Could you please indicate some evidence for such a notion in the traditional sources of Islam?

It appears that many Western academics specializing in the field of religious studies, including the so called Traditionalists, support the notion of a universal validity of all religions, in their current forms, even after the coming of revelation to the Prophet (saw), a notion that Traditional or Classical Islam (in its Sunni or Shii forms) would arguably not condone. Can you comment on this? I know for sure that Traditionalist Muslims who are in Academia such as Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr would find problematic the phrase you used, namely "universal validity of all religions" to define their perspective on Islam's view of "other religions". The main issue would be understanding what exactly is meant by universal validity and on what level of religious or intellectual discourse within a Tradition this term is being used. Universal validity would have altogether different meanings and applications when evaluating this term from a theological level, distinct from a spiritual or metaphysical level of understanding. Moreover, the term validity itself has various connotations, such as truth, spiritual efficacy, and salvific efficacy, all of which add nuances when approaching the issue from juridical, theological, and metaphysical points of view in Islam. For example: Can religions have truth in them without salvific efficacy, or does truth itself imply salvific efficacy?. Again, the answers to these questions would entirely depend upon which level of religious reference or spiritual awareness we intend to approach the issue: a more restrictive theological lens, or a more encompassing metaphysical aperture. All this presupposes an awareness of the hierarchy of levels of religious (or spiritual) truth, as well as the respective scopes or limits of each level. Each level of truth compliments a lower level while in principle transcending the lower level on a higher plane of truth and realized unity. In this light, the Traditionalist and Sufi notion of an inner unity or transcendent unity of religions is not identical to believing in "the universal validity of all religions." First of all, in the Traditionalist and Islamic perspectives not all religions are "valid". Only a religion which originates in an authentic Divine Revelation is considered as authentic or as a "valid" religion from the point of view of its Divine Origin that is Allah (swt). Therefore, there can not be a "universal validity of all religions" since from a traditional point of view, those religions not rooted in divine revelation are false religions. Secondly, certain revealed religions have ceased being living spiritual realities on this earthly plane. The ancient Egyptian and ancient Iranian religions are examples of this category. Thirdly, there are revealed religions which are still "alive" today but have gone through periods of religious or spiritual decline, decadence. These same religions have also gone through processes of renewal through which they have preserved the possibility of spiritual nourishment, salvation, and even sanctification in their respective contexts. In this category one may place religions such as certain forms of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and of course, Islam. However, Islam as the final revealed and plenary religion, and seal of Prophetic Tradition in this cycle of humanity (as attested to by its own traditional teachings and the historical record) can be viewed to have certain formal (revealed) qualities which render it a very preserved and vibrant means of faith and spirituality. By this admission of the spiritual advantages contained

within Islam at the present moment, Dr. Nasr and other universalist oriented Muslims would not mean to say that Islam is "now" the only intact or exclusively valid Tradition (this term understood as a synthesis of the Islamic terms, al Din, As Sunnah and al Silsilah). In other words, the finality of Islam does not abrogate in the sense of invalidate or nullify the truth and salvific efficacy of all other Traditions for the present followers of all prior revealed religions. Nor does this mean that Islam as a thriving religion is completely intact and other Traditions are entirely decadent. It is obvious to many Muslims now that unfortunately there are certain decadent or deviant currents within the Islamic form of Tradition which obviously do not invalidate its preserved and transmitted truth. Rather as the last revealed religion, Islam has a kind of "youthful intensity" when compared to other living revealed/spiritual traditions. Moreover, the way in which Allahu ta'ala revealed Islam makes of it a most opportune and practical form of Tradition to practice in the contemporary world we live in both East and West. Qualities such as an explicit emphasis on Divine Unity (Tawhid), having direct access to God without the need of an institutionalized intermediary such as the Church (for example), and being able to pray the canonical prayers anywhere on earth in harmony with nature, make of Islam a very direct, practical, and a primordial form of religion to practice. Fourthly, is the question of faith (iman) in a revealed religion. Here, faith may be defined as a spiritual light and intuitive awareness of Truth which comes from God and serves as a providential attachment to God through one of His Forms of Self Revelation. From the standpoint of the operative function of faith, it can be appreciated that an authentic religion becomes "valid" for a person once that individual soul has been opened unto the particularity of "faith" (iman) inherent in that revealed religion. This particularity of faith is necessarily connected to God who transcends the form of faith through which He reveals HimSelf. The Qur an is explicit about recognizing that distinct from the faith and belief of followers of Islam, there are among the People of Scripture, those who have faith. Now, such faith is formally diverse yet essentially one given its divine Origin. In this light, the validity or the validation of each form of faith is different and particular to each revealed context. Therefore, there can not be an equal or universal validity of faith for every believer (in every way) on the formal plane of religion. Although all "authentic religions" are universally valid with God so to speak, all authentic religions can not be "equally valid" for each person in the same way, given the unique nature of faith. So even from the point of view of faith, universal validity serves as an imprecise description of what is meant by a transcendent unity of religion or of faith. Finally, it is important to recognize that even within any authentic religion, there are orthodox and heterodox (proper and improper) ways to understand the beliefs or practices of the religion. This means that not every thing which is labeled as Islamic, Christian, or Hindu for that matter, is true or correct from the point of view of the revealed sources of these living traditions. In a more profound sense, it is the Tradition itself which decides on validation or authenticity. So from the point of view of a transcendent unity of revealed religions, universal validity is more accurately an essential equality : a validity from God which transcends religious forms, yet is immanent in religious forms. Transcendent unity is certainly not a formal equality of religions either: an equal validity found on the outer the level of religious forms. Therefore, the

