i doubt khayyam, this medieval bolshevique and epicurean, contributed much to religious practice. he mostly ridiculed religion. practical philosophy, yes. popular wisdom, sure. but religion-wise… hmmm.
-----

Yes - hence the quote!

then why not quote something better, like Junayd al-Baghdadi.

For another quote as requested by Andrew and as an antidote to all this politicking this is one of my recent favourites from the dar-al-masnawi.org site.

How much longer will you travel backwards? Don’t go into
unbelief and denial, (but) come to [true] religion!

See the sweet drink within the poison (and) come to the
poison!

Come, at last, to the Source of the source of your own self!

Even though you are of the earth in form, still, you are the [fine
spiritual] thread (made) of the (very) substance of Certainty.

You are the trusted (guardian) of the treasury of the Light of God.
Come, at last, to the Source of the source of your own self!

Know that when you have bound yourself to selflessness, you will
escape from (attachment to) self-ness.

And (then) you will leap away from the bonds of a thousand traps.
Come, at last, to the Source of the source of your own self!

You were born from the generations of (Adam who was) an
appointed Deputy (of God), (yet) you have opened an eye to this base world.

How sad that you are happy with (only) this amount for yourself!
Come, at last, to the Source of the source of your own self!

Although you are the protecting spell (which guards the treasures)
of this world, you are a Mine [of Heavenly Jewels] within yourself.

Open (your) two hidden eyes.

Come, at last, to the Source of the source of your own self!

Since you have been born from the ray of the Majesty (of God) and
you are (born) with a fortunate rising (sign)of good omen,

How much longer will you groan and wail about every
non-existent (worldly thing)?

Come, at last, to the Source of the source of your own self!

You are a ruby in the middle of a granite rock. How much longer
will you deceive us?

(The truth) is apparent within your eyes, O friend. Come, at last, to
the Source of the source of your own self!

When you came from the side of that proud beloved, you came
(in a) drunken, kind, and heart-attracted (state).

You (also) came with joyous eyes and full of the fire [of love].

Come, at last, to the Source of the source of your own self!

Shams-i Tabrîz, the king and cupbearer, has been holding the
cup of everlasting (life) before you.

Glory be to God! What excellent pure ("wine")!

Come, at last, to the Source of the source of your own self!

--From The Dîwân-é Kabîr (also known as “Kulliyat-é Shams” and
“Dîwân-é Shams-é Tabrîz") of Jalaluddin Rumi.
Translated from the Persian by Ibrahim Gamard, 4/19/03
© Ibrahim Gamard (translation, footnotes, & transliteration)

Segovius, how do you square that lovely quote from Ibn Arabi with Mohammad’s destruction of the idols of earlier faiths? Surely Mo himself was failing to “recognise God in every form and every object of faith”. This is what I perceive as the root and primary intolerance of Islam, from the very start and as embodied in the very behaviour of its founder. This intolerance didn’t come years or centuries later, it did come from Day 1.

Just for the record, I do not hold that “Islam is synonymous with extremism” because that statement, taken out of context, may or may not be true or appropriate. I certainly don’t agree with any implication that Islam is alone in its extremism. I would agree that today, in our times, Islam is the most evident and dangerous form of extremism around.

In Rumi’s day, for example, Islam stood for civilization and was a bulwark against the Mongols’ empire-building fanaticism. Even 10 years ago, the Irish and Basque forms of terrorism took centre stage. Evangelical Christianity is fanatical and extremist but it doesn’t have a hold on such a large mass of the faithful and its violent expressions are relatively few.

In any case, it isn’t an innate “extremism” that I hold against Islam today. The essential difference in our views is that I can see and understand how today’s “extremist” Islam is quite logically, even unavoidably and rationally, derived from Islam’s core literature, even if you restrict it to the Quran alone. As far as I can make it all out, I totally agree with the extremists that they are reading the Quran correctly and that the so-called “moderate” Muslims and fairy tale believing Sufis have got Islam all wrong. I agree with them based on my reading of their views, on my reading of the Quran, and on my reading of people like yourself who strongly oppose them. (I do also have face-to-face experience of Muslims, mostly on tippy-toes. When I’ve attempted a flat-footed gait, I’ve come away terrified and, I remain certain, with very good reason.)

You bring up the story around ijtihad or “independent thinking” and its decline after the Mutazilites were defeated. My own reading of this bit of Islamic history suggests that the Mutazilites were rightly defeated and expelled because they were insisting that their own point of view be imposed on the masses. Popular uprisings ensued and a backlash against the Mutazilites and therefore against rational thinking followed. Revelation and its implications became the only criterion of truth.

I agree with you that Sufis like Kayyam and Rumi held both reason and revelation to be legitimate aspects of the path to truth. However, the fact is that Islam from the outset and ever since has favoured autocratic rule both at the social and legal levels and at the level of belief or “point of view”. The Quranic verse against “compulsion in religion” is a joke when placed against the destruction of idols, the persecution of polytheists and the massacre even of “people of the book”, such as the Banu Quraydhah Jews. Just because Mo once held a tolerant thought doesn’t mean he always believed so or acted on such a belief.

I agree with you that religious cults start with a teacher/founder who is not necessarily interested in starting a religion at all. The Buddha had the insight to appoint a successor, as he did foresee a cult and tried his best to prevent the worst excesses. In modern times, Jung did the same by reluctantly agreeing to oversee the formation of The Jung Institute for training future analysts. I believe Rumi also assisted his son in a similar endeavour.

