I have now several times seen well dressed, lucid, patriotic American Muslims who identify themselves as officials of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in California interviewed on 24/7 news as representatives of Muslim leadership.
The reporters obviously do not understand that the Ahmadiyya movement is considered by all other Muslims as heretical and non-Islamic.
These Ahmadi gentlemen are quite rational, quite modern, quite American. Their sect was founded in British India specifically as a reform movement reaching out to all people of all faiths and proselytizing on the basis of teaching and community building. They make a specialty of translating the Qur'an into many languages to make it accessible to people world-wide. If you own a Qur'an in an English translation it most likely was published by the Ahmadis. For this translational effort the Ahmadis are roundly condemned by every other Sunni Muslim group that I know of. There have been translations of the Qur'an but they have always been thought to be a bad idea. In the view of all Muslims (except the Ibadhis) the Qur'an is the word of God as God thought it. For them the Qur'an is not a created document. It descended to Muhammad in God's words. In other words it is an aspect of the mind of God and God thinks in classical Arabic. It is for them liisan al-mala'ika (the tongue of the angels). Therefore, it can never be translated. I am told that the 12er Shia allow translation. That is a new datum for me.
Even more problematic for Muslims concerning the Ahmadis is the claim of their founder to have been the true messiah.
In fact the Ahmadis are persecuted everywhere in the Islamic World and are thought to be murtadd (apostates) and subject to death sentences in places like Saudi Arabia.
The West and its values have natural allies in the Islamic culture continent and I would number the Ahmadis and a lot of Sufi groups as being among them.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the MSM is so ignorant of the internal structure of Islamdom that it does not register mentally with them that these Ahmadis are outliers in the broad panoply of Islamic groups. pl
a french study during their occupation of algeria, found there to be thousands of sufi brotherhoods in Algeria.
modernization in the middle east has basically meant the destruction of the sufi organization in the imposition of anticlerical governments(something very very very different than the word used for it"secular nationalism)
Posted by: pA | 06 December 2015 at 07:50 PM
"navel-gazing Hindu practices"... "mysticism like that of Rumi" ... "paganism"
All good stuff from my point of view, Babak :)
One (of the many) philosophical advantages of being a polytheist is that I no longer have to deal with the "one and many problem. ;)
It's also easier to be a realist...
“This notion of divine omnipotence was responsible for the demise of realism.” - The Theological Origins of Modernity, by Michael Allen Gillespie
Sakka asked the Buddha: "Do different religious teachers head for the same goal or practice the same disciplines or aspire to the same thing?"
"No, Sakka, they do not. And why? This world is made up of myriad different states of being, and people adhere to one or another of these states and become tenaciously possessive of them, saying, 'This alone is true, everything else is false.' It is like a territory that they believe is theirs. So all religious teachers do not teach the same goal or the same discipline, nor do they aspire to the same thing.
"But if you find truth in any religion or philosophy, then accept that truth without prejudice."
-Digha Nikaya
Posted by: Valissa | 06 December 2015 at 09:39 PM
"...failed navel-gazing Hindu practices..."
Yoga is doing just fine, thank you! Virtually every strip mall along the coasts has a Yoga center. If that is a failure, I wonder what you call success :)
Posted by: Macgupta123 | 06 December 2015 at 10:21 PM
Some day perhaps you could tell us why you find Buddhism attractive in lieu of something that is much closer to your own tradition, Stoicism.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 06 December 2015 at 11:20 PM
Success would be something like the Catholic Church, the longest existing human construct; it has engaged with the world over 2000 years and at times has altered it - and it is still responding to the world and actively engaging with it both emotionally and rationally.
Yoga - from Yoke - "Yugh" in Persian.
Men are not oxen.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 06 December 2015 at 11:25 PM
Sorry, here I do not get your argument:
Classic Latin was not understood by most people, this includes "Latin" countries like Italy and Spain. Even there a translation would have been necessary for a bringing the bible to the people.
IMHO it was about the implications a translation would have, translation includes always interpretation, the core business/competence of the Roman Catholic Church.
The reasons that the Catholic Church survived in southern countries must have been others IMHO.
