The Realms of Mina

The Realms of Mina

Identification:

• Main Author: Nokounam, Mohammad Reza (born 1327)
• Title and Author’s Name: The Realms of Mina: A Discourse on the Method of Recognising Truths such as the Throne (Arsh), the Footstool (Korsi), the Tablet (Lauh), the Pen (Qalam), etc. / Nokounam.
• Publishing Details: Tehran: Sobhe Farda Publications, 1393 (2014).
• Physical Description: 76 pages.
• ISBN: 978-600-7347-89-8
• Previous Edition: Zohour Shafaq, 1386 (2007).
• Edition: Second edition.
• Other Title: A Discourse on the Method of Recognising Truths such as the Throne (Arsh), the Footstool (Korsi), the Tablet (Lauh), the Pen (Qalam), etc.
• Subjects: Metaphysics, Ontology, Throne, Korsi (Footstool).
• Library of Congress Classification: BD118/F2/N8 1393.
• Dewey Decimal Classification: 110.
• National Bibliography Number: 3684675.

Preface

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and blessings and peace upon Muhammad and his pure family, and eternal curse upon all their enemies.

In the discussion of Islamic terms and concepts that are mentioned in the Qur’an and the traditions of the Infallibles (Ahl al-Bayt), certain terms and subjects emerge, each of which individually defines the epistemic position and the lofty, valuable status of the sacred religion of Islam in understanding the elements and realms of the cosmos. These terms prompt every knowledgeable thinker to reflect on the realities of the universe. Examples of such terms include: the Throne (Arsh), the Footstool (Korsi), the Tablet (Lauh), the Pen (Qalam), the Preserved Tablet (Lauh Mahfuz), the Elevation (Alīyyīn), and the Mother of the Book (Umm al-Kitāb).

First, it must be stated that the belief in the existence of such truths is obligatory for every Muslim. Every believer must have a thorough understanding of the scientific realities and empirical instances of these concepts. They must not remain ignorant of their scientific and ontological existence, for the external and objective reality of these truths is a firmly established tenet of the religion, grounded in the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Denying these realities, in their entirety, is tantamount to denying religion itself.

After believing and having faith in these transcendent truths and concepts—being part of belief in the unseen—a subsequent question arises: How can one truly comprehend and access these realities? What is the method for understanding these cosmic truths? What path must one take to establish a connection with these realms and gain awareness of these real entities? This study aims to explore this issue, identifying the method for recognising the real-world manifestations of the terms mentioned above.

Who or what science can inform us about these external truths and how to access them? Is this responsibility to be placed on empirical sciences, philosophy, or mysticism? Which of these approaches can legitimately claim to prove the existence of such realms, or should another path be pursued altogether?

In summary, to align with these truths and become morally and spiritually attuned to them, which source or discipline should we turn to? Can we reach such a state through effort or by hope? Should we pursue the means of reliance or research? Or is it the case that, in solving such problems, only revelation and infallibility can provide the answers?

“Religious Terms and Objective Realities”

It has been firmly established that truths such as the Throne, the Footstool, the Tablet, the Pen, etc., are conveyed through the Qur’an and the divine prophets (peace be upon them), and like all other religious subjects and immutable divine decrees, these concepts are rooted in a stable and everlasting foundation. Whether human beings comprehend them or remain ignorant of them, their existence remains unaffected. The lack of awareness, scientific validation, or mystic realisation of these realities does not diminish their objective existence. This is an undeniable fact.

Two Differing Viewpoints

Historically, Islamic scholars have held two completely different views on this matter.

The first view, espoused by many scholars of religious law, posits that none of these concepts have an objective, external existence. Rather, they are figurative expressions, conveying abstract meanings or general concepts. Just as certain descriptions of God’s actions in the Qur’an—such as His “coming” (Majī’), “hand” (Yad), “eyes” (Ayn), “body” (Jism), etc.—are interpreted as symbolic representations of His power, knowledge, and other attributes, similarly, terms like Throne, Footstool, Tablet, and Pen should not be understood to refer to literal, physical entities. These are only metaphorical references.

