Sayed Muhammad al Naquib al-Attas
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Muhammad_Naquib_al-Attas), one of
the foremost representatives of traditional Islamic sciences and
metaphysics, wrote, will full awareness of traditionalist doctrine,
what could be seen as the most thorough, coherent and orthodox Islamic
reply to date to Guénon's 'spiritual expediency' and Schuon's
'transcendent unity of religions':
(I apologise for the length of the citation. But I think it is
necessary so as to cross the t's and dot the i's, once and for all,
with respect to the traditional Islamic view vis-à-vis traditionalist
doctrine).
The Nature of God understood in Islam is not the same as the
conceptions of God understood in the various religious traditions of
the world; nor is it the same as the conceptions of God understood in
Greek and Hellenistic philosophical tradition; nor as the conceptions
of God understood in Western philosophical or scientific tradition;
nor in that of Occidental and Oriental mystical traditions. The
apparent similarities that may be found between their various
conceptions of God with the nature of God understood in Islam cannot
be interpreted as evidence of identity of the One Universal God in
their various conceptions of the nature of God; for each and every one
of them serves and belongs to a difference conceptual system, which
necessarily renders the conception as a whole or they super super
system to be dissimilar with one another. Nor is there a 'transcendent
unity of religions', if by 'unity' is meant 'oneness' or 'sameness';
and if by 'unity' is not meant 'oneness' or 'sameness', then there is
plurality or dissimilarity of religions even at the level of
transcendence. If it is conceded that there is plurality or
dissimilarity at that level, and that by 'unity' is meant
'interconnectedness of parts that constitute a whole', so that the
unity is the interconnection of the plurality or dissimilarity of
religions as of parts constituting a whole, then it follows that at
the level of ordinary existence, in which mankind is subject to the
limitations of humanity and the material universe,, any one religion
is incomplete in itself, is in itself inadequate to realise its
purpose, and can only realise its purpose, which is true submission to
the One Universal God without associating Him with any partner, rival,
or lie, at the level of transcendence. But religion is meant to
realise its purpose precisely at the level of existence in which
mankind is subject to the limitations of humanity and the material
universe, and no when mankind is not subject to these limitations as
the term 'transcendent' conveys. If 'transcendent' is meant to refer
to an ontological condition not included under any of the ten
categories, God is, strictly speaking, not the God of religion (i.e.
ilah) in the sense that there could be such a thing as a 'unity' of
religions at that level. At that level God is recognise as rabb, not
as ilah; and recognising Him as rabb does not necessarily imply
oneness or sameness in teh proper acknowledgement of the truth that is
recognise, since Iblis [Satan/Lucifer] also recognise God as rabb and
yet did not properly acknowledge Him, Indeed, all of Adam's progeny
have already recognised Him as rabb at that level. But mankind's
recognition of Him as such is not true unless followed by proper
acknowledgement at the level in which He is known as ilah. And proper
acknowledgement at the level in which He is known as ilah consists in
not associating Him with any partner, rival, or life, and in
submitting to Him in the manner and form approved by Him and shown by
His sent Prophets. If 'transcendent' is meant to refer to a
psychological condition at the level of experience and consciousness
which 'excels' or 'surpasses' that of the masses among mankind,then
the 'unity' that is experienced and made conscious of at the level of
transcendent is not of religions, but of religious experience and
consciousness, which is arrived at by the relatively few individuals
only among mankind. But religion is meant to realise its purpose for
the generality of mankind; and mankind as a whole can never be at the
level of transcendence for there to be a unity of religions at that
level. Then if it is denied that the unity at that level if the
interconnection of the plurality of dissimilarity of religions as of
parts constituting a whole, rather that every one of the religions at
the level of ordinary existence is not a part of a whole, but is a
whole in itself--then the 'unity' that is meant is 'oneness' or
'sameness' not really of religions, but of the God of religions at the
level of transcendence (i.e. esoteric), implying thereby that at the
level of ordinary existence (i.e. exoteric), and despite the plurality
and diversity of religions, each religion is adequate and valid in its
own limited way, each authentic and conveying limiting through equal
truth. The notion of plurality of truth of equal validity in the
plurality and diversity of religions is perhaps aligned to the
statements and general conclusions of modern philosophy and science
arising from the discovery of a plurality and diversity of laws
governing the university having equal validity each in its own
cosmological system. The trend to align modern scientific discovery
concerning the systems of the universe with corresponding statements
applied to human society, cultural traditions, and values is one of
the characteristic features of modernity. The position of those who
advocate the theory of the transcendent unity of religions is based
upon the assumption that all religions, or the major religions of
mankind, are revealed religions. They assume that the universality and
transcendence of esoterism validates their theory, which they
'discovered' after having acquainted themselves with the metaphysics
of Islam. In their understanding of this metaphysics of the
transcendent unity of existence, they further assume that the
transcendent unity of religions is already implied. There is grave
error in all their assumptions, and the phrase 'transcendent unity of
religions' is misleading and perhaps meant to be so for motives other
than the truth. Their claim to belief in the transcendent unity of
religions is something suggested to them inductively by the
imagination and is derived from intellectual speculation and not from
actual experience. If this is denied, and their claim is derived from
the experience of others, then again we say that the sense of 'unity'
experienced is not of religions, but of varying degrees of individual
religious experience which does not of necessity lead to the
assumption that the religions of individuals who experienced such
'unity', have truth of equal validity as revealed religions at the
level of ordinary existence. Moreover, as already pointed out, the God
of that experience is recognised as the rabb, not the ilah of revealed
religion. And recognising Him as the rabb does not necessarily mean
that acknowledging Him in true submission follows from that
recognition, for rebellion, arrogance, and falsehood have their origin
in that very realm of transcendence. There is only one revealed
religion. It was the religion conveyed by all the earlier Prophets,
who were sent to preach the message of the revelation to their own
people in accordance with the wisdom and justice of the Divine plan to
prepare the peoples of the world for reception of the religion in its
ultimate and consummate form as a Universal Religion at the hands of
the last Prophet, who was sent to convey the message of the revelation
not only to his own people, but to mankind as a whole. The essential
message of the revelation was always the same: to recognise and
acknowledge and worship the One True and Real God (ilah) alone,
without associating Him with any partner, rival, or equal, nor
attributing a likeness to Him; and to confirm the truth preached by
the earlier Prophets as well as to confirm the final truth brought by
the last Prophet as it was confirmed by all the Prophets sent before
him. With the exception of the people of this last Prophet, through
whom the revealed religion achieved utmost perfection whose original
purity is preserved to this day, most of the peoples to whom the
earlier Prophets were sent deliberately renounced the guidance
preferring instead cultural creations and ethnic inventions of their
own, claiming these as 'religions' in imitation of revealed religion.
