Sufism & Salafism belong in the same boat
averro...@my-deja.com
the Muslim activists these days, especially among the young Muslim
activists. It seems they are falling away from the rationale of the
Quran and Sunnah to sectarian views which are deemed mystical, extremist
and very well un-Islamic.
Lets firstly start with Sufism:
Sufism/Tassawuf in essence has nothing to do with rationale of Islam.
First the word Tassawuf is no where to be found in the Quran. Also if
one studies its history of how it emerged it was an invention by persian
mystics and others.
Sufism has always traditionally been connected to the belief of divine
imams, pantheism (that the creation and Creator are one) and other
absurd and irrational ideas.
It is interesting how some sufis try to Islamicize sufism/tassawuf by
saying that Tassawuf is the science of Ihsan. Sufism the science if
Ihsan? We already have the science and that science is the Quran and
what it stresses is to use 'Reason' or in arabic terms 'aql' to attain
the state of Ihsan..
The Prophet said: "Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you were seeing Him,
and even if you cannot see Him, know that He sees you."
Now does this sound sufi or mystical? Ihsan means 'realization' -- and
how do we go about having the 'realization' of there being a Creator and
striving to sincerely and humbly submit to Him? By using our Reason
which Allah has given us, following the Quran which espouses it and
imitating the Quranic character of the Prophet. --> this is the science
of attaining Ihsan, the science is via Islam and not by some foreign
irrational and mystical element called sufism/tassawuf or whatever one
would like to call it.
Now to Salafism:
The positive point of people who call themsleves 'Salafis' or who are
termed as 'Salafis' is that they paint sufism as heretical and a
deviation which is correct however it seems they make the same mistake
of bypassing or abandoning the importance of 'reason' in Islam like the
Sufis and dive into an 'extreme' -- an authoritarian, rigid, literalist
and sorry to say irrational view of things.
In closing my plea is that lets stick to Islam in its purest and
rational form and lets not be swayed by our emotions and desires but be
guided by our Reason.
"Behold! It is God who enjoins justice, doing good, forbidding all that
is shameful and runs counter to reason, as well as envy. He exhorts you
repeatedly, so that you might bear all this in mind." (Quran 16:90)
"Verily, the vilest of all creatures in the sight of God are those who
choose to be deaf, dumb and those who do not use their reason." (Quran
8:22)
The Prophet is recorded to have said: "God has not created anything
better than Reason , or anything more perfect, or more beautiful then
Reason, the benefits which God gives are on its accounts, and
understanding is by it, and God's wrath is caused by disregard of it".
Peace.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
> First the word Tassawuf is no where to be found in the Quran.
Niether is "computer" nor "automobile" nor "mango" nor "baseball" and on and
on and on.
With reasoning and Qur'anic hermeneutics like this just look in the mirror
for one of the main problems facing the ummah..... the Qur'an IS addressed
to people who think...... Sheesh!
Fariduddien Rice
On 18 Mar 2000 averro...@my-deja.com wrote:
[...]
> Lets firstly start with Sufism:
>
> Sufism/Tassawuf in essence has nothing to do with rationale of Islam.
> First the word Tassawuf is no where to be found in the Quran.
I see this kind of reasoning many places, by people who wish to denigrate
Tasawwuf.
However, the same reasoning also denigrates a large number of other
Islamic sciences. For example, take the Islamic science of tafsir
(Qur'anic commentary). Tafsir is also not mentioned in the Qur'an. Does
that mean that Tafsir -- or commenting on the Qur'an -- has nothing to do
with Islam?
What you have to do is to use your mind a little bit, and look at the
*meaning* of a word. The science of tafsir certainly did exist in the
time of the Prophet (s.a.w.) -- he made many comments on the Qur'an
itself, even though he didn't use the word "tafsir". As for the science
of Tasawwuf, it is the science of improving your ikhlas (sincerity). Many
of its practices -- such as group dhikr -- are explicitly supported by
various hadiths. The practice of Tasawwuf was certainly also in existence
during the time of Rasulullah (s.a.w.).
> Also if
> one studies its history of how it emerged it was an invention by persian
> mystics and others.
What you say is what many Christian orientalists wrote in the 19th Century
and the first half of the 20th Century -- people like R. A. Nicholson.
You only find it in Muslim writings after that, from Muslims who were
anti-Tasawwuf, and copied Christian writings in order to try to discredit
Tasawwuf.
You do not find this kind of claim in Muslim writings *before* these
claims of the Orientalists.
My question is -- if you are so concerned about the truth about Islam, why
are you copying what you say about Islam from Christians? Isn't Islamic
scholarship good enough for you?
The strange thing is, even Western academics no longer believe that Sufism
came from non-Islamic religions. This theory is now outdated. The only
people who keep it alive are Muslims who are anti-Tasawwuf, as well as a
few Christian polemicists who also have their own agenda.
I think it is kind of shameful that some Muslims reject Muslim scholarship
on Tasawwuf, and instead choose to blindly follow the outdated works of
Christian orientalists, who died decades ago, and whose work is no longer
even accepted among Western academics.
> Sufism has always traditionally been connected to the belief of divine
> imams, pantheism (that the creation and Creator are one) and other
> absurd and irrational ideas.
Actually, your claims are quite absurd and irrational. Have you, for
example, read any of the works of Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani? I challenge you
to find any hint of pantheism in there.
Again, this kind of claim, I think, stems from 2 sources:
1. Christian orientalists who misunderstood some Sufi works (such as the
works of Ibn al-Arabi). Some Muslims have then blindly have followed the
mistakes that these Christian orientalists wrote.
2. Some pseudo-Sufis in some places like India do practice a form of
pantheism, which has probably been influenced by Hinduism. These people
are generally not Sufis in the correct sense, as they generally do not
even follow Shari`ah, which is usually considered to be a prerequisite for
following Tasawwuf properly....
> It is interesting how some sufis try to Islamicize sufism/tassawuf by
> saying that Tassawuf is the science of Ihsan. Sufism the science if
> Ihsan? We already have the science and that science is the Quran and
> what it stresses is to use 'Reason' or in arabic terms 'aql' to attain
> the state of Ihsan..
Reason and tasawwuf are certainly compatible. They are different things.
Let me give you an example. Let's take two people, who are contemplating
the properties of an apple.
The first person does a chemical analysis of the apple, and notices that
it contains sugar. Because sweetness is derived from the presence of
sugar, this person announces that "this apple is sweet." This is an
example of using deductive reasoning.
However, the second person just bites the apple, and tastes the sweetness
directly. He also then announces that "this apple is sweet." This is an
example of using experience to come to the same conclusion.
The approach of the first person is like using your rational approach.
However, the second person's approach is the kind of approach used in
tasawwuf, which consists of experiencing things directly.
A lot of Muslims, in fact, don't believe that you can experience Allah's
presence directly. That's because they have never experienced it (and in
many cases they have become influenced by Western philosophical ideas,
which often do not even consider this kind of experience).
However, just because you may have never experienced Allah's presence
near you, you shouldn't deny that there are many people who have
experienced it directly, to varying degrees.
Remember, Allah is closer to you than your "jugular vein"!
> The Prophet said: "Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you were seeing Him,
> and even if you cannot see Him, know that He sees you."
>
> Now does this sound sufi or mystical? Ihsan means 'realization' -- and
> how do we go about having the 'realization' of there being a Creator and
> striving to sincerely and humbly submit to Him? By using our Reason
> which Allah has given us, following the Quran which espouses it and
> imitating the Quranic character of the Prophet.
You have come to this conclusion, because you have assumed you cannot
experience Allah's presence directly. Experiencing Allah's presence
around you is close to "seeing Him."
If you had experienced Allah's presence, you would know that "proof" by
direct experience is far stronger (on a personal level) than any indirect
"proof" through reasoning.
That doesn't mean that they conflict with each other. Just as one can
conclude that an apple is "sweet" by using either reasoning or direct
experience, it is also the same in religion. However, some people do not
realize this, and some can only see one of the two approaches.
An interesting story which tries to explain *both* approaches, and how
they complement each other, is the story of "Hayy ibn Yaqzan" by Ibn
Tufayl, which was written in the 12th Century CE. There are a few
translations of this Islamic philosophical story available in English....
(However, you have to keep in mind that Ibn Tufayl wrote based on his
scientific knowledge of the time, which was not always completely correct.
However, I think the *gist* of his story is what you should consider when
reading it....)
Wassalam,
__________________________________________________________________________
Fariduddien Rice Email : farid @ stormcity.com
Australian web site http://homepages.haqq.com.au/salam/
US mirror site http://www.stormcity.com/salam/
"And how many Signs in the heavens and the earth do they pass by?
Yet they turn (their faces) away from them!" - Qur'an 12:105
__________________________________________________________________________
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
wrote:
> Sufism has always traditionally been connected to the belief of divine
> imams, pantheism (that the creation and Creator are one) and other
> absurd and irrational ideas.
>
> It is interesting how some sufis try to Islamicize sufism/tassawuf by
> saying that Tassawuf is the science of Ihsan. Sufism the science if
> Ihsan? We already have the science and that science is the Quran and
> what it stresses is to use 'Reason' or in arabic terms 'aql' to attain
> the state of Ihsan..
>
> The Prophet said: "Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you were seeing Him,
> and even if you cannot see Him, know that He sees you."
I think you would find it edifying to study the history of tawassuf.
It's the contrary of what you are saying. It was only after Sufism
became a highly developed science in Islam that it was "copied" by
non-Muslims, especially in recent times. Indeed the Yahoo search engine
has two categories: Sufism (Islamic) and Sufism (non-Islamic). The fact
that there are today so-called Sufi Masters who are far from Islam and
the Qur'an does not mean that tawassuf is, at all times and in all
circumstances, a bad thing. Some people call themselves Muslims even
though they murder, rape, steal, gamble, drink alcohol, etc. That does
not mean that Islam is a bad thing.
Some people approach Allah by exoteric means: they emphasize the study
and experience of Allah's manifestation in the world. Others seek Allah
through esoteric means: they emphasize the study and experience of
Allah's ultimate Reality, which transcends the world. We could say that
the shari'a is the outer or exoteric component of Islam and that
tawassuf is the inner or esoteric component. Sujuud (prosternation) is
an exoteric act by which a Muslim puts aside his self-interest (ego) and
submits himself to Allah's commandments. Fanaa' (extinction) is an
esoteric act by which a Muslim opens himself to Allah's Reality by
losing self-awarness. Sujuud is an act of the will; fanaa' is an act of
the heart. Both are forms of dhikr (God-consciousness)--the cause of all
good.
"Orthodox" tawassuf is based on the Qur'an and the sunnah of the Prophet
(peace be on him). To suggest as you do that tawassuf is somehow a
non-Qur'anic science is a distortion. Cheikh al-Alawi said this of the
Qur'an: "Il is set in our hearts and on our tongues and it is mixed with
our blood, our flesh and our bones and with all that is in us."
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Mr Mahdi
continuation of my original response)
>A lot of Muslims, in fact, don't believe that you can experience Allah's
>presence directly. That's because they have never experienced it (and in
>many cases they have become influenced by Western philosophical ideas,
>which often do not even consider this kind of experience).
Before I comment on the so-called "experiencing Allah directly," I must ask
you, what does Islam mean to you? Is Islam just another religion with
spiritual beliefs and rituals, or is Islam more than that? Because the main
purpose of Sufism is to relegate Islam to become nothing but a "religion,"
i.e., something that mainly focus on spiritual beliefs and rituals. Notice
Sufism never deals with worldy affairs such as how to solve systematic problems
with systematic solutions. You never hear a Sufi call for the return of the
Khilafah, some Sufis might say we need the Khilafah but how many actual strive
and work hard for its return?
As for experiencing what Sufis believe is Allah's presense, it seems Sufis
confuse spirituality with the alleged sense of feeling your Creator is near
you. Spirituality is the cognizance of the relationship between you and the
Creator. This is not really "experiencing God's presense," it is like I said
this is just the feeling you get from spirituality.
Islam came to solve problems. Islam has solutions for the economic, political,
social, judicial, etc., problems. Sufism does not have any solutions for these
systematic problems because Sufism does not agree with the nature of Islam.
What Sufism does agree with is the deviant philosophies and religions that have
nothing to do with Islam because Sufism resembles and imitates these religions
by relegating Islam to just a religion with rituals concerned with mainly the
metaphysical and abstract.
>Remember, Allah is closer to you than your "jugular vein"!
This is another misquoted verse that Sufis like to use often. Many Sufis think
that Allah is physically closer to us that our jugular vein because the "Quran
said so." Understanding the language and meaning of the Quran, the meaning of
the verse is that Allah is knows more about us that we do, not that Allah is
physically near us. You cannot limit Allah to a place, because Allah
encompasses all things and it not confined anywhere.
Many non-Muslims and liberal Westerners have been attracted to Sufism mainly
because they see it as an alternative to the Judeo-Christian religious scheme.
The people who have a tendency to join cults, New Age and Eastern religion,
counter-cultural movements, etc., are the main ones who convert to Sufism.
These people wouldn't convert to "Sunni Islam" because Islam does not appeal to
their inclinations. Islam to these people is not "spiritual enough" and many
of these people are turned off by the fact that to them Islam seems to
"dogmatic."
Allah revealed to mankind a system of life called Islam. Islam came to
organize and deal with the affairs of man. Islam has systematic solutions for
systematic problems. Islam is also a spiritual creed, but the spiritual system
of Islam does not negate or lessen the importance or integrity of the
ideological aspect of Islam that deals with life's affairs.
Sufism is not Islam and should not be treated as an integral part of Islam. A
Muslim can completely practice Islam without Sufism, and a Muslim can
completely be "spiritual" without Sufism. Asceticism has nothing to do with
Islam, "zuhd" does not mean to be a monk, it means to not depend *too much* on
worldly things. Zuhd should not be confuse with the asceticism practiced by
Sufis because Zuhd does not entail a person to completely detach himself from
worldy things or attain a monk-like state.
was salaam
Mahdi
http://hometown.aol.com/mrmahdi
john willis
"Abdelkarim Benoît Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
you use yahoo to find out about islam?...isn't this the same
yahoo who list jo katz page as a good source for info on islam?!
anybody interested in setting up a search directory run by muslims?
john willis
"Fariduddien Rice" <dr...@see.text.for.email.address> wrote in message
i think the comments of the mutazilites can scarcely be viewed as a islamic
source!
as i recall anybody who is a mutazilite is not of the people of the sunnah
since the mutazilites have their origins in greek falsafa (and false is what
it is..)
find out what they did to imam ibn hanbal (ra)
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
<ja...@thegiantkiller.fsnet.co;uk;> wrote:
I did not say whether or not I use Yahoo to find out about Islam; I made
a comment about their method of categorizing topics. Yahoo (and Alta
Vista and Lycos and your local school or public library) use similar
systems for providing access to information. If there are two books,
called respectively, "The Qur'an is True" and "The Qur'an is False", in
any library, the catalogue (or "search engine", if you will) will place
them both under the topic "Islam". It will not say that one is good or
true or well-written and that the other is bad or false or hard to read.
It will tell us the name of the author and the publisher, the date of
publication and the number of pages.
There are several Islamic search engines. Here's one to get you started.
Perhaps you can use it to find the others.
< http://islamseek.com/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi>
Peace to all who seek God's Face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 21 Mar 2000 06:48:19 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>As for experiencing what Sufis believe is Allah's presense, it seems Sufis
>confuse spirituality with the alleged sense of feeling your Creator is near
>you. Spirituality is the cognizance of the relationship between you and the
>Creator. This is not really "experiencing God's presense," it is like I said
>this is just the feeling you get from spirituality.
So, what Muhammad experienced was just a feeling??? AstagfirulLlah!
You seem to be saying words without thinking about what you are
saying! You just negated the reality of The Night Journey and the
Qur'anic revelation! What about Moses on Mount Sinai?? Encountering
the burning bush?? These were all direct experiences. The veils were
removed.... subhan Allah, subhan Allah, subhan Allah!
The testimony of holy people-- in all times and cultures, geniuses and
dullards-- is precisely of something that is NOT just a feeling, but
is indubitably a direct encounter ("veils removed") of the Most High!
An ineffable experience they do their best to communicate to the rest
of us.
(Here is a valid definition of spirituality: Awareness of, and
response to, The Transcendent.)
Plus, my understanding is that many Sufis were also warriors, and very
involved in affairs of the world.......
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Now! Listen to Dr. Jihad! & Buy the CD!
http://mp3.com/DrJihad
MyTaj...@aol.com
In article <8b0lbh$sdm$1...@samba.rahul.net>, Fariduddien Rice
<dr...@see.text.for.email.address> writes:
>A lot of Muslims, in fact, don't believe that you can experience Allah's
>presence directly. That's because they have never experienced it (and in
>many cases they have become influenced by Western philosophical ideas,
>which often do not even consider this kind of experience).
The whole of the above paragraph is a typical unverifiable existentialist
claim and the second half is probably wrong. It was the new philosophical
ideas originating with Kierkegaard which has led to secular and religious
existentialism in the West and a rejection of the validity of traditional
forms of religion including Islam, Christianity and traditional Judaism based
on absolutes.
It is for this very reason that, increasingly, Westerners today (over the
past 150 years in Europe and possibly only from the 1930's in the US) look
for reality in "experience" rather than traditional religion. It is no
surprise that to many Westerners mystical Islam makes more "sense".
I don't have the figures with me (from a survey in the Sun newspaper 3 years
ago) but the number of people in Germany and the UK who have accepted belief
in reincarnation and "divine experiences" is something like 75 per cent in
Germany and over 50 percent in the UK.
Mr Mahdi gives a clue when he states in his post dated 21st March:
>Many non-Muslims and liberal Westerners have been attracted to Sufism mainly
>because they see it as an alternative to the Judeo-Christian religious
>scheme. (...)
This is right but one must also include orthodox Islam and I would suggest
it's not always as an "alternative". Many Westerners do have a desire to
"know" reality and believe that it is to be found in a cosmic "experience"
which they imagine is "God" but is more likely to be the realty of who they
are and the personality which the Creator implanted within them.
MrMahdi again:
>Islam to these people is not "spiritual enough" and many
>of these people are turned off by the fact that to them Islam seems to
>"dogmatic."
The truth is that the sterile "transcendent god" of the Qur'an is totally
unknowable, a fact confirmed by the most respected orthodox Scholars.
Impersonal, sterile monotheism offers no answers when it comes to "knowing"
God.
Mysticism and existential "experience" offers a way out - but there is no
"knowing" or "explanation" this way either.
Kind regards to all who seek the "knowing" of the One true God of Abraham.
Jameel
http://members.aol.com/crossfires/messiah/god.htm
averro...@my-deja.com
"Jeremiah McAuliffe" <ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
>
> > First the word Tassawuf is no where to be found in the Quran.
>
on and
> on and on.
When I say 'Tassawuf' I mean ideology, those terms which you just
mentioned are not concepts and if they are related to concepts such as
automobiles to the concept of transportation it does not matter, the
concept of transportation does not conflict or contradict the rationale
of Islam.
By mentioning that the word 'Tassawuf' is not be found anywhere in the
Quran was to point it out that it is a foreign element but it does not
mean that every foreign element automatically becomes anti-Quranic.
There are foreign ideologies which are perfectly in harmony with the
rationale of Islam but not Tassawuf which I argue. Tassawuf is a method
which rejects Reason as its primary tool thus making it the opposite of
Quranic thought.
Now to respond to the proponents of Sufism;
Fanaa another idea that defies reason, one cannot become extinct in God,
or become in union with God. Allah is the Creator of time and space and
is independent of it while we are beings dependent to the realm of time
and space. One must understand the logical and rational separation (in
terms of nature) between us the creation and the Creator - there is
nothing that can be compared to this Unique Intelligence:
"Say: Allah is the One God, God the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of all
beings. He begets not, and neither is He begotten; and there is nothing
that could be compared to him." (Quran Ch: 112)
Its funny how people link Sufism/Tassawuf to 'spirituality' because if
one looks up the word spirit - the word 'spirit' refers to the 'mind'.
It is our mindfullness of the Creator which is in actual fact our
spirituality and the tool for that is our Reason.
Using Quranic verses which refer to Allah having a hand, a face and
others as justification for mysticism is erroneous. Allah has made it
clear in the Quran that most of the verses are clear and concise and
some are allegorical - and the Quran makes it clear that ones who take
the allegorical verse literally and not with any ounce of reason and
knowledge sow confusion:
"He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses -
which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as
multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their
hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and
to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof
except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in
this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess
intelligence will take heed." (Quran 3:7)
>An interesting story which tries to explain *both* approaches, and how
>they complement each other, is the story of "Hayy ibn Yaqzan" by Ibn
>Tufayl, which was written in the 12th Century CE. There are a few
>translations of this Islamic philosophical story available in
English....
>(However, you have to keep in mind that Ibn Tufayl wrote based on his
>scientific knowledge of the time, which was not always completely
correct.
>However, I think the *gist* of his story is what you should consider
when
>reading it....)
I have read this story my friend, and this story in actual fact has
nothing to do with mysticism nor did Ibn Tufayl state it did. Its all
about how via reason one comes to the realization of a Creator and thus
being in submission to him and being at peace with himself and the
environment around him. This person who lived alone in this Island did
not need fanaa, or a shaykh - he only needed to use is God given gift -
his 'aql'(reason) to come to The 'realization'.
I leave you with the words of the prominent Islamic Jurists,
Imam Shaafi said:
"If a person excercized Sufism (Tasawafa) at the beginning of the day,
he does not come to Dhuhur except an idiot." [Talbees Iblees].
"Nobody accompanied the Sufis forty days and had his brain return
(ever)." [Talbees Iblees].
Concerning the famous Sufi leader, Al-Harith Al-Muhasbi, Imam Ahmad ibn
Hanbaal (R) said:
"Warn (people) from Al-Harith (a Sufi leader) the strongest warning!...
He is the shelter of the Ahl Kalaam (people of rhetoric)." [Talbees
Iblis].
MyTajMahal
<ali...@city-net.com> writes in response to MrMahdi:
>So, what Muhammad experienced was just a feeling???
Yes. "Thought" he was being strangled. "Funny" God experience? Maybe it was
"real"?
(...)
>You seem to be saying words without thinking about what you are
>saying!
Only when MrMahdi calls me a "missionary" :-) - but on this subject he has a
good orthodox Islamic point supported by well respected Qur'anic scholars and
authorities. He needs to quote them though.
Maybe it is time for some of the proponents of these "mystical experiences" to
start and quote some respected orthodox "islamic" sources to support their
notions rather than engage in speculation.
>You just negated the reality of The Night Journey and the
>Qur'anic revelation!
Just a myth - didn't take enough oxygen or warm wooly socks - leather socks no
good. What about the "Qur'anic revelations (hallucinations)"?
>What about Moses on Mount Sinai?? Encountering
>the burning bush?? These were all direct experiences.
In the case of Moses they were not just simply "experiences". It was Moses
meeting with the God revealed in the Hebrew Bible. (as opposed to the sterile
totally transendent mono "non-being" of Muhammad's imagination). What Muhammad
retold about Moses was only what he heard secondhand.
Muhammad never met with God. God never spoke to Muhammad.
>The veils were removed.... subhan Allah (...)
They still are when one comes to the knowledge of the one true God of Abraham
revealed in the Hebrew Bible.
>The testimony of holy people-- in all times and cultures, geniuses and
>dullards-- is precisely of something that is NOT just a feeling, but
>is indubitably a direct encounter ("veils removed") of the Most High!
Obviously confused over the meaing of "holy people" - Thinks Sai Baba is a
"holy person"
>An ineffable experience they do their best to communicate to the rest
>of us.
"ineffable experiences" do not communicate anything at all which is real.
>(Here is a valid definition of spirituality: Awareness of, and
>response to, The Transcendent.)
It is impossible to be "aware" of a truly transcendent being who never enters
time/space. It is just a leap of faith and fantasy.
>Plus, my understanding is that many Sufis were also warriors, and very
>involved in affairs of the world.......
Just plain mortals like the rest of us with hightly developed imaginations.
Kind regards to all who seek truth
Jameel
Mr Mahdi
>So, what Muhammad experienced was just a feeling??? AstagfirulLlah!
>You seem to be saying words without thinking about what you are
>saying!
I am quite sick and tired of being sick and tired of people misquoting me or
only responding to me when they want to criticize me. "Dr. Jihad" again
responds to another one of my post by first misunderstanding what I am trying
to say and second by finding this an good opputurnity to attack me.
Muhammad (saaw) recieved waHy, and he (saaw) did see the Angel Jibril, he did
literally perform the Isra and Mi`raj and was truly inspired by Allah. Now we
as non-prophets and messengers are not ones who recieve waHy, we are not
inspired by Allah, we do not communicate with the Angel Jibril, etc. So don't
confuse prophets' experiences with non-prophets' experiences, and don't ever
misqupte me again and then try to portray me as going against Islam.
>The veils were
>removed.... subhan Allah, subhan Allah, subhan Allah!
You could "SubHan Allah" all day but you are not the one who should be saying
that to others when you right here tell Muslims they should vote and
participate in the kufr system! It seems to be quite sad that Muslims will
jump on other Muslims on things they misunderstand by at the same time inviting
Muslims to the Hell Fire by saying we should vote and participate in a system
Allah gave no right to establish or implement. If you read my recent responses
to some of the posts here, you should realize by now West has an agenda for the
Muslims, they realize that many Muslims live in the West and they fear a threat
of "Islamic fundamentalism" because even the Kuffar realize that Islam is an
ideology opposed to every man-made ideology in the world today. So as a way to
curb this potential threat, Muslims are being used as agents in making Islam no
more than a religion and something that can coexist with the kufr culture,
beliefs, and systems without any problems whatsoever. So the Kuffar want
Muslims to be involved in their system, as long as they are helping and
promoting their system, this alleviates the threat that Muslims will call for
the system of Islam.
>subhan Allah, subhan Allah, subhan Allah!
>subhan Allah, subhan Allah, subhan Allah!
Mahdi
http://hometown.aol.com/mrmahdi
asim...@my-deja.com
> MrMahdi again:
> >Islam to these people is not "spiritual enough" and many
> >of these people are turned off by the fact that to them Islam seems
to
> >"dogmatic."
>
> The truth is that the sterile "transcendent god" of the Qur'an is
totally
> unknowable, a fact confirmed by the most respected orthodox Scholars.
>
Without getting into the screens TajMahals uses so eloquently to
attempt to confuse the reader, I will make a few brief comments. This
issue has been dealt with by me in the past. The fact is the belief in
a predetermined storybook fantasy play-out is very sterile. In fact, it
is downright ugly. This mode of thinking has affected religious thought
all through the ages, from Hinduism right down to the Muslims. This is
in fact a demonstration of Manichean influence. Christianity suffers
incredibly from this dogma.
The concept of the transcendent God is a belief of the Abrahamic
tradition right down through the ages. "You cannot see me and live."
"The heavens and earth cannot contain God let alone this house." The
first command of the torah is God's absolute forbiddance to make images
of him. These are basic hard core facts demonstrated by all the
Abrahamic faiths. The Quran too affirms this reality.
Say, God is Ahad.
Allahus Samad.
Ahad is teh attribute of God which signifies absoluted oneness, both in
essence and attributes. At the same time, God has confirmed himself as
As-Samad. This meaning is in fact used as a rock in which refuge is
sought for shelter. Though God is unknowable, He is closer to man than
the jugular vein. That is why the command to "Call on ME!"
The Quran almost always affirms a balance to demonstrate the Reality of
God. Even though God is Ghany, total independent of all His Creatures,
He is Hameed, the one deserving all praise. The God of Islam is the God
of Creative activity, not of the platonic beauty found in the writings
of Jewish, Christian, and wahdatul wujood polemics. Allah is known
through His Craetive activity. By essence, He is unknowable. This is
just an established fact, and to make claims that a religion reveals
God's nature is plain nonsense.
Christinaity has suffered dramatically from the problem that
transcendence raised. Influenced in large part by the Hellenist mode of
life, they had to resort to God coming down in the form of man to reveal
his nature. Now this is the ultimate antithesis to the claims of the
Christians. God reveals his Nature through human nature is a ridiculous
concept besides being logically false and a contradiction in its own
right. It is akin to saying can a circle be a square. It is making God
more human instead of taking the human "up to" God. It is
self-defeating.
> Impersonal, sterile monotheism offers no answers when it comes to
"knowing"
> God.
Jameel likes to make bold claims, yet the Christian world, along with
the other religions are plagued with this issue. This topic of debate
has plagued every philosopher down through the ages. The Quran on the
other hand takes the best approach, and cannot be touched by even the
greatest minds.
There is undoubtedly a clue in the perfection and role of man in the
verse "Glory be to Him He transported his ABD (slave) from the nearest
House to the farthest." We are satisifed, and we know our limits.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>You could "SubHan Allah" all day but you are not the one who should be saying
>that to others when you right here tell Muslims they should vote and
>participate in the kufr system!
Oops! Don't forget I write music too.
Almost forgot to give the plug for Dr. Jihad! & the Intellectual
Muslim Guerrillas. Muslim rock at its best! But of course, that's
pretty easy since its currently the *only* Muslim rock. <laughing>
asim...@my-deja.com
>
> Yes. "Thought" he was being strangled. "Funny" God experience? Maybe
it was
> "real"?
>
The only funny thing is TajMahals sarcasm. It demonstrates that is
blind to the obvious facts. In the presence of God, according to the
Old Testament and Quran, Musa (AS) became frightened upon the staff
turning into a snake.
The impact on the Prophet (S) was a huge burden indeed. But as the
Quran says "We will smooth your way to a path of ease." During the
original stages of the Prophetic mission, when the Prophet (S) used to
receive revelation, the camel could not bear it. But when Kauthar was
revealed, the Prophet (S) was smiling.
Very prfound indeed.
> Just a myth - didn't take enough oxygen or warm wooly socks - leather
socks no
> good. What about the "Qur'anic revelations (hallucinations)"?
The Quran refers to it as a vision. Time and space were shattered. It
is indeed interesting that Buraq's speed was likened to travel as far as
the eye could see. The Prophetic vision was not bound by time. Visions
of future event. The Quran has given very profound similies on the
Prophetic journey, from the Lote Tree the vision fo Gibraeel (AS).
They just don't know.
>
> >What about Moses on Mount Sinai?? Encountering
> >the burning bush?? These were all direct experiences.
>
> In the case of Moses they were not just simply "experiences". It was
Moses
> meeting with the God revealed in the Hebrew Bible. (as opposed to the
sterile
> totally transendent mono "non-being" of Muhammad's imagination). What
Muhammad
> retold about Moses was only what he heard secondhand.
The Quran says that He speaks to men in three ways. Either through wahy
(inspiration), from behind a veil, and through a Messenger (Angel). The
Quran follows this ayat with a clear statement that the Prophet (S) was
inspired in all three modes. The second one alludes to the experience
of Hadhrat Musa (AS). The Quran affirms the Prophet (S) being inspired
in the same mode as Hadhrat Msua (AS). It is truly profound that the
hijra proceeded the miraaj, and Allah connects the miraaj with Masjid
al-aqsaa and the Kaaba. And the hijra was the beginning of both
nations, the Ismaelites and Israelites.
>
> Muhammad never met with God. God never spoke to Muhammad.
>
According to the deluded he didn't. But the heavens and earth bear
witness to it everyday. The phenomenon of the Quran bears witness too
it. Arrogance blinds the eyes.
> >The veils were removed.... subhan Allah (...)
>
> They still are when one comes to the knowledge of the one true God of
Abraham
> revealed in the Hebrew Bible.
Here we go again, with the vague theories of knowledge. One asks where
God's presence is now? "The Holy spirit dwells among us" right? He
manifested hismelf in flesh, died on the cross for some sins he didn't
commit, never even once had a clue as to his mission except after he
dies. But He had to be both human and God so that man could no him.
Man is ever more confused with such ridiculous beliefs. Laughable
indeed.
Islam is the religion of Ibraheem (AS). Its that simple. It is no
doubt that the mention of Ibraheem is on the lips of the Muslims every
time they make salaat. It is no doubt that when Muslims do their qiyam,
rukuu and sujood, they are reviving the abrahamic legend.
>
> >The testimony of holy people-- in all times and cultures, geniuses
and
> >dullards-- is precisely of something that is NOT just a feeling, but
> >is indubitably a direct encounter ("veils removed") of the Most High!
>
> Obviously confused over the meaing of "holy people" - Thinks Sai Baba
is a
> "holy person"
>
The Quran describes the intellectual "encounter" with God through the
cleansing of all false notions and ideologies. Human nature testifies
to God. The Prophetic purpose is for tazkiyah. As Shaykh Sirhindi (R()
described of the Most High, "Beyond the Beyond, Beyond the Beyond,
Beyond the Beyond." Our duty is abdiyat. This is the dynamic belief in
the unseen, the driving force for good works.
The Jews asked to see God. We are not the condemned Jews. This
question is just truly idiotic defeating the whole purpose of man on
earth.
> >An ineffable experience they do their best to communicate to the rest
> >of us.
>
> "ineffable experiences" do not communicate anything at all which is
real.
>
> >(Here is a valid definition of spirituality: Awareness of, and
> >response to, The Transcendent.)
>
This is a valid definition. But this has nothing to do with the plain
nonsense of Christian ideology.
> It is impossible to be "aware" of a truly transcendent being who never
enters
> time/space. It is just a leap of faith and fantasy.
>
Yet man has to wait some thousands of years punished for some sin they
never commited, endured the punishment of drought and famine, and then
witness God in all its glory. Yet after his disappeance, the Jews were
persecuted, they Lost their temple, the corrupt church came in and
oppressed people for thousands of years.
This statement of TajMahal lacks total intelligent thought. Of course
the belief in God entails "faith". This is a guidance for those "Who
believe in the unseen." It is indeed astonishing that the beginning of
this surah lies with alif lam mim. What does every Muslim in the end
say "God knows best what it means." The belief in angels requires it,
so does the belief in the Last Day, and the Prophets. The belief of the
Chrsitains that Jesus willreturn and judge man is blind faith. Islam
accompanies itself with proofs.