The second view, which is more investigative and reasoned, asserts that each of the aforementioned concepts represents real entities in the objective world, arising from the unseen reality of existence. Each of these entities refers to a specific metaphysical realm, a concrete entity with tangible or intangible characteristics. Some of these entities belong to higher, immaterial realities (e.g., soul, intellect), while others belong to symbolic or even physical worlds.

Critique of the First View

The inability to comprehend or understand certain metaphysical and mystical phenomena does not indicate that they are merely symbolic or metaphorical. Our lack of ability to grasp these realities should not be taken as evidence that such entities do not exist; this is a clear misconception. The figurative nature of divine attributes like God’s “hand” or “face” cannot be used to generalise that all other metaphysical realities, such as the Throne and Footstool, are merely symbolic.

Just because we cannot grasp certain higher realities does not mean they are non-existent. The failure to understand these truths is not an argument against their existence. Similarly, comparing such terms with other expressions—such as divine hands or face—cannot be done in a uniform manner unless we have a sound rational or religious argument that dismisses the possibility of their external existence.

Critique of Conceptual and Mystical Definitions

Some of the interpretations offered in this context are conceptual and theoretical definitions based on the surface meanings of the Qur’an and traditions, but often lack sufficient depth and clarity. These interpretations are often infused with subjective or speculative reasoning, resulting in interpretations that, while beautiful and emotionally appealing, lack scientific or epistemological value. Such views generally attempt to reduce all spiritual concepts to the realm of divine knowledge, presenting the Throne, Footstool, Tablet, and Pen as merely different levels or manifestations of God’s knowledge.

Philosophy

Despite its great significance, philosophy lacks the readiness and qualification to enter and intervene in such matters. The articulation of the specific instances and the introduction of external truths regarding these matters is not suitable for philosophy or the divine philosopher.

Philosophy deals with stating general principles and narrates the existence and non-existence of objects and general categories. However, the narration of details and explaining the specific instances—whether material or immaterial—does not fall within the scope or dignity of this discipline.

The articulation of existence, external phenomena, and the particular instances of existence, such as individual life or its actualization (or lack thereof), is beyond the realm and capacity of philosophy. The scientific and epistemological position of these truths transcends this science.

Just as philosophy cannot assert whether a particular person is alive or not, or whether they have been born, it cannot speak to the nature of the Throne (Arsh), the Seat (Kursi), or the features of the Tablet (Lawh) and the Pen (Qalam), and their location.

Of course, what philosophy is capable of is not denying such truths, and its failure to deny them can, in itself, be effective.

Philosophy is entrusted with proving the general existence of material and immaterial worlds, and it is appropriate for it to present this, in addition to refuting any denial of them.

The philosopher may express that there is no evidence for the impossibility of such matters and may assert the fundamental existence of immaterial worlds. However, the question of the particular condition of an immaterial entity such as the Throne or the Seat, or its location, is not within the scope of this magnificent science. This is because the details of material or immaterial objects do not relate to this universal science.

Empirical Sciences

The perspectives of scientists in empirical and material sciences, such as astronomers and astronomers’ knowledge, hold no scientific value in such metaphysical matters. This is because the scope of involvement of empirical sciences is confined to a specific, limited domain, and beyond their boundaries, they have no validity. Therefore, their efforts to prove or deny such matters are unfounded and unreliable.

The fact that the properties and characteristics of a certain material are what they are, or that Venus and Mercury are located at certain distances from Earth, or the chemical effects of elements, has no epistemic connection to proving or denying such metaphysical realms or concepts. Although these can contribute to expanding our knowledge within their specific limits, they cannot address these matters, which transcend their domain.

Mysticism and the Claims of Mystics

The only discipline left is mysticism, with the enigmatic words of its practitioners, the mystical experiences of those who claim to have reached the presence of the realities of things and the truths of existence, and those who have ventured into the path of knowledge.

Many things have been said by this group, as they have matched worlds and spoken of the direct knowledge of them. They claim to have seen the Throne, the Tablet, and the Pen, and they know what these are and where they are. Many of their theories are significant, although not free from flaws and baseless claims, each of which must be analyzed carefully, and the valid aspects selected.

