From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Sun Jul 21 14:52:08 1996 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 23:28:38 -0400 (EDT) From: tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Reply-To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com Subject: tariqas-digest V1 #66 tariqas-digest Monday, 15 July 1996 Volume 01 : Number 066 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: barzakh@idola.net.id Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 03:54:02 +0700 Subject: This sweet Ocean Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Assalamu'alaykum to all, At 04:09 AM 7/14/96 +0800, brother Maarof wrote: > >Sometimes I feel its safer standing on the shore and just watch the >swimmers and the waves. > >salam >maarof > > May God send a huge tidal wave over brother Maarof, and drag him helplessly to His Ocean. :-) Come on, brother Maarof, the water is sweet here and don't be afraid with the sharks. They are there to test us. If they recognize us as their Master's friends, they will do no harm. But a swimming teacher is needed here, to prevent us from drowning. Love you all. Wassalamu'alaykum, your "still-learning-how-to-swim" brother, Michael Roland ------------------------------ From: maarof@pc.jaring.my Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 05:10:56 +0800 Subject: Re: Al-Haqq Startled? I'm standing near the Ocean? You are swimming in that Ocean and have the right to say I am the Ocean. I am standing on the shore you'll laugh if I say "I'm the Ocean". That's the tragedy of Hallaj, people like me (on the shore) grabbed him from the Ocean (is this possible?) and cut his arms and legs. But the Blood still proclaimed "Ana al-Haqq". salam maarof On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Thomas McElwain wrote: >Ya Maarof! Assalaamu-'Alaykum rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu! >Innallaha al-Haqq! Surely there is a great reward for the One who says only >Allah is al-Haqq. To drink from the fountain of al-kauthar. God is One and >there is none besides Him. Therefore there is only one who can say I. > They killed Al-Hallaj because he said, "Ana al-Haqq." They >understood correctly that he meant that he himself was God by saying this. >Ana al-Haqq, I am truth. They might have let him live. Why should they kill >a man for telling a lie? Had any of those who agreed to his death refrained >from lying when it was to their advantage? Not one. It was not to his >advantage when Al-Hallaj told that lie. Maybe the Devil made him do it. > Of course Al-Hallaj was not God. I am God. >Ali Haydar > > > > ------------------------------ From: "Erik S. Ohlander" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 08:04:59 Subject: Re: What is immortality? Quite right, I remember that this was espically striking to me when we looked at nominal sentences in Arabic 101; I was amazed that, for instance, the sentence * al-qita saghira* means 'the cat (is) little' ; no verb! Erik. ><< Wonder what other languages are in this state, no verb "to be"? >> >Arabic, for one. ------------------------------ From: maarof@pc.jaring.my Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 05:56:20 +0800 Subject: re: mantis and al-Haqq On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Thomas McElwain wrote: >Ashhado alla ilaha illallah >Ashhado anna Muhammadar-rasullullah >I bear witness that there is no god but Allah >I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah >Ya Maarof Assalaamu Alaykum >The I that you cannot call Allah must not be called Allah, because that I >does not exist. If I believe that such an I exists with Allah, that is >shirk. If I say I am not God, then that is shirk, for affirming that not-God >exists affirms a second to God. But He is One, praised be He, >Qul huuuuuuuuuuwa Allaho ahad... >But I am only God, pay no attention to me! >Ali Haydar > > Walaikumsalam brother Ali What is actually the meaning of that dot under ba? My understanding, is that it is enough for me as a gift from God. What is that meaning and how do you actually see the ba's dot as you beautifully explained in you preivous post? salam maarof ------------------------------ From: "Erik S. Ohlander" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:16:09 Subject: Martin! Martin- Could you please send me your last message again, I lost it before being able to reply, and I do not have your address in my book so I had to broadcast this to all; sorry! Thanks- Erik. ------------------------------ From: ABDUL GHANI BENNETT Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:51:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: asalaam 786 asalaam brother michael how are you doing?? have seen that you are keeping up with the posts on tariqas...how was your trip to singapore with you guru? successful i hope. i