Issue6_art2

4HE 3ELF AND THE /THER IN 3Ul 4HOUGHT -UHAMMAD +AMAL !BSTRACT 4HIS PAPER DEALS WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 3ELF AND THE /THER IN 3Ul THOUGHT )T EXPLORES THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE DICHOTOMY OF THE 3ELF AND THE /THER MAY BE DECONSTRUCTED IN THREE DIFFERENT WAYS l RST

PHILOSOPHICALLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE /THER IS THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE SELF SECOND EMOTIONALLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM IS PRIMORDIALLY EMOTIONAL RATHER THAN EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND THIRD SPIRI TUALLY THROUGH THE RENUNCIATION OF THE TEMPORAL STATE OF EXISTENCE OF THE SELF )T IS ARGUED THAT AT THE END OF THE 3Ul JOURNEY THE SELF ANNIHILATES ITS OWN EXISTENCE IN ORDER TO REUNITE WITH THE /THER

3

Ul THOUGHT FOCUSES ON THE SELF S NOSTALGIC FEELING FOR THE h/THER v )T ATTEMPTS TO OVERCOME THIS FEELING BY PURSUING POSSIBLE WAYS TO REACH A METAPHYSICAL COMFORT BY BANISHING DUALISM )N APPROACHING THE PROBLEM THIS PAPER ANALYSES THE MEANING OF THE /THER IN 3Ul SM AND EXPLAINS HOW THIS DUALISM BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE /THER IS DECONSTRUCTED l RST

BY DRAWING ON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE /THER IS AN ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDA TION AND CONDITION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE SELF SECOND

BY SHOWING HOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE /THER IS PRIMORDIALLY EMOTIONAL AND THIRD

BY EXAMINING THE 3Ul RENUNCIATION OF THE SELF S TEMPORAL STATE OF EXISTENCE A RENUNCIATION REACHED THROUGH AWARENESS OF THE ETERNAL DELIGHT INHERENT IN REUNION WITH THE OTHER 4WO .OTIONS OF h/THERv )N ORDER TO EXPLICATE THE WORD OTHERR AS IT IS USED IN 3Ul SM WE NEED l RST TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN TWO MEANINGS AND TWO SPELLINGS &IRST /THER SPELT WITH A CAPITAL / EXPRESSES THE MOST UNIVERSAL CONCEPT THE HIGHEST CLASS R OR GENUS AND THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE SELF 3ECOND OTHER SPELLED

>HHJ: D8ID7:G

-UHAMMAD +AMAL

WITHOUT THE CAPITAL REFERS TO ANOTHER SELF AND IN AN )SLAMIC THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT PARTICULARLY TO A NON -USLIM PERSON 4HIS FORMULATION OF OTHER SEEMS TO BE LESS SIGNIl CANT IN 3Ul SM THAN ELSEWHERE IN )SLAMIC THOUGHT

SUCH AS IN POLITICAL )SLAM OR )SLAMIC JURISPRUDENCEˆNOT IN THE SENSE THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE OTHER IS DENIED OR IS UNRECOGNISED BUT ON THE CONTRARY

IN THAT IT IS THOUGHT TO BE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DISTINCT FROM THE SELF ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT HAS THE SAME ONTOLOGICAL ORIGIN .EVERTHELESS IN THE 1UR AN

THE hOTHERv IS ASSIGNED ITS OWN MEANING AND PLACE WITH CERTAIN LIMITATIONS )N THIS THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND IN THE MATRIX OF THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THOUGHT OF )SLAM THE hOTHERv INDICATES A PERSON WHO IS NOT A -USLIM AND H THE -USLIM COMMUNITY SO DOES NOT BELONG TO THE UMMAH 4HESE OTHERS ARE FURTHER PLACED IN TWO CATEGORIES THOSE WHO ARE AHL AL KITABˆTHAT ˆ IS THE h0EOPLE OF THE "OOK v WHO ARE GUIDED BY REVEALED KNOWLEDGEˆAND THOSE WHO ARE NOT 4HE h0EOPLE OF THE "OOKv REFER SPE CIl CALLY TO ADHERENTS OF *UDAISM AND #HRISTIANITY 4HE NATURE OF THE RELA TIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SELF AND THIS OTHER IS DETERMINED BY THIS THEOLOGICAL DISTINCTION !SSOCIATION BY A -USLIM WITH A NON -USLIM WHO BELONGS TO THE l RST CATEGORY OF OTHERS DIFFERS FROM ASSOCIATION WITH OTHERS BELONGING TO THE SECOND CATEGORY )T IS WRITTEN IN THE 1UR AN

4HIS DAY THE GOOD THINGS HAVE BEEN LAWFUL TO YOU THE FOOD OF THE 0EOPLE OF THE "OOK IS LAWFUL TO YOU AND YOUR FOOD IS LAWFUL TO THEM AND SO ARE THE BELIEVING WOMEN WHO ARE CHASTE AND THE CHASTE WOMEN OF THOSE WHO WERE GIVEN THE "OOK BEFORE YOU PROVIDED YOU GIVE THEM THEIR DOWRIES AND TAKE THEM IN MARRIAGE NOT IN FORNICATION OR AS MISTRESS )F ANYONE DENIES THE FAITH HIS WORK SHALL BE OF NO AVAIL TO HIM AND IN THE (EREAFTER HE WILL RANK WITH THE LOSERS 4HE 1UR AN PLACES CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN -USLIMS AND NON -USLIMS AND THESE LIMITATIONS ARE ONLY LIFTED WHEN THE OTHER RENOUNCES HIS OR HER OTHERNESS THROUGH CONVERSION )N 3Ul SM THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE OTHERˆTHAT IS

BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF UMMAH THE -USLIM COMMUNITY AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT MEMBERSˆBECOME INESSENTIAL 4HEY CAN THEREFORE BE SUPERSEDED

BECAUSE THE PARTICULARIZATIONS OF CREATEDNESS ARE IDENTICAL AS ALL OF THEM BELONG TO THE SAME REALITY 4HE SELF AND THE OTHER ARE NOT ONTOLOGICALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY TWO DISTINCT ENTITIES AND SO THEY CAN ENJOY MUTUAL RECOGNITION &ROM THIS PERSPECTIVE AND ON THE GROUNDS OF THIS ONTOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGIN OF THE OTHER THE SELF TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS SECTARIAN AND RITUAL DIFFERENCES WITH THE OTHER

G:A><>DC :6HI L:HI

4HE 3ELF AND THE /THER IN 3Ul 4HOUGHT

4HE /THER AS /RIGIN AND /NTOLOGICAL #ONDITION OF THE 3ELF 4HE /THER WITH THE CAPITAL / IS AT THE CORE OF 3Ul THOUGHT AND FOR TWO REASONS l RST IT DENOTES THE ORIGIN OF THE SELF AND SECOND BECAUSE IT IS AN ONTOLOGICAL CONDITION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE SELF )T IS WRITTEN IN THE 1UR AN 9OUR ,ORD SAID TO THE ANGELS h"EHOLD ) HAVE CREATED A MAN FROM POTTER S CLAY OUT OF MOULDED SLIME 7HEN ) HAVE FASHIONED HIM AND BREATHED INTO HIM OF -Y SPIRIT FALL DOWN PROSTRATING YOURSELVES TO HIM v )N 3Ul SM THESE 1UR ANIC CONJECTURES ARE GUIDELINES FOR THE UNDERSTAND ING OF THE GENESIS OF THE SELF AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE /THER 4HEY INDICATE THAT THE /THER AND THE SELF ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DISTINCT REALITIES AND THAT THE SELF ORIGINATES FROM THE /THER %ARLY 3Ul MASTERS SUCH AS AL "ISTAMI D AL *UNAYD D AND AL (ALLAJ CRUCIl ED WERE CONCERNED WITH THIS ISSUE 4HEY SOUGHT TO BE LOST IN THE BLISS OF REUNION WITH THE /THER !L "ISTAMI WAS THE l RST TO EXPRESS THE ULTIMATE IDENTIl CA TION WITH THE /THER IN HIS 3HATAHAT -YSTIC 5UTTERANCES HE SAID h6ERILY ) AM !LLAH THERE IS NO 'OD EXCEPT ME SO WORSHIP ME v !FTER HIM AL (ALLAJ

HAVING THIS UNITY IN MIND DECLARED h) AM THE 4RUTH v WHICH EARNED HIM EXECUTION AT THE HAND OF HIS OPPONENTS AND AL -UQTADIR R n THE !BBSID CALIPH IN "AGHDAD 4HE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE /THER IS AN ONTOLOGICAL CONDITION FOR THE EX ISTENCE OF THE SELF HAS A PHILOSOPHICAL ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THE PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE /THER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE SELF INDEPENDENT OF THE /THER WILL BECOME INCONCEIVABLE )BN 3INA n DEVELOPED THIS VIEW INTO AN ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF 'OD IN WHICH HE MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN TWO KINDS OF BEING THE .ECESSARY "EING AND THE CONTINGENT BEING 4HE SELF AS A CONTINGENT BEING CANNOT EXIST BY ITSELF IT HAS TO RELY ON ANOTHER KIND OF BEING OTHER THAN ITSELF NAMELY THE .ECESSARY "EING FOR ITS EXISTENCE 4HE SELF RELIES ON THE MANIFESTATION OF THE /THER AND IN REALITY IS A PARTICULARIZED FORM OF THE /THER 4HE EXISTENCE OF THE SELF IS THEREFORE A PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE /THER 3INCE THE /THER IS THE ONLY 2EALITY WHATEVER hISv OTHER THAN THE /THER IS NONEXISTENT 4HE SELF THAT IS NOT THE /THER CAN BE SEEN AS SOMETHING UNREAL 4HIS STATEMENT SEEMS TO BE A PARADOX BECAUSE IT PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF THE SELF (OW THEN CAN THE SELF BE NONEXISTENT 4HIS PARADOX CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AND RESOLVED WHEN THE MEANING OF THE /THER AS THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE SELF IS COMPREHENDED &OR THIS PURPOSE

