Transcription for Episode 72 — Greek Philosophy, Ibn Arabi & Psychoanalysis | Dr. Samir Mahmoud
We used a program to transcibe this episode, hence why it’s not as accurate as we would like it to be. But the program still did a decent job.
1 (16s):
They would’ve put the, the current, the makeup of the current, the person is in Lebanon who met mainly the marinade or a Catholic that originate from, from deep in Syria. They’re not from the Lebanese coast, even though they call it, their Homeland is not, they come from Northern Syria and, and, and that originate from very, very old tribes. That’s incredibly interesting. They’re all stocks, community is different and their make up is different in Lebanon.
1 (46s):
And there’s a lot. Yeah. And the majority of Orthodox actually in Christian, in, in, in, in, in, in Syria, not in
Lebanon, Lebanon, 60, 70% of the Lebanese Christians, a marinade marinade Catholics. Yeah. So I was my family from Italy, migrated to Australia from Italy, most of them. And I went to Catholic school and everything, and a good percentage cause I’m pretty sure 60% of the Lebanese population in Australia is Maronite. The bad, a significant portion of them are the majority because they’ve been coming here for they’re in their marijuana. It’s in Australia who were still very proud of Lebanese marinade.
1 (1m 18s):
So he had been here for a hundred years since the 20th, 1920s. So not the 2020s. I think like it’s a, it’s a very old community and it’s a very well established community in Australia. And a lot of the perception of Lebanese people in Australia has actually not as Muslims, but as you’ve asked in the Eastern suburbs, a bit of Maronites there’s the first few waves have Lebanese come here. We are. We’re marinades. Definitely. The first Muslim wave of migration intense began with a civil war.
1 (1m 50s):
Yeah. The Malcolm Fraser was quite generous. I think he learned a lot of, he took a lot of the demographic is also different. A lot of the Christians who came here in the first second and third wave were from very prominent backgrounds to the model. And the Bishop was a big one. Mondovia that way. I mean, David man from Melbourne, but with the limit, with the Lebanese Muslim migration, they came from the poorest areas.
So the demographics have a very different from Christian migration. Lebanese a Muslim migration from Lebanon that came from the poorest regions of Northern Lebanon, the most lawless and, and poverty stricken.
1 (2m 28s):
Do you think it has an impact on the huge impact community to find the community here? And fortunately, so many, many of them come from a point of Lebanon that wasn’t a part of that demographic. I’m a Sunni Muslim of Lebanon, but because of the majority in that 95% of the Muslims in Lebanon, sorry, in Sydney, who, who did come from that background, it kind of always lumped together. And it does, at least in Sydney, it affects the image and impact because you know, a disproportionately number of Lebanese and involved in a of activities in crime sometimes and whatnot.
1 (3m 5s):
So he does reflect on the community and the community image. Although that’s changing a lot in a second third generations kind of breaking that cycle,
2 (3m 14s):
Mohamad that element, the Modine and, and some very prominent Lebanese Sunni Muslims who are sort of becoming very successful. I mean, yeah, they’re quite successful in, in this society and they are contributing quite a group in a, quite a great deal to Australian society and in general, and it will change. It will gradually it’s the same with all of us. I mean, my family are, are from the poorest part of it at Southern Italy, Calabria, they’re all strong,
1 (3m 43s):
Very beautiful, but his name, the country got a whole company, a specializes in educational tools just to Italy.
2 (3m 53s):
That’s what a mock of wash dash to get out. I think they’re all very poor and they’ll farmers, you know, and I think that when they came here and then they had, the children were born here, that was a lot of them. Every second one, you see the signs have that kind of trauma that you see in a lot of second generation children who were born the first generation to be born in the country where, you know, your family are from a sort of agrarian background from, in a completely different culture, competitive in part of the world.
2 (4m 23s):
You know, things like the system of family on our own, which are not really acknowledged in In by the end, even in the fifties and sixties and seventies in Australia were really sort of not that important in society here that they stress a lot and it caused a lot of difficulty. And I think that that’s something that you notice, but then gradually after the now Italians have been here 67 years, most of them completely, you know, sort of at, at one with the, with the society a lot more, it depends on, I think geographical area plays a big deal.
2 (4m 56s):
So, you know, you grew up here. I was always Lebanese even though I wasn’t there, like sometimes I meet people that like, you know, the Intel of Danny, you can pass up as Lebanese in your life and they go, ah, to have we been missing.
1 (5m 13s):
It’s it.
2 (5m 15s):
But I, I was, I was thinking about that and in the States, right, it’s different with the Lebanese community, like the, the demographic of Sunni Lebanese in the States that would be different to the drink, a different person.
He Lebanese. Yeah. Coz that would be most of the middle class.
1 (5m 29s):
Well, mostly the middle class and they didn’t except for one area in In, which is Detroit and Lloyd between a lot of Lebanese from a specific part of Lebanon. She, our concentrated areas of Lebanon immigrated and that they can constitute a significant community they’re in all of the United States, the only place that’s equivalent to Sydney, where there’s a high concentration of people in a community or on a single area is Detroit. And, and it has to do with the nature of the migration of families from that particular part of the country, straight to Detroit, during a period when a lot of that labor was needed for the manufacturing, common infection and the same way that most Lebanese who came here and the seventies and early eighties and straight to mascot to work in the factories in Rosebury in the same way that in there, there were also Italians there when you, this last one he has gone to, but we still call them <inaudible> they still call
themselves.
2 (6m 22s):
Yeah. Some of them have, especially the ones that came a very proud of that idea of Yugoslavia, you know? Yeah. That’s it that’s a, that was sort of the beginning of mass Muslim immigration to Australia as well in the, in the us, I think that was the first wave of Muslim migration of considerable know any considerable Muslim migration was the Lebanese community, but there are no Check if we just, before in the Bosnian, maybe it as
well.
1 (6m 47s):
And, and they were classified by a Australian white Australia policy only as, as you know, nominally, a European or a white, and they were admitted so interesting being a secular country Turkey.
2 (7m 0s):
And there’s a perception of Turks actually, amongst Australians as a sort of very secular, moderate people. But it’s interesting, I think in a recent poll done by pure re I read that they ask people, how is it, how important is religion in your daily life? And they are Sunni Muslims. And they ask for all of the religious groups, but the highest response, like I think it was 61% of Sunni Turks suggested that it was of incredible important in their lives and 58% of Sony Lebanese.
2 (7m 31s):
So apparently you could interpret that as Turks are actually on the whole more religious than the, than the late Lebanese people, a and that is merely a perception that, you know, Turks are not, not necessarily 1 (7m 44s):
A tux, especially recently in the past 10, 15 years have been in the grip of a, of a renewal of Islamic in Turkey where they’re a stomach identity now as is becoming something around which a lot of their, the definition of who they are, their identities kind of revolves around that we Lebanese is still a very cultural thing is, is largely part of our culture. And, and there’s a lot of Lebanese in Australia in, in, in a phase in which they’re kind of ambivalent about that relationship when to explode back to Turkey, it has a huge Islamic movement in Turkey.
1 (8m 21s):
That’s a lot of grassroots as well as an Reviving Islam. Whereas we don’t see that. And in the Arab world of at least, and in Lebanon, which in retreat Islamism, if you will, not that what’s happening in Turkey is, can be defined as a part of the phenomenon of Islamism. No, but B attempts by a certain groups of the Arab world in the, in the 20th century to revive Islam, Islam by falsely reducing it to an ideology. And now, now experiencing kind of a, the withdrawal of that, uhh, that effect and people somehow have an ambivalent relationship now to publicly identifying with Islamic and its value’s as part of their, you know, wider, you know, public affiliation.
1 (9m 4s):
Whereas in Turkey, it’s the reverse, its this kind of harmony, as it were all of this balance, they’ve found between their emerging Islamic identity and a secular framework within a ship, which it operates is given a lot more substance and support to a renewed Islamic spirit. If you will, that’s on the stomach world in our world, you have unfortunately stomach movements that got it wrong in terms of how they relate to the state.
1 (9m 35s):
Exactly. And he created the catastrophes and is withdrawing. Whereas in Turkey they’ve been steadily moving forward because they got that balance a lot of matter to be, to work,
2 (9m 50s):
To be Muslim in a lot of the conservative in the conception. And it’s something that, you know, I think with the ad, the attitudes, the policies who was very much like purging the state of, of, and protect the public sphere of Islamic Discourse and, and, and, and being Muslim that was sort of taken out forcibly and he had the, you know, the Lake TIR, the Latino, how do we say <inaudible> or something In in French. And I think what happened was the, the Turkey, the Turkish people just asking the question, it’s not about any sort of movement, but merely the question, wait, why can’t we express our faith in a, in a pub, in public discourse?
2 (10m 27s):
You know, why can’t we say humble Leila when we, we address something in parliament. And I think that’s the origin of the, of the sort of third, the one we are the ones that movement. And I think you raise an interesting point because I’ve always got the sense that he’s riding a wave. He’s not trying to enforce a certain consumption on his people that buildup of a Islamic sort of identity and Islamic revival as something that began quite a while back. And you had me to go to sh as well in the eighties and seventies, I think, and a measurement in the back on, and then, you know, that was suppressed.
2 (11m 5s):
And then constantly just, you know, any kind of stomach awakening was suppressed until finally you just had such a big sort of swell of this. And then it culminated in the emergence of, out of the wine and the political movement. But I think, you know, in the Arab world, that is a shame that a lot of the Islamic movements have
failed.
1 (11m 23s):
He has to do with the nature of the nation States and postcolonial policies. And in Islam, Islam in Turkey is associated with embracing and supporting and nourishing democracy or a secularism with associate with the exact opposite, the suppression of public read in the Arab world, secularism with associated with military dictatorships, but a Islamic response to it or the Islamic movement responds to it with, with equally violent in some ways. And so, yeah, the dynamics of too is with, with, with very, very different
2 (11m 57s):
Yeah. The late, so we can make it at your convenience early in the flow. So I’m like, otherwise look, just keep it going. That’s what I mean, I knew that he would probably be recording the conversation anyway. I think that we just ended up because I like to, you know, pick people’s brain and I guess it’s just The, I think it’s important to, and I think it actually, its a lot of quite relevant discussion because a lot of Muslims, especially in a born in Australia and also beyond that were the ones that have migrated here, a very interested in the affairs of the near East and a lot of Turkey as well.
2 (12m 29s):
And, and I think that, that there’s not actually a lot of discussions amongst, you know, Muslims who were sort of in Dawa and a sort of have that roll in the community as teachers, such as yourself. Where about these things about these developments. I mean, we it’s important that we, we acquaint ourselves with the realities on the ground and in these countries and a lot of them are a lot of us are diaspora. So I wonder though what you think will happen in, in Lebanon in the next and also just in general in, in the middle East, in the Arab world in the next few.
1 (13m 10s):
All right, sir. I dunno. That’s a very difficult question to answer. What I do know is through my experience with a, you know, I used to be University Assistant Professor University in Lebanon and I used to do a lot with that idea a lot with a Muslim youth in general, and they’re is an unfortunate wave of agnosticism and atheism, a sweeping across the middle East, which is scary. And it has to do with the dynamics we’re talking about earlier, which is in reaction to the overly ideological exploitation of religion for political ends.
1 (13m 50s):
Or let me put it more accurately. Umm, and this is not as something that people did consciously, but the attempt to voiced upon the modern nation state and Islamic character was a very problematic a process. And those who were doing it didn’t realize or were not really sufficiently distinguishing or able to understand the unique nature of the nation state and the fact that it is literally impossible to marry it with the moral horizon of Islam and is something that was a lot, has been talking about it a lot lately and in his book there, the impossible state.
1 (14m 29s):
And I think he’s, he’s hit on something that people have been talking about in the Arab world for a very long time. So it’s not really a new perspective in that sense, but someone finding you wrote about it in English and articulated it really well. And that is, and, and that’s something that umm, many of the big Islamic movements on the art world have been trying to struggle with without reading really being able to
3 (14m 52s):
What is uniquely a modern about the nation state? What’s the distinguishing qualitative difference between our contemporary forms of organizing, organizing ourselves politically and socially and economically and pre-modern ones and that the general problem with a lot of traditional Muslim scholars and is that they have an insufficient grasp of what was there before in terms of understanding the spirit of that tradition and an insufficient grasp of the qualitatively very different world in which we live in today.
3 (15m 30s):
It’s not just a transition from one world, one form of state to the next, the very notion of a nation state is an innovation that has serious consequences for your own moral horizon for your social organization, for your economic livelihood and politically speaking. And I think that wasn’t interrogated sufficiently enough in the early 20th century. A lot of The a lot of the, the Muslim thinkers with a <inaudible> were kind of reactionary or Hamad. Abdu was overly optimistic in their belief that you know, what we need to do is tweak a few things and then we can really wide ride the wave of Modernity and call it Islamic Modernity, that’s an oxymoron, there’s no such thing.
3 (16m 11s):
And an Islamic maternity and in an inconsistent with one another, which doesn’t mean from what I mean by identity, I mean a specific cultural philosophical, the epistemological project with S with, with its own political, psychological existential social economic implications that we should be called Modernity or modernism with all of the assumptions is inconsistent with the more horizon of a of Islam. And when I’m, when I say that, I mean it, in a very positive sense because a lot of the assumptions or a lot of the ideological commitments on the other, a lot of the idealism of modernism in Modernity a self-contradictory lemme do a simple example, the, the flexibility of Islamic law and the fact that that the legislative process is, is concentrated within a certain, a class of <inaudible> who independent of the power structures of society or a relative independent, that power is sexual as a society Brenda’s that renders that body of law a lot more independent from a political power and makes a lot more democratically accessible or more of a democratic voice as it were of
the common man.
3 (17m 39s):
And so a form of to argue, you know, let’s say Sharia is incompatible with a modern nation States that, OK, that’s a lot of, a lot of big terms. If we were to interrogate specific ideas, to what extent
1 (17m 50s):
There’s a saying in the pre-modern framework of Sharia represent the downtrodden or the weak or the poor, or to what extent does it address quality issues of injustice and et cetera, et cetera. And to what extent is independent of a power and it’s abusive as to what extent does, is it accessible in the sense of financially, you know, people have free access to law bars today is very prohibitive. We are very expensive to hire a lawyer and law is entangled. The legislation is entangled within a very, very complex, bureaucratic administrative political system.
1 (18m 25s):
Umm, so on that issue, if you compare the historical data, if you really understand medieval Muslim society, as it actually operated, it’s very difficult to then accuse a visionary or a moral framework as being less concerned with human wellbeing as it were all as a society to a wellbeing. And even if you define that wellbeing as the democratic access access to law and access, you’ll find that, you know, the modern nation state is deeply and profoundly morally problematic.
1 (18m 59s):
These nuanced understandings and the comparisons were not available or not possible for the early generation. I’m a Muslim scholars because we know as Heidegger him and said, you know, but then at the end modernism as a tsunami, you know, whereas in the grips of a tsunami, in a daze and in the early early generation of Muslim scholars, they were just overwhelmed by how fast things were collapsing around them. They didn’t, we didn’t have time or the intellectual space to really evaluate things as they should, or they should have been evaluated.
1 (19m 34s):
And it’s not, it’s not, it’s not a question of blame. What no one can blame them for that. No one could have really evaluated the situation. It takes decades because modern isn’t a Modernity it has a very qualitatively different kind of juggernaut of a, of a beast that just colonizing and eating everything. And when we make colonizing, not just colonizing land and countries, but colonizing the natural environment, colonizing a mentor, intellectual moral Spears, he’s just eating up everything it’s, it doesn’t accept the UN other within its sphere.
1 (20m 12s):
It only accepts of other within it’s fear if it’s on its own terms and if it’s redefined within his own terms. And so I think we’re in a unique position today as Muslims and Muslim scholars, it to a given the internal contradictions of a modernism Modernity late capitalism liberalism and all these issues we are in a position to now seriously engage in a constructive dialogue with its hopes, its ideals aspirations and help in the process of healing, humanity.
1 (20m 46s):
I know a lot of the discourse out there and within the Muslim world, umm, it has to do with the confrontations and rejections, a modern has been Modernity and that has to do partly with the, the, the, the, the, the technological need to Asserta our difference and a different trajectory. But at the end of the day, we’re up to our neck were all modern from the way like that or not modern in the sense that we’re modernist, you know, whether we like it or not. And this is where I think the Muslim world needs more people, a more scholars who were able to make this bridge between a central spirit of what Islam was for most of its history in terms of its value and the principles.
