Would it be too much to describe Mutti's article as a half-failed
attempt to reconcile Evola and Islam?
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
<evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:
>
> Ok, it's a criticism, but a most reverent, a most prudent
> ("probably"), almost embarrassed one. Mutti, as a Muslim, as an
> insider, as a scholar, is expected, on fundamental points such as that
> one, to offer more : clarification.
>
> How can someone reach the conclusion that "Nonetheless, that is of
> [no] importance here. What matters, rather, is that according to Evola
> an initiatic connection in the present epoch is still possible,
> provided one turns "to the Islamic world and the East.", when, as
> recalled by T. Ciopa, Evola stated that "(...) to people who do not
> want to turn themselves into Muslims and Orientals, Gu�non's personal
> path has very little to offer."
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Rowan Berkeley
> <rowan.berkeley@> wrote:
> >
> > right near the end, Mutti says:
> >
> > "We take this opportunity to note that Evola probably mistook the
> Twelver-Imam
> > Shi'a movement as a particular branch of the Ismaeli movement, and
> such an
> > oversight would be truly excessive, especially coming from an
> "insider". In the
> > same way, Evola seems to think that the Imam is "the supreme chief
> of the Order"
> > as much in the Ismaeli perspective as in that of the "so-called
> Twelver-Imam";
> > and this would also be a significant inaccuracy, since for the
> Twelver-Imam Shi'a,
> > the Imam, as a successor of the Prophet, is not only the supreme
> chief of an
> > Order, but of the entire community.
> >
> > Nonetheless, that is of importance here. What matters, rather, is
> that according
> > to Evola an initiatic connection in the present epoch is still
> possible,
> > provided one turns "to the Islamic world and the East."
> >
> > -- they didn't even bother to proof-read this translation - he
> means "of NO
> > importance here."
> >
>