1

Buyruk: The Basics of Dawoodiyya

By Thomas McElwain

Copyright 2006 Thomas McElwain

2

Buyruk: The Basics of Dawoodiyya

I declare that there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger. May the blessings of God be upon all of the holy prophets, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad, and upon all divine guides, Ali, Hasan, Husseyn, Zeynul-Abideen, Muhammad al-Baqir, Jafer as-Sadiq, Musa al Kadhim, Ar-Riddha, At-Taqi, An-Naqi, Al-Askeri, Muhammad al-Mahdi. May Allah be pleased with Hajji Bektash Wali. Dawoodiyya is a spiritual practice that was handed down to me from my grandmother, who claimed to have received it from her father. She gave me a list of names including the twelve Imams of Islamic tradition and the name of Hajji Bektash. In terms of belief, she noted that there are four elements, four kinds of spiritual experience, four books, and four living guides, and the ten commandments. The elements are air, fire, water and earth. The kinds of spiritual experience are keeping divine law, the path of love, knowing God, and the experience of truth. The four books are the Torah or Tawrat, the Zabur or the Psalms, the Injil or the Gospel, that is in sum the Bible, and the Quran. The four living guides are Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, and the Master of the Age. Her own practice was simply to read the Bible at night and keep a healthy skepticism of organized religion. She had no Quran and little knowledge of what is considered Islamic law. She did not consider herself a Muslim, and lived most of her life on the fringes of one Baptist church or another. But she kept tenaciously to the spiritual practice inherited from her father, and though she was close-mouthed about it, she did speak of it when asked and transmitted at least bits and pieces of it to various of her children and grandchildren. I incorporated my grandmothers teachings in practice in my own family. A Turkish visitor noticed the similarity with Alevi tradition and introduced me to Turkish sources. After I published my book, Hello, Im God: A Bektashi Rosary, a number of people began to practice Dawoodiyya in different parts of the world. Some have done so purely on the same basis as did my grandmother, merely as a personal spiritual discipline in a world whose religious alternatives seem not to give all to be desired. Others have noticed it to be an extremely effective way of socializing ones children within the values of the family in order to provide them with strategies for resisting the pressures of a wicked world around them. Finally, some have seen it as a simple program for the fostering and spread of Islam, which can

3

be the result of a small group meeting to read, contemplate and compare the texts of the Bible and the Quran. Whatever the purpose, I am happy to honor the memory of my grandmother by exposing her teachings to those who wish to benefit by them. The proof is in the pudding, but recent translation of the Makaalaat of Hajji Bektash has provided a more accurate means of comparison of Dawoodiyya with Turkish traditions, so that it is now possible to confirm that the basics taught by my grandmother are exactly those to be found in the oldest Bektashi sources. The focus on the four books, the four gates of spiritual experience, and the ten laws all find their reflection in the Makaalaat. The simple circle prayer in recitation of Scripture beside the hearth under the eye of the grandfather is an echo of the same sort of traditions among the Alevi in Turkey today. While Dawoodiyya does not and cannot claim an organic relationship to any Turkish organization of Alevis, Bektashis, Chelebis or Qizilbash, and in fact differs from all of them in many ways, as to be expected, it does represent some of the central content of Hajji Bektashs teachings and transmits them in a vital and eminently usable way. The individual or small group gathered for the recitation of the Four Books can and does enjoy the presence of one or more of the hidden, living guides and participates in the love and light of Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, and Muhammad Al-Mahdi, peace be upon them.

1. What does God demand of humankind?

Whether or not one even believes in a god of any kind, the most common, implicit answer to that question is to do what comes naturally. The biological and other determinants of the species alone seem to reveal the will of the Creator, whether the Creator is purely the process of evolution or God defined in any other terms. In addition to what comes naturally, people lay some other obligations on each other in patterns of learned behaviour that we call culture. The result is a combination of biological determinants and acquired kinds of behaviour. All of this is no doubt inevitable and has to be accepted as the world in which we all live. Reliance on internal and external determinants cannot be ignored without causing a breakdown, sooner or later, in human society. The natural and socio-cultural norms cannot be tampered with without running grave risks. Experience shows this clearly to be true. Those who do not eat, die. Those who do not breathe, die even sooner. Those who ignore the rights of others to eat and breathe, if they become numerous, cause the destruction of populations. It is a very logical proposition that God makes no demands upon

4

humankind beyond what comes naturally, and that human beings have no duty beyond nature and the social necessities that arise from many living in the same world. There is no logical reason to suppose that the power that instigated the natural order, or disorder as it may be, may make further demands on the products of that order, namely, human beings. However, to deny that such demands may exist is to presume information for which there is no basis. To assume, for the sake of the argument, that such demands may exist opens the door for investigation. Is there a divine revelation beyond what every human being finds in her own experience of life on this planet? There are certainly many claims to such revelation. Not all of the classical religious texts in the world make such claims, but there is such an implication in the fact that they have been preserved as classical religious texts. Among these are the Vedas, the Chinese Classics, the Avesta, the Hebrew Scriptures, the Gospels, and the Quran among many others. Probably some traditions that were never written down could be included in the claims to divine revelation. There are various ways of relating to these claimants to revelation. One is to suggest that some of them are true, and some are false. This is the way of fundamentalism. Another way is to suggest that one or more of them reflect the human experience of search for truth. This is the way of humanism. Another way is to find a common and recurring philosophy in all of them, a core of truth manifesting itself surrounded by ephemeral and non-essential traditions that give the false impression of conflicting religious systems. That is the way of traditionalism or perennial philosophy. All of these ways of relating to the various religious classics of the world have weak points in at least one or both of two issues. These are the issues of authority and consistency. They all assume criteria of evaluation, criteria that are often unconscious, but always presupposed values. Evaluation on the basis of presupposed values is to establish human criteria above the supposed divine revelation, which implies that the human evaluator is in some sense sovereign over the Revelator. Such evaluation strikes me as suspect. Yet it is logical to seek a valid claimant to divine revelation, if such exists, from among the great religious classics. Revelation, to be revelation at all, must be largely accessible. Universal accessibility cannot in practice be obtained, but an obscure text is not in the running. Accessibility is the only presupposed value I can accept a priori. Other values may rise from the condition of the texts, but for revelation to be revelation, it has to be revealed, that is, accessible. There is in fact a text that has a unique configuration of claims, values arising uniquely from its conditions. There is one text that claims to be direct divine revelation without the medium of a prophet, a dream or a vision. The claim of the text is that perhaps as many two million human beings from one

5

of the largest urban centres of civilization at the time heard the revelation. There is no claim at the time that they then disagreed on what they heard, a most remarkable circumstance. The text claims to be a brief and apparently comprehensive exposition of what God the Revealer expects of humankind. Its most obvious content and function is to express the demands of God for humankind. One might expect there to be scores or even hundreds of such texts with this configuration of claims, but in fact, reality has made things simple. There is only one such claimant, the Sinai story as reported in the Bible and the Quran and other traditions, and it must be accepted, within the parameters of the investigation, by default. The only alternatives are to fall back on other criteria in relating to the religious classics, or to maintain that natural knowledge, bolstered by culture, is sufficient. However, there is a logical problem with natural religion as well. It is the assumption of self-sufficiency. Now we cannot rationally come to the conclusion that self-sufficiency is adequate. First of all, we cannot know, a priori, what the necessary knowledge is and whether we naturally possess it. The only conclusion that we can come to naturally as we examine our experience in the world is that we are limited in knowledge. Tools may expand those limitations, but we can never know whether or not that expansion has taken in all essential knowledge. Given that most of us eventually die, we are left with a serious doubt as to whether or not we know all that even survival requires. In sum, we cannot be sure that we do not need more knowledge than we naturally have even to survive. Secondly, among the logical sources of such additional knowledge, there is a text that stands out as having unique features and claims. It now falls our duty to examine this text to see whether, in practice, it offers information that enhances our necessary and natural existence. 2. The Decalogue as the Criterion of Right and Wrong An experiential criterion of right and wrong has already appeared. We know natural law in pragmatic terms. We know it is right to eat things that have been experienced to nourish us, and we know that it is wrong, in a pragmatic sense, to eat things that result in poisoning and death. We also know social laws. We know that if we cheat someone out of something that he considers himself to own, he will be likely to retaliate and make us wish that we had left him in peace. We have identified the only family of texts that could logically have a

