The Name of God and the Remembrance of God 1

What follows is the text of a lecture delivered by Dr. Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari on the night of 21 Ramadan 1387 at Hosseiniyeh Ershad. This text has been edited by Dr. Shabestari. I am also very grateful to Mr. Mohammad Javad Amirahmadi, a student of philosophy and theology at Imam Sadiq University, who undertook the task of transcribing and typing the lecture.

.

In the Name of God, the Lord of Life and Wisdom

I greet all of you, esteemed attendees, ladies and gentlemen.

The subject of my talk is the name of God and the remembrance of God. Of course, the Night of Qadr itself is a fitting occasion for speaking about the name of God and the remembrance of God, but my motivation for speaking on this subject goes beyond this. It is not only because of the occasion of the Night of Qadr that I speak about this, but rather a sense of necessity. In religious societies, the name of God and the remembrance of God can be both a means of transcendence and liberation for the individuals of that society, and it can also become a source of self-alienation for the individuals of the society and a source of instrumental use for some. Therefore, it is very appropriate on such an occasion for us to talk about this name. To explore, as far as we can, what we can truly understand from this name (God), and what we must understand so that it neither becomes a source of human self-alienation, as some philosophers have discussed at length, nor does this name become a means of instrumental use for governments, or so that these dangers are minimized.

Many thinkers who have studied the history of religions have paid attention to this dual-sided nature of the name of God, especially in recent decades, much research has been done on how attachment to this name, being affected by this name, and dealing with this name can even take on a pathological state and become a source of mental illness for some. In some studies of the psychology of religion, the term poisoning has been used. The poisoning of the human psyche by God due to an incorrect understanding of this name and due to the incorrect concept that humans may have of it. A relationship may be established with the bearer of that name that endangers the existence and identity of the human being. These realities create an important motivation for me to speak about this. For some time now, I have reached this conclusion and I think that in our current chaotic society and culture, this name must be purified and restored to its correct concept.

God is a name. Perhaps no name in the human world has been as renowned as the name of God, and no other name has been uttered so frequently on human tongues. Of course, this name—that is, the name of God—has been and is current in societies that are God-worshipping and have been God-worshipping, that are monotheist. These societies fall into two categories. A portion of these societies, in which monotheistic religions exist and the name of God is a familiar and inspiring name, are secular societies that have become secular in recent centuries, albeit with the difference that there is a distinction between a secular society and a secular state. A secular society is a society in which the determining concepts and values for life and social agreements are not religious values, and religious values have been relegated to the sphere of private lives. These are called secular societies. In secular societies, such as almost all the countries of Europe and America, there are churches, there are religious currents, there are religious congregations, and sometimes they are quite powerful; therefore, the name of God is alive, but not publicly and as the source and origin of consensual values for politics and government and on the stage of social life. These are one category of societies. But there is another category of societies that have not become secular, such as Islamic societies. In Muslim societies and any other society that resembles Muslim societies, the name of God is present both on the stage of social and political life and in the bonds and relations of human beings with one another. Publicly, the entire space is full of God, in a sense. When I say it is full of God, I mean it is full of the name of God; that is, wherever you go, you see the name of God invoked in some way and on some pretext. Islamic societies are usually like this. Among them, our current society, in this respect, perhaps ranks first among Islamic societies; that is, more than all other Muslim societies, this name is used in our society. On various occasions, in sermons, in speeches, at the beginning of books, at the beginning of articles, in the streets and alleys, in the mosque, on television and radio, even at the start of news broadcasts. This is a reality that is almost unique in this form. Everywhere is filled with this name. Let me mention a point that shows, to a large extent, how heavy the semantic and conceptual burden of this name is in our current society. You will rarely see a book published in our society that does not have "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful," or "In the Name of God," or "In the Name of Him Who Taught the Soul to Think," and the like printed at its beginning, even scientific books. But in Western countries, you will find almost no book that has such things written at its beginning, even theology books, even books written about religion. I have studied many theological and religious books in foreign languages, but I have not seen a single book that had "In the Name of God" written at its beginning. Of course, they are mostly written by believing people, not non-believers, and inside the book, you may see the word God used hundreds of times. They also do not begin speeches in the name of God and usually start with the phrase "Ladies and gentlemen." When people like me go there and want to give a speech in their own language, when we say "In the Name of God" at the beginning, the listeners stir a little and perhaps even abstract a sense of violence from it. In their own minds, they say, "These people, even though they are modern thinkers, still do not give up these practices." I have sometimes seen these abstractions on their faces. This was one example I mentioned to you so you can see how great the difference is between us and secular societies. Well, now that this name casts its shadow everywhere in our society, we must reflect on this issue: what do we understand, and what should we understand, from this name that is constantly inculcated in us in various forms, directly or indirectly? These inculcations have a great effect; these inculcations place us under the conceptual burden of this name—this is an established scientific fact. To ensure our psychological and doctrinal health, examining this subject is necessary. We must try to understand a correct and beneficial meaning of this name, and unfortunately, few people think about this subject. Many individuals think they believe in God. But if you ask them, "What exactly are you saying, and what do you understand from this name?" they give you an answer such that if you ask two questions about that answer and they try to respond, they will fall into contradiction, they will fall into ambiguity. Let me first give a brief explanation about the name.

