Chestnut Magnet
Universal education[1] and the idea of universality is the cornerstone of modernity and capitalism. Understanding this centrality requires a reflexive exercise which, in terms of its impact on Muslim cultures, by which we mean the Muslim peoples of the world, is a key factor in the development of a new world order.[2] and societies, organised within the frameworks of Islam throughout history, has not been adequately addressed. At least, I think it can be argued that it has not been approached from decolonial onto-epistemological frameworks. Contrary to trends in other academic contexts, such as in Latin America, some African and Indian contexts, where this question has been the subject of debate through what has been called postcolonial studies. In these contexts the question of Eurocentrism as a framework of cultural, economic and political domination with an accelerating impact since the second half of the 18th century has been and continues to be a line of study.
It should also be noted that, curiously, and in parallel to the twentieth century context in which this type of approach appeared in the colonial space from the 1970s onwards, a series of critical studies on education in the social sciences (CCSS) emerged in European and "Western" universities themselves - understood as those in the Latin American colonial space. Fundamentally, these tendencies were based on the perception of failure in the attenuation of social inequalities and the impact of acculturation that universal education had produced in societies (self-represented as democratic, in the construction and reproduction of mass ideology, the systemic reproduction of a given order of inequality and the reproduction of a system of political/economic domination. Some of these celebrated works pointed to questions of how the school reproduced the hegemonic in the articulation between ideology-education-power (Foucault, 1986; Bernstein, 1990); to the relationship between class-resources-education-power especially in the sociological ecosystem of large global cities such as Paris (Bourdieu and Passeron, 2004); the liberating potential of education through new culturally adapted pedagogical methods for the development and inclusion of subaltern groups racialised by capitalist colonialism in the democratic system (Freire, 1970); the cultural resistance of ethnic groups to integration into the universal nation-state education system (Wolcott, 1974); the school system and its relation to the productivist society (Illich, 1971). The weight of this critical thinking in the 80s and 90s of the last century opened a debate, but not the melon of the transformation of education. The 21st century has strengthened, in the neo-colonial context of the EU and technological globalisation, new discourses tending towards systemic reproduction through the tantra of the liberating potential of technologies thanks to "technological democratisation" and broad access to "digital spaces of mass information".
First of all, and returning to the main objective I have already pointed out, of reflecting on the impact on Muslim peoples and societies, I will make an absolutely necessary statement in order to understand the challenge in which every Muslim society finds itself: it is a fact that the Eurocentric capitalist colonial system has historically been a replicant. That is to say, the model of domination has basic structural elements that are implanted in the colonised societies with a certain minimum adaptation to the specific context intervened. The basic model, in its cultural/ideological dimension, is the utopian humanism. It is still in force in social policies within nation states, and in the colonial geopolitics of globalisation. This utopian humanism is embedded in the ideological humanitarianism of humanitarian imperialism (Ruíz-Giménez, 2005), which takes on materiality in social action and civil movements where the media imaginary of mass culture/s is fully rooted, and which technological communication has the capacity to disseminate with a potential incomparable to other moments in the history of humanity that we know of. Taking into account that our historical memory, in terms of civilisation, is parsimonious, limited, instrumental and finite.
This utopian humanism has had, broadly speaking, two great stellar moments in the corkscrew that links two cultural traditions in the West. When we follow its loops, we find the European imperial tendencies and tensions. One is older in known time, rooted in the Mediterranean mother and linking the three Abrahamic traditions between the Mediterranean and Asia. The other is much younger and comes from a relative impact of Roman civilisation and late Christianity on the feudal tribal societies of northern Europe. The old one, as Quijano (1998) points out, is a single debate that has gone down in history as the dreamlike mirage of the last heartbeat of its old tradition, that of Bartolomé de La Casas with Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in 1550. Never again was the question of Humanity addressed in those terms: the (in-)justice of the methods of imperial domination over our human species.
The young political tendency or tradition is firmly established as the origin of modern capitalism since the French Revolution (1789). It is the tradition whose genealogical trace is imprinted in the treaties and political charters that in the last 235 years have constructed the categories of citizens and non-citizens in a productive system that in our historical present is GLOBAL. With the pretence of establishing the socio-political bases that should never be questioned, let alone replaced. Citizens' rights are constructed and institutionalised through new political texts: the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) of the French Revolution, which inspires the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948); the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (UN, 1959). And the long string of post-war conventions and treaties from the 20th century to the present day. As a general reflection, these documents, which are constantly being modified and adapted by the organisations that have created them, construct categories of human/non-human and citizen/non-citizen, and separate children and young people from their integrated sense of humanity, with specific rights, as if it were possible to become a man/human without having rights even before birth.
