Some people would say that any religion is better than none. Any acknowledgement of God is better than rejecting him. I would say, it depends. For one thing it depends on what sort of God you follow. What are his demands and expectations, how does he frame the good? My last two posts have been about Islam which is the second most followed religion in the world, reaching about 25% of humanity. There are many good things in Islam such as faith in God, prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage, the so called 5 pillars. These are undoubtedly beneficial to the soul on a certain level, turning it away from worldly preoccupation and setting it facing the spiritual world. But in the form in which they are presented and followed they are good for child souls, souls who need external and strict guidance, souls who have not yet separated from the herd. They are not so good for more developed souls who are beginning to take spiritual responsibility for themselves and who seek something more than a codified, outward form of religion. Then they become restrictive. Sufism was provided for such souls but it never really established itself other than on the peripheries of the Muslim world, and was often condemned by the mainstream as heretical.
If Islam is to become a spiritually positive force in the world instead of being the largely negative force it often is then it must change. But first of all, why negative? For reasons already given. It is intellectually and morally one-dimensional and restrictive. It functions as a rigid and unbending, therefore not open to creative growth, system for people who are relatively undeveloped, both mentally and spiritually. So, although it is good for souls on a certain level, it forces the mind into a small box from which it is forbidden to escape. It is closed off to the fresh, revivifying winds of spirit having ordained that the whole truth was spoken once and for all 1400 years ago. Nothing can ever change from that.
But that is not all. Islam must renounce its intellectual and political territorial ambitions and its religious exclusivism. Like Marxism, it is a totalitarian ideology, one that demands complete control and absolute authority. It has sought to propagate itself through violence and this is sanctioned in its source texts. It must completely abandon that aspect of its supposed mission and stick to the 5 pillars. But that is not all either. Even these 5 pillars must be seen in a different light, as signposts to inner understanding rather than rules and regulations to be followed without thought. In religion there is an outer path and an inner path. Islam has always given the outer path even more importance than most other religions and goodness knows that this is a fault common to them all. Christianity has been guilty of the same thing though, I would maintain, to a lesser extent.
Islam was born in warfare and it spread through the sword. One cannot pretend otherwise. This aspect of its heritage must be completely renounced if it is to serve the will of God, but that will be very difficult because it will mean a radical reinterpretation of its core beliefs and an acceptance that its prophet was not the perfect image of a man they say he was. Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword, but quite obviously he meant by this the sword of truth which separates truth from lies, good from evil, love from hate. He also said those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Unfortunately, it is the second usage that Islam has followed.
In the days when I studied the various mystical traditions I found Sufism one of the most interesting, full of wisdom and insight and including many souls of great spiritual power and authority. Sufism contains the inner principles behind Islam and interprets the fairly simplistic injunctions of the Qur'an on a genuinely spiritual level. Muslims who wish to be closer to the guiding impulse behind their faith should explore Sufi teachings more deeply and give up once and for all the intolerant political side of the religion. They should also know that Islam is not and never was intended for the West. Those who try to enforce it on Western countries are not doing the will of God but going directly against it
Good post.
ReplyDeleteAll the things you mention is why it is facile to think that a turning to Islam would save Western civilization. Though, those who think so is thinking purely in utilitatian terms and are not believers anyway. And people who don´t actually believe anything will not turn anything around.
More importantly, without the proper belief in Jesus there is no point in saving Western civilization.
The principles of Islam are directly opposed to those of the West which are freedom and individuality. Freedom and individuality in God and to pursue the path laid down by Christ but freedom and individuality all the same. Islam denies both. It certainly cannot save the West. The phrase out of the frying pain into the fire comes to. mind.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy your posts a lot. I think they are full of wisdom. I am a Christian and I don't think Islam is the answer. However, it seems to me that you criticize Islam for the wrong reasons.
ReplyDelete"But in the form in which they are presented and followed they are good for child souls, souls who need external and strict guidance, souls who have not yet separated from the herd."
