Esoteric sermons of Maulana Ali

[Humsafar]

Taawil comes from God who informs His chosen ones about it. This Taawil is specific. It is not a creation of human beings. Human interpretations of Quran are ordinary taawil. They can be many versions of it and are often the origins of disputes.

Taawil that God lets know to whoever He wills may or may not be shared with others in words but may become apparent in actions which are interpreted by other humans.

Nabi Yusuf, in revealing Taawil behind the dreams of his fellow prisoners, had another purpose in mind. He wanted to impress upon them the lesson of Tawhid. In fact, Yusuf does not to claim to have created the Taawil but explicitly says, Dhaalikuma mimma allamani rabbi. That is what my Lord has revealed to me. That is in verse 37 of Surah Yusuf.

As far as I know, Dai has no access to Taawil of God. He uses his own taawil. Prophet Muhammad clearly had access to it and he may have shared it with Ali, as the legend has it, by God's command.

So the "well-grounded" in knowledge refers to God's chosen messengers and prophets. They are the ones God has chosen for the knowledge.

The whole Taawil philosophy is a doctrinal pretzel, the more twisted it is the more it is supposed to dazzle the believer. From your latest exposition all it means is that Taawil is another, complicated dogma for what is commonly known as awakening, enlightenment. All enlightened mystics including Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, Rumi, Osho, Ramana Maharishi and many others were touched by God's grace -- in other words God willed them into "taawil". And it is true that the Truth, or Taawil if you will, cannot be described or explained or even shared. This we know because masters from ancient times have reported so. There have been many in history who were "well-grounded" in knowledge but not all of them chose to become messengers and prophets.
As for interpretation of taawil, one person's taawil is another person's nonsense.

[anajmi]

fayyaaz and biradar, oh you guys are so cute together.

Anyone who has the benefit of a high school education knows that the primary component of life is Carbon.

So according to fayyaaz, neither the writer of the Quran nor the bohra Taawil (i.e. Ali) have the benefit of high school education. Brilliant, both the city of knowledge and its gate just became worthless according to the fayyaazi taawil.

The pretzel analogy from Humsafar is perfect. God makes invalid statements in the Quran that can only be corrected by taawil and the irony is that it is only the taawilers who claim the statements of God to be invalid.

[fayyaaz]

The whole Taawil philosophy is a doctrinal pretzel, the more twisted it is the more it is supposed to dazzle the believer. From your latest exposition all it means is that Taawil is another, complicated dogma for what is commonly known as awakening, enlightenment. All enlightened mystics including Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, Rumi, Osho, Ramana Maharishi and many others were touched by God's grace -- in other words God willed them into "taawil". And it is true that the Truth, or Taawil if you will, cannot be described or explained or even shared. This we know because masters from ancient times have reported so. There have been many in history who were "well-grounded" in knowledge but not all of them chose to become messengers and prophets.
As for interpretation of taawil, one person's taawil is another person's nonsense.

While an educated secular person will agree with most of what you wrote, you are really digressing from Muslim Orthodoxy. The word taawil is an Arabic word which simply translates to "interpretation". It is commonly used in court proceedings and many a judge comes up with his "taawil". The word as used in the Quran has a 'technical' meaning which means, in Muslim context:

1. An interpretation clearly clarified in words of the Quran itself as revealed by Nabi Yusuf in Surah Yusuf, and as revealed to Musa in Surat al-Kahf.

2. An interpretation vouchsafed by God to an individual who may or may not reveal it to others.

While mystics, like those you mentioned, gain personal insights through disciplined life, they do not claim to have been given these insights by God. That is a Quranic claim. Taawil of the Quran is not personal insight but delivered whole to a person. (Of course, that would seem absurd to most 21st century educated people. That is not the issue I want to discuss.)

Interpretation of Quran, like a translation or tafseer, is itself a taawil (interpretation) of the individual creating it. It is colored by social milieu of the person talking about it and is subject of constant dispute.

Personally, I do not agree there is any merit in judging one taawil against another but agree to a comparative study of all of them. Respect for various taawils have created an astounding Muslim heritage which Wahabis would soon see destroyed. They have one taawil, their own.

There is no sanity involved in accusing others of raising humans to divine, whatever that means. I suspect people know that Dais/Imams are not divine. That they let some tiny portion of their community indulge in this fantasy is more to do with the desire for stability. It is like letting children believe in Santa Claus. That Dais/Imams cultivate this insanity for self-glorification has led to a lot of resentment. It is for concerned people, like yourself, to work to identify how to tap the attendant resentment to.

[anajmi]

Contradicting yourself is an art as developed by the taawilers on this board. First there was porus and then there is fayyaaz. Let me just point out a couple. I saw dozens in his post.

