[arriftell]

A couple of things id like to add to this discussion. I do agree with some here that the ‘Traditionalist school’ that includes Schuon and Guenon and their adherents do position ideas in a way that strikes me as a lot of fluff at times. Fluff finely spun with incredibly elegant language, but fluff the same. Schuon will construct an architecture of language to introduce an idea that can be conveyed simply and if it was conveyed simply its impact would lesson. The ‘prove’ for the essential worth of traditional religions and their thread is that if a traditional religion still exists then God has sanctified it and therefore it’s valid. Arguments have erupted in respect to religions like Manichaeism, since at one time they had millions of adherents and now they don’t, so conclusion, God did not like that religion. For all the grand words, I find the core argument here a little simplistic. If humanity continues to exist for another 2000 years, who’s to know what will thrive and what will die. To suggest that existence and/or longevity and/or amount of participants/adherents equals sanctity form God is, in my mind, a philosophical Pandora’s box into the nature and intent of God’s works and I’m wondering if it would ultimately be a gross exaggeration of a deterministic deity.

That being said, there is no question that Religion has rarely been investigated with the same intelligence as the Traditionalist School has. Schoun’s Introducing Islam was like nothing I ever read and even though I now roll my eyes at some of the dense language, there are moments of genius and an argument for a more sophisticated way of looking at religion. He has the ability to create distance on a subject matter to more effectively connect the dots with other ideas. I believe there are inherent similarities between religions and that divine unity is one that is shared by many but I’m not convinced that Islam supports this. I agree with Man Eating Lizard that many Traditionalists come to religion through the traditional school or their religion is floundering and then is revived through the school and that it’s the school that become the focus of the spirituality, and its insistence on finding a ‘traditional’ religion the result of its insistence. I’ve heard that Guenon wanted to enter Hinduism, but felt that as a European with out a caste he could not, rejected Catholicism not because of creed but because he felt that it was corrupted by modernism, and therefore chose Islam because there was still a traditional ethos and culture that surrounded it. Seems to me to be a rather wishy washy reason for choosing religion.

That being said, Shuyab is a smart guy and I appreciate his point of view. When you navigate through them blinding lights, I think he’s got an interesting thing to say plenty of the time. And I agree with him on the Islam as “submission” and Islam as a community thing and how if you are going to recognize pre Islamic prophets as Muslims you have to come to terms with an “Islam” that relates to action and orientation which can be veiled by a multitude of expressions.

That being said…no but seriously, in regards to the hostility towards Hinduism, its getting a little much don’t you think? Hindus are not the same sort of polytheists as discussed in your holy book in my mind. Many incredibly gifted Hindu sages have made arguments for divine unity and for a one true God but it is their religion to have representations and focal points. There are some Hindus who crudely fall into an individualistic spiritualism but I’ve seen some of you do the same with your Jinn talk and how your neighbour is one and his malice is causing you to do poorly in life. I guess an argument for the transcendent unity of religion is that we can be transcendently superstitious no matter what your religion. And one thing I think is kind of nice that some of the polytheists emphasize is a respect for your ancestor. When you recognize and respect a chain, stretching back, you’re more likely to recognize a chain across the present and into the future, hence unity. Being how most of you are from South Asia, maybe this would be a good point to remember, regardless of your pretensions for Arabic or Persian blood.

In regards to nudity as defined relative to a culture, let’s not forget that cultures who have traditionally worn fewer clothes have done so for purely environmental reasons. To suggest that a culture in the heart of the Amazon is immodest lacks a little perspective. They would die if they wore what people wear in the middle east. The result is that what they see as nudity is different from what we do. Modesty has at its core intent, if one intends to be provocative, meaning they are expressing themselves in a vain way that leads with their sexuality, then they are immodest. But if there are wearing clothes that best suit their environment and their means of survival, without the intent to be provocative then that is far from immodest. Study the reason for modesty not its relative manifestation.