The word iman is not faith. It is related to the word security, also
trust. Iman in Islam is a life giving force. It is the root of an
intellectual journey guided by pure fitra. Once again the greatest
example of this is Hadhrat Ibraheem (AS), as he debated with the people,
demonstarting their idiocy in worshipping celestial bodies. The Quran
outlines the profound idea of rububiyyat, and the Prophets (AS) when
debating with their people always mentioned and illustrated the concept.
The Quran calls for reflection all of the time, even after the
acceptance of the deen. This book calls on man to participate.
> >Plus, my understanding is that many Sufis were also warriors, and
very
> >involved in affairs of the world.......
>
> Just plain mortals like the rest of us with hightly developed
imaginations.
Plain mortals, who changed the course of India. This is the ideology of
Islam. Movements are based upon the realization of the truth. I don't
say spiritual because Islam in reality makes no distinction between the
two. It is only a matter of language. People that inspired the likes of
Sultan Tippu, and the great Mughal kings. People who laid down their
lives fighting the ranks of imperialism. People like Abdul Qadir Jilani
who stood against the tyrants.
The proof of haqq is the character, living practically and working
towarsd the goal. Not to have some cherished hopes and false dreams
awaiting some miraculous return of a saviour. As the Prophet of God
said in effect "If the Day of Judgement comes, and you are planting a
tree, finish planting the tree."
Indeed as most practical MAN, who as the Quran says was a man, but
inspired by God. And the heavens and earth bear witness to it, just
like the depths of TajMahals soul.
Salaam
asim...@my-deja.com
Salaam
When I referred to the reyaa of the Prophet (S), it may have implied a
subjective experience by my reference to the word 'vision.' The
word actually references what happens when the eyes are closed. The
actual journey was spiritual, in my opinion, as the Quran affirms
the Prophet (S) being transported. When the Quran uses the reference to
reyaa for the Prophets they are not meant as dreams of the normal human
beings, thus the Prophet (S) received the revelation in his dream that
the Prophet (S) and His Companions (R) would enter Masjid al Haram.
The actual event did take place, but whether it was spiritual or
physical is a different issue. The word vision is a bad word implying a
passive state.
Mr Mahdi
>>You seem to be saying words without thinking about what you are
>>saying!
>
>Only when MrMahdi calls me a "missionary" :-) - but on this subject he has a
>good orthodox Islamic point supported by well respected Qur'anic scholars and
>authorities.
We have seen "Jameel" here ally himself with atheists, Hindus, and other
anti-Muslim haters here on SRI. Even Jameel have tried to ally himself with
Muslims when he believes he could use their words or actions as a way to attack
Islam. I never take Jameel seriously, his actions and statements have proven
to me that he is not sincere nor does he want to have a genuine discussion
because his agenda here on SRI is to defend Christianity and attack Islam.
Now he decides to use my statements on Sufism as a way not attack not only
Sufism but Islam. It is amazing (but of course it doesn't suprise me) that
Jameel sarcastically put quotes around the word "missionary" as if that
description doesn't fit him. He is a Christian missionary in a Muslim
Newsgroup attacking Islam in order to defend Christianity and try to get
converts. Believe it or not despite his actions, he denies being a Christian
missionary. Why is he here and why does he attack Islam if he is not a
"Christian missionary?"
>to
>start and quote some respected orthodox "islamic" sources to support their
>notions rather than engage in speculation.
Look at how he tries to make the "Orthodox" Muslims go against the
Sufi-oriented Muslims. He wants Muslims to fight and denounce each other so he
can try to use this as a case against Islam and Muslims. This type of actions
makes me sick beyond belief. You have atheists and other secularists who are
avowed enemies of Christianity but Jameel rather ignore those people and
emphasize his bigoted hatred towards Islam and Muslims. There are Newsgroups
in Usenet that attack and refute the Bible, but you never see "Jameel" over
there defending his Bible and Christian religion. It is the poor Muslims who
must suffer from his Islamophobic campaign.
I can go on and on citing the unbelievable hypocrisy and distortions in
Jameel's posts, but I rather talk about the type of enviroment SRI creates.
Here on SRI it is dominated by Christian missionaries and other haters of
Islam. There is no true discussion of Islam here expect for a few Muslims who
defend Islam and discuss relevant issues facing Muslims today.
A Newsgroup about Islam should be dominated by people who are sincere about
discussing Islam and issues Muslim face today. But all people here see is
Christian and other missionaries just use this as a forum to promote their
religion and promote their twisted hatred of Islam. Muslims are being murdered
and raped all over the world and all we can talk about is how "my religion is
better than yours."
I don't expect Catherine to anything that will make SRI a real Newsgroup about
Islam, but I would like for the Muslim moderators to ponder and reevaluate
their moderation here on SRI. If they can find a way where SRI will be a place
where people with an agenda of promoting their non-Islamic religion won't be
able to do so, then they need to do it. Now since I use Islam as my only
criterion, if I were moderator these anti-Muslim trolls wouldn't be able to
post here, because I am no nonsense when it comes to this things.
I hope any of the Muslim moderators can respond to this and explain their
position when it comes to moderation, and can they find other ways to increase
real Islamic discussion on SRI and make this Newsgroup as troll-free as
possible.
Mahdi
http://hometown.aol.com/mrmahdi
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 02:22:56 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>>So, what Muhammad experienced was just a feeling??? AstagfirulLlah!
>>You seem to be saying words without thinking about what you are
>>saying!
>
>I am quite sick and tired of being sick and tired of people misquoting me or
>only responding to me when they want to criticize me. "Dr. Jihad" again
>responds to another one of my post by first misunderstanding what I am trying
>to say and second by finding this an good opputurnity to attack me.
Well, we're all sick and tired of *something* but often that is itself
something to think about. I didn't misquote you because I didn't quote
you. Rather, I brought out some implications contained within your
statements. And I'm sorry you felt it was an attack on you, because
that certainly was not how it was intended. However, your statements
*do* carry various implications.....
>Muhammad (saaw) recieved waHy, and he (saaw) did see the Angel Jibril, he did
>literally perform the Isra and Mi`raj and was truly inspired by Allah. Now we
>as non-prophets and messengers are not ones who recieve waHy, we are not
>inspired by Allah, we do not communicate with the Angel Jibril, etc. So don't
>confuse prophets' experiences with non-prophets' experiences,
I'm not. Wahy-- the means by which the Qur'an came down to us isn't
going to happen again. However, insha Allah, after death we too will
see Jibril, and Allah *does* draw back veils for people, even during
this part of our lives......
> and don't ever
>misqupte me again and then try to portray me as going against Islam.
Again, I did not misquote you, I brought out implications of your
statements--- clearly things you yourself do not want to say!
And.... perhaps you will re-read your own words and take your own
advice.......
Jeremiah McAuliffe
> In the presence of God, according to the
>Old Testament and Quran, Musa (AS) became frightened upon the staff
>turning into a snake.
>
>The impact on the Prophet (S) was a huge burden indeed.
Asalaam Alaikum,
Seems to me that many Christians mistake the awesome God of the
universe for "my big buddy in the sky" and forget that an encounter
with God is an encounter with the ultimate alien being-- NOTHING is
like God! Its scary. But then, God is kind.... the Most Kind.... and
compassionate... the Most Compassionate.... and so the fear and shock
is lessened...... but make no mistake... God is terrifying in His
otherness and in His transcendence..... "no one can look upon the face
of God and live..."
If I'm not mistaken, Moses-- God love him always-- had to wear a veil
over his face because the effect of being so close to God made his
face too intense for people to look upon...... and God, of course,
knows best.
Mr Mahdi
>>You could "SubHan Allah" all day but you are not the one who should be
>saying
>>that to others when you right here tell Muslims they should vote and
>>participate in the kufr system!
>
>Oops! Don't forget I write music too.
I dont know if he is being sarcastic or he doesn't care if he openly sins and
promotes kufr. By the way, I do not think all music is Haraam and it was
obviously that you thought I did.
Instead of leaving what is proven to be kufr, you seem to insist on accepting
it and even promoting it. This show a great lack of taqwa and sincerity.
Inviting to kufr isn't a joke, it could lead you to the Hell Fire.
The Muslims didn't shed their blood and risk their lives to promote this deen
just to have "Muslims" promote beliefs and systems that is opposed to Islam.
Allah made it clear on who is the sovereign and legislator. The Kuffar make is
clear that they have an agenda for the Muslims, and they want to see Muslims
promoters not opposers to their kufr beliefs and systems.
>Almost forgot to give the plug for Dr. Jihad! & the Intellectual
>Muslim Guerrillas. Muslim rock at its best! But of course, that's
>pretty easy since its currently the *only* Muslim rock. <laughing>
Those who laugh first usually don't laugh last. At any rate, here is a site
that has *real* Islamic music, with a hip-hop flavor to it:
http://www.soldiersofallah.com/soafog2.swf
Mahdi
Fariduddien Rice
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Mr Mahdi wrote:
> Now we
> as non-prophets and messengers are not ones who recieve waHy, we are not
> inspired by Allah, we do not communicate with the Angel Jibril, etc. So don't
> confuse prophets' experiences with non-prophets' experiences, and don't ever
> misqupte me again and then try to portray me as going against Islam.
Was Mary a Prophet(ess)? According to the Qur'an, she met Jibreel. What
does Mr Mahdi say about that?
Also, according to many hadiths, "miracles" did occur to various
Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). And even cases of "wahy."
Isha-Allah, I will try to post more about this in a day or two. And
there's more.
According to the Qur'an, the people of the cave experienced a miracle of
Allah, due to their righteousness. What does this mean, according to Mr
Mahdi? Does that make all of them Prophets too?
How about their dog? He also experienced the miracle from Allah. I won't
make the obvious suggestion which seems to follow from Mr Mahdi's
thinking.
I'll try to write more about this soon, insha-Allah.
Wassalamu alaikum,
Mansoor Azam
Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
"Muslim rock at its best! But of course, that's
pretty easy since its currently the *only* Muslim rock. <laughing>"
For the same reason its also the worst. Hopefully it'll remain both
(best and worst). You used the term "muslim rock" (Thank goodness
not "Islamic rock". Astaghfirullah). Some more interesting terms.
1. Atheist prayer
2. Secular church
3. vegetarian beef burger etc. etc.
I'm sure you can add to the list.
Mansoor
Mr Mahdi
>Was Mary a Prophet(ess)? According to the Qur'an, she met Jibreel. What
>does Mr Mahdi say about that?
I recall a debate with some brothers about this very issue. A famous scholar
(I think it was Ibn Hazm, Allahu a`lam) believed that Mary was in a way a
prophet because she met Jibril. I do not find this to be against Islam at all,
and I haven't seen enough evidence to go against support this view.
>Also, according to many hadiths, "miracles" did occur to various
>Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). And even cases of "wahy."
>Isha-Allah, I will try to post more about this in a day or two.
If you call Ilhaam or Karaamah "miracles," then you need to know that these
things are not the same as "i`jaaz" or mu`jizah. Miracles when it comes to
prophets is something that is defies the laws of the Universe and is intended
to prove one's prophethood. Ilhaam (not waHy) or Karaamah (not i`jaaz) are of
course much of a lesser degree and are not equal in weight and significance to
waHy or i`jaaz.
>According to the Qur'an, the people of the cave experienced a miracle of
>Allah, due to their righteousness. What does this mean, according to Mr
>Mahdi? Does that make all of them Prophets too?
And you forgot the story about the Elephants (in Surah al-Fil) in the Quran.
Things that are *miraculous* such as the incidents in the Quran should not be
confused with *miracles* performed by prophets. Karaamah is indeed
"miraculous," but it is not the level of a *miracle* performed by a prophet to
prove his prophethood.
When a prophet performs a miracle, it is not called "karaamah" it is called
"mu`jizah." When a prophet is inspired by God, it is not called "ilhaam" but
it is called "waHy."
As a reminder, do not confuse waHy with ilhaam or confuse karaamah with i`jaaz.
I hope this clear things up especially with the Sufis who often confuse things
with what they are not.
Mahdi
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>In article <sdomhc...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
>
> "Muslim rock at its best! But of course, that's
> pretty easy since its currently the *only* Muslim rock. <laughing>"
>
> For the same reason its also the worst. Hopefully it'll remain both
>(best and worst). You used the term "muslim rock" (Thank goodness
>not "Islamic rock". Astaghfirullah). Some more interesting terms.
Asalaam Alaikum,
Sorry.
Dr. Jihad! & the IMG.... ISLAMIC rock at its best!
Right on! Allahu akbar!
You ain't heard NOTHIN' yet, insha Allah......
Of course, *some* HATE songs like "Imam in a Lexus" and "Hey!
Neo-Salafi!" But then, such a nice indication of their guilt..... just
like the guilty came out of the woodwork threatening me when I wrote
about domestic abuse.... and when I wrote about flat-out corruption in
the main local masjid.... and how our national "leaders" so
wrongfully attacked Kabbani.... and so on, and so on, and so on....
And some might hate songs like "Words" and "Messengers" but what does
that say about them? (the people, not the songs) Well, the answer to
that is obvious (oops! forgot.... not obvious to some of you, but I'm
not going to bother to spell it out for you).
Thanks for returning my "salaams" Mansoor. Its ok, I don't hold it
against you, and Allah is more understanding than I am when you
completely ignore what He *clearly* told you to do. You guys always
show your true colors so easily. ;-)
The kids of course, are loving the stuff. Y'know why? Because they
don't like the rigid, nasty, mean-spirited, sexist, oppressive,
tending-towards-violence, NONSENSE and HATRED spewed out by so many of
our adults. They KNOW its wrong.
And what is more, they realize that what I sing about is true........
why just a few weeks ago a "teacher" right here physically assaulted
an adolescent student for asking a question. (Way to go, bro.) Thank
God the kid didn't press charges-- the local media would have had a
field day. Another one was getting sucked into Christianity because a
priest was kinder to him, more accepting of him, more concerned, more
open, more understanding, more responsive to his issues and questions
than his own "brothers" are. In other words, the priest exhibited more
traits of the sunnah than did any of our own "leaders" and "teachers".
Thank God the kid started talking to me......... alhamduli 'Llah and
Allahu akbar!
Y'see, they are learning they can tell me the truth of their lives and
their true issues and questions. Unlike with so many of you who are
living in a fantasy world and USING religion to address your own
psycho-social issues, such as an obvious need for self-esteem, and
power, and pretending you are better than anyone else, when you aren't
(which is just so obvious, but again..... obviously not!)
They are learning they can come to me and talk about the pot, and the
booze, and the acid, and the xtc, and their sex lives (yes, they are
doing it all) and Kid Rock, and DMX, and Third Eye Blind, and Mr.
Hanky and Cartman and Kenny (and if you don't know who I'm talking
about you prove how astoundingly out of touch you are) and the Bible
and Jesus (God love him!) and the Qur'an and Muhammad (God love him!)
and...... YOU!
See, the big difference between me and you who hate me is that I know
I'm not such a hot Muslim and honestly admit it. You'll never find
even the slightest implication otherwise. I *beg* Allah in my prayer
for religious authenticity-- another way of saying "sincerity"--
another way of saying "ikhlas"-- and acknowledge my need for practices
that help improve my authenticity, which is another way of saying the
need for tasawuuf-- "a word that doesn't appear in the Qur'an", and so
those of sloppy thinking and narrow reading reject the concept out of
hand......
And Allah knows best. But so many of you don't really think that, do
you? You think you already know.... Now, THERE'S an "astagfirulLlah"
for you, if you would but get truly honest with yourselves about
yourselves.
Hmmm. I must be particularly cranky this morning. <laughing, again>
Hey! Its either laugh at you people or cry for you, but then I might
never stop..... sometimes (most times?) y'all are just so astoundingly
absurd...... in my opinion, of course.... and don't worry, the
Catholics didn't like me much either, but I left them, and you're now
stuck with me. <lol>
Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!
Jeremiah McAuliffe
> believed that Mary was in a way a
>prophet
"in a way" being the operative words, of course.
Fariduddien Rice
To make this easier to read, I'm breaking this up into several
sub-sections. Each subsection has its own heading.... (This is a new
experimental approach I am trying for writing long articles....)
FIRST, MR MAHDI WROTE....
On 26 Mar 2000, Mr Mahdi wrote:
> As a reminder, do not confuse waHy with ilhaam or confuse karaamah with
> i`jaaz. I hope this clear things up especially with the Sufis who often
> confuse things with what they are not.
HERE'S MY RESPONSE
I'm not a Sufi. Let's get that out of the way first.
Now, I have found that many people who reject kashf (unveiling) for
non-Prophets also reject karaamah (miracles). I am glad that Mr Mahdi is
different, and he accepts karaamah.
However, how about wahy? Does Allah ever give wahy to someone who is not
a Prophet or Messenger?
MEANING OF WAHY
Here is what I have read about "wahy"....
"The Arabic word 'Wahy' derived from the word awha means to inform
secretly."
[From the (incomplete) online version of "Ulum al-Qur'an,"
http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/qurhad/excel/uloom2.html ]
A rough English translation could be "divine inspiration." The Qur'an
uses the word in several ways.
AN EXAMPLE OF WAHY FROM THE QUR'AN
The above web page gives some examples of how "wahy" is used in the
Qur'an. For example:
So We sent this inspiration to the mother of Moses: "Suckle (thy child),
but when thou hast fears about him, cast him into the river, but fear
not nor grieve: for We shall restore him to thee, and We shall make him
one of Our apostles." [Qur'an 28:7]
This is an example of wahy. Allah inspired the mother of Moses to take a
certain action. However, nobody that I know of considers the mother of
Moses to have been a female Prophet or Messenger. This is an example of
someone who is not a Prophet or Messenger receiving wahy.
However, it is possible that Mr Mahdi will now claim that the mother of
Moses was also a female Prophet. So let's also look at some other
examples of wahy.
FURTHER EXAMPLES OF WAHY
According to the online version of "Ulum al-Qur'an" (referred to above),
there are several types of wahy. These are
- By way of dreams. For example, the Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) saw a dream
in which he saw himself slaughtering his son, Prophet Ismail (a.s.).
- By direct speech. For example, "And to Moses, Allah spoke directly"
(Qur'an 4:164).
- By intuitive knowledge. This seems to be the type of wahy which was
used in the inspiration of the mother of Moses, which I quoted from the
Qur'an above.
- Through an intermediary, such as the Angel Jibreel. Of course, this was
one of the many methods of wahy received by the Prophet Muhammad, may
peace and blessings of Allah be with him.
WAHY THROUGH DREAMS
Wahy through dreams is a well-recorded aspect of wahy, which may be
available (with Allah's grace) to a righteous person who is not a Prophet
or Messenger.
Here are 3 hadiths about wahy through dreams which helps to explain this
further....
HADITH 1
Ubada bin As-Samit said the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be
with him) said,
"The (good) dreams of a faithful believer is a part of the forty-six
parts of prophetism."
[Bukhari, from Book 87: Interpretation of Dreams -- from the online
Bukhari translation.]
Hadiths with similar wording are also narrated by Abu Huraira, Anas ibn
Malik, and Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri, in Bukhari.
HADITH 2
Abu Huraira said,
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "Nothing is left of the prophetism
except Al-Mubashshirat."
They asked, "What are Al-Mubashshirat?" He replied, "The true good
dreams (that conveys glad tidings)."
[Bukhari]
HADITH 3
Narrated Abu Qatada, who said the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah
be with him) said,
"Whoever sees me (in a dream) then he indeed has seen the truth."
[Bukhari]
So, it is clear from these hadiths that there is something called a true
dream, by which someone can learn good and truthful things. These dreams
are a form of wahy.
This is made even clearer when we look at a specific example.
THE DREAM OF ABDULLAH BIN SALAM
Here is an example of one of the Sahaba who had this kind of dream....
Narrated Qais bin 'Ubada:
I was sitting in a gathering in which there was Sa'd bin Malik and
Ibn 'Umar. 'Abdullah bin Salam passed in front of them and they said,
"This man is from the people of Paradise."
I said to 'Abdullah bin Salam, "They said so-and-so." He replied,
"Subhan Allah! They ought not to have said things of which they have no
knowledge, but I saw (in a dream) that a post was fixed in a green
garden. At the top of the post there was a handhold and below it there
was a servant. I was asked to climb (the post). So I climbed it till I
got hold of the handhold."
Then I narrated this dream to Allah's Apostle. Allah's Apostle said,
"'Abdullah will die while still holding the firm reliable handhold
(i.e., Islam)."
[Bukhari]
This is an example of a dream which has revealed an element of the unseen.
How we will die -- whether it will be in Islam or not -- is part of the
future, and something we do not truly know. Yet, Allah revealed in this
dream to 'Abdullah bin Salam which included knowledge of the state he
would die in, when the dream was interpreted correctly.
*LIMITED* WAHY IS STILL ALIVE
It is thus clear that some elements of wahy may still be continuing.
Wahy through dreams did not close with the Prophet (Peace and blessings of
Allah be with him). The Prophet (s.a.w.) explicitly said that these
continue. There is no reason why they couldn't continue today.
Wahy through inspiration might also still continue. As Allah inspired the
mother of Moses to perform a certain action, I see no reason why in
today's age, Allah could not inspire someone else to also perform certain
actions as well.
Of course, there are absolute limitations. No new aspect of shari`ah can
come through any form of wahy after the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be with him). No new aspect of religion can come.
However, wahy can affect someone's personal actions (as it did with the
mother of Moses).
These facts mean that wahy is *limited* today, since none of us are
Prophets or Messengers. But it is not dead.
With Allah's grace, it may still be alive for certain righteous people.
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
wrote:
> And you forgot the story about the Elephants (in Surah al-Fil) in the
> Quran. Things that are *miraculous* such as the incidents in the
> Quran should not be confused with *miracles* performed by prophets.
> Karaamah is indeed "miraculous," but it is not the level of a
> *miracle* performed by a prophet to prove his prophethood.
alssalaamu 3alaykum
Prophets do not use "miracles" to prove their prophethood. While
traditions attributes some miracles to the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's
grace and peace be on him), they play no role in Islamic theology nor do
they constitute any essential element in the life of the Prophet. Even
the traditional interpretation of the "splitting of the moon" (see Q.
54) is based on conjecture and not supported by any contemporary Meccan
references. While Islam does not deny miracles, neither does it give
them a significant place in religion.
In the Qur'an, God says:
"The People of the Book ask you to cause a book to descend to them from
heaven. They asked Moses for an even greater miracle, saying, 'Show us
Allah in public'. They were dazed for their presumption by thunder and
lighting." (4:153)
Asking for miracles or trusting in them is presumptuous because we must
not judge spiritual things in terms of material things. We must not
expect to see Allah with our physical eyes because Allah is above all
physical forms and is independent of time and space.
To approach God and to grow in our understanding of him comes through
spiritual sight, not through the psysical senses. In religion, we must
learn to "see" with our hearts not our eyes. The way of tassawuf is to
sharpen our spiritual vision.
Ansari said:
"If you can walk on water
You are no better than a blade of grass.
If you can rise up in the air
You are no better than a fly.
Conquer your heart
If you want to become somebody."
Similarly, Bayazid al-Bistami said:
"Even if you see a man endowed with miraculous powers to the point of
rising in the air, do not let yourself be deluded, but investigate
whether he observes the Divine precepts and prohibitions, whether he
stays within the limits of religion and whether he accomplishes the
duties that imposes on him."
It is said that when Moses (peace be on him) threw down his staff and it
turned into a serpent, Pharaoh's wizards did the same and Pharaoh
laughed. Were Pharaoh's wizards proving their prophethood? It is said
that Jesus, when he healed the sick and worked other wonders (with God's
permission) told the witnesses to remain silent and not to spread the
word about his deeds. Is working miracles in secret a way to prove
prophethood?
We know the Moses and Jesus (peace be on them both) worked miracles with
God's permission. They did not do so to prove that they were prophets.
If miracles are the sign of prophethood, then what were the miracles of
Ishmael, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Aaron, Job, Zachariah, Hud, Salih, John
and all the others (Allah's grace and peace be on each and every one of
them).
Abu Hurayra related the following:
"One day when the Prophet (peace be on him) was out in public, a man
came to him and asked, 'What is imaan?' He answered, 'It is belief in
Allah, his angels, his books, his prophets and the last day.' Then the
man asked, 'What is islaam?' The Prophet said, 'islaam is to worship
Allah, associate no other with him, to pray, to pay alms and to fast
during ramaDaan.' Finally the man asked, 'And what is ihsaan?' The
Prophet answered, 'ihsaan is to adore Allah as if you were seeing him.
Even if you may not be able to see him, he certainly sees you.'"
We "see" reality in three ways: with our eyes, with our mind and with
our heart. The way of tassawuf is to acknowledge that Allah is hidden
>from our eyes and easily misunderstood by our minds. It is with our
hearts, which have neither eyes nor mind, that we can best perceive
Allah. Only the "eye" of the heart can see through the veils of the
physical world. Even that vision is distorted and incomplete, but it is
the best instrument that we have to seek Allah's face.
One who follows the path of tassawuf, cloaks himself in the shari'ah and
is obedient to its precepts. It is a veil that separates him from the
physical and material (exoteric) world so that he can concentrate on the
inner (esoteric), non-material world. Thus clothed in orthodox Islam and
taking as spiritual nourishment every word of the Qur'an, he walks in
the footsteps of those righteous ones who have followed the path before
him and he strive to seek Allah's face through disciplined spiritual
progression, by degrees (maqaamaat), which include:
1. Repentance (tawbah).
2. Fear of Allah (KHawf).
3. Temperance in all things (zuhd).
4. Spiritual poverty (faqr).
5. Patience (Sabr).
6. Absolute trust in Allah (tawwakul).
7. Total abandonment to Allah's will (riDa3).
Those degrees and many other spiritual states that we receive by God's
grace and blessing are not outside Islam; they are not foreign to the
Qur'an. They are the very heart of religion. They are desirable goals
because in seeking to attain them, we approach Allah. It is through
spiritual discipline and heartfelt yearning that we begin even now, even
in this life our approach to Allah. inna lillaahi wa'inna ilayhi raji3un.
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
MyTajMahal
>Say, God is Ahad.
>Allahus Samad.
>
>Ahad is teh attribute of God which signifies absoluted oneness, both in
>essence and attributes.
Echad in Hebrew is a composite unity. Another words means "singleness" and was
used by Maimonidies in his 13 articles of faith.
Echad in the Shema refers to the compound unity of a personal God.
>Though God is unknowable, He is closer to man than
>the jugular vein. That is why the command to "Call on ME!"
Good.... so the "god" of the Qur'an is unknowable as I claimed. On the other
hand the "Yahweh" of the Bible is knowable.
>The Quran almost always affirms a balance to demonstrate the Reality of
>God.
There is no proof of *reality* in an unknowable "god"
(...)
>Allah is known through His Craetive activity.
Only God's existence may be known in this way - absolutely nothing else.
>By essence, He is unknowable.
This unknowable is the impersonal, sterile, limited "monoconcept" God of
Muhammad's imagination - not the "Echad" of the Hebrew Bible.
(...)
>..... and to make claims that a religion reveals God's nature is plain
nonsense.
Agreed - absolute nonsense - all institutionalised religion comes from a
delusion.
>Christinaity .....had to resort to God coming down in the form of man to
reveal
>his nature.
Who cares about "Christinaity" we don't find that word in the Bible. But the
knowledge of the nature of God does not only come from the revelation of
Himself - which is perfectly reasonable.
As Asim Awan rightly states all throughout - In the religion of Muhammad and
his "concept" of God there is no "knowing" God.
It is a futile pursuit to seek knowledge of God in the orthodox religion of
Muhammad or the Qur'an. That is why there is so much interest in mystical
Islam where "God" can be known through "experiences"
(...)
>God reveals his Nature through human nature is a ridiculous
>concept besides being logically false and a contradiction in its own
>right.
Who claims this? Would Asim Awan quote a reference? Is this a Sufi claim?
(...)
Jameel
>> Impersonal, sterile monotheism offers no answers when it comes to
>"knowing" God.
>
>
>Jameel likes to make bold claims, yet the Christian world, along with
>the other religions are plagued with this issue.
Asim Awan resorts to an irrelevancy which is "Christendom" (straw man tactic).
The "knowing" of God is spiritual enlightenment - those who reject it are
plagued with a "god" then cannot know.
The claim I made still stands by Asim Awan's own admission given earlier.
>This topic of debate
>has plagued every philosopher down through the ages. The Quran on the
>other hand takes the best approach, and cannot be touched by even the
>greatest minds.
The Qur'an gives no answers to the "knowing" of God. This is the reason why so
many "Western Muslims" are attracted to the mystical experiences of Sufiism -
One poster describes his "experience" as "firm realization" which a meaningless
term he could not explain.
>There is undoubtedly a clue in the perfection and role of man in the
>verse "Glory be to Him He transported his ABD (slave) from the nearest
>House to the farthest." We are satisifed, and we know our limits.
Being satisfied which the supposed revelation of an unknowable "god" is
rediculous.
Regards to all who seek the knowledge of God
Jameel
MyTajMahal
>Islam is the religion of Ibraheem (AS). Its that simple.
No it isn't there is absolutely no evidence that the religion which Qur'anic
believers practice today is the "religion" of Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew,
Christian or a anything like a follower of Muhammadan religion
(and before the moderators try and scratch the word "Muhammadan" they should
check out it's contemporary use by Muslim and non Muslim accademics in refering
to the "spirit of Muhammad")
>It is no
>doubt that the mention of Ibraheem is on the lips of the Muslims every
>time they make salaat.
And the Khutba's given every Friday at the Al-Aqsa - they are then goaded into
hating Abraham's other descendants.
>It is no doubt that when Muslims do their qiyam,
>rukuu and sujood, they are reviving the abrahamic legend.
"Legend" good choice of description - reminds one of the Rabbinic "Legend" of
Abraham breaking the idols which appears in the Qur'an.
>The Quran describes the intellectual "encounter" with God through the
>cleansing of all false notions and ideologies.
Hyperactivity of the imagination - that's all
> Human nature testifies to God.
What? Did Asim Awan, in another post, refute this notion which he now promotes?
Asiam Awan wrote "God reveals his Nature through human nature is a ridiculous
concept besides being logically false and a contradiction in its own right."
Now let's see the "hyper semantics" kick into action :-)
(...)
Jameel wrote:
>> It is impossible to be "aware" of a truly transcendent being who never
>>enters time/space. It is just a leap of faith and fantasy.
(...)
>This statement of TajMahal lacks total intelligent thought.
Really?
>Of course the belief in God entails "faith".
I wasn't writing about "faith" I was writing about the "awareness" of the
truly *transcent* - and my statement is true - Asim Awan has not offered any
reason why it is not.
>This is a guidance for those "Who believe in the unseen."
It is not guidance it is a leap in the dark
>It is indeed astonishing that the beginning of
>this surah lies with alif lam mim. What does every Muslim in the end
>say "God knows best what it means."
A cop out for not being able to "know" the "unknowable" sterile transcend "god"
of Muhammad's imagination
>The belief in angels requires it,
>so does the belief in the Last Day, and the Prophets.
All leaps in the dark. Without the "knowing" of God there is nothing...only
the emptiness of the spiritually dead....
(...)
Jeremiah
>> >Plus, my understanding is that many Sufis were also warriors, and
>> >very involved in affairs of the world.......
Jameel
>> Just plain mortals like the rest of us with hightly developed
>imaginations.
>
>
>Plain mortals, who changed the course of India.
No - despite Jeremiah's protestations it was the Hindus who changed the face of
Islam in South Asian and Persia. Just go there and find the Pirs who people
pray to, kiss their feet, weep at the graves of the "saints" - all in the name
of "Sunni Islam" too.
>Movements are based upon the realization of the truth.
There is no "knowning" nor "truth" in a "god" who cannot reveal Himself
personally to his creation - only streams of connotation words which delude one
into thinking they mean something.
(...)
>As the Prophet of God
>said in effect "If the Day of Judgement comes, and you are planting a
>tree, finish planting the tree."
Yes - like telling God - Hey there I'll be right with you in a moment !
When is Asim Awan going to get real.
>Indeed as most practical MAN, who as the Quran says was a man, but
>inspired by God.
Does Asim Awan mean Muhammad? The man who after being inspired by what he
thought was an "divine experience" then spent three years trying to commit
suicide?
>And the heavens and earth bear witness to it, just
>like the depths of TajMahals soul.
The heavens and earth only bear witness to the existence of an intelligent
creator.
Kind regards to all who seek the "knowing" of God
Jameel
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 28 Mar 2000 05:44:36 GMT, Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
<kev...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Even
>the traditional interpretation of the "splitting of the moon" (see Q.
>54) is based on conjecture and not supported by any contemporary Meccan
>references.
Qaradawi, in his new book brings this issue up..... the only physical
miracles he mentions as having some firm authenticity are the yearning
of a tree trunk Muhammad had leaned against, a number of physical
miracles having to do with water (such has flowing from his hands),
the positive response to a number of the Prophet's du'as, the
actualization of some future predictions.
God knows best the truth of such things.....
asim...@my-deja.com
Is this suppose to be a response or mere polemics?
> >Islam is the religion of Ibraheem (AS). Its that simple.
>
> No it isn't there is absolutely no evidence that the religion which
Qur'anic
> believers practice today is the "religion" of Abraham. Abraham was not
a Jew,
> Christian or a anything like a follower of Muhammadan religion
>
> (and before the moderators try and scratch the word "Muhammadan" they
should
> check out it's contemporary use by Muslim and non Muslim accademics in
refering
> to the "spirit of Muhammad")
>
There's plenty of evidence. Even pre-arab jahilliya commemorated the
rites of Ibraheem (AS). There is nothing of the sort in the Israelite
tradition. But that will undoubtedly happen when you try and manipulate
verses and change locations.
> >It is no
> >doubt that the mention of Ibraheem is on the lips of the Muslims
every
> >time they make salaat.
>
> And the Khutba's given every Friday at the Al-Aqsa - they are then
goaded into
> hating Abraham's other descendants.
>
Who cares what they say? The mark of Ibraheem's (AS) descendants are
righteuousness or just like in the case of Nuh (AS), they no longer are
part of the family. That is where Islam and the corrupted religions
differ? Our mark is piety, ther's isn't. Its racism.