have been pretty busy here lately...havn't read much from the tariqas net but i always read your posts as they have content to them and make sense, not like some posts which i guess seem to me like a lot of psyco-babble. tell me how you are doing and what your next plans are when you have the time yach...i have more free time now so i can give you more feedback than before. wasalaam ghani ------------------------------ From: BRYAN CONN Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 18:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Allow me to introduce myself... Asalaamu Alaikum Brothers and Sisters! I had subscribed to tariqas a week or two ago and since then I've been quietly reading and watching this fantastic bantering... but I've begun to feel as though I've been eavesdropping, so I guess it's time to come out of the woodwork and introduce myself. So: Hi! My name is Bryan! I'm already becoming accustomed to recognizing the strong and wonderful personalities of many of you, which somehow seem undiminished by the sometimes inpersonal internet... I look forward to reading much more of this incomprehensible nonsense, and perhaps I shall find an occasion to cast my own shadow upon this cave wall one day... In the meantime, keep it coming! Salaam, Bryan ------------------------------ From: Martin Schell Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 06:25:27 +0700 Subject: Re: Volume of mail At 11:33 AM 7/15/96 -0700, Richard Rozsa wrote: >Dear friends and members of the tariqas e-list, > >May this find one and all well. > >Of late, there has been a huge volume of mail on this list. Since >Friday, I've received more than 150 messages and this has been the >normal amount of late. Some have sent more than 20 messages in just >three days. - --I have sent quite a few myself in the past few days. I have also sent at least as many "personal messages" directly to the email address of individuals whom I wish to speak to. - --The only guideline that I can see is: "Ask yourself if the WHOLE list really needs to receive what you are sending." - --Despite my fervent and sometimes fevered participation, I, too, am feeling overloaded lately. I will select the tariqas-digest option. (Contact Habib if you need more information about that option.) Martin ------------------------------ From: frank gaude Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:03:25 -0700 Subject: Re: verbs to be [was Re: What is immortality? Jinavamsa@aol.com wrote: > > >From: an525@lafn.org (Ivan Ickovits) > > > >Hebrew for two. > > > >>In a message dated 96-07-14 19:25:41 EDT, you write: > >> > >><< Wonder what other languages are in this state, no verb "to be"? >> > >> Arabic, for one. >> > > This raises the possibility that other Semitic languages likewise have no > verb "to be" ... might we add to this list of two such languages, then, > such other languages as Aramaic, Syriac, Egyptian, Ethiopic, .... ? You know it seems that many of the cultures whose languages don't have the verb "to be" in them are of people who are close to the land, to the sky, to nature in general... the people whose language has this verb are the ones who have been slowly, but now suddenly, discovering all the secrets of the material world. These peoples are the ones who created all the wonders of the 15th through 20th century, the technologies that premit rapid communications, food supply, leasure time... at the same time, little regard is or was given to the supply of natural resources by these same people and not much concern for close relationship among individuals and their spirits (community is dead, not God!). Focus has been on a strange me, me, me... not too much Thou, Thou, Thou... Some change back to the spirit, to the land, is presently seen in this regard. But what is said here is not absolutely, but generally true... Seems the surface magnetic quality of materialism has won over the entire planet, at least for now... the so-called Western way has won the "war", the East has caved in and gone the way of materialism... in dress, in thought, in desire... but you know, times change... many of us sense a new awareness just under the surface and such should have its influence in the next 16 years or so. Strange is the Way of Allah... so it Be! Just think what happens if humanity is not able to produce electricity? Think it through... we are back to tee-pees, wooden huts! a farm society of the early 18th century. You think such a reversal is possible? desirable? Now, back to wazifa. tanzen ------------------------------ From: Gale Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:11:05 -0700 Subject: Re: Jafar al-Saddiq Eric wrote: >Weren't the Shi'a hostile to the Sufis prior to the establishment of = the >Safavids in the 16th century? Well, without going back to the long-standing question of "What