How to Know God

--

[ Two ways to know with certainty that God does exist. ]

--

LESSON FIVE

KNOWING GOD

Introduction

The foundation of religion is the belief in the Supreme Creator of the universe. This point constitutes the divisive element, which separates the divine worldview from the materialistic worldview. The primary factor to be established in the search for reality is whether or not God exists. We have to arrive at a positive or negative conclusion through the utilisation of the intellect.

If the conclusion is positive then we proceed to review the secondary issues (such as unity, justice and other divine qualities). If on the other hand the result proves to be negative, then we accept the materialistic worldview and there is no further need to investigate into religion.

Cognition through knowledge by presence and knowledge by acquisition

There are two ways of knowing God; one way through acquired knowledge and the other way through knowledge by presence. The meaning of knowledge by presence means that an individual knows God through a type of inward witnessing, without any intermediary or mental concepts. It is self evident that if someone has conscious witnessing with regards to God - the way that the great gnostics have claimed – then he does not require any intellectual proof or reasoning. However for the average individual this type of knowledge and vision is only possible through self-building and spiritual wayfaring. Although a weak version of it is present in the average man it is not combined with awareness and is not considered sufficient enough to acquire a worldview.

The meaning of knowledge by acquisition is that an individual with the help of universal concepts –such as the Creator, All Knowing, Omnipotent, etc –realises intellectually the existence of God.

However this understanding is limited and inadequate because it adheres upon the intellectual capacity of that individual and subsequently he associates the additional acquired knowledge to this base in order to establish a harmonious system of belief (worldview).

Acquired knowledge is established upon intellectual proofs and philosophical reasoning. Once acquired man can enter the realm of understanding and realising knowledge by presence.

Cognition through intrinsic nature

In most of the discourses of the saints, gnostics and philosophers we find that knowing God is a natural instinct of man, and something that is inherent to him through his intrinsic nature. In order to understand these definitions one has to define the meaning of intrinsic nature.

In Arabic the word ‘fitrah’ is used to imply a ‘type of creation’. Such things, which are related to this intrinsic nature, are called ‘fitri’, and are those things whose creation depends on something already existent.

We consider those things, which are fitri to have   three distinctive features:

1. Different creatures all have a similar intrinsic nature within their species, although there may be variations with regards to it being strong or weak.

2. Things related to the intrinsic nature in the course of history have been determined as being permanent and perpetual. “The origination of Allah according to which he originated mankind (there is no altering Allah’s creation)”. (al-Rūm:30)

3. The intrinsic nature is self-sufficient from education and training; however it can be intensified and guided through the assistance of discipline. This intrinsic nature of man can be divided into two parts:

a. Cognition related to the intrinsic nature endowed to man and not acquired through learning.

b. Those tendencies and impulses, which are related to the intrinsic nature and are essential elements in the creation of every individual.

On this basis, if awareness of God is established within every human being and is nota thing that man needs to acquire through research, then it can be called, ‘Knowing God through intrinsic nature’. If all humans have the tendency towards worshipping God, then it would be known as, ‘Worshipping God through intrinsic nature.’

In lesson two we have indicated that most of the experts in the fields of anthropology and psychology have regarded the tendencies towards religion as psychological and have labelled it as a ‘sense of religiosity’ or as ‘religious sentiment’. We must emphasise that ‘knowing God’ is based on man’s intrinsic nature. However the intrinsic nature of knowing and worshipping God is not with full awareness in a manner that it will suffice ordinary men from intellectual reasoning.

One should not forget that the element of knowledge by presence exists in every individual to a lower degree and is perfected through intellectual reasoning. In conclusion, cognition of God based upon intrinsic nature means that man’s heart is aware of God, and his spirit has the potentiality of knowing God with full awareness.

Questions

1. Name the most fundamental issue of a worldview? Why it is considered the most fundamental?

2. Explain the meaning of knowledge by presence and knowledge by acquisition?

3. Is it possible to acquire knowledge by presence through intellectual reasoning and philosophical proof? Why?

4. What is the role of acquired knowledge for an individual, who wants to arrive to knowledge by presence?

5. What is the meaning of intrinsic nature – fitrah?

6. Explain the specialties of those things, which are related to the intrinsic nature of man.

7. Explain the different types of things considered as fitri?

8. Which particular aspect of intrinsic nature is in relationship to God?

9. Define cognition through intrinsic nature. Is the intrinsic nature of man sufficient in itself for the average man to know God, without resorting to intellectual reasoning? Why?