6

valid claim to direct and public revelation, and we know by experience the natural and social laws that govern our existence. It remains to put these two aspects of our knowledge together. If the established textual claimant to revelation conflicts with the reality that we all experience, then we have the right to reject it and return to pure, natural faith alone, accepting it as sufficient, and assuming that natural and social knowledge is sufficient, not only for survival, but for all human needs. We have not established sufficient reason to accept the Decalogue (Exodus 20:1-17) as normative. We have only noted its uniqueness in the body of religious classics, and the fact that we may need such a revelation. Only if it turns out to support the necessities of human existence as we know them shall we take advantage of it to further our natural and valid desires as human beings. That must be the nature of its normative value. Any other acceptance of norms beyond the natural and social ones we already know is likely to result in disaster to one degree or another. We must not be too ready to submit ourselves to religious claims. If there is anything that can be observed in the world it is that there are too many religious leaders and too many followers. We see far too much of their negative effects on the benefits of the natural secularism upon which we have come to depend. This spirit of caution, in contrast to the assumed criteria of evaluation mentioned above, will not rob the text of its character of divine revelation if that is what it truly turns out to be. 3. The Premise Then Alohim spoke all these things I am YHWH Alohim whose wings Brought you from Egypt and slavery. (Exodus 20:1,2 NJV) There are several issues here. The first is the epithets of the speaker. The speaker calls Himself YHWH Alohim. The first term comes from the verb to be, and implies existence, perhaps in its source or at its fundamental level. The second term refers to exaltedness. Perhaps a good translation would be Supreme Reality, or even the commonly used expression Supreme Being. A discussion of whether or not the idea of personhood or personality, a very human concept, is applicable here is fruitless. The only thing that is actually stated at this point is that this Supreme Reality speaks audibly in human hearing, giving Himself a name, and calling Himself I. Supreme Reality can be heard by humans, and that hearing entails not mere sound, but

7

meaning. What is the meaning that is transmitted? It is a bit of information that could not be known naturally. It interprets the experience of the hearer in a new way. The Decalogue is embedded in the story of the exodus from Egyptian slavery. The hearer had been released from the unwelcome constraints that had been placed upon him by other human beings, constraints that he had experienced as unjust. The speaker claims to have been the instrument of that release. The God of this revelation thus defines Himself primarily as the one who releases people from the unjust constraints placed upon them by others. Is this concept of God relevant to the natural and social order I experience? That is a question everyone must answer for herself. If there is an individual at the top of the social pecking order, perhaps that one might see such a concept as irrelevant, since he never experiences what he perceives to be unjust constraints. That individual, a purely theoretical one, probably does not exist, nor has he probably ever done so. I come to the conclusion, on experimental grounds, that the basic premise of the Decalogue is relevant to human experience. Obviously, the text does not suggest that the Supreme Reality always releases human beings from such constraints. It only states that He did so on this one occasion, with the implication that He might do so again someday, sometime, somewhere. But it moves human existence out of the morass of certain slavery into potential freedom. 4 The First Commandment You shall have no gods except Me. (Exodus 20:3, NJV). The Decalogue establishes the criterion upon the basis of which human beings may establish gods for themselves. That criterion is whether or not the one which is a candidate for deity functions to release the individual from the unjust constraints that others would place upon her. This commandment states that the criterion refers only to the Supreme Reality, the speaker of the commandment. No other can nor does fulfil the criterion. Whether or not this is true, must be known by personal experience. But the commandment gives guidance beforehand whereby we may predict the result of expecting someone else to release us from unjust constraints. The implication is that anyone else making such claims is going to turn out, sooner or later, to be an imposter.

8

But the first commandment gives some information beyond this. It intimates that the Supreme Reality is one. He is not a plurality nor a committee. He is described, by Himself, as fundamentally one. Thus the commandment not only warns against accepting others, who will invariably turn out to be false claimants, but also against considering that the Supreme Reality is other than one. Now this seems to go against our natural observation. We see the natural world in a bewildering array of plurality and multiplicity. But in contrast to observed reality, human science, with its dependence on the idea of classifying things, tends toward the unification of reality. It is true that scientists have become generally skeptical of achieving such a grandiose goal. Nevertheless, science still depends on classification of the phenomena it observes, with the implication of a unified reality at some level. The alternative is to see everything in terms of complete atomism, every entity in a closed set of its own. There is no form of science that can deal with such an atomistic model. While we are confronted with a world of multiplicity, the human mind naturally runs towards unification. Now of course it is very possible that the natural structure of the human mind has nothing to do with ultimate reality. We may well be mistaken. But the information of this commandment is useful in precisely the area of where human knowledge faced with phenomena finds anxiety. We must and shall continue the human function of being scientists. But we can rest on the revealed information that supports the human assumption of the unification of reality. We do not have to live in the anxiety that science, which is never finished, is following an illusion and false premise. Each commandment that follows can be viewed from positive and negative positions. Most of them are couched in prohibitions, which are negative only on the surface. Positive injunctions are in practice more constraining than prohibitions. A prohibition limits the field by one. A positive injunction limits the field by all except the one thing that is chosen. Thus this commandment does not prohibit atheism or agnosticism. It leaves human beings with a wide area of perception and understanding. It prohibits attributing the great defining attribute of deity, the action of liberation, to any but the one who speaks, calling Himself I and the Supreme Reality, and taking credit in the narrative for the event of the Exodus. It furthermore prohibits conceiving of the Supreme Reality as other than one. The positive command implied is as follows. If your experience leads you to believe in a god at all, that god must be conceived as Supreme Reality and as one only, not two, three or four. No other concept of God is acceptable, precisely because all other concepts of God return the individual to the existential anxiety of observing what appears to be universal multiplicity while at the same time, as a human scientist, being incapable of freeing oneself from the implication of unity that all classification implies.