is = Sufism" -- snore -- I don't feel "hostile" would be the correct = description. The esoteric developments in Shi'ism, certainly during the = period of the imams, was marginal to those trends that later developed = into Sunni tariqas. I find it remarkable that very early on, before = Jafar Saddiq, there was a fully blown esoteric science and theosophy in = Shi'ism (eg., vision of the heart or al-ruya bi'l qalb, dream = divination, Nur-i-Muhammad s.a.w.s., the pole or qutub, etc.), whereas = the Sufis of that day are hard to distinguish from their Nestorian and = Monophysite Christian neighbors with respect to mystical practice and = spiritual ethics and practice. Jafar Saddiq certainly seems to have = systematized it. According to Schimmel, the Sufi and Shi'ia ideas were = interdependent at the earliest stages, and notes that Jafar's commentary = on the Quran influenced the development of the Sufis interpretation as = well. By the time of al-Masudi (early 10th c.), in addition to a blood = geneology for Muhammad, saws, leading to the imams, there was also an = esoteric geneology, which includes a Christian monk/abba/ascetic (it is = uncertain) Barda or Barza who transmitted the esoteric line to Muhammad, = saws. Others in this lineage are Isa's disciple Simon (not Peter), and = Isa. Of course there were Shi'ite Sufis long before the Safavids. I belong = to a marginal Shi'ite Kobrawiyya tariqa, and Najmuddin Kobra (d. 1220) = was distinctly Shi'ite as was his great promulgator Ali Hammadani. = Haider Amuli, the great interpreter of Ibn Arabi, likewise was Shi'ite, = and there are many others. I feel because of the imams's hereditary = connection and transmission from Muhammad, saws, Shi'ites gave priority = and went out of their way to find and/or create distinctions from the = parallel developments and teachings taking place in Sufism. Of course, = after the occultation of the 12th Imam, the original Quran, according to = Shi'ites, went into occultation as well, and the Shi'ite philosophy of = the post-Imam period was that Shi'ites should adopt the Sunni shariah = and the Quran authorized by Caliph Uthman. This did not prevent the = Shi'ites from also having a large body of additional hadith (including = the hadith of the imams) to study and turn to which is not recognized by = the Sunni. Much of this literature is extremely mystical and esoteric. Well suffice it to say, it is a fascinating topic, and I don't believe = anything near a definitive study has yet to appear on early Shi'a-Sufi = relationships and developments. These are only my perceptions, and are = therefore written in soft mud. Blessings, Nur ------------------------------ From: Gale Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:35:48 -0700 Subject: RE: Verb: to be Sanskrit of course has the verb "to be" as well as the earliest Chinese = (the character shih); Tibetan (from the Burmese family of languages), = like Spanish, has a number of words designating "to be". Tamil, the = indigenous non-Indo-European language of India, has the verb as well. = Of course, Sanskrit is the first language to have the concept "zero". = (time for a new subject heading?) As to comments on societies closer to the land, sky, etc. not having the = verb to be: poppycock! Blessings, Nur ------------------------------ From: Hudoyo Hupudio Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 08:05:23 +0700 Subject: Re: Volume of mail At 06:25 AM 7/16/96 +0700, Martin Schell wrote: > >--I have sent quite a few myself in the past few days. I have also >sent at least as many "personal messages" directly to the email >address of individuals whom I wish to speak to. > >--The only guideline that I can see is: "Ask yourself if the WHOLE >list really needs to receive what you are sending." > >--Despite my fervent and sometimes fevered participation, I, too, >am feeling overloaded lately. Another alternative to reduce the overload of mail is for the server to adjust its procedure so that each time someone replies to a posting the address of the original writer will be automatically put in the "To" field instead of . If the responder wants his/her respond to be sent to the whole group, he/she can manually alter the "To" field. This is my experience with another discussion group. I do not know how popular this alternative is. Wassalam, Hudoyo ------------------------------ From: Michael Moore Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 18:45:37 -0700 Subject: Re: Verb: to be Gale wrote: > > Sanskrit of course has the verb "to be" as well as the earliest Chinese (the character shih); Tibetan (from the Burmese family of languages), like Spanish, has > > As to comments on societies closer to the land, sky, etc. not having the verb to be: poppycock! > > Blessings, Nur Yes, there seems to be this idea about being 'closer to the