TWO TERMS WUJUDD BEING AND MAUJUDD BEINGS ARE USED TO DESCRIBE THE

>HHJ: D8ID7:G

-UHAMMAD +AMAL

EXISTENCE OF THE /THER AND THE SELF IN 3Ul THOUGHT 4HE BEING OF THE /THER

AS THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION IS DESCRIBED AS WUJUD AND ALL OTHER ENTITIES

INCLUDING THE SELF AS CONTINGENT BEINGS ARE MAUJUD AND THEY RELY ON THE /THER TO EXIST 4HE SELF AS MAUJUD MAY AND MAY NOT EXIST AND ITS BEING CAN BE UNDERSTOOD ONLY IN ITS RELATION TO THE BEING OF THE /THER WHILE THE /THER CANNOT NOT EXIST 4HE NONEXISTENCE OF THE SELF CAN BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD IN THE METAPHOR OF ,IGHT IN THE 1UR AN h'OD IS THE ,IGHT OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH v )N THIS VERSE 'OD THE /THER IS DESCRIBED AS BEING ,IGHT AND (E ILLUMINATES THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH 4HE ,IGHT MAKES ENTITIES APPEAR INTO EXISTENCE OUT OF NONEXISTENCE OR DARKNESS AND THE SELF AS THE RAY OF THE ,IGHT IS MAUJUD &OR THIS REASON IT IS DIFFERENT FROM AND YET IDENTICAL TO ,IGHT )T IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE ,IGHT BUT RATHER A RAY PRODUCED BY THE ,IGHT ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS NOT SOMETHING DISTINCT FROM THE ,IGHT SINCE NOTHING OTHER THAN THE ,IGHT EXISTS OR CAN BE FOUND AND SINCE THE SELF AS THE RAY IS THE PRODUCT OF THE ,IGHT 4HE /THER IS IDENTIl ED WITH ,IGHT AND THE SELF IS THE RAY REm ECTED FROM THE /THER 4HE SELF IS THEREFORE

IDENTICAL WITH THE /THER BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE OTHER 4RANSFORMATION OF THE SELF THAN THE /THER CAN BE FOUND AT THE SAME TIME SINCE THE SELF IS THE RADIANCE AND NOT THE ,IGHT IT IS NOT IS POSSIBLE ONLY THROUGH THE IDENTICAL WITH THE ,IGHT ITSELF )N THAT THEY ARE THE SAME CONTINGENT BEINGS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS REAL EXTINCTION OF THE SELF BY TOTAL EXISTENTS )N THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT CONTINGENT BE INGS STAY IN THE POSITION OF NONEXISTENCE OR DARKNESS IMMERSION IN THE /THER IN RELATION TO THE ,IGHT &OR THIS REASON THE STATE OF INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE IS LIKE THE STATE OF NONEXISTENCE 4HE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SELF FROM THIS STATE OF NONEXISTENCE IS POSSIBLE ONLY THROUGH EXTINCTION OF THE SELF BY TOTAL IMMERSION IN THE /THER 4HE PRINCIPLE THAT THE /THER IS AN ONTOLOGICAL CONDITION FOR THE EXIS TENCE OF THE SELF BECAME A METAPHYSICAL GROUND WHICH WAS INCORPORATED THEMATICALLY INTO LATER PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS /F SPECIAL IMPORTANCE WERE 3UHRAWARDI n WITH HIS )SHRAQII DOCTRINE )LLUMINATIONISM AND )BN AL @!RABI n WITH HIS DOCTINE OF WAHDAT AL WUJUD THE 5NITY D OF "EING &OR 3UHRAWARDI REALITY IS hESSENCEv AND IS ALSO IDENTIl ED WITH LIGHT 4HE SELF AS THE ORIGINATED LIGHT FROM THE ,IGHT OF THE LIGHTS THE /THER BELONGS TO THE REALM WHERE FOUR FORMS OF ORIGINATED LIGHT EXIST THE IMMATERIAL

THE LUMINOUS ACCIDENTS AND BODIES !LL THESE FORMS OF LIGHT SPRING FROM THE SAME SOURCE AND ARE GRADATIONS OF THE SAME REALITY (ERE 3UHRAWARDI THINKS IN LINE WITH 0LATO WHOM HE SAW NOT MERELY AS A GREAT 'REEK THINKER BUT AS ONE OF THE MASTERS OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF )LLUMINATIONISM A SAGE