> >It is no doubt that when Muslims do their qiyam,
> >rukuu and sujood, they are reviving the abrahamic legend.
>
> "Legend" good choice of description - reminds one of the Rabbinic
"Legend" of
> Abraham breaking the idols which appears in the Qur'an.
>
No need to waste my time on this once again.
> >The Quran describes the intellectual "encounter" with God through the
> >cleansing of all false notions and ideologies.
>
> Hyperactivity of the imagination - that's all
>
Mere polemics.
> > Human nature testifies to God.
>
> What? Did Asim Awan, in another post, refute this notion which he now
promotes?
> Asiam Awan wrote "God reveals his Nature through human nature is a
ridiculous
> concept besides being logically false and a contradiction in its own
right."
> Now let's see the "hyper semantics" kick into action :-)
>
> (...)
Yet, he couldn't answer it. No surprise.
>
> Jameel wrote:
> >> It is impossible to be "aware" of a truly transcendent being who
never
> >>enters time/space. It is just a leap of faith and fantasy.
>
> (...)
> >This statement of TajMahal lacks total intelligent thought.
>
> Really?
>
My God the response is just so overbearing.
> >Of course the belief in God entails "faith".
>
> I wasn't writing about "faith" I was writing about the "awareness" of
the
> truly *transcent* - and my statement is true - Asim Awan has not
offered any
> reason why it is not.
Let's see, words which say leap of faith and fantasy sure implies that.
>
> >This is a guidance for those "Who believe in the unseen."
>
> It is not guidance it is a leap in the dark
>
Yet, even TajMahal admits that the universe points to an intelligent
Creator. The Quran affirms itself as the tadhkira, the reminder. But
that would be too amazaing for this discussion. TajMahgal cuts off the
rest of the paragraph clarifying what I meant. No surprise there
again.
> >It is indeed astonishing that the beginning of
> >this surah lies with alif lam mim. What does every Muslim in the end
> >say "God knows best what it means."
>
> A cop out for not being able to "know" the "unknowable" sterile
transcend "god"
> of Muhammad's imagination
>
Ahh yes, the sterile God of Creative actionm, "Who everyday is in a New
Splendour." The One who says the "alternation of the Night and Day are
signs for those who reflect." God is time. The Muslim concept of God
is undoutbedly the most Fantastic. TajMahal has no clue as he once
again demonstrates. He believes in the ficticious story of a hunman-man
god who has no clue he is god, so he prays to himself. Makes a lot of
sense now doesn't it?
> >The belief in angels requires it,
> >so does the belief in the Last Day, and the Prophets.
>
> All leaps in the dark. Without the "knowing" of God there is
nothing...only
> the emptiness of the spiritually dead....
>
See, TajMahal cannot define knowing because he has no clue as to what it
means. he would have to define knowing before getting into his vague
concepts.
> (...)
>
> Jeremiah
> >> >Plus, my understanding is that many Sufis were also warriors, and
> >> >very involved in affairs of the world.......
> Jameel
> >> Just plain mortals like the rest of us with hightly developed
> >imaginations.
> >
> >
> >Plain mortals, who changed the course of India.
>
> No - despite Jeremiah's protestations it was the Hindus who changed
the face of
> Islam in South Asian and Persia. Just go there and find the Pirs who
people
> pray to, kiss their feet, weep at the graves of the "saints" - all in
the name
> of "Sunni Islam" too.
>
Ah the attempts to rewrite history? Christians must have been
influenced by Hindus to.
> >Movements are based upon the realization of the truth.
>
> There is no "knowning" nor "truth" in a "god" who cannot reveal
Himself
> personally to his creation - only streams of connotation words which
delude one
> into thinking they mean something.
>
Ah, come down in the form of man and act like a man. What a way to know
the true God.
> (...)
>
> >As the Prophet of God
> >said in effect "If the Day of Judgement comes, and you are planting a
> >tree, finish planting the tree."
>
> Yes - like telling God - Hey there I'll be right with you in a moment
!
No, it's a statement that is in direct contrast to the polemics of the
evangelists we see everyday. Continue to work man, for the Day will
come. What a wondrous teaching far from the mentality of low level
evangelic thinking.
>
> When is Asim Awan going to get real.
>
Been real for a long time.
> >Indeed as most practical MAN, who as the Quran says was a man, but
> >inspired by God.
>
> Does Asim Awan mean Muhammad? The man who after being inspired by what
he
> thought was an "divine experience" then spent three years trying to
commit
> suicide?
>
Three years? Must have read that one from a Christian encyclopedia.
> >And the heavens and earth bear witness to it, just
> >like the depths of TajMahals soul.
>
> The heavens and earth only bear witness to the existence of an
intelligent
> creator.
Yet when my mother stays awake all night due to my sickness, there must
not be a Merciful Creator?
>
> Kind regards to all who seek the "knowing" of God
Still is vague. Has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. One
wonders How he defines knowing?
asim...@my-deja.com
realized that God's essence is unknowable. Man forms the names of
things through concepts.
>
> >Say, God is Ahad.
> >Allahus Samad.
> >
> >Ahad is teh attribute of God which signifies absoluted oneness, both
in
> >essence and attributes.
>
> Echad in Hebrew is a composite unity. Another words means "singleness"
and was
> used by Maimonidies in his 13 articles of faith.
>
> Echad in the Shema refers to the compound unity of a personal God.
>
> >Though God is unknowable, He is closer to man than
> >the jugular vein. That is why the command to "Call on ME!"
>
> Good.... so the "god" of the Qur'an is unknowable as I claimed. On the
other
> hand the "Yahweh" of the Bible is knowable.
>
Unknowable in essence. The Quran drives home the personality through
the attributes of His which is demonstrated further by Allah pointing
out signs in the universe. TajMahal makes these claims of knowable, yet
he never explains it. He will affirm that to God is a spiritual
experience, which is in his words a 'leap of faith.' This is similar to
Ghazali's affirmation that God can only be known through kashf. Though
Ghazali was a genious and TajMahal isn't.
> >The Quran almost always affirms a balance to demonstrate the Reality
of
> >God.
>
> There is no proof of *reality* in an unknowable "god"
>
TajMahal has written all this yet he still cannot explain what he means?
The Quranic God is one of Creative activity, all ways in a 'new work.'
The ideology of the predetermined plan is not that of a Creator but a
fashioner. Its that simple. A moulder of an already existent
material. Its full of logical contradictions and innerrancies.
> (...)
>
> >Allah is known through His Craetive activity.
>
> Only God's existence may be known in this way - absolutely nothing
else.
>
And what is this other thing we may know about? Before I even answer
any more of TajMahals vague notions. Now if I see the mother of an
animal do everything to protect its child because of some nature within
her, or a mother who would jump into flames to save her child, there
undoubtedly is a Merciful Creator. The Quran refers to Creation as His
Sunnah. Beautiful and profound indeed.
> >By essence, He is unknowable.
>
> This unknowable is the impersonal, sterile, limited "monoconcept" God
of
> Muhammad's imagination - not the "Echad" of the Hebrew Bible.
>
> (...)
Which one is TajMahal talking about? The flesh God, or the One the
Heavens and earth cannot contain Him, let alone this house.
>
> >..... and to make claims that a religion reveals God's nature is
plain
> nonsense.
>
> Agreed - absolute nonsense - all institutionalised religion comes from
a
> delusion.
>
It depends what one emans by institutionalized. The Bani Israeel under
the command of Hadhrat Musa (AS) was institutionalized. The most
undeniable fact of this universe is law, and harmony. Humans are no
different. They in fact are the most fragile creatures on earth as the
Quran says. They need balance more than any other creature.
> >Christinaity .....had to resort to God coming down in the form of man
to
> reveal
> >his nature.
>
> Who cares about "Christinaity" we don't find that word in the Bible.
But the
> knowledge of the nature of God does not only come from the revelation
of
> Himself - which is perfectly reasonable.
Mere semantics. Revelation in Islam is a guide. Light upon Light, when
it works with the fitra of man. That is why the Prophet (S) was
commanded to establish the nature on which man was created. The Quran
alludes to deeper levels of consciousness in man, that is why one of the
most profound signs of the Quran is time. Too profound though for these
envangelical vague notions.
>
> As Asim Awan rightly states all throughout - In the religion of
Muhammad and
> his "concept" of God there is no "knowing" God.
>
Essence unknowable. How can the finite grasp the infinite? That
doesn't mean one cannot feel the "Hand" of God.
> It is a futile pursuit to seek knowledge of God in the orthodox
religion of
> Muhammad or the Qur'an. That is why there is so much interest in
mystical
> Islam where "God" can be known through "experiences"
>
Still cannot explain while all those leaving were "Bible" thumpers?
Yet Islam is the fastest growing way of life in the world. And ask why
any of them converted: The Quran. There is a big difference between
reading a translation and understanding and pondering over the realities
of the Quran. "Have they not pondered over the Quran or are their locks
on their hearts?"
> (...)
>
> >God reveals his Nature through human nature is a ridiculous
> >concept besides being logically false and a contradiction in its own
> >right.
>
> Who claims this? Would Asim Awan quote a reference? Is this a Sufi
claim?
>
Does it need a claim? I was talking about logically false and a
contradiction. This is a rational claim irrespective of any religious
belief. It is no surprise TajMahal once again has no clue. In fact I
cannot remember him once even answering but just polemics.
> (...)
>
> Jameel
> >> Impersonal, sterile monotheism offers no answers when it comes to
> >"knowing" God.
> >
> >
> >Jameel likes to make bold claims, yet the Christian world, along with
> >the other religions are plagued with this issue.
>
> Asim Awan resorts to an irrelevancy which is "Christendom" (straw man
tactic).
> The "knowing" of God is spiritual enlightenment - those who reject it
are
> plagued with a "god" then cannot know.
>
"spiritual enlightenment." Define this spiritual enlightenment? Can
he, or is he going to make what he calls a 'leap of faith and fantasy.'
Or is he talking about the fitra of man?
> The claim I made still stands by Asim Awan's own admission given
earlier.
>
That is all TajMahal makes, claims.
> >This topic of debate
> >has plagued every philosopher down through the ages. The Quran on the
> >other hand takes the best approach, and cannot be touched by even the
> >greatest minds.
>
> The Qur'an gives no answers to the "knowing" of God. This is the
reason why so
> many "Western Muslims" are attracted to the mystical experiences of
Sufiism -
> One poster describes his "experience" as "firm realization" which a
meaningless
> term he could not explain.
The Quran gives plenty. Yet TajMahal cannot explain knowing? I talk
>from the Quran, to the best of my understanding, not what others say.
The sufis speak about cogntion and maarifat in a terminolgy clearly a
stark contrast to the Quranic perspective. Level of certainty
increases, "My Lord increase me in knowledge."
>
> >There is undoubtedly a clue in the perfection and role of man in the
> >verse "Glory be to Him He transported his ABD (slave) from the
nearest
> >House to the farthest." We are satisifed, and we know our limits.
>
> Being satisfied which the supposed revelation of an unknowable "god"
is
> rediculous.
>
Yet TajMahal is repeating the same things without explaining anything he
means.
> Regards to all who seek the knowledge of God
Funny how he keeps changing his regards.
MyTajMahal
>If TajMahal understood an ounce of what I was saying He would have
>realized that God's essence is unknowable. Man forms the names of
>things through concepts.
When God reveals Himself then that which He reveals of His essence is knowable.
Asim Awan only speaks the truth.... for those who follow a "prophet" to whom
God revealed nothing of Himself personally.
>Unknowable in essence.
Nothing at all of His essence knowable? What kind of God is that?. Essence
refers also to "intrinsic nature" and so it is clear that since the followers
of Muhammad claim that God is "unknowable" the religion and revelations of
Muhammad are a fiction.
>The Quran drives home the personality through
>the attributes of His which is demonstrated further by Allah pointing
>out signs in the universe.
Attributes do not convey personality. Signs in the universe do not convey
personality either. Asim Awan simply uses the term "personality" as a
connotation without accepting what it really means. The "god" of the Qur'an has
no "personality" not even posessing the fundamentals of personality if he is
also supposed to be immutable. Those who claim otherwise have not understood
the implications of their claims.
>TajMahal makes these claims of knowable, yet
>he never explains it.
I explain it plenty to those who seek the knowledge of truth and who contact me
on the web and in the community. What I do in this discussion is to
investigate that Muhammad did not "know" God personally and that his ideas of
sterile, impersonal, monotheism are an imagination and a delusion holding
people back from coming to a true knowledge of the One True God of Abraham.
My purpose is to get those who can think freely without the Qur'anic
blinders... to think.. so they may come to a knowledge of the One True God..
>He will affirm that to God is a spiritual
>experience, which is in his words a 'leap of faith.'
No I will not affirm that to know God is a "spiritual experience" and neither
will I affirm that it demands a "leap of faith". It is these two issues which
faced by those who follow Muhammad. They cannot "know" the God of Muhammad
except by a leap of faith in Muhammad (completely unsatisfactory) and so they
seek "experience" which is equally a leap of faith and something which cannot
be communicated or verified.
>This is similar to
>Ghazali's affirmation that God can only be known through kashf.
Strange contradiction since Ghazali also claimed that God is utterly unknowable
- however no one can know the transcendent God unless He reveals Himself
personally. If what Asim Awan attributed to Ghazali is true then Ghazali was
leaping in the dark too.
>Though
>Ghazali was a genious and TajMahal isn't.
I won't deny Asim Awan his little comments <smile>
Someone wrote:
>> >The Quran almost always affirms a balance to demonstrate the Reality
>> >of God.
Jameel
>> There is no proof of *reality* in an unknowable "god"
>
Asim Awan
>TajMahal has written all this yet he still cannot explain what he means?
Of course I can - but to those who want to know the truth - Remember Messiah's
warning? "do not throw your pearls...".
>The Quranic God is one of Creative activity, all ways in a 'new work.'
So? Anyone can make up that idea. It doesn't prove that anyone can have
knowledge of him.
>The ideology of the predetermined plan is not that of a Creator but a
>fashioner. Its that simple. A moulder of an already existent
>material. Its full of logical contradictions and innerrancies.
It's irrelevant
Someone wrote
>> >Allah is known through His Craetive activity.
Jameel
>> Only God's existence may be known in this way - absolutely nothing
>>else.
Asim Awan
>And what is this other thing we may know about? Before I even answer
>any more of TajMahals vague notions.
Asim Awan suggests that there is nothing more to know of God. If this is the
case Asim Awan may as well be a tree or a flea.
>Now if I see the mother of an
>animal do everything to protect its child because of some nature within
>her, or a mother who would jump into flames to save her child, there
>undoubtedly is a Merciful Creator.
Some animals eat their offspring some animals eat other animal's offspring -
Others abandon them before they see the light of day - Not to mention what
some humans do to them. But again Asim Awan makes a leap from looking at
animals and tries to deduce something about a Creator (merciful). The fact
that his argument is not universal only points to great abnormalities in
creation (but that is another subject).
>The Quran refers to Creation as His
>Sunnah. Beautiful and profound indeed.
Maybe some day Asim Awan will take a look at the real world.
Asim Awan again
>> >By essence, He is unknowable.
Jameel
>> This unknowable is the impersonal, sterile, limited "monoconcept" God
>>of Muhammad's imagination - not the "Echad" of the Hebrew Bible.
Asim Awan
>Which one is TajMahal talking about? The flesh God, or the One the
>Heavens and earth cannot contain Him, let alone this house.
I speak of the One true God who revealed Himself to Abraham and who is not
limited by Muhammad's imagination.
>> >..... and to make claims that a religion reveals God's nature is
>> >plain nonsense.
Jameel
>>Agreed - absolute nonsense - all institutionalised religion comes from
>>a delusion.
Asim Awan
>It depends what one emans by institutionalized. The Bani Israeel under
>the command of Hadhrat Musa (AS) was institutionalized.
It did not come from a delusion and if one wants to claim that in a sense it
was "institutionalised" then it was "institutionalised" by God Himself in
covenant and in personal revelation and who dwelt among His people - a long way
>from the religion of Muhammad, Christendom or any other manmade religion.
>The most undeniable fact of this universe is law, and harmony. Humans are no
>different. They in fact are the most fragile creatures on earth.....
What has this got to do with the preceeding sentence? "The most undeniable
fact" <??> Take a look at what happens in the real world.
> as the Quran says. They need balance more than any other creature.
Otherwise they topple over? <smile>
Asim Awan
>> >Christinaity .....had to resort to God coming down in the form of man
>> >to reveal his nature.
Jameel
>>Who cares about "Christinaity" we don't find that word in the Bible.
>>But the knowledge of the nature of God does not only come from the revelation
>>of Himself - which is perfectly reasonable.
Asim Awan
>Mere semantics.
What has my second statement got to do with semantics? The whole Idea that
Messiah Jesus came to bring a "religion" is false - no semantics needed.
>Revelation in Islam is a guide.
Simply more words....Revelation in Mormonism is also a guide and this is
claimed in any other religion.. It says nothing and proves even less.
>Light upon Light, when
>it works with the fitra of man. That is why the Prophet (S) was
>commanded to establish the nature on which man was created.
Fantasy from the dreamworld which claims the pre-existent creation of Muhammad
before the universe. The desperate fantasy of delusion has no limits. Leaping
in the dark
>The Quran
>alludes to deeper levels of consciousness in man, that is why one of the
>most profound signs of the Quran is time.
Deeper levels or even higher levels of human "consciousness" were well known
and understood long before Muhammad came with his Qur'an. There is nothing
"profound" in this respect about Muhammad's "revelation"
>Too profound though for these
>envangelical vague notions.
Far too profound for the dawagandist "evangelicals" :-)
Jameel
>> As Asim Awan rightly states all throughout - In the religion of
>> Muhammad and his "concept" of God there is no "knowing" God.
Asim Awan
>Essence unknowable.
Of-course essence is knowable. If one applies the term "essence" to something
then it becomes verifiable (or falsifiable) using our senses.
>How can the finite grasp the infinite? That
>doesn't mean one cannot feel the "Hand" of God.
<laughing> Just read this gobbledegook ! (no offense intended Asim)
Jameel
>> It is a futile pursuit to seek knowledge of God in the orthodox religion of
>> Muhammad or the Qur'an. That is why there is so much interest in
>>mystical Islam where "God" can be known through "experiences"
Asim Awan
>Still cannot explain while all those leaving were "Bible" thumpers?
What? Where does this cryptic line from Asim Awan tie in with what I wrote?
(...)
Asim Awan
>> >God reveals his Nature through human nature is a ridiculous
>> >concept besides being logically false and a contradiction in its own
>> >right.
>>
>> Who claims this? Would Asim Awan quote a reference? Is this a Sufi
>>claim?
>>
>
>Does it need a claim?
Asim Awan already "claimed" it - obviously he is afraid to provide any
authority or explanation.. Maybe because he contradicted himself in another
post in which he claimed " Human nature testifies to God.". He also previously
explained "why the Prophet (S) was commanded to establish the nature on which
man was created."
> I was talking about logically false and a contradiction.
In view of the foregoing I doubt he understands this.
>This is a rational claim irrespective of any religious belief.
Asim Awan should prove this without further contradicting himself.
>It is no surprise TajMahal once again has no clue. In fact I
>cannot remember him once even answering but just polemics.
I am very happy to give an answer when appropriate - but here I am asking the
reader to consider the absurdity of belief in in the Qur'anic God who no one
can know - which has led many Muslims (not to mention those claiming to be Jews
and Christians) to seek the knowledge of God through "experiences".
Jameel
>> >> Impersonal, sterile monotheism offers no answers when it comes to
>> >"knowing" God.
>> >
Asim Awan
>> >Jameel likes to make bold claims, yet the Christian world, along with
>> >the other religions are plagued with this issue.
Jameel
>> Asim Awan resorts to an irrelevancy which is "Christendom" (straw man
tactic).
>> The "knowing" of God is spiritual enlightenment - those who reject it are
>> plagued with a "god" then cannot know.
>>
Asim Awan
>"spiritual enlightenment." Define this spiritual enlightenment?
Simply knowing a knowable God who is there - You want to know how to receive
enlightment? Repent and give up faith in false religion first. If a smoker
wants to experience the "enlightment" of fresh air he must acknowledge his
fault and give up smoking fIrst. As the Scripture says "The fear of the Lord
(Yahweh) is the beginning of wisdom."
Asim Awan
>Can he, or is he going to make what he calls a 'leap of faith and fantasy.'
>Or is he talking about the fitra of man?
I do not speak of any leap of faith and fantasy. All of us make decisions
which become our presupositions and they must satisfy our intelligence.
The impersonal, sterile monotheism of Muhammad's Qur'an does not satisfy the
intelligence nor the desire to truly "know" God.
This is evident by the dramatic growth of mystical Islam - especially in the
West and also by the long held traditional superstitions in South Asian Islam
and forms found in various places in Africa.
Jameel
>>The claim I made still stands by Asim Awan's own admission given
>>earlier.
>That is all TajMahal makes, claims.
I invite people to begin to consider these claims when they sit down to think
in the quiteness of their own hearts.
Asim Awan
>> >This topic of debate
>> >has plagued every philosopher down through the ages. The Quran on the
>> >other hand takes the best approach, and cannot be touched by even the
>> >greatest minds.
Jameel
>> The Qur'an gives no answers to the "knowing" of God. This is the reason why
so
>> many "Western Muslims" are attracted to the mystical experiences of Sufiism
-
>> One poster describes his "experience" as "firm realization" which a
meaningless
>> term he could not explain.
Asim Awan
>The Quran gives plenty.
Try it on this subject.
>>Yet TajMahal cannot explain knowing?
It's easy "The fear of the Lord (Yahweh) is the beginning of knowledge"
(proverbs 1:7) Will anyone truly acknowledge this and be willing to surrender
their presuppositions and seek the LORD?
Who will come to terms with my claim that there is no knowing the Qur'anic
"god" of impersonal sterile monotheism and begin to seek the One true and
living God of Abraham who Muhammad never knew?
Asim Awan
>I talk from the Quran, to the best of my understanding, not what others say.
>The sufis speak about cogntion and maarifat in a terminolgy clearly a
>stark contrast to the Quranic perspective. Level of certainty
>increases, "My Lord increase me in knowledge."
I do not reject outright what the Sufis claim - it is a matter for discussion
but to claim that "Level of certainty increases, "My Lord increase me in
knowledge." needs to verifiable (or falsifiable) otherwise it merely a claim
and could just as easily be a delusion as to the nature of the "truth" of any
parrticular "knowledge".
Asim Awan
>> >There is undoubtedly a clue in the perfection and role of man in the
>> >verse "Glory be to Him He transported his ABD (slave) from the nearest
>> >House to the farthest." We are satisifed, and we know our limits.
Jameel
>>Being satisfied which the supposed revelation of an unknowable "god"
>>is rediculous.
>>
Asim Awan
>Yet TajMahal is repeating the same things without explaining anything he
>means.
I have already tried to above. I cannot reveal God to anyone. I can only
point them to the source of true knowledge which commences with a genuine awe
of the Lord (Yahweh) and a willingness to surrender to Him and to give up faith
in religion and anything else which stands in the way.
My best wishes to you Asim - best regards to all
Jameel
Abdalla Alothman
MyTajMahal wrote:
> When God reveals Himself then that which He reveals of His essence is knowable.
> Asim Awan only speaks the truth.... for those who follow a "prophet" to whom
> God revealed nothing of Himself personally.
God revealed His attributes in the Quran. We know God, through his
attributes. He does not have to take an image of a man to be known.
Doesn't the Christian testament say that nobody has ever seen God
after all?
> Nothing at all of His essence knowable? What kind of God is that?. Essence
> refers also to "intrinsic nature" and so it is clear that since the followers
> of Muhammad claim that God is "unknowable" the religion and revelations of
> Muhammad are a fiction.
Essence refers to intrinsic nature? Well, that's according to your
definitions which you have innovated. We have our own definitions as
well.
By the way, what does 1 Timothy 3:16 and John 1:18 say?
> Attributes do not convey personality. Signs in the universe do not convey
> personality either.
That's not true. When someone has kindness as an attribute, you know
that he is kind. Probably, you're just looking for any argument to
disagree with brother Asim.
> I explain it plenty to those who seek the knowledge of truth and who contact me
> on the web and in the community. What I do in this discussion is to
> investigate that Muhammad did not "know" God personally and that his ideas of
> sterile, impersonal, monotheism are an imagination and a delusion holding
> people back from coming to a true knowledge of the One True God of Abraham.
Please bring your proof.
> No I will not affirm that to know God is a "spiritual experience" and neither
> will I affirm that it demands a "leap of faith".
Okay, so please explain to us how do you know God. Give me a procedure,
that if followed, will lead me or someone else to know 'God' the same
way you do.
> Remember Messiah's warning? "do not throw your pearls...".
...at baby cross-bread sects like the Messianic believers?
> >The Quranic God is one of Creative activity, all ways in a 'new work.'
>
> So? Anyone can make up that idea. It doesn't prove that anyone can have
> knowledge of him.
And anyone can claim that they know God personally--it still doesn't
prove that you and God are close buddies.
> I speak of the One true God who revealed Himself to Abraham and who is not
> limited by Muhammad's imagination.
If you know God, and you have a close relationship with him. What are
you doing on earth? Why don't you ask him to take you into heaven? I'm
sure you ask him to heal you when you are sick, or when you are in need
of his favors. So, please don't make excuses like, "I live according to
God's plans." Because when you want God to break his plans, you ask him
to do so. So, it's no big deal if you ask him to terminate your life and
take you to heaven the same way he terminated Abraham's life. Or is it
that you're better than Abraham?
> It did not come from a delusion and if one wants to claim that in a sense it
> was "institutionalised" then it was "institutionalised" by God Himself in
> covenant and in personal revelation and who dwelt among His people - a long
> way from the religion of Muhammad, Christendom or any other manmade religion.
God dwelt among his people? With His knowledge, or in a form of a man?
If there is some kind of god other than God who created the whole
universe and all of its beings, and he chooses to dwell among his people
in the form of a man, then he probably dwells among the monkeys in the
form of a monkey, and dwells among the pigs in the form of a pig. You
see, pigs and monkeys are also submitting to that mutable god, and if
that god is fair, he will also dwell among the monkeys and the pigs as
a monkey and as a pig.
What prevents this god to take the form of a monkey or a pig or a rat and
dwell among those animals as one of them as well? I mean those animas submit
to the god who created them, no? So what would prevent this kind of god from
taking their form just like he takes the form of humans? And why does he take
the form of a man, and not a woman? What kind of god do you worship, Taj?
Certainly not the God of Abraham.
Your ideas are very insulting to God, the Creator of everything.
17:43. Glorified and High be He! From 'Uluwan Kabeera (the great falsehood)
that they say! (i.e.forged statements that there are other gods along with
Allah, but He is Allah, the One, the Self-Sufficient Master, whom all
creatures need. He begets not, nor was He begotten, and there is none
comparable or coequal unto Him).
> What has this got to do with the preceeding sentence? "The most undeniable
> fact" <??> Take a look at what happens in the real world.
What happens in this world? God becomes a man and kills himself?
> Fantasy from the dreamworld which claims the pre-existent creation of Muhammad
> before the universe. The desperate fantasy of delusion has no limits. Leaping
> in the dark
Do you have something in your Bible that contradicts that? Not only
Mohammad was created in the beginning, but all humans were created
in the beginning in their real form. We believe what the Quran tells
us:
56:62. And indeed, you have already known the first form of creation,
why then do you not remember or take heed?
What is this first form of creation?
7:172. And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the Children of
Adam, from their loins, their seed (or from Adam's loin his offspring)
and made them testify as to themselves (saying): "Am I not your Lord?"
They said: "Yes! We testify," lest you should say on the Day of
Resurrection: "Verily, we have been unaware of this."
Do you have something in your Bible that says this is false? If not,
then you have no right to judge what has not been told to you.
> Deeper levels or even higher levels of human "consciousness" were well known
> and understood long before Muhammad came with his Qur'an. There is nothing
> "profound" in this respect about Muhammad's "revelation"
Yes, of course, we know this.
> Far too profound for the dawagandist "evangelicals" :-)
First, we don't have evangelicals in Islam. You can lie to yourself,
and be the first one to believe those lies, but the truth remains
that we don't have evangelicals.
I see that you're using FT's slogans. Why don't you also smile when he
calls your human god son of a ... on other newsgroups? Or are you a
hypocrite? Instead of borrowing his slogans, you can at least be honorable
enough and comment on what he says about your man god and his mother. At
least those Dawagandists believe that those who slandered the mother of
Jesus, automatically have their seats reserved in hell fire. That's a
privilege to Mary, and to all the prophets, including Jesus, which none of
the NT novelists bothered to do.
> Asim Awan already "claimed" it - obviously he is afraid to provide any
> authority or explanation.. Maybe because he contradicted himself in another
> post in which he claimed " Human nature testifies to God.". He also previously
> explained "why the Prophet (S) was commanded to establish the nature on which
> man was created."
No, what he was pointing to is that your elegant form testifies that a
Creator created you. Once people learn how to think why their nose is on
their face, and not between their toes they will get the idea and appreciate
the way God created them. Look around you, and see those who are disfigured,
and imagine if all people were disfigured in some way or another. If humans
were created by a random reaction, then we will have many chances that our
forms will not be alike. But God made those disfigured people, so you can see,
think, learn, and thank God for what He has made from you. This is how the
Quran develops healthy ways of thinking.
Salam,
Abdalla.
--
___________________________________________________________
|Abdalla S. Alothman mailto:ada...@blueskyweb.com |
|------------------- ----------------------------- |
|"And the servants of the Beneficent are they who walk on |
|the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address |
|them, they say: Peace." [Quran 25:63] |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|Really, have you read the Quran? |
|http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/quran/naeindex.htm |
|__________________________________________________________|
sout...@email.uc.edu
Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>As-salaamu `alaikum,
Yawn, voting is not kufr in and of itself, it may depend on what one is voting
for. Legistlating according to othern than what Allah revealed is shirk, but according to Ibn Abbas
(radillahu 'anhu) and Allah knows best, it is not the type of shirk that takes one outside of the
pale of Islam. Unless one knowingly considers the laws that one is legislating as being superior to
the sharia.
I think that both of you are ticked off at each other and may be on the virge of mangling each
other's words with chainsaws. Be careful y'all hear ?
>I am quite sick and tired of being sick and tired of people misquoting me or
>only responding to me when they want to criticize me.
Can I quote you on this :-)
Seriously akhi, I think that both of you should sit down and listen to each other...
>jump on other Muslims on things they misunderstand by at the same time inviting
>Muslims to the Hell Fire by saying we should vote and participate in a system
>Allah gave no right to establish or implement.
I see very little convincing critique of Muslim's political participation from HT or
Muhajirun types. Some of the little that I see I agree with, but in general I see a lot of poorly
supported statements. The fact is that "democratic" republics are a rather new form of government
and participation in these systems is of a quantativly different nature than participating in some
Badishah's government, or in participating in the government of some Caesar somewhere.
The Malikis have a lot of fiqh developed regarding participation and interactions in non muslim
societies as Muslim minorities. If only I have the ability or aptitude to obtain and study the
views of these ancient ulema :-( Sadly my youthful lazy streak, and my preoccupation with the
dunya, prevents me; make dua for me inshallah :-)
There are a lot of questions that are not cut and dried or simple, the best thing is wara. Abstain
>from anything that smells funny. However there may be other and better solutions.
End line, Muslims should not, in my opinion (and Allah knows best) run for federal offices,
judicuary, or legislative, or executive. Nor state legislatures (unless they wanna introduce bills
based on the sharia all day and vote down ones that do not). Even police is problematical. But
should we vote for school levies ? Local issues ? New highways ?
Saying no voting gets absurd to a point, when much of what is covered is not legislative but rather
administrative in nature.
> If you read my recent responses
>to some of the posts here, you should realize by now West has an agenda for the
>Muslims,
I read your stuff below, and I'd agree with it with the exception that I think tht the
picture is much more complex than you paint it, but in general I'd agree with it.
Jeremiah acknoleged some of what you said, some of it is obvious though some takes a bit of
looking. PAranoia, however, should be avoided :-)
The point is, is there a way to use the system for good ends without either being corrupted by it or
compromising Islamic principles ? I think that there is a way. I have no idea what it is yet.
--
"Censorship is yet another tool in the dumbing-down of America by a power
structure that relies on a populace too lazy or ignorant to think
independently." -Vanessa McGrady
) sout...@email.uc.edu - pgp key avail. on req. | http://oz.uc.edu/~southakj/ (
Observer
in the Islamic God.
If your God has revealed himself to you,then good for you.
If you're on to a good thing why the need to propagate it here.
Is there a feeling of inadequacy on your part even after your
God has revealed himself to you.
Thoeretically you should be on top of the world.But are you.
If you feel the Islamic God is fictional,then why waste your time in idle
banter.
You sound like a leader with no one to lead.Pity.
MyTajMahal <mytaj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8bvmv3$g5s$1...@samba.rahul.net...
MyTajMahal
writes:
>If you feel the Islamic God is fictional,then why waste your time in idle
>banter.
I don't waste my time - I leave the idle banter to the barking dogs - Just as
they run after cyclists have you noticed how they run after me? Starting new
threads so they can bark even louder and believe that they are leading the
pack?
If you find it satisfactory that the sterile, impersonal "god" of the Qur'an is
"unknowable", as the Qur'anic sages have stated, then that is a satisfaction
which you have to live and die with. I hope others will find it profoundly
unsatisfactory and begin to look for the truth
Kind regards
Jameel
MyTajMahal
In article <8c01lf$itt$1...@samba.rahul.net>, Abdalla Alothman
<ada...@blueskyweb.com> writes:
Hello Abdalla, greetings to all
>God revealed His attributes in the Quran.
Yes I agree - attributes but not real personality. The barking dogs on SRI
appear not to understand the difference nor the implications of their claims.
>We know God, through his
>attributes.
You only think this. Let me give you an two examples, one inanimate and one
human: I know that the Petronas building in KL is the tallest building in the
world (at the moment). It's attribute is that it is the tallest but being
aware of this attribute conveys no more "knowing" other than it is the tallest
building ie what its attribute conveys.
