ON READING THE KORAN And Other Encounters With the Sacred

ON READING THE KORAN And Other Encounters With the Sacred May 31, 2015

Mohammed

ON READING THE KORAN
And Other Encounters With the Sacred

James Ishmael Ford

31 May 2015

First Unitarian Church
Providence, Rhode Island

Text

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise belongs to God, the Lord of all Being, the All-merciful, the All-compassionate, the Master of the Day of Doom. Thee only we serve; to Thee alone we pray for succor. Guide us in the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast blessed…

From the opening chapter of the Koran

I think the majority of folk here know I write a blog called Monkey Mind. I started it nine years ago while I was on a sabbatical. I’d been advised it could be a good way to keep in touch with the church. And it was. Also I found I really liked it. My best guess at this moment I have snow posted something more than three thousand entries.

For me much of blogging is a magpie experience, featuring my picking up this bit of shinny tin or snatching that lovely bit of yarn from hither and yon, and then sticking it somewhere in my nest. As an example, my most recent ten postings include a meditation on end times, a notice of B. B. King’s death, a reflection on the Baptist church of my childhood, a celebration of Fats Waller’s birthday, a marking of Harvey Milk’s birthday, (I like birthdays), a reflection on the Zen motto “one continuous mistake,” an announcement of World Turtle Day, a cut and paste of a contemporary Zen teacher’s steps to true contentment (with, of course, due credit), a small bouquet of videos about Long Beach, California, and a reflection sparked by the anniversary of the hanging of the first person convicted of witchcraft in the American colonies.

Among the perks of blogging is the possibility of nearly instantaneous feedback through comments from readers. Truth be told, even though I average well over six hundred visits a day, often a thousand, I’ve never generated a lot of comments. Frequently I get none, sometimes one or two, rarely more. But, those I get can be interesting. Although I have to admit I’m not particularly interested in the advice to go soak my head, in the mix of complement and insult occasionally someone says something that sparks a whole new cascade of thoughts and feelings.

For instance, not terribly long ago something I posted generated a harsh evaluation from “anonymous,” if you don’t know, the most prolific commentator on the web. It turned on my occasionally repeated view that there are healthy and wise perspectives in the many religions, as well as unhealthy, including some things that seem justifiably called evil, and that in fact all religions are a mix of these things, really, really annoyed anonymous. Anonymous accused me of being arrogant, obviously unaware arrogance is my middle name.

Specifically anonymous didn’t like what she or he referred to as my “meta-narrative” that all human perspectives including our creations religions are understandings seen through a glass darkly. Clearly anonymous believed there is truth, unambiguous, and unmixed, provided through revelation. In short I was simply holding, to quote, a “man-centered” view. But, anonymous wanted to be sure I understood, I was completely ignorant of “God-centered” truth.

Now I’ve read that person’s particular holy book. I’ve studied it. And I have to say anyone with a head on her shoulders who has studied it with anything approaching an objective eye would find it hard to miss the mixed bag. I mean are blending linen and wool really something we need to worry about spiritually? The authors of Leviticus thought so, along with sending gay people and all bankers to perdition. Some bankers okay maybe. But, all of them?

On the other hand, there are passages in that collection of writings that have opened my heart to new ways of seeing. While the world’s religions are too often about crowd control, or, enforcing the ways a group defines itself spiritually establishing an inside and an outside, they are also the main repositories of human wisdom. So, for me, when looking into the spiritualities of the world, any blanket acceptance, or, any blanket rejection isn’t particularly helpful.

Now, there are legitimate cautions in this path of interpretation. When we hold our own views too tightly, too smugly, as simply another triumphalism as in “I have the big picture unlike those poor provincial hicks in the past,” I, we can miss the constant beckoning of the spirit of possibility. Which is the whole point of embarking on a spiritual life. I find our spiritual journey is like sailing between Scylla and Charybdis, avoiding the monsters of credulity on the one hand and certainty on the other. Dangerous, but it is so important, so very important to try. I believe this insight into our deep connections while honoring the differences is the way home, home to the place of the wise heart.

Therefore, what I find within this assumption of mixed bag is that rather than claiming superiority, although that can happen, actually when correctly engaged it invites us to a humble encounter with the world’s spiritual traditions. This attitude may not please anonymous, or adherents of various “only one true” ways. But out of my lived experience of life and of people and of institutions, spiritual and otherwise, it is what I believe, and where I stand. And, actually as religious liberals, it is where we stand. This is, I suggest, at the heart of our liberal spiritual way.

Me, I’ve given my life to this spiritual journey. And I’ve found what so many others have found within so many different religious traditions and I’ve also noticed is reported by people who claim no religious tradition. It is this: there is a place we can find where all words ultimately fail, but still, in some sense words like “one” and “interdependent web” come close to describing it. And that place heals the heart. It is our home, the home of the wise heart.

And, and this is a hard part, but equally important, just as important: that “one,” that “interdependent web” that ultimate reality is, for me, only really known as I attend to particular things. I believe this whole glorious mess that includes you and me, cockroaches and galaxies is all ultimately one. But I know that “one” only from specific perspectives, noticing you and me, noticing cockroaches and galaxies with an open heart. I find it only as I attend to the specifics of my many relationships, with this and this, with you and you.

