How did Carl Gustav Jung invite me to Islam?
In the early years of Muslims’ history, a group of Muslims in a fight among themselves put some pages of the Qur’an on the tip of their spears. Thus they make themselves inviolable; they turn the sacred into their armor. The strange thing is that their opponents also join this project; they cannot resist their opponents either. Even though they were rivals, they shared the same paradigm. Both sides lacked a higher perspective, a revolutionary paradigm. History shows us that the sacred, one way or another, becomes the spear or the shield of someone’s partisanship. This is true for all kinds of sacred…
One cold evening in Germany, the Turkish-origin imam of a mosque in Duisburg complained about the difficulty of living as a Muslim in Europe. As we were drinking the Turkish coffees, he told me that they are under heavy pressure, and Europeans want to assimilate their Muslim identity. He mentioned that they were forbidden to recite the 19th verse of the Surah Ali Imran in their sermons. Ironic thing was that the name of the surah ‘Ali Imran’ comes from story the root family of Mary (the Imran Family) who was at the center of the Christian culture. How can this topic be the cause of separation between Muslims and Christians?
Before I continue with the story, I want to give you an etymology lesson that might bore you. Keywords in this article is ‘religion’ and ‘etymology’; both are tiresome subjects!
‘Religion’, often, is understood, explained (and inevitably) experienced as a kind of organization and of course, as a source of fierce political conflict. It’s obvious that this fierce conflict, not only in the inter-religious area, but also continues between the sects within the religion. The unsurprising thing is that, as it comes from inter-religious to intra-religious area, the dose of this conflict intensifies. It proves that there is a very basic misunderstanding here.
For a very short time, I want to draw your attention to the concept of ‘din’ that you are not familiar with in English. ‘Din’ as an Arabic word, corresponds to ‘religion’ in English. However, translations made without an etymological excavation led to confusion. So we need to touch the etymology of the term ‘din’. In my native language, Turkish, the concept of ‘din’ which is taken from Arabic is also used. However, as I painfully realized recently, words that deviate from their root meaning become invalid like currencies that have no exchange opportunity. So there would be no value transfer from one language to another; Consequently, we become intellectual bankrupts. The word ‘din’, equivalent of ‘religion’ comes from the ‘d-y-n’ root that feeds the meaning of ‘debt’. In its simplest, most plain meaning, ‘din’/’religion’ is a kind of ‘debt awareness’ According to the later ancient writers, such as Servius, Lactantius, and Augustine, the word ‘religion’ comes from Latin religare, meaning “to bind fast” via the notion of “place an obligation on” or “bond between humans and gods” The meaning of ‘bond’ (assumed to exist in the Latin root of the word ‘religion’) coincides with the meaning of ‘debt awareness’. Because there is a tight bond between the debtor and the creditor, as long as the debts continue.
Debt is more of an awareness of one’s own existence at the most basic level. The term ‘self-aware’ is used only for humans. Human exists and is aware of his/her existence. The one who is conscious of his/her existence also recalls that he/she did not always exist. Then he/she should also realize that his/her existence was not a random and spontaneous occurrence. He/she should be thankful and amazed that he/she exists and alive, because he/she did not choose or cause it. This makes him/her feel indebted. These basic feelings-gratitude and wonder-supposed to fill the experience area we call ‘religion’ nowadays. At the core of what we perceive more as ‘institutional religion’, there is a non-institutional, civil and individual flow. Unlike the ‘religiousness’ experience that has turned into a partisanship and grouping, wonder and gratitude are start of an inward journey. Inward journey cannot be sloganized, cannot be a cause of quarrel, cannot be a source of conflict. It invites everyone to look inside (‘Naikan’-Japanese mindfulness, one of my books in Turkish).
Enough of this boring etymology lesson.
The imam read me the first sentence of the verse. He had memorized it because it is recited at least once a week in the sermons in Turkey. From what I recall from my youth, this verse implies a challenge for Muslims against Christians and Jews. It seems as if God favors Muslims, not the so-called ‘non-Muslims’.
