Authority in Islam part 1: the question of 'which sect is the true sect?'

In terms of myself spiritually in Islam, I admittedly am still dealing with my own dilemmas. 

While the epistemology of both Judaism and Christianity is pretty laughably weak, Islam is a different situation.

When it comes to Islam, Sunnism is pretty easy to reject for it's central premise having no doctrinal basis and for it being undeniable that Muhammad chose Ali as his successor, it's repeated very plainly many times before his death. Ali is more than obviously the appointed successor, this created massive issues for people like Umar and Abu Bakr. Ali was quite consistent in his claim as appointed successor afterwards also. 

The occam's razor of the Sunni position of Ali being their 4th Caliphate, is that if he was the fourth Caliphate according to them, then as he claimed to be Imam right after Muhammad's death (and Muhammad appointed him as such) then logic dictates that Ali was the rightful successor, not Abu Bakr.

Election holds no water against divine appointment. Muhammad was not 'elected' as a Prophet, Moses was not 'elected' as a Prophet. James (brother of Jesus), Joshua (son of nun), etc were not 'elected' as Successors of Jesus and Moses respectively. They were both appointed directly by their respective patriarchs. 

The Davidic Israelite Kingship was not 'elected' it was passed down through blood, as appointed by God.

However when it comes to Shi'ism itself I hit a brick wall in some aspects. 

I love and admire the 11 prior Imams, however when it comes to the 12th Imam (the Mahdi/Qa'im in Ghayba) there is the issue of his hiddenness. This of course has a beautiful mystical angle, but it isn't that far from the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church (yada yada) or individual Christians (in the case of Protestants).

Whereas Ismailism in general is a little too syncretic, albeit a noble endeavor. It's epistemology however is a little flimsy and it's Imamate reduces the importance of Imams. The Aga Khan has said some good stuff but he is nowhere near advanced in knowledgeable in Islam as any of the even smaller 'saint' figures in Islamic history (whether mystics, philosophers or jurists). 

The present state of Nizari Ismailism makes me confident that if the Ismaili line is correct, that the Nizari line isn't. 

The Nizaris of the Alamut period (famously called the "Assassins" or the "Hasishins") were truly special though, and inspired me a lot when I first got into Islam.

The Tayyibi side of Ismailism is also interesting but they tend to fall under the same area as Twelver Shi'ism, in that they each have a last Imam that went into hiding. Now, for Twelvers, while we had four Babs (Gates) who were deputies for the Hidden Imam during his minor occultation, the Tayyibi sects have their Da'is (like authoritative missionaries, kind of) who are left as authority. 

I have an interest in, and respect for, the Tayyibis, but it's the same dilemma but in another aspect.

It seems that all forms of Islam fail under the epistemic measurement. It doesn't mean that Muslims as a whole have false beliefs or anything, but that there appears to be no truly valid authority. In many ways this has been approached in very reactionary ways by movements such as the Salafis/Wahhabis, Deobandis, Barelvis and other modernist-Sunni reactionary conservatist 'reform' movements.

Sunnism itself is though an anachronism. It built itself up from the antagonisms against the Shia, from day one. It's predecessor is the Ahl al-Hadith movement. The Sunnis fully came into fruition in the 11th century and never existed as a sect before then. They are basically a systematic syncretism of many counter-Shia movements. 

On the other hand the "Quran-alone" people also lack authority as well, as they tend to be like the Protestants of Islam (if various forms of Sunnism wasn't already) in the Sola Scriptura thing. Like Protestants it falls into the 'seventy sects' idea with individual interpretations taking precedence over any unified authoritative interpretation of the text.

The whole topic between all of these groups is quite nuanced and a difficult conversation that all of these groups will never want to truly try to figure out together. Strong biases always creep in and nobody is exempt from succumbing to such things.

Reflection on the Short Surahs of the Holy Qur'an

The shortest Surahs in the Qur'an are often the most paradoxical. They often in so few words have as much expression and impact, both in history and in an individual's spiritual life as an entire long Surah (like Baqarah for instance). 