At this point, the question arises: how should one approach the statements and revelations of mystics? How can their perspectives and claims be analyzed? Is the knowledge of these realms within the domain of mysticism, or is it beyond even the mystics, who are engrossed in intellectual and personal thoughts, both acquired and immediate? In this regard, with divine grace, all aspects of this issue will be briefly addressed.

Revelation and Complete Revelation

The only way that can resolve these issues and human uncertainties is revelation, the unseen, and complete, correct uncovering.

Through real vision and proper revelation, we can reach the external truths and hidden meanings and refine our souls to open up each of these true worlds.

This is the only way to receive divine knowledge and the external realities of the world and humanity, which is a high and long path, full of many twists and turns, so that only a few of its travelers, with torn garments and wounded hearts, are able to traverse it.

A highly significant point that must be considered here is that the uncovering of the truths of the worlds of existence and the knowledge of the existential realities follows two distinct paths, each with its own specific characteristics. However, in reality, they are one and aligned with a single truth, and the second path is a summary and continuation of the first one. To clarify further, a brief reference will be made to each.

The Inner Realizations of the Infallible Ones (Alihimas Salam)

The first path for uncovering the unseen and reporting these truths and meanings is “revelation and inspiration.” Many matters fall within the power of the infallible ones (Alihimas Salam) and the prophets and imams (Alihimas Salam), which are beyond our knowledge.

What is certain is that the mode of uncovering the unseen revealed by the infallible ones and disclosed within their grasp is a specific type of awareness, and it has unique and exceptional characteristics. These kinds of revelations and realizations are exclusive to this divine group and are confined to them. Here, only two of their internal and external characteristics are mentioned.

The revelation and realization of the infallible ones is the exact reality, such that it is free from any error or mistake. The truth that the infallible one speaks of, and the world they describe, are identical to the revealed reality, and there is never any possibility of deviation or mistake regarding it.

The world or title that the infallible one introduces and informs about is the external reality and the true instance of that thing which lies within the divine grasp of the infallible.

Their revelation is the specific instance of the worlds of existence, the true title of the external meanings, which are conveyed through narration, speech, and expression, and it is free from any illusion or deviation. This is the inherent characteristic of the revelations of the infallible ones, supported by strong logical arguments and numerous transmitted evidences from the Qur’an and Hadith. For example, the verse of purification is a clear witness to this claim.

The second characteristic that exists in the revelations of the infallible ones is the necessity of obedience, acknowledgment, and certainty regarding them.

When the infallible ones inform about the truths of the world, the believers must sincerely accept and firmly believe in them, without allowing any doubt or hesitation. This is a necessary external condition of this matter.

For those who are not the possessors of such revelations, the revelation of the infallible one is not a personal realization, and their experience does not directly engage with it. Instead, they merely hear and recount the revelation of the infallible ones. Just as the Qur’an and the words of the prophets and the countless accounts of the infallible ones throughout their fruitful lives convey the ultimate truths within their grasp, listening to them serves as a reminder for those who have embarked on the journey of real knowledge.

Although each revelation is a proof for the one who experiences it, it is not a proof for others. However, it is possible for the infallible ones or other divine saints to show someone the reality they have uncovered, and that individual or group might come to a realization of the truth, which, in reality, is a form of attaining that truth—albeit temporarily—by the grace of the infallible ones or a saint. It is clear that in such cases, the individual or group does not possess independent realization; their uncovering is a dependent extension of the infallible or saint’s revelation.

It is possible that the saint or Imam might spiritually guide an individual, placing them in a higher plane of vision or an instance of a higher world, which not only could happen, but it often does.

The Qur’an, Hadith, and the entire life of the infallible ones and the saints of God confirm this. This matter does not need further elaboration, as various aspects of this reality are clearly visible in the actions, words, public debates, and personal training of the prophets and the divinely guided saints.

A very valuable point becomes evident to any wise scholar, which is that while the mystical experiences and realizations of various spiritual worlds belong fundamentally to the saints and infallible ones, the way is open for all the servants of God. It is impossible to imagine any prohibition for those sincerely seeking and turning away from falsehood. Therefore, anyone can reach varying degrees of proximity to these divine figures, according to the receptivity and capacity of their own being, which encourages further exploration and advancement toward higher realms, even motivating the already enlightened to progress toward these elevated worlds. The second type of path leading to realization and access also refers to this concept.

