HAQIQAT AND TAWILL

[Mubarak]

When Mubarak, disrespectfully, says "your Aisha", he forgets that Hazrat Aisha was married to prophet Muhammad (saw). So she was Prophet Muhammad's Aisha. So he is correct when he says your Aisha as we are one with the prophet. Prophet's Aisha becomes our Aisha and Mubarak is left with a hidden Imam and a corrupt Dai!!

Anajmi, in your Sunni/Wahabi arena, you are suppose to stand by the caliph of time and zihad/fight with those who fight against your caliph.

In war of Jamal (camel), Aaisha is against Mola Ali (a.s.): whom will you fight against: Aaisha or Mola Ali ?

[Mubarak]

When Mubarak, disrespectfully, says "your Aisha", he forgets that Hazrat Aisha was married to prophet Muhammad (saw). So she was Prophet Muhammad's Aisha. So he is correct when he says your Aisha as we are one with the prophet. Prophet's Aisha becomes our Aisha and Mubarak is left with a hidden Imam and a corrupt Dai!!

Anajmi, in your Sunni/Wahabi arena, you are suppose to stand by the caliph of time and zihad/fight with those who fight against your caliph.

In war of Jamal (camel), Aaisha is against Mola Ali (a.s.): whom will you fight against: Aaisha or Mola Ali ?

Further, if Shrimati Aaisha was Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) Aaisha in religious sense then why Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) didn't took Aaisha but took Molatina Fatima (a.s.) to fight Mubahila with Christians? This unambigously proves supremacy of Molatina Fatima over Shrimati Aaisha.

[anajmi]

Fortunately, unlike the shias and yourself, we do not wish to worship human beings and so we are least concerned with which human being was superior to which one. People who worship human beings constantly need to prove the superiority of their idols over others.

[porus]

Pity seeing another thread degenerating into Shia/Sunni quarrel!

[anajmi]

It is a pity. Shias should refrain from disrespecting those that other muslims hold in high regard. And if they cannot, they shouldn't be hoping that others will simply not respond to their bile.

[anajmi]

This assimilation of Islam and Greek philosophy attracted a number of eminent persons towards the Ismaili movement. Tawil and haqiqa are nothing but the esoteric explanation of the teaching and practices of Islam, influenced by Greek phylosophy.

This is eye opening information. If proved to be correct, this can validate the wahhabi point of view that Tawil has nothing to do with Islam but is a foreign concept.

Perhaps, you would be kind enough to identify one or several key ideas in Ismaili Metaphysics which, in their essence, could not be traced back to earlier writings of Greek or Egyptian philosophers. What is genuinely original in Ismaili Metaphysics which other philosophies have taken up or rejected?

What I would like to see is ideas in Ismaili Metaphysics which can be traced back to earlier Greek or Egyptian writings. Anyone?

[porus]

What I would like to see is ideas in Ismaili Metaphysics which can be traced back to earlier Greek or Egyptian writings. Anyone?

I suggest you use Advanced search on this forum with words 'haqeeqat' and 'tawil'. You may also wish to use 'porus' in the author field.

[porus]

This assimilation of Islam and Greek philosophy attracted a number of eminent persons towards the Ismaili movement. Tawil and haqiqa are nothing but the esoteric explanation of the teaching and practices of Islam, influenced by Greek phylosophy.

This is eye opening information. If proved to be correct, this can validate the wahhabi point of view that Tawil has nothing to do with Islam but is a foreign concept.

"Tawil and haqiqa are nothing but the esoteric explanation of the teaching and practices of Islam, influenced by Greek phylosophy."

Briefly, this is correct. While taawil and haqiqat are both Quranic concepts, it can be argued that these are not original to Quran. For jaahil Wahhabis, there was nothing before Quran, or bettter yet, there was nothing before Abdul Wahhab. And since taawil is foreign to Wahhabis, they think it is foreign to Islam and Quran. Like I said, they are jaahils of great distinction!

