I've just been listening to a Amir Sulaiman CD today, and was especially impressed by the talk called "The Illusion" and felt like sharing it. I looked around online and found a blogger, Muntaka Shah, who was generous enough to type up a transcript. I think the talk captures a lot of what I find so compelling in Islam. It isn't about blind faith and emotional displays. It is more about a calm certainty which comes from unvarnished realism; knowing who you are in relation to God and the world.
see also:
manifest liberation: the four gates
see also:
manifest liberation: the four gates
6 comments:
interesting you would say:
It isn't about blind faith and emotional displays. It is more about a calm certainty which comes from unvarnished realism; knowing who you are in relation to God and the world.
In relation to a post I made regarding the possibility that there is no God and that religion was created for the specific purpose of easing the human's mind about the uncertainties he or she faces throughout life. That you would say that Islam for you is a means of comfort is yet another anectdotal nail in that running theory.
I think you are misunderstanding the point of what I'm saying. For example, in terms of the uncertainties people face throughout life, in Islamic practice, it is common for pious Muslims to insert into discussions about the future, the phrase "inshaAllah" (if God wills). "So inshaAllah, after I finish my Bachelor's degree I'm going to go into business with my family". "InshaAllah, I'll see you next week after Friday services" "One day, inshaAllah I'll get married and have a two girls and a boy." We say "inshaAllah" as a reminder that we actually aren't in control. S*&t happens. You might get into a car accident. You might drop out of school. You might get married but become a widower and never have kids. You don't know.
I don't think that is "comforting" in the sense that you are talking about.
Or look more carefully at how Amir Sulaiman talks about mortality and the impermanence that is a basic feature of reality.
That's also not "comforting" in the sense of sugar coating anything or telling lies to people in order to help them deal with their lives.
I would, however, say that it is "comforting" in the sense of being true.
When I was still going to church I was made very uncomfortable by the nagging feeling that what I was being told was in some sense too "good" to be true.
I don't get that feeling from Islam. God is just "being real" with mankind in the Quran.
Thanks for the clarification, but I don't think your original post as quoted says the same thing you are saying here. Even then though your addition still underscores the point that religion serves as a means to deal with that which we cannot control.
on a related note, I too used to sit in church and think something was not right. I didn't think it was "too good" though that may be a denominational thing. I was more along the lines of "how do we know?" then once I found that there were actual missing books mentioned in the very supposed Holy book, it was only a matter of time...
sondjata says: Even then though your addition still underscores the point that religion serves as a means to deal with that which we cannot control.
...
But then I'm not sure what you are driving at. Originally it seemed like your comment was intended as a criticism but now I don't know what you mean. If religion is a means to deal with life, then what exactly is the problem? Dealing with life is a good thing. Finding a set of principles which helps you do that on a regular basis is even better.
And about your second comment, I think that is interesting too. The Bible itself refers to the book of Jasher or the writings of the seer Iddo or Nathan the prophet but such works obviously aren't in the Bible.
I'm not sure what the ultimately consequence would be though. I would say it basically means that the Bible is admitting that it is not a complete record of God's revelation to mankind.
It was and wasn't a criticism. I say that to mean, in terms of your post, I found the statement highlighted to be interesting in relation to a post on my own blog. In that sense I was not critiqing your position.
The blog post I refer to is a critique of religion in general. That's probably why this is coming across as a critique in a funny kind of way.
In reference to missing books, the Bible indeed is not the complete word of God historically and IMHO, at all. The fact that Jasher was missing lead me to find out about the Council of Nicea, Khemetic influences, etc., But we've covered that ground already haven't we?
\-)
Post a Comment