To Guénon, "Conversion has nothing in common with any exterior and
contingent change, whether arising simply from the moral domain..."
However, he was not the one who set the rules of the game. There is
only one way to become a Muslim : upon pronouncing the 'shahadah'
(pledge of conviction of faith) in front of two adult Muslim witnesses.
Now, it remains to be seen - and it's most probably the point C.
Afendopoulo and you want to make - whether Guénon converted to Islam
'in good faith' or for reasons of expediency, or, as Guénon put it
mildly, for "reasons of spiritual expediency". Only him could answer.
Not that we are particularly interested in that matter, but some facts
would tend to show that he did it in good faith (for example, converts
can retain their previous name, but he did not) ; others, for reason
of expediency, more or less linked to the situation in which a rich
American widow left him in Cairo in March 1930.
More importantly, what also remains to be seen is whether Guénon was
speaking for everyone or merely for himself in 'Initiation and
Spiritual Realization'. It's all very well to discourse on
'conversion' from a metaphysical point of view. However, what is the
value of this discourse, when, in practice, the one who makes it shows
a most materialistic and quantitative understanding of it? Once again.
it should be recalled that Guénon gave his full support to the insane
proposal made in 1934 to J.Reyor by F. Schuon to "islamise Europe" and
to convert Europeans "par fournées" (by batches), and which,
understandingly, left Reyor flabbergasted. J. Reyor was Guénon's
private secretary for more than ten years. Those who have not read
"Souvenirs et perspectives sur René
Guénon' (a short excerpt of this text in Spanish translation can be
found at
http://www.geocities.com/symbolos/s19ined1.htm) do not have a clue who
Guénon really was.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa" <hyperborean@...>
wrote:
>
> RE:
> It has always been our understanding that, to be able to become a
> Sufi, conversion to Islam is a prerequisite, and René Guénon, or
> rather Abdel Wahêd Yahia, is no different in this respect, no matter
> when his conversion took place, whether it was before he was initiated
> to Sufism (1912) or in 1934, when he married F. Hanem, one of the
> daughters of sheikh Mohammed Ibrahim.
>
>
>
> My statement was precisely this: [Guénon] never "converted" to Islam
as that
> act is commonly understood.
>
> As commonly understood, conversion is the passage from one exoteric
form to
> another and involves a change of belief as well as behaviour.
>
> Esoterically, conversion indicates an "intellectual metamorphosis"
by which
> the "being passes from human thought to divine comprehension." If
one has
> already undergone such an intellectual metamorphosis, then the
particular
> exterior form is merely a matter of expedience, and usually means
following
> local customs. "Generally speaking, anyone who has an understanding
of the
> unity of traditions … is necessarily `unconvertible' to anything
> whatsoever."
>
> What follows are Guénon's own words from "Initiation and Spiritual
> Realization", which is consistent with my paraphrase.
>
> "Conversion has nothing in common with any exterior and contingent
change,
> whether arising simply from the moral domain … Contrary to what
takes place
> in conversion, nothing here implies the attribution of the
superiority of
> one traditional form over another. It is merely a question of what
one might
> call reasons of spiritual expediency, which is altogether different from
> simple individual preference…"
>
> Hardly a very "devout" conversion. Now, he either deceived his Sufi
masters
> for "reasons of spiritual expediency" in order to gain an
initiation--which
> is doubtful, or they were in accord with his views.
>
> Mutti doesn't appear to understand much of this.
>