Generally speaking, we become acquainted with beings through their names. If something does not have a specific name for us, we cannot establish a relation with it; that which has no name at all is for us the absolutely unknown. We cannot establish a relationship with the absolutely unknown. It is through the name that we establish a relationship with every being and gain an understanding of it. Names signify their bearers and acquaint us with these bearers of names. In our human world, the designated things, that is, the bearers of names, are beings, objects, and things. Every name signifies a being, an object, and a thing. Now, that being or object and thing may be a material and external matter, and it may be a spiritual matter that is within us. These names are of two kinds: they are either common nouns or proper nouns. For example, we say stone, wood, tree, human; these are names. We know stone, for instance, by this name, meaning that in reality, through this name, we make the stone a stone and know it. (If we wish to speak with greater philosophical precision) these names are common nouns, in the sense that they are general; there may be ten pieces of wood, a hundred pieces of wood, and we call all of them wood. And sometimes a name is a proper noun. It is the name of a specific being. For example, suppose I have a brother whose name is Hasan, and you have a brother whose name is Hossein. This Hasan or Hossein is not a common noun; it is the name of that gentleman who is my brother or the name of that gentleman who is your brother. When we utter these names, it points only to him, it signifies him. Now, if another person's brother is also named Hasan or Hossein, those names also signify only those specific persons and no one else. We call such names proper nouns. For example, Tehran, Isfahan, Mecca; these are the names of cities, but they are proper nouns and signify only a specific being, such as this Tehran in which we live. Now, when believers say God and utter this name, what does this name signify? Is this name a proper noun or a common noun? Well, it is clear that in the view of monotheists, this name is a proper noun. That is, everyone who says God means by this God a particular bearer of the name. Now, when we say God and point to that bearer of the name, is that God a being among beings and alongside beings, just as is the case with other bearers of names, each of which is a being alongside other beings? For instance, a tree is a being alongside another tree, and every human is a being alongside other beings; is God also a being alongside beings? That is, we have the sky, we have the earth, we have mountains, we have the sea, we have humans, we have galaxies, all of which are beings, and we also have another being named God, only much larger and much more powerful? Possessing absolute power, absolute knowledge, absolute life, but a being other than the sky, other than the galaxy, other than this, other than that, only on a much vaster scale? Have our religious leaders introduced God to us in this way? Have we ever thought about this matter?

