Recapitulating The Above Observation
Before we move on to the spiritual side of popular Islam we may recapitulate on the above observations:
1.
Muslim’s political regime need not either remain dynastic monarchy or be lost in Western democracy which is secular. An Islamic regime based on universal suffrage (consultation of all who would like to have a say) is already featured in the Prophet’s and his immediate successors’ regime. In today’s terms it can be called presidential but with the highest qualification sought being identified as a combination of piety and practical competence. We see this combination perfectly only in the Prophet sws himself and than in Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA. Uthman RA was a compromise candidate because Ali RA had never commanded the support his superb piety indicated; he was seen weak on political realism and a bit too desirous to rule. When he at long last came to power he confirmed all the worst fears the likes of Umar RA had expressed. He eventually lost to Muawia RA who was less pious than him but more practically competent. Some sort of wise ruthlessness is essential in a ruler and a ruler who is unwisely harsh or unwisely soft is bound to come to grief.
In view of the above we can say that a pious dynastic monarchy is the best regime for a less developed Muslim society while a pious presidential republic more suited to a more developed society where there is general welfare with a large and moderately prosperous middle class as in the West. So long as class differences are abysmal with a corrupt minority of super rich both ignoring and dominating a vast majority of equally if naturally corrupt class of super poor a dynastic monarchy is better. Nowadays this regime often exists in a modified form where a dictatorship posing as a democracy does not like to miss any opportunity to turn into a dynastic dictatorship; sons are often groomed to take over from dads who are not in a hurry to die. Another form of dictatorship, often more benevolent, is a military one where a top general installs himself as the president and sometimes tries to introduce democracy with varying success.
In our humble opinion all are legitimate simply because each represents a different level of social advancement of the Muslim society it rules and rebellion against them is a sin. Historical experience has almost consistently showed that the replacers hardly do better than whom they replaced or at least even if they look a bit better for a while it does not last. Additionally they routinely disappoint all factions who help them to achieve power and after doing away with their predecessors they next turn to their creditors so that they will not have to pay a debt to them. As the Europeans say a revolution devours its children. Abbasids devoured their Alid supporters, the French revolutionary government, after destroying the monarchy and the nobility in general destroyed all those who fought to bring them to power so that they could not serve them a bill of outstanding fees. In short there is no single regime which can claim to be Islamic in an exclusive sense. Our options are open and the best choice depends on how far we are developed as a society and prepared for more enlightened and egalitarian regime. Enlightenment cannot be imposed while an enlightened society can hardly tolerate imposition or suffer tyrants. Dictators can only be ridiculed and booed and unceremoniously brought down and punished by a morally advanced society.
2.
There is not a single version of the Islamic Law (Sharia) which could serve as the only basis of Islamic legislation. All major Islamic legal sects differed in many matters as well as very commendably tolerated each other. Given the changed circumstances and needs and realities like superpowers being non-Muslim or the ominous demands of the so-called international law or public opinion, Muslims should think hard to determine what new laws or modifications in old laws they inherited from a far superior status of Muslim World hundreds of years ago they need to consider and make. Realism rules supreme over all else and when the Prophet sws bent to the popular demand for more harshness towards sexual offenders he was being a realists as all rulers of men need to. We can and must be realists as well if we want to save the day for Islam and Muslims and given the example of not only the Prophet sws but also Allah Who did not to replace ruling by new ruling as realities changed.
In this respect I humbly think that by the departure of the Prophet or the last sahaba Islam’s legal development came to a finalising and definitive end. It only came to an end in respect to the realities it faced in a Roman world. Today that Roman world, fanatically Christian and socially conservative is no more but it is replaced by an aggressively secular and proudly imposing community of super rich and super powerful Western camp headed by an increasingly domineering United States. What is more ironic is the fact that even the Muslim regimes which most boast of keeping to the Islamic of life are deeply affected by the Western ways; they aspire at Western strengths while also slavishly emulating a lot of Western vices away from public view. Divided on super rich, super poor lines the super rich under their long shirts, caftans and sometimes in their frankly proud Western dress will not hesitate to enjoy themselves on Western lines, from playing golf to playing wolf in the privacy of their sumptuous mansions as well as secretive Western retreats. The West is simply too strong to ignore as well as not to emulate in better things and also too corrupt to emulate in other things. If we are really and realistically concerned with our viable survival we have to adopt their better sides while abandoning our bad sides. This again is a matter of long and patient education and not a matter of political imposition.