LESSON SIX

THE SIMPLE WAY OF KNOWING GOD

The ways of knowing God

There are numerous mediums through which man can know God, many of which are mentioned in the different books of philosophy, theology and in the discourses of saints. These mediums or ways have used distinctive forms of reasoning and proofs: for example some have utilised (corporeal) senses and experimental sciences, on the other hand some have applied only intellectual arguments as a premise for knowing God. Certain schools attempt to prove God directly and certain schools to only prove His existence, which does not depend on any existent (necessary existent). In order to understand His complexity (attributes), the establishment of other arguments is required.

The proofs and reasoning of knowledge about God can be compared for example to the multiplicity of ways by which one can cross a river: some are like simple wooden bridges which are drawn over the river, by which a light-weight traveller can easily cross and reach his destination. Other bridges may be built of stone, which results in them being strong but also longer, the way thus becomes lengthier. Finally, some bridges such as intricate iron bridges, which contain tunnels for trains, provide a more complex way of travelling.

An individual with a simple mind can recognise God through a very simple way and fulfil his responsibilities of servitude. If one has encountered many criticisms, which caused him to doubt, then he should prefer the stone bridge. The man who is entangled with extreme doubts and questions must choose the complex path; it is essential for him, even though his path may be lengthened.

We now aim to outline the three different levels by which man can know God. Firstly by defining the simple way, then the intermediary way and finally the more complex way, this way resolves several fundamental issues of philosophy and is for those minds, which are full of doubts and that have become deviated from the reality and goal.

a. Specialties of the simple way

The simple way of knowing about God is bestowed with different merits and peculiarities, the most important of them are mentioned as follows:

1. The initial way is the most simple of all and does not require any intricate or  proficient premises. It is easily understood by all degrees of mind.

2. This path directly accepts God as the Wise Creator. In this way it is unlike philosophy or theology (kalam) where the proof for the existence of God is first accomplished and then followed by the proof for the establishment of His attributes through intellectual reasoning.

3. This way is based upon and emphasises upon the intrinsic nature of man. Through reflection man will come to witness the beauty of God in the creation as well as in other manifestations.

4. The saints for guiding the masses utilise this path, which is based upon the intrinsic nature of man. However, when discussing or debating with atheists, materialistic philosophers or sharp-minded individuals, the leaders would choose a different method by which to debate.

b. Familiar signs.

By reflecting upon the signs (ayat) around us, man can arrive at an understanding of his Creator. In Quranic terminology such reflection is termed as ‘contemplation upon the signs of the Lord’. Hence everything that is in the heavens and the earth and within man himself reflects God and channels the heart to feel the presence of God’s guidance in the universe.

This very book that you have in your hand is a sign from the author. Is it not true that by reading it you are becoming aware that the writer is intelligent and has a purpose? Have you ever thought that this work is the result of a chain of reactions without any intent? Is it not an absurd idea that an encyclopaedia of a hundred volumes could have come into existence as an effect of an explosion which came to occur in a metal mine, the fragments of which took the form of letters and through accidental encounters with pieces of paper made writing appear and then the papers also accidentally became arranged and bound into volumes?

To accept blind accidents as a means of explaining the vast universe as a phenomenon, with all the hidden and uncovered secrets and wisdoms behind it is a thousand times more absurd than the above-mentioned idea!

Every determined order is the sign of a determiner who is orderly and has a determination. This type of order can be perceived all over the universe. These orders bring together a universal orderliness, which has been brought about by a wise creator who perpetually manages it.

Shrubs of rose stem out from mud and clay in a beautiful garden, with distinctive colours and a variety of fragrances, an apple tree originates from a small seed and every year gives a good amount of apples which are fair in taste, colour, and fragrance.

Furthermore the song of the nightingale, the chicken hatching out of an egg, by beating the ground with the beak, and the newborn calf suckling its mothers for milk, at the same time the breasts are ready with the supply of milk for the baby etc. These are all signs from Him.

Is it not surprising that the honeybees, cows, and goats provide man with honey and milk especially for his use and in unlimited quantity? Ungrateful man however does not recognise these familiar bounties and encounters them with confrontation and dissidence.

In his very body man can see the outstanding effects of wise supervision: the shape of the body with balanced functional division, the external vital structure with harmonious internal organs composed of millions of cells, which are all from a mother cell, each cell containing a specific portion of special material to function properly, such as breathing oxygen through the lungs, which is then transported by the red blood cells, and the liver which produces sugar necessary for the human body, and the replacement of destroyed cells with new cells, and the protection of the human body by the white blood cells against viruses and microbes, and the various hormones -which are produced by different glands- organising the physiological tasks of human body, all the abovementioned are signs reflecting Almighty God.

