On the concept of Huwa in Mevlana's work.

[En Ja Su Ri]

Salam

Dear Ibrahim Effendi;

I would like to know if you have any record of  the concept Huwa in Mevlana's opus.

I am aware that the usual name used for Allah by authors who are part of the Tassawuf is Haq. I wonder if Hu appears in Mevlana's works. I guess both Hu and Haq are indistinctly translated as "God". 

Also, if you could explain the concept of Huwa I would be very thankful. 

Fondly;

Enrique

[Ibrahim]

Salām Enrique,

Yes, the word, Hū appears many times in Rumi's Masnavi and refers to God as "He," in accordance with the same meaning in the Qur'ān (the word for "she" in Arabic is hiyya). Since Rumi did not write a
 manual of Sufism, he did not discuss theological or metaphysical interpretations of the word. For that, it is necessary to read the works of other Sufis, such as Ibn 'Arabī, who said, for example, that "Hū" is the name of the Essence of God (in contrast to what he called the Lordship [rubūbiyyah] of God, or the the aspect of God that faces and rules the universe as the Lord [Rabb]).

"As for the new Sufi order’s dhikr prayer (frequently repeating the remembrance of God, a practice commanded often in Qur’an, and in which Sufis have long specialized), Rūmī’s dhikr, and therefore the dhikr of the Mawlawī order for future seven centuries, was “Allāh! Allāh!” Al-Aflākī related that the Regent of Qūniya (Konya), Mu‘īn al-Dīn Parwāna,—after mentioning that the Sufi sheikhs of the past had their daily litanies [awrād] and remembrance practices [dhikrs], such as, “There is no divinity except God!” [lā ilāha ‘illā ‘llāh], “Except (only) God!” [illā ‘llāh], “There is no power and strength except with Him, the Highest, the Greatest [lā ḥawla wa lā quwwata illā bi ‘llāhi ‘l-‘aliyyi ‘l-‘aẓīm], “Him, Him!” [Hū, Hū]—as in the case of dervishes of Turkestān, “I seek the forgiveness of God, the most Great! ” [astaghfiru ‘llāhu ‘l-‘aẓīm], and “Glory (be) to God! And glory (be) to God, and praise and gratitude!” [subhāna ‘llāhi wa bi-ḥamdih]. When Rūmī was asked about his remembrance prayer-chant [dhikr] , he replied: “Our dhikr is ‘Allāh, Allāh, Allāh!’ because we are those who belong to God [mā Allāhiyyānīm], and since ‘we come from God and we will return to God’ [Qur’an 2:156]. And it was reported that Rūmī would lean his head against the wall of the madrasa and say, “Allāh, Allāh!” continually during long nights."

--From the forthcoming book by Hülya Küçük and Ibrahim Gamard, "Sultan Walad: In the Footsteps of Two Masters, Rumi and Shams".

Ibrahim

[En Ja Su Ri]

Thank you for your quick response. 

E.

[En Ja Su Ri]

Salam; 

Dear Ibrahim Efendi, I have a question for you: 

the quote: "Truth was a mirror in the hands of God
It fell, and broke into pieces
Everybody took a piece of it
And they looked at it and thought they had the truth."

Is it an authentic Rumi or a fake?

What is the source?

I would be most thankful for your input. 

Huuu

[Ibrahim]

That is a fake Rumi quote. It is probably someone's gloss/paraphrase on Rumi's famous story about the elephant in a dark house, brought there by some "Hindus" (which, by the way are Indian Muslims--as explained to me many years ago by Dr. Rawan Farhadi):

http://www.masnavi.net/1/25/eng/3/1259/

As you can see in the attached link below, for more than two hundred years, Rumi has carried the reputation in Europe of having been a "universal Sufi"—that is, transcending particular religions. This ignores thousands of references in his poetic works to verses of the Qur'an and Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, as well as (frequently mystical) interpretations thereof.

http://dar-al-masnavi.org/three.fake.rumi.verses.pdf

Ibrahim

[Christopher Starbuck]

As I read these discussion threads over the years, interesting though they are, I do feel on one important level they're missing the point. 