 The religious leaders of the Shia have said that these conceptions of God are invalid, that God is not a being alongside other beings, and that no one can precisely determine what or who God is, because God cannot be described. In theology, this is a very important point: God cannot be described, and one cannot say God has this attribute, that attribute, a third attribute, a fourth, a fifth, as we can with other beings, describing them and enumerating their attributes. I can say, for example, that this desk behind which I am now sitting and speaking is four meters long. That is one attribute; its second attribute is that it weighs 50 or 60 kilograms, that is another attribute; the geometric attribute of this desk is that it is rectangular. But one cannot speak of God in this way; one cannot say God is knowing and powerful in the sense that God is one thing and His being knowing and powerful is another thing, His attributes. Because attribute and the subject of attribution are always two things (as I will quote from the Master of the Monotheists, His Holiness Ali (AS)). When you attribute a quality to a being, that subject is other than that attribute, and for this very reason, it might have a different attribute in its place. For instance, this desk, which is now brown, might be painted another color, say blue, and this shows that the desk is other than its color. Some weight might be added to this desk, its geometric shape might be changed. Whenever we say a certain being has a certain attribute, the meaning of this statement is that the subject and the attribute are two things. When God cannot be described, then God can no longer be considered a being alongside other beings, because one cannot conceive of Him as having no attributes yet being a being alongside other beings. The doctrinal-psychological troubles of the believer begin when they reckon God as a being alongside other beings. This incorrect conception is the very root and foundation of the anthropomorphism of God by believers, which afflicts them with all sorts of philosophical and psychological problems, and even mental illnesses. With this incorrect conception, we humans load our own attributes onto that God, and suddenly we open our eyes and see that God, too, like us, demands obedience from humans, becomes wrathful, takes revenge, has an in-group and an out-group like us, and so on. We think He intervenes in the world or in our lives as an external agent, doing this and that, making us happy or miserable, and because our lives always remain tragic, we develop a simultaneous state of love and hatred toward that God. How are we to get along with such a God? It is here that we ultimately become pathological, and belief in God, which was supposed to be the source of our salvation, becomes the source of our helplessness, suffering, and decay.

Our religious leaders have said that with regard to God, names are at issue, not attributes. The Most Beautiful Names (al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnā) are at issue, not attributes. These two differ. Popular theologians have spoken of God's attributes, but careful, rationalist theologians, even if they have spoken of God's attributes, have said they are identical with His essence, and when they said they are identical with His essence, it means God cannot be truly described. But those theologians who have been granted a higher knowledge have said that God has beautiful names (al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnā) and not attributes. Knower, Powerful, Living, and the like are names of God, not His attributes. From Imam Ali (AS), whom we remember tonight, it is narrated in the first sermon of Nahj al-Balagha as follows: "The foremost in religion is the knowledge of Him, and the perfection of knowing Him is to believe in Him, and the perfection of believing in Him is to profess His oneness, and the perfection of professing His oneness is to be sincere towards Him, and the perfection of sincerity towards Him is to negate attributes from Him, because every attribute bears witness that it is other than the object to which it is attributed, and every object to which an attribute is ascribed bears witness that it is other than the attribute. So whoever describes God, glory be to Him, has linked Him; whoever links Him has made Him two; whoever makes Him two has divided Him; whoever divides Him is ignorant of Him; whoever is ignorant of Him points to Him; whoever points to Him delimits Him; and whoever delimits Him counts Him." I think this is the most eloquent description of tawḥīd in the sayings of our religious leaders. Its preliminary translation is as follows: Religion begins with the knowledge of God. The perfection of knowing God is attained by affirming God. The perfect affirmation of God consists of professing God's oneness (tawḥīd). Perfect tawḥīd is to purify your relationship with God. The perfection of sincerity towards God is to negate every attribute from Him, for every attribute testifies that it is other than the one described (duality is involved). So whoever describes God (says God is such-and-such), has made God a companion to His attributes or a companion to himself (the describer), and whoever makes a companion for God has made Him dual. He has placed another existent beside Him, and whoever does this has posited parts for God (in some of which parts God shares with that other existent, and in other parts He is distinct from it), and whoever does this is (in reality) ignorant of God. He has no knowledge of Him at all and is speaking about something else while imagining he is speaking about God. And whoever is ignorant of God (and speaks about Him) has in reality pointed to God. That is, he has fashioned something in his own mind and is pointing to it, and whoever points to God has (in reality) made Him limited and finite, and such a person has assumed God to be subject to multiplicity (since what is limited and finite can be multiple).