G:A><>DC :6HI L:HI

4HE 3ELF AND THE /THER IN 3Ul 4HOUGHT

WHO TRANSMITTED THE PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE OF )LLUMINATION TO A NEW GENERATION OF THINKERS 3UHRAWARDI BELIEVED IN A hDOMINATING LIGHTv THAT IS CONCERNED WITH SPECIES %VERY SPECIES EXISTS AS A DOMINATING LIGHT AND HAS A UNIVERSAL FORM WHICH 3UHRAWARDI CALLED A hLORD OF SPECIES v 4HESE LORDS OF SPECIES ARE SIMILAR TO 0LATO S h&ORMS v BUT THEY ARE NOT UNIVERSAL ESSENCES SHARED BY ALL PARTICULARS 2ATHER THEY EXIST IN A HIGHER REALM AND ARE INDE PENDENT OF PARTICULARS 4HEY ARE THE CAUSES OF THE PARTICULARS AND AS SUCH ARE UNIVERSALS IN THAT THEY HAVE THIS CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP TO ALL PARTICULARS OF THE SAME SPECIES &OR EXAMPLE THE UNIVERSAL FORM OF hCATv HAS THE SAME CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP TO ALL INDIVIDUAL CATS IN THE MATERIAL WORLD )N THIS WAY 3UHRAWARDI ACCEPTED THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL &ORMS BUT DIFFERED FROM 0LATO IN SEEING &ORMS AS CAUSES OF INDIVIDUAL BEINGS NOT AS A UNIVERSAL PREDICATE SHARED BY ALL OF THEM !NOTHER ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE WORTH NOTING HERE IS THAT 3UHRAWARDI UN LIKE 0LATO BELIEVED THAT THE DOMAIN OF &ORMS IS BEYOND THE COGNITIVE CAPAC ITY OF REASON )T SHOULD BE APPREHENDED INTUITIVELY 4HE INDIVIDUAL SELF WHICH IS A hCONTINGENT LIGHTv IN 3UHRAWARDI S SYSTEM WILL BE MORE ILLUMINATED AS IT GETS CLOSER TO ITS SOURCE 4HIS INCREASE IN THE INTENSITY OF ILLUMINATION OCCURS WITH THE ABOLITION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE /THER 3UHRAWARDI CALLED THIS ABOLITION OF DISTANCE hPRESENCE v !WARE NESS OF THE /THER IS hKNOWLEDGE BY PRESENCE v AND THIS HE CONSIDERS TO BE THE MOST RELIABLE SOURCE OF COGNITION )N HIS PHILOSOPHY OF THE 5NITY OF "EING )BN AL @!RABI CAME INTO CONm ICT WITH 3UHRAWARDI S )LLUMINATIONISM AND ALSO WITH THE NOTION OF MONOTHEISM IN THE )SLAMIC FAITH 3UHRAWARDI STRESSED THE PRINCIPALITY OF ESSENCE RATHER THAN OF EXISTENCE BUT FOR )BN AL @!RABI THE 5NITY OF "EING MEANS THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE "EING AND ALL EXISTENCE IS NOTHING BUT THE MANIFESTATION OR OUTWARD RADIANCE OF THAT /NE "EING )N THIS REGARD BEING RATHER THAN QUIDDITY BECOMES THE RULING PRINCIPLE AND THE REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EVERYTHING "EING IS ONE YET MANIFESTS ITSELF AT ALL LEVELS OF EXISTENCE !PPAR ENTLY THE MULTIPLICITY OF ITS MANIFESTATIONS DOES NOT NEGATE ITS UNITY WHICH IS A UNIFYING GROUND OF VARIOUS GRADATIONS OF ITS MANIFESTATION 7ILLIAM #HITTICK IN )BN AL @!RABI S -ETAPHYSICS OF )MAGINATION TRIES TO EXPLICATE THE MEANING OF THIS DOCTRINE l RST BY RELATING THE 5NITY OF "EING TO hTHE PROFESSION OF 'OD S 5NITYv AL TAWHID IN )SLAM AND SECOND BY MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS 3Ul DOCTRINE AND PANTHEISM IN OCCIDENTAL PHI LOSOPHY )T IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE CONCEPT OF THE 5NITY OF 'OD IS DISTINCT IN CONNOTATION FROM THE CONCEPT OF THE 5NITY OF "EING 4HE LATTER IDENTIl ES 'OD WITH "EING OR RENDERS 'OD AND "EING AS SYNONYMOUS 4HE 1UR ANIC CONCEPT OF THE 5NITY OF 'OD DOES NOT SIGNIFY THAT NOTHING OTHER THAN 'OD EXISTS )T MERELY DENIES POLYTHEISM A COMMON BELIEF AMONG SOME !RAB >HHJ: D8ID7:G

-UHAMMAD +AMAL

TRIBES OF THE PRE )SLAMIC PERIOD h9OUR 'OD IS /NE 'OD 4HERE IS NO GOD BUT (E THE #OMPASSIONATE THE -ERCIFUL v 4HE 1UR AN STATES FURTHER !LLAH BEARS WITNESS THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT (E AND SO DO THE ANGELS AND MEN OF LEARNING (E UPHOLDS JUSTICE 4HERE IS NO GOD BUT (E THE -IGHTY AND 7ISE /NE 4HE STATEMENT THAT hTHERE IS NO GOD BUT !LLAHv LA ILAHA ILA !LLAH VIVIDLY EXPRESSES THE EXISTENCE OF ONE 'OD AND REJECTS OTHER DEITIES BESIDE !LLAH 4HE ADVOCATES OF THE 5NITY OF "EING ALTERED THE l RST PART OF THIS STATEMENT h4HERE IS NO GODv LA ILAH BECAME hTHERE IS NO BEINGv LA MAUJUD 4HE ORIGINAL STATEMENT DENIES POLYTHEISM WHEREAS THE 3Ul VERSION OF THE 5NITY ASSERTS THAT THERE IS NO EXISTENCE EXCEPT 'OD 4HE EMPHASIS IS ON THE IM MANENCE OF 'OD RATHER THAN ON (IS TRANSCENDENCE &ARIDUDDIN AL !TTAR n ILLUSTRATED THIS 5NITY BY THE ANALOGY OF WATER h7ATER IS WATER IN THE BOUNDLESS OCEAN AND IN THE JUG TOO IT IS THE SAME WATER v !GAIN FOR AL !TTAR THAT WHICH UNITES THE MULTIPLE PAR TICULARIZATION OF 2EALITY IS THEIR "EING AND NOT THEIR QUIDDITY ,IKEWISE ALL THE VARIOUS TYPES OF EXISTENTS HUMAN BEINGS ANIMALS TREES AND SO ON ARE GROUNDED ON THIS UNITY )N HIS &USUS AL (IKAM )BN AL @!RABI ALSO CONSIDERED 'OD TO BE THE TOTALITY OF THINGS h'OD

BY VIRTUE OF BEING IS THE SAME AS THE THINGS THAT ARE BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXISTENCE OTHER THAN (IS "EING v 4HE MULTIPLICITY OF THE PHENOMENAL WORLD IS BASED ON THE UNITY 4HE DIFFERENCE IS GROUNDED ON IDENTITY AS ALL ENTITIES IN PRINCIPLE BELONG TOGETHER 7ILLIAM #HITTICK S DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 5NITY OF "EING AND PANTHE ISM IS NOT CONVINCING #HITTICK ATTEMPTS TO SHOW THAT THE )SLAMIC DOCTRINE OF THE 5NITY OF "EING SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF 7ESTERN METAPHYSICS OF PANTHEISM BUT IN FACT THESE TWO DOCTRINES ARE SIMILAR IN SEVERAL WAYS "OTH OF THEM PUT AWAY DUALITY WITHOUT INSISTING ON IDENTIl CATION OF 'OD WITH THE WORLD &OR EXAMPLE 3PINOZA ONE OF THE ADVOCATES OF PANTHEISM IN THE 7EST HELD THAT EVERYTHING EXISTS THROUGH h3UBSTANCE v AND THAT EXISTENTS ARE PARTS OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF 3UBSTANCE -EANWHILE