Rumi didn't write his poems for the sake of self expression or literary prowess, and neither did he write them simply to codify a religious doctrine in poetic form.

The primary reason Rumi composed his poems, beyond moments of ecstatic utterance, was to help people, people individually not as a generic category, to progess in their spiritual lives.

So take two extreme examples:

1. A lapsed Baptist Christian woman in Texas reading a version of a Rumi poem which is pretty far from a literal translation, and even further, she makes her own imperfect interpretation of the version even.

2. A very observant muslim man living in Lahore, following the Hanafi madhab and reading a literal translation of a Rumi poem into Urdu, a language very close to the original compared with English.

Now, if the woman in Texas is led by the poem to move forwards in her spiritual life, maybe get past some stage of blockage, maybe become a better person in some area of her life, then Rumi's purpose in composing the poem was fulfilled - he would be pleased!

If the muslim man in Lahore was not led to move forwards in his spiritual life, despite having a much more accurate version of the poem in front of him, then Rumi's purpose in composing the poem was not fulfilled.

The point is not that it isn't important or worthwhile to know as close as possible in another language what Rumi actually composed. Especially for academic scholarship this is important, and for those really interested in Rumi as a poet or spiritual guide.

But ultimately, the litmus test is not. "Did Rumi actually say this, or say it in this way?" The question is, what effect does it have on a reader who is receptive to being influenced by it spiritually in a positive way. 

Hence, Coleman Barks' versions will probably help many more people live better, happier and deeper lives than Ibrahim Gamard Efendi's more literal translations of, sat, Rumi's quatrains will. Personally I mostly prefer Ibrahim Efendi's translations, I add, so I'm maybe one of the few who will benefit more from him than from Barks.

We need to be open to multiple interpretations, wordings, versions and readership of Rumi's poems, so they can have an effect on those who need them. There are many true lovers of Rumi who only know him through Barks, and yet the Rumi they see and love is the same Rumi those of us who read more literal translations know and love.

Debating which shadows on the back wall of the cave are more true than other shadows is not important - the need is to turn around and see beyond the cave mouth the real living beings dancing in the sunlight.

Ashk olsun

On Sun, 20 Nov 2022, 00:26 Christopher Starbuck, <willowt...@gmail.com> wrote:

You're all still asking the wrong question though my friends... the question is not, "Is this quote from a poet who died 700 years ago real or fake?"

The question we should we asking is, here and now is, "Am I real or fake?!"

Who are you? What words of truth can you speak?

The rest is all just distraction, and could go on endlessly...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dar-al-Masnavi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dar-al-masnav...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dar-al-masnavi/a82aaa1b-f604-4e89-a7ad-4c7869c6762cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Iljas Baker]

Salaam Christopher,

I appreciate that you are keen to bring out what is essential in Rumi's writing rather than what might be considered peripheral. Yet I believe you oversimplify things to the detriment of the point you are trying to make.

It is an oversimplification to say "The primary reason Rumi composed his poems ...  was to help ...  people individually, not as a generic category, to progress in their spiritual lives." It is an oversimplification because spiritual progress is not a simple matter and I don't therefore believe Rumi's primary reason for composing his poems can be expressed as you expressed it. Spiritual progress can be defined in a variety of ways. I think Rumi was devoted to helping people reach the station of the Perfect Human as it is understood in Islam.

Of course you have created examples to suit your purpose and it is an easy matter to show why they too are an oversimplification. Take the case of the Baptist Christian whose imperfect interpretation leads her to feel some improvement in her life, let's say she begins to feel she is not as worthless as she thought and she decides to join a certain type of New Age group who keep her feeling she is not worthless and indeed helps her feel as she once did that God loves her. For the sake of argument let's assume its doctrines and practices are quite antithetical to those of Rumi. Would that nevertheless be in line with Rumi's reason for writing?

