9 Responses

  1. Everything I know about Islamic theology, I learned from The Satanic Verses, so forgive me if this question doesn’t make any sense:

    Is the term that you translated as “servitude to God” the same as “submission” or “Islam?”

    • No, in Persian it is bandegi, literally slavehood to God but with the primary connotation of worship. You’re thinking of an Arabic technical term; we’re not doing fiqh or Islamic law here.

      The point of this poem, by a medieval Muslim, is that all such servitude or worship is the same in essence, regardless of the outward form. Putting a temple (say, Buddhist) on the same level as a mosque.

      • So would it be acceptable to see this poem as an acknowledgment of God as so large as to fit in more than one form of worship, such that servitude is seen as a virtue?

      • Right, Persian, duh.

        I got the point of the poem; I was thinking that the poet was saying that the religious accouterments of other religions were “tokens of Islam,” which would make the point even more explicitly.

  2. This certainly is not from Omar Khayyam, and severely fake. The style is that of an ignorant Dervish that has learned to say “Ya Haqq” when he is short of words.
    If Kayyam was forced to compose something like this he would have said that all demonstrations of piety and religious symbols are signs of selfishness and slavery to self.

    • “Omar Khayyam” was a medieval manuscript tradition into which lots of things got swept up. Foucault argues that our idea of the “author” is anyway a very modern one.

Comments are closed.