Chose a well known person such as Dolly Parton. I may read all about her, buy
here records, see pictures of her home, put her picture on my wall (God forbid
:-) and in time I may come to believe that I "know" her. But in reality I
don't "know" her at all. What I have is an image in my head based on
information I can dream and imagine all sorts of things, I can even "talk" to
her but it is no more than a fantasy.
Some people may be satisfied with this situation but someone else may be
profoundly unsatisfied with it. They may want to get to know Dolly in reality
to know her personally - only then will they be satisfied that they do truly
know her to some extent.
As I human being I was profoundly unsatisfied to "know" God only through His
attributes. I wanted to know Him personally and that is the only way that my
heart could be satisfied.
>He does not have to take an image of a man to be known.
>Doesn't the Christian testament say that nobody has ever seen God
>after all?
This is true - and yet God has "manifested" himself in a form which was
recognisable in time/space which the Jewish Bible confirms. But I am not
appealing to this kind of "manifestation" to support "knowing" God. Because
that is no more than knowing Dolly Parton (please excuse the irreverance) or
the attributes of God.
Now I have read the rest of your post and some interesting comments which we
might get back to. I don't have the time just now - But one last comment
>I see that you're using FT's slogans. Why don't you also smile when he
>calls your human god son of a ... on other newsgroups?......
The truth is that sometimes I do have a private dialogue with FT on these
issues. Open discussion on the NGs is not always the most productive. One has
to remember the wisdom of Ghazali who stated that if one were to reject the
Heretics outright then one would have to reject some truth. We all speak some
truth (FT speaks alot too) but, unlike the barking dogs, I do not feel that we
should try to polarise the contributors beyond the point where only the noise
of barking dogs can be heard :-)
Best wishes
Jameel
Jeremiah McAuliffe
of tawheed is that each and every moment is constructed and maintained
by Allah.....
<snort>
sout...@email.uc.edu
>Those who laugh first usually don't laugh last. At any rate, here is a site
>that has *real* Islamic music, with a hip-hop flavor to it:
>
>http://www.soldiersofallah.com/soafog2.swf
Too rough and abrassive, but nice for kids. At least they will stop listening to Wu-Tang or "Master
P" and listen to something that, at least, advocates good.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>In article <8bk9v8$a1$1...@samba.rahul.net>, Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Those who laugh first usually don't laugh last. At any rate, here is a site
>>that has *real* Islamic music, with a hip-hop flavor to it:
>>
>>http://www.soldiersofallah.com/soafog2.swf
>
>Too rough and abrassive, but nice for kids. At least they will stop listening to Wu-Tang or "Master
>P" and listen to something that, at least, advocates good.
Asalaam Alaikum,
I was very surprised to hear instruments here.... thought that by
"real" Islamic music MrMahdi meant drums and voice only.
I can't imagine why, in comparison, my stuff is not "real". Is it
because I don't affect a pseudo-militaristic, testosterone-laden pose?
Is it because not all my songs are filled with anger, but are also
songs of praise? Or is it a neo-racist thing where hip-hop is ok but
rock is not???
Nice recording quality, but I'll tell ya, mine *is* a bit more
involved in terms of composition.... I find this kind of music very
boring, but as they say, different strokes for different folks, and I
pray the brothers have all success with this project.
Observer
It would seem that if your God chooses to be impersonal and
sterile you would reject your God?
Would you be able to give an ultimatum to your God if your
God does not want to be personal with you?
> If you find it satisfactory that the sterile, impersonal "god" of the
Qur'an is
> "unknowable", then that is a satisfaction
Mr Mahdi
>Asalaam Alaikum,
>
>I was very surprised to hear instruments here.... thought that by
>"real" Islamic music MrMahdi meant drums and voice only.
You thought wrong as usual.
>I can't imagine why, in comparison, my stuff is not "real".
What I meant by "real" is music dealing with the relevant issues that Muslims
are facing and music with a message of trying to use Islam to solve the
problem. Making songs about Christian missionaries won't stop any Christian
>from attacking Islam, as a matter of fact, it might more Christians attack
Islam and write songs attacking Muslims.
Many Muslims today do not use or eve see Islam as the solution. Islam to them
is like what the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist, etc., view their religion,
as just a religion that has no solutions for systematic problems. Even worse
is that Muslims insist on promoting the kufr of man-made laws and beliefs when
Allah clearly gave us the Shari`ah and AHkaam to rule by.
> Is it
>because I don't affect a pseudo-militaristic, testosterone-laden pose?
Like who?
>Is it because not all my songs are filled with anger, but are also
>songs of praise?
Muslims are being raped, mudered, exploited, oppressed, tortured, etc., right
now as we speak, and I don't blame Muslims for feeling bitter instead of happy.
>Or is it a neo-racist thing where hip-hop is ok but
>rock is not???
Who said anything about rock not being ok?
Mahdi
Abdalla Alothman
MyTajMahal wrote:
>
> 2nd
> In article <8c01lf$itt$1...@samba.rahul.net>, Abdalla Alothman
> <ada...@blueskyweb.com> writes:
>
> Hello Abdalla, greetings to all
Hello Taj.
> Chose a well known person such as Dolly Parton. I may read all about her, buy
> here records, see pictures of her home, put her picture on my wall (God forbid
> :-) and in time I may come to believe that I "know" her. But in reality I
> don't "know" her at all. What I have is an image in my head based on
> information I can dream and imagine all sorts of things, I can even "talk" to
> her but it is no more than a fantasy.
This is a good example. As long as you haven't seen this Dolly
Parton, you say that you cannot have the full live image of her.
So, it's better if you don't imagine and exceed the limits of the
information giving to you. Now my question: Have you seen God?
Have you talked to Him? If no, and if what you are expecting to
know about God depends on seeing Him or talking to Him, then I
wonder what are you trying to dispute.
What I understood is that if you don't see Dolly, all you can have
about her is a fantasy. According to this kind of reasoning, then
all what you have about God is a fantasy as long as you haven't seen
him, lived with him, or heard his voice. If you would like to call
your beliefs a fantasy, that's fine with me. But if you think your
beliefs are fantasies, why are you propagating fantasies here? Of
course, if you have seen God or talked to Him, that's a different
story.
Also, if God allows himself to take forms, then there would be no
need to send messengers and prophets. Every time He wants to send
a message to His people, He would become like them and teach them.
If He chose some Jews to see Him, why didn't He allow Noah to see
Him as well? Because Noah was not a Jew?
> Some people may be satisfied with this situation but someone else may be
> profoundly unsatisfied with it. They may want to get to know Dolly in reality
> to know her personally - only then will they be satisfied that they do truly
> know her to some extent.
Okay, applying this on the finite human capacity to know God, the Infinite,
then how can we expect to know God in our finite form, and in this finite
life? If we are coffee mugs, can we become garages to our cars? So I ask
you again, does your cross-breed Messianic Believers league teach you how
to know God by seeing Him and having a chat with Him?
If I were you, and I could speak to God and see Him, I wouldn't spend a
single minute on Usenet. I would be talking and talking to God forever.
I would even ask Him to put an end to my life, and take me close to Him,
just like the Quran suggests in 2:94.
> As I human being I was profoundly unsatisfied to "know" God only through His
> attributes. I wanted to know Him personally and that is the only way that my
> heart could be satisfied.
This is what I kindly want you to explain. How do you know Him personally?
What kind of relationship do you have with God? If you don't wish to explain
that, the discussion cannot be completed. Tell us about the factors of the
type of knowledge you are talking about. Is it seeing, hearing, talking,
and touching--in order to reach the full knowledge?
Do you see God? Do you touch Him? Do you talk to Him on the phone?
If you can't do that, can your rabbis do it?
> This is true - and yet God has "manifested" himself in a form which was
> recognisable in time/space which the Jewish Bible confirms.
If you are referring to the event when Abraham met God with two
angles, this is a hoax injected by the Jewish scribes. They did
that to tell the non-Jews, "Look, when our grandfather was born,
God himself came down to congratulate Abraham--we are the chosen
people, and you are the Goy."
They did that again to exalt themselves over the honor of Prophet
Lut. Because they had problems with the Moabites, they wanted
to send them a message that they are children of incest. The
best way to do it, is write a few words saying that the Moabites
didn't come until Prophet Lut slept with his daughters, and produced
their progeny. And after the story was fabricated and written, they
called it "Holy" just like they wanted to celebrate Purim, some
anonymous Jew wrote the book of Esther, and called it Holy.
We all know that the Jewish Bible contains lots of fabrications.
I asked you once to tell me if you think that the book of Esther
is from God and you did not answer. Because if you said yes, you
will be facing serious questions.
Judaism is a tribal religion with serious racial backgrounds. Sadly,
half of your beliefs depend on this kind of racism. You believe that
you are a goy, and the Jew is your master. Islam puts an end to blood
relations between humans and God, and excessive blood relations between
a human being and another (i.e., take care of your family, and love
them, but your clan is not superior to anyone else).
If God chose the Jews to see him, and made them chosen, if this was
true, He could have given them a special blood type. J or J+ for
example. But we all know they have blood types like the rest of the
people.
> But I am not
> appealing to this kind of "manifestation" to support "knowing" God. Because
> that is no more than knowing Dolly Parton (please excuse the irreverance) or
> the attributes of God.
Are you trying to say that people can know God, but you are not
qualified get this knowledge? If you are not qualified to get this
knowledge, then in what way is your Messianic Believers blended
doctrines better than Islam? If you tell me "We get to know God
personally." I will ask you to explain that personal relationship,
define its limits, and how does the two-way interaction between
you and the god who became human and killed himself occurs each
day.
I also have one final question. When you talk about the manifestation,
then is this manifestation the reality? In other word, when God
manifested himself in a form of a man ESPECIALLY for the Jewish
people, was this manifestation The Reality? If God took a form of
a big tall man with a white beard, does that mean he really looks
like that? If not, then what's the use of this manifestation if it
doesn't reveal the reality, or the truth? If the manifestation is
not the truth itself, then it cannot substitute the truth. It's
another fantasy as you eloquently described it.
Well, okay, it has political influence. This way, the race which
sees God becomes automagically chosen. And this way, it is safe
to call that god a racist, because he created all those races,
but only the Jews could see him. By the way, these kind of beliefs
were common among barbarian religions who believed in many gods
which were not seen except some time in history, by only a some
noble men from a specific tribe.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Asalaam Alaikum,
>>
>>I was very surprised to hear instruments here.... thought that by
>>"real" Islamic music MrMahdi meant drums and voice only.
>
>You thought wrong as usual.
Y'know, you're really nothing but a..... <won't pass the mods>...
aren't you?
Twice now I've suggested we don't fight. Twice now I've even
apologized for you feeling that I "misquoted" you. You seem to insist
on fighting, and certainly have not expressed any acceptance of my
apologies to you.
>
>>I can't imagine why, in comparison, my stuff is not "real".
>
>What I meant by "real" is music dealing with the relevant issues that Muslims
>are facing and music with a message of trying to use Islam to solve the
>problem.
The question remains. Why is my music not "real"? Do a lyrical
analysis... using *all* my posted lyrics, please.
> Making songs about Christian missionaries won't stop any Christian
>>from attacking Islam, as a matter of fact, it might more Christians attack
>Islam and write songs attacking Muslims.
Soldiers of Allah did a pretty good job attacking Muslims themselves,
wouldn't you say?
>> Is it
>>because I don't affect a pseudo-militaristic, testosterone-laden pose?
>
>Like who?
>
Uh, "Soldiers" of Allah certainly isn't "Friends" of Allah.... I love
their macho takbir.
>>Is it because not all my songs are filled with anger, but are also
>>songs of praise?
>
>Muslims are being raped, mudered, exploited, oppressed, tortured, etc., right
>now as we speak, and I don't blame Muslims for feeling bitter instead of happy.
Bitter? When did that become part of the Qur'an and sunnah? The
opposite is the case..... to my best understanding bitterness is not
the proper response to the tests Allah sends our way, rather, sabr is
the proper response to such difficult tests.
If you're so bitter, go do something about it rather than stroking
your keyboard from your comfy heated, air-conditioned, well-fed,
running water flush toilet flat.....
(Y'know, I know this type: full of it. Completely full of it. Kufr
this and kufr that all the while living a comfy life and benefiting
>from the system they condemn.)
>>Or is it a neo-racist thing where hip-hop is ok but
>>rock is not???
>
>Who said anything about rock not being ok?
Its a question... are you usually in the habit of responding to a
question with a question? If you have actually been following the
threads there was a post getting down on me and rock as not being
"Islamic". Also, check out the SoundVision web site....
So, answer the question. Is this a neo-rascist thing where you think
hip-hop is ok but rock is not?
But I'm glad you've implied your acceptance of rock, and I'm glad you
don't think all use of instruments is haram. Though I wonder how you
come to that conclusion in light of the hadith. Perhaps you'll explain
your thinking on this controversial issue, though I won't hold my
breath.
Y'know Mr. Mahdi, you simply aren't a very nice person in my opinion,
in addition to being completely full of it.
Why don't you move? Why don't you go help the Taliban? Why don't you
put your money where you mouth is? Oh! I know! Just a bit too comfy
here in the kufr US! (BTW, is someone holding a gun to your head? No.
You're just wildly inconsitent in your thinking, and seemingly filled
with not just anger, but rage.)
Y'know one way an FBI plant might function is to post here. Sent here
to cause fitnah. Sent here to continue to feed into all the worst
stereotypes about us.
And MrMahdi, you are indeed, imho, feeding stereotypes about us.
What *do* you do for a living MrMahdi?? Where *does* your money come
from?????
I *certainly* hope you aren't living off of the American taxpayer!
Or... perhaps you are still living off of mom and dad? Just how old
are you anyway?
sout...@email.uc.edu
Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
->On 31 Mar 2000 16:52:19 GMT, sout...@email.uc.edu wrote:
Asalaam alaikum
>>>http://www.soldiersofallah.com/soafog2.swf
>>Too rough and abrassive, but nice for kids. At least they will stop listening to Wu-Tang or "Master
>>P" and listen to something that, at least, advocates good.
>
>Asalaam Alaikum,
>
>I was very surprised to hear instruments here.... thought that by
>"real" Islamic music MrMahdi meant drums and voice only.
It is good not to assume.
>I can't imagine why, in comparison, my stuff is not "real". Is it
>because I don't affect a pseudo-militaristic, testosterone-laden pose?
>Is it because not all my songs are filled with anger, but are also
>songs of praise? Or is it a neo-racist thing where hip-hop is ok but
>rock is not???
Well, there is a lot of rage in the Ummah, this is to be expected. In youth born into
Muslim families, whatever their ethnic origin, this rage can go unchecked. Music like this helps
them with in a sort of identity crisis type of thing, and safely channels their rage. To be frank
this disturbs me, since this is what pop music does anyway and I have some problems
here. In general Hip Hop, sinces its early days, has had a contemplative streak, which is very
good. Under the macho posturing, hopping cars, women with large body fat ratios walking around in
spandex, and the omin present "40 ounce" there IS, under the surface, a LOT of quality writting, a
LOT of tough questions being asked.
The more heavy stuff is not spread out over MTV 24 hours a day, but it is there. Some rock has
also had a contemplative streak through it, but serious rock has tended to be more
marginalised. Some Punk, harDCore, and alternative acts feature quality writing, some of these acts
become more popular (like U2) and still churn out thoughtful music, but often rock has been bland
and obnoxious. So has Hip Hop, I'd say that there is more serious hip hop out there but its just
not advertised as much. Plus Urban youth tend to have thick skulls, to bash any message into their
brains you need serious equipment, serious beats and nice spin. Sometimes the stylistic stuff gets
in the way of the message, but yeah I'm often shocked plesantly when I read some of these guys
lyrics.
In general I find a better quality of writing from Rap acts than Rock ones. There is a curve,
however, often their quality of writting declines after becoming famous.
"I never Sleep, Because Sleep is the Cousan of Death" -Nas(Nasir) the "thug poet"
One thing that I notice is that early on a lot of Rappers often have insightful lyrics, then as
their carrers progress their lyrics and acts become, frankly, stupid.
Brothers like "Q-tip" (of a tribe called quest) sometimes disapoint me. Tribe Called Quest was a
paradox, their work was often better and more contemplative BEFORE they embraced Islam, it seems.
I think that there are very ugly currents in the entertainment industry that are very corrupting.
Of course there is little to such music spiritually, beyond basics. I have a problem with the
non-contemplative bent of kids these days, Muslim or otherwise. Music that discourages
contemplation and that encourages outward flailing of arms type of activism and whining may not be
so good...
In rock you have Rage Against the Machine, positive messages even though they are &^@*$ Commies :-)
Again, however, nothing spiritual just outward, well meaning, activism.
In Alternative Circles you have Acts like Fugazi, not spiritual but certainly leaning towards
contemplative, in the Monster Truck Pulling, Suburban Skate brat catagories, Metallica tends to
have *heavy* lyrics at times, not spiritual but somewhat contemplative, Iron Maiden has good
writting, their lyrics often have pretty good Gems in them, Lots of people like Yes, though I have
no reason why, their lyrics count as intelligent though I can't "dig them". Black Sabbath and
(yuck) Ozzy Osborne have had, um, insightful lyrics in the past.
There is still the problem of instruments, I find the arguements against musical instruments to be
somewhat pursuasive, even keeping the times and epoch in which such fatwas were written in mind.
As to which type of music is a better carrier of Memes (good or bad) I don't know, I suspect that
types of rock may beat hip hop out, but not by very much. They both are fairly efficient carriers
of memes. Both forms of art tend to mangle Spiritual content, though there are people who pull it
off well. not many but some...
Richie Havens' lyrics are spiritual, intelligent, and thoughtful - I only wish that he was a Music.
"Stonehedge" (out of print now :-( ) and "Alarm Clock" are of the 20th century's "greatest" records.
Younger Men Grow Older, The Minstrel From Gaul, and other songs have a level of intelligence that is
rare. Too bad most of his stuff is unavailable on CD, at all, and his LPs are hard to find.
His really spiritual material is strangely much of the stuff that is out of print :-/
Yeah, you can tell that I grew up listening to him :-)
>boring, but as they say, different strokes for different folks, and I
>pray the brothers have all success with this project.
Ameen.
I wonder if anyone's considered Muslim speed metal >:-) Or Industrial (cum KMFDM, or Nine Inch
Nails), that would probably be somewhat blasphemous... Some forms of music just don't lend
themselves well to carrying intelligent, much less than spiritual, content. Funny that...
sout...@email.uc.edu
>As-salaamu `alaikum,
wa alaikum asalaam wa rahmatullah.
>You thought wrong as usual.
Now boys...
>>I can't imagine why, in comparison, my stuff is not "real".
>
>What I meant by "real" is music dealing with the relevant issues that Muslims
>are facing and music with a message of trying to use Islam to solve the
>problem.
I agree and have some problems here, at the same time. One, Music emphasising spiritual
matters are emphasising "real things". People have a problem with quietism and contemplative
things, this is the root of our problem, or a root at least. Nothing manifests in the here, and
now, without first manifesting on other levels. Primarly the spiritual. Will, intention and niyat,
desire, these things are of the mental, but also of the spiritual level. Before an act occurs in
the dunya it has manifested itself in some what on another plane, if you will.
Why do you think basketball players visualize their shots ? You can reduce it down to purely worldy
levels if you like, but there is a basic principle, things manifest on higher levels before they
manifest on lower ones. This is a basic teaching that many of the Ummahs greatest minds, like Imam
Ghazzali and others, have always tried to point out. Dua and dhikr can be seen as forms of
technology even, divine technology.
>Many Muslims today do not use or eve see Islam as the solution.
Which is worse, to only apply and see Islam as some sort of activist methodology, or to only
see it as a quietists "spiritually fulfilling" personal thing ? Neither, both are different halves
of the same coin, and both in isolation from the other produces a warped Islam.
In general, however, at least paying attention only to the heart, even to the detrement of worldly
needs and engagements, will produce inshallah some good effects. Both aproaches, the neo-activist,
and the recluse dhikiring his time away in a zawiya, BOTH are aberations of the Islamic model.
BOTH are unhealthy.
>as just a religion that has no solutions for systematic problems.
>Even worse is that Muslims insist on promoting the kufr of man-made laws and beliefs when
>Allah clearly gave us the Shari`ah and AHkaam to rule by.
>> Is it
>>because I don't affect a pseudo-militaristic, testosterone-laden pose?
>
>Like who?
lIKE Solders of Allah, I'd call some of their stuff testosterone-laden (not that anything is
exactly wrong with this, by itself)
>Muslims are being raped, mudered, exploited, oppressed, tortured, etc., right
>now as we speak, and I don't blame Muslims for feeling bitter instead of happy.
I do. Being bitter, sulking, and whining about conspiracies is a sign of intellectual and
moral weakness. You a) accept the situation for what it is, Mashallah - this is where one is
at; b) you accept your responsibility for the situation, what am *I* (and I mean myself, right
now) doing wrong here ?, what can *I* change about *myself*; c)you communicate with others, try to
raise their levels of awareness and consciousness, a positive feedback sort of thing, if possible
you *jointly* work towards addressing the problems that lie on your personal ends; d) IF possible,
WHEN possible, you act in a tactically and strategically apropriate way to try to address the
EXTERNAL problems, after having gotten (bi ithnillah)a hang on your internal problems, or at least
enough so that you can opperate externally without being hampered by your internal hangups.
So when brother X says in the MSA khutbah that we should make tahajjud often, make dhikr often, make
fikr often, and contemplate death and our situation often, and some young whipper snapper stands up
and says "wait, what about Bosnia, Kashmir, and Chechnya" my suggestion is that said young whipper
snapper does not have a good grasp on the situation...
Advocating spiritualy purity and work does not mean that one advocates a completely quietist
position, as it is it may not be POSSIBLE or PRACTICAL to address some external issues without first
addressing, in great depth, some internal issues.
People criticise, as an example, the Tablighis without having a CLUE that Tablighis have been
amongst the most energetic mujahidin in the last few decades. It is true, espescially in the 1980's
against the Soviets. Often those who criticise them for not walking around whining about how many
people were killed in such and such a town somewhere have, themselves, no means or will to engage in
any hardship for the cause of Islam, so what is one to make of their critique ?
One does the work that is apropriate for when and where one is, the right time, and the right place.
Frankly the heart and its matters are the most important things anyway, the purpose of Islam so to
speak.
>Who said anything about rock not being ok?
I think that Jeremiah was being a bit defensive, my gut feeling is that people have criticised
him in this matter before
Mr Mahdi
>Twice now I've suggested we don't fight. Twice now I've even
>apologized for you feeling that I "misquoted" you. You seem to insist
>on fighting, and certainly have not expressed any acceptance of my
>apologies to you.
I don't insist on fighting, you do. You treat serious issues as a joke and
mock Muslims who work hard to call for Islam and establish this deen on earth.
You talk about crying when people "misquote" Catherine but you never talk about
crying when our sisters are being raped and strangled to death in Chechnya or
Muslim being slaughter liked sheep in by the Kuffar (including our "favorite"
the Eastern Orthodox Serbs and Russians), and you do nothing but criticize me,
I can't recall a time you responded to any of my posts with positive feedback.
I am the victim of attacks from several people, and the sad thing about it is
that some of these people claim to be Muslims. I am not being attacked because
I am trying to get Catherine kicked off of SRI, I am being attacked because of
my calling for the return of the Islamic ideology and telling people that
participating in the kufr system and being its promoters is kufr.
That is the real reason why even "Muslims" who happen to be as secular as their
non-Muslim counterparts attack me.
>Soldiers of Allah did a pretty good job attacking Muslims themselves,
>wouldn't you say?
How ironic, the only time you respond to my posts is when you want to attack or
mock me.
By the way, the Soldiers of Allah are into attacking falsehood, not Muslims. I
guess you haven't heard any of their music on MP3.com
>Uh, "Soldiers" of Allah certainly isn't "Friends" of Allah.... I love
>their macho takbir.
I guess you haven't heard the term "Mujaahid," or "saifullah," or "asadullah."
These names were given to some of the Sahabah (ra). I guess you love their
"mucho takbir" too.
>Bitter? When did that become part of the Qur'an and sunnah? The
>opposite is the case..... to my best understanding bitterness is not
>the proper response to the tests Allah sends our way, rather, sabr is
>the proper response to such difficult tests.
Have you read the Surah cursing Abu Lahab? Allah dedicated a whole Surah to
Abu Lahab and his wife and the system of life their were a part of, i.e. kufr.
Allah called in the Quran one of the enemies of Islam a "zaneem" which means
"bastard."
Now would you called Allah "bitter?"
>If you're so bitter, go do something about it rather than stroking
>your keyboard from your comfy heated, air-conditioned, well-fed,
>running water flush toilet flat.....
Oh I am, it is called da`wah with the people on the grassroots level. I don't
see you going to the prisons, ghettos, etc., and inviting people to Islam. I
do my part on the Internet and in person, and it is Allah whom I am trying to
please.
>(Y'know, I know this type: full of it. Completely full of it. Kufr
>this and kufr that all the while living a comfy life and benefiting
>>from the system they condemn.)
Speaking from experience?
>Though I wonder how you
>come to that conclusion in light of the hadith. Perhaps you'll explain
>your thinking on this controversial issue, though I won't hold my
>breath.
It's not new that "Dr. Jihad" goes against clear-cut ayaat and Ahadith on many
issues. Now he seems to be admitting that it seems to him that the evidence
>from the Hadith seems to make music Haraam, but despite this, he makes music
anyways. If someone insists doing Haraam such as voting for a Kaafir, I could
be safe to say that he doesn't feel shame in doing what he feels may not be
Islamically correct such as playing music.
As for whether music is Haraam or not, that is the topic of another thread.
>Y'know Mr. Mahdi, you simply aren't a very nice person in my opinion,
>in addition to being completely full of it.
Of course this was a personal attack on me, but this is the norm here, so I
guess it's "c'est la vie..."
>Why don't you move? Why don't you go help the Taliban?
The Taliban??? You sure haven't been reading what I post here because the
Taliban would be one of the last people I want to "help." They have distorted
and twisted the meaning of Islam and are well-known agents of America. I would
never support such a thing!
>Y'know one way an FBI plant might function is to post here. Sent here
>to cause fitnah. Sent here to continue to feed into all the worst
>stereotypes about us.
>
>And MrMahdi, you are indeed, imho, feeding stereotypes about us.
Now "Dr. Jihad" is implying that I might be a plant designed to give the world
a bad impressions of Muslims. It is not my fault that I refuse to sell-out the
deen and be "a good, law-abiding American."
A Muslim believes that Allah is the only Sovereign and Legislator. A Muslim
believes that no other deen or ideology is acceptable to Allah except Islam.
If these are "feeding stereotypes about us," then remember what Allah said in
the Quran about the Kuffar will never be please with us until we follow their
millah.
Today Muslims are trying their best to follow the Millah of the Kuffar despite
Allah forbidding such a thing. Allah said do not take the Kuffar as your
auliyaa (protectors) but Muslims are begging the Kuffar to protect them and be
their advisors and supporters.
We the Ummah have openly sinned so much that we no longer have any shame
whatsoever.
When will the Muslims stop seeking aid and guidance from the Kuffar when Allah
prohibited such a thing, when will Muslims stop taking the Kuffar was auliyaa
and BiTanah when Allah made such a thing Haraam?
Mahdi
Jeremiah McAuliffe
(Still can't follow basic Netiquette, can you?)
On 3 Apr 2000 08:17:09 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>As-salaamu `alaikum,
>
>>Twice now I've suggested we don't fight. Twice now I've even
>>apologized for you feeling that I "misquoted" you. You seem to insist
>>on fighting, and certainly have not expressed any acceptance of my
>>apologies to you.
>
>I don't insist on fighting, you do.
Y'know..... there is just something really, really wrong when you
don't see that the statement you made: "You thought wrong as usual" is
nothing but an encouragement to fight. I mean, something is very, very
wrong with that.
I feel sorry for you bud. I really do. I'll no longer engage you. You
also have the dubious distinction of being the first Muslim I've
seriously considered putting in my kill filters.
But also sadly, I have a feeling the extremists are going to destroy
this group if it kills them... just as they destroy hope for a true
Islamic Renaissance. They do not acknowledge obvious truths. They
simply *cannot* back down even when they are obviously in the wrong.
They can't even accept apologies for the sake of brotherhood. They
can't even pretend to.... and they certainly can't apologize
themselves. How will they be able to repent without such practice?
They mistake their own gross ignorance and nastiness as education and
adab.
Its like one crazy person with a bomb.... that one person can do
damage to the entire community way out of proportion to the good the
rest can do.... by simply destroying the good people with one maniac
with a bomb.
Well, so be it. If this is what Allah wills.... certainly the hadith
are correct that the ummah would degenerate, century after
century..... we are seeing prime examples of this degeneration on this
newsgroup--- people clearly in complete opposition to the Qur'an and
sunnah.... clearly rejecting the example of the Prophet, and yet
calling themselves Muslim. Certainly not the best of people we are
supposed to be.
Lomax gone. Haddad gone. Light gone. The extremists win. Well, I'm
sure they will enjoy it when they get what they want. However, I don't
think Allah will be too happy.....
<sigh>
God forgive us.
Asad Khan
On 3 Apr 2000 03:53:02 GMT, Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com>
wrote:
>(Y'know, I know this type: full of it. Completely full of it. Kufr
>this and kufr that all the while living a comfy life and benefiting
>from the system they condemn.)
You haven't displayed a very good knowledge of "this type" so far. I
don't recall a single post (maybe you can point out one) where you
showed familiarity with Mr Mahdi's background. May be if you two did
understand each other you wouldn't be at each others' throats.
Wallahu a'lam.
Asad.
MyTajMahal
<ada...@blueskyweb.com> writes:
>This is a good example. As long as you haven't seen this Dolly
>Parton, you say that you cannot have the full live image of her.
Even if one were to see her one could not claim to have the full image of her.
Seeing does not convey everything about a personality - as Abdalla will
appreciate there is more to it than that.
>So, it's better if you don't imagine and exceed the limits of the
>information giving to you.
This is a superflous statement since human limitation in knowing God is already
recognised and simply "seeing" does not convey the knowledge of the personality
anyway.
>Now my question: Have you seen God?
If one means with the natural eyes then no but it is not relevant in view of my
foregoing comments. Read them again above
>Have you talked to Him?
I have spoken with the God of the Biblical revelation in the Holy Spirit - The
God of Qur'anic relevation does not exist except in imagination and it is
futile to attempt to speak with him - according to the Qur'anic sages he is
unknowable and this is something which Abdalla has confirmed - therefore in the
latter half of his post he resorts to polemics which have nothing to do with
the subject (a complete waste of his time)..
>If no, and if what you are expecting to
>know about God depends on seeing Him or talking to Him, then I
>wonder what are you trying to dispute.
For the moment the issue is the question as to how one "knows" the "god" of
Qur'anic revelation. It is Abdalla who is suggesting there is something in
dispute. I am only asking for an explanation.
In his earlier post Abdalla claimed that God was knowable by his "attributes".
I have not seen this explained and my illustration was to demonstrate that
attributes in themselves are not founded upon reality but are simply "words"
which feed the imagination and are not verifyable.
>What I understood is that if you don't see Dolly, all you can have
>about her is a fantasy. According to this kind of reasoning, then
>all what you have about God is a fantasy as long as you haven't seen
>him, lived with him, or heard his voice.
Simply having "seen" Dolly does not make the knowedge of her "real" it may
simply confirm that she exists. I once saw the Queen of England - but I do not
"know" her personally.
Apart from the "seeing" issue what else Abdalla concludes is true. But Abdalla
is also trying to suggest is that these are the only presuppositions available
in order to verify the "knowing" of God - they are not.
>If you would like to call
>your beliefs a fantasy, that's fine with me.
As I have already said that the suppositions which Abdalla had outlined above
are not the only ones available. If these are the suppositions which Abdalla
wants to apply to his knowing of the "god" of Qur'anic revelation then, I
agree, the result is a fantasy.
>But if you think your
>beliefs are fantasies, why are you propagating fantasies here?
The difficulty appears that Abdalla suggests one set of suppositions and then
tries to apply them to what I might accept. I do not accept the Qur'anic
presuppositions and therefore what Abdalla is saying is that his
presuppositions result in a fantasy as far as "knowing" God is concerned. I
agree with him.
But I am not propagating fantasies. I was simply asking questions and looking
and waiting for explanations.....It seems to be a futile wait.
>Of course, if you have seen God or talked to Him, that's a different
>story.
These are the conditions which Abdalla has decided to impose by which to verify
"knowing". They are not the only means of verification. It may be that
Abdalla has no other option as long as he holds to the Qur'anic revelation of
God.
>Also, if God allows himself to take forms, then there would be no
>need to send messengers and prophets.
Again Abdalla pursues his ideas that that "seeing" is "knowing". From my
comments above I do not believe that it is.
>Every time He wants to send
>a message to His people, He would become like them and teach them.
>If He chose some Jews to see Him, why didn't He allow Noah to see
>Him as well? Because Noah was not a Jew?
Setting the "seeing" issue aside the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah is
prophesied this way "......I will put my law in their minds and write it on
their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people, No longer will a
man teach his neighbour or a man his brother saying "Know Yahweh (The LORD)"
because they will all know me from the least to the greatest declares Yahweh
(The LORD) for I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no
more " (Jer 31:33-34)
Jameel
>> Some people may be satisfied with this situation but someone else may be
>> profoundly unsatisfied with it. They may want to get to know Dolly in
reality
>> to know her personally - only then will they be satisfied that they do truly
>> know her to some extent.
>
>Okay, applying this on the finite human capacity to know God, the Infinite,
>then how can we expect to know God in our finite form, and in this finite
>life?
Sorry to be evasive but are you saying that God as you perceive him or as the
Qur'an reveals him is indeed unknowable? This is really what I am interested
to know. Is Abdalla satisfied with this state of affairs? No obviiously not -
he wants to engage in a polemical debate which takes up the whole second half
of his post and which I ignore.
>If we are coffee mugs, can we become garages to our cars? So I ask
>you again, does your cross-breed Messianic Believers league teach you how
>to know God by seeing Him and having a chat with Him?
