Language

An influential thinker on the topic of religion and the holy in the first half of the twentieth century was a man named Rudolph Otto. He wrote extensively on the topic of what is "holy" and what constitutes a conception of the Divine. His specific writings (the little I have had the privilege of reading thus far) are very interesting indeed, however, today I wanted to focus on how he wrote...

During his writing about religion, Otto was forced to use words that are familiar to the audience. Words such as "dread," and "majesty," and, "gracious." However, these words when used to describe the religious experience, or when used as descriptors for the Divine fall short of truly being descriptive, rather, these words are used in our common vernacular to describe common phenomena. In Otto's work he at times resorts to using Greek or Latin words for key concepts, as these words serve to impart a sense of uniqueness to the concepts they express...

And here we have the crux of it.

Revelation has been delivered to mankind many times throughout the ages, many people have received the "word of God," in many ways, and these words have been passed on to others in many ways. If we look at an example such as the Holy Qur'an, we see that the language used within the holy book differs from common, spoken Arabic. This unique language is a part of what imparts sacredness to the words. In my previous posts, I have attempted to "describe" qualities of God, or at least to turn concepts relating to the Divine and to the Sacred into language that I feel can be easily understood by most people. However, I have also been told that by doing so, something about what I am doing seems almost sacrilegious.

Language is so important, it is the way in which we communicate to each other, and it is the way in which we attempt to commune with the Divine or the Sacred. However, the type of language we use is very important as well. Sometimes things are done for a reason beyond what we can hope to understand. Why was the Holy Book of Islam, a religion with 1.6 billion adherents around the world, revealed in a language that only a small fraction can understand or read? Further, even amongst those who claim Arabic as their mother tongue, many are unable to navigate the archaic linguistic nuances found within the Qur'an.

The true answer will always be a mystery, but the sense of sacredness found within those words which we do not encounter in our common parlance undoubtedly plays a part. This is also partly why rituals are so important in the religious experience. Rituals and ceremonies impart a sense of "special-ness" a unique air about them... This is not something that happens in our mundane life, rather it is something that is reserved for times when we wish to communicate with the Sacred, these rituals, these forms of languages are to only be used in special situations, and by making the situation surrounding the religious experience special, we in turn make everything associated with the experience special as well.

Once again, this is another quite sad attempt at bringing the Sacred, the Divine into a form of language that can easily be understood, but the true message is deeper, the true message behind anything that communicates the sacred is tied to not only what is said, but how it is said.

On Perfection

Aristotle proposed that everything has a perfect version... a perfect form. What we see, everything that exists, is simply a ... shadow of a perfect form. He made very interesting arguments for this paradigm, and as with the concept of God, it isn't possible to prove or to disprove Aristotle effectively, because we simply don't know if this concept is plausible.

It makes me wonder on what it means to be perfect though.

Specifically, is perfection static or dynamic?

When I think of the concept of perfect, I think of something that is still, unchanging and remains static, because if it is perfect, why does it need to change?

I think that may be a fallacy however. How can something remain perfect if it is limited to never change? Or is it possible that if something is perfect, it is unlimited in potential but limited in form?

The reason I ask is because of the simple fact that I believe firmly that the faith of Islam, when interpreted correctly is perfect. However, does this mean that the way that Islam was interpreted a thousand years ago, is the same way in which it should be interpreted today? I would vehemently argue that this is not true, that the faith requires a new lens, it changes in it's practice, in it's interpretation over the years... but the essence... does that change? Can it change? Or is the question, must it change for it to be perfect?

Thinking carefully on it, I would say that the practice of the faith can and must change, however the ethical foundations underlying it cannot change, because they are perfect... so is the practice imperfect or are the practitioners?

Let's not forget God.

God is eternal, God is good, mercy, compassion, love - all spring from God. All of these characteristics change based on the situation... compassion is not a static concept, neither is love. However, God is perfect... so, is God static, is God fixed or is God a cosmic power that is always dynamic?

I know this last is a futile question because I think I suspect the answer. God is both and neither. Static and dynamic... for these terms are very physical expressions. God is beyond both. He does not need to express Himself as a static or as a dynamic.

That still doesn't solve the problem at the base of it all. In our human conception of the matter can something that is static meet the standards of perfection? Can something that is dynamic be perfect? Or is perfection beyond both, in which case - how can a religion that a billion people practice be perfect?

Perfect Faith

Religion is an interesting phenomenon. I am an Isma'ili Muslim, a small community of interpretation in a wider Muslim Ummah, which in turn makes up the wider human race with a myriad of religions, faiths, belief systems and even the lack of any belief at all.

