В чём кроется знаменитая мусульманская (не забывайте, братья, что нейросуфизм неизмеримо далёк почти от любого существующего мусульманского течения; .

В чём кроется знаменитая мусульманская (не забывайте, братья, что нейросуфизм неизмеримо далёк почти от любого существующего мусульманского течения; жизнь согласно исламу и согласно Аллаху — разные вещи) ошибка невосприятия музыкального, которую не допустили лишь некоторые из тарикатов?

В аристотелизме, разумеется. Нейросуфизм же из всех допустимых самосравнений ближе всего прибегает к пифагорейцам.

Let us see how Aristotle addresses the Pythagorean account of the stars themselves. Note the ad hominem—and comical note:

It is clear that the theory that the movement of the stars produces a harmony, i.e., that the sounds they make are concordant, in spite of the grace and originality with which it has been stated, is nevertheless untrue. . . Melodious and poetical as the theory is, it cannot be a true account of the facts. . . . Indeed, the reason why we do not hear, and show in our bodies none of the effects of violent force [that follows from large noises] is easily given: it is that there is no noise. . . [and finally the authors of the view are identified] the very difficulty which made the Pythagoreans say that the motion of the stars produces a concord corroborates our view.

This is the famous harmony of the spheres, which Aristotle criticizes, typically, in a strictly physical way. Had the spheres produced a noise, Aristotle argues, we would expect certain physical consequences: the noise would be heard, and there would be other manifestations of that strong motion. Then what results is a ‘poetical’ theory that Aristotle would dismiss, once again, as mere metaphor. (Paradoxically, since the theory was taken literally, it is can now be read metaphorically only!)

Notice that Aristotle simply refuses to treat the theory as a more abstract metaphysical statement—e.g., that the true account of the motions of the stars is that they manifest the mathematical structure of musical harmony. According to that more abstract account, both music itself, as well as the stars, are explained through a more fundamental and abstract mathematical principle. This, probably, was Plato’s intention when, in both the Timaeus and in the Republic’s Myth of Er, he connected music and astronomy. I make this comparison between Aristotle and a possible Platonic view, because we reach here the difficulty of disentangling this complex melee of Pythagoreanism, Platonism and Aristotelianism.
...
In this case, we see Pythagoreanism constructed by a tug-of-war between Plato and Aristotle. Plato, mathematicizing, has an astronomy anchored in the abstract properties of music; Aristotle, physicialising, gives Pythagoreanism its familiar shape, of the mathematical taken, concretely, to underlie the world. The music of the harmony of the spheres is taken literally, and so a strange, absurd world comes into being—an ever-present, never-heard soundtrack to accompany the universe. Aristotle’s Pythagoreans listen to the inaudible.

In this we have come full circle to Plato’s criticism of Archytas’ studies in harmony. For Plato, the mistake of the Pythagoreans is that, while tuning themselves to the more abstract study of music, they still pay attention to the audible—the concrete reality of strings stretched on the rack. For Aristotle, the mistake of the Pythagoreans is that, while engaged in beautiful and important studies, they go beyond the concrete reality itself, into a realm of an inaudible, otherworldly layer of existence: a sound that is never heard.