The young political tradition defenestrated the old in the 18th century, what Quijano has called the "ontological turn of modernity".[3]The author points out that this is a necessary modernity for imperialist enlightened capitalism and for the global trans-modernity that is currently sweeping through us at this moment in history. Especially in the instrumentalist dimension for the reproduction of capitalism, as this author points out. Thus the ideas of an education for a "new" society that needs "new" men will end up driving the state and political laws where the genealogy of universal education as it is implemented and understood on a global level can be found.[4]. In the Spanish case, and since we are here, it refers us to the Moyano Law (1857, which was active until the General Education Law of 1970). An education for a new system of world political organisation: the nation-state and state nationalism as the basic ideology in charge of building functional citizens in the political system in charge of implementing the economic programme.
It is also necessary to understand that modernity is a complex process linked to the expansion of capitalism as a system, which is not homogeneous and has had adaptations to the world's civilisational traditions. In "Western" democracies, it is a historical process between two civilisational lines or traditions that intertwine modernities inherited from different medieval trajectories; although based on Abrahamic monotheism, they have different civilisational connections: the multi-religious multicultural Mediterranean heritage and the feudal Northern European heritage of tribal lineage of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic cultures. Thus, the ontological shift that took place in the 18th century is a substitution that displaces and fully colonises the Mediterranean cultural heritage of the continent, and brings European consciousness into line with the needs of the already fully constituted capitalist power.[5]. This produces an epistemological shift in Enlightenment thought, so that the relationship between reason and liberation will be eclipsed by the association between reason and power, typical of Northern European instrumental rationality (Quijano, 1988). Thus a metamorphosis of modernity takes place (Quijano, 1988:51). And hence this shift was particularly evident in the lands colonised in the imperial expansion. Understanding this is fundamental, because the debate on the universality of man as a reality present in the world, will be replaced by the representation of man as a reality present in the world. uomo universalisIt is the European, who is formed in rationalist thought and tradition, and it is a notion that constructs the secularist origin of the system of capitalist domination. It is the universal man because of his universal, practical, positivist and rationalist reason. It is the reason that constructs the definitive separation between political-economic power and theological power in the government of men.
The first idea of universality is a rationalist thought that is a precursor of secularism. An ontological turn away from the Mediterranean tradition and heritage, where the universal throughout its history had been settled in the dialectic between theological traditions and their ways of understanding the relationship between system/style/lifestyle in a paradigm of theological justice. Not in a total economic paradigm. The utopia of the universal enters the scene of world government in this capitalist phase of the modern European empires, the 18th century, with the desire to dominate and civilise the world universally.
This rationality imagines its project of cultural domination on a horizon of progress based on the concept of UTOPIA. It is necessary to understand the relationship between utopian ideology and the implementation of modernity. Human beings aspire to happiness; in the discontent, inequality and violence at the end of the 18th century, the mirage of a development linked to an earthly paradise will play an important role in social mobilisations and political discourses. Very basically, this concept has a first meaning which understands it as "the place where everything is fine" (eutopia), and another meaning which has been definitively consolidated, meaning "a place of nowhere" (outopia). A place that does not exist, or a place located nowhere (Fernández Sanz, 1995). The pretension of modern utopias is linked to the formation of capable and functional people for their capitalist system in a status of new citizenship[6]. An approach that adapts to the needs of new emerging collectives, which will be no other citizens than the so-called bourgeois or new bourgeois. Burgh, means city, and the bourgeois are those "of the city", the citizens, those who live in the city. Thus it is a citizenship with idealised rights and privileges conceived and projected for an ideal society, an illusion. Deposited on new printing papers[7]. For nowhere.
The impact of all this on the peoples and societies of Islam has been and will be brutal. And it is the Rubik's cube that articulates the political work of Ian Dallas and the Sufi work of Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi. In an onto-epistemological spiral consciously created for the understanding of the men of this time.
