"Hey, this is all in code. Don't take any of it at face value."
Narrated Ikrama from Ibn Muqaffa who heard it from al-Jahiz from Ibn Abbas who heard the prophet peace be upon him say; "Hey, this is all in code. Don't take any of it at face value." (Bukhari Ibn Kalb)
LOL.
Tailor, this code theory is all very well (using the term loosely) but you still can't or wont explain why you are capable of showing us these hidden meanings and Mohammed wasn't. Surely that would demonstrate an appallingly incompetent choice of prophet on Allah's part if nothing else.
Your blog is fairly straightforward, from what I have read of it. I mean you aren't discussing the latest in subatomic physics or anything like that. You explain your point of view as well as you can and I think people get the gist of it. Why was Mohammed incapable of doing this in the Quran, which is supposed to be Allah's guide for humanity? Why couldn't Mohammed say to his associates "Hey, this is all in code. Don't take any of it at face value."
Okay, a short attempt at a reply before I am AFK for a week.
First, one answer a Sufi master from a different tariqa gave in response to this question from a literalist Muslim: "Frankly, I don't care if this is what was meant or not at the time. Your question is all hung up on history, and because time doesn't exist, history doesn't exist."
There is much merit in his answer. I certainly don't think history is important in my practice of the religion.
But let me attempt to summarize a more historical position in two stages anyway, just for fun.
First, assume I am with you: an apostate to the religion.
If I were an apostate, I would arrive at this point, <<not>> from a reading of Prophecy as a very clever way of gaining a Kingdom through manipulation of people's minds. All politics is, of course, a form of mind control. And certainly religion has proven its worth in gold to that effect. But, if I were to be an apostate, it would be from an understanding of Prophecy as a form of madness. My reading would lead me to believe that Muhammed really DID have visions in his mind, really did perceive all the stuff he talks about. I don't believe he was pretending to have seen an Angel: I think he really <<did>> see one. If you think he made it up consciously, rationally, politically, fraudulently, then you are a different kind of apostate. This form of apostacy (rejection because I think the Prophecy is looney versus rejection because he was a very clever political manipulator) comes down to how you read the hadiths that document his behaviour and actions (as no other Judao-Christian prophet has been documented. Aisha's hadiths in particular are a form of celebrity gossip column almost.)
But at any rate, if I were an apostate, I would say, his behaviour, his visions, his speech, the utterly disjointed nature of the book that came forth from him: it is all very consistent with the voice of madness. The description of how Prophecy descends upon Muhammed is very close to a kind of psychotic episode: he says it is like his body being broken apart. I know people with schizophrenia who have described similar feelings. And hearing voices ... well, if I were an apostate, I would be leaving the religion because, as Alice says in her adventures in Wonderland, "I don't want to be amongst mad people!"
Okay, let's say you are that kind of apostate too and we are on the same page.
How would such an apostate view all the political stuff that accompanied the Prophet's rise to power? Well, that is clear from the guys that were hanging around him: some of them were very effective wheeler-dealer types, spin doctors, aristocrats. And they employed this -- "fool king" -- to front their operation. Certainly you can see the fact that a serious amount of such backroom dealing and manipulation of their "fool king" was going on: how else can you explain the stuff that went on after his death? The Shias make a big fuss about the nature of that fitna, but the Sunni hadiths also detail this, but the scholars justify. It seems that the Prophet had so little power that he could not even get the inheritance issues sorted out for his daughter and most trusted companion. I am not Shia, and I accept the Sunni hadiths. But the nature of the fitna is a big hint here: we are talking about a Prophet that has very little control over the stuff that is going on in his kingdom. At the same time, as I am not Shia, I believe that the wheeler-dealers and backroom manipulators also accepted and attempted to follow the Prophet's Islam. But, if you read about THEIR behaviour, it is clear that often they had a hard time following (see, for example, the Prophet talking about garments and Abu Bakr's response). So, you could say the literalist rot set in quite early, but importantly, it was a literalism that came from the people who used the "fool king" and his clear charisma to establish a new political state.
Sound a plausible view for an apostate? I think I'd make a decent ex-Muslim on this forum, with such a view. Maybe the Prophet doesn't get slammed as much as some would like, but you can't have it both ways: either he was nuts (surrounded by clever politicians) hearing voices and seeing visions or was a clever, rational politician who invented stories and poems as he saw fit to charm the crowds. But judging from some people's tag lines here, it seems many of you think he was just crazy.
But then if you admit crazyness, then you also have to take some of the burden away from him needing to explain himself clearly
Such a burden falls only on a rational person, surely.
So Osmanthus, perhaps we could just stop at this stage and say: I don't think you can expect him to clarify his code, because he was nuts.
But as you see, I stand before you, a hyper-Salafi.
The second stage. A hyper-Salafi is quite close to the apostate of the first stage. I don't actually believe the Prophet was mad, but something quite close to madness is here. Prophecy is the polar opposite of madness. Rational, ordinary thinking is in between: that's where we are right now. But, like the poles of a Boolean Algebra, madness and prophecy are at the opposite ends of the limits of language. And, from a practical point of view, both are quite incapable of explaining themselves in the same way that rational people explain. So again, there is my stage two answer for Osmanthus.
Of course, as I am a believer, I believe that Prophecy reflects the Light of God: it is at the limits of language that the Limit of Language can be sought. I believe that this "fool king" who was seemingly manipulated by those around him to meet a physical, poltical agenda had in fact the final say: because he saw the people around him as Cosmic signs, and through his Prophecy, was in fact manipulating their signs to demonstrate his Truth.
So even the fitna, the behaviour of the manipulators around him in relation to his family: there is also a Truth embedded within that. Aisha is on the left side of Judgement, Fatima is on the right side of Love, and as they engage in warfare, both are signs that reflect the Cosmic Reality of our journey. To believe that this coincidence of a Cosmic Reality with the actual historical figures: well, it's same sort of thing as believing in miracles, right? Again, for me, the Cosmic Reality matters more than the actual historical people -- it wouldn't even matter to me if Muhammed and Aisha and Fatima never "existed" in the sense that you and I exist -- but nevertheless, I believe they did historically exist, and that this coincidence occurred, and that the Prophet perceived <<only>> this coincidence in his "madness".
But you don't need to believe any of this to appreciate my answer regarding why no rational-style explanation is given by the Prophet for what he says. If he's not capable of explaining himself, he's not capable, whether mad or prophetic.
I am a believer, and cleave to the Quran and the hadiths. They are my field and my harvest comes from their negotiation. I say that the majority of sheikhs never even read these texts: while I appear metaphoric, I say all interpretation (not just religious interpretation) is metaphor, and careful negotiation of metaphor is the key to truth. The majority of sheikhs worship their literalist metaphor as a totality: they are in idolatry. I accept my metaphors are shaky, communication is approximation, but attempt to steer my reading carefully toward the Light embedded within, a map of the body that leads from left to right.
This is hyper-Salafism: if you don't follow, understand it as madmen following Divine lunacy. It is the only way to read Torah and Quran: all other readings will lead to a form of idolatry or, if you are sensible, an outright rejection (much healthier). I follow this, not because I thought any of this philosophy out, but because of personal experience with Divine lunacy: I liked what I tasted, so came back for more!
Love and Light,
The Tailor
http://thegoodgarment.wordpress.com/
Topic: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam