steve watson

A Note on a Second Doctrine of Worlds

January 25, 2012 – 11:55 pm

The Koran can be used to support the claim that there are multiple worlds - but only if we take the language extremely literally (e.g at [1:1],) and it gives no real indication of how these worlds should be understood. There are several distinct cosmologies that have currency in different branches of Islamic thought; the cosmology inherent in the chart of the tazkiyat an nafs is just one of them. There is also a ‘gnostic’ cosmology that is also included in the Sufi manuals but seems to fit only uneasily into the other cosmological views. It seems, however, that Sufis were urged to at least to bear in mind this version of the progression of the soul through the various worlds. In essence it is simple enough: the aspiring gnostic travels by means of the bridges from lower to higher worlds - but I cannot find how it was made consistent with the ‘seven stages’ cosmology given earlier. A very rough outline of the shape of the gnostic universe can be seen in this chart below.

‘Alam (World)		Mode of Transition		Nafs (Soul)
Lahut (Divine)			Haqiqat (Truth)
	GodheadImperceptible, as all is OneCreative Imperative*			Ammara
Jabarut (Dynamic)
			Tariqah (Path)
	Celestial worldPerceived through becoming part of God’s natureIntelligence*			Lawwama
Malakut (Angelic)
			Shari’ah (Law)
	Spiritual worldPerceived through insight Soul*			Mutma’inna
Nasut (Human)
	Physical worldPerceived through the senses

* From an extract of Tanzih al-Awliya by Shaikh Abu’l-Qasim Khan Ibrahimi in Corbin op. cit. p. 240 ff.

This is mostly a diagram of information from J. Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam (OUP, 1971) pp.159ff but it is very difficult to discover anything further on the matter. And what one does find is often contradictory. The information diagrammed is referred to Isma’il ibn M. Sa’id (ed.) Al-Fuyadat ar-Rabbaniyya, Cairo: 1354/1935 quoting ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, but the same pages of Trimingham describe a version in which shari’a is the path followed in Nasut, tariqah is the path by which one reaches Malakut, Ma’rifa (Gnosis) is the path by which one reaches Jabarut, and one then falls into the state Fana’or ‘Alam al Ghaib (Mystery.) According to H. Corbin Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth (NJ: Bollingen (PUP), 1977) p. 59 the schema according to Suhrawardi consisted of just three worlds, the highest of which was Jabarut, taken to be the celestial Earth Hurqalya. The next higher world (here, Lahut) is introduced by the Shaikhites, recapitulating a speculation of ibn ‘Arabi (p. 59.)

The ‘Worlds’ above do feature very prominently in Shi’ite ‘Imamology’, a structural homologue in Shi’ite gnosticism to the Christology of the Christian gnostics. To speak much too briefly, the worlds are a feature of a cosmology that creates the grounds for the possibility of earthly imams. How this can be of any significance to Sufic doctrine or practice remains a mystery to me, though the commonality of inspiration and initiation and ‘wilayat’ in the two branches of Islamic mysticism must be involved.

Posted in Sufism | No Comments »

Where are the Arguments for Constitutional Reform?

January 23, 2012 – 11:04 am

Responding to no public call whatsoever, a ‘Panel of Experts’ has prepared a proposal for constitutional reform. The proposal is for the Recognition of ATSI in the Australian Constitution. Given that Australia is hardly crying out for this amendment, and that the Constitution with the very small number of amendments that have been made since 1901 has given general satisfaction, one might think that the Panel of Experts would feel bound to begin by providing some argument in justification of the proposal. But this is not the case. The only arguments that we are offered for this alteration to the legal fabric of the nation are those which have been collected - as an incidental matter - from the submissions made to the Panel by those with an interest in the proposed changes. We are not told whether the Panel finds these to be cogent.

Before we go on to look at these offerings let’s remind ourselves of what a constitution is and what it is supposed to do. In general terms it is understood to be “The system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, or body politic is constituted and governed.” (OED, sv.) And the Expert Panel itself describes the Australian Constitution in its FAQ file as

[T]he set of rules by which Australia is run. It sets out how Parliament works, what powers it has, how federal and state governments share power, and the roles of Executive Government (that is, the ministers) and the High Court.

It is not, therefore, a set of aspirations, feelings, declarations of appreciation, cake recipes, TV schedules, etc. or anything else not relevant to the actual constitution of a state, nation, or body politic. Of course, it is possible to include anything at all into a document merely called a constitution, but the dangers of doing do should be fairly obvious: this is a document that is going to be used to determine the types of laws that may or must be made, and those laws will be as close to permanent as a legal regime can make it. It is essential that nothing goes in except what is absolutely required and that it says exactly and no more than what is explicitly intended by those who are to live under the laws thus authorized.

