ḍidd), who embodies Iblīs, exists in every age and cycle:

“In al-Mu’ayyad’s theory of walāyah and counter-walāyah, Adam and Iblīs co-exist throughout prophetic history as the Imām and the ḍidd in each cycle until the “Day of the Time appointed” (Qur’ān 15:38). Because in terms of capacity, the vanquisher and the vanquished are equally and mutually matched to each other, one of the two will conquer the other due to the equanimity in him.”
- Elizabeth R. Alexandrin, (The Sphere of Walāya: Ismaili Ta’wil according to al-Muayyad, PhD Dissertation, 340)

 

Imām al-Ḥusayn at Karbala:

“In the field at Karbala, a fierce battle was waged against Imām al-Ḥusayn. At that time he fought alone against thousands of men.  He endured the immense suffering and cruelty by the hands of his enemies and in spite of all this he still proclaimed: “I am the Imām”.
- Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(Address made in Kutch Nagalpur, November 28, 1903)

Mu‘āwiya openly opposed and fought against the Caliphate of Imām ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. After the death of Imām ‘Alī, his son Pīr Imām al-Ḥasan succeeded to the Caliphate but – due to the weakness of his support and resources – had to abdicate the Caliphate to Mu‘āwiya on the condition that Yazīd would not succeed to the Caliphate after him. However, Mu‘āwiya ibn Abī Sufyān ensured that his son Yazīd succeeded him as Caliph – an event which directly contradicted the agreement that Pīr Imām al-Ḥasan had made with Mu‘āwiya earlier. Unlike Mu‘āwiya, who was unrighteous but tried to keep the appearance of dignity to the Caliphate, Yazīd was an open sinner and disgraced the position by his drinking of wine and many other sinful activities. When Yazīd succeeded as Caliph, he sought to gain the allegiance of Imām al-Ḥusayn to legitimize his succession but the Imām refused to do so. Meanwhile, the people of Kufa invited Imām al-Ḥusayn to lead them. The Imām and his close family and companions were journeying from Makkah to Kufa and were intercepted by the Umayyad armies sent by Yazid and surrounded at the plains of Karbala. After cutting off their water supply for several days, the Umayyad armies engaged the Imām and his supporters in battle. Outnumbered by an army of over twenty thousand men, the Imām, his family and supporters were inhumanly massacred and martyred in what became known as the Battle of Karbala. The dead included the sons of Imām al-Ḥusayn – among them a six month old infant ‘Alī Asghar, the sons of Imām ‘Alī ibn Abū Ṭālib, and the children of Pīr Imām al-Ḥasan. The only surviving male member of the Imām’s family was his son Imām ‘Alī Zayn al-‘Ābidīn – who was sick during the battle and saved from execution due to the intervention of Haḍrat Zaynab – the sister of Imām al-Ḥusayn. 

Read more about the esoteric meaning of Imām al-Ḥusayn and the Battle of Karbala.


Ten Reasons why Human Consciousness or Mind is not Physical

$
0
0

Arguments for the Immateriality of the Human Mind or Consciousness:

Click Here to Read the Full Article on Consciousness, the Brain, and Physics

mindbrain

“Mechanists consider mind to be a part of the body, but this is a mistake. The brain is a part of the body, but mind and brain are not identical. The brain breathes mind like the lungs breathe air.”
- Huston Smith

Certain people today hold to a belief that the human mind or consciousness is nothing more than physical brain activity, and that such brain activity occurs deterministically – in which mechanistic particles and neural firings in the brain are solely responsible for human thoughts, beliefs, intentions, and behaviors. In such a worldview, free will is nothing but an illusion and human beings are nothing more than automatons controlled  by the determinstic laws of classical physics. However, this belief in the material determinism and the denial of the substance of human consciousness can be defeated by a number of arguments - one of which is the immateriality of human consciousness.

The below arguments demonstrate that the human consciousness and its stream of conscious states (what can be called “mind”) are immaterial or non-physical. By “immaterial”, we mean that the human consciousness is not reducible to the brain or any kind of material object.  Colin McGuin illustrates the general argument for the immateriality of the human mind using a generic example that mental events or conscious states lack the properties of material objects:

“Consider a visual experience, E, as of a yellow flash. Associated with E in the cortex is a complex of neural structures and events, N, which does admit of spatial description. N occurs, say, an inch from the back of the head; it extends over some specific area of the cortex; it has some kind of configuration or contour; it is composed of spatial parts that aggregate into a structured whole; it exists in three spatial dimensions; it excludes other neural complexes from its spatial location. N is a regular denizen of space, as much as any other physical entity. But E seems not to have any of these spatial characteristics: it is not located at any specific place; it takes up no particular volume of space; it has no shape; it is not made up of spatially distributed parts; it has no spatial dimensionality; it is not solid. Even to ask for its spatial properties is to commit some sort of category mistake, analogous to asking for the spatial properties of numbers.”
- Colin McGuin, (Consciousness and Space, Click Here to Read)

Below is a list of the ten arguments – each argument is further explained below:

1. Conscious states or mental events lack the spatio-temporal properties of material objects

2. Conscious states are not divisible into parts or components as are material objects

3. Conscious states possess an aboutness or intentionality directed toward other things while material objects are not “about” anything.

4. Conscious states possess qualia or qualitative characteristics 

5. Conscious states, in certain cases, include abstract ideas like mathematical objects or logical operators

6. Conscious states, in certain cases, are logically structured and ordered in their sequence, i.e. 2 + 2 = 4

7. The correlation between brain activity and conscious states breaks down in certain cases

8. Certain conscious states like Near Death Experiences occur when no brain activity is present (this is verified in peer reviewed studies)

9. The human consciousness is self-aware or reflexive while material objects lack self-awareness.

10. There is no explanation of how material brain events such as neural firings give rise to the qualitative and non-spatial features of conscious experience.

Click Here to Read the Full Article on Consciousness, the Brain, and Physics.

1. Conscious states lack spatio-temporal properties: Thoughts, sensations, feelings, and intentions do not have mass, momentum, shape, spatial location, spatial extension, or temporal location and they are neither particles nor waves. Meanwhile, material objects do possess some spatio-temporal properties.  Since conscious states lack the properties of material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

“Matter is located in space; one can specify precisely where a given tree, let us say, resides. But if one asks where his perception of the tree is located he can expect difficulties. The difficulties increase if he asks how tall his perception of the tree is; not how tall is the tree he sees, but how tall is his seeing of it.”
- Huston Smith, (Forgotten Truth, 1985,67)

“We perceive, by our various sense organs, a variety of material objects laid out in space, taking up certain volumes and separated by certain distances. We thus conceive of these perceptual objects as spatial entities; perception informs us directly of their spatiality. But conscious subjects and their mental states are not in this way perceptual objects. We do not see or hear or smell or touch them, and a fortiori do not perceive them as spatially individuated.(2) This holds both for the first- and third-person perspectives. Since we do not observe our own states of consciousness, nor those of others, we do not apprehend these states as spatial.”
- Colin McGuin, (Consciousness and Space, Click Here to Read)

2. Conscious states are not divisible into material parts or components: Material objects are divisible into parts, but one cannot divide sensations like seeing redness, the feelings of joy, the intentions to stand up, or a logical deduction into material parts.  A red object may be material and contain parts, but the perception of the red object that occurs in the mind knows no such division. Since conscious states are not divisible as are material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

3. Conscious states have an “aboutness” or intentionality: a thought is about something, an idea is of something, a desire is for something, an image is an image of something, an abstract proposition refers to something. Meanwhile, material objects, i.e. tables, chairs, brain cells, do NOT possess any intentionality: they have no “aboutness” and do not refer to anything. Thus, while a belief or proposition in the mind can be true or false, a material brain state is neither true nor false due to lacking intentionality. Since conscious states have intentionality and material objects do not, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

4. Conscious states possess qualia or qualitative features: these qualia cannot be fully described by or reduced to the correlated physical brain activity that occurs at the same time as the conscious experience.  For example, one can know about every neuron firing that occurs in the brain when the colour red is being perceived, including the molecular composition of the red object represented mathematically, but none of this data will provide the actual experience of seeing red. Consequently, even if a person knows all of the empirical data about the colour red, they will still attain new knowledge when they actually perceive red in conscious experience. Since conscious states contain qualia and material objects lack qualia, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

5. Certain conscious states include abstract concepts and categories to immediately interpret sense-data. For example, when the conscious subject has the sensation or experience of touching an apple, he also interprets this sensation as signifying an actual external object as opposed to nothing more than an impression. Thus, the mind interprets sensory impressions by resorting to abstract concepts and imposing them upon the sense impression in order to situate the impression in an intelligible context. Another example is that when the conscious subject notices that two perceived objects are similar and two objects are different, the mind is resorting to abstract notions of similarity and difference to make this judgment.  But these abstract concepts – of similarity, difference, equality, inequality, etc. are not themselves material and cannot be provided or created by mere aggregates of material objects like atoms, molecule, cells or neurons. Indeed, the converse is more true – our very understanding of atoms, molecules or cells relies on abstract concepts to begin with. Since some conscious states employ abstract concepts that are not present in material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

6. Certain mental events, such as propositional thought processes, are logically ordered: With respect to abstract propositions in the mind there is a logical relationship between the content of one thought and the content of the subsequent thought.  For example, two plus two equals four or “All men are mortals; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal” are propositions whose content is determined by logic and not by neuro-biological brain events.  Meanwhile, neuron firings in the brain are organically related and not related conceptually or logically. But the thought content of abstract propositions are related logically and conceptually.  Therefore, certain mental states such as rational and logical thought are clearly not governed by the same parameters as the corresponding brain events (if there is such a correlation). Since conscious thinking has logical form and structure while material brain states do not, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

7. The correlation between conscious experience and neuro-biological brain events breaks down in several cases. Scientists have so far discovered a correlation between certain conscious states and neurobiological brain events. This correlation should, however, be expected if consciousness is immaterial and has causal influence on the states of the brain. Nevertheless, certain kinds of conscious experience which are more intense, transpersonal or transcendent (than ordinary conscious states) are inversely correlated with brain activity because they take place with less or diminished brain activity.  Some examples given by Bernardo Kastrup are listed below:

a)      Fainting caused by asphyxiation or other restrictions of blood flow to the brain is known to sometimes induce intense transpersonal experiences and states of non-locality.

b)      Pilots undergoing G-force induced loss of consciousness – where blood is forced out of the brain, significantly reducing its metabolism – report experiences similar to Near Death Experiences. (Whinnery and Whinnery 1990)

c)      Certain Yogic breathing practices increase blood alkalinity levels, thereby constricting blood vessels in the brain and causing hypoxia and dissociation. This leads to significant transpersonal and non-local out of body experiences. (Taylor 1994)

d)     Psychedelic substances cause intense, non-local transpersonal experiences (Strassman et al, 2008). But a recent study showed that these substances do not increase brain activity, they actually decrease brain activity by decreasing cerebral blood flow, where the magnitude of decrease predicted the intensity of the conscious experience.

e)      Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) can inhibit cortical function in certain locations of the brain and subjects reported Out of Body Experiences when neural activity in the angular gyrus of patients with epilepsy was inhibited in this way.

The full descriptions of the above examples are given here.

8. Near Death Experiences occur when there is no brain activity at all: Near Death Experiences, perhaps the most intense and transcendent of reported transpersonal experiences of consciousness, occur when the subjects are brain dead and brain activity is totally flat. While scientists have tried to attribute the cause of NDEs to anoxia of the brain, release of endomorphines, or fear of death, a recent study published in the Lancet December 2001 Issue called “Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest; a prospective study in the Netherlands” put these theories to rest. The author of this peer reviewed NDE study, Pim Van Lommel, writes that:

Out Of Body Experience

“In our prospective study of patients that have been clinically dead (VF on the ECG) no electric activity of the cortex of the brain (flat EEG) must have been possible, but also the abolition of brain stem activity like the loss of the corneareflex, fixed dilated pupils and the loss of the gag reflex is a clinical finding in those patients. However, patients with an NDE can report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, and memory from early childhood was possible, as well as perception from a position out and above their “dead” body. Because of the sometimes reported and verifiable out-of -body experiences, like the case of the dentures reported in our study, we know that the NDE must happen during the period of unconsciousness, and not in the first or last second of this period.  So we have to conclude that NDE in our study was experienced during a transient functional loss of all functions of the cortex and of the brainstem. It is important to mention that there is a well documented report of a patient with constant registration of the EEG during cerebral surgery for an gigantic cerebral aneurysm at the base of the brain, operated with a body temperature between 10 and 15 degrees, she was put on the heart-lung machine, with VF, with all blood drained from her head, with a flat line EEG, with clicking devices in both ears, with eyes taped shut, and this patient experienced an NDE with an out-of-body experience, and all details she perceived and heard could later be verified. There is also a theory that consciousness can be experienced independently from the normal body-linked waking consciousness. The current concept in medical science states that consciousness is the product of the brain. This concept, however, has never been scientifically proven.”
- Pim Van Lommel
(http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm)

The main author of the Lancet study, Van Lommel, concludes that prominent atheist Michael Shermer’s view that consciousness is material is incorrect and contrary to the results of his study:

“Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia).” 
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

9. In human beings, consciousness is self-aware or self-reflexive: Consciousness in the human being is self-aware; that is to say, human beings are not only conscious, but they are conscious of their consciousness. A person has a direct knowledge of his or her own selfhood or “I-ness”, as Aristotle writes:

“There is something in us which is aware that we are in activity, and so we are aware that we are sensing and we would be thinking that we are thinking.” 
- Aristotle, (Nicomachean Ethics, 10.9.1170a31-3)

The “I-ness” of each human is his rational soul (nafs al-nāṭiqah) and this self-aware rational soul is, in no way, reducible to the brain or matter in general. This is evident for the simple reason that material things, including whatever the human brain is composed of, totally lack the property of being self-aware. Materialists like to argue that a complex arrangement of matter can somehow magically produce consciousness but offer no explanation of how unconscious, unaware material entities produce immaterial and qualitative conscious experience, let alone self-aware consciousness.

“But if someone says that it is not so, but that atoms or other partless units can produce the soul by coming together in unity and identity of experience, he could be refuted by their juxtaposition, and not a complete one, since nothing which is one and united with itself in identity of experience can come from bodies which are incapable of unification and sensation, but soul is united in itself in identity of experience.
- Plotinus, (Ennead 4.3.1-6, tr. Armstrong)

Since human consciousness is self-aware while material objects are not self aware, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter. In fact, a recent study conducted at UCLA published in Nature 467 (28 October 2010) which shows that human beings can control neuron firings with the act of thinking.  The authors of the study write in the abstract that:

 

“Recording from single neurons in patients implanted with intracranial electrodes for clinical reasons here we demonstrate that humans can regulate the activity of their neurons in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) to alter the outcome of the contest between external images and their internal representation…  Subjects reliably regulated, often on the first trial, the firing rate of their neurons, increasing the rate of some while simultaneously decreasing the rate of others.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7319/full/nature09510.html

 

10. There exists no material explanation of how the material brain can solely create or produce subjective consciousness – this is known as the “Hard Problem”:

“The Hard Problem is explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation. The problem is hard because no one knows what a solution would look like or even is a genuine scientific problem in the first place. And not surprisingly everyone agrees that the hard problem (if it is a problem) is a mystery.”
- Steven Pinker, (The Mystery of Consciousness, Mind & Body Special Issue of Time Magazine, January 29, 2007)

Click Here to Read the Full Article on Consciousness, the Brain, and Physics.


Ramadan: From Physical Fasting to Spiritual Fasting

$
0
0

Shahru ramaḍāna alladhī unzila fīhi’l-qur’ānu hudan lilnasi wabayyinātin mina’l-hudā wa’l-furqāni fa-man shahida minkumu’l-shahra falyaṣumhu

“The Month of Ramaḍān in which was sent down the Qur’ān a guidance for mankind, and manifest proofs of the guidance and the criterion (between truth and falsehood).  So whomever among you witnesses the Month, let him fast it.” (Holy Qur’ān 2:185)

Fasting (ṣawm) is among the seven pillars (arkān) of classical Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Islām and the five pillars of classical Sunnī Islām.  For Ismā‘īlī gnosis as taught by the Ismā‘īlī Muslim theosophers , each pillar (rukn) of Islām has an exoteric form (ẓāhir), an esoteric meaning (bāṭin), and a spiritual reality which is the esoteric beyond the esoteric (bāṭin al-bāṭin).

The level of exoteric form is sharī‘ah (religious law), the level of esoteric meaning is ṭarīqah (spiritual path), and the level of spiritual reality is ḥaqīqah (spiritual truth).  Other Muslim theologians recognize these three levels as submission (islām), faith (imān), and beauty (iḥsan).  Corresponding to these three levels in the human being are the physical body (jism) or sensual/animal soul, the rational soul (nafs al-nātiqah), and the heart (qalb) or spiritual intellect (‘aql).

The word ṣawm literally means ‘to abstain’ from something.  Accordingly, in Ismā‘īlī gnosis, there are three levels of fasting (ṣawm):

1) Exoteric Fasting (ẓāhirī ṣawm)

2) Esoteric Fasting (bāṭinī ṣawm)
3) Real Fasting (ḥaqīqī ṣawm)

1. Exoteric Fasting (ẓāhirī sawm)

The practice of Exoteric Fasting from food and drink from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ramadan was first established when the early Muslim community lived in Medinah among Jewish and Christian tribes. Before the Qur’anic instruction to fast for the month of Ramadan was revealed, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) had instructed his followers to fast on the tenth day of the month of Muharram as the Jews did, as well as on some other occasions. These former practices of fasting were replaced by the Ramaḍān fast, whose exact rules also underwent further modification by the Prophet: for example, sexual relations were initially forbidden by the Prophet during the nights of Ramaḍān, but the Prophet later changed this rule and allowed sexual relations (see Qur’an 2:187) during the nights (see Francis E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, 215-216). According to the Holy Qur’an, fasting was prescribed for the believers so that they may learn taqwah – a word which can mean piety, mindfulness, or God-consciousness.

Yā ayyuhā alladhīna āmanū kutiba ‘alaykumu’l-siyāmu kamā ‘alā alladhīna min qabilikum la‘allakum tattaqūna

“O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that ye may do taqwā. (Holy Qur’ān 2:183)

Naṣir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī explains the purpose of Exoteric Fasting to ‘imprint’ a noble ‘form’ upon the human soul:

“Fasting (rūza), which similarly restrains the soul from its [base] inclinations, was introduced so that for thirty days a year, and every day [from dawn] until night [fall], one closes one’s mouth to food and drink, and avoids and denies oneself appetizing things which one’s taste is accustomed and which are agreeable to one’s nature.  One should be steadfast in this self-control and self-denial in this so that gradually and by degrees, a form will become imprinted in the soul, unto such a point that all one’s limbs and faculties, whether internal or external, become restrained from [pursuit of] improper things.”
- Naṣir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, (The Paradise of Submission, 149, Click Here to Read)

The direct agent of Exoteric Fasting is the sensual soul (i.e. the animal soul and the vegetative soul).  As Exoteric Fasting purifies the body and restrains the sensual soul, it also influences and imprints a spiritual form upon the human soul.

Exoteric Fasting (ẓāhiri ṣawm) is performed during the month of Ramaḍān as one of the practices of the sharī‘ah.  The mandatory nature of the sharī‘ah continues through the Cycles of Prophethood until the Cycle of Resurrection (qiyāmah) – when the sharī‘ah is spiritualized and its outer forms are no longer obligatory upon the believers. (See Nāsir-i Khusraw, Khwan al-Ikhwan, Wajh-i Dīn; Faquir Muhammad Hunzai, The Ethical Philosophy of Nasir-i Khusraw, Click Here to Read).

In many places today it must become commonplace for people to sleep during most of the day – the time of fasting – and then feast through the entire night when fasting is not required. In many such places more food is consumed by people during the month of Ramaḍān than any other month. In such cases the spirit of fasting becomes lost and obscured. However, the Exoteric Fasting is merely the outermost layer of this practice.

2. Esoteric Fasting (bāṭini sawm)

All the exoteric practices of the sharī‘ah (religious law) have an inner meaning or ta’wīl.  The ta’wīl of Exoteric Fasting (ẓāhirī ṣawm) is Esoteric Fasting (bāṭinī ṣawm).

Whereas Exoteric Fasting is to keep one’s mouth closed by abstaining from food and drink, Esoteric Fasting is to keep one’s mouth closed by abstaining from speaking of the the esoteric knowledge of revelation (tanzīl) and interpretation (ta’wīl) to those who lack the capacity to receive it:

The meaning of the fast (rūza) is to observe the taqīyya, i.e. precautionary dissimulation, and to keep secret from the enemies the tenets of the religion which is to be preached (dīn-i da’wat). The day of ‘Id is (the symbol of) the day of the Resurrection of Resurrections (qiyāmat-i qiyāmat), when, by the omnipotence of the command of the Qā’im, all people will be over powered by argument and proof.”
- Sayyidnā Khaykhwah-i Harātī, (Kalām-i Pīr, transl. Ivanow, Chapter 7)

This practice of concealing sacred or esoteric knowledge is called taqīyyah. The Qur’ān (2:183) states that the purpose of fasting is to develop taqwā.  The words taqwā and taqīyyah come from the same Arabic root (w-q-y) which means ‘piety, devotion, godliness, mindfulness’ and therefore, taqwā and taqīyyah are ultimately one in meaning.