Kashf and Mystical Revelations: A Critical Analysis

The claims made by individuals who assert having mystical experiences are often grounded in unreliable narratives, as seen in their descriptions of otherworldly realms that have no tangible existence. For instance, they may claim to have encountered certain phenomena in celestial spheres that we know, with certainty, do not exist. Such reports are inherently flawed, for if the mystic were to return to the world today, they would undoubtedly abandon these fantastical claims, as they would quickly recognize their falsity.

This brings us to the point where a rational person must carefully scrutinise such mystical experiences and clearly conclude: When a revelation is subjected to such distorted and erroneous interpretations, it ceases to hold any value. These so-called revelations only serve to prove the ignorance of the claimant, who has deviated from reality and is deluded by falsehoods.

An enlightened person understands that this individual has confused their ignorance with a supposed “certainty” and is trapped in an illusion, as their so-called revelation does not align with the actual state of affairs.

Such an individual is akin to a brother who mistakenly believes his sibling is dead and, thus, mourns and wails in grief, despite the fact that his brother is alive. This false certainty is of no value to him because the truth of the matter is the exact opposite of what he believes. To correct this delusion, the living brother must be shown to him, and only then will he realize that his conviction was mistaken. This transformation of grief into joy mirrors the process through which false mystical claims can be dispelled once confronted with the truth. No argument can effectively counter this false conviction unless the person is willing to revise their mistaken belief.

Similarly, a mystic who is confronted with undeniable proof that their revelation was false would, if open to reason, abandon their mistaken beliefs. However, until this occurs, they will remain immersed in their delusion, and their conviction will persist.

Thus, it is clear that there is a fundamental and essential difference between the mystical revelations of the infallible (such as the prophets and the Imams) and those of non-infallible mystics. The revelations of the infallible are guaranteed to be true, with no possibility of error or misconception, whereas those of non-infallible mystics are prone to error. While the experiences of non-infallible mystics can be respected, they should always be approached with caution and critical scrutiny.

Of course, if the mystic’s deceit or negligence in their claims becomes evident, the opportunity to reject their assertions arises. In this case, it is not merely a matter of error, but of intentional misrepresentation or negligence. This distinction is crucial in assessing the credibility of mystical claims.

It is only the revelations and divine disclosures received by the infallible, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Imams, that are free from any of these pitfalls. These revelations are completely trustworthy and can be relied upon as sources of guidance, while those of non-infallible mystics are subject to doubt and error.

The Two Fundamental Questions

After discussing the nature of mystical experiences and the possibility of error within them, two important questions arise:

1. Given the prevalence of error and the likelihood that many non-infallible mystical revelations are mistaken, what trust can we place in the revelations and experiences of such individuals?
2. What criteria exist to distinguish genuine mystical experiences from mere imagination and illusion? How can we establish clear guidelines to separate the two in mystical traditions?

These questions are fundamental to the study of mysticism and have profound implications for those pursuing the path of spiritual development. We will now attempt to provide brief answers to each of these questions and clarify any misconceptions.

The Nature of Kashf and Its Criteria

In response to the first question, we must assert that mystical experiences, whether of a physical or spiritual nature, are ultimately grounded in a specific, identifiable reality that is accessible once obstacles to knowledge are removed. These experiences are not arbitrary or subjective but correspond to real truths, which, when fully realized, provide the mystic with enduring joy and insight. This fact is confirmed both by reason and experience, and the occurrence of these experiences in the lives of the mystics serves as proof of their validity.

The distinction between the revelations of the infallible and those of the non-infallible mystic lies not in the nature of the revelations themselves but in the potential for error in the latter. While the experience of the infallible is always accurate and infallible, the revelations of non-infallible mystics are always subject to doubt and error. However, this does not undermine the overall validity of mystical experience, as the mystical path itself remains a legitimate means of access to truth.

