Simone Weil: The Personal and Impersonal God and the Sanctity of the Atheist

“As the Hindus say, God is at the same time personal and impersonal. He is impersonal in the sense that his infinitely mysterious manner of being a Person is infinitely different from the human manner. It is only possible to grasp this mystery by employing at the same time, like two pincers, these two contrary notions, incompatible here on earth, compatible only in God (the same applies to may other pairs of contraries, as the Pythagoreans had realised).

One is able to think of God at the same time, not successively, as being three in one (a thing which few Catholics manage to be able to do) only by thinking of Him at the same time as personal and impersonal. Otherwise one represents Him to oneself sometimes as a single divine Person, at other times as three Gods Many Christians confuse such an oscillation with true faith.

Saints of a very lofty spirituality, like St John of the Cross, has seized simultaneously and with an equal force both the personal and the impersonal aspects of God. Less developed souls concentrate their attention and their faith above all or exclusively upon one or the other of these two aspects. Thus little St Theresa of Lisieux only represented to herself a personal God.

As in the West the word God, taken in its usual meaning, signifies a Person, men whose attention, faith and love are almost exclusively concentrated on the impersonal aspect of God can actually believes themselves and declare themselves to be atheists, even though supernatural love inhabits their souls. Such men are surely saved.

They can be recognised by their attitude with regard to the things of this world. All those who possess in its pure state the love of their neighbour and the acceptance of the order of the world, including affliction – all those, even should they live and die to all appearances atheists, are surely saved.

Those who possess perfectly these two virtues, even should they live and die atheists, are saints.

When one comes across such men, it is futile to want to convert them. They are wholly converted, thought not visibly so; they have been begotten anew by water and the spirit, even if they have never been baptised; they have eaten of the bread of life, even if they have never communicated.”

- from Letter to a Priest by Simone Weil (ISBN 0415267676)

Rest In Peace, Steve Jobs…

Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address
www.stanford.edu

My Journey To Islam

www.presstv.com/Program/202877.html

Shylock – I am a Jew

“To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

- Shylock

From The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare

Well-trodden Paths – a look at the Shari’ah

By Sheikh Daoud Rosser-Owen
Amir, AOBM

The famous Tudor dramaturge, Christopher Marlowe, wrote circa 1592 to the Prologue of his play The Jew of Malta, “I count religion but a childish toy, And hold there is no sin but ignorance”.

While I don’t agree with him about religion, nor the solitariness of the sin, I certainly hold with him that ignorance is sinful. I don’t mean ‘ignorance’ as in simply not knowing something. I mean ‘ignorance’ as refusing to find out. Indeed, in these days of the easy accessibility of information through the Internet and widespread literacy, I would consider such ‘ignorance’ not merely to be a sin, but worse – a willful and inexcusable self-indulgence. And, as it affects Islam and Muslims in the British Isles and even elsewhere in that putative entity ‘The West’, outrageous and with the wrong people positively dangerous. It should be needless to say that this works both ways.

At the moment it is quite common, even fashionable, among many to denigrate and anathematise the Shari’ah, used as a shorthand for Islamic Law or more accurately as one for the degenerate legal systems applied in certain Muslim countries – which is not at all the same thing.

There is also the understandable reaction to a more immediate problem of the ignorant demands from certain Muslims of Britain, and their umbrella organisations, for the application in the UK of some concept that they describe as “Shari’ah” or “Islamic Law”, but which is actually little better than an Islamic label stuck crudely over some imported cultural or customary code that in all too many dimensions touches Islam itself only notionally.

It is sadly true that there is some justification for these responses.

However reacting from ignorance is not helpful. Yet what else can people do when they are let down by those whose professional duty it used to be (according to the Great John Delane, sometime Editor of The Times, in his famous editorial “The Earl of Derby remarked…” of Friday, 6 February, 1852)  “to educate and inform” but who nowadays seem to take it as being to promote ignorance and dissention? Few people are orientalists, and the generations who were born, grew up and served in the Empire have largely passed out of public life.

The aim of this essay is an attempt to fill in the gap abandoned by journalism. It is largely adapted from my monograph (as yet unpublished because not quite complete) on Tory Fundamentalism and Muslim Ideas of State, and it has been revised in the light of two Reports recently released on Islamophobia: that by Spinwatch, “The Cold War on British Muslims” (available to read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/61402174/The-Cold-War-on-British-Muslims and as a PDF at http://www.spinwatch.org/images/The_Cold_War on_British_Muslims_July_2011.pdf) and that by the Center for American Progress, “Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” (available to read and to download as a PDF at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/islamophobia.html).

It is possible that I actually was the first to coin the word “Islamophobia” in an Editorial I wrote in Q-News International in early 1995 – I had formed the word as a derivative from, and allusion to, “homophobia” – which was picked up by the Runnymede Trust’s Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, set up in 1996, in its first Report “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all”, published in 1997. On reflection, seeing how things have developed more towards outright hatred of Islam and Muslims rather than an irrational fear, it would have been more appropriate for me to have called it “Islamomisia”. I had toyed with the idea, and dismissed it as being too academically obscure for a newspaper editorial.

About two years ago, in I think 2008, there was published in one of the UK’s daily broadsheets the results of a survey among Muslims, largely in the Midlands and north-east of England, asking whether they wanted Shari’ah in the UK. Many answered ‘yes’, but the questions remain what did the respondents understand by the request, did they think that there was a realistic possibility of it actually happening, or were they reacting to some massive hypothetical “If”?

Much has been made of the apparent results of this poll. So, following from this, what does the word Shari’ah mean for the average UK Muslim – or the proverbial ‘Muslim on the Clapham omnibus’ – and the average UK non-Muslim? And what does this actually mean for them at the operative level of daily life?

There used not to be an educated person unfamiliar with that verse from Jeremiah (6:16), “interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona et ambulate in ea” (ask after the old paths where is the good way and walk in it). This “good way” (via bona) is the well-trodden path of the prophets and patriarchs, and is the Way of Truth that all these have called people to follow.

The Muslims do not see their Way as being different from this but as a continuation of this well-trodden path, though all communities at various places, times, and circumstances have needed specific guidance for their conditions. As stated in the Quran “for every one of you We have ordained a Code and a Good Way” (li kulli ja’alna minkum shir’atan wa minhaja)(Q5:48). This via bona is none other than the Shari’ah – a ‘well-trodden path to that watering hole’ (which is what the word actually means) of laws and conduct derived from what has been sent down from the Almighty from which the Mosaic Law of the Torah, much of the Canon Law of the Christians, and the corpus of Islamic Law drink deep. To Muslims, each of these Abrahamic Faiths (as the late Professor Isma’il al-Faruqi, al shahid, termed them) has its own Shari’ah: its own track (semita) on the Way (via) of Truth.

Read more of this post

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf – What is Jihad? Who Deserves the Help of God?

Read the First Alphabet and be Free!

By Bulleh Shah
Translated by Muzaffar A. Ghaffaar

Read the first alphabet and be free
The first alphabet became two bodies, then four
Then became thousands, lakhs, a crore
From there became countless more
The unique alphabet’s dot a lone pedigree

Read the first alphabet and be free
Cartloads of books why have you read
A bundle of torments carry on your head
The face of tyrants you have bred
The way beyond is hard and heavy

Read the first alphabet and be free
Of the Qur’an became a memoriser of consequence
Reading, re-reading, diction purify with diligence
Then focus your mind on comforts, affluence
The mind’s a mad dog on a spree

Read the first alphabet and be free
Bullha, the seed of the banyan first was sown
Then that tree became full grown:
When it was shown the finite zone
Then remained the seed-solitary

Read the first alphabet and be free

Extract from, “Bulleh Shah Within Reach” by Muzaffar A Ghaffaar, part of the Masterworks of Punjaabi Sufi Poetry series.

What’s in a Name?