notion of a transcendent unity of religions does not connote a "universal validity", unless this be understood as a transcendent validity of authentic forms of religion (al Din, as understood in its Qur anic sense) and with all the above qualifications. This is why the notion of a "universal validity of religions" can be a problematic way (both theologically and philosophically) to understand what is meant by the Traditionalists and certain Sufis when they imply in their writings and words a "transcendent unity or inner unity of religions from a metaphysical or spiritual point of view. What Dr. Nasr, the other Traditionalists, and some of their predecessors (such as Rumi, Ibn Arabi and in fact countless Sufis in India and Africa) or some of their contemporaries in the Islamic tradition of Sufism who are more open to the universality of the Spirit (al Ruh), have in mind when they speak of the truth and beauty of other religions is to assert and apply the Qur'anic principle of the universality of Revelation and multiplicity of Prophecy. In this manner, they appreciate a unity of revealed religions which is realized beyond the level of their revealed formal diversity and theological differences. For the above mentioned figures, all religious diversity and difference is, on the highest level Divinely Willed in a positive sense. From this point of view, God Willed to keep the diverse religious traditions formally distinct from one another in space and time, in order to preserve them for the sake of their followers. In summary, the perspective of a transcendent or inner unity of religions understands that all revealed religions and the traditions they produce are unified on a metaphysical or spiritual level of Truth which transcends their formal differences. Only Truth is universally valid as it transcends all revealed religious expressions yet is immanent in all of them. These revealed differences are thereby not only human, but also divine. These differences, are Sacred and ultimately Willed by God in His Wisdom and Mercy towards mankind. This Sufi and Traditionalist perspective can be viewed as an application and an elaboration of the wisdom (hikma) contained in the treasury of the Islamic Tradition to address present needs. Could you please indicate some evidence for such a notion in the traditional sources of Islam? As for the underlying unity of the message of Tawhid (Unity of Divine Reality) and the multiplicity of the Prophetic Messages. The following Quranic verse suffices: "And We sent no messenger before you but We inspired him (saying): There is no God save Me, so worship Me." (21:25) All the Prophets are unified in the essential message of Divine Unity (Tawhid) which they are inspired with to teach their followers: "there is no God save Me". However the Prophets differ in "so worship Me" through the particular and diverse nature of their revealed laws and teachings. In this sense, a Muslim can read this and other verses as indicating that although the underlying meaning of all revealed religions of the Prophets are one in essence as they serve to communicate Divine Unity (Tawhid), their revealed languages to communicate Tawhid are different in form. This wisdom can be found in the following Qur'anic verses:

"For every community there is a Messenger" Qur'an (10:47) "We never sent a messenger save with the language of his people so that he may make it (the message) clear to them" (14:4) Although each diverse or particular language is clear to those who have faith in a given revealed language, it is obvius that the same language may be unclear or incomprehensible and rejected by those who do not have faith in that particular revealed language. It is in this way that one may appreciate that although differences in authentic Prophetic teachings or "languages" may appear to contradict one another or actually do contradict one another in certain respects on more formal levels (such as the level of theology and law), they are unified in meaning on a higher level of spiritual or metaphysical (esoteric) unity through which the outer (exoteric) contradictions/differences are resolved. It is in this sense that one can understand the following verse: "To each We have given a Law and a Way: Had God Willed, He could have made you one community; but in order that He test you with what He has given you (He has made you as you are). So compete with one another in good works and virtue. And upon your return to your Lord, He will inform you of your differences" (5:48). Certainly God tests each community through the divinely ordained differences as well as the human errors which arise as a result of the particularities of each message. But the tone and context in this particular verse views these ordained differences more positively. In this light, there are many Qur'anic verses which indicate the universality and diversity of revelation, or the multiplicity of Prophecy: See also Qur'an 2:1 5, 2:285, 3:84, 4:163 165, 22:67, 30:30,40:78, 41:43. These verses nowadays are either not emphasized as much in the proper context, or not applied more inclusively (and usefully) by many contemporary scholars and Muslim authorities. Rather, those Quranic verses which either criticize followers of other revealed religions or have a more restrictive or exclusive focus as opposed to an inclusive meaning are emphasized. In this light Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr is a rare but much needed voice who has stated so nicely once that "among all the revealed scriptures of the world, the Qur'an is the MOST UNIVERSALIST and LEAST EXCLUSIVIST". What this formulation means to me is that Islam is very unique in its 'explicit' recognition of the existence, validity, truth, and even salvation inherent in other revealed religions. Yet because Islam is a religious form which by that token must exclude certain religious possibilities, rites, and doctrinal emphasis, it must thereby have particular and exclusive elements which preserve its revealed formal qualities. To give another example of a very explicitly inclusive and universalist Qur'anic verse is the Qur'anic doctrine or teaching on salvation. The explicitness of the following verse speaks for itself. In fact, more than one major Qur anic exegete (such as At Tabari and the Shii