So, what arguments for amendment are offered? Well, on p. 68 we find these bullet points:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples occupy a unique position in Australian society as the first peoples and original custodians of the land, and therefore should have special recognition in the Constitution;

This is a straightforward appeal to special treatment - but it makes no reference to the sort of special treatment that should follow from this special status. What sorts of laws follow naturally from the fact of that specialness? And why is that claim to specialness more significant than a claim that the British or some other group could make? The constitution is not the place to make ‘acknowledgements:’ the danger of harm from laws being interpreted in the light of such ‘acknowledgement’ is just too great. It’s especially inappropriate in the body of the Constitution, but the danger is not much less if it is put in the preamble, for, no matter what the proponents might say, it would be inevitable (and probably correct) for the judicial interpreters of the Constitution to take into account the framing material when trying to understand the intent of the laws in the body of the document.

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be guaranteed equality before the law, and the Constitution should be free from racially discriminatory clauses;

Quite right. And so should members of many other identifiable groups. But this is the role of a Bill of Rights. Australia is currently engaged in another uncalled-for debate on the possibility of a Bill of Rights, and it has not had general acceptance outside the political elites - for the quite obvious reason that they think they can use it to further their own agenda by getting judges (who belong to that elite and largely share their interests) to declare policies of which they approve to be fundamental law without the inconvenience of having to go to the people of the country or their representatives in the legislature. It is a profoundly undemocratic proposal in its intentions and in its likely application. This argument would be welcome to Bill of Rights proponents as a camel’s nose for further encroachment on the people’s ability to govern itself.

• constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is overdue;

This is at best, a repeat of the first (quasi-)argument, with the added claim that recognition is overdue. Nothing unnecessary and dangerous is overdue.

• constitutional recognition will more accurately reflect Australia’s history and national identity; and

The constitution does not need to reflect Australia’s history: if anything it represents a break from the past. If the Constitution was supposed to be telling a story about the colonization of Australia or the cultural history of its peoples, this might be a cogent critique: but that is not the intended role of this document.

• recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution is important for recognising and protecting their unique cultures.

Special pleading part two.

This section finishes with a bit of a grab bag of ‘other reasons’ on p. 70:

… furthering reconciliation [hardly a constitutional function,] updating the Constitution with contemporary values [such as?,] and improving democratic processes and citizenship [how?] Achieving better social and economic outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples [special pleading of the most egregious sort,] as well as enhanced recognition of rights to lands and waters, culture and languages, and self-determination, [unnecessary, and even running contrary to the unity of the Commonwealth] ….

Further clues to the reasoning were given in the FAQ file of the Panel:

Why should Australians support constitutional change?

First, not all citizens are treated equally under the Australian Constitution. While racial discrimination is no longer accepted in our community, in our workplaces or in our daily lives, the Constitution permits laws that discriminate on the basis of race. For example, section 51 (the ‘race power’) states:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

… (xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws …

As I say, removing the ‘Race Powers’ would be a good thing, but it is not good because it removes the word ‘race’ from the constitution, but because it removes the discriminatory power of the state with respect to illegitimate or unjustifiable distinctions amongst the people of Australia. The reintroduction of exactly that power by the other proposed amendments, with the proviso that discrimination is required for the advantage of one tiny minority above others is no great improvement.

Second, while Australians value and celebrate the unique contribution Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and culture has made to our national identity, the Constitution, Australia’s founding document, gives no acknowledgment of the place of Indigenous Australians in our nation’s history or our contemporary society.

Nor should it.

Third, many people believe that constitutional recognition would serve as a powerful symbol of the nation’s desire to embrace Indigenous Australians in a spirit of true reconciliation.

The Constitution might be the single least ‘symbolic’ item in Australian life.

What benefits will constitutional recognition have for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians?

Constitutional recognition would help create mutual trust and respect leading to stronger relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and other Australians.

It would be a big step towards reconciliation, demonstrating the commitment of non- Indigenous Australians to acknowledge the place and contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in our nation’s history and contemporary society.

Constitutional recognition would contribute to raising the self-esteem of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as well as improving their social and emotional wellbeing.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists published a report noting that mental health benefits would result from constitutional recognition.

Constitutional recognition could include removing racially discriminatory provisions in the Constitution and enhance the legal protection provided by the Constitution for all Australians.

It would be tedious to continue to fisk this item by item, but a special mention for pure chutzpah has to go to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. (Note that there is not even a gesture at support for the claim that Constitutional recognition in itself has mental health effects in the College’s Position Statement 68, Recognition of Indigenous People in the Australian Constitution, September 2011.)

