In his al-Mabdaʾ wa-al-maʿād (The Origin and the Return), Mullā Ṣadrā (d. 1050/1640), perhaps the most influential Islamic philosopher after Avicenna (d. 428/1037), goes as far as to claim that ‘knowledge of the self is the mother of philosophy (umm al-ḥikma) and the root of happiness (aṣl al-saʿāda), and that if one fails to attain assured certainty of the immateriality (tajarrud) and subsistence (baqāʾ) of the self, one then fails to attain the rank of a philosopher’.
‘And how is it possible’, he asks rhetorically, ‘to have any certainty concerning anything, if one did not have knowledge of one’s self in the first place’ (Mullā Ṣadrā 2002–2005: I.6)? He then goes on to aver that ‘whoever knows himself becomes deified (man ʿarafa dhātahu taʾallaha)’, a saying that he attributes to ancient philosophers (Mullā Ṣadrā 2002–2005: I.7).
Interesting! Here’s something I found that seems to be related:
“[…] that, in the soul which it metamorphoses, the Form—or Idea—intelligized by the active Intelligence is a Form which intelligizes itself, and that as a result the active Intelligence or Holy Spirit intelligizes itself in the soul’s act of intellection. Reciprocally, the soul, as a Form intelligizing itself, intelligizes itself as a Form intelligized by the active Intelligence.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulla_Sadra#Existentialism
Let’s try to unpack this. The Holy Spirit is an active Understanding which understands an Idea. This Idea is: a Form which understands itself. This means it must understand itself as a Form understood by the Holy Spirit. And conversely, the Holy Spirit must also understand itself, otherwise it logically cannot understand a Form which understands itself!
When this happens within the soul, the soul is transformed by it—the self is deified… It may seem as if there’s talk of three subject matters here, the soul, the Form and the Holy Spirit, but they’re actually one in that the Holy Spirit is the subject matter in its aspect of active Intelligence, i.e. doing the intelligizing of the Form; the Form is rather the subject matter in its passive aspect, namely being intelligized by the Holy Spirit; and the soul is the subject matter in its intermediate aspect as transforming from a Form which does not intelligize itself/is not intelligized by itself, into a Form which does intelligize itself/is intelligized by itself.
And indeed, what does it mean to be divine without it contrasting to not being divine? How could one know oneself—i.e., as a knower—without knowing what it’s like not to know? “Existence precedes essence”!!
The response you posted attempts to engage with the ideas of Mullā Ṣadrā, but it introduces concepts and terminology that are not directly related to his thought, particularly in the context of the passage you quoted. Here’s a breakdown of how the response relates (or doesn’t) to my original post:
1. Does the answer address the issue?
-
Partially, but not directly: The response touches on themes related to self-knowledge and the relationship between the soul, intellect, and divinity, which are relevant to Mullā Ṣadrā’s philosophy. However, it introduces concepts like the “Holy Spirit” and uses language more characteristic of Christian theology or later philosophical interpretations (like existentialism) rather than directly addressing Mullā Ṣadrā’s ideas as expressed in my quote.
-
Mullā Ṣadrā’s Original Context: My original quote discusses self-knowledge as the foundation of philosophical inquiry and spiritual fulfillment. The emphasis is on understanding the immateriality and subsistence of the self, which is central to attaining philosophical certainty and, ultimately, deification (taʾalluh).
-
Your Focus: Your response shifts focus to a different framework, discussing the idea of the Holy Spirit as an active Intelligence that understands a Form, which then leads to the deification of the soul. This is somewhat tangential to Mullā Ṣadrā’s emphasis on self-knowledge as the key to philosophical and spiritual ascent.
2. Why is the Holy Spirit evoked in the answer?
-
The Holy Spirit in Christian Context: The Holy Spirit is a concept from Christian theology, often associated with divine inspiration and the process of understanding or revealing truth. However, Mullā Ṣadrā, being a Muslim philosopher deeply rooted in Islamic tradition, does not invoke the Holy Spirit in his writings. Instead, Ṣadrā’s framework revolves around Islamic concepts such as the intellect (`aql), the soul (nafs), and God (Allah).
-
Possible Misinterpretation: Your introduction of the Holy Spirit may stem from a misunderstanding or an attempt to draw parallels between Ṣadrā’s concept of the active intellect (a philosophical idea with roots in Neoplatonism and Islamic philosophy) and the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit. However, this comparison is not typical in the scholarly interpretation of Ṣadrā’s work and might lead to confusion.