Some have traced current Islam, not to its supposed founder but to Uthman, who ordered the compilation of the final version of the Quran. There may be some truth in that although empire-building tendencies were also evident in Mo’s life (unless the ahadith are also fabrications).

Christianity is different here and you have not shown any recognition of that in your analyis so far concerning the “deterioration” of religions. Jesus died on the cross (which Islam pettily denies) but Christ lives on. That is, the Christian does not need access to a living religious teacher. He can make do with the inner guru or “Christ within”. The Sufis were quite aware of this, but I’ve seen nothing like it in mainstream Islam. Where is there any equivalent to Jeanne d’Arc who acted on her own visions of saints in defiance of priestly interpretations? She did genuinely put revelation first: her own and nothing second-hand. Now that’s true ijtihad and in Islam, it died with Mo if it ever lived at all. (OK, except maybe for Al-Hallaj, yet another Sufi.)

The decline of Islamic civilization has been put down to this rejection of ijtihad but I don’t find that convincing. A different analysis says that Islamic civilization was based on theft, starting with the first caravan that Mo and his gang overran. If you steal a garden, you have a fine garden for a few years. If you coerce the gardener, you can keep it up for a few years more. But, sooner or later, you will have stifled the culture that knew how to create and maintain such a garden. Sooner or later, the garden will die. You can’t make a true civilization using the Islamic creed as a base. You can steal one, lord over it for a while, and then watch it die. That’s all.

All of this is only now gradually dawning on those poor Muslims who still believe in their Santa Claus Allah despite His smothering them in Hajj stampedes and drowning them from ferry boats home.

... sheesh, gotta stop, leave it there for now ...

judging pre-humanistic era by some unesco heritage site standards, eh?

Dear Arizona

It was a tradition of the Prophet that first you start with a greeting . So Peace be on you. I admire your tenacity. Once you get started there’s no stopping you is there? Actually consider Western values a greater threat to the planet Earth although more insidious. It was also America that started by napalming Vietnam and the only country so far to use Nuclear weapons in a war. Collateral damage has become a stock euphemism. God told President Bush to invade Iraq. Its cultural blindness that makes us see our own positions as “right” and other people positions as “wrong”. Landmines banned but cluster bombs OK? One could go on for hours in this vein just as you no doubt could go on for hours about Islam and the Koran.

slightly off-topic
cultural/ethnic stereotypes broken and intact - quick case study

intact (english feminist):
an acquaintance of mine, a talented linguist and a fluent speaker of 7 languages told me there’s no way she would ever want to learn arabic, quite simply because ‘a culture which allows women to be treated in that way‘ doesn’t deserve her attention.

confused ([gay] magreb lawyer from paris)
a liberal magreb lawyer from paris (who also happens to be ‘gay’ told me once that anybody in the west wishing ill to israel must be out of their mind.

completely broken (american zionist feminist chose islam)
yet this very emancipated american jewish woman (sister of a friend), raised in a rural zionist family, chose to work in egypt full time as a red crescent nurse, and has no wish whatsoever to visit israel (’those jews...’

go figure after that…

Dear Paul Lerner,

Thank you for your admiration of my tenacity. I would agree that cultural blindness “makes us see our own positions as “right” and other people positions as “wrong”” or, put in other words, as other people’s faith as “incurring Allah’s wrath” or “going astray” (see Fatiha). The Quran is a great book for studying, acquiring and cementing cultural and religious blindness.

I do what little I can to clear the smoke away.

First of all, I’d like to say that I really enjoy the blogs. So, thank you.

Second of all, in responding to some posts above, please allow me to copy this verse from the Quran, about the concept of salvation in the Quran:

“VERILY, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians* -all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve.” QS 2:62

The concept of “salvation” in “Islam” (literally means submission) requires only three things: believe in God, and the last day, and do good deeds (regardless of religion). So far that is the only Holy Book I found (I read several Holy books from other faiths) that recognizes and actually accepts other faiths. Please, try to find the same kind of “tolerancy to other faiths” in other (instituzionalized) religions and maybe we can all understand where those extrimists have gone “astray”.

peace,
Matahari (please excuse my English, it is not my native language)

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. 

1. [3.67] Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.

i.e. in theory both christians and jews are basically seen as naughty kids who should come back to the true faith of their common forefather.

so, i’d be cautious there. in case anybody out there thinks this is really the religion of peace, they should have a chat with the Greeks, Copts, Syrians, Armenians and any other Eastern Christian people who’ve lived under Muslim rule. they’ll tell you it’s all a lie. islam even has a word for non-Muslim second-class citizens in Muslim-run societies. it’s called Dhimmi - if you don’t know it, google it.

Don’t understand this passage.  Can you clarify?

“… the view of Sufism is an extension of a mental construct which may or may not have a relation to reality ...”

To continue:

“I think anyone who works towards harmony rather than division, and certainly anyone with a grasp of Islamic spirituality and history, will understand we are singing from the same hymn-sheet here.”

In general, working “toward harmony” is all very nice, but how one defines that depends on what side of the door you’re on.  “Harmony” may not necessarily serve understanding or truth in many situations. Plus, what some may say is harmony is appeasement to others.

“Having said that, we can move to my main theme: Sufism. Some people today - those who find Islam unpalatable ... somehow allow themselves to ‘accept’ Sufism. As if Sufism could find a home within a context that was anti-Sufi. Sure, Sufism can exist without Islam - I do not deny that. Sufism is (imo) the essence of religion and many other things and it can manifest itself wherever there is good.”