Posted in Arguments, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Race and the Constitution

January 21, 2012 – 5:24 pm

Responding to no apparent public call whatsoever, a panel of ‘experts’ has prepared a proposal for reform of the Constitution of Australia. The proposal is for the Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders in the Australian Constitution. The proposal includes these main points (p. 230:)

Item 1

Repeal section 25 and section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution.

Section 25 states that:

For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of the race resident in that State shall not be counted.

Section 51 (xxvi) states that:

[The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to] [t]he people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

And removing these seems to be a good way of removing the possibility of the Commonwealth instituting racially discriminatory laws. But the next item makes it clear that what the drafters have in mind is that there should not be the possibility of laws that disadvantage the members of one particular race; and, in fact, that legislators should be encouraged to create race-based laws to the advantage of that lucky minority. Thus:

Item 2

Insert after section 51:

Section 51A Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters;

Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples;

the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

To see just how obnoxious this is in principle, and how little it is justified by the legislatively irrelevant pabulum that precedes it, let us imagine the following supplementary proposal :

Item 2.1

Insert after section 51A:

Section 51B Recognition of British and Irish peoples

Recognising that the Commonwealth of Australia was created by this Constitution in an act of the British and Irish people under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;

Acknowledging the continuing relationship of those peoples and their descendants with the states and territories of this Commonwealth;

Respecting the continuing culture, language and heritage of those peoples and their descendants;

Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of those peoples and their descendants;

the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to those peoples and their descendants.

I think its chances of passage would be quite slim.

And just to rub home the racially discriminatory point, the Panel further proposes that:

Item 3

Insert after section 116:

Section 116A Prohibition of racial discrimination

(1)    The Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic or national origin.

(2)    Subsection (1) does not preclude the making of laws or measures for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination, or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group.

I doubt that ‘any group’ will be applied to any other group than the only race that is mentioned in the amended constitution; especially when that mention is also in terms of the ability of the Commonwealth to make laws in providing advantages for that race, and includes the acknowledgement to ‘culture, language, and heritage.’

In any case, this is more appropriately put in a separate Bill of Rights, which has failed to be approved when proposed.

The last item falls under the category of miscellanea:

Item 4

Insert as section 127A:

Section 127A Recognition of languages

(1)      The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English.

(2)      The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages, a part of our national heritage.

But the other sections in this chapter deal with the location of the Commonwealth’s capital and the ability of the Governor General to appoint deputies. It’s reasonable – though pointless – to stipulate that the official language is English; but what is the point of 127(A)2? How does this contribute to the legal structure of the Commonwealth?

This proposal is a complete dog’s breakfast, and is transparently designed to enshrine racial preferences for a particular race – coincidentally, the one to which many of the panel claim to belong. ‘Race powers’ are explicitly eschewed, but that is merely a formality, for the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders are a people that the law elsewhere sees as a race or races. (Incitement to hatred of ATSI is seen as a racial offence, not an offence against ‘peoples.’)

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Knowing Himself

January 21, 2012 – 11:52 am

The captain of the Costa Concordia is accused of cowardice and dereliction of duty in the aftermath of the ship’s sinking. In the Guardian (where no behavior is too appalling to find a defender) Bruce Hood, therefore steps up to his defence with the too-usual line:

“Schettino will undoubtedly be vilified for his actions - but how many of us can say that we would not have done the same thing?”

This is excuse-making dressed as humility. I can only say that, in so far as I cannot know the future, I cannot know what I might do; but in so far as I know myself, I know that I would not do that.

Posted in Ethics | No Comments »

Sufi Schemata for Tazkiyat an-Nafs

January 19, 2012 – 2:34 pm

Tazkiyat an-nafs (‘Purification’/'Augmenation’ of nafs) can be taken as the essence of the Sufi tariqat, and it has Koranic support:

“By the soul and That which shaped it, and inspired it to its depravity and its godwariness. Prosperous is he who purifies it, and failed has he who buries it”

(91:7-10, tr. W. Chittick Intro to Sufism, p. 41. Note the alternatives ‘corrupts’ or ‘stunts’ to Chittick’s ‘buries’)

On this small piece of worthy advice the Sufis have constructed a vast and elaborate schema of purification. The process has been regularized into sets of stages and stations that provided a usable guide to murshid/bureaucrats of the soul, and so standardised forms of the progress of the soul are described (with variations) in the charts that commonly appear in Sufi handbooks. The following example is given in Trimingham, J. The Sufi Orders in Islam (OUP, 1971) p.152-4. (Ref. to As-Sanusi, M. ibn ‘Ali, As-Salsabil al-ma’in fi ‘t-tara’iq al-arba’in p. 105, (section dealing with Khalwatiyya) on margin of his Al-masa’il al-‘ashar - or Bughyat al-maqasid fi khalasat al marasid - Cairo (1353/1935.)) Interestingly enough, this was apparently devised for philosophical reasons by Ibn Sina in Risalat at-Tair (L. Cheiko ed., in al-Mashriq, iv (1901), pp. 882-7) and adapted to Sufic purposes by (probably Ahmed) al-Ghazali  in Risala at-Tair (L. Cheiko ed., op. cit., pp. 918-24.)