Firstly, Please do not get too hung up on the "cross-breed Messianic Believers
league" :-) What I know and believe is not based on any sectarian teaching.
When the time comes I will refer you to the revealation of the "Yah" of
Biblicial revelation. Although God at times has manifested Himself in
time/space in a manner that people could see Him I have not seen Him with my
physical eyes, however when it comes to communion and communication the God of
Biblical revelation is a God of real personal communication and I am able to
speak with Him and have communion with Him. Not in a mystical way but in a
real way.
If someone is satisfied with their perception of the "knowledge" of God of
Qur'anic revelation then I have no more to offer but when someone reaches the
point where they truly want to come into a living relationship with God and
have truly come to a realisation of the unsatisfactory Qur'anic revelation of
an unknowable, sterile, impersonal "god being" then the One true God will bless
them with the revelation of Himself.
>If I were you, and I could speak to God and see Him, I wouldn't spend a
>single minute on Usenet. I would be talking and talking to God forever.
So Abdalla you are saying that according to the revelation of God in which you
have placed your faith you cannot speak to God? and God cannot speak to you?
(The "seeing" issue aside). If Abdalla, you believe that He exists would you
not seek His presence right now? Would Abdalla, you not spend your life in
service to Him in any place and situation where you find yourself?
>I would even ask Him to put an end to my life, and take me close to Him,
>just like the Quran suggests in 2:94.
Facinating. The death issue - the ultimate spiritual experience? If Abdalla,
you believe that the Quir'anic god is anything other than a fantasy then why
don't you go ahead? Next time you are sick don't take any medicine and if you
become seriously ill refuse an operation or a blood transfusion. Abdalla is
talking a lot of waffle isn't he? He doesn't believe it one little bit and he
wouldn't take up his won challaenge. He doesn't believe that he can speak to
God and so he is unwilling to put his faith in what he thinks is "god". I
wouldn't put my faith in his "god" either because he doesn't exist.
Abdalla is only considering two options. The idea that death might be the
ultimate spiritual experience is rooted in Hinduism and is now seen in Western
thinking. The ultimate transcendence of death comes from the horrific
realisation of a fantasy (like the Qur'anic "god"). But our life is not an
illusion, the world is not an illusion and death is not the way to knowing God.
It is Satan who invented this idea. It was not God who induced Muhammad with
an "experince" after which he tried to commit siucide.
Jameel
>> As I human being I was profoundly unsatisfied to "know" God only through His
>> attributes. I wanted to know Him personally and that is the only way that
my
>> heart could be satisfied.
>
>This is what I kindly want you to explain. How do you know Him personally?
>What kind of relationship do you have with God? If you don't wish to explain
>that, the discussion cannot be completed.
Are you really serious or are you still convinced by the "revelation" of
Muhammad? Maybe you are not serious and just wanting something for the barking
dogs to run after? Does Abdalla think that the second half of his post
convinces me that he is serious?
>Tell us about the factors of the
>type of knowledge you are talking about. Is it seeing, hearing, talking,
>and touching--in order to reach the full knowledge?
So that the barking dogs can make more meaningless noise? But it seems that
Abdalla you are satisfied with not wanting to "know" God.
>Do you see God? Do you touch Him? Do you talk to Him on the phone?
>If you can't do that, can your rabbis do it?
Don't try and force ideas into, and conditions upon, how one can come to a
"knowing" of God.
Jameel
>> This is true - and yet God has "manifested" himself in a form which was
>> recognisable in time/space which the Jewish Bible confirms.
>
>If you are referring to the event when Abraham met God with two
>angles, this is a hoax injected by the Jewish scribes.
Since you now now want to engage in Anti-semitic rhetoric you have brought the
discussion to a close. I could equally claim that it was Satan who appeared to
Muhammad as an "angel" the event which led Muhammad to contemplate suicide.
One wonders what inducements Satan offered to Muhammad? Satan tried to do the
same thing with Messiah Jesus only Messiah knew it was Satan. Once Muhammad
sold himself on the idea Satan had him hooked and Satan stopped him from
committing suicide because he needed him.
(edit)
Any pretense to a discussion by you has ended by you hasn't it Abdalla? Why is
it that Anti-semetic rhetoric is the refuge of those who have nothing to
explain?
>We all know that the Jewish Bible contains lots of fabrications.
Well we know that the Qur'an is a **complete** fabrication. The religion of
"Abraham" indeed !!! Lengeds from Rabbinical folklore about Abraham breaking
idols.......
So ended the discussion with Abdallah who is so satisfied with the fantasy
sterile, impersonal "god" which he cannot know.
Regards to all who seek truth.
Jameel
sout...@email.uc.edu
"Can't we all just, get along ?"
My gut feeling is that some of us are talking past each other, not to each other, and thus are
missing important aspects to each other's arguements. If we would reserve our own opinions for a
second and listen to our brothers with greater empathy inshallah we might find more common ground.
MyTajMahal
<dr...@see.text.for.email.address> writes:
A very interesting and informative article
>*LIMITED* WAHY IS STILL ALIVE
I may not have understood every implication but how is it verified as being
real and true?
Have you seen this discussion below? (It is not quite on the same subject but
I'm looking for similar articles if you can suggest them please)
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/marifah.html
Kind regards
Jameel
MyTajMahal
<ali...@city-net.com> writes:
>I just love this line about Allah being impersonal when a basic tenet
>of tawheed is that each and every moment is constructed and maintained
>by Allah.....
Assuming that "Allah" is imutable it is a nice contradictory nonsense which a
clever Dr like you should be able to work out without my help.
BTW I am amazed that you left Budhism for Islam.
><snort>
Snort what? Surely not what Rock Stars snort? :-)
Jameel
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 4 Apr 2000 07:10:21 GMT, ha9...@qmw.ac.uk (Asad Khan) wrote:
>You haven't displayed a very good knowledge of "this type" so far.
What? Where have you been? Under a rock??? I live a life, and I've
been on this group long enough, close to ten years, where I am quite
familiar with these "types".
My reading comprehension and use of reason is tested among the highest
of the population. No brag, just fact. I'm as capable of identifying
inconsistency in thought as a master mechanic is capable of fixing a
car.
The various recent responses and "us vs them" mentality on this
newsgroup are either from adolescents (in which case some of the nasty
attitudes and inability to respond to issues and lack of reflection
MIGHT be somewhat excusable), or there is something very, very wrong
with a number of the people currently posting. Some of you are like a
Muslim Jochen Katz-- ignoring what doesn't fit with your prejudices
and desires. Regardless, there are major problems here.
>don't recall a single post (maybe you can point out one) where you
>showed familiarity with Mr Mahdi's background. May be if you two did
>understand each other you wouldn't be at each others' throats.
While we can't assume, sadly, a level of reading comprehension on the
part of many here such that they can comprehend simple usenet posts,
try to go back and read all the threads.
I've asked him plenty of questions.... none of which he actually
answers. How does he make his money? How does he come to think
instruments in music is ok? How old is he? These are simple enough.
I've been around bigots enough to know them when I see them. Muslim or
otherwise. It doesn't take brilliance to recognize such things.
I've been around wahabi types enough to know them when I see them.
Again, it doesn't take brilliance to recognize such things.
I've been around people enough to know the types who will not accept
apologies, but continue to attack-- and then project their own
behaviors onto others.
I've been around Muslims enough to know the nonsense we do.....
MrMahdi is not unique! He, and those who support such nonsense
thinking, and such obvious bigotry, and such ange,r are cliche. Not
unique.
Y'see.... even Iblis knows and can say "There is no god but God and
Muhammad is a messenger from God"......... to his own ends!
And Allah knows best.
MyTajMahal
writes:
>Do you have a choice in accepting your God.
One has a choice of accepting a true and rational revelation of the God who
exists in reality as opposed to what may be the fruit of vain imaginations..
>It would seem that if your God chooses to be impersonal and
>sterile you would reject your God?
In reality one cannot "accept" an impersonal sterile "god". It can only be
accepted in unreal imagination - there is no way of knowing the reality..
>Would you be able to give an ultimatum to your God if your
>God does not want to be personal with you?
One cannot love an impersonal sterile being and "it" cannot love you. If there
is no possiblity of relationship or true "knowing" then one is better not
wasting time with futile imaginations and that which feeds them...It is just a
delusion
Jameel
asim...@my-deja.com
>type of knowledge you are talking about. Is it seeing, hearing,
talking, and touching--in order to reach the full knowledge?
< So that the barking dogs can make more meaningless noise? But it
seems that Abdalla you are satisfied with not wanting to "know" God.>
Is the point that there is biased moderation being proven? I frankly o
not care, because this post just proves one thing. I dealt with this
issue in another post but I will make a biref comment on this sentence.
What TajMahal is basically saying in this post is that "I have no idea
how to answer what this knowledge refers to so I will throw out more
screens to evade the issue."
This is further demonstrated in the next sentence where he says after
Abdallah points out to him:
>Do you see God? Do you touch Him? Do you talk to Him on the phone?
>If you can't do that, can your rabbis do it?
< Don't try and force ideas into, and conditions upon, how one can come
to a "knowing" of God.>
This is all jargon and meaningless screens TajMahal is throwing out. He
cannot answer anything so he tells Muslims not to force ideas on them,
yet he is supposedly telling us what we believe. There are some people
on this forum that at least can build up a case, no matter how weak it
is, but TajMahal only throws rhetoric, sarcasm and attempts at wit.
How little he succeeds is up to the reader. He is undoubtedly a master
though, a master in throwing out screens which have nothing to do with
the issue, so that some ignorant may not have the clear sightedness to
see right through the mumbo jumbo TajMahal is talking about. Things
such as composite unity, Maimonedes, who was influenced by the way
heavily from Avicenns and rehashes a lot of his works. A Jew who grew
under the light of Muslim Spain. I have never witnessed such
meaningless rhetoric in my life.
And to top it all off, he demonstrates an arrogance unworthy of the
claims. This is really tiring these missionaries, who have absolutely
no clue what they are talking about, yet the moderation has the audacity
to let such posts through which are just more complicated forms of
mocking other people. This is one of them. But for me, posts like these
only make me laugh.
asim...@my-deja.com
> >If you feel the Islamic God is fictional,then why waste your time in
idle
> >banter.
>
> I don't waste my time - I leave the idle banter to the barking dogs -
Just as
> they run after cyclists have you noticed how they run after me?
Starting new
> threads so they can bark even louder and believe that they are leading
the
> pack?
Why are these posts even allowed past moderation beats me? I am sure
Tajmahal is signally me out, yet just to set things clear so just to
wipe the track of arrogance in their heads to bring them back down to
reality. When a message is posted, depending on the length and time,
deja news may log out of the account automatically. All I do is hit the
back button, copy my post, relog into my account and post again under a
separate title to save time. TajMahal once again demonstrates an
arrogance unworthy of his claims. His mockery is only a lame attempt to
divert the fact that he cannot answer a dimes worth of any objections
raised. If some people are on dogs, one wonders why people who claim to
talk to God would find some amusement in talking back to these barking
dogs? This post is just a mere response to the words for TajMahal.
These words are the same words TajMahal has used many times.
>
> If you find it satisfactory that the sterile, impersonal "god" of the
Qur'an is
> "unknowable", as the Qur'anic sages have stated,
Quranic sages?
<then that is a
satisfaction
> which you have to live and die with. I hope others will find it
profoundly
> unsatisfactory and begin to look for the truth
>
This is all there is to his posts. They are merely repititions of the
same things over and over again. How can according to there claims,
sustain a conversation with God when they cannot go beyond repeating
things like in the words of TajMahal "barking dogs." Talk about
conversation. Now this is wit and something to be arrogant about.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>In article <8c2l3v$8uo$1...@samba.rahul.net>, Jeremiah McAuliffe
><ali...@city-net.com> writes:
>
>>I just love this line about Allah being impersonal when a basic tenet
>>of tawheed is that each and every moment is constructed and maintained
>>by Allah.....
>
>Assuming that "Allah" is imutable it is a nice contradictory nonsense which a
>clever Dr like you should be able to work out without my help.
But Allah's creation is in constant change. Do you need the clever Dr.
to help you with that? ;-)
Tawheedian monotheism posits that each and every moment in creation is
sustained by God. Every leaf that falls, etc. falls because of the
will of, and action by God. What this means is that everything I
experience is personally created for me by God.....for the sake of my
guidance and growth... hardly impersonal at all!
>BTW I am amazed that you left Budhism for Islam.
I don't see too much contradiction between Buddhism and Islam. Buddha
did not discuss the issue of Deity-- he remained silent-- but merely
expounded on the Four Noble Truths. It is a natural religion, not one
making claims that revelation by The Transcendent occurred.
Plus, I never considered myself Buddhist. I never "joined" Buddhism,
just practiced the styles of meditation.....
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Listen to Dr. Jihad! & the Intellectual Muslim Guerrillas
http://mp3.com/DrJihad
MyTajMahal
<ali...@city-net.com> writes:
>>Assuming that "Allah" is imutable it is a nice contradictory nonsense which a
>>clever Dr like you should be able to work out without my help.
>
>But Allah's creation is in constant change. Do you need the clever Dr.
>to help you with that? ;-)
Thanks for your reply No - I don't need help with that :-) But the issue of
the immutablity of "Allah" had the Qur'anic philosophers (such as Ibn Rushd)
reasoning that creation had to be eternal otherwise the nature of "Allah" had
to change at some stage inorder for him to become creative or, for the eternal
to have created time somewhere. As far as I can gain Al-Ghazali simply swept
the whole issue aside without explanation.
Resorting to the claim that Allah's creation is in constant change does not
explain to me how it derives from the "basic tenet of tawheed"...but lets
continue...
>Tawheedian monotheism posits that each and every moment in creation is
>sustained by God.
The claim which I made unclearly in my earlier post, for which I apologise, is
that this is not valid if "Allah" is immutable and outside time/space. Unless
it can be explained then it should be de-"posited" :-) It is possible that an
attempt to explain this it seen in the theory of "transubstantial motion" but
again this relied on the notion that "Allah" created four "things" (including
"aql" or wisdom/intelligence) by which "Allah" organises every moment in time
as a "knowable" reality. (But this has its own problems too)
>Every leaf that falls, etc. falls because of the
>will of, and action by God.
Maybe - but some fell today when I used my freewill to kick the hedge - Oh! I
forgot I am a preprogrammed automaton :-)
>What this means is that everything I
>experience is personally created for me by God.....for the sake of my
>guidance and growth... hardly impersonal at all!
I am not convinced. What it appears to mean is that you are an impersonal
preprogrammed automaton :-) and the "thing" that preprogrammed you is not
personal either - just very clever with many programme options.
(...)
>Plus, I never considered myself Buddhist. I never "joined" Buddhism,
>just practiced the styles of meditation.....
Serious question - I am not being sceptical: What do you mean "just practiced
the styles of meditation"? Assuming that it was not just superficial but that
you did get somewhere did you not find some reality in that? In your opinion is
there not more knowledge of what is real in that meditation than in the
Qur'anic religion?
Best wishes
Jameel
Saabirah
MyTajMahal <mytaj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8cennm$s5o$1...@samba.rahul.net...
Respectfully Brother... I disagree with you. As I see it...
Allah (swt) Transcends *anything* that the human mind can
fully-grasp. If we were to say that we fully-know Allah (swt)
then we would be lying.... How can a human person really *know*
that which is outside of the human experience?
If you have ever listened to the song "Ayats All Around" (Dr.
Jihad and the IMG) you will, Insha'Llah, understand that what is
being said is that in all of creation... all around us... we are
glimpsing God through all creation. However, we never do glimpse
the fullness of God .... we only have "pieces" of the One...
As for "loving" an impersonal sterile being... Firstly, "love"
for God is not like the love of one human being for another....
imho. Our "love" for God must include "worship". I don't know
about you Brother... but, I don't "worship" any human being. We
discover new "ayats" all the time and they help us to know That
Which Cannot be Known.... at least not right now.
For example..... I recently quoted Surat al-Baqarah, ayat 138....
"[Say: "Our life takes it's] hue from God! And who could give a
better hue [to life] than God, if we but truly worship him?" I
puzzled over this word "hue" ("sibgat"). Later during the week I
began making a piece of calligraphy... (Surat al-Hadid, ayat 1:
"All this is in the heavens and on earth extols God's limitless
glory: for He alone is almighty, truly wise!") I wondered which
color to make the letters... and I chose purple. When the piece
was done for some reason I felt as though I needed to add
shadings of blue.... very nice. When that was done for some
strange reason I decided that I needed to make shadings of red!
So... while I was doing it I thought of the colors (hues)... red
and blue are two of the primary colors... they are essential in
order to make purple... Male and female are "necessary" (in the
natural order) to cooperate in God's act of creation... However,
I wondered about the third primary color... yellow. It was
absent... However, it is necessary in order to make the green
that we see all around us in the leaves of the trees for
example.... Again, "Ayats All Around".
The absence of the third and last "primary color" (hue) is very
significant. My piece addresses Surat al-Baqarah 138 as well as
Surah An-Nisa' Ayat 1. "Oh Mankind! Be conscious of your
Sustainer, who has created you out of one living entity, and out
of it created it's mate and out of the two spread abroad a
multitude of men and women. And remain conscious of God, in
whose name you demand [your rights] from one another, and of
these ties of kinship. Verily, God is ever watchful over you!"
Red and blue make purple.... male and female are different,
unique, necessary pieces of humanity. However... human beings
are creatures... only pieces of creation.
We see that our "hue" is taken from the "hue" of Allah (swt)...
however, we are not like unto Him(swt)... Something is missing in
our understanding of the Divine... something that we just cannot
grasp.... In all of nature we see signs of that "ungraspable"
piece... Allah Alone is the fullness of the "primary" essence...
Allah *is*....
The absence of the primary color yellow is, to me, an ayat... Our
lives take their hue from Allah.... however, there is something
which we will never be able to grasp during this life.... We must
remain ever-mindful... conscious of Allah (swt) because there we
find the essential nature which is necessary for and upon which
all life depends... but, It Transcends our "knowing". In my very
simple "ayat" (the calligraphy)... it is the absence of the
primary color "yellow"... an essential essence of the Divine... a
piece of which is necessary in order to see all other "ayats all
around" us. Perhaps we might do well to recognize that although
we can see traces of the Divine.. the *fullness* of the Nature of
God remains Transcendent... unknowable.
I hope, Insha'Llah... that all of this makes a little bit of
sense to someone. :-/
waAllahu 'Alim,
Saabirah
Zaharuddin Fikri
In article <8cc4g6$aos$1...@samba.rahul.net>, ali...@city-net.com says...
> But also sadly, I have a feeling the extremists are going to destroy
> this group if it kills them... just as they destroy hope for a true
> Islamic Renaissance. They do not acknowledge obvious truths. They
> simply *cannot* back down even when they are obviously in the wrong.
> They can't even accept apologies for the sake of brotherhood. They
> can't even pretend to.... and they certainly can't apologize
> themselves. How will they be able to repent without such practice?
> They mistake their own gross ignorance and nastiness as education and
> adab.
I too note with some sadness the same thing bro. Jeremiah has seen signs
of. It does appear the voices of reason are fading away ever so slowly
>from this newsgroup, and all the new voices coming in are like the "FBI
plants" bro. Jeremiah described elsewhere in one of his posts: people who
feed into the worst streotypes about Muslims, pretending to be Muslims,
etc.
I have known bro. Jeremiah for many years now, mostly through his posts
which are sensitive, honest and sometimes quite funny. He exhibits some
of the qualities I so love in our Prophet, a sense of humor (I'm sure
many of the extremists here don't even know that the typical expression
on the face of the Prophet was a smile), a spirit of give and take, able
to see to the root of a matter and preferring the easy over the difficult
(another trait of the Prophet which is recounted thru the ahadith of
A^isha but may have escaped the attentions of the extremist bros.). In a
word, he stands rather high in my estimation of the Muslims I have
encountered on the 'Net.
And the bro. has been active on this newsgroup for far longer than I
have, and certainly he has tangled with the best of the best, and
come out of those debates in good standing. People of much higher calibre
than the anti-Muslims we see here today. So I respect his assessment of
the current goings-on and have little problem agreeing with his views,
since furthermore these signs he mentions are not difficult to miss.
I seek Allah's forgiveness for my and their behavior which is not in
conformance to Islam, and seek refuge from the Almighty from the whispers
of shaithaan who goads us to to fight one another. ameen.
Abdalla Alothman
MyTajMahal wrote:
Hi, Taj.
> In article <8c94i4$fo0$1...@samba.rahul.net>, Abdalla Alothman
> <ada...@blueskyweb.com> writes:
> This is a superflous statement since human limitation in knowing God is already
> recognised and simply "seeing" does not convey the knowledge of the personality
> anyway.
Well, I'm sorry. I can't understand what you mean by "knowing" without
knowing the foundation of the knowledge you have in mind. You can tell
me how it is nice to know God all what you want, but I can't understand
you if you don't mention those foundations.
> If one means with the natural eyes then no but it is not relevant in view of my
> foregoing comments. Read them again above
How then do you claim that God manifested himself to certain Jews?
If you claim that someone has seen this manifestation, did they
see the reality or the fantasy? You can't answer this question. If
you say that the manifestation was a reality, your claim will detonate
once you see what the Bible says. And if you say it was a fantasy, then
you'll know how much we will be surprised at the colorful picture you
are showing us which tells us what happened to you once you tried to
assemble a bomb once upon a time.
> I have spoken with the God of the Biblical revelation in the Holy Spirit
I think Alzheimer (sp?) can explain that.
I'm not surprised you are saying that. There are many televangelists
who appear on TV telling the whole world that they were talking to
the holy spirit last night, and it told them to tell the people to
donate $20 for the program. You're probably just like them. ;)
If you talk to the holy spirit, as you claim, how do you know that
it is not satan, if I may ask? Do you have a documented method to
verify who you are talking to? Or do you expect Satan to tell you,
"Hello there, Taj. I love you! I'm Satan talking to you, by the
way!"
> God of Qur'anic relevation does not exist except in imagination and it is
> futile to attempt to speak with him
He told us that Moses spoke to Him. There is no one else in the Bible
who talked directly to God, not even the other prophets. So, are you
better than the prophets? The prophets were inspired, none of them said
they talked to God. But of course if you think that Jesus was God, then
I guess many people have talked to him.
> - according to the Qur'anic sages he is unknowable and this is
> something which Abdalla has confirmed
I haven't confirmed anything. Get real Taj. :)
There is no one who said that God is unknowable. You are using what
another poster quoted from a person who supposedly studied under
Ghazali, and this student used to call God, Al-Ghazali's Allah.
This means that there is something fishy going on in the references
you are using. Re-post that reference, if you don't mind. If I
recall, it was from someone quoting someone who is also quoting
someone who was allegedly Al-Ghazali's student.
Al-Ghazali did not say that God is unknowable (Ghayr Ma'roof), he
said that He does not "Yakshifu 'an nafsih" Meaning, that He does
not reveal Himself directly. This is taken from Al-Munqith min
Al-Dhalaal, by Al-Ghazali himself, not some impolite author whom
we are told was Al-Ghazali's student, and who calls God, Al-Ghazali's
Allah. If Al-Ghazali said that God is unknowable (Ghayr Ma'roof),
tell us in which book did he say such thing. Just like the manifestation
trap which you fell into, you wont be able to answer this one as well.
Al-Ghazali was talking about Kashf (God revealing Himself directly,
without any partition), he never said that God is unknown. God does
not reveal himself in forms and shapes, and this is what the Bible
says as well: "Nobody has seen God at any time." He reveals His
attributes, and those attributes are too heavy for us.
The Prophet Isaiah said:
"Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye
has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait
for him." [Isaiah 64:4]
I think Isaiah was saying that, "Ever since man lived on earth, no
one has managed to see or hear You, God, personally. We see this
universe and what's around us, and it testifies for you. You are
the only God whom we know, you are the creator, and we known You
by looking around at this universe which testifies for your existence.
We ask You, and You give. No one else answers our prayers but You."
See the context to get a better idea.
He knew that nobody saw God with their eyes, and nobody heard
God speaking, except Moses of course, and he knew that God is
known in a much better way. As the bedouin woman said to Abu
Hanifa, "Didn't my footsteps lead you to me?"
Similarly, we know God through looking around us. He is Light, but His
Light is too much for us to bear. He is Infinite (Al-Awwal wal-Akher
wa Al-THaher wal BaTin) and we are the finite. We cannot comprehend Him,
but He knows where are eye balls are moving, as the Quran says.
If we see a chair, we know someone made that chair. From looking at the
design of this chair, we can understand how the carpenter was thinking.
If the chair rocks, we know that he wanted his customers to enjoy a good
time while they are sitting, and so on.
> For the moment the issue is the question as to how one "knows" the "god" of
> Qur'anic revelation. It is Abdalla who is suggesting there is something in
> dispute. I am only asking for an explanation.
I am sorry. The explanation was given to you by other Muslims. You
don't want to accept this explanation, so you have the right to
accept or reject.
You did not tell me what do you mean by "know." Knowledge in Islam,
for example, has many factors, and those factors have many components,
like 'ilm al-yaqeen, 'ayn al-yaqeen, and Haqq al-yaqeen. I want a
structured explanation, I can't believe you just because you tell me
that you have spoken to God. I can tell you that I spoke to God as well,
that doesn't make me truthful or sane.
Now what I want from the slave of the cross is to teach me how does
he know God. What is it that they have, which the whole world does not
have. He can't do that. I wonder if he's shy or something!!
> In his earlier post Abdalla claimed that God was knowable by his "attributes".
> I have not seen this explained and my illustration was to demonstrate that
> attributes in themselves are not founded upon reality but are simply "words"
> which feed the imagination and are not verifyable.
Please read on this topic. There are many books that talk about
TawHeed Al-Asmaa-a wal-Siffaat. We can't post an entire book in
usenet. Read from Muslims if you want to understand the Islamic
point of view. Don't read from what biased missionaries wrote
about Islam. If you would like to understand the Islamic point
of view, instead of disputing it, I think you will go for the
Muslim sources, not what Christians wrote about Islam.
When a researcher is looking for his data, he usually gets it from
the best source. As I can see, you are not interested in the data,
you're interested in disputes, isn't that right?
> Apart from the "seeing" issue what else Abdalla concludes is true. But Abdalla
> is also trying to suggest is that these are the only presuppositions available
> in order to verify the "knowing" of God - they are not.
I did not say that. We can know God by looking around us. Look at the
ants for example, and how intelligent and moral they are. Ibn Al-Qayyim
told us a story in his book, MiftaaH Daar Al-Sa'aada about a 'Aaabid
(someone who spends lots of time in worship). Please allow me to share
that story with you. He said that this 'Aaabid was sitting one day,
and he saw ants moving in two lines. One of those ants deviated away
>from the line, and she (it) headed towards a dead insect that's three
times bigger than its size.
The ant couldn't carry the insect, it went back to the line which
she deviated from, and it came back heading towards the insect with
a couple of more ants. The 'Aaabid was watching from HIGH above, and
he took away the insect and hid it. When the ants came they did not
find the insect, so they returned back to the line. He then placed
the insect at a closer location to the ant. Once again, the ant
left the line and came to the insect, and went back again to get
its friends, but when they arrived, the 'Aaabid hid the insect again.
He did that for one more time, and when the ants didn't find the insects,
they surrounded the first ant and killed it.
It makes you wonder.
Why did the ants kill the other ant? We look into this case, and try
to understand that when God told us not to lie, He gave us the choice
to adhere to this command. We are the only ones who have the choice
to adhere to God or reject what He has defined as wrong and right,
while the entire universe adheres to what God likes without a choice.
It tells us that what has been prohibited to us, is really a command
>from God who doesn't like it when we lie, but people lie, because they
wish to disobey God, while the ants, who do not have a choice, do not
lie, because lying is universally rejected in this life.
We are told to look around us, and learn from what we see. In the
ant's example we learn an important attribute from God, which He
has made a law on earth. He made sure that all creatures adhere
to this law, but he gave humans the freedom to disobey. These
attributes are Al-Haqq (Truth), and Al-'Adl (Justice). People,
like this 'Aaabid, managed to see that those small creatures are
complying to God through His attributes. Even ants, as this
'Aabid experienced, do not tolerate lies--which God has forbade.
Try this experiment on ants, and tell me if it works. :)
> I do not accept the Qur'anic presuppositions
Then why do you want an explanation? Why don't you go discuss what
you have accepted around those who accept your beliefs? You refuse
to explain your ideas, and you just want to argue. Do you have
fun doing this?
> But I am not propagating fantasies. I was simply asking questions and looking
> and waiting for explanations.....It seems to be a futile wait.
In what way will the explanations would be helpful, when you have
made up your mind not to accept what's in the Quran in advance?
Read what you said above, and see how you're swimming in a big ocean
of self-contradictions.
> Setting the "seeing" issue aside the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah is
> prophesied this way "......I will put my law in their minds and write it on
> their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people, No longer will a
> man teach his neighbour or a man his brother saying "Know Yahweh (The LORD)"
> because they will all know me from the least to the greatest declares Yahweh
> (The LORD) for I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no
> more " (Jer 31:33-34)
Isaiah 28 says something else. Does that make the Bible contradictory?
Didn't Moses prophecy that his people will rebel against God in the
32nd chapter of Deuteronomy? Didn't Paul or Rabbi Saul, as you call him,
say:
"salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."
[Romans 11:11]
Why would Paul say that the Israelites are envious because salvation
is no longer limited to the Israelites? Was he lying? Or was he
an anti-Semite?
Why did Paul refer to the Jews by referring to their private parts?
Why did he say the "Circumcised" over and over again? Wasn't there
any other way to identify the Jews besides referring to their private
parts? Even Jesus didn't use such way to describe them. He called the
Hypocrites, snakes and vipers, and so on. So, why did Paul go to his
level. There must be something that those people were doing with their
private parts.
> Facinating. The death issue - the ultimate spiritual experience?
I didn't say anything of that kind.
> If Abdalla, you believe that the Quir'anic god is anything other than
> a fantasy then why don't you go ahead?
Because I don't know if I am going to heaven or hell. But you should
go ahead, because God talks to you, and I'm sure you know that you
wont go to hell. Or does God talk to you when He knows that you're
among the dwellers of hell?
> Are you really serious or are you still convinced by the "revelation" of
> Muhammad?
Yes, you bet. Do you think I should throw it away, just because you
told me that you have spoken with God? Come one Taj, let's get real. :)
Basically the Missionary Salvation Plan for Muslims is that they have
to throw away their beliefs first. After that, they are introduced
to false ideas like, "Give us, Caesar, what belongs to us, and get
busy giving God what he wants." If that doesn't work, they teach
the Muslim nice ideas like democracy and freedom to fornicate, so
that he can be busy doing something else while he is ruled by Caesar.
That's why TajMahal cannot explain to me his beliefs. He wants me first
to get rid of my beliefs, then every thing will come to me. I say no.
Show me the alternative first, and explain it. If you can't explain it,
then I'm not willing to exchange what I have, and what I can explain,
in favor of something that cannot be explained.
> So that the barking dogs can make more meaningless noise? But it seems that
> Abdalla you are satisfied with not wanting to "know" God.
Dogs are friendly and loyal to their Master, I don't mind if they bark.
Maybe the dogs are barking because the love their Master, and they
don't like strangers like you mocking their Master. Don't you think that
dogs are better than pigs? Pigs have no problem being dishonored, they
don't have a master, they don't have any sense of loyalty. Pigs don't
have any kind of zeal. So if a pig believes in a god, it has no problem
making friends with those who say that the god of the pigs is a son of
a whore, because usually pigs exchange mates all the time.
By the way, I should thank you for categorizing me, Asim, and others
in the dog list which you posted elsewhere. It just tells us about the
beautiful instructions God tells you when you have a chat with him.
> Don't try and force ideas into, and conditions upon, how one can come to a
> "knowing" of God.
I just want to know the concepts of this knowledge. Apparently, it
is not structured at all. And those who follow it are following
their desires, just like cattle, or even worst, as the Quran says
in Sura 25. If those desires were from God, I'm sure they will be
easy to understand. And to be honest with you, I still don't know
what you mean when you you say, "I know God." If the knowledge is
a secret, then I have no comments. And you don't look good when you
are blaming me for not knowing a secret that you're hiding away from
me.
> Since you now now want to engage in Anti-semitic rhetoric
Good, so when Paul sent a message to Titus in Titus 1, he was
also an anti-smite. Now, we have two proofs that Paul is an
anti-semite. So why are you following him? You see, your religion
is half jewish and half christian. You can't mix those religions
up in a blender and come up with the Messianic Believers doctrines.
> Any pretense to a discussion by you has ended by you hasn't it Abdalla? Why is
> it that Anti-semetic rhetoric is the refuge of those who have nothing to
> explain?
Because the Bible teaches racism. Those racial ideas were injected
by the Jewish scribes, and they even wrote books which they called
holy, and forgot to say that those books are from God. You see, your
religion doesn't make you human enough to be equal with the chosen
people who are also humans like you. Your books teach you that you
are the Goy, and they are your masters. Tell me, would God teach such
things, Mr. Goy?
> Well we know that the Qur'an is a **complete** fabrication. The religion of
> "Abraham" indeed !!! Lengeds from Rabbinical folklore about Abraham breaking
> idols.......
Case1: The Quran is false because a prophet rejected the idols.
Case2: The Bible is from God because it says that God came to
Abraham and ate meat and drank milk with him. And we don't have
to worry whether this food is in that god's stomach until now
or not.
Case3: Jacob sees God and fights with him and wins the match. He
gets blessed. The Christians and the Jews learn from this story
to rebel against God and win His blessings by rebelling against
Him.
Re. Case3, do you think God will appear to someone just so that
someone can fight with Him, and win over Him? Do you think that
God wouldn't know that He will loose the match from the beginning?
Wouldn't it be more convenient if God blessed Jacob without going
through this wrestling match? If you think that's logical, that's
fine with me. I'm instructed to tolerate your beliefs no matter how
insane they sound.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>In article <8ceu4m$4r$1...@samba.rahul.net>, Jeremiah McAuliffe
><ali...@city-net.com> writes:
>
>>>Assuming that "Allah" is imutable it is a nice contradictory nonsense which a
>>>clever Dr like you should be able to work out without my help.