In Shī‘ī Islam, the act of taqīyyah – ‘keeping secret’ the esoteric teachings of the Imāms – is a fundamental principle of faith:

“Nine tenths of the Religion consists of taqīyyah; whoever does not practice this has no Religion; Taqīyyah is part of my Religion and that of my ancestors; whoever does not keep taqīyyah is devoid of Faith.”
- Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, (Muhammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, The Divine Guide in Early Shi‘ism, 129, Click Here to Read)

The sacred knowledge of the Imāms is a difficult, subtle, and sometimes unbearable gnosis. One must practice precaution and discretion in both receiving and sharing esoteric knowledge:

“Our teaching is difficult, particularly arduous, exasperating, distressing.  Offer it to people in small quantities.  To those who acknowledge it, tell more, but avoid telling more to him who denies it.”
- Imam ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, (Muhammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, The Spirituality of Shi‘i Islam, 294, Click Here to Read)

For this reason this knowledge must be secret and safeguarded from those who lack the capacity to hear it.  This is the meaning of Esoteric Fasting: “The fast keeper signifies the one who maintains silence” (Nāsir-i Khusraw).

“With regard to the ritual fast, we have already seen that it consists in observing the discipline of the arcane, ‘in keeping the secret of your Imām‘, is not surrendering anything imprudently to enemies and to the profane.”
- Henry Corbin, (Temple and Contemplation, 172, Click Here to Read)

The relationship between Exoteric Fasting and Esoteric Fasting is based on symbolism and correspondence. In Exoteric Fasting, it is forbidden to eat and drink during the day, but it is permissible to eat and drink during the night.  The ‘day’ symbolizes the realm of the exoteric and the ‘night’ symbolizes the realm of the esoteric.  Similarly, the rational soul has its ‘food’ and ‘drink’ just as the body does.  The ‘food’ of the rational soul is the knowledge of revelation (tanzīl) and the ‘drink’ of the rational soul is the knowledge of its interpretation (ta’wīl).  In Esoteric Fasting, this means that one must abstain from teaching and seeking the esoteric knowledge (bāṭini ‘ilm) of the tanzīl (symbolzed by ‘food’) and ta’wīl (symbolized by ‘drink’) in the exoteric domain (symbolized by the ‘day’), but one is permitted to teach and seek the esoteric knowledge (bāṭini ‘ilm) in the esoteric domain (symbolized by the ‘night’).  The connection between eating/drinking and the esoteric (baṭin) is shown by the relationship between the words bātin (‘esoteric’) and baṭn (‘belly’) – which share the same Arabic root (b-ṭ-n) meaning ‘interior, hidden, secret’ and are thus related in meaning.  This shows that only the esoteric knowledge (bātini ‘ilm) should be ‘eaten’ (i.e. internalized) into one’s innermost nature (baṭn).

A diagram of the correspondence between Exoteric Fasting (ẓāhirī ṣawm) and Esoteric Fasting (bāṭinī ṣawm) is shown below:

Click to Enlarge Chart

The first Esoteric Fast was enjoined upon the Prophet Adam.  According to the Qur’ān, Adam was prohibited from eating from the sacred Tree in Paradise:

Wayā ādamu uskun anta wazawjuka’l-janata fakulā mina ḥaythu shi’tumā walā taqrabā hadhihi’l-shajarata fatakūnā mina al-ẓalimīna

“O Adam, dwell you and your wife in the garden and eat of from where you wish but do not approach this Tree lest you both be among the wrongdoers.” (Holy Qur’ān 7:19)

The Tree symbolizes the supreme esoteric knowledge – known as the sacred science of Resurrection (‘ilm al-qiyāmah).  Adam was not permitted to divulge this supreme esoteric knowledge in his time – this was his ‘fast’.  However, Iblis tempted Adam and he was unable to keep his promise as he ‘tasted’ from the Tree – that is, he attempted to access and communicate the esoteric gnosis which was not meant for him:

Fawaswasa lahumā’l-shaytan liyubdiyā lahumā mā wūriya ‘anhumā min sawātihimā waqāla mā nahākumā rabbukumā ‘an hadhihi’l-shajarati illā an takūnā malakayn aw takūnā mina’l-khālidīna wa qāsamahumā innī lakumā lamina’l-naṣiḥīna
Fadallāhumā bighurūrin falammā dhāqā’l-shajarata badat lahumā sawātuhumā waṭafiqā yakhṣifāni ‘alayhimā min waraqi’l-janati

“And the Satan whispered to them to make apparent to both of them what was concealed from both of them of their shame.  And he said ‘Did not your Lord forbid you both from this Tree except that you become angels or that you become of the immortals’.  And he swore to them both: ‘I am to both of you among the sincere advisors’. So he made both of them fall by deception.  Then when they both tasted the Tree their shame became apparent to them and they began to cover themselves from the leaves of the Garden.” (Holy Qur’ān 7:21-22)

Henry Corbin comments on the above verses and remarks that Adam broke the rule of the Esoteric Fasting:

So Adam ‘breaks the fast’, the vow of silence which is the ritual prescription par excellence of the Esoteric Order.  ‘To break the fast’ is to taste of the Tree of Knowledge that is the preserve of the actualized Angel.  At the same time, it is to strip oneself of the protective veil of symbol.”
- Henry Corbin, (Temple and Contemplation, 108, Click Here to Read)

The Virgin Mary was also instructed to observe this Esoteric Fasting.  The Holy Qur’ān narrates that God instructed Mary:

Fakulī wa-ishrabī waqarrī ‘aynan fa-immā tarayinna mina’l-bashari aḥadan faqūlī innī nadhartu lilrraḥmāni ṣawman falan ukallima’l-yawma insiyyan

“So eat and drink and refresh the eye. Then if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficent God, so I shall not speak to any man today.” (Holy Qur’ān 19:26)

A close analysis of the verse shows that the Virgin Mary’s fast is not merely to refrain from speaking in general – as she still ‘speaks’ to declare that she is fasting – but rather, her fast is from a particularly kind of speaking which involves the communication of sacred knowledge to those who are not prepared for it.

The ultimate agent and object of Esoteric Fasting is the rational soul of the human being.  Just as Exoteric Fasting disciplines the physical body and the animal soul, Esoteric Fasting disciplines the rational soul.  As Esoteric Fasting restrains and purifies the rational soul, it also helps to awaken the faculty of the spiritual intellect (‘aql) which resides in the heart (qalb).

Just as the Exoteric Fasting lasts until the end of the month of Ramaḍān and ends on the day of ‘Id, Esoteric Fasting is practiced by the initiates (murīds) of the esoteric ṭarīqahs during the Cycle of the Religious Law (dawr al-sharī‘ah) until the advent of the Cycle of Resurrection (dawr al-qiyāmah) when gnosis and esoteric knowledge can be revealed and shared openly.

3. The Real Fasting (haqīqī ṣawm)

The Exoteric Fasting and the Esoteric Fasting together form a pair:  form and meaning, symbol and symbolized.  But a pair is always resolved in a third term which is the spiritual reality (ḥaqīqah) of both components. The spiritual reality of fasting is called ‘Real Fasting’ (ḥaqīqī ṣawm).   Naṣir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī explains the reality (ḥaqīqah) of fasting:

“The fourth [pillar] is fasting, meaning that one has to surrender his seven exoteric and esoteric faculties to the command of God.
- Naṣir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, (Shī‘ī Interpretations of Islam, 41)

“…to refrain from every thought, word and deed which does not conform to reason and is not permitted by the intellect, that is to say, not bound to the Command of the Truthful Master.”
- Naṣir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, (The Paradise of Submission, 149, Click Here to Read)

In Exoteric Fasting (ẓāhirī ṣawm), the faculties of the body and the animal soul are restrained and made to abstain from food, drink and sensual pleasure.
In Esoteric Fasting (bāṭinī ṣawm), the rational soul (nafs al-nāṭiqah) restrains its internal faculties such as speech and abstains from communicating the esoteric knowledge of revelation (tanzīl) and interpretation (ta’wīl) to those who are not ready to receive it.
In Real Fasting (ḥaqīqī ṣawm), the intellect (‘aql) restrains both the physical faculties of the body and the internal faculties of the soul and abstains from anything (in thought, word, or deed) which is contrary to the Command of God.

The spiritual discipline of Real Fasting is best explained in the teachings of the Nizārī Ismā‘īlī Imāms.  The twenty-sixth Imām, Mawlānā ‘Alā’ al-Dīn Muḥammad of Alamūt – replying to questions asked of him about fasting – defines Real Fasting as follows:

“This Jamā‘at has never set aside the Real Prayer and Fasting that God has ordered, and will never do so. In the past they have always summoned mankind to Real Prayer and Fasting, and with the passage of time they have done this, and will continue this summons. As for the Fasting of this Jamā‘at, whereas in the realm of the sharī‘ah, out of twelve months which make up the year, for one month, from dawn to dusk, one closes his mouth against eating and drinking, the rule of this Jamā‘at requires that during the whole of one’s life one is not permitted to abandon the Real Fast even for the twinkling of an eye.  They keep not just one organ of the body closed, but rather all seven external and internal organs against that which God has prohibited, so that they may always preserve a state of Fasting. ”
- Imām ‘Alā al-Dīn Muḥammad, (Naṣir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, Rawḍā-yi Taslīm, transl. Badakhchani, Representation No. 28, 242)

The thirty-fourth Nizārī Imām Mawlānā Shāh Gharīb Mīrzā (Imām al-Mustānsir-bi’llāh III) of Anjudān instructs his murīds to maintain the Real Fasting for the entire year:

“The whole year you must fast, just as the Exoterists (ẓāhiriyān) fast one month. The meaning of this fast is austerity. Control yourselves; keep yourselves away from bad qualities, evil and indecent actions and devilish acts, so that the mirror of your hearts may be gradually polished. Also know that those thirty days during which the Exoterists (ẓāhiriyān) fast, the (real) fast lasts only one single day. They fast thirty days only in order not to miss that single day, and this is also a symbol (ramz). And just as they keep on fasting for thirty days in order to fast on that particular day, so you must through the whole of your lives experience difficulties and suffering for the sake of the attainment of the vision (liqā) of the Creator, you must be patient, persevering in austerities, and keeping your inner self fasting for as long as you live.”
- Imām Shāh Gharīb Mīrzā, (Pandiyāt-i Jawanmardī, transl. Ivanow, 37)

The Imām also specifies the spiritual reality (ḥaqīqah) of the fasting of the different organs of the body – the ears, the eye, the head, the tongue, the heart, the hands, and the feet:

“The fast of the head means to treat one’s own head with the same humility as the feet of other people, casting out from one’s head the lust for superiority, greatness and pride, because greatness and superiority are only suitable to the all-great substance of the Truth (Ḥaqq), who is eternal, and the King of the Authority. The fasting of the eye means that one must keep away coveting looks from the women who are not lawful to one. The fasting of the ear means that one should abstain from listening to slander. The fasting of the tongue means that one should keep one’s tongue from uttering abuse or slander. The fasting of the heart means to keep the heart free from doubt. The fasting of the foot is to hold one’s foot back from a wrong step. The fasting of the hand is to keep all one’s limbs away from treachery so that they may not do evil. This especially applies to one’s tongue which must be kept from uttering lies. And there is no greater lie than the denial of (the existence of) the Imam, saying that he has disappeared. God has cursed liars, who talk about such a disappearance (of the Imam), and make the ignorant people follow them in order to enjoy their short lived respect.”
- Imām Shāh Gharīb Mīrza, (Pandiyāt-i Jawānmardī, transl. Ivanow, 37)

The ultimate agent and the object of Real Fasting is the spirit (ruh) or intellect (‘aql) present in the heart (qalb) of the human soul.  Just as Exoteric Fasting disciplines the physical body and Esoteric Fasting disciplines the rational soul, the Real Fasting polishes the heart (qalb) which is where the intellect shines forth. In the Gospels, Jesus alludes to this distinction between Exoteric Fasting and Real Fasting when he states:

“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” (Gospel of Mathew, 15:17-19)

Real Fasting actualizes the human intellect (‘aql) through its control over the rational soul and the physical body.  The person of actualized intellect is divinely inspired (al-mu’ayyad) and attains the spiritual vision (liqā, dīdar) of tawḥīd – both with respect to the oneness (waḥdah) of God and the integration (waḥdah) of the human soul.

All of the pillars of Islām contain an exoteric form and an esoteric meaning and together, the exoteric (ẓāhir) and the esoteric (bāṭin) lead to the esoteric of the esoteric (bāṭin al-bāṭin) which is the spiritual reality (ḥaqīqah).   The following table summarizes the exoteric form, the esoteric meaning and spiritual reality of fasting:

Click Image to Enlarge


Keeping the Fast

It is much more difficult to practice the pillars of Islam at the level of tarīqah and haqiqah as compared to the level of sharī‘ah.  Accordingly, the discipline of Real Fasting (ḥaqīqī ṣawm) is much more demanding and holistic then that of Exoteric Fasting (ẓāhirī ṣawm).  However, if one is unable to abide by the practices of the ḥaqīqah, then he can remain in the practices of the sharī‘ah:

One should be certain that the commandments and prohibitions of the sharī‘at are far easier to perform then the real (takālif-i ḥaqīqī) duties, because all of that which is prescribed for a day and night for the man of the sharī’at can be performed in two hours.  The commandments and prohibitions of the truth (ḥaqīqat) are more difficult, in the sense that if the man of truth, even for a twinkling of an eye, forgets the real prayer, fasting and obedience and becomes negligent, in that period of time, whatever he does or sees will not be for God’s sake.  Rather, if one drinks a sip of water or eats a morsel of bread aiming to quench thirst and hunger, that sip and morsel, in accordance with the law of truth (ḥukm-i ḥaqīqat), will be unlawful to him and he will not be considered a man of truth (mard-i ḥaqīqī) and of the people of the esoteric (ahl-i bāṭin).  Rather, the act of obedience that he performs will be futile and he will not be worshipping God, nor will he be granted salvation.   Any member of the Jamā‘at who does not find in himself such a strength, that is, to fulfill the commandments and prohibitions of the truth (ḥaqīqat), it is advisable for him not to abandon obedience to the sharī‘at, or else he would be a loser, both in this world and in the Hereafter.”
- Naṣir al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, (Shi’i Interpretations of Islam, 43-44)

Fasting (ṣawm), according to the gnosis of Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Islam, has multiple levels, forms and dimensions.  While the Exoteric Fasting (ẓāhirī ṣawm) is practiced in the month of Ramaḍān, and the Esoteric Fasting  (bāṭinī ṣawm) is performed during the Cycle of Religious Law (dawr al-sharī‘ah which continues until the end of the Cycle of Prophet Muḥammad and the beginning of the Resurrection), the Real Fasting (ḥaqīqī ṣawm) must be observed for all 365 days of the year.

With respect to the present day practices of prayer and fasting amongst the Ismā ‘īlīs, the late Dr. Hasan Nathoo had the opportunity to discuss the issue with Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh in 1946.  Dr. Nathoo relates as follows:

In the matter of the Ismā‘īlis praying only three times daily instead of five times and not keeping [exoteric] fasts generally in the month of Ramaḍān, he [the Imām] told me two things: that in the Qur’ān there was no specific mention of the number of daily namāz. It was only a tradition (sunnah); the other was that there was a ḥadīth where the Holy Prophet had said that if during his lifetime the people of Arabia observed 90% of his injunctions, 10% would be forgiven. But after his death, if the followers observed even 10%, 90% would be forgiven. These hadiths are confirmed in a book on the life of the Prophet by Martin Lings which I read only recently. This hadith makes Islam the most liberal religion.
- Dr. Hasan E. Nathoo, (My Glorious Fortnight with Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah, London, 1988)

The ḥadīth cited by the Imām is quoted below:

“Ye are in an age in which, if ye abandon one-tenth of what is ordered, ye will be ruined. After this a time will come when he who shall observe one-tenth of what is now ordered will be redeemed.”
– Prophet Muḥammad,
(Seyyed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, 183)

It must be remembered that the Imāms hold the authority to prescribe the forms of fasting and Imām Sulṭan Muḥammad Shāh has made the Real Fasting (ḥaqīqī ṣawm) an obligation (farḍ) upon all the believers of spiritual reality (ḥaqīqatī mu’minīn). Just as the Prophet Muhammad prescribed and interpreted the exact forms of prayer and fasting during his own lifetime, the Imām of the Time, as the bearer of the knowledge and authority of the Prophet, continues this role of ritual interpretation in every age.

If, rightly, the Muslims have kept till now to the forms of prayer and fasting at the time of the Prophet, it should not be forgotten that it is not the forms of prayer and fasting that have been commanded, but the facts, and we are entitled to adjust the forms to the facts of life as circumstances changed.  It is the same Prophet who advises his followers ever to remain Ibnu’l-Waqt (i.e. children of the time and period in which they were on earth), and it must be the natural ambition of every Muslim to practice and represent his Faith according to the standard of the Waqt or space-time.”
 - Imām Sulṭān Muḥammad Shāh Āgā Khān III,
(Foreword to Muhammad: A Mercy To all the Nations by Al-Hajji Qassim Jairazbhoy, Click Here to Read)


Iqra: Muhammad meditated upon the Name of God as the Qur’an was revealed

$
0
0

Abstract: According to traditional interpretations, the first verse of the Qur’ān (iqra bi-smi rabbika) merely commands the Prophet Muhammad to read aloud the verses of the Qur’ān.  But based on early Muslim tradition and the rules of Arabic grammar, the Qur’an’s earliest verses actually show that Muhammad was engaged in a form of mystical meditation, consisting of repeating and reciting a special Name of God, when the Qur’an was revealed to him. This interpretation has profound implications on how Muslims should understand the spirituality of a prophet: every prophet undergoes a spiritual initiation which includes rigorous spiritual training, the performance of mystical practices like meditation using a special Name of God.

If you do not accept the existence of God or are not sure, then read a logical argument for the existence of God here.

If you do believe in the existence of God but are unclear on the concept of God, then read this article on the concept of God according to the 48th hereditary Imam of the  Ismā‘īlī Muslims.

If you do accept the existence of God but are unsure as to the existence of the immaterial human soul, then read this article for a series of philosophical arguments on the soul.

If you believe that the Prophet Muhammad was merely a deliverer of the Qur’an and nothing more, then read this article which uses the Qur’an to delineate the spiritual duties and powers of the Prophet Muhammad.

If you believe in the spiritual authority of the Prophet Muhammad and accept the Qur’an as divinely-inspired revelation, but do not accept that Muhammad had any spiritual successors, then read this article containing arguments for a manifest Imam or spiritual leader to succeed Muhammad based on the Qur’anic evidence.

surat al-alaq

“The command to recite the Name of the Lord seems to refer to a certain act of devotion… The interpretation…according to which ūrat al-‘Alaq urges the prophet to praise the Name of his Lord, was almost utterly forgotten.” (Uri Rubin)

Ramaḍān  is the month in which the first revelations of the Holy Qur’ān descended to the Prophet Muḥammad. It is widely reported that the first verses of the Holy Qur’ān revealed to the Prophet as he meditated in the Cave of Hira were:

Iqrā’ bi-smi rabbika’lladhī khalaqa
Khalaqa al-insāna min ‘alaqin
Iqrā’ wa rabbuka al-Akramu
Alladhī ‘allama bi’l-qalami
‘Allama’l-insān ma lam ya‘lam

These verses are usually read and translated as follows:

Read: In the name of your Lord Who created
Created man from a clot
Read: And your Lord is most Generous
Who has taught by the Pen
Has taught man that which he knew not.
(Holy Qur’ān 96:1-5)

According to most traditional accounts and interpretations, the Prophet was being told by God to read the verses of the Qur’ān which the Angel Gabriel was conveying to him.  This interpretation implies that the Qur’ān, even prior to being revealed in the physical world, was a static and fixed text which the Prophet merely conveyed or ‘read’ to his community. However, there is no basis for this interpretation which has its origins in a later period and is married to a particular theology that sees the Qur’an in its Arabic form as transcending human history.  But there is another way of understanding these verses, based on early Muslim tradition and Arabic grammar, which yields a different interpretation altogether.


Remember the Name of your Lord

The words bi-smi rabbika must first be re-examined.  In the traditional interpretation, these words mean ‘in the name of your Lord’ – where the word bi is translated as “in”.  Thus, the Prophet is being commanded to merely read the Qur’anic verses – ‘in the name of’ his Lord as they revealed to him.  But it would be better to actually look at all the instances of the words bi-smi rabbika in other Qur’ānic verses to see if this reading actually makes sense in the context of the Qur’ān as a whole:

Fasabbiḥ bi-smi rabbika al-‘aẓīmi
“Then praise the Name of your Lord, the Supreme.”

(Holy Qur’ān 56:74)

Fasabbiḥ bi-smi rabbika al-‘aẓīmi
“Then praise the Name of your Lord, the Supreme.”

(Holy Qur’ān 56:96)

Fasabbiḥ bi-smi rabbika al-‘aẓīmi
“Then praise the Name of your Lord, the Supreme.”

(Holy Qur’ān 69:52)

Wa-udhkuri isma rabbika wa tabattal ilayhi tabtīlān
“And remember the Name of your Lord and devote yourself to it/Him devotedly.”

(Holy Qur’ān 73:8)

Wa-udhkuri isma rabbika bukratan wa aṣīlān
“And remember the Name of your Lord morning and evening.”

(Holy Qur’ān 76:25)

In the first three verses (56:74, 56:96, 69:52), the expression bi-smi rabbika is used but the word bi is silent in meaning – it does not actually add anything to the meaning of the phrase which is read as “praise the Name of your Lord” instead of “praise in the Name of your Lord”.  In the last two verses (73:8, 76:25), the bi is not present and the verb dhakara (to remember, to invoke) is used instead of the verb sabbaḥa (to praise, to glorify).  But the meaning of all these verses is virtually the same in that they are instructing the Prophet (and/or the believers) to praise or remember the Name (ism) of their Lord.

This conclusion should be applied to the Iqrā’ verse and the words bi-smi rabbika.  If we make the bi silent (as it is in the three verses above), and recall that the word Iqrā’ also means ‘recite’, then the first verse of the Qur’ān reads follows:

Iqrā’ bi-smi rabbika’lladhi khalaqa
“Recite the name of your Lord Who created”

The meaning of the above reading is vastly different than the traditional reading.  Instead of being told to read a pre-determined, static text, the first verse of Ṣūrah al-Alaq is instructing the Prophet Muḥammad to recite or invoke the Name of his Lord.  This reading was also supported by the early Qur’ān commentator Abu ‘Ubayda (d. 825) who held that iqrā’ bi-smi rabbika actually means iqra isma rabbika (‘Recite the Name of your Lord’).  The ba is added in speech but is silent in its meaning and does not add anything to the phrase.