What do you mean by “sufism not finding a home in an anti-sufi context?”
This is not clear to me.  How are you viewing it—as a movement or a club?  As for sufism “manifesting”, the Work exists regardless of conditions.  It is only perceived by those who have developed beyond a certain point, i.e. those no longer “veiled.”

“But that is the point, those who accept Sufism (or the mystical esoteric tradition of any other religion), if they see the outer shell religion as ‘wrong’, ...”

Not “wrong.” More that it is irrelevant, in that it is a shell.

“...are essentially implicitly claiming that Sufism or an esoteric path can take root in something opposed to it. This is not the case. “

Not so sure I’d agree at all, but your position here is not clear. 

“A seed will not prosper in barren ground and an organisation such as the Nazi party, (say) could never have an inner developmental core. It doesn’t work like that.”

Any experience or situation in the world carries the possibility of conveying higher development.  This all depends on the individual and his readiness.  If the entire world was under Nazi domination, sufis could still work within that framework and the transmission would continue.  This relates to knowing the difference between “the container and the content.”

“So in one sense the religions are a deterioration of something higher. But that does not invalidate them. It just means they are less than they could be, less than they were, and that there is more to be gained than can be found in them. “

Invalidate them as to what exactly?  Higher development?  Having somewhere to go once a week?  As for “gaining more”, this will not come through any religious form.  A shell is a shell. 

“But that does not invalidate them - for some people they are a help. “

Yes, but the same can be said about knitting, watching Oprah, or many other pasttimes.

“So in what sense are they ‘wrong’? And how is the inner mystical core ‘right’?”

I think the “right/wrong” view is off the mark here.

“The tradition was called ijtihad and basically it was the practice of critical philosophical thinking (something the west is in dire need of today). greatest yet known and the basis in a large part for our current western one… This led to the closed situation we have in Islam today. But so what? What does this prove?”

Isn’t that one of the foundations of establishing a brainwashed state, and setting up a vicious circle of ensuring people NOT thinking for themselves?

“what do the Sufis say? No Sufi I have ever read, met or heard quoted has ever denied religion - and certainly not Islam.”

Don’t know what you mean by “deny”.  However, when some sufis asserted that sufism existed before Islam or that sufi students don’t have to become Muslims, they’ve been denounced and their books burnt in many Islamic circles.  As for religion, the latter keeps people busy and many sufis were happy to not have some sorts bothering them. Like the story of the sufi who puts the bright reading lamp down the road to attract the insects so he can read in peace.

“ Quite the contrary - Sufism teaches that all religions are one and that Sufism (or the thing original stream of which Sufism is a manifestation) is the inner essence of all of them.”

To clarify, all religions originally started (past tense) from the original higher impulse.

“That is not to say that things do not deteriorate - everything must (’everything passes away except the face of Allah’) - even Sufism. Many Sufi orders are today a text-book example of this. “

Yes, but then that which has lost contact with the source is no longer the sufi work or “sufism”.  It is “the name without the reality”.

“there perception was purely a ‘mystical’ (in the corrupted sense) one and they utilized motifs which were originally genuinely Sufic but twisted out of all recognition. This is an example of decay - does that mean Sufism is ‘wrong’ or ‘evil’.”

Can you elaborate?  Which motifs of the hijackers were sufic?

“And here we come to the rub: development and esotericism has always been about seeing the reality behind appearances. .. Waking up.”

Yes, but to a higher reality.

“Conversely, ‘the world’ has always been about perpetuating the illusion - about keeping people asleep, and it is the same today as it ever was. “

One can say that certain governments or leaders aim to keep people asleep or pre-occupied.  If you’re speaking of spiritual matters, the world does not keep one asleep at all.  It is the default condition of man which simply prevails and blocks higher perceptions.

“In fact, this is why we have a fundamentalist problem. The fundamentalists (on all sides) are just another symptom and in no way a cause. “

I think they’re more a symptom of brainwashing, limited education, and lack of outlets for a balanced life than any downward trends in the rest of civilization.

“Well, ok. Fair enough. But to fight arson with arson you need to be an arsonist. It really is that simple. Birds of a feather.”

In many fire zones, though, controlled new fires help stop the spread of a wildfire from encroaching any further.  Containment for the present and preventitive measures for the future are standard in any fire hazard zones.

thank you segovius for continuing to rant. i have been ranting as well (constantly) and i hope enough people continue to rant so that people hear and think about what is going on and has gone on and are compelled to wake up from their stupor. its a bleak horizon and i am desperately trying to convince myself that drops can someday impact the ocean.

by the way Segovius, are you familiar with the book “Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism” compiled by Omid Safi, a Sufi Scholar? i am currently reading it and its a breath of fresh air. it is one of those books that really needs to be read and discussed. do take a peek at it if you have not done so thus far. would very much like to hear what you think of it.

In my rant above, I steered clear of the questions that RJ is addressing. It’s good to see him/her seeking further clarification.

I see “the work” more from a gnostic angle. That is, Sufism is the gnosticism that grew out of Islam. It took its colour from Islam but doesn’t depend on any specific Islamic forms or doctrines. Maybe the lower-case “sufism” can be used to distinguish authentic Islamic gnosis from the mere shell that Sufism can become. A similar idea is being tried among gnostics where “gnosticism” is generic and “Gnosticism” refers to the form it took in the early Christian communities.