Soul	Carnal (ammara)	Admonishing (lawwama)	Inspired (mulhama)	Tranquil (mutma’inna)	Contented (radiyya)	Approved (mardiyya)	Perfected (safiyya wa kamila)
Journey	To God	By God’s power	Upon God	With God	Within God	From God	Into God
World	Of Evidence (the senses)	Of the Isthmus [Purgatorial]	Of the Spirits	Of Reality	Of Principles	Of the Unseen	Of Plurality and Oneness
State	Inclination to Lusts	Love	Passion	Union	Passing Away	Bewilderment	Abiding in God
Abode	Breast	Heart	Spirit	The Mystery (of the Heart)	The Mystery of the Mystery	The Inmost	The Covert (‘Ground’) of the Mystery
	Shari’a	Tariqa	Ma’rifa	Haqiqa	Wilaya	Dhat ash-Shari’a (Essence of the Revealed Law)	Dhat al-Kull
Light	Blue	Yellow	Red	White	Green	Black	Colourless

Only three of these forms of the nafs actually have Koranic support:

ammara:             “Yet I claim not that my nafs was innocent: Verily the nafs of man incites to evil.”[12:53]

lawwama:          ‘Self that blames (itself.)’ [75:2]

mutma’inna:     ‘Self that is at peace (with God.)’ [89:27]

The rest are speculation.

Posted in Sufism | 1 Comment »

A Note on the Hadith of the Hidden Treasure

January 16, 2012 – 9:03 am

Much of the Sufi theory regarding the place of Man in the created cosmos is said to derive from the so-called ‘Hadith of the Hidden Treasure’ (hadith-e kanz-i makhfi), which is a hadith qudsi (meaning it is a statement attributed to God himself.) It is mentioned, for example, by Rumi, saying (Fihi ma Fihi (pdf), Discourse 17, p. 143 in the online edition of Arberry’s translation:)

God says, “I was a hidden treasure, so I loved to be known.”

The import of the hadith is that the function of Man is the worship of God, and also that God so loved the world that he created it in order to be loved by it. The centrality of love to the Sufi way is largely explicable (or at least is explained) by reference to the centrality of love in the act of creation. Given this importance, I thought it would be worthwhile checking its provenance and the fuller context of that short quote. What I found was that it is not accepted as an authentic hadith by the orthodox schools who ought to consider it to be a false (da’if, or even mawdu’) hadith.

This is admitted by Ibn ‘Arabi (to whom it is of particular importance) who is quoted as saying (Futuhat al Makkiyya 3:399 Bab 198:) 

 

It came in the hadith that is sahih per unveiling (kasht) but unestablished (ghayr thabit) per transmission from the Messenger of Allah from his Lord that He said something in the meaning of this ‘I was a hidden treasure and was not known; I loved to be known, therefore I created creation and made Myself known to them so that they came to know Me.’

 

N1.      The reference is from Gibril Fuad Haddad [http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/d/hth_e.pdf.] In Chittick The Sufi Path of Knowledge (Suny: Albany, 1989) p391n14, the reference to this is given as II 399.28. Since I have no access to Ibn ‘Arabi’s Futuhat, I cannot check this.

N2.      Ibn ‘Arabi did not confuse this form of hadith qudsi with other more orthodox forms, as is clear from the fact that the ‘hidden treasure’ hadith does not appear in his Mishkat al-Anwar, a collection of 101 such hadiths with their chains of transmission.

The hadith itself is, however, consistent with, and even supported by, other accepted texts. For example, in the Koran (5:54) we hear “He loves them, and they love Him,” and (51:56) “I created the Jinns and humankind only that they may worship me.” According to Al Qari in his al-Asrar al-Marfu’atu fil-Akhbar al-Mawdu’a (ref. Haddad above) ibn Taymiyya said that there was no isnad for this tradition, but that it was a true statement (ma‘nahu sahih) in any case. Haddad’s note to this deals briefly with the various opinions as to the validity of kashf – which seems to mean revelation through (waking) dream encounters with Muhammad. The general opinion is apparently not favourable, though some authorities are willing to accept that where the meaning of a hadith has achieved consensus in the ‘ulema it should not be held against it that its only positive evidence is the dream testimony reported by a saint.

