Ismail R. al-Faruqi
Born
in Jaffa, Palestinian Territory, Occupied
January 01, 1921
Died
May 27, 1986
Website
Genre
![]() |
التوحيد: مضامينه على الفكر والحياة
by
12 editions
—
published
1992
—
|
|
![]() |
أسلمة المعرفة: المبادئ العامة وخطة العمل
by
7 editions
—
published
1982
—
|
|
![]() |
أطلس الحضارة الإسلامية
by
5 editions
—
published
1419
—
|
|
![]() |
Islam and the Problem of Israel
2 editions
—
published
2003
—
|
|
![]() |
صياغة العلوم الاجتماعية صياغة إسلامية
by
2 editions
—
published
1989
—
|
|
![]() |
Historical Atlas of the Religions of the World
by
2 editions
—
published
1974
—
|
|
![]() |
Islam
5 editions
—
published
1994
—
|
|
![]() |
Islam and Other Faiths (Islamic Economics)
by
6 editions
—
published
1998
—
|
|
![]() |
Trialogue of the Abrahamic Faiths: Papers Presented to the Islamic Studies Group of American Academy of Religion
8 editions
—
published
1989
—
|
|
![]() |
Toward Islamic English (Islamization of Knowledge Vol 3)
3 editions
—
published
1988
—
|
|
“Whereas Jesus demanded of the Jews the rejection of the tribalist Jahweh whom they identified with Israel, the race, the community the political state as object of worship and desire, the Sufis, born in an atmosphere of pure monotheism, demanded what Jesus of the first century A.D. would demand if he were to relive his early life again in present-day monotheistic Christendom. This does not mean that Jesus did not demand, like the Sufis, the cleansing of the soul from the personal deities it may worship besides God, but it does mean that the main weight of his teaching centered around the Jewish preoccupation with the tribe as God."
"The object and deal of Sufism is, therefore, identically the same as that of the radical self-transformation of Jesus. Both aimed at the state of consciousness in which God is the sole subject, the sole determiner and the sole object of love and devotion. The tradition of both later influenced each other and succeeded in developing the same kind of preparatory disciplines leading towards the end. Finally, both referred to the final end of these processes as 'oneness' and their reference was in each case exposed to the same dangers of misunderstanding, indeed to the same misunderstanding. The oneness of Jesus was misunderstood as unity and fusion of being, and thus gave rise to the greatest materialization of an essentially spiritual union history has ever seen. The oneness of the highest Sufi state was likewise misunderstood and gave rise to the worst crime perpetrated on account of a supremely conscious misunderstanding...The destinies of the two misunderstandings, however, were far apart. The Christian misunderstanding came to dominate the Christendom; the Muslim misunderstanding performed its bloody deed and sank away in front of the Sufi tide which overwhelmed the Muslim world. The success of Sufism in Islam was therefore the success of the Jesus' ethic, but devoid of the theological superstructures which this Christian misunderstanding had constructed concerning the oneness of Christ with God, or of men with Christ. In the Middle Ages, the intellectual disciples of Jesus were the sufis of Islam, rather than the theologians of the Council or Pope-monarchs of Christendom.”
―
"The object and deal of Sufism is, therefore, identically the same as that of the radical self-transformation of Jesus. Both aimed at the state of consciousness in which God is the sole subject, the sole determiner and the sole object of love and devotion. The tradition of both later influenced each other and succeeded in developing the same kind of preparatory disciplines leading towards the end. Finally, both referred to the final end of these processes as 'oneness' and their reference was in each case exposed to the same dangers of misunderstanding, indeed to the same misunderstanding. The oneness of Jesus was misunderstood as unity and fusion of being, and thus gave rise to the greatest materialization of an essentially spiritual union history has ever seen. The oneness of the highest Sufi state was likewise misunderstood and gave rise to the worst crime perpetrated on account of a supremely conscious misunderstanding...The destinies of the two misunderstandings, however, were far apart. The Christian misunderstanding came to dominate the Christendom; the Muslim misunderstanding performed its bloody deed and sank away in front of the Sufi tide which overwhelmed the Muslim world. The success of Sufism in Islam was therefore the success of the Jesus' ethic, but devoid of the theological superstructures which this Christian misunderstanding had constructed concerning the oneness of Christ with God, or of men with Christ. In the Middle Ages, the intellectual disciples of Jesus were the sufis of Islam, rather than the theologians of the Council or Pope-monarchs of Christendom.”
―
“..Jesus was not to recapture for the Jewish vacuous ethos, the original value of the community on which it had wagered its whole life and weight. Rightly diagnosing Jewry's disease, he rejected not only their failure to comply with their ethic but the very foundation of that ethic. Piercing the walls of community survival, Jesus opened a whole new vista of genuine, properly ethical values, namely, the values of the individual person. The value of the community, no matter how 'surviving' and prosperous it may be or become, Jesus found inferior to that of the individual person. It is the latter that the community must serve. In respect to it, the value of the community can be only instrumental. The value of the individual person, the values which pertain to his inner self, are far more important than those which attach to community survival. For, what is the worth of the whole world and all mankind if the individual souls that compose it are ethically sick, if they do not realize the values of purity, of chastity, of sincerity, of charity, of forgiveness, of loving kindness and goodness? The ethical individual person is the end of moral life itself. How can community survival have anything but elemental worth? Even on this level of instruments and means, how can it have the first position? Are not the conditions of life and existence , which readily conduce to the cultivation of the moral person, of greater importance and therefore, of higher value? Would not the family with its ultimate self-sacrifice and love-cultivating atmosphere prove of higher worth than the community where everything must be impersonalized ,legalized, and exteriorized? Pursuing this same insight further, would not even solitude rank higher than community, where the person can turn his eyes inward and , as it were, focus attention on what his self actually is , on what it ought to be which it is not, and on bringing that self around to become that which it ought to be?”
―
―
Topics Mentioning This Author
topics | posts | views | last activity | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Challenge: 50 Books: JB's Challenge List for 2015 | 127 | 159 | Dec 31, 2015 06:16PM | |
Non Fiction Book ...: * Non-Fiction Book You Are Currently Reading or Just Finished ~ 2017 | 537 | 304 | Feb 01, 2018 11:50AM |