Tolerance and Compassion
Robert Seitz
The following is a speech given by Mohammed Khatami, president of Iran.
While collectively there are numerous issues with Islam that make people
uncomfortable, the treatment of women in particular, Iran and especially
Khatami are to be considered 'progressive'. Popularly elected, revered by
male and female students, while he avoids extensive reform in the midst of a
highly conservative government, he has on numerous occasions been the giver
of elegant, spiritual thoughts. Having encountered many cultures in Los
Angeles, I have an awareness that many Iranians in the US hail the changes
being made in that country, from free democracy to the development of
education, business and political opportunities for women. A cleric,
teacher, and librarian before presidency, he is a world figure I highly
admire. Could you imagine a librarian ascending to political power in this
country?!
In this instrument Khatami addresses a body of Italian students, and makes
references to gnosis, a true connecting-point between the mystic doctrines
of the East and West. In the West we are just re-discovering this heritage
of thought, including Hellenic Neo-Platonic ideas, which were referred in
Umberto Ecco's 'In the Name of the Rose' as the most dangerous knowledge to
be repressed by the world government, the books containing such writings
being poisoned on their very pages. In the East Gnosticism has been alive
and well, in very old forms, also producing in ornate hybrid with Islam the
movements of the Sufis. One of these Sufis, Rumi, has become known even in
the West and is to be found in every fine book store.
As history has demonstrated a repetition in the practice of bloodshed, so
too is there an equivalent pattern for the repression of free thought.
Perhaps the sense of danger will awaken the senses and bring forth
meaningful exchange. In the spirit of avoiding a disastrous consequence of
disregarding an entire, diverse culture as monstrous, and avoiding future
cultural racism, please share this document with anyone you feel might be
interested.
Best Regards,
R.
**********************************************
Full text of President Khatami's speech at Florence University
Rome, March 10, IRNA
In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Ladies and gentlemen, Distinguished audience,
Meeting a group of academics is always a pleasing experience for me. For it
is in their presence when matters revolve around "speaking", "listening" and
"understanding".
Understanding is the result of speaking and listening, and these two --
speaking and listening -- in addition to seeing, constitute the most
important of all physical, mental and spiritual functions of man. What
arises from "seeing" is the expansion of the frontiers of wisdom as well as
the stability and firmness of the "self" while we speak to "others" and
listen to "others".
Seeing is done through the "I", and the "universe and mankind" arise from
seeing and the subject of seeing. However, "speaking" and "listening" are a
two-dimensional -- or multidimensional -- effort aimed at coming closer to
the truth and arriving at understanding.
It is for this reason that "dialogue" pertains neither to skeptics, nor does
it belong to those who believe the truth to lie solely within their own
claws and under their own domination. Rather, understanding reveals its
beautiful, albeit veiled countenance, only to the wayfarers of the path
whose followers travel hand in hand, and in step with each other.
The phrase "dialogue among civilizations and cultures", which should in fact
be interpreted as the process of "speaking and listening among civilizations
and cultures", is based upon such an account of truth. This definition is
not necessarily in contradiction with the well-known explications of truth
that have appeared in philosophical discourses.
"Dialogue among civilizations" necessitates "listening" to other
civilizations and cultures, and listening to others, if not more important,
is certainly not less important than speaking to others.
Talking and listening creates conversation, one side addresses the other
side, and speech is exchanged. Under what circumstances is man addressed? In
other words, in what kind of world is he or she addressed?
The world of science is not a world of speeches and addresses. Science is a
conscious effort to discover the relationship between objects, and for this
reason scientific discourse does not transcend the man's self-consciousness.
However, the world of art and the world of religion are worlds in which the
man is addressed. We are addressed by works of art, and in religion, by
words from the divinity. It is for this reason that gnostic and religious
languages share a genuine and deep bond, and it is for this reason that the
earliest works of human art are considered to be an example of "sacred art".
The phrase "O mankind" has been repeated many a time in the holy Bible and
the magnificent Quran. It is by being addressed as such that "individual
man" rises to the level of an exalted "person".