[anajmi]

What I would like to see is ideas in Ismaili Metaphysics which can be traced back to earlier Greek or Egyptian writings. Anyone?

I suggest you use Advanced search on this forum with words 'haqeeqat' and 'tawil'. You may also wish to use 'porus' in the author field.

The search revealed two results and both of them refer to this thread. I would suggest you to first search yourself before suggesting it to others. I tried different spellings like taawil, taawill, taweel. Got nothing.

I am not looking for many. Just a couple of examples would be enough. I would suggest you to do the search and then post the result over here in this thread which has an appropriate title.

[anajmi]

This is eye opening information. If proved to be correct, this can validate the wahhabi point of view that Tawil has nothing to do with Islam but is a foreign concept.

"Tawil and haqiqa are nothing but the esoteric explanation of the teaching and practices of Islam, influenced by Greek phylosophy."

Briefly, this is correct. While taawil and haqiqat are both Quranic concepts, it can be argued that these are not original to Quran. For jaahil Wahhabis, there was nothing before Quran, or bettter yet, there was nothing before Abdul Wahhab. And since taawil is foreign to Wahhabis, they think it is foreign to Islam and Quran. Like I said, they are jaahils of great distinction!

I am not sure I understand whatever it is you are saying. Are the concepts of taawil and haqeeqat borrowed from Greek phylosophy or not?

What is Taawil? Taawil is an esoteric interpretation of the Quran. This esoteric interpretation of the Quran is not in the Quran. Only the concept is in the Quran. However, the esoteric interpretation is actually borrowed from Greek Phylosophy. There is no way to validate that the Quran is in line with Greek phylosophy. Why is that? Because it is esoteric you jaahil!!

[porus]

anajmi,

I am not really inclined to discuss Ismaili metaphysics with you as your objective is ridicule. But do use Advanced search again, this time using keywords, Platonism, Neo-Platonism and neoPlatonism. Make sure you use the radio button for 'all or any terms'.

[anajmi]

I am not really inclined to discuss Ismaili metaphysics with you as your objective is ridicule.

I am sorry porus, but I just cannot help it. If you were to just post greek phylosophy, it is ridiculous in itself. There is no need to further ridicule it. And then when people claim taawil is borrowed from this same greek phylosophy, it is even more ridiculous. Here is an example

In ancient Greece, porus was a God. His name meant ‘the way’ as in the 'Tao' of Lao Tzu. At a party held in honor of the birth of Aphrodite, porus fell into a drunken sleep. A poor goddess, Penia, was passing by and she a saw a chance of getting out of her poverty by sleeping with porus and becoming pregnant by him. The result was the birth of Eros.

So you see, without porus there would be no Eros and no love in this God forsaken world

I apologize if I am confusing greek phylosophy with greek mythology. I will perform the search and will be back.

[anajmi]

porus,

So I did the search and found 4 posts with those words. I am going to post them all over here and try to figure out what they mean. If you want, you can correct me. This might be one long post.

1st

Whatever Neoplatonism has to say about God and no matter how much of it has been incorporated into Bohra Haqaiq, Neoplatonism is not Islam.

Can I assume from your above post that Neoplatonism is not Islam?

2nd

In Ismaili metaphysics, the fabric of the cosmos, the basic stuff of the universe, is what it calls Intellect or Aql. This is the first creation of Allah. Aql incorporates all that we identify as laws that govern the universe and it also incorporates idealized forms of entities which can be given names in the world. For instance, law of gravity is a property of intellect and so is the name tree which is used to identify a real tree. This is essentially Platonism.

The next stage down in hierarchy is the creation of Spirit or Ruh. Spirit animates material substance to create living entities, the third stage. The first person was Adam who was given the knowledge and Law. His job was to proclaim the Law to the rest of mankind and provide instructions for submission to Allah.

Once the Law was promulgated, it would last a long time. The Law required an interpreter who could explain the real meaning behind the Law, the Taawil. Taawil led people to the knowledge of their origin. Master of Taawil is the Imam, who must be present at all times.