1 (21m 35s):
And then how do we navigate the difficult, problematic terrain of contemporary thought and a social problems in economic problems, in political problems by engaging with, in order to heal it, but engaging with it into an audit to confront confrontation. It’s not about confrontation. That kind of specific approach is still yet
to emerge. You know, you had early Muslim scholars who didn’t know what was going on. And then you had a generation of, of Western scholars who became Muslim, who defined the traditional aneurysm, the traditionalist, and perennialists who defined modernism as an Absolut evil, which, which, and there’s a lot of
truth to that criticism.
1 (22m 18s):
I don’t have any problem with our assessment of things and it’s a safe, although there’s a certain, certain ideas and that I find deeply problematic, especially the pessimism of a later age, which has, has no place in Islam. Yeah. All right. We’re a perpetual optimist of Muslim,
2 (22m 31s):
All the full into the whole pessimists, kind of our outlook of the traditionalist. A movement was sort of more than any is like a Western a quarter. And they’re all certainly born out of a, is a very dissenting, I think a as of the hurricane, what I’ve sort of described, if all in writing the tiger of a deal, he described Ebola. Hmm. And he said that he was one of the dissenting voices within words. And that’s how he was one of those sort of cultists. And he was, it was about, you know, the ideas of, and obviously with, I have to clarify because
1 (23m 3s):
As I am Italian and I am a convert,
2 (23m 5s):
Is this law that I have to distance myself from that kind of movement. The last people, you know, interpret me as a In as having praised these individuals. But certainly it was born out of a concern about the way that, you know, the trajectory of Western civilization and its abandonment of a, of the value
1 (23m 26s):
Is a, an interesting author, all of them, but he’s not a traditional that wouldn’t cut to a five minute traditionalist.
2 (23m 31s):
No, he’s a part of fascist. That really is,
1 (23m 33s):
Well, I mean, I dunno if that term does in justice either, but he drew on traditional ways of looking at the world, even though there were very obvious idiosyncratic interpretations them, but then he veered off a way away from a lot of traditionalist principles. So, you know, for him, he had a very individualistic, you know,
Liam, if that experience is unique. So he was, he had a category of on his own, but I mean, people like <inaudible>, and also there is actual movement of Italian traditionalist.
1 (24m 6s):
There is,
2 (24m 7s):
That was actually telling me about them. Yeah. Perennialists
1 (24m 10s):
Yeah, there are, there are, and there are assessment evaluation of monitors. Modernity, you know, they’re really because, because these thinkers, I think these thinkers could not have been, but Westerners who have lived collectively and individually, the psychic existential philosophical catastrophes of modernism, and they have been for centuries, they were best equipped to really articulate a profound diagnosis of Amman, a modern condition.
1 (24m 41s):
Mmm. But we need to go beyond that phase now to seriously develop a Discourse of healing and therapy, as opposed to critique us as opposed to critique. And at the end of the day look okay. In the early 20th century, the Muslim world was to a larger traditional yes. And the beginning of 21st century, we’re now largely modernist. Okay. So now, now what do we do? We have this wonderful critique we need to start, we’ve had to move on now towards healing and therapy.
1 (25m 12s):
And in this case of healing and therapy is closer to the chronic Discourse because Brian is very critical, both at the same time, its a very engaging, embracing and is aimed to, to, to heal, convince, transform, evaluate, and you know, and that requires a certain category of, of, of scholars were able to rise to that challenge. It’s very difficult, very difficult to understand the spirit of our classical tradition. So we have to be really well trained in it and also being fairly a familiar with contemporary.
2 (25m 47s):
And we can pretend to the reason you have to, I guess, be familiar with the contemporaries because a, the, the issue would be reading the tradition through the lens. Yeah.
1 (25m 55s):
What have a framework you’ve adopted in your head three Education and three
2 (25m 60s):
To be your conditioning in your place in the modern world. And I think that’s, that’s the thing I was gonna mention before and ask you about how some of the early Islamist movements, they just, they couldn’t conceive that the age of empires was over and that was all about building some Islamic empire and destroying the The nation state system. Umm, and that was a lot of the earliest feminist movements emphasized that as opposed to just acknowledging the, sort of the incapacity to dislodge the Westphalian idea of the nation state as it’s kind of exponentially becoming more rooted and more
1 (26m 41s):
So, but look at the way they translate in the word nation state, the Arabic word for it was Dolla. Dolla has nothing to do with nation state nation state is the nation state suggests a fixed entity, static entity state, right? A static entity with fixed geographical boundaries and, and, and in a fixed kind of centralized authority and sovereignty, a Dolan Arabic means a, a formal, a dynasty or a ruling party.
1 (27m 17s):
The comes and goes NOLA that constantly circulates and changes. It’s a dynamic notion. So with the even translated, it goes to show that they were, we didn’t really understand the essence of what the nation state was as a new development in organizing the human condition. It’s a, it’s a radical idea. The idea that all of a sudden now these boundaries stop here and what constitutes a citizen is not so much belonging to a faith, but a belonging within the, both in these political boundaries and the, the emergence of the nation state is extremely violent, both physically against, I mean it took centuries for the French to eliminate every other language other than the language of Parisians, which has a wrench.
1 (27m 57s):
We have many different languages, right?
2 (27m 58s):
Yeah. Same with the Italian tradition. Do we have a day? They call them dialects, but they’re not really dialects. They are separate languages. And in, and of themselves from other, the idea of creating Italian identity meant that you had to sort of unify them all under some kind of umbrella. And it’s like, well, you know, the Piamonte the Italian of fear and say in the North became, that’s the Italian and you guys are speaking bad versions of our language. And so it’s a, it was a very bloody a conflict. And a lot of that was the, the dynamic which actually created the mafia.
2 (28m 32s):
And I think that’s an interesting point for Muslims to remember because the mafia was a response to The. I mean, they can, it can be traced to the pre Italian times, but by and large, most scholars suggest that the mafia emerged during the early Italian state period, like the early Italian national period. And it was because of the sort of disillusionment of the, of the populace and certain individuals regarding the government in the central government, in Northern Italy.
2 (29m 2s):
And it’s actually an Arabic word and originates from an Arabic word, the word of mouth here. And it’s because of the Sicilian identity and being Sicilian has a lot tied in with being with the sort of greater
Mediterranean culture and my family actually speakers of Sicilian. But the, the interesting thing is about how the creation of the nation’s that has led to these movements and led to these kinds of a sort of violent conflicts on the, on the peripheries and responses on the periphery side. And I think that is in a way of understanding, a lot of them are the movement’s in the Muslim world, our both reactions and also resolve a resulting of disillusionment during this forging.
2 (29m 44s):
And would you say the first of the world Wars, the great world Wars had to do with the emergence of the system and an a continuation of the bloody kind of
1 (29m 52s):
Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, Nietzsche talks on several occasions of a, I think, you know, if, if one in the, I was talking to someone yesterday and our trying to explain that the idea that believe in God, that not believing in God, he has very serious consequences. Like people often think we believe in God, believe in God, that that’s a private issue that you can just tuck it away and your private home and in this niche you meet, you thought otherwise, you know, and, and, and what, what student approached me yesterday and said, you know, I’ve been reaching full in, in reading Nietzsche for a year.
1 (30m 27s):
And I said, okay, you know, be careful with it. You, you have to read him in his following way and explain to them that need, she’s a brilliant individual who is able to unravel the internal contradictions of the, the, the, the consequences of that decision that God has dead, or that we have killed God somehow. And what he means by that is not so much that God is dead. You know, no one can kill God. The absolute has always there, but their idea that we can continue believing in God is that what we’ve killed and his whole philosophy is really unravelling the consequences of that.
1 (30m 59s):
And he speaks about, he speaks of rivers of blood for the next hundred, a hundred, 150 years, a enormous economic social, psychological catastrophes. Because once you remove this central concern, this core idea, it has ramifications in every other field and sphere of human life, psychological catastrophes, you know, psychosis and neurosis and social catastrophes, a economic, political, a relationship to the natural world, the inevitable, a fall into moral relativism and the, the consequences of that, et cetera, is a huge implications for all of this idea.
1 (31m 39s):
And so one could say that at the core of these issues and concerns and these catastrophes that has been happening in how I, how are happening right now, it, the core root issue, which is the absence of God and a secondary issues, then follow from that, you know, and those secondary issue is that usually identified as The the real reason which buy a large, they’re not. And I don’t think a lot of early 20th century Muslim thinkers didn’t really see that that was going on in Europe.
1 (32m 11s):
They still refer to European nations as a Christian by the 19th century. They were no longer Christian. I mean, sure. There was an underlying pre-modern Christian Crusader mentality in the civil civil that civilizing mission to change the world. But they went along as a Christian in terms of they’re all horizon philosophical framework, theological framework, etc. And that was all done by the 19th century, the birth of atheism and in Europe, again, an and took a, reached a certain
3 (32m 40s):
Degree of intellectual maturity in the 19th century. There’s a few individuals here and there that you feel, you know, had they been read more widely, they would have been a better guide to what was going on, but they weren’t there on the line with Apple Valley last chapter on Islam, a deck, most of us agree in, in Turkey who fled, we had to flee Turkey and when to Egypt, and if you read his book on a what’s called, we call it STEM or a Narcan Narcan, it has the word reason, our code in the title of, and I forgot to the full volume work.
3 (33m 21s):
And it’s basically its a very difficult book to read because it’s a book in which has constantly, he moves to Egypt to Cairo and he thinks he’s going to find Muslim allies to defend the <inaudible> because at the time there was a debate about whether the Khalifa should be removed or not abandoned or not. And he comes to his defense, you know, and he, the arguments he puts forward with a brilliant, but he’s shocked by the fact that there are an Egyptian sheriffs are all against it. There’s only for the hover.
3 (33m 51s):
You know, that’s all bogus, there’s this abandoned them. We don’t need it. We can abandon, we can use a nation state and a builder as a union of a Muslim nation States and we can find some other alternative and he’s like, hang on a minute. You don’t have no, you know, no understanding what’s going on. You know, because Turkey, the hotline of Turkey, Istanbul was at the heart of a lot of the modernist transformations and changes that were happening in the Islamic world. And he was privy to that and he saw where it was heading. So he was a book.
3 (34m 22s):
His book is an attempt to revive a column, especially with a slightly rational, a flavor to it as a well or approach to it and defend the fundamental principles of Islam against, against the tide of the intellectual currents are coming from Europe and he addresses evolution. He addresses Darwin. He addresses many of the intellectual thinker’s of Europe at a time. He has a surprisingly interesting knowledge of the individuals I’m of the counter enlightenment in Europe.
3 (34m 58s):
So in the, in Europe, on the enlightenment happened, that was a whole generation of Catholic or pro monarchy or traditionally oriented thinkers who mounted the critique of the enlightenment. He was surprisingly familiar with many of these authors quoting them. All right. And so he was an interesting figure who was working in the early 20th century, doing what we’re supposed to be doing now, which we’re not doing. Not that I endorse everything he says in the book, the book, but the difficulty with the book is that he is constantly replying to article’s in the following newspaper.
3 (35m 29s):
He has, you know, it’s like, it’s like saying in, in, in the Sydney morning, Herald this, this particular a delusional individual says a following. And then he goes a viciously attacking the idea’s of that individual. And it’s surprising how much the European, the Egyptian intelligence yet at a time, including many people in the us out we’re supporting modernist scientific enlightenment ideas coming from Europe, unquestionably,
you know wow.
3 (35m 59s):
And critical. And you read the book and you think this book is talking about us today and it, his criticism is still valid today. And have you read a with a mythical him respond to evolution before that he is doing it in the book, you know, have you read on what to call in, respond to the enlightenment ideas account is doing in this book.
2 (36m 19s):
He has been sort of responses to those too.
3 (36m 21s):
And I don’t, I mean, I don’t really collect all the core ideas, but he’s, he’s basically, basically he says, he, he take, let’s say evolution and he takes them to task. And he says in a very typical salami regimented manner, you know, he goes back to classical Calum arguments. And to prove that, you know, for example, you can’t reduce the causality of, let’s say the causal factor in the development of a human being to the horizontal historical puny, a biological one to restore as a metaphysical dimension to of causality as it were.
3 (36m 52s):
But by restoring as a way, the vertical dimension to the origins of the human being. So if a human being a consist of more than just a physical body, if we could just have a soul and a consciousness and whatnot, then there are multiple causal factors in the constitution of the human being. And by no means is The assuming that if you were to say the biological one as the primary one, which has a false assumption and which is what the, he calls them, that Dean and materials. So he says using a lot of Cullom clammy terms to refer to it’s the hot naturalism, and this is a naturalist and material is not.
3 (37m 30s):
And it, he doesn’t elaborate it to much into a full fledged thesis, but there’s several pages of critiques. And if you’re, if someone would to edit this book and collect them and organize them and remove all the journalistic responses and unfortunate attacks on his delusion or a moron saying this and this so-called as a kid whose really a closet modernist, you know, anything, he says all of these things and is hilarious. I read these very long time ago in this book. And I really left in a row, made an impression on me because he, as an individual, who’s seeing a lot have the right things with the right time by then, by then intelligence, he has already been
swept away by a by modernism
2 (38m 11s):
And the trajectory we had already changed the game.
3 (38m 13s):
All righty. I mean, even in the early 20th century, things were already doing. And so when you think The Philosophers collapsed, you think, you know, something had already collapsed before then?
2 (38m 24s):
Well, actually describe something which at another, another teacher of mine who is very rooted in the like actual fact tradition, sort of elucidated the fact that in the early 20th century, there was sort of this revival of like Neo metabolism. And they were very interested with the ideas of the mind. There’s a lot again, and they revived them. But then, you know, I think I’m thinking what I’ve talked about then how it was actually changing again towards the end of 21st century. And that actually autism was being taken more seriously.
2 (38m 56s):
But I wonder how that links so that the current, the debates, you know, between, and I think there was even the, the, the, the step that I mentioned who was rooted in the FIC tradition, talked about how there were my Tesla, a shackle a*****e who lives pretty much all their life as, as my daily. And I was interested to get your insight as to how the Cullum debates and the discussions between, you know, The the <inaudible> of the Sunni tradition, such as Ghazali and their interactions with The Philosophers mirrors, the kind of discussions between these two camps in the early 20th century and beyond
3 (39m 42s):
I think, I think there’s a quality of indifference and that part that explains why Martez it a pop metabolism popped his head up again. And the early 20th century, I think the challenge in the early Islamic period was, and I think Mohammed is, has this wonderful insight in his book, the reconstruction of Islamic thought where he says is Islam or the Quran is as a classical and what he means by it, that it, the Koran is essentially not really consistent with the classical Greek philosophical outlook.
3 (40m 18s):
And I happen to share the same view by myself, given my background in a, in a lot of a hundred, these works. And then I, I come to it out to be in a minute, but I think, but in the early period, you know, Muslim thinkers found, found themselves confronting and responding to a lot of Christian Jewish, theological and criticisms and engagements. So with the Koran and Islam and given the, the <inaudible> a project of translating, a lot of the philosophical works into Arabic.
3 (40m 50s):
And what happened was that they were genuinely attempting, and these are well intentioned people, my family lives, and even the most, a very pious of individuals who were engaged in Dawa and they, they felt the best way to respond was to engage in the kind of rational interpretations that met the challenge. Head on the problem with that was that it was ending up developing an intellectual tradition that was SIM as seemingly inconsistent with what the court and with actually saying we to push.
3 (41m 23s):
They didn’t see, but I was put aside very quickly. By the time we get to have a alley, he, his biggest challenge buy then so many have the philosophical ideas have the creeks had, it has become part of the outlook of many Muslim thinkers, leading things at a time that he thought threatened the, a, the, the, the, the intellectual integrity team. The other mentioned that Ghazali, he himself was influenced like he, his critique was that The the thing is, <inaudible> also interesting about him.
3 (41m 56s):
He is that he didn’t, he never rejected. I mean, if you read his book, because one of the, well, he never rejected a, a thought or wisdom from any source outright, what he did was, and he’s the habit of Vanessa in his MECASA hit. And then he’s the Huff. What people don’t understand is only had a three prong project or three-state project as it were one. The first is, as you can describe us at the half of the microsite phase, which is let’s explain the intentions and the core ideas are the philosopher.