Posted in Sufism | No Comments »

Santorum does Reductio

January 14, 2012 – 4:31 pm

The recent incident, reported in the New York Times (Friday, January 13, 2012), of Rick Santorum trying to present an argument against same-sex ‘marriage’ to an audience of university students indicates that teaching the fundamentals of Critical Thinking remains an uphill struggle. Here’s a partial transcript. I’ve made adjustments for grammaticality and sense – actual speech looks like gibberish when written down – but I’ve tried to be honest about the matter.

Student:	How about the idea that all men are created equal and have the right to happiness?
Santorum:	Ok. So, are we saying that everyone should have the right to marry?
Student(s):	Yes.
Santorum:	Everyone?
Student(s):	Yes.
Santorum:	So anyone can marry anybody else?
Student(s):	Yes.
Santorum:	So anybody can marry several people?
Student(s):	(Protests.)
…
Santorum:	So, everybody has the right to be happy, so if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that ok?
…
Student:	I’m not talking about that.
Santorum:	I’m asking the question; if what you said was ‘every person has a right to their own happiness …’
Student(s):	It’s irrelevant.
	(Protests.)
Santorum:	No it’s not irrelevant.
…
Student:	Is it right for two men to have the same rights as a man and a woman?
Santorum:	Well, what about three men?
Student(s):	I’m not talking about that.
…
Santorum:	I’m going to ask you the question again. If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?
Student:	How do you justify your belief based on your high morals you have about all men being created equal, when two men who want to get married …
Santorum:	Well, what about three men?
Student:	That’s not what I’m talking about.
…
Santorum:	You know, it’s important if we’re going to have a discussion based on rational thought, that we employ reason. And reason says that if you think it’s ok for two, then you have to differentiate for me why it’s not ok for three.

Santorum’s point is a very (very) simple one, and, having tried to use the same sort of technique myself in arguments, I can sympathise with his frustration. It can sometimes feel like you’re talking to a brick wall in these situations.

The student is clearly claiming that we have a right to marry whom we want because that is what we require for our happiness and we have a right to happiness.  In standard form it’s something like this:

A1: The student’s argument:

                                P1.          We have a right to happiness

                                P2.          Two men may require to be married in order to achieve happiness

                                HP1.       [All things are rights that are necessary to achieve other rights.]

                                                —————————————————————————————-

                                C1.          Two men have a right to be married

This can be taken as a valid argument. Santorum is attacking the idea that P1 and HP1 are true together. To do this, he grants for the sake of argument those two premisses and shows that it can lead, very plausibly, to an unacceptable conclusion.

                               

A2: Santorum’s modification of the student’s argument:

                                P1.          We have a right to happiness

                                P3.          Three men may require to be married in order to achieve happiness

                                HP1.       [All things are rights that are necessary to achieve other rights.]

                                                —————————————————————————————-

                                C2.          Three men have a right to be married

This is also a valid argument, but it leads to an unacceptable conclusion – which is to say, a conclusion that the proponents of A1 do not wish to admit (at this time.) Since A2 is different from A1 only in substituting P3 for P2, and P2 and P3 are equally plausible possibilities, it follows that either P1 or HP1 are unacceptable. Since HP1 is left unstated, the focus of Santorum’s counterargument is clearly P1. Santorum is arguing for no more than that you can’t get a right to something because you say that it is necessary to your happiness. It’s not even an argument against same sex ‘marriage,’ it’s an argument against that argument for ssm.

Of course he could have inserted anything in the place of ‘Two men require to be married,’ and it might have made the point clearer than it already was if he had said ‘I require to be king of the world’ or ‘I must be a single hat in a shop window’ or ‘I want to marry my daughter or my dog’ (google that one.) But on the other hand, perhaps the crowd would just be even less able to see the connection.

What seems to be happening is that the audience are just not recognising that he is attacking the argument and not directly contradicting the conclusion; they seem to expect him to offer an argument against same-sex ‘marriage’ as they had defined it which would look something like ‘X and Y and Z, and therefore two men can’t marry, and therefore you’re wrong.’ Thus, whenever he proposed P3, and mentioned ‘three men’ they immediately reacted to that as if it was going off-topic. But it is hard to see how he could have made his strategy any plainer: as the NYT reported, he had previously, and consistently with previous outings, made the point that if they wish to change something, the onus is on them to present an argument in support of that change. (‘Don’t you have to make the positive argument why the law should be changed?” he asked several of them.’) Indeed, they react as if they had never before seen an argument challenged – but this is absurd: debates of any worth can’t be conducted as independent arguments for different conclusions. You might as well not debate at all if you aren’t going to address each other’s arguments.