So, in Ismaili metaphysics, Imam is necessary for people to get near to Allah.

So Platonism is the concept of giving names to things, animate or inanimate. In the Quran we can see that Allah taught Adam (as) names of things.

Then came the Law through prophets. Adam (as) brought his law, Musa (as) brought his law and Prophet Muhammad (saw) brought his law.

Then came the need to explain the real meaning behind the law. The Taawil. How and why is Taawil different from jurisprudence which can be used to explain the real meaning behind the law? For eg. the law of divorce. What does Taawil have to say about this Law? What about the Law of cutting hands when a person steals. What does Taawil have to say about it? If these are not the laws that Taawil explains, then which Laws does Taawil explain and what is that explanation. One or two examples would suffice. Is it surprising that even after so much discussion on Taawil, I am still asking the most basic questions. I must've missed quite a bit. Please help me over here porus.

3rd

The latter, along with another great Ismaili, al-Farabi, created the Ismaili metaphysics which included a hierarchy of Intellect(aql), Soul(Ruh), Lawgiver(Nabi) and Interpreter of Law (Taawil). who is also identified as the wasi. (al-Farabi divides intellect into ten categories from aql-awwal to aashir-e-mudabbir, which he equates to Nabi). In our own age Nabi is Muhammad who brought the Shariat and Interpreter of Taawil is Ali. (This is the reason behind the Prophet saying that he is the City of Knowledge and Ali is its gate).

Both al-Sijistani and al-Farabi were influenced by Neo-Platonism, which they have incorporated in the Ismaili metaphysics.

Same as above

4th

If the Imams were ordinary mortals, they would need to be tutored in esoteric and exoteric knowledge for many years before they can claim to be able to interpret divine will.

In the succession of the Imamat, this is obviously not the case. Why? Because Imam can be a young man in his twenties as in the case of the Aga Khan or a 2 year old infant as in the case of Imam al-Tayyib.

The idea is that Imamat passes from person to person just as the aql-awwal emanated its successors aql-thani and so on. The successor does not need instruction. He is "inspired" by divine intervention.

The idea has no merit except that fatimids and their successors have developed this philosophy about Imamat being in the progeny of Ali. Emanations could deposit itself into anybody not just the son.

The reason why it must be progeny is more to do with perpetuating a dynasty than any philosphical merit. It is Islam against neo-platonism metamorphosed into philosophy based on Arab tribal structure with family loyalties, rather than loyalty to religious abstractions, being its primary basis and driving force.

If I am reading this post correctly, can we assume that since the bohra Imam is hidden, they no longer have the real interpretation of the Law? I am saying that the Dai cannot give the Taawil of the Law because The idea is that Imamat passes from person to person just as the aql-awwal emanated its successors aql-thani and so on. The successor does not need instruction. He is "inspired" by divine intervention.

or that the Dai can give Taawil because Emanations could deposit itself into anybody not just the son.. That would mean that what the Dai is doing must be according to Taawil. And if he is a liar then what the hell does that mean?

[Muslim First]

Shriman Mubaek

All daughters of Prophet Mohammed s.a. are 'nek'. Muslim First, I cannot mention all names in my post however, Molatina Fatima is made/born from/to her father Prophet Mohammed s.a

Fatima is made/born from/to her father Prophet Mohammed

What does this mean?

Are you alluding that other daughters were not made/born from/to her father Prophet Mohammed?

Is that Ismaili Tawil?

[Muslim First]

Shriman

Refer Quran 29:15-18, "(Mohammed) announce in public that WE *1 are from your God."

Which translation you are using?

[porus]

porus,

So I did the search and found 4 posts with those words. I am going to post them all over here and try to figure out what they mean. If you want, you can correct me. This might be one long post.

1st

Whatever Neoplatonism has to say about God and no matter how much of it has been incorporated into Bohra Haqaiq, Neoplatonism is not Islam.

Can I assume from your above post that Neoplatonism is not Islam?