>>
>>But Allah's creation is in constant change. Do you need the clever Dr.
>>to help you with that? ;-)
>
>Thanks for your reply No - I don't need help with that :-)
Ah! That's a good sign. ;-)
But the issue of
>the immutablity of "Allah" had the Qur'anic philosophers (such as Ibn Rushd)
Philosophy of that time-- centuries ago-- is no longer quite relevant
as they were operating on assumptions and presuppositions that are no
longer held. Discussing these types of issues (And Biblical
philosophers discussed the same or similar issues) is purely
academic-- an exercise in the history of ideas. Fun, for what its
worth, but worthless vis a vis the marketplace of ideas. Philosophy is
now post-Hiedeggarian.....
>Resorting to the claim that Allah's creation is in constant change does not
>explain to me how it derives from the "basic tenet of tawheed"...but lets
>continue...
Uh, dude, creation being in constant change is not "resorting to a
claim" its an observable, experiential reality. Is it not?
>
>
>>Tawheedian monotheism posits that each and every moment in creation is
>>sustained by God.
>
>The claim which I made unclearly in my earlier post, for which I apologise, is
>that this is not valid if "Allah" is immutable and outside time/space.
But see.... here is your major error. In post-Kantian philosophy you
can't say ANYTHING about what or Who is outside of time-space because
EVERYTHING you can think about is thought of in terms of time-space!
(This is why the philosophical discussions of centuries ago are now
simple academic/historical exercises) We are hard-wired to experience
through the categories of time-space and cannot step outside of it.
The only way we say what we say about God is by virtue of God's
self-revelation to us--- not our speculative thoughts and imaginings
about Someone outside of time-space.
This is part of the inordinate speculation on the unseen warned
against in the Qur'an.
Unless
>it can be explained then it should be de-"posited" :-)
Oh please! This is so elementary!
Explain love.
Explain beauty.
Now, should we de-posit love and beauty? <laughing>
>>Every leaf that falls, etc. falls because of the
>>will of, and action by God.
>
>Maybe - but some fell today when I used my freewill to kick the hedge - Oh! I
>forgot I am a preprogrammed automaton :-)
Perhaps. You may want to study up on the free-will issue too. Human
freedom is very limited. At most, it is only a limited freedom to
interpret experience. At least it is only the freedom to say an
existential "yes" or "no" to The Transcendent Unity.
>
>
>>What this means is that everything I
>>experience is personally created for me by God.....for the sake of my
>>guidance and growth... hardly impersonal at all!
>
>I am not convinced.
Well, I'm not here to convince you, which would be impossible. It is
an assumption based on acceptance of revelation taking place. Only God
can give guidance towards acceptance of those assumptions regarding
reality.
>>Plus, I never considered myself Buddhist. I never "joined" Buddhism,
>>just practiced the styles of meditation.....
>
>Serious question - I am not being sceptical: What do you mean "just practiced
>the styles of meditation"? Assuming that it was not just superficial but that
>you did get somewhere did you not find some reality in that?
Mantric meditation. Again, I see very little contradiction between the
Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path with Islam. Do you?
What I got from it was what you are suppossed to get from it, a
quieting of the mind and greater control over the booming buzz of
one's thoughts.
> In your opinion is
>there not more knowledge of what is real in that meditation than in the
>Qur'anic religion?
No. Because there is no claim for revelation in Buddhism. We claim
greater knowledge of reality because thing were *revealed* to us by
The One Who Knows---- God!
And..... God know best about these things, of course.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 6 Apr 2000 08:31:54 GMT, "Saabirah" <saab...@stargate.net> wrote:
>Respectfully Brother... I disagree with you. As I see it...
>Allah (swt) Transcends *anything* that the human mind can
>fully-grasp. If we were to say that we fully-know Allah (swt)
>then we would be lying.... How can a human person really *know*
>that which is outside of the human experience?
So, I'm sittin' here reading this going "Yeah! Right on! Exactly!"
And then I read.....
>If you have ever listened to the song "Ayats All Around" (Dr.
>Jihad and the IMG)
And I go, "Woo Hoo! Whatta plug!" <laughing>
Sadly, this song is no longer online...... too many samples, didn't
think it would pass the mp3.com reviewers. However, if someone wants
it I can send it to them or upload it to my personal site.
BTW, in case no one knows, Saabirah herself has been producing the
most beautiful classic Islamic calligraphy!-- our classic traditional
artform-- and even with her own unique designs that are quite
stunning.
Some wealthy art lover needs to patronize her for the sake of Allah!
MyTajMahal
writes:
I wrote:
>One cannot love an impersonal sterile being and "it" cannot
>love you. If there is no possiblity of relationship or true "knowing"
>then one is better not wasting time with futile imaginations and that
>which feeds them...It is just a delusion
Saabirah wrote
>Respectfully Brother... I disagree with you.
Thank you for your kind reply you have said many interesting things. Sorry if
I ask many questions I do not intend them to be hostile - I am interested.
>As I see it... Allah (swt) Transcends *anything* that the human mind can
>fully-grasp.
True but I maintiain that God is not personally limited and does not "need" to
transcend *everything* that we can grasp so let's investigate what you wrote.
>If we were to say that we fully-know Allah (swt)
>then we would be lying....
I agree with you we cannot "fully know" but we can "partially know" that which
God has chosen to reveal of Himself. And unless one holds to a panteistic
world view then this means God and not creation.
>How can a human person really *know*
>that which is outside of the human experience?
To "know" is not something which is outside human experience if God has given
us what it takes to "know"
It is within each human being as God has created us. Later on in your post you
gave an exposition of Al-Baqra 138 - but despite everything you still conclude
that God is "unknowable" then that is a problem - for if it is true then we may
as well all be agnostics - we have no personal way of validating anything and
are forced into making a leap of faith or worshipping creation rather than
coming to a real personal knowledge of the Creator who we **can** worship as a
valid reality..
>If you have ever listened to the song "Ayats All Around" (Dr.
>Jihad and the IMG) you will, Insha'Llah, understand that what is
>being said is that in all of creation... all around us... we are
>glimpsing God through all creation. However, we never do glimpse
>the fullness of God .... we only have "pieces" of the One...
No I didn't listen to that song yet but I will do - I agree with this as far as
you have quoted the song and as I have said before we only see darkly and one
day we will see fully. But as my discussions with Atheists, intellectuals,
artists and others have confirmed there is a chasim between coming to know that
there is a God from observing creation and coming to know Him personally. The
Qur'an does not provide a valid bridge over the chasim - it requires a leap of
blind faith.
(btw I have liked Neil Young since his Buffalo Springfield days so if
Jeremiah's **music** is anything like it then it must be ok)
>As for "loving" an impersonal sterile being... Firstly, "love"
>for God is not like the love of one human being for another....
>imho.
Interesting that you think God should create in us a capacity which He himself
has no experience of "knowing". Also how do you know you love God how do you
know what love is?
>Our "love" for God must include "worship".
Worship is the same thing as submission. True human love is submissive.
Messiah Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and
soul and love you neighbour as yourself." One comes before the other that is
all.
God is Love - real love - yes that is one of my presupposotions which the
Qur'an doesn't mention. (btw mercy does not=unconditional love).
>I don't know about you Brother... but, I don't "worship" any human being.
Yet many people do "worship" football stars, music and filim stars and even
inanimate things like automobiles, art and music. Worship is a relative term.
If we do not acknowledge that we can and sometimes do worship these things then
we have no way of dealing with our idolatry. In the book of Jeremiah one reads
that the Israelites still clung to their claim that they "worshiped the God of
Jacob" yet the prophet still exposed their idolatry for it *was* there.
>We discover new "ayats" all the time and they help us to know That
>Which Cannot be Known.... at least not right now.
I don't understand what you mean "help us to know...not right now"?. Are you
talking about God or something else? At the end of your post you conclude by
claiming that "God remains Transcendent... unknowable."
There is chasim between accepting that there is a creator God from observing
creation and to reaching each individual person having the God given capacity
to know for themselves the God of creation in a personal way. Of course you can
deny that.
I maintain that neither the Qur'an nor the Bible nor any "Holy Book" is that
bridge but that each provides a "revelation" of the nature of the Creator God.
However there must be a God given way in which each individual can know and
validate for themselves what is the truth through "knowing".
Now I read your thoughts on Al-Baqra 138 and here are some selected comments:
>However... human beings
>are creatures... only pieces of creation.
What do you mean that human beings are "only peices of creation" ?- I disagree
with the "only". Human beings are a unique creation something special with
characteristics which nothing else in creation posesses. You can argue that
this is one of my presuppositions and that it is opposed to your
presupposition. But my reason leads me to believe that despite all that modern
science tries to suggest that we humans are more than just evolved animals.
For example when I love someone I believe that it is real and that I am not an
automaton on preprogrammed autopilot - I do have real freewill and my love is
real - it is just not a preprogrammed instinct to reproduce..
>And remain conscious of God, in
>whose name you demand [your rights] from one another, and of
>these ties of kinship.
What is God consciousness? What do you believe this means? How is this God
consciousness explained? Do you suggest that it is simply something one
deduces from creation and our environment?
What basis for "rights" exist between humans? Is it only defined on the basis
of what the Qur'an states? Or might you agree that there is something that we
as human belings posess which is greater than the Qur'an as certain modern day
Islamic intellectuals are now claiming? (Abdolkarim Sorush for example)
>Something is missing in
>our understanding of the Divine... something that we just cannot
>grasp....
What is you justification in claiming this? Is it simply that you have not
found the way to grasping something which is real, valid or personal about the
reality of God? Are you not willing to consider the possibility?
>In all of nature we see signs of that "ungraspable"
>piece...
How is this a valid justification for claiming that God is utterly "unknowable"
personally? Is it because you have not found the bridge across the chasim but
rather resign yourself to a leap of faith which in your case I assume is the
Qur'an?
>Allah Alone is the fullness of the "primary" essence... Allah *is*....
How do you justify and explain your use of the term "essence"? and what is this
essence? Is it simply attributes - words - with no verifiable substance other
than an appeal to look at creation in the hope that this somehow validates the
attributes?
>The absence of the primary color yellow is, to me, an ayat... Our
>lives take their hue from Allah....
What does this mean? What is your justification for claiming that something is
missing which cannot be found? Is it simply that you have not looked for it or
found it yet? Or that you have resigned yourself to not finding it
because....you consciously or unconsciously took a leap of faith?
>however, there is something
>which we will never be able to grasp during this life....
Why? Simply because you want to "spiritualise" the ideas you got from
observing colours?
>We must
>remain ever-mindful... conscious of Allah (swt) because there we
>find the essential nature which is necessary for and upon which
>all life depends...
How can you be truly conscious, as a reality, of something which is
"transcendent ...unknowable"? Why do you choose to use the word "conscious"
rather than "know"? And what is this "essential nature" you speak of? (I may
have asked that before ;-)
>it is the absence of the
>primary color "yellow"... an essential essence of the Divine... a
>piece of which is necessary in order to see all other "ayats all
>around" us.
I don't understand this. What should a piece of yellow not shine within us so
that we can "know"? Simply because you have chosen an explanation extrapolated
>from one verse which has nothing to do with a missing colour?
I'll give you another similar illustration:
I have a an facinating old book on the history of the Bombay Chamber of
Commerce which I bought many years ago at a book fair at the Hotel Russel in
London. When I got it home I discovered that due to a binding mistake two
leaves (pages) were missing. I always meant to write off for photocopies but
should I come across a basket of odd pages at another book fair and I should
happen across two similar pages I would immediately recognise them as the
missing pages. In the same way I believe that we have withing us the capacity
to "know" and recognise what is missing in our knowing of God. We
may still have the difficulty in read what is on the page but we will know that
it is the right page.
Please don't confuse this illustration with recognising the Bible or the Qur'an
as the missing page. No I am talking about God and what he has placed within
each one of us which responds to and corresponds to Him.
If all we have is creation as a means to come to a belief that there is a
creator then we cannot progress beyond of belief that he exists to the point of
"knowing" God.
I can understand your conclusion but I thank God that He does reveal Himself
personally to those who seek Him in truth.
Kind regards
Jameel
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 6 Apr 2000 09:15:40 GMT, Zaharuddin Fikri <za...@psynet.net> wrote:
>I have known bro. Jeremiah for many years now, mostly through his posts
>which are sensitive, honest and sometimes quite funny. He exhibits some
>of the qualities I so love in our Prophet,
I'm crying.
That is the nicest thing anyone has ever, or could, say to me. Even if
it *is* a bit of hyperbole. I'm nothing like him or his companions. If
I give the appearance of being so once in a while it is only because
of the *good examples* of people like you, Lomax, Nuh Keller, Masud
Khan (who turned me on to Keller), G. Haddad, of course! (God love
Gibril Haddad!) Ex-mod Ahmad Hashem (who I know in real life and is
much more like this than I am) another local brother named Farooq,
another named Mas'ud, another named Ali-- all MUCH better people than
I am-- and from my love of three real Shaykhs-- Kabbani and especially
al-Akili, who are in and for the States-- and Shaykh al-Jilani, may
Allah cause him to sit at table with the Messengers in Jenna-- all of
them are gifts from Allah to us-- and from reading seerah and thinking
about the Messengers-- May God's love, peace and blessings shower on
them all forever-- and God's undeserved kindness to me-- particularly
His giving me an 'Umrah.
And Qaradawi, and al-Ghazali.... and others I'm probably forgetting
right now..... I would be lost without such as all of you, may Allah
reward, reward, reward you greatly!
May Allah Most High, Most Glorious, shower His blessings and guidance
and mercy on all of them, and upon the whole ummah, and upon Muhammad,
and cause us to be more like him-- the best of examples, the best of
humanity-- each and every day. Amin.
And of course, when I'm least like how we should be... well, those
posts get rejected! So, you don't see them. And *Catherine* has been
the strictest about that! Ironic, eh? <rotfl>
Alhamduli 'Llah! Alhamduli 'Llah! Alhamduli 'Llah!
Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!
hamma...@my-deja.com
Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
> Asalaam Alaikum,
>
> But also sadly, I have a feeling the extremists are going to destroy
> this group if it kills them... just as they destroy hope for a true
> Islamic Renaissance. They do not acknowledge obvious truths. They
> simply *cannot* back down even when they are obviously in the wrong.
It's just too bad, and its contrary to what the Prophet (PBUH)
practiced and preached. I remember a quote by Imam Shafi, the great
scholar of Islam, stated by Imam Hamza Yusuf in a lecture, that I will
always remember, inshaallah. I don't remember the exact words, but
bear with me. He said something to the effect that if there was a
disagreement between him and his Muslim brother on certain issues, that
he "hoped to be wrong and wished that the truth would flow from the
lips of his brother so that he could submit to it." Subhanallah, what
an attitude!!! Too bad such an attitude doesn't exist anymore, or does
so in such rarity, it certainly feels like it doesn't...
Wassalam.
--
Hammad Awan
asim...@my-deja.com
> >>Assuming that "Allah" is imutable it is a nice contradictory
nonsense which a
> >>clever Dr like you should be able to work out without my help.
> >
> >But Allah's creation is in constant change. Do you need the clever
Dr.
> >to help you with that? ;-)
>
issue of
> the immutablity of "Allah" had the Qur'anic philosophers (such as Ibn
Rushd)
"Allah" had
> to change at some stage inorder for him to become creative or, for the
eternal
> to have created time somewhere. As far as I can gain Al-Ghazali
simply swept
> the whole issue aside without explanation.
ibn Rushd took his inspiration from Greek philosophy just like many of
the Christian and Jewish philosophers. TajMahal cannot gain anything
because he has no idea about Muslim philosophy or philosophy as a whole.
The Christian and Jewish world are trying to prove their beliefs through
Muslim kalaam of the past especially Imam Ghazali. Ghazali shattered
the arguments of the philosophers during his time. But knowledge has
changed. This issue of change and absoluteness has bothered every
thinker, including TajMahals thinkers. But that is because they were
all influenced by Greek dialecticians. The Quran does not supprt ibn
Rushd's contention nor the rest of them.
>
> Resorting to the claim that Allah's creation is in constant change
does not
> explain to me how it derives from the "basic tenet of tawheed"...but
lets
> continue...
>
> >Tawheedian monotheism posits that each and every moment in creation
is
> >sustained by God.
>
> The claim which I made unclearly in my earlier post, for which I
apologise, is
> that this is not valid if "Allah" is immutable and outside time/space.
Unless
> it can be explained then it should be de-"posited" :-) It is possible
that an
> attempt to explain this it seen in the theory of "transubstantial
motion" but
> again this relied on the notion that "Allah" created four "things"
(including
> "aql" or wisdom/intelligence)
TajMahal doesn't know what he is talking about. He read a sentence or
two and throws it in though as this post refelcts, he has absolutely no
idea what he is talking about.
<by which "Allah" organises every moment
in time
> as a "knowable" reality. (But this has its own problems too)
>
TajMahal in reality has no idea what he is talking about. These are
more screens. That is why he concludes his sentence as (But that has
its own problems too.) He is in fact whining about the issue of
philosophers who interpreted the Quran in light of Greek classics. That
was in fact the significance of the revolution of Ghazali (R). He began
the movement away from the Greek semantics. The Quran calls creation
the sunnah of God, His life pattern. Creation is spontaneuous and full
of growth. Teh Quran affimrs that creation is not a closed system as in
Greek philosophy and the dialecticians of polemics but is an open system
expanding. One of the greatest examples of the movement away from the
Greek aristotlean closed sytem was the ashaari conception of atomism,
where atoms are being created every moment. This issue involves an in
depth study of time, nature, mans perception, and so forth. But anyways
the Quran does not support the contenion of God not 'chaniging.'
Changing for a human involves a state from perfection to imperfection,
or imperfection to perfection. Change for God is something very
different. Creation is a realization of the endless possibilities of
God's Life, the Most Unique Individual. God is the Supreme EGO.
Whatevr TajMahal is spewing forth does not solve any problems at all for
his 'belief' system. Whatever he is talking about is mere screens which
only deal with problems of philosophy.
> >Every leaf that falls, etc. falls because of the
> >will of, and action by God.
>
> Maybe - but some fell today when I used my freewill to kick the hedge
- Oh! I
> forgot I am a preprogrammed automaton :-)
>
Yet this whole creation was some predetermined historical play show so
that God could come down in the form of man and die for some sins we
didn't commit so we could know his glory. That is a very boring story
not worthy of any 'god' to be worshipped. TajMahal really shoots
himself in the foot.
> >What this means is that everything I
> >experience is personally created for me by God.....for the sake of my
> >guidance and growth... hardly impersonal at all!
>
"Have they not climbed the ascent?" The Quranic conception of man is to
involve oneself in God's Life. As Iqbal said when he quoted God's
complaint to man about what he did with the earth, one of man's
responses was "You created poison, I created the antidote." Life is an
assimilative movement. Man by taking part in the creative activity of
God, infuses within himself the 'attributes of God.' "Inculcate within
yourself the attributes of God."
As Rumi (R) is reported to have said, "The Divine knowledge is lost in
the saint, but who is going to believe?" We judge people by their wills
and aspirations i.e. my directive attitude. I am defined by my goals,
aspiartions, dreams. It is the famous "to Be."
> I am not convinced. What it appears to mean is that you are an
impersonal
> preprogrammed automaton :-) and the "thing" that preprogrammed you is
not
> personal either - just very clever with many programme options.
>
> (...)
>
> >Plus, I never considered myself Buddhist. I never "joined" Buddhism,
> >just practiced the styles of meditation.....
>
> Serious question - I am not being sceptical: What do you mean "just
practiced
> the styles of meditation"? Assuming that it was not just superficial
but that
> you did get somewhere did you not find some reality in that? In your
opinion is
> there not more knowledge of what is real in that meditation than in
the
> Qur'anic religion?
>
These attempots at throwing out words is really pathetic. TajMahal
throws out total screens to evade the issue. He goes off into a tangent
of philosophical problems and attempts to relate that to the Quran. He
is attempting to belittle Islam through some philsophical arguments
which are arguments common to all religions. It doesn't help his
case at all. Though the Quran provides the ultimate solution. TajMahal
once again shoots himself in the foot.
Sigh, not at all impressed.
asim...@my-deja.com
evade the issue and further demonstrate he has absolutely no idea what
he is talking about. The issues brought forth by TajMahal are typical
philosophical problems which have nothing to do in particular to Islam
but the issue of proofs of God. To continue:
> Thanks for your reply No - I don't need help with that :-) But the
issue of the immutablity of "Allah" had the Qur'anic philosophers (such
as Ibn Rushd)>
As a proof to TajMahal's ignorance, ibn Rushd was taking his
inspiration from the Greek dialectics, just like the Christian and
Jewish philosophers. Nowhere does the Quran support to contention of
the Greek semantics.
< reasoning that creation had to be eternal otherwise the nature of
"Allah" had to change at some stage inorder for him to become creative
or, for the eternal to have created time somewhere.>
This issue does not involve any asepct of the Quranic doctrine. This
is one of the atheistic contentions against belief in God. That is
another demonstration of the fact that TajMahal is only mocking his own
belief system. It has nothing at all to do with a problem particular
to the Quranic belief system. The meaningless rhetoric of Greeks is
based upon the notion that time is absolute. The Quran nowhere
supports the fact that God does not change in the Aristotlean
conception of the 'static' God or the predetermined fashioner of an
already existent material like TajMahal's belief of some predetrmined
stage show. Creation is the sunnah of God, his life-pattern. It is
his self-expression, a realization of the endless possibilities of the
life of God. To get into an in-depth analysis involves a deep analysis
of conscious experience, time, knowledge, thought, matter and a deep
analysis of the self as a whole. This is in fact where the Quran runs
supreme. The Quran nowhere affirms God does not 'change' in the
philosophical manner. If one means change from imperfect to perfect,
or perfect to imperfect than God is free of that. God in Quranic
belief is the Most Unique individual, the supreme EGO. "He is always
in a new work." In Islam, life is an assimilative process. Man takes
an active part in the life of God. "Inculcate in yourself the
attributes of God." As Rumi (R) said the effect the Divine knowledge
is lost in the saint, but who is going to believe?
The Quran directly contrasts Greek semantics and the philsophers when
it makes the prfound statement that the universe is an open system.
Creative possibilites are always anew. TajMahal in the past made the
statement that a predetermined plan being an act not of a creator but a
mere fashioner was irrelevant to the topic at hand, and this is where
it just proves his ignorance.
<As far as I can gain Al-Ghazali simply swept
> the whole issue aside without explanation.
>
Ghazali shattered the philosophical arguments for his time. Descartes
basically copied off of him in his view that doubt is the beginning of
knowledge. Knowledge has increased, and Imam Ghazali (R) though he
proved the fallacy of the philosophers, he was crtiticized by many
Muslim thinkers that he never fully broke away from it. The
revolutionary place of Ghazali (R) in reality was his awakening the
Muslim world away from the Greek dialecticians. His revolt was the
biggest blow in terms of impact that the Quranic spirit is antithesis
to Greek classic and absolutism. The Muslim world after they came into
contact with the cultures of past took to their influence. The
Mutazilites are the biggest example of this. Christianity suffered
tremendously from this. This is where the history of Muslim thought
proved its resilience and beauty taking inspiration from the Quran.
Christianity assimilated the other systems and it became their belief.
Islam always found its renewers, one coming after another, pulling
forth the Quran and sunnah from the grasps of semantics, saving the
Muslim world from what casued the downfall of Christianity. Islam has
always taken a sharp stand towards innovations, and this is a big
reason why. The Muslim world is full of a continuous line of brilliant
thinkers, among those that followed him was ibn Taymiyya (R) and his
treatise against the Greek logicians. They all took spirit from the
Quran.
The Christian world finally broke away not because of Christianity but
because of the move towards the empirical spirit. And that was
initiated in truth by their contact with the Muslim world. Ironic is
it not? The GOOD of the west owes its legacy to the Quran. "We have
not sent thee save as a MERCY TO ALL THE WORLDS."
>
> >Tawheedian monotheism posits that each and every moment in creation
is
> >sustained by God.
>
> The claim which I made unclearly in my earlier post, for which I
apologise, is
> that this is not valid if "Allah" is immutable and outside
time/space.
In words of the Prophet (S), "God is Dahr." Dahr, absolute time, in
Quranic terminology is different from the other form of time common to
man. This aspect of time is denoted in the Quranic terminology by
asr. "Wal asr." There are varying levels of conscious experience and
time too finds a relativistic aspect in the Quran. Iraqi, a Muslim
sufi, spoke of the various levels of time and how it effects reality.
Once again, TajMahal demonstrates his utter ignorance of the Quranic
phenomenon. This is one of the reasons the Quran is so profound and it
takes a totally different approach to any other belief. The ashaaris
formulated the concept of atomism, every moment God is bringing into
being new atoms. This is where teh issues all play in together.
Once again, this still does not solve the binds of TajMahals belief.
He tried challenging the Quran, and as once again demonstrated, he is
oblivious.
<Unless
> it can be explained then it should be de-"posited" :-) It is
possible that an
> attempt to explain this it seen in the theory of "transubstantial
motion" but
> again this relied on the notion that "Allah" created four "things"
(including
> "aql" or wisdom/intelligence) by which "Allah" organises every moment
in time
> as a "knowable" reality. (But this has its own problems too)
>
TajMahal may read a sentence or two in a book, and then summarize,
surprisingly (smiling) as the post demonstrates, he has absolutely no
idea what he is talking about. This is further demonstrated in the
brackets. (but this has its problems too) What that basically means
is "I have no idea what I am talking about so I will throw out more
screens to avoid the issue."
> >Every leaf that falls, etc. falls because of the
> >will of, and action by God.
>
In Islam everything happens by the permission of God, merely by the
fact that He has allowed it, but that does not mean everything is a
robot. The Quran refers to Time as the Mother of the Book. The
concept of taqdeer, influenced by outside cultures, became
predestination though they are worlds apart. Time is considered one of
the greatset signs of God. Taqdeer is the inner reach of a thing.
Reality is an expression of life, man being the closest to the most
Unique individual. The Quran refers to the fact that all creation is
inspired, the bees were given 'wahy.' The reality according to the
Quran is 'spiritual'. The rocks, trees and plants, from the smallest
ant to the largest whale all glorify the Creator.
> Maybe - but some fell today when I used my freewill to kick the hedge
- Oh! I
> forgot I am a preprogrammed automaton :-)
>
Yet, the concept of a predestined plan of some god that has to wait how
many years, to come down to earth, live the life of a man, pray to
himself, and then die to be resurrected to demonstrate his 'glory' is
nothing short of a theatrical play. The script is an easy two thumbs
down. If I had more thumbs, they would still be all down.
> Serious question - I am not being sceptical: What do you mean "just
practiced
> the styles of meditation"? Assuming that it was not just superficial
but that
> you did get somewhere did you not find some reality in that? In your
opinion is
> there not more knowledge of what is real in that meditation than in
the
> Qur'anic religion?
TajMahal as he once again demonstrates is oblivious to the Quran. I am
continually gald he keeps posting because it only furthers my points.
To recount the points:
1) TajMahal throws out screens. The example of philosophical problems
in an attempt to degrade Islam only posits an attack on religion. But
Islam is free from these attack unlike TajMahals own belief system.
One does not in reality have to engage in a debate with this guy smply
by the fact that whatever he has said does not solve the problems for
his own self and belief. Thus he comes up with some statements such as
"Yo cannot force consditions on what we mean by "knowing" god." What
this basically amounts to is "I will avoid it as much as I can, to try
and confuse some readers, because that is my sole intention."
2) TajMahal doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to the
Quran. He only throws out mere rhetoric not supported an ounce by the
Quran.
Sigh! Once again not impressed. I would be laughing now, but (we all
can fill in the rest).
P.S. "Truly this is a marvelous Quran." The djinns didn't lie.
Free Thought
Abdalla Alothman <ada...@blueskyweb.com> wrote:
>
> Asalam Alikum.
As salaam'ala man ittba'a ad-daleel, who sees that there are multitudes
who wish to guide, but few who wish to offer evidence.
An interesting discussion between Abdalla Alothman and Jameel. However,
I noticed certain things, thus I wanted to take part. I noticed that
Abdalla was trying to show what is logical, but my question is: along
what lines can we decide what is logical and illogical within the realm
of Theism?
Abdalla
> Also, if God allows himself to take forms,
> then there would be no need to send messengers
> and prophets.
Is this the only logical conclusion? On what grounds can you make such a
statement? Could we not also argue that an all-knowing being would not
have to send prophets at all? Could he not just send his message once,
in an incorruptable form? Why would he send people to speak on his
behalf? Isn't it strange that when God decides to send his messages, he
decides to only speak to one man, rather than the whole population?
Isn't that a method that could easily be falsified? Why does God only
choose to communicate by means that could easily be falsified, such as
putting it in writing, or revealing it to only one man, and let him do
the talking? Now your response may be along the lines of "who are you to
question God's plan." However, if you take that route, there's no point
in discussing logical aspects of theism at all, as a Christian could
just refute your every statement with "who are you to criticize God?"
Abdalla
> Okay, applying this on the finite human
> capacity to know God, the Infinite,
> then how can we expect to know God in
> our finite form, and in this finite
> life?
To take this question further, how can you know anything about God at
all? On what grounds can you personally conclude that Islam is more
logical than Christianity or Hinduism? Is it worth anything to say
things like "Islam says X about God, Christianity says Y, and clearly X
is more logical than Y."? By what standard can we truly say X is more
logical than Y? On what intellectual grounds can you claim "God would
not do...." or "God would not send..."?
Abdalla
> They did that again to exalt themselves over
> the honor of Prophet Lut. Because they had
> problems with the Moabites, they wanted
> to send them a message that they are children
> of incest.
On what grounds can you make this statement? Does flinging an ad-hominem
at the Jewish race automatically make your claim true? Hardly. What
proof do you have that the Moabites were historical people at all? Do
you know what 'Moab' means? If these are a historical people, why did
they have the name they had? Are you willing to accept the unproven
notion that Jews and Arabs descended from a character named Abraham, but
not willing to accept that the Moabites descended from a character named
Moab? On what grounds can you discuss Moab's origins? Is your only logic
"Lut, a prophet of God, would not engage in incest"? On what grounds can
you say how a prophet of God would act at all? On what grounds can you
conclude that Lot/Lut was a real person rather than a myth from the
Jewish folklore? It seems that in order for someone to accept your
claims, they first have to ascribe to Islamic logic (i.e., Lut was a
prophet of Allah, a true Muslim, and true Muslim prophets don't engage
in intercourse with their daughters). In so doing, you've committed the
fallacy of "petitio principii," which occurs when the premises are at
least as questionable as the conclusion reached.
Abdalla
> And after the story was fabricated and written,
> they called it "Holy" just like they wanted to
> celebrate Purim, some anonymous Jew wrote the
> book of Esther, and called it Holy.
I personally agree that the Torah is a writing that has been slapped
with the title of "Holy" so that certain notions can become acceptable.
However, I feel that all religions, including Islam, do this. Are you
willing to apply a similar type of scathing criticism to Islam? Or would
you object to critics claiming that the Islamic texts were created so
that certain ideas of men could be rendered indisputable? For example,
certain practices that are frowned upon by Westerners, such as Islam's
treatment of women, the rules for apostates, the treatment of idol
worshippers, et cetera, are justified by Muslims by claiming that it is
in their book. "Who are you to question God?"
Abdalla
> We all know that the Jewish Bible contains
> lots of fabrications. I asked you once to tell
> me if you think that the book of Esther
> is from God and you did not answer. Because
> if you said yes, you will be facing serious questions.
On what grounds can you claim that the book of Esther is absolutely not
inspired by God? Have you ever read Jewish commentaries on Esther? On
what grounds can you call the book of Esther a "fabrication"? Even
secular scholars assume that there might be some historic truth to it
(i.e., the idea that there was a Persian who oppressed the Jews, and
then when he died, the Jews celebrated the day of his death as a
victory). One Jewish Rabbi summed up Purim as "they tried to wipe us
out, we survived, let's drink!"
Abdalla
> If God chose the Jews to see him, and made
> them chosen, if this was true, He could have
> given them a special blood type. J or J+ for
> example. But we all know they have blood types
> like the rest of the people.
So, are you saying that the Jews were never a chosen people?
[al-Baqarah 2:47] O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I
favoured you and how *I preferred you to all creatures*. (Pickthall)
I would agree that the Jews were never a chosen people, but I wonder how
you reconcile the ideas put forth in the Qur'an. I think the above
verse, like the vague references to punishments heaped upon the
sabbath-breakers (by the way, what does sabt mean?) is a hint at much of
the Qur'an deriving it's notions from the spurious and tendentious
Jewish folklore.
Abdalla
> I also have one final question. When you talk
> about the manifestation, then is this manifestation
> the reality? In other word, when God manifested
> himself in a form of a man ESPECIALLY for the Jewish
> people, was this manifestation The Reality? If
> God took a form of a big tall man with a white beard,
> does that mean he really looks like that? If not,
> then what's the use of this manifestation if it
> doesn't reveal the reality, or the truth? If the
> manifestation is not the truth itself, then it
> cannot substitute the truth. It's another fantasy
> as you eloquently described it.
For a great answer to this, you should discuss this with a Pantheist or
Hindu (2 types of people many Muslims consider illogical). I've been
debating with a brilliant Pantheist and some equally brilliant Hindus at
the Philosophy club at my University, and I have learned alot, so I'll
try to give a valid answer (which is given under the assumption, for
argument's sake, that God exists). Assuming God exists, and He/She is
infinite, could not all things be a manifestation of God? Shouldn't the
earth be within God, and a manifestation of Him/Her? For example, how
could God be in one place, and the earth in another? If there is a place
where God isn't, that makes God limited (i.e., he is at point X, but not
at point Y). If God is unlimited, He/She must be everywhere at all
times, encompassing all things, and the universe must be within God. How
could it not be? Therefore, aren't all things manifestations of God?
Manifestations of His/Her thoughts? Are not all things within God, and
manifestations of His/Her essence? Isn't all matter and life derived and
flowing from God's essence? Where does God end and matter begin? Does
not the assumption that there is an "end" to God hint at a limitation?