In this context the Sharia may have to be re-interpreted in realistic terms remembering that a lot of its rulings were issued in response to challenges of and responses to a bygone age; for example, there are no more dynastic monarchs in many Muslim countries nor elsewhere in the world at large. What is more the Qur’an is hardly concerned with them and most mentioned are not good figures. Nimrod and Pharaoh could not be worse dynastic tyrants while the Queen of Sheba and the king favouring Joseph come out positively. Despite the impeccable Sunni credentials of the first four caliphs, the dynastic caliphs of the imperial times of Islam were more kings than caliphs, they rarely had piety as their chief trait. As a result our jurists made laws to legitimise these dynasts. In our own times new rules should perhaps be worked out instead to accommodate elected presidents with no pretension to caliphate as well as elected members of parliament. Of course the sad fact remains that almost not a single Muslim country can settle with democracy but there will always be more than enough factions to attempt a coup and get them installed by force of arms. As such it still looks the case that the Shariah must remain at the usurpers-legalising level lest civil wars keep brewing and erupting.
Another pet question: Can we have a universal Islamic caliphate? We are afraid in our present and long term state of apparently incurable disunity and conspiratorial and violent factionalism this looks a very unlikely prospect.
Another field to consider is that of sanctions. Because Islamic Sharia allows the commutation of drastic punishments like execution, amputation of limb and retaliatory injuries to money fines as well as full forgiveness by the victim or the guardian of the victim, some use of such tolerances may be made to take away the glare and heat of such issues. The guardian of a victim of a crime need not remain his next of kin; If and when the tribal society gives way to the national, the guardian may be redefined as the state, seeing that the tribal society with no or very weak central government is no more but national society and strong central government is the new norm. Then the government may transmute most if not all capital and corporeal punishments to fines still going to the next of kin and prison terms harsh enough to deter others. If the culprit has no assets to pay up the compensation to his victim then it should be upon the government to pay up since it was its duty to prevent crime. Alongside all these better and better intellectual and moral education of the masses should be pursued with utmost greatest vigour.
As the classical jurists saw no obstacle to adapt Islamic Law to the imperial age our new jurists should see no obstacle to adapt it to the global and democratic age. How can and how much should this be done is a matter for our jurists to decide. One society may be ready for it at 50 %, another at 30% and still another nil- being still too tribal and savage.
Islam’s devotions (ibadat) need no revision or change at all, nor do its moral rules; they are perfection itself, but rules of public administration and public transactions may need some rethinking. Money can replace many forms of giving or paying in kind, like animals and crops simply because cash is the proper and practical medium of exchange now and gold and silver are no more forms of cash as well as being too clumsy to handle and too dangerous to keep. In fact many such modern considerations have already been taken into account by our modern jurists and implemented by the Muslim public. We do not now pay our zakat or sadaqa in the form of sheep or cows nor we deliver to the poor dates and raisins and barley but banknotes and coins. Life standards are have risen and are rising so much in many places that to stick to the measures of the gifts to the poor at the Medieval level of a mere 520 drams of wheat (about five pounds in weight) per person per day can only be a joke if not an insult to the new poor. Its present worth is about 50 pence or 80 cents, hardly enough even for a light breakfast. The legal definition of ta’am al miskin (food for the poor) is “awsati ma tut’imuna ahlikum” (5: 89), i.e, “the average of what you feed your family with”. In the Prophet’s time it corresponded, among other things, to 520 drams of wheat but nowadays that is not even the one tenth of what an average Muslim in the West and also in many other places in Islamdom Muslims consume. The same with dowries, divorce settlements and maintenance etc.
In fact many local traditions dating back to millennia survive in Muslim local communities where even ulema follow them; in the Balkans the Greek tradition of buying a husband for a daughter is the norm among both Christians and Muslims instead of Muslims paying ‘mihr’ to women they want to marry. This is the traditional Greek way. All in all, we must admit that the purpose of the Sharia is facilitating good and discouraging harmful and what is good and what is harmful may change, within reason of course, from time to time and from place to place. The Qu’ran gave us a minimum number of essentials, the Sunna expanded on them to a limited extent and the jurists both employed the two sources to define laws and supplemented them with their opinions which they more or less loosely based on some principles and allowances they believed they could deduce from the two. Each age and environment has its own circumstances and needs and jurists will have to continue with developing the Law to fit these changes. Declaring the Medieval jurisdiction final is a human decision and may be replaced by other human decisions utilising the same sources. It is hoped that Allah will guide all who resort to Him and surely is not bound by anything His servants other than Prophets (made infallible by Him) said or did.