The shortest Surahs remind me that, as the Qur'an itself is one-thing and a complete divine word, so to is each Surah itself a complete universe of it's own. 

Each Surah itself is anyway, a layer of the Qur'an. 

Each Surah is a layer beyond the last Surah, but not in order of revelation (which itself is objectively vague, though some things are solidly certain) and not in order of Mushaf. 

This non-linear aspect is important. 

Depending on the context and the person, out of several different Surahs, there is always one that a person will consider "the heart of the Qur'an". 

The three Surahs that most prominently reflect this notion are Surah Fatihah (7 verses), Surah Yasin (83 verses) and Surah Ikhlas (4 verses).

Those three Surahs themselves are perfect demonstrations about everything Islamic at it's core. Surah Ikhlas of course, is metaphysically the most profound and total Surah there is, but it's theme is all Tawhid and not other aspects. 

Surah Fatihah is the profession of many of the main doctrines all summed up in the signature obligatory divinely-revealed prayer. Whereas Yasin is an explanation of all the core Islamic doctrines, with a particular focus on both the hereafter and past rejection of Prophets. 

Just thinking, in regard to my present jihads (or as to say, my intellectual debates) with the Christians, I was reminded through having an urge to recite Surah al-Nasr, that the Qur'an's power, both historical and individually, has a nature so greater than the Bible ever has. 

Although the Bible, being a compilation, has various verses that are very commonly repeated, and certain prayers that have been felt in high regard, even certain verses quoted in commemoration of different later historical events, it is not in the way and with the same weight that any single Surah of the Qur'an is to both it's initial history and it's present history. 

The Qur'an is not a story, and it is not about solely Muhammad and the early Meccans, nor is it solely about the many Prophets it reiterates fragmentarily throughout. The Qur'an is, rather about us and God, across time, across continents, across even planets perhaps.

Messiahs and Heretics

Overall, outside of Islamic (or Shi'ite) Orthodoxy, my continually biggest fascinations and obsessions are obviously:

John Dee/Edward Kelly/Enochian Magic

Sabbatai Zevi/Jacob Frank/The Donme

The Bab/Babism

Aleister Crowley/Thelema

This is leaving aside Dharmic stuff.

The four subjects above all seem to intersect in many ways. To a lesser extent I would also connect Jesus, Paul of Tarsus and the Apocalypse of John to this overarching interest, however even though there are antinomian tendencies in the ways Jesus and Paul are interpreted by Christians, it still leans far too much over to moralism (in what is contained in the New Testament) than having a strong enough root in the above four.

The Apocalypse of John does obviously relate to John Dee and Aleister Crowley.

The Bab on the other hand claimed to be the Imam Mahdi, much like Sabbatai Zevi claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. 

There are interesting parallels between Jesus, Zevi and the Bab. 

Anyway all of these intersect with their hyper-esoteric, occult, mystical, magical and antinomian aspects combined with very obvious apocalyptic undertones through all of these figures. At the same time, they are all subject in the mainstream to conspiracy theories about them, often utterly absurd.

They're all some of my favorite people to study with their own strange histories and very enlightening metaphysical insights - again leaving aside Shia Islam which is my orthodoxy with the Qur'an, Muhammad and Twelve Imams.

One thing also about the above (including Jesus himself too) is that the concept of Messianism itself seems to be very strongly esoterically tied to heresy itself. 

On the eXoteric level, having studied (and continuing to) all of these figures, here is an overview of how these 'heresies' intersect: 

1. Jesus (the most famous and popular Jewish Messiah Claimant), according to Christians, claimed to be God-incarnate, a heresy against Jews. Also never fulfilled any of the expectations that Jews expected of the Messiah, so was a heretic in his claims on that basis as well.

2. Jesus according to Paul, abrogated the Torah, a heresy against both Jesus and Jews

3. Muhammad received revelation (Qur'an) which affirmed Jesus as Messiah but staunchly denied Jesus ever claiming to be God-incarnate - a 'heresy' to Christians, and a re-establishment of Jesus as a Jew.