Although the etymology of the word "persona" shares the same root as the
word "mask", as worn by actors in a play, it is important to note that in
the theory of religious address -- when mankind is addressed as a universal
and all-encompassing divine word, and not when he is being taught a
religious precept or social law -- the "person" addressed is not his
psychological, social or historical persona. What is addressed is the true,
historical and unified essence of man. It is for this reason that in their
essence and substance, divine religions are not different from each other.
Their differences arise from religious edicts and laws which pertain to
man's social and legal life.
Here, one must ask, "who is this `person' who is being addressed?" a great
deal of efforts of the philosophers since time immemorial has been devoted
to finding an answer to this question. They have attempted to explain how
and in what manner can one comes to know the persona" of man -- an absolute
understanding of the "self". The concepts of self-knowledge and
self-discovery constitute the two main parts of this philosophical inquiry.
The interesting story of philosophical anthropology and the adventures of
self-knowledge require a few long nights in the "one thousand and one nights
of the history of philosophy". Some of these stories have been posed in the
east, and some in the west. The important point, however, is that eastern
stories explain the eastern aspect of man's existence and essence, while
western stories narrate man's western aspect. Man is the fluence of the soul
of the east and the reason of the west. The denial of any aspect of man's
existence renders our understanding of the meaning of his existence flawed
and inadequate.
In gaining an understanding of the meaning of the term "person", we should
not be ensnared by either the notion of individualism or the notion of
collectivism. Although the ground for the development of the modern concept
of the "individual" has been laid down by Christian thinkers, this cannot be
interpreted as a natural connection between these two theories.
In my opinion, deep attention paid to the meaning of "person", as the
essence of the sacred word, bears no relation to the notion of "egoism". Of
course, everyone has said that in modern society, it is the individual who
is the measure of all institutions, laws and social relations, and that
civil laws and human rights are in fact the rights of the same individual".
On the other hand, collectivism, as against individualism, in fact has been
the result of the development of this very concept of the individual.
Consequently, both concepts are derived from an identical philosophical
source. For this reason, from the standpoint of our spiritual wisdom, we
consider the conflict between individualistic liberalism and collective
socialism to be merely superficial and accidental.
The theory of the "person" is readily elucidated and explained by
gnosticism. Muslim gnostics view man as a universe. His originality is
neither due to his individuality nor to his plurality. Man's originality
rises from the fact that it is he, and only he, who is addressed by the
sacred voice. By thus being addressed, man's soul gains ascent, and with the
ascent of his soul, his world becomes a just and humane world.
Whoever reflects, even briefly, upon the history of philosophy, will clearly
witness the constant movement from one extreme to another. The most recent
link in this chain is the concept of "modernity". The word "modernity',
which is apparently the most modern derivative of the group of words is
derived from the Latin "modernus", which apparently came into fashion for
the first time during the 19th century. But the root of this word has
fifteen centuries of usage behind it.
It is only in the 19th and 20th centuries that this word was applied to a
wide range of concepts in various philosophical, artistic, scientific,
historical and ethics. The common denominator of all these terms consists of
a tremor that rocked the foundations of human existence and thought toward
the end of the middle ages, a tremor that altered the axis round which
humanity and the world rotated. To the extent that man's world is influenced
by his thought, contemporary man and his world are the result of this
"modern" axis which appeared after the middle ages. This new axis, which was
termed "modern" in those days, is now known to us as the renaissance.
Despite numerous books and articles published to explain the advent of the
renaissance, this momentous event is still in need of greater deliberation
by philosophers, historians and men of knowledge. As pointed out by many
thinkers, the renaissance did not only seek a renewal of Greek culture;
rather, its main objective was to discuss religion in a fresh language and
from a fresh mental perspective. The renaissance described religious man in
such a manner that, instead of seclusion from the world, in order to
belittle and suppress it, he would come to face the world.
As seen by the renaissance, the religious man's being is open to the world,
and the world receives him with open arms. The reciprocal opening of the
world and man to each other is the most fundamental characteristic of the
renaissance -- an essentially religious event, aimed at the preservation,
reformation and propagation of religion, rather than its contravention and
contradiction.
Yet, this momentous event met with a fate quite at variance with what the
renaissance had originally intended. The concept of opening the world to man
turned into oppression, domination and subjugation of the world, a process
not only confined to nature, but one whose flame engulfed human community as
well. What later came to be known as "colonialism" in social and political
history of Europe was the result of the extension man's domination of nature
and the use of the natural sciences to man and human sciences. It is here
that one cannot reflect and study the story of "modernity" without first
adopting a humanistic and moral stance.
The critique of modernity which I am presenting arises from an angle and
stance that are radically different from what its famous critics, especially
in the realm of philosophy, have adopted. One who wishes to saw off a branch
of a tree must not saw off the branch on which he stands. The manner in
which some contemporary philosophers have criticized modernity is very much
like this proverb.
By stripping modernity of all rationality or its source of origin, they
either turn it into a weapon capable of destroying everything, including
itself, or they portray it as a dull, rusty, old, worn-out weapon, which can
be valued as a museum piece. Without the force of reason and, of course,
without recognizing its limits, it is impossible to use reason as a tool for
criticism.
The critique of pure reason -- which opened a new chapter in western
philosophy and can be interpreted as a critique of objects and concepts,
including pure reason itself -- can be realized only when intellect is based
on reason. Without reason, it would be impossible to arrive at a correct
conception and a true picture of some of the most vital issues, such as
human rights, peace, justice and freedom, and attempt to establish them.
This should not be taken to mean a call for reversion to European
rationalism and logocentrism as they existed before the advent of
post-modernism. As the origin and fountainhead of modern rationality, Europe
bears a greater responsibility in offering a critique of that kind of
rationality and finding a way to avoid its destructive implications. Europe
which has been the prime victim of unbounded reliance on rationality, is now
in the process of depriving its own rationality of all credibility and
authority in the hands of its thinkers and philosophers.
The Orient, which even in an etymological sense signifies the process of
imparting direction and order to things, can beckon Europe and America to
equilibrium, serenity and reflection in the context of an historical
dialogue and understanding, and thus contribute to the establishment of
peace, security and justice. If deeply understood in their Eastern
connotations, equilibrium and serenity lie beyond both the Dionysian and
Apollonian extremes of western culture. The age of reason is an Apollonian
age while romanticism is the opposite pull on the swing of this pendulum.
The coming century ought to be a century of turning to a kind of
spirituality, searching for which Eastern man is endowed with thousands of
years of experience. European culture owes its vitality and vigor to its
critical view of everything, including the European culture itself.
But now it is time for Europe to move one more step ahead and take a look at
itself through the eyes of another. This does not imply turning a blind eye
to the remarkable heritage of the European culture and civilization, nor
does it signify a call for some kind of obscurantism. Rather, it is meant to
encourage this culture to acquire new experiences and gain a more precise
knowledge of the cultural topography of the world.
In Orientalism, it is the Orient which is the subject of study, not a party
to dialogue. In order to attain a real dialogue among civilizations, the
east should be transformed from an object of understanding to a genuine
party to dialogue. This, however, is not a one-sided invitation. As
Iranians, Muslims, and Asians, we, too, are obliged to take long strides in
the direction of understanding the realities of the West.
Such an understanding will help us improve and bring order to our economic
and social way of life. Taking such strides, whether on our part on the part
of Europe, requires certain moral and mental traits, which were first
recognized and promoted in Europe by Italians.
Historians of the renaissance have been explicit in the continuous contact
between Italians and Byzantium. The Muslim world was the driving force
behind the emergence of tolerance among Italians. Since the time of the
crusades, Italians came to know and admire Islamic culture and civilization.
This knowledge of and admiration for an unfamiliar culture and civilization
became the driving force behind the spread of the spirit of tolerance among
Italians.