9

Yet every prohibition can be seen to imply a positive injunction. This commandment is no exception. The positive injunction that is implied is simply to acknowledge Supreme Reality as God, absolutely one and without either partners or divisions. All of that is certainly implied in the text, and anything conflicting with that, on the basis of another religious text, must be considered a false interpretation or else the evidence of a spurious text. 5. The Second Commandment 4 No graven image shall you make, Nor heavenly likeness shall you take, Nor from the earth beneath nor from The waters under earth in sum. 5 Before them you shall not prostrate, Nor shall you worship them in state. For I YHWH am your Alohim, A jealous husband it may seem Who limits evil on the score Of generations to not more Than three or four, what parents do Affecting childrens children too, By the hate that they bear to Me. 6 But multiplying wonderfully To thousands of their generations Effects of any cultivations Of good they might do who love Me And keep My statutes faithfully. (Exodus 20:4-6, NJV) This commandment must be seen as a cumulative whole, or else it lends itself to both ambiguity and radical interpretation. Furthermore, the context, following on the first commandment, implies that it is not a primary command in itself, but hangs on the preceding one. Its function is to bolster, clarify and facilitate the first commandment. That is why some commentators logically unite it to the first in one commandment. The prohibition contains four parts in two sections. The first section

10

prohibits the making of images and likenesses. Images and likenesses should be understood as one and the same thing, and should be interpreted in the broadest possible sense, to include graphic images, sculpted images, mental images and even intellectual concepts. Obviously such a prohibition in itself is neither productive nor possible to carry out. The prohibition includes the second section as well, and becomes a prohibition only when they are joined together. The second section prohibits prostration and worship of such images and likenesses. Prostration refers to the physical act associated with prayer, and worship refers to the inner, spiritual experience of acknowledging ones subordination to a deity. Both of these together form a single whole, even though it is possible to prostrate without worshipping, and to worship without prostrating. Whether separate or combined, both prostration and worship of images are prohibited. The second section, service of images, refers both to the intention of making images and their function. These two aspects may be separate or combined, and in either case, both are prohibited. The making of images of all kinds, when they are not intended to represent deity, or when they do not function as a vehicle of prostration or worship, are therefore not prohibited by the commandment. Any other interpretive scheme results in some area of arbitrariness. This commandment can be understood in both a positive and negative sense. The negative sense is merely the prohibition of a certain kind of worship as described by the commandment. The positive implication is that the Supreme Reality may be worshipped with an act of prostration. To the extent that the first commandment cannot be observed without worship in prostration, this commandment implies the necessity of such worship. My final question in regard to this commandment is whether or not the prohibition of making images for worship is relevant to the human condition. It has already been established that the preceding commandment is relevant, and to the extent that the second commandment supports the first, it is also relevant. There are aspects of the commandment, however, that in themselves function to enhance natural and socio-cultural law. The effect of representing Supreme Reality with humanly constructed forms not only trivializes the concept of Supreme Reality, but confuses it with specific phenomena. Polytheism is essential, sooner or later, to idolatry from this logical point of view, and this is fairly clearly the case on the basis of ethnographical sampling. One cannot rely on a humanly constructed image for long without the essential multiplicity of the phenomenal world infringing on the oneness of that god so represented. Thus, it is not only a matter of the commandment supporting the preceding one. Failure to obey the second commandment will inexorably result in failure to obey the first.

11

6. The Third Commandment Do not lift up the name of YHWH Your Alohim in vain, for who Does so shall surely not receive Acquittal from YHWH and reprieve. (Exodus 20:7 NJV) The third commandment follows logically on the preceding two, and also has negative and positive applications. The prohibition is to refer to the divine name in vain. Vain reference is not defined, but ought to include lack of sincerity in appealing to the name of the Supreme Reality, as well as appealing in behalf of something known to be false. The remark is added that those who refer to the name in vain will not be acquitted. It is ambiguous whether this means that they will not be acquitted for the sin of referring to the name in vain, or for sins for which they are asking for acquittal or forgiveness by appealing to the divine name. Ambiguity means that both meanings may be accepted, since, while they are not mutually exclusive, they both serve consistent and useful functions without creating illogical or arbitrary issues. The context of acquittal itself, however, is specific. It is the context of the Exodus, and the context of the preamble of the Decalogue. Thus acquittal is that thing for which one appeals to the Supreme Reality by name. The prime characteristic of the Supreme Reality is liberation from the imposed constraints of the enslaver. The implication is that insincerity in calling on the name of the Supreme Reality results in failure to attain such liberation. The ambiguity also implies a positive application. One may appeal in the divine name for forgiveness or liberation (two words in Scriptural language of close etymological association), and provided that one does not do so vainly, one may expect to have acquittal or forgiveness or liberation. There is thus a clear and simple soteriology or path of salvation. The paths of salvation as found in the established religions are rather more complex, generally requiring some form of sacrifice, even human sacrifice, but there is no intimation of such a possibility in the Decalogue. The Decalogue promises acquittal on condition that appeal is made for acquittal in the divine name, but in a manner that is not in vain. All established religious practice can be replaced with the one practice of calling on the divine name in sincerity. The concept of sacrifice is not missing, however. To call on the name of God implies that God is capable of fulfilling all needs, that is, that He is infinite in grace and power. The implication of that fact is that to call on

12

another is idolatrous, and this is the most direct line of support to the preceding commandment. The sacrifice entails the relinquishing of all other gods or idols, reliance on other humans and even reliance on oneself. Thus the calling on the name of God is an act of self sacrifice. The self becomes a spark whirling up from the altar of burnt offering. Besides sincerity and truthfulness in the appeal, there is another issue to be found here. The actual name referred to is YHWH, the ancient pronunciation of which appears to have been lost. The other words of the Decalogue appear with Massoretic signs to indicate their pronunciation as understood at the time the signs were added. For the most part, they can probably be trusted. However, in the case of YHWH, the added signs give the vowels for another word, in this case, and in most cases, that word being Adonai, which can be translated Lord in English, and in a few cases that word being Alohim. There is thus textual justification for using those pronunciations. There are two other pronunciations, actually apparently parts of the original word, that are documented in the Hebrew Scriptures. Whether or not we accept these Scriptures as normative, we can accept them as historical evidence of two variants in pronunciation. The more common of these, if we make exception of personal human names that include them, is the pronunciation HUU, somewhat like the English word who. This represents part of the sacred name, HW. The alternative pronunciation is JAH, somewhat like the German word for yes, written ja, and this represents the beginning of the sacred name. No other ways of pronouncing this word have Scriptural justification, nor has valid research shown any other alternatives to have historical value. Such alternatives remain entirely theoretical. Thus the valid alternatives are the translated Lord, the Hebrew substitute Adonai, Alohim or its translations and variants (such as God, Aloah, Allah, etc.), HUU, and JAH. One must choose among these or depart from the textual foundation. The word Alohim is made up of the Hebrew consonants aleph, lamedh, and he. This divine title appears in the Hebrew Scriptures with or without the ending -im, just as its cognate appears in Arabic both as Allah and with the nearly identical suffix as found in Hebrew, Allahumma. All four of these words can be translated into English as God or the Supreme, the Highest. In fact, in Arabic, such an explanatory phrase is often added, Allah Taala. Attempts to be more specific than this in determining how the divine name should be uttered are not only fruitless and unproductive, but distracting and divisive. Furthermore, they sometimes introduce the names of other gods, a questionable practice to say the least. This commandment forms the justification for the practice of remembrance or dhikr, that is, calling on the name of God, and at the same

13

time warns against doing so in vain. To engage in the act of dhikr is the privilege of the few, not the duty of all. It is an act of self-sacrifice and charity on behalf of humanity, and is conceived to call down the divine blessing on the world. Such activity can be justified by the commandment, but hardly made obligatory on humankind. What seems to be obligatory on all is the prohibition. Furthermore, the implication of the commandment is that there is no way of obtaining forgiveness for sins other than calling on the name of YHWH Alohim in repentance with restitution where appropriate. The third commandment thus justifies itself by its role in support of the preceding commandments. Furthermore, it provides the parameters of a vigorous spiritual practice, that when followed would protect one from the excesses of practice in the established religious traditions. 7. The Fourth Commandment Remember now the Sabbath day To keep it holy every way. Six days work and do all your tasks, But seventh days a rest that asks YHWH your Alohim to keep well, Do no work in it, buy or sell. In it you shall not work nor labour, You, son nor daughter, nor the neighbour, Man or the maid in your employ. Let even animals take joy, And every visitor within Your gates. For in six days YHWH made The pair of skies and earth and stayed To make the sea and whats in it. Then He lighted on seventh day To take comfort in it as fit, And kneeling blessed the Sabbath day, So did YHWH sanctifying it. (Exodus 20:8-11 NJV). The Decalogue marks the Sabbath, the last day of the week commonly