If we reflect carefully, we will realize that many of us are like this. In our minds there is a God who has attributes and is ultimately pointable-to and subject to multiplicity. One does not notice this deviation unless, on certain occasions, one creates some leisure for oneself and sits down to think about what conception one really has of that God about whom one speaks and whom one worships; to reflect a little, to delve into one's inner self. If one does this, one will see that God in one's mind also has attributes and is both pointable-to and subject to multiplicity. But as you heard, the Commander of the Faithful says that whoever thinks in this way is ignorant of God and unaware of Him. You might ask, then what is the meaning of the expressions al-ʿAlīm (the All-Knowing), al-Qadīr (the All-Powerful), al-Ḥayy (the Ever-Living), al-Qayyūm (the Self-Subsisting), al-Mutaʿāl (the Most High), al-Jabbār (the Compeller) in the Holy Quran? The answer is that these are names of God, not attributes of God. According to the Holy Quran, these are names. By uttering the name al-ʿAlīm, we remember God and turn our attention to Him, and so on. Through these names, we bring the Owner of the name to mind and think of Him, because He is "the totality of perfection," and these names indicate samples, and a sample is indicative of the whole. By conceiving samples of perfection, we can draw near to conceiving absolute perfection. Knowledge, life, power, and the like are perfections. It is only through these concepts that we can open a window towards God. (On the twenty-third night, God willing, I will explain this matter.)

Here I will relate to you a point from one of the eminent scholars of Islamic theology. This person is a scholar named "Wolfson"; a book of his has been translated into Persian by the late Mr. Ahmad Aram, entitled The Philosophy of the Kalam. Before writing this book, this scholar examined the relationship between theology and philosophy in Judaism and Christianity in another work, and later, in this very book I mentioned, he addressed the philosophy of Islamic theology. When Wolfson discusses the subject of God's attributes as found in the books of Muslim theologians and traces its history, he points to a very interesting fact. He writes that in the Qur'an, no description of God has been given. The term sifah (attribute) comes from the verb wasafa, meaning to describe or to state, which appears thirteen times in verbal form and once in the nominal form wasf in the Qur'an. The form sifah for God is never used in the Qur'an... In the Qur'an, the verb wasafa is used to refer to what people say about God, not what the Qur'an says about God. In all these instances, moreover, its usage is always for something vile that the unbelievers ascribe to God. In the Qur'an, God is not described... However, the term "the Most Beautiful Names of God" is used (ayyamma tad'u fa lahu al-asma' al-husna). The expression al-asma' al-husna (the Most Beautiful Names) of God appears in several surahs of the Qur'an. In prophetic and non-prophetic hadiths, too, mention is made of the 99 Names of God, and in some places, of one thousand and one names. (In the supplications recited especially during the blessed month of Ramadan, such as the Jawshan Kabir and Jawshan Saghir supplications, you repeatedly encounter these names.)