4. Dee and Kelly in their Angelic transmissions, received some confirmation that Jesus was not God-incarnate but also denied other Abrahamic theological doctrines, a heresy against Christianity (and against Dee's own beliefs) and a confirmation of aspects of Islam without ever mentioning it

5. Sabbatai Zevi, claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, encouraged transgressing the Torah (law) to liberate the world from it's current fallen state, a heresy against Judaism. Not only that Zevi ended up converting to Islam in 1666, while inwardly still being a Kabbalistic Jew

6. The Bab claimed to be the Mahdi, claiming his own new scriptures and tradition and new prophetic cycle, a Heresy against the finality of Muhammad in Islam and against the traditional orthodox Shi'i view of the Mahdi

7. Crowley both affirmed and denied conceptual tendencies (typified by the Antinomian) in all of the above, but did not make claim to the Abrahamic tradition, nor the Dharmic tradition, rather claimed their major figures where part of rather the Thelemic current*

(*as found best outlined in the Book of Lies, Chapter 7)

That outline is only the surface level as it goes way further than just that.

Also with Zevi/Frank like with The Bab and his followers, the later idea of immersing in other traditions with your true beliefs concealed, or actively practicing another religion and taking on it's belief system, became a shared trait with Crowley, Chaos Magic, the O9A later on.

Though this, due to persecution and not malicious intent, kind of goes back to Shia Islam (through the concept of Taqiyya - which conspiracy theorists love and which is utter bullshit, a total intentional misrepresentation of a concept) and not Judaism/Zevi/Frank per se, though not so much in the context of pretending to follow another tradition. For Taqiyya, one would still say they are a Muslim (and it's in the context of Sunnis persecuting Shia) but one would not explicate the details of their beliefs as a Shia and would tend more towards generalities shared with Sunnis in order to not be singled out.

Though of course Jews had to put up with lot of persecution at various times, typified by the Babylonian Exile, but such a concept didn't seem to exist back then.

Why Iblis refused to bow to Adam....an insight

As Surah 2:30 says: 

When your Lord said to the angels,

‘Indeed I am going to set a Khalif on the earth,’

they said, ‘Will You set in it

someone who will cause corruption in it,

and shed blood,

while we celebrate Your praise

and proclaim Your sanctity?’

He said, ‘Indeed I know what you do not know.’

Well maybe it not only refers to the concept of Prophets, Messengers and the Imams, but also of humanity itself's purpose. 

Now Iblis refused to acknowledge the authority of Adam.

Adam however is not only the first Prophet but also the first man and the symbol of all of mankind itself.

So Iblis refused to acknowledge mankind's rightful bestowed Mercy from God to rule the universe.

In the Bible (though it's alluded to in the Qur'an) we have the idea of Zion, of Jerusalem of the Promised Land. However Jews seem to have committed the same sin that Adam did, which is a kind of exclusive segregation and a form of racism (Iblis despised Adam for being made of clay/dust) and of course Jews have gotten racially exclusive in the past.

Whereas with Christians they have become idolaters and exclusivist in the supremacy they think they have in the person of Jesus.

In the New Testament, Jesus often talks in fractal imagery such as tree imagery (which like with the Qur'an, goes back to the idea of Eden itself, which is the lost paradise to which we've fallen from), whereas Paul speaks of "The Church" in similar fractal imagery. Both indicative of a divine hierarchy in relation to God itself (keep Surah 3:59 in mind there as well), even indirectly too seeing that it all goes back to Adam in these traditions anyway. 

Jerusalem itself, referred to as the 'Whore of Babylon" in the Book of Revelation is like a Klipoth (shells, meaning degraded, shallow, pale, decaying) of the original Eden, as the concept of Zion is like an attempt to go back to the pure state of Eden - of which the Jews failed at massively multiple times, and to which Jesus calls them out about multiple times and to which the Qur'an calls them out multiple times.

Through the way these symbols relate to each other I do see the Great Work as Hermeticism terms it, or the Magnum Opus, starting to pop up. Not on a microcosmic level (to which is an initiates personal spiritual journey within themselves) but within all of creation, across all of time and space. 