The first impact of the enormous depth of his truly decolonial thinking, for me, then engrossed in a profound understanding of capitalist colonialism as an unfinished process of global order, was unexpectedly found in a fat black book on a shelf in a cosy house in a hidden alleyway in the Albaicín (Granada). Its white letters on a black background attracted my attention. As it was in English, I put it off. Until, on one of those nights of long conversations, I took it in my hands, and began the shared translation (with Jadiya Martínez) of the prologue on a summer evening in 2018 that took us into the early hours of the morning. That work should be studied in the community in greater depth, and as a final colophon to understanding and reading the legacy he has left us. By intrepidly delving into the application of what it contains. This unique prologue, not by chance, is found in the work translated under the title The Meaning of Man. Where the paradigm of modern education is deconstructed as the cornerstone of a terrifying system of oppression.
That foreword written by Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi reads:
This is the most important book written by the hand of a man.[8]. Until it was published, only one manuscript copy of the book existed. For 200 years[9] the author's copy has been kept in the place where it was regularly taught every Thursday evening to a small group of the intellectual elite of Fez society in Morocco, who would go to the Dyers' quarter where the little zawia of this great master was located. They would gather in a circle and read and examine and apply the method outlined in the manuscript before them. This circle still exists and still meets. And it is to be hoped that the publication of this extraordinary work, incomparable in its depth and clarity, the circle of the scholars of Fez, will expand and that knowledge will spread through this age of intellectual bankruptcy.
It is a pity that in this present environment of academic "teaching", if one were to bring out this masterpiece without commentary, it might simply disappear without trace. Partly because the vast amount of literature that is published is of absolute worthlessness, - and I am referring here to works published in the academic context, and not to the mountain of opiate writings aimed at the populace put into circulation by the modern state; and partly because the very system of "learning" is in its structure and method a spring to anaesthetise any organism that attempts to challenge its supremacy. All literature published today is destined, whether the author knows it or not, to be absorbed into the global model of culture whose tentacles spread throughout the world. Peking University, the Russian university and the Western academy are basically the same communities because they share the same vision of existence and accept the same central theses that exalt the continuity of tyrannical speculation defined as freedom, the myths of research, the cult of the system and the priesthood of doctorates. Of great importance in approaching this text is the realisation that access to its meanings, and therefore its application, are impossible unless the reader is able to understand that he or she has to go around that imperialist block that is in the way blocking his or her ability to approach the core content of this book. This may seem very confusing, until the reader considers that it is precisely this mystical claim of a methodology that proposes "objectivity" as the basis of analysis, which obstructs the way to allow this seed text of profound knowledge to begin the process of transforming the reader.
Time and again in the book, the author makes it clear that the foundations of knowledge are only accessible to those who are prepared to embark on a profound existential transformation. The idea of knowledge as an ideological process is not even considered as an ideological process.[10]. For the words of men are not to be confused with the acts of men.
The present social stasis preceding the imminent total collapse of modern culture which we have called the imperialist doctrine of the scholastic method, is using very rude techniques to prevent any breach in the so-called "scientific ethos". If this book is labelled as a book of religion, it would automatically have the possibility of ending up in the drawer of the man who is seeking to acquire knowledge in the rigidity of the system. Worse would be if it were labelled as mysticism, because then it would also be under the risk of being labelled as irrelevant or decadent.
This book is not a religious work, nor is it mystical, because the author's assessments, and indeed his own book, make it very clear that the approach to knowledge requires an operational zone involving all aspects of the learner's life.[11].
The fragmentary thinking of the academy is precisely to maintain their quest for that pure knowledge which here, yes, is utterly mystical, for they declare it will be achieved in the future, and is as illusory as the morality and just society they promise to the helpless slaves in the industrial prisons. Production is the god of these barbarians, and nowhere is it allowed to suggest that the chains of slavery are in fact being forged in the factories, and that the chains of society are links in a productive system which the intellectual community works to defend.
Let us put it another way, if the principle of knowledge and the creational principle which is so clearly and so scientifically set forth in this masterpiece were applied, it would overthrow the whole monstrous statist system of tyranny in which modern man has imprisoned himself. For the freedom in which they have been brought up to desire, they will, after reading this text, see it as chimerical and worthless. True freedom as a project is politically forbidden.