commentator At Tabarsi) have accepted the literal and universalist meaning of the verse: "Verily those who believe, those among the Jews and the Christians verily those who believe in God, the Last Day and do work virtue and righteousness, surely their reward is with their Lord, neither shall they grieve." (2:62) As we see here, Allah bestows salvation on Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabians if they believe in Allah, the Last Day, and are righteous. However, the verse further demonstrates that Allah (swt) actually universalizes salvation by essentializing the requirements to belief in the Unity of the Divine Principle (Allah), belief in posthumous accountability (in the Last Day) and being a virtuous person! Although one can take from this verse that there is a gradation or hierarchy of "reward" in Paradise for certain believers above others for various reasons, but in the Qur'an, Allah has not singled out one community over another for salvation (although He (swt) certainly has favored certain religious communities over others, or certain Prophets over. Among the many examples found in the sirah (life story) of the Prophet (saw), there is in particular, one incident which recalls how the Prophet debated certain Christians about their belief in the divine nature of Christ (as). While disagreeing with them (especially with the language used to express this nature of Christ, that of sonship ), the Prophet (saw) nevertheless allowed them to pray their liturgical rites which by all accounts involved recognizing the doctrine of the Trinity in his very Mosque. This would not have been possible if the Prophet (saw) believed these Christians were blatant polytheists (mushrikun) for believing in the Trinity and practicing rites which confirm this! This Prophetic gesture, far from a mere political move, demonstrates how theological disagreement can go hand in hand with spiritual and devotional acceptance of the holiness of the Sacred in the Religious Other. This Other can then be seen to be rooted in authentic Revelation, and thereby rooted in the same God which transcends His revealed formal differences. We find the wisdom of this Prophetic recognition in the following Qur anic verse: And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is One ; and we are of those who submit to Him. [29:46] It is interesting to note that Allah uses the phrase our God and your God is One, rather than our God is One when conversing with People of the Book. This is as if to note that by God s Permission, our revealed conception of God and your revealed conception of God differ and are distinct, yet these different revelations and religious teachings derived from revelation are recognized by Him to originate from the same One God who transcends His Self Revelations. The incident during the "conquest of Makkah" when the Prophet allowed the clearing of all idols from the Kabah with the exception of an icon of the Virgin Mary and Jesus (as) is another profound example in the Sirah, of the Prophetic knowledge of the difference between manifestations of false religion (the idols) and authentic religion (the sacred art of the Christian

icons). Other Sources within the Islamic/Sufi Tradition: As for other sources from the Islamic tradition that support spiritual universality, there are many, and perhaps the following examples will suffice for now. Here is advice from Ibn Arabi in his Fusus al Hikam: "Beware of being bound up by a particular creed and rejecting others as unbelief! Try to make yourself a prime matter for all forms of religious belief. God is greater and wider than to be confined to one particular creed to the exclusion of others. For He says, 'To whichever direction you turn there is the Face of God [2:115] " Despite what else Ibn Arabi has said about the supercession or superiority of Islam over other revealed religions, he reminds us here, to not allow our received or acquired religious belief to restrict our awareness of God s Infinite Presence and Total Truth. He reminds us that we restrict God through binding Him to our own limited form of belief. What Ibn Arabi has in mind is a level of religious or spiritual awareness which transcends the level theology, which in particular validates creeds or understandings associated with them by accepting, critiquing or rejecting them. While theology certainly has a positive role to play in revealed religious teachings, Ibn Arabi asks the spiritual seeker to willingly suspend one s theological disbelief of the Other s doctrines and spiritual teachings, and not to pass negative judgment on the Other. This holding on to one s belief whilst simultaneously suspending a sense of disbelief in other allows the seeker to be more receptive to a higher mode of religious learning and awareness of God, which validates the other in God without accepting the faith of the Other as one s own to practice. In such a process, one can begin to understand how these doctrines and religions have elements of truth and presence in them without rejecting this possibility altogether due to differences or contradictions s with one s own faith. This is all said in the context of the path towards knowing God as He is, and in our heart, and not necessarily as we perceive Him by our received or transmitted teachings. A more contemporary Muslim Scholar and Sufi (20th century), the African Sage Tierno Bokar, echoed similar wisdom when he mentioned: Avoid confrontations. When something in some religion or belief shocks you, instead seek to understand it. Perhaps God will come to your aid and will enlighten you about what seems strange to you... Such a statement to seek understanding obviously comes from a place of spiritual awareness which transcends the more normative and exclusive teachings of religion. Tierno Bokar also said so eloquently: I will tell you: one must speak with foreigners if you can remain polite and courteous. You will

gain enormously by knowing about the various forms of religion. Believe me, each one of these forms, however strange it may seem to you, contains that which can strengthen your own faith. Certainly, faith, like fire, must be maintained by means of an appro priate fuel in order for it to blaze up. Otherwise, it will dim and decrease in intensity and volume and turn into embers and then from embers to coals and from coals to ashes. To believe that one s race or one s religion is the only pos sessor of the truth is an error. This could not be. Indeed, in its nature, faith is like air. Like air, it is indispensable for human life and one could not find one man who does not believe truly and sincerely in something. Human nature is such that it is incapable of not believing in something, whether that is God or Satan, power or wealth, or good or bad luck. So, when a man believes in God, he is our brother. Treat him as such and do not be like those who have gone astray. Unless one has the certitude of possessing all knowledge in its entirety, it is necessary to guard oneself against opposing the truth. Certain truths only seem to be beyond our acceptance because, quite simply, our knowledge has not had access to them. He reminds us that access to such knowledge is a gift from God. And lest we forget Rumi, among his many perspectives on the universality of Truth and the spiritual quest: In every religion the ritual prayer is different, But faith does not change in any of them Its inward states, its orientation, and so forth are all the same... (Rumi, Fihi ma fihi, Discourse 8) Here, Rumi brings attention to the truth that all sincere faith is one, it is only the outer forms of the revealed rituals which differ. This echoes the wisdom contained in the following Qur anic verse:..every religious community faces a direction of its own, Of which He [God] is the focal point. (Quran 2:148) For every religious community We have made rites of worship, they perform. So let them not dispute with you in the matter, but invite (them) to your Lord. Indeed, you (are) surely on guidance straight [22:67 Or the following from Rumi again, The differences among creatures issues from the outer forms (surat). When we arrive at the world of inner meaning (ma na), there is peace. Oh pith of existence, it is the result of difference in perspective that there is disagreement between Muslims, Zoroastrians and Jews Here, Rumi s recognizes how the oneness of spiritual meaning at the heart of the spiritual quest transcends the sacred outer differences and valid disagreements of revealed religious forms.

To cite another more contemporary Sufi authority, let us turn to the Shaykh al Alawi (qs). In his 'al Bahr al masjur', his tafsir/ishara on the Qur an 2:62 ( "Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does right surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall be no fear upon them neither shall they grieve ), the Shaykh al Alawi, states, "Thus I have understood from this enigmatic verse that all aforementioned traditional communities possess a genuine validity in Religion (makaana fid din). One may draw from the order of the enumeration a certain preeminence of the first over the last, but it remains nonetheless that a traditional community will always be of an incomparably higher rank than pagan cults." The Shaykh al Alawi (qs) posits a 'genuine validity in Religion' leading to a potential salvation for all the mentioned communities despite certain deviations which may have occurred since, according to Qur anic logic, these communities are based on a revealed belief in God, the Last Day and perform righteous deeds. In this light, the Shaykh proclaims: "Whoever meditates on the Quran realizes that God is more merciful towards the servant than the latter could be toward himself. Thus God, after having struck the sons of Israel with deafness as a punishment for their unfaithfulness, describes these men in all of their perversity. But He then shows Himself under His Attribute of Mercy, for this prevails over His Wrath. Henceforth, the sons of Israel were encompassed in this Mercy and placed among the number of those who have faith among other traditional communities: there is no greater sweetness than that!..." I think it is safe to state that very normative and even popular Sufis, despite the rigorous training of some (or most) of them in the traditional sciences including kalam (speculative theology), are indeed more open to the Religious Other. This is likely because, by their very realization, they are more open to the nuances and greatness of God's Mercy, which according to a hadith Qudsi, "prevails over His Wrath" (as mentioned above): a prevailing of Mercy which transcends confessional delimitations in a manner known ultimately only to Allah (swt). And here is the diwan of Hallaj from 1000 years ago: "Ernest for Truth I meditated on the religions. I found them all to be of one root with many branches.therefore impose on no man a religion, Lest it should bar him from the firm set root. Let the root claim him, a root wherein all heights And meanings are made clear, for him to grasp. What Hallaj had in mind was not to end proselytizing. Rather, he was more interested in recognizing how the Truth manifests itself in different religions such that the essence of Truth can be viewed as the root of the Tree of all revealed religion and Tradition, with the diverse forms of religion being the branches of the one and only Tradition. For al Hallaj, if this was understood, then one could appreciate that the purpose of invitation (da wah) is to return each