This is what Freemasonry is trying to get at, and I have to mention it because I see it directly in my recent above observation. Maybe I've just realized something already obvious, I don't know, but I love the thought of it. 

Through humanity constantly failing, as indicative of the Jews in terms of their special share as prime examples of it, we therefore see how we ourselves become and embody Iblis or Shaytan/Satan, how we repeat Iblis's sin and alienate ourselves both from nature and spirit (Ruh/Ruach). 

And as a significant Hadith of Imam Ali states: 

"Surely, Allah put the 'Aql in the angels but not desire, and he put desire in the beasts but not the 'Aql, and he put both of them in the children of Adam (mankind). So whoever's 'Aql overcomes his desire, then he is better than the angels, and whoever's desire overcomes his 'Aql, then he is worse than the beasts" 

The Bible vs (the anomaly of) The Qur'an

I continually find myself amazed (after struggle and struggle with Christian polemicists) that the Qur'an is the only oral tradition of it's kind, unchanged, memorized routinely by millions of people over the past 1400 years. 

That it itself calls out Christians and Jews over the lack of preservation and corruption of their own texts and their false doctrines (like Jesus being God or Jews being the chosen ones etc). 

And I find it increasingly astounding how little academic textual integrity any of the Bible actually has in and of itself. There are billions of variants in the Bible, there is no authoritative Bible, it was a textual tradition not an oral one. Christians don't read their texts in the original language and have no authoritative version of any language of the New Testament (even though the earliest fragments are in Greek, which Jesus didn't even speak). 

Then we have Jews with their 'official' Tanakh known as the Masoretic Text, which is a 8th century thing, not a 8th century BCE thing. The earliest fragments of the Tanakh are all in Greek, which makes it mightily ironic. 

Secular scholarship has because of this (and more), major problems with the Bible. It has no credibility by itself. In fact the very concept of "The Bible" doesn't exist. There is no "The Bible", there are only thousands of manuscripts and many endless attempts at creating a critical edition, which has no authority because there are no originals to begin with  :D

It's a mess.

The Bible is a fuucking mess, and the Qur'an scolds them harshly over this multiple times. 

One such passage in the fifth Surah of the Qur'an (Surah al-Maidah) it says the following: 

Then, because of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard: they pervert words from their meanings, and have forgotten a part of what they were reminded. You will not cease to learn of some of their treachery, excepting a few of them. Yet excuse them and forbear. Indeed Allah loves the virtuous. Also from those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ We took their pledge; but they forgot a part of what they were reminded. So We stirred up enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection, and soon Allah will inform them concerning what they had been doing. 

O People of the Book! Certainly Our Apostle has come to you, clarifying for you much of what you used to hide of the Book, and excusing many [an offense of yours]. Certainly, there has come to you a light from Allah, and a manifest Book................................................O Apostle! Do not grieve for those who are active in [promoting] unfaith, such as those who say, ‘We believe’ with their mouths, but whose hearts have no faith, and the Jews who eavesdrop with the aim of [telling] lies [against you] and eavesdrop for other people who do not come to you. They pervert words from their meanings, [and] say, ‘If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given this, beware!’ Yet whomever Allah wishes to mislead, you cannot avail him anything against Allah. They are the ones whose hearts Allah did not desire to purify. For them is disgrace in this world, and there is a great punishment for them in the Hereafter. Eavesdroppers with the aim of [telling] lies, eaters of the unlawful—if they come to you, judge between them, or disregard them. If you disregard them, they will not harm you in any way. But if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed Allah loves the just. And how should they make you a judge, while with them is the Torah, in which is Allah’s judgement? Yet in spite of that, they turn their backs [on Him] and they are not believers. We sent down the Torah containing guidance and light. The prophets, who had submitted, judged by it for the Jews, and so did the rabbis and the scribes, as they were charged to preserve the Book of Allah and were witnesses to it. So do not fear the people, but fear Me, and do not sell My signs for a paltry gain. Those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down—it is they who are the faithless.