The same principle applies to logic and reason. While it is true that great logicians such as Aristotle, Ibn Sina, and Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi, despite their intellectual prowess, occasionally made errors in their reasoning, this does not invalidate the validity of logic itself. Logic remains a reliable tool for understanding reality, even though its practitioners may sometimes err.

In a similar manner, while the non-infallible mystic may make mistakes in their revelations, this does not invalidate the entire tradition of mysticism. It merely points to the need for caution and a constant effort to remove the obstacles that hinder the full clarity of these experiences.

The Role of Revelation and Infallibility in Mysticism

In both logic and mysticism, the key to avoiding error lies in the diligent application of correct principles and a constant striving for clarity. Just as a logician must adhere strictly to the rules of reasoning to avoid error, a mystic must strive to clear their heart and mind of distractions in order to perceive the divine truth accurately. Both mystics and logicians, while relying on their respective methodologies, must recognize the need for divine guidance and the assistance of the infallible to avoid error.

Thus, while non-infallible mystics and logicians may occasionally make mistakes, this should not be seen as a flaw in the methods of logic or mysticism themselves. Instead, it highlights the necessity for humility and the recognition that, ultimately, true understanding comes only through divine revelation and the guidance of the infallible.

Logic, its Foundation and Role in Discovery:

Logic is fundamental to all knowledge, discovery is grounded in a stable foundation, and discourse is a method of transmission. The precision and caution of a mystic and a logician in their discovery and reasoning will never make their method resemble that of a theologian. This statement not only highlights the importance and superiority of logic and mysticism as two types of value-based culture over theology and other paths of knowledge but also makes the path of perfection clearer and purer for all seekers, whether they follow the rational, experiential, judgmental, or mystical method.

Thus, the necessity for complete caution and the strict adherence to general principles by the logician and mystic discoverer is itself a clear evidence for the completeness of logic and discovery. It directly invites the mystic and logician to reach independent conclusions through these two epistemological methods.

Answer to the Second Misconception:

Regarding the second misconception, it must be stated that there is no contradiction or opposition between these two approaches. If such a contradiction appears on the surface, one should identify and remove the flaw that has caused it, so there is no need for justification or interpretation of the externalities of law, religious texts, reason, or mystical findings. This is because the law is the essence of the unseen, and both the intellect and comprehensive reason are complete, and if we are unable to reach them, this shortcoming lies with us. The boundaries of reason, law, and discovery remain unaffected.

If a contradiction is found between the logician’s statement or the mystic’s discovery and the outward forms of religious law, it must be analyzed, and all possible flaws and obstacles must be removed.

There might be a deficiency in the outward forms of the law. In this case, one must first reflect on the origin and authenticity of the transmission and attribution to the law. If no issue arises here, then the interpretation of its meaning must be questioned and analyzed.

Once all these misconceptions are removed, it can be concluded that the logician or mystic has failed to exercise the required caution and has made an oversight in their reasoning or discovery, which must be corrected. Otherwise, there is no contradiction between these matters, and such a misconception is groundless.

Therefore, by ensuring the proper attribution and eliminating any doubt from the outward forms of the law and its clear meaning, as well as by maintaining logical and mystical caution, there is no possibility of contradiction. The independence of reason and discovery, as well as the completeness of the divine revelation and the unseen, remain intact, and these two approaches are unified without any possibility of duality.

The logician and mystic must be cautious in their reasoning and discoveries and not hastily accept any transmission or interpretation. They must exercise the utmost care in attributing any transmission or meaning to sacred law and never allow themselves to fall into impatience or impulsiveness. They should avoid any form of persuasion or naive belief and instead commit themselves to the diligent and comprehensive contemplation that will prevent any contradictions, misconceptions, and errors.

The mystic should, while observing all the necessary principles, rules, and caution in all states and stages, never consider themselves independent of the guidance, infallibility, and direction of the holy infallibles—namely, the great prophets and Imams, and Fatimah al-Zahra (peace be upon them). These blessed figures should always be seen as the keys to all the hidden and challenging aspects of the mystic’s journey. This path, based on reasoning and experimental insight, provides a reliable and proven way for those seeking access to the realm of the unseen and revelation.