THE SPIRITUAL POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN ISLAM
As times and places change it is impossible for culture to remain the same. Religion is part of culture and however rigidly its principles and practices are formulated they cannot avoid undergoing some adaptation when they find themselves in new times and places. I am not saying that changes must happen; some things in Islam are non-negotiable. Its creed and forms of worship, its halal and haram are eternal if flexible. Halals may become haram and harams halal when a dire emergency strikes, but that is all. As soon as the emergency is over things go back to normal. Allah states that if one’s life and even health is in danger and there is no alternative harams become halal, for example, one can drink wine when no other source of water is available and thirst becomes unbearable. In the spiritual sphere, if faking an approval or employing a method which is un-Islamic in principle will help to Islam’s cause it may be employed within reason, without abuse or permanence.
But all did not go so well and wisely in the course of Islam’s adaptation of itself to new environments. Both the Hellenic lands and the Indian, once conquered, presented great challenges to their Muslim conquerors. They found both lands soaked in old mystery traditions, namely Gnosticism in the Hellenic and Yogism in
As already severally explained, magic is belief in and practice of irrational acts thereby hoping to obtain or avoid an eventuality. As such it is the survival of infancy into adulthood thanks to lack of knowledge more befitting an adult. Morality is not a concern of magic; it concerns itself only with technique- mumble the same meaningful or meaningless words, burn the right incense, employ the same object (like a shin bone) and pay the right bribes and your desire will be granted. Once I was approached by a family from rural
A Priest is a person who pretends to represent a link between the higher powers and men in need of these powers favours or in fears of their wrath. As such he is the essential element in magic more than in anything else. With their imaginary if not fraudulent authority they dispense the favours or exemptions sought by their applicants and are rewarded by gifts. To this day Greek Orthodox priests absolve sins for a consideration.
In Islam such institution does not exist but over time some Muslims in some newly conquered lands learned the art from the natives and went down the same way. As ‘priests’ except in name perhaps some Muslims enjoyed being consulted and employed as spiritual agents meditating between man and god(s) and local people with traditions surviving from pre-Islam embraced them as their ancestors had embraced their priests like the Brahmins and the ascetics like the yogis. I said god(s) because in new lands conquered by Islam formerly worshipped yogis or saints were given Muslim names and then added to with new colleagues from among Muslim ascetics and miracle men.
Since Islam would never allow such ‘holy’ persons to be seen as gods the title god was dropped and compensation was made by elevating the prestige of sainthood (wilaya) to an almost identical position of God. Now, a ‘wali’ became a ‘Perfect Man’ and as such was hardly distinguishable from Allah; he had no limitations, could do no mistake or could suffer no failure simply because he was dissolved and extinguished in Allah. Of course there may be occasions when one believer can momentarily be brought near to Allah but that is neither bearable for long nor maintainable since it is contrary to Allah’s Will in testing men to the last. Man remains weak to the last so that he hopefully remains humble and prayerful in front of Allah for that weakness and humble prayerfulness as assailed by a thousand regrets, doubts and needs are the very stuff salvation is achieved through. It only drops when death arrives and never before entirely. The pagan myth that men can become perfect and then can hear, see and know and do all is not true and all who claimed such perfection only discredited themselves when, as frequently it did, their statements badly clashed with Allah’s and their prophecies failed only too miserably and ridiculously. One such ‘perfect man’ prophesied in the 7th century of Islam that between him and the Qiyama (Collapse of the Universe) remained only half as much, that is to say by the tenth or eleventh century of Islam the Hour would strike. We are alhamdulillah in the 15th century. Not only his prophecy failed but his word contradicted Allah’s that only Allah knows the time of the Hour.