Clearly, as an Atheist, I cannot truly do these kinds of theories true
philosophical justice, but in the realm of Theism, how is one to render
these illogical? I think the amorphous ideas of Pantheism and Hinduism
are brilliant. When Muslims debate Hindus, they resort to criticizing
the idol worship or polytheism, rather than confronting the truly deep
issues of the sprituality, and that's unfortunate.
Please visit these secular criticisms of Islam:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca
http://atheism.about.com/culture/atheism/msub_islam.htm
MyTajMahal
<ali...@city-net.com> writes:
Jameel wrote:
> But the issue of
>>the immutablity of "Allah" had the Qur'anic philosophers (such as Ibn Rushd)
>
>Philosophy of that time-- centuries ago-- is no longer quite relevant
>as they were operating on assumptions and presuppositions that are no
>longer held
Hi Jeremiah, Thanks for the lesson in philosophical history :-) I agree......
but the question still remains concerning the immutability of God and the issue
of creation, love, communication and intelligence.
You seem to suggest that it is not necessary to reconcile (explain) these
issues with an immutable God - why not?
(...)
>Fun, for what its
>worth, but worthless vis a vis the marketplace of ideas. Philosophy is
>now post-Hiedeggarian.....
So has the need to reconcile the issues just disappeared? Or are you suggesting
that pantheism or some other explanation renders the questions obsolete?
Jameel
>>Resorting to the claim that Allah's creation is in constant change does not
>>explain to me how it derives from the "basic tenet of tawheed"...but lets
>>continue...
>Uh, dude, creation being in constant change is not "resorting to a
>claim" its an observable, experiential reality. Is it not?
I agree - I did not reject the notion that creation is in constant change - I
asked how this derives from the basic tenet of "immutable" tawheed. It must be
possible for you to explain the connection as you see it - That is, between
"tawheed" as a concept and creation as we perceive it if our experience is
indeed "real" and not an illusion. Or is this only explained by a form of words
which only sound right?
>>>Tawheedian monotheism posits that each and every moment in creation is
>>>sustained by God.
>>
>>The claim which I made unclearly in my earlier post, for which I apologise,
>>is that this is not valid if "Allah" is immutable and outside time/space.
>
>But see.... here is your major error. In post-Kantian philosophy you
>can't say ANYTHING about what or Who is outside of time-space because
>EVERYTHING you can think about is thought of in terms of time-space! (...)
Firstly I did not mention the issue of "thought". What I suggested is that
your claim above is not valid. You have now given a good reason why it is not
valid. Assuming we know what we are talking about by the concept "Tawheedian
Monotheism" then you cannot really know what it means if you cannot know what
is outside time/space. However "Tawheedian Monotheism" is only a human concept,
a presupposition - what verifies it? Human experience alone?
>We are hard-wired to experience
>through the categories of time-space and cannot step outside of it.
So preprogrammed experience + time + chance <=> (beauty), love, intelligence,
propositional communication?<=> personality? don't think so but I'm interested
to hear the explanation.
>The only way we say what we say about God is by virtue of God's
>self-revelation to us--- not our speculative thoughts and imaginings
>about Someone outside of time-space.
I don't believe that I suggested that all we have is speculative thought and
imaginings - I may have claimed that some others have it :-) But you now move
>from "experience to "God's self revelation to us". Well the discussion has
already been down this road and I asked Fariduddien how he verified this and he
is still thinking about it. How would you describe and verify this "self
revelation"? How would you know? More connotation words?
>This is part of the inordinate speculation on the unseen warned
>against in the Qur'an.
Perfectly explainable and understandable when one looks at what the Qur'anic
religion is.
> >Unless it can be explained then it should be de-"posited" :-)
>
>Oh please! This is so elementary!
Elementary? Go ahead then and explain your presuppositions so that they make
sense. Here we go..
>Explain love.
>
>Explain beauty.
>
>Now, should we de-posit love and beauty? <laughing>
No <smile> You should explain them and show that they do exist as a "reality"
and explain their intrinsic value and where they come from (nowhere?). And
while you explain you can add intelligence and verbalised propositional
communication to the list. (ok I'm playing devils' advocate here - but your
mentioned them so how do you explain these and how they connect with Tawheedian
Monotheism - are these things which God also posess eternally?)
But if, as you claim later, all one has is the freedom to interpret
"experience" and that this is limited to a "yes" or "no" to a "Transcendent
Unity" then I am all ears because How can I be sure I know *love* to be able to
say "yes" or "no"?
Jeremiah
>>>Every leaf that falls, etc. falls because of the
>>>will of, and action by God.
>>
>>Maybe - but some fell today when I used my freewill to kick the hedge - Oh!
>>I forgot I am a preprogrammed automaton :-)
>
>Perhaps. You may want to study up on the free-will issue too. Human
>freedom is very limited. At most, it is only a limited freedom to
>interpret experience. At least it is only the freedom to say an
>existential "yes" or "no" to The Transcendent Unity.
So according to you my kicking the hedge does confirm that I am an automaton
:-) My interpretation of my experience did not convey any intrinsic "love or
beauty" so I just acted on autopilot and destroyed it? If all I have is
"experience" an you claim that God created it personally for each of us - then
we are all automotons - and you are leaping in the dark about God creating it
in the first place.
>>>What this means is that everything I
>>>experience is personally created for me by God.....for the sake of my
>>>guidance and growth... hardly impersonal at all!
>>
>>I am not convinced.
>
>Well, I'm not here to convince you, which would be impossible.
It would not be impossible to agree on what impersonal and personal means :-)
So if someone hit you on the head and turned you into a cabbage then God
created that experience personally for you too? Did God give you a choice who
you might or might not marry or did he create that experience personally for
you?. Did you find something intelligent which another considered nonsense?
Did God create that experience personally for you too? How do you know?
>It is an assumption based on acceptance of revelation taking place. Only God
>can give guidance towards acceptance of those assumptions regarding
>reality.
My goodness this stream of words..... where is the reality in them? But
since, by your own admission, you cannot know "God" you indeed cling to an
assumption based upon a leap of faith - that is unless you can explain your
"experience" of "God's self revelation" and how it may be verified.
>Mantric meditation. Again, I see very little contradiction between the
>Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path with Islam. Do you?
No I see it more in line with a drug induced spiritual experience.
(...)
>> In your opinion is
>>there not more knowledge of what is real in that meditation than in the
>>Qur'anic religion?
>
>No. Because there is no claim for revelation in Buddhism. We claim
>greater knowledge of reality because thing were *revealed* to us by
>The One Who Knows---- God!
No. for a different reason - I believe that it is a revelation of "created
personal self" in the universal scheme of things which even those who do not
believe in God can know - not a revelation of God.
BTW I'm coming to the conclusion that all this "religious" revelation stuff is
bunk. All that the Qur'an or the Bible or another claimed "revelation" can do
at the outset is provide one with foundational presuppositions which one then
has to make an intelligent choice over. But then according to the Qur'anic
religion where did "personality" including "love", "intelligence" and
"propositional communication" come from if there is any reality to them at all
rather than being an illusion?
>And..... God know best about these things, of course.
Don't let go of the autopilot :-)
Jameel
Saabirah
news:8ck05a$37c$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Salaams Sister fellow Artiste!
waAlaikum AsSalaamu Brother Artiste!
>
> On 6 Apr 2000 08:31:54 GMT, "Saabirah" <saab...@stargate.net>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >If you have ever listened to the song "Ayats All Around" (Dr.
> >Jihad and the IMG)
>
> And I go, "Woo Hoo! Whatta plug!" <laughing>
Brother Jeremiah.... it may have been a "plug"... however, I
didn't know how else to make my point without referring to the
song. It is true... there are Ayats all around us which we do
well not to miss. In fact, imho.... just acknowledging that fact
makes those "ayats" even more easy to see. I also did not want
to use the title of the song without mentioning the author....
you know, copyright rules and all..... Aren't we discussing that
somewhere else here?
I might also suggest a subject of controversy.... music.... I
wonder how many Brothers and Sisters have taken the time to
listen to your music.... more ayats, imho. Before we cast stones
and belittle music or consider it "haram" or some other
foolishness... We might do well to recognize the fact that the
Beloved Prophet (Peace and Blessings Upon Him) was pretty busy
fighting social injustice himself.... That is what Dr. Jihad's
music does.... imho.... it brings to our awareness the social
injustices that happen in society.... East and West...
>
> Sadly, this song is no longer online......
Insha'Llah Brother... put "Ayats All Around" back online... I let
our Imam borrow my copy of the cassette and he hasn't returned
it... so, I don't even have it.
> BTW, in case no one knows, Saabirah herself has been producing
the
> most beautiful classic Islamic calligraphy!--
Now *there's* a plug! <laughing>
>
> Some wealthy art lover needs to patronize her for the sake of
Allah!
Insha'Llah Brother.... Insha'Llah...
waSalaam,
Saabirah
Saabirah
> In article <8chi1q$h0d$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "Saabirah"
<saab...@stargate.net>
> writes:
>
> >As I see it... Allah (swt) Transcends *anything* that the
human mind can
> >fully-grasp.
>
> True but I maintiain that God is not personally limited
> and does not "need" to transcend *everything* that we
> can grasp so let's investigate what you wrote.
Resectfully Brother.... Allah (swt) is not "personally-limited"
because Allah (swt) is not a person. The essence of our Creator
and Sustainer Transcends personality.... imho. We however... are
persons.
> >How can a human person really *know*
> >that which is outside of the human experience?
>
> To "know" is not something which is outside
> human experience if God has given us what it
> takes to "know"
Brother... how does one know the love of a mother? I would
submit that one might *know* that because of having experienced
it. One can study about a thing.... read about something....
endeavor to gain as much knowledge as possible in any area....
However, I would submit that true and complete *knowing* is the
result of experience.... and our experience is limited to what
our humanity allows. I will admit that there is a certain amount
of knowing that is truly gift.... For example, I was raised
Christian... I came to know the Truth which is Islam through
searching, questioning, praying but ultimately it came as pure
Gift. That is not to say that I *know* Allah (swt) however, it
is to say that I endeavor to remain steadfast in the belief that
there is One Who Transcends... our Creator... Sustainer... the
Compassionate... the Merciful.... In this One I place my trust...
waAllahu 'Alim.
> The Qur'an does not provide a valid bridge over
> the chasim - it requires a leap of blind faith.
Brother... having been raised Christian I found exactly that
experience was necessary for me.... A giant leap of Faith....
like falling into an abyss... with none to rely upon except for
the One (swt).
>
> (btw I have liked Neil Young since his Buffalo Springfield days
so if
> Jeremiah's **music** is anything like it then it must be ok)
Truly Brother.... Brother Jeremiah's music is compelling,
haunting and beautiful. I've heard some other so-called Islamic
music... it sounded to me like rap and is very militaristic... I
didn't like it at all. I don't know very much about rock music
either because I tend toward the classical... Beethovan, Chopin,
etc. However, I find the music of Dr. Jihad and the IMG has a
very definite and refreshing sound as well as a message to all
who think.... and I might submit that the messages in that music
might also be found in Qur'an and the Sunnah.
>
>
> >.....Firstly, "love" for God is not like the love
> >of one human being for another.... imho.
>
> Interesting that you think God should create in us
> a capacity which He himself has no experience of
> "knowing". Also how do you know you love God
> how do you know what love is?
You are twisting my words.... We are talking about the Author of
everything that exists... Nothing exists except through the Will
of Allah (swt).... As far as knowing that I love God... Brother,
to be completely honest... I can only *hope* that I love,
worship, remain grateful, patient.... sufficiently. I can never
say that I have loved enough... been grateful enough...
worshipped and glorified my Creator and Sustainer enough....
However, I might pray that my capacity to do these is acceptable
.... Insha'Llah.
>
>
> >Our "love" for God must include "worship".
>
> Worship is the same thing as submission. True human
> love is submissive.
I'm sorry Brother.... here we disagree. I submit to none other
than my Lord (swt). With another human being I might endeavor to
be understanding, patient, kind, giving... etc. However, worship
is for Allah Alone.....
> >We discover new "ayats" all the time and they
> > help us to know That Which Cannot be Known....
> > at least not right now.
>
> I don't understand what you mean "help us to know
>...not right now"?
I was alluding to the fact that in Qur'an... each other... all of
creation we may find traces of the Divine because all are
essentially from Him.... However, there is nothing which can
fully encompass God.... We have the actual words of Allah (swt)
in the Qur'an... However, I might submit that even then we can
fall prey to the limitations of our intellect and ability to
discern the messages that we are being given.... waAllahu 'Alim.
> However there must be a God given way in which
> each individual can know and validate for themselves
> what is the truth through "knowing".
I maintain that the greatest "knowing" that we can ever have
comes only through Faith and Hope.
>
>
> What do you mean that human beings are "only peices
> of creation" ?- I disagree with the "only".
Human beings are creatures.... different from the rest of
creation. We have intellect, memory, will and freedom of choice.
A tree is a part of creation... we are not trees. The sky is
part of creation... we are not the sky... etc. Now do you
understand?
>
> >And remain conscious of God,
>
> What is God consciousness?
I might say... when I take a breath and notice that taking of the
breath I say "AlHumduli'Llah for this life!" When I see the sun
rise in the morning or the stars at night I am reminded of the
Creator and Sustainer of all... This is my feeble attempt to
attain to God consciousness.
> >Something is missing in our understanding of the Divine...
> >something that we just cannot grasp....
>
> What is you justification in claiming this? Is it simply that
you have not
> found the way to grasping something which is real, valid or
personal about the
> reality of God? Are you not willing to consider the
possibility?
There is always a limitation to what my intellect allows me to
understand.... it is part of the human condition. If I were to
say that I completely know based upon my intellect then I would,
in effect, be putting limits on my Creator (swt).... We can also
know through Faith... however, I would contend that with Faith
comes a whole lot of hoping.....
>
>
>
> How is this a valid justification for claiming that God is
utterly "unknowable"
> personally?
For goodness sakes! Allah (swt) is not a person. I might
suggest that you read a book written by Shaykh Kabbani.... Aqida.
"Beliefs" One of the greatest heresies that Shaykh Kabanni
addresses is anthropomorphism.... And, I might suggest that
unless we "humanize" a god (as do the Christians) then we can
never fully know Him.
>
> >however, there is something
> >which we will never be able to grasp
> >during this life....
>
> Why? Simply because you want to "spiritualise"
> the ideas you got from observing colours?
Thank you! You just made my point for me! My little attempt at
understanding something about a Divine Truth was only that.... an
attempt to see with my intellect something which I truly cannot
know.... although I can feel that there is something there....
like a hint... a trace.
[snip]
> I can understand your conclusion but I thank God that
> He does reveal Himself personally to those who seek Him in
truth.
Insha'Llah....
waAllahu 'Alim,
Saabirah
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>
>Hi Jeremiah, Thanks for the lesson in philosophical history :-) I agree......
>but the question still remains concerning the immutability of God and the issue
>of creation, love, communication and intelligence.
>
>You seem to suggest that it is not necessary to reconcile (explain) these
>issues with an immutable God - why not?
Because we can't.... at least not to the level of explanation and
understanding that we get from the natural sciences. That is the
assumption underlying these questions: that we can have, or somehow
*must* have and explanation/understanding that is patterned after
sciences such as chemistry, math, biology, etc. That would be an
incorrect assumption.
We enter the realm of art! We gain understanding and explanation of
the things that transcend us through the arts, not so much the
sciences, and certainly not through the natural sciences. Where the
natural scientist leaves off, the poet and the painter pick up.....
(and it would be a HUGE mistake to say that art does not tell us about
reality, and particularly aspects of reality that science cannot.....
i.e. beauty and love are good examples)
For people in the Abrahamic traditions, such as we Muslims, one must
also add in revelation as a means to learn about such things.
Understanding and explanation has come from the Deity him/her/itself.
Whether or not to accept revelation as a reality, or at least as a
possiblity is a faith choice-- as is not accepting it as reality or at
least a possiblity.
>>Fun, for what its
>>worth, but worthless vis a vis the marketplace of ideas. Philosophy is
>>now post-Hiedeggarian.....
>
>So has the need to reconcile the issues just disappeared? Or are you suggesting
>that pantheism or some other explanation renders the questions obsolete?
No. The need to know, to understand is always there in the human it
seems to me. Awareness of the transcendent, or The Transcendent is
also inherent in the human experience of reality. Really, when it
comes down to it, the proper response to that which, or Who,
transcends us is not "question" so much as it is "awe".
>>Uh, dude, creation being in constant change is not "resorting to a
>>claim" its an observable, experiential reality. Is it not?
>
>I agree - I did not reject the notion that creation is in constant change - I
>asked how this derives from the basic tenet of "immutable" tawheed. It must be
>possible for you to explain the connection as you see it - That is, between
>"tawheed" as a concept and creation as we perceive it if our experience is
>indeed "real" and not an illusion. Or is this only explained by a form of words
>which only sound right?
Well, to my best understanding, tawheed speaks of unity. A terrific
book on this is "Al-Tawhid: Its Implications for Life and Thought" by
Ismail Faruqi.
Tawheed is a world view that makes a statement regarding both The
Transcendent, and the mundane, and the relation between the two.
Regarding The Transcendent it says "God is One". Regarding the mundane
it says "the parts fit together into a consonant whole"-- even though
we may be experiencing the mundane as dissonant-- parts not fitting
together. Regarding the relation between the two, it is again a
statement of consonance.
To my best understanding, of course. ;-)
>>But see.... here is your major error. In post-Kantian philosophy you
>>can't say ANYTHING about what or Who is outside of time-space because
>>EVERYTHING you can think about is thought of in terms of time-space! (...)
>
>Firstly I did not mention the issue of "thought". What I suggested is that
>your claim above is not valid. You have now given a good reason why it is not
>valid. Assuming we know what we are talking about by the concept "Tawheedian
>Monotheism" then you cannot really know what it means if you cannot know what
>is outside time/space. However "Tawheedian Monotheism" is only a human concept,
>a presupposition - what verifies it? Human experience alone?
No. *Revelation* verifies it! The major presupposition/assumption of
all three Abrahamic traditions regarding reality is that revelation
happened. That is, the unknowable transcendint *itself* communicated
to us what it "is"--- in this case, that it is a Who, and that it is
personal and benevolent: God. For Muslims, it also communicates a
personal name: Allah.
>>We are hard-wired to experience
>>through the categories of time-space and cannot step outside of it.
>
>So preprogrammed experience + time + chance <=> (beauty), love, intelligence,
>propositional communication?<=> personality? don't think so but I'm interested
>to hear the explanation.
Well, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. And,
perhaps I left off too..... there *are* accounts by people all through
time of having been taken out of time-space, i.e. "seeing God" having
"union with God" and other such talk.
>>The only way we say what we say about God is by virtue of God's
>>self-revelation to us--- not our speculative thoughts and imaginings
>>about Someone outside of time-space.
>
>I don't believe that I suggested that all we have is speculative thought and
>imaginings - I may have claimed that some others have it :-) But you now move
>>from "experience to "God's self revelation to us". Well the discussion has
>already been down this road and I asked Fariduddien how he verified this and he
>is still thinking about it. How would you describe and verify this "self
>revelation"? How would you know? More connotation words?
Well, the actual verification comes after death! However, even during
life there are the writings of saints and holy people who talk of some
*other* experience.... again, "seeing God" "union with God" and that
kind of talk.
One aspect of the religious life is that you begin to..... not see
different things, but see things differently.... this change in
perspective become a verification for faith.
Again, when you think "verify" in this realm you can't be thinking in
terms of the type of verification given by the natural sciences. You
have to think in terms of art. I mean, how do you verify love or
beauty? When you can answer that you can answer how faith is verified!
>Elementary? Go ahead then and explain your presuppositions so that they make
>sense. Here we go..
>
>
>
>>Explain love.
>>
>>Explain beauty.
>>
>>Now, should we de-posit love and beauty? <laughing>
>
>No <smile> You should explain them and show that they do exist as a "reality"
>and explain their intrinsic value and where they come from (nowhere?).
No. YOU should explain them and show they do exist as a reality! That
is your question. Not mine.
I'll point you towards poets and painters and musicians and other
artists.
Will you accept their testimony regarding reality?
Then you will be on your way towards understanding religious language!
>But if, as you claim later, all one has is the freedom to interpret
>"experience" and that this is limited to a "yes" or "no" to a "Transcendent
>Unity" then I am all ears because How can I be sure I know *love* to be able to
>say "yes" or "no"?
The perennial human question, bud!
You know love by..... loving... and being loved.
Y'know, in the Abrahamic traditions, it is not *we* who find God, God
first finds us. It is not *we* who first love God. God first loves us.
We don't initiate the action. God does.
So, you say you want to know? Ask God! That is, start praying for it,
with sincerity and intensity. But then, remember what they say: be
careful for what you pray for, you just might get it. And then you'll
have to change.....
>So according to you my kicking the hedge does confirm that I am an automaton
>:-)
<laughing> Does your heart beating mean you are an automaton?
>My interpretation of my experience did not convey any intrinsic "love or
>beauty" so I just acted on autopilot and destroyed it? If all I have is
>"experience" an you claim that God created it personally for each of us - then
>we are all automotons - and you are leaping in the dark about God creating it
>in the first place.
Faith is often described as a leap. Maybe you'll take that leap! But,
if you really take it, be warned: it can be scary.
You forget: I did not deny human freedom. So no, we are not
automatons.
>>Well, I'm not here to convince you, which would be impossible.
>
>It would not be impossible to agree on what impersonal and personal means :-)
Agreeing and convincing are two different things.
>So if someone hit you on the head and turned you into a cabbage then God
>created that experience personally for you too? Did God give you a choice who
>you might or might not marry or did he create that experience personally for
>you?. Did you find something intelligent which another considered nonsense?
>Did God create that experience personally for you too? How do you know?
We're right back at the beginning: knowing, understanding, verifying.
>>It is an assumption based on acceptance of revelation taking place. Only God
>>can give guidance towards acceptance of those assumptions regarding
>>reality.
>
>My goodness this stream of words..... where is the reality in them?
The reality is in people's lives. In there accounts. In their bearing
witness to it! <laughing>
Right? "We BEAR WITNESS..... there is no god but God and Muhammad is
the messenger of God."
Now you're just moving into the obtuse!
>>Mantric meditation. Again, I see very little contradiction between the
>>Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path with Islam. Do you?
>
>No I see it more in line with a drug induced spiritual experience.
Oh please.
>BTW I'm coming to the conclusion that all this "religious" revelation stuff is
>bunk.
That would be a denial of faith, and your entering pure kufr. That
would be to bad. I warn you of dire consequences for choosing such a
conclusion.
>All that the Qur'an or the Bible or another claimed "revelation" can do
>at the outset is provide one with foundational presuppositions which one then
>has to make an intelligent choice over.
I would agree with that. That's all I did years and years ago. I made
a choice *for* the transcendent being a Who--- the God of Abraham.
NOW.... finally.... after long years, sometimes rather torturous
years, I'm getting my verification.... in the form of the Qur'an, in
the person of Muhammad, in the experience of 'Umrah, and in a
relationship to a holy person......
Abdalla Alothman
FT left the Big Bang and that motionless sun of his hanging there on
ARI, and came in here in the middle of a discussion between to people
who believe in God. It's so funny when FT gets refuted, he just runs
away, and looks for another argument. That's a good sign which tells
us that he works hard rather than giving up.
> Free Thought wrote:
> what lines can we decide what is logical and illogical within the realm
> of Theism?
First, FT categorizes Islam under theism. Islam does not fit the
materialist's definition of theism, and it doesn't fit their
definition of religion as well.
Their definition of theism is based on blind belief, especially
that which comes from the dominant religion of their society
(i.e., there was a man one upon a time called Jesus and he was
the son of God and God himself). And their definition of religion
is narrow. In Islam worship is part of our religion, just like their
definitions state. But, hard work is worship, removing a piece of
glass or a dead cat from the highway is an application of faith in
Islamic terminology, and that's outside of their definitions.
Similarly, to the Muslim FT is a Theist as well. In their definitions,
Theism means believing in a god or many gods. So, if FT believes that
Mother Nature made it all, or Chance Most Holy turned his ancestors
from apes to humans, he actually has a god according to the Islamic
point of view, and this god is his whims. I've showed FT the verses
which say:
25:43. Have you (O Muhammad SAW) seen him who has taken as his ilah
(god) his own desire? Would you then be a Wakeel (a disposer of his
affairs or a watcher) over him?
25:44. Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They
are only like cattle; nay, they are even farther astray from the
Path. (i.e. even worst than cattle).
So FT has a god, and this god is in his whims, or whatever source
that energizes his whims, like Chance Most Holy.
If FT wants to share his thoughts about Islam, it would be better if
he used the language of Islam, or else, we would be communicating in
two different languages, and that leads to a dead end. He has to
talk our language, we don't have to talk his language. After all,
it's he who is trying to propagate his ideas along with himself.
> However, if you take that route, there's no point in discussing
> logical aspects of theism at all,
If so, what is the alternative? Believing in Chance Most Holy?
Talk about that god, and tell me why is he better than God.
Convince me by giving me an alternative. Don't just follow
Taj's logic by telling me that I should leave Islam because
he talks to the holy spirit.
When people talk about a certain topic, and you would like to
intrude, please make sure that your intervention doesn't turn
the discussion upside down. If you can't wait to say what you have,
start a new thread, and invite those whom you would like to talk
to.
I wish that FT can talk a little bit about his god, Chance Most Holy,
and address the points which I raised about that god of his. Tell me
how long do we have to wait for the next monkey to be transformed to
a human being, and tell me how much I have to wait for Chance Most
Holy to light a match. Talk about your beliefs, how did the universe
came to be, how come you believe in the Big Bang, but you don't believe
in cause and effect?
So please start with talking about your beliefs, before criticizing
my beliefs.
Salam,
Abdalla.
--
__________________________________________________________
|Abdalla Alothman mailto:ada...@blueskyweb.com |
Saabirah
Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:seujd1...@corp.supernews.com...
> On 8 Apr 2000 03:35:32 GMT, mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal)
wrote:
I've only got one little piece to add to all of this.... I
stumbled across it... :-/
[snip]
MyTajMahal:
> >Assuming we know what we are talking about by the concept
"Tawheedian
> >Monotheism" then you cannot really know what it means if you
cannot know what
> >is outside time/space. However "Tawheedian Monotheism" is only
a human concept,
> >a presupposition - what verifies it? Human experience alone?
>
>
Jeremiah:
> No. *Revelation* verifies it! The major
presupposition/assumption of
> all three Abrahamic traditions regarding reality is that
revelation
> happened. That is, the unknowable transcendint *itself*
communicated
> to us what it "is"--- in this case, that it is a Who, and that
it is
> personal and benevolent: God. For Muslims, it also communicates
a
> personal name: Allah.
Masha'Allah! I just *love* the Qur'an!
Surah Al-Anbiya' Ayat 112:
Say: "Oh my Sustainer! Judge Thou in truth! -- and say: "Our
Sustainer is the Most Gracious, the One whose aid is ever to be
sought against all of your [attempts at] defining Him!"
Now... I happened to be reading that ayat and then I read
Muhammad Asad's note in reference to the ayat and commentary on
the useage of the word "against" ('ala):
Lit.; "against" ('ala) all that you attribute [to Him] by way of
"description" or "of definition" implying that only God's grace
can save man from the blasphemous attempts -- promoted by his
inherent weakness -- to bring God "closer" to his own, human
understanding by means of humanly-conceived "definitions" of Him
Who is Transcendent, infinite and unfathomable...
So Brother Jeremiah.... it looks like when you say that
Revelation verifies for us That Which is outside of the human
intellect or "knowing" you're, in a way, pointing to what the
ayat is telling us.
Now... I'm finished... carry on. :-)
waSalaam,
Saabirah
Free Thought
Abdalla Alothman <ada...@blueskyweb.com> wrote:
>
> FT left the Big Bang and that motionless sun of
> his hanging there on ARI, and came in here in
> the middle of a discussion between to people
> who believe in God. It's so funny when FT gets
> refuted, he just runs away, and looks for
> another argument.
What? I never left that argument. Somehow I missed your reply. I
apologize. Last I had seen, you snipped everything of mine, and erected
a straw man. I found your post today, and responded:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=608496090
I didn't run from anything. You have refuted nothing in that thread.
Rather the whole discussion has just moved further and further away from
the original topic. It was originally about the possibility that the
Qur'an discusses the Big Bang, but now it's about Chi power and the
Khazars.
Free Thought
> > what lines can we decide what is logical and
> > illogical within the realm of Theism?
Abdalla
> First, FT categorizes Islam under theism. Islam
> does not fit the materialist's definition of theism,
> and it doesn't fit their definition of religion as well.
Despite your attempt to erect a straw man, the definition of theism is
belief in God, which usually is belief in something that just cannot be
understood whatsoever the more you discuss it.
Abdalla
> Their definition of theism is based on
> blind belief,
Well, I would say that yes, Theists accept their respective religion on
blind faith rather than evidence. You have yet to prove God exists.
Could you show some evidence? Or do you accept your faith blindly?
You went on to mention removing glass or a cat from the street. That's
considered a good deed by all people, Christians do it as well, as do
Atheists. It has to do with the person, not the ideology.
Abdalla
> Similarly, to the Muslim FT is a Theist as well.
> In their definitions, Theism means believing in
> a god or many gods. So, if FT believes that
> Mother Nature made it all,
You're starting to erect a straw man here. I don't think "Mother Nature"
made anything. I don't believe things are "made" or "created." I think
things come about naturally, they happen, but they are not "made".
You're attempting to alter what I believe so you can attack it easier.
Abdalla
> So FT has a god, and this god is in his whims, or
> whatever source that energizes his whims, like
> Chance Most Holy.
"Chance Most Holy" is your concoction. I never claimed such a thing. Are
you attempting to refute what I believe, or are you attempting to come
up with something that has nothing to do with me, and refute that?
Free Thought
> > However, if you take that route, there's no point
> > in discussing logical aspects of theism at all,
Abdalla
> If so, what is the alternative? Believing in
> Chance Most Holy?
Here we go again. You snipped a piece of my writing, and totally removed
the context so you could attack it easier. What do you seek to
accomplish in doing this? I never made any comment about "Chance Most
Holy." Let's recap what originally took place. You originally said:
"Also, if God allows himself to take forms, then there would be no need
to send messengers and prophets."
To this, I wanted to ask on what grounds do we decide what is logical
and illogical in theism, and stated:
"Is this the only logical conclusion? On what grounds can you make such
a statement? Could we not also argue that an all-knowing being would not
have to send prophets at all? Could he not just send his message once,
in an incorruptible form? Why would he send people to speak on his
behalf? Isn't it strange that when God decides to send his messages, he
decides to only speak to one man, rather than the whole population?
Isn't that a method that could easily be falsified? Why does God only
choose to communicate by means that could easily be falsified, such as
putting it in writing, or revealing it to only one man, and let him do
the talking? Now your response may be along the lines of 'who are you to
question God's plan.' However, if you take that route, there's no point
in discussing logical aspects of theism at all, as a Christian could
just refute your every statement with 'who are you to criticize God?'"
So, for you to start changing the subject to something incoherent, like
"Chance Most Holy," you are doing nothing more than casting out a red
herring, and erecting a straw man.
Abdalla
> Talk about that god, and tell me why
> is he better than God.
It doesn't matter which letters you capitalize, you still have not
proven he/she/it exists. However, that was not the point of the thread.
You were trying to show what is logical and illogical, and I was merely
asking on what grounds do you come to these conclusions.
Abdalla
> Don't just follow Taj's logic by telling me that
> I should leave Islam because he talks to the holy spirit.
It has been a strange habit of yours to hit me with what would be a
standard reply to a Christian. What makes you assume that I would say
something about the Holy Spirit?
> When people talk about a certain topic, and
> you would like to intrude, please make sure
> that your intervention doesn't turn the
> discussion upside down.
Where I stepped in was where you were trying to tell Taj what is logical
in the realm of Theism. I was more than willing to discuss this with
you. I made no attempt to turn the discussion upside down. It was you
who came forth with incoherent things such as "Chance Most Holy."
Abdalla
> So please start with talking about your
> beliefs, before criticizing my beliefs.
My belief is that we should not accept something without proof, which is
why I don't accept your faith, or Taj's faith, or Hinduism, et cetera.
You clearly don't understand the concept of chance, which is why you
attempted to render it "chance most holy." You were the one who was
trying to tell Taj what is logical and what is not. I merely used
several analogies to go along with the following query: On what grounds
do we decide what is logical, and what is not, in the realm of Theism?
Jeremiah McAuliffe
wrote:
>So Brother Jeremiah.... it looks like when you say that
>Revelation verifies for us That Which is outside of the human
>intellect or "knowing" you're, in a way, pointing to what the
>ayat is telling us.
Right you are, Sister Sabbirah!
However, as strange as it might seem to you or me, while some might
not listen to or pay attention to God's own words, they might listen
to one of us saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
Saabirah
Salaamu Alaikum Brother Jeremiah,
> However, as strange as it might seem to you or me,
> while some might not listen to or pay attention to
> God's own words, they might listen to one of us
> saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
Insha'Llah they *might*....
However, perhaps the problem lies in people getting so accustomed
to "hearing" only the words of other human beings that they have
"forgotten" that what they must "hear" and be *reminded of* is
God's words.... God's Revelation to all of humankind. And, even
at that... we have the others who just *won't* hear or see the
example of the most perfect human being... the Beloved Prophet
(pbuh) ... They create their own "prophets" who interpret God's
words for them... and they follow like sheep who cannot think.
I don't know Jeremiah.... Right on one of the very first pages in
my Qur'an... even before al-Fatiha... is written, "For people who
think..." So... what happened?!
waSalaams,
Saabirah
MyTajMahal
In article <seujd1...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremiah McAuliffe
<ali...@city-net.com> writes:
>No. YOU should explain them and show they do exist as a reality! That
>is your question. Not mine.