From the above, the answer to the second question—about how to distinguish between true mystical revelations and false imaginations—becomes clear. Anything that aligns with perfect reason and is compatible with the principles of revelation and infallibility is an inspiration from the unseen and a vision derived from presence. Anything that is not based on this foundation is either an erroneous fantasy or a deceptive trick that one should seek refuge from God to avoid, as it is dangerous and misleading.

Summary of the Discussion:

From the previous statements and the dispelling of the first and second misconceptions, it is concluded that while logic, reason, thought, and discovery are two great paths for human contemplation and spiritual journey, through which one can understand the truths of the world and find their way to the unseen realm, both methods of acquisition and presence (logic and mysticism) are inherently dependent on revelation and infallibility. The philosopher and mystic must never lose sight of this clear method, the outcome of which is the discovery of a singular truth. This perspective not only meets the human need for understanding the unknown but also strengthens the seeker on their path to understanding the realities and truths of existence, keeping them steady and preventing any confusion or disarray.

The Boundaries of Philosophy and Mysticism:

After stating the previous introductions, it is necessary to present another preamble that clarifies the boundaries and scope of philosophy and mysticism so that no deception remains for those seeking the truth.

The Boundaries of Divine Philosophy:

The criterion for the correctness or incorrectness, the truth or falsity of propositions and beliefs in formal philosophy and logical reasoning, and the boundaries of practical wisdom is based on firm principles and established rules. Philosophy, therefore, has a solid foundation and is free from conjecture, imagination, imitation, persuasion, and naive belief.

In this way, the boundaries of divine philosophy become clear, showing what types of discussions, beliefs, and arguments are appropriate for philosophy and philosophers, and which ones lack philosophical value.

What falls outside the scope of firm reasoning and demonstration in both our academic and non-academic philosophical texts—such as many theological beliefs, ideas from astronomy, and popular or traditional convictions—is outside the realm of philosophy and does not contribute to the certain reasoning that defines wisdom and philosophy.

Although Shiite mystics have always maintained a degree of freedom in mysticism, not limiting themselves to any boundary except for infallibility and guardianship (wilayah), the concept of boundaries and limitations in Shiite mysticism has not yet fully adopted the intellectual framework of the culture of Imamate and Caliphate.

The rich culture of Shiism and the rightful, complete method of guardianship and caliphate are exclusively reserved for the devotees and hopefuls of the rise of the awaited Imam al-Mahdi (may Allah hasten his reappearance). These individuals, as heirs of the rich Shiite culture, hold elevated thoughts and firm divine insights inherited from their scholarly ancestors, the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them). It is profoundly regretful that such a people, with such an eloquent content, as the saying goes, “consume their bread at the table of others,” and do not make the effort to purify this matter, nor do they strive to rectify this deficiency.

Although this flaw is not exclusive to Shiite mysticism, it also appears in other branches of knowledge, such as literature and theology, to a certain extent. This is a matter that invites deep reflection and sorrow, and it requires considerable efforts to overcome, which must be addressed with earnest determination.

It is fitting that, especially in the realm of mysticism, those who have dedicated themselves to the path of the heart and are well-versed in the mysteries of mysticism, having tested it against reason and tasted the essence of divine solitude, should take a significant step forward in this domain. They should endeavour to produce a comprehensive text that fully aligns with Shiite culture, sound sources, and the firm principles of infallibility and guardianship, so that mystical findings are firmly placed on their rightful and truthful paths. May that day come soon!

The Measure of True Revelation

After discussing these matters, there remains no further question regarding the second topic. The measure of true revelation versus false imaginations becomes clear; for the mystical insight that a mystic gains can only be deemed a complete and true revelation when, apart from not being contradictory, it does not disturb reason or infringe upon infallibility and guardianship. In the absence of these conditions, such a revelation holds no mystical value.

Although distinguishing this in many cases can be difficult, a mystic at any stage of their spiritual journey must never allow themselves to entertain the thought of independence or self-sufficiency from divine revelation. Continuously, they must seek assistance from all the noble prophets and the guiding Imams (peace be upon them), with a particular emphasis on the sublime example of the truth, Lady Fatima (peace be upon her). This approach serves as the key to recognising all the pitfalls and delusions that arise along this path.