Let's say the Muslim man in Lahore reads some of Rumi's writing one day but is not touched by it. That might not be the end of the story. He reads a different passage another day and has a spiritual opening. He devotes himself even more to his religion of Islam and his Sufi path as a result. Would that be more in line with Rumi's reason for writing?

Although Rumi's writings can console and inspire and one cannot criticize that,  his purpose surely is to help humanity achieve Perfection and understanding Rumi's message is important if Rumi is seen as a guide on the way to Perfection.

Iljas

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dar-al-masnavi/CAPbpw_9Z59zurGuh9qNtTLsrCWEinCJtRyn8pzFraQ9rfKXPnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Christopher Starbuck]

Blessings Iljas,

You give good examples for how my stories could be continued, but in doing so you prove my point - outwardly this could go on forever (the woman becomes New Age but then makes a connection with someone who inspires her to create a whole network of support for the homeless.... The man in Lahore reads into his religion even more seriously, and accepts salami arguments and rejects Rumi... etc etc).

We can't know or dictate what other people should be inspired by or take as genuine in their life. We have to allow multiple interpretations and understandings of Rumi.

Rumi covers this is the story of Moses and the Shepherd. The Shepherd is worshiping in a way which is antithetical, as you put it, to Moses' belief and knowledge, and he takes the Shepherd to task. But then God takes Moses to task for taking the Shepherd to task, because despite his errors, the Shepherd was one of God 's lovers.

When you or dear Ibrahim Efendi go around saying strongly that all the versions and paraphrases and interpretations of Rumi in cultures around the world are "wrong", you're risking knocking the sense of faith and connection which that version, however inaccurate from a literalist perspective, did engender in the person who loves Rumi through it. And we are not Moseses, we can't be confident that by pulling the rug out from under them, they will reach higher. Ibrahim Efendi's literal translations of Rumi's quatrains, however valuable I find them, are not going to sell millions of copies and directly touch millions of lives, as Colman Barks Efendi has done, through the baraka of Mevlana!

My autocorrect wishes to change baraka to banana!! You see, it thinks it knows what's correct externally, because it doesn't see my inner intention. 

Be kind, be tolerant, be inclusive, be ready to accept your own view is only partial. Otherwise we end up with the same style of thinking and template for argument which those sufis who reject Mevlana use, or those muslims who reject sufism use, or those who reject all but their branch of Islam use.... To many in the Muslim world, Rumi is as antithetical to true islam as a what a New Age group is to you.

Give up excessive concern with what's external and allow yourself to be pulled in a different direction altogether. Or... burst your own bubble, and step out into a more spacious world. 

Ashk olsun 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dar-al-masnavi/CAPCzQSd8qp2rp7qGGiFVYNch6%2B0gkxHk2H_34hjaK4d%2BiWaqtA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ibrahim]

Salām Christopher,

I have not viewed myself as saying that all versions. paraphrases, and interpretations of Rumi poems as "wrong." Rather, my main issue was that calling and publishing them as "translations" (in the case of those authors who do not know Persian) is wrong and deceitful. Have you not read the recent correspondence that I had with Coleman Barks in which he admitted the difference between "versions" and translations? I uploaded it onto the Google discussion group on July 20, 2022:

You also acknowledged our distinction between ”versions” and “translations” when you wrote: “These short free verse poems are versions of Rumi’s rubaiyat, done from Gamard and Farhadi’s translations.” In this regard, you wrote: ”Ibrahim Gamard, Rawan Farhadi, William Chittick, and Franklin Lewis disapprove of making versions. I understand the objection. What I do is a homemade, amateurish, loose, many-stranded thing, without much attention to historical context, nor much literal faithfulness to the original.” However, I do not think there would have been such disapproval if your reinterpretations had been designated as “versions” instead of “translations” on the covers and title pages—as was the case of your 1980 book, Night and Sleep: Rumi which was subtitled, “Versions by Coleman Barks and Robert Bly” and of your 1984 book, Open Secret which was subtitled, “Versions of Rumi.”

http://dar-al-masnavi.org/pdf/praise.quatrains.pdf

Ibrahim

[Christopher Starbuck]

"Translation" is a word with many meanings and nuances though Efendi. It's not simply given that a literal translation is what's meant or needed. In translating, you need to ask: who will be receiving what I'm trying to communicate? What will they take from it? What points of reference do the have which can form a bridge between languages and cultures? What am I translation - the literal surface meaning? An underlying meaning? Something of the form of the poem, sound, rhythm, meter, flow, dynamic?

