What It Means - Day 135

"Have the disbelievers been requited for that which they used to do?"
Quran 83:36

The 83rd surah, al-Mutaffifin, often rendered as "Those Who Defraud," ends with this question above. OK, so what's the answer?

In the related commentary in the Study Quran Nasr answers the question, sort of: "The answer to the question posed by this verse is yes and no." Now, be honest, you weren't really looking for a simpler answer, were you?

Nasr continues, "On the one hand, the disbelievers have been requited with punishment for the evil deeds they committed. On the other hand, they have not be requited for what only appear to be good deeds, since they are those whose deeds have come to naught in this world in the Hereafter (3:22; see also 7:147; 18:104; 47:8-9). From a Quranic perspective, only those deeds that are accompanied by belief in God, His prophets, His revelations, and His angels can truly be called good or righteous. Thus the phrase perform righteous deeds, which occurs over fifty times in the Quran, is always accompanied by some mention of belief in God." As we've discussed, the pairing of belief and righteous deeds is paired over fifty times in the Quran, which I chronicled in an earlier blog post. Although Martin Luther, in a similar situation, separated them in the Christian context, they're never separated in Islam. In a simpler, more practical sense, it also speaks to the need to live a life of thoughtful, intentionality, where every act must be carried out and considered in regards to why we're doing it and how it benefits others.

Divurumpola

I continue to try and get caught up long-delayed blogging, which also allows me to clean up my long-suffering phone. Here are a number of pictures from Dirumumpola in Sri Lanka. It's mainly a Buddhist site (complete with stupa, which I somehow don't have a picture of) but also plays a key role in the Ramayana story. While those no great proof that there's any historical basis to the Ramayana, this is the location associated with the place where Sita proved her virtue to Rama by jumping in a fire with Agni. Historical foundation or not there is a definite Ramayana tourist path, which the Sri Lankans have done much more in constructing than the Indians themselves. I'm hoping to run this trip again in a year or two, so I'm definitely looking forward to another visit.

Buddhism is a very iconographic religion, which makes it just about the opposite of Islam in that fashion.

More images of the Buddha.

As I've discussed in previous posts, every subtle movement and placement of the Buddha's hands have tremendous symbolic significance.

The notion of hell, although mainly in the metaphoric sense, plays a big role in some Buddhist art, which always seems strange if you're on the outside of the faith looking in.

More images of hell, which would seem to fit in perfectly with a medieval church painting.

The reclining Buddha is a staple of Buddhist art. Here the Buddha accepts impending death and waits for it peacefully.

More images from the Buddhist side of the temple, as you walk around towards the back. A more gifted photographer (meaning, everyone) could have done great things with this image.

And when you get around to the back of the temple you come across a series of murals associated with the Ramayana itself, forming a little metaphor for how Hinduism and Buddhism have lived side by side in India for centuries. Here are Rama, Sita and Lakemana during their exile. The golden dear, which Ravana used to distract Rama and kidnap Sita, is seen in the backgroun.

Here Hanuman has bounded across the Indian Ocean from India to Lanka and discovered the kidnapped Sita. She refuses to go back with him, leaving the honor of saving her to Rama.

Hanuman is captured, and in the process of escaping manages to burn down much of Lanka.

The monkeys building the stone bridge that will carry Rama's army to Lanka for the truly epic final batte.

The shot is out of order, as it actually occurred very early in the Ramayana. Here Lakamana cuts off the nose and ears of Ravana's sister at Rama's command. This plays an even bigger version of the Sri Lankan understanding of the Rama story because it justifies Ravana's actions in kidnapping Sita; that is, he kidnapped her not out of lust, but rather to avenge his sister and to teach Rama a lesson.

A statue of Hanuman in the back of the temple.

A close-up, showing Hanuman ripping open his chest to show that Rama and Sita are always in his heart, making him a natural symbol for all of India.