There is no sanity involved in accusing others of raising humans to divine, whatever that means.

and then

That Dais/Imams cultivate this insanity for self-glorification has led to a lot of resentment.

There is no sanity in accusing the bohras of raising their Dais/Imams to the status of the divine ("whatever that means"... you don't actually need taawil to understand that simple statement do you?) and then it is also insanity to cultivate self-glorification? So it is insane to accuse that which is insane of being insane?

And to let bohras indulge in a little bit of human glorification is ok for the bohras just like children believing in Santa Claus. Children will eventually grow up. But bohras? As per fayyaaz it's ok for them to never grow up.

I mean seriously man, do you even think before posting?

[anajmi]

Personally, I do not agree there is any merit in judging one taawil against another but agree to a comparative study of all of them.

Study them in the light of the Quran. That way you will save time and effort. The crap, like that from the bohra clergy about Dais being the rivers of honey and milk, can easily be filtered out.

[Moiz_Dhaanu]

TO All those who think that the Bohra dais have made up stories of hatred between ali and the 3 caliphs(for their own good) and that 3 caliphs were actually not that bad. here is some thing to read..
And I reiterate again, that Allah ta'aala has given free will to all , think what you may like ..but facts will remain facts
and only allah will be the judge on qayamat day .

FYI these are not bohra links

http://www.seratonline.com/8668/hazrat- ... terrorism/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhsin_ibn_Ali

[SincereOfHeart]

While an educated secular person will agree with most of what you wrote, you are really digressing from Muslim Orthodoxy. The word taawil is an Arabic word which simply translates to "interpretation". It is commonly used in court proceedings and many a judge comes up with his "taawil". The word as used in the Quran has a 'technical' meaning which means, in Muslim context:

1. An interpretation clearly clarified in words of the Quran itself as revealed by Nabi Yusuf in Surah Yusuf, and as revealed to Musa in Surat al-Kahf.

2. An interpretation vouchsafed by God to an individual who may or may not reveal it to others.

While mystics, like those you mentioned, gain personal insights through disciplined life, they do not claim to have been given these insights by God. That is a Quranic claim. Taawil of the Quran is not personal insight but delivered whole to a person. (Of course, that would seem absurd to most 21st century educated people. That is not the issue I want to discuss.)

Interpretation of Quran, like a translation or tafseer, is itself a taawil (interpretation) of the individual creating it. It is colored by social milieu of the person talking about it and is subject of constant dispute.

Personally, I do not agree there is any merit in judging one taawil against another but agree to a comparative study of all of them. Respect for various taawils have created an astounding Muslim heritage which Wahabis would soon see destroyed. They have one taawil, their own.

There is no sanity involved in accusing others of raising humans to divine, whatever that means. I suspect people know that Dais/Imams are not divine. That they let some tiny portion of their community indulge in this fantasy is more to do with the desire for stability. It is like letting children believe in Santa Claus. That Dais/Imams cultivate this insanity for self-glorification has led to a lot of resentment. It is for concerned people, like yourself, to work to identify how to tap the attendant resentment to.

My first post on these forums.

1) You mentioned that different people may have different 'taweels' which are just interpretations made to fit social settings/circumstances. Of course, this is true. BUT, you thereby seem to be saying that one person can only make ONE Qur'anic interpretation, the one they believe to be true (correct me if I'm wrong here). This is nothing other than false; the Qur'an has been sent down as a guide for all of the ages to come after the Prophet SA, and therefore, logically, must contain guidance and information on all ages to come - if it doesn't, why even use it as a guide? As the Qur'an itself says (6:59), all knowledge is in the Qur'an. The nature of language is such that it is limited in what a person reading it can gain from it. One person may gain 3-4 meanings, and one only read it on a basic surface level. Therefore, logically again, there must be someone to expound the intended meaning of God, and these may be many, linking again to my first point.

2) Your final point alluded to a much wider discussion - the divinity of Dais/Imams. Although i do not want to force feed ideology down anyone's throat (and wouldn't like to discuss this now), I will say one thing. As proved logically in the previous argument levels of meaning are present in the Qur'an, but it is irrational to say that these are not revealed to and related by a representative by God. I shall illustrate this by posing a question. Why did God only reveal the Qur'an to the Prophet SA? Why not reveal it to all of humanity directly - through their "personal experiences"? The need for a divine representative with the same knowledge of the Prophet SA is clear, and since Allah SWT himself says that he is the most just, then logically the Prophet's representative must be accessible among us today; otherwise where is this divine justice? As to who those representatives are, I don't want to go into that here. May Allah SWT guide us to the truth of his words in the holy Qur'an, deriving its true meanings, and not comparing many taweels simply to create an "astounding Muslim Heritage."