This physiological system is mysterious, and even though dozens of centuries have passed, man still has further ground to discover. If one investigates the smallest details of the living cell, he would undoubtedly question as to who was the administrator and originator behind it all.

It is the Wise Creator who holds the utmost perfection and orderliness, who manages such affairs: “That is Allah! Then where do you stray?” (al-Anam: 95)

It is apparent, that as knowledge expands and grows resulting in more discoveries of natural laws and their relationships, it will result in the unveiling of the secret wisdom behind the creation. However contemplating on these simple, visible, and clear signs is sufficient enough for pure and uncontaminated hearts.

Questions:

1. Explain the different ways of knowing God and what their peculiarities are?

2. Define the simple way of knowing about God and its peculiarities.

3. Explain the determined signs of creation.

4. Give the logical proof for ‘order’.

LESSON SEVEN

PROOFS OF NECESSARY EXISTENT

Introduction

In the previous lessons we have indicated that the philosophers and the scholars of theology (mutakallimin) have established several arguments for the proof of God. In this lesson we have brought one of their many arguments, because of the fact that it is elementary, simple and requires less of an introduction in order to establish an existence as necessary (wajib). However the validity of this argument is only for  proving necessary existent (wajib al-wujud), i.e. an existent which does not need, require or depend upon any other existent for coming into being and in order to proof its positive attributes (knowledge, omnipotence, and being above time and space)requires additional arguments.

Text of the proof 

Existence through intellectual perception is either necessary existence or possible existence. Intellectually, no existent lies outside these two assumptions and every existent cannot be known as a possible existent because a possible existent always needs a cause (illah). If all the causes were possible existents, each one of them in turn requiring a cause, no existent would ever come into being, in other words an infinite series (tasalsul) of causes is impossible (muhal). Therefore an infinite series (back wards) of causes is compelled to terminate in an existent (mawjud), which is nota caused thing (malul) of any other existent, i.e. the necessary existent.

This argument is the simplest argument in philosophy for proving the existence of God. This argument has been constructed with a few intellectual syllogisms and does not need any form of sense perception or experimental sciences as premises. However it has used philosophical concepts and terminologies, hence it requires an explanation about these premises and terminologies mentioned in the argument.

Possibility and necessity

All propositions have two fundamental concepts (subject and predicate) regardless of them being simple or complex, for example in the following axiom, ‘The sun shines’, which establishes shining for the sun, ‘sun’ is the subject and ‘shining’ is the predicate. The establishment of a predicate for the subject has no more than three states: it is either impossible, such as ‘the number three is greater than the number four,’ or it is necessary, such as, ‘the number two is half of four’ or it is neither impossible nor necessary, for instance, ‘the sun is above our head’.

In logical terminology the first proposition has the state of impossibility (imtina), the second proposition is given the attribute of necessity (wujub), and the third state is considered as possible (imkan).

However in philosophy only existence is discussed and those things, which are being incapable of being or of occurring and impossible (mumtani) will never have an existence (al-wujud al-khariji). For this reason philosophy regards existence from an intellectual perception as being either necessary existence or possible existence.

Necessary existence is known as an existent, which exists in-itself and does not depend upon another existent. Naturally such an existent will have no beginning and no end, because the non-existence of something in a particular time is an indication that its existence is not from itself. In order for it to come into existence it needs another existent, which, is the cause or the condition for its realisation. The absence of this condition or cause would be the reason of annihilation.

Possible existence (mumkin al-wujud) is known as an existent, which does not exist in-itself and depends on another existent in order for it to be realised.

This division, which has taken place through intellectual perception, essentially disregards the existence of the impossible (mumtani al-wujud), but it does not have any indication whether the existent is either a possible existent or necessary existent.

In other words the genuineness of this perception can be conceptualised in three essential forms:

1. Every existent is a necessary existent.

2. Every existent is a possible existent.

3. Some existents are necessary existents and some are possible existents.

On the basis of the first and third assumptions, the existence of a necessary existent is established, therefore the assumption that should be reviewed is whether all existents are possible existents or not?

However by disproving this assumption (that all existents are possible existents), the existence of the necessary existent is definitely and confidently proven. The establishment of unity and other attributes must be proven with other arguments.

Therefore in order to disprove the second assumption additional arguments must be utilised one of which, is that it is impossible for all of the existents to be possible existents.