Look at the photographs of the men in this book. They are all men of this age, and there are others like them. They are brothers to each other, and they have been systematically pushed aside, humiliated, separated, hindered to prevent them from disseminating this tremendous knowledge of self. Some have even been killed. Their libraries have been forcibly confiscated, and other writings of theirs have been hidden in the archives of the system, in the hearts of the university complexes where only those who are well programmed can have access to them, and who are therefore basically immune to the content, thanks to the superb brainwashing of the anthropological system that has been put in place to render this knowledge totally ineffective; a knowledge that has always existed in the human situation and is now in its last and most threatened phase.
What we are openly saying is that these men of the Darqawa teaching are men of freedom. They have mastered themselves, so that all around them are free. The present society has leaders who are internally in chaos, therefore, around them there is oppression. The great fear of modern society is not the police, that is simply a manifestation of the internal fear of the power group that rules society. The leaders of modern society are manifest demonstrations of terror - of their own inner fears that keep them in a mental and physical rigidity that crushes others, not only physically, but through a restrictive mental atmosphere that has no other way out than violence and death.
This numb society, moving towards complete ecstasy, with its compulsive polarisation between the desire for security and the vulnerability of being attacked, both on a domestic plane and on a military plane; this disease and its cure are clearly defined in this book. The means to dismantle this suicidal pact in which this age seems to be trapped can be found in these pages. There is a method here, the application of which brings liberation. Not, as is clear from the central theme of this book, as a political freedom, but as a transformation that restores man as a human animal, who is benign inwardly and outwardly towards his brothers. He is not a danger to society and society cannot endanger him. It is significant that, in spite of the persecution to which men of knowledge have been subjected, teaching survives, and teachers survive, fight, take it to the mountains and hide it in the cities. And this is not a poetic statement but a historical fact.[12].
The author of this work, the master, Sidi Ali Al-Jamal who taught in his small centre in Fez, although he had many people studying with him, in the end passed the whole of his teaching to one man, and that man was Muley al-Arabi al-Darqawi. From him came 40 great teachers who spread throughout North Africa and reached as far as Malaysia and the East African islands. Now, the descendants of that lineage of knowledge can be found in England and America.
The Darqawi men were massacred and tortured by French colonial forces under the leadership of the Catholic fanatic General Lyautey.[13]. When the French left, the modernists and the statist elite who took power in the name of national freedom continued that persecution. These men were a threat because you cannot build a consumerist state with them, if there are men who are showing you that if you go into consumerism the outcome is that you are going to be consumed. They could not forge a "modern religion of production" if there were free men telling people that a just and happy society could never be built on misery, murder and destruction as they were promising them, but that the free society already existed in fact and had never ceased to exist. (...)".
The writer goes on, saying that this system of oppression has persecuted these men of knowledge wherever imperialism penetrated, in India, Pakistan, Persia, at the same time as the Arab states were emerging and smashing the caliphate of Istanbul, the wretch authorised by the West to rule, Atatürk, hung these men in every city and every village throughout the length and breadth of Turkey.
It continues:
North Africa and West Africa experienced the same brilliant military strategy backed by Jesuit research and business interests. At the end of this process, the entire Darqawi Way[14]The "socialist" and its equivalent lines of knowledge were eliminated by assassination, denunciation, and powerful propaganda aimed at devaluing their practices and even the epistemicide of the different lines of learning.
[This book] "(...) is a clear statement of how existence works, nothing more and nothing less. Once the central point has been understood, and once the one who studies it has put himself into a process of deprogramming himself, without which nothing in the book can make any sense, then this matrix can be applied to all science, because what is valid in the science of knowledge is a paradigm for any system of knowledge or science. It applies to molecular biology and to economic theory. And it is clear that the great exclusionary division between scientific parcels is not possible in real knowledge. For example, it would become clear that there cannot be something like psychology in itself, or even something like astronomy in itself. If you want to understand all these areas you have to put the parameters of this new learned science in a dual mirror with your inner self, which is impossible to do with the current method of how this society understands psychology/astronomy" (...)"Ibn Arabi has said that if you were to make a model of the universe you could only make a model of yourself". (...)
It continues:
"Although a social theory is veiled in its complexity and in the hermeneutics of its priesthood, it can never create a new society, however seductively presented, if the theorist is himself a tyrant. And by this I do not mean a political tyrant, but a human tyrant". (...)
"According to the present barbaric culture, social reality begins with the group, the private project is denied reality. If you have a private project, and of course the highest of private projects is knowledge, then you are anti-social and anti-productive. Your quest does not benefit society, (i.e. production) therefore you are not part of society."