RJ, you use the idea of an “original higher impulse” as what starts a religion going and a “lost contact with the source” as what leads to its deterioration. It seems simpler to me to say that religious leaders hear a call from God. I can see in the Buddha and in Jesus how they then try to encourage their fellows to hear likewise. I can’t see that in Mohammad. I see him (or his followers) as discouraging direct communion with God, as putting his specific conception (especially as it is concretized in a book) between an ordinary fellow and God. I see someone like Rumi as trying to undo that damage by letting God be revealed through the deeper layers of meaning in his simple verses and tales.

I totally agree with you that sufism would continue, even under Nazi world domination. Many have likened Islamo-fascism to Nazism, so history effectively shows not only that it can be done but that it has been done. What human form of government, after all, can stifle God’s voice? There is, nevertheless, a great value in the struggle to improve human government so that it allows for easier listening and less painful punishment when the hearing has uncomfortable consequences.

Dear Brother Andrew,

I wonder if you speak/understand Arabic? If you do, please check again the verse 5:51 the word “awliya” that you trasnslated as “friend”. Your “awliya” is supposed to be only God.

In the verse about Ibrahim, you might as well check the word “muslim”. It is now used as a term for religion, but it refers to a condition of a person (one who submit). As Hasan of Basra said when he was asked about “Islam” and “muslim”, he said “Islam is in the book, muslims are in tombs.”

Prophet Muhammad said “A real submitter ("muslim") is one from whose hands and tounge humanity is safe.” Are those countries really “muslim” countries? No, regardless what they think they are. I personally never seen a muslim in my whole life. A lot of people that think (or people think) they are christian, Jew, etc don’t look like they really are either. A sufi (I forgot who) said that we, people of the world is “a lantern of imaginings, and in a lamp.”

May peace be with you all.
Matahari

Matahari,

i am Arabic-illiterate, so every contribution from a Koranic expert will be more than welcome!

my only concern is that Palmer translates it as ‘patrons’ and Pickthall as ‘friends’. Recent Oxford translation by Abdel Haleem says ‘allies’ (adding: ‘God does not guide such wrongdoers’). A footnote to that specific passage says: ie those who are against the Muslim camp (sic!), as is clear from the following verses up to 59. ‘Do not turn to them as allies in preference to the Muslims’ (see 4:144). Ayat 54 (You who believe, if any of you go back on your faith), a footnote says: What is intended in this context is ‘by taking them as allies’.

so, i guess we might want to debate that with Abdel Haleem.

al-Basri is an interesting figure for this liberal debate, since he was the one who advocated election process for the Umayyad caliph, as opposed to hereditary caliphate.

it is disputable whether there is such thing as muslim statehood, just as with christian statehood. all statecraft has to be pragmatic, and there’s no denying pragmatism to medieval civilization without the risk of progressive myopia.

Matahari: I forgot to welcome you to the blog - so hi! Hope you continue to contribute.

Sufizen: not familiar with Omid Safi but thanks for the tip - will do some digging around later today and report back.

further on the use of wali/awliya (from Abdel-Haleem transl. this time):

[9:71] The believers, both men and women, support each other [lit.: awliya to each other]; they order what is right and forbid what is wrong

ie (as far as i can see) any human being deserving my loyalty can be my wali.

so, in this light let’s consider 5:51 again:

[5:51] Anyone who takes them as an ally (or confidant, patron, protector, all that wali encompasses) becomes one of them—God does not guide such wrongdoers .

now, here’s one essay by one David Dakake of Islamic Research Institute (Washington, D.C.), where he calls the above reading a ‘misappropriation of Quranic Verses’.

his main objection to such confrontational reading resides in narrowing it down to the “existential situation of the Muslims at this time in Arabia” (further read suggested on there is: Combating the Myth of a Militant Islam, Militant Islam in the Light of Tradition:  Essays by Western Muslim Scholars).

and i’d love to believe these western muslim scholars. only problem is: when i think of islam not just as a ‘private devotion’ or a funny club, but a way of living for entire communities or even nations, a question arises: if we want a whole large community to be faith-based, we certainly would need to filter out the aliens to protect our whole belief-system, which is our livelihood after all.

i doubt to any muslim “existential situation of the Muslims at this time in postmodernity” is any less alarming than that in early medieval Arabia. correct me if i am wrong.

Dear Arizona

Have come across three sayings of the Prophet Mohammed from a book by Bulent Rauf called Addresses. As I am not a scholar of hadith cannot say where they are from exactly but here they are

One moment of meditation is more beneficial than a year of (devotional) prayer.

One moment of meditation is more beneficial than seventy years of (devotional) prayer

One moment of meditation is more beneficial than a thousand years of (devotional) prayer.

This rather seems to suggest that your thesis of the Prophet discouraging direct communion may not be correct.

Kind regards

Paul

Paul, it’s quite plausible that Mohammad said those things or something similar. It doesn’t follow that the religion based on his life and teachings does so. The emphasis in Islam is clearly on devotional prayer although this can itself be a genuine call to God and a genuine listening, especially when done alone at home on one’s prayer mat. It’s harder to hear the divine silence when surrounded by hundreds or thousands of praying Muslims in a Mosque.

Segovius, thank you for your warm welcome. Btw, reading again the last paragraph of your article, reminded me of the quote I mentioned before about “man of earth is a lantern of imaginings and inside a lamp.” It was a quote from Omar Khayyam.

Arizona, it is interesting to note that the first 5 verses of the Quran sent down to Prophet Muhammad was not a command for prayer, but to “read”. It was said that Gabriel asked the frightened Muhammad 3 times, “Iqra!” (read), which he answered “I cannot read”, 3 times. Gabriel then recite the first 5 verses of the Quran (QS 96.1):

(96.1] Read in the name of your Lord Who created.
[96.2] He created man from a clot.
[96.3] Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,
[96.4] Who taught with the pen
[96.5] Taught man what he knew not.