By Paul Salahuddin Armstrong

Baby Names

Recently, I’ve had the good fortune to be blessed with a new addition to my family, an adorable baby girl. As with all new parents, my wife and I were giving final consideration to what names we should choose. In this spirit I thought I’d have a browse through a book I bought some years ago, when I read the following advice in the introduction:

“The selection of a good name is of course one of the first important duties of a parent to a child and should not be treated lightly. According to the Prophet Muhammad, it is a child’s right to be given a good and honourable name.
What’s in a name and what constitutes a good and honourable name?
A person’s name, whether it is Muslim or not, usually tells something about the cultural milieu in which he is born and in which he grows up. It gives some indication of his heritage and the values which his parents hold dear. A name like Muhammed ibn Abdul Aziz places its bearer firmly within the mainstream of Muslim civilization. A name like Tom Ahmed is indicative of some form of cultural transformation or indeed of confusion and disorientation.”
- The Book of Muslim Names, MELS 1985.

This starts off well, indeed it is most important to give a child a good and honourable name. People will address a person by their name repeatedly throughout the rest of their lives, the last thing anyone would like to discover is that the name people were referring to them by, meant something offensive or unpleasant. Traditionally, it’s true that names would normally give some indication of a person’s roots, although in today’s global culture this is less likely to be the case than in the past. However, I find the last two lines somewhat contradictory and certainly not the best of advice. Whilst a name like Muhammad ibn Abdul Aziz is without doubt a good and noble name, this name is clearly very Arabic. Were someone to call out this name in a reception, they’d without doubt be expecting an Arab man to stand up, rather than someone of lets say for example, European or Chinese roots… That in itself doesn’t mean it’s wrong for a person of a different background to carry this name, it’s just something a parent might want to take into consideration before choosing a name for their child.

Read more of this post

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah al-Qadiriyyah as-Sufi?

By Paul Salahuddin Armstrong

“Thus the meaning of sufi alludes to the meaning of siddiq or one who has reached complete Truthfulness, because the best of human beings after prophets are the siddiqin…”
- Ibn Taymiyya, At-Tawassuf, Majmu’a Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya al-Kubra 11.

Imam Ibn Taymiyya then went on to say:

Some people criticized the Sufis and said that they were innovators and out of the Sunna… but the truth is that they are exercising ijtihad in view of obeying Allah just as others who are obedient to Allah have also done. So from them you will find the Foremost in Nearness (al-sabiq al-muqarrab) by virtue of his striving, while some of them are from the People of the Right Hand… and among those claiming affiliation with them, are those who are unjust to themselves, rebelling against their Lord. These are the sects of innovators and free-thinkers (zindiq) who claim affiliation to the Sufis but in the opinion of the genuine Sufis, they do not belong, for example, al-Hallaj. Tasawwuf has branched out and diversified and the Sufis have become known as three types:

1. Sufiyyat al haqa’iq: the Sufis of Realities, and these are the ones we mentioned above;
2. Sufiyyat al arzaq: the funded Sufis who live on the religious endowments of Sufi guest-houses and schools; it is not necessary for them to be among the people of true realities, as this is a very rare thing
3. Sufiyyat al rasm: the Sufis by appearance only, who are interested in bearing the name and the dress etc.

Interesting… I wonder why I’ve never heard this from those who usually trumpet Ibn Taymiyya?

Obviously, no one disputes that as with most practices, there are those who are the genuine article, those who just do something as a job but whose heart isn’t in their work and those who are only concerned with appearances. Imam Ibn Taymiyya was right on the mark here. However, according to his own words, he clearly didn’t have anything against people who were genuinely and sincerely following the Sufi path.

When Imam Ibn Taymiyya wrote so much about tasawuf (Sufism) and claimed to be a Qadiri himself with only two people between him and the great Sheikh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani, may Allah bless him, why is this Imam so widely cited by those who are otherwise so opposed to Sufism? How can they authentically referrence this scholar of Sufism as their evidence against it? Logically it doesn’t make any sense, but then again…

Brian Greene: The Search For Hidden Dimensions


www.youtube.com/richarddawkinsdotnet

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.