It appears that this was the original meaning of the first verses of the Qur’ān based on the earliest sources.  It seems that later traditions and commentaries eventually shifted the meaning of this verse to the way it is read today: “Read: In the name of your Lord” according to which the Prophet was being commanded to simply read the ‘text’ of the Qur’ān.  In this sense, the scholar Uri Rubin concludes that:

“The command to recite the Name of the Lord seems to refer to a certain act of devotion which the prophet is prompted to perform in honour of his Lord…The view that in Sūrat al-‘Alaq Muḥammad is commanded to start spreading the divine message of the Qur’ān has thus become the most prevalent one.  The interpretation preserved by Abū ‘Ubayda, according to which Sūrat al-‘Alaq urges the prophet to praise the Name of his Lord, was almost utterly forgotten.”
(Uri Rubin, Some Notes on the Interpretation of Sūrat al-‘Alaq, Click Here to Read)

Therefore, we must ask the question: Why does it matter that the Qur’ān instructs the Prophet to “recite the Name of your Lord” as opposed to “Read: In the Name of your Lord”?

Firstly, this means that the Qur’ān is not necessarily a preset, static ‘text’ or ‘book’ which the Prophet Muḥammad was passively reading to his community.  In fact, the very notion that the Prophet was literally reading or hearing Arabic words and sounds is itself questionable (this issue will be dealt with in a later post).  Secondly – and more immediate for the present discussion – the verse shows that the Prophet was being told to perform a specific ritual – the recitation of a particular Name of God.  The commentator al-Rāzī even adds that the meaning of iqrā (recite) in Ṣūrah al-‘Alaq is equivalent to udhkur (invoke, remember).  Thus, the words iqrā bi-smi rabbika mean “remember/invoke the Name of your Lord”. This means when the Prophet was in the Cave of Hira, the first revelation of the Qur’ān was actually telling him to engage in the remembrance (dhikr) of the Name of God – and a very specific name as evidenced by the term rabbika (your Lord) which already suggests a particular and intimate connection between the Prophet and God.

The fact that the Prophet was instructed to recite or invoke or remember the Name of God shows that Muḥammad was, to some extent, familiar with this devotional practice of invocation.  The Prophet, even prior to receiving revelation, knew of an actual Name of God to recite and the actual method of invocation.  As he retreated regularly to the Cave of Hira, it appears that the Prophet was already engaged in certain spiritual practices and disciplines – which included the invocation and recitation of a specific Name of God – what is today known as dhikr.  Interestingly, this practice of dhikr – the repeated remembrance and invokation of the Divine Name – is the bedrock of spiritual praxis throughout Shi‘ism and Sufism.

It is even more remarkable that another early ṣūrah of the Qur’ān – which came to the Prophet a few years after the first revelation – repeats the instruction for the Prophet to perform a specific recitation (qur’ān) of a weighty Word (qawl) – the Name of God – in a meditation during the night:

Yā ayyuhā’l-muzzammilu
Qumi al-layla illā qalīlan
Niṣfahu awi unquṣ minhu qalīlan
Aw zid ‘alayhi wa-rattili al-qur’ān tartīlan
Innā sanulqī ‘alayka qawlan thaqīlan
Innā nāshi’ata al-layli hiya ashaddu waṭan wa-aqwamu qīlan
Innā laka fī’l-nahāri sabḥan tawīlan
Wa-udhkhuri isma rabbika wa-tabbattal ilayhi tabtīlan

O ye who wraps himself
Rise up during the night except a little
Half of it or less from it a little
Or add to it and recite the recitation with measured rhythm
Indeed, we will cast upon you a weighty Word
Indeed, the rising of the night is very hard and most potent and more suitable for the Word
Indeed for you in the day is prolonged occupation
And invoke the Name of your Lord and devote yourself to it with devotion.
(Holy Qur’ān 73:1-8)

These verses of Ṣūrah al-Muzzammil – which are among the earliest revelations of the Qur’ān in Mecca – prescribe a very specific spiritual practice. The Prophet is told to rise for a special night meditation and recite a special Word (qawl); the recitation (al-qurān) of this Word (the term al-qur’ān here refers to this particular recitation and not the Qur’ānic Scripture which did not yet exist) is to be done in a rhythmic tone which probably involves a specific breathing pattern; the Word to be invoked in this meditation is the Name of God and depending on how the words tabbattal ilayhi are read (i.e. “devote yourself to Him” or “devote yourself to it“), it may be said that the Prophet is instructed to devote himself to this invoked Name.

To summarize – the earliest revelations of the Qur’ān instruct the Prophet Muḥammad to engage and continue in the practice of reciting and invoking the Name of God – a Name which was a special and sacred Word that the Prophet was specifically granted.


The Ascension of the Prophets through the Names of God

The theme of the invocation of the Divine Name (ism ilahi) or Word (kalima; qawl) is not only unique to the case of Prophet Muḥammad – it actually recurs in the story of several Prophets in the Qur’ān.

In the Qur’ānic story of the appointment of Prophet Adam, what gives Adam precedence over the angels is the fact that God taught him all the “Names”.  These “Names” taught to Adam were none other than the Divine Names – the Most Beautiful Names of God – by which Adam attained spiritual superiority over the angels:

Wa ‘allama ādama’l-asmāa kullahā thumma ‘araḍahum ‘alā’l-malāikati faqāla anbiūnī bi-asmāi hāulāi in kuntum ṣadiqīna

And He taught Adam all the Names. Then he said to the angels: ‘Inform me of the Names of these if you are truthful.”

(Holy Qu’ān 2:31)

In other verses (38:72-73 and others), the Qur’ān refers to the “Spirit” (al-ruḥ) that God breathed into Adam after which the angels prostrated before him.  This means that the Names of God and the Spirit are one – the Spirit comprises the inner reality of the Names.  Henry Corbin remarks that:

“This is emphasized by a hadith (a tradition) illustrating the Qur’ānic verse, which declares that Adam remained there, flung like an inert body, until God breathed His spirit into him, that is, until He has breathed into him spiritual science, the science of the esoteric things, that “science of Names” (Qur’ān 2:29), by means of which beings are promoted to their true being.”
(Henry Corbin, Swedenborg and Esoteric Islam, 103-104, Click Here to Read)

The identification of the Spirit and the Divine Name is also demonstrated by the meaning of the Arabic word ruḥ.  The term ru is derived from the word ri (breath) and the actual recitation of the Divine Name (ism Allah) is actually a form of ‘breathing’ – indeed, this is the noblest form of breathing.  And therefore, the Divine Spirit (ruḥ) or Breath (riḥ) which was given to the Prophet Adam took the form of the invoked Divine Name. In other words, the Prophet Adam attained his spiritual rank above the angels due to his internalization of the Divine Spirit which takes places through the invocation (dhikr) of the Names of God.

In the story of Noah, the Ark of Noah which leads the believers to salvation in both worlds runs its course by means of the Name of God:

Wa-qāla irkabū fīha bi-smi’llahi majrahā wa-mursāhā inna rabbī laghafūrun raḥīmun

And he (Noah) said: ‘Embark in it (the Ark).  The Name of God is its course and its anchorage.  Verily, my Lord is the Oft-Forgiving, the Merciful.’”
(Holy Qur’ān 11:41)

The Qur’ān also relates that God tested the Prophet Abraham by means of certain “Words” (kalimāt).  These Words refer to the Divine Names by which Abraham ascended the ranks of spirituality until God appointed him as the Imām of of the time:

Wa-idhi ibtalā ibrāhīma rabbuhu bi-kalimātin fa amtammahunna qāla innī jā‘iluka li’l-nāsi imāman qāla wa min dhurriyyatī qāla lā yanālu ‘ahdī al-ẓalimīna

“And remember when Abraham was tried by his Lord by certain Words and he fulfilled them.  He said: ‘Verily, I appoint you Imām of humankind.’  He (Abraham) said: ‘And of my descendents?’ He (God) answered: ‘My covenant is not with the unjust.’” 
(Holy Qur’ān 2:124)

The Prophet Abraham’s spiritual legacy is also passed down amongst his descendents by means of a sacred Word (kalimah) which endures forever.  In other words, Abraham taught these Words (kalimāt) and Names of God to his successors:

Wa-ja‘alahā kalimatan bāqiyatanaqibihi la‘allahum yarji‘ūna

“And he made it an Enduring Word amongst his descendants so that they may return (to God).”
(Holy Qurān 43:28)

In the story of Mary and Jesus, the Qur’ān describes how Mary received the Spirit of God – due to which she gave birth to the Prophet Jesus:

Wa maryama ibnnata ‘imrāna allatī aḥsanat farjahā fanafakhnā fīhi min rūḥinā wa-ṣaddaqat bi kalimāti rabbihā wa-kutubihi mina’l-qānitīna

“And Mary, daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her sexual organ and We breathed into it from Our Spirit.  And she testified to the truth through the Words of her Lord and His Books and she one of the devout servants.”
(Holy Qur’ān 66:12)

Nāsir-i Khusraw gives the esoteric interpretation (ta’wīl) of the God breathing His Spirit into the sexual organ of Mary as follows:

“This means that Mary did not turn her ears to the devils (iblisan) with their speeches. This is because the sexual organ is like the ear, and ear symbolizes the sexual organ because through it comes the corporeal form (ṣurat-i jismāni), and through the ear the psychic form (ṣurat-i nafsāni). ‘She guarded her sexual organ’ means that she did not turn her ear to those who only teach the zahir, the formal side of the religion, disregarding the esoteric interpretation (ta’wīl).”
- Sayyidna Nāsir-i Khusraw,
(Shish Fasl or Six Chapters, transl. W. Ivanow, Chapter 3, Click Here to Read)

For Nāsir-i Khusraw, the Divine Spirit was breathed into the “ear” of Mary and not her sexual organ.  This also shows that the actual form of the ‘breathing of Spirit’ was something audible – a Word (kalimah).  The sexual organ in this verse is used as a symbol or metaphor for the ear.  Just as the sperm – the source of the physical form – is deposited in the womb by means of the sexual organ, the Divine Word – the source of the spiritual form – is deposited in the soul through the ear.

Therefore, it is not surprising that even early Christian theology maintained that the Holy Spirit impregnated the Virgin Mary with Jesus not through her sexual organ but by means of her ear.  Mary received the Spirit by ‘hearing’ the Word of God which was spoken to her.

The bodily locus of the virginal conception was not portrayed in early Christian acts as the vagina, but the ear: ‘The conception was by hearing’, wrote John of Damascus.  In early iconography the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as coming into Mary’s body physiologically by sexual transmission, but spiritually by attentive hearing…the conception was by right hearing of the Word of God.”
(Thomas C. Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology, 292, Click Here to Read)

The end of the verse also mentions how Mary testified to the truth through the Words (kalimāt) of God – these being the same Words by which Abraham was tested.  The Qur’ān also refers to Jesus as a Word (kalimah) from God which He breathed into Mary:

‘Isa ubnu maryama rasūlu’llahi wa-kalimatuhu alqāhā ilā maryam wa-rūḥun minhu

“The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word (kalimatuhu) that He cast to Mary, and a Spirit from Him…”
(Holy Qur’ān 4:171)

The above verse states that Jesus was the God’s Spirit and Word (kalimah) which He “cast” (alqā) into the Virgin Mary.  This is significant because in Ṣūrah al-Muzzammal (73:53), the exact same verb – alqā (to cast, to commit, to present) – is used when the verse says to the Prophet Muḥammad – “Indeed we will cast (sanulqī) upon you a Weighty Word”.  Thus, the “casting” of the Word of God upon the Virgin Mary is identical to the “casting” of the Word of God to the Prophet Muḥammad.

Even in the case of Prophet Jesus, the Qur’ān indicates that God inspired him with the Holy Spirit.  This Spirit is initially given to a Prophet in the form of a Word (kalimah) or Divine Name (ism ilahi) – as shown in the cases of Prophet Adam and the Virgin Mary.

It is indeed remarkable that the Qur’ān highlights the instrumental role of the Words, Spirit or Names of God in the spiritual ascendance of the major Prophets: Adam is exalted above the angels only through the Divine Names or Spirit; Noah’s Ark safeguards the believers by the power of the Name of God; Abraham passes God’s trials and attains to the rank of Imām of all humankind only after being tested by God’s Words and transmits this Word to endure amongst his descendants; Mary receives in her ear the Holy Spirit in the form of a audible Word to give birth to Prophet Jesus; Jesus performs his miracles by means of this Holy Spirit. The Prophet Muḥammad, both prior and after his initial revelations of the Qurān, is made to recite a weighty Word that is the Name of his Lord.


Spiritual Initiation into Prophethood

The above Qur’ānic analysis shows that the great Prophets of God (e.g. Adam, Abraham, Noah, Mary/Jesus, Muḥammad) attained their exalted status by means of the Name of God which was received by them in the form of a Word (kalimah; qawl) that embodies the Divine Spirit.  This demonstrates that the Prophets had to undergo a process of spiritual training, initiation, and development by means of the Word or Name of God to actualize their souls’ perfection for the function of prophethood.

These notions are all expressed in “the early Ismā‘īlī idea of the gradual formation of enunciator-prophethood or nāṭiq-ship in a future prophet”. For Ismā‘īlī gnosis, the person of the Prophet does not merely attain prophethood in a sudden way without any historical or spiritual context.  The Prophet experiences a spiritual expansion and elevation of his own soul – the culmination of which is receiving divine inspiration (ta’yīd) of the Divine Spirit and assuming of the prophetic office (al-nubūwwah).  While a Prophet possesses latent perfection and is pre-destined for his mission even before his physical birth, his spiritual training effects “the gradual development of the prophetic faculty in a future prophet” (Nomoto, 218).  Many Ismā‘īlī Muslim theosophers and gnostics such as Abū Hātim al-Rāzi, Qādi al-Nu‘mān, and Abū Ya‘qūb al-Sijistānī have described this process of prophetic formation in their writings:

“On the issue of the gradual formation of prophethood, we must consider some passages by al-Sijistāni, who is more systematic in presenting his thought.  Al-Sijistāni holds that prophethood (al-nubūwah) does not suddenly come into conjunction with just any prophet; rather, the prophet must experience significant change (al-istiḥālah) in his spiritual status until he reaches the rank of enunciator-prophethood (ḥadd al-nāṭiqīyah).”
(Shin Nomoto, Early Ismā‘īlī Thought on Prophecy According to the Kitāb al-Iṣlāḥ by Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī, 217, Click Here to Read)

The Prophets’ spiritual training does not occur in isolation; numerous Ismā‘īlī esoteric texts relate how the Prophets were initiated and trained by a hierarchy of spiritual knowers – the dignitaries of the “Calling” (al-Da‘wah).  The Calling (al-Da‘wah) is an ancient and perpetually present institution of spiritual knowers, sages, and initiates present in every time and age under the leadership of the Imām of each period (Click Here to Read our Previous Post for details).  It is the Calling (al-Da‘wah) which transmits eternal gnosis from generation to generation across time and space.  In certain historical periods, the Calling operates openly while in others it functions in secret (such as in the present age and time). 

The earliest chapters of the Qur’ān indicate that both before receiving revelation and afterwards, the Prophet Muḥammad was already familiar with the spiritual practice of remembrance (dhikr) of the Divine Name.   The fact that the Qur’ān instructed him to invoke the Name of his Lord (rabbika) indicates that a direct and intimate relationship already existed between the Prophet Muḥammad  and God Himself.  Thus, the Name which Muḥammad was reciting was a specific Divine Name (the Name of his Lord) that already had a special significance for the Prophet.  This could only mean that Muḥammad was taught the ritual of invoking his Lord’s Name by the members or dignitaries (ḥudūd) of the Calling through whom he received spiritual training:

Prophethood and prophetic ascent are linked to the gradual perfection of the human being that takes place initially with the training the “Calling” (da‘wah) provides in each prophetic cycle….The “Calling” of each epoch, like the “ranks of religion”, thereby provides the necessary training (tarbiyyah) not least for individual practitioners but for the prophets as well… Even the prophets are not exempt from the necessary training that the “Calling” provides in each cycle of prophetic history…The apparent Calling is paired with the hidden Calling for the purpose of explanation and facilitation.
(Elizabeth R. Alexandrin, “Prophetic Ascent and Initiatory Ascent in Qāḍi al-Nu‘mān’s Asās al-Ta’wīl”, Gruber, Colby, The Prophet’s Ascension: Cross-Cultural Encounters with the Islamic Mi‘rāj Tales, 160-164, Click Here to Read)

The previous Prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Mary/Jesus, were all prepared and ‘raised’ (baatha- Holy Qur’ān 2:213) for their missions in the same way.  From the earliest revelations of the Qur’ān, one clearly sees that the actual method of the Prophet Muḥammad’s spiritual ascension to the rank of prophethood was the invocation (dhikr) of a special Word (kalimah; qawl) that is the Name of God (ism Allāh).  It is of no small significance that almost all the Ṣūrahs of the Holy Qur’ān begin with the words bi-smi’llāh – bearing witness how each and every verse of the Qur’ān descended through the Prophet only by means of his invocation of the exalted Name (ism al-azam) of God.  This truth is also made present in daily life when Muslims and people of other faiths invoke the Name of God (i.e. bi-ismi’llah) when beginning any task.

During this month of Ramaḍān and in all moments of life, the one who seeks to follow the Prophets’ example (sunnah) must engage in the intense remembrance (dhikr) of God’s Names. In doing so, the spiritual seeker responds to the Calling (al-da‘wah) – thereby perfecting his or her human soul to attain direct communion with the Holy Spirit – the Spirit which inspired the Prophet to “RECITE the Name of your Lord who created” (iqrā’ bi-smi rabbika’lladhi khalaqa).

Notes:

For the academic and scholarly background to this post, consult the following:

Uri Rubin, Some Notes on the Interpretation of Sūrat al-‘Alaq, Click Here to Read

Shin Nomoto, Early Ismā‘īlī Thought on Prophecy According to the Kitāb al-Iṣlāḥ by Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (Thesis), Click Here to Read

Elizabeth R. Alexandrin, “Prophetic Ascent and Initiatory Ascent in Qāḍi al-Nu‘mān’s Asās al-Ta’wīl”, Gruber, Colby, The Prophet’s Ascension: Cross-Cultural Encounters with the Islamic Mi‘rāj Tales, Click Here to Read


What is Shia Islam? A Visual Chart of Different Shia Communities

$
0
0

ShiaIslam

“It is important, therefore, for non-Muslims who are dealing with the Ummah to communicate with both Sunni and Shia voices. To be oblivious to this reality would be like ignoring over many centuries that there were differences between Catholics and Protestants, or trying to resolve the civil war in Northern Ireland without engaging both Christian communities.”
- Imam Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī Āgā Khān IV

This short article features a visual chart outlining the major differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims and further depicting the major divisions and branches within Shia Islam pertaining to the succession of the Shia Imamat.

While all Muslims affirm the absolute oneness of God and the role of Muhammad as His final prophet, Shia and Sunni Muslims differ on the question of legitimate spiritual and religious authority after the Prophet Muhammad. It must be kept in mind that while Muhammad was alive, he was both the political and spiritual leader of the believers. All questions concerning religious interpretations, law, ethics, theology, etc. were deferred to and decided by the Prophet; his ruling was, for all intents and purposes, the direct representation of God’s Will and Command to the believers. Far from being just a mouthpiece for the Qur’an, Muhammad was the fountainhead of all spiritual authority, esoteric knowledge, moral leadership and the channel of God’s continual guidance and blessings for the believers. To obey the Prophet in his lifetime was the practical way of obeying God. God’s blessings, guidance and forgiveness had to be sought through Muhammad’s intercession, blessings and prayers. All devotional offerings (ṣadaqah) and acts of repentance by the believers were offered to God via Muhammad. Thus, in addition to being the vehicle through which the Qur’an is revealed in human language, the Prophet Muhammad was the bearer of a spiritual authority or charisma, called walāyah, which was the source of the spiritual sanctity and purity by which he performed the aforementioned spiritual duties. The relationshiop between God and the Prophet Muhammad is depicted in the below diagram and can be read about here:

PMCircle

Sunni Muslims recognize no direct succession of spiritual and charismatic authority (walāyah) of Muhammad; the community exercises authority and religious interpretation through the Caliphate (holding political authority, the scholars (ulamā) and Sufi shaykhs holding religious and mystical authority. Meanwhile, Shia Muslims stress that the Prophet Muhammad – whom Qur’ān 33:6 speaks of as possessing more authority (awlā) over the believers than their own souls – had actually designated his cousin and son-in-law ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib as the master (mawlā) of the believers. This took place during the Prophet’s farewell pilgrimage when Muhammad halted the pilgrims at Ghadīr Khum, quoted Qur’an 33:6 by saying “Do I not have more authority (awlā) over you than your own souls” and then proceeded to declare “He whose mawlā I am, ‘Alī is his mawlā”. This event at Ghadīr Khum is attested to by Sunni and Shia sources and narrated by 184 companions. Therefore, the Shia Muslims hold that the spiritual and charismatic authority of the Prophet Muhammad and all of his aforementioned spiritual rights and duties (with the exception of scriptural revelation) continue through the institution of hereditary spiritual leadership called the Imamat, with Imam ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib as the first Imām.  This Imamat is subsequently handed down by each Imam to his appointed successor from among his male progeny. The Imams are of the Prophet’s Ahl al-Bayt whom the Qur’an declares as thoroughly purified by God as per Qur’an 33:33. The Imam for Shia Muslims is the inheritor of the Prophet Muhammad’s authority and the sole source for the legitimate interpretation of Islam.