"We live in an age in which the very meaning of man is in danger, and therefore man is in danger, and therefore the Earth is in danger. We live in a society that is determined to destroy man and make him a slave to the lower aspects of himself instead of a master of the higher aspects of himself." (...)
“En el reconocimiento de que, este elemento crucial, el valor del ser humano, nos está llevando a un tiempo en el que el hombre será restablecido en su esplendor como el locus del conocimiento, por lo que hemos publicado en esta obra magistral. Por su propia naturaleza esto no puede ser estudiado en una universidad o en una clase, solo puede ser aplicado en el círculo de hombres que sigan este método de transformación del yo, que es el conocimiento antiguo y el camino que los antropólogos se han empeñado en ocultar.
En este tiempo, si los hombres quieren saber han de emprender la búsqueda de hombres que viven para conocer y que se han liberado a sí mismos del triturador proceso aculturador que produce en nuestras universidades esos productos históricos zombies. Esos hombres no son parte del problema ni tampoco parte de la solución. Porque esa dialéctica es la tiranía de la sociedad actual. Es el método de esta cultura que en si misma es locura. Aquí proponemos otro método y en él el hombre no está en peligro sino liberado, y esto significa vida para todos los que les rodean.
De la misma manera que el conocimiento no se puede encontrar en los movimientos sociales, o en el éxtasis, tampoco se puede encontrar en el esoterismo y los grupos experimentales o en las estructuras de poder, por lo que el buscador tiene que romper su molde cultural y reconocer que el conocimiento es propiedad de los pobres. Si fuese eliminada la pobreza el conocimiento sería eliminado, y esta es la única clave que os podemos dejar por escrito. El camino de la pobreza es el camino del conocimiento. Lo escribimos en las paredes de la cueva, lo escribimos en tu corazón.
Del pobre esclavo
el incapaz, el necesitado
‘Abd al-Qadir as-Sufi.
A la luz de este prólogo profundamente descolonial, vemos que Shayj Abdelqader as-Sufi nos está señalando muchas cosas, pero quiero destacar 3 claves: 1) que ante el avance del capitalismo imperialista los hombres de conocimiento llevaron a cabo un proceso de resistencia cultural a la opresión colonial salvaguardando la transmisión; 2) que la verdadera educación es integral y abarca a todo el ser humano, no es un superficial proceso de implantación ideológica, como ocurre en la educación institucionalizada estatal, por inferencia contrapuesta en el texto; 3) que la educación con métodos tradicionales desarrollados tempranamente y por siglos en la transmisión sufí es transformadora, liberadora y de crecimiento interno del ser humano.
El impacto de la modernidad en el islam es de una brutalidad colonial tal que aspira a un nivel de desestructuración total que no permita una vuelta atrás[15]. Que no haya un modelo alternativo de vida al de la esclavitud asalariada (Moulier-Boutang, 2006). El instrumento es la educación universal y el nacionalismo de Estado. Un ariete que golpea las puertas del islam desde hace 270 años, con una insistencia que, sin embargo, no consigue despertar a los musulmanes adormecidos en la utopía del humanitarismo universal ahora mediático y tecnológico.
Bibliografía
Abdelqader as-Sufi. (1977: 1-6) “Prólogo” en Sidi Ali al-Jamal, The meaning of man. Diwan Press.
Bernstein, Basil (1990) Poder, educación y conciencia. Sociología de la transmisión cultural. El Roure. Barcelona.
Bourdieu, Pierre y Passeron, Jean-Claude (2004) Los herederos. Los estudiantes y la cultura. Siglo XXI. Madrid.
Fernández Sanz, Amable (1995) Utopía, progreso y revolución como categorías explicativas en la historia del pensamiento. Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía, 12, 165-189. Servicio de Publicaciones UCM. Madrid.
Foucault, Michel (1986) Vigilar y castigar. Siglo XXI. Madrid.
Freire, Paulo (1970) Pedagogía del oprimido. Siglo XXI. México D.F.
Illich, Ivan (1974) La sociedad desescolarizada. Edit. Barral. Cuenca.
Moulier-Boutag, Yann (2006) De la esclavitud al trabajo asalariado. Economía histórica del trabajo asalariado embridado. Akal. Madrid.
Quijano, Aníbal (1988) Modernidad, identidad y utopía en América Latina. Sociedad y Política Ediciones. Lima.