Thus, seeking knowledge is the highest “duty” to (become) a “muslim”, to “read reality”.  In “tassawuf”, “Islamic” inner tradition like those of the sufis, prayer without knowledge is meaningless. God knows best.

peace,
Tika

Dear Andrew,
I don’t know why I didn’t see your posts until just now.

I am by no means an expert; please forgive me if I gave you the wrong impression. I still have a lot to learn, and I am not an Arabic native speaker either. But maybe I am a bit familiar with some words because it is commonly use in our culture. I compared several translations, too and the word “patron” or “protector” or “guardian” probably more relevant to the context. Probably it is easier when we compare the verse (5:51) with other verses that use the exact same word(s) : al-waliy (single form) and awliya (plural form) :

QS Asy-Syuura (chapter 42), there are several verses in this chapter that use the words awliya and al-waliy:

42:6. Now those who take aught beside Him for their protectors/guardians (awliya) - God watches them, and thou art not responsible for their conduct

42:9. Did they, perchance, [think that they could] choose protectors/guardians (awliya) other than Him? But God alone is the Protector/Guardian (al waliy) since it is He alone who brings the dead to life, and He alone who has the power to will anything.

42:28. And it is He who sends down rain after [men] have lost all hope, and unfolds His grace [thereby) for He alone is [their] Protector/Guardian (al waliy), the One to whom all praise is due.

Actually if you continue reading the 5:51, it becomes clearer why:
[5.55] Only God is your Wali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.
[5.56] And whoever takes God and His apostle and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant.
[5.57] O you who believe! do not take for guardians those who take your religion for a mockery and a joke, from among those who were given the Book before you and the unbelievers; and be careful of (your duty to) God if you are believers.

So, you are not supposed to take those “who take your religion for a mockery and a joke” as guardians. Take only God, His Prophet and those who believe and bow (to God). The problem is, the Prophet is dead and real “submitters” are almost impossible to find. Well, maybe the Sufis, but God knows how to find them . So, in this case, God alone is the Wali.

A wali is somebody you can trust who will protect you, will always take care of you and will do you no harm. That’s why, when a muslim girl get married, her “wali” is her own father, or her brother if her father is dead, or her uncle, or her grandfather, etc. Somebody who will take care of her in case something bad happen. The groom, will say his “oath” (to take care of her, etc) to her wali. When she can’t trust anybody, then God is her Wali.

God knows best.

Peace,
Matahari

Matahari, thank you for those first 5 verses of the Quran. It isn’t clear to me what point you’re trying to make. Perhaps someone else has understood and can translate it into more lucid English.

Andrew, I would agree with you that David Dakake is himself misreading the Quranic verses. He says of verse 9:5 that:
“Contrary to what may be thought from a literal reading of this translation, this verse is not a kind of carte blanche to attack any and all non-Muslim peoples. Here again the issue of historical context is so crucial for understanding.”
He’s wrong. It is indeed a carte blanche. After all, it is central to Muslim belief that these verses were from God, and not humanly written, dictated or recited. When Mohammad recited them he was merely repeating what God had said, not inventing something of his own. (As a non-Muslim I can believe it was all of Mo’s own invention, but as a Muslim you must believe it was God alone.)

Since God’s word is eternal and outside ordinary time, any of these verses must apply for always and not just to some spurious “historical context” as Dakake would have us believe.

I fully agree with the theological logic of Usama bin Ladin: This verse is perfectly applicable to today, as it was to yesterday and will be to tomorrow. It gives full divine justification for killing any non-Muslim for even Jews and Christians are worshipping “their” and therefore a different God, thereby maintaining a multiplicity of Gods to worship.

All the “good” and “moderate” Muslims are simply hiding their heads in the sand. It is the likes of bin Ladin who see Islam clearly.

This is why I believe that every Muslim is an extremist. It simply goes with the territory.

Arizona, please excuse my English. I was refering to your post “the emphasis in Islam is clearly on devotional prayer” and I was simply trying to show you that seeking knowledge in Islam is more important than prayer. But I see that you are not ready to be shown other than what you believe anyway. So I’ll refrain and may peace be with you.

Matahari

>every Muslim is an extremist. It simply goes with the territory.

almost every Muslim

i do think it’s possible to concoct some pacifist, ahimsa version of islam, largely aesthetic and elitist. same point already made by edward said in orientalism.

Arizona,
I was referring to your post “emphasis of Islam is clearly on devotional prayer” and I was simply traying to show you that in Islam, seeking knowlege in more important than prayer.

>I believe that every Muslim is an extremist>

Your “belief” is a bit extreme, too , but I am amazed that you can recognize a “muslim” (those from whose hands and tongue mandkind is safe). You must have quite extraordinary perception. I have been looking for “a muslim” myself but so far I haven’t found one yet.

peace,
Matahari

Apologies to those people whose comments were held up in limbo - I’d installed the Islamobasher detector plug-in but I think it was configured it a bit too aggressively. :D

Have de-installed it now - in the interests of free speech.

Dear Arizona and Andrew

Ditto what Matahari has said.

This is what Arizona originally asked

Does anyone know of a good (or better) forum where these issues are debated? Maybe we all fall into dogmatic traps because every forum I’ve tried has been either intransigently pro-Islam or intransigently con-Islam. Where is the middle ground?