3UBSTANCE IS THE EXISTENTS AND AT THE SAME TIME IS NOT THE EXISTENTS !S HE SAYS h'OD $EUS ) UNDERSTAND TO BE A BEING ABSOLUTELY INl NITE THAT IS A SUBSTANCE CONSISTING OF INl NITE ATTRIBUTES EACH OF WHICH EXPRESSES ETERNAL AND INl NITE ESSENCE v (E ALSO REMARKS h7HATEVER IS IS IN 'OD AND NOTH ING CAN EXIST OR BE CONCEIVED WITHOUT 'OD v 3PINOZA REJECTS THE NOTION OF TRANSCENDENT 'OD 'OD S CAUSALITY FOR HIM IS IMMANENT CAUSALITY IN THE SENSE THAT 'OD IS INDWELLING POWER BUT IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH HIS CREATION )T IS TRUE THAT 3PINOZA S CONCEPT OF 'OD AS THE ONLY 2EALITY WHICH WAS ALSO THE VIEW OF THE ADVOCATES OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE 5NITY OF "EING CAN BE MISTAKEN

G:A><>DC :6HI L:HI

4HE 3ELF AND THE /THER IN 3Ul 4HOUGHT

FOR THE IDENTIl CATION OF 'OD WITH NATURE BUT NATURE FOR 3PINOZA IS ONE OF THE INl NITE ATTRIBUTES OF 'OD "ESIDES 3PINOZA MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATURA NATURANS CREATIVE

PRINCIPLE OF NATURE AND NATURA NATURATA CREATED

NATURE AN INDICATION OF A CERTAIN SELF DIFFERENTIATION IN 'OD IMPLYING TWO DISTINGUISHABLE THOUGH INSEPARABLE ASPECTS OF THE SAME REALITY 3HAYKH !HMED 3IRHINDI n A 3Ul MASTER FROM )NDIA AND ONE OF THE CRITICS OF )BN AL @!RABI S DOCTRINE INSISTED ON THE POINT THAT THE CONCEPT OF THE 5NITY OF "EING IN 3Ul EXPERIENCE IS NOTHING MORE THAN PER CEIVING ONE BEING OR SEEING EVERYTHING AS ONE 4HIS PERCEPTION HOWEVER

DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ONTOLOGICAL GROUND FOR THE 5NITY OF "EING AND DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHER KINDS OF BEINGS ARE NONEXISTENTS &OR EXAMPLE 3IRHINDHI ARGUED DURING THE DAYTIME WE DO NOT SEE THE LIGHT OF THE STARS AND IT WOULD BE NATURAL TO THINK THEY ARE NOT THERE BUT THIS IDEA IS FALSE BECAUSE THE STARS DO NOT BECOME NONEXISTENTS WITH THE RISE OF THE SUN &OR 3IRHINDI A 3Ul CAN NEVER EXPERIENCE ONTOLOGICAL UNITY WITH 'OD BECAUSE 'OD IS TRANSCENDENT AND BEYOND THE REACH OF THE SELF 3IRHINDHI ALSO STATED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE 5NITY OF "EING COULD BECOME A LOGICAL GROUND FOR IDOLATRY AND EVEN FOR THE WORSHIP OF NATURAL PHENOMENA AND THAT THE DOCTRINE ALSO DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL AND SIN IN THE WORLD SINCE EVERYTHING IS THE MANIFESTATION OF THE ONE "EING AND THE ONE "EING IS ABSOLUTELY GOOD 4HE 3ELF S .OSTALGIA FOR THE /THER 4HE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE /THER IN THE EVERYDAYNESS OF A 3Ul IS EMOTIONAL AND MOTIVATED BY NOSTALGIA .OSTALGIA IS A CONDITION FOUND IN THE ALIENATED SELF AND IT PRESUPPOSES A PRIOR UNION WITH AS WELL AS SEPARATION FROM THE /THER 4HE SELF WITH THE REALIZATION OF SEPARATION AND A PASSIONATE EXCITEMENT ABOUT THE /THER ENDEAVOURS TO ACCOMPLISH RE UNION !CCORDINGLY THE TEMPORAL STATE OF THE PARTICULARIZATION OF "EING IS SEEN TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN ALIENATION FROM THE "EING AND FOR THIS REASON THE NOSTALGIC FEELING BECOMES A DOMINANT MOOD AND A STATE OF MIND IN THE LIFE OF A 3Ul 4HE 0ERSIAN POET 3A@DI 3HIRAZI C n EXPRESSED THIS MOOD ,AST NIGHT IN THE DESERT OF SECLUSION ) BOASTED OF -Y SOLITARY STATE ;AND= PITCHED MY TENT ABOVE THOSE %STEEMED FOR THEIR VIRTUE ;"UT= WHEN ) GLORIED IN THE /NENESS IN THE DESERT OF 5NITY THE DUALITY OF THE DEVOTEES OF THE HERMITAGE 7AS TORN TO SHREDS