14

called Saturday, as special. It prohibits work on that day that can be done at other times. Only essential work may be done on the Sabbath. For this reason the commandment begins with the word Remember. It is necessary to take the Sabbath into account in planning and carrying out ones activities throughout the week. This requires remembering. There are few acts that can with absolute certainty be relegated in all cases to other days of the week. Among these are such tasks as cutting nails and hair. There can never arise the vital necessity of cutting nails and hair on the Sabbath, but almost anything else may in practice find exceptions. The commandment prohibits laying obligations on ones subordinates on the Sabbath. As such, it forces one to recognize that rights over subordinates are essentially limited. There are non-negotiable rights, that is, rights a subordinate may not relinquish and which no one has the right to pressure anyone to relinquish. This is an important matter of revelation, for we see that society without Sabbath does not provide non-negotiable rights. Everything is up for negotiation, and the most powerful wins. The Sabbath undercuts that situation. That is why the Sabbath has been neglected in the established religious traditions. People in authority do not like to have their authority limited. The Sabbath commandment also defines who subordinates are. They are first of all ones children. They are also workers, that is, employees. The third group of subordinates is guests. The final group of subordinates consists of domestic animals, who also have non-negotiable rights. It is interesting to note that the wife is not listed among subordinates. The Decalogue does not recognize the subordination of women. Men and women are fully equal. It is apparent that the serious contemplation of the Sabbath commandment would prevent such plagues as labour conflict and environmental abuse, since workers and animals have non-negotiable rights that must be respected and cannot be infringed upon in the ways that we see causing labour dispute and environmental pollution. As a positive injunction, the Sabbath command implies a time when one may call upon the name of God. The preceding commandment establishes the calling on the name of God as the only religious act. This commandment establishes a regular time to do so, some time within the confines of the seventh day, that is, from the evening at the end of Friday until the evening of the Saturday that follows. This is a second reason for beginning the commandment with the word Remember, a cognate of zikr or dhikr, the service of remembrance of the name of God. The importance of the Sabbath in view of natural and socio-cultural law is even more apparent than for the preceding commandments. The prime characteristic of the Supreme Reality has been seen to be liberation, in context, liberation from Egyptian slavery. This opens the issue of human

15

authority. The extremes of slavery and anarchy can be avoided only by recognition of the Sabbath, which takes a middle way, a golden mean, something socially viable rather than a mere theory. The social viability of the Sabbath as a protection of the oppressed is at the root of established neglect of it or its trivialization through ritualization. 8. The Fifth Commandment Give honour to your mom and dad, So that your life may not be sad, But long upon the ground YHWHs given, And Alohim for you to live in. (Exodus 20:12 NJV) This is the only commandment that makes a direct, positive injunction. There are all sorts of spiritual practices that are attached to the formal act of calling on the name of God, the meeting of remembrance, or dhikr. Of course the content of remembrance must focus on the name of God. The recitation of the name of God, or Scripture which contains it, must be the vehicle of such liturgy. However, human beings are rarely satisfied with that. They would have all sorts of things added to it, things like following the breath, whirling in sacred dance, and different forms of purification and sacrifice. The Decalogue does not advocate any of these. In reality, the most effective spiritual practice is consciously to find ways of honouring ones parents. The spiritual advancement is more rapid the less ones parents deserve being honoured. Another matter is popular, and that is spiritual practices in view of health and well-being. This commandment promises health, or at least long life, as a result of honouring ones parents, and doubtless this spiritual exercise is the most effective way to well-being and long life. This is the true basis for the practice of visiting graves. Barakat or blessing comes, not through the mediation of the dead, but in direct blessing from the Supreme Reality as promised by the commandment. Honour given to ones living parents is likely to be even more effective. The content of the service of remembrance has been noted to be recitation of Scripture containing the names of God. The timing has been noted to be during the hours of the Sabbath. This commandment indicates the leadership of the service of remembrance. The true church, synagogue, mosque or dervish lodge is the home under the direction of an equal pair, the

16

de facto husband and wife. The ritual pair has traditionally been called musahip, and this has, at least since the time of David and Jonathan, been thought of ideally as a same-sex pair. Upon marriage, this becomes a minimum of four individuals working together, or more often a more complex network. However, the original is a permanent partnership in marriage governing a household. In practice, that household might include, as intimated in the preceding commandment, not only sons and daughters, but guests, workers, and indeed even the domestic animals. 9. The Five Last Commandments You shall not kill. You shall not Commit adultery. Do not Steal. Do not bear against your neighbour False witness. Do not covet neighbour Of his house, do not covet his Wife, nor his male worker, nor his Female worker, oxen, nor his Donkey nor anything which is You neighbours property or labour. (Exodus 20:13-17 NJV). These commandments seem to focus on social relations, but in fact they are also deeply spiritual exercises as well. It is clear that the prohibitions imply positive things too. The prohibition of killing implies not only prohibition of violent acts of any kind, since any violent act is potentially fatal, but also the positive action in view of peace and good relations. The oneness of the God who calls Himself I implies that there is only one I. Thus it is a mere illusion that every individual represents another, distinct I. The Supreme Reality takes consciousness and identity in every individual without thereby becoming many. To kill another implies the suicide of God. This is the basis for the importance of engaging in martial arts, something essentially connected to mystical practice. The commandment has a positive implication, and that is self-defense. To allow oneself to be killed is to take on responsibility for the killing. However, self-defense must minimize harm to the attacker, which is best resolved through martial arts. The practice of martial arts is a form of dhikr implied in this commandment. Again, the implication for the enhancement of natural and

17

socio-cultural law is evident. The respect of family relations and the rights of property go beyond mere prohibitions. The prohibition of adultery implies the duty of maintaining loving and tender relations within marriage. The prohibition of stealing implies the duty of fostering a society in which the material needs of all members of society are met, so that the temptation to steal is kept at a minimum. Again, it is evident that these commandments are excellent additions to what can be known of natural law through experience, short-cuts and safeguards to survival and success. The prohibition of giving false witness is based on the fact that Supreme Reality cannot be other than true. A false witness is an indictment against reality and thereby against the Supreme Reality or God. It is a matter that goes beyond the mere concern for justice. The prohibition of coveting is almost unique, in that it has no part in an overt act. It is both the highest and the last or least of the commandments. The objects not to be coveted are all vehicles of power. They are physical property, alliances, vehicles of gaining wealth through production, that is, workers, oxen, and by extension machines, and finally vehicles of transport and marketing embodied in the donkey. To covet these things that belong to another is to enter a competitive relationship. This again requires being blinded by illusion of limitation of the divine I. It is based on the realization of the divine I in oneself, and the denial of that divine I in others. That is, it is the denial of reality. Surely a little thought must impose the realization that all human beings are essentially similar, and therefore coveting, which deprives the other of that core of known similarity, is a denial of that reality and destructive. These implicit realities in the last commandment obviously bring us back in a circle to the first commandment. The Decalogue can be seen as a circle, and following it a circle dance or dervish whirling, but it might be better seen as a spiral that takes the burning spark of the human soul from the illusion of separation back into the heart of God. The commandments are ordered logically so that each one supports the preceding one, and only the first one is therefore absolute. It might be possible to think that one may have occasion to covet, if there is no other means of avoiding giving false testimony. By the same token, one may give false testimony, if there is no other means of avoiding stealing. One may steal, if there is no other means of avoiding adultery. One may commit adultery, if there is no other means of avoiding killing. However, all of the ten commandments are above all other law and custom, and must be taken seriously and obeyed literally. They are not lightly to be interpreted, for example, by committing an act of violence because of some perceived act of dishonour perpetrated on ones parents. Although the commandments are

