From: Matthew Poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 19 2004 - 05:40:11 GMT
Hello Khalil,
This is very interesting to me. There is a lot of untruths flying around
these days, as a result of the mass media (we all know the 'situation').
You said: The religion can become its own idol. This is not necessarily
> endemic within religion itself but is a trap that man can fall into.
I think this is very true, and looking back through history, it is easily
apparent
that at various times, and/or currently the various religions have become
corrupt
in the sense that the true meanings of the religion are taken way too
literally, etc.
The way I like to think of things, is that each religion, each philosopher,
has they're own contribution to society, whether it has been in the past, or
is
in the present. It can be a set of ideals, or basically anything that
contributes to the 'betterment', or development of society on a whole. We
can take
from each, many smalle things, and put them together to create
This is where religion does come to be very 'useful', or beneficial.
Speaking for myself, I find no need to either prove or disprove the
existence of God to
myself. I don't think that it would change how I act to others, etc.
However that is not the same for many other people, who probably get along
better,
because they believe strongly in a religion, and it provides support for
them.
What you say about religions becoming static, I agree with.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: Khalil <khalilm@netcomuk.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and Islam
> 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
>
>
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 : Thu Feb 19 2004 - 05:40:11 GMT