As this argument is not self-evident, it will be explained as follows: Every possible existent needs a cause and it is impossible to have an endless chain of causes. Thus the endless chain of causes is compelled to terminate at an existent, which is not in need of a cause, i.e. the necessary existent. This argument has introduced other philosophical concepts, which require a brief explanation of it and things related to it.

a. Cause and effect

If an existent requires another existent and depends upon that other existent for its being, then in philosophical terminology the caused existent is known as the effect and the other existent is known as the cause. However it is possible that a cause can also be an effect, and be a dependable existent, not absolutely free from need. If a cause is absolutely free from need and does not depend upon any other existent then it will be the Absolute cause.

By now we have become familiar with the definition of the terms cause and effect. We will now provide an explanation of the premise mentioned (every possible existent needs a cause).

Possible existence does not exist in-itself and has no alternative other than to depend upon another existent. Thus every predicate, which is recognised for the subject is established either by itself ( bi-l-dhāt  ) or by means of other than itself (bi-l-ghayr ). For example every thing either shines in and of itself or requires something else for its illumination, or every body is oily in itself or needs oil for becoming oily. It is impossible for something in itself to not be illuminating or oily and not receive light or oil from something else, and at the same time be oily and illuminating!

Hence the establishment of existence for a subject is either through its essence or by means of other than itself, and when it is not through its essence then it has to be by means of other than itself. Therefore every possible existent, which is not realised through its essence, is bound to be realised by means of other than itself, which implies that it is an effect. This provides us with the fundamental principle of the intellect, that every possible existent needs a cause.

However, some have conceived that the principle of causation means that all existents need a cause and therefore God needs a primary cause. They have overlooked the fact that the subject of the principle of causation is existence in the possible sense and its effect and not in the absolute sense. Not all existents require a cause, only those which are dependable and in need.

b. The impossibility of an endless chain of causes

The last premise used for this argument is that the chain of causes should terminate at an existent, which is not an effect. In technical terms an endless chain of causes is impossible. It is thus established that the necessary existent is the initial cause, which is self-subsistent depending on no other existent.

Philosophy has come up with many arguments in order to disprove infinite series (tasalsul); nevertheless with the minimum of reflection infinite series would almost seem to be self-evident. That is to say, considering the existence of an effect requires a cause and is conditional upon that cause. Furthermore if this state of being caused (maluliyyah) and this conditionality is universal, then no existents would be realised anywhere. This is because the assumption of a few existents that are dependent without the existence of an existent is against the intellect.

Let us assume that a group of runners are waiting to begin a race. They have all decided that they will not commence running until the others have. If this decision prevails among all of them, then none of them would begin to run.

In the same manner if the existence of every existent is conditional upon the realisation of another existent, never would an existent come into being. The realisation of an external existent indicates that there is an existent, which is needless and unconditional.

c. Affirmation of the argument

At this moment, with the understanding of the premises mentioned, we would like tore-affirm our argument: Every thing that can be considered as an existent has no more than two states:

1. The existent for which existence is necessary and exists by means of its own essence. In technical terms this is known as the necessary existent.

2. The existent for which existence is not necessary and depends upon another existent in order to be realised. In technical terms this is termed as the possible existent.

It is self-evident that if the realisation of a thing is impossible, then it will never come into being; hence every existent is either a possible existent or a necessary existent.

By focusing upon the concept of possible existence it becomes clear that the every referent of this concept is an effect and requires a cause. Furthermore if an existent does not exist by means of its essence then it becomes necessary that it came into existence through another existent, because every attribute that is not existent by means of its own essence has to exist by means of other than itself.

The principle of causation affirms that every existent that is dependent and possible requires a cause. But not every existent requires a cause; otherwise one would conclude that there must then be a cause for God.

From another angle it must be seen that if all existents were possible existents, an existent would never then be realised. This is like assuming that a group of people had conditioned their actions upon each other, which implies no activity. However the external activity of existents establishes the existence of the necessary existent.

Questions:

1. Give the philosophical and logical definition of possibility and necessity.

2. Define necessary existence and possible existence.

3. Define cause and effect.

4. Why does every possible existent need a cause?

5. Explain the principle of causation.

6. Is God subject to the principle of causation? Why?

7. Explain the impossibility of infinite series.

8. Does the belief in a non-created God contradict the principle of causation?

9. Elaborate more on the impossibility of the infinite series? And explain the aim of this argument!

10. How is the logical form of the argument of impossibility of the infinite series?

--

Source:

[Book: "Amuzish-e-Aqaid" 1986.]

“THEOLOGICAL INSTRUCTIONS”

An Introduction to Contemporary Islamic Theology

By: Ayatollah M.T.M. Yazdi

[The University of Knowledge, Holy City of Qum, Iran.]