Sunni Muslims came to recognize the Qur’an, the Sunnah (custom) of Muhammad as recorded in the Ḥādīth literature, and legal interpretative techniques such as scholarly consensus (ijmā), analogy (qiyās), and interpretation (ijtiḥād) as the sources (uṣūl) for religious and legal interpretations. Meanwhile, Shia Muslims regard the institution of the Imamat and its living and continual interpretation of the Qur’ān as the sole authoritative and legitimate source of religious interpretation and spiritual guidance.

Over the last 1,400 years, the Shia Muslims experienced a number of splits and divisions due to disagreement over the rightful succession of the Imams. Different groups differed over the identity of the legitimate successor to a given Imam, thus resulting in the emergence of different Shia groups who trace the legitimate succession through different lines of Imams, which stem from the same ancestor. For example, the Ismailis and the Twelvers follow two different lines of Imams – both of which trace back to the Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq. All of the major splits and the resultant branches are depicted in the below Visual Chart for the sake of informing the public about the historical origins of Shia Muslim communities.

The chart is followed by important extracts from the Address of His Highness Aga Khan IV, the forty-ninth hereditary Imam of the Nizari Ismaili branch of Shia Islam in an inaugural Speech made to the Parliament and Senate of Canada in 2014.

Click Here for Larger View.

ShiaIslam


“Perhaps the most important area of incomprehension, outside the Ummah, is the conflict between Sunni and Shia interpretations of Islam and the consequences for the Sunni and Shia peoples. This powerful tension is sometimes even more profound than conflicts between Muslims and other faiths. It has increased massively in scope and intensity recently, and has been further exacerbated by external interventions. In Pakistan and Malaysia, in Iraq and Syria, in Lebanon and Bahrain, in Yemen and Somalia and Afghanistan it is becoming a disaster. It is important, therefore, for non-Muslims who are dealing with the Ummah to communicate with both Sunni and Shia voices. To be oblivious to this reality would be like ignoring over many centuries that there were differences between Catholics and Protestants, or trying to resolve the civil war in Northern Ireland without engaging both Christian communities. What would have been the consequences if the Protestant-Catholic struggle in Ireland had spread throughout the Christian world, as is happening today between Shia and Sunni Muslims in more than nine countries? It is of the highest priority that these dangerous trends be well understood and resisted, and that the fundamental legitimacy of pluralistic outlooks be honoured in all aspects of our lives together, including matters of faith.”

“I have the great privilege of representing the Ismaili Imamat — this institution which has stretched beyond borders for more than 1400 years and which defines itself and is recognised by an increasingly large number of states, as the succession of Shia Imami Ismaili Imams.”

“The Ismaili Imamat is a supra-national entity, representing the succession of Imams since the time of the Prophet. But let me clarify something more about the history of that role, in both the Sunni and Shia interpretations of the Muslim faith. The Sunni position is that the Prophet nominated no successor, and that spiritual-moral authority belongs to those who are learned in matters of religious law. As a result, there are many Sunni imams in a given time and place. But others believed that the Prophet had designated his cousin and son-in-law, Ali, as his successor. From that early division, a host of further distinctions grew up, but the question of rightful leadership remains central. In time, the Shia were also sub-divided over this question, so that today the Ismailis are the only Shia community who, throughout history, have been led by a living, hereditary Imam in direct descent from the Prophet.

- Imam Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī Āgā Khān IV,
(Speech made to both Houses of the Canadian Parliament and Senate, February 27, 2014)

 

 



How to Validate the Shia Imamat from the Holy Qur’an

$
0
0


Qur'anic Threads: Towards validating Manifest Imamat from the Qur'an alone

BY MOHIB EBRAHIM

EDITOR’S NOTE

On August 5th, 1923, a young 16 year old boy — the youngest honorary missionary and member of the Bombay Recreation Club, now the Ismaili Tariqah and Religious Education Board (ITREB) — delivered a two hour lecture to “prove the significance and the need of Imamat from the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith.” That boy was Rai. A. M. Sadaruddin, who went on to devote the rest of his life in service to the Imamat and to Ismaili studies and history, culminating in his appointment, personally by Mawlana Hazar Imam, as a member of the first Review Board of the Institute of Ismaili Studies. Learn more about this event here.

Ninety years later, to the month, we are pleased to bring to you a groundbreaking and compelling piece by Rai Sadaruddin’s grandson, Mohib Ebrahim (founder and publisher of the NanoWisdoms Archive of Imamat Speeches, Interviews and Writings), in which he, following in his grandfather’s footsteps, also validates Manifest Imamat and its necessity but this time from the Holy Qur’an alone. Remarkably, his fresh perspective and innovative method avoids the usual technical debates over the Arabic language and the historical record which this subject never fails to instigate.

Excerpts from his article appear below, however the actual presentation and validation appears in the document linked at the end.

INTRODUCTION

Upon the death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) a fundamental debate arose as to who was his rightful successor as leader of the nascent Muslim community. The debate is so fundamental that it is at the root of the Shia/Sunni difference of Islam and it has simmered continuously in the subsequent 1,400 years, at times boiling over with rage.

Over the centuries much has been written by both Shia and Sunni to “prove” their respective positions correct. On the one hand Shia theologians, philosophers, scholars, clergy and lay people have all sought to validate the Shia Imamat while on the other, their Sunni counterparts attempt to make the converse case. What is particularly perplexing and vexing to outside observers is both parties make their case from the same evidence — marshalling quotes from the Qur’an and Hadith (anecdotes about, and sayings of, the Prophet), key historical records as well as relying on rational or “common sense” arguments.

The paradox arises because there is no unanimous agreement over which historical records are accurate, which Hadith are authentic, and then even when there is agreement, disagreement arises over their interpretation. The dilemma is not improved, but rather compounded, when evidence from the Qur’an is relied upon simply because of the Qur’an itself admits, in verse 3:7, to its own partial ambiguity thereby rendering those parts open to individual interpretation.

DISAGREEMENT OVER THE HISTORICAL RECORD

To appreciate the depth of the quagmire over historical records, it would be instructive to review one particularly important example relevant to the Shia/Sunni disagreement over the Shia Imamat.

Consider the official position of the Ismailis — who are also the only branch of Islam, Shia or Sunni, which have “a living Imam who traces his family back to Hazrat Ali” (1). They state, as do all Shia, that:

[The Shia's] espousal of the right of Ali and that of his descendants, through Fatima, to the leadership of the community was rooted, above all, in their understanding of the Qur’an and its concept of qualified and rightly guided leadership, as reinforced by Prophetic traditions. The most prominent among the latter were part of the Prophet’s sermon at a place called Ghadir Khumm, following his farewell pilgrimage, designating Ali as his successor, and his testament that he was leaving behind him ‘the two weighty things’, namely the Qur’an and his progeny, for the future guidance of his community. (2)

In addition, all Shia maintain that the Prophet also said at Ghadir Khumm:

To whomsoever I am the Maula (the Lord – the Master), Ali is his Maula (the Lord – the Master). O God! Be Thou a friend to him who is a friend to him (Ali). (Be Thou) an enemy to him who is enemy to him (i.e. Ali). Help one who helps him (i.e. Ali). Foresake one who foresaketh him (i.e. Ali). (3)

Finally, Mir Ahmed Ali also notes:

[Upon] descending from the pulpit [after appointing Ali as Maula], the Holy Prophet commanded everyone of the huge gathering to pay his “Baiyat” or homage or allegiance to Ali. The first one to pay the baiyat was Umar ibn al-Khatab (who later became the 2nd Khalif)…. Hearing the words with which Omar felicitated Ali, the Holy Prophet commanded Omar not to address Ali as son of Abu Taleb, but as ‘Amirul-Momineen’, i.e. the Lord Commander of the Faithful…. Like his other titles … the title of ‘Amirul-Momineen’ was also bestowed upon Ali exclusively for him by the Prophet himself for none else held any of the titles during his lifetime of the Holy Prophet, particularly ‘Amirul-Momineen’. (3)

The question is then of course: what is the Sunni position over Ghadir Khumm? Mir Ahmed Ali lists some 80 of the most respected Sunni authorities and books which have “reported this event in all its details.” (3) He also adds that the number of authorities who have “relayed this event with its true significance” (3) is such that there is “not a single event of the Islamic history nor any other Qur’anic Verses which has earned so much unanimous, universal, unquestionable and doubtless attention from such great authorities in such a huge number” (3).

Nevertheless, despite such an agreed upon record of what took place at Ghadir Khumm, the Prophet’s words were nevertheless still parsed and dissected by, what appear to the uninitiated, hair-splitting arguments over Arabic and its grammar, that in all likelihood the matter will never be settled. For example, the word Maula is taken to mean “friend” and not “Lord” or “Master.” Such is the state of affairs, that, in concluding his lengthy commentary about the event, Mir Ahmed Ali wrote out of frustration:

[I]n spite of so much of the doubtless and the unchallengable acknowledgement of the facts [over Ghadir Khumm] it is only a wonder how man could ever insist upon his own fanciful notions and hold himself fast to them, unless his conscience and reasoning cease to work or he does not want to be corrected. (3)

DISAGREEMENT OVER QUR’ANIC INTERPRETATIONS

Given the disagreement about a historical event despite overwhelming agreement on its record by both sides, one can only imagine the disagreement over arguments relying on the Qur’an, given its admitted ambiguity. Perusing, for example, Chapter 4, “Al-Baqir’s Views on the Imamate,” of Arzina Lalani’s “Early Shi’i Thought: The Teachings of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir” offers a flavour of this, vis a vis the Imamat. In it, she discusses some of the Qur’anic verses — including 5:55, 5:67, 5:3, 4:59, 4:83, 4:51, 4:53, 4:54, 4:58, 9:119, 9:105, 2:143, 3:5 [sic, 3:7], 35:32, 42:22 [sic, 42:23], 64:8, 57:28, 6:122, 33:6, 43:28, 33:33, 17:71 — cited and interpreted by the 4th/5th Imam (i) revered by all Shia, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, in his defence of the Imamat. Needless to say, the Sunni have their own interpretations for each of these verses.

While some of the Sunni interpretations appear strained to Shia ears, the Shia interpretation of others can only be understood as referring to the Imamat when explained by the Imams themselves, giving rise to suggestions of self-serving interpretations. Other verses, like the historical record, have been subjected to similar hair-splitting debates over the Arabic and its grammar, perhaps none more so than 3:7 where the debate quite literally rages over the placement of a full stop.

SETTING THE GROUND RULES FOR A NEW APPROACH

Leaving aside those ambiguous verses that require the Imamat to explain they refer to the Imamat, past attempts to validate the Imamat from the Qur’an were, in general, based on arguing a specific interpretation of what were, hopefully, “smoking gun” verses that one could then point to and proclaim, “Here, clear verses where Allah ordained the Imamat.” However, the fact is that such “smoking gun” verses are few and far between — if they are to be found at all, given the disagreements over interpretation, as explained above. Furthermore, even if they are very clear when read in a certain light, it is precisely because they need to be read in that certain light and then argued in isolation, that they do not, in my opinion, provide substantive, let alone conclusive, evidence.

Consequently, inspired by the Ismaili position mentioned above, it began to dawn on me that perhaps there was an alternative approach — at least for me — to resolve the dual quagmires of contradictory historical records and Qur’anic interpretations. However, several severe constraints were first needed. The “Ground Rules” as it were.

Furthermore, surely it is self-evident that answers must be found in the “plain verses,” and not the ambiguous ones, for otherwise we would have an unresolvable paradox that the instructions on how we are to acquire the correct meaning of the Qur’an’s ambiguous verses, were themselves be cloaked in ambiguity.

QUR’ANIC THREADS: TAKING UP THE INVITATION OF VERSE 4:82

The problem, however, is that the unambiguous verses do not come specially identified. And, since merely quoting a verse from the Qur’an implies interpretation, the first question which arises about a verse is whether or not it is one of the ambiguous verses. If the verse is not sufficiently clear by itself to be excluded from the ambiguous verses, then — rather than trying to justify the interpretation semantically, parsing words or Arabic, or resorting to the historical context of the verse — perhaps other verses can be brought to bear and corroborate the interpretation offered and thereby settle issue with evidence. In fact the verse:

Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity. (Qur’an 4:82)

invites us to validate our interpretations by reconciling them with other parts of the Qur’an to and iron out any “apparent” inconsistencies our (mis)understandings create. Therefore, rather than trying to find and interpret a single “smoking gun” verse, argued and relied on in isolation, to justify Imamat, I use what I call Qur’anic Threads.

Qur’anic Threads propose a conclusion that arises from a set of mutually supportive, interlocking Observations related to a single concept with each Observation substantiated from a set of verses. It seems self-evident that if the Qur’an has no discrepancies, per 4:82 above, then surely it must neither have discrepancies at the micro (verse) level nor at macro (conceptual or “thread”) level. Therefore, if the thesis behind a thread is valid, threads will give interpretations credence, objectivity, coherence, resilience and stability because well formed threads are internally consistent from several perspectives and thus threads provide robust, perhaps even conclusive, lines of evidence and argument which are able to better withstand challenge as compared to individual, “smoking gun” verses argued in isolation.

INSPIRATION FOR A FRESH PERSPECTIVE AND A CORRESPONDING NEW APPROACH

Although the aforementioned constraints prevents the demonstration from getting mired once again in the quicksands of parsing Arabic, personal interpretations of allegorical verses and conflicting historical records, they appear, superficially, to be unreasonably severe rendering it all but impossible to accomplish anything. Hope, however, lies in precise notions articulated in the Ismaili explanation of the Shia position, highlighted below:

[T]he Shia’s espousal of the right of Ali and that of his descendants, through Fatima, to the leadership of the community was rooted, above all, in their understanding of the Qur’an and its concept of qualified and rightly guided leadership, as reinforced by Prophetic traditions. [Emphasis added] (2)

Namely, that the Qur’an sets out two criteria for valid leadership: qualified and rightly guided. Here now were precise, specific criteria that could be tested objectively — as opposed to the subjective duels of linguists and historians — exactly as verse 4:82 proposes in the same spirit of scientific inquiry. Perhaps this is why Imam Jafar al-Sadiq said “Intellect (‘aql) is that by which Allah is worshipped and a place in Paradise earned” (5) and the Holy Prophet said:

To listen to the words of the learned and to instil into others the lessons of science is better than religious exercises. (8)

The Ismaili explanation of the Shia position and these two criteria beg the question: Does the Qur’an indeed declare a notion of “qualified and rightly guided leadership?” And if it does, then it prompts several fundamental questions:

i) What qualifications make one “qualified and rightly guided” to lead?
ii) Who are the “qualified” to lead and who are “the rightly guided?”
iii) And most importantly, can they be identified?

Individually, each answer would be of immense value. Collectively, however, the conclusion they offer may well be unassailable. Surprisingly the answers are neither as obscure nor as surprising as one might imagine.

To investigate the Qur’anic position on the previous questions, three Threads (corresponding roughly to each question) were developed. Each thread is depicted in single page chart, which can be read independently of the commentary which follows each.

Continued in the document linked below

CLICK ON ANY THUMBNAIL TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL ARTICLE,
THE 3 THREAD CHARTS AND THEIR RELATED COMMENTARY


Qur'anic Threads: Towards validating Manifest Imamat from the Qur'an alone

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mohib Ebrahim is the Editor and Publisher of the NanoWisdoms Archive of Imamat Speeches, Interviews and Writings. The Archive is a unique Website dedicated solely to the Ismaili Imamat’s knowledge and has been granted special permission to reproduce His Highness the Aga Khan’s speeches. With over 500 readings and 1,000 quotes it is the most comprehensive, public collection of Imamat knowledge available today.

An honours graduate of Simon Fraser University in Computer Science and Mathematics, Mohib has been involved in software development and the IT industry since the ’80s. His current project, MasterFile, is a state-of-the-art evidence system for academic researchers, investigators, and litigators. Mohib may be reached at: mohib[at]sent.com

OTHER ARTICLES BY THE AUTHOR

Truth, Reality and Religion: On the use of Knowledge and Intellect in Deen and Dunia


Validating the Shia Imamat Part 1: The Qur’an on the Holders of Authority

$
0
0

Validating the Shia Imamat – Part 1: The Qur’an on the Holders of Authority

By Mohib Ebrahim

CLICK BELOW TO ENLARGE AND READ THREAD 1

COMMENTARY TO THREAD I

Note firstly that, Allah informs us that He does not change His practices:

Such is the way of God concerning those who passed away before, and never shall you find in the way of God any change. (Qur’an 33:62, S.V. Mir Ahmed Ali translation)

As set out from the verses cited, prior to Prophet Mohammad, Allah limited “command” or “leadership for mankind” exclusively to those who were either purified, faultless, righteous, not among the wrong-doers or disbelievers, and so forth. Then, consistent with this historical practice, Allah, in his last and final revelation (i.e. the Qur’an), instructs mankind not to obey those who have sinned or who are disbelievers. More particularly, in verse 4:59, Allah instructs those who believe to follow Him, the Prophet and “those of you who are in authority.”

Exactly who are “those in authority” has been the subject of much debate, with the Sunni insisting they may be any ruler while the Shia insisting they may only be someone pure and faultless since it makes little sense for Allah to command mankind to follow Allah and the Prophet, both of whom are pure and faultless, as well as any other ruler irrespective of their character or virtue or faith or knowledge. For, it is self-evident that if “those who are in authority” were also not pure, like Allah and the Messenger, they will make mistakes and, thus by definition, cannot be rightly guided. Consequently, to avoid being misled by such leaders, others with more knowledge would have to double-check them rendering such leaders redundant and undermining the legitimacy of their claim as rightly guided leadership.

Nevertheless, leaving aside the rational arguments as to who “those in authority” may or may not be, our methodology, when faced with conflicting interpretations, is to invoke 4:82 and see if other verses bring clarity to what is intended. If the Sunni position is correct, and “those in authority” neither have to be pure and faultless nor be of the same family from which those with “command” and “leadership for mankind” were previously appointed, then this would be, as per the verses cited:

i)  inconsistent with Allah’s final command in the Qur’an not to obey those have sinned or who were disbelievers and render it impossible to follow,

ii)  inconsistent with Allah’s steadfast, unyielding practice — going as far back as the Qur’an speaks to — to appoint mankind’s leadership for him,

iii)  inconsistent with Allah’s steadfast, unyielding practice — going as far back as the Qur’an speaks to — to vest leadership only in the pure and the faultless, and

iv)  inconsistent with Allah’s steadfast, unyielding practice — going as far back as the Qur’an speaks to — to vest leadership with the righteous of the same family.

Furthermore and notwithstanding the above, the Sunni position — that “those in authority” do not need to be pure and faultless — is just an interpretation since there aren’t, to my knowledge, any verses in the Qur’an stating that Allah left mankind free to choose their own leaders and/or that mankind’s kind leadership do not have to be pure and faultless (and breaking with His historical practices of ii, iii and iv above and in contradiction to verse 33:62). On the other hand, the verses of the Thread speak directly to and establish the contrary. It is self-evident what is explained, understandable and corroborated by several verses takes precedence over an interpretation, with no corresponding verses to substantiate the interpretation.

Since the interpretation allowing “those in authority” to be impure, generates all these (and other) inconsistencies while the contrary interpretation clears them all, then by verse 4:82 — that the Qur’an is free of any inconsistencies — the acceptable interpretation is that “those in authority” must be the pure.

Since we are unable to judge — perfectly and without error — who are the pure, Thread III will address the apparently impossible command not to follow disbelievers or those who have sinned. Indeed, Allah has said He will judge wherein we differ (42:10, 22:67-69, 5:48, 39:46, 6:164, etc.) thus precluding us from even making such assessments.

CLICK ON ANY THUMBNAIL TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL ARTICLE,
THE 3 THREAD CHARTS AND THEIR RELATED COMMENTARY

Qur'anic Threads: Towards validating Manifest Imamat from the Qur'an alone


Validating the Shia Imamat – Part 2: The Qur’an on the Purified and Rightly-Guided Possessors of Knowledge

$
0
0

Validating the Shia Imamat – Part 2: The Qur’an on the Purified and Rightly-Guided Possessors of Knowledge

By Mohib Ebrahim

CLICK TO ENLARGE AND READ

COMMENTARY TO THREAD II

Since this thread is concerned with the question of how we are to acquire the correct meaning of the Qur’an, as explained previously, it is self-evident that the verses which will provide the answer must themselves not be among the ambiguous verses for otherwise we have an intractable paradox: the Qur’an’s instructions on how to obtain the correct meaning of itself cannot be understood because the instructions themselves are ambiguous. Therefore, out of necessity, we have no option but to take all verses relevant to answering this question at their face value, at least as far as their interpretation is relevant for this issue.

When it comes to acquiring the correct meaning of the Qur’an there are three key questions:

a)  Is the Qur’an fully understandable by all?

b)  If not, then are the parts which are not understandable by everyone understood by anyone, other than Allah?

c)  If they are, how can we identify them?

With respect to question (a), verse 3:7 explicitly states that some verses of the Qur’an are plain to understand, while others are allegorical, therefore questions (b) and (c) become pertinent.

With respect to question (b) several verses cited clearly indicate that some do indeed understand the whole Qur’an. In particular verses 29:49, 56:75-80 and 75:17-19, which are discussed below.

VERSES 3:7 (FIRST HALF) AND 29:49

Firstly, from the first part of 3:7 we know parts of the Qur’an are plain for everyone to understand and therefore confirm there is a common base of knowledge everyone has in order to understand those clear parts, yet 29:49 (and 41:3, 6:98, 6:105) speaks of a special group who have been granted additional knowledge to make the Qur’an “clear”. Since this additional knowledge is not needed to understand the plain parts (because everyone can already understand them) it is reasonable to assume the knowledge is for understanding the ambiguous parts mentioned in 3:7, which not everyone can understand. Having such knowledge to understand those parts, would make the Qur’an, for them, fully explained just as 6:114 says the Qur’an is.