Feel that many of the comments on this site from Segovius, myself and Matahari have represented the middle-ground. Would you agree? Its not that we don’t recognise the existence of extremist interpretations of Islam we just don’t make them ourselves and are aware of many others both throughout history and now who don’t do so.

With Best Wishes

Paul

Apolgies posted twice once under free speech by mistake

Re forums: it all depends on the definition of ‘better’ but I think you are right - there is mostly ‘pro’ or ‘con’.

However, I think that in forums that have nothing to do with metaphysics or ‘spirituality’ one finds often that things are more reasonable and balanced. This is unfortunately true of people also all too often.

I think Idries Shah once said something to the effect of “Sufis feel they can connect best with people with no history of, or interest in, metaphysical and spiritual matters’.

Btw, I went to the forum suggested by Arizona and posted but it had a peculiar ‘smell’ and was not to my personal taste. Perhaps this is ‘better’ from some points of view - each to his own. It’s all relative really isn’t it?

It all really boils down to something quite simple: certain people have a need to equate Islam with extremism and as such will not assimilate data that does not support this view (and conversely twist all available data to fit it).

Personally, I am not at all interested in this viewpoint one way or another - though obviously people have the right to hold such views (they may even be correct though I do not personally believe so) - what I find fascinating is the question: why? Why do they psychologically need to take this position?

I think it has to do with conceptions of the ‘other’. And is possibly rooted in fear. For example during the IRA terrorist bombing campaign in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s on London and Brighton - which I lived through and experienced first-hand on several occasions - no-one ever said that the terrorists were ‘Christians’.

And that is a stage before where we are now with Islamic extremism - for example, if they had been labeled as ‘Christian terrorists’ it would be one further remove to actually extrapolate from this that all Christians were terrorists (or perhaps all Catholics - you could then extrapolate again to Christians as a whole).

None of this happened? Why? Because it wouldn’t wash - no-one would buy it because it is part of our culture - we know Christianity so well and it is not ‘the other’. So it would be pointless to try.

Everyone knows that Christianity is not extremist. It is our culture.

It follows then that things which are not our culture when subject to similar extremist tendencies, can - by accident or design - be interpreted as being inherently extreme.

There is no problem with this - it is natural. After all, if you know nothing about a culture or religion (and there has been a ‘bad press’ then this is normal.

Luckily there are always people who point out the errors or factuality in such things (and there are always both) and this process really sorts out the sheep from the goats: you get a division which is very informative. Essentially you have reduced things to the lowest common denominator which is:

1) People who are interested in deepening their knowledge and move on to a study and appraisal of the facts as they really are.

2) People who have an agenda (for whatever reason - it never matters much) and who refuse to acknowledge these facts or adjust their opinions on the light of them.

3) Extremists (a slightly different category then the above) who are ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing who wish to push an extreme agenda (never explicit) through the means of ‘debate’.

4) Those who are not interested.

It is always useful to see things for what they are and not take the apparent outward form as representing the inner reality. Discussions like this offer that possibility - perhaps that is their only value. I have yet to see someone actually learn a new fact and admit they were wrong about a certain thing or describe how they adjusted their thinking ion such situations.

Shame really - the possibilities of the medium are immense. One could almost think it is being deliberately (and temporarily) being blocked.

>>It’s all relative really isn’t it?>>

Agreed. What we “think” we “know” is only relative truth.

>>we know Christianity so well and it is not ‘the other’. Everyone knows that Christianity is not extremist. It is our culture.>>

Really? What is Christianity? Maybe your concept of Christianity differs significantly than Paul’s, Andrew’s, Arizona’s or mine (I have to admit that I am ignorant of this kind of “objective truth”). When I think of “Christianity”, I refer it to a total submission of the teaching of Jesus. Does it represent what we see now as “western values/culture”? That I am not so sure….Is what I think as “Christianity” really “true Christianity”? That I do not know….

It is hard to judge a “culture”. One of my friend when I was in college (in USA) discussed about the condition of “repressed” women in Saudi Arabia where they can’t even drive, etc and mentioned it as “Islamic culture”.

I said “Do you know at this very moment, in Indonesia, a so called “Muslim country”, the President is a woman? It is a very young country, only have 5 presidents so far, you guys have more than 50 presidents, how many are they are women? Did you know the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Bangladesh and Vice President of Iran, were also women? Please do not confuse Arabic/Middle Eastern culture with Islamic culture. It is easier to criticize anything other than your own self. Please observe our own backyard before observing others. The Amish community in Pennsylvania and Illinois, don’t drive, not only women, but the whole community. They don’t use telephone, tv, camera, etc, at least those women in Saudi are free to watch tv or use internet. But the Amish, who really believe they are true Christian, don’t even allow themselves to use light bulb. Is that a Christian culture?”

Funny that I’ve never heard people labeled the Amish as “extremists”. They are more extreme than Taliban! lol.

We all only think that we know, but thinking/believing/imagining is not the same as knowing….

peace,
Matahari

Off topic: why posts sometimes appear and sometimes dissapear? Apologies if I sent sort of double posts. Not sure if the first one went through...Right now I can’t see any of my posts.

peace,
Matahari

to Andrew, Paul, Segovius, Matahari:

I think I should clarify an aspect of my viewpoint.

I don’t actually view Muslim “extremists” as true extremists. In my view, they understand the premises of Islam and have simply drawn rational conclusions from them. In a way, they are true Centralists. They are sticking to what Islam asserts and they are avoiding straying from that straight path.