That would be a correct assumption. Neoplatonism is one of the philosophies, amongst several, which has influenced Ismaili Metaphysics, which in turn is esoteric interpretation of Islam. There are other esoteric interpretations of Islam like many flavors of Sufism.

Now, I suggest you search the forum for the word 'metaphysics' and author 'porus'.

[anajmi]

I will after I get the clarifications I seek for the ones posted above.

[anajmi]

Is esoteric interpretation the same as Taawil? If yes, then as per your earlier posts, I assumed that only the current Imam could provide Taawil. Where or from whom did the Sufis get their Taawil? Which Imam was responsible for the creation of neoplatonism?

[Humsafar]

anajmi, at the very least you can accept that no body of knowledge (especially sacred knowledge) is exclusive and unique - meaning it stands on its own without any antecedents. You're always railing against esoteric interpretation of the Quran believing that all sacred knowledge begins and ends with it. That is of course a fallacy which can be explained away by your love for your religion. But have you ever paused to wonder how "original" the Quran itself is. You may believe that that the Quran has come from the blue and that may well be the case, even so, much of the Quranic metaphysics is borrowed from other ancient philosophical traditions. There is noting exclusively unique about Quranic metaphysics. Much of what Allah chose to reveal to Mohammed was already revealed to other races and cultures. Only they didn't make such a production of it. Just to take one example, the concept of the Unity of God (Tawheed) is not unique to Islam. The one and only Allah is no different from that of the One of Neoplatonism which is no different from the Godhead of Buddhism which is not different from the Supreme Reality (Brahma) of the vedas... and so it goes. And all these traditions predate Islam. Seers and philosophers have discovered this truth over and over from time immemorial - albeit through different routes.

Prophet Mohammed was a mystic too, his revelations were not unique, rather they were grounded in the traditions and philosophies he inherited. Take these stories and metaphysics out of the Quran and what kind of Islam are you left with? Nothing except prescriptive edicts (the law) and the prophet's personal narrative (Sunnah). Traditional Islam is obsessed with the law and the sunnah completely ignoring the universal truths that Quran has borrowed and shares with the rest of humanity. Muslims tend to emphasise how different and unique their religion is from others. Other organised religions are guilty of the same thing, and this is why all traditional religions degenerate into conflicts of identity and ego. You and your ilk with your insistence on interpreting the text in a certain way are contributing to that conflict. Actually if you give some thought to it, you will realise that what is unique about any religion is really of little value. What is common is of great value and the only thing that matters.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

Please tell me that you at least read the Daimul Islam, before deciding to talk about Ismaili metaphysics. If not, may I suggest you do an advanced search on the following words - Platonism, Neo-Platonism and neoPlatonism. Make sure you use the radio button for 'all or any terms' and put "porus" in the author field. After you have done that, search for the same words again and put "anajmi" in the author field and you will be enlightened.

You're always railing against esoteric interpretation of the Quran

It would seem that way to people who have little or no knowledge of what an esoteric interpretation of the Quran is. If I had been actually dealing with people who had knowledge about the esoteric interpretation of the Quran, they would've been able to provide answers for the questions I have asked without fear of ridicule.

Actually if you give some thought to it, you will realise that what is unique about any religion is really of little value.

So what you are saying is that after I give it some thought, I will turn into a disbeliever like you? A disbeliever who believe's that there is no difference between Shiva's Lingam and the Godhead of Buddhism and that they are both of little value?

There is noting exclusively unique about Quranic metaphysics.

Let me ask you a very simple question. What is "Qurani metaphysics"?

You and your ilk with your insistence on interpreting the text in a certain way are contributing to that conflict.