We know that people aren’t very good with arguments, and episodes such as this may perhaps be deplored as evidence of our fellow humans failure to live up to our own high standards, but a more useful reaction might be to take such episodes as indicators as to the kinds of rhetorical/argumentative techniques that are appropriate to public speech. It’s no earthly use having a formally valid knock-down argument if none of your audience are capable of being persuaded by it. The whole point of argument is to give support to your point of view, and in so far as it fails to provide that support, it is a failure. Santorum’s argument is a failure everywhere outside the tiny fraction of the audience who are able to recognise through training or native ability its ‘formal’ effectiveness.That tiny minority is not his intended audience.

Posted in Arguments | No Comments »

Essential Sufi Terms; Meanings and some Explanations

January 12, 2012 – 2:06 pm

Tasawwuf	‘Sufism.’ Said to be derived from suf = wool, which the mystics wore, or from safa’ = purity.
Shaykh, Pir (P)	‘Old man.’ Each Sufi is bound to a mentor who is required to guide him on a path. Real Sufis have a connection through a chain of such shaykhs to Mohammed. See Murshid
Murshid	‘Guide.’ Eq. Shaykh (q.v.)
Murid	‘Desirous (One.)’ A Sufi novice, subordinate to a shaykh.
Silsilah	‘Chain.’ The series of shaykh-novice links that connects a Sufi to Mohammed (c.f. the isnad of a hadith.)
Bay’at ar-ridwan	‘Oath-taking of God’s good pleasure’ Binds a novice Sufi to his shaykh. Constitutes a chain in the silsilah. Transmits barakah from the shaykh to the novice.
Baraka	‘Spiritual Force.’
Malak	‘Angelic Force.’
Salik	‘Traveller.’ The Sufi on his progress.
Talib	‘Seeker.’ Disciple, student, novice.
Faqir, Darwish(P)	‘Poor Man.’ A term for the Sufi to indicate rejection of the veil of the world. See faqr, station 4 in al-Sarraj’s scheme. For darwish see also sama’.
Khirqah	‘Cloak.’ The patched garment of a Sufi
Tariqat	‘Path.’ The road that the Sufi travels to achieve his goal. Also the term for a Sufi ‘Order.’ Each Order is devoted to a certain path. Any Sufi or shaykh may be a member of several orders.
Ribat, Zawiyah, Khanaqah (P), Tekke (T)	Lodge or hospice. A place of retreat and training.
Hubb, Ishq	‘Love.’
Al-Haqq	‘The Real.’ Common designation of God.
Wahdat al-Wujud	‘The Unity of Being.’ Term particularly used by Jami’ and ibn Arabi.
Fana’ ul-haqq	‘Absorption in the Real.’ To become one with the One: the Sufi goal. See fana’
Uns	Intimacy.
Fana’ al-fana’	‘The passing away of the passing away.’ When even awareness of having achieved unification is left behind. See fana’
Wajd, Bast	‘Ecstasy.’
Dhawq	‘Taste.’ Personal mystical experience.
Shatahat	Ecstatic utterances.
Alast	‘Am I not?’ Ref. Koran (7:172) “Am I not your Lord?” The agreement of Adam and his children is the Covenant of Alast. These words are the original music the souls heard and inspired ecstatic dance.
Maqamat	‘Stations’ (s. maqam.) Points reached in the progress of the Sufi along the tariqat. Distinguished from ahwal by their persistence as qualities of the Sufi traveller. Various systems of stations are found. The following common scheme is from Abu Nasr al-Sarraj, Kitab al luma’ (ed. R.A. Nicholson, Leyden, 1914, p. 42:)   1. Tawbah – ‘Repentance’   2. Wara’ – ‘Abstention’   3. Zuhd – ‘Ascetism’   4. Faqr – ‘Poverty’ (hence Faqir – ‘Poor man/Fakir.’)   5. Sabr – ‘Patience’   6. Tawakkul – ‘Confidence’ (Trust in God)   7. Rida’ – ‘Contentment’
Ahwal	‘States’ (s. hal.) Conditions associated with the stages of the Sufi’s progress. Distinguished from maqamat by their transitoriness. See e.g. sukr-sahw. No set number or content became normative in the tradition. Sarraj (See entry for maqamat, ibid.) gives this list:   1. Muraqabah – ‘Constant attention’   2. Qurb – ‘Nearness’   3. Mahabbah – ‘Love’   4. Khawf – ‘Fear’   5. Raja’ – ‘Hope’   6. Shawq – ‘Spiritual Yearning’   7. Uns – ‘Familiarity’   8. Itmi’nan – ‘Tranquillity’   9. Mushahadah – ‘Contemplation’   10. Yaqin – ‘Certainty’
Khuluq	‘Character.’ That the Sufi is concerned to improve.
Adab	‘Courtesy.’
Ikhlas	‘Sincerity.’
Nafs	‘Self’/’Soul.’ Term operates as a reflexive particle in Arabic. Only attributable as a substantive to humans. Related to nafas = breath, so c.f ‘spirit.’
Tazkiyat an-nafs	‘Purification/augmentation of the Soul.’ A name for the Sufi path.