I don’t agree with their premises but I do agree with their reasoning. Their logic is impeccable and their conclusions inevitable. When they accuse “moderate” Muslims of failing to be true Muslims, of being already essentially apostates, I fully agree with them that this follows from the Quran and from the basic tenets of Islam (that the Quran is God’s word and Mohammad His final prophet).

Those of you who would like to see yourselves as “moderate” or “middle-ground” Muslims are engaging in a logical fallacy, a logical contradiction. You simply cannot be “middle-ground” and a Muslim at one and the same time.

This is the case I would be arguing in an internet debate.

In an open public forum, if I managed to achieve any kind of sizeable audience (whether intentional or not), my life would be in danger. If I approach a Muslim forum, I get the internet version of assassination. I am banned, zapped without warning or notification. Not even the poor Muslims on the forum know I was zapped. They only know I disappeared and many of them think it was simply because I backed out of the debate. *sigh*

Segovius has modified the zapper so that I am “safer” here.

However, this form of discussion will prove unsuitable. Some points were started a couple of blog posts ago and have been taken up and moved from one blog post to the next. Comments drift on endlessly. Forums, at least, break the discussion up into pages. Someone coming in on this discussion would be confused by references to those earlier blog posts and daunted by a long list of comments.

I tried to offer Segovius a debate forum, selected so that I was not a moderator there. Two forum posters entered the thread and said negative things about Islam. Segovius left because of “a peculiar ‘smell’”. The forum is not to his “personal taste”.

Fine, but then tell me where else we can debate? On this comments listing? On a special discussion thread? I don’t think WordPress offers that. You really need a very simple forum template at the very least.

I can re-offer Free2Code but I cannot ban people there from posting what they think. I am a moderator there (on the Religion and Politics forums, not the Debate forum where I started the topic for Segovius) and we never ban people without a long process of warning with explanations. We only delete obvious spam. When people post in an offensive manner, we simply ask them to do better. It’s amazing how often that actually works!

I think some sort of commitment to dialogue is needed here. If it is not the “Sufi way” to debate, please say so and let’s finish with this charade.

Somehow my posts disappeared. Oh well, I hope this one goes through…

>>Those of you who would like to see yourselves as “moderate” or “middle-ground”/ You simply cannot be “middle-ground” and a Muslim at one and the same time.>>

Are you sure? Here is what Quran says (QS 3:147-148 and 31:19)

3:147 and all that they said was this: “O our Sustainer! Forgive us our sins and the lack of moderation in our doings! And make firm our steps, and succour us against people who deny the truth!”

3:148 whereupon God granted them the rewards of this world, as well as the goodliest rewards of the life to come: for God loves the doers of good.

31:19 “And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice; for the harshest of sounds without doubt is the braying of the ass.”

>>This is the case I would be arguing in an internet debate. If it is not the “Sufi way” to debate, please say so and let’s finish with this charade. >>

I am not a Sufi, so I am not sure if I can argue in a most kindly manner (and most lucid English). Thank you. I am just trying to follow what Quran says:

29:46 “And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner - unless it be such of them as are bent on evildoing and say: “We believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you:  our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that We [all] surrender ourselves.”

peace,
Matahari

Arizona: here is my answer to your points. It is more of a ‘wrapping up’ really and a courtesy answer to you. It is unlikely I shall engage in further ‘debate’ on these specific issues and this reply will adequately explain why.

I don’t actually view Muslim “extremists” as true extremists. In my view, they understand the premises of Islam and have simply drawn rational conclusions from them. In a way, they are true Centralists. They are sticking to what Islam asserts and they are avoiding straying from that straight path.

You are entitled to that belief but you are wrong on many levels. All this discussion has been is an attempt to show you that the position is false. It is useless. Nothing can change your view - no fact, no historical record, nothing.

This is fine. Live with it, enjoy it. Though I think you have a problem. Not because you believe this but because you constantly (by your own admission) put yourself in positions where this view will be attacked and/or shown to be false yet steadfastly refuse to adjust. Why not just mix with those of your own kind and have peace and ‘certainty’?

I will also give three examples of why you are wrong. they need no reply and are not necessarily for you. they are just there for whoever is thinking about these things.

1) An experiment occurred in Yemen a while back. You probably won’t have heard of it but this is what happened:

the clerics there challenged the Islamists to a debate with the winner to accept the ideology of the other side.

The extremists believed they could justify their view of Islam from the Qur’an and accepted the challenge. Months later they had all rejected terrorism and problems in Yemen have fallen by 80% plus.

Article here: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23876

2) The quotes from the Qur’an that have been posted here that condemn the extremist viewpoint. Of course you now them already and yes, there are two ‘views’. The point is that you see only one, accept only one and judge by that one. And then claim it is the only one.

3) The whole history of Islam vs extremists.

The extremist Almoravides who eventually ended 600 years of Jewish/Christian/Muslim harmony (Dhimmitude to you). The Shi’i/Sunni divide early on. The Sufi vs literalist issue.

All show that there are two sides: a tolerant and an intolerant.

For some reason you have a vested interest in portraying the intolerant as the ‘authentic’.

I don’t agree with their premises but I do agree with their reasoning. Their logic is impeccable and their conclusions inevitable. When they accuse “moderate” Muslims of failing to be true Muslims, of being already essentially apostates, I fully agree with them that this follows from the Quran and from the basic tenets of Islam (that the Quran is God’s word and Mohammad His final prophet).

Good, you agree with the extremists. I don’t and nor do some others here. So what? Are you trying to convince us your view is the only ‘truth’?

That is what extremists do.