The same crap again. Give me your damn interpretation then. What is your interpretation? Oh let me guess -

Allah is the same as Brahma of the Vedas and the Godhead of Buddhism.
We can kiss the Dai's feet as long as he gives us his balance sheet.
The Quran says pray 5 times but the correct interpretation is that you shouldn't.
The Quran says pay zakat, but the correct interpretation is that you shouldn't.
The Quran says go to Hajj, but the correct interpretation is that you shouldn't.
The Quran says fast in the month of ramadan, but the correct interpretation is that you shouldn't.
The Quran says the righteous will go to heaven and the sinners will go to hell, but the correct interpretation is that you won't.

Is that your interpretation?

[porus]

Please tell me that you at least read the Daimul Islam, before deciding to talk about Ismaili metaphysics.

Daimiul Islam is not the tome of Ismaili Metaphysics. It is Zahiri interpretation of the ayats of the Quran explaining the seven pillars of Islam.

Which Imam was responsible for the creation of neoplatonism?

You surpass yourself in your Jahiliyat.

[anajmi]

Daimiul Islam is not the tome of Ismaili Metaphysics.

Sorry. Forgot about that.

Humsafar, please tell me you have seen "Clash of the Titans" before talking about Ismaili metaphysics.

You surpass yourself in your Jahiliyat.

But not you. Never you!!.

My question remains unanswered. If only the Imam can give Taawil and some Taawil is derived from neo-platonism, then which Imam is responsible for neo-platonism?

[anajmi]

Prophet Mohammed was a mystic too, his revelations were not unique, rather they were grounded in the traditions and philosophies he inherited.

Ofcourse they are not unique. The prophet muhammad (saw) is the last and final prophet and not the first one.

002.285
YUSUFALI: The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."
PICKTHAL: The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.
SHAKIR: The messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers; We make no difference between any of His messengers; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course.

But of course, people like Humsafar will insist that since the revelation to the prophet was not unique, then we should be singing ganpati bappa maurya and hallelujah after every salah.

Much of what Allah chose to reveal to Mohammed was already revealed to other races and cultures.

What??? Really??? I didn't know that. I didn't know that the Musa of the Quran is the same as Moses of the Bible. I just thought that it was conincidental that they were both from Egypt and both were saving people persecuted by the pharoah and they both split the red sea. Damn!! I thought the Quran was supposed to give us brand new stories!!

[porus]

If only the Imam can give Taawil and some Taawil is derived from neo-platonism, then which Imam is responsible for neo-platonism?

Tawil is not derived from neo-platonism. It is derived from the Quran. Ismaili Metaphysics utilizes ideas of Neoplatonism to create its own superstructure of esoteric explanation of what Quran only hints at in its ideas of tawheed, cosmogony, fall of Adam, purpose of creation and its eschatology (i.e. end of creation) etc.

If you had seriously searched the board you would have discovered that in Ismaili metaphysics, every messenger is accompanied by Wasi/Imam who is responsible for taawil. Knowledge of taawil is passed on to his successor when Imam dies. Since Imam is in hiding, there is no one to explain taawil. However, Bohra mythology gets around this by concocting some sort of secret communication between the hidden Imam and the Dai.

Nonetheless, there is a lot of written exposition of Ismaili metasphysics in the writings of scholars that S. Insaf mentioned earlier. If you are a believer, then you accept that these scholars faithfully wrote down what Imam explained. However, I personally suspect that Ismaili metaphysics is a collective effort of these scholars which was perhaps 'rubber-stamped' by Imams who were too busy with the task of establishing and governing the Fatimid state.

A person who asks which Imam created neo-platonism after 10 years on this board deserves to be called a Jaahil.

[anajmi]

porus,

Thank you for that explanation. My jaahiliyat has reduced a little bit.

Ismaili Metaphysics utilizes ideas of Neoplatonism to create its own superstructure of esoteric explanation of what Quran only hints at in its ideas of tawheed, cosmogony, fall of Adam, purpose of creation and its eschatology (i.e. end of creation) etc.

What idea from neoplatonism was used to explain the fall of adam and what is that explanation? Similarly, what idea from neoplatonism was used to explain the purpose of creation and what is that purpose?