Here is the translation of the phrase: “The [only] religion before God is Islam.”
I think you hear what I hear: “The only religion that God favors is [the religion of the Muslims]. No surprise! Because the meaning that modern Muslims give to the word ‘Islam’ is more based on cultural acceptance and traditional patterns. This cultural habit and socially adopted schema can be bold enough to equate ethnic and sectarian lifestyles with ‘religion’ and finally with ‘Islam’. Following this scheme, we can also construct narrower derivatives of this sentence: “The only true religion in the sight of God is [the religions of the Turks/Arabs/Persian/Sunnis/Shias etc.”
Of course, Muslims’ or Turks’ way of living has no right to equate exactly ‘what Islam is’. ‘Islam’ is a verb in this sentence (its root is s-l-m) not an adjective exclusive to any group of people, including those who identify themselves as ‘Muslim’, ‘Sunni’ or ‘Shia’. ‘Islam’ implies the process of surrendering to the truth. It calls people to action; it does not grant privilege to a certain group. However, the meaning we give with cultural habit and social schema implies not surrendering to the truth but taking over the truth. The truth does not need to surrender any culture or any sectarian lifestyle.
My imam friend and (of course his audience in the mosque) put the ‘Islam’ in the verse as a privilege adjective on themselves from the beginning. The traditional meaning attributed to word ‘din’/‘religion’ causes a tragic deviation from the original sense, as we can easily understand. If we adhere strictly to the conventional, surface-level interpretation of ‘religion,’ we will be hearing that “institutional religion” that Muslims represent is the only way of life that God favors. This perspective asserts that only those who identify as Muslims are deemed acceptable to God. Such sentiments are often expressed with a hint of animosity towards Christians and Jews. So the route to embracing Islam (‘surrendering the truth’) stays accessible solely to a particular group, and that group asserts exclusive entitlement to this honorable designation from the outset. Among modern Muslims, ‘embracing Islam’ is often understood as being a supporter of Muslims. Although the ‘being supporter of Muslims’ is not entirely wrong, but it excludes the meaning of the inward journey that verse calls ‘surrender’.
Indeed, the sentences that follows this sentence describe Christians and Jews as having a common ground in the ‘Book’. The verse does not describe Christians and Jews with the exclusionary ‘non-Muslim’ adjective that modern Muslims prefer. Islam, in reality, is not limited to any particular group and does not hinder anyone from the path to surrendering the truth.
When we go down to the debt root of the word religion, we will hear such an address: “Your only debt in the sight of God is to surrender to the truth.” You see… There is no privilege! No exclusion! No exception! The verse calls for an open path for everyone. Accessible. Wide. Easy to go. Starting from one’s self. Indeed, Muhammad Asad, in The Message of Quran, translates ‘islam’ not as a name and institutional religion name, but as ‘surrendering’ He tries to open the door to the real meaning; but when the word ‘religion’ does not go down to the ‘debt’ root, the meaning freezes in the institutional religion. As a result, the misunderstanding of this verse is the problem of so called Muslims. I said to the imam that evening: “Because we (Muslims) misunderstood and misinterpreted the verse, the Europeans who misunderstood it imposed a wrong ban. The misunderstanding of the verse in this way should disturb us Muslims before the Europeans. I’m disturbed!”
To cut a long story short:
What we owe to God is to surrender to the truth. Islam is surrendering. Surrendering is not a partisan REWARD that gives privileges to some, but a DUTY that needs to be completed. It calls everyone who is human to the inward flow, to the introspection.
As Carl Gustav Jung puts it, “[t]he one who looks outside dreams, the one who looks inside sees the truth.” When I look outside, I see discrimination. When I look outside, I see monopolization of truth. When I look outside, I see social conflicts. When I look outside, I hear fiery slogans. When I look outside, I see social racism. When I look outside, I see Islamophobia. When I look outside, I may become the cause of Islamophobia.
But when I look inside, I see the deep silence …the inspirational flow …the universal conscience … the genuine sincerity …common humanity … the truth that calls everyone to the same place.
