In spite of the fact that Muhammad came from the same lineage of Prophets stemming from the progeny of Abraham (peace be upon all), his revelation was not just of textual form but more so of visual medium.
Any non-Arab who studies the language of Qur’an, within the syntactic details discovers extras that which otherwise are not needed to convey the underlying concepts . Moreover Al-Muqat’ta’at e.g. Alif-Lam-Mim even do away with the usual daily semantics of the language of Arab, and present an incredible audio visual medium of communication.
The Hadith Nur is one of many examples of Arabic text that is not textual by nature, it is actually a ‘visual record’ of a spiritual experience, within which Muhammad SAW something in the other world (Jabarut or Malakut) and reported it back to the inhabitants of this world in textual form.
There are simpler such revelations in order to avoid the complexities of tree and peacock and pearl and so on, by looking at the words of Qur’an and other Hadith:
1. In Qur’an Muhammad’s name is mentioned only 4 times, but he is being referred to in a personal one-on-one addressing (Khitab) mode, encapsulated within the letter Ka (‘s’ sound in Arabic), large number of times. Example:The most common standing phrase:
Za-Li-Ka
Za: This a pointer pointing
Li: ‘L’ sound in Arabic adding the semantics of distance therefore making Za-Li from this to THAT
Ka: You as in you Muhammad
If you listen to the language of Arab carefully you will notice that they can just as easily say Za (this) and then add nothing more i.e. Ka.
Q: Then why the language of Qur’an insists on carrying the letter Ka all over to address Muhammad as the second person present form? And insisting it does!
A: Because Muhammad was being SHOWN something visual in nature and as such he was SEEing e.g. Za-Li-Ka means ‘what (Za) YOU (Ka) see visually over there (Li)…’:
2:52. Then We (Allah) forgave Kum(you all, pl i.e. Jews), after Zal-Li-Ka, that Kum (you all Jews?) be thankful .
Kum the second person present pronoun in plural is used twice in the sentence because a story about a past nation is being narrated, but in the middle of the sentence there is the interjection Zal-Li-Ka referring in singular form to a second person present in singular form?
There is no story being told, imagine a MOTION PICTURE is being shown to Muhammad in 3D and he is standing there and seeing what happened to those people and how Allah forgave them and this was offered to him to see via the application of Zal-Li-Ka (This in far distance for you is being rendered visually)
There are many more examples of this sort e.g. 2:61 or 3:24 or 9:12.
Another form of the same phrase oft-repeated:
‘ULa’i-Ka (Those for you Muhammad)
2.177 (A-Birr verse): ‘ULa’i-Ka are those were truthful
Q: Why would someone say: Those for you are those who are truthful, why not just say They are truthful! Specially given the most popular Arab’s poetic construction of Hazf (Omission) which was used to shorten verses.
A: Because those people were rendered in a 3D motion picture (so to say) and Muhammad and was watching them as a Shaahid (Witness). This is how you address someone when they are watching something “those for you” or “that over there in front of you”.
Back to Hadith Nur, these sorts of odd Hadith and indeed many in the books, are transcripts of visual experiences of Muhammad peace be upon.
Q: What of peacock and pearl and tree and lamp?
A: These entities in the other universe of spiritualities have no forms! they are immaterial, they were PROJECTED (Mathal) into this world for Muhammad to be able to have visual experience, otherwise he could not convey anything to us as a record. Sufis call this Tajalli (Lucent Manifestation) the word used in the verse about Moses in mountain requesting to see Allah 7:143.
Residual Vision
But what Muhammad saw in such visual form, has a lingering residue and still being shown on this planet, there are those of Allah’s servants who are ‘entangled’ with the Eye of the Prophet (as in Insan Kamil or perfected eye) and they can see what the Prophet Muhammad saw awake or asleep.
Therefore peacock might still have a residual visual presence on this planet, and some are able to see him, some might see the Tree, some might see the shimmer flickers of the pear or some might even be able to see their own beauty within the she-mirror…
Salaam alaika Jalal
This post also explains your greeting (alaiki), I think. Do I now have the return greeting correctly (alaika)?
This concept of the projected image is also very useful, especially because it would be insubstantial (like the image in the mirror too) and thank you for it. I am looking for a way to connect that idea directly to our material.
But I am also thinking about your post on mathal, and Ibn Arabi’s concept of the seal as shaper. All of them seem to involve thinking about how images are formed and in their different ways imply that the image is a literal description of something that exists or could exist. This is often true, and is perhaps our general experience (photographs, book illustrations, billboards etc) but it is also important to recognize other aspects of images and the idea of the majaz (corridor) may offer another possibility to reach the ambiguous, metaphorical or symbolic.
I’m posting this now for completeness, with apologies for its delay – have just found it hanging on my system in a “restored” session, when I thought I had posted it some time ago.
Pingback: Contents | VIEW