I just continue to find it utterly baffling that such a text/scripture as the Qur'an even exists. 

Like, while we know that many religions claim their sacred texts are "divinely inspired" inspired denoting that it was guided by God but not God speaking, the only text which claims to be only God speaking is the Qur'an. 

Even the Vedas, which have quite a profound status in the early period of Sanatan Dharma ("Hinduism") does not contain anything resembling the Qur'an. 

As in the Qur'an's style, it's format, it contents is self-purported to be God speaking through an angel (Gabriel) to Muhammad, not by Muhammad, he is one of the subjects that the Qur'an addresses. 

I just find it completely incredible that such a text as the Qur'an even exists, it seems to defy logic. No other religion has anything resembling the Qur'an. 

The Qur'an itself both confirming aspects of the Bible and also vehemently opposing and refuting other aspects of the Bible (many things from 'original sin' to Solomon's betrayal to David's deceptiveness to Jesus' deity to the whole Christian salvation narrative, all refuted in the Qur'an). I find that remarkable. Even taking it from a non-Muslim, secular even atheist point of view. It boggles the mind that such a text as the Qur'an exists. 

I should re-mention again that the Qur'an as it was received by Muhammad, was not a "book" in a written form (though Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib did write a codex of the entire Qur'an), it is what it's title says it is - a 'recitation' (literally what "Qur'an" means).

Anyway, looking through Biblical scholarship really shows that Christians and Jews, but Christians especially (as their case is much weaker than Jews, which have a feasibility, but not in their texts) have a glass house. Nothing to stand on, complete charlatanism. 

There is no fuuckng Bible, it doesn't exist. 

Any english Bible you would find, is a translation based upon a critical edition which is an assembling of different manuscripts chosen by a particular person or group of people. All the manuscripts in question all radically differing from each other from small to massive differences. 

Qur'an didn't originate as a manuscript tradition, so it has zero issues over manuscripts. Qur'an was passed down orally through a thing known as Mushaf, Qira'at to be precise, which were taught by Prophet Muhammad himself (as are well attested to). Things which were standardized early on, which according to secular scholarship have not changed, period. 

Anyway, the whole case is completely incredibly IMHO. For a wide variety of reasons (which you've heard many before), the Qur'an still remains the most important text I've ever read. And to use the very easily misinterpretable term, I have "faith" in it.

Anyway, Christians are starting to see their religion decline in popularity because of how problematic their beliefs and texts are. Within like 20 years, Islam will take over from Christianity. 

Unfortunately though, as you will remember me saying, the Islamic world has gone to sh1t over the past 300 years. It thrived the best during the middle ages though, in which Islam was the leaders of science and philosophy. 

Islam over the past 300 years has through various means (including the growth of the Salafi heresy, which is a school of revisionist literalist fundamentalist Sunnism) has fallen from grace but is deserving of a return to glory. The current way that the western world sees Muslims though, and the current way Muslims see themselves is in dire need of repair, as it has no resemblance at all to the Islam of Muhammad, nor of the first 500 years of Islam. 

As salaam alaikum

Sobering musings; mortality, empathy and The Absolute

As infinitely complex as things (as in 'all-things') are, it's ultimately down to very basic principles. 

Comparative studies of different systems of thought (whether psychological, biological, philosophical, politics or religious) show that all knowledge kind of can be condensed. 

Many mystical systems are perhaps the most experimented with in providing different patterns of the interactions of different "energies" which represent all of these things in different sequences. 

I do think, even though my own experience and study is limited, that it ultimately does come down to the emanations of the Tao from the Trigrams, or as better known as Qi's intersecting complimentary opposites of Yin and Yang. Or the Abrahamic YHWH - the interactions of the Yod with the He with the Vav (the name of God as a cosmological model), or alternatively the seferiot of the tree of life.

The Hermetic law of correspondences "As above so Below" is absolutely true.