Sita jumping into the flames to prove her virtue to Rama after her rescue. The first of two times when Rama cruelly doubts her love and fidelity. For this reason outsiders are often cold to Rama, which Indians have trouble understanding. They view Rama as a heroic but also a tragic figure, who did what he had to do because of duty.

Another view of the same statue, this time showing the people's horror, including that of Rama, at Sita jumping into the fire.

Beacon

Just a picture from last weekend, which featured a drive to the SO's hometown for a family wedding. I'm always told that she grew up in the crappiest town in America, but it doesn't look to bad from there.

And, no, my hair doesn't normally stick up that dramatically. It was the product of a gusting breeze, which considering the ungodly heat was much appreciated.

What It Means - Day 134

"Woe that Day to the deniers! "Eat and enjoy yourselves a little; truly you are guilty." Woe that Day to the deniers!"
Quran 77:45-47

Here's another section drawn from al-Mursalat, "Those Sent Forth," the 77th surah. As we discussed yesterday, it features the repeating of the line, "Woe that Day to the deniers!" which both works as emphasis but also gives us a sense of the poetic flow of the Quran.

That said, what interests me is this comment from Nasr:

"These words, which God addresses to the disbelievers, are ironic. They allude to the respite that God grants the disbelievers, though they think it good, as they are able to enjoy . . . a little; in fact, it lets them dig a deeper hole for themselves, as in 31:24: We grant them enjoyment a little, then We compel them toward a grave punishment." (Nasr, p. 1461)

We are reminded, as, truthfully, most followers of any religion are, that we can love this fleeting world too much, and that we need to devote more time to thinking about the more profound, eternal issues. So, that part of the verse is not particularly surprising. What is troubling, or, again, at least challenging, is that concept that God is being "ironic." Was God being ironic, or was Muhammad being ironic? That is, by the time the message passed from God through Gabriel and eventually through Muhammad had the  tenor, if not the message itself, been altered? Muhammad was an extraordinary man, but he was, in the end, also a man, and a man who we know was at times frustrated and annoyed and, at least to a degree, angry. Then it would be not be surprising that he was at times ironic (although, to be fair, he was also known as a very fair and not hateful person)? It's an interesting notion, and also more than a bit of a slippery slope, because there's a profound difference between changing the tone of the message and potentially changing the core meaning of the message, and if you open yourself up to the concept that the message might have been altered then, at the very least, arguments await.

The other point that Nasr makes (again, this is not a shot at Nasr, because he's just stating the obvious) that can be troubling is his point: "They allude to the respite that God grants the disbelievers, though they think it good, as they are able to enjoy . . . a little; in fact, it lets them dig a deeper hole for themselves." As always, there's that delicate balancing act in our perception of an omniscient God who allows humans to go make terrible mistakes. If we're not free, then how can we be free to make the right choices? Any parent understands the seeming illogical act of giving your teenager the freedom to go make the mistake that you know they're going to make; you have to do it, or they never become anything close to a functioning adult which would have the experience and ability to make the right decision, that they are so magnificently and clumsily avoiding right now. Of course, that's different than God letting us "dig a deeper hole" for ourselves. I mean, once we start to fuck up dramatically shouldn't God rein us in a bit because, going back to our example, a parent would? It's difficult to believe that God would be intentionally cruel (or at least not a God I would have any interest in following), so maybe it's just a case of a God who would be infinitely patient, with the fallback being that God would also be infinitely forgiving of human failure. Once again, the complexity of a monotheistic god.

What It Means - Day 133

"Woe that Day to the deniers!"
Quran 77:15

This brief verse is drawn from the 77th surah, al-Mursalat, often rendered as "Those Sent Forth." I chose it for a couple reasons, one of them being that it is the first of ten times that it is repeated in this surah. It's repeated for emphasis, certainly, but it also gives us a sense of the poetic flow of the Quran, which, as we've discussed, can be lost in a translation. The day referenced is, not surprisingly, the day of judgment. In the early days Muhammad talked about the end of the world and the day of judgment so consistently that his enemies shrugged him off as the Prophet of Doom. To be fair it is a consistent theme throughout the Quran. For this reason people often view Islam as an especially angry, judgmental faith, sort of like Southern Baptists on steroids. For some Muslims I think that's doubtless true. However, on a broader metaphoric scale, it also relates to the constant refrain that our actions have meaning, both in this world and the next, and that we shouldn't lead a careless, unexamined life.