Why they dare such claims? Because their theory of existence is NOT Islamic but pagan and as paganism mostly Neo-Platonic. Neo-Platonism is the final phase of paganism when monotheism becomes established in the minds of pagan philosophers but the God they imagine is not the Personal God of the prophets and their revealed scriptures, like the Qur’an. Theirs is a philosophical, non-personal pantheistic deity. This deity does not seek out men to save them by sending them messengers and revealing them scriptures. Instead any able and interested philosopher may seek It out and attain Its understanding and thereby assuming Its powers! That is why some Sufis dare to claim discoveries and creational feats which even the prophets could not claim. Some even said that ‘saints’ or philosophers like themselves are superior to prophets. They played ample lip service to prophets but among themselves they chuckled and joked.
More interestingly, their pantheistic god becomes personal only in the person of the attained philosopher or saint as perhaps helped by great ascetic practices and charitable activities on top of contemplation. To this end the founder of Neo-Platonism, the Roman philosopher Plotinus founded a community of ascetic do-gooders and gained enormous influence and prestige all of which subsequently ran through many Christian and later Muslim mystical orders and their masters. These mystics, if at all they bothered, mainly played lip service to the scriptures and mainstream teachings preached in the prevailing religion and even conformed to their commandments but never parted from their supposedly nobler and grander Neo-Platonic beliefs and hopes. Their give-away trademark was an eventual claim to a quasi-divinity under the cover of a saint which, as already said, made them personalisations of the God of Christianity or Allah of Islam. So, one such mystic interprets the verse of Allah “Or are they seeking awliya (guardians) other than Allah? It is only Allah Who is the Guardian (Wali), (it is) He (Who) revives the dead and (it is) He (Who) is Able to do all things” (42: 9) as follows: “Allah is none other than the (human) wali” conveniently cutting preceding part and appropriating for the ‘wali’ the succeeding part thus claiming for himself the power of resurrecting the dead and knowing everything. Others explain it a bit more: Actually Allah was an unconscious force which necessarily evolved into the material world we know and eventually attained Its consciousness with and in man. It then attained Its perfection and full powers in the last stage of Its evolution which the perfect man represents. Of course the writer writing such pearls is that perfect stage of Allah!
Unfortunately for such ‘perfect men’ they suffered and died as badly as the imperfect men and were cremated or buried similarly. But despite being burnt to ashes or being devoured by crocodiles or tigers or being buried and decomposed we are asked to believe that they are not only still alive but also around and ready to hear our prayers and grant them. As a humble Muslim one wonders what is lacking in Allah as He reveals Himself in His Qur’an as Hearer and Granter of prayers that should drive us to prefer these evolved gods? What is worse they convert the Prophet sws to one of theirs and as the top, forgetting that some times they leak subtle boasts to the effect that they are in fact superior to him but that to remain a secret between friends. One says (or rather slandered by another using his identity to say) “Sainthood is superior to prophethood.
As prophets have a seal in Muhammad sws so do the saints have a seal in this servant. As all prophets receive their lights from the candle of the Seal of the Prophets sws, so do all saints receive their lights from the candle of the Seal of the Saints; Muhammad as also a saint so does he receive his lights from the Seal of the Saints”. No need to explain that words are always ambiguous and verbal statements treacherous; this writer was carried away by the terminology his kind had invented and was thinking that such legalistic arguments led one to truth. He did not know that Muhammad sws was Muhammad sws and he was who he was and he was the greatest man Allah created and would ever create and analysing him into components of sainthood and prophethood was and then subtly inserting himself as the greater master was only delusional. To give an example from science, we know that the most unique substance is water; no other substance can replace water as the main ingredient of life. All the same it is made of hydrogen and oxygen in chemical combination. It is futile to claim either the hydrogen or the oxygen being the more important than the other or than the water itself. Such scholasticism is the very opposite of Sufism. Sufism is about ineffable transforming experiences which transform man into a better and better man by all moral standards and not about analytical philosophy always ending with the philosopher’s fantastic boastings.