You seem to take "translation" as just to mean, writing sentences in one language that have as close as possible the same literal surface meaning as the original, and in doing so you lose many layers of communication between the original and the new recipient.

I've directed many plays by world authors in translation - a straight literal version usually has no chance of being alive for an audience in a different language, it takes much more flexibility and even daring to get a great play to be great on stage in translation. 

Barks gets this, which is why his versions/translations have reached millions, while your (excellent and to me v valuable) literal translations won't. Because your purpose is different, and more limited. You're writing scholarly, almost academic material. Barks is helping the poems move fully into a new place, so the process of translation needs to be different.

Words always have many meanings, often fluid, shifting meanings, or can even function as receptacles into which we pour meanings. When we communicate, only a part of what we intend is ever heard by the receipient. We need to acknowledge this gap between ourselves and our listeners, and work creativly with it. Rumi knew this and pushed Persian poetry to It's limit in form and content in trying to communicate. 

What Barks is doing is in a sense much closer to what Rumi himself was doing than what you're doing through your v important scholarly work.

You don't need to take words too literally Efendi. There's no need to be offended if Barks' poems get called translations rather than versions. For most of his readership, the distinction is splitting hairs. For the smaller number the difference makes a difference, they're perfectly capable of working this out for themselves.

Goodnight from Manchester!

Eyvallah

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dar-al-masnavi/1d6ce840-501e-4bae-884b-98bac9c95c47n%40googlegroups.com.

[En Ja Su Ri]

Dear Ibrahim Efendi; 

I am, as always, thankful for your exact and sharp answers to my questions. Yes, my question was an academic one. I am researching to help someone write about Mevlana. As such, it would be wrong to allow them to quote something Mevlana did not, in fact, write. 

I haven't been asked, but I humbly believe non-factual discussions about imaginary people to be not helpful in the context of academia. Mevlana wrote what he intended to write in the context where he actually lived. Meeting those writings, we will always find his spirit. We cannot demand of him to have written melodramatic pieces because they fit our taste. It wouldn't be honest. 

That is why I value your work and knowledge, Ibrahin Efendi, and am always thankful for your clear replies. I can sense your love for Hz. Mevlana in your respect for his work. 

Huuu

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Dar-al-Masnavi" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/dar-al-masnavi/udLVlTaKIzQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to dar-al-masnav...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dar-al-masnavi/1d6ce840-501e-4bae-884b-98bac9c95c47n%40googlegroups.com.

[Iljas Baker]

Salaam Christopher,

Thank you for your response. I will leave aside  what feel like accusations which mischaracterized my views ( you included Ibrahim in your accusations and I will leave him to respond if he wishes rather than respond for him).  My conveying a certain understanding shouldn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that I wouldn't be kind, tolerant, and ready to accept that my views are only partial.

The crux of the matter seems to be what was Rumi's reason for writing, let's say, the Masnavi? My response is that he wanted to guide and support readers in their journey towards Perfection as defined by Islamic Sufism. I'm sure he understood that not everyone would see it this way and he would accept this fact. After all didn't he write:

"Every (one became my friend from his own opinion;/ none sought out my secrets from within me./

My secret is not far from my plaint, but ear and eye lack the/ light (whereby it should be apprehended)."

It is difficult enough to explore these issues in short statements and even more so in this medium so I will leave it at that.  

Iljas

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dar-al-masnavi/CAPbpw_9v7FMHtfqUVGRpXRY-014VfJLVeMmSbgByOQ_1nwEVug%40mail.gmail.com.