Posted by: Ulenspiegel | 07 December 2015 at 07:21 AM
I have deep sympathies with Stoicism... that's very perceptive of you. I'm a big fan of Marcus Aurelius. But I'm also a bit of a Hedonist as well... I'm a happy stoic ;) Regarding Buddhism... there's definitely a strong thread of stoicism that underlies it. Many of the practices for developing detachment require an attitude of stoicism to pursue.
The truth is Babak, that I find wisdom, beauty and truth in many spiritual philosophies and have absorbed bits and pieces from different sources into my own path. Overall I quite like many aspects of the eastern religious philosophies, which have had a long time to develop/evolve and be "tested"... Hinduism, Buddhism, and most especially Taoism (which also has qualities of stoicism, as it promotes the importance of "perseverance" as one walks their Path or Way).
Posted by: Valissa | 07 December 2015 at 10:24 AM
In Vedic Sanskrit, yoga (from the root yuj) means "to add", "to join", "to unite", or "to attach" in its most common literal sense. By figurative extension from the yoking or harnessing of oxen or horses, the word took on broader meanings such as "employment, use, application, performance" (compare the figurative uses of "to harness" as in "to put something to some use".
Pre-philosophical speculations of yoga begin to emerge in the texts of c. 500–200 BCE. Between 200 BCE–500 CE philosophical schools of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism were taking form and a coherent philosophical system of yoga began to emerge
Posted by: sbarrkum | 07 December 2015 at 10:53 AM
Say no more Valissa; our resident Danish Hedonist Intellectual ...
I do not know about others, but I feel that I have missed an opportunity several decades ago....
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 07 December 2015 at 11:07 AM
Namaste, Babak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste
Posted by: Valissa | 07 December 2015 at 01:03 PM
I am ashamed that I haven't even heard of the Ahmadis. Theirs truly are the clean offerings
Blessed be their memory for now and all eternity!
Posted by: glupi | 07 December 2015 at 01:45 PM
yep, the real father of the Pakistani Nuclear program was Abdus-Salaam, the Ahmadi.
Question: What do they call experts on Islam and Islamic culture? "Islamist" has been preempted by another meaning.
Those that are familiar with Arab culture and language are still called "Arabists." They are disfavored by the likes of Kagan-Nuland, Douglas Feith, and the rest of the NeoKons b/c they were sympathetic to the Arabs. Under the NeoCons, loyalty/sympathy is to Israel only.
Posted by: will | 07 December 2015 at 10:25 PM
yep, but all men and women, to one degree or another, seek to unite with "the ultimate ground of being." some call that being atman, the buddha mind, God, Jesus, Tengrit, Deus, Deus Pater (Jupiter), Wotan-Odin- etc.
Posted by: Will | 08 December 2015 at 09:02 AM
Will
At one point in time, they were known also as the Orientalists. However, it is laughable to see that label being used by some from Academia or journos who haven't even been in some of those countries, let alone know the culture or language.
Posted by: The Beaver | 08 December 2015 at 11:20 AM
As an Iranian American Muslim who has frequented Shia and Sunni mosques over the years, I have to say I've never even heard of hostility towards translating the Qur'an. Same goes for my understanding of the view in Iran. I can't speak for other places though.
Posted by: Ali | 10 December 2015 at 04:36 AM
Ali
If you have never heard of Sunni hostility to Qur'an translation you haven't been paying attention. I don't know as much about Iran and Shia attitudes about this but I have been in the ME business for 40 years and have always known about this phenomenon among Sunnis. "Translating the Quran has always been problematic and difficult. Many argue that the Quranic text cannot be reproduced in another language or form." wiki on Quran
Posted by: turcopolier | 10 December 2015 at 08:49 AM
conjugal.
Posted by: rjj | 10 December 2015 at 09:05 AM
re: Difficulty translating the Quran:
I would add that a text like that generally, even translated, cannot be properly understood without learned commentray and explanation, especially for those coming from a different religious background.
I own a commented Quran translation by Theodore Khoury.
The need for learned commentary and explanation is just as necessary with the laws of man.
Literalists are IMO either frauds or fools or both.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 10 December 2015 at 09:35 AM