/lit/ - Literature

>>20813534
I am a Muslim who has read and examined some parts of this book. There are two things to consider with regards to it, first the translation and then the commentary. The translation is, both in terms of style and precision, one of the best there is. Regarding commentary, it mostly tries to accurately present how the verses were understood by the authors of different backgrounds. As such it not only features the traditional Sunni commentators (such as al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir), but it also has Sufi tafsirs (eg Abd al-Razzaq's tafsir known as Tafsir Ibn Arabi, the tafsir of Ruzbihan, or Sulami's which is attributed to Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq); it also features Shi'ites of different methodology (Tafsir Qummi which is a narration based tafsir, Mulla Sadra's philosophical tafsir, and Tabatabai's textual tafsir). For this diversity of views I find it very useful, since it allows you to do comparative studies on the spot.

The criticism it has received mostly comes from salafis. First of all they take issue with the editor-in-chief, S.H. Nasr, being both a Perennialist and a Twelver Shia (so in their eyes, he is doubly heretical). This shouldn't be an issue it's an academic work, and evidently tries to be charitable to all view points. Another of their criticism is the fact that it presents the so many different view points, namely Sufi and Shi'i, which the extremist groups of certain orientations find absolutely heretical. This might be a problem for them but for many - myself included - this is the strength of the work. Now lastly there is one criticism that I find legitimate. It is that, in certain parts, the commentary tries to be overly ecumenical, even against the traditional understanding. The criticism especially applies to what it says about verse 3 of Surat al-Ikhlas: "He begets not; nor was He begotten." The verse was traditionally understood as criticizing the Christian belief. In The Study Quran commentator briefly mentions this but, uncharacteristically, argues against this understanding and says it does not apply to the Christian understanding of Jesus being the son of God.

This last criticism, however minor, is legitimate, but other than that the "criticism" just comes from the salafis seething as always about people disagreeing with them. You need to remember this is a tafsir that presents its own views, but one that cites and introduces the traditional tafsirs of different branches and methodologies. It should be read as an academic scholarship which introduces different view points and understandings and allows you to compare and contrast them.

>>20813745
>You need to remember this is a tafsir that presents its own views
I meant to say this ISN'T a tafsir that presents its own views (of course, exceptions such as Al-Ikhlas verse 3 cited above notwithstanding).

>>20813745
Yeah I bought recently and read what they had written for the verses of the Fatiha.

My question is mostly to try and understand where the authors fit the perennial philosophy into their Islam. It is not so much a criticism from me, rather I want to try and understand how they see other religions. Do they pick and choose the concepts from other traditions that match with Islamic doctrine and consider those ideas as part of the lost teachings of old prophets? Is that how they see it? I don’t see how they can include say Hindu theology as a path to salvation. I understand the Quran is sent to mankind, and that previous prophets were actually muslims in the sense of the word, but what about those polytheistic traditions? I mean Nasr mentions polytheistic religions in his talks as having an understanding of the divine unity, but not sure how that fits in Tawhid when we know they have polytheistic elements. Do you have knowledge of any of that?

>>20813534
The authors aren't perennialist
Nasr, the editor, is a perennialist

>>20813534
I don't think Nasr is smart or trustworthy, but some of the people involved in this edition are reliable and intelligent.

>>20813745
> As such it not only features the traditional Sunni commentators (such as al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir), but it also has Sufi tafsirs (eg Abd al-Razzaq's tafsir known as Tafsir Ibn Arabi, the tafsir of Ruzbihan, or Sulami's which is attributed to Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq); it also features Shi'ites of different methodology (Tafsir Qummi which is a narration based tafsir, Mulla Sadra's philosophical tafsir, and Tabatabai's textual tafsir). For this diversity of views I find it very useful, since it allows you to do comparative studies on the spot.

This sounds really good.

>>20813745
Someone should email Joseph E. B. Lumbard and ask him wtf he was going for with the Jesus part
Perhaps he was pushed by it or consumed by the spirit of ecumenism but it's just ridiculous

>>20813784
So first of all it should be noted that this book is not an explicitly Perennialist book (although it has affected certain things that it has said, such as the one about al-Ikhlas). Regarding Perennialism itself, according to this understanding religions have an exoteric aspect, meaning the outer manifestation of the religion, and an esoteric aspect, meaning the inner truth of the religion. According to Perennialism, while religions differ in their exoteric aspect, and even contradict each other, mainly due to having been revealed in different times and places, but their esoteric aspect remains the same (see pic).

In Islam we have of course traditionally have a form of esotericism, which is Sufism or Irfan (which the salafis do not recognize as legitimate and seethe about). In this respect at least Perennialism corresponds to Islam. In the Quran it is also said that God has sent Prophets to every people (eg 16:36). In this respect also there is no problem. But the issue is whether, after the advent of Islam, a person could be justified in following religions other than Islam. This is where there is a tension between the traditional understandings of Islam and Perennialism, as Perennialists try to argue it is permissible and justified.

This last point is where I myself disagree with Perennialism, but also there are Muslim Perennialists too who reject this idea but agree with Perennialism on other points (for example Dr. Saiyad Nizamuddin Ahmad on youtube).

>>20813745
>In The Study Quran commentator briefly mentions this but, uncharacteristically, argues against this understanding and says it does not apply to the Christian understanding of Jesus being the son of God.

I saw this and it immediately stood out to me. Very awkward and forced. Probably some dumb idea from Nasr.

>>20813534
>>20813534
>Might as well discuss Guenon and Schuon's ideas. I've been listening to a lot of talks relating to these subjects but I don't grasp what they're trying to say in relation to Islam and its position in relation to other traditions.

Basically Perennialism/Traditionalism is a thing made up by Guenon where he thinks he sees Advaita Vedanta metaphysics, (which is extremely similar to Buddhism and developed in response to it) at the very top of the spiritual elite of each tradition. The smartest people in each religion know that the truth is actually not their specific religion, but Advaita Vedanta.

Very important for Guenon was the concept of initiation. He believed you needed to get initiated in order to better receive spiritual insight of Advaita Vedanta and this needs to occur within a traditional religious system. Guenon believed this was basically impossible with Catholicism in Europe now and the best thing for Europeans was to become Sufi Muslims. Why? Because Islam is closer to the western way of life than any other tradition, and because Guenon believed that he saw Advaita Vedanta in Sufism.

The whole point of Advaita Vedanta is that your self and the universe is an illusion and the only thing that is really real is Brahman, and the point of existence is for you to annihilate yourself into Brahman. Depersonalization was very important for Guenon and it explains the way he writes, concepts like "pure metaphysics" (meaning purified from all trace of humanity), and his arrogant disdain for common people.

>>20813534
Two sincere questions, as I was looking into the Study Qur'an just yesterday:
(1) Is the binding sewn or glued?
(2) Is the "leather" one any good, or should I stick with the hardcover?
I've heard the ghosting is pretty bad, though, at least on the hardcover. Bonus question for (2), if anyone has the "leather" one, is the paper the same?

Thank you.

>>20813983
I got the digital version like a pleb, you can search stuff fast I guess, and it stays in my pocket

Btw thanks for the info, what's nice about the team of people behind it is that indeed they seem pretty grounded.

>>20813745
As a Muslim this is the most succinct answer you’re going to get and I’m saving this comment. Far better than the response I was going to give that this novel makes Sunnis seethe

>>20813534
Unrelated but is there a /lit/ chart for Sufism?

>>20814250
As a Muslim I rarely see muslims not seethe ;()

>>20813534
Read the Satanic Verses instead