-
Mismatch with Mullā Ṣadrā’s Thought: In Islamic philosophy, particularly in Mullā Ṣadrā’s system, the focus is on the relationship between the self (nafs), intellect, and the Divine, but this does not directly correlate with the Christian Trinity or the role of the Holy Spirit. The idea of the self becoming deified (taʾalluh) is more about achieving unity with the Divine through self-knowledge, not through an intermediary like the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion:
The response you have posted tries to engage with the concept of self-knowledge leading to deification but does so using concepts that are not part of Mullā Ṣadrā’s philosophical system. The evocation of the Holy Spirit seems to be an attempt to draw a parallel that doesn’t quite fit within the framework of Islamic philosophy, particularly as developed by Mullā Ṣadrā. The response may reflect a misunderstanding or a misapplication of different philosophical traditions rather than directly addressing the points in my original post.
[quote=“Bob, post:3, topic:80323, username:Bob”]
### 2. Why is the Holy Spirit evoked in the answer?
*** The Holy Spirit in Christian Context: The Holy Spirit is a concept from Christian theology, often associated with divine inspiration and the process of understanding or revealing truth. However, Mullā Ṣadrā, being a Muslim philosopher deeply rooted in Islamic tradition, does not invoke the Holy Spirit[/quote]**
HI there,
I love your dismemberment of the other post.
Allow me to give my opinion.
-
Mulla Sadra is relatively unknown in the Muslim world outside of academia - he appears to be the stuff of Orientalists and Persian-ists, and students of Shi’is Philosophy.
-
The Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit is a key belief in Islam. Take for example Qur’an 2:87, 19:17, 26:193.
-
What you have presented of Mulla Sadra’s views seem to me to be non sequiturs and over-wrought. This is a major criticism of most philosophers today - they become lost in verbiage, and need to invent obscure terminology to express the abstract, but sadly this loses the attention of ordinary people.
From your OP it seems like we must “know our selves” (whatever that means, l know my social security number, name, address, childhood trauma, etc. and l think that’s good enough) before engaging in philosophy.
However, l think any person is able to reason and philosophy is about the flesh of reason, clothing the bones of logic, right? So, why does Mulla Sadra write this extra stuff? And why does his translator / editor need special Arabic terminology? Seems like it only helps departmental lecturers publish books if a certain amount of obscurity is maintained!
Isn’t the self essentially obliterated in Islam by close contact with ‘Allah’? Why else bow pushing their faces into the dirt and sticking their butts up in the air so many times times a day? A more self-effacing gesture is hardly imaginable.
Religious deference is a deferral of vanity.
We debase ourselves before our lord because he is worth it and we were created for that purpose. As the other responder Self-Lightening implied: all else is vanity.
If you reject the source of all morality (God) then you may end up living a life without limits, and all that it entails. The stuff of nightmares. Your best life.
Yep. You do.
You obviously don’t know the history of Islam, otherwise you’d know that that was the point. Muhammad faced the arrogance of the Arab warlords, and brought them to their knees.
@Bob
Sir, if l may add something to the topic:
The Muslim shahadah has been said to entail the true realisation of Self.
La ilaha = there is no god = there is only you alone, you’re the only one you know to exist
il-Allah = but Allah = the only true objectively existing thing
So, as the Sufis say, we are “alone with the Alone”. That’s what the testament of faith (La ilaha il-Allah - one of the 5 pillars of Islam) affirms. In other words, this entire life is a simulation, and we were in his presence, alone with him, the whole time.
“In Hindu mythology, they say that the world is the drama of God. God is not something in Hindu mythology with a white beard that sits on a throne, that has royal perogatives. God in Indian mythology is the self, Satcitananda. Which means sat, that which is; chit, that which is consciousness; and ananda that which is bliss. In other words, what exists, reality itself is gorgeous, it is the fullness of total joy.”
Quelle: Alan Watts Zitate (107 Zitate) | Zitate berühmter Personen
@Bob Unfortunately that branch of Hinduism doesn’t get past the “La ilaha” stage i.e. only the self exists. By the way, Hinduism is a relatively recent term, arising from interaction with foreigners. In itself, the religion had many branches and was the local beliefs of Hind (geographical ancient India) - never a formal religion, but l think deities spanned multiple geographical regions and thus the concept of a unified religion arose. It’s fascinating. A Zoroastrian Sufi wrote a book called Dabistan-i-Mazaheb (School of Manners / Doctrines) about the different faiths and sub-sects of India, there’s a huge section on Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, untainted by Orientalism, as the author was local. You’d enjoy it, and the unabridged version is best as it’s got more pages obviously - in English translation by Shea and Troyer, free of copyright, downloadable from archive.org
Who is Allah?