land'. What exactly does that mean? There also seems to be this idea wafting around that pre-technological peoples such as the early native Americans were good custodians of the earth. The truth acording to one source which unfortunately I can not remember is that the Native Americans wiped out hundreds of species of animals. Just look at Easter Island for an example of what pre-industrial people can do to an environment. And there was constant fighting and waring among the different tribes. Tribes raided other tribes for their horses and women. There were even human sacrifices in the south. Sure, there were exceptional tribes, and exceptional periods of peace but in general, things were pretty rotten. Let's not make idols of these 'all to human' brothers and sisters of days gone by. We cannot go back, I don't think we would really want to. - -Michael- ------------------------------ From: James McCaig Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 21:47:33 -0400 Subject: re: mantis and al-Haqq Dear Sisters and Brothers, It appears that we have in our midst one who understands and articulates the Universal Sufi view very well. This articulation of the Sufi ideal sounds very familiar, yet has the unmistakable mark of the true Islam. Talk to us Ali Haydar, you showed up right on time Warm regards, At 03:29 PM 7/15/96 +0300, you wrote: >Ashhado alla ilaha illallah >Ashhado anna Muhammadar-rasullullah >I bear witness that there is no god but Allah >I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah >Ya Maarof Assalaamu Alaykum >The I that you cannot call Allah must not be called Allah, because that I >does not exist. If I believe that such an I exists with Allah, that is >shirk. If I say I am not God, then that is shirk, for affirming that not-God >exists affirms a second to God. But He is One, praised be He, >Qul huuuuuuuuuuwa Allaho ahad... >But I am only God, pay no attention to me! >Ali Haydar > > Maharaj James McCaig | Sufi Center of Washington Brotherhood/Sisterhood Representative | Keepers of Sufi Center Bookstore United States | http://guess.worldweb.net/sufi jmccaig@worldweb.net ------------------------------ From: James McCaig Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 21:47:36 -0400 Subject: Re: the Shaykh (fwd) At 09:12 AM 7/15/96 -0400, you wrote: >Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 11:42:21 -0500 >To: tariqas@world.std.com >From: gmtn@mail.comet.net (Green Mountain School) >Subject: the Shaykh >Message-Id: <19960714160201043.AAA176@[128.143.3.105]> > Dear Brother, Who will judge this sheikh candidate and determine if he meets the criteria. This doesn't sound like a job for any human I know (being the Judge). Warm regards, >having read the more heterodox explanations of the criteria of a shaykh let >me re-post a more traditional set of criteria which have been excepted for >the most part over the past 1400 years. > > Maharaj James McCaig | Sufi Center of Washington Brotherhood/Sisterhood Representative | Keepers of Sufi Center Bookstore United States | http://guess.worldweb.net/sufi jmccaig@worldweb.net ------------------------------ From: arsalaan fay Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Bismillah Friends I have recently been told that the Arabic terms Rahman and Rahim are less related to compassion, mercy, or grace than to the relationship between a mother and her unborn child. Can someome confirm and elaborate on this? A Fay ------------------------------ From: "Erik S. Ohlander" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:28:51 Subject: Re: Jafar al-Saddiq You make some very good points, but it seems that one way or another the question hinges on how we define Tasawwuf. When I was studying Shi'i fiqh and kalam I was required to read some of Ja'fari's writings; needless to say I found nothing Sufic (sic.)in them. >Well, without going back to the long-standing question of "What is = >Sufism" -- snore -- I don't feel "hostile" would be the correct = >description. The esoteric developments in Shi'ism, certainly during the = >period of the imams, was marginal to those trends that later developed = >into Sunni tariqas. I find it remarkable that very early on, before = >Jafar Saddiq, there was a fully blown esoteric science and theosophy in = >Shi'ism (eg., vision of the heart or al-ruya bi'l qalb, dream = >divination, Nur-i-Muhammad s.a.w.s., the pole or qutub, etc.), whereas = >the Sufis of that day are hard to distinguish from their Nestorian and = >Monophysite Christian neighbors with respect to mystical practice and = >spiritual ethics and practice. Please provide some textual referance (Arabic is fine) to back this up, I do not remember seeing any reference to such things in my readings of early Shi'i texts. Such things, while a part of post-Isma'ili Ithna 'Ashari Shi'ism, did not seem to be