18

ordered logically and hierarchically, still they are all in the order of the very highest obligation laid on humankind. To break one for any reason results in irrecoverable loss. The commandments are also progressively clear in their role of adding pragmatically useful knowledge to that gained by experience and nature. Taking this premise as a guiding criterion, we can say in sum that the Decalogue is uniquely valuable in its content. It is exactly in the order of what might have been predicted as the content of a direct and public divine revelation, had human beings the wisdom to make such a prediction. 10. Law, Love, Awareness and Truth The Decalogue is couched in terms of the Supreme Reality speaking to one individual. The word you in the Decalogue is a singular. The implication is that every individual has a unique experience of this revelation. One can see this as lying on a line for each individual between the extremes of illusion and reality. When one is entirely in illusion, one has no knowledge of the Decalogue at all. When an inkling of truth enters the experience, although illusion is still preponderant, one experiences Supreme Reality as a Master who commands, and the self as a servant who obeys. This is the gate of law or shariat. When illusion and reality are balanced in experience, one sees Supreme Reality as the Beloved, and oneself as loved by God. This is the gate of love or tariqat. When reality overshadows illusion, one enters the gate of awareness. Then one sees creation from the point of view of divine intention. The paradoxes of existence begin to fall away, and one understand the basic unity of the universe. When one enters reality and sheds illusion, one is no longer aware of the distinction between self and Self. The divine I is perceived directly as one. The human will is perfected submerged in the divine will, and one carries out the commandments from inner compunction rather than as an act of obedience, love, or awareness of their expression of the character of creation. But the human experience of these modes or gates is not static. Every individual may and in fact should experience all four gates to some extent. What that extent is depends on the individual, who must find her own way in balancing all of the mystical states in her life. It is not so much like moving on a line from greater to lesser illusion, but rather like living in a palace, some corners of which are in shadows, and others in the glare of the sunlight

19

of truth. One does not remain in any one corner, but lives in delight throughout the whole temple. 11. Is the Decalogue Sufficient? The Decalogue appears to be the only claimant for direct divine revelation to humankind as has already been noted. It has a unique configuration of claims and characteristics that make it the only text that can be seen as the direct, divinely established Criterion of right and wrong. We have seen it to be sufficient first of all to express the minimal necessary revelation to humankind to supplement and guide the natural knowledge that all humans acquire. Furthermore, it expresses the essentials of a divinely instituted spiritual practice as a guide for those who are called to go beyond the bare essentials in belief and conduct. Human reality is such that the brief text of the Decalogue does not suffice. Although it is perfect and complete, and actually answers every question, the blind rush of human thought tends to pass it by nor wonder why. Questions arise and before they are answered, more questions come. The result has been an extensive body of literature that is more or less loosely attached to the Decalogue. Within the catalogue of religious classics, there are several works that are clearly within this single Decalogue tradition, explaining and applying it in different ways. Many of these writings have been preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, the so-called New Testament, the Apocryphal writings, and the Quran. There are several issues in regard to these writings that must be answered. There are other questions, popular ones, that can largely be disregarded as distractions. The first issue is whether or not anything beyond the Decalogue itself can have a degree of revelatory value, and if so, what degree. Assuming that the Supreme Reality is not an inexorable, blind, power but a communicator with human beings, and that He has revealed the Decalogue in a direct manner, is there another form of special revelation? Or must we be content with natural knowledge and the Decalogue alone? There are two possible, logical conclusions. The first is that natural knowledge and the Decalogue alone suffice. The second is that these must be supplemented by further sources. If it can be shown that neither natural knowledge nor the Decalogue are sufficient to answer a single question that is necessary in order to conform to their demands, then we have established the validity of further divine revelation. At the same time we have, through default, established the

20

validity of prophetship or mediated divine revelation in principle, since no other claimant of [extended] divine revelation exists. It became clear above that the specific and seemingly arbitrary time of the Sabbath was essential to its observance. Observance of the Sabbath cannot be postponed to another day, since it expresses the non-negotiability of the rights of subordinates. If the day could be postponed, that would introduce negotiability of such rights, and thus increase the power of superiors and diminish the power of subordinates. Therefore, it is essential to know the specific time of the Sabbath. However, the Decalogue itself does not reveal that information beyond saying that it is the seventh day. One looks in vain in the realm of natural knowledge to find the seventh day. The attempt to relate this to the phases of the moon fails, because the continued sequence of the cycle of seven days cannot fit that phenomenon beyond four weeks at the very most. Four weeks are 28 days, whereas one cycle of the phases of the moon is always more than 29 days. Scientific and historical search for the origins of the Sabbath have failed. The attempt to attach the Sabbath to the Roman week in the fourth century A.D. ignores the earlier historical evidence, most notably the Qumran calendars. The similarity between the weekly Sabbath and the Babylonian marked days of the lunar month led some nineteenth-century evolutionist scholars to suggest that the Sabbath was of Babylonian origin, but the theory falls on two accounts. Firstly, the week does not correspond to the phases of the moon in a continuous cycle. Secondly, there is no documentary evidence of a connection between the Sabbath and the Babylonian unlucky days. We are forced to examine the revealed writings in order to find evidence for the timing of the Sabbath. An interesting problem awaits us there. The early prophetic writings, while maintaining the Sabbath, are ambiguous as to its timing. There is only the establishing of the seven-day cycle, a cycle with no point of reference in natural knowledge unless one tries to attach it to the phases of the moon. There are only two Scriptural sources that establish the seven-day cycle as we know it, and they are the Book of Jubilees, preserved in the Ethiopian canon of the Bible, and the Quran. Even the New Testament is ambiguous on the timing of the Sabbath. Once the Book of Jubilees and/or the Quran are accepted, the timing of the Sabbath is clear and unequivocal. We have thus established the fact that the Decalogue cannot be observed without knowledge derived from books claiming to be mediated rather than direct divine revelation. We have also noted the fact that the clear and unequivocal evidence for the timing of the Sabbath is found in the Book of Jubilees and in the Quran. There is no way to interpret these writings as indicating that the seven-day cycle refers not to the week as we know it, but to the phases of the moon. The conclusion has bearing on which books may be accepted as

