"In the West today there is a tendency toward what one might call 'the absolutization of the transient.' Each decades absolutizes its own fashions of thought and action without the least pause and consideration of the fact that a decade later those very fashions and ideas will be buried in the dustbin of history as one turns to a new decade."
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart of Islam, p. 189
This passage from Nasr relates to a conversation we were having the other day about traditional beliefs inside of Islam. Nasr's point, in this particular instance discussing the status of women in the Muslim world, is that it's very unfair for any culture, especially for the West, to judge fairly what it happening inside of other cultures. What makes it so tough for the West to do that is that no one in history changes as rapidly and consistently as the West does. In fact, as I often point out to the students, for us it would be monumental change if we weren't changing. I'll talk more about several issues relating to women later, so I'll hold off on that for now. Nasr's point is that the Muslim world is changing, but fitfully and much more slowly than the West, so that by comparison it seems that it isn't changing at all. His point is obviously valid, but I would argue that it's also true that we're more averse to change than we should be. We are told repeatedly that innovation is a path to the Hellfire, a term I never use, but am this time just because that's how it often comes up in a sermon. This brings us back to the internal vs external aspects of the faith that I find myself talking about so much. To me there's a profound difference between saying, "you know, I think we were wrong on that one God thing, so we're adding a few more" and being more open to issues related to women or the LGBT community. The admonition against associating anything with God rests at the heart of the faith, whereas many of our views on women and LGBT issues are much more culturally and historically generated. So, an innovation, I would suggest natural evolution, on the latter is not nearly the same as an assault on the former.
As we've also discussed, the unique structure of Islam almost insures that change has to be organic and piecemeal. There is no Islamic equivalent of the Pope or the Patriarch, which means there is no one who could convene a broader Muslim counsel to discuss a changing world. For example, the other day we discussed the fact that mathematically the Hajj is now impossible for every Muslim, so you have a requirement of the faith which can't be met. If, systematically, we have no way to address that issue, then how do we ever tackle other topics? Plus, so many areas that are pre-dominantly Muslim are more traditional, further makes tackling change difficult. And then, conversely, does our aversion to change stand in the way of broader societal change?
Plus, well, I love the phrase "the absolutization of the transient," and I tend to drop it whenever I can; although, to be fair, I do cite Nasr in the process.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart of Islam, p. 189
This passage from Nasr relates to a conversation we were having the other day about traditional beliefs inside of Islam. Nasr's point, in this particular instance discussing the status of women in the Muslim world, is that it's very unfair for any culture, especially for the West, to judge fairly what it happening inside of other cultures. What makes it so tough for the West to do that is that no one in history changes as rapidly and consistently as the West does. In fact, as I often point out to the students, for us it would be monumental change if we weren't changing. I'll talk more about several issues relating to women later, so I'll hold off on that for now. Nasr's point is that the Muslim world is changing, but fitfully and much more slowly than the West, so that by comparison it seems that it isn't changing at all. His point is obviously valid, but I would argue that it's also true that we're more averse to change than we should be. We are told repeatedly that innovation is a path to the Hellfire, a term I never use, but am this time just because that's how it often comes up in a sermon. This brings us back to the internal vs external aspects of the faith that I find myself talking about so much. To me there's a profound difference between saying, "you know, I think we were wrong on that one God thing, so we're adding a few more" and being more open to issues related to women or the LGBT community. The admonition against associating anything with God rests at the heart of the faith, whereas many of our views on women and LGBT issues are much more culturally and historically generated. So, an innovation, I would suggest natural evolution, on the latter is not nearly the same as an assault on the former.
As we've also discussed, the unique structure of Islam almost insures that change has to be organic and piecemeal. There is no Islamic equivalent of the Pope or the Patriarch, which means there is no one who could convene a broader Muslim counsel to discuss a changing world. For example, the other day we discussed the fact that mathematically the Hajj is now impossible for every Muslim, so you have a requirement of the faith which can't be met. If, systematically, we have no way to address that issue, then how do we ever tackle other topics? Plus, so many areas that are pre-dominantly Muslim are more traditional, further makes tackling change difficult. And then, conversely, does our aversion to change stand in the way of broader societal change?
Plus, well, I love the phrase "the absolutization of the transient," and I tend to drop it whenever I can; although, to be fair, I do cite Nasr in the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment