The Mirage of Mysticism or Scattered Dust
The Mirage of Mysticism or Scattered Dust
(A Critique of Theological Knowledge of God)
Bibliographic Information:
- Author: Mohammadreza Nikoonam (b. 1327)
- Title: The Mirage of Mysticism or Scattered Dust: A Critique of Theological Knowledge of God
- Publication Details: Islamshahr: Sobhe Farda Publications, 2014 (1393 in the Iranian calendar).
- Physical Description: 36 pages; 5.9 × 19 cm
- ISBN: 978-600-7347-17-1
- Dewey Decimal Classification: 297.42
- National Bibliography Number: 3502973
Preface
“We have brought what they have done as scattered dust.” (Quran, 25:23). This book serves as a response to certain superficial theologians who criticise the mystical approach to the knowledge of God and reject the theological basis of their understanding. It must be noted that in this book, we do not consider ourselves representatives of any particular mystical school or group; rather, our aim is to elucidate a unique perspective on the knowledge of the Divine and the concept of monotheism, one that is somewhat novel and not commonly found in prevalent or obscure mystical writings.
We first stress that one must correctly understand the meanings of the terms used in any given field before engaging in a discussion about them. In this regard, it is crucial that subjects and terminologies be clearly defined and understood.
Some theologians have spoken about “unity” and “monotheism” and even “transcending mysticism”, yet their understanding of these concepts is often superficial and vague. They fail to accurately define multiplicity and otherness, and their discussions about the nature of God are purely negative, providing no positive or affirmative understanding of the Divine. In their limited writings, they discuss whether the universe is created by God or whether it is an inherent, self-managing system. They present two broad views on this issue, which form the starting point of this book. Our first question to this group is: Do you consider the world to be created or a mere phenomenon in itself, implying that it exists without any creator?
If we consider the universe to be a phenomenon, it suggests that the universe, as a self-aware and systematic entity, manages itself mechanically. However, if we see it as created, it follows that there must be a creator—referred to as “God” in religious terms—who governs it. In other words, is it God who performs the act of creation and manages the universe, or is there an inherent system within nature that regulates itself?
Some literalist theologians, in their writings, have attributed views to mystics that no mystic would claim. Unfortunately, some of these interpretations stray far from proper decorum with regard to the Divine and even show a lack of reverence for the sacred, which is not appropriate for a scholar of religion to propagate.
In this treatise, we argue that there is only one true existence, which is God, and all other phenomena in the universe are mere manifestations of the Divine, which are actions of the Creator and not independent beings. These phenomena—while real in their appearance—are not entities in themselves; they are expressions of the Divine, without an intrinsic essence of their own.
However, these theologians—who struggle even with the concept of “otherness”—often confuse the idea of “other” with “opposition” or “multiplicity.” They have failed both to properly establish the existence of God from their theological standpoint and to accurately define what God is. In their discussions about the Divine, they only rely on negative attributes—characteristics that fail to provide meaningful insight into the nature of God. They merely state that God is not like any created being and that God is other than everything that can be perceived by human senses or intellect. Yet, they do not provide an affirmative explanation of what God is.
In contrast, we present our mystical view of God, as described in the Quranic verse: “Say, He is Allah, [Who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is begotten, and there is none comparable to Him” (Quran, 112:1-4). Our understanding of God does not rest on negative attributes alone; we acknowledge God’s positive qualities and comprehend Him through them. We do not say that God is “other” than everything that exists, but instead that God is “One”—a being whose essence we can understand through His qualities. We know God through His names and attributes, such as “The Most Merciful,” “The Most Compassionate,” “The Generous,” and “The Loving.” These positive attributes, provided by religion, form the basis of our understanding of God.
Furthermore, we assert that we can know and understand God deeply, as long as we have the right tools for comprehension. This is why the mystics, in their theological writings, have referred to God as “the One who is All-Knowing,” and so on, yet we stress that God’s knowledge and our own knowledge are not the same, though there is a resemblance in the way knowledge manifests.
We cannot accept the view that God is merely an abstract, negative entity. In our view, God is a positive, personal reality—described as “The Eternal Refuge” in the Quran, among many other positive attributes. This understanding stands in contrast to the negative theological views that strip God of any real attributes, making Him inaccessible and unknowable. Our view is that God is not “an absence” or “nothingness,” but rather a fully-realized, living entity who is present and active in the world.
The Meaning of Otherness and Multiplicity
We have stated that God, through His manifestation, neither has identity nor multiplicity. However, the question arises: If the Creator is not identical to the creation, then the creation must have some otherness in relation to God. But how is the otherness of the created beings with God? In other words, what is meant by “otherness”? Is “other” a distinction in a linear or horizontal manner?
Some theological perspectives interpret “otherness” in a way that implies a distinction along the horizontal plane, much like the difference between Zayd and Amr, where each has attributes distinct from the other. According to this viewpoint, the distinction between the Creator and the creation is perceived as follows: the divine essence is one that has no parts, no totality, and no time; things do not exist within it, just as they do not exist outside of it. It has no relationship with objects; it neither draws near to them nor is distant from them because proximity, distance, totality, and part are attributes of divided things. Thus, this theological stance cannot affirm the existence of “abstract entities.” An abstract entity has neither parts nor totality, nor proximity nor distance, and when they say the created being is other than God, they mean that God is an entity without parts, totality, time, or space, and that only God possesses pure abstraction—there is no angel or disembodied intellect in the world.
However, the “other” refers to something contrary, something separate and divided, possessing time, space, proximity, and distance. From the perspective of these theologians, God is that entity which is indivisible, beyond time and space, and not confined by absence.