seeker and follower to the firmly set root at the heart of all revealed religion. This principle of spiritual universality is also inherent in the following Sufi dictum found very early in the Tradition: There are as many paths to God as the number of souls of the children of Adam. Such a dictum resonates with the wisdom in the following Quranic verse: And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam from their loins their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we bare witness." [This] lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware." [7:172] The wisdom in this verse alludes to the universal recognition of God s Unity of Lordship in every human soul, a kind of innate knowledge of God imprinted on the human substance. This substance, in principle constitutes each and every individual s origin and path of return to their Lord; a path which is facilitated and nurtured by the light and guidance (nur wal huda) of revelation and prophecy in any and all of its forms. This subtle notion is reinforced in various places in the Qur an, and especially in the following verse: So set thy purpose for religion as a man by nature upright the nature (framed) of God, in which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws of) God's creation. That is the primordial religion (din al qayyim), but most men know not [30:30] In essence, all authentic manifestations of revealed religion (al Din) lead to or reveal this essential religion of the heart (religio cordis), or in Qur anic terms, the ever subsistent and perennial religion (din al qayyim): that unalterable religion beyond form which conforms to humanity s primordial, or God Given original nature (fitra) as outlined in 7:172 and 30:30. It is to this transcendent religion, that all forms of authentic religion stem from, and all forms of traditional spirituality aspire toward. From this point of view, it seems almost ubiquitous to note that many saints, seers and sages in the Islamic tradition were able to recognize this transcendent nature of religion, especially upon concrete contact with spiritual seekers and saintly men or women of other religious persuasions or denominations. This recognition of spiritual universality of the primordial religion (din al hanif) may have went hand in hand with a belief that Islam was the most superior religion, as it most directly reflected this perennial religion as the final religion. Nonetheless, this does not detract from these Muslim sages authentic recognition of the universality of the Truth, and the validity of its spiritual expressions in diverse religions. These Sufi voices then, amongst a multitude of others, demonstrate that there always has been in the history of Islam a valid difference of perspectives on the matter of how Islamic Wisdom

understands religious diversity. It is through the recognition of the Divine Mercy and Wisdom inherent in diversity that casts light on the "spiritual validity" of authentic religions and the status of the religious other. Although many authoritative Muslim voices may have been exclusivist, there have always been certain very significant, prominent, and profound voices in the Tradition that have been inclusive of the religious Other in their own diverse ways. This explains why many early Muslim ascetics, mystics and gnostics interacted positively with Christian and Buddhist monks, and even Hindu sadhus in the early and later periods of Islam s expansion. Even if most of these early Muslims believed their own religion to be superior in some way or in every way to other religions, they nonetheless acknowledged some form or degree of spiritual validity in the Other. Such interactions are recorded in many of the early manuals of Sufism and point to the awareness and recognition of a certain kind of spiritual authenticity (and thereby validity) in followers of other revealed wisdom traditions. One sees this even in the early period with examples found in the likes of the great Sufis Ibrahim Ibn Adham and Dhul Nun al Misri s interactions with Christian monks. In summary, it is important to note that although all the Muslims cited above have faith (iman) in the finality of Islam, their approaches to the status of other revealed religions and their adherents even after the coming of the "Islam" of Muhammad (saw) has been diverse. This is certainly more obvious when we include authorities from the more inner, intellectual and spiritual dimensions of Islam and not reduce Muslim authorities only to the exoteric level of Islam, such as the level of fiqh (jurisprudence). It is safe to say at this point that such universalist positions and utterances seemed not to be adversely affected at all by Islamic theological teachings or belief in Islam s abrogation of prior revealed religions. This is most likely because spiritual universalism was seen by these sages as a higher truth, a truth which transcended the level of religious discourse where the theological/juridical exclusivism of abrogation (naskh) or even distortion of revealed texts (tahrif) has operative, spiritual relevance. On this metaphysical or spiritual level, Islamic finality is viewed more inclusively and less exclusively. Can you speak a little more about the Islamic notions of abrogation and alteration in light of the finality of Islam, and how it may be understood by those Muslims who uphold a transcendent unity of religions? Dr. Nasr and other universalist Muslims figures in the tradition are aware of the Islamic positions you mention regarding the doctrine of the finality of Islam and how abrogation and distortion reinforces the notions that after the coming of Islam, no other religion is valid before God, or that Islam is the only revealed religion that has retained its original or pure form, protected as it is by God, as the final religion. Traditionalist Muslims such as Dr. Nasr would accept this as a normative exoteric view of understanding Islamic finality. However, for those Muslims who uphold the notion of a transcendent unity of religions, their awareness and acceptance of Islamic finality is more nuanced, esoteric and inclusive of the religious Other. Such universalists certainly believe in the finality of the Islamic revelation as a "completion" and "seal". Yet this finality and completion would serve more as an affirmation, integration and even synthesis of

