Yaser Mirdamadi: Fleeing from God

Fleeing from God

Yaser Mirdamadi

1_ The Paradox of Fleeing and Refuge

«فِرّوا اِلی الله مِنَ الله»: Flee from God to God (Nahj al-Balagha, part of Sermon 24). "Fleeing to God" has a familiar meaning. In the monotheistic perspective, the only true refuge in existence against hardships is God, and the recommendation to flee to God is for this very reason.

But the recommendation to "flee from God" and at the same time the recommendation to "flee to God" seems strange and indeed "incompatible" (contradictory). If we flee from someone, it is natural that we do not flee to that very person, precisely because we are fleeing from them. Thus, the recommendation to "flee from God" and at the same time the recommendation to "flee to God" seems, at least at first glance, strange and indeed "incompatible." In this discourse, I will pause on this "paradox" (apparent contradiction) and will provide a brief account of the kinds of solutions for resolving this paradox.

2_ Resolving the Paradox

The recommendation to "flee to God" of course has a Quranic root: «فَفِرُّوا إِلَى الله» so flee to God (Dhariyat: part of 51). Furthermore, the expression "seeking refuge from God in God" also appears in the Quran: «لَا مَلْجَأَ مِنَ اللَّـهِ إِلَّا إِلَيْهِ» (Tawbah: part of 118) there is no refuge from God except in Him. "Seeking refuge from God in God" also appears in the prostration prayer attributed to the Prophet, though in a descriptive rather than prescriptive form: «وَأَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْكَ» I seek refuge in You from You (I will return to this prayer later). "Fleeing from God to God" also appears in the Abu Hamza al-Thumali supplication, attributed to Ali ibn Husayn: «انا هارِبٌ مِنکَ الیکَ» I am fleeing from You to You.

Considering the Quranic-supplicatory background of the Alavid phrase, the strangeness or paradoxicality of "fleeing from God while simultaneously fleeing to God" can be resolved thus: this passage from Nahj al-Balagha seeks to express the — seemingly incompatible — point that "in no state is there any refuge or escape except God." In Sa'di's words, "After You, there is no shelter or refuge / I flee to You, even if I flee" (Golestan, Chapter Five, on Love and Youth).

In the Kumayl supplication, attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib, this point is expressed as follows: «لا یُمکِنُ الفِرار مِن حُکومتِک» there is no escape from Your rule. The same theme (content) appears in the fiftieth supplication of Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya, attributed to Ali ibn Husayn, in this form — though with a strange expression: «وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَحَداً اسْتَطاعَ الْهَرَبَ مِنْ رَبِّهِ لَكُنْتُ أَنَا أَحَقُّ بِالهَرَبِ» if anyone were able to flee from his Lord, I would be the most deserving of people to flee [from the Lord]" (the addition inside brackets is ours).

This point can be expressed with an allegory as follows: consider a mother or father who is so upset with their child that they might punish them. The child, on the one hand, flees from punishment, and on the other hand, knows that there is no escape from the parents' rule. Hence, to flee from punishment, the child seeks refuge in the parents themselves and apologizes to them. In this way, the child flees from the parents' hand into their very embrace.

3_ Commentary on the Alavid Phrase

Let us return to the phrase attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib in Nahj al-Balagha: «فِرّوا اِلی الله مِنَ الله» Flee from God to God. The question remains open: if there is no refuge other than God, why is "fleeing from God" recommended? The more fundamental question is whether this phrase even recommends "fleeing from God" at all, or whether it merely intends to say if you flee from God, flee to Him, and not that you should flee from God. To find answers to these questions, we need to consult the commentaries on Nahj al-Balagha.

This passage does not appear to have provoked reflection in some commentators on Nahj al-Balagha, such as Muhammad Abduh, to the extent that they did not comment on this part of the sermon at all (Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, Muhammad Abduh, Beirut: Dar al-Ma'rifa, [n.d.], vol. 1, p. 63). Some commentators have dealt with it in just a single sentence. For instance, Ibn Abi al-Hadid interpreted this passage as meaning flight from God's punishment toward His mercy and did not discuss it further (Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, ed. Muhammad Ibrahim, Baghdad: Dar al-Kutub al-Arabi, 2007, vol. 1, p. 210).

Habibullah Khoei also interpreted this passage as meaning flight from God's wrath to His mercy and offered no further explanation (Minhaj al-Bara'a fi Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, Mirza Habibullah Hashemi Khoei, Tehran: al-Maktaba al-Islamiyya, vol. 3, p. 345). In his Persian commentary, Feiz al-Islam likewise contented himself with this much: "Flee from God toward God, from His wrath to the shelter of His mercy, from His punishment to the shelter of His forgiveness, and from His justice to the shelter of His grace" (Tarjomeh va Sharh-e Nahj al-Balagha, Seyyed Ali-Naqi Feiz al-Islam, Tehran: [n.p.], 1365 AH, p. 88).

Although Muhammad-Taqi Ja'fari, like many other commentaries, addresses this passage briefly and in passing, a novel point can be found in his commentary. Ja'fari offers two possibilities for "fleeing from God." The first possibility is the same one found in many other commentaries: take refuge from your sins in God's pardon and mercy. But the second possibility he offers for "min Allah" (from God) contains a novel point: if you have any ambiguity concerning the divine will, take refuge in God Himself to resolve this ambiguity: "Whatever pertains to God's providence and will and about which you are in ambiguity [...], take refuge in God for its resolution [...]" (Sharh-e Nahj al-Balagha, Muhammad-Taqi Ja'fari, Tehran: Allameh Ja'fari Institute for Compilation and Publication of Works, 1388, vol. 5, p. 92).

