Islam and the City of God

[prhedst]

My question is a philosophical one related to St. Augustine, who said each person has one citizenship in the earthly city and another in the heavenly city. The Aga Khan said this helps explain the Western separation between the spiritual and the secular realms.

Here are my thoughts, first that it doesn't aapply uniformly across Christianity (i.e. the idea of the protestant work ethic, i.e. everything you do in the world, you do for God.) But more to the point of Islam (or eastern philosophy in general), which according to the Aga Khan sees no separation between the two cities. I agree entirely with this but I think it needs to be interpreted very carefully because there it can also be distorted as a principle to mean its exact opposite. In other words, you can say "the spiritual and the secular are one and the same." And of course, therefore you can charge money for spiritual truth or can exalt yourself in materialism as a sign of God's prosperity (such as Osho did with owning something like 30 Rolls Royces). The opposite of Osho I think would be someone like the Aga Khan, who out of his wealth uses that wealth for the benefit of humanity. But do you see how the same principle, depending on how it is interpreted, can result in different outcomes?

There are also other problems that arise too in the political landscape. Such as separation of church and state. Because if the secular and the spiritual are the same, then you could end up with the Taliban. But I think this is solved in the American Constitution when it recognized that inalienable rights stem from God (thereby recognizing a spiritual authority) and yet states that Congress can neither establish a religion nor prohibit the free expression thereof. So it recognizes spirituality but not its codification as religion.

So does anyone have any thoughts on this? Has anyone else noticed this apparent dichotomy?

[kmaherali]

And of course, therefore you can charge money for spiritual truth or can exalt yourself in materialism as a sign of God's prosperity (such as Osho did with owning something like 30 Rolls Royces). The opposite of Osho I think would be someone like the Aga Khan, who out of his wealth uses that wealth for the benefit of humanity. But do you see how the same principle, depending on how it is interpreted, can result in different outcomes?

Of course this principle like any other can be abused and manipulated by individuals; but then can you call it a fault of the principle or the fault of those who are abusing it. The Agakhan clearly makes a distinction between his personal wealth and the institutional wealth.

There are also other problems that arise too in the political landscape. Such as separation of church and state. Because if the secular and the spiritual are the same, then you could end up with the Taliban. But I think this is solved in the American Constitution when it recognized that inalienable rights stem from God (thereby recognizing a spiritual authority) and yet states that Congress can neither establish a religion nor prohibit the free expression thereof. So it recognizes spirituality but not its codification as religion.

Islam recognises and respects pluralism and hence multiple interpretations of faith. Therefore in theory the Taliban type situation cannot arise in authentic Islam. Of course again idividuals can usurp power and legitimize it by means of faith.

[prhedst]

but then can you call it a fault of the principle or the fault of those who are abusing it..

Definitly not the fault of the principle, most definitly the fault of those abusing it, and a heavy weight on their souls. But I just bring it up because these are the classic temptations and what is the proper way to deal with it? I think that its understandable why St. Augustine would make that distinction. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Ramakrishna but he had the same idea. I mean, it leads to ascetisicism basically.

But I guess what I am asking is, as an Ismaili, as a muslim, what do you feel is your responsibility in relation to the world, to wordly events, wordly choices? How do you respond to St. Augustine on the one hand, and to the type of example I gave on the other?

The Agakhan clearly makes a distinction between his personal wealth and the institutional wealth.

Absolutly. Which is one of the reasons why he is such a remarkable man. He has the spirit of a true steward.

[kmaherali]

But I guess what I am asking is, as an Ismaili, as a muslim, what do you feel is your responsibility in relation to the world, to wordly events, wordly choices? How do you respond to St. Augustine on the one hand, and to the type of example I gave on the other?

An Ismaili Muslim is expected to live a balanced life earning his/her livelihood and supporting those who are dependent upon him/her through ethical means on the one hand, and fulfilling his spiritual duties o the other. The quest for a higher life is integrated in the daily life through setting aside time for meditation, prayer and study of relevant literature. In addition an Ismaili is expected to contribute towards the wellbeing of the societies if it is within his/her means, hence voluntary involvement through the Imamat institutions is encouraged.

Of course once an individual has fulfilled his material commitments, he can avail him/herself more time for spiritual elevation becoming less attached to the material world as he/she progresses along the Path.

[prhedst]

Beautifully put, thank you. I honour your path and pray for your greatest success upon it. As well I appreciate the opportunity to be ale to learn from you on how you orient yourself to the Almighty, so that it can aid me in my own quest.