the spiritual realities of the Other, rather than their wholesale rejection. At this point, it should be noted that alteration and abrogation are theologically abstruse issues which need not configure into an immediate and even naturally intuitive sense of the universality of Truth and the Sacred. It is certainly important to learn and practice the essentials of one s faith, including their exclusive and inclusive dimensions. However, the conclusions which are made regarding the status of the religious other on the level of theological and juridical discourse, while important and normative for believers, are for universalists, acknowledged yet transcended by a recognition of the essential immutability of the divine light, truth, and meaning found in these living revealed religions of the Other which is unperturbed by human accretion or contingent vicissitudes. As for alteration, while Muslims accept and believe the Quranic doctrine of "distortion" (tahrif) of prior scriptures as it is mentioned explicitly in the Qur an, this need not mean for them that those revealed religions including their Divinely Intended revealed differences are categorically invalidated by "alteration". God knows our religion has also been altered "in meaning" (via misinterpretation) by extremists, but that does not negate the truth and spiritual content of Islam. The same can be said about the transcendent truth and underlying spiritual content of other revealed religions, even if certain aspects of those scriptures were altered in form and meaning over time. So even belief in alteration does not necessarily mean that the original light, guidance and authentic teachings of these religions as transmitted through their wisdom/faith traditions have been entirely distorted and thereby compromised. Nor does acceptance of alteration have to mean that the divergences found in these scriptures which differ with the Qur anic account of the same events or teachings, are necessarily different (and thereby erroneous) as a consequence of a distortion of texts. One can interpret the differences negatively or understand them more positively. There is much room theological flexibility and spiritual nuance for a positive interpretation of revealed differences. As for abrogation (naskh), it is important to note that abrogation is first dealt with from within the Tafsir tradition as it pertains to certain Verses within the Qur an. Regardless of the various positions on which verses (or which number of verses) were actually abrogated (and thereby nullified as an authoritative source of Islamic doctrine and praxis), there is a general understanding that the truth or validity of such abrogated Qur anic verses is not in question: all such verses retain the status of divine truth and divine validity as revelation. It is simply an issue of whether or not one can take a ruling principle to follow and practice from such verses given their possible or actual abrogation depending on the Muslim authority cited. An example of this can be found in the verses regarding intoxicants such as alcohol, and it s gradual prohibition (as it were) by successive revelations to the Prophet (saw). The two verses of interest are the following: O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are intoxicated [4:43] They ask thee about wine and gambling. Say, "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for

people. But their sin is greater than their benefit." [2:219] Given that all sin is prohibited by God [7:33], the Quranic dictum in [2:219] which is believed to have been revealed after [4:43] effectively abrogates the conditional prohibition of alcohol. Yet, no Muslim authority in the Tradition would deny the validity (spiritual or otherwise) of [4:43], or that, due to its abrogated status this verse is nullified of its divine content and wisdom, and can no longer be taken as revelation. In this sense there is a retained validity in such abrogated verses, which given any changes in circumstances or context, could (according to some legal authorities) be applied or followed by taking a definitive ruling from them. This is an important legal qualification as this awareness of the retained validity despite abrogation of certain Qur anic verses can be applied to the nature and status of prior revealed religions, in their own revealed contexts. In other words, the verses, teachings and laws of those revealed scriptures (and religions), although by definition abrogated by the newly revealed verses of the Scripture of Islam, nonetheless retain validity for their followers. Naturally and by definition, for Muslims who believe and follow the Beloved Messenger (saw), it is the final revelation which has authority as a revealed religion for us. In this sense, for Muslims, all prior revelations/religions become functionally obsolete and can not be practiced or followed. Yet, with the above understanding concerning abrogation and the status of retained validity of those abrogated verses, it can be acknowledged that in principle the divine content or guidance and light of those revealed religions (as revelations/ayaat of God) still retain their truth, validity and efficacy despite abrogation. This is clearly seen in the teaching of the following Qur anic verses in which God asks the People of the Book to judge their followers with the light and guidance He has placed in their respective scriptures during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw) and coming of the final revelation: Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which is guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are the disbelievers. [5:44] And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps [the footsteps of the Jewish Prophets], confirming that which was [revealed] before him in the Torah, and We bestowed upon him the Gospel wherein is guidance and light, confirming that which is [revealed] before it in the Torah a guidance and an admonition unto those who are pious. Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which God hath revealed therein (5:46 47). It is obvious that Muslims as followers of Muhammad (saw) would necessarily abide, live and be judged by the rules, regulations and wisdom of the Qur'an. Yet, it is quite extraordinary that the Qur'an itself asks or rather commands the People of the Book to judge amongst themselves "by what God has revealed to them" namely the Torah or Gospel since, "in it is guidance and light". This divine command would be inconceivable if God deemed these "prior" scriptures as