VERSES 56:75-80

Similarly verses 56:75-80 speak of the Qur’an being hidden which none can touch except the purified. It is self-evident that this cannot refer “touching” the physical Qur’an simply because many have defiled the physical Qur’an and such people are not considered “pure” by any definition. Nevertheless, Allah has said the Qur’an has been hidden from everyone except the pure which means, therefore, some other attribute of the Qur’an and not the physical Qur’an is hidden. The question is what attribute is not hidden for the purified?

Thread I set out that, prior to Prophet Mohammad, Allah reserved leadership only for the pure. Similarly, Allah informs us in the verses cited in this thread, that, in the past, scripture and guidance (i.e. knowledge) was also only vested with the pure. Consistent with this, in this, His final revelation, Allah confirms, once and for all, in 6:82, only the pure are rightly guided (i.e. have knowledge of scripture). In other words, only the pure have ever had, or ever will have, that special knowledge of scripture — over and above what everyone already has — that makes them rightly guided.

Summarising the above we have:

i)  In the past, only the pure were ever vested with knowledge of scripture and rightly guided.

ii)  Only the pure will ever be rightly guided (and thus have the knowledge of scripture to be rightly guided).

iii)  The Qur’an is fully explained and also, per 29:49 (and other verses listed), a special group of people is vested with additional knowledge that makes the Qur’an “clear” to them. In other words, they are vested knowledge of scripture and would thus be rightly guided.

iv)  The Qur’an is not “hidden” for the pure. In other words, the pure (who are rightly guided by definition) are vested with knowledge of scripture.

It is self-evident then that those with the knowledge of scripture which makes the Qur’an clear to them, are the pure. Or, in the converse, what is hidden about the Qur’an (per 56:75-80) for all except the pure, is knowledge of scripture.

Finally, verses 75:17-19 inform us we are to only follow His explanation of the Qur’an. Clearly, the plain verses mentioned in 3:7 above do not require Allah’s explanation, and so the explanations spoken of in 75:17-19 must refer to the explanations of allegorical verses. Therefore it is self-evident if none are vested with that knowledge, we can not get His explanation that He has asked us follow. As we know, and also set out above, Allah speaks to us by vesting knowledge of scripture with the pure and so when the pure — who have been granted that knowledge which makes the Qur’an clear to them — explain the Qur’an to us, they are explaining it to us the way Allah wishes it to be explained, providing us with His explanation that we are to follow, exactly as described in 75:17-19.

VERSE 3:7 (SECOND HALF)

Finally, we come to the second half of verse 3:7, a verse which like 4:59 of Thread I has been the subject of much debate between the Sunni and Shia. The disagreement arises, quite literally, over the placement of a full stop. The Sunni version of the verse is:

He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations – they are the substance of the Book – and others (which are) allegorical…. None knoweth its [the allegorical verses'] explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed. (Qur’an 3:7, Pickthall)

While the Shia version of the ending is:

… None knoweth its [the allegorical verses'] explanation save Allah and those who are of sound instruction. They say: ‘We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord’ but only men of understanding really heed. (Qur’an 3:7, Pickthall, modified according to Shia belief)

The difference (underlined) being whether Allah alone knows the meaning of the allegorical verses, or Allah and “those of sound instruction” — or “those firmly rooted in knowledge” as given in other translations — both know the meanings.

As before, when faced with such conflicts our methodology is to invoke 4:82 and see if other verses bring clarity to what is intended, rather than resorting to parsing the Arabic or examining the historical record.

If the Sunni position is correct — that everyone has the knowledge to understand the plain verses of the Qur’an but only Allah knows the meaning of the allegorical verses — then this would be:

i)  Inconsistent with 6:114 which informs us that the Qur’an is fully explained.

ii)  Inconsistent with verses 29:49 (and other verses listed) and 56:75-80 which, as explained above, inform us that some — the pure — have been granted special knowledge to understand the whole Qur’an.

iii)  Inconsistent with verses 75:17-19 which direct us to only follow Allah’s explanation of the Qur’an. However this command is impossible to follow since He has not vested anyone with the knowledge to provide us with His explanation.

On the other hand, if the Shia version is correct — that there are some vested with knowledge to understand the allegorical — this would corroborate and be consistent with:

i)  verse 6:114 that the Qur’an is fully explained,

ii)  verses 29:49 (and the other verses listed) and 56:75-80 which, as explained above, inform us that some — the pure — have been granted special knowledge to understand the whole Qur’an,

iii)  verse 75:17-19 which, as explained above, directs us to only follow Allah’s explanation of the Qur’an, which is only possible if some are vested with His knowledge to pass on to us.

Furthermore and notwithstanding all of the above, the Sunni position — that only Allah knows the meaning of the allegorical verses — is just an interpretation of 3:7 since there aren’t, to my knowledge, any verses in the Qur’an stating only Allah knows the meaning of the allegorical verses. On the other hand, the verses of the Thread speak directly to and establish the contrary. And so, as with Thread I, what is explained, understandable and corroborated by several verses takes precedence over an interpretation, with no corresponding verses to substantiate the interpretation.

Since the Sunni interpretation of 3:7, generates all these inconsistencies while the Shia interpretation clears them all then by verse 4:82 — that the Qur’an is free of any inconsistencies — the acceptable interpretation is that Allah and others know the meaning of the allegorical verses.

From the above, we now also have the answer to question (c), posed at the start of the commentary for this thread, and the identifying characteristic of those who have the knowledge to understand the whole Qur’an is they are the purified. As was pointed out with leadership, in Thread I, it is self-evident that if who interpret the Qur’an were also not pure, like the Messenger, they will make mistakes and, thus by definition, cannot be rightly guided. Consequently, to avoid being misled by such interpreters, others with more knowledge would have to double-check them would not only render such interpreters redundant but also undermine the legitimacy of their claim to interpret as the rightly guided.

However, as with Thread I, we are again left with an seemingly impossible situation of knowing who are the pure.

CLICK ON ANY THUMBNAIL TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL ARTICLE,
THE 3 THREAD CHARTS AND THEIR RELATED COMMENTARY

Qur'anic Threads: Towards validating Manifest Imamat from the Qur'an alone


Validating the Shia Imamat – Part 3: The Qur’an on the Purified Descendants of the Prophets

$
0
0

Validating the Shia Imamat – Part 3: The Qur’an on the Purified Descendants of the Prophets

By Mohib Ebrahim

CLICK TO ENLARGE AND READ

COMMENTARY TO THREAD III

There is no disagreement among all Muslims — Sunni and Shia — that:

i)  Only Allah purifies.

ii)  The Prophets, being purified by Allah and having knowledge of scripture, are rightly guided.

iii)  That the Prophets mentioned in the Qur’an — including Prophet Muhammad — are from the same “seed,” i.e. family line.

iv)  That Allah promised Abraham leadership among the righteous of his “seed.”

v)  As per verse 33:33, the Ahl al-bayt, i.e. the People of the Prophet’s Household, are purified by Allah.

What is contested is whether or not all of the Prophet’s wives and/or the progeny of the Prophet are included as members of the Ahl al-bayt and thus purified.

According to the Shia, citing the historical record, when 33:33 was revealed the Prophet indicated that along with himself, only Hazrat Ali and his wife — the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima — and their two sons, Hussan and Hussein, were his Ahl al-bayt. Prophetic tradition — such as those from Ghadir Khumm discussed earlier — extend the Ahl al-bayt to include the Shia of Imams arising from Hussein’s progeny. The Sunni disagree. They include some or all of the Prophet’s wives and exclude any further progeny from the Ahl al-bayt. Whether or not the Prophet’s wives are included as part of the Ahl al-bayt is not relevant to the issue of Imamat, but the Prophet’s progeny is of course fundamental, for if they are, then according to 33:33 they are purified and have automatic right to leadership and are vested with the knowledge to interpret the Qur’an.

As was done with Threads I and II, when faced with conflicting interpretations, our methodology is to invoke 4:82 and see if other verses can resolve the conflict.

Observation 9 summarises the conclusions of Threads I and II, that (a) on the matter of leadership we are instructed to obey the pure and (b) on the matter of interpretation of the Qur’an, it is fully explained and that explanation lies with the purified. Leaving aside the issue of the Prophet’s progeny, the fact that the Sunni position doesn’t even insist that the purified are required to fulfil these two conditions is itself inconsistent with the Qur’an. The question, therefore, is not if the purified must be present among each generation, but rather, who are they?

It is self-evident that, during the Prophet’s lifetime, these two conditions were met by the Prophet himself. Similarly it is also self-evident that:

i)  if each generation after the Prophet are to obey Allah’s instructions to only follow purified leaders, and

ii)  if the Qur’an is to be fully explained, in perpetuity, as Allah promises,

then a purified person must live with each generation after the Prophet. That two conditions require the purified to satisfy them doubly confirms the necessity of a purified among each generation.

As Observation 10 notes, we must be informed by Allah who are purified since we are not able to make that judgement by ourselves since our knowledge is limited and not perfect. At the Prophet’s time, Allah only identified the Ahl al-bayt — i.e. the People of [Mohammad's] House — as purified. If the purified, who are to fulfil the above two conditions in each generation, do not come from the Ahl al-bayt, then we have no way of identifying them — since Allah doesn’t inform us that any other family will be purified after the Prophet — and thus it becomes impossible to fulfil or meet the above two conditions. This would be a significant inconsistency in the Qur’an.

On the other hand, Threads I and II expound — in consistency with the Shia position that purified in each generation are part of the Ahl al-bayt — that, historically (going as far back as the Qur’an speaks to) all the purified have descended from, or are members of, one “house,” i.e. family, and furthermore, Allah promised that He would continue to appoint the righteous from the same “house” (the House of Abraham) as leaders for Mankind, i.e. they will be the purified, per Thread I. And consistent with this and verse 33:62 — where Allah informs us that He does not change His practices — there aren’t, to my knowledge, any verses in which Allah indicates He has terminated this practice or rescinded his promise to Abraham and therefore we have no reason whatsoever to assume the purified will not continue to be appointed from one family — indeed the same family they were appointed from prior to the Prophet. Failure, therefore, to find such a continuous lineage of the purified after the Prophet, descended from the Prophet, would again result in a serious failing in the order the Qur’an lays down for mankind.

On the other hand that there is such a lineage, and critically only one such claimed lineage of “qualified rightly guided leadership”, i.e. leadership appointed by Allah, at the very least corroborates or at best confirms the Qur’an (depending on one’s insight into the evidence). That lineage is the lineage of the Shia Ismaili Imams, of whom His Highness the Aga Khan is the 49th hereditary Imam. As his predecessor, Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah, Aga Khan III, said:

If those who believe that Hazrat Ali was the rightful successor of the Prophet to be the ‘Ulu’l-amr Menkom [then they] must accept the principle of that succession — for the same reasons they accept in the case of Hazrat Ali — his rightful Imam descendants. [T]he Spiritual Imamat remained with Hazrat Ali and remains with his direct descendants always alive till the Day of Judgement. That a spiritual succession to the Imamat makes the Imam the ‘Ulu’l-amr Menkom always according to the Qur’an and though he has his moral claim to the Khalifat as well, always he can, like Hazrat Ali himself owing to the conditions of the world, accept and support such worldly authorities as the Imam believes help the cause of Islam. (12)

Observations 11 and 12, and verse 36:12 quoted in the conclusion of the thread are not critical to the argument but offered merely to illustrate how allegorical verses — when viewed through the prism of the foregoing — assume a corroborative air or quality, consistent with the necessity of a lineage of purified, descended from the Prophet, living among each generation.

CLICK ON ANY THUMBNAIL TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL ARTICLE,
THE 3 THREAD CHARTS AND THEIR RELATED COMMENTARY

Qur'anic Threads: Towards validating Manifest Imamat from the Qur'an alone


Light upon Light: Glimpses into the Succession of the Shia Ismaili Imams

$
0
0

“The Ismaili Imamat is a supra-national entity, representing the succession of Imams since the time of the Prophet.”  
- Imam Shāh Karīm al-Ḥusaynī Āgā Khān IV

View 2 Minute Intro Video

Introduction

AkPlatinum

“In the early hours of July 11, the Aga’s heart-beat weakened.  Aly and Sadruddin were summoned to the Barakat but their dying father could no longer speak.  Karim came and the Begum was still keeping up her vigil.  Four doctors were in attendance and nurses left the sick-room only to change their clothes or take a bite.  At midday, the Aga Khan was sleeping peacefully.  Forty minutes later his life slipped quietly away… The curtains were drawn and darkness fell over a great figure of the age.”
(Willi Frischauer, The Aga Khans, 1970, p. 206)

The above narrative describes one of the most difficult moments faced by every generation of Isma‘ili Muslim communities: the death of the Imam.  This moment is immediately followed by another of equal intensity: the succession of the next Imam.  Ultimately, these events amount to a period of trial for the Isma‘ili community as it is a time when they must say goodbye to the Imam whom they have respected, venerated and loved for nearly a lifetime and subsequently transfer all these sentiments to their new Imam.  At the same time, the community must come to understand the true nature of this change: in reality, nothing has really changed at all.  Despite the death of the Imam, the Imam remains ever-more, albeit in a different guise.   In Shi‘a Isma‘ili Islam, the succession of the Imamate – including the demise of the predecessor and the enthronement of his successor – is an event which combines both clarity as well as ambiguity.  The face of the succession is clear – this Imam has succeeded that Imam.  But the underlying matters are nebulous and in modern times are often subject to speculation: How is the next Imam chosen? Does the Imam-to-be know of his own status beforehand? Was he prepared for his function?  Why does the Imamate continue in a single line of male descent?  This article will explore these questions pertaining to the Isma‘ili Imamate and the matter of succession in light of some of the historical sources from the intellectual heritage of Shi‘a Isma‘ili Islam.

Historical Overview

“In time, the Shia were also sub-divided over this question, so that today the Ismailis are the only Shia community who, throughout history, have been led by a living, hereditary Imam in direct descent from the Prophet.
- Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan IV

ShiaIslam_Updated Image

The Isma’ili Muslims are a branch of Shi‘a Islam which traces the religious and spiritual authority of the Prophet Muhammad through his cousin and son-in-law ‘Ali, the first Imam (spiritual leader) and thereafter by heredity through the Imam’s descendants.  The Isma‘ilis are so called because following the death of the fifth Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, they accepted his elder son Isma‘il as his legitimate successor to the Imamate and traced the Imamate among the lineal descendants of Isma‘il.  Meanwhile, the majority of the Shi‘a, later known as the Ithna ‘Ashari (Twelvers) traced the Imamate through Imam Ja’far’s younger son Musa al-Kadhim and through a few more generations until the disappearance of their twelfth Imam in the ninth century.

The Isma‘ili branch was itself subdivided upon the death of their nineteenth Imam, al-Mustansir-bi’llah, with the Nizari Isma‘ilis accepting his son and heir-designate Abu Mansur Nizar as the next Imam while the other branch known as the Must‘alian Isma‘ilis followed another son Ahmad Must‘ali.  The Must‘alian Imams were believed to have gone into concealment a few generations later and are now represented by da‘is who lead the communities.  The Nizari Isma‘ilis were further subdivided over the succession to their twenty-first Imam Shams al-Din Muhammad.  One group followed his younger son[i] Qasim Shah as their Imam while the other followed Muhammad Shah – these groups being known as the Qasim-shahi Nizaris and Muhammad-shahi Nizaris.

Today, the Imam of the Nizari Qasimshahi Isma‘ilis is His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan IV known to his murids as ‘Mawlana Hazar Imam’ (our lord the present Imam).  The Muhammad-shahi community lost contact with its last known Imam, Muhammad Baqir, in the nineteenth century and the bulk of this community transferred its allegiance to the Qasim-shahi Imamat during the Imamate of Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III, the predecessor and grandfather of the present Imam.  Technically the term “Isma‘ili” embraces all those Shi‘a groups which affirm the Imamate of Isma‘il ibn Jafar.  In the present time, the term ‘Isma‘ili Muslims’ is most often used to designate to the Nizari Qasim-shahi branch lead by the Aga Khan.  Through all the various schisms that have occurred within the Shi‘a community, the matter of succession to the Imamate was of paramount importance and became the determining factor of these events.

[i] According to some sources, Qasimshah was the grandson of Shams al-Din Muhammad.  See Shafique Virani, The Isma‘ilis in the Middle Ages, p. 85.

‘Direct Descendants, one from the other…’

0007amyn

“Ever since the time of my ancestor ‘Ali, the first Imam, that is to say over a period of thirteen hundred years, it has always been the tradition of our family that each Imam chooses his successor at his absolute and unfettered discretion from amongst any of his descendants whether they be sons or remoter male issue…”
- Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III

The matter of succession in the Isma‘ili Imamate is based upon two key factors.  The Imam possesses two marks of authenticity which, in effect, support and prove his claims to the Imamate.  The first of these is the Imam’s physical descent from the preceding Imams; the second is the explicit appointment or designation, known as nass, which the predecessor Imam has made for the succeeding Imam.  These two elements, lineage and designation (nass), signify two kinds of relationships – a physical connection and the spiritual connection – by which people of any age can attain the recognition of the Imam. Thus, the physical genealogy of the Imam effectively narrows down and restricts the possible candidates to the Imamat at any given time to the direct descendants of the previous Imams. The designation of the Imam by his predecessor further specifies the legitimate holder of the office of Imamate to its rightful claimant. Therefore, it must be noted that both the lineage of the Imams and the designation exist for the sake of humankind recognizing the true Imam at any given period of history.

The fact that the Imamate remains among one particular line of descent has been subject to questioning and debate, particularly in the modern age.  Inaccurate viewpoints have compared the Imamate to a political dynasty of kingship and others have sought to delegitimize the notion of familial and hereditary authority in the name of equal opportunity and democracy.  What is often neglected in such debates is that the Imamate is primarily an Islamic institution and model of leadership and as such it is a faithful reflection of principles which are laid out in the Holy Qur’an – the sacred scripture of Islam.  Historically, the Imamate is an institution which succeeds to and continues the spiritual, religious and moral authority of Prophet Muhammad – who is viewed by Muslims as the last in a long line of Prophets whom God has sent to humanity over the ages.  As such, the Imamate possesses certain traits in common with the model of Prophetic authority that the Holy Qur’an describes in many of its verses.

Firstly, the Isma‘ili Imamate is connected to the Prophet Muhammad through blood relations and heredity.  The first Imam, Hazrat ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, who is the progenitor of all the Shi‘a Imams, was the first cousin of the Prophet sharing with him a common grandfather, Hazrat ‘Abd al-Muttalib.  The Imamate is also linked to the Prophet through his sole surviving child, Hazrat Bibi Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet, who was given in marriage to Hazrat ‘Ali.  As the Prophet left no male progeny, his lineage survives through his daughter who, as the wife of the first Imam, is like the matriarch of all the Imams in their progeny.

The idea that the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad must be from his family and progeny is not merely based on dynastic ambitions, politics or Arabian tribalism.  Rather, the concept of Prophetic succession through family is made evident in the Holy Qur’an in its own narrative regarding the stories of the past Prophets.   Prophet Muhammad was himself the last in a long line of Prophets and his succession should be consistent with that of his predecessors who were also succeeded by their family members and descendants.  The sanctity and prominence of the families of the Prophets is one of the key principles established in the Holy Qur’an.  For example, the Qur’an speaks about Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) being succeeded by his two sons Hazrat Isma’il and Hazrat Ishaq (Isaac), and Ishaq in turn being succeeded by his son Yaqub (Jacob).  Hazrat Yaqub was in turn succeeded by his son Hazrat Yusuf (Joseph).  Hazrat Musa (Moses) was helped and succeeded by his brother Harun (Aaron).  Hazrat Dawud (David) who was both a king and prophet was inherited by his son Hazrat Sulayman (Solomon).  The Prophet Zakariyyah (Zechariah) prayed to his Lord for a son to succeed him and this prayer was answered in the form of Hazrat Yahya (John).  In fact, according to S.M. Jafri, the verses which speak about the special status of the families and progeny of various Prophets number to over a hundred in the Holy Qur’an.

In this respect, there must be noted the Quranic concept of the exalted and virtuous family, whose favour in the eyes of God derives from their righteous deeds and services in the cause of God. In all ages the prophets have been particularly concerned with ensuring that the special favour of God bestowed upon them for the guidance of man be maintained in their families and pass to their progeny. The Quran repeatedly speaks of the prophets praying to God for their progeny and asking Him to continue His guidance in their lineages. In the answer to these prayers, the verses of the Qur’an bear direct testimony to the special favour of God being granted to the direct descendants of the prophets to keep their fathers’ covenants intact, to become true examples of their fathers’ righteousness, and to keep fast to the path of righteousness set by these prophets. Four terms are repeatedly used in the Qur’an to express God’s special favour for the descendants of the prophets: Dhurriya, ‘Aal, Ahl, and Qurba.  The total number of verses that mention special favour requested for and granted to the families of the various prophets by God runs to over a hundred in the Quran.
(S. M. Jafri, The Origins and Development of Shia Islam, Chapter 1, Beirut, 1976)

Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) occupies a central place for the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions.  He is acknowledged as the ‘father of monotheism’ and these faiths and their members trace their spiritual ancestry back to him.  In the Qur’anic narrative, a special status is particularly given to Prophet Ibrahim and his descendants.  Prophet Ibrahim is said to have completed God’s trials, and is thereafter Divinely appointed as an Imam (leader) of mankind. He prays to his Lord that this status is bestowed upon his descendants as well:

And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: “I will make thee an Imam of mankind.” He pleaded: “And also (Imams) from my offspring!” He answered: “But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers.” - Holy Quran 2:124

God accepts Ibrahim’s prayer on the condition that only the righteous and just among his progeny will be appointed as Imams.  This Qur’anic verse is significant because it establishes two principles about the Shi‘a Imamate as a model of Islamic leadership.  Firstly, the Imams who bear the Imamate are not appointed by the whims of common people; rather, like the Messengers themselves, the Imams – who sustain, preserve and interpret the Divine Message – are Divinely appointed.  Secondly, all the Imams are to be from the descendants of Ibrahim.  It is significant to note that the Prophet Muhammad and his cousin ‘Ali, the first hereditary Imam of Shi‘a Islam, are acknowledged in Arabian and Islamic traditions as descending from Ibrahim through his elder son Isma’il.  This also means that the Isma‘ili Imams, through the lineage that goes back to their forefather Imam ‘Ali, are also the direct descendants of Ibrahim.  There are also numerous other verses which speak about the unique status and rights which God has bestowed upon the descendants of Prophet Ibrahim[i].  The verse shown below seems to confirm this:

Or are they jealous of mankind because of that which Allah of His bounty hath bestowed upon them? For We bestowed upon the House of Abraham (‘aala ibrahima) the Book (al-kitaba) and the Wisdom (al-hikmata), and We bestowed on them a Mighty Kingdom. - Holy Quran 4:54

The Holy Bible also affirms the special place of Ibrahim and his descendants, such as in the following verse from the Book of Genesis where God speaks to Abraham:

As for Me, this is My covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. - Holy Bible, Genesis 17:7

Using biblical data, one can also trace back the lineage of Ibrahim to Nuh (Noah) and Adam – great Prophets and patriarchs for Jews, Christians and Muslims.  The following verse of the Holy Qur’an affirms this single lineage which continues today in the line of the hereditary Shi‘a Isma‘ili Imams.