Is he the God of the bible, does it teach the same teachings that we read about in the Bible? These are questions that need to be answered.
The Islamic faith is taken very seriously by its followers and many of them of course regard Christianity as rather frivolous because there aren’t these strict paradigms that the people uphold. On the issue of creation and evolution they are very much for creation.
There are two issues and two paradigms and two documents.
One the Bible, the other one the Quran and the question is can they be reconciled. Are they basically similar stories with a different angle or are they something else?
The Quran can be read very seriously as one can read the Bible.
There is the notion that somehow because Ishmael was Abraham’s son, therefore because of that relation and Ishmael’s relation to the children of the east, specifically talking about the Arabs, that suddenly Islam is now a religion that is basically fostered or presented as a religion that is divinely mandated and that is related to Christianity. So because of that Abrahamic connection suddenly there are three groups. There are the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims, and they are called the Abrahamic faiths.
This is an important question.
Who is Allah?
Undoubtedly the answer would be from a Muslim the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are two different gods.
I completely agree. We cannot connect them together. They are just not the same personality.
The God of Christianity is the God depicted by Paul and followers of Paul. For all intents and purposes, the God of Christianity cannot reasonably be reconciled with the God depicted by Jesus while He preached His gospel either. Nor with the God of Judaism. The question to you is, “Can the God of Jesus reasonably be reconciled with the God of Islam”? Also, “Can the God of Judaism reasonably be reconciled with the God of Islam”?
Comparing both leads to the conclusion one or the other must be out of sync. The Bible is a book of prophecy and the Quran is a description of events and a description of Allah and the relationship between Allah and his people. It is not a prophetic book in the sense that the bible is with very distinct prophecies, very distinct timelines. One obvious difference is the central figure in the Bible is the Messiah. None of that history is in the Quran. Jesus is mentioned in the Quran, his mother is very prominent in it. So we have some parallels and some issues.
Jesus is recognized as a prophet and there is only one God and that is according to the Quran, Allah.
The Quran is very similar in its theology or the attributes of Allah are very similar in their theology to what is presented by the Roman Catholic system and there it is a reflection of Roman Catholicism. So in that sense there is a link between this so-called Christianity and the Quran. But is the God of Catholicism the same God as that of the Bible?
The book of Daniel and the book of Revelation, talk about a distorted Christianity that would be presented to the world, Paul referred to it as a falling away and that another power would present itself as a Christian power.
None of that history is in the Quran and none of that timeline or prophecy. In Daniel it tells you exactly the year in which the Messiah would be born, what his mission would be and these prophecies were fulfilled. It also talks about the change over from Israel, literal Israel to spiritual Israel.
The controversy with the Jews with the Book of Daniel lies in the nature of the prophecy.
It all revolves around this Messiah who in the New Testament is identified as Jesus Christ.
In Islam, Allah is the Arabic term for the one, unique and eternal God, who is described as the Creator, Sustainer and possessor of 99 beautiful names, such as the Merciful and the Wise. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews also use ‘Allah’ to refer to God, linking it linguistically to the Semitic root for deity, which is also found in the Hebrew words ‘El’ and ‘Elohim’. This root is also found in the Aramaic word ‘Alaha’, which has been used by Arabic Christians to refer to the Biblical God since pre-Islamic times.
Muslims affirm tawhid, the absolute oneness of Allah, rejecting any anthropomorphic or triune nature and affirming that Allah has no partners, sons, or divisions. The Qur’an portrays Allah as transcendent: merciful to the righteous, yet distant from unbelievers. It emphasises submission through strict practices such as prayer and fasting. Islam continues the strict monotheism of Judaism by affirming Yahweh (Allah) as the singular, unchanging God of Abraham and Moses. However, it acknowledges Jesus as a prophet, while rejecting the Trinitarian and incarnational developments of Christianity as deviations.
In contrast, Christianity depicts Yahweh as triune (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), loving unconditionally (‘God is love’, 1 John 4:8) and immanent through the incarnation of Jesus. According to Christian belief, Jesus’ crucifixion atones for sin. The Quran denies these core tenets and calls Christians polytheists for believing in the Trinity. While both Islam and Christianity affirm monotheism, creation, and prophets, Allah lacks the relational love and redemptive sacrifice that are central to the Biblical God.
Quranic depictions prioritise Allah’s mercy (Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem) as a reward for obedience in the covenant, rather than an unconditional embrace of sinners. For example, mercy is given to the righteous, while justice is given to transgressors (Surah 7:156). This is similar to Brahman in Advaita Vedanta, which is the ultimate impersonal absolute (nirguna Brahman) that is beyond relational duality. Here, the unity of the devotee and Brahman dissolves the ego in a non-dual realisation, rather than in a personal communion.