categorically invalid" or null and void. Thus, the Qur'an itself demonstrates how it affirms the validity of prior revealed scriptures even if It's own verses abrogate the authority and validity of those same scriptures for Muslims. In this light, we may cite the following, from an Editor s note published by Zaytuna Institute, (now Zaytuna College) lead by prominent Islamic scholars Imam Zaid Shakir and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, as a support for the notion of retained validity of the revealed laws of communities preceding the Prophet Muhammad (saw), even on the level of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). Here, a juridical case is acknowledged that at least some aspects of previous religions retain their validity and are not entirely invalid, even for Muslims to use as as a valid source for law for the Muslim community. According to some scholars, the position that all aspects of previous religions are not invalid is affirmed by the Qur an and Sunnah. God mentions in the Qur an, concerning judgments on the basis of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are rebellious profligates. (5:50) In this and related verses (5:47 49) God affirms the validity of judgments issued on the basis of the scriptures present with the Jewish and Christian communities during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (Sal.) Scholars who hold that the law of the communities who preceded the community of the Prophet Muhammad (Sal.) is a valid source of law for the Muslim community, usher these verses as proof for that position. In the Sunnah, the Prophet Muhammad (Sal.) accepted the judgment of the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:12), as issued by Sa d b. Mu adh, against the Jewish tribe Bani Qurayzah. The Prophet Muhammad (Sal.) described that judgment as the judgment of God from above the seven heavens. See Ibn Hisham, al Sirah al Nabawiyyah (Beirut: Dar al Fikr, 1994/1415), 3:181. These and similar narrations support the idea that there is validity in the previous religions. Surely God knows best. (Joseph Lumbard, Submission Faith and Beauty: The Religion of Islam, edited by Zaid Shakir and Hamza Yusuf (Berkeley, CA: Zaytuna Institute, 2008), p. xxii.) It is precisely here where Islam s finality not only abrogates the religious other, but also affirms and validates those same revealed laws. It is through this principle by which Islam can integrate the legal wisdom of other revealed laws into Islamic law. Such a perspective of simultaneous acceptance of theological abrogation and spiritual affirmation of the religious other is noted in Ibn Arabi s description of the nature of sacred laws of prior religions and their relation to the sacred law given to the Prophet Muhammad (saw): "All the revealed religions are lights. Among these religions, the revealed religion of Muhammad is like the light of the sun among the lights of the stars. When the sun appears, the lights of the stars are hidden, and their lights are included in the light of the sun. Their being hidden is like the abrogation of the other revealed religions that takes place through Muhammad s revealed

religion. Nevertheless, they do in fact exist, just as the existence of the lights of the stars is actualized (look up: muhaqqaq?). This explains why we have been required in our all inclusive religion to have faith in the truth of all the messengers and all the revealed religions. They are not rendered null (bāṭil) by abrogation that is the opinion of the ignorant. " Certainly, the truth of all the messengers and all the revealed religions are accepted by Muslims to be abrogated by the final revelation of Islam. Yet from the above perspective, this abrogation does not nullify the prior religions, it rather affirms the same abrogated truth and light. This perspective leaves much theological and juridical room for a recognition of some degree of continued or sustained religious and spiritual validity inherent in the actual living faith traditions of prior revealed religions. In summary, the above reflections serve to demonstrate that the notions of abrogation and alteration of prior religions in the context of Islam s finality, is relatively absolute to use a term coined by the Swiss metaphysician, Traditionalist and Sufi Master, Frithjof Schuon. It is in this sense then, that all Muslims can appreciate the inclusive attributes of even the legal principles inherent in Islam s Sacred Law which results from Islam s formal quality of finality. This, in of itself, is a support for those who uphold spiritual universality as expressed in the esoteric notion of the transcendent unity of religions in light of Islamic finality. Such Muslims can therefore appreciate Islamic finality inclusively, rather than in an exclusivist manner reinforced as the exclusivist position may be, on the exoteric level of Islamic theological teachings. And God Knows Best. Moving on to Sufism and spiritual universality: Would you infer that because a given Shaykh or Sufi may not hold this universalist view (or may be explicitly against this view) that they are mistaken or even not an authentic Spiritual Master of the Sufi Tradition? No, not necessarily. Holding a universalist view of Truth is certainly not the criterion of the spiritual worth or authenticity of a Master. So what is the criterion of a true Master? One can read traditional Sufi manuals regarding the signs of authenticity of a Master as well as the propriety (adab) involved on both sides of the Master Disciple relationship to find what you are looking for. Yet, I will tell you, the true answer to this question is not found in books. Ultimately, only God Knows who is an authentic Spiritual Master, let alone a Friend of God (wali/saint). Yet, He places His signs in both the Master and the seeker. In this light, there is a profoundly mysterious connection between the seeker and the Master which transcends space and time, including all formal teachings. How does a seeker really know that they have found their

