The Vision of Reality…

Bismillah,
Alhamdulillah,
Assalatu wassalamu ala rasulillah

I learnt that the Worldview of Islam cannot just be restricted to a definition given:
Nazrat al-islam li al kawn. The Observation of Islam regarding the Universe.

Rather, the correct definition, as Prof Syed Naquib puts it is:
Ru’yatul Islam li al Wujud: The Vision of Islam regarding Existence.

Why the difference? These two definitions may sound similar, but there are several important differences. In all likelihood, I will not do justice to this; this is purely my personal reflection.

Number 1: al kawn is the first definition is mostly restricted to the physical universe, whereas Al-Wujud is about everything that exists; most importantly including the al-ghaib(the Unseen)

The secular materialist will in all likelihood not acknowledge the existence of anything ghaib, so here is a fundamental difference in worldview.

Number 2: nazrah versus ru’yah.
Nazrah is more towards observation, whereas ru’yah is about Vision.
Observation is limited in the sense that it is confined to the inherent limits that comes with being an observer, and also any prior objectivities on the part of the observer. Whereas ru’yah or vision, is about reality as it really is.

Implication: while many Manmade worldviews are the result/formulations of the thinking of Man, Islam’s Worldview is prescribed by Allah; meaning to say, it is Allah, the One who Created all things, telling you what existence really is, as such, nothing can be more truthful than this.

One important note: to subscribe to nazrat al Islam li al Kawn is to be consciously or subconsciously taken in by western Secular ideas already, for they have been obsessed with material existence while at the same time denying the Unseen.

I was amazed to come to a realization that modern physics is now putting their hands up in the air, sincerely acknowledging the limitations of observations as a means to finding Truth in the Universe.

German Physicist Werner Heisenberg’s famous uncertainty principle effectively killed the dreams of Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, who had been a champion of promoting the idea of determinism in the Universe. Laplace thought that if science is sufficiently developed, then it can account for everything in the Universe.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle primarily revolves around this; that if we were to observe and study the position and speed of a particle, the intuitive and natural thing to do is to shine light on it. Light exists as packets of energy called photons. And shining Light on particles would mean that some of the photons would be absorbed.

In order to accurately determine the position of a very tiny particle, one would need to use light of a very small wavelength, so as to be more accurate in determining the position. A light of smaller wavelength is also a light of higher frequency, and hence of higher energy.

Some small-wavelength and high-energy light, when absorbed by the particle, will increase the particle’s speed. So when we observe a particle by means of shining a light and intending to get an accurate description of its position, we would have unavoidably altered its speed in the process. This is a compromise.

The same for the other way round, if we want to measure the speed of the particle accurately, we would employ a light with longer wavelengths and lower energy, so as to minimise the disturbance to the speed of the particle. Doing so would mean that there is increased inaccuracy or uncertainty about the particle’s position. Hence, also an unavoidable compromise.

Heisenberg showed that there is a minimum value to the product of these two uncertainties. And that limit is Plank’s constant, h, a very small constant.

When we talk about a particle as huge as a Ping Pong ball, the uncertainty that comes with observation of its position and speed would be too small and insignificant for us to know accurately the position and speed of the Ping pong ball. We would have come to a very very high degree of accuracy of its position and speed than we would ever have to need to know.

But when we talk about an electron in the confines of an atom, that uncertainty can result in inaccuracies in the thousands of kilometres per second with regards to the speed of the electron; by no means an accurate standard at all!

So what does this all mean?

This is a huge blow to the people who believe in scientific determinism of the fate of the Universe. In order to know the state of the Universe and its ultimate fate, the scientists needed to know the initial state of the Universe, and they have come to conclude that even if we could observe the state of the Universe within the first few billionths of a second of existence, we would be doing a terrible job in determining the positions and speeds of particles accurately, and that alone would shatter any beliefs at a deterministic pathway for the Universe; at least that is the case for observers like us.

So observation, or nazrah, has its limits.

People of faith have long resisted Laplace’s strongly deterministic view of the Universe, claiming that that would infringe on God’s Will to manage the Universe actively as how He sees fit. Wallahu ‘alam.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (1926) was also hated by Einstein, who did not like the either of uncertainty or chance in physics. In physics today, scientists do not talk about the precise location of an electron at any instant, he talks about the probability or the percentage of time that an electron would be in a certain region.

Einstein did not like that, and he summed up his feelings in his saying “God does not play dice.” That quote was in the context of the uncertainty principle, and not about chance in Darwinian Evolutionism.

But what we know is that every matter is decreed in a clear book.

What amazed me was the idea that the Worldview of Islam cannot be simply an observation, it has to be a Vision, one that is Divinely Revealed, Rabbani, that describes existence as it really is! Without being subjected to any inaccuracies that come along with being an observer.

This outlook, or worldview, would seriously affect the way we conduct ourselves in this world. For example, we would take more seriously, the notion of the punishment in the grave, a matter Unseen, but sahih in all the narrations. We would never entertain the idea that such unseen matters do not exist.

Hopefully, our actions would conform to the Worldview of Islam, and this would mean serious effects in our attitudes towards the Dunia and Akhirah.

And this is yet another reason why I am utterly convinced why Islamic worldview is important to the Muslim, especially in this age!

The above is just an example, from the perspective of physics that I happen to chance upon, proving why the worldview of Islam is not limited to just observations; it is the Vision of Reality as it really is.

I owe my gratitude to Allah and His Messenger s.a.w., and the teachers who taught me.

Jazallahu anna Nabiyyana Muhamamdan, SallaAllahu alaihi wasallam

May Allah guide us all, always. Amin

Transcendental Unity of Religions?

Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim,
Alhamdulillah,
Assalatu wassalamu ala rasulillah,

Have you heard of this (Transcendental Unity of Religions)?
Perhaps we all have heard of this, maybe not as the term itself, but at the very least; its core idea/message is the content being conveyed and use by those who support Religious Pluralism.

Religious Pluralism is the idea that all religions are equal, they have equal validity in their respective claims to Truth, so much so that it does not really matter what religion you abide to in this world.

Okay, just let me try my very best in explaining Transcendental Unity of Religion based on what information of it that I have.

All religions, have an inner core and an outer shell. (Sounds like atomic chemistry huh?? Hehe)

The inner core is the Esoteric. The outer shell is the Exoteric.

And that there are two levels of Realities, namely the higher Transcendental Level, and the lower, physical Material Level.

The existence of the many different religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, etc) is only at the Physical Material Level.

Proponents of Transcendental Unity of Religions claims that all religions at the Transcendental Level are one. They say, though the External, the Exoteric of any religion may differ, their Inner Cores, the Esoteric, all unite at the Transcendental Level.

Examples of Esotericism in several religions: Sufism in Islam, Kabbalah In Judaism, Mystical Traditions in Christianity among others.

In a nutshell, I guess, at least to me, that is what Transcendental Unity of Religions is all about. In all likelihood, I may have done a very pathetic job at describing Transcendental Unity of Religions; I seek your pardon.

SO HOW? Can we accept this?

I have never, prior to just very recently, come across a specific academic work that handles this issue from the perspective of Islam.

Even so, I have come across emphasis by scholars who highlight the point that Islam is the only Religion that has validity in claiming the Truth.

Quotes are many: innad deena ‘indallahil Islam(the religion with Allah is Islam, al islam ya’lu walaa yu’la alaih (Islam is High and nothing is higher that Islam),

Those who share experiences with me will know that at least Shaykh Faiz is very firm in emphasizing on strict following of Islam, he even brings ayat about Islam in his Zikir!

So I can’t conceive how the traditional scholars of Islam from whom I have heard them speak, can support the idea of Transcendental Unity of Religions. Honestly, I don’t know how. What I know is they will say “innad deena ‘indallahil Islam”

My point is, even when I have not come across a proper academic refutation of Transcendental Unity of Religions, what I have learnt thus far really does not seem to ever support Transcendental Unity of Religions.

Religious Pluralists, will almost always subscribe to the idea of Transcendental Unity of Religions when they promote religious pluralism. And I guess it is rather well-known that they will end up quoting cryptic messages written by sages, Sufi Shaykhs and other religious figures to validate their claims. Perhaps what they do not notice is how these religious figures really firmly stick to their respective religions. In Islam, two figures commonly abused by Religious Pluralists are Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi and Maulana Jalaludin Rumi, may Allah sanctify their secrets! “MAY ALLAH SANCTIFY THEIR SECRETS” suddenly seems very apt when mentioned after Awliyaullah, so that their secrets are not abused by people.

Transcendental Unity of Religions was also used to account for ‘genuine’ religious experiences by members of other religions. Such ‘genuine’ experiences, they say, cannot just come to be if it is not true at least at the Transcendental Level. So visions by people of other religions, the Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) by the Christians, they say, must surely have some validity, if not how can we account for them? This is also compounded by the brain experiments/scans showing high brain activity in certain regions especially during these high moments of spirituality.

I say, what is so difficult, I may be simplistic in my thinking, but are we not to attribute these deceptions to the works of Iblis and his gang?
Once this is accepted, do we even have to find a source of truth to account such experiences by other religions? No lah!

Satan has vowed before God to delude Mankind, and God even allowed! (There is a reason for this in His Greater Wisdom). Even God said that Satan will be able to fool Man from all directions except the top and the bottom. (there is a Quranic verse narrating something like that, though I am not too sure exactly which verse)

My concern was this, while we respect differences of opinion in academia, how is it that there can be a vast separation of ideas with regards to this issue about validity of religions? I mean, this issue, is as central to the religion as it can get. From what I see, this really is a Masalah Usul in our religion, and not Masalah Furu’ like whether or not we need to recite Qunut in Solat Fardhu Fajar.

So, to me, the existence of Muslim scholars who support Transcendental Unity of Religions is really hard to digest.

With all due respect, I realize my own standing, I am just like a pitiful fly compared to them when it comes to their learning in Islam, so what I say may not carry any weight at all.

But such a central issue? Especially when many other Traditional Orthodox Scholars of Islam has made it so clear that we are not to subscribe to Transcendental Unity of Religions???

Really perplexes me, honestly I say.

Prof Syed Naquib presented an academic rebuttal as to Transcendental Unity of Religions is not true, and from what I see, the points used by Prof al Attas are really the points always emphasized by Traditional Orthodox Scholars. I even asked for clarification which position is more accurate of reflecting the stand of these orthodox scholars of Islam in this issue regarding Transcendental Unity of Religions; the answer I got was the position of Prof Syed Naquib.

Prof Syed Naquib presented a beautiful case, that if Realities unite only at the Transcendental level, and that at the Material Physical Level they are parts and pieces, then no religion in this world is complete in and of itself! How can this be when religion is meant to be Man’s ultimate guide to living in this world!

Again, I am a nobody in the academia of Islam; and in the world of Islamic Scholarship, there are big names that support the idea of Transcendental Unity of Religions…

Wallahu ‘Alam.

We really seek the guidance of Allah, in all affairs
May Allah forgive us all, and guide us all, amin amin amin