That a perfect man in the sense of being a god or the God is demolished by Alalh in His Qur’an; He All-Knowing explains that Mary and Jesus worshipped by many Christians cannot be gods simply because “Each was eating food”. The fact that Jesus seemed to revive the dead did not matter- he always explained himself that the Doer was Allah and not him Jesus. Such extremist Sufis desperately seek to remove this irremovable distinction between God and man and step in as the ‘proofs’. Anybody has still to see their doing without food, water or air let alone resurrecting the dead. They deceive people by claiming that they are even more alive and active in a worldly sense despite collapsing ad dying of wounds, illnesses or old age infirmity and quote the verses about the martyrs. That martyrs live only in a heavenly sense but dead in a worldly sense is confirmed by Allah. Surely their heavenly life is incomparably more glorious than their terminated earthly life but that does not change the fact that they no longer reside and operate in this lowly and despicable world. Such invisible control of this world is assigned to Allah’s angels which, strangely enough, many extremist Sufis hardly mention. Instead they appropriate the roles of angels to themselves and claim direct and instant access to Allah even prophets did not. According to them the universe is not staffed by Allah’s angels but by ranks and files of awliya whether physically dead or alive. Angels are so neglected that if we are to follow them the six pillars of faith should read not as “I believe in Allah and in His Angels and in His Books… “ but “I believe in Allah and in His Awliya…. etc.”! While we cannot call on any angel to grant us our wishes we may call on ‘awliya’ and that as the more preferable option to calling on Allah! There is no doubt that none such claims have any validation from Allah’s Book but the very opposite and that only too explicitly and categorically. It is as if some malicious force is subverting Islam to Christianise it but no doubt it will fail as Allah perfectly predicted and infallibly promised:
Remember when Jesus son of Mary had said “O Children of Israel, I am the messenger of Allah sent to you confirming what passed before me of the Torah and giver of glad tidings of a messenger after me whose name is Ahmad. But when he came to them they said this is plain magic. Who is a greater wrongdoer than one who forges falsehood against Allah when he is invited to Islam? Allah will not guide the wrongdoers. They want to put out the Light of Allah with their mouths (words) but Allah shall complete His Light however much the blasphemers may detest (61- 6- 8).
It very much looks that this word ‘wali’ in the Qur’an has been taken out of context by some Sufis, converted into a special term like ‘nabi’/prophet and then compared for merits. It looks very much like that spiritually ambitious men lusting after titles and prestige and authority and having lost all chance of becoming a prophet since Muhammad sws was the last, they had to look for devices to create another spiritual office for them to occupy and from where to dictate and expect reverence and even obedience. With so many precedents in Yogism and Christianity the office of a saint could be re-invented and imposed on suitably gullible co-religionists most of whom had inherited similar beliefs and practices anyhow, their ancestors being Hindus and Christians, for example. Common masses and spiritually naïve always tend to paganism; they abhor a Single and Absolute as well as an imperceptible and even unimaginable God and yearn for more tangible, warm-blooded gods or quasi gods they can see, talk to or imagine seeing and talking to. Former pagans satisfied this need by converting their national heroes into gods and some present ‘monotheists’ are satisfying the same perverted need by imagining a class of fellow believers to be close enough to God to enjoy both quasi-divine prestige and quasi-divine powers even unto being able to say ‘Be!’ to anything and that thing to become!
Since by the testimony of the Book of Allah and the more solidly established body of Hadith this is not the case but the opposite we are excused to dismiss it as wishful thinking if not a lie. One popular clause much distorted and exploited by the extremists is the Word of Allah “You did not throw when you threw but Allah threw” (8: 17) referring to the Prophet’s sws throwing a handful of sand and pebbles towards the enemy in an act of curse whereby they were demoralised and discomfited. The extremist conclude from this that there is something exclusive to the Prophet sws in this episode.
That is not all; they also claim that all their acts are similarly Allah’s- as if there were any acts not from Allah! If we take the preceding part of the verse their claim collapses only too badly; Allah said “You (the Muslims fighting under the Prophet sws) did not kill them (the enemy dead), but Allah killed them”. So, being Allah’s instruments extends also to the Muslim fighters. It is no good saying that these fighters were ‘awliya’- they sure were but that does not change the universal fact that all events are entirely Allah’s work. This word means something else, some more reasonable and attainable thing: It means that whenever you act from true faith and full piety Allah praises both your heart’s and body’s acts and ascribes them to Himself and that is a compliment for you. Although all the heart and body acts by haters of Allah are still Allah’s Work from behind the scenes Allah distances Himself from them and tries to motivate them to repentance by condemning their acts; what Allah likes to achieve is replacing their hate for Him with love.