So, they are good for 95% of people in all times in history. This does not seem so bad to me. You cannot make a religion only for the thinking people, who are always a minority.
Are you seeing lots of people separating from the herd right now or in any time of history? People who read this kind of blogs often forget that not only most people are not like them, but most people CANNOT BE like them.
"Sufism was provided for such souls but it never really established itself other than on the peripheries of the Muslim world,"
Right. It is for the thinking minority, the ones that don't want to follow the herd. This is why it has always been a minority.
"It functions as a rigid and unbending, therefore not open to creative growth, system for people who are relatively undeveloped, both mentally and spiritually."
That is, the vast majority of people.
"But that is not all. Islam must renounce its intellectual and political territorial ambitions and its religious exclusivism."
Not possible. These are wired into Islam. You can also say that Christianity must renounce prayer. This would be another religion but most Christian people wouldn't adopt it.
You cannot undo 1400 years of history. Religions are systems and cannot be changed at will. To renounce yihad, you must renounce parts of Qur'an, many hadiths, the biographies of the Prophet and the interpretation of all the ancient scholars. Taking authority from these religious authorities demolishes the religion.
The Baha'i faith is the outcome of one of such experiments. Take Shi'a Islam and reinterpret it to remove all the violence. You get another religion, but most Muslims don't become Baha'i.
"In religion there is an outer path and an inner path. Islam has always given the outer path even more importance than most other religions and goodness knows that this is a fault common to them all."
You cannot change Islam into an individualist religion like some varieties of Protestant Christianity. Islam is created for the collective, not for the individual person. As such, it is adapted to collectivist societies, where people are divided into tribes and sects, not to the Western society that has been in a process of individualism since the Middle Ages.
"Islam was born in warfare and it spread through the sword. One cannot pretend otherwise. This aspect of its heritage must be completely renounced"
Mohammed was a warlord. It is like saying Christianity must renounce prayer.
"They should also know that Islam is not and never was intended for the West. "
I agree. The same way an individualist religion was not intended for Arab countries.
At the end of the day, we can argue until getting tired. And a Muslim would be a third opinion. How do you decide between the different opinions? With hard data.
Islam is increasing in Western countries and Christianity is decreasing in its own countries. That's a fact. As a Christian, it pains me to say it. But we have to admit that they must be doing something right. They may be doing something that we did in the past and we have forgotten.
First of all, thanks for your comments Chent. It's always encouraging when people respond to a post.
ReplyDeleteI actually agree with most of what you say but would just add this. Human beings evolve. Human consciousness evolves and I would say there are fewer child souls around now than there were, say, 1400 years ago. We have not made much progress but we have made some, specifically in the area of becoming more individual and more mentally polarised. So, although I do agree that you cannot make a religion just for thinking people, a religion for unthinking people, which is what Islam is, becomes less and less viable even in the areas in which it may once have served a purpose.
You say that if Islam renounced its political ambitions and exclusivism that would be like Christianity renouncing prayer. I see what you mean, that these are intrinsic to the religion and cannot really be separated from it, but it wouldn't really be like renouncing prayer as prayer is good and these are evil. Still, I completely take your point that it cannot be done. To say it should be done doesn't mean it can be done! In fact I don't for a moment think it can be which is a big problem.
The fruit grows on the tree and the tree comes from the seed. The seed of Christianity was Christ. The seed of Islam was Mohammed. The difference between these two is so vast in terms of spiritual awareness that it's almost comical how anyone can take Islam seriously as a spiritual path. But they do and one reason they do is because the claims for Christ are so great. He was the Son of God whereas Mohammed was just a man. It's much easier to believe the basic simplicity of Islam than the more profound truths of Christianity, and that's why it spreads now. It is a religion for unintelligent people who don't want to take responsibility for their souls and really start to grow into godhood.
But all you say is true and it demonstrates why the West should take the threat of this religion seriously. It might be a cure for the spiritual ills of modernity but in this case the cure which would entail loss of freedom would be as bad as the disease.