Ruíz-Giménez Arrieta, Itziar (2005) La historia de la intervención humanitaria. El imperialismo altruista. La Catarata. Madrid.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (2005) El milenio huérfano. Ensayos para una nueva cultura política. Trotta. Madrid.
Wolcott, Harry F. (1974) El maestro como enemigo. En G.D. Splinder (ed.) Education and cultural process. Holt, Rinehart Winston. N.Y.
[1] Por educación universal se entiende la declaración y las disposiciones políticas en leyes estatales implantando la escolarización pública obligatoria y gratuita en Europa. Se llama universal porque es para toda la población en edad escolar. Y en perspectiva crítica también se considera que tiene otro sentido “universal” ya que es la construcción de una lectura del Mundo en “una versión” – universal – Occidental con sentido civilizatorio y global: los imperios europeos tenían en situación colonial más del 90% del globo terrestre en 1914.
[2] En el sentido de culturas y naciones.
[3] Este giro ontológico que analiza Quijano (1988) impone la modernidad noreuropea (racionalidad instrumental en palabras de Horkheimer) sobre la modernidad mediterránea (racionalidad histórica). La instrumental es la versión oscurantista de la Ilustración (Locke, Hume, etc.) donde el pensamiento es instrumental aplicado para el sistema capitalista en expansión, frente a la versión humanista mediterránea (Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, etc.) donde la naturaleza del ser humano tenía un debate abierto desde el siglo XVI inaugurado por el debate entre Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas y Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (cronista de Carlos I) en 1550 de trascendencia fundamental donde se traza la afirmación fundamental para la historia de la modernidad, de que “todas las gentes del mundo son hombres”.
[4] Austria implantó la Ley de Reforma Educativa (1774) por la emperatriz María Teresa I; La primera Ley de Educación en Reino Unido (1870); Las leyes de Jules Ferry en Francia (1881); La primera ley de educación básica universal en Alemania es de la República de Weimar después de la IGM tras la Constitución de 1919.
[5] La denominación por parte de científicos sociales “atlantización de Europa” o del Mediterráneo no refiere simplemente a un aspecto geográfico relacionado con “el descubrimiento del Nuevo Mundo” y la expansión de las rutas comerciales, sino epistémico e impreso en una nueva geopolítica económica global.
[6] Y ligado a una idea de desarrollo sin fin, que es utópica. Que ideológicamente “encoge” el presente que se hace efímero e irrelevante y todo es sacrificable por un futuro que no llega nunca. Hace del presente una irrelevancia o inexistencia frente a un futuro dilatado indefinido (Santos, 2005).
[7] La imprenta de Johannes Gutenberg de tipos móviles en metal en 1450 se considera de gran impacto en la construcción de la “cultura europea”. Sin embargo, el gran salto en la cultura de masas se dará con la imprenta automática de linotipo de Ottmar Mergenthaler de 1885.
[8] Es decir, es un manuscrito, no una impresión o publicación de imprenta como indica el autor a continuación.
[9] Es decir, se remonta al siglo XVIII.
[10] No como ocurre en la educación obligatoria/universal, donde buena parte del contenido escolar es ideológico o, mejor dicho, donde la transferencia del sentido de mundo se imbrica en la ideología política del estado nación y la democracia.
[11] Es decir, la educación es integral y abarca todos los aspectos del ser humano.
[12] Esto es un modo de resistencia a la opresión colonial. El autor está llamando también la atención a la táctica de emboscadura para garantizar la persistencia de lo que debe ser transferido.
[13] Louis Hubert Lyautey, Residente general de Francia en Marruecos (1912-1916) y (1917-1925).
[14] Se está señalando también que la educación con métodos tradicionales desarrollados tempranamente y por siglos en la transmisión sufí es transformadora, liberadora y de crecimiento interno del ser humano.
[15] En este sentido hay que interpretar también los efectos desestructuradores que tienen las persecuciones étnicas a musulmanes que son minorías en estados-nación (en Israel, en Miammar, en China) y los procesos históricos de la modernidad y/o del presente globalizante basados en la estrategia de cambio de gobierno y/o giro político (Imperio Otomano/Turquía, Imperio japonés/Japón, Imperio chino/RPCh, Libia, Siria, Egipto, Iraq, Sudán, Mali, y otros países en África.).
