For a while I was very fond of Burckhardt, Schuon, etc. (not Guenon, though, who was too dry). Not quite so now, though The Feathered Sun and Fez: City of Islam remain two of my favourite books. What turned me away is the subject of another post but...
Bob posted some disturbing allegations against Frithjof Schuon. I'm not sure if that makes him "controversial" or not, but it did get me thinking about why I like his books (Light of the Ancient Worlds, say) so much.
Of course, that is not to deny that 'religious' people/men (Muslims, Catholics etc.) haven't at times been involved in sickening acts of perversion towards children and women and, more generally, involved in violence towards other human beings. Not something one can easily get around. I mean, you can't really say this is a problem of human beings in general-and not just religion because surely the whole aim of religion is to reform human character? And it won't do to say that this is a problem of organized religion-as if to say, the "real" religion can be found amongst the Sufis and free-spirits.
Certainly, a greater degree of organization increases the potential for, and level of, violence (the State, for example). But on the other hand, as Peter Brown reminds us, religious institutions can sometimes actually prevent the emergence of fanaticism and exaggerated flights of the imagination. The constraints of the Law, Society, Tradition, and Community may act to deter the rootless extremist and the sickened mind.
But the difficulty remains-and is particularly pressing if you're a Muslim living in these troubled times. For what else is Islam to many people but a violent, backward, misogynist institution? How do you explain that religion is so intertwined, historically speaking, with violence (even harder, I imagine, to explain the Crusades and Holy War if you're a Christian). The real question: is it only historically speaking?
But back to Frithjof...
I think one of the reasons was that his approach tied in with my unformulated pluralism: the idea that the inner spirit (haqiqah) is one, whilst the outer paths (shariah) are many (Q:5:48) is deeply appealing. It's not just that it's a great antidote to the crushingly rigid and narrow view of the wahabis and semi-literates..it's that the idea of unity in diversity is a fundamentally beautiful approach in itself.
Secondly, there was this fascination with the 'Red Man' and his heroic, devout, and majestic way of life. "Be ye not conformed"...one can imagine the Red Man giving his assent to this.
Couldn't find quotes from The Feathered Sun but since I'm watching this film today I thought I'd end with these:
"It is metaphysically impossible to give oneself to God without this resulting in something good for the environment; to give oneself to God is to give oneself to man, for the gift of self has sacrificial value of incalculable radiance...
What is blameworthy is not "living in the world", but living in it badly and thus in a certain sense creating it...
Concentration of prayer and rhythm of prayer: these are in a sense the two dimensions of spiritual existence in general and monastic experience in particular...the condition of the monk constitutes a victory over space and time, or over the world and life, in the sense that he places himself by his attitude at the centre and in the present; at the centre in relation to a world full of phenomenon and in the present in relation to a life full of events.
The great mission of the monk is to show the world that happiness does not lie somewhere far away or in something located outside ourselves, in a treasure to be sought or in a world to be built, but precisely here where we belong to God."
4 comments:
I am not religious and therefore am a little unqualified to speak but even I still carry with me some parables from primary school.
Yes religious institutions and movements have been and are associated with violence but then what hasn't? Various types of christianity and Islam have had a huge resurgence in former Soviet countries in a form which I am not very comfortable with - often preaches hate towards minority groups. However religion was a great source of inner freedom and flight under communism and the same in nazi Germany. This to my mind (being a western individualist :-) ) is the place for religion - an internal and private relatinship and dialogue. When it collides with political projects, the result is unpleasant
No, I agree with you: what hasn't? Certainly the horrors of the last century are a reminder to anyone making glib comments about an exclusive connection between religion and violence. But my question is this, Beth: isn't there a distinction here? I mean, if you're a believer then it's a bit odd (or odder) that what is supposed to be about truth/beauty (and it often is, I'm not doubting that) also leads to terrible fanaticism, persecution, and violence? does it inevitably set up insider/outsider distinctions?
also, your second point is intriguing -and equally difficult (just thinking out aloud since I'm not qualified either!)
i mean, what if those who believe say it's not just about an 'inner life' but about a way of living in the world , a way that is related to art, society, and ultimately to politics...if they believe that the outer must be a reflection of the inner or that the while notion of a private self is suspect?
of course, like you i find the internal view quite appealing but the 'inner freedom' requires, in your cases of resistance against repression, outward actions. no?
gosh, i wish I'd never written this post now! :-) and what would old Schuony have made of the picture below him! :-)
But do tell me more about what you're seeing. would love to get an idea of what's happening there-even though i suspect it's quite depressing (as it is here). ultimately, fundamentalism is so bloody boring! :-)
Take care beth.
b.
About your first question - I also do not understand it but I guess its about privileging the end goal over the means.
About your second question of course the public/private distinction is never clear even in societies which claim to have absolute separation like in France. Tariq Modood talks about moderate and radical secularism and moderate or radical religiosity (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/aboutus/videos). Unfortunately I am so convinced by huamn rights arguments that I think that while proselytising is fine, tryng to change society so that it completelyreflects your view andleaves n space for oher views is plain indefensible frm the point of view of individual autonomy and freedom.
About former Soviet countries - you tend to get an unholy alliance between church and state with each exploiting the other for their own ends. The orthodox church in Ukraine is vigorously campaigning for a ban on abortion and criminalisation of homosexuality. There is also an elision (is that a word?) between orthodox christianity or islam (depending on the country) and national identity. There is less justification of barbaric practices (such as honour killing) by religious groups except in Chechnya which has had its social fabric torn up by the war. But it still happens in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Another common phenomenon is priests or mufti calling for killing of faggots ie not just criticising but inciting murder. all in all not pretty.
Gosh, that is scary. I don't think there's much of that here-yet; most of the incitement to kill is over Ahmadis and Christians.
On a day-to-day basis there is, however, an advocacy of "purity", "modesty" etc., etc, and it can lead to, as you pointed out, horrific practices (so-called honour killings, etc.)
Personalyl speaking, I'm dead against the preachers ('tablighis') as well. i think there are too many people out there trying to convince you that *they* know what is right, the way to live. They often come to me to try and get me to sign up. but yeah, they're relatively harmless types and quite soft-spoken. Besides, they often get to go on wonderful trips to Brazil and Argentina to convert the kaffirs. One of these days i might just hitch a ride with them! :-0
take care,
b.
Post a Comment