That is what repentance (tauba/ turning) means. In terms of simplistic logic this may not seem consistent, but spiritual realities ate not so much bound by material consistencies but more are about emotional needs. What is sought is feeling guilty after unkind and dishonourable acts- Allah is serving that to His servants. The subtleties of creedal and moral issues can only be bypassed by looking for the moral intentions behind their arguments and going for the juster and kinder acts of heart and body. The spiritual area of human life is not like science and technology but art; in spirituality not simplistic logic but emotional appeal count and leads to success and satisfaction. Physical reality and its logic and laws have a domain of their own; so does the spiritual reality, the other and deeper and more valuable part of ours- it has its own domain of emotions operating in their own right and not in need of materialistic validation. Even sexual love has this dual aspect- at its least it is just a spell of physical pleasure with no moral value while at its highest it culminates into a love affair whose heights and nobility profusely smell of the Divine. Take your pick. Accordingly true people of Allah taste a love incomparable to any other emotion available to non-believers in its intensity, beauty and nobility and like in a fertile marriage are blessed with results each more wonderful and sweet than the other.
As for the miraculous outcomes, the most that can happen to a convinced and truly pious believer can be this: His wishes happily coincides with Allah’s Will simply because Allah loves and inspires him; therefore when Allah wants to say ‘Be!’ for something to become this servant’s heart is ready for that. All ‘karamat’ attributed to believers are equally from Allah; they are pre-destined and the wheels of causation are long put into their revolutions by Divine Command from eternity. When the time comes the believer is inspired to ask for the result and it duly arrives. All phenomena whether ordinary or miraculous looking are from Allah and the name miracle (ayah) applies to all since all Allah brings into existence can be no less than miracles. All doers are performers on behalf of Allah except that their conscious states are either for or against their Lord and therefore worthy of praise or condemnation. Being for Allah means being for the happiness of all if possible and being against Allah means coveting happiness only for himself or his kind- that is to say mean selfishness. A believer which finds himself capable of willing a thing and seeing it happen is just like an ordinary man who finds that he can walk and talk at will. All are gifts of Allah but only a matter of degree separates the gifts. Lastly pursuing Sufism to obtain higher powers is condemned. Allah is worshipped to attain His unqualified pleasure and it is up to Him how to reward His humble and sincere servants’ love and loyalty. Therefore promoting Sufism on promises of extraordinary powers is as bad as the seekers joining for that reason.
The servant who is given karamat should not be carried away with this coincidence of wills and think that he can do similarly on his own as he pleases. Even if he is allowed to confirm his delusion that is a cause of destruction for him further down the road. In His Mercy Allah even makes the desires of unbelievers to come to pass for He wants to test them to see whether they thank and embrace Him or explain the blessing as their own feat and claim status and demand respect for themselves and deny or despise God. According to a book about Sufi anectodes one Sufi who was apparently casting a dominant image is said to: “You have so much ‘kibr’/pride”. He retorts “That is not kibr, it is ‘kibriya’/proud greatness”. Of course Sufi anecdotes are always suspect and Sufis named in them may well not be them (after all many childish anecdotes are in circulation about Hasan al Basri and Rabiat al Adawi together while the two are not contemporaries to begin with). Taken in isolation this dialogue simply makes the matters worse for the retorter. Allah says “His is Kibriya in the heavens and earth” (45: 37). As a matter of principle believers may be described by Allah’s names of Grace like Ra’uf, Rahim, Karim etc, but not Names of Majesty like Kabir, Azim, Qadir etc. These names can only be assumed in combination with Abd/servant of, like Abdul Qadir etc. This is adab towards Allah and in fact the Prophet sws said that best names are such Abdul… names. Still we hear pompous names like Muazzam (terribly great) , Akbar (the Greatest) etc.
In such deviations of Sufism we have Islam’s other major plague in addition to the legalistic plague we already briefly touched upon. We can and do have correct Sufism which renders its adepts humbler and more charitable, wiser and more sociable and it is enough and definitive Sufism. Its secrets are true secrets and therefore ineffable, far more relevant to salvation and its miracles are from Allah and not from the Sufi. Sufi is the sincere believer and a sincere believer Allah holds and guides by hand without offering theories about it.
Let us conclude by praying Allah that He grants us true sincerity and true faith so that we mind our simple and unpretentious business of serving Him as we saw our Prophet sws serve Him and never claim knowing Platonic Cosmic secrets or wielding Yogic Cosmic powers as if Allah is not already knowing and wielding them and never boast with no explanations as to why we are entitled to the boast. May Allah save us and be pleased with us out of His Kindness. He is Enough for us and we can depend on Him. Amen.