rightful Master? The most succinctly articulated response to this that I have found in books, and more importantly, in my life is the following: it is God that facilitates the seeker to find a Master, as it is the Master that facilitates the seeker to find God (Ibn Arabi). Indeed, finding the Master and finding God are both great mysteries of the Path. Glory be to God who places His Presence in the Master so that the seeker sees something of God in his Master and finds him. And glory be to God that He places His Presence in the seeker so that the Master sees something of God in the seeker, and brings out this Presence in order for the seeker to find the truly Sought! On the first day I met and laid eyes upon the countenance of my Master, he said: It is not you who finds the Path, but the Path that finds you. All the above is contained in his statement: from the seeker finding the Master, and the Master finding the seeker in this process known as the Path. And this is the process through which God finds HimSelf in you through the means (wasila) that is the Path. A Path from God, to God, and in God. Glory be to God, indeed... So coming back to your question: Not every authentic spiritual Master (or even a saintly person) needs to have the capacity, or the means to conceptually appreciate the universal nature of Truth as it Reveals itself in foreign religious worlds. As long as they experience that universal Self, from within themselves through their religious form, that is sufficient in the most profound sense. Such universalist recognition is ultimately Allah's Will and decree for someone. There have been countless Sufis and Sages in Islam who in the history of the Tradition did not have at their disposal the means or capacity to appreciate the wisdom contained in the specific teachings of other revealed religions, or to recognize the wisdom and innate sanctity of holy men or women of other religions. Yet, as mentioned above, there have been a significant amount of Sufis and Sages in Islamic history who were destined to meet saints or sages of other traditions and/or had the opportunity to read or study the scriptures of other religions in a manner which allowed them to see God s wisdom and signs in other religious worlds, which confirm and heighten the relevance of certain subtle truths found in the Qur'an. I am reminded here of the Qur anic verse: We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness? [41:53]. I am also reminded of the hadith: Wisdom is the lost treasure of the believer, he may retrieve it wheresoever he finds it. This verse and hadith very clearly speak to the universal and often times subtle quality of wisdom (hikma), which in many ways is lost until it is found once one gains access to the inner meaning of another religious form, upon the horizons of our ordinary experience. In other words, a Sufi may have a high degree of spiritual attainment or sanctity yet be unable to appreciate the Presence of the Sacred in other revealed traditions. I believe is possible that God may veil them from this spiritual insight according to His Wisdom and Mercy. This in a sense occurred historically in a war in which a Muslim saint and a Christian saint were present on opposite sides of the battlefield (?reference). They never had the opportunity to see one another in order to verify the sanctity of the religious other.

In summary, not all Sufis held or hold the position of a transcendent or inner unity of religions (arguably many Muslims and Sufis did/do not hold this position), and this could never be the criterion of their sanctity/spiritual authority (wilaya). Yet, among the many who were opened by God s Grace to this possibility of spiritual recognition of the other, some actually wrote about it or expressed it through poetry such as Rumi, Ibn Arabi; Indian Subcontinent Sufis such Jan Janan, Dara Shikoh, Shirdi Sai Baba, Kabir, Bulle Shah, or even Bawa Muhaiyaddeen; the African Sufi Tierno Bokar; and the Traditionalist Sufis such as Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, Martin Lings, including their living representative, Seyyed Hossein Nasr (may God preserve him) to name a few. Others sages open to this possibility may have chosen to simply remain silent and live their lives in harmony with their surroundings which may have included saints of other Traditions, without feeling the need to express their recognition of universality through writing or otherwise. In this sense, it is always beneficial to be inwardly one with that Sacred Silence that excludes all otherness, yet includes all... I deeply respect such traditionalists as R. Guenon and M. Lings, and I wonder whether, given their deep wisdom, learning, and contacts with traditional scholars of Islam, they really could have asserted a universal validity of religions in those religions present historical context, and not just for a meta historical and metaphysical unicity of the principles of divine revelation. I believe I have responded to this concern already. For Traditionalists who adhere to a metaphysical universalism, they tend to view the historical unfolding of a Tradition overall positively as each Tradition is Divinely guided through a process of adaptation to changing and challenging circumstances. With that said, I believe you are correct in differentiating between a "metaphysical unicity of revealed principles" and the historical manifestation of those same revealed principles. Yet what the Traditionalists, such as Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, Martin Lings along with others, would add here to perhaps deepen your understanding of the matter, is the following. Although there is a unity of principles beyond time and space in each Tradition, there is also a diversity of application over time, as well as specific flowering of these principles on the historical plane of the formal religious Tradition. Such an application of principles may and even will differ within one Tradition in space and time, given the changing circumstances. Another way to say this is that although the haqiqah (Truth) is one, the shariahs (Revealed laws) of the Prophets are many. As such, their applications in time and space in their respective wisdom traditions are many, different and divergent. *****Here add comments about how these early traditionalist including Schuon were respected by Scholars of Islam such as Abd al Halim Mahmud as well as the contemporary Shaykh Ali Gomaa.. If I have understood you correctly, the reason why certain or even many Sufis do not affirm the salvation and sanctity found in other authentic religions is that they are expressing their views strictly from the inside perspective of Islam, because from this perspective there is simply no real need to do so.