very well explained, the problem with perennialists is that they keep trying to prove every religion is the same, while it's true most of the religions have resemblances, one can't ignore their unavoidable differences. For example, Trinty is directly against the teachings of islam, and one can't ignore it just by saying that both religions are pointing to the very reality. Another misconception is on sufism. It may be widely believed that Sufism is a movement in Islam that doesn't care much about Sharia, while most of the Sufi masters were very devout and humble toward Sharia. By the way, Rumi's mentor Shams is very critical toward people who do not follow Prophet Muhammad.
The divide between the esoteric and exterior itself is a circular hypothesis, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You can't get more esoteric than the nature of God Himself, and as explained, all religions explicitly differ on the most fundamental attributes of Him. That 'contradiction' is not in the realm of "exterior dimension".
@Masoud G 1. They may claimwhat they want, not every claim is being fulfilled. 2. They have important similarities (bec. they are religions), but they do contradict each other as shown in the examples. 3. This line of thought (@Masoud G) goes against the message of Islam which clearly states that the old religions had lost their authenticity, and new prophets, lately Prophet Muhammad (saws) had to be sent to mankind. Otherwise there would be no use of restating the tradition in an ‘updated’ religion = Islam. Of course there are core elements which a rather similar, but as for validity, the old religions just don’t match the mark. 4. That (point3.) was generally speaking, as to the all-emcompassing mercy of the All-Merciful towards any individual person in the universe, we have no knowledge about that. 5. We do have quite a few quranic verses which refer to this great mercy of the All-Merciful, and who are we to come and claim restrictions to it? But this is not the same as saying that other religions are equally transforming and saving ways towards what comes after (akhira), when they lost their purity, authenticity, they also lost their justification, even if they still exist.
You can claim other religions are spiritually transforming without saying they are true. Even irreligious people can spiritually transform themselves. It doesn't mean their beliefs are true, in the same way you can learn perfectly how to use a hammer, regardless of who you are. But it doesn't mean whatever you decide to do with the hammer is thus, good.
I think it depends on if you define it as all of it being true along with all the different theologies which is impossible, they can’t be correct, and you can’t be a Muslim and believe that or if you regard it as just having the same source. Which islam and the Quran already affirms, as we believe all these messages were sent by Allah. But it just depends on some of the beliefs and action or members of the school. I think this is why Shiekh Abdualhakim and Habib Ali al Jifri reject it. And they are strict traditionalists. Islam is the only truth absolutely and it came to correct the pervious fabricated traditions. However, you will also find Dr. Umar Farouk Abduallah taking about primordial truths and universalities. And The late Martin Lings was greatly respected in their circles despite belonging to the group. So its just acceptance that it was once truth and try to learn from one another while still being Muslim. I mean Sufism had some Buddhist influences but its still an intrinsic part of the Sunna at the same time. As it enriches our faith. ‘And we made you into nations and tribes so you may learn from one another’.
Absolutely beautifully articulated (it's hard to sometimes find sophisticated RU-vid comments). I find myself edified and provoked in thought; I'd be curious to know where it is you think the Buddhist tradition has interpenetrated with tasawwuf, or Islam more generally? And any recommendations for readings here? I'm currently reading some of Dr Lings' and find him a stunning writer! In sha' Allah this finds you well, dear The Sufi M.D
Salām ‘How the Buddhist saved islam’ Article by Shayikh Hamza Yusuf and the book: “Common Ground Between Islam and Buddhism: Spiritual and Ethical Affinities.” Sorry, For some reason I only just saw this comment. Would be happy to converse with you if you wish. I have a fb group. I don’t think I was particularly Articulate when I wrote this comment. But thank you for your kind words. Peace/Salam.
It was said to Abu Hurayrah: You have narrated a great deal, you have narrated a great deal. He said: If I told you everything that I heard from the Prophet (God bless him), you would pelt me with stones and clods of earth, and you would not sit with me. Surely the "you would stone me" factor has influenced what past scholars were willing to openly say? Not all the Sufis wanted to end up like al-Hallaj. Then there's the fact that writing things that many people will misunderstand is potentially more misleading than not writing about them at all. Now that there is no more caliphate and the Muslim world has politically fallen, and the West has opened up to Islam, and people are openly writing all kinds of crazy things anyway and printing books left and right, some Perennialists thought it was a good idea to openly write about things that would have gotten them in trouble back in the day.
