From: Khalil (khalilm@netcomuk.co.uk)
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 14:59:14 GMT
Hi all,
Firstly Sufism has always had a dynamic relationship with orthodox Islam.
And this is the way it should be. Sometimes the Sufis go too far and think
that they are above or beyond the Law and this leads to corruption at other
times the jurists, those who believe in the primacy of the Law gain the
upper hand and the relgious community begins to stagnate. Islam and Sufism
has suffered mostly in recent times through the colonisation of Islamic
countries and through the rise of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia which has had
petro dollars at its disposal to propagate fundamentalist/literalist
intepretation of Islam, mostly devoid of mercy, compassion or beauty. The
Taliban are very much in this category to an extreme degree. The Alevi
Sufis of Turkey, who I've never heard of, would fall into the category of
those that have gone beyond the limits both of orthodoxy and traditional
Sufism
Didn't Pirsig say in Lila that DQ without the anchor of rituals and
formalised morals becomes destructive and that rituals without DQ stagnate
and stultify?
One of the problems that Islam has and this is true of many religions is
that the form and rituals become an end in themselves rather than a means to
an end. The religion can become its own idol. This is not necessarily
endemic within religion itself but is a trap that man can fall into.
As a metaphor I think of the human being. The skeleton of and by itself is
neither attractive nor useful, but by the same token flesh and blood and
spirit without a skeleton cannot exist. They need each other to provide
form, strength, stability and ability. This is static and dynamic qualities
combined for optimum effectiveness. So it is with religion it needs both
form and spirit.
I don't entirely agree with David that MOQ is mostly about science and
nature. Lila is subtitled an enquiry into morals. Nietzsche said that
without religion there is no morality, so an enquiry into morals must have a
discussion about religion within it. Of course its true, without a fixed
reference point morals become relative and subjective, exactly part of the
moral morass that Western culture finds itself in.
In Islam the authority rests within the Qur'an, for Muslims the revealed
Book of God, and the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammed, who was
said to be the living embodiment of the Qur'an. Islam has been going
through a very static phase because it has been held that the interpretation
of the Qur'an is somehow fixed. But there are signs that things are
changing. Language itself is another example of a static/dynamic interplay.
Words have roots but their meaning changes according to time,culture and the
understanding of the recipient.
Between the 7th and 15th/16th centuries the main driving force behind
scientific endeavour and enquiry came from the Muslim scholars, particularly
in the fields of arithmatic, algebra, astronomy, chemistry (all words
derived from Arabic) as well as biology, geometry and medical science. It
was the Muslims of Spain who rediscovered the Greek philosophers, translated
their writings into Arabic and re-introduced them to Europe. OK you can
blame the Muslims if you like!!
Muslim philosophy/cosmology had 2 strands but interlinked. The first was
the intellectual, reflective, rationalistic and the second was the
spiritual, mystical, revelatory. The first was more influential in the West
the second was more influential within the Muslim community.
Both cosmologies are firmly rooted in the revelation of the Qur'an but
synthesised within them the teachings of the Greek philosphers and other
traditons and have as their starting and finishing point the Divine Unity.
Islamic science was pursued as a means of understanding God and the
Creation, the Creation is seen as a reflection and manifestation of the
Creator.
What we have in Western science today is it becoming ever more diverse and
fragmented. Knowledge for knowledge's sake but without any cohesive
principle. With the proliferation of such knowledge actually comes
confusion rather than increased understanding because one dicipline has no
longer any means of reference to another discipline.
As mentioned earlier unlike the Bible and Church dogma, scientific discovery
tends to enhance rather than diminish the authority of the Qur'an.
Bringing this back to MOQ my understanding is that Pirsig's frustration with
Western philosphy and understanding is in its limited world view which
negates a whole realm of existence because it can't be observed and
measured. The Islamic view point would be exactly the same. The extent to
which MOQ and Islam converge or diverge is in the understanding and
interpretation of Quality.
What we are seeing now is a clash between the Western world view and the
Islamic world view. Both have become corrupt, what they see in each other
is their own reflection. If you're a pessimist its downhill all the way
from here. If you're an optimist like me, you see that a synthesis will
emerge from the 2 views that will be creative and dynamic and will in one
form or another include a MOQ.
rgds
Khalil
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 15:01:40 GMT