Nafs ammara	‘Self that commands (to evil.)’ 1st of 3 stages on the path to enlightenment
Nafs lawwama	‘Self that blames (itself.)’ 2nd of 3 stages on the path to enlightenment
Nafs mutma’inna	‘Self at peace (with God.)’ 3rd of 3 stages on the path to enlightenment
Ghafla	‘Heedlessness.’ The normal failure to attend to the care of the soul/self (nafs.)
Dhikr	‘Remembrance.’ The Sufi techniques to keep God in mind – e.g. constant repetition of the Divine Names.
Du’a’	‘Supplication.’ Prayer. Over and above the salat required 5 times a day. A companion to dhikr (q.v.)
Awrad, Ahzab	‘Litanies.’ Divine names, formulae, Koranic verses. Used as tools of dhikr (q.v.) Different names etc. have different effects on the remembrancer.
Taqlid	‘Inculcation.’ A formula needs to be approved and introduced to a novice by the shaykh before use in dhikr.
Al-ism al-jami’	‘The Comprehensive Name.’ i.e. ‘Allah.’ Repetition has all desirable effects on the remembrancer.
Al-dhikr al-mufrad	‘The Single Remembrance.’ Use of the name ‘Allah’. See al-ism al-jami’.
Sama’	‘Hearing.’ A method of inducing ecstasy by music, singing, and dancing. (‘Whirling Dervishes’ use this. They are members of the Mawlawiyya Order founded by Rumi.) Very controversial.
Fitra	‘Disposition.’ The innate character of Man that makes it possible to see God’s unity.
Amana	‘Trust.’ Free choice of man for God.
Tawakkul	Trust in God.
Sukr	‘Intoxication.’ The ecstatic state reached in knowing God. A state where proper discretion is not observed and distinctions (such as not God-God) are not made. A successor state to sahw; and also a precursor state. See fana’.
Sahw	‘Sobriety.’ The rational state in which proper distinctions can be made. One begins in sahw, but it is a false state. One returns to sahw after one recovers balance from sukr. See baqa’.
Tanzih	‘Incomparable.’ The view of God dominating the fuquha’ and mutakallimum, emphasizing His distance from us. Contrast tashbih.
Tashbih	‘Similar.’ The view of God dominating the Sufi, emphasizing His closeness to us. Contrast tanzih.
Fana’	‘Annihilation.’ Associated with 2nd stage intoxication (sukr.) Refers to the annihilation of the self in the Sufi. Ref. to Koran 55:26-7 “Everything upon the Earth is undergoing annihilation, but there persists the face of your Lord.” Contrast baqa’.
Baqa’	‘Subsistence.’ Associated with 3rd stage return to sobriety (sahw.) Refers to the union with the Divine. Contrast fana’.
Hulul	‘Incarnation.’ The idea that the Sufi’s achievement in purifying his self (tazkiyat an-nafs) gives him the properties of God. Strongly deprecated.
Ittihad	‘Identification.’ The idea that the Sufi’s achievement in purifying his self (tazkiyat an-nafs) makes identical the divine and human properties. Strongly deprecated.
Ma’rifa/Irfan	‘Knowledge.’ Gnosis. A Sufi goal.
Ilm	‘Knowledge.’ Episteme. The goal of the fuquha’ and mutakallimun.
Khayal	‘Imagination.’ The source of knowledge (irfan.)
Aql	‘Reason.’ The source of knowledge (ilm.)
Ayat	‘Signs.’ Indicators of God. The World is such, so is the Koran.
Hijab	‘Veil.’ What blocks our vision of God. The world is such a thing.
Kashf	‘Unveiling.’ Revelation of the Real.
Tajalli	‘(Self-)disclosure.’ God makes Himself known. Ref. to Koran 7:143) “And when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountains, He made it crumble to dust, and Moses fell down thunderstruck.”
Qalb	‘Heart.’ The organ by which we know God.
Ruh	‘Spirit.’ The organ by which we love God.
Sirr	‘Secret heart.’ The ground of the soul. The organ by which we contemplate God.
Awliya	‘Saints.’ (s.m. wali, s.f. waliyyat.) those who have achieved the rapture (majdhub) that is the evidence of Sufi success. There is a hierarchy of saints. Hujwiri (in his Kashf al-Mahjub) gives it as:   1. Qutb – ‘Axis,’ the supreme leader of the saints   2. Nuqaba – (3) ‘Overseers’   3. Awtad – (4) ‘Supports’   4. Abrar – (7) ‘Pious’   5. Abdal – (40) ‘Substitutes’   6. Akhyar – (300) ‘Good’
Al-insánu ’l-kámil	‘The Perfect Man.’ One “who has fully realised his essential oneness with the Divine Being[.]” The term is due to ibn Arabi. Famously analysed by Nicholson (1921) ‘Studies in Islamic Mysticism’ ch. 2.
Karamat	‘Grace.’ That, and miracles of saints.
Mahfuz	‘Protection of saints from serious sin.
Firasat	‘Discernment.’ Illuminated Sufis have supernatural powers here.
Istinbat	‘Intuition.’ The Sufi has divinely revealed knowledge not to be gained otherwise.