>HHJ: D8ID7:G

-UHAMMAD +AMAL

*ALAL AL $IN 2UMI n ANOTHER 0ERSIAN 3Ul POET WROTE &OLLOW THINE OWN WAY AND LOSE NOT THY HEAD )N ONE IT WAS SAID h!LL WE SEE IS /NE 7HOEVER SAYS IT IS TWO IS SUFFERING FROM DOUBLE VISION v )N ONE IT WAS SAID h! HUNDRED ARE EVEN AS ONE v "UT WHOSO THINKS THIS IS A MADMAN !S NOSTALGIA IS THE DOMINANT MOOD OF A 3Ul S EVERYDAYNESS THE RELA TIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE /THER HERE DOES NOT BEGIN WITH THEORETI CAL COGNITION 4HE SELF WILL NOT TEND TO QUESTION HOW ONE CAN KNOW THAT THERE IS THE /THER 0ROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE /THER WILL BECOME NEITHER PROBLEMATIC NOR IMPERATIVE BECAUSE THE SELF IS ATTUNED TO THE /THER BY A MOOD AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE SELF PRESUPPOSES AND VINDICATES THE EXISTENCE OF THE /THER 4HE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE /THER IN 3Ul SM IS THEREFORE PRIMORDIALLY EMOTIONAL RATHER THAN THEORETICAL )T IS THE EMOTIONAL MO TIVE @)SHQ THAT LEADS TO COGNITION MA@RIFAH OF THE /THER 4HE EMOTIONAL MOTIVE IS NOT ONLY PRIMORDIAL BUT ALSO THE ONTOLOGICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SELF 7ITHOUT THE EMOTIONAL MOTIVE THE SELF MAY NOT OBTAIN THE SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE /THER 4HUS )BN 3INA IN HIS TREATISE ON THE EMOTIONAL PATH

ARGUED THAT THE SELF IS BORN WITH THIS EMOTION h!RDENT LOVE IS INNATEÂ&#x2C6;ALL THINGS m OW FROM 'OD IN A PROCESS OF NECESSARY EMANATION AND RETURN TO (IM IN A PROCESS OF NECESSARY LOVE v 4HE PRIMACY OF EMOTION DOES NOT NULLIFY THE SIGNIl CANCE OF COGNITION NEVERTHELESS FOR A 3Ul THE SELF CAN DEVELOP RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER PASSIONATELY WITHOUT APPROPRIATING THE /THER EPISTEMOLOGICALLY )T IS THIS EMOTIONAL MOTIVE THAT ELEVATES THE SELF TO THE STAGE WHERE IT CAN EXPERIENCE THE /THER )BN AL @!RABI REMARKS (E IS NEITHER A THING NOR A THING IN (IM WHETHER THE ENTERING IN OR PROCEEDING FORTH )T IS NECESSARY THAT THOU KNOW (IM AFTER THIS FASHION NOT BY KNOWLEDGE NOR BY INTELLECT NOR BY UNDERSTANDING

NOR BY IMAGINATION NOR BY SENSE NOR BY PERCEPTION "Y (IMSELF (E SEES (IMSELF AND NONE PERCEIVE (IM OTHER THAN (E #OGNITIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE /THER ALSO INVOLVES LIMITATIONS INHERENT IN THE l NITE NATURE OF THE SELF 4HE SELF AS A l NITE BEING IS NOT IN A POSITION TO OBTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF THE /THER WHILE THE INl NITE NATURE OF THE /THER LEADS TO THE NEVER ENDING PROCESS OF KNOWING )N ORDER TO HALT THIS ENDLESS PROCESS OF SEEKING KNOWLEDGE THE SELF STRIVES TO ACHIEVE FANA IMMERSION IN THE /THER AND TO SEE THE /THER THROUGH THE EYES OF THE /THER AND BECOME ONE WITH IT

G:A><>DC :6HI L:HI

4HE 3ELF AND THE /THER IN 3Ul 4HOUGHT

%MOTION THEREFORE BECOMES A KIND OF COGNITION BECAUSE IN EMOTION THE SELF REALISES THE PRESENCE OF THE /THER INTIMATELY 7HETHER THE /THER IS PERCEIVED OR NOT THE SELF IS ATTUNED TO IT BY THIS MOOD )T TEARS VEILS AND REVEALS SECRETS )N EMOTION THE DISTANTIALITY OF THE /THER DEPENDS ALSO ON THE DEGREE OF INTENSITY OF THE EMOTIONAL MOTIVE AND ITS INTENSITY BECOMES A MEASURE OF THE REMOTENESS OR PROXIMITY OF THE SELF FROM THE /THER &OR SOME 3Ul S THE EMOTIONAL MOTIVE IS A TYPE OF PASSION WHICH PLACES THE SELF AT THE STAGE OF MADNESSÂ&#x2C6;IN A STATE WHERE THE SELF IS ATTUNED BY A DEEP SENSE OF JOY AND SORROW +HWAJA -AS UD #HISHTI n DESCRIBES THIS STATE AS FOLLOWS / FRIENDS 7HEN LOVE PENETRATES THE RECESSES OF HEART IT KILLS IT WHEN IT ENTERS THE EYES IT MAKES A RIVER OF THEM WHEN IT REACHES THE GARMENTS IT TEARS THEM TO TATTERS WHEN IT ATTACKS LIFE IT DESTROYS IT AND WHEN IT TURNS TOWARDS POSSESSIONS IT BRINGS THEM TO RUIN %XTINCTION OF THE 3ELF )N CONSIDERING THE THOUGHT OF THE 3Ul PHILOSOPHERS CONCERNING THE NON EXISTENCE OF THE SELF IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE STATE OF NONEXISTENCE CANNOT BE DESCRIBED IN ABSOLUTE NEGATIVE TERMS .ONEXISTENCE OF THE SELF IS NOT h.OTHINGNESS v &OR NOTHINGNESS IS A TOTAL ANNIHILATION OF EXISTENCE &OR EXAMPLE ONE CANNOT STATE THAT THE NONEXISTENCE OF THE SELF IS LIKE THE NONEXIS TENCE OF A KING OF &RANCE OR A RIVER OF HONEY ON THE MOON 4HE NONEXISTENCE OF THE SELF IS ALSO POSITIVE BECAUSE THE SELF IS A RAY OF THE ,IGHT WHICH IS THE /THER AND A KIND OF BEING IN ITS OWN TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL MATRIX 4HE QUESTION THAT ARISES HERE IS HOW THE DICHOTOMY OF THE SELF AND THE /THER IS DECONSTRUCTED )S IT THE SELF THAT ANNIHILATES THE /THER OR DOES THE /THER ANNIHILATE THE SELF 4HE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS AMBIGUOUS IN 3Ul SM 3OME 3Ul UTTERANCES ILLUSTRATE THE SELF ANNIHILATING THE /THER