3 (42m 27s):
The second is a, a critique of it by projecting critiquing ideas that he’s found were inconsistent with core Islamic beliefs. And the third was then reconstructing Philosophy or a philosophical theology that was now more in harmony and whose epistemological framework was a lot more humble and modest. And what I mean by that is the following. And I was only criticized as a philosopher, not so much just for the ideas, but therefore the epistemological stance, which is I will reduce the notion of what constitutes truth to what is rationally intelligible to me, which is very immodest or arrogant.
3 (43m 8s):
And that epistemological stance towards God and towards truth is not tenable given the fact that there’s so much of the unseen. Now we don’t know. And therefore, and there’s so much of reality that we don’t know, and therefore there’s so much truth that we can’t possibly know using our own mental, rational devices. And so epistemologically speaking, and this comes back to also what Kahn was doing in the Twitter in the 18th century, In implications on early Muslim things in the 20th century, which is that by defining by reducing truth, then what a human could know, they were almost reducing the element of our key data to reducing down to a human scale as a human measure, you know, human becomes the measure of what, what this truth, a constitute of Emma is that you wanted to defend the integrity of so many elements of Islamic faith and belief against this reductionist perspective.
3 (44m 6s):
But at the same time, he was defending the more elevated notion of the human being, a someone who can access higher truths to the Kolbe that a non rational, not irrational, but non rational. So we have a rational, you have the irrational and how the non rational. So what he’s doing is really defending the integrity of the human being as a highly for all of the law on earth, by elevating him to his Chu status. But identifying that to uniqueness of the human being, not in his limited rational faculty, but in his heart, which is a faculty through which a lost want to highlight in Dows the individual with cash and knowledge, et cetera, et cetera.
3 (44m 50s):
So he doing a number of things at the same time, if you hadn’t done that, we probably would have continued down the <inaudible> path of, and we’re saying, this is the least dangerous. Philosophers that the adolescent empath of the least dangerous. So what I tend to agree with a CD, a Hemi shows thesis’ that we send a w interestingly enough was a philosopher who tried to bring the concerns, the genuine concerns of Islamic.
3 (45m 21s):
He tried to bring Philosophy to bear on the genuine concerns of Islamic collapse. So what he did was he brought the theological concerns of Islam and found philosophical resolutions for them. He has questions work Alarmy, his questions were a quintessentially Islamic theological that he found a better way of articulating them. And that’s why posts are the center. So many people, like as only we are influenced by his, with the ontological argument for the existence of God, by the way, I hadn’t seen him necessarily being a contingent being, and is part of parcel of our Islamic Archy, the text.
3 (45m 53s):
We still use it today. We still use it today. Are the other Philosophers the questions were by and large, almost, almost, I would say, like, you know, a thought I’ll be in to certain extent in the, in, in a few other thinkers, to a certain extent, they were too defined by Greek philosophical problems. And the questions I was sending a slightly different, although he’s, he’s, he’s, he’s very influenced by this Greek philosophical tradition. A lot of his main intellectual concerns are quintessentially Islamic.
3 (46m 24s):
And that’s why he, he was a much more influential on the later tradition. And that’s why he was so, but has only found a few issues that were problematic.
2 (46m 32s):
IBN the rush in the site of the same ilk as even sinners as well?
3 (46m 36s):
No, I think that the notion was to puritanical. He, he, he, he in the thing is a bit rushed, is a, you have an individual that I find, I personally, haven’t been able to get my head around him, partly because if you read him as the Carl The, if you look at him, as we call on me
2 (46m 58s):
And the molecular, the hub is it’s quite essential to be acquainted with his contributions. And we still use him as an author.
3 (47m 5s):
Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. If you look at his philosophical project now, that’s where it becomes a bit problematic because it’s, he’s the closest to a pure as a teen, as you can get in Islamic tradition and his criticism of Ghazali and many of the other Philosophers is that they just, they, they incorporate too many non Greek elements into, into, into the interpretation of ourselves. He really sold ourselves as a model and, you know, the first teacher, my limit, Oh, well, and he took it, I think too seriously, and being an, a jurist I’m a juror, is this stringent kind of disciplined, legal reasoning, how subtle lent himself very well to that kind of
thinking probably why he saw how much, you know, yeah.
3 (47m 53s):
As well as a, as a path towards the absolute it’s a, it was problematic. And I can only see it as to the lens of a banana. And there, there, the mysterious encounters, there’s a famous encounter between the bus
4 (48m 7s):
And what I’m actually reading Sufism of Andalucia right now. And I saw you in our bodies encounter. I mentioned as a young 20, he was a teenager when he met your wife,
3 (48m 16s):
Is there a few, a team there as a young teen when we met, and the encounter really represents the two, I think for me, two currents within Islam, on the one hand you had the, <inaudible> kind of, I’m going to lift myself up within my own bootstraps kind of thing and see how far I can discover absolute truth. And the echo idea that ultimately is not reason per se, but it is the heart and through cash and milk and vegetable, you know, an experience that God eventually grants you, that kind of higher Spiritual realizations.
3 (48m 57s):
So a boost attempt to really try to Islam a size Aristotle or find is that still in a path towards the absolute was fraught with problems. And so when they first encountered each other, you know, thirsty of and how to be, he says a yes. And the bad of me says, yes, you know, he, he, he says, he says to him, you know, is what you’ve discovered in your cash. What reason has shown us has yes. And in the middle, she can really feel elated.
3 (49m 29s):
And also
4 (49m 30s):
That’s interprets as I read it, I got confused. Like, it wasn’t that clear, like how, what the exchange, like what sort of, like, I think from memory when I was reading that passage, is this like, yes, no, yes.
3 (49m 41s):
That has not finished yet. He said that when we have anatomy, we realized what this meant. And, you know, he says, no, he says no to him. And then he feels really, really kinda is overwhelmed with a sense of disappointment. And then he ran out of that, goes on with this very cryptic statement then between the ES and the know, you know, spirits, leave their bodies and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And the meaning here is that the, the encounter here is that the really, that mowed of knowledge and that part was the absolute is, is a much more complex than then, reason, reason, how does the limitations end in?
3 (50m 23s):
Oh, and he goes on a farm and minimal cause as early we iterated his idea that <inaudible> beyond the realm of reason. There were other modalities of knowing and being, and reason congruent the access to that. And so that, that’s a, that’s a very important to you. So what has Elliot memos that is doing is he is he’s rehabilitating philosophy on Islamic terms as a work on terms that are consistent with what Karen and out of the 20 issues he has with the Philosophers.
3 (50m 53s):
He forced them on 17, but they’re not really serious ones. And three a, he finds, lead you to cover X specific of it because they explicitly contradict what the client is saying. So did he make tech theater of infancy?
Now? He said he made a feed of the, that belief. OK. So he did a year individually.
4 (51m 17s):
Is it a school from the completely different things too? So this person is, it’s a good time for me to just give some quick context. Dr semi has actually my teacher actually, at whatever point I wanted to say know is actually from his class. Cause I did, I learned, delivered a sort of era, a got a tour under him. And one of the things you said was a, IBN seen a, he had a, a static perception of what God was, which has more, a bit inclined towards the Greeks. Like I think the example you gave was, you know, how the sun radiates like that sort of like how God sort of operates in the sense of IBN seen his perception of God and that God had no knowledge of particulars from the,
3 (51m 55s):
Yeah. The thing is that at the Santa, is that if your, if your, if you want to be, if you’re, if your, if you define access to truth as consistent of a very rational understanding of reality, then you follow the rational logic, wherever it leads you. And the problem with Imam Ghazali is that first of all, this methodology is too reductionist. It reduces truth to this particular product, even though about every sentence, a understanding of reason is a very lofty that. So it’s not what we consider reading to be today.
3 (52m 28s):
The, the, the classical tradition distinguished between what, you know, the Thomas Aquinas calls Rachio and intellect have as two levels of reason, Rachio is the kind of reason we use everyday. And it’s a logical it’s, you know, April and he leaves to the beach to see it’s the kind of instrumental a rational way at your day when they mean reason, that’s all, they mean by reason, he was gonna say in the English language definition of rational. Yeah. You could
4 (52m 52s):
That the non rational, which you described is irrational,
3 (52m 55s):
And you can say that it is a rational to believe in cashflow and to believe in this sort of, yeah, I haven’t seen his understanding of our intellect. We should use more this term, this is more accurate. Intellect is a faculty that is somehow within us and not within us. And it’s, it’s that link, the divine spark within us. That means us ultimately, through, beyond this case of reasoning, understanding to a, to God in a, in an, almost an, a, a process that’s I wouldn’t call it. It’s not cashier, it’s a, of TA it’s a very complex process in which we acquire higher modalities of consciousness and understanding beyond the purely rational.
3 (53m 34s):
So to get him justice, he doesn’t have a reductionist understanding of our human faculties, but if the problem with he is he’s thought and the Assistant is that it does seem too, at times to fall back into a rationally coherent, a enclosed system. That, for example, when he says, you know, if God can’t have knowledge or particulars, he’s following the inner consistency of a particular philosophical assumptions, and the Greeks had to write, and I was, that is a problem, is that, well, who made this Greek assumption purely rational in the first place?
3 (54m 11s):
Why is it, why do you constituted as, as truth? And that is the understanding is a very, a lot more complex. He starts from a much more complex chronic reasoning, if you will. And that goal is now a garden. You can put limitations on what God can and can’t know. So for example, if God is simple on one and his knowledge encompasses all, and then at some point in time, he creates the world, right? It based on particular things that then if, if he, if that’s the case, then at some point his knowledge changed because now he has knowledge of this particular thing.
3 (54m 47s):
And that can’t be the case. And therefore God doesn’t have knowledge of particular is that it has to do with the Greek notion of the eternity of the world. And then one on a Saturday that is only responds to Siena and saying, and, and other issues that with what he says that, you know, God creates through intermediaries, right, got, so for example, things emanate from God, do you know the intellect and that, and then from that on the spirit of the planets, therefore a certain kind of knowledge emanates towards human beings.
3 (55m 20s):
It’s putting God into a neat, rational brainwork of operation. That sounds very tidy except it’s to tidy up from Imam Ghazali. And it excludes the possibility of, of many other many other possibilities that got can operate in this world. So even though I’ve been seen, it talks about the intellect is his system is not the right from an intellectual vision. It derived from a rational Conscious construct.
3 (55m 52s):
You can see the difference. And so the, there a moment that have been seen the way he does have a run, a remarkable insight or cash is at work, if you wanna call it that. But He system is in, built on the cash. Free is not the right from the cash is derived from a very neat, rational I’m on the ground up kind of system built up.
And this is where Masani takes him to task until he identifies as Cofree element in a store. But it doesn’t necessarily say you are cafe because Muslims were very reluctant to do that.
3 (56m 22s):
And today we live in an age where we appreciate a lot more complex modalities of knowing. And that is why I think partly why I actually can. And <inaudible> ID is a gaining ground in many different places, because we have a much more, I think, complex appreciation of the nature of, of, of truth and reality.
3 (56m 52s):
And I say it hesitantly because I don’t mean the Islamic tradition. I mean, specific Greek influence philosophical thinkers in the Islamic tradition did not appreciate this complexity enough. And they constructed the image of God as a, a, an entity that fits the rational, philosophical conception of what a rational being or what of God should be like that deeply problematic. That’s why I think they actually column tradition is, is there’s a lot more nuanced than a complex because it says, OK, we can’t really make an ultimate state about the statement’s about the nature of God.
3 (57m 27s):
So we have the suspend at some point and say, we don’t understand that. We know that God has hands. We know he describes himself as having hands in having Kadra and having guns. And he comes and goes, we don’t understand exactly what that modality is. And The the stance of modesty. If you really want to stop at the limitations of what is humanly possible to know, the natural position is to say like, okay, which has not the main, that is not intelligible, but it’s not intelligible necessarily on purely rational grounds.
3 (57m 59s):
It’s in the middle is Ellis. He wants to open up a modality of knowledge and a modality of intelligibility and the modality of understanding that is beyond the purely rational that we with that that’s what I was trying to recover. And in that process is really recovering. What is truly human to find? This is not necessarily that we are rational creatures. What the fine, this is that we are, we contain within us as a divine spark created upon the divine form. We’re able to contain the divine names, right? That’s an, if you, if you compare it today in contemporary philosophy, if we engage in contemporary electoral argument on this ground, the human in your stomach conception emerges a lot nobler and a lot more supper relative, and a lot more a, a, a dignified.
3 (58m 47s):
And in this perception, then a humanistic one let’s to level with the stick angle, we need to start engaging in dialogue, as opposed to saying, you know, it’s inconsistent views, don’t fit together. And, and, and no, and let’s say into the story,
4 (59m 6s):
And she’s said that in some areas like under the usher, your PR approach is more like we, we have to kind of suspend judgment because we can’t use like our terminology to define a lock. Cause a lot is a lot bigger than how we kind of fit him into the, like, for example, and all that. But then in some areas, like, for example, in like one of my classes I took and teacher’s telling me, even in the ashtray thought where it’s like, I’m to the point where it’s like describing purpose or reason and attributing that to a law, that’s kind of, if you use that kind of terminology as well, it’s kind of, kind of portraying reason and purpose how we perceive it.
4 (59m 40s):
So it’s best not to kind of put that label or words or terminology and use to describe a lot of, kind of purpose or reason, and that we shouldn’t do that. Wouldn’t you say in that aspect, maybe it’s a bit going too far because then you kind of going into, you know, cause in every judgment you’re just essentially saying, OK, I’m a law. We can actually be using our terminology to describe a law cause is bigger than that. But then, you know, where does there end? Like how do we start defining like at all, if your first kind of, you know, what do you call it?
5 (1h 0m 9s):
What the thing is you asking a question of, you know, where does, where does our knowledge or capacity to understand God begin and end? Essentially
4 (1h 0m 17s):
He is, I think even Tamia would make that point where it’s like, then it’s like, it’s about defining like how I was taught. Like even to me is approached, would be more like ally is this and that. And this and that, because if you’re is kind of like to give an example is like a red Apple, if you’re just saying the Apple isn’t this on your Apple is on that. And the Apple is on this, then what is that Apple that you don’t have much to have your legs to stand on? Whereas in the, in this sort of, I think even Tamia, Tamia and approach would be more like, you know, the S and dad and this and that. You can start kind of defining if that makes sense.
5 (1h 0m 49s):
Look to the, I mean, I wouldn’t say, I mean, the Islamic tradition, at least in S in, in, in certain intellectual currents insist on, you know, I think William should to describe a scene gone with, with two eyes, both eyes. And this is the idea and is exactly what the grant does. It’s the idea of simultaneously looking at God through the perspective of Tanzim and then looking at the God from the perspective of the speed, which has exactly what the <inaudible> one verse really encapsulates all of that.
5 (1h 1m 19s):
And so it’s not so much, you know, and, and one of the things about reason, this is one of the things I Philosophers is that the reason is a faculty. They can only deny or, or a salad. He can only remove attributes on God. You can say that God is not like this and God in that like that, but in the end up with a gun that’s so abstract. And I know what that is. That’s my point of the perspective of that should be, he is one that positively give God gives God certain attributes, but I can’t give them attributes for myself. I can only give in the attribute that he has given himself.
5 (1h 1m 51s):
And so the on is, you know, that’s what, that’s why when you going to begin a, a basic, <inaudible> a study by God, you know, you start with the, with the, with the attributes to a fundamental attributes, with a manic of activities in the positive attribute and the, all the other divine names and how they fit into all this story. So what you end up with is a perspective in which a yes and no. Yes, yeah. Got is this and God is not that right. And that’s, that’s I think a perspective or a consciousness or an attitude towards God, that’s much more complex than
3 (1h 2m 20s):
Got, is just this whole got, is not just the, and ah, it’s a lot more complex because it presupposes a certain kind of intelligibility that is rooted more in a full thought and experience than it is in a pure cerebral journey. I think a lot of the thinkers when they started engaging with a lot of arguments with one another on a purely cerebral intellectual, a rational playing field will inevitably lead lead into this agreements and problematic notions.
3 (1h 2m 55s):
All right. If you look at the question from the perspective of the spirit Tansy, you need the affirming or denying your, your doing the both at the same time. Right. Both in, rather than neither know either all. And that’s a very healthy attitude to have. And it’s exactly what the average Muslim has does on a daily basis. Anyone immersed in the Qur’an sees with two eyes, can you tell them God has like this? Yes, God has compassionate. How is he compassionate when we don’t really know exactly how, but it is possible to deepen your understanding of how God is compassionate, but the path to want that is not a cerebral one to an experiential one.