What It Means - Day 132

"Has there come upon man a span of time in which has was a thing unremembered?"
Quran 76: 1

I don't know if I particularly have anything profound to say about this brief verse, mainly because I'm still mulling it over.  It is drawn from al-Insan, "The Man," the 76th surah. I mainly tagged it because it fell into my category of "Nasr, Are You Messing With Me?"

Here is his related commentary:

"In both vv. 1 and 2, man (insan) refers to Adam, all of humanity, or both. As translated the verse should be taken as a rhetorical question, either indicating that there has never been a time when human beings were not known to God or emphasizing that there was indeed a time when man was a things unknown, meaning nonexistent." (Nasr, Study Quran, p. 1452)

Obviously, I'm not critiquing Nasr here, because, by now, you have realized what a man crush I have on him. Rather, it's a reflection of the complexity of the Quran, and, for that matter, all faith. I remember when we Skyped with Seyyed Nasr in the spring we would ask him a question, and then he would pause and give a thoughtful, detailed and profound ten minute answer to eve
ry question. In today's age of surface level regurgitation of corporate slogans or buzzwords (we already have bets placed on how many times the word "pivot" is used in the first general faculty meeting) it was refreshing to hear a scholar work his way through a complex answer that sometimes ended with, essentially, "I'm not certain, exactly."

To me, and getting back to the passage, it is interesting, less in relation to Adam, but more generally to the existence of humankind. We've talked before about the notion that question of why good things happen to bad people or vice-versa are, at least from the Islamic perspective, pointless unless you think of the long endless existence of humans, including the time before birth, during "life," and then after death; that if you calculate everything up over these seemingly endless arc of time then everything balances out. At times over the years when I've taught sections on Hinduism I've had students ask if new souls were ever actually being created (as compared to being reborn) or were they operating from an initial great storehouse of souls, innumerable ones who had not even been born into the lowest possible life form yet. I didn't have a great answer for that question, and I've also asked some of my Hindu friends that same question and they didn't have a very good answer either. I guess you could ask yourself the same question in regards to Islam. Was there essentially a great spiritual big bang when all the souls were queued up, waiting for their time when they would be born and enjoy a fleeting time on  earth, before passing back out of life?

What It Means - Day 131

"Move not thy tongue therewith to hasten it. Surely it is for Us to gather it and to recite it. So when We recite it, follow its recitation."
Quran 75:16-18

This passage seems particularly well suited to this year-long reflection on faith. It is drawn from the 75th surah, al-Qiyamah, usually rendered as "The Resurrection." Obviously it is an admonition to spend time with the Quran and the concepts in it, to immerse yourself in it. As Nasr tells us, "These verses can also be taken as an admonition to hose who wish to understand the Quran to first read and reflect upon all of its teaching rather than drawing hasty conclusions." I've made the point before that one of the things that I like about Ramadan is the structured time that you set aside to read and re-read passages, especially when you're incorporating commentary, and peel away the layers of the onion. In much the same way this year has allowed me to continue to study in a more deliberate fashion. I also loved Nasr's point about the need to "first read and reflect upon all of is teaching rather than drawing hasty conclusions." This is the argument I find myself having with my fellow Muslims about their fascination with rules, especially ones that I find awfully intolerant and harsh. How does one read the entire Quran and its emphasis on respect and toleration and love and forgiveness but then draw out an ancient dictate to focus upon, and, I would argue, as justification for your own prejudice. I always try and think of the Quran, and the faith, as a whole, and not simply cull out the passages that agree with my worldview (although, obviously, sometimes I quite guilty of that; you could make an argument that I'm doing it every day this year on this blog . . .).