Translated by: M.M.A. Rida, 2006, Iran.

[Note: On this website, only lessons 5-7 are given.

All other chapters from the original book are omitted here. AO 2012.]

--

Gnosis and Wisdom

--

Islamic Gnosis (Irfan) and Wisdom (Hikmat)

by - Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi


# Preface

In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate

In the cosmic realm, human beings are like balls released into space which have within them a hidden potential energy for flight into an infinitely sublime world. But the gravitational attraction of worldly pleasures draws them toward the depths of the material world, as a result of which they fall and become degenerate; and the selfish tendencies and Satanic temptations which have become embodied in materialistic civilizations and cultures increase the speed of their downfall. Amidst all this, there are a few individuals and groups of people the eyes of whose hearts are open to spiritual truths and the ears of whose souls have become familiar with divine messages who have the resolution to turn aside from the pollution of their animalistic desires, who open their wings to the illuminated horizon of the angelic domain and in the course of their evolution they begin an ascent to the origin of all beauties, splendours, powers, and raptures and the infinite source of perfections, and in a word, ascend toward God. Like balls which have bounced down to the ground, they are disillusioned with the dead-end of materialism and once again, with the same speed with which they descended, they move in the opposite direction and rise toward the sublime world. It is quite likely that this process will recur repeatedly. This reaction may be well observed, nowadays, among groups of people who have become disillusioned with corrupt Western culture and who feel within themselves a great thirst and longing for spiritual values, and wander to and fro in order to find the fountainhead of this lucid water. But, alas, most of them fall into the traps laid by sorcerers who in place of the nectar of gnosis pour the poison of perdition down their throats. They lead them from pitfall to abyss, and through a rear door to the realm of ruin and destruction.

The centrifugal motion of materialistic culture and the turn back toward spiritual culture is not merely restricted to individual tendencies. We are now witnessing movements toward Islam in all corners of the world, even in the most polluted and corrupt of afflicted lands. These movements have been accelerated by a great Islamic revolution led by a prominent gnostic, who, taking advantage of the flourishing talents of the people, was able to gain victory over the Satanic forces in the rays of the lights of Islamic teachings. Despite the great obstacles put in its way on all sides, it still gallops forward. But, although this is not the first time that a divine man and gnostic of the Lord has undertaken the leadership of a popular movement, it is not easy to find another example with such scope and depth and with such firmness and stability.

In any case, this phenomenon, in turn, also can be a very strong motive for the investigation of the role of spiritual tendencies, especially the role of Islamic gnosis, in the positive and desirable changes in the lives of human beings.


# Section 1

Gnosis (Irfan) in the Islamic World

From antiquity, in the Islamic world there have been tendencies by the names of gnosis ( `iron) and sufism (tasawwuf), and from the 4th/10th to 8th/14th centuries they reached their summit in many countries such as Iran and Turkey. Today, there are various sufi sects all over the world. Similar tendencies also may be found among the followers of the other religions. Considering this common aspect, it is natural for the question to be raised as to whether there really is any such thing as Islamic gnosis to be found in Islam, or whether Muslims have taken this from others, so that what is called Islamic gnosis is really the gnosis of Muslims, not a truly Islamic gnosis. If there is such a thing as gnosis in Islam, is this the very thing which currently exists among Muslims, or has it been subjected to changes?

In answering these questions, some have absolutely denied the existence of gnosis in Islam and have regarded it as heretical innovation to be repudiated. Others consider it to have come from outside the context of Islam, while holding it to be compatible with it. In this line, some have said that sufism is an acceptable innovation in Islam, like monasticism in Christianity. In this regard, the Glorious Qur'an states:

And as for monasticism, they invented it themselves; We did not prescribe it for them, except for seeking the pleasure of Allah. (57:27)

Finally, there is a group who consider gnosis to be not only a part of Islam, but the kernel and spirit of it which comes from the Qur'an and prophetic sunnah, just as the other parts of Islam. It is not that it was adapted from other schools of thought and trends, and the aspects common to gnosis in Islam and other religions is no reason to hold that Islamic gnosis was derived from them, just as the similarities between the religious law (shari`ah) of Islam and the heavenly religious laws of the previous religions does not mean that the former was derived from the latter.