21

necessary. The Jewish canon, the Tanach, is interpreted by Jews to set the Sabbath correctly as the seventh day of the week, the day following the Islamic day of congregation. But those writings are not necessarily to be interpreted so. There are people who find them consistently to support Sabbaths based on the phases of the moon rather than on the week. That is, the Jewish Scriptures alone are not sufficient to establish the timing of the Sabbath. Furthermore the same can be said when one adds the New Testament as Christians do. Even the addition of the Apocrypha in Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy helps little. The timing of the Sabbath can be maintained only by the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which includes the Book of Jubilees. The conclusion is that only this church had a consistent canon on the one point in which we find the Decalogue deficient as revelation in a pragmatic sense. It is interesting to note that the small hegira of the early Muslims in 615 A.D. was to take refuge in this church. This is the canon accepted by the Quran, which maintains several features found elsewhere [in the revealed books] only in the unique passages of the Ethiopian canon, the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. We can thus see that the Decalogue requires mediated prophetic writings to supplement its revelation, without which it is impossible to observe its commandments. We further see that the one point of information that is clearly lacking in the Decalogue is found unequivocally only in the Book of Jubilees and the Quran. Therefore, the Book of Jubilees must be included in the Biblical canon, or the canon itself is deficient on the required defining point. The Quran establishes both the timing of the Sabbath and confirms the canon of the Bible, specifically the canon of the Bible which includes the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. The historical line of transmission of the faith centring on the Decalogue thus meets at Axum in 615 A.D. That is where the only consistent Biblical canon remained. All other forms, Jewish and Christian, are deficient in the one point clearly identifiable as needed to observe the Decalogue, the timing of the Sabbath. One might make a case for the Ethiopian canon alone, without the Quran, but there is no consistent case to be made for the Torah alone, the Tanach alone, nor for the Christian variants, with or without the Apocrypha. The Quran, however, not only establishes the timing of the Sabbath, but also ties a worrisome loose end in practice. It refers the punishment for Sabbath-breaking to the Day of Judgement, thus removing the tension between the death sentence for Sabbath-breaking that is found in the Mosaic law and the fact that the sentence is not carried out, either in pre-Islamic Jewish or Christian practice. That is, without the Quran, in order to be consistent, we should have to implement the death sentence for Sabbath-breaking. This argument may not establish the validity of the Quran as a logical necessity, but certainly establishes it as a relief.

22

The simplest and most logical position is to accept the entire body of historically significant, Decalogue-based writings that claim to be mediated revelation, that is, the Ethiopian canon of the Bible and the Quran. It then remains to evaluate their role as supporting revelation, enhancing what we have already established as natural knowledge and the special revelation of the Decalogue. At this point, we have established their role as determining the timing of the Sabbath. No doubt there are other points of interest as well, or they need not have been so extensive in volume. What is the degree of authority, and what type of application can be made on the basis of the prophetic writings? Again we can take a clue from the Sabbath. The prophetic writings provide information in regard to the Sabbath which is lacking in the Decalogue, but essential in order to carry out the commandment. When we come to an issue of any kind that is lacking in the Decalogue and essential to carrying it out, then we can be sure that the prophetic writings, in answering that specific question, are being used correctly. Questions may arise that are not clearly answered by the Decalogue or natural knowledge, and may not be essential for observing the Decalogue. In that case, answering them on the basis of those writings that have already proven effective in establishing the timing of the Sabbath is a logical step. The only other recourse is to appeal to ones imagination, which in fact is what most people do. Sometimes the appeal to imagination is through the authority of an established faith, but it is ultimately an appeal to someones imagination in any case. However, attempting to find clarity from the prophetic writings on issues not clearly dealt with in the Decalogue requires that one interpret those writings in a way not to conflict with the Decalogue. The very existence of these writings, the Bible and the Quran, depends on the authority of the Decalogue. If they rest on anything but an appeal to the one direct, public divine revelation, then their foundation is subjective and can be accepted or rejected merely on the basis of predilection. Therefore, prophetic writings must not be interpreted in ways that undermine their foundation of authority, the Decalogue. In sum, we can say that the Decalogue itself contains a characteristic that establishes the need for a supplement and at the same time gives a criterion for determining precisely what writings must be included in that supplement. The Decalogue itself establishes the Four Books, that is the broad or Ethiopian canon of the Bible and the Quran as a supplement to the Decalogue. The purpose and function of that supplement is to explain, enhance, guard, and apply the principles of the Decalogue in actual life and existence. Each of these prophetic books is most directly applicable to the time of its appearing and continues to be most relevant until another

23

prophetic revelation comes to supercede it. But since the Decalogue is the criterion that determines the validity of any claimant to prophetic revelation, none of the books of revelation that are preserved can lose its validity entirely. The principles will remain the same, but new situations may call for new applications and even in some details what appear to be changes. There is a two-way street. The earlier revelations, having been established as true, are criteria for judging the validity of later revelations. On the other hand, later revelations present refinements for their times and later times, which may contrast with some of the details of earlier revelations. This two-way street opens the door for misinterpretation of Scripture. Throughout the books of revelation, there is a principle that corrects this weakness. That is the principle of divinely appointed authority. The prophetic revelation establishes human figures who alone have the authority to interpret and apply the written word. It should be emphasized, however, that the whole matter of mediated revelation, whether in language or in a divinely appointed human guide, is all subordinate to the Decalogue. For most questions, the Decalogue alone suffices as guidance: for belief, for behaviour, and for liturgy in the service of remembrance. 12. Is the Bible or the Quran Alone Sufficient? We have established the Decalogue as the most objective basis for accepting the Four Books as normative revelation. In this some faith traditions disagree, Christians generally accepting the New Testament to abrogate the Old Testament, that is the Gospel in place of the Law of Moses (as). Muslims have generally followed suit, as they so often do in relation to Christianity, but in this case they reject the whole of the previous Scriptures as corrupted on one hand, and superceded by the Quran on the other. Both aspects, corruption and abrogation, are denied by the confirmation of the Bible to be found in the Quran. But more seriously, the Christian and Muslim rejection of earlier Scripture removes them from the objective basis of accepting any Scripture at all, and leaves them embattled over competing books, none of which are demonstrably authoritative without the objective basis of the Decalogue. We have already made the point that the Bible and the Quran are necessary supplements to the Decalogue, without which the timing of the Sabbath cannot be determined. Yet we find that the Ethiopian canon of the

24

Bible, which includes the Book of Jubilees, is sufficient for determining the timing of the Sabbath. The Quran, although it confirms the cycle of the week, is not necessary for finding the proper weekly cycle. The question arises, whether the Bible therefore is sufficient, or whether the Quran is needed. The Sabbath issue is not sufficient to demonstrate the necessity of the holy Quran. However, since we have already established the necessity of the Bible on the basis of the weekly cycle, we can refer to the Bible in support of the Quran. The attempt to find internal consistency between the Bible and the Quran is successful. But by the same token, those who try to find conflict between the Bible and the Quran also see their arguments as successful. Taking a different approach, we can examine the Bible for references to the prophet Muhammad (as). The fact is that this prophet is mentioned by name many times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Furthermore, he is the only prophet who is mentioned by name centuries before his appearance. The references to the name Jesus or Jeshua in the Hebrew Scriptures all refer, at least primarily, to some other figure, either historical or contemporary with the narrative. So the name of Muhammad is a unique feature in the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore, acceptance of the Bible implies the acceptance of Muhammad (as). The defining passage is the reference to the Hebrew cognate of the name Muhammad (Hamda) in Psalm 106. So they despised Muhammads land, And they believed not his command. They sat complaining in their tents, Heard not YHWHs voice for arguments. (Psalm 106:24,25 NJV) The word Hamda must be seen as a proper name of a man in this text, because of the referent his at the end of the verse. Since the word Hamda is a feminine form, it cannot be a common noun or adjective. There are many examples of words in feminine form being used in the Hebrew Scriptures as proper names of men, so that is not a problem. Clearly the possessive his refers to the preceding Hamda. The context is that of the Exodus, but there is no contemporary figure with such a name recorded for the time and place nor any figure that was historical at the time. We are therefore justified in seeing this as a prophecy of a figure coming some time after the event. These two verses have a prophetic application that transcends the historical context.

