Page 13 - Chapter One:
"The primary discernment between the Real and the unreal, or between God and the
world, is followed by a secondary discernment among the realities of the world. The second
Shahadah tells us that ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of God.’ It follows that he is
a clear, designated manifestation of the One Real. In other words, he represents God more
directly than other creatures. He and the Koran for which he is the vehicle are guiding
lights in the darkness of unreal things. More generally, all prophets have been sent to
reveal God’s guidance and mercy to human beings, so revelation plays a special role
in human becoming. Without the revealed guidance, people can only wander in ignorance and
illusion, immersed in the unreal things that veil them from the truth.
"On closer
examination, the distinction between divine revelation and all that does not reveal God is
much more subtle than at first appears. The Koran calls its own verses and other divine
revelations ‘signs’ (ayat), and it employs the same word to refer to the
things of the universe. If the Koran is God’s Book, displaying His ‘signs,’
so also the universe is God’s Book announcing His revelations. It follows that the
world and everything within it can be viewed from two points of view. In one respect, all
things are ‘other than God’ and hence unreal. In another respect, all things are
‘signs’ of God and therefore real in some degree. Here then we have a further
discernment of fundamental importance - between phenomena as ‘signs’ and
phenomena as ‘veils’."
Commentary: As
indicated earlier, the first Shahadah is not a "discernment between the
Real and the unreal", it is pure affirmation concerning the point from which all
issues proceed and the Standard against which all issues are to be judged. This is quite
appropriate for the kind of ‘beginning’ or ‘starting point’ to which
the Shahadah gives expression.
Secondly, if we accept
the author’s rendering of the first Shahadah to mean "there is no reality but
God", then, the second Shahadah is not "a secondary discernment among the
realities of the world". This is so in several respects.
To begin with, if
‘there is no reality but God’, then, there are no "realities of the
world" per se. In fact, any statement of this kind merely confuses the issue.
Whatever the precise
nature of the realities which are given expression through the manifest world, they are
not "realities of the world". The forms of the manifest world are
a function of the dynamics of the Divine Attributes and Names, so the world is a
‘projected reality’ resulting from the way in which the principle of tawhid
weaves all levels of Being together to reflect the nature of the Divine wish concerning
the Hidden Treasure, Creation, and knowledge.
According to the author,
"The second Shahadah tells us that ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of God.’ It
follows that he is a clear, designated manifestation of the One Real. In other words, he
represents God more directly than other creatures. He and the Koran for which he is the
vehicle are guiding lights in the darkness of unreal things."
The foregoing seem rather
confusing, if not confused - especially when viewed against the backdrop of "there is
no reality but God". More specifically, on the basis of what the author has indicated
to this point in his book, no proper foundation has been laid for asserting that "it follows
(my emphasis) that he [i.e., Muhammad (peace be upon him)] is a clear, designated
manifestation of the One Real."
One might agree with the
author concerning the issue of "manifestation", but, in a sense, the statement
comes out of the blue, so to speak, rather than clearly ‘following’ from the
discussion which preceded it. After all, the author has just spent a number of pages
arguing that the entire thrust of the first Shahadah is that ‘there is no reality but
God’, that ‘everything is perishing but His face’, and that the first
Shahadah is the line of demarcation between the Real and the unreal. Morever, little, or
nothing, has been said about ‘manifestation’ or where it might fit into the
realm of the ‘Real’.
Even if one accepts the
author’s contention that the Prophet is "a clear, designated manifestation of
the One Real", one would have no reason not to extend this way of looking at things
to the rest of Creation. In other words, each facet of Creation should be characterized as
a "clear, designated manifestation of the One Real" - although in view of the
special status which is being accorded to the Prophet through the second Shahadah, each
such facet would constitute a different kind of ‘clear designation’ than would
the Prophet.
Given the foregoing, the
author is not necessarily justified in proceeding to claim that the Prophet
"represents God more directly than other creatures". There are several reasons
for making this counter veiling claim.
Firstly, manifestation is
not representation. Manifestation gives direct expression, in some sense of this term, to
a given level of the ‘Real’, whereas representation uses something to stand in
for the ‘Real’, and if we accept that ‘there is no reality but God’,
then, there is no-thing which can stand in for the’ Real’.
Secondly, manifestation,
qua manifestation, gives equally direct expression to the ‘Real’, and,
therefore, one manifestation does not give more direct manifestation than do other
manifestations. On the other hand, one could say that the qualitative character of one
manifestation, relative to others, is different, or that the role and function of a given
manifestation, relative to others, is different.
As such, the Prophet does
not represent "God more directly than other creatures". However, the role which
is assigned by the Divine Aspiration to the Prophetic manifestation within the context of
the ‘Hidden Treasure’, Creation, and knowledge, clearly could be different than
the roles which are assigned by the Divine Aspiration to other modalities of manifestation
- as the Qur’an states: "Some We have raised in excellence above others (2:253).
Within the short space of
the paragraph quoted at the beginning of this Commentary, the author shifts
from speaking in terms of ‘manifestation’, to using the term
‘representation’, to referring to creation as consisting of ‘unreal
things’. This latter usage appears when he indicates that the Prophet "and the
Koran for which he is the vehicle are guiding lights in the darkness of unreal
things."
It is hard to understand
what difference "guiding lights", such as the Qur’an and the Prophet, can
make in relation to "unreal things". On the other hand, if those aspects of
Creation which the author is designating as "unreal things" were manifestations
with a Divinely given character or form that, under certain circumstances, could be open
to the light of guidance being transmitted through the Qur’an and the Prophet, then,
this is another matter altogether from the one which the author is describing.