Verily, God did choose Adam and Nuh (Noah), the progeny (‘aal) of Ibrahim (Abraham), and the progeny (‘aal) of Imran above all the worlds (‘alamin), descendants (dhurriyyah), one from the other: And God heareth and knoweth all things. - Holy Quran 3:33-34

The historical identity of Imran – last name in the above verse – is ambiguous and has been subject to different interpretations – the most common being that Imran refers to the father of Musa or the father of Maryam (Virgin Mary) as both are mentioned within the Qur’an.  The Shi‘a and particularly Isma‘ili interpretations state that the name Imran in the above verse refers to the father of Imam ‘Ali, whose popular name or kunya was Abu Talib whereas his proper name was, in fact, Imran.[ii]   In this sense, the Shi‘a understand the words ‘aal Imran (Progeny of Imran) in the verse to be the hereditary Shi‘a Imams who are the children (‘aal) of Abu Talib (Imran).  The logic of this interpretation is clear from the very structure of the verse.  Adam, Nuh and Ibrahim are direct descendants of one another (which can be ascertained from the Book of Genesis) and all three names occur in chronological order.  Therefore, in keeping with the structure of the verse, Imran and the Progeny of Imran must come chronologically after Abraham and the Progeny of Ibrahim.  For all Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad as the greatest Prophet is undoubtedly included as part of the Progeny of Ibrahim.  The Prophet Ibrahim had two sons – Isma‘il and Ishaq – and the Israelite Prophets including Musa, Dawud and Isa descend from Ishaq while the Prophet Muhammad descends from Isma‘il.  Therefore, Imran and the Progeny of Imran cannot refer to people who came before the Prophet Muhammad – otherwise, the chronological structure of the verse is broken.  This eliminates the possibility of Imran referring to the father of Musa or the father of Maryam because both personalities lived before the Prophet Muhammad (who is a member of Abraham’s Progeny).  Furthermore, both the father of Musa and the father of Maryam would already be included among the Progeny of Ibrahim via Ishaq.  The only consistent interpretation of the verse would chronologically place Imran at most contemporary to the Prophet Muhammad and place the Progeny of Imran after the Prophet Muhammad.  The only reading which is faithful to this structure is when Imran is understood as Abu Talib and the Progeny of Imran is understood as Abu Talib’s lineal descendants beginning with ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, the first Shi‘a Imam.

While the Imamate continues in a male[iii] line of descent, this should not be understood as a deprecation of the feminine.  It is often forgotten that the Shi‘a Imams’ claim to be the direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad is not through male but female descent – as embodied in Fatima the daughter of the Prophet. This is the reason why the Isma‘ili Imams chose the name al-fatimiyyah (the Fatimids) when they established Islam’s only Shi‘i Caliphate in the 10th century, the only Muslim dynasty to be named after a woman.  In addition to the Prophet and Fatima, the key figures from whom the lineage of Imamate stems are Imam ‘Ali and Imam Husayn. ‘Ali, as the first Imam in the series, is considered to be the prototype and the forefather of all the Imams.  Imam ‘Ali was succeeded as Imam by both of his sons – Imam al-Hasan who was an Entrusted Imam (al-imam al-mustawda) and Imam al-Husayn who was the Permanent Imam (al-imam al-mustaqarr) in whose blessed line the Imamate dwells and continues.[iv]  In other words, the Isma‘ili Imams are ‘Alid, Husaynid, and Fatimid – by virtue of which they are Muhammadan.

While the matter of the Imams’ lineage is important, it should not be overestimated. Being a descendant of Imam ‘Ali or other Imams does not automatically make one an Imam as well. It should not be forgotten that the both nass (designation) and lineage are required.  The concept of nass does not translate to mere appointment.  This designation is itself understood as an expression of the Divine Will.  In the Qur’an, it is God who appoints the family members and descendants of the Prophets to their blessed position.  The nass which each Imam makes for his successor indicates to his community the identity of the one whom the Divine Will has selected as their next Imam.  The twenty-third Nizari Isma‘ili Imam, Hasan ala-dhikrihi al-salaam, explains that the nass does not ‘make’ the Imam into an Imam, it merely ‘reveals’ the identity of the next Imam such that the community may recognize him as such:

The designation which is made is not in order to make him an Imam; it is only made so that people should recognize him as such – otherwise, from his standpoint and perspective, all such different states are one and the same.
- Imam Hasan ‘ala dhikrihi al-salaam,
(Nasir al-Din Tusi, Rawda-yi Taslim transl. S.J. Badakhchani, The Paradise of Submission, p. 123)

The first such nass in the Islamic community goes back to the time of the Prophet when he designated Hazrat ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib as his successor on numerous occasions.   The final and most well known occasion of designation of ‘Ali as the supreme leader of the Muslim community took place at Ghadeer Khum where the Prophet declared: “I leave amongst you two weighty things – the Book of God and my Progeny (itrat).  If you hold fast to both of them you shall never go astray.  These two shall not separate until they return to me at the paradiscal pool.”[v]  He further stated: “For whomsoever I am his master (mawla), this ‘Ali is also his master (mawla).”[vi]  Since that time, each Imam has designated his successor, with some of these designations taking place privately and others publicly.[vii]   It is the belief of the Isma‘ili Muslims that the Imamate will continue to be handed down in a continuous lineage through the designated individuals until the Day of Judgment.  This is boldly proclaimed by the Imam Hasan ala-dhikrihi al-salaam:

Know that this Imamate is a reality [which] will never cease, change or be altered.  It will continue forever to be transmitted through the progeny of our lords (mawalina).  It will never leave them, whether in form, meaning or reality. - Imam Hasan ‘ala dhikrihi al-salaam, (Nasir al-Din Tusi, Rawda-yi Taslim transl. S.J. Badakhchani, The Paradise of Submission, p. 122)

[i] See verse 4:54 where the Qur’an states that God has bestowed the Book (kitab), Wisdom (hikmah) and Kingdom (mulk) upon the progeny of Ibrahim and the related commentary of Imam al-Baqir recorded in Kulayni’s Usul al-Kafi and Qadi al-Nu’man’s Da’aim al-Islam; Verses 2:127-128 where Ibrahim and Isma’il pray for God to raise up from their progeny a submitting community (ummatan muslimeen) and verse 22:78 where the Qur’an addresses the Imams as muslims promised to their father Ibrahim along with Imam Ja’far’s commentary as recorded in Kulayni’s Usul al-Kafi and al-Nu’man’s Da’aim al-Islam;Verses 6:83-88 where several prophets of Ibrahim’s line are mentioned by name and the fact that God chose and guided their forefathers, descendants and brethren. See also the Book of Genesis 18:17-19 about the descendants of Abraham keeping the way of justice and judgment.

[ii] See Abu Firas, al-Qasida ash-Shafiya, transl. Sami Nassib Makarem, The University of Michigan, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1963, p. 126 where Abu Talib is referred to as Imran.  See also Mir Ahmed Ali, The Holy Quran: Text, Translation and Commentary, p. 278.

[iii] It is often asked why the Imamate must dwell in a male line and always be carried by a man. The exoteric reasons may be related to genetics in that one unique y-chromosome is passed down and preserved in a male lineage while the uniqueness of the x-chromosome is not preserved in a female lineage. In keeping with what Nasir al-Din Tusi writes, the physical geneaology of the Imamserves as a biological sign, demonstration, or marker of the present Imam’s relationship and continuity with the previous Imams. If, for example, the Imamat passed to a woman, then that woman would neither possess a unique y-chromosome nor a unique x-chromosome from any of her ancestor Imams and any future female or male Imam would not possess any unique x or y chromosome from the previous Imams. Thus, if the Imamat was in a female lineage, there would be no clear biological marker or sign of the Imam’s relationship to the previous Imams and this would make it much more difficult for the people of any given time to recognize the Imam of their time. This is merely a hypothesis based on the contemplate knowledge of genetics and the Imams theoretically have full authority to abrogate the norms of succession. The following excerpts from articles on genetics suffice to stress the importance of y-chromosomes passed by males in genetic continuity over the x-chromosomes.

“The X chromosome a woman inherits from her mother is, like any other chromosome, a random mix of genes from both of her mother’s Xs, and so does not correspond as a whole with either of her mother’s X chromosomes… By contrast, the X a woman inherits from her father is his one and only X chromosome, complete and undiluted. This means that a father is twice as closely related to his daughter via his Xchromosome genes as is her mother.”  Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201109/the-incredible-expanding-adventures-the-x-chromosome

The y-chromosome is inherited more or less unchanged from father to son to grandson, indefinitelyChromosomes contain the DNA that determines our inherited characteristics, and the y-chromosome is one of the 46-chromosomes in the nucleus of each of the cells of all human males. Most chromosomes, including the two x-chromosomes possessed by females, get recombined or shuffled each generation before being passed down to offspring. But the y-chromosome is unique in remaining more or less unchanged when passed from father to son. Thus while most chromosomes will contain a random mixture of genetic codes from one’s grandparents and great-grandparents, a male’s y-chromosome will be identical or nearly identical to that of his father, grandfather, great-grandfather and beyond for countless generations.”
Source: http://web.stanford.edu/~philr/Bachman/DNABachman3.html 

The esoteric reasons may be related to traditional and esoteric symbolism of the male and female.  In the traditional worldview, gender is not viewed as a simple product of biology, sociology or anthropology.  Gender is understood to be rooted in spiritual principles and celestial archetypes.  Although a full discussion of this subject remains outside our scope, a few remarks will suffice.  In traditional symbolism and metaphysics, the masculine principle is the active, manifest, and majestic pole of being while the feminine is the passive, hidden, and merciful pole.  For example, in certain forms of traditional symbolism, the individual human soul is ‘feminine’ while the celestial Spirit is ‘masculine’ and proper spiritual equilibrium is achieved when the feminine soul submits to the masculine Spirit.  This does not suggest that the female is lower than the male – since both poles are necessary for wholeness and equilibrium.  Similarly, the Imam in relation to his disciples is active or male and the disciple in relation to the Imam is passive or female.  This symbolism carries through in all levels of being – from the ‘World of Command’ with the masculine Universal Intellect and the feminine Universal Soul down to the ‘World of Religion’ – where the Imam must be a man since his spiritual function, in relation to his disciples, is masculine.  Ultimately, the male-female principles have their metaphysical roots in the Divine Reality which is both absolute (corresponding to the male principle) and infinite (corresponding to the female principle).  For details see M. Ali Lakhani, Towards a Traditional Understanding of Sexuality, Editorial published in Sacred Web, Volume 12, available at http://www.sacredweb.org.

[iv] The Nizari Isma‘ilis do not include the name of al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali in their list of Imams which has led some people to conclude that al-Hasan is not accepted as an Imam in Nizari theology.  In reality, al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali is regarded as an Imam by the Nizaris but with a minor difference: al-Hasan is understood to be an Entrusted Imam or Trustee Imam (al-imam al-mustawda) as opposed to a Permanent Imam (al-imam al-mustaqarr), the latter position belonging to his brother al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali.  The Nizari list of Imams only includes the names of the Permanent Imams and not the Entrusted Imams.  The difference between the Entrusted Imam and the Permanent Imam is that the Entrusted Imam is a brother or cousin of the main genealogical line of the Imams who holds the rank and authority of Imam for a temporary period and the Imamate does not permanently dwell among the Entrusted Imam’s descendants.  The Permanent Imam is the hereditary Imam who inherits the Imamate from his forefathers and transmits it to his descendants.  The Entrusted Imam is only appointed in special circumstances and is usually the brother or cousin of the Permanent Imam.  When there is an Entrusted Imam, the Permanent Imam remains silent (samit) although he is the source of authority (amr) of the Entrusted Imam who acts on his behalf. Thus, Imam al-Hasan was an Entrusted Imam as he held the authority and rank of Imamate after Hazrat ‘Ali and then bequeathed it to his brother Imam a-Husayn who then transmitted the Imamate in his progeny. On a similar note, the Prophet Muhammad was the Entrusted Imam in his time while Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and his forefathers were the Permanent Imams. For further details, see Shafique Virani, The Isma‘ilis in the Middle Ages, pp. 83-85.  In Nizari Isma’ilism, al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali also holds the rank of pir or supreme hujja which is the rank in the Isma’ili hierarchy (hudud) second only to the Imam himself.  This has led some to confuse the positions of Entrusted Imam and pir or simply deny that al-Hasan was an Imam altogether.  In reality, al-Hasan was both an Entrusted Imam and a pir (supreme hujja) and this is perhaps why the Nizari Isma‘ili Ginans, the Asal Du’a (Old Du’a) and the farmans of Imam Sultan Muhammad refer to al-Hasan as ‘Pir Imam Hasan’.

[v] Sahih al-Tirmidhi, Sunan, Volume 5, pp. 662-663, No. 328

[vi] This tradition of Ghadeer Khum has been narrated by at least 110 Companions, 84 tabi’un, 355 ulema, 25 historians, 27 traditionalists, 11 exegesists, 18 theologians and 5 philosophers.  (Dr. S.H.M. Jafri, Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, London 1979, p. 20)

[vii] For example, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir appointed his son Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq in the presence of his followers, referring to him as the best of mankind and the Qa’im ‘al Muhammad (the one in charge of Muhammad’s family).  When al-Baqir was approaching his death, he asked for witnesses to be brought to him and referred to the succession of Prophet Yusuf from Prophet Ya’qub and then made a nass in respect of his son Ja’far al-Sadiq.  See Lalani, Early Shi’i Thought, p. 77.

The Bearers of the Light

10502467_647623311988640_6480850133617688803_n

“Since my grandfather, the last Aga Khan, died, I have been the bearer of the Nur – a word which means ‘The Light’.”
- Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan IV

While their lineage and nass constitute the physical characteristics of the Imam, the foundation of the Imamate of the Imams lies in that which is esoteric, hidden and not perceptible to the external senses.  What really qualifies the Imam for his role does not belong to his physical body, but to his subtle soul.  The Imam is in possession of a sacred knowledge or ‘ilm[i] by virtue of which he is the Imam in the first place.  This knowledge is not an empirical or rational knowledge, but a knowledge pertaining to the spirit and the soul.  Ultimately, the position of the Imam is due to his superior knowledge and enlightened intellect as opposed to just an illustrious pedigree.

The ‘ilm of the Shi‘a Imam includes full knowledge of the exoteric and esoteric meanings of the Holy Qur’an and the knowledge required to interpret the faith of Islam, particularly its esoteric sciences.  But the essence of this ‘ilm transcends the individuality of the Imam because it is essentially a mystical gnosis (ma‘rifah) of the Ultimate Reality (haqiqah).[ii] Nasir al-Din Tusi refers to this essential knowledge as the formula of the divine unity (kalima-yi tawhid).[iii]  Due to its sacred and luminous nature, this mystical gnosis has been described by the imagery of ‘Light’ (nur)[iv] and the Imam himself has been often described as the ‘bearer of the Light’.[v]  This is indeed how the present Imam describes himself in a public interview given in 1965 when he was asked whether he was a symbol of the Isma‘ilis’ Faith:

Yes. Since my grandfather, the last Aga Khan, died, I have been the bearer of the Nur – a word which means ‘The Light’. The Nur has been handed down in direct descent from the Prophet. But my work and responsibilities overflow into the practical side of life.
- Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan IV,
(Sunday Times Weekly Review – Interview, Dec 12, 1965)

This ‘Light’ (nur) was manifest in the Prophet Muhammad and also the first Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.  The Light does not dwell inside their physical bodies, but resides within their subtle souls.[vi]  By virtue of this Light, the individual souls of the Prophets and the Imams possess spiritual sanctity[vii] and divine proximity – referred to as walayah in Sufism and Shi’ism. This Light, transcending their existence as individual persons, is the foundation of the spiritual identity of the Prophet and the Imams by virtue of which the Prophet is reported to have said to ‘Ali: “I am from you and you are from me.”  Isma‘ili and Sufi theosophers have referred to this Light as the Muhammadan Reality (haqiqah al-muhammadiyyah) and the Light of Imamate (nur al-imamah) because it is the metaphysical reality behind the person of the Prophet (and the Imams).  It is this Reality which both Sunni and Shi‘i traditions describe as the luminous being which God created first, before all things:

“The first thing created by God was the Intellect; The first thing created by God was my Light.” - Prophet Muhammad, (Willam Chittick, The Sufi Path of Love, State University of New York Press, New York 1983, p. 66)

The universal concept of the Muhammadan Reality and the Light of Imamate has its equivalents in various spiritual and philosophical traditions.  The Isma‘ili theosophers refer to it as the Universal Intellect (al-‘aql al-kull) while the Islamic philosophers spoke of it as the First Intellect (al-‘aql al-‘awwal).   According to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, this Intellect is the primordial Light before God which was manifest in the Prophet Muhammad and the first Imam, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib:

“Two thousand years before creation, Muhammad and ‘Ali were one Light (nur) before God.”
- Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, (Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, The Divine Guide in Early Shi ‘ism, p. 31)

In another hadith, the same Imam describes the Intellect (‘aql) as the first spiritual entity to be created from God’s Light:

“God – may He be glorified and exalted – created the Intellect (al-‘Aql) first among the spiritual entities.  He drew it from the right side of His throne, making it proceed from his own Light.”
- Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, (Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, The Divine Guide in Early Shi ‘ism, p. 8)

In classical Isma‘ili philosophy, God Himself transcends all attributes, descriptions, and names including the categories of space and time, being and non-being, unity and multiplicity, and even existence and non-existence.  God Himself or the Ultimate Reality is referred to simply as ‘He who is above all else’ because He transcends and is prior to the distinction between subject and object and thus outside the range of human knowledge.  In the Isma‘ili metaphysical worldview, all of the attributes and qualities of greatness, majesty and perfection, particularly those of an anthropomorphic nature, pertain to the Universal Intellect or Light of Imamate while keeping in mind that ‘He who is above all else’ is beyond all such qualities.  The Universal Intellect includes all divine attributes and is, technically speaking, the ‘First Cause’ and the ‘Necessary Being’ (wajib al-wujud) of the onto-cosmological hierarchy which gives rise to the physical world.  The Universal Intellect encompasses all things and all being within itself for it is the first and most perfect entity originated by God.  Explaining the Isma‘ili concept of the Universal Intellect as described by Sayyedna Nasir Khusraw, Dr. Alice Hunsberger states that:

The [Universal] Intellect is complete and perfect.  It knows all things, and knows them all at once; there is nothing for it to know later or better.  There is no motion or time within the Intellect or within which the Intellect functions, for time and motion have not yet come into existence in the realm of the Intellect.  Not only does the Intellect know all things; it encompasses all beings, material and spiritual.  In fact, following the Command ‘Be!’, the Intellect is all being; there is nothing outside of itself. The Intellect also lacks nothing and needs nothing, because there is nothing other than its actual perfection. (Alice Hunsberger, The Ruby of Badakhshan, p. 159)

The Isma‘ili Imam is the locus of manifestation (mazhar) of this Universal Intellect or Light of Imamate.  The term mazhar suggests the idea of a mirror which reflects or manifests an object without actually incarnating it physically or causing any change or alternation to the object.  Accordingly, it is the pure human soul of the Imam which serves as this mirror or mazhar of the Universal Intellect which is reflected in the Imam’s soul without actually or materially descending into the person of the Imam.  It is only in this sense that the Imam is called the ‘bearer of the Light’ – in that the Light of Imamate is reflected in the Imam’s human soul while not being physically contained or constrained within this mirror.  Thus, the Universal Intellect remains transcendent in the higher spiritual realm and manifest in the created world while never materially descending into it.  It is important to note the distinctions – between the Imam and the Light of Imamate on one hand, and that between the Light of Imamat and God Himself on the other – so as to keep all things in their proper place.