3 (1h 3m 34s):
It’s an experiential one in which a, if you become compassionate, you understand compassion and God grants you that deep on the standing. So it’s almost like saying that the amazing thing, amazing thing about Islam is I often describe it to my students visually in the following way in Islam is like a circle circle is perfect, is complete. And the average Muslim looks at the circle and, and sees it as a complete perfect form. Yeah. Now that circle and can be infinitely internally differentiated into a much more complex patterns, but at every level of complexity is complete at that level.
3 (1h 4m 14s):
Right. That’s the amazing thing about Islam, you know, got is one that is so intuitively true, so rationally true. Right. But you know, has Allie the understanding of oneness and my understanding of oneness in a very, very different, because he’s as much, a much, much, much, much deeper understanding of what that oneness means, but at every level of understanding oneness, it has the same simplicity, purity, and intuitive amount at no level. Does it contradict your photo as opposed to at face value at face value? A Trinity makes absolutely no sense.
3 (1h 4m 46s):
If you look at it, you can’t visualize at Trinity and make a proper sense of it, something missing. And to say that at a deeper levels of differentiating and the sending of the Trinity you’ll understand that better is just more and more, more and more levels of confusion. And this is amazing. All of the attributes are the same at face value. They make perfect sense. The most simple believer can understand that God has asked as that.
Yeah. All right. But then at infant and deeper levels, it has infinite at deeper levels of meaning.
3 (1h 5m 18s):
And that’s, that’s, that’s, that’s, that’s key to it’s key to also, you know, defending the kind of salvation, a path of Islam against people like Arabi and others who would often say that the language of the court on is the language of the, how arm so the profits needed to use. And this is a very, very contemporary, philosophical discussion. You know, profits use symbols and images. <inaudible> at the shop, you know, the homogenous, they kind of use symbols and images and a vivid images of Helen in heaven and all that kinda stuff to make it closer to the imagination of a simple minded.
3 (1h 5m 53s):
But the truth path toward salvation is a philosophical one, you know, and that means that, you know, In among the Greeks. Salvation is, is an elite project. I mean, you have to be a philosopher King to be saved.
You know, what kind of day he does that.
6 (1h 6m 7s):
And the wife says that I know that they, there were certain milestones of thinkers who essentially said that if you can’t comprehend of these things rationally, your lead and your, your imitation of the practice in your belief, in In or your yeah. Your inherited as a social practice of Islam, mine, and the beliefs that conduit that are not sufficient. And in fact, to be saved, one needs to comprehend. And even beyond the Islamic tradition as well, you know, one should comprehend these truths since they’re, you know, able to be derived from sort of that kind of cerebral methodology.
3 (1h 6m 42s):
Yeah. Diplomatic. And that that’s a logical conclusion, have a very rational approach. You end up hanging with the only people who are equipped with this tool can be saved because only they can see this truth. No, no, there’s no, and that’s not, not the case at all. And then, yes.
6 (1h 6m 57s):
All right. Sorry, just to add is you mentioned calf’s cash on cash a lot and Experiences and all that. Would
you be able to like elaborate more on those terms and also on top of that, just as a counterpoint to experience write, and I think I’ll probably go a bit deeper and deeper question. Cause I actually drilled through with a lot of questions in class about this previously, but I guess the counterpoint, I think IBN rule should of said that in the quarter and it makes a lot of reference to using your intellect, using your intellect.
6 (1h 7m 27s):
So that’s why I think maybe his DeLeo for going down the route of Philosophy cause it makes it reoccurrent sort of theme in the Koran then rather than experience, experience is more like he’s the intellect, use your uncle in our law, a command you to do that. And then when they make it in comparison with a disbelievers who kind of worship other gods, he has like, you know, use your intellect, use your article. And that kind of uses that. So I think that’s maybe his, the little for going down the philosophical route, but what would you
say?
3 (1h 7m 53s):
And that’s a very selective, it’s a very selective process and the same versus in which a lot my dialer says use of the versa. Let me give you a simple example in the <inaudible> <inaudible> <inaudible> Oh God, how can I forget?
3 (1h 8m 24s):
This was a, as you will be him with have a coolness B as in he has gone <inaudible> I hope I got the verse, right? This verse involves the following. Look for you think contemplate with your heart. All the Quranic verses <inaudible> has this wonderful, the description in one of his texts and how you find it throughout his, his, he says the feel of the Koran, where he talks about the chronic Discourse addresses the entire human being.
3 (1h 9m 10s):
It never simultaneously never only exclusively addresses your, your brain or your body or your heart or your mind, Oh, your feelings is simultaneously working at different registers, right? Because we are complex creatures with multiple levels of reality within us and multiple faculties of knowledge. And if we bet that in mind, a IBN rushed, must’ve been very selective when he chose these verses, because first of all, well, the first, the first argument they can be made is who said that Arkel means what you think it means, you know, is octal defined as Aristotelian reasoning or a syllogism.
3 (1h 9m 49s):
That’s a huge leap. And number one Arabs didn’t know hours with the intelligence. So what does it mean when it addressed the Arabs with a word we still haven’t done to date due this day? I a survey, Oh, the meaning of article from the court and through Hardy to the present time, it would be a mind boggling project because it changes depending on the author reading that that’s the first thing of what his second thing is.
Even in the verses that refer to the article, et cetera, et cetera. They usually embedded in contexts that are profoundly visionary, experiential or a where one is called to do things, not just The.
3 (1h 10m 29s):
I never say sit back and your armchair and Siri in a very cerebral manner, think in a very abstract, logical way about how things are he never does that. It’s always embedded within doing something, looking at something, feeling something only a little bit. What is it, what does that mean on the Koran on the Alabama? Those, we have a little bit about those. We have a possessive of the kernel as they call it the translation to possess. As of the kernel we need Albert often defined as those whose hearts, whose faculty have the heart from the Oak cash, working in harmony with their rational faculty and all the other faculties to arrive at a truth, which means the epistemological framework and the context of the sort also is to speak.
3 (1h 11m 18s):
It’s a good on a Lark <inaudible>, which means proper. The faculty in Islam involves as a modality of contemplation and prayer, where you’re in the middle of, of remembering God. It also involves a modality of observing and looking around you. It involves in a modality of reasoning. All right, that opens up the Avenue to the heart, which has the faculty that is synthesizes all of these together and provide this remarkable a window onto the, onto the unseen and, and beyond.
3 (1h 11m 49s):
And so what we’re talking about here is if you look at the human being as consisting of a body and a mind and a soul, each one has his own faculty and each one access is a level of reality or ontological level of reality. That’s different. If the sense has given me yucking about the reality of the physical world in my mind gives me a certainty about the basic rational world to know ideas. Been the heart is what gives me access to all the others. If we would use reality as the car to a body and a mind we’re backing into the Cartesian problem, Muslims need to recover.
3 (1h 12m 29s):
The faculty have the heart and all the forms of knowledge associated with it. And that has to do with contemplation prayer, Volk cash, and all the other terms
4 (1h 12m 39s):
With the open cash fees,
3 (1h 12m 42s):
They’ll check and cash. Well, the different terms, but they’ll basically means, let me give you example. We should, I do with my architecture students, you have five senses, right? The metaphor of truth associated with vision is, you know, I see that lamp over there all the way across the room. And I verify that is there, it is true. And you know, I can see from very long distances, right? But the problem with vision is that it gives you the illusion of distance that I’m here and that is over there.
3 (1h 13m 18s):
Now what’s the faculty of knowledge that gives me a knowledge of things in a closer proximity. So for example, I can see the star. I can’t hear a star, right. But I can here a few miles away. Right. I can touch a few meters away. Is there, I can smell a few, you know, maybe a hundred meters away. I can touch within a certain, in a range of my hand, but I can taste only when I become one with the objects,
4 (1h 13m 47s):
A sheet. I remember how you use this example of a, when you explained to us in the class, your teaching us, I think it was an orange, like you touch in orange. Is that,
3 (1h 13m 56s):
And it’s the Philosophers honey. Yeah.
4 (1h 13m 58s):
Yeah. Honey. Philosophers that you can live and examine and categorize and touch and then do all that and examine and observe. But then when you tasted it’s a different experience.
3 (1h 14m 8s):
Yeah. I mean, I remember it was early. He says in one of his books, he says in 101, he says one of his students that ask him, can you rate a treatise? Explain to me the nature of, of the sexual act in a conservation, this to him before I thought you were just a impotent Banella I know you’re, you’re, you’re, you’re, you’re, you’re an idiot. And the idea here is that I can’t, these are the things only can be done through tasting two to Experiences. You can know, honey, by, I can know the honey is a sweet because scientist’s that I trust have a visit needed as sweet as I can know that its sweet because I’m of all sorts of different other reasons.
3 (1h 14m 44s):
Or I can always sweet because you know, I tasted myself and I don’t need any, any. And so pasting is a wonderful metaphor of the kind of knowledge that presupposes that you have to become one with the thing that you’re perceiving it a lot to know it, right. Don’t want in any, in any a Harley sense, in an incarnational sense. We wanted to make that clear to all the listeners out there, but in a sense that is a modality of knowledge that is unique and provides unique access to certain things. Like, let me get an example in Islamic tradition, a proper understanding of justice or compassion for example, is not just, you can define compassion, philosophically speaking, and you discuss that endlessly.
3 (1h 15m 27s):
Okay. That’s fine. Have you arrived at, in any deep understanding of old, the reality of compassionate itself, when do you become compassionate? You truly begin to understand other human, the compassionate one, right? No amount of speculation. So we come back to the argument we’re talking about earlier, not the amount of rational speculation on the nature of the divine name, compassionate one that has a little engaging. You can get any closer to it’s reality because it’s not our reality that has had a con con a concept or an idea at a it’s a reality that pervades the very fabric of existence itself.
3 (1h 15m 60s):
And I can only know it if I experience it or I Become it, you know, until you go back to this idea, which has a pernicious idea in 20th century thought, which has inherited from the current, the idea that, you know, I can only know something who I would only believe in something or know it if I can rationally comprehend it. But there’s, there’s also the important argument made in his early and many other texts that I can only truly know something if I become it.
3 (1h 16m 30s):
And when I become it, I develop a deep understanding of it. So in one of my courses, I explained to the students that Emily has only always says that knowing something is one thing, but the point is to become it, right? So, you know, Toba that you have to become a repentant person and the way you do it is to doing repent acts, right? You’re repenting. We do. And so this is knowing this piece of knowledge through action through our Hamel becomes a reality, your ontological mode of being, but this new ontological mode of being now as elevated it to a level where you have a high understanding of no, of, of, of, of repentance and further ax of repentance with the game and even deeper being repentant that goes back to also a man, you know, a profit to help them define a man or something.
3 (1h 17m 20s):
That’s not just, you know, think about your articulated, something that touches on the tongue and the, in the know your limits actually as a way because when you have eman and in God, okay, this one thing, when you do actions that reflect this eman, you become a Mormon becoming a movement. Then you attain a higher level of understanding of, of, of eman through further actions. You become even a deeper moment. And then this virtuous circle continues that’s to circle of knowledge today, people insist, they sit at a table or an armchair and says, I mean, to know what this is and what they mean is saying, what they actually saying is I need you to reduce this thing too.
3 (1h 18m 4s):
And in a rational thing that I can understand with my very limited brain right now, otherwise I won’t believe it exists, but that’s the how knowledge happens. And so many things can only be known through this process, this, this cycle of knowledge. And that’s why Imam Ghazali has constantly, and this the way the Islamic epistemology presupposes, that there are certain aspects about reality and the world. They can only be known if we do through good action. I’m a lawyer. So he in Islam, epistemology is linked to virtuous action, right in contemporary Philosophy where they a moral, a good or bad has an absolutely nothing to do with what you can and can’t know no to a fundamental floor in contemporary thought what you can and can’t know about the nature of existence as is largely has to do with the extent to which you, you, you live the virtuous life because the virtuous lives translates your limited knowledge into an actual reality, which then elevates you to a high level of understanding.
3 (1h 19m 6s):
And the second continues. It’s a wonderful thing. If we could just finish this point, there’s a wonderful thing. I used to teach in a Chinese landscape painting. It’s you know, when, when you, when you read the Chinese writers describing their landscapes, they say the mountain is compassionate and the river is abundant. We don’t find this in Western contractors. They don’t describe these things in these terms, in these paintings, but what’s different about Chinese cosmology. And it’s very similar to Islam is that the divine attributes lets this to speak in Islamic term.
3 (1h 19m 37s):
The divine attributes are not attributes that are only located or situated within humans, right? They’re not humanistic or anthropomorphic values. They are qualities in value that permeate the very substance in the fabric of existence itself. That’s a compassion is everywhere. It’s in the mountain, it’s in the tree. It’s in me, it’s in you. The more compassion I become, the more compassion I see in existence and in a more compassionate, the more compassion I Become by doing, I see more compassionate and existence, which grants me an even higher perspective on compassion, which through further compassionate acts, brand see, and even deeper understanding.
3 (1h 20m 19s):
And you ended up like the Professor a cell. And when he says, you says in the <inaudible> man in a hurry, he felt a breezy blow from the Yemen. And he says, <inaudible> the breath of a compassionate one in this breeze. And this is where the whole notion of the breath of the compassionate one is so prominent in, in, in many aspects of Islamic thought we need to recover this in the modern world. You know, and, and
Philosophy departments don’t do that. And that was one of the consequences of that is when you meet your heroes, your thinkers and the other Jordan Peterson’s and your, your, you know, I don’t know, whatever Philosophers, I’ve met.
3 (1h 20m 55s):
So many of these people, I haven’t met with a business, but I met so many of these people they’re disappointing as human beings.
6 (1h 21m 2s):
He would say to me, had the same, a comment about when he met with a famous Philosophers. I think he
met, he met like quite prominent thinkers in a of his time. He said like, they’re all like, really weird. Like it, for example, supporting Israel is like, wow, all of these contemplation and thinks, and he said, he said,
3 (1h 21m 19s):
Anyone in a deeper sense, in a deeper sense, you see how cerebral this knowledge is that it hasn’t touched the soul and transformed <inaudible> perhaps because a purely rational cerebral approach to reality is a device of the ego
6 (1h 21m 39s):
That can comprehend these things
3 (1h 21m 41s):
Through my own, a sort of rational,
6 (1h 21m 46s):
Irrational faculties. And I have achieved these truths through this, and it’s not something which comes from, you know, humility, and it’s not something we should do
3 (1h 21m 55s):
University right. But you know, even more so than that, if you want to an accurate observation on the human condition in that front, when you catch people in a way in a, in a, in a mode where they’re consciously rationally articulating an opinion, you discover more often than not that these opinions in this particular situation, they’re not there’s that, let me explain.
3 (1h 22m 29s):
You really want to know what, and this is a very profound, I observation. You really want to know how people, what people really are. Don’t listen to them when they say, I believe in God, why we believe in values, look at how they live their life they’re living, they’re doing. And they’re Living is a more of an accurate image of what they truly are than what they consciously tell you, sitting at a table, because a sitting at a table, they consciously constructing an image of who they think they are.
3 (1h 23m 1s):
And if they’re actually defending an idea or articulating it, they’re mustering of the intellectual resources they have. And all the books they’ve read to defend either defend their position in front of you, or construct an image of themselves that they want to present to you either to maintain that social standing or to just maintain their image or the project, a certain image about themselves that has absolutely nothing to do with what they actually really are. Because deep down, they may be like those in the Dr. And he described was a woman <inaudible> who is more ignorant or who is more ingestible, who is more immersed in darkness than he or she who takes the easy of egos, the desires as they, they a, I ask any person, I’ll tell you, I don’t wish it, except God, you know, or I don’t wish if anything, now we all worship something and I don’t care what you consciously articulate to me because if your life reflects that a dollar in the is the, the sun around which all your being revolves, then that’s a more accurate representation of who you truly are.
3 (1h 24m 4s):
Not who you constantly tell me you are because your ego and persona is projecting a certain image of who you want people to see you and who you want yourself to see, you know, image you want to see yourself in. And, and so therefore we’re, we’re walking zombies. We’re completely unaware of what really true defines at the very core of our being.