The author goes on to
assert: "Without the revealed guidance, people can only wander in ignorance and
illusion, immersed in the unreal things that veil them from the truth." The author is
assigning blame to the wrong ‘culprit’.
The ‘things of the
world’, which are manifestations brought into being by the Divine Command
"Kun’ (Be), do not veil us from the truth. We veil ourselves from the truth.
(There are Hadiths which speak of how God has seventy - some say seventy thousand - veils
of light and darkness that have been sprinkled across Creation, but this is not
necessarily at odds with the point being made now.)
The Prophet is reported
to have said: "This world is maintained in existence by illusion". The Prophet
also prayed to God for ‘things to be shown as they really are’. Furthermore, the
Qur’an indicates that "There is nothing that does not glorify Him in praise, but
ye understand not that Praise". (17:44)
When, by God’s
Grace, an individual comes to understand, among other things, the manner of glorification
inherent in all things, then, the aforementioned prayer of the Prophet for that
person’s life is answered, and the illusion, which previously had maintained
‘the world’ of that individual, disappears. This is an instance of unveiling.
It is our concepts,
interpretations, beliefs, judgements, and understandings that are illusory. These are some
of the primary forces maintaining our world in a state in which we cannot perceive the
reality of things or how all manifestations are busy with glorifying God according to
their individual modalities.
Dunya is
‘the world’ expressed in terms of the emotional, conceptual, sensual, and
motivational entanglements of nafsi-amaara - that is, the carnal, lower, rebellious soul.
These entanglements blind us to the Reality which is present, and, therefore, maintain
‘our world’ in illusion. As the Qur’an points out: "it is not their
eyes which are blind, but the hearts in their breast". (22:46)
The author concludes his
discussion at this juncture of his book with: "On closer examination, the distinction
between divine revelation and all that does not reveal God is much more subtle than at
first appears. The Koran calls its own verses and other divine revelations
‘signs’ (ayat), and it employs the same word to refer to the things of
the universe. If the Koran is God’s Book, displaying His ‘signs,’ so also
the universe is God’s Book announcing His revelations. It follows that the world and
everything within it can be viewed from two points of view. In one respect, all things are
‘other than God’ and hence unreal. In another respect, all things are
‘signs’ of God and therefore real in some degree. Here then we have a further
discernment of fundamental importance - between phenomena as ‘signs’ and
phenomena as ‘veils’."
The distinction which the
author is drawing "between divine revelation and all that does not reveal God"
is illusory. Since "there is no reality but God" and since "there is
nothing that does not glorify Him in praise, but ye understand not that Praise",
then, contrary to the contention of the author, there can be nothing "which does not
reveal God".
Moreover, the author
makes a mistake when he equates the ‘signs’ of the Qur’an with the
‘signs’ of the universe and, as a result, treats the latter as "God’s
Book announcing His revelations". Among other things, the error committed here is to
confuse levels.
The Qur’an is the uncreated
Word of God. This means that the origins of the Qur’an are from beyond the horizons
of Creation, and, this means, as well, that the manifested form of the Original Book of
Revelation which descends into the realm of Creation is an imminent ‘sign’ of
that transcendent, uncreated realm.
The Universe arises from
the Command of Creation "Kun" (‘Be’). In other words, the Universe is
not the ‘Uncreated’ Word of God, but the ‘Created’ Word
of God.
Although both the
Qur’an and the Universe employ ‘signs’, these signs have different roles
and functions - despite the fact that both sets of signs, each in their own way, can help
us to know the presence of the ‘Real’ if, God willing, we can be opened to the
manner in which each set of signs gives expression to the ‘Real’. However, the
‘revelations’ inherent in the ‘signs’ of the Created Word of God are
not the same kind of ‘Revelation’ as are inherent in the Uncreated Word of God.
If the foregoing
distinction were not the case, there would be no need for the Qur’an, or any other
Books of Revelation, nor would there be any need for Messengers. One merely would have to
read the book of Creation, and, then, one would know who one is, and why one is, and how
to proceed - but such is not the case.
The Prophets, themselves,
were not guided until Guidance came in the form of imminent manifestations of the
Uncreated Word of God. On their own, they could not decipher the ‘signs’ of the
Created Word of God to provide what only could come through the ‘signs’ of a
Book rooted in the Uncreated Word of Divinity.
Consequently, Revelation
has come, because the ‘revelations’ inherent in the signs of the Created
Universe are not sufficient to guide human beings to the full truth concerning the purpose
of Creation and human existence. The ‘Revelation’ of the Uncreated Word of God
has a different role and function than do the ‘revelations’ which are displayed
through the ‘signs’ of the Created Word of God - even if they both point in the
same direction and even though both complement one another as they are woven together
through the principle of tawhid which governs Manifest Being.
From the perspective of
the foregoing, the author is wrong when he asserts: "It follows that the world and
everything within it can be viewed from two points of view. In one respect, all things are
‘other than God’ and hence unreal. In another respect, all things are
‘signs’ of God and therefore real in some degree. Here then we have a further
discernment of fundamental importance - between phenomena as ‘signs’ and
phenomena as ‘veils’."
None of what the author
says ‘follows’ in the foregoing, does, in fact, follow. There are
no manifestations which are unreal - there are only manifestations which are not properly
understood and which, as such, constitute veils.
‘Signs’ of
Divinity always remain ‘signs’, and things could not be otherwise.
Unfortunately, human beings distort the significance of those ‘signs’ through
the various entanglements of nafsi-amaara, and, consequently, we become closed off to
their meaning.
|