2:50 "And if you you say [these formulations] are relative, then in effect you are denying the religions the right to tell people what is the nature of reality..." This is a really odd position to take, especially from a scholar and practioner of Sufism such as Tim Winter. Sufism itself takes the view that the doctrines of Islamic theology are only "relative", so partial and fragmentary, in relation to Sufism, or, more particularly, in relation to the supraformal, direct experience of reality. Sufism is not alone in this; all sapiential traditions profess that the ultimate truth is ineffable and supraformal, and so cannot be totally (exhaustively) contained in any particular religious form. Dr Winter surely knows all this. But somehow he forgets all this in this speech and treats the merely verbal expressions of truth contained in the different religions as absolute, rather than symbolical (and so relative).
i dont know how your point is against his point, of course sufi masters thought you taste (zawq) for expriencing reality better, but most of them followed the way Sharia leads them to this kind of understanding.
Sufism does not view the doctrines of Islam as "relative". That's a very false claim. There can be no Sufism without Sharia. Perennial philosophy is, ironically, just another manifestation of modernity although it claims to be about reconnecting with the ancient truths; there are no absolutes, everything is just a "relative expression". Instead your whims and desires become the arbiters of Truth. We reject this modern innovation as Muslims as do all other religions.
@@jabarbnar I quoted him. That might help to cliarfy where the divergence lies. To spell it out, his staement implies that the formulations are *not* relative. Whereas I was saying that they are, that classical Sufism says they are, and that Dr Winter himself knows this. I hope that clarifies things. (Nothing I said contradicted your claim that "most [sufi masters] followed the [Sharia]" - so, with respect, that part seems beside the point.)
@@bez1196 Well, that's not how I've understood classical Sufism. Perhaps we can agree to disagree. My understanding is that it overwhelmingly teaches that indeed, ultimately, *everything* is relative, except the Absolute alone. لا اله الا الله
@@vampireducks1622 No, this isn't a matter of personal opinion, I'm afraid. Sufism without Shariah is delusion by consensus of the people of the Sunnah. We are all contingent beings and the only Real Being is Allah, Al-Haqq, from whom we all "borrow" our existence, true. But that does not mean that all paths lead to Allah. All the greats from Imam Junayd to Ghazali and Ibn Arabi have been very clear about this. Islam/the legal code is the foundation. You need Islam, Iman and Ihsan. You can't have Ihsan and worship Allah as though you see Him without having the foundations. Otherwise you are simply just following your whims and desires which, by definition, lead to other than Allah. It's ultimately a path to self-worship.
I disagree. timothy is regurgitating the same orthodox rhetoric. The core objectives and spiritual aims of every religion are the same. They may all have theological and metaphysical differences, but they are all aiming for the same goal. They are all seeking inner peace, through some form of submission to the divine. Some may believe in a triune God, some may believe in the oneness of God, or some may even deny God's existence all together. But essentially they are all trying to reconnect with their source. There is a great attractor at the end of it all and that is spirituality. Which is at the core of every religious belief system
Wrong. The Sufis were very clear that Allah's morality (Islam) is the only morality and that this is the only way to peace. Allah is the basis for everything in Islam. Whereas for other religions, it may be not wanting to get reincarnated to a cockroach rather than a super human being.
Your right. I was shocked by his answer here. Well actually no I expected it. We may theologize things differently. But we are talking about the CORE behind it all. The monotheistic believe of Abraham or even before that of worshiping The ONE god. But I think he's responding here in accordance to the literal definition of Perennialism which includes validating all theologies and the philosophy's history of trying to merge Greek though with Christian and Jewish thought etc.. in which case he is absolutely right, they are not all correct and they can't all be correct. But in originality before the distortion of scriptures and teachings by the hands of man, these messages were sent down by the creator of this universe and the Quran is in support of this. Also, some Muslim scholars believe the Buddah and even Socrates to be Prophets of Allah. As the Quran states there were many Prophets that Allah has sent that have not been mentioned to us. I think maybe there is another term for it religious universalism? I think. I heard Dr. Umar Farouk AbduAllah talk about it in a video.
"All religions are aiming for the same goal" is not an argument for Perennialism's claim that "All religion teach the same thing". Just because allopathy and homeopathy are both 'trying to cure the patient' doesn't make both methods the same/equally useful. You seem to have missed the point.
In his reasoning towards stating that "metaphysics of world religions cannot be simultaneously true", respected Shaykh Murad limits his reasoning to the alternative Absolute-relative. The solution lies in a third concept that is of relatively Absolute. We say "the sun" giving our sun an absolute and unique character. This is perfectly natural and does not go against the fact that there are actually many suns. Each religion is a perfect and complete system that has the right to claim Absoluteness without contradicting other religions.
+Imran F Mr. Imran: If there is Absolute and relative, there will be room for possibilities in between the two. Possibilities that are relative when observed from Absolute point of view and are "relatively Absolute" when observed from relative's point of view.
+Masoud G any and all possibilities between absolute and relative, are and should be considered to be relative. The meaning of absolute should not be obfuscated, especially in our times when almost every mind is foggy.