4 (1h 24m 23s):
It was interesting. Cause I was watching your talk between a hundred sources and another guy. I think he’s like a philosopher, like I think non Muslim, but it was really interesting cause that non Muslim was he, like he hates Cooke the kind of odd and to kind of hard atheist type. And it was really interesting. The point he was making was like, Oh, if you really have a belief, don’t look at what you say, see it through the actions. So then that kind of reminded me of, you know, The, you know how, I guess you’d define like a believer verses just a Muslim that is kind of saying the Shahada and not kind of following through with it.
4 (1h 24m 54s):
Like a belief is something that you really, firstly, you know, you believe it whole hardly any follow that through with action. Like for example, like, you know, there’s Muslim, that will be some, we have to pray five times a day and this and that by if you really want to, you know, gain those rewards and believe in what you believe in terms of the hereafter and you know, being accountable for your actions, you know, you’d be doing to a HUD Judy to be doing this. You’d be doing vicar in the mornings, all this sort of stuff. It’s kind of a reflection of your belief. And I guess that’s how it looked sort of judges’ as well, right? Like that’s one of the criteria is, is, is set out. So that’s why, like when he said that and it kind of remind me all of this kind of, you know, the Islamic tradition have a soprano like that.
4 (1h 25m 27s):
It’s kind of so articulated so well that the fight that I will understand it, like it doesn’t that people will get it without me kind of going into a long tangent about it. It’s very simply if we believe in something that will follow through with, and before I lose out on the point on experience, I had a really good question. Someone asked me through the Facebook right. This is already, yeah. He was a cause that, cause you did a series with an Cambridge a Muslim college about that. So we took a half and all that. Yes. And here’s one of the guys that regularly listen to you at talks. So he said, he said, I hope he discusses psychedelics.
4 (1h 26m 0s):
And the difference between psychological and Spiritual Experiences further. Cause I found this elaboration on the topic. Fascinating. I know you talked about this in the class we did, but there is a sort of, I guess, quagmire you can call it that, that it’s, you know, there’s kind of hippy Spiritual types. Like out of it, they go like rays and parties and this and that. And they maybe not even that they just like take these psychedelics and they get these kind of Spiritual Experiences and a lot of people are like, you know, the transform that lives in, you know, they even experienced God. Like some of them would have, I’ve heard, you know, accounts reading Online so, and then at the same time we’re speaking about Experiences and this and this, or how would you differentiate the sort of two Experiences and how do you draw the line?
3 (1h 26m 39s):
And to explain in that, I don’t even know how in the, in the, in the, cause the CMC, because we got onto the psychedelics, I think it was a question for someone
4 (1h 26m 46s):
To me actually, or to someone else. I think I asked that question and answer,
3 (1h 26m 51s):
But what I was trying to explain, okay, let, let me, let me explain it differently. What I was trying to say is that,
you know, drug induced or psychedelic Experiences can be meaningful. Mmm. And they can be experienced by the individual as, as overwhelming. What I was trying to differentiate is the realm from which these experience has come from. But I was trying to say is by and large, and this is the norm, because look, ultimately at the end of the day, I lost my title to make grant you anything at any time in any experience, we’re not talking about how God’s through his grace and his, his compassion, how he may or may not grant you something at any moment.
3 (1h 27m 38s):
We’re talking about a, the normal process of, and a, of how to acquire Spiritual realization, which is The, which is the rule. The, a drug induced experience is something that is largely induced through a kind of chemical response in the brain that certainly creates certain kinds of conditions. And an Experiences, what I was saying is this, these, the, the source of this experience is profoundly a psychological. Now, what do I mean by that?
3 (1h 28m 10s):
We are human beings, our internal life, as it were, is ensconced within a day. If you want to imagine it within concentric circles, our psyche and the psyche is contained within a soul. And above that, let’s say the spirit of, and above that, the divine realm. What I was saying, I tried to identify is a source of that experience because today we use terms to loosely, you know, we say I had a, you know, I went to a cafe and I, I was sipping my coffee and I had this really profound, spiritual experience.
3 (1h 28m 41s):
The coffee was just amazing when we are using terms in a very, very loose way. So let’s go back to defining terms. What do we mean by spirit <inaudible> okay. And Islamic tradition and most Spiritual Twitter Islamic <inaudible> tradition before the modern world, the realm of the spirit, the realm of this Spiritual represented the highest level of possible a Experiences and the home of the spirit is usually something that you say it happened to me in group me, it came from God through cash, through his own to unveiling.
3 (1h 29m 19s):
And it has certain definite criteria by which he can identify that it is spiritual. Now we can, we get to get to that in a minute. At a lower level, one can have very profound, psychological experiences. And they a very overwhelming and very meaningful for the individual. And they may feel like one is being overwhelmed by them. But because of our inability to distinguish between psychological and the spiritual, we use the noblest term, we have to describe the most intense experience we’ve ever had.
3 (1h 29m 58s):
And if so, we call it Spiritual, that’s a confusion of categories. It has to do with the meaning and value. We see and experience rather than the actual source of where it’s coming from. We have to be very precise about these things. But when I say to someone, Oh, your experience with a psychological, it was psychological. It wasn’t Spiritual, they, they feel like offended because they somehow I’m demoting that experience to something less. Whereas what they want to do is give it the highest possible description within their own vocabulary and within their vocabulary of the highest possible a description is that it has a spiritual experience.
3 (1h 30m 32s):
But just to say it, a spiritual experience doesn’t mean he actually is. He can say whatever it is, you can say whatever you want, you can say, I am God write and say, doesn’t make it to make it true. So discernment is very, very important because without Christ certain kind of criteria on our own, we can’t always distinguish from a, this is where this experience is coming from. The second point I was trying to make is a psychedelic experience truly generates the highest Spiritual Experiences, then all the prophets and all the saints and all the mystic sages, where were, were, were a hoax, a lie because 40 years sitting on a mountain top contemplating is useless.
3 (1h 31m 14s):
If we can just replace it with a pill, all right. It makes the whole journey. Episode second thing. The third thing is it’s a misunderstanding of the nature of, of, of, of enlightenment or the enlightenment process. This is a process I described earlier. One cannot attain to a high level of Spiritual knowledge without going through the Avenue of virtuous actions are a man, a bad, the things that involve doing, doing, doing, if someone says I’ve never played in my life, but I took a pill and I saw God or not, but I had the highest spiritual experience.
3 (1h 31m 50s):
And now my whole spiritual life consists of taking pills. I would say, you know, something wrong with you. But I also noticed that these individuals like a, you know, where I grew up Nathan’s as well, where you also grew 2 (1h 32m 0s):
Up, a lot of the people would take psychedelics as part of a rave or, and, and the experience they had would reflect they’re the summer of all of their experiences. And it would always be within the context. So if a Muslim, for example, takes one of these psychedelic drugs, oftentimes what they see is something that they ascribed to, you know, sort of purely Islamic a worldview or a framework. I saw the, I saw the NBA, like I saw, I saw, you know, the divine, whereas yeah, if you take someone out of a different context, it always
reflect that.
2 (1h 32m 40s):
And they’ll say, I saw this. I did from, do you know what I, and some people just say nothing from him. He would just say I was tripping. You know? So I think it’s certainly just a projection of the book,
3 (1h 32m 49s):
And there’s no doubt that it can induce meaningful experiences. But if we, if it’s within the same as if it’s within the realm of the Sankey and lifted it to find what a psychological means, like your psyche, I mean,
Arabi distinguishes between two degrees of the psyche or the imagination. There’s the <inaudible> right. <inaudible> is the one that’s bound to your human, psychological constitution. Now as a faculty that you really need to work really hard on to actualize, once you actualize it, a grants access to another realm, right?
3 (1h 33m 30s):
And it requires a lot of work or a certain extent and less in certain kinds of dream situations where a lot, the grants you have as in certain vision now in my nature is a, the experience that you have, I profoundly overwhelming, you know, get on these to say without the correct criteria to distinguish between the spiritual and the psychological. It’s very difficult to distinguish between the warmth of the fire from below, which is from your unconscious hell.
3 (1h 34m 1s):
And the warmth of the light from above people often confuse these Experiences they feel. And, you know, you feel you go to a rave and because of the collective experience and because your dancing and moving and the music now, when you listen to this kind of music and your moving to a rhythm, what your what’s happening is that you’re surrendering yourself to a rhythm that is external to you. And so you have this outer body experience, which has a real, because what’s happening is you’re surrendering your natural rhythms, know your, your bodily rhythms of going to work and deploying your body and picking up cups and doing this in that way of doing is you’re surrendering to a, another rhythm that is not from you from outside of you and your, your handing us all over to it.
3 (1h 34m 45s):
And it carries you like you’re being carried on a wave. And that is experienced as, as an outer body experience of oneness with that, with everyone, everything around you. But this psychological one nurse is not, is not the oneness, the higher the mystics talk about so that we need to be very, very careful in terminology that we use. And discerning Islamic tradition is the most profound tradition in terms of distinguishing and discerning the nature of certain experiences and where they’re coming from.
3 (1h 35m 15s):
If you look at dreams, for example, and I think I gave dreams in that episode, they provide very specific criteria for what constitutes the highest dream, which has a vision of what your, what constitutes a let’s. And I, I classify dreams in the four categories. Although in Islamic tradition, you usually find a three, but there’s actually at a four, because one is less explicitly articulated, but you have visions of your Huck at the highest level, right? Then you have Spiritual dreams and then you have psychological dreams.
3 (1h 35m 48s):
And then you have Mir on the ortho, Harlem that are just psychosomatic bodily generated the generated by, I dunno, you know, you go to, you know, you go to bed hungry and the new, you know, you know, you imagine yourself sitting in a huge full of, you know, S melons on Amazon or something like that, or a caprese salad or something, and your eating it. Now you’re very hungry. So how do we distinguish between all of these dreams? We need quite the way by which we can distinguish, right? So for example, that all your heart, the vision, he has a criteria and that it has to do with the city in, when he used to sit the interpreter and
dream.
3 (1h 36m 25s):
So he used to go, he has to interrogate the person for hours and days until he sifted through the various streams and would go now just towards interpreting what he determined to be. Now, our vision, I wrote your hook. They usually happen at a third part of the Knight, right. Example. And it has to do with a deep, in a stage of profound leap sleep to a certain extent if we had the support of Azure, right? And that’s why in an Islamic tradition, what we call a link, almost slam his code that had a lien on it because of the, the unique unveilings at all, a smile and give to this during a third part of the Knight, you know, the secret are the unseen as it were.
3 (1h 37m 6s):
So a lot, the third part of the night, what’s one criteria. The second criteria is a difficult to be a bit more difficult to determine, but it’s the reality of the dream itself, that it imposes itself with such a vividness. That is, it comes across as a more real than the physical world. You know, anyone who’s ever had an experience, I’ve seen the profits SLM in a dream will tell you if you were to ask them, what are the top three Experiences of your life? And average person would say, you know, I came across a, a, a person that they had told me, I met this, he made this, his hero.
3 (1h 37m 40s):
His hero was I’m the first man to climb Everest. He’s the new Zealander Hillary. Yeah. He said that was a highlight of my life. And I hurt myself and my God, you know, if that’s the highlight of one’s life and is something deeply problematic, someone else told me you, the top three, my life was a, I saw the Professor. I sent him in a dream. You know, my parents and marriage, let’s say, for example, you have to always put marriage in there. Otherwise we get into trouble.
3 (1h 38m 10s):
What does that mean? It means that someone’s most profound experience in life. Isn’t even in the physical world, the vividness of our own Huck imposes itself was such a degree of reality because it’s coming from a level ontological level of reality. That’s more real. And the physical it imposes the tope was such a vividness. That is you can reconnect every detail of it, okay. For the rest of your life
6 (1h 38m 34s):
To add to it quickly, sorry. In a series of Andalusia, even our IRB says our ordinary fields in a dream, but you could probably clarify that he saw that as ours was, he was this
3 (1h 38m 45s):
To a dream. This is example of your Huck, right? But they’ve been, had to be, the most of us can own the experience. Umm, the prophets, I sent him and said that dreams are a one 46 part of prophecy write. And he says, I’m not leaving anything of prophecy after I leave except dreams. Right. Which is why I was at number is only uses dreams as a proof of a 46. Yeah. I remember four to six parts
6 (1h 39m 10s):
Was 46 days before here and received first revelation. He was having dreams every single day. I think that
is,
3 (1h 39m 15s):
He gets a revelation because we have a dream. Right. But for most of us it stops there for the prophets. It becomes a, a full revelation. Savannah. Most of us only experienced these visions in dreams, but some of the earlier is able to have, have it in waking States. They’re able to enter into B as it were and have these waking Experiences because of they’ve refined this capacity to do so. And so, you know, he, he checked, my Dean talks about on several occasions, he’s a he’s he has the ability to do constantly converse different kind of prophetic figures.
3 (1h 39m 55s):
And the, one of the greatest gifts he was given was that he was able to meet the profits in your bank, you know, in dreams, sleep awaking and how that, I mean, I’m a is, is a so, but that the point is that we have certain criteria to distinguish what constitutes a real dream that without this criteria, the other thing for even sitting in is that our third criteria for what our real dream is, is this content. If he’s the artist, all the profits that is a limit, it definitely, you know, promise. I sell him and said, you know, <inaudible> the Shaitan cannot take
my form.
3 (1h 40m 30s):
Right? So if you see me in a dream, you really seen me. That means is coming from Imam from above. You can conjure up the, the, the, the privatized Salem, psychologically speaking, you know,
6 (1h 40m 42s):
Where a lot of the descriptors of the people who’ve seen the face of Russell, the loss of the Lord, James, that always tends to,
3 (1h 40m 49s):
I know individuals who have both
6 (1h 40m 52s):
And individually. Yeah.
4 (1h 40m 55s):
I told you, I know, I won’t say it publicly. Of course. Yeah. He, you know that he’d never read the sham at him. And the first thing he was quizzed about when he bought the dream to his, to his teacher,
5 (1h 41m 7s):
That was a, what did you say describe, and he described the Shama verbatim. Mm Hmm. That he swore by
it by a lot,
4 (1h 41m 17s):
Never read them or encountered them ever. He did not mean something that had ever been of interested in necessarily to sing. Cause my point actually, and I know I asked you this in class as well, is that like, for example, like I guess when we talk about these concepts, there’ll be like, you know, thinkers and philosophers, they’ll kind of bring counterpoints to. And I guess I’m one of the ones that I post to you is the idea of like David Hume. Like he was a hard, very kind of ape posterior kind of line of thinking where I guess what you see determines what you think. So for example, you can only think, or imagine in colors, blue, green, red, like the colors that you see, it’s not like there’s some other kind of abstract, abstract colored that you kind of can envision in your mind that you can’t sort of see around you.
4 (1h 41m 59s):
So he makes a point that that means that our sort of thinking and also like dreams or stuff is constructed essentially by a what we see. So I guess my question, when I, when I asked you, I can ask you this, now we can kind of articulate the point is that, so David Hume would make the point that look, you know, these kinds of dreams that you have is just essentially, you know, things that you’ve experienced and seen and maybe yearn for in love. And you just kind of seeing it in your dreams. It’s not really, no, it’s not proof of anything really. So I assumed that would be like his point out here, right?
5 (1h 42m 33s):
With that. I mean, what that statement that you just mentioned about that with you, with what he’s saying is essentially to a certain extent, true. I mean, I mean a hundred, he said the same thing. He, he says ultimately the way the imagination works is that it works by putting together images that you’ve seen you can’t, you know, by a launch. And so, but saying that I can only see something in, within the image with, I can only see something within the forms or images that I’ve already seen does not negate the reality of that thing. That’s appearing within that thing. You know what I mean? So if, if let’s say is, let’s say for example, you see the artist in a certain form and you see it in a form that only familiar to you, which has a big thrown, all your, where your saying is your commenting on the fact that I see the hottest in this specific form, because I’m only familiar with these forms, but to say for all of human knowledge,
4 (1h 43m 20s):
We’ve received of things only through our sensors and thus, you know, like things that exist in reality, like this table is a Brown in reality. Now we only perceive it as such. And so everything is only through the everything in writing
5 (1h 43m 33s):
James, you know, but there’s, there’s another thing that, I mean, they, with you, mrs. The, and that is, there are certain things we see that we’ve never seen before, and this is verified by true dreams. But I never, he said is something really interesting? And he’s with a heart. He says, he says the kinds of visions,
3 (1h 43m 53s):
The most visions when they happen. And this is where he distinguishes between. And this is just, this is where your David human. He is very, very adolescent, maybe a very simple mind that people, because they sent to state the obvious, but because they said, they say at the obvious, but then say that’s all there is to truth and reality when In, you know, and people are going to have another of the traditions, they made this, the made of observation, but they know exactly where we were. Wait, wait, wait, it’s the place fits right. That Adam, he says, there’s a difference between Shahada than a year, right?