However, one aspect of religion, specifically Islam in general has always made me think about the purpose of religious belief... In Islam we believe that God has revealed His message to Mankind over several millenia, with each message successively bringing Mankind closer to the truth until finally Islam was revealed - the religion of submission, of peace, of tolerance. This is Islam... and when God revealed this faith to Mankind, He completed His favours upon Mankind as religion had finally been perfected in the form of Islam.

... Why perfect it?

That's the question that has stuck with me. Why make it perfect?

Mankind isn't perfect, we make mistakes all the time, we err, we correct some errors, we don't correct others. If it was so important to perfect faith, why is it so fragmented in the first place? Why do we have so many splits and divides in the interpretations of Islam if it was supposed to be perfect? Why are there so many religions in the world today if one is enough?

Many have argued that each interpretation of Islam is relevant and is correct, which is admirable. If this is the case however, why even create Islam in the first place? Why not stick to what was correct about the other faiths that were already extant at the time?

Faith and religion to me represent a pathway to moral behaviour for society and people... however if this was the only purpose for them there would be no reason to lay down hundreds of pathways. Most faiths have similar tenets and encourage people to be good, and often-times the definition of what is "good" is similar if not the same.

To me, this seems to imply that faith and religion occupy a position within the human psyche that extends beyond simple morality. They must have a role that extends beyond something as common as morality, to simply account for the differences in each faith. The more I think about it, the more I believe that religion is needed for people to experience God while alive.

What is the significance behind this? If God cannot be seen, only experienced, there must be different ways in which an individual can experience God. God is infinite and beyond infinite. This means that the number of pathways to reach God must likewise be infinite and beyond infinite. The experience of God is only limited by the experiencer's limitations.

Every faith in the world can lead one to God in some way, and this is the reason for perfection in faith.

Islam as it is practiced today in the world may not be perfect, but the underlying message is. The underlying message of deep submission, of peace, of giving up the very self... Because the self is the key that must be given up to open the door that is God. That's the perfection that needs to be shown to the world. That by it's very name, Islam gives one the answer to what to do to "find" God.

Utopia

Utopia, the perfect society. It's been a goal of humankind for... well as long as we've had societies. Of course the practical realization of a utopia will likely never truly come about, but trying for it has driven the improvement of human society for a long time. One of the most important aspects of a society - specifically an ideal one - is a system of governance. Think about it, an effective government is like a framework. It gives you everything you need to build something great. Countries today that do not have effective governments suffer. Look at a great, industrialized nation like Great Britain. There exists so much controversy due to the election of a minority government, a situation that isn't as much of a problem in many other countries. So, what does an effective governmental system entail, and why talk about this on a blog that seems to generally focus on the spiritual?

The first question is a difficult one, for the answer varies with the needs of the time and location. The answer to the second question is easier! Islam as a faith teaches that the spiritual and material are not to be separate. Your religion and faith is a part of everything you do... it doesn't get left outside the doors of parliament, (now this does NOT mean that those religious fanatics who claim to hurt others in the name of Islam are right in laying the blame on the faith, those people don't truly understand the relationship between faith and life).

I would argue that government systems in general are not set up to be successful in most of the world today. Looking at a country like Canada or the US, we have democratic processes in place to elect our leadership... but how many people actually take the time to educate themselves on the facts? Contrast this to a communist country like China where for all intents and purposes, a few individuals make decisions for the country. Now, don't get me wrong here, democracy is effective, however would you rather have 30 million ignorant people choose the leader of your country, or a few motivated, well-educated people? I would take this a step further and argue that in many cases, the most effective form of government would be one in which there is a single ruler - a monarchy so to speak. Of course, this is only valid if you have a benevolent monarch, one with a large, intelligent and perceptive group of advisors. Some of the most successful periods in history have been times when a country or empire has been ruled by a single individual who is able to create change. These dynasties often fall within a few generations as different individuals may not be as suited for rule as their ancestors may have been. So where does that leave us?

In the footsteps of Plato's Republic, I would propose that an effective government system would be one that combines a benevolent monarch, with the wisdom inherent in consensus and the checks and balances found in democracies (the judicial system, the senate and parliament balancing each other out). Government is an important aspect of life, both from a spiritual perspective and from a material one. Until the perfect society forms (or something close to it at least), let us all do our part and learn more about the issues facing our world and governments, and make informed decisions when we vote. Democracy is flawed, but it is effective in many contexts today. Better Democracy than Bureaucracy right?

God Bless