|
This article was posted in Response
to Lyisum in The
Society For Islamic Humanists (message #1616)
By Owl777
We have to emphasise that the quest for God has nothing
to do with politics or the establishment of an
"Islamic state". Once we have clarified that the
spiritual quest is unrelated to legislation, punishment,
war etc we transfer responsibility for such misconduct to
the state and the individuals who serve it. The Sufi's
concern is with perfecting himself as a human being.
The barbarism of the Saudis is a cultural peculiarity of
the Wahabbi sect. The scurrilous conduct of Pakistani
mullahs is a cultural peculiarity of people who have
attained power and influence through manipulating mobs -
unfortunately, that is the quick road to power in the
Indian subcontinent, as politicians with club-wielding
hooligans behind them have to be appeased somehow.
The true Moslem is at peace and at ease in a secular state
that does not hamper his right to be a Moslem in private.
The true Moslem has passed beyond the desire to make an
outward show of piety; unlike the zealous converts in the
American ghetto, he can study, work and practice his faith
quietly and unobtrusively, giving offence to none and
being offended by none. The Koran may allow four wives;
the Sufi smiles and kisses the Koran, but never takes more
than one. The Koran may prescribe a physical pilgrimage to
a rock in the desert, an act which emphasises the unity
and strength of the umma; the Sufi makes the pilgrimage
inwardly, as God resides in his heart and not in a
meteorite. The Sufi sees beyond the veils. He does not
"prove the fundamentalists wrong" by opposing
them politically but by educating himself and other
Moslems in the spiritual quest. Islamic doctrine may
consider women inferior to men; the Sufi smiles and swears
he accepts Islamic doctrine, but values all human beings
equally. The Sufi shows a better way through his own life.
And do not imagine this method to be ineffectual; Sufism
was very solidly established throughout the Ottoman
domains, and this accounts for the vastly more liberal,
tolerant and enlightened attitudes of Turkish Moslems over
the benighted tyrants of the Saudi kingdom.
You won't have any success in overturning the Saudi and
Pakistani governments by any direct opposition to Islam
based on discrediting the Koran. People do not choose
ideology because of what it says about external realities
but because it defines their perception of who they are -
and such perceptions die very hard. Far better to work
within the ideology and show that the truest and highest
expression of what they value in religion lies on the path
of love, not tyranny.
You write:
< selecting some aspects of Islam and rejecting some
other aspects, is not the question of interpretation of
Islam but the question of choice. That means we are
subjecting the aspects of religion to our critical
reasoning and judging it against some thing ‘out side
‘ of Islam.>
Let's look at this carefully. If by "Islam" we
mean the basic doctrinal texts, then yes, it is a matter
of choosing. It is our duty to choose, to evaluate, to be
very sure we are not following any doctrine that clashes
with our conscience. Assuming one doesn't force one's
conscience to conform to what someone else has written.
Here I would simply repeat the words of Edward Browne: For
he is gentle who is wise, and from his brother's failings
averts his eyes.
Are we subjecting the doctrine to "critical
reasoning"? Not really; it isn't reason but
conscience that is operative here. Is this outside Islam?
Well, it isn't outside God, and that's what matters; if
Islam is submission to God, it is mandatory to listen to
your conscience, or what the ancient Persians called the
"good mind" (Vohu Mana).
As for your third category of people, are they really
labelled apostates? Sufis can show how all their beliefs
are rooted in the mystical insights of the Koran (these
insights are not necessarily unique to the Koran, nor were
they necessarily expressed there for the first time). They
assert the aspects of the Koran that are beneficial to
their spiritual development; they do not explicitly reject
anything in the Koran or Sunnah, they don't need to. I am
not aware of any systematic persecution of Sufis by
Islamic governments today (if I'm wrong, please let me
know).
You write: <To break the myth that it is perfect, it is
necessary to show what is wrong in the Quran and what is
wrong in the values taught by the Prophet.> I disagree
that it need be done this way. The Koran would not have
become the world's most influential book if it did not
contain mystical truths. When I read the Bible I reject
entirely the horrendous mishmash of racism, tribalism,
anthropomorphism and moral relativism in Genesis and
Exodus; but I recognise with utter certainty the truth
expressed in the commandments to love thy God and love thy
neighbour. Is it necessary to show Christians the evil and
falsity of the story of the Flood? Does it affect their
absorption of Christian values?
You raise interesting questions about mysticism, which I
will try to address in other postings. Specifically,
mysticism is a quest that makes use of religions as a
tool, but always goes beyond the limits of religion and is
always and everywhere in search of the same goal. Moslem
Sufis and mystics of other faiths are merely climbing the
mountain by different paths. For each, the summit is the
knowledge of the inmost Self, or union with God.
|