3 (1h 44m 24s):
Shahade witnessing and a vision, a vision like a, in a, in a vision I make word witnessing means that a Chez the shape Shahade and food is something that you bear witness to something they’ve already seen. And so the nature of shabu is that you see like that, let’s, let’s say for example, you have a notion or a concept of God or God, or something appears to you in the form of God, whatever it is in your ethical do and your belief.
3 (1h 44m 56s):
And you understand God in a certain way, he says, you can only witness God in the forms that your, your limited mind or heart is able to contain it. And so he says, God has no form, but by no notion a new concept, he cannot contain, buy any of that. But we usually have notions and concepts and ideas and images and whatnot. And he says, now he says, the nature of food is that it’s an experience, a visionary experience way.
We witnessed God in a form that you already have of him.
3 (1h 45m 29s):
Right. But what you’re saying here is that what individ human seems to be saying is all your witnessing is a construct of your mind. But, but that doesn’t, Follow from his argument. The fact that you, you, sometimes you can only witness things in forms that you’ve seen before only says that you that do whatever it is that you’re seeing, could only manifest to you in form is familiar to you, right? Doesn’t mean that God exists or doesn’t exist. It’s the second argument when we set a vision, and this is the way he described very beautifully in the fall, the heart he has a vision is when you see things like a child, first perceptions they’ve never seen before, you have no register in your experience or perceiving that you can compare it to.
3 (1h 46m 14s):
And anyone who’s had the highest experience is like prophesies that I was asked to do. We see a lot from him. He says, how can I gaze upon him? He was light. He couldn’t describe what he saw. Very difficult. These visions are possible. They do happen. The problem with David human people like him is that they completely dismiss, you know, what they can comprehend and the Smiths and they move on. Remember he says, visit, bring us as a very important point, minimalize that he says the biggest challenge to any, anyone to prove prophecy is a reality of dreams. Can you think, hang in a minute, most of Islamic tradition proved the reality of prophecy through miracles or the moral character have the profit.
5 (1h 46m 50s):
Yeah. He said, no, that’s not their, not the greatest proofs of prophesy. The greatest books of prophecy as something that you, me, you and every human being contains within them. We are all contained that proof of prophecy within us. And that is the reality of dreams. The fact that a dream can give you knowledge of something that has yet to happen, and even atheist can have this experience. And they talk about the fact that con in the contemporary world, that completely excludes dreams it’s because they can’t make any sense of it. They don’t understand what it is. People like young have tried to, you know, they come quite close, but, and it’s a dream is a something that every human being Experiences that can not be explained or reduced to any other mode of knowledge.
5 (1h 47m 34s):
It’s just a mystery. And especially when you have dreams of things in the, beyond our dreams of the things that yet to happen, or a dream that literally unfold exactly the way you saw us. Right.
6 (1h 47m 44s):
Even like, so we just started quickly just to give a data, like an example is like actually met someone. Like I remember Ramadan like three, four years ago where a, he went to mesh to the converted and always having a child with him. And he was telling me that like, one of the kind of sparks of like converting was that he actually had a dream of him having a, like, he’s a clean shaven and stuff, big build. He was this way. And I remember he’s a freak. How is this? Like, I had a big BR a thug, how do I even know about Muslims or Islam? And I had this dream Savannah a lot. And then before you, no, like a week late, he bumped into his own friend, the realize that he is Muslim.
6 (1h 48m 14s):
So out of watching someone in color, you’re seeing lecture’s that are became a Muslim. So like, things like that, if you, if it’s first kind of instant in terms of researching Islamic is being perceived, you know, in seeing a dream of him being in a full beard and thought, that’s this, like, how, how, how does that happen? Like, is this things that you can like, it’s interesting, you mentioned that because in my process of converting to Islam, like a, one of the The have this sort of flashes of memory, and it’s a memory of a place that exists.
And this was before I knew what a mustard was.
6 (1h 48m 45s):
I was very distant from sort of this, that means I’d never been to a mosque. I’d never really seen much. And I just remember flashes of like light in a room, shining through a message here. And I remember seeing Arabic calligraphy on the walls in gold, and it was strange to me. Like, I’d never seen, I’d never seen this place. I’d never, I didn’t see it in a photo because it was a, the color of it was so vivid and the, and the light was like the sun that shines through, you know, in the afternoon.
6 (1h 49m 15s):
Yeah. And reflects off glass. And I I’d never seen this image before, but it was so vivid. And I think that sometimes, you know, when, when, when I reflect upon it, it is those vivid flashes that I like dreams. Literally. I remember that. I remember, I don’t remember how it came to me. I don’t remember where I was. I don’t remember if I was asleep or I was awake, but that is what gives me the certainty more than anything else of the higher reality is just, it’s just these, these fragments in my mind, almost absolutely that are conjured up in an, in an inexplicable way.
6 (1h 49m 51s):
But that sort of pull me gently towards something that I, it was just from that point, I began to gravitate indefinitely towards something that I saw held within a higher truth.
5 (1h 50m 4s):
And it’s the ultimate proof with the unseen. Yes, that was, and he says, given that we all possess one 46 of us already. And, and it provides knowledge of the unseen, well prophets where individuals who possess these at a much higher capacity. So if you possess that in a lower capacity, it’s proof that this as possible.
And then therefore these people were real. And the more you hone in the, and refine these faculty of yours, this has opened this cash from this unveiling on his vision’s, the more you we’ll discover the typography of the unseen, and the more you be confirmed through your own experience.
5 (1h 50m 40s):
And the fact that these prophets were remarkable, men chosen by God, because what they’re saying is being conf is being increasingly confirmed by what you know, that, for example, you can only truly know a, a doctor if you know medicine, right. If you know, medicine, a bit of medicine, if a study, a bit of physics, you realize, Oh, wow, I can really now understand the genius of Einstein. You know, and if you have these begin to develop these own Spiritual Experiences of your own, and they will confirm the reality or a prophecy, because they confirm exactly what these individuals were describing from animal life.
5 (1h 51m 18s):
And so he said, everyone of us can tell is a walking proof, a prophecy, which has a remarkable thing that, cause what he’s doing is he’s removing the proof of prophecy from a rational argument and making an experiential one, you can confirm for yourself with a prophet’s existed or not, because he says, you know, profits, you can either deny the possibility of prophecy or the fact that it actually existed or that a particular individual is a prophet. You can confirm the possibility and existence or a prophesy through dreams. And you can confirm whether a homicide is along with a prophet or not through dreams and all these other means like a miracles.
5 (1h 51m 51s):
And
6 (1h 51m 52s):
Yeah, it’s interesting. Cause like it’s not even just the fact that okay, as Muslims have these kind of experiences and then it probably doesn’t happen to disbelieve as a non believers or whoever, but that the actual fact is that they probably have it, but they either choose to ignore it or they choose to like ignore the signs, all of these sort of stuff as well. So I think like everyone kind of experienced in a different, in one shape or another, on a bike it’s about, I guess, who kind of uses the wheel and acts upon it. So that’s, that’s kind of what I, what I take away from it.
6 (1h 52m 23s):
Cause it’s not just a yes. Awesome. Also like to describe it better when I had these flashes in my mind, it was not so much that I knew what it meant then, but it was that when I encountered the Qur’an and when I encountered the, the Dean, it, I recognized that in a deeper sense, and it was something that I’d seen. It was deja VU of sorts. And I did that because of obviously, you know, I have some proximity to Islam and Muslims in this area. Perhaps there are cases of individuals who have these, you know, Experiences, but then there’s no proximity to, you know, knowledge or to, to the Muslims.
6 (1h 53m 1s):
I think Alec, as early, as she talks about this, people who have these, like the Turks, we talked about the Turks at that time who were not Muslim having these experiences. And, and then he’s like, he talked about in terms of salvation, you know, like salvation can come to those who, who are beyond, you know, data on Islam and well away from it because perhaps, you know, they don’t have the capacity to connect with the entire system, even though they may have some experiences of it.
5 (1h 53m 26s):
And ultimately, you know, ultimately let’s say a Christian can only see or imagine God or engage with God in the forms of the available within Christianity, which doesn’t wanna find the experience itself. It could be real, but it’s more limiting because of the more limited form or framework within which it is. It exists. Become back to this issue of the sermon and psychedelics and whatnot. Once one enters into the realm of experience and the Rome of federal, both in the realm of a modern world today.
5 (1h 54m 1s):
Cause unfortunately they’re all of subjectivity, but it’s not really the wrong subjectivity because it’s a realm of objective truth experienced to the individual. Once we entered in this terrain, it has to bare in mind. Also the Islamic tradition was a very meticulous about guarding against the pitfalls of this inner journey. And there are many, and contemporary psychology is usually critical of religions because I’m of the possibility of self delusions, but what they don’t, what they haven’t come across
6 (1h 54m 34s): Especially or a lot,
5 (1h 54m 36s):
All right. Is not worth commenting on. And, and at least in terms of his understanding of religion, it’s a very, very lopsided. I mean, he’s, you know, he’s the one that wonderful insights, but his understanding of, of, of,
of, of religion is, is, is,
6 (1h 54m 51s):
Yeah, I was shaking my head when I got to those parts on his tone of our religion. I’m just like of a deal.
5 (1h 54m 55s):
No, but I mean, but you know, you finding this time a tradition in much more refined analysis of the pitfalls of the inner journey than you ever find in Freud in a new room. And it’s important to know this because Muslims were fully aware and cognizant of that, once you turn inwards into your journey, the inner terrain is as vast as the entire cosmos and it’s a terrain that can be treacherous and there are pitfalls and they’re there they’re are the obstacles in there.
5 (1h 55m 29s):
And so one has to guard against, in a protect against a confusing a, a, an ego trip with a true, you know, Spiritual trip people
6 (1h 55m 39s):
Thinking there’s the Mandy coming out of a lot of Experiences. We talked about who go, they do so much thicker that they go insane. And in a way we would discuss this. We, we did an episode with ’em Check <inaudible> and I, because I went into, sorry, just to kind of add in, cause a lot of people, like we were talking about psychedelics wear and what happened is some people took like DMT like that. Now the craze and Joe, and goes on about it and what happened, I was going to a wrap or a bit of a read, a rabbit hole. And in some other friends shared her with me, is that even with people that talk to the empty and they go into States, actually interact with gin and saw them take pledges with gin, and then they ended up like a sound, the kind of lives transformed from the bed off are the worst really?
6 (1h 56m 21s):
And yeah, and some of them even said that they, they, they saw lights and then that light told them though that it was God and they believed, but we know in, in Islamic tradition, because we need a framework to kind of, and understand these things where we know show on that can kind of be falling in. This is actually making pledge to the shape, where is this? You need a guide and b******t sorts as well. So that’s the kind of, you know, we will talk about Experiences its like that needs to be a certain level of framework. And I guess that’s Islamic tradition that gives us, but then you see these kind of scary, like very, very scary stories that I was, I was kinda reading with everyone’s experience to like though in so much pain, they’re all going into an infinite loop of just like paying that they wanted to die and kill themselves.
6 (1h 57m 1s):
And this is one that we’re under like DMT and they’ll saying that they’re meeting machine elves and all this. So the bad areas, I’m not saying like all of them might be ride and stuff, but there is like validity to it. Cause I saw it. I just kept seeing like so many like comments about this. It’s really interesting that that kind of aspect as well, sorry, this may well be just purely
5 (1h 57m 19s):
Ecological. Yeah. They’re not close and the necessarily a negative, the spirit angels descending. And, and I, you know, I want to emphasize that, you know, it may well be that last to Grant’s a pure heart in a moment of weakness, like this, a genuine experience on it to lift them out of it, but it’s not the norm. You know what I
mean? Then of course it’s possible basically as such, I do want to sort of bring things back.
6 (1h 57m 44s):
Can I, you mentioned IBN Arabi and you’ve quoted from him quite a few times. And a, the thing is you’re not obviously a, I read the Cambridge Samir theology. We can have a fantastic work. I recommend it for most, for pretty much all those songs today. I think it’s a good overview in a good starting point for understanding the, the development of Islamic thought. I think they’re our illusions in that book two, the fact that IBN Arabi represents a sort of Zenith within the Islamic intellectual and a trajectory.
6 (1h 58m 17s):
Do you agree with this statement? And, and there is controversy surrounding him, particularly today, the emergence of certain trends within the stomach world, how did they influence an impact, the sort of strengthen and the capacity of Islam to remain as robust intellectually as well as it was in the past. And yet this is who is IBN Arabi to The to the tradition.
2 (1h 58m 43s):
And why is he, you know, why is he controversial and why is important?
3 (1h 58m 48s):
Look to him. And how do we is, is in many ways you consider, you can consider a banana be the ultimate combination of the In Islamic Spiritual intellectual tradition in a many, many of my all professors use to describe a banana is a Magnum. Opus has main text James Morris described. This is the main text with the heart of Makiah as a, a continuation of the <inaudible>, but at a much higher level, it was written for people like Cazale not for people like us.
3 (1h 59m 25s):
And it contains a lot of knowledge that many scholars in the past would not have committed to writing down. I think of anatomy had a man living in a 12th, 13th century. He had a, an insight into the decades and centuries to come. And the quick disappearance of this kind of knowledge and he’s he sees himself as self-consciously writing down forms of knowledge that he knows what quickly disappears from the summer.
3 (1h 59m 55s):
And so he is operating in a very different period and in Islamic history, you know, inevitable collapse of a, the wagon and in Spain, and then he forced, he could foresee the appearance of, and the loss and he make migrated East towards the mushroom and that in Damascus and, and he has thought combines so much of
this Spiritual ethical perfectly. Annie had the, a philosophical tradition into one. And for me, why I consider him to be then a third to a peak moment in Islamic history, which hasn’t been reached in a, in a no equivalent to him after that is because I think he did to Islam, a, a great service to Islam by returning it back to its chronic routes in the sense that he stemmed the tide of what a public multiple call, the classical tendencies of Islamic thought, the overpay occupation with the Greek philosophical problems in Greek philosophical methods, he turns it back to the Qur’an and back to its roots and back to its Anchorage in a, I would say a, I used this term very carefully because people usually understand that, but a poetic vision of reality that stemmed from the Koran and my poetic, I don’t mean poetry.
3 (2h 1m 15s):
I mean, a profoundly, a profoundly visionary Discourse of the Koran that combines the beauty of language and meaning with a, with reason with cash, with all sorts of different, all dimensions of human experience, a knowledge into one, his writings resemble very much The and because he’s, he’s emerging out of
5 (2h 1m 40s):
A chronic worldview and to give you a very simple example, his understanding of language is phenomenal. You know, I’ve been, had to be considered a language to be absolutely vital. A Noah has meditated on the nature of language and the Quran as a language, as much as he has in a photo heart. And so even wear, he does use a Greek philosophical categories or thought he is bending them and twisting them and subjugating them two, the impulse or chronic insight or, and a view, not the other way around.
5 (2h 2m 15s):
And so you find that many of these terms that he is using sing to seem to snap and bend and, and, and, and, and crack at the seams because they can’t contain the full inside of the chronic view or perspective of a concept. Unfortunately, some of these ideas have been misunderstood. Then a year is largely to a responsible for this. You think that he misunderstood him and he did. I think he did indeed misunderstand of an attribute, but, you know, they were both great, a great giants of this OMA.
5 (2h 2m 50s):
And I don’t like to get into the quibble. Yeah. He was a writer was wrong, but I do think there was a certain misunderstanding at, at a certain level
6 (2h 2m 57s):
That was claimed even, you know, just after he had been Tamia in this period, by even hard yet he claimed that, you know, you’ve misunderstood.
5 (2h 3m 4s):
Yeah, completely. And many, many people came to his defense. Anyway, we were, we not need to defend it out of that as well. But I think that the greatest danger in a banana a bee is, is when he’s not understood by people who are yet properly formed Islamic is speaking. And that’s why in traditionally speaking in the traditional pedagogy, you of Islamic education of anatomy was only taught to a handful of leads when the sheriff considered them to be ready for his insights.
5 (2h 3m 37s):
However, I think in the 21st century, 20th century, 21st century things have changed dramatically. And I do disagree with my many of my traditional shapes about, you know, they, they, they, Assistant a banana. We should remain on the shelves.
