Abbas-Ali Mansouri's Article: 'A Reflection on Two Approaches to Received Prayers: Creative versus Imitative Engagement'

One of the treasures that religions typically bestow upon their followers is the prayers and supplications found in their sacred scriptures or uttered by the founders and luminaries of those faiths, preserved and handed down to adherents through oral or written tradition. However, the way believers and followers engage with this treasure is not uniform; they hold differing perceptions of its importance, status, and nature. The same can be said, in another vein, about their understanding of rituals, laws, and even religious doctrines.

For those for whom "faith" is the paramount concern and quest, prayer holds greater significance and function in the matter of faith than certain doctrines, rituals, and rulings. They do not view the supplications transmitted through oral or written religious tradition as a religious act or ritual—considered a part of the religion itself—but rather see them as the experiences of saints during their moments of prayer and intimate devotion. That is, they consider these prayers to be the states and utterances of religious exemplars in their actual encounters with God, which, through divine grace and assistance, have reached the followers of the faith. Consequently, they never regard these supplications as an official component of the religion, the acceptance or rejection of which is a condition for entering or leaving the faith. Instead, they see prayer as a requisite, fruit, and sign of religiosity and faith. In engaging with received prayers, they do not seek to accumulate divine reward or their inherent, generative effects; rather, they seek a language and expression through which they can better call upon God and commune with Him.

But for those for whom legalism, doctrine, and religious identity are the paramount concern and quest, the status and importance of prayer are secondary to religious acts, rituals, and doctrines. Prayer serves more as an adornment to religiosity than its core and substance. And whenever they do wish to pay special attention to supplications, this attention manifests in such a way that the independence of prayer from doctrines and other religious rituals gradually disappears. In practice, religious supplications become a religious act and form of worship that the individual must perform according to specific regulations, anticipating a reward and their generative effects.

This differing understanding and perception of the importance, status, and nature of prayer leads these two groups to engage with and benefit from supplications in different ways in practice. Typically, "faith-oriented thinkers," based on their perception of the status and nature of prayer, view received or non-received supplications found in religious books and sources as follows:

The language of the prayer has no intrinsic importance; what matters is the content of the prayer. Therefore, the substance of these supplications can be expressed in any language. In fact, if an individual expresses the substance of the prayer in their mother tongue, they can better connect with God; priority lies with the mother tongue. Moreover, the "language of religion" refers not only to vocabulary but also to the horizon and degree of understanding, emotion, desire, and quest of the person praying. Thus, the more distant the substance of a prayer is from the horizon of the supplicant's desire and understanding, the more obscure and alien it will be to their language, and it cannot pave the way for a spiritual state or an "I-Thou" connection.

The specific time prescribed for some of these supplications has no inherent relevance or intrinsic importance. The criterion is the individual's subjective time—their inner state, disposition, and quest—not calendar time. Although it is not unlikely that if these two times coincide, the prayer's effectiveness may increase, if they do not, priority lies with subjective time. The same can be said regarding the place of prayer—prescribed for certain supplications. However, what has been said does not mean denying the effect of calendar time and place on prayer; rather, the intent is the priority of subjective time over calendar time.

The extent and manner of repeating or not repeating passages of a prayer (especially during personal, individual supplication) is determined by the individual's inclination and quest, not by the prescribed instruction and form of the prayer. The individual may even modify the phrases and content of the prayer, altering some of its expressions depending on their state and quest (and this is by no means an instance of distorting these supplications, because the individual undertakes this action during their own personal supplication and intimate devotion, not when writing down or analyzing that prayer).

Which part of the prayer is recited, from which part it begins, and at which point it concludes is chosen by the state, inclination, and capacity of the supplicant.