We approve of the last response to the question, and we add that the assertion of the originality of Islamic gnosis is not to condone whatever has been called gnosis or sufism in Islam. Likewise, it is not just any sort of creed or conduct found among groups related to Islam that can be considered truly Islamic beliefs and practices; otherwise, Islam would necessarily be a contradictory set of beliefs with a conflicting set of values, or there would be conflicting and contradictory Islams! In any case, with our admission of the originality of Islamic gnosis, a gnosis whose highest degree was reached by the Noble Prophet, may the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his folk, and his true successors, we do not deny the existence of foreign elements among the Muslim gnostics and sufis. Many of the views and manners of behaviour of the sufi orders are disputable.


# Section 2

The Concepts of 'Irfan, Sufism, Hikmat and Philosophy

Before explaining the originality of Islamic gnosis, in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding it is appropriate here to give an explanation of the terms gnosis (`irfan) and sufism (tasawwuf).

The term gnosis (`irfan), like another term of the same family, ma`rifah, [also translated as gnosis] literally means knowledge, but its technical meaning is specific to knowledge of a certain kind which can be achieved neither through the senses nor experience, nor through reason nor narration, but rather is acquired by inner witnessings and interior unveilings. Then, these are generalized to some propositions which describe these witnessings and unveilings. Considering the fact that the acquisition of such witnessings and unveilings which depend on special exercises and spiritual discipline are also called gnosis (`irfan), it is known with the qualification `amali (practical), i.e., as practical gnosis, or the manner of spiritual wayfaring (sayr wa suluk), just as the propositions which describe the witnessings are called theoretical gnosis, and also, like the Philosophy of Illumination [by Shihab al-Din Yahya Sohravardi (1153-1191)] is mixed to some extent with rational argumentation.

The expression sufism (tasawwuf), which, according to the most likely possibility, is derived from the word suf (wool), meaning wearing woolen garments, which symbolizes the hard life far from comforts and hedonism, is more appropriately used for practical gnosis, as the term gnosis (‘irfan) is more appropriate to theoretical gnosis. In this way, in the realm of gnosis, at least three elements can be identified. One is the specific practical instructions which are alleged to lead man to intuitive and interior gnosis and conscious knowledge by presence related to God, the Exalted, and the Most Beautiful Names and His sublime attributes and their manifestations. The second is the specific spiritual and psychic states and traits of character, and ultimately, the unveilings and witnessings achieved by the wayfarer. The third is the propositions and statements indicating these intuitive direct findings, and even for those who personally have not travelled the pant of practical gnosis, can be more or less understood, although finding their truth and essence is specific to the true gnostics.

By attending to these explanations it becomes clear that the true gnostic is the one who follows a specific practical programme and attains an intuitive and direct gnosis of God, the Exalted, and His attributes and actions. Theoretical gnosis is, in fact, an account and interpretation of this gnosis, which, naturally, has many shortcomings. If we are not very exact about the terminology and expand its scope we can use the term gnosis for all spiritual wayfaring which is undertaken to find the truth and attain felicity, as well as the resulting spiritual states and witnessings. In this way, gnosis will include even the kinds of gnosis found in Buddhism and Hinduism and the gnosis of some of the tribes of Siberia and the native tribes of Africa, just as the term religion may be applied, with the same sort of extended meaning to Buddhism, totemism, and the like.

Here it is appropriate to indicate the concepts of wisdom and philosophy, too.

The expression hikmah (wisdom), which is an originally Arabic word, means a firm and certain gnosis (ma`rifah), and it is often applied to practical gnosis, as the sense in which it is used in the Glorious Qur'an (17:39). However, in current terminology it has the meaning of divine philosophy as well as practical philosophy and the science of ethics, and in ethics itself it is used in the sense of a trait of the soul related to the use of reason, and as the mean between the extremes of cunning and stupidity. In any case, it is not applied to atheistic philosophies or skepticism, to the contrary of philosophy which is derived from Greek roots meaning any intellectual or rational efforts to understand the problems of all existence, even if this leads to the rejection of certain and established gnosis, or even the rejection of objective existence.


# Section 3

The Originality of Islamic Gnosis

Anyone who attends carefully to the ayat of the Glorious Qur'an, the words of the Noble Prophet, and the pure people of his household, may the Blessings of Allah be upon them, all of them, without a doubt will be able to find many sublime and profound subjects in the realm of theoretical gnosis, as well as numerous prescriptions and practical instructions in relation to the spiritual wayfaring of the gnostic. For example, we can refer to the ayat related to the unicity of the divine essence, attributes and actions in Surat al-Tawhid (Ikhlas) as well as the beginning of Surat al-Hadid, and the last ayat of Surat al Hashr, and likewise the ayat indicating the divine presence throughout the world of being, and His comprehension over all existents, and the existential glorification and prostrations of all creatures for God, the Exalted.