6 (2h 3m 50s):
I’ve got that told to me a lot of times, like when I posted I’m reading, as if he’s a van to Lucia, got a lot of messages saying that you need to shake all that. It’s a very simple book, but I’ve got them that similar for a pedagogy at that point. Isn’t it like the capacity of their teacher, someone is brilliant enough. As in, in terms of their comprehension of the ideas and their ability to teach those ideas, then they should be able to distill messages from a perhaps not entirely.
5 (2h 4m 15s):
The problem with a banana is thought is it lends itself well to an intellectual comprehension when it’s not an intellectual endeavor. And so, so many people engage a simply people. So many people who grasp he has caught insights and ideas say, I’ve understood about Arabi when, what he’s inviting to is an experiential vision for you to see things in a certain way, not understand
3 (2h 4m 38s):
And grasp ideas.
6 (2h 4m 40s):
Ghazali. Yeah.
3 (2h 4m 42s):
And so the problem is a people end up thinking there on the sword of a honeymoon because of our contemporary bias, towards a purely conceptual understanding of things, when his, what he’s inviting to, he is inviting you to is a radical transformation of who you are, what you do. You’ll being such that you can then see what he sees. No one does that anymore. Now I would personally my personal advice with the people wouldn’t be to follow the traditional pedagogy of getting to event has to be only when, you know, but a certain stage, but the problem is you can’t control the process.
3 (2h 5m 19s):
The other problem is a banana has already everywhere anyway. And so by leaving him, buy the, I mean, are, you can download a Derrida and a banana, be a loud two, and one in the same minute on a laptop.
6 (2h 5m 33s):
I tried to read some English translations and I genuinely couldn’t understand.
3 (2h 5m 36s):
And like, I could not, I mean, there are books they’re making it accessible, but yeah. But the point is, is everywhere, right? And so what’s the, what’s the motivation then to not talk about him, if people are reading him anyway, isn’t it better to provide a proper context and a proper framework for him, for them to understand them in a traditional way. And I say this in particular from the Arab world, and most of the authors writing today about that about about a hundred of them are ex communist ex secular atheist, or ex socialists who are now pouncing on the latest trend, which is Sufism and spirituality.
3 (2h 6m 16s):
And they’re his main interpreters. Why? Because a traditional scholars are still bound by that traditional hesitancy to comment on him. And so many Arab youth reading a banana B to the lens of executor or socialists or communists, it’s the way I put them from. Yeah. And instead of reading him guided by a more traditional, a commentary and writings, and that’s really pushing a banana B into the, into a certain intellectual space that he doesn’t belong to him in the West, it has a slightly different cause and reason he has to do with the post, the late Modernity a leaner late capitalism, a post hippie sixties kind of appreciation of most brutality in the Western recovering this kind of, but something that’s not really rooted in Islam per se, it’s more kind of a universal thing.
3 (2h 7m 5s):
The problem they’re is that with an, a, B is being gradually removing Islam from a banana be in the same way. Exactly
6 (2h 7m 13s):
Is incredibly traumatic sort of purging. Isn’t it, they’re a few
3 (2h 7m 17s):
Look it’s in the nature of things to do so. And I, I think to a certain extent, my personal opinion, let people benefit from them in the way that they can if the benefit. Yeah. Yeah. But, but I think for Muslim, there should be a more rigorous understanding and approach to these individuals were and what they were. The other thing though, the reason why I think of an animal is a very important today is because he resisted all of the attempts in a, among his medieval appears to reduce the Qur’an of Islam, two, this rational into a trend or this or this intellectual tendency, and offered an infinitely complex vision of reality.
3 (2h 7m 60s):
That is well suited to resolving many of the intellectual aporia today. We have been, and to be really is a figure who can help us get out of the quagmire today. That’s the way I think to a large extent, we invest too much energy and hope, and I say this and Imam, and I’m going to get a lot of, a lot of a messages after this people. But I think we, we expect too much from Colom today. If we think Alam is going to get us out of these, <inaudible> get out of this is this quagmire, I think later actually column that’s that’s cross pollinated with a lot of a banana, a beam.
3 (2h 8m 39s):
And the reason why I say this later on, because a lot of the young Muslims who now study KLM, they tend to always be going back to the earliest techs, you know, early, which has, which is fine, but your missing several centuries of column development, number one to his riches, intellectual trajectories come later building on the earlier. And so a, especially the postdoc, a guardian or a positive, and Hannah be a, a, a
shared economy.
3 (2h 9m 10s):
The other thing is why even out of the way, he represents a very important moment in, and I say this as a non non, a non Arabic speakers and readers will criticize me for this, but I want to insist on it validly because I think it’s, it’s, it’s it a point that needs to be said too many people, too many Muslim youth study enough AB and grammar that gets through a few texts and then move on to Persian or move on to Ottoman Turkish or other languages.
3 (2h 9m 40s):
And miss a fundamental point. That’s very central to any revival of our chronic worldview. You can not understand the Qur’an and the Arabic on the phone. And this is the toughest part of tradition anyway. And I think without understanding the whole culture poetry world, in which these words were immersed in a missed it. Alright, and that makes a lifetime of study merely picking up a crime attacks to pick up enough Arabic, to read a classical text and then move on is not enough.
3 (2h 10m 14s):
And I think what has happened in the past, by the end tradition, especially when it, a banana bean goes is inappropriate as more and more by a philosophical readers’ and interpreters in the Persian tradition. I feel since this is by who, sorry, from the Zika Kashani onwards, they’re a little case study and, and how that arm only, and then into the entertaining tradition, I feel that they picked up on so much of a banana B that was important for engaging with Philosophers, but they missed a fundamental, a poetic the vision that he was inviting to a largely, because I think many of these figures were not emersed in the poetic world of a banana B’s the chronic Arabic.
3 (2h 10m 57s):
I think very few commentators have picked up on the semantic ocean on the Qur’an and what IBN Arabi was trying to open up through the Qur’an. And although the continued a philosophical tradition, much richer that has been seen a and P plus of us prior to has early, they still missed his fundamental core part of his history of his vision. And, and, and, and it’s the, in my personal opinion is only a few Arab commentates on a
banana.
3 (2h 11m 28s):
We picked up on this aspect of his work and not because they’re geniuses it’s because they messed it in the same poetic semantic world of language. Language is very, very important to you of anatomy. The Gran is a mirror of existence, and this is not as a metaphor. This is a reality. And so in that sense, also, this is where I can sit a banana be even more radically visionary that anyone else, because he goes back with Islamic thought back to it’s for Anik roots and then explodes at all, like a volcanic eruption, no one did it before him to many people via, towards engaging with classical philosophical problems and issues and interpreting Islamic issues through the grip of the lines of Greek Philosophy or, or rational thought he was.
3 (2h 12m 18s):
And he started a banana, we finished it.
6 (2h 12m 24s):
How would you explain the concept? Like, what did the Lord’s word and stuff like that that would be like,
3 (2h 12m 29s):
And other episodes where this one,
6 (2h 12m 32s):
Cause in, in that sense, like your describing is going back to the roots
3 (2h 12m 35s):
<inaudible> that I’m talking about here. I mean, although this concept has been misunderstood, he never coined a term. Why that was a good, no, he never said that himself. You never use it. It’s it’s his students that have been calling on me that first used a term in passing once or twice. I think people picked up on it as the core topic and a banana Damien others, and then considered, Oh, hang on a minute. Look by this guy is talking about pantheists as our law. And this is incarnation, this is pantheism. And this is not to be the English term that really captures his view properly.
3 (2h 13m 9s):
So I’ve been resistant.
6 (2h 13m 11s):
I read one Fatwah actually is from <inaudible> North money in English language was the only photo I actually was able to get. I think that was substantial. He sort of said, don’t dislike the questions of what we think of it. That out of it, he’s like, just look don’t don’t, don’t go there. There’s no need for you to delve into these things. But he basically said that there was a handy, this is not the Valley’s explanation with Russell of the law
2 (2h 13m 32s):
Said that the grade, that was a, Jahiliyyah a poet who said that surely all things, but a low in vain and the process. And I’ve commented on the saying that this was the greatest word of truth from a Jay Haley poet and okay. Move the Tokyo Tokyo of money that sort of said, I don’t think you stuck it in yet. He took off the money. He was talking about how, ah, this is basically summarizing and the art of his belief in a, in a simple terms, in that things that are in existence, all come from, like everything is contingent upon a law.
2 (2h 14m 6s):
And if something is contingent upon a law that doesn’t really have existence in of itself, and that is something to do with it. But it’s yeah, as you can clearly see from that, even though it was a simplification that it’s been very gravely misunderstood and a straw man, sort of an in the sectarian
3 (2h 14m 21s):
That was in his understanding as an invitation to a vision, it’s not, it’s not a philosophical concept that we can tear apart and criticize in OB cause he doesn’t make any rational sense here or there, it, he never talked about it in the, in, in that sense. And so, you know, I’m putting aside this particular, a controversial idea, which has not really who’s in the first place I wrote. I think I wrote an article years ago, who’s in ever published I’m on the orthodoxy of an Arabi. And if you define orthodoxy by taking the Qur’an as your point of departure, there’s no one more chronic than a bit a hobby.
3 (2h 14m 53s):
I don’t think we have a sufficient understanding of what the grant actually is and what it’s doing. And if you read a lot of the commentators and the commentaries, and I’m going to go and out on a limb and say this, they have haven’t even come close to exhausting the possibilities of what the court and is actually doing. They haven’t. And that, that is not the end. It’s not because they, that we’re limited in the understanding. No, it’s, this is just because sometime his, when we interpret a text, we bring certain questions that may on the techs.
3 (2h 15m 23s):
And sometimes we ignore others because they’re not of central concern today. We bring to bear on the Qur’an a lot more, quite a different set of concerns. And so we’re able to see, is able to answer us in ways that it didn’t answer previous generations. And this is where I think about to be, can play a very vital role because he developed a very sophisticated methodology of approaching a seal, the Koran and, and language. And no one’s written about this, surprisingly, no one’s yet written about language in a banana bean and this and what that means what our understanding of the Koran.
3 (2h 16m 5s):
So I would say he’s returned to the Koran and the chronic world. So with the grad explodes on the scene of human history in consciousness, right? What does that mean? Well, that initial eruption was suppressed for very long time. It’s ironic because we were to be responding to, we just got drawn into too much classical
5 (2h 16m 30s):
And you find new people like Azalea and also off and everything like that. There’s this tension with
Philosophy and the tension with a rational thought because they, they know that the Koran overflows these boundaries, you know, if it had of becomes and really brings it back together and splits it from within. So even in many places, wherever it has to be easy using a philosophical terms, I think in many places where he does these use these terms, he uses his using them too. In the same way. I might today tried to use union terms to convey ideas to an audience because we only understand it’s the language.
5 (2h 17m 4s):
I mean, we used the word psychology, what a second, that doesn’t have an equivalent in this tradition when we use these terms, because we’re familiar with what they mean and roughly what they refer to. And he’s using a lot of these philosophical vocabulary, not because he’s, its he is indispensable to, for arriving at truth, but it’s a means for him expressing a chronic truth, but even terms like you’re saying, we don’t have a,
2 (2h 17m 24s):
What <inaudible> do we use to describe a time? And it’s a tool that we’re used. This doesn’t mean that we’re Christians now. It’s just a, you know, it’s an easy way to, to describe things. I wonder what your position is on the contribution of a Luddite as well, because he’s also another one who’s seen as a representing the kind of high point of, of Islamic philosophical
5 (2h 17m 47s):
And then with Rossi as I am with that, it has to be, I mean, I’ve mentioned how he has written great books on the youth. And I think He, you know, the Ramadan gave me an opportunity to go through his, my, by the hype, especially in regards with a calf. And I found his he’s a, he is an interesting figure because the way he approaches thing and not necessarily the conclusions, he arrives that if you look at his stuff to see a for example, he has, he has a, a nuanced a perspective on the complexity of what the grant is doing.
5 (2h 18m 20s):
Definitely. And he, although he comes across sometimes as a presenting in a rational view, he does in his state of seeds, he’s a bit more nuance than that. And I find him a great pedagogical value of a student’s cause you know, I, I work with students at high school level, sometimes on a university level, he will give you, for example, you say, look, we’re had, the IFE has masala thing, a salon. You can look at it this way and it this way and linguistically and has a rational.
5 (2h 18m 50s):
And then he breaks down each one also in the several categories. And he said, Mmm, it has said that this has been a potentially there’s this value and potentially this value and potentially it this year. And he weighs them all in the evaluation and appraisers demo and criticize him. He says, at the end, he gives you what he thinks are the most likely of you. But along the journey, he has unfolded in several different ways of looking at him. So in that sense, I feel he does have a, a nuance, a complex view or on what the person is doing.
5 (2h 19m 27s):
I haven’t, I can’t comment really on his theology per se, because it’s not something that I’ve dealt in in great depth, but his approach is something notable in that is notable. And especially on his, in his stuff, it’s, it’s, it’s enjoyable to read and you’ll find him really coming out with his true colors as it, where on those controversial verses, you know, way this, you know, He, he’ll state your way in, on the rational value of this year there, but throughout the rest of the granites, it’s a joy to read because of that, you know? Yeah.
4 (2h 19m 56s):
I want to the us, like, I don’t know before we were talking about like experience and dreams and all that, cause I know you did a lot of works on like a, as a young and Psychoanalysis, I assume you would of touch on those sorts of areas, which in what ways do you see like a works of like Freud in and you can, do you see them kind of useful when it comes to kind of, I dunno, doing a synthesis of their works and kind of using a form perhaps quote unquote, like Islamic purposes. Cause I guess like they would have had their own thoughts about, you know, dreams and like I know like, cause I’d done a lot more research on Freud.
4 (2h 20m 30s):
I am not to like I no with a hybrid Jordan Peterson and all that, the, you know, Young’s kind of people have research a bit more, but like, cause for my electives, I did papers on Freud instead of, and the sort of stuff he was saying was like, I don’t know, maybe can mesh with Islamic thought like it was, but in the sense that he makes like desires at the height of like, you know, you’re, you’re, you’re essentially like paraphrasing the sense of you’re suppressing your desires because society wants you to be in X way.
4 (2h 20m 60s):
So then you kind of internalize and that’s where perhaps some issues may, may arise like a guilt and all that sort of stuff. So it goes down that line of trying to explain to an and things in, I guess it looks logical, but when you kind of, I guess usually Samir framework, it’s like kind of making the naps at the height of essentially how you should go about life and using that to dictate how you should behave and kind of trying to explain away things of why X sort of thing happens to you, for example.
4 (2h 21m 30s):
So once you kind of take on, you know,
5 (2h 21m 32s):
And then I can select a physiological side here that you mentioned before,
4 (2h 21m 35s):
Can the contributions that don’t touch before the interconnect?
5 (2h 21m 39s):
He does. I mean, Freud, he had to understand the context before is operating and he comes, he comes at the end of the 19th century, the Victorian era of a repressed sexuality and in all sorts of different things is a highly visual bourgeois kind of stratifying societies were and has got a lot of his clients out from the bourgeois. So is coming out of a world also of evolutionary theory in atheism and the know God, and he was an atheist himself. And so looking at looking at the human psyche, especially in, within the psychiatric context or clinical context, it’s a, you’re looking at pathologies, you’re always looking at the, you know, the problems and, and he, he built a whole psychology around what he considered to be the true drivers and motives a of the human condition as, as he saw them in the late 19th century and early 20th century.
5 (2h 22m 33s):
And he saw them within the context of sexual drives, right? Yeah. Or a within the context of like the Edith, the super ego, for example, or that, you know, which, which constructs that are put in place to regulate the otherwise chaotic and potentially catastrophic urges of the human condition. So he saw as is going on with say, you know, Freud clothes off the gate above to heaven and opened up the Gates to hell below as well.
5 (2h 23m 6s):
And it’s very true depiction. He basically began exploring all of the nasty part of our lower self and took it to be the norm. Yeah. And there’s no philosophical consistency or a reason why he could have done that except his own idiosyncratic personal assumptions. There’s no argument. He doesn’t make any arguments. There’s no argument at all. And then he developed that energetic, a kind of model of the psyche way. And it’s at the problem with these kinds of models is that you get caught up in the metaphor itself.