Which is a long way around the barn, for me to recommend such things as reading the Koran, the title for today’s reflection. Of course it doesn’t have to specifically be reading the Koran. But it’s a particularly good example of how we come to find the one by approaching it from specific perspectives.

Personally, I find Islam among the most intriguing and difficult religions going. In some ways it is easier to comprehend than the religions of South and East Asia. After all it belongs to the family of Abrahamic religions, it claims the same God, more or less as one finds in Judaism and Christianity.

On the other hand, it remains within European derived cultures the great “other,” the world religion that has most bumped up against Christendom, challenged it, contended with it, has occupied Christian soil and has been occupied by Christians. And, for the past sixteen hundred years, Judaism has had to be the minority religion in both cultures. Opening other doors, as well. This, to coin a term, clash of civilizations has been going on for a long, long time. Islam is so similar to and so different from Judaism and Christianity; it’s a perfect subject for us to consider if we want to know the one in its many particulars, particularly particulars that put us off balance.

I’ve mentioned once or twice, mostly in passing, how a long time ago I devoted several years to studying the Universalist Sufism taught by the Indian mystic Inayat Khan and his American disciple Samuel Lewis. While this form of Sufism has only the most tenuous connections with its Islamic origins, nonetheless, I felt I needed to get a bit better grounding in Islam if I were to really understand what this version of the Sufi message was. I recall trying to learn the rudiments of Arabic from Sheikh Shemsaddin, a Pakistani Sufi living in San Francisco. I’m sure I broke his heart as we both discovered that for this lifetime, at least, I’m doomed to be a monoglot. After months of study I can recognize the word for God in Arabic. And that’s about it.

But along the way I did read the Koran in English translations. A fascinating document, about the same size as the Christian New Testament, but written in a single and, honestly, often compelling voice. It is putatively the words of God given to Mohammed at various times throughout his life through the mediation of the angel Gabriel. And while similar to parts of the Bible, it is also very different. For instance if you read the Koran you find lots of references to Jesus, although with a twist. The Jesus here is absolutely not God, not even the son of God in some sense of shared divinity, but rather the greatest of the saints, the seal of the saints.

This week I did some wandering around the web googling terms like “Koran” and “Islam.” There appears to be little interest out there for an honest investigation. Most of what one finds races between defenders who would reduce Islam to simply being about peace and the Koran the unveiled word of God to denouncers who refer to Muslims quite literally as “animals” and love to quote all the most difficult passages from the Muslim sacred scriptures. Sort of how atheist writers of earlier generations liked to mine the Bible. Well, still do.

I recommend finding a good translation of the Koran. Then read it for yourself, and see what you find. This speaks to our liberal religious way. Possibly the only great Unitarian Universalist theologian, that is the only great religious thinker produced by our consolidated denomination, the Unitarian Universalist Association so far, is James Luther Adams. I love that Adams was teased by his colleagues at Harvard Divinity for believing in what they called “salvation by bibliography.” Having visited Harvard Divinity, I find that something of a glorious example of kettle and pot.

And, there’s something there beyond a small joke about academics. As I’ve suggested, reading is indeed an important part of our Unitarian Universalist spiritual discipline. For us that means reading widely in the religious and the scientific world. So, I feel we should read at least the shorter texts representing the great religions: we should read the Psalms of David, we should read the Hindu classic the Bhagavad Gita, we should read the Confucian classic the Analects, we should read the Taoist classic the Tao Te Ching, we should read the Christian classic the Gospel of Luke and we should read the Koran. There’s a bibliography for you, all short books. Of course there are more, too. But, a place to a start.

As we do this I believe we don’t find one faith necessarily completes the other in some great triumphalism, but that each completes all. We don’t have to believe any of these texts are dictated by God, but rather all we need is to think is that maybe, possibly, somewhere within them, they do contain pointers on the way, hints at what we might find as we look within our own hearts. We need only read humbly, with open hearts.

I found as I read the Koran that way I was challenged constantly. There were, for instance, parts that deeply offended me. And I found profound resonances within it with parts of my heart I barely knew existed. I was particularly moved by the constant refrain calling us to a God that is love and power and joy. Did I believe it? Well, maybe just a little bit, at least while reading it. But that little bit was something wondrous. For me it spoke to that saying of Mohammed not in the Koran, but collected by friends of his sayings, that if we take a single step toward God, he will run toward us. I read the Koran and I got a little bit of what that might mean.

And if reading a book can help like this, imagine what its like if we’re willing to have a deep conversation with another person, particularly someone walking what seems to be a radically different spiritual path? Here’s a way of intimacy, and challenge, and hurt, and ultimately. It is about a path of healing. There are other practices, as well, of course. But these are enough for today.

Now, back to that early question. Does what I’m saying assume a meta-narrative? Well, yes, it does. And here’s the narrative, the not so hidden agenda: It is the Universalist story that we all have the possibility of reconciliation, of healing our hearts and minds, of knowing truth. But it doesn’t matter what our religion is, or if we have no religion at all, as wonderful and complex as religions are. They can teach, if we are critical and open hearted at the same time. Here’s the real secret of our way. Wonder upon wonders, it is all in our hands, yours and mine.

We just need to pay attention.

And isn’t that a wonder?

And a mystery?

Amen.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!