The novel point here is that commentators usually interpret "min Allah" (from God) either objectively (for example, referring it back to divine attributes or actions, an interpretation I will discuss further later) or, if they interpret it subjectively (inwardly), they refer it back to the individual's sins (i.e., the non-epistemic domain of the individual) and not to the epistemic domain of the individual. Ja'fari, however, alongside these possibilities, also briefly raises the possibility that "fleeing from God" can be understood as meaning epistemic ambiguity about God.

Epistemic ambiguity about God is today called in the literature of philosophy of religion the "eclipse of God," "divine absence," or "divine hiddenness." From the perspective of some philosophers, most famously the Canadian philosopher John Schellenberg (b. 1959), the ambiguity about God is so extensive, profound, and intractable that it is more reasonable to say that no God exists. But the Alawid passage, according to Ja'fari's interpretation, says that if you have an ambiguity about God, not only should you not abandon belief in God, but you should turn to Him so that your ambiguity may be resolved. According to this interpretation, the Alawid passage says that epistemic ambiguity about God is not a reason to abandon theism, but rather a reason for turning more toward God Himself.

This interpretation of the Alawid passage is consistent with passages from the Supplication of Abu Hamza: "Bika 'araftuka wa anta dalaltani 'alayka wa da'awtani ilayka wa law la anta lam adri ma anta" (Through You I have known You, and You guided me to Yourself and called me to Yourself; and were it not for You, I would not have known what You are). Nevertheless, Ja'fari does not elaborate on this novel insight of his nor does he address its possible ambiguities. One of the ambiguities is that Ja'fari's interpretation of the Alawid passage implies that this passage no longer recommends fleeing from God—that is, it does not say go and have ambiguity about God—but rather says if, as a result of epistemic ambiguity, you find yourself fleeing from God, then flee toward God Himself.

Among the several old and new commentaries on the Nahj al-Balagha that I searched through, hoping to find an illuminating commentary on this passage of the Nahj al-Balagha, one of the early Shi‘i philosophical-mystical commentaries proved to be a guide: the commentary on the Nahj al-Balagha by Ibn Maytham al-Bahrani (d. 679 AH). An interesting account has also been reported about this early Shi‘i jurist and theologian. It is said that a two-way student-teacher relationship existed between him and Khwaja Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, such that Ibn Maytham was apparently Khwaja’s teacher in jurisprudence while simultaneously learning theology from Khwaja.

Ibn Maytham takes this ‘Alawid passage seriously and writes a relatively detailed and noteworthy philosophical-mystical commentary on it. Ibn Maytham considers “fleeing from God to God” to be the journey towards God (sayr ila Allah) in three stages, each stage higher than the previous one. The first stage is the stage of the journey of actions (sayr af‘ali). In this stage, the wayfarer contemplates the divine actions and flees from some of God’s actions and takes refuge in others. For example, he flees from divine wrath and takes refuge in divine mercy. In this stage, it is as if the wayfarer sees nothing but divine actions and therefore takes refuge from one action in another.

In the second stage, the wayfarer rises above the divine actions and turns his attention to the source of these actions, namely the divine attributes. In this stage as well, the wayfarer flees from some divine attributes and takes refuge in others. For example, he takes refuge from the attribute of divine displeasure in the attribute of divine contentment. The third stage is the stage of fleeing from the attributes and taking refuge in the divine essence. Ibn Maytham considers the supplication attributed to the Prophet in prostration to encompass all three stages of the journey towards God.

The complete text of the Prophetic prostration supplication, with an explanation of the pattern of flight at each stage, is as follows: “O God, I take refuge in Your contentment from Your displeasure [flight of attributes], and in Your pardon from Your punishment [flight of actions], and I take refuge in You from You. I cannot enumerate praise upon You; You are as You have praised Yourself [flight in the essence].”

In the stage of flight in the essence, the wayfarer expresses his inability to comprehend the Truth in this manner: I am incapable of praising You, and Your praise is also Your own doing (Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, Kamal al-Din Maytham ibn ‘Ali ibn Maytham al-Bahrani, Qom: Dar al-Habib, 1430 AH, vol. 2, pp. 207-8).

Based on this interpretation, the ‘Alawid passage “flee from God to God” truly recommends fleeing from God, in the sense that it asks the wayfarer to rise step by step from cataphatic theology (theology of similitude) and reach apophatic theology (theology of transcendence); to a station where, in the words of Rumi, speech grows without words: “O God, show the soul that station / where speech grows without words” (Masnavi, Book One, verse 3105).

The apophatic understanding of the ‘Alawid saying in recommending flight from God towards God is reminiscent of the saying of Meister Eckhart (1260–1327 CE), the German sage and mystic, who says: “The highest detachment is that a person forsakes God, for the sake of God.”

(Meister Eckhart, Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart, ed. Bernar McGinn, trans. M. O’C Walshe, New York: Crossroad, 2009, p. 296) .

.

---

.

Lecture by Dr. Yaser Mirdamadi on the twenty-fifth night of Ramadan 1399 (2020) titled “Fleeing from God”

This text is the transcribed audio of a talk delivered by Dr. Yaser Mirdamadi at the request of the esteemed DinOnline website and published in the Ramadaniyat column.

Download the audio of this lecture

.

---

.