Those of you who would like to see yourselves as “moderate” or “middle-ground” Muslims are engaging in a logical fallacy, a logical contradiction. You simply cannot be “middle-ground” and a Muslim at one and the same time.

Ditto

This is the case I would be arguing in an internet debate.

Well I don’t know if any forums that are suitable. The one you recommended to me seems like somewhere you might feel at home. Why not there? Is it because you would be ‘preaching to the choir?’.

In an open public forum, if I managed to achieve any kind of sizeable audience (whether intentional or not), my life would be in danger.
If I approach a Muslim forum, I get the internet version of assassination. I am banned, zapped without warning or notification. Not even the poor Muslims on the forum know I was zapped. They only know I disappeared and many of them think it was simply because I backed out of the debate. *sigh*

Threatening people is a crime. Having said that I find it difficult to believe - unless you are going on Jihadi forums. also depends what you say I think. If you go with that Muhammad is a paedophile stuff people might not think you are looking for open debate.

BUt then again - as you think this why not be honest? Can’t have your cake and eat it. If you are really convinced you are so right and have a ‘mission’ to show others then take it on the chin. Martyrdom goes with that territory I’m afraid.

Me, I want to live in harmony.

I tried to offer Segovius a debate forum, selected so that I was not a moderator there. Two forum posters entered the thread and said negative things about Islam. Segovius left because of “a peculiar ’smell’”. The forum is not to his “personal taste”.

‘Peculiar smell’ is a code for ‘full of hate’. I was being polite. I don’t mind personally - it;s just not conducive to debate. And that IS what you said the point was. it’s pretty much the same reason why I don’t debate with Jehovah’s witness or Born-Again Christians (or Socialist Workers). Except the first two dn;t have hate as such but you get my drift. I hope.

I can re-offer Free2Code but I cannot ban people there from posting what they think. I am a moderator there (on the Religion and Politics forums, not the Debate forum where I started the topic for Segovius) and we never ban people without a long process of warning with explanations. We only delete obvious spam. When people post in an offensive manner, we simply ask them to do better. It’s amazing how often that actually works!

Personally I’ll take a raincheck.

I think some sort of commitment to dialogue is needed here. If it is not the “Sufi way” to debate, please say so and let’s finish with this charade.

Actually it is not at all the Sufi way to debate - we are not debating here anyway, people are just stating opinions that are not subject to being updated - but even if we were, then this is far from the Sufi way.

Rumi, ibn Arabi and Bahaudin have numerus quotes this as I’m sure you know.

But yes - let’s end the charade. That’s what this blog is all about: ending the charade.

We all have our own personal charades that we are attached to and ‘ending them’ is not so easy. But a commitment to trying is enough imo.

I would suggest that no ‘debate space’ is needed or necessary. If the aim is to ‘win’ then that has no place here imo, certainly I am not interested in winning a debate or anything else. That doesn’t mean I will accept a falsehood that is presented here if I know for a fact it is not true.

You’re welcome to stick around and I hope you do. It’s just that on this particular issue (and here I’m speaking only for me - others may be up for debate) I see no room for changing positions and I have no inclination to try to change yours so that limits us somewhat.

Maybe we can talk about something else? Magic? Nietzsche? Rugby? Barcelona?

I am with Segovious, I am not interested in debate either. Actually, I am more interested in Sufism. But apparently, the discussion went on the wrong direction.  Where can we talk about Sufism? (pure Sufism, no extremists, etc ) Is it ok if I post in old blogs (Sufism or Sufi Stories blogs)?

Peace.
Matahari

Understood that the Amish have a practice of letting their teenagers go off to the city to experiment with sex, drugs, and rock and roll, so that they can make up their own minds before fully taking on the Amish Way of Life as adults. Perhaps I believe too much of what I read in magazines.

Incidentally looked up the name Matahari as thought it was a Western made up name for a certain infamous lady, and it says in my encyclopaedia that it is a Hindu name meaning “Eye of the Sun” Is this right?

Did hear about this Yemeni experiment on the radio and one of the internees said they just agreed with what they were told to get set free. However if terrorist incidents have gone down in the Yemen as this article says is a remarkeable achievement.

Thanks to Andrew for David Dakkake reference as it always helps to have a context for what you read.

Am not personally a scholar of any description unless its of the Gas Safety and Use Regulations and have never called myself Muslim moderate or otherwise. My Jewish mother would never talk to me if I did. Now that’s extremism.

It is true that prefer prayer and meditation to debate.

Kind Regards to all

Paul

>>Understood that the Amish have a practice of letting their teenagers go off to the city to experiment with sex, drugs, and rock and roll, so that they can make up their own minds before fully taking on the Amish Way of Life as adults.>>

That is new to me, interesting, never heard it before. Thanks for letting me know. When I went to the community in Illinois almost 3 years ago, the guide told me that they were generally really strict to their children that they only let them go the special “church school” inside the community, to prevent them from “evil influences” from outside. Some (very few) of them though, let their kids go to public schools.

>>>Incidentally looked up the name Matahari as thought it was a Western made up name for a certain infamous lady, and it says in my encyclopaedia that it is a Hindu name meaning “Eye of the Sun” Is this right?>>>

It is an Indonesian word for “the Sun” Mata means “eye”, hari means “day”, literally means “eye of the day”, refers to the Sun. The spy’s mother was from Indonesia, that’s probably why she used that word for her nickname. But I am not a spy, don’t worry. It is my son’s name

peace,
Matahari
(don’t dare to call myself a muslim, that would be bragging lol!)

Segovius, thank you for the courtesy answer.