All the statements and propositions these theologians make about God are negative, providing no positive or constructive conception in our minds.
Moreover, aside from the issues already mentioned and irrespective of the fact that they confuse the meaning of “other” with “contrary,” we can introduce entities to them that share the attributes they assign to God. Consequently, they would be compelled to recognize these phenomena as gods. One such entity is the interrogative particle (hamzah of question) and another is number, both of which are abstract and divisible.
It should be noted that when the interrogative particle (hamzah) is in the mind, it does not represent the essence of the interrogative particle, but rather the concept derived from its usage. Our discussion here pertains not to the concept in our minds but to the essence of the interrogative particle as it existed prior to our conception and is acknowledged as such. The discussion of such abstract concepts can be found in works of logic and principles. All scientific laws and rules have their domain or context in which they function as a rule—this context exists beyond our minds, thus their existence cannot be denied. These abstractions serve as a refutation to the theological views concerning the knowledge of God.
They say that God is other than this world. But what does “other” mean? They claim that God is other than everything; therefore, their conception of God is one that we cannot understand in any meaningful way, except to say that He is “other than all things.” A Creator who lacks any attributes is one we cannot even conceive of through infinite negative descriptions. In truth, what is He, who is other than us? Is He something we do not know? Because everything we know pertains to the things surrounding us. Since these theologians assert that God is other than all created beings, we cannot hold any idea of Him in our minds, and there is nothing left to use in our understanding of God except to say that He is the Creator of things. However, nothing can be derived from the theological definitions of “other.” From their arguments, one may conclude that God is a reality in opposition to created beings and things.
It must be understood that “otherness” in the intellectual domain has several meanings: one of which is horizontal, and this does not pertain to our current discussion. The otherness of God from creation is in the vertical dimension. Zayd, in the same way that he is distinct from Amr, is identical to him, for both are individuals of the human species. Sometimes, we say that God is other than His creations, and here “other” is interpreted as meaning a true distinction, i.e., God has a distinct nature from the creation. “Other” can also mean opposition. We have distinctions, oppositions, similarities, and identity. We stated that God is not identical with the created beings. Now, either He is distinct, or He is opposed, or He is similar. There cannot be a fourth possibility. Contradictions and oppositions are forms of distinction. Theologians typically interpret “other” as a form of distinction. However, they must commit to the notion that God exists, while created beings are nonexistent. God is knowledgeable, while created beings are devoid of knowledge. Since they reduce the concept of otherness to absence, they cannot choose any of these three possibilities, and by denying identity, they are left in a state of uncertainty: we know created beings exist, but we do not know if God exists or not.
From our perspective, the relationship between God and creation is neither a distinction, nor opposition, nor similarity, nor identity. These relationships are pertinent only when two entities are multiple, different, and independent, and the assumption here is that no entity exists alongside God. We do not intend to refer to “otherness” as a horizontal distinction.
These four relationships pertain to situations where there are multiple existents, and the assumption is that we are not multiple with God.
The theologians introduce “otherness” as a horizontal distinction, but they face the problem that we mentioned. The relationship between creation and the Creator is neither identity, nor opposition, nor distinction, nor contradiction. These relationships exist only between two independent, distinct entities.
The God of Mysticism
We have a Creator whom we recognise as:
“Say, He is Allah, [Who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is begotten, and there is none comparable to Him” (Quran 112:1–4). Our God is not recognised through negative attributes but through affirmative ones. Surah Al-Ikhlas serves as a declaration of God’s identity. We understand and accept God. As we have stated before, God is “As-Samad” (The Eternal Refuge), and creations are not “As-Samad.” Our God is “Allah,” and creations are not “Allah.” We know God through His thousand attributes, which religion has clarified for us. He has essence and is not created; He is solely the Creator, meaning He is not an act of another. He is eternal, infinite, everlasting, the First, the Last, the Manifest, and the Hidden. We must not exclude God from existence, being, or thought, lest we end up with a misguided view. Saying “God is what is not like created things” leads to no real understanding, whereas I say that God is “Allah,” “As-Samad,” “Generous,” and “Loving.” “As-Samad” means He has essence, while other things are empty and lack essence. We can see God and know Him through all His attributes. We say that God is “The Most Merciful.” Now, are we, as creations, also a degree of mercy? We say that God is “All-Knowing.” We too have knowledge, but the difference lies in the essence of knowledge. God is “Existence,” and we are the manifestation of that existence, but He has essence, and we have no essence or independence. The point is not that we cannot understand God.
These discussions require their own terminology and cannot be understood without attention to those terms. Ultimately, we exist, and God exists as well, but the difference is in the nature of existence. Otherwise, we must oppose it, and we are not opposed to God. It is not that He “exists” and we are non-existent. We do not accept the view held by many mystics that there is one existence, and that is God, while everything else is illusion. We cannot proceed with these discussions unless we understand the logical meaning of multiplicity. The meaning of multiplicity as stated by the theologians does not apply to us and God. We are not multiple with God. Multiplicity refers to independent, opposite, or similar essences, and such relationships do not apply to our relationship with God. Speaking of multiplicity leads to polytheism. Multiplicity means independent opposites. We are, and God is, and we have knowledge, and God has knowledge, and we are merciful, and God is merciful. But the difference lies in the fact that God has everything from His essence, and we have everything from the Divine truth. God possesses His essence, while we possess it through God. There is no “other.” Knowledge is enlightenment. We have knowledge, and God has it, but the content differs, and it is this difference in content that distances created beings from the essence and from being “other” than God.
In any case, the greatest problem with these theologians is that they do not pay attention to the scientific meaning of the terms and speak without carefully considering the meanings of these terms.