However, I personally suspect that Ismaili metaphysics is a collective effort of these scholars which was perhaps 'rubber-stamped' by Imams who were too busy with the task of establishing and governing the Fatimid state.

So you have just rubbished the Ismaili idea of the Imam being the only person who can produce Taawil through divine inspiration, and the fact that this Taawil was actually produced by the Imams, correct?

If that is the case, then you need not answer my other questions about the specific laws that I mentioned above and asked for the Imam's interpretation of those laws.

[profastian]

All this crap about Ismaili Metaphysics being borrowed from Greek Philosophy. You say this under the premise, that Ismaili metaphysics was created during Imam Ahmad's time. But that is not what we(Bohras) believe in. ' Ismaili metaphysics' was documented by people like Maulana Sajistani and Kirmani. They did not create it. This so called metaphysics is much older than the Greeks philosophy. So no question of it being borrowed.

[Humsafar]

anajmi,

As usual you are riding rough shod - like a bulldozer - over all that one says. You take great delight in ridiculing others, which btw is easy for those who talk from a position of narrow certainties. The Lingam, ganpati, namaz, zakat etc.and other rituals and symbols are specific to each culture and theology. They are interpretations of reality, different ways of understanding and negotiating the unknown. In essence there is little difference in worshipping Shiva’s lingam or praying namaz (now you can go to town ridiculing that!!!!!). They are just different modes of reaching out to the divine.

Personally I’m not interested in interpreting the quran. I read the English translation – and accept its broad moral positions regarding equality, charity and compassion. In terms of its metaphysics – or ismaili metaphysics for that matter – concerning the origin of Universe, the nature of man, purpose of life etc. there are other philosophical systems which I feel are far more sophisticated and nuanced. You can interpret the Quran your way or the Ismaili way, either way you’re dealing with superficialities. Although I would agree that all this business about taawil is more to do with power and control of knowledge. The Imams may have had their ulterior motives and used the “esoteric interpretation” in the service of empire. In my view the whole shia branch of Islam underpinned by the glorification of the ahle bayt and the imams – no matter how finely argued and justified – goes against the Islamic spirit of equality, and comes close to idol worshipping.

As for the prophet Mohammed being the last prophet is an untenable assertion. You may believe in it but it doesn’t make it true. Revelations and insights into the true nature of things is not the monopoly of prophets. People have been blessed with divine grace before and since Mohammed, but, as I said before, few made such a big deal out of it.

[anajmi]

In essence there is little difference in worshipping Shiva’s lingam or praying namaz (now you can go to town ridiculing that!!!!!).

Humsafar,

I gave you more credit than what you have been throwing around this board the last few weeks. It is ok not to respond when you do not have answers instead of just spewing junk.

Personally I’m not interested in interpreting the quran.

That is because, personally, you are a hypocrite. If the Dai were to show you his balance sheet, you would worship anybody's lingam he asks you to. And that is because in essence, you believe in nothing. People who say the believe in all religions, actually believe in none. They are just a bunch of hypocrites. As for the rest of the paragraph, only one word comes to mind - WHEW!!!!

I finally get you to actually spell out what you've always believed all along. The truth is extremely difficult to extract from people like yourself.

You may believe in it but it doesn’t make it true.

The reason it becomes true is because I believe in it. You believe that worshipping Shiva's lingam and praying namaz is the same. Does that make it true? Ofcourse it does. But only for you.

[anajmi]

People have been blessed with divine grace before and since Mohammed, but, as I said before, few made such a big deal out of it.

Maybe because these people realized in the afternoon that it was only a hangover!!

[anajmi]

In terms of its metaphysics – or ismaili metaphysics for that matter – concerning the origin of Universe, the nature of man, purpose of life etc. there are other philosophical systems which I feel are far more sophisticated and nuanced.

I thought you believed that we were just an incredible accident!! How and when did you start learning about sophisticated philosophical systems concerning the origin of the Universe and the purpose of life? Or may be, after you studied these sophisticated systems, you came to the conclusion that we are just an incredible accident?