There is also a handy online edition of E. H. Palmer (1867) Oriental Mysticism whose Appendix has a good glossary.

Posted in Sufism | No Comments »

Rumi on al-Hallaj; a Reductio on Tawhid

January 10, 2012 – 12:11 am

Consider the following argument by Rumi offered in explanation of Mansur al-Hallaj’s fevered declaration that he was God – a claim for which he was executed in 922:

 

When Hallaj’s love for God reached it utmost limit, he became his own enemy and he naughted himself. He said, “I am the Real,” (ana ul-Haqq) that is “I have been annihilated; the Real remains, nothing else.” This is extreme humility and the utmost limit of servanthood. It means, “He alone is.” To make a false claim and to be proud is to say, “You are God and I am the servant.” In this way you are affirming your own existene, and duality is the necessary result. If you say, “He is the Real,” that too is duality, for there cannot be a “He” without an “I.” Hence the Real said, “I am the Real.” Other than He, nothing else existed. Hallaj had been annihilated, so those were the words of the Real (Rumi, Fihi ma fihi, ed. B. Furuzanfar (Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1969), p. 193. (Ex Chittick, op. cit. p. 17. Arberry’s translation is available here (pdf) in Discourse 52 on pp. 348 ff.))

This is interesting in several respects. In the first place, it seems like a fairly clear reductio ad absurdum of the extreme notion of tawhid that the Islamic scholars proposed: if God is One and this means that there is nothing outside of God, then anything that is undeniably Real must be God. Since it is undeniably the case that ‘I’ am Real (as established by an argument with which we are familiar from Descartes, but which dates back at least to Augustine – for example, at De Trinitate 10.10.14,) it follows that I am God. Since I am not God, it follows that this argument is unsound, and the most likely point at which it could fail is in the truth of the aforementioned interpretation of Oneness.

Another point of interest is that the conclusion that is reached (by al-Hallaj) is a fairly typical mystical claim, but I don’t recall having seen this precise argument made for it. In the Sufi tradition the approach to Union with God was rather considered to be a return of the love that God showed when he created the world. God’s love and its effect created the possibility of a distance between the world and God, and the choice of Man to love God created the possibility of nihilating that distance. Precisely how that is supposed to work remains a mystery to me. In any case, merely logical reasoning has never been accepted as sufficient to establish such a truth; it is always a discovery that is made by experience, and usually in an ‘altered state of consciousness’ – presumably because in a state more capable of reason the absurdity of the claim would be too obvious to miss.

Posted in Arguments, Sufism | No Comments »

The Relation of the Sufi to the Worldly Parts of Islam

January 9, 2012 – 12:07 am

A summary of the informative parts of Chittick, W. C. (2000) Sufism: A Short Introduction (Oneworld:Oxford) ch. 1.

      A.      The din according to the Hadith of Gabriel (Sahih al Bukhari 1:2:48):

Aspect	Islam (Submission)	Iman (Faith)		Ihsan (‘Doing the Beautiful’)
Bodily Focus	Body	Head		Heart
Essentials	5 Pillars	3 Principles	5 Objects
	i. Profession	i. Unity	i. God
	ii. Prayers	ii. Prophecy	ii. Angels
	iii. Alms	iii. Eschatology	iii. Scripture
	iv. Fasting		iv. Prophets
	v. Pilgrimage		v. Last Days
Institution	Shari’ah (Law)	Kalam (Dogma)
Experts	Fuquha’ (Jurists)	Mutakallimun (Theologians)		Sufis

      B.      Iman according to ‘another’ hadith:

Iman	Act with limbs	Voice with tongue	Acknowledge in heart
	Right doing	Right thinking	Right seeing

      C.      Sufi tradition of binary complementary divine attributes:

Attribute	Majesty	Beauty
	Wrath	Mercy/Love
	Severity	Gentleness
Associate	The created world	The act of creation

      D.      (May be appended to A:)

 

Goal	Good Conduct	Truth	Unity
Path	Obedience to God	Reason guided by God	Love directed at God

 

Posted in Sufism | No Comments »