It became clear that the discussion of God's attributes was introduced by the theologians, and that no attributes for God are mentioned in the Qur'an. Paying attention to this important point is also paying attention to the historicity of the beliefs of the theologians and the beliefs current among Muslims, and this matter is of great significance. All our beliefs have a history; the beliefs of the theologians have a history, the beliefs of the mystics have a history, the beliefs of the philosophers have a history, and paying attention to the history of these beliefs and their emergence greatly aids in understanding the religion of Islam. It clarifies for us how a belief concerning a particular matter that, let us suppose, was recognized as axiomatic among Muslims in the 6th century AH, simply did not exist in the 3rd century AH, and vice versa. Or how, throughout the history of the development of the sciences among Muslims, it happened that one concept became prominent and other concepts fell into the shadows, or under different circumstances, that same concept became prominent again and other concepts disappeared. Religious developments and the religious sciences are just like this. It is a mistake for us to think that all the doctrinal, theological, jurisprudential, etc., concepts by which we are now bombarded have always existed in this same form throughout the history of Islam. The beliefs found in books of exegesis, theological books, philosophical books, mystical books, and the like emerged gradually. Paying attention to this very important point enables us to lift our heads a little from beneath the tons of these historical concepts and see what the call of Islam was at its beginning, what it was in the era of the Messenger of God (PBUH), and what things emerged later, and how this evolution unfolded. I am very pleased that in recent years, a very exquisite work is being translated into Persian; I myself once began the translation of this work, but because it was a very heavy and lengthy task and hindered my other studies, I stopped it. This work, a four-volume book, is written about the history of the formation of Islamic beliefs and their connection with social developments up to the middle of the 3rd century AH, the very centuries in which the roots of our current religious tradition were formed. This book is authored by a very eminent scholar named Professor "van Ess". This person is German and wrote the book in German. A few years ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran awarded a prize to the author for writing this book. I was also among the judges for awarding the prize for that book. This man toiled for 40 years on this book. This collection is the distillation of 40 years of his research, spanning 4 to 5 thousand pages. In the book's introduction, he writes: I am pleased to be writing this book because through it, it will become clear that the beliefs of Muslims also have a history, and this is a very important matter.

The next point is this: when describing God is impossible, how can one establish a relationship with Him? What emerges from the Holy Qur'an and the sayings and deeds of our religious leaders is that one can call upon God by His names. God is callable, He is experienceable, and after that, God is narratable; one can narrate God, meaning one can say what God does. One can say what God did with me, one can say what my story with God was, one can say what God did with others. One can recount His acts. In our human lives, we often have stories; sometimes we simply say to someone, "Tell me what happened to you," and they sit down and recount their story: "I never complain of strangers; whatever befell me, that familiar one did."

The narration and recounting of God is at issue, not His description. The entirety of Rumi's Masnavi is a narration, as he himself says at its beginning:

Listen to the reed as it narrates,

From separations it complains.

Likewise, one can speak with God, one can have hope and trust in Him, one can dispel the dread and anxiety of loneliness with Him. These kinds of relationships and the like can be established with God. In our own human world, when we connect with a person, we connect with a "you" or a "he," not with an "it." The connection with God is of this kind. As I have written before in the article "Prophetic from the World," the Qur'an is also a recounting of God's acts, a narration of God, and not a description of God. The Qur'an presents "what God does," not His attributes and what God is. Not only in the Qur'an, but the language of all Abrahamic religions is the language of narration and recounting. If you refer to the Old Testament, it is the same; if you refer to the New Testament, it is the same. These are books of narration. Other languages within these books serve the overall framework of this narrative language. The extensive supplications of us Muslims are the same; if you study the famous prayers, you will see that they are either narration, or calling, or conversation, and not description.

Another point is this: how does this narrating and calling upon God, questioning God, speaking with God, thanking God, and so on, take shape within us humans, and where, so to speak, is the origin of these within our being? Of course, if we reflect, we encounter these questions; otherwise, all of us, under the influence of upbringing or imitation, both call upon God and give thanks. But is imitative thanks truly thanks? Is habitual thanks truly thanks? Where does a person truly speak with God, and where does one not truly speak with God? Where does one truly recount and narrate the acts of God, and where does one not? After all, these also have correct and incorrect forms, truthful and false forms, though the truth and falsehood here are of a different kind, distinct from logical truth and falsehood. Where are we telling the truth when we say "In the name of God," and where are we lying? For instance, saying "In the name of God" at the beginning of a speech is a performative act, not a declarative one, but the important question is: how is the truth or falsehood of this very performative act determined? Answering these questions is very important for our mental health, very important so that we do not deceive ourselves, very important so that others and governments do not deceive us in the name of religion. We must analyze these issues so that we ultimately reach a rational conviction, so that we are convinced: yes, I am truly speaking with God, I am calling upon God. This conviction gives us mental health and delivers us from the toxicity I mentioned at the beginning of the talk. Our relationship with ourselves, the world, and others becomes clear.

.

---

.

Related Content:

The Name of God and the Remembrance of God 1

The Name of God and the Remembrance of God 2

.

---

.