But besides that, the nature of archetypes as expressions of the variations of these fundamental aspects of reality manifest, reflected literally and metaphorically (such as politics as a reflection of metaphysics and psychology/biology as a reflection of metaphysics etc).

But despite that, we as a human culture, or even the potential robotic future, will never know everything despite even having all of the central pieces, because we are part of that equation. Unless we were removed as an observer out of time/space, then we are part of the thing we are trying to solve. Hence also the problem of consciousness itself. The great irony of the science of today. 

Anyway, what motivates all people comes down to the same very basic principles. For us as conscious beings, it is a rat race, the desperation and hopelessness can be very real, very heavy, very harsh and unbearable. I think it is true that we are here for other people and not just ourselves. The selfish "me-only" existence I don't think is really rooted in nature, whether evolutionary or not. Both the most fundamentalist interpretation of creationism and the most vehement interpretation of evolution affirm the social needs of humans, we fall apart without other people. They are there for us and we're there for them. All of the same old maxims and proverbs apply. Money doesn't buy happiness, the pleasures of the outside world are not where happiness is, it comes from inside firstly and from the act of being there for other people, giving other people hope. 

Irreligious or not. 

The most difficult part though is that some people are so wrecked inside that they become near impossible to help, psychopaths for instance are very difficult. Such people have a lot of deep-seated trauma that it takes a very special kind of person to help them to see the light, to see hope and their purpose. Same applies to a lot of other situations. 

Here I am reminded of two things, Thelema (Will) and Wetiko. Will is obviously, in the Thelemic system, the thing that binds reality together and the reason we exist, as an expression of it and born to discover then fulfill it. 

We for Wetiko, it is the dualistic delusion of "the other", it is the virus of the mind that cases war after war, fight after fight, argument after argument, pain after pain. It is fear itself. What fear doesn't realize is that it fears itself, as all things are one thing. If I kill someone, I kill myself. If I marry someone, I marry myself. If I hate someone, I hate myself. If it rob someone, I rob myself. 

That nondualistic vision is where Thelema (Will) and Wetiko cross over very clearly, as well as many philosophies and religious views. 

Even Jesus said (quoting an obscure verse in Leviticus) "Love your neighbor as you love yourself". 

I still have my demons to overcome, I still have a world ahead of me (as you to do). I hope that things become better, life cannot stay the same for too long, it's like a law of time, nothing stays the same. The less optimistic side of that is also a cause of existential dread, which is itself a form of Wetiko. 

Some thoughts about the logical conclusions of Satan/Shaytan/Iblis

Firstly, only God is omnipresent and nothing seems to suggest otherwise for angels and Shaytan, the obvious implication therefore unless Angels and Iblis are shown to be omnipresence, would be that they are internal rather external.
Not internal as in materialistically psychologizing them but that their ontological status is implicitly psychospiritual. They are given divine status with their nearness to al-Arsh/al-Kursi ("the Throne"), but they are said to have seeming infinite inter-relations with our material and psychological world, likewise as recorders or monitors for the divine record/tablet which is outside of time, therefore progenitors of it inside of time.
They are also guardians over everything, as well as us on a psychological level.
With Iblis, my reading of him from the Holy Qur'an and Hadith of the Ahlulbayt strongly imply him as an archetypal symbol used from a real angel/djinn representing the traits (psycho-mental-spiritual) that are allowed to inhibit or test us as manifesting to the soul.
The nature of what Iblis personifies (as the actual Iblis logically cannot be omnipresent, and cannot literally tease everyone at once) self-importance, arrogance, vice, prejudice and even racism (though racism isn't entirely the accurate word, seeing that it is between an angel/djinn and a human); all of these being progenitors of ignorance (Jahl).
Now Iblis and the Shaytan are sometimes used interchangeably, but when taken outside of the story of his refusal to prostrate before Adam (A.S.), the khalafa, he should be taken as a symbol.
When phrases like "don't let the Shaytan tempt you" are used, it should be fairly obvious that the real intended meaning hermeneutical meaning of this analogy is "don't embody the traits of the Shaytan", because nothing actually tempts us, rather we ourselves embody it.