5 (2h 23m 38s):
So sexuality is we’re pressed, it’s dammed up. Okay. So what happened with a damn he builds up, builds up, builds up and explodes. So now you’re following the, the image of the metaphor itself rather than the reality of the phenomenon itself. Is that an accurate image of our sexuality or is that, is that a natural consequence of the metaphor you’re using? They’re a very deeply pragmatic issues with the, with this Freud they’re under the assumption that human beings are in evolutionary developmental scale from animism all the way up to enlightened rationality of his age.
5 (2h 24m 10s):
That’s also a false assumption. The data does, and doesn’t bear me out at all. Let’s not the story of the human. Let’s not the human story at all. Neither anthropologically speaking, nor from the chorionic perspective, to hear making a lot of false assumptions and building on them in order to gain a certain kind of cracked credible credibility or a scientific a foundation for his, his view, your own comes along and says, hang on a minute, this so many problems with the way you’re, you’re looking at things in your own considers, the libido is not purely sexual, but libido is any psychic energy.
5 (2h 24m 44s):
It could be poured into your lower neck, so it could be poured into your sexual Dr. It can be poured into your ego, or it could be directed properly back into your spiritual self. So he has a more nuance understanding because we didn’t dismiss religions and that is an illusion or a delusion, but rather saw the deep and profound significance of the symbols that came up, pop up and in world mythology in the Balkans
4 (2h 25m 7s):
Freud we kind of, I remember like a point where one of his works, he was saying like a, he would categorize like, you know, the ed, the, the desires and the superego and how the guilt rises. And he kind of just puts like religious folk and other people that use society as a, as the standard of how they should conduct as in the same basket, in the sense that, you know, religious people feel guilt because their Knifes has at one way.
And then the religion tells them to do a different thing and then guilt, or as a suit.
5 (2h 25m 35s):
If you’re living in late 19th century, Vienna where religion has just become as it is for Muslims today, a bunch of those, and don’ts with a guy with a culturally grounded only, and not really deeper than that, then your gonna arrive it at the same conclusion. And the religion seems to be this kind of necessary moral hindrance against what seemed to be a chaotic world of unconscious drives and desires that are the real motivators of human action there.
5 (2h 26m 5s):
Paul Rico has a wonderful book on Freud called Freud and Philosophy, and the cause of it is Philosophy was a believer Christian, etc. And he, he does this thing with, and it’s quite interesting. He says, look, you have to understand Freud legacy without necessarily accepting Freud himself and accepting the limitations of his thought, which a bound by his own particular ideological preferences and the time that he was living in. And I think that to a large extent that certain truth of him and our end of young, even though Jung was much more complex in a much more interesting because he’s operating in a context in which religion really was in released in Christianity, in Europe with nothing but that he didn’t care to investigate what a person of religion
was.
5 (2h 26m 47s):
He didn’t follow through the consistent scientific process of investigating the truth of the phenomenon of religion. He was already an atheist. We didn’t care about that. He was merely looking at how religion operated in the bourgeois stratified society of Vienna and Europe at a time. And it was basically a largely repressed society that operated according to very artificial norms that worse somehow arbitrarily imposed with a religion or cloud or a high culture, and is difficult to distinguish between the norms of religion in Vienna, the time and the nones of high culture, right?
5 (2h 27m 22s):
Because The, you’re living in a, in a monarchy, right? And you’re living in a society where upholding the propriety and etiquette is of the highest order in a world where scientific truth seemed to be making claims to the contrary and the psychic life of individuals. And increasingly the political life was moving in a very different direction. So he had the individuals who he was still late 19th century individuals in a world that was moving beyond in a way of modernism was becoming a reality.
5 (2h 27m 57s):
You know, rationalism was being dominant and a rational forms of social organization will become dominant. So rationalism became a framework within which he tried to order the, the, the various fragments of a psyche. Now he does have a lot of brilliant insights, but they’re brilliant insofar as one looks and observes at the hell within and the chaos within and tries to make some sense of it. Right. But the totality of the human being is much more than just that lower sphere. And let me give you an example.
5 (2h 28m 28s):
I’m, I’m, you know, inception, the movie inception would have been a very different, had it used rather than a Freud In psychoanalytic model have a psyche, a different model because what they do in the dream, in the, in, in the inception is they seem to be going into deeper and deeper and deeper dreams of the main protagonists. So they entering into of the ortho, a Harlem, all the personal psychological dreams are the protagonists by the dreams can leave you up or down, right? The movie, we didn’t explore the layers of
dreams upward.
5 (2h 29m 1s):
We explore the layers of a dream downwards. It’s a very typical psychoanalytic bias and is accurate insofar as that it’s exploring those dips beneath and it accurate in its understanding of the relativity of time in dreams, because, you know, it’s an accurate image of that plunged down. That is the plunge down. The only direction within is also a movement upwards Jung Freud helps.
5 (2h 29m 32s):
There’s no health at all with any upward movement. What could say, for example, that both Freud and young to a large extent are very good in terms of helping and diagnose to a certain extent and understand the quintessential psychic problems that result from modernism modernity in a world in which God has been banished in the same way that philosophically speaking reading Nietzsche is very beneficial in terms of discovering how the internal contradictions of modernism unravel quite catastrophic breeding Freud is the equivalent of that.
5 (2h 30m 11s):
By exploring that inwardly beyond there’s a bit more nuanced and his appreciation of the religious phenomenon is much more complex and a lot richer. But I do think that one has to read young as opposed to union, not as a union, because there are profound limitations to his model also about for example, where his extremely beneficial, these is your understanding of dreams. For example, he has a very profound understanding of the symbolic nature of dreams. He, he, he is he’s, he’s the whole literature.
5 (2h 30m 41s):
He builds around the nature of the ego, its relationship to the God within the psyche. The fact that God is part and parcel of the human psyche. We are somehow predisposed to believing in God the fact that religious traditions have a profound in terms of their wisdom and this spiritual guidance. But the problem is because he’s bound by a very Kantian, a false distinction between the phenomenon and the numinous that he doesn’t think that we can go beyond the, the, the phenomenal world to say anything positive about the reality of God beyond.
5 (2h 31m 16s):
It’s a very serious limitation on his, his, his psychological, and that’s why like
4 (2h 31m 20s):
A nano like Jordan, Peter, I forgot the exact points, but with Jordan Peterson, he’s always like, he is not like anti religion. Like when he’s always dialoguing, we like, you know, atheist and stuff. He actually make cases for a religion without really specifying him personally, in the, in the sense of actually believe he is actually pro source of religion in a different kind of <inaudible> a lot in particular, I assume like those ideas would have been like coming from more like a young sort of,
5 (2h 31m 48s):
And they do, they do come from a young in Pittsburgh. And the thing is with, with Jordan Peterson is that he, he wants to defend the relative validity of pre-modern religious traditions, but he doesn’t want to go back to them once to, he wants to recover there insights in the world because he’s, he is profound the evolutionary himself here. And I think the emphasizes an aspect of Jung that I tend to the emphasize or to get rid of. So I look at young and very differently the way he does an insofar as a young help us help recover the profound significance of pre-modern traditions.
5 (2h 32m 24s):
Jordan Peterson is, is, is excellent. And in doing that, I think he’s a brilliant, he’s a very brilliant, brilliant man. And I think he’s value for a lot of people. Today is his ability to the digest, the psychological insights have the whole 20th century and present them as a useful insights on how to one to live ones life. We need more have that on my Muslim’s. We need that. I’m not saying we need them on with the Muslim Jordan Peterson because his framework is problematic, but we have a problem with, with also Jordan Peterson, it’s a very cerebral journey in his own life.
5 (2h 33m 5s):
We don’t seem to his insights don’t seem to be, has a, having a positive transformation on, on, on, on, on, on, you know, he’s living condition difficult
4 (2h 33m 16s):
And the Republic sort of struggles,
5 (2h 33m 19s):
Particularly recently. I know. Yeah. Yeah. And anyone who follows his guidance, it’s only, it’s only useful I’ve to a point. And I would say it’s very useful at the, at a, at a along the psychological journey that he can help you spiritually at all. And even by spiritually, I’m in it specifically in a sense that I said a below I’m a bit before, which is that, that next stage of your, your journey towards the law? Yeah. Yeah.
4 (2h 33m 44s):
Sorry. You just said quickly, like he just reminds me like, ah, I, in the Islamic tradition, when we write in the door, I know it’s about proving God in existence, in all the clam close from a logical argument by in our traditional is more like, the question was like, why you should worship God. It’s not necessarily going out to actively prove God in a sense of when got a, when it comes to getting closer with God. Right? So like, I guess that’s what the issue now he is like, for us, it’s about why should worship him, like not just kind of abstractly sort of prove God in that sense. And unfortunately life, as you were mentioning, like Jake and Jordan Peterson doesn’t necessarily that.
4 (2h 34m 17s):
So I guess from the Samir tradition, we have to kind of articulate these points that are really important. And I’ve just said quickly as well. Like I think it’s like, Jung, that was more in the line of he, he broke down sort of the Conscious and the Subconscious. And I think he made the point that the Subconscious, or I think may be shaped by, I guess, the early experiences you had as a child. And then through those kinds of experiences kind of propel you to act in a certain way in the future. I don’t know, feels Freud or Jung maybe that a different conceptions of the idea, but is there sort of like, Islamic sort of, because it kind of falls into a more deterministic run, the sense that like your sort of set in that in the path and there aren’t sort of options because you’re too bound by your past.
4 (2h 35m 2s):
If that makes sense, would you say there’s some validity
5 (2h 35m 5s):
And to do that more so for Freud and then for you, if you really, if you were to really read these authors, max Freud and in each of her example, the full recall caused the, the, the, the great figures of suspicion because they’re, they engaged in his kind of hermeneutics of suspicion. And that is that they, if you read them carefully, you’ll see, almost arrive at to the conclusion that economically, politically and psychologically we’re a deterministic. We determined my forces beyond our control.
5 (2h 35m 36s):
And if that is the case, if consciousness is just a tip of the iceberg and that we are largely a result of a lot of hidden unconscious, compulsion’s at a very, very bleak perspective on the nature of your life. Now, young recommends individuation here. He recommends a Conscious process of gradually climbing out of the mire and bringing more and more of the unconscious into the consciousness. And, but then again, the problem with that is it goes back to the same problem with a Greek Philosophers, unless you exert yourself in some superhuman way, you know, you can’t attain some kind of salvation.
5 (2h 36m 15s):
Islam is not about that at all. Islam is about our capacity to achieve a certain measure of human perfection and completeness without necessarily a subscribing to this idea that we’re either deterministic or that we need superhuman power to do so. And so salvation is open to all and, and within the, within the Islamic tradition, the unique vision of God or the highest form of spiritual realization is something that we, you know, it’s reserved to those.
5 (2h 36m 48s):
Who’ve tried to commit themselves to the journey and Islam. I think one interesting thing about food in a young age, which they do quite interestingly, is I think works in the favor of Islam is that they truly show the tyrannical nature of below and nervous that if you were to take that insight and say, OK, hang on a minute. How Neffs is that looks at that terrifying,
3 (2h 37m 16s):
What they can do, how much it controls us, then the question is, would you rather be under the influence and control of a benign force or a evil force in a sense that if you really think about it, if you’re thinking about, and
I still thought about it during a commentary on something, a calf were under the influence of so many factors, Subconscious unconscious, I’m a hype all over the place. To what extent are any decisions that we make at any point, truly our own.
3 (2h 37m 50s):
You have a very narrow margin of choice as it were best is kind of ties in with free will determinism. There’s a lull in that sense. And do you align yourself or do you allow yourself to be compelled on our own? Capella’s the wrong way that you allow yourself to be at the mercy of these darker forces? Or do you surrender yourself to forces that I working in the best interest of your soul and your salvation?
3 (2h 38m 25s):
If you really think about it, a lot of, a lot of it comes down to these, these, this choice, not the choice of whether I’m free or not. That’s absurd in many ways, it’s really a choice of which forces I want to surrender myself to that’s, but we are, we supposed to do, I want to align myself with a and to guide me because were all at the mercy of a devotee that we worship either with God or our ego or something, right. And that’s the real choice. I think there, let’s not get into the question of predestination and free will because that will get us into another hour.
3 (2h 39m 2s):
But I think the 20th century psychology of Psychoanalysis in psychotherapy really highlighted the reality that we are largely compelled. If we surrender ourselves to our lower forces compelled by forces that drive in, drag us down by what that didn’t comment on his, what we can do about, and there in lies, true individuality and true freedom.
2 (2h 39m 27s):
Yeah. I think one of the, I will just briefly allude to relationship between what you’ve mentioned in and through and through as, without plunging too deep into it, hopefully. And I always had the sense that if somebody is a constantly committing actions that are harmful to themselves, I never found it particularly useful to sort of from a highly sort of touristic method to sort of analyze that video. This is, you’re doing this privately thing. And then this is primitive thing, and this is a privilege is, is important to obviously have those categorizations and the, and the tradition of law exists for a reason though.
2 (2h 40m 4s):
I’ve always understood it, that they are consequences of the individual’s state and the state have that individual’s heart. So if somebody chooses to, at some point in their life,
6 (2h 40m 14s):
Prefer though, to, to favor the next to a given subject one cell and submit oneself rather to the Neffs, then the consequences of that will be certain actions that perhaps the action itself is not something that the person could control, especially because if you think about it as an instinctual response, if you, if you see some situation unfold in front of you in a requires instinct, somebody who has a constant, like, like he’s in a state of constant deacon and someone who is of a high, a spiritual state where he’s in his instinctual response in that situation would be different from someone who has lived a life of sort of our basement and, and, and preference of the naps.
6 (2h 40m 54s):
And so in the action, in and of itself, and in the choice in that moment, the individual may not have particularly had a, had a great deal of agency to, to, to ponder our, what is the, what is the moral thing to do here? The moral choice comes back to The. So the overall sort of theme of a, how do I submit to, but what do I submit too? And that’s a, that’s always the way that it appeared to me.
3 (2h 41m 18s):
And that’s a very interesting way of putting it. Yeah, absolutely. All right. And where is the agency? It’s a, it’s largely diffuse and I’m quite conscious of
6 (2h 41m 32s):
Imam. Yeah, I know you said yet to leave at 1140, right? Yeah.
3 (2h 41m 36s):
11, 15, 11, 20 to get there in time. Yes.
6 (2h 41m 39s):
And we’ll probably wrap up the In two, three minutes. He put the, put the minutiae in the microwave as I’ll go ahead and eat that up for you to get a call. I’ll probably wrap up as one quick question though, by the way, that was a, really a very insightful as a jam packed with a lot, a lot of stuff, but I’m here. I appreciate you coming. Boys In, The Cave are in shallow. We can probably have more and more discussion. I think we could even probably have like five from the law, but I don’t, I don’t remember fasting in the last podcast we did, which was like ages ago, but I’m we asked the question of the three people you would want to hang with in a cave, because, you know, Boys, In, The Cave, you know, who, who would you sort of pick by a company like Russell, a salon, all of the SAR, because everyone kind of picks him and we want like diverse.
6 (2h 42m 26s):
And this was in shallow by your, and your, and your family as all like a lot of some, some very creative,
3 (2h 42m 31s):
No idea. I mean, to hangout with the state,
6 (2h 42m 34s):
How many people, historically, who, you know, if you could set up a sort of discussion or pick the brain and have three individuals or contemporary that is even seen IBN Arabi and <inaudible>,
3 (2h 42m 47s):
That would definitely be one of them. I, to know, I haven’t been to any, I suppose, go on a limb here. I might say maybe Heidegger at some point. Interesting. I have a few questions that I really need to ask him and he can have a chat him in Arabi as well.
6 (2h 43m 13s):
And I wanted him in any way to put how to get this straight, you know, putting in his place to correct his views. And that will leave the Cave I’m a Muslim. Yeah. I think these to myself being the third, a third person, the person. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, yeah, that’d be a good debate. Someone getting a livestream of that, even that even if I think I have a feeling, if I walk out of here, when I walk out of here, I’m gonna think about different names and that it would definitely be one of them, but not necessarily put on the spot. And he just got blank.
6 (2h 43m 43s):
Probably leave it they’re in shallow, but appreciate your coming on. We’ll we’ll leave it there. So for our listeners, thank you for giving us your attention. If you have any questions or queries, feel free to email us@infoboysinthecave.com in. You can find on us on Facebook and chalet in support us through a patron.
We put the links so far, our special guests stop, the Samir Mahmoud and my cohosts refer out and myself. We wish all the best is this Tanzim signing you off a salon. Why they can
0 (2h 44m 9s):
<inaudible>.