Salaam Hamid
These are really good thoughts. I would only add a little thought
experiment here: Could you restate the arguments below if the names
Ahad and Samad and so on had an optical attribute i.e. they could go
into and out of focus:
http://www.untiredwithloving.org/tayyun_lawazin.jpg
And if you could, then we are in 'violent agreement' as the techies in
Boston Cambridge used to say
D
On Apr 19, 10:55 pm, Altway <alt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > By Your Will, alone, all lenses focus
> > The word Ta'ayyun used to be one of the oft-repeated terms of Muslim
>
> Philosophy and Spirituality; however it has completely vanished from
> both modern Arabic and Farsi texts and discussions.
>
> > Actual excerpts from Jurjani, Ibn Arabi, Shabistari and Ibn Sina is
>
> extracted to revive this exciting and timely metaphysical instrument.>
Ibn Sina is explicated based upon his own
>
> Tafsir (Exegesis) of Surah 112 with clear modern insight. The
> paraphrasing of his Tafsir under the new construct of Ta'ayyun tells
> an amazing spiritual tale.
>
> Comment:-
> There are different similes, metaphors used to explain things by
> different
> people in different places times.
> Some become obsolete and are replaced by others.
>
> I agree that in Quran 112, there is a progression from (1) Hu (which
> neutral unlike He)
> to (2) Allah to (3) Ahad to (4) Samad.
> The other verses tell us about Hu
>
> I would explain things as follows:-
>
> Hu refers to the Essence which is hidden and unmanifest and
> unknowable.
> He manifests firstly himself to himself as Allah (that which alone is
> worthy of wor****p).
> He is conscious of the fundamental Absolute Unity from which all
> things derive.
> All things, the multiplicity of creation, are dependent on that Unity.
> They are parts of the whole with a function with respect to the whole
> and have arisen because of that function. They have no existence apart
> from that.
> These objects or creatures are known only because of their
> relation****p with each other,
> but Realitivity is only known in relation to the Absolute.
>
> Samad is, therefore, understood in relation to Ahad
> which is understood in relation to Allah.
> But Allah is wor****pped and served by the objects or creatures
> and, therefore, has meaning in relation to created things.
> But the Essence is entirely independent of created things and
> transcends all
> things.
>
> There are numerous verses in the Quran which I see as sup****ting this
> view.
> But Allah knows best - i.e there is more to this then is contained in
> what I have
> said, though there are many more implications than I have explicitly
> stated.
>
> Hamid S. Aziz
|