25

The fact that the word must be understood as a proper name in this text means that in the dozen or so other texts where such a cognate appears, it may also be understood to refer to the prophesied figure called Hamda (Psalm 106:24;1 Samuel 9:20; 2 Chronicles 21:20; 2 Chronicles 32:27; 2 Chronicles 36:10; Sirach 1:17; Jeremiah 3:19; Jeremiah 25:34; Hosea 13:15; Nahum 2:9; Haggai 2:7; Zechariah 7:14), Mahammadim (Song of Solomon 5:16) or Muhammad (Quran). Failure to bring this out in translation can perhaps be justified in most of these Biblical texts, but Psalm 106 is unequivocal and must be translated as a proper name. The objection that Psalm 106 refers to the Exodus rather than to a later time does not hold. If that objection is accepted, then to be consistent, we must apply the same objection to Isaiah 7, which, despite its clear historical and primary application to the times and people in which the book was written and not later, is applied to Jesus (as) in Matthew 1:23. The methodological basis for applying Psalm 106:24 to Muhammad (as) is thus established on the basis of the Gospel itself. To accept one and reject the other is inconsistent and illogical. We thus have objective reasons for accepting all four books, that is, the Bible in its broadest historical canon, and the holy Quran. The reasons are 1) the Decalogue makes unique claims to special revelation, 2) the Decalogue cannot be observed without recourse to information found only in the broadest historical canon of the Bible, and 3) that canon of the Bible mentions Muhammad (as) by name in a dozen or more passages, thus establishing the authority of the Quran. The question can now be answered. The Quran alone is not sufficient, because it lacks objective evidence of authority and validity without the Bible, to which it appeals for its justification. The Bible alone is not sufficient, because it contains many references to the prophet Muhammad, whose writings do not appear in the Bible. Therefore, those extra-Biblical writings must also be accepted. To reject a segment of these Scriptures on the basis that they are demonstrably corrupted is to establish ones own concept of corruption as a criterion above the Scriptures and the objective criteria of evaluating them. To accept a segment of these Scriptures on the basis of beauty, style, or conformity to contemporary scientific theory or demonstration is to place the criteria of beauty, style and science above the authority of the Scriptures, which is an essential denial of their divine origin. Yet these are the common approaches to Scripture in the established religious traditions. The basic principle must therefore be that the Decalogue is the criterion. Writings that form the historical canons of Scripture, claiming to have prophetic authority, and being written within the Decalogue tradition, may be considered mediated revelation in support of the Decalogue. The Decalogue

26

is the criterion for determining what Scripture is valid and authoritative, and these turn out to be the Bible and the Quran, the former on the basis of the identification of the weekly cycle required by the Decalogue, and the latter on the basis of the identification of its prophet in the Bible. The legislation of the Bible and the Quran that can be seen throughout must be considered universally binding and basic. The legislation that differs in detail from one section to another must be considered local or temporary. Of the latter, only that appearing in the final revelation can be seen to be normative, having superceded earlier practice. We have established the Decalogue as the criterion on the basis of reason, and the Bible and the Quran on the basis of their support of the Decalogue. We have shown the necessity of the Quran as a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy. Just as the Bible, in its references to Muhammad by name, makes the Quran a necessity, the Quran, in its references to the Decalogue, confirms the Decalogue as Criterion. This is of extreme importance for several reasons. Firstly, although the Bible does not conflict with the Decalogue, those religious traditions based on it have failed to recognize the supremacy of the Decalogue, and have reduced its commands to the same level as those of supporting revelation, thus resulting in confusion of what is more important and what is of marginal value, and at the same time obscuring the principles of interpretation implicit in the Decalogue. That in itself has resulted in a shift of focus, so that the New Testament, while based on the Decalogue, is often interpreted as antinomian, that is, against the law. It is a Christian practice to contrast the law with the gospel, generally to the detriment of the Decalogue. If the Biblical affirmation of Muhammad (as) is necessary, by the same token, the confirmation by the Quran that the Decalogue is the great Criterion of faith and practice has become necessary as well. There is a Sura or chapter of the Quran entitled Al-Furqan or the Criterion. Muslims have generally, without Scriptural support, assumed this to refer to the Quran as Criterion. It is obvious that the Quran is the criterion of right faith and practice today just as the earlier books were in the past. But true as that may be, that is not what the Quran is referring to when it uses the word Furqan or Criterion. The Quran itself, however, establishes the Decalogue as that Criterion in two preceding passages, so that there is no excuse for anyone to fail in knowing by what human faith and practice is to be judged. Remember We appointed then For Moses forty nights and men Took for their worship golden calf

27

When he had left you not to laugh In your transgression. Even then We forgave you to teach you when You ought to give thanks, And when We Gave Moses Scripture and the great Criterion (of love and hate And right and wrong, the bright Furqan) So you might be led to the dawn. (NJV, Suratul-Baqara 51-53). 48 In the past We granted to Moses And Aaron the Criterion For judgment that indeed discloses A light and message that shines on For those who would do right, 49 Those who Fear their Lord in their secret thought, And hold the hour of Judgment true In awe. 50 This blessed Message is taught Which Weve sent down, dont set at naught. (NJV, Suratul-Anbiyaa 48-50). Since the Quran itself clearly establishes the Decalogue as the Criterion of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, no Islamic argument against the Decalogue, or indeed, against the earlier Scriptures within the parameters described above can be valid. Appeal to tradition in this regard must be a misapplication of tradition. By the same token, prophetic revelation must not be used to establish religious practice that distracts from the Decalogue or Criterion. Both the Bible and the Quran are largely the history of how people have attempted to escape the implications of the Decalogue by recourse to pagan philosophy, that is, the perennial beliefs and practices that arise from human experience illumined by internal biological and psychological determinants and by the environment. The role of the Decalogue and prophetic revelation is precisely to lead people to avoid these universal and perennial beliefs and practices. Both the Bible and the Quran are useful in this regard, and from a pragmatic point of view doubtlessly essential. 13. Risks in the Indiscriminate Use of Revelation

28

There are several risks and dangers in the indiscriminate use of the Bible and the Quran. One must not multiply even supporting legislation to the point that one loses sight of the solely obligatory (the Decalogue) and the one absolute obligation, the first commandment, the prohibition of acknowledging any other god but the One alone. That this is a very real danger is clearly evident in the fact that Jewish and Islamic orthodoxy have in fact proliferated laws indiscriminately to the point that their adherents generally do not recognize the Decalogue as unique and paramount. Supporting legislation is only useful to the extent that it actually supports the Decalogue. When it overwhelms it, hiding it, then it is counterproductive. There is also a danger in the concept of legislation as such. Divine law is the gate of experience in which illusion is preponderant. Human experience of God as a task-master has its proper role, but faith must go beyond that. Without love, awareness and truth, even strict adherence to divine law can turn into harsh and hateful oppression. We might wish that there were not such abundant examples of this. The excess is exacerbated by submission to human authority as the interpreter of the law. Such submission lessens the role of personal reason and clear-sighted reliance on natural knowledge, and results in acts of violence that would not be perpetrated without any religion at all. Thus divine religion is made to spoil human beings of even that natural knowledge all possess without direct and mediated revelation, that is, without the Decalogue, the Bible, and the Quran. Revelation must be asked to reveal more than human duty in terms of law. It must be asked to join with natural knowledge to enlighten the soul in the way of love, awareness and truth as well. In sum, human faith illuminates experience and action when it is informed in a balanced way, including obedience, love, awareness and truth, by the direct divine revelation in the Decalogue, and by the enlightenment of mediated revelation applied always in a supportive role and with a liberal spirit. 14. Attaining Divine Commands It has become clear that divine commands are attained by examining the Four Books of revelation, that is, the Bible and the Quran, within the gates of spiritual experience: obedience, love, awareness and truth. It is now possible to describe the technique of arriving a appropriate understandings of divine law.

