One of the most important technical terms in the Qurʾān and in the traditions of the Family of the Prophet of Islam (S) is ‘ʿaql’. According to them, ʿaql is
That by which Ał-Raḥmān is adored and served; and that by which the Gardens [of Paradise] are earned.
It is unfortunately very common to translate the word ‘ʿaql’ by ‘intellect’, ‘intelligence’, ‘reason’, or related expressions. The damage these inaccurate translations do to the message of the Qurʾān and of the Prophet of Islam (S) and his family (S) is immense.
One of the brothers wrote me a question on the proper translation of ‘ʿaql’; I am posting my reply to him as the first of what will become, in shā ʾAllāh, a series of reflections on the concept and reality of ʿaql.
In future reflections we will expand upon this theme as needed. Kindly contribute your thoughts and questions. The use of the word ‘nexal’ (adjectival form of ‘nexus’) will, in shā ʾAllāh, be explained in a future reflection.
Response to a Letter from a Brother on an English expression for ʿAql
Bismi Rabbi al-Husayn (S)
Dear Brother Ali Husayni,
Translation is always provisional, especially translation of Divine Speech. The use of 'consciousness', an ambiguous word in English, also has a context. We use 'consciousness' as short for 'nexal consciousness and awareness'. I have no time for details - and definitely no time to waste on petty debates - but meditation on the following ayah will make the connection obvious:
صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ فَهُمْ لاَ يَعْقِلُونَ
Deaf, dumb, and blind, so they are not nexally conscious.
And if sincere meditation on this ayah does not make it obvious then meditate this ayah:
فَإِنَّهَا لَا تَعْمَى الْأَبْصَارُ وَلَكِنْ تَعْمَى الْقُلُوبُ الَّتِي فِي الصُّدُور
Surely it is not the eyes which are blind; but rather it is the hearts which are in the breasts that are blind.
In the language of the 14 People of Allah (S) the word 'qalb' or 'heart' is used to mention the seat of ʿaql, i.e., the seat of nexal consciousness-awareness or consciousness for short. So a heart without ʿaql is like an eye without sight. In this ayah 'blindness' is used in the strong sense of deaf, dumb and blind, viz, total deprivation of sensory consciousness. A person deaf dumb and blind is not conscious-aware in the sensory sense in this world nor, by extension, capable of response. This deprivation is a symbol (mathal) for the one without ʿaql in the higher sense. And it takes ʿaql to discover the objective binding connection (ʿuqlaḧ i.e. nexus) between the symbol in the universe of discourse here with the symbol in the universe of discourse there, as ał-Riḍā (S) explained to the Hermeticist. And the secret the Imām (S) unveiled to the Hermeticist is the secret of the ayah
وَتِلْكَ الْأَمْثَالُ نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِ وَمَا يَعْقِلُهَا إِلَّا الْعَالِمُونَ
And those are the symbols we propound to the people and no one is nexally conscious of them except the knowers.
So meditate the above and the answer to the question will be clear. Then meditate it further, for it is a door that will open other doors by the guidance of Allah (SWT) and His 14 (S). May Allah Bless you and
In WALAYAH
Samawi
Assalamo Alaikum wr,
Thanks Sheikh for the beautiful explanation. Makes sense.
I once suggested Moezzi’s term Hiero-Intelligence for ‘aql. I like your nexal consciousness very much as a gloss in English as well just I think your gloss on fu’ad as subtle-heart flux is simply brilliant! But I think Moezzi is on to something here with his ‘aql qua Hiero-Intelligence.
@DHULFIQAR110: Thanks for bringing this up. ‘Hiero-intelligence’ is problematic for a few reasons:
It smacks of Neoplatonism, whose hierarchy is much too static;
It smacks more generally of Hellenistic philosophy, whose virtual deification of ʿAql qua Intelligence led generations of Islamic philosophers down a blind alley, right up to Mulla Sadra;
It smacks of Gnosticism and Christianity, whose binary cosmological bifurcation of the world into a sacred or holy (hiero-) Above and a profane Below is inconsistent with the teachings of AhlulBayt and the Qur’an.
Yes, there is a part of the vertical dimension of “holy consciousness” that is captured somewhat by ‘hiero-intelligence’. But it is too restrictive and does not capture the fullness of the vertical dimensionality or any of the horizontal dimensionality of ʿaql. That is, it doesn’t capture the full movement of objective logic between universes of discourse.
InshaaAllah some of the above will become clearer in future posts and discussions.
Here is what Moezzi says in 142n13 of his THE DIVINE GUIDE IN EARLY SHI’ISM (SUNY: 1993), which I think addresses a few of your objections:
“Although Ibn al-Muqaffa’ (d. circa 140/757), the author of one of the very first treatises on logic in the Greek style, was a contemporary of the fifth and sixth imams, we are nevertheless far, in this cosmogonic presentation, from the kind of Greek thought where no substance, no disposition even, is opposed to the intellect and where ignorance is simply the absence of any form in the intellect; but certain similarities between Imamite and Greek ideas can be perceived in their ethics and soteriology. On the other hand, the similarity of certain ideas with (late?)