The principle in supplication and whispered prayer is that the individual engages in prayer in their solitude. Therefore, in reading these received and non-received prayers, the principle is that the individual recites them in their own particular moments of solitude. For supplication is not like ritual prayer, where congregational recitation holds greater virtue or efficacy, or where the words of the religious authorities command collective prayer. However, the reason that collective supplications sometimes appeal more to one's taste than individual prayer is that in supplication, the engagement of emotions and feelings holds particular relevance and importance, and when emotions are engaged, the individual feels a greater possibility of being answered and of nearness. In collective supplication, external factors (the voice of the eulogist, the rawda recitation, the sound of collective voices, hearing the weeping and lamentation of those around) engage the emotions. But if the individual can, in their solitude and through endogenous causes, involve their emotions in prayer, the possibility of being answered will increase, because it is they who are actively participating, not external matters.

Supplication is boundary-eluding; that is, an individual may not be in heartfelt agreement with some of the beliefs incorporated within a prayer or the belief hidden behind a prayer (such as belief in the infallibility of the person from whom this prayer has been transmitted), yet they can still benefit from other passages of that prayer. Therefore, unlike rituals, acts of worship, and legal rulings, where religious or sectarian differences may cause their acceptance or rejection, the individual can benefit from the prayers transmitted in various religions and denominations during their own whispered devotions.

Completing prayers to their end is of the least importance. And a prayer ends when the individual's emotional and spiritual connection with the prayer is severed and they depart from the state of supplication and whispered devotion. In the language of the religious authorities, this point has even been raised regarding religious rituals: that at times when there is no heartfelt inclination, one should suffice with the obligatory acts alone, or it has been narrated from His Excellency Amir [al-Mu'minin] that in reciting the Quran, one's sole concern should not be to reach the end of the surah.

Regarding the posture of sitting and placing oneself in the state of supplication, what matters is the capacity and feeling of the supplicant. Of course, experience has shown that certain sitting postures have a greater effect on the supplicant.

Supplication does not mean merely seeking and requesting a need from God, and the supplicant's attention should not be directed solely at requests and being answered, because the intrinsic part of supplication is the feeling of an 'I-Thou' dialogue with God, and in this state, the greater part of the supplication may consist only of whispered prayer, that is, dialogue and intimate conversation with God, and His glorification and sanctification. In received prayers, too, we frequently witness that the Imams dedicate a large portion of the prayer to glorification, sanctification, and intimate conversation with God. The reason for this is that what brings a person to supplication is not necessarily the request for a desired object or the removal of a calamity and affliction, but rather a longing for dialogue with God and a feeling of weariness with the world.

Let there be no misunderstanding:

What has been said regarding a creative engagement with supplication is not a personal interpretation or a purely rational approach to the matter of prayer, and in religious texts and the conduct of the religious authorities and elders, there is abundant evidence that confirms a creative engagement with supplication. This evidence is not unknown to those familiar with religious texts. However, the aim of this writing is a concise exposition of two types of engagement with the matter of supplication, and a detailed exposition of this evidence requires a more extensive writing.

The relationship between religion and supplication is somewhat like the relationship between religion and ethics. Therefore, although the individual, regardless of any received or non-received prayer, can raise their hands in supplication and whispered devotion, religion and its rituals can be influential in supplication. In this way, some religious beliefs and rituals play a facilitating and assisting role in prayer, and also because supplication is not a purely epistemic matter, and indeed a large part of the origin of supplication is rooted in the realm of emotions and feelings, and we know that one of the things that distinguishes religion from philosophy and science is the connection that religion establishes with the realms of human emotions and feelings. Therefore, my speech in this writing concerns the correct engagement with received prayers, not diminishing the importance of these prayers.

The claim of this writing is not that solely the inclination and state of the person in supplication and whispered devotion is the criterion, and that religious recommendations regarding the manner of supplication and whispered devotion are without effect. Nor is the claim of this writing that those who have an imitative engagement with supplication and whispered devotion derive no benefit whatsoever from prayer; rather, the discussion is about introducing a better and more effective mode of engagement with supplication.