While all the Imams are the bearers of the Muhammadan Reality or Light of Imamate, they still possess a unique individuality which renders each Imam as being different from the others.  The sequence of the Imams should not be perceived as ‘reincarnations’ of one and the same individual soul, but rather an epiphanic succession where the individual soul of each Imam serves as a unique mirror or locus of manifestation (mazhar) of the same one Light – in the manner of a single light being reflected in multiple mirrors, each with different forms, curvatures and dimensions, with one mirror appearing after another in succession.  Each Imam also integrates the virtues and qualities of his predecessors – each reflects the all.  But at the same time, each Imam manifests these virtues and qualities in a unique fashion due to his individuality.[viii]  These principles are, for example, reflected in the architecture of the Delegation of the Isma‘ili Imamate in Ottawa.  Its maple floor consists of 49 large squares – standing for the 49 Isma‘ili Imams – and each of these 49 squares contains 49 smaller squares.  This visually depicts how each Imam amongst the 49 Isma‘ili Imams reflects and integrates the virtues and qualities of all 49 Imams within himself.

atriumfloorfromJaySFflikr

It is often assumed that the Light of Imamate is mystically transferred from one Imam to the next when the Imam passes away.  But in reality, what passes from one Imam to the next upon the predecessor’s death are only the functions and authority of the Imamate; the Light of Imamate is something that all the Imams possesses at birth[i], although at such time their formal status as Imams is not known or declared.[ii]  It must be remembered that the reality which is described as the Light of Imamate is not a material entity which must be restricted to a single individual, but rather, it can be manifest in several generations at the same time.   From a spiritual standpoint, the Imams are born as Imams and are always Imams; all are the bearers of the Light since birth and even before that. [iii]  The twenty-third Nizari Isma‘ili Imam Hasan ala-dhikrihi al-salaam makes this clearly evident in his Blessed Epistles (fusul-i mubarak):

The Imam is perfect when still in the form of sperm in the loins of his father and the pure womb of his mother.  An Imam is always an Imam and always perfect.  Otherwise, why should he say, ‘The Imam knows from which drop of sperm the Imam after him will come?’
- Imam Hasan ‘ala dhikrihi al-salaam,
(Nasir al-Din Tusi, Rawda-yi Taslim transl. S.J. Badakhchani, The Paradise of Submission, p. 125)

As long as the present Imam is alive, he alone carries out the functions and holds the authority of the Imamate.  The successor Imam will only assume the formal role of Imamate and be officially recognized as Imam when the previous Imam has passed away.[iv]  In other words, the present Imam at any given time is the ‘speaking Imam’ (al-imam al-natiq), while the Imam-in-waiting is the ‘silent Imam’ (al-imam al-samit).  This is indicated in Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq’s repy to a person who asked: “Can there be two Imams at once?”  To which the Imam replied: “No, unless one of them is silent.”[v

This also implies the possibility of several generations of Imams being present at once but with only one of them being the speaking and functioning Imam of the Time.  This was actually a reality during the early days of the Fatimid period.  The Must‘alian Isma‘ili historian Idris Imad al-Din describes a moment from Fatimid history where the Qadi al-Numan was conversing with the Imam Abdu’llah al-Mahdi.  In this period, Imam al-Mahdi had made it publically known that his son Abu’l-Qasim Muhammad – the future Imam al-Qa’im – was to succeed him.  Al-Qa‘im already had a son of his own, Isma’il, who would become the future Imam al-Mansur and Imam al-Mahdi had confided this fact to al-Numan:

Al-Qadi al-Nu’man was among those who had precedence in serving the Imam al-Mahdi bi’llah during the later part of his caliphate.  He was also the beneficiary of the favours of al-Qa’im bi-Amr Allah as were others.  Then Imam al-Mahdi bi’llah disclosed to him the distinction of his grandson Imam al-Mansur bi’llah who was the third of the Imams of the [period of] manifestation.  He (al-Nu’man) said: ‘O Commander of the Faithful, three Imams in one age?’ the [number] astounded him.  Then Imam al-Mahdi bi’llah showed him al-Mu’izz li-Din Allah who was a babe in his cradle and said, ‘And this is the fourth of us, O Nu’man!’
(Idris Imad al-Din, Tarikh al-Khulafa al-Fatimiyyin bi’l-Maghrib, transl. Shainool Jiwa, Anthology of Isma‘ili Literature, p. 60)

In another moving account narrated by the Egyptian historian al-Maqrizi, the Imam al-Mahdi convened a special gathering (majlis) where he brought his son, al-Qa‘im, his grandson, al-Mansur, and his great grandson al-Mu’izz into the same room and covered all of them with a cloak:

One day [Imam] al-Qa’im bi-Amr Allah, upon him be peace, was in his father [Imam] al-Mahdi’s majlis (gathering), seated in front of him.  His son, [Imam] al-Mansur, was standing in front of his grandfather, when al-Mahdi said to him, ‘Bring me your son’, that is [Imam] al-Mu’izz li-Din Allah.   So his nursemaid brought him.  He was one year old or a little older.  Al-Mahdi took him on his lap and kissed him.  Then he said to his son al-Qa’im bi-Amr Allah, ‘O Abu’l-Qasim, there is not a majlis more illustrious on earth than this one, as four Imams are gathered here,’ that is, al-Mahdi himself, his son al-Qa’im, his grandson al-Mansur, and his great-grandson al-Mu’izz li-Din Allah.  Additionally, the parasol bearer, Abu’l-Fadl Raydan, told me that al-Mahdi gathered them in a cloak and said, ‘The Prophet of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, gathered in his garment three Imams, in addition to himself, but in this cloak there are four Imams.
(Al-Maqrizi, Lessons for the Seekers of Truth in the History of the Fatimid Imams and Caliphs, quoted in Shainool Jiwa, Towards a Shi’i Mediterranean Empire, 29)

The above examples show the existence of four generations of Imams in a single age, but Imam al-Mahdi was the speaking Imam, executing the authority of the Imamate, while his son (al-Qa’im), grandson (al-Mansur) and great-grandson (al-Mu’izz) were the silent Imams.  But the above examples describe the more private and intimate moments of the Isma‘ili Imamate as generally the identity of the next Imam was not always a matter of public knowledge.

This also raises the question of the exact relationship amongst the Imam and his future successor(s).  The available literature indicates that there is indeed a special closeness and intimacy between the Imam of the time and the Imam-in-waiting.  In certain periods, this special relationship was made known publicly, particularly in cases where the succession was declared openly.  This is perhaps most evident in the case of the Prophet Muhammad and Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.  The close relationship between them is testified by ‘Ali himself in the following statement recorded in the Nahjul Balagha:

When I was but a child he took me under his wing … I would follow him [the Prophet] as a baby camel follows the footsteps of his mother.  Every day he would raise up for me a sign of his noble character, commanding me to follow it.  He would go each year into seclusion at [Mount] Hira.  I saw him and nobody else saw him.  At that time no household was brought together for the religion of Islam, except the Messenger of God, Khadija, and myself as the third.  I saw the light of the revelation and the message, and I smelt the fragrance of prophecy.
- Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib,
(Reza Shah-Kazemi, Justice and Remembrance, p. 13)

The current Imam and the future Imam share a spiritual relationship which only the two of them can truly understand.  The Qadi al-Nu’man narrates a beautiful story[vi] which the Imam al-Mansur confided to him.  In his own words, the Imam al-Mansur describes his relationship with his own father, Imam al-Qa’im.  The Imam stated:

Nobody could have been closer to the Imam than myself. I was his son, and yet my heart was filled with awe of his glory. One day, when I was just a little boy, I was walking behind him. I rejoiced at looking at him and receiving his didar. Then I would look at the heavens and the skies and rejoice at looking at them. Then I would look at him once again until my heart was satisfied. I thought to myself, the master of all creation is God in the heavens, and the Imam is his representative. The more this began to sink in, the more glorious my father appeared in my eyes, the more awe-inspired was my heart. Then Imam al-Qa’im turned around to face me. He held me and hugged me close. He said, ‘My dear little son, may Allah not place in your heart what he has placed in the heart of your mawla.’ I knew, at that moment, that he was referring to all of the worries that he had.
- Imam al-Mansur bi’llah,
(al-Qadi al-Nu’man, Majalis wa’l-Musayarat)

The Imam, responsible for the physical and spiritual welfare of his millions of followers, bears a great burden.  No one can really estimate or imagine the intensity of the burden borne by the Imam of the Time except his successor.  Other anecdotes in the Isma‘ili literature relate how the Imams and their future successors were able to confide in one another.  Although the Imams are all born with the spiritual Light of Imamate, there are forms of preparation and initiation by which current Imam initiates the future Imam into the formal functions of the Imamate which he will one day have to undertake.  In this sense, the Qadi al-Numan narrates how Imam al-Mansur would spend time alone with his grandfather Imam al-Mahdi where the two would discuss secrets in confidence and the latter would prepare the former for the Imamate:

He (Imam al-Mahdi) used to confide secrets in him (Imam al-Mansur) and no one knew what transpired between them.  One of the people who used to enter the presence of al-Mahdi frequently, as it was imperative for him to do so, said to me that there was never a time when he (al-Mahdi) was alone without al-Mansur being present and al-Mahdi would be speaking in confidence to him.
(Idris Imad al-Din, Tarikh al-Khulafa al-Fatimiyyin bi’l-Maghrib, transl. Shainool Jiwa, Anthology of Isma‘ili Literature, p. 61)

Having discussed the principles by which the succession in the Isma‘ili Imamate takes place, we can now examine the circumstances of the succession of the present Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan IV.

 

[

[i] See Arzina Lalani, Early Shi’i Thought: The Teachings of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, Institute of Ismaili Studies and IB Taurus, London, 2000, pp. 78-79

[ii] Imam ‘Ali states in a sermon known as Khutba al-Bayan: “I am the Gnosis of Mysteries”. That is to say, the Imam identifies his inner reality with the knowledge of gnosis of God.  The Imams are also able to communicate this gnosis to their disciples – see Imam ‘Ali’s statements about the nature of Reality (haqiqah) in Reza Shah-Kazemi, Justice and Remembrance: Introducing the Spirituality of Imam ‘Ali, Chapter 3.

[iii] See Nasir al-Din Tusi, Rawda-yi Taslim, translated by S.J. Badakchani as The Paradise of Submission, Institute of Ismaili Studies and IB Taurus, London, 2006, p. 121:

“The formula of the profession of Divine Unity (kalima-yi tawhid) is the [exclusive] heritage to be transmitted and inherited through his sacred progeny and holy descendants, in one line of descent and essence – ‘offspring, one after the other (3:34) – a [lineage] which will never be ruptured, even unto the end of time.”

[iv] See Arzina Lalani, Early Shi’i Thought: The Teachings of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, Institute of Ismaili Studies and IB Taurus, London, 2000, pp. 79-82

[v] To refer to the Imam as the ‘bearer of the Light’ must not be confused with the Christian concept of Divine Incarnation.  In Isma’ilism, the Imam has never been understood as an incarnation (hulul) of God – a perspective which has always been rejected.  A more precise definition of the relationship between the Imam and God was given at the Ismailia Paris Conference of 1975 where it was resolved:

“The Imam to be explained as ‘mazhar’ of God, and the relationship between God and the Imam to be related to varying levels of inspiration and communication from God to man.”

The term mazhar must be given careful consideration. The word mazhar does NOT mean ‘copy’ or ‘incarnation’ as the polemicist Akbarally Meherally ignorantly stated.  Mazhar is an Arabic noun of place, and is translated as ‘locus of manifestation’. In this sense, when the Imam is called the mazhar (locus of manifestation) of God, it means that the soul of the Imam is like the surface of a mirror upon which the Names and Qualities of God shine and are reflected, producing an image which constitutes the Imam’s pure humanity.  Therefore, the Divine Light is only ‘in’ the Imam insofar as the image of an object is ‘in’ a mirror.  The Divine Light remains immutable and unchanging in itself and does not materially enter the created world.  There is a further distinction made in Islamic theology and mysticism between God’s Essence and God’s Names, and it is only the latter aspect which is reflected in the Imam while God’s Essence remains unknowable and transcendent. Therefore, there is no question of shirk being committed since God does not actually or materially enter into the body of the Imam.  This relationship between God and the Imam in these terms of mazhariyyah (manifestation) can be extended to everything in the Cosmos: All creatures, all created phenomena are the loci of manifestation (mazahir) of God’s Names and Qualities.   Reza Shah-Kazemi explains this as follows:

“This is a point which is made emphatically by the Sufis in order to avoid the accusation of shirk:  the presence of God really is ‘in’ the creature, but only in the sense that an image is really ‘in’ the mirror.  There is no question of the glass of the mirror undergoing any material change as a result of the image that is present on its surface, nor is there any question of a material change or descent of the object into the mirror.  Thus God remains absolutely transcendent, just as the object remains totally other than the mirror.” (Reza Shah-Kazemi, The Other in the Light of the One, The Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge 2006,pp. 110-111)

[vi] Nasir al-Din Tusi, Rawda-yi Taslim transl. by S.J. Badakchani as The Paradise of Submission, p. 109:

“…human souls are therefore varied and differ with respect to their receptivity to the resplendent lights of the Divine Command (anwar-i ishraq-i amr-i ilahi), just as material objects are variously receptive to the physical light of the sun.  [Consider] stones, for example: one [kind] is pitch black, while others are progressively less dark, and their essences are more receptive to illumination, up to translucent glass which receives light from one side and emits from the other. In so far as human beings are unable to be receptive to His Almighty Command without mediation, it was necessary that there should be intermediaries vis-à-vis the Divine Command.  Those people whose consciousness (khatir) behaved as does a [translucent] glass held up to the sun were the Prophets.”

In accordance with Tusi’s explanation as given above, the souls of the Prophet Muhammad and the Shi’a Imams are like the translucent glass or gemstones which capture and reflect the Divine Light to the highest degree possible for a created being. This concept is embodied in the architecture of the Delegation of the Ismaili Imamat in Ottawa and the Aga Khan Museum and Ismaili Centre in Toronto.

[vii] The spiritual purity of the Imams is declared in the Qur’anic verse known as the Verse of Purity (33:33): “And God wishes to remove from you all impurity, O Ahl al-Bayt, and to purify you with a thorough purification.”  According to both Sunni and Shi‘ite hadith, this verse was revealed when the Prophet Muhammad embraced Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Imam al-Hasan, Imam al-Husayn, and Bib Fatima under his cloak, indicating that God had purified their souls from all impurities.  For Shi‘a Muslims, all the succeeding Imams possess the same spiritual purity.  These notions are reflected in contemporary Isma‘ili Muslim Prayer (Du ‘a) in Part I (wa ‘ala’l-a‘immati’l-athar = “and upon the Pure Imams”) and Part IV (wa a‘immatika’l-mutahareen = “and Your Pure Imams”).

[viii] Nasir al-Din Tusi states with regards to the differences among the various Imams:

“The principle of relative and real existence (hukm-i idafa wa haqiqat) must be kept in mind…as there are diverse degrees of truth and each Imam manifests a different degree [of truth], a different mystery, a different benefit (maslahat) which they detail and elucidate [for people]…But insofar as the Divine Truth has a unity wherein all these stages are one, and the Imams are all one in reality (haqiqat), so that their persons (shakhs) are not separate from each other nor their spirits.” (Nasir al-Din Tusi, Rawda-yi Taslim transl. S.J. Badakhchani, The Paradise of Submission, The Institute of Ismaili Studies, London, p. 127)

[viiii] Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 179. This reference was provided and translated by the late Shaykh Seth ‘Abd al-Hakeem Carney, may his soul rest in eternal peace.

[i] This point can be a matter of debate – as some of the early Shi’i traditions indicate that the Light is transferred only when the previous Imam passes away, while other traditions in the same corpus state that the Light is possessed by the Imams even at birth, and since the very creation of their souls in the spiritual World of Particles (alam al-dharr).  See Lalani, Early Shi’i Thought, pp. 80-82.  But later Nizari Isma‘ili Imams state quite clearly that the Imams possess the Light at birth.

[ii] Imam Hasan ala-dhikrihi al-salaam states, as recorded in Nasir al-Din Tusi’s Rawda-yi Taslim, (p. 123, Badakhchani translation)  that: “The designation (nass) which is made is not in order to make him an Imam; it is only made so that people should recognize him as such – otherwise, from his standpoint and perspective, all such different states are one and the same.”

[iii] The Shi‘i hadith literature describes how the luminous souls of the Imams were created by God before the creation of the physical world and the souls of others.  For details, see Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, The Divine Guide in Early Shi’ism, Chapter 1.

[iv] There can be exceptions to this rule.  For example, Nasir-i Khusraw cites the cases of Imam ‘Ali Zayn al-Abideen and Imam Isma’il ibn Ja’far each of whom assumed the functions of Imamate while his father was still alive.  In the case of the former, Imam al-Husayn consigned the Imamate to Imam ‘Ali Zayn al-Abideen on the battlefield of Karbala shortly before he went out to make a final stand against the armies of Yazid.  In the case of Imam Isma‘il ibn Ja’far, his father Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq is reported to have said about him: “He is the Imam after me, and what you learn from him is just the same as if you have learned it from myself.” (Jafar ibn Mansur al-Yemen, Asrar an-Nutuqa, p. 256)  Nasir-i Khusaw and other Isma’ili da’is refer to the ta’wil of the Qur’anic story of the Sun, Moon, and Stars prostrating before Hazrat Yusuf according to which the Imam, the supreme hujja, and the other hujjas submitted to Yusuf as their new Imam while the previous Imam, Yusuf’s father Hazrat Yaqub, was still alive.

Prince ‘Ali Salman Khan: Son of the Imams and Father of the Imams

PAK cool

“We are sending you our beloved son. Consider his coming as equivalent to our own coming.   We are sending our Prince as our Wali ‘Ahd.”
- Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III

Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III, the 48th hereditary Imam, was perhaps the most glorious Imam in Isma‘ili history.  He succeeded his father Aga ‘Ali Shah at the tender age of eight and set forward in revolutionizing his community both materially and spiritually during one of the most exciting epochs of human history.  He was the first Imam to settle in the Western world, making his permanent home in Geneva.  He had the longest Imamate in the history of the all Imams through which he brought the Isma‘ili community into modernity and also championed many causes related to the overall welfare of the entire Muslim Ummah.  He was the first Imam to make himself publicly known at the global level since the Fatimid period and his recognition extended from East to West.  Also of importance was this Imam’s role is explaining the esoteric and universal meaning of Islam – which is evident in both his private farmans to the Isma‘ili Muslim community and in his public speeches and writings addressed to the world at large. The Imam explained many principles of Islamic esoterism and mysticism openly and in a clear language – these being concepts which were otherwise taught in private to initiates of esoteric orders.  During his long and eventful Imamate of 72 years, there was much speculation and anticipation regarding the identity of the Imam’s successor.

Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah’s popularity in the world was perhaps equaled by that of his illustrious son Prince ‘Ali Salman Khan, the father of the present Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni.  Prince ‘Ali Khan was very popular and dearly loved by the Isma‘ili community and many had expected him to succeed as the Imam.  He was also well known and prominent in the social circles of the Western world, as evidenced for example by his marriage to the famous actress Rita Hayworth.  At the same time, there were some who questioned his eligibility for the Imamate based on the reports of his risky lifestyle and social life.  In light of these circumstances, some have speculated that Prince ‘Ali Khan was originally designated by Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah to succeed him but that later the Imam changed his mind due to Prince ‘Ali Khan’s lifestyle and nominated his own son Prince Karim instead.  But a closer examination of the facts belonging to this period proves such speculations to be quite untrue.

Prince ‘Ali was born on June 13, 1911 and was the eldest son of Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah.  He spent his life in both the East and the West.  Due to his prominence in the social circles of England, his love for speed, horses and excitement, and his two marriages, the Western media sensationalized him and unfairly portrayed him as a playboy – a clearly distorted image.  One of his biographers, Gordon Young, even concluded at the end of his book, The Golden Prince, that the Prince was not really the playboy which the outside world thought him to be.  As reported in the same book, Prince ‘Ali Khan himself questioned many of the things that had been written about him as being the product of inaccurate journalism. It is perhaps due to the Western media’s mistreatment of Prince ‘Ali Khan’s image that his own son, Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni, the present Imam, tends to avoid publicity:

Young Karim winced whenever the headlines brought the tittle-tattle about his father home to him.  It was in these days that he first formed his aversion to publicity and resolved to give the press as little cause for comment about his personal affairs as humanly possible.  That he would grow up to hate, not his father, of whom he was fond and proud, but his father’s playboy image was a foregone conclusion. (Willi Frischauer, The Aga Khans, p. 186)

In light of these factors, to the undiscerning person Prince ‘Ali Salman Khan appears as a sort of paradox.  On the one hand, he performed religious and spiritual functions on behalf of his father, Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah, and as the son of the Imam was the object of great reverence and devotion.  At the same time, Prince ‘Ali Khan was one of the most popular figures in the Western imagination, and was the centre for social and aristocratic life:

But increasingly in recent years, Aly has gone about his father’s business and those who have seen him in his Eastern robes earnestly carrying out the rituals of his sect find it hard to believe that this can possibly be the same slick socialite who in London, Paris and New York jokes with his friends in a faultless Oxford accent and leads western café society in all the arts of high living and smart thinking. (Gordon Young, Golden Prince, p. 22)

In a manner quite opposite from the newspapers, Prince ‘Ali Khan was viewed and understood quite differently by those within the Isma‘ili community.  For example, the late Al-Wa’z Abualy Aziz who was contemporary with the Prince gives the following description of him in his book:

He was undoubtedly the beloved of his family as well as the Jamats… He was extremely popular in the Jamats all over the world and was loved by young and old alike. Very often he was sent by the Holy Imam to represent him for religious duties. He was a great sportsman and a statesman…  His Serene Highness Prince Aly was a great champion of Islam and never missed an opportunity to serve and defend it. He had all his life contributed financially, as well as physically, to the cause of Islam. A warm-hearted friend, an ardent servant of Islam, a shrewd horse-breeder, an energetic sportsman, a lover of speed and motion, a great public speaker, a cautious statesman, generous and benevolent, he was indeed a great man.
(Al-Wa’z Abualy Aziz, Brief History of Isma‘ilism, Dar as-Salaam, 1974)

PAK on horse

From an early age, the Prince became involved in the affairs of the Isma‘ili Imamate when he accompanied his father on a visit to India in 1923 where the Imam gave didar to his Indian murids. In August 1930, Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah sent Prince ‘Ali Khan to Syria along with the following message (taliqah):

“We are sending you our beloved son.  Consider his coming as our own coming. We are sending our Prince as our Wali ‘Ahd.”
- Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III,
(Message to the Syrian Isma‘ilis, 1930)

In the above message, the Imam refers to his son Prince ‘Ali Khan as his wali ‘ahd.  This term was interpreted by some as indicating that Prince ‘Ali was designated as the next Imam, but this was not necessarily true.  The actual term wali ‘ahd means ‘master of the pledge (or covenant).’  The term has been used numerous times in Muslim history, particularly in a political sense where it referred to the heir or crown prince of a political dynasty.  Wali ‘ahd was also used by the Isma‘ili Imams when they reigned as the Fatimid caliphs during the 10th and 11th century.  It is true that in many instances, the designated successor of the Fatimid Imam-Caliph was called the wali ‘ahd, but this was not always the case.  For example, the Fatimid Imam-Caliph al-Hakim bi-amri’llah bestowed the title of wali ‘ahd upon two of his cousins – neither of whom actually inherited the Imamate.  Therefore, the word wali ‘ahd cannot be understood as a synonym for the future Imam but rather it indicates ‘a kind of shadow caliph, or rather, a symbolic stand-in who could assume the ceremonial function of the true Imam but not the actual, i.e. veritable, position that is implied by sacred designation.’[i]  This means that while Prince ‘Ali Khan was not the Imam or the future Imam, as wali ‘ahd he held a unique position[ii] as the deputy of the Imam and possessed the rights to carry out secular and religious duties on the Imam’s behalf – something which he did on several occasions.