29

An examination of published books of Buyruk will immediately reveal several principles. The Buyruk is a book of divine law based on the methodology of Imam Jafer as-Sadiq (as), rather than on a compendium of traditions attributed to the Ayma or the Prophet. What is transmitted from the Imam is a spiritual practice, not a list of laws as such. This spiritual practice in divine law takes as its written source the Four Books, examines them systematically to determine what passages are relevant, and then deduces a specific command as a response to particular needs. Few books of Buyruk describe the principles of systematic examination and deduction. In his Buyruk Allah Insandan Ne Istiyor? the Turkish Alevi dede Sinasi Ko hopes for the differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam to be resolved by agreeing to come together on the basis of divine law. At the same time he establishes the sources of divine law in the Four Books, that is, the Bible as we have it today (he establishes law on the basis of the Ali Bey translation of the Bible into Turkish) and the Arabic Quran. The premise of Ko Dede is essentially that taken by Dawoodiyya dervishes generally. We can see four areas of concern in his work. The first is the written source, the Four Books. The second is regard for Imamic tradition, specifically the Twelve Imams. The third is a view to the validity or non-validity in the broad range of religious traditions. The fourth is the consistent application of interpretation, systematic contemplation. Systematic examination of the sources relies on several principles that classify the source texts in hierarchies of value. The chronological principle orders the texts according to age, the time of revelation. There are two aspects of this. The first is canonical ordering. The second is more detailed scholarly examination to determine the finer points of distinguishing between an older or younger layer within a particular book or groups of books. The canonical ordering is crude, but almost always sufficient. Two complementary principles arise from chronological hierarchy. The first is that an early text tends to express universal and necessary principles along with localized and temporary ones. The second is that the latest texts comfirm those earlier universal principles and thus at the same time establish their own validity. The latest texts, where they differ from earlier texts, express the latest, most appropriate legislation which is of a localized or temporary character. Canonical order varies somewhat. The LXX or Septuagint ordering is followed in Christian versions of the Bible, and the Massoretic ordering in Jewish versions. It is rare that this difference in ordering is significant in determining a verdict. The basic ordering from older to younger texts is Torah, Psalms, Gospels, and Quran. Thus the Torah contains fundamental and universal commands as well as some local and temporary ones that are superceded by the those in the Quran.

30

The second area of systematic examination of sources relates to authority. The text with the highest level of authority and thus importance, is the Decalogue of Exodus 20:1-17. Its higher authority rests on the textual claim that this text is both publicly revealed, that is, without the mediation of a prophet to an enormous crowd of people, and also directly revealed, that is, without the mediation of an angel, dream or vision. That evidence is confirmed by Quran 2:53. The next level of authority is the quoted words of God given through the mediation of a prophet. The following level of authority in descent is words of a prophet not claiming to be quotations from God. The following level of authority is the witness of people without prophetic authority, but with a divine mandate of leadership. Lower than this is the witness of righteous people who do not have a divine mandate of leadership. The lowest level of authority is the witness of people who are not known to be righteous. The question will immediately arise as to the validity of the lower levels of authority. The fact that such witnesses appear in the earlier Scriptures must simply be accepted as the observable will of God. The practical implications are negligible, as they do not affect verdicts. The order of authority is thus: 1) direct and public divine revelation in the Decalogue; 2) direct quotation of God by a prophet; 3) words of a prophet; 4) words of a divinely appointed leader; 5) words of a righteous person; 6) words of a human being whose moral qualities are lacking or unknown. If a verdict cannot be established on the basis of the Four Books, then it is necessary to have recourse to non-canonical historical sources, such as the collections of traditions. The Four Books, however, take precedence, and the validity of traditions is dependent not only on their claims for transmission but on their content, and whether or not that content conflicts with the Book of Revelation. We have thus briefly described the sources and the methods for ordering the sources systematically. Now we can turn to the principles for interpreting them. It is clear that in the matter of interpretation, earlier sources and sources of higher authority converge to limit later sources and those of lower authority. We must not interpret the Gospel or New Testament to conflict with the Hebrew Scriptures, and by the same token, we must not interpret the Quran to conflict with the New Testament, which is an earlier revelation. However, a legislative alternative in the New Testament must take precedence over one in the Hebrew Scriptures, and one in the Quran must take precedence over one in the New Testament, since the later text is more specifically relevant to our times. By the same token, a text of higher authority determines the meaning of a text of lower authority. For example, the Pauline text in Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an

31

holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, must not be interpreted to abolish the observance of the weekly, seventh-day Sabbath, because that is clearly maintained in the Decalogue. The Decalogue is a text of first authority, whereas the Epistle to the Colossians, though canonical, is of low authority, since it is not spoken directly by God, but was revealed to Paul personally and thus indirectly to his listeners and readers. The role of Paul as a prophet or as a divinely appointed leader is subject to question, and we cannot with certainty affirm more than his authority as a righteous person. Overturning a principle of the Decalogue would require direct and public theophany. There are two issues of interpretation besides those arising from the hierarchies of chronology and authority. These are the issues of meaning and conflict. When there are alternative and possibly conflicting commands clearly expressed in the Book of Revelation, then these must be reconciled in some way. There are several possible procedures, and the appropriate one must be identified. The first arises logically from the chronological order. It is simply the realization that conflicting legislation implies temporary commands, so that the earlier are abrogated by the later. The second depends on the concept of universal commands as opposed to limited commands. Conflict is resolved in such cases by identifying one command as of universal and general application, and the other to be an exception limited to certain circumstances. The third means of reconciliation is to recognize alternatives as all applicable with the possibility of choice. In that case the principles of mercy and the desire to come close to God will influence the choice made among alternatives. The issue of meaning may apply even when no conflict exists. Meaning arises from investigation of a text using all possible tools. Linguistic, historical and cultural information may enhance the understanding of the meaning of a command. These must all be taken advantage of, but they are insufficient in themselves. They must be combined with recitation of the texts in the sema, their silent contemplation, and submitting to them with prayerful regard, giving oneself as a living sacrifice to the service and will of God. Within this experience, the internal understanding of the divine command develops. We have noted in the authoritative hierarchy of sources that the witness of prophets, divine guides, and righteous people are all of value within the canon. They are also of value in the interpretation of the canon in the search for valid divine command. The example of prophets and divine guides is called the sunnat in Islamic parlance. The example of righteous people is called concensus. The final principle of establishing a verdict is that of concensus. This does not mean that a valid law is one upon which all people or even all scholars agree upon. Rather, concensus is a principle of double-

32

checking a command established on the basis of the systematic investigation of the sources. A valid command will not be foreign to what is experienced as divine law within the traditions that recognize the Books of Revelation, either in part or in whole. These faith traditions may contain false commands and false interpretations, but true commands and true interpretations, once they are established on the basis of Scripture, will be found expressed among the Scriptural traditions. Thus, four sources of divine law can be noted. These are canonical Scripture, holy example (sunnat), interpretation of meaning, and consensus.