WHILE OTHERS ARGUE THE OPPOSITE 4HE DIFFERENCE HOWEVER IN EXPRESSING THIS UNITY BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE /THER IS NOT CLEAR /NE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WHETHER THE SELF IS INTEGRATED INTO THE /THER OR WHETHER THE /THER BECOMES THE SELF )BN AL @!RABI FOR EXAMPLE BELIEVES THAT THERE WILL BE hNO ME AND NO YOU v 4HIS UTTERANCE WHICH ENCAPSULATES DECONSTRUCTION OF DUALISM DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHICH SIDE IS ANNIHILATED !CCORDING TO ONE OF THE STATEMENTS OF AL (ALLAJ THE SELF IS ABSORBED IN THE /THER HE SAYS h/ MEN SAVE ME FROM 'OD WHO HAS ROBBED ME OF MYSELF v (ERE IT SEEMS THAT THE SELF IS TRANSFORMED AND INTEGRATED INTO THE /THER %LSEWHERE AL (ALLAJ STATES h#OME INTO ME SO THAT 9OU CAN GIVE THANKS TO 9OURSELF v (ERE IT IS THE /THER IDENTIl ED WITH THE SELF AND ITS INDEPENDENCE IS DENIED >HHJ: D8ID7:G

-UHAMMAD +AMAL

4HESE UTTERANCES HOWEVER ARE ALL INDICATIONS OF A DECONSTRUCTION OF DUALISM AND IN THIS PROCESS WHAT IS PARAMOUNT FOR THE SELF IS TO OBTAIN RE UNION WITH THE /THER BY REMOVING ALL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE /THER AND THE SELF /MAR +HAYYAM n THE 0ERSIAN 'NOSTIC POET EXPRESSES THIS REUNION BY SAYING 4HERE WAS A $OOR TO WHICH ) FOUND NO +EY 4HERE WAS A 6EIL PAST WHICH ) COULD NOT SEE 3OME LITTLE 4ALK A WHILE OF -E AND 4HEE 4HERE SEEMEDÂ&#x2C6; D AND THEN NO -ORE OF 4HEE AND -E 3Ul THOUGHT HOWEVER ULTIMATELY DOES NOT SATISFY THE QUEST OF OUR PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF THIS DECONSTRUCTION 7E STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE SELF IS INTEGRATED INTO THE /THER OR THE /THER BECOMES THE SELF )N DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM WE NEED TO ARGUE THAT SINCE THE /THER IS THE ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION AND CONDITION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE SELF IT IS THE GROUND AND NOT THE GROUNDED THAT SHOULD REMAIN )T IS THEREFORE POSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SELF AS THE GROUNDED IS NOT IN A POSITION ONTOLOGICALLY TO ANNIHILATE ITS GROUND )N ORDER TO SHUN DUALITY

THE SELF MUST ANNIHILATE ITS OWN STATE OF NONEXISTENCE AND BECOME REAL

BY RE UNITING WITH THE /THER 4HE SELF IS ONTOLOGICALLY CONDITIONED AND ORIGINATED AND ACCORDING TO 3HAH 7ALIULLAH n A 3Ul FROM )NDIA EVERY ORIGINATED ENTITY IS TRANSFORMABLE WHILE THE ORIGINATOR IS THE TRANSFORMER 4HE SELF MUST TRANSFORM ITSELF AND MOVE ITSELF GRADUALLY CLOSER TO THE /THER !BU 1ASIM AL 1USHAYRI D IN DESCRIBING THE REUNION BETWEEN THE SELF AND THE /THER GOES BACK TO THE EMOTIONAL MOTIVE WHEN HE WRITES h4HE ESSENCE OF LOVE IS TO GIVE ALL OF YOURSELF TO THE ONE YOU LOVE SO THAT NOTHING OF YOURSELF REMAINS TO YOU v !CCORDING TO HIM THE DECONSTRUC TION CAN BE ACHIEVED ONLY BY DESTROYING THE SELF 4HE SELF SHOULD PERISH CONTINUOUSLY THROUGH LOVE -UHMUD 3HABISTARI D A 3Ul POET FROM 0ERSIA HAS THE SAME VIEW THAT IT IS THE SELF WHICH IS EXTINCT AT THE END OF THE MYSTICAL EXPEDITION )N A MOMENT THIS WORLD PASSES AWAY