Likewise, there are ayat which include special prescriptions and manners which can be called the way of Islamic spiritual wayfaring, such as the ayat pertaining to contemplation and meditation, constant remembrance (dhikr) and attention, rising in the pre-dawn hours and remaining awake at night, fasting, prolonged prostrations and glorifications during nights, humility and resignation, crying and falling down when reciting and listening to the ayat of the Qur'an, sincerity in worship, and the performance of good deeds out of love and affection toward God in order to achieve nearness to Him and His satisfaction, as well as ayat pertaining to trust in God, divine pleasure, and submission before the Lord.

The points which can be found among the narrations attributed to the Noble Prophet and Pure Imams, may Allah bless all of them, and in their supplications and intimate devotions related to the above topics are uncountable.

In view of these explicit ayat and dear explications of the Noble Prophet and his immaculate household, May God's infinite blessings be showered upon them, two groups have gone to opposite extremes. One group of narrow minded and superficial people give a trivial and simple meaning to these ayat, and even consider God as having mutable states and physical ascent and descent, and they empty the ayat and narrations of their noble and sublime contents. These are the sort of people who generally reject the existence of anything by the name of gnosis in the Islamic texts.

Another group under the influence of various social factors have discovered and accepted some strange foreign elements from others, as a result of which they have come to believe things which one cannot consider to originate from religious texts and the contents of the divine Book and Sunnah. Rather, some of them might be in opposition to the explicit texts which are not capable of exoteric interpretation. Likewise, regarding practice, they have invented their own rites and customs, on the one hand, or have borrowed them from non-Islamic sects. On the other hand, they believe in the suspension of duties for the accomplished gnostic.

Of course, those who have an exceptionally favourable opinion of all gnostics and sufis have given excuses and interpretations for all of these issues. But it is fair to say that at least some of these contentions do not have an acceptable justification, and we should not be so over impressed with the scholarly and spiritual greatness of some figures that we accept whatever they say or write with closed eyes and ears and confirm them, and deny others any right to criticize and inquire into their works. Of course, it is clear that the acceptance of the right to criticize does not mean to condone unrefined or ill considered judgments, or the unfair expression of bias, nor the failure to pay due heed to positive and valuable points. In any case, one should seek what is right and true, and travel the way of justice and fairness and avoid extreme and unreasonable optimism and pessimism and seek help from God to recognize the truth and to be persistent in the way of the Truth.

It is self-evident that to observe all the issues pertaining to gnosis, sufism, wisdom and philosophy and their interrelations and each of their relations with Islam is not a task to be performed within the confines of a single article. Thus, considering the summary nature of the remarks, we shall be concerned with the most significant points, and postpone further investigation to the occasion of more extensive discussion.


# Section 4

Gnosis and Reason

One of the fundamental problems which is a matter of contention between the supporters and opponents of gnosis is whether reason can make any judgment about what is given through gnosis, which is supposedly acquired by interior unveilings and witnessings, or whether, for example, reason can refute some of them or not. The answer to this question is important with regard to the fact that many gnostics make assertions which cannot be given any rational explanation. They claim that they discovered these things through the esoteric way, and that reason does not have the capacity to understand them, and naturally, that reason thus has no right to refute or reject them.

The most important subject of this kind of controversy is that of the unity of existence (wahdat al-wujud), which has been propounded in various forms. One is that, basically, there is nothing, has been nothing and shall be nothing but God, the Exalted. Whatever has been called other than Him, is said to be nothing more than illusions and fantasies. Another form of this proposition is that nothing exists outside the essence of God or outside the vessel of His knowledge. In this way, a sort of multiplicity in oneness may be accepted. Another form of this claim, which is more prevalent, is that the wayfarer at the end of his journey, reaches the station of annihilation (land ), and nothing remains of him save a name. Finally, the most moderate form of the claim is that the wayfarer reaches a station in which he sees nothing but God, and all things fade away into God. In more exact terminology, he witnesses the fading of all things into the existence of God, the Exalted, like the fading of a weak light before the light of the sun.

In such cases, the opponents generally take advantage of rational arguments, and the proponents eventually say that these sorts of matters transcend the limits of reason. In this way they shirk the burden of the rational explanation of their claims. Considering these developments, this basic question will be posed: Are there truths about which reason is incapable of comprehending and has no right to reject?

What may be said in summary here is that although reason is concerned with concepts and the function of reason is not to recognize the truth of the objective existence or origin of any objective thing, let alone the divine exalted existence, but the positive and negative judgments of reason, when they are self-evident or may lead to self-evidence, are undeniable and through concepts may be applied to objective things. The assumption of the error of such judgments involves contradiction. In other words, although the function of reason is not knowledge of the origins of existence, with the above-mentioned qualifications, there can be no doubt about the validity of judgments about phenomena.