Mazdean dualism is remarkable: a dualism not at the level of God, but at that of creation: ‘aql has an opposite on the same ontological level, namely jahl (cosmic Ignorance); the struggle that opposes the Armies of ‘aql and those of jahl is an irresistible reminder of the perpetual combat between such entities as innate Wisdom (âsn xrad, read âshn khrad) and Ignorance (dusâkâsîh, read dushâkâsih ), corresponding, respectively, with Vohuman and Akoman (see Le Troisième Livre de Dênkart, trans J. de Menasce, Paris, 1973, s. v.) or the Iranian myth about the Primordial War as it is told by al-Shahrastânî (Livre des religions et des sectes, p. 639 and the notes by G. Monnot)…”
This excerpt confirms my point about the Gnostic/dualist inspiration to Moezzi’s speculations, and his “hiero-intelligence”. So many of the Gnostic followers of the AhlulBayt became Ghulaat on account of missing the point here:
The role of opposites in the Qur’an and AhlulBayt is not dualist but rather dialectical. It is not static but rather dynamic.
Philosophically speaking, Aql and Jahl are not contradictory opposites, but rather contrary opposites. The Imam (S) refers to Jahl as .didd, not naqi.d. The former allows for a dialectic of Aql and Jahl so that Jahl, the enemy of Aql, can become the very sister of Aql.
And in the last sentence is a secret of Walayah so meditate and guard it well; and do not spread it cheaply in the streets of the people.
“The former allows for a dialectic of Aql and Jahl so that Jahl, the enemy of Aql, can become the very sister of Aql…”
But does not such a gloss lead to a wahdat al-wujud of sorts and open the door to all sorts of logical contradictions on issues of theodicy and soteriology?
No, because the dialectic doesn’t end in a final union or unitary annihilation, neither in Creation nor in the Entity of Allah. Al-Shaykh al-Awhad (Q) nails Mulla Sadra on this point towards the end of Sharh al-Masha3ir. Rather the dialectic is one of infinite becoming.
The sisterhood and brotherhood I mentioned above is a very subtle point and must be deeply meditated. It is an important ta’wil of the ayah
فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاة وَآتَوْا الزَّكَاة فَإِخْوَانكُمْ فِي الدِّين وَنُفَصِّل الْآيَات لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ
So if they turn forward, stand in communion, and purify their wealth, then they are your siblings in the Way of returning the debt [of walayah]. And we make distinct Our signs to a people who know.
And the knowledge referred to in this ayah is the one referred to in the ayah of objective logic:
And those are the symbols we propound to the people and no one is nexally conscious of them except the knowers.
This is a profound topic.
I am glad I am not the only one concerned about the toxic hellenization of the din.
The ontology in Abrahamic scripture is “time” based. The ontology in greek philosophy is “being” based. The two can not be reconciled.
Moezzi translation carries the very real danger of reducing Islam to Hellenism. We already have enough “scholars” making the claim that Islam is nothing more arabized Hellenism. But it carries the greater danger of justifying the present intoxification with greek philosophy in shi’a seminaries, to the point that the din is no longer seen as distinct from it.
Time, family and circumstances permitting over the next few days, I may write a note on some points of the discussion so far. Now to say that that Hiero-Intelligence constitutes a “toxic hellenization” of the deen, misses a greater point on this specific question. That doesn’t mean the point is not well taken in other regards. It is. But I think it misses the point as to why Moezzi deployed it for ‘aql. That said, “nexal consciousness” itself as a term doesn’t exactly return us anywhere or detoxifies meanings either since the gloss is obviously, to me at least, loaded with the assumptions of Whitehead’s process philosophy.
@dhulfiqar110:
“Whitehead’s process philosophy.”
Although I can see why you might think that, there is absolutely no connection between my use of ‘nexus’ and that of Whitehead. As G.R.G. Mure wrote:
“A great array of technical terms and words employed in senses that merely flout familiar usage makes A.N. Whitehead’s Process and Reality an obscure work.”
In similar vein, I consider Whitehead’s approach to technical terminology fundamentally flawed. Fortunately, so few people use his terminology that there is little-to-no chance that the usage here will be confused for Whiteheadian.
In our discussion we are using ‘nexus’ in something very close to standard nuances of the dictionary sense as found in Merriam-Webster or Oxford. Whitehead’s “nexus” is something else entirely.
Anyway, as mentioned above,
“The use of the word ‘nexal’ (adjectival form of ‘nexus’) will, in shā ʾAllāh, be explained in a future reflection.”
In shā ʾAllāh!
🙂 🙂 🙂