.ONE REMAINS IN THE WORLD SAVE hTHE 4RUTH v !T THAT MOMENT YOU ATTAIN PROXIMITY 9OU STRIPPED OF hSELF v ARE hUNITEDv TO THE "ELOVED

G:A><>DC :6HI L:HI

4HE 3ELF AND THE /THER IN 3Ul 4HOUGHT

4HIS EXPERIENCE OF SELF ANNIHILATION HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED THROUGH MANY METAPHORS AND SYMBOLS IN 3Ul LITERATURE AND ALL OF THEM INITIATE IN SIGHT INTO THE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE DUALISM OF THE SELF AND THE /THER &OR A 3Ul BEYOND THE REALIZATION OF THE ANNIHILATION OF THE STATE OF NONEXISTENCE

THERE IS NOTHING EXCEPT EXISTENCE 4HERE IS NOTHING BEYOND THIS NOTHINGNESS EXCEPT SURVIVAL AND NOTHING IN DEATH BUT LIFE 4HIS ANNIHILATION IMPLIES ETERNAL REUNION AS WELL AS EXISTENCE IN FULL POSITIVITY AND GLORY s

.OTES

1UR AN .Al SI +ULLIYAT I 1ASIM I !NWAR 4EHRAN !MIR +ABIR

R 1UR AN n 3EE !BDUL (AKIM +HALIFA 4HE -ETAPHYSICS OF 2UMI ! #RITICAL AND (ISTORICAL 3KETCH )SLAMABAD )NSTITUTE OF )SLAMIC #ULTURE

,OUIS -ASSIGNON 4HE 0ASSION OF AL (ALLAJ -YSTIC AND -ARTYR OF )SLAM 6OL TRANS (ERBERT -ASON 0RINCETON 0RINCETON 5NIVERSITY 0RESS

)BN 3INA +ITAB AL .AJAT #AIRO -ATB A AL 3A ADAT

T +HWAJA -AS UD #HISHTI .IKAT AL @!SHIQIN N "ERKELEY 5NIVERSITY OF #ALIFORNIA

1UR AN 7ILLIAM # #HITTICK )BN AL !RABI S -ETAPHYSICS OF )MAGINATION 4HE 3Ul 0ATH OF +NOWLEDGE .EW 9ORK 3TATE 5NIVERSITY OF 0RESS

E 3UHRAWARDI (IKMAT AL )SHRAQ TRANS *OHN 7ALBRIDGE AND (OSSEIN :IAI 0ROVO 5TAH "RIGHAM 9OUNG 5NIVERSITY 0RESS

#HITTICK )BN AL !RABI

1UR AN 1UR AN 3EE ALSO

+HALIFA 2UMI

)BN AL @!RABI &USUS AL (IKAM VOL TRANS "ULENT 2AUF /XFORD -UHYIDDIN )BN @!RABI 3OCIETY

3PINOZA %THICS TRANS !NDREW "OYLE ,ONDON %VERYMAN S ,IBRARY

) DEF 6) 3PINOZA %THICS 0ROPOSITION 86 3EE 4 - &ORSYTH h3PINOZA S $OCTRINE OF 'OD IN (IS 2ELATION TO (IS #ONCEPT OF 2EALITYv 3TUDIES IN 3PINOZA #RITICAL AND )NTERPRETATIVE %SSAYS ED 3 0AUL +ASHAP "ERKELEY 5NIVERSITY OF #ALIFORNIA 0RESS

3HAYKH !HMAD 3IRHINDI -AKTUBAT VOL NO ED .UR !HMAD ,AHORE .UR #O

T

3EE -ARGARET 3MITH 4HE 3Ul 0ATH OF ,OVE AN !NTHOLOGY OF 3Ul SM M ,ONDON ,UZAC #OMPANY

-AULANA *ALAL AL $IN 2UMI -ASNAVI ) -A NAVI TRANS % ( 7HINl ELD ,ONDON /CTAGON 0RESS

)BN 3INA h!L 2ISALA l AL @)SHQv -EDIEVAL 3TUDIES VOL

4 ( 7EIR h4RANSLATION OF 2ISALAT AL !HADIYYAH OF )BN AL !RABI v *OURNAL OF THE 2OYAL !SIATIC 3OCIETY

Y #HITTICK )BN AL !RABI

>HHJ: D8ID7:G

-UHAMMAD +AMAL !BU @, 1ASIM !L 1USHAYRI !L 2ISALA AL 1USHAYRIYA TRANS 2ABIA (ARRIS #HICAGO !"# )NTERNATIONAL 'ROUP

+HWAJA -AS UD #HISHTI .IKAT AL @!SHIQIN (AYDERABAD !BDUL @5LAI 0RESS

N

*AMES &ADIMAN AND 2OBERT &RAGER %SSENTIAL 3Ul SM M 3AN &RANCISCO (ARPER 3AN &RANCISCO

-ASSIGNON 4HE 0ASSION OF AL (ALLAJ

/MAR +HAYYAM 2UBAIYAT OF /MAR +HAYYAM TRANS %DWARD &ITZGERALD ,ONDON "RACKEN "OOKS

3HAH 7ALIULLAH h3ATA@AT v IN 3Ul SM AND THE )SLAMIC 4RADITION TRANS ' . *ALBANI ,ONDON /CTAGON 0RESS

!L 1USHAYRI !L 2ISALA AL 1USHAYRIYA

!L 1USHAYRI !L 2ISALA AL 1USHAYRIYA

3MITH 4HE 3Ul 0ATH OF ,OVE

G:A><>DC :6HI L:HI