As for the issue of the unity of existence, it must be said that the denial of existence of things other than God and the absolute denial of multiplicity not only imply the denial of the validity of the judgments of reason, but also involve the denial of the validity of knowledge by presence belonging to the active and passive aspects of the soul. In this way, how can we hold that witnessings and unveilings have any validity, regarding the fact that the best evidence for their validity is their being present to consciousness? So, the unity of existence, on this interpretation, is not acceptable at all. However, we may consider an acceptable interpretation which is propounded in transcendent philosophy [of Sadr al-Din Shirazi, known as Mulla Sadra (1571-1640)] from which it is obtained that the existence of creatures in relation to God, the Exalted, is a relative and dependent existence, and to be precise it may be said that they are the very relation and dependence, and they have no independence of their own. That which is discovered by the gnostic is this very denial of the independence of other things [than God], which they call the denial of their real existence.

Here the question may be posed in another form: Can we consider the judgment of reason prior to intuition and unveiling? In reply, it should be said that pure knowledge by presence is in truth the discovery of reality itself. Thus, it is irrefutable. However, knowledge by presence is usually accompanied by a subjective interpretation in such a way that any distinction between them requires great care. These subjective interpretations which involve conceptual knowledge, are fallible. What are rejected by rational proofs are incorrect subjective interpretations of observations and knowledge by pretence, not the objects of knowledge by presence themselves. In the case of the unity of existence, that which is realized through witnessings is restricted to the independent existence of God, the Exalted, which due to inattention is called true existence, according to which true existence is denied of other existents.

It is worth mentioning that the great Islamic gnostics have explicitly claimed that some unveilings are Satanic, invalid, and may be recognized through some evidence, and ultimately may be distinguished from others by placing them under the scrutiny of rational certain arguments, the divine Book and the Sunnah.

It is clear that an investigation into all the kinds of unveilings and witnessings and the types of knowledge by presence and the ways-in which they are qualitatively reflected in the mind, the causes for the incorrectness of some subjective interpretations and the way to distinguish the correct from the incorrect, are beyond the scope of this article.


# Section 5

Gnosis and Religious Law

Another important problem worthy of consideration at the end of this article is the relation between practical gnosis and the precepts of religious law, or the relation between tariqah and shari'ah. A group has imagined that practical gnosis is an independent way to discover truths, to be used without regard to religious law, and that Islam either corroborates it (by acceptable innovation) or; at the very least, poses no obstacle to it. And they have continued in this direction to the point of holding - that basically, they considered it to be unnecessary to be committed to any religion in order to reach gnostic stations, and others have considered commitment to any one of the religions, and in a more moderate form, commitment to one of the divine religions, to be sufficient.

However, from an Islamic point of view, gnostic spiritual wayfaring is not along a way independent of and aside from that of religious law; rather it is a more exact and subtle part of it. If we restrict the term shari’ah to the outward precepts, it must be said that tariqah is along with shari’ah, or in its interior, and it may only be realized with the observation of the precepts of shari’ah. For example, shari’ah determines the precepts for the ritual prayer; and tariqah undertakes the ways of concentration and the presence of the heart in prayer; and the conditions for the perfection of worship. In shari’ah the performance of worship in order to avoid divine chastisement and to reach the blessings of heaven is sufficient. However, gnosis emphasizes the purification of intentions of everything other than God. This is what is known in the language of the Ahl al Bayt, Peace be upon them, as "the worship of the free." Likewise, idolatry (shirk) according to shari'ah is exoteric idolatry by worshipping idols and the like; however, in tariqah there are more precise types of hidden idolatry and levels of hiddenness. Having any hope in anything other than God, fear of other than God, seeking the help of other than God, and love for other than Him, if all of these are taken as fundamental and independent, and not based on obedience to the divine commands, they will be considered kinds of idolatry.

Therefore, all kinds of innovations (bid`ah) and arbitrary rites are not only undesirable but may be obstacles to the achievement of true gnosis, let alone the use of things which have been explicitly and definitely prohibited and forbidden. Although it may be the case that some works may bring about transient so-called gnostic states, they do not have a good result. They may be a Satanic trap for ultimate downfall, and we should not be deceived by them. It is to be concluded that the way of Truth is the one that God, the Exalted, has stated:

And what is there after the truth but error? (10:32)


And Peace be upon those who follow the Guidance.

--