PAK autopic1

Since the age of eleven, too, Aly Khan has flown East to visit groups of the Ismailis in the place of his father.  Wearing faultless tropical suitings and a black Astrakhan cap, Prince Aly would give readings from the Koran and accept tributes on behalf of his father ranging from anything between 10,000 and 30,000 a time. (Gordon Young, Golden Prince, p. 22)

During the Prince’s Syrian visit, an open Darbar took place where thousands of Arab Isma‘ilis, French Officers and the Governor of Syria gave a rising welcome to Prince ‘Ali Khan and four hundred Arab horsemen gave a salute.  The above taliqah was read out during this Darbar and the Syrian murids prostrated themselves before the Prince and kissed his hands in devotion. Prince ‘Ali Khan possessed a unique and charismatic personality which always inspired and cultivated admiration from those who saw him.  This was evident during his tour of the Isma‘ili localities where many members of the community instantly fell in love with his magnetic persona.

His was an astonishing feat of personality: ‘Aly’s appearance always sent the marriage rate soaring,’ wrote Leonard Slater. ‘Young men would speed their courting; young women would overcome their shyness.’  Sex appeal may have had something to do with it but much of Aly’s success was spontaneous popular reaction to a warm-hearted, handsome young man with a genuine affection for people.  From Syria he went on to Bombay and Karachi where he visited jamatkhanas, led the prayers and performed religious ceremonies with a touch as sure as that of an experienced mukhi.  The tour was a great success. (Willi Frischauer, The Aga Khans, p. 107)

During the course of his life, Prince ‘Ali Khan continued to perform important functions on behalf of the Imam, including a visit to India where the Prince was able to deal with issues caused by a dissident group known as the Khoja Reformers.  In the 1950s, Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah suffered a stroke while touring India and Pakistan and Prince ‘Ali Khan as the Wali ‘Ahd assumed his role and carried out religious functions on his behalf. The reality of Prince ‘Ali Khans life is clearly quite different from the distorted and exaggerated stories reported in the Western newspapers.  The Isma‘ili community understood and appreciated the Prince in an entirely different manner.   For example, an Isma‘ili magazine praised Prince ‘Ali Khan in the following way on the occasion of his forty-third birthday:

Our beloved Prince ‘Aly Khan has completed forty-three years of age.  We join Ismaili Jamats from all over the world in offering felicitations to His Serene Highness Prince Aly Khan on this happy occasion.  His Serene Highness has inherited the qualities of his illustrious father, Mawlana Hazar Imam.  The Jamats have been appreciative of the keen interest His Serene Highness takes in all the varied activities of the community in all parts of the world, and of his great contribution to their welfare. (The Ismaili, quoted in Gordon Young, Golden Prince, p. 148)

On July 11, 1957, at midday, Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III passed away.  His Last Will was read on the morning of July 12.

[i] See Paul E. Walker, Fatimid History and Ismaili Doctrine, 2008, p. 17.

[ii]The Isma’ilis of the Fatimid period also invoked blessings (salwaat) upon the wali ‘ahd. For example, the da’i al-Naysaburi invokes salwaat upon the wali ‘ahd at the beginning of his Ithbat al-Imamah, see Paul Walker, In Praise of al-Hakim, published in Fatimid History and Isma‘ili Doctrine, p. 379.

 

Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni: Imam of the Atomic Age

 aga-khan-iii-funeral-hi-ps-pa

 

“…I am convinced that it is in the best interests of the Shi‘a Muslim Isma‘ilian Community that I should be succeeded by a young man who has been brought up and developed during recent years and in the midst of the new age and who brings a new outlook on life to his office as Imam.  For these reasons, although he is not now one of my heirs, I appoint my grandson Karim, the son of my son Aly Salomone Khan to succeed to the title of Aga Khan and to be the Imam and Pir all my Shi’a Isma‘ilian followers…”
- Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III

The Imam’s Last Will shocked the world when it announced that he had appointed his grandson Prince Karim to succeed him as the 49th Imam of the Shi‘a Isma‘ili Muslims. However, a closer look at this period reveals that this succession was consistent with Isma‘ili history and one observes many elements which resemble the successions of the Fatimid Imams as cited earlier in this article.  When looking at the early life of Imam Shah Karim, one observes that he was being prepared to undertake the Imamate from a very young age:

shahkarim eid namaz

From the moment Karim was born, it was taken for granted that he would one day become Imam, and, unlike Aly, he was educated for the job from the beginning.  When he was only seven years old, living in Nairobi, he was dressed in a tiny uniform and taken to the jamat-khana to chant: “We are the direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, may peace of God be on him.” (Leonard Slater, Aly, Random House, New York, 1965, p. 269)

As a young boy, Imam Shah Karim soon developed a very unique and intimate relationship with his grandfather Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah.  These occasions were most likely not in the public view – in which Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah refused to discuss his succession.  But the more private moments were observed by the close family members including Imam Shah Karim’s mother, Princess Joan:

When the old Aga returned from Africa and was staying in Lausanne, the boys were taken to see him: ‘An extraordinary relationship developed between my father-in-law and my elder son,’ Princess Joan recalls, ‘K always talked to his grandfather as if they were contemporaries.  There was a powerful bond between them.”  It was probably due to his grandfather’s influence that Karim was mature beyond his age without forgoing the pleasures of a typical teenager’s life. (Willi Frischauer, The Aga Khans, p. 152)

The above account is reminiscent of the earlier mentioned anecdotes about the Isma‘ili Imams of the Fatimid period.  It seems that when several generations of Imams were contemporary – such as in the case of Imams al-Mahdi, al-Qa’im, al-Mansur and al-Mu’izz – the grandfather and the grandson Imams shared a special relationship where former would prepare the latter for the formal role of Imamate:

From a young age, [Imam] al-Mu’izz li-Din Allah had a special status with his grandfather [Imam] al-Qa’im.  He used to keep him in his company, be close to him and confide in him in preference to his father.  Whenever he (al’-Qa’im) was alone, he (al-Mu’izz) was with him and whenever he was absent, he (al-Qa’im) would send for him.  Similarly, Imam al-Mansur had the same status with his grandfather al-Mahdi, who was inseparable from him… One day al-Mu’izz mentioned a similar instance to his situation, saying that al-Mahdi bi’llah used to nurture him (al-Mansur) with wisdom and prepare him for the Imamate, just as al-Qa’im did so with him. (Idris Imad al-Din, Tarikh al-Khulafa al-Fatimiyyin bi’l-Maghrib,  transl. Shainool Jiwa, Anthology of Isma‘ili Literature, pp. 60-62)

The situation at the time of Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah, Prince ‘Ali Khan and Imam Shah Karim resembles the above.  Just as the Imam al-Mansur and Imam al-Mu’izz were initiated for the Imamate by their grandfathers, the Imam Shah Karim was initiated by his grandfather Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah.  One observes here a remarkable sense of continuity from the Fatimid period in which Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah and Imam Shah Karim were keeping with the traditions and customs of their ancestors the Fatimid Imam-Caliphs.   Accordingly, the historical reports mention how Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah would spend much time discussing the deeper meaning of the Isma‘ili faith with his grandson Imam Shah Karim. 

The old Aga seemed to think highly of the boy.  Whenever he was at Villa Barakat in Geneva he sent for Karim and talked to him at great length, subtly introducing him into the deeper meaning of the Ismaili faith and instilling him with the sense of mission which became apparent to all not many years later.  Prince Karim himself remembers his grandfather asking questions about his religious instruction, testing his knowledge: ‘He could extract more from a human being in short conversation than anybody else in a lifetime,” he mused. (Willi Frischauer, The Aga Khans, p. 182-3)

In the early 1950s, Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah sent both Imam Shah Karim and his brother Prince Amyn to East Africa to counter a campaign of anti-Ismaili rhetoric aimed against the Isma‘ili Imam and his Wali ‘Ahd Prince ‘Ali Khan.  During this visit, Imam Shah Karim addressed a large crowd – Isma‘ilis and others – and reminded them of all that his grandfather had done for them.  Later, in 1955, Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah sent Imam Shah Karim to East Africa to introduce the new prayers, known as the Holy Du’a, to Isma‘ili communities.  During these years, it is reportred that Imam Shah Karim spent much time with Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah and the latter’s secretaries to familiarize himself with the affairs of the Imamate:

Karim spent most of his time with grandfather or one of his secretaries, Mademoiselle Gaetane Beguel, research and acquainting himself with the Imam’s affairs, both personal and religious. (Willi Frischauer, The Aga Khans, p. 182-3)

Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah finalized his Last Will and Testament in May 1955. He passed away peacefully on July 11, 1957.   The Imam’s Will was read out before members of his family, including Prince ‘Ali Khan and Imam Shah Karim, on the morning of July 12, 1957.  The text of the Will announcing the Imam’s successor is as follows: 

“And in these circumstances and in view of the fundamentally altered conditions in the world in very recent years due to the great changes which have taken place including the discoveries of atomic science I am convinced that it is in the best interest of the Shi‘a Moslem Ismailian Community that I should be succeeded by a young man who has been brought up and developed during recent years and in the midst of a new age and who brings a new outlook on life to his office as Imam.  For these reasons and although he is not now one of my heirs, I APPOINT my grandson KARIM, the son of my son, ALY SALOMONE KHAN to succeed to the title of AGA KHAN and to be the Imam and Pir of all my Shia Ismailian followers.”
- Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III, (Last Will, Willi Frischauer, The Aga Khans, p. 208)

As stated earlier, although Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah appointed his son Prince ‘Ali Khan as his Wali ‘Ahd, this was not a designation for the succession of the Imamate.  Prince ‘Ali Khan did not inherit the institution of Imamate and was not an Imam, but still holds an exalted status as the son of an Imam and the father of an Imam.[i] Prince ‘Ali Khan was the first to give bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to his son, now known as Mawlana Shah Karim al-Husayni the 49th Imam. Shortly after, the new Imam was met by Isma‘ili leaders and representatives and it was reported that the first words he spoke to them were:

“According to the Will of my Beloved Grandfather, I am your Hazar Imam. I am your 49th Mawla Mushkil Kusha.”
Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan IV, 
(To Jamati Leaders, Geneva, July 12, 1957)

As the 49th hereditary Imam, Mawlana Shah Karim al-Husayni holds a special place within the lineage of Isma‘ili Imams.  The 49th Imam is the seventh Imam of the seventh heptad or series of seven Imams.  The occurrence of seven Imams in Isma‘ili thought has often been linked to the commencement of a new era and therefore, the appearance of forty-nine (seven x seven) Imams suggests the inauguration of a new epoch of major cycle in the history of the Imamate.  Several Isma‘ili theosophers of the Fatimid period wrote that the appearance of forty-nine Imams after Prophet Muhammad would mark the commencement of the Seventh Major Cycle (symbolized by the Seventh Day of Creation) called the Cycle of Resurrection (dawr al-qiyamah) which brings great spiritual and material changes to both the World of Faith (‘alam al-din) and the material world (‘alam al-dunya).[iii]  In this sense, Sayyedna Hamid al-Din Kirmani quoted the following verse of the Holy Qur’an:

“And We have bestowed upon thee the Seven Repeated and the Great Qur’an.”
- Holy Quran 15:87

The ‘Seven Repeated’ refer to the seven cycles of seven Imams who appear in the after the Prophet Muhammad. Kirmani wrote that the appearance of these forty-nine Imams would mark the commencement of the Cycle of Resurrection when the Ranks of Faith (hudud al-din) would be removed and the knowledge of the divine knowledge would become unmediated.[iv]  These signs have now come to pass as the functions of the hudud al-din, especially the hujjahs and da‘is, were abolished during the Imamat of Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III.[v] At the same time, the murids began to have more direct access to the Imam – something which was not the case in previous periods of history. 

The Cycle of Resurrection is referred to in the Qur’anic verse of the Days of Creation as the period when God ascends the Throne.[vi]  The Isma‘ili da‘is wrote that in the Cycle of Resurrection, justice and equity would be restored to the world and spiritual truths and knowledge would be available to humanity at large.  The period of forty-ninth Imam is the beginning of the Cycle of Resurrection.  The mentions of a ‘new age’ and ‘fundamentally altered conditions’ in the Last Will of Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah appear to speak to the present Cycle of Resurrection. In this regard, some contemporary Isma‘ili thinkers such as Allamah Nasir al-Din Hunzai have written the following about the status of the forty-ninth Imam:

Nur Mawlana Shah Karim al-Husayni Hadhir Imam: Nur means the intellectual, spiritual and moral light; Mawlana means our lord; Shah Karim al-Husayni means the generous king from the progeny of Husayn; Hadir Imam means the Imam whose recognition and obedience is incumbent upon the people of the time and without this the walayat of the previous Imams does not avail anything.  This most noble and the greatest Imam who, in the holy chain of Imamat is the seventh seven, is the Imam of the atomic age.  A great resurrection has taken place in the background of his Imamat, which the people of the world saw only in the world of particles.  They did not see it in the external world.
(Allamah Nasir al-Din Hunzai, Du’a: Essence of Ibadat, p. 90)

[i]It is reported that before the final burial ceremony of Prince ‘Ali Khan in Salamiyya, Imam Shah Karim told Isma‘ili delegates: “Remember he was a son to an Imam and a father to an Imam.”  The statements of the Prophet and the early Imams indicate that the lineage and forefathers of the Imams were spiritually pure and served as vessels for the Nur of Imamat.  This concept is also supported in the Qur’anic verses  (3:33-34) already cited in this article whereby God exalted the lineage from Adam to Imran (Abu Talib, father of  Imam ‘Ali) above all creatures.  In connection to this theme, Imam al-Mu’izz has stated: “We pass in the pure backbones and the sanctified and chaste wombs; whenever we are confined in a backbone and a womb, God shows us in power and knowledge…” (Makarem, The Doctrine of the Isma‘ilis, Beirut 1972, p. 32) and Imam Hasan ‘ala-dhikrihi al-salaam said: “The Imams, both outwardly and inwardly, both exoterically and esoterically, issue from the pure line and loins of the Imam, one after another.” (Nasir al-Din Tusi, Paradise of Submission, p. 125)  All these principles must be applied in understanding the rank of Prince ‘Ali Khan. Prince ‘Ali Khan was both the son of a pure Imam and the father of a pure Imam and thus he must also have shared in this state of spiritual purity. Imam Hasan ‘ala-dhikrihi as-salaam also states that the Nur of Imamat exists even in the state of ‘intellectual sperm’, and in this sense Prince ‘Ali Khan would serve as the transition vessel by which the Light of Imamate was inherited by his son Imam Shah Karim from his father Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah.  In summary, while Prince ‘Ali Khan was never the formal and functioning Imam, his spirituality and purity would be at the same level as the Imams since he is both the descendant of the past Imams and the progenitor of all the Imams to come.  It is worth noting that during the time when Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah, Prince ‘Ali Khan and Prince Karim were contemporary, the Imam ordered the Isma‘ili community to hold a joint saligrah celebration commemorating the birth of all three persons on the date of June 13 – which was the birth date of Prince ‘Ali Khan.

[ii] See Shafique Virani, The Isma‘ilis in the Middle Ages, p. 85 for details regarding this succession.  The author also points out that a grandson succession was repeated in recent times when Imam Shah Karim succeeded Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah.

[iii] Farhad Daftary, The Ismailis: Their History and Doctrines, p. 218 (Second Edition) where he refers to the prediction made by the Syrian da‘i Muhammad b. al-Suri and the Fatimid qadi al-Maliji.

[iv] Simonetta Calderini,‘Alam al-din in Isma’ilism: World of Obedience or World of Immobility, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 467: “Kirmani firmly rejected Druze statements about the imminent advent of the Qa’im by reiterating that the Qiyama was not near, but was to take place in the distant future when the long cycle of 49 imams was concluded.”

[v] Rafiq Keshavjee, Mysticism and the Plurality of Meaning: The Case of the Ismailis of Rural Iran, IIS Occasional Papers, p. 6.

[vi] Qur’an 7:54 – “It is He who created the Heavens and the Earth in Six Days and then He ascended the Throne”.  According to the ta’wil of this verse as related in numerous Isma‘ili texts, the world created in Six Days refers to the World of Faith (‘alam al-din); the Heavens stand for the shari‘ah or exoteric laws; the Earth stands for the tariqah or esoteric paths; the Six Days stand for the Six Cycles of the Six Natiqs – Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad with each Cycle lasting approximately a thousand years; the Seventh Day (Sabbath) or Throne stands for the Cycle of Hazrat Qa ‘im al-Qiyamah which is the Cycle of Resurrection.  For details see Shafique Virani, The Days of Creation in the Thought of Nasir-i Khusraw, published under Academic Articles of the Institute of Ismaili Studies.

A Link in the Chain

1425617_468492506601430_1622956036_n

“The Imam is a transitory being, who forms a link between the past and the future. For this reason, ensuring the continuity of the institution and its ability to fulfill its role is what my life is all about.”
- Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan IV, 

(Paris Match Interview No. 2907, 3-9 February 2005)

The Isma‘ili Imamate, represented in every age by the Imam of the Time, is a trans-historical institution.   To engage the Isma‘ili Imam is to engage with the history which he represents and, in a sense, connect to the ‘past’ that he embodies in the ‘present’.  In this sense, one can experience the Imams of the past in the present Imam, but also experience the Isma‘ili communities of the past which were linked to these Imams:

In Ismailism, the fact that the Imam embodies a tradition extending considerably backwards in time creates the setting for just such an experience. By encapsulating the past within himself, the Imam serves as history incarnate, so to speak. In this sense, history is not only “learned”; it is also “experienced”, with a heightening of one’s intellectual and moral imagination.
- Aziz Esmail, (Why History, Institute of Isma‘ili Studies: Lifelong Learning Articles)

The figure of the Imam combines both transience and permanence.  As a single part of a series of Imams, each Imam is a transitory being, serving as but a link in the chain.  But the Imamate, the institution which each Imam bears and undertakes in his lifetime, is a permanent institution which has been present since humanity’s origins and which will continue to remain on earth until the Day of Judgment. Thus, the Imam is ‘a link in the chain’ – both historically and metaphysically.  Historically, the Imam is the link in the chain of Imams and a bridge between the past and the future.  Metaphysically, the Imam is a link in the great chain of being – guiding his murids from the limited realm of corporeality to the infinite realm of divinity – and serving as the mediator between the relative and the Absolute.

God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. God guideth unto His light whom He will. And God speaketh to mankind in allegories, for God is Knower of all things.
- Holy Quran 24:35

The purpose of religion, in its essential sense, is ‘to bind’ the relative, the illusionary, and the transient to the Absolute, the Real, and the Permanent.  In Shi‘a Islam, it is the Imam – the bearer of the Light – who combines both transience and permanence within himself and guides the seeker to transcend his transitory and impermanent material life and bring his soul into communion with the Light of the Absolute and Infinite Reality – of which the Universe around us is but one of the infinite manifestations.

In our interpretation of this famous Qur’anic ayat, known as the ayat al-nur (Verse of Light), the ‘niche’ symbolizes the Imam’s physical body and the ‘lamp’ with its ‘glass’ symbolizes his pure soul.  The ‘blessed tree’ is Imam’s pure lineage which extends back through the previous Imams, the Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet Ibrahim and Adam himself; a lineage both physical and spiritual from which many great Prophets, saints and sages have come forth.  The light inside the lamp which shines and illuminates the darkness like a ‘shining star’ is the Light of Imamate which is the source of the Imam’s virtues, knowledge and guidance. It is a universal spiritual Light, ‘neither of the East nor the West’, which shines upon the ‘heavens and the earth’ illuminating all the seekers of enlightenment.  When the Imam departs this world and hands over the Imamate to the next Imam, one bearer of Light is succeeded by another bearer of Light; but their Light is one and the same and in reality there is no change, only ‘Light upon Light’.

10458164_804629076222664_5624020132494293791_n

“When you inherit an office, which is a life office, you are simply a link in the chain. And you therefore look at life somewhat differently than if you were, I suppose, a professional who moves around and is free to do what he wishes. Now some things are impossible to achieve. I well know that. And if that is the case, I simply have to try and move the issues forward as much as I can. The next Imam will then decide how he wishes to handle the issues. But, it is the continuum which is at the back of my mind. And that’s why perhaps my time dimension appears different than it might for other people.”
- Imam Shah Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan IV,
(Forbes Global, Cover Story, May 31, 1999)

 


Viewing all 212 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>