The Quran and the Bible share Abrahamic roots and retell stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus (as a prophet and a miracle-worker born of a virgin), positioning Islam as a religion that confirms prior revelations while correcting distortions. Both reject evolution in favour of direct creation, aligning with Islamic creationism, which views humans as specially formed by God.
Irreconcilable differences from Christianity include the Qur’an’s denial of Jesus’s divinity and crucifixion, as opposed to Biblical salvation through him, as well as differing details such as Abraham’s sacrifice (Ishmael in the Qur’an and Isaac in the Bible). Labelled ‘Abrahamic faiths’ due to Ishmael’s lineage to the Arabs and Muhammad, the two religions diverge fundamentally. The Quran is seen as the final correction, while the Bible is considered complete in Christ, precluding full harmony.
Advaita Vedanta diverges from Christianity in a manner strikingly similar to Islam’s tawhid, emphasising an impersonal, non-dual absolute over relational personhood. Christian Gnostic traditions exhibit notable syncretism with Advaita Vedanta through their shared non-dual emphases, though these are filtered through Hellenistic and Abrahamic lenses. Valentinian texts such as the Gospel of Truth describe gnosis as realising unity with the divine pleroma, which is similar to Advaita’s realisation of Atman=Brahman dissolving maya.
Islam is on dangerous ground by going into an alliance in the Abrahmic accord with Catholicism and Judaism both of whom deny the atonement. So that accord is three religious systems that deny the Divinty of Christ and the Atonement. The fact that in this accord which they called Chrislam, the one world religion complex that is in Dubai UAE, it is headed by the Catholics in fact all the leaders usually go to the Vatican. The Vatican never goes to them. The whole premise of this accord is to take the world under the guise of this supposedly peaceful religious union that they have created.
Islam has zero causal relationship with Roman Catholicism and any insistence on that is like forcing a square peg into a triangular hole. Yes, there is a fit, sort of. Yes, those who love you might be impressed with what you did today. But in an actual, honest to God, real sense: it is not a good fit.
A few more things:
- Islam teaches Christ is Messiah, peace be upon him.
- The Qur’an does have some prophecies e.g. predicting that the Romans (Byzantine Christians) would within a few years reverse their defeat to the Persians, at a time when that was highly unlikely as the Roman world was too, er, byzantine, dysfunctional, overtaxed, battered, and wrecked by the Persians. The pagan Quraysh of Makkah were ridiculing the Muslims over it, as the Christians were broadly monotheists too, whereas the Quraysh and Persians were pagan.
- Islam has far, far, far, far more prophecies that Christianity, but they are mostly in hadith literature,. They are the words of our Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Our prophecies are usually more detailed and many have clearly come true already. Please research them, l implore you to do that, before writing further invectives, dear sir.
- If a Prophet were to write up his own words in totality, within his own lifetime too of course, then part of his high office would have been a deskjob, inc. proofreading, publishing, signing first editions, which is prettty mediocre and would explain why zero prophets do that (but which false prophets have a tendency to do, you may notice). The Prophet is the centre of a vast whirlwind as it were. That would also explain why the people of Makkah and Madina had very little influence in Islamic society including the arts, sciences and religious jurisprudence.
- One random fact l learned recently: the Bible says that Joseph (peace be upon him) dealt with a Pharaoh. The Qur’an, about 2,000 years later, offhandedly refers to Joseph (Yusuf) dealing with the King of Egypt, not Fir-’aun (Pharaoh) whom the Qur’an says Moses (Musa, peace be upon him) dealt with. It so happens that at the time of Yusuf, the rulers were Hykso kings. Pharaohs came later. Joseph & King Of Egypt
- As for Islam and God’s judgement of mankind and Jinn: that is God’s royal prerogative and l feel it’s ill-advised to squabble about which faith does the best PAYG / Pay Later deals and which allows you to even roam for a bit. I can say though: the foundation of Justice seems to be: good is rewarded and evil is punished. However, Justice is art, and so there are things mere mortals can barely handle, things only a Prophet might have a grasp of ( Google Search ). However, Allah offers us forgiveness in many ways, and if you read our Qur’an and Sunnah you’d see many examples. Same with punishment. We prefer to just worship Allah between Love and Fear. Once you do away with the Fear, you become a self blessed red eyed gargoyle, and there are one or two about.
@reason4emotion I am not trying to convert you but please, read up on our faith:
… and only THEN have a go at it if you must! Just stop the garbled “chinese whispers” i.e. secondary, tertiary sources