There is only one genuine revealed religion, and its name is given as
Islam, and the people who follow this religion are praised by God as
the best among mankind. As for some among the peoples who preferred to
follow their own and diverse forms of belief and practice described as
'religions', their realisation of the Truth is their rediscovery, by
means of guidance and sincerity of heart, of what is already clearly
manifest in Islam even at the level of ordinary existence. Only Islam
acknowledge and affirms the Unity of God absolutely without having to
arrive at the level of transcendence to do so; without confusing such
acknowledgement and affirmation with traditional forms of belief and
practice described as 'religions'; without confounding such
acknowledgement and affirmation with cultural creations and ethnic
inventions interpreted in imitation of revealed religion. Therefore
Islam does not admit of any error in the understanding of the
Revelation, and in this sense Islam is not merely a form -- it is the
essence itself of religion (din). We do not admit in the case of Islam
of a horizontal dividing line separating the exoteric from the
esoteric understanding of the Truth in religion. We maintain rather a
vertical line of continuity from exoteric to the esoteric; a vertical
line of continuity which is we identify as the Straight Path of
islam-imam-ihsan without there being any inconsistency in the three
stages of the spiritual ascent such that the Reality or transcendent
Truth that is recognise and acknowledged is in our case accessible to
many. It is futile to attempt to camouflage error in the religions, in
their respective understanding and interpretation of their scriptures
which they believe reflect the original revelation, by resorting to
the characteristics and peculiarities of difference forms of ethnicity
and symbolism, and then to explain away the symbolism by means of a
contrived and deceptive hermeneutic such that error appears as truth.
Religion consists not only of affirmation of the Unity of God
(al-tawhid), but also of the manner and form in which we verify that
affirmation as shown by His last Prophet, who confirmed, perfected and
consolidated the manner and form of affirmation and verification of
Prophets before him. This manner and form of verification is the
manner and form of submission to God. The test of true affirmations of
the Unity of God, then, is the form of submission to that God. It is
only because the form of submission enacted by the religion that
affirms the Unity of God is true to the verification of such
affirmation that that particular religion is called Islam. Islam,
then, is not merely a verbal noun signifying 'submission'; it is also
the name of a particular religion descriptive of true submission, as
well as the definition of religion: submission to God. Now the manner
and form of submission enacted in religion is definitely influenced by
the conception of God in the religion. It is therefore the conception
of God in the religion that is crucial to the correct articulation of
the form of true submission; and this conception must be adequate in
serving to describe the true nature of God, which can only be derived
from Revelation,not from ethnic or cultural tradition, nor from an
amalgamation of ethnic and cultural tradition with sacred scripture,
nor from philosophical speculation aided by the discovery of science.
(From the introduction of his magnum opus 'Prolegomena to the
Metaphysics of Islam', p. 7-12).
Sections 3, 4, and 5, from the article on al-Attas on Wikipedia are
also worth reading.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
wrote:
>
> RE:
> It has always been our understanding that, to be able to become a
> Sufi, conversion to Islam is a prerequisite, and Ren� Gu�non, or
> rather Abdel Wah�d Yahia, is no different in this respect, no matter
> when his conversion took place, whether it was before he was initiated
> to Sufism (1912) or in 1934, when he married F. Hanem, one of the
> daughters of sheikh Mohammed Ibrahim.
>
>
>
> My statement was precisely this: [Gu�non] never �converted� to Islam
as that
> act is commonly understood.
>
> As commonly understood, conversion is the passage from one exoteric
form to
> another and involves a change of belief as well as behaviour.
>
> Esoterically, conversion indicates an �intellectual metamorphosis�
by which
> the �being passes from human thought to divine comprehension.� If
one has
> already undergone such an intellectual metamorphosis, then the
particular
> exterior form is merely a matter of expedience, and usually means
following
> local customs. �Generally speaking, anyone who has an understanding
of the
> unity of traditions � is necessarily �unconvertible� to anything
> whatsoever.�
>
> What follows are Gu�non�s own words from �Initiation and Spiritual
> Realization�, which is consistent with my paraphrase.
>
> �Conversion has nothing in common with any exterior and contingent
change,
> whether arising simply from the moral domain � Contrary to what
takes place
> in conversion, nothing here implies the attribution of the
superiority of
> one traditional form over another. It is merely a question of what
one might
> call reasons of spiritual expediency, which is altogether different from
> simple individual preference��
>
> Hardly a very �devout� conversion. Now, he either deceived his Sufi
masters
> for �reasons of spiritual expediency� in order to gain an
initiation--which
> is doubtful, or they were in accord with his views.
>
> Mutti doesn�t appear to understand much of this.
>