One of the ironies of history is that this concept of tolerance, which was
adopted by Europeans from Muslims, a consequence of their acquaintance with
Muslims, has in our time come to be a moral and political value recommended
by Europeans to Muslims. Traces of Islamic "civility" in producing the
spirit of tolerance among Europeans are clearly discernible in European
literature. "Nathan the sage", a well-known play by the German playwright,
Lessing, itself an adaptation of the ancient Italian Cento Novelle Anticho,
clearly states this.
The impression which Islamic thinking and culture left on the Italian and
European cultures is not limited to the concept of tolerance. No
civilization has the right to expropriate the share of other civilizations
in its own favor, nor should it deny the part played by others in
advancement of human civilization. Apart from the impression which Islamic
philosophy, theology and art have left on Europe, what brought about
spiritual refinement and moral edification of Europeans has been the rich
and vast Islamic culture. Perhaps one example worth mentioning here is the
influence which works of the great Muslim gnostic, Ibn Arabi, left on Dante,
a point which has been deliberated at length by great European researchers.
However, to delve into past history without looking at the future can only
be an academic diversion. To help human societies and improve the condition
of the world, it is necessary to consider the present state of relations
between Asian, in particular Muslim, countries and Europe.
Why do we say, in particular, Muslim? Because Islam is Europe's next-door
neighbor; unlike individuals, nations are not free to choose or change
neighbors. Therefore, apart from moral, cultural and human reasons, out of
historical and geographical necessity, Islam and Europe have no choice but
to gain a better and more accurate understanding of each other, and thus
proceed to improve their political, economic and cultural relations. Our
future cannot be separated from each other, because it is impossible to
separate our past.
Today, the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus... and among modern
philosophers, Descartes, Kant, Hegel and Wittgenstein are taught at our
schools of philosophy alongside Kandi, Farabi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna),
Sohrevardi and Molla Sadra. If today, great Asian civilizations see
themselves the mirror of the West, and are acquainted with each other
through the west, in a not-too-distant past, Islam held a mirror to the
West -- a mirror in which the West could see a clear image of its own past
history and cultural and intellectual heritage.
If dialogue is not a choice but a necessity for our culture and the culture
of the West, then the West should attempt to enter a dialogue with
representatives of original Islamic thinking and culture. Otherwise, a
dialogue between the West and Westernized individuals, who represent only a
flawed and sterile image of the West, is not only not a dialogue, but cannot
even be considered a monologue. A deep, precise and thoughtful dialogue
between the West and Islamic civilizations can result in just, humane and
practical solutions to some of the most pressing problems of the present-day
world: crisis within the family, crisis in the relationship between man and
nature, the moral crisis in certain scientific research projects, and
numerous problems of this kind can and must be among issues to be addressed
in any dialogue between Islam and Europe.
A dialogue is desirable only if it is based on freedom and choice. In a true
dialogue, one party cannot impose his ideas on the other. In a true
dialogue, one must respect the independent existence, the ideological,
intellectual and cultural attributes of the other party. Only under such
stances can dialogue become a prologue to peace, security and justice. In
the midst of this, a dialogue with Iran is particularly propitious. Iran is
a neighbor to Europe on one side, and to Asia on the other. For this reason,
Iran is the confluence of the cultures of the East and of the West, just as
man is the confluence of the reason of the West and the soul of the East.
Hearts and minds of Iranians epitomize harmony, love and tolerance. It is
because of this that Iranians are proponents of dialogue among
civilizations.
Jeremy Reaban
Jeremy Reaban
"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@Xconnectria.com> wrote in message
news:tq62h3t...@corp.supernews.com...
> Thanks for sharing that.
Although, despite his words, I believe Sufis are persecuted in Iran,
as well as non muslims, like Bahai & Zoroastrians. So I believe he is
something of a hypocrite.
William Edward Woody
With all due respect, this is the same fellow who now blaims the
bombings in New York and Washington D.C. on Zionist forces within the
Israeli government.
--
- William Woody http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~woody
The PandaWave http://www.pandawave.com
In Phase Consulting http://www.inphase.org
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots & tyrrants" - Thomas Jefferson