a part of the early Shi'i experience. Jafar Saddiq certainly seems to have = >systematized it. According to Schimmel, the Sufi and Shi'ia ideas were = >interdependent at the earliest stages, and notes that Jafar's commentary = >on the Quran influenced the development of the Sufis interpretation as = >well. This makes sense, however it does not mean Imam as-Sadiq was a Sufi, just that people later picked him-up as such. It would only make sense that one would draw upon that which would further ones own goals; this is what seems to have happened with Jafar's tafsir/tawil and the early-mid Sufi exegetes. By the time of al-Masudi (early 10th c.), in addition to a blood = >geneology for Muhammad, saws, leading to the imams, there was also an = >esoteric geneology, which includes a Christian monk/abba/ascetic (it is = >uncertain) Barda or Barza who transmitted the esoteric line to Muhammad, = >saws. Others in this lineage are Isa's disciple Simon (not Peter), and = >Isa. Where is this silsilah from? Is it directly from a turuq of the period, or is it proto-Isma'ili in nature (-the latter seems to be the case). >Of course there were Shi'ite Sufis long before the Safavids. I belong = >to a marginal Shi'ite Kobrawiyya tariqa, and Najmuddin Kobra (d. 1220) = >was distinctly Shi'ite as was his great promulgator Ali Hammadani. = >Haider Amuli, the great interpreter of Ibn Arabi, likewise was Shi'ite, = >and there are many others. I feel because of the imams's hereditary = >connection and transmission from Muhammad, saws, Shi'ites gave priority = >and went out of their way to find and/or create distinctions from the = >parallel developments and teachings taking place in Sufism. This is a great point. Of course, = >after the occultation of the 12th Imam, the original Quran, according to = >Shi'ites, went into occultation as well, and the Shi'ite philosophy of = >the post-Imam period was that Shi'ites should adopt the Sunni shariah = >and the Quran authorized by Caliph Uthman. I believe this to be untrue, at least in the case of the Ithna 'Ashari both before and after the Buyids. In contrast to the Sunni ummah, the Shi'i ummah (during the occulatation of the Imam) looked towards the most knowledgable of their 'ulama. After the death of the four abwab during the ghayb al-sagir their was no longer any special representatives of the Imam (i.e., al-na'ib al-khass)and thus no 'power base' in terms of a body interpreting the shari'ah; however, the famous faqi Shaykh al-Ta'ifa changed this is the 11th century - by giving the fuqaha power to practice fiqh. This power grew up until Safavid times, and upon the victory of Usulis over the Akhbariyya in the Qajar period we have the mujatahids of today. Anyway, even though Shi'i fiqh and even the Shi'i interpretation of the shari'ah were almost indistinguishable from their Sunni conterparts, I feel that the theoretical basis behind the two are/were very different. In fact so different that the meaning of one shari'ah sanctioned act to a Shi'i would be very different than that same act to a Sunni. This did not prevent the = >Shi'ites from also having a large body of additional hadith (including = >the hadith of the imams) to study and turn to which is not recognized by = >the Sunni. Much of this literature is extremely mystical and esoteric. It seems to me that Shi' ahadith is only mystical and batini when set against a Sunni foil. If we were to isolate the message we find in the collections of Shi'i hadith (which incidently are not as important to Shi'a as the hadith is to Sunnis for obvious reasons), I think that we would find a pragmatic, and thoroughly Islamic corpus of material; a corpus of material which if set against a purely Sufi foil would appear to be coming from very different vantage points. (Again, this relativism crops up :) . >Well suffice it to say, it is a fascinating topic, and I don't believe = >anything near a definitive study has yet to appear on early Shi'a-Sufi = >relationships and developments. Know anyone thinking about their dis. topic? These are only my perceptions, and are = >therefore written in soft mud. Again, thank you so much for sharing these perceptions; you seem very well read, and I deeply respect your knowledge. Please respond if you feel so inclined. Your brother- Erik. > > ------------------------------ From: "Erik S. Ohlander" Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:32:46 Subject: RE: Bismillah The word for womb and/or uterus in Arabic is rahim (with a short 'i'). >Friends > >I have recently been told that the Arabic terms Rahman and Rahim are less >related to compassion, mercy, or grace than to the relationship between >a mother and her unborn child. Can someome confirm and elaborate on this? > >A Fay > > ------------------------------ End of tariqas-digest V1 #66 ****************************