On the barzakh (2/3): the shahada, the doctrinal barzakh

By Titus Burckhardt · June 2, 2021 · 5 min read

Contents

The two-faced, Janus-like nature proper to the barzakh, its double function of junction and separation in the vertical sense, is expressed on the horizontal plane by the alternations of expansion and concentration. These are obviously so many aspects of the same complementarity. Brought down to an elementary logical expression, these dualities may be represented respectively by affirmation and negation.

The shahada, the doctrinal barzakh par excellence

This brings us to a corresponding application of the formula of the shahada: la ilaha illa’Llah (‘there is no divinity save The Divinity’), which itself may be called the doctrinal barzakh par excellence. The word-for-word translation is as follows: la = no; ilaha = divinity; in = if and la = no (contracted into illa = save); Allah = The Divinity. According to the Arab grammarians, the name Allah is itself originally composed of the determinative article al and the substantive ilahu (nominative form of ilaha, accusative).

The formula is generally divided into two parts, of which the first, la ilaha, is called an-nafi (the negation) or as-salb (the suppression), and the second part, illa’Llah, is called al-ithbat (the affirmation). But to apply the shahada still more explicitly to the theory of the barzakh, it will be subdivided into three parts: la ilaha, illa and Allah. And to appreciate better the nature of the isthmus illa, which is thus situated between the ‘sea’ of negation (la ilaha) and the ‘sea’ of affirmation (Allah), it will be decomposed into its constitutive elements: the particle in (if), which expresses a condition, and la (no), which expresses a negation.

Now, once it has been understood that the particle in is a conditioned affirmation, since it restores to ilahun (nominative form of ilaha) reality, on condition that this reality be none other than the Reality of Allah, it will be noticed that affirmation and negation are contained in illa in the inverse order with respect to the negation and affirmation that ‘frame’, so to speak, the entire formula.

This reversal is naturally not a simple question of word order, for, as we have just indicated, the particle in is the ‘point of reflection’ for the grace of Allah that extends as far as the illusory ilahun, something one can appreciate by replacing the term ilaha with any positive notion whatsoever: the latter will then be denied inasmuch as it affirms itself, at least illusorily, alongside the ipseity of Allah, and it will be affirmed as soon as it identifies itself essentially or principially with the ipseity of Allah.

On the other hand, the second element of illa, the negative particle la, presents itself in a sense as the ‘point of reflection’ of the first part of the shahada, constituted by the negation la ilaha: the first la of the formula denies the notion of ‘divinity’ expressed by the indeterminate form ilahun, while the second la singularises that same notion in the determinate form Allah (The Divinity), which here symbolises non-comparability, and not determination in the restrictive sense of the term.

The expression illa therefore shows very clearly the two functions of the barzakh, which consist on the one hand in mediation in the ‘ascending’ sense, that is, in the passage from the manifested to the non-manifested, a passage or transformation that always crosses the blind spot of an extinction or a death; and this point is at the same time the point of reversal of the relations.

The shahada shows that these two apparently opposed aspects are integrable within the conception of ‘non-otherness’, a conception that obviously exceeds the domain of reason and that, for that very reason, gives to its expression, the shahada, a certain appearance of pleonasm.

The Universal Man, the barzakh par excellence

The different aspects of the barzakh are represented, moreover, in the tracing of the seal of Solomon, and this brings us to consider the relation of the barzakh with the ‘Universal Man’ (al-insan al-kamil) who, expressing the constitutive analogy of microcosm and macrocosm, is indeed the barzakh par excellence, or, which comes to the same, the symbol par excellence.

The Universal Man, in Islam, is Muhammadun, who comprises within him the whole of hamd, the positive aspect of existence. The most essential names of the Prophet of Islam are: ’Abd Allah, ‘servant of Allah’; Ahmadun, ‘the best of those who glorify’; Muhammadun, ‘the best of the glorified’. Ahmadun is regarded as the esoteric aspect of Muhammadun.

The role of barzakh of Muhammadun is expressed by the second of the two shahada: Muhammadun rasulu’Llah, ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’. When the two fundamental formulas are compared, la ilaha illa’Llah and Muhammadun rasulu’Llah, it is to be remarked that, in the first, the barzakh appears above all under its transforming aspect (illa = save), and, in the second, under its aspect of mediator and preserver (rasul = messenger).

Let us mention finally, after these considerations, a Sufi interpretation of the verse of the sura ar-Rahman: ‘He produces the two seas which meet and, between the two, there is an isthmus (barzakh) which they do not transgress’ (Qur’an LV, 19-20). The interpretation in question relates to the Universal Man and consists in the affirmation that the Prophet is the ‘isthmus’, and that the ‘two seas’ are respectively sayyidina ’Ali, the esoteric khalifa (lieutenant) par excellence, and sayyidatina Fatima, daughter of the Prophet, wife of ’Ali, and regarded by Tradition as the perfect woman.

By Titus Burckhardt.

Work by the artist Adam Williamson