My islam, part 2

I make certain basic assumptions-- before even approaching the Quran. First, that God does exist in some form. That the universe has both randomness and order, but the order is an order of magnitude greater than the chaos. What I mean by that is that even the most seemingly random events when viewed from a great distance take on a sense of order that is a basic principle that not only orders most human sciences, but also all of creation. When I think about the word, "Islam" I think not only about the literal meaning, submission, but also what could be meant by that, to what are we submitting? to God? to God's will? to God's laws? or to God's creation? and what are we submitting? Is it our bodies? our minds? our intentions? our possessions? The seemingly obvious answer, which is also the most widely accepted is that we are submitting our souls to God, but then that seems almost intuitive, our souls belong to God, so how could they not submit to God. It is our actions that we submit by our intentions. I try to take a more comprehensive view. What is the religion? What is God? If we accept that the Quran or other scriptures contain the word of God, thank it becomes evident that religion, as God describes it, is simply a path to return to hiim. so then, what does it mean to submit to a path? I immediately think of the Buddhist metaphor of an arrowing flying towards a target. It's path is straight and true,, as God describes the path of the righteous, and the arrow travels along it without wavering or bending, the arrow could certainly be said to be 'submitting' to its path. I think also of a river running to the sea. It pushes and pushes against obstacles to find the straightest and easiest path to the sea. It may take millions of years, but eventually, the water will wear down any obstacle and create the ideal path. And over time, the river's flow eventually becomes straighter and truer as it erodes the obstacles. I imagine myself as a stone in the river, submitting to its flow, submitting to the force that moves it irreconcilably to the goal. That movement doesn't only move the stone forward, but also pushes the stone against other stones, sometimes violently, which eventually smooths the stone, making it even smoother and rounder. Just as we are refined , defined and perfected by the obstacles in our own lives, by the people we meet and conflict with. Yet we move inexorably towards spiritual perfection.

A first step towards thinking about Islam

I cannot help but think of my faith as rationally as possible. Muslims may believe that their book, the Quran, is the word of God and a fitting first principle, but there is enough of man's hand in even that, that I cannot help but consider the even more primary gift given to us by our creator: our minds. We are, philosophy and observation tell us, a consciousness perceiving all else. All existence may well be nothing more than our imagination, but we know for sure that we exist. I think, therefore I am, as Descartes said. If this can be accepted, that our minds are our most primary given, than we must also accept that it is necessarily our greatest tool in perceiving even the divine. If you believe, as I do, before even rationalization, than you know that our minds too must be God given. Once you accept that, I can begin to make my case...

Who is the Quran speaking to?

Recently I came across this article: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=5258

where I read the following:

"Then there may be instances of ambiguity in address as well. Sometimes, a verse would apparently address the Prophet (pbuh); however, in reality the address would be directed at the Muslim ummah. Similarly, an apparent address to him would actually be directed at the leadership of the Quraysh or to the People of the Book. Examples of such addresses abound in the Qur'an. Thus it is essential that this differentiation be made with full caution, and it should be fully ascertained as to who is the actual addressee. Without this, the real purport of the Qur'an cannot be grasped.

"Third, general and specific verses should be differentiated. There are many places in the Qur'an where the words are general; however, the context testifies with full certainty that something specific is meant. The Qur'an uses the word (people), but it does not refer to all the people of the world; and many a time they do not even refer to all the people of Arabia: the word refers to a group among them. It uses the expression (on all the religions), and it does not refer to all religions of the world; it refers to (polytheists) but they do not refer to all those who are guilty of polytheism. Similarly, the words (And from these People of the Book) do not refer to all the People of the Book of the world. It mentions the word (man) but it does not refer to mankind."

This is important in understanding the Quran as not only a timeless scripture, but also a record of specific events at a specific time in history.  If this is true, then is it all relevant to us?  And if some of the Quran is not relevant to us, then how can we see it as a perfect book? How can we think the supreme being would be so lazy.

But I don't see it that way.  Think of a classic book, let's say Huck Finn.  Does the very important and ALWAYS relevant message that you should treat people equally become less true because the story takes place in the past...? No.  And on the other hand, does a reader need to embrace the archaic lifestyle, morals and pastimes of the characters of the story to feel that the message of it speaks to them...? No.

So if we know this to be true: That literature is a powerful way to teach society, an intimate whisper into the heart of a reader, and we know that God is speaking to us through stories and metaphor, both of which are necessary elements of literature, then why can we not see certain parts of the Quran AS literature? Not reportage, not commandments, but actually literature, with all the open endedness and personal interpretation that is suggested by that.

I think even in the Quran, God warns us against taking things to literally... and more importantly he warns us against forcing our interpretation on others:

"Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ
which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning. Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.
(Sorry, I believe in quoting full verse references to avoid misinterpretation.)"

Today, I joined my sister and her kids to build some support for her organization, Muslims for Peace. The purpose behind the organization is to show to the world, that there is a majority of Muslims who are peaceful. We set up a table at the MLK day event sponsored by local Brooklyn politician, Kevin Powell. It was very interesting. Very few Muslims there, but as the audience was primarily African American, they were very sympathetic.