That's ok - my questions are meant to encourage responses :-) They do not
necessarily mean that I don't have an answer. But I didn't want this
discussion to become confrontational so I tried to keep to "one side" of the
line.. You know in a confrontational discussion it is pretty hard to get a
good opinion (no names mentioned :-)
>I'll point you towards poets and painters and musicians and other
>artists.
>
>Will you accept their testimony regarding reality?
Of course - absolutely - reality or death. Death?....yes because when real
communication is lost there only remains death. But what I hold to in the
areas of communication, love and intelligence are based upon presuppositions
which I and others I accept as being rational. I have no need to take a "leap
of faith" (or blindness) or seek an "existential experience". I do not believe
that FreeThought (Denis) needs to take a leap of faith to "know" God either.
>Then you will be on your way towards understanding religious language!
No.. "Religious language" comes from ones' need to advance the case for
"revelation", the Qur'an (holy writ) or Abrahamic traditions. I don't accept
that. For example: When a mother asks her son, who has returned from many
months pilgrimage in the Mountains spending time in meditation and learing from
the Gurus, "Did you meet with God?" - I believe her question is valid and it
requires no Abrahamic tradition, Qur'an or "revelation" to be valid. If God is
real and exists then He requires none of these to validate Himself in the human
personality.
So thanks for the discussion - But don't patronise me over your books and
bibliography - God does not need writers and accademic intellectuals in their
"western ivory towers" - and He knows how many I have read over the years -
Glory be to Him..
Thanks Jeremiah
Jameel
MyTajMahal
writes:
>> True but I maintiain that God is not personally limited
>> and does not "need" to transcend *everything* that we
>> can grasp so let's investigate what you wrote.
>
>Resectfully Brother.... Allah (swt) is not "personally-limited"
>because Allah (swt) is not a person. The essence of our Creator
>and Sustainer Transcends personality.... imho. We however... are
>persons.
Thanks for your reply. I don't want to argue with you honestly :-)
Yes God is not a "person" but nontheless I maintain that He can posess infinite
personality. Personality need not be limited. Our personality is limited
because we are finite. Personality does not come from nothing. No school of
philosophy that I have seen has explained this unless you accept some Sufi
scholars who seem to suggest that God created finite personality (they
strangely claim it to be intelligence, Communication, Hate - or Anger ).
Either everything had a personal beginning (as Jeremiah suggested) because
what results from experience + time + chance is not personal but impersonal.
>> >How can a human person really *know*
>> >that which is outside of the human experience?
>>
>> To "know" is not something which is outside
>> human experience if God has given us what it
>> takes to "know"
>
>Brother... how does one know the love of a mother? I would
>submit that one might *know* that because of having experienced
>it.
No. Even children who have not known love know what it is. Everyone in the
world knows it no matter what their experience. This is a foundational element
in God given personality. We recognise God's love because it is the missing
pages which makes the book complete. We may still not know all that the book
reveals but we know that we have found the whole story. The light glimmers.
>One can study about a thing.... read about something....
>endeavor to gain as much knowledge as possible in any area....
>However, I would submit that true and complete *knowing* is the
>result of experience.... and our experience is limited to what
>our humanity allows.
Jeremiah claimed that "....everything I experience is personally created for me
by God.....for the sake of my guidance and growth... hardly impersonal at all!"
While this is nearer to my position my presupposition is that God created me
to have the foundational elements of personality which he posesses infititely
and eternally. Intelligence, love and communication. He has given every
living person these as a means to *know* Him.
>I will admit that there is a certain amount
>of knowing that is truly gift.... For example, I was raised
>Christian... I came to know the Truth which is Islam through
>searching, questioning, praying but ultimately it came as pure
>Gift.
I think this is another way of saying that what you believed you could not
rationalise. You admit that it was a leap of faith.
>That is not to say that I *know* Allah (swt) however, it
>is to say that I endeavor to remain steadfast in the belief that
>there is One Who Transcends... our Creator... Sustainer... the
>Compassionate... the Merciful.... In this One I place my trust...
>waAllahu 'Alim.
I know you could maybe care less but this will hardly impress the atheists....
>> The Qur'an does not provide a valid bridge over
>> the chasim - it requires a leap of blind faith.
>
>Brother... having been raised Christian I found exactly that
>experience was necessary for me.... A giant leap of Faith....
>like falling into an abyss... with none to rely upon except for
>the One (swt).
Well as I have replied to Jeremiah my presuppositions lead me to believe that a
leap of faith is not necessary. God is a rational and intelligent being and He
made me that way too.
(....)
>> >.....Firstly, "love" for God is not like the love
>> >of one human being for another.... imho.
>>
>> Interesting that you think God should create in us
>> a capacity which He himself has no experience of
>> "knowing". Also how do you know you love God
>> how do you know what love is?
>
>You are twisting my words.... We are talking about the Author of
>everything that exists... Nothing exists except through the Will
>of Allah (swt).... As far as knowing that I love God... Brother,
>to be completely honest... I can only *hope* that I love,
>worship, remain grateful, patient.... sufficiently.
Sorry I did not mean to twist words - I was only trying to see the conclusion.
No "hope" is not enough for me. I needed to know for sure that God was really
there in a knowable way. Hope must be supported by substance.
>I can never
>say that I have loved enough... been grateful enough...
>worshipped and glorified my Creator and Sustainer enough....
>However, I might pray that my capacity to do these is acceptable
>.... Insha'Llah.
Well I respect you for this - but that does not mean I accept what what you
claim is true in that you really know that what you claim is true. (no offense
at all I hope)
>> >Our "love" for God must include "worship".
>>
>> Worship is the same thing as submission. True human
>> love is submissive.
>
>I'm sorry Brother.... here we disagree. I submit to none other
>than my Lord (swt). With another human being I might endeavor to
>be understanding, patient, kind, giving... etc. However, worship
>is for Allah Alone.....
Disagree as you wish. but my presupposition leads me to claim that there is
only one love expressed in different ways. There is only one God who is the
author of love. That love is what we have within us as part of our God given
personality.
>> >We discover new "ayats" all the time and they
>> > help us to know That Which Cannot be Known....
>> > at least not right now.
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean "help us to know
>>...not right now"?
>
>I was alluding to the fact that in Qur'an... each other... all of
>creation we may find traces of the Divine because all are
>essentially from Him....
Yes but I have explain it in terms of God given personality and although your
words sound fine how are they explained? You know we can use words to convey
any idea we wish and claiming that God creates us can be explained in many
different ways. Claiming that "we may find traces of the divine" has no
meaning to anyone who does not accept your connotations.
> However, there is nothing which can
>fully encompass God.... We have the actual words of Allah (swt)
>in the Qur'an...
So this is your claim.... But the other half of the world hasn't heard of the
Qur'an (or the Bible either for that matter) so this is not an appropriate
issue.
>However, I might submit that even then we can
>fall prey to the limitations of our intellect and ability to
>discern the messages that we are being given.... waAllahu 'Alim.
Despite the Qur'an? :-) (sorry :-(
>> However there must be a God given way in which
>> each individual can know and validate for themselves
>> what is the truth through "knowing".
>
>I maintain that the greatest "knowing" that we can ever have
>comes only through Faith and Hope.
But faith and hope are only built upon presuppositions. You have yours, I have
mine and FreeThought has his. I urge you to go beyond that and seek reality
where it is to be found.
>> What do you mean that human beings are "only peices
>> of creation" ?- I disagree with the "only".
>
>Human beings are creatures.... different from the rest of
>creation. We have intellect, memory, will and freedom of choice.
>A tree is a part of creation... we are not trees. The sky is
>part of creation... we are not the sky... etc. Now do you
>understand?
Not really - I have heard Muslims claim that ants, birds and animals (even
inaminate things) are God conscious and that they posess all the elements of
consciousness which humans also posess. It is just that humans are no
conscious of it. (You may not have read some discussion on Solomon and the
talking ants and birds)
My presupposition is that Humans posess real but finite personality which makes
them unique.
>> >And remain conscious of God,
>>
>> What is God consciousness?
>
>I might say... when I take a breath and notice that taking of the
>breath I say "AlHumduli'Llah for this life!" When I see the sun
>rise in the morning or the stars at night I am reminded of the
>Creator and Sustainer of all... This is my feeble attempt to
>attain to God consciousness.
So everyone can do that including Hindus etc - in fact all theists - No Qur'an
or "prophets" needed...... To me it is more than that that - it is knowing the
real true God who is "there". To be conscious of Him is to know Him.
(...)
>There is always a limitation to what my intellect allows me to
>understand.... it is part of the human condition. If I were to
>say that I completely know based upon my intellect then I would,
>in effect, be putting limits on my Creator (swt).... We can also
>know through Faith... however, I would contend that with Faith
>comes a whole lot of hoping.....
To know does not mean to know completely - it is a light. Once the light
shines - then more shines and then more. But the light must first shine. That
is "knowing".
>> How is this a valid justification for claiming that God is utterly
"unknowable"
>> personally?
>
>For goodness sakes! Allah (swt) is not a person.
Yes but you are a person. That is how He made you. Your personality did not
come from nothing. God did not give you something that He does not possess
too.
> I might
>suggest that you read a book written by Shaykh Kabbani.... Aqida.
>"Beliefs" One of the greatest heresies that Shaykh Kabanni
>addresses is anthropomorphism....
Yes but personality does not = anthropomorphism... Personality means things
such as intelligence, love and propositional communication which Humans posess.
And whether you like me saying it or not God possesses them too because they
did not come from nothing. (or one might try to claim that they are "created")
But if you have any webarticles in which intelligent Qur'anic scholars discuss
personality then I am interested to read them.
>And, I might suggest that
>unless we "humanize" a god (as do the Christians) then we can
>never fully know Him.
No need ofor the idea of "humanising" God - It is the other way round. We come
to know Him more as we become more like Him - as our lives are transformed to
reflect His Glory. But look at how Jeremiah expresses it and there is much
Qur'anic support for what he claims.
>> >however, there is something
>> >which we will never be able to grasp
>> >during this life....
>>
>> Why? Simply because you want to "spiritualise"
>> the ideas you got from observing colours?
>
>Thank you! You just made my point for me! My little attempt at
>understanding something about a Divine Truth was only that.... an
>attempt to see with my intellect something which I truly cannot
>know.... although I can feel that there is something there....
>like a hint... a trace.
Well.... I believe that you *can* know..
Thanks Saabirah
Jameel
Saabirah
Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:seujd1...@corp.supernews.com...
> On 8 Apr 2000 03:35:32 GMT, mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal)
wrote:
>
>
Jeremiah:
>
> The need to know, to understand is always there
> in the human it seems to me. Awareness of the
> transcendent, or The Transcendent is also inherent
> in the human experience of reality. Really, when it
> comes down to it, the proper response to that
> which, or Who, transcends us is not "question"
> so much as it is "awe".
[whole lot of snips]
>
>
> I'll point you towards poets and painters and
> musicians and other artists.
And I am left with the feeling that we remain much like
"sponges"... functional... here/there... but, we are left
"thirsting"... Thirsting for what truly gives us "life"... the
Divine rain which fills us and softens our brittle selves. We
read the Qur'an and I ask... "What do we "hear"? Do we
hear/experience that gentle torrential "rain" which gives meaning
and substance to our lives... or do we "read" when we truly do
not know how to read and comprehend what is being told?
I wonder about what the first 5 verses of Revelation (al-'Alaq)
in Qur'an *really* are saying.... "Iqra! Bismi Rabbaka alladhiya
khalaqa!" (sp ?) ... "translated" to mean "Read! In the Name of
your Sustainer who has created you." We know the story... the
words of Jibril to Muhammad (pbuh).. We find that Muhammad (pbuh)
answered that he could not read... So what then? "Iqra!" again
and again...
What does this mean? Is the "Iqra" spoken only to Muhammad
(pbuh) or do we find shades of meaning there? So... what does
commentary on the ayat say and perhaps shed some light on the
meaning locked therein? Well... Asad writes:
"Sc., "this divine writ". The imperative "iqra" may be rendered
as "read" or "recite". The former rendering is, to my mind, by
far the preferable in this context inasmuch as the concept of
"reciting" implies no more than the oral delivery -- with or
without understanding - of something already laid down in writing
or committed to memory, whereas "reading" primarily signifies a
conscious taking-in, with or without an audible utterance but
with a view to *understanding* them, of words and ideas received
from an outside source: in this case, the message of the Qur'an."
So..... what's happening here? Obviously, the Beloved Prophet
(pbuh) was being commanded to do something... move his experience
of reality to a "place" that he knew not in order to be given
Divine Truth ... What does it say to us? Well... we're all
sitting here in front of a computer's monitor reading.... but,
imho... a greater implication of "Iqra" might be, as Asad has
pointed out, that we must not only read but *comprehend*... soak
it in.... understand how Qur'an affects and ultimately changes
our lives and our very selves. Listening to words parroted is
not enough. Memorizing the words is not enough... As Asad says
and I agree... there must be a "conscious taking-in"....
So.. again! What does that mean for us? I don't know! Seems to
me that the only response has to be to remain like "good little
sponges"... brittle if devoid of that which fills us and
nourishes us and calls us to *be* what we are created to *be*.
imho... that takes an attitude of constant "absorption" of that
gentle/fierce torrent... Divine Revelation and That Which
Transcends ...
I don't know but it seems to me that "someone" else didn't know
either... but, AlHumduli'Llah Muhammad (God Love Him!) ventured
past that "unknowing" AND I might submit that although we cannot
fully know neither can we remain complacent... satisfied with
that which we *do* know...
Geez... such just wouldn't be a healthy response for a "good
little sponge"... imho, of course. :-)
waAllahu 'Alim.........
Saabirah
Saabirah
Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:seujd1...@corp.supernews.com...
> On 8 Apr 2000 03:35:32 GMT, mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal)
wrote:
>
>
Jeremiah:
>
> The need to know, to understand is always there
> in the human it seems to me. Awareness of the
> transcendent, or The Transcendent is also inherent
> in the human experience of reality. Really, when it
> comes down to it, the proper response to that
> which, or Who, transcends us is not "question"
> so much as it is "awe".
[whole lot of snips]
>
>
> I'll point you towards poets and painters and
> musicians and other artists.
And I am left with the feeling that we remain much like
Free Thought
Abdalla Alothman <ada...@blueskyweb.com> wrote:
>...
Greetings. I just wanted to offer one more tidbit to all this.
> Believing in Chance Most Holy? Talk about that
> god, and tell me why is he better than God.
Of course Abdalla, as I said in another post, has erected a strawman
here, by insinuating that I worship a deity named "Chance Most Holy."
However, I wanted to point something out, in regards to the possibility
of an all-powerful being existing. I would say that the law of
impossibility of Positive Atheist negates the possibility that an all
powerful deity exists. This is important, as Abdalla has repeatedly
asked questions along the lines of "Who set the laws of the universe in
motion?"
I would say that the laws of the universe are a given fact, like 1+1=2,
and do not require Allah to set them into motion. Let's apply the law of
impossibility, which states that no being, no matter who are what it is,
can carry out what is impossible. For example, can Allah create a four
sided triangle? I've asked this question before, and I am not the first.
Greek Philosophers asked this question many centuries ago. Some Muslims
get upset by this question, or feel it is just plain stupid, but there
is a point to it.
Can Allah create a four sided triangle? Of course not, that's
impossible, thus we have found one thing Allah cannot do. If I were to
say that what Allah can do is limited, and therefore He Himself is
limited, Muslims would demand proof. Well, I have shown the limit to
what He can allegedly do by pointing to something He cannot create. This
is a limit placed on what He can allegedly do, and I would ask (since
Theists feel the need to ask these questions about finite objects) who
placed that limit on Allah?
Another question would be, can Allah make 1+1=3? I mean, if there is a
one stone, and Allah places one more stone next to it, could he come up
with three stones? Could he do so without cheating, i.e. could Allah put
one stone next to another stone, and end up with three stones without
breaking any of them into pieces, or creating new stones? Or is 1+1=2 a
universal law that even deities are subject to?
This little exercise was meant to show that there are certain laws that
are simply universal, and given, such as "1+1=2." This truth does not
require a creator or a law giver. It is simply a universal truth, thus
proving that such things can exist without having their origin within an
all-powerful being. Furthermore, if there is a limit to what a being can
do, then that being is *NOT* all-powerful. A being cannot do anything
and everything, if you have to say "my deity can do anything,
*EXCEPT*..."
Thus, to answer Abdalla, there is no need for any deity called "Chance
Most Holy." To believe in a universe without conscious design does not
render "chance" the deity of the adherent of that belief.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
wrote:
>In article <seujd1...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremiah McAuliffe
><ali...@city-net.com> writes:
>
>>No. YOU should explain them and show they do exist as a reality! That
>>is your question. Not mine.
>
>That's ok - my questions are meant to encourage responses :-) They do not
>necessarily mean that I don't have an answer.
Well then, let's hear your answer to the question you raised.
> But I didn't want this
>discussion to become confrontational
So, what is it that you are actually looking for here? What is your
purpose, your agenda? Be honest now!
> You know in a confrontational discussion it is pretty hard to get a
>good opinion (no names mentioned :-)
Well, confrontation is what usenet is all about, isn't it? I mean you
know how we Muslims are. <laughing>
>>I'll point you towards poets and painters and musicians and other
>>artists.
>>
>>Will you accept their testimony regarding reality?
>
>Of course - absolutely -
Wellllll, ok..... let's start with a poet. John of the Cross. "Dark
Night of the Soul". Ever read it?
Maybe a nice Muslim to keep it "relevant to Islam"?
How bout Rumi? Or they guy who wrote "Conference of the Birds"?
All of them are making statements about reality.
>..yes because when real
>communication is lost there only remains death.
Nah.... what about just plain ol' miscommunication?
> I have no need to take a "leap
>of faith"
Now you really do make me laugh, except for the fact that it is so
sad.... you DO make a leap of faith.... you're just obviously in
denial of it. No matter what your real assumptions or presuppositions
may be.... there is, at the heart and foundation of your worldview, a
leap of faith.
Even to say "there is no God" is a statement of faith.
> (or blindness) or seek an "existential experience".
Bud, you don't seek an existential experience. You already exist!
You're having an existential experience right now!
Wow! Groovin'! Isn't it? :-D
> I do not believe
>that FreeThought (Denis) needs to take a leap of faith to "know" God either.
Thou needest to get back to basic general religious studies.
Or just basic philosophy.
At the foundation is always a "stance towards reality". God exists.
God doesn't exist. Don't know one way or the other. Life is good. Life
sucks. The optimist. The pessimist. The suicide-- ALL are based upon a
faith..... the big gamble regarding the meaning of life. Life is a
jungle, its dog eat dog. Life is what you make it. Whoever has the
most toys, wins. You die, and that's it. All of these are faith
statements and one of them, or some variation on them, is at the root
of everything you do, say, or think.
>>Then you will be on your way towards understanding religious language!
>
>No.. "Religious language" comes from ones' need to advance the case for
>"revelation",
No. Basic error buddy-bud. Not all religious language refers to
revelation. For instance, ever read Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu? "The Way
that can be spoken of is not the eternal Way...."
You didn't reak James or Underhill, did you? I give you such good
advice so you won't make a fool of yourself. I'm hurt.
>the Qur'an (holy writ) or Abrahamic traditions. I don't accept
>that.
That's ok.
But then, whatever are you doing on a Muslim newsgroup?
> For example: When a mother asks her son, who has returned from many
>months pilgrimage in the Mountains spending time in meditation and learing from
>the Gurus, "Did you meet with God?" - I believe her question is valid and it
>requires no Abrahamic tradition, Qur'an or "revelation" to be valid.
Yer right! And actually very Islamic. Strictly speaking, in Islamic
thought, revelation is not absolutely necessary. Why? Because all of
creation is an ayat-- a sign of God. In the Qur'an the rhetorical
statement is made: How could Abraham be Jew or Christian when neither
the Torah nor the Gospel had yet been revealed? <laughing>
Ever hear of the word "hanif"?
> If God is
>real and exists then He requires none of these to validate Himself in the human
>personality.
Correct-o-mundo!
>So thanks for the discussion - But don't patronise me over your books and
>bibliography - God does not need writers and accademic intellectuals in their
>"western ivory towers"
Oh ho ho ho! The last resort of the intellectually lazy!
Did the kitchen get a bit too hot for ya bud?
I never had you pegged as being so cliche, TajMahal. ;-)
Altway 2
Comments on discussion about Sufism etc:-
There are three stages in Islam - al-islam - the deiscipline, al-iman- faith
and al-ihsan - righteousness. One refers to actions, the other to motives and
the third to a state of being. These also correspond to Shariat, Tariqat and
Haqiqat. About this it is said :- The Shariat is what Muhammad (saw) instructs,
The Tariqat is the Method based on what what Muhammad (saw) does, and Haqiqat
is what Muhammad (saw) Is.
Sufism, Tassawuf refers to Tariqat.
But it is necessary to point out that the words muslim, Islam, Sufism, Tassawuf
are used by human beings and are understood and applied differently by
differently people according to their various states of development. What one
person practices or understands is not the same as what others understand or
practice.
There are numerous charlatans and fake sufis as there are numerous fake
muslims. But there are also many true Sufis as there are many true muslims, but
even these vary from the very simple to the very sophisticated. It is not
generally possible for one at a lower rung of Sufism or Islam to understand
someone at a higher rung. Therefore, the critics at lower rungs simply show
their stupidity and those at the higher rungs will be more understanding about
those on lower rungs.
H.S.Aziz
For more information :- www.altway.freeuk.com or members.aol.com/altway2
MyTajMahal
<ali...@city-net.com> writes:
>>I'll point you towards poets and painters and musicians and other
>>artists.
>>
>>Will you accept their testimony regarding reality?
Jameel
>Of course - absolutely -
Assuming that my first reply gets posted there is a clarification I need to
make regarding my answer on this subject to Jeremiah who wrote:
>Wellllll, ok..... let's start with a poet. John of the Cross. "Dark
>Night of the Soul". Ever read it?
>
>Maybe a nice Muslim to keep it "relevant to Islam"?
>
>How bout Rumi? Or they guy who wrote "Conference of the Birds"?
>
>All of them are making statements about reality.
I wrote:
>Now how ART - How about the painter Jackson Pollock? The universe is going to
>speak through art and so he dribbles paint on his canvas and gazes at it to
see
>that the universe is saying. He refuses to take a leap of faith and live a
delusion so
>he crashes his car. See... no communication so you either live a lie or face
the
>truth. Now the question still is argued as to whether the "Ayat" is created
or
>uncreated and Qur'anic scholars have still never come to agreement on this
after
>1,400 odd years. However some schoosl claim that the "Ayat" or "kalam"is
>created... if so it is not God and that has some implications for what you
claim.
I am sad to have used the example of Jackson Pollock - my comments sound
trivial to me as I read them but I do not mean them to so. I have a deep
sympathy with his work and for people like him.
When I agreed that I accepted the testimony of artists, poets and musicians as
regards "reality" I should clarify that I am only speaking about communication
between the artist and the viewer (or poet and reader or misician and
listener). This communication I accept as real. It is real in the universal
scheme of things because of the presupposition that we were created with the
capacity to communicate with each other and that God posesses that capacity
from eternity..
I do not advance to the notion that should an artist produce a work from chaos,
chance, design or any other technique that he or she by some mystical means
conveys the reality of "God". The possibility is that they are not
communicating anything at all.
On the subject of the createdness of the "ayat" or word - my presuppostion is
that it is uncreated - it is one with God in unity from eternity.
God love you all
Jameel
MyTajMahal
I wrote:
>>That's ok - my questions are meant to encourage responses :-) They do not
>>necessarily mean that I don't have an answer.
>
>Well then, let's hear your answer to the question you raised.
Why? You have all the answers don't you? You try to make me look foolish
because I didn't get any answers from this book or that book? :-) No? The
leap of faith in the Qur'an and Muhammad which you try to justify by claiming
there is no alternative to a "leap of Faith" ? (simply another way of saying
"intellectual suicide").
But, Jeremiah, I will come back with answers later - for the moment I'm just
trying to explore the matter with you and you have been kind enough to do it.
Thanks
Jameel
>> But I didn't want this
>>discussion to become confrontational
>
>So, what is it that you are actually looking for here? What is your
>purpose, your agenda? Be honest now!
Honestly I am intrigued that Muslims in a post Hegelian era still stick to
outmoded romantic philosophical notions which bit the dust 150 years ago. You
previously claimed that philosophy was post Heideggerian yet Heidegger couldn't
live with his existentialism and had to find a new way to explain the
impersonal "being" - remember the daft way he tried to make this out?. Earlier
in response to my claim that the Qur'anic "god" you tried to make out that he
was indeed "personal" "...hardly impersonal" is what you wrote - yet you were
contradicted by Saabirah (it was amusing to read all that self congratulation
:-).
But I don't need more of this for the moment.
>>You know in a confrontational discussion it is pretty hard to get a
>>good opinion (no names mentioned :-)
>
>Well, confrontation is what usenet is all about, isn't it? I mean you
>know how we Muslims are. <laughing>
I'm sure you've thought this one before :-) How the web and usenet
de-humanises us? Well just because we hold to different views doesn't mean we
need to be inhuman with one other.
I honestly do not know a "horrible" Muslim in real life. They are all really
nice people and we look after their kids and they do the same for us. It is
only on usenet where the dehumanising threatenings destroy humanity.
(...)
>Wellllll, ok..... let's start with a poet. John of the Cross. "Dark
>Night of the Soul". Ever read it?
>
>Maybe a nice Muslim to keep it "relevant to Islam"?
>
>How bout Rumi? Or they guy who wrote "Conference of the Birds"?
>
>All of them are making statements about reality.
You must be joking? Are you sure you know what you mean when you claimed that
philosophy is post Heideggerian? What did Heidegger say in his book "What is
philosophy?" he concluded that we must listen to the poet but this does not
mean that we listen to the "content" but to the "fact" that "there is a
speaking which exists" What else? nothing !!! Just some mystical notion.
This is only a ***hope*** that somehow the universe will speak through the
"language". Not a person or personality but by carefully using the word
"language" he tries to give the impression that there is a true personality -
but he himself, as a rationalist did not accept that there was a "person"
behind man.
Now how ART - How about the painter Jackson Pollock? The universe is going to
speak through art and so he dribbles paint on his canvas and gazes at it to see
that the universe is saying. He refuses to take a leap of faith and live a
delusion so he crashes his car. See... no communication so you either live a
lie or face the truth. Now the question still is argued as to whether the
"Ayat" is created or uncreated and Qur'anic scholars have still never come to
agreement on this after 1,400 odd years. However some schoosl claim that the
"Ayat" or "kalam"is created... if so it is not God and that has some
implications for what you claim.
>>..yes because when real
>>communication is lost there only remains death.
>
>Nah.... what about just plain ol' miscommunication?
Mis-communication does not exist - it's an illusion... a get out for those who
can't be honest with themselves.
Jameel
>> I have no need to take a "leap
>>of faith"
>
>Now you really do make me laugh, except for the fact that it is so
>sad.... you DO make a leap of faith.... you're just obviously in
>denial of it.
Well laughing will not make you right. Yes there was a time when I did think
in terms of a "leap of faith". When I was challenged that all I was doing was
commiting intellectual suicide I had to look for an explanation.
>No matter what your real assumptions or presuppositions
>may be.... there is, at the heart and foundation of your worldview, a
>leap of faith.
<grin> Only when one cannot make sense of their presuppositions do they have to
resort to a leap of faith. "Worldview" does not come into this as it is a
seperate issue to "personality". Worldview in my humble opinion is
experience+chance+time. That is not my definition of personality and
personality is my claim to how I know anything and that which sets me aside
from an automaton. (not my heart beating that only tells me that my body still
functions)
>Even to say "there is no God" is a statement of faith.
The people I speak to who would state this claim believe that they are being
totally rational.
>> (or blindness) or seek an "existential experience".
>
>Bud, you don't seek an existential experience. You already exist!
>You're having an existential experience right now!
>
>Wow! Groovin'! Isn't it? :-D
Yes not bad.... Do you do Jackson Browne impersonations too? :-) - What I meant
was a "final experience" the term used by Karl Jaspers. The crucial experience
by which one hopes to obtain meaning. Like the kind of "Leap of Faith" which
allowed you to disregard all the books and everything else so that you could
believe in Muhammad and his Qur'an :-)
I believe there is a ***real*** "final experience" but that it does not require
intellectually suicidal leaps of faith. If I consider my presuppositions to be
rational then I don't think I have to leap in the dark.
>> I do not believe
>>that FreeThought (Denis) needs to take a leap of faith to "know" God either.
>
>Thou needest to get back to basic general religious studies.
<smile> I remember that subject when I was in school in India But I learned
more in one evening by travelling across town to Nizammuddin Nagar and spending
an evening with a Sufi Sheikh.
>Or just basic philosophy.
tut tut.
>At the foundation is always a "stance towards reality". God exists.
>God doesn't exist. Don't know one way or the other. Life is good. Life
>sucks. The optimist. The pessimist. The suicide-- ALL are based upon a
>faith..... the big gamble regarding the meaning of life. Life is a
>jungle, its dog eat dog. Life is what you make it. Whoever has the
>most toys, wins. You die, and that's it. All of these are faith
>statements and one of them, or some variation on them, is at the root
>of everything you do, say, or think.
So you'd like to believe - and you have to believe it and work to justify it
because that is all you have - sad. I'm not surprised though...
Jeremiah
>>>Then you will be on your way towards understanding religious language!
Jameel
>>No.. "Religious language" comes from ones' need to advance the case for
>>"revelation",
>
>No. Basic error buddy-bud. Not all religious language refers to
>revelation. For instance, ever read Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu? "The Way
>that can be spoken of is not the eternal Way...."
No error - You can play games with the words such as "language" :-) No I've not
read Tao Te Ching but that is not an unique source of the idea. Philo of
Alexandria held to similar thoughts claiming that to be eternal God was without
any qualities, without any name; hence wholly unrecognisable by
man......unspeakable." (You get the same ideas in the Bible - Psalms - but in
context).
"Religious language" is irrelevant. It is in the main just connotations which
those initiated into it think they know the meaning of.
Why run around in circles introducing Tao Te Ching as if it helps you cause -
it blows away what you earlier claimed which was:
>That is, the unknowable transcendint *itself* communicated
>to us what it "is"--- in this case, that it is a Who, and that it is
>personal and benevolent: God. For Muslims, it also communicates a
>personal name: Allah.
So you speak of "it" and then offer an opinion that what you "speak of" is not
"eternal". What is the point of discussing anything? You don't refer to what
you wrote from one post to the next. Now you will no doubt try to spin a yarn
to justify yourself <smile>
>You didn't reak James or Underhill, did you? I give you such good
>advice so you won't make a fool of yourself. I'm hurt.
No I don't make a fool of myself. It is rediculous for you to go around trying
to play the bibliography card. What about all the Sufi Sheiks and Gurus in
India that never ever heard of James or Underhill? What about all the
traditions of Mysticisim which your favoirite authors only write about but
don't truly know? What about all the Gurus, Holymen and Sages throught the
centurys who never read "your" particlular favourite book or author on
comparitive religions or mysticisim?
What about the billions of people who were like me living in an Indian village
who never had the opportunity to ever read any "books"? You want to partonise
them too and offer them advice which will help them to not look foolish?
<humph> You don't seem to recognise the flaws in these claims regarding the
"knowing" God.
>>the Qur'an (holy writ) or Abrahamic traditions. I don't accept
>>that.
>
>That's ok.
>
>But then, whatever are you doing on a Muslim newsgroup?
Trying to figure out why Muslims think they have a God given right to take over
the world :-)
Jameel
>> For example: When a mother asks her son, who has returned from many
>>months pilgrimage in the Mountains spending time in meditation and learing
>>from the Gurus, "Did you meet with God?" - I believe her question is valid
and it
>>requires no Abrahamic tradition, Qur'an or "revelation" to be valid.
>
>Yer right! And actually very Islamic. Strictly speaking, in Islamic
>thought, revelation is not absolutely necessary. Why? Because all of
>creation is an ayat-- a sign of God.
So? That does not make it "Islamic" Everyone who wants to can claim that - but
it is pointless trying to remind you what you wrote earlier isn't it? here it
is:
>No. *Revelation* verifies it! The major presupposition/assumption of
>all three Abrahamic traditions regarding reality is that revelation
>happened.
"Revelation" doesn't verify anything as I said earlier it is not necessary !!!
>In the Qur'an the rhetorical
>statement is made: How could Abraham be Jew or Christian when neither
>the Torah nor the Gospel had yet been revealed? <laughing>
Yes but - as a "prophet" but he had his "Book" didn't he? <can I laugh too?>
>Ever hear of the word "hanif"?
Ever heard the one about.....oh forget it :-)
>> If God is real and exists then He requires none of these to validate Himself
in the
>>human personality.
>
>Correct-o-mundo!
Hey !! did we get somewhere?
>>So thanks for the discussion - But don't patronise me over your books and
>>bibliography - God does not need writers and accademic intellectuals in
>>their "western ivory towers"
>
>Oh ho ho ho! The last resort of the intellectually lazy!
Or the poor village folk who can't afford books :-(
>Did the kitchen get a bit too hot for ya bud?
No... But I bet my curry will blow your head off :-)
>I never had you pegged as being so cliche, TajMahal. ;-)
C'mon Jeremiah. Leave off the bibliography bit and we'll get along just fine
you and me :-)
God love you
Jameel
Qatra
>"attributes".
>I have not seen this explained and my illustration was to demonstrate that
>attributes in themselves are not founded upon reality but are simply "words"
>which feed the imagination and
>are not verifyable.
That's "verifiable."
May I suggest accessing the "7th Ray" of "The Rays" Collection at the following
link :
http://www.sozler.com.tr/bottom.htm
wasSalaam,
al-qatra
"Thousands of mysterious states, attributes and perceptions which make known
and show to a degree all of the Divine attributes and functions are contained
within the 'I.' " {The Risale-i Nur}
MyTajMahal
>>I'll point you towards poets and painters and musicians and other
>>artists.
>>
>>Will you accept their testimony regarding reality?
Jameel
>Of course - absolutely -
Assuming that my first reply gets posted there is a clarification I need to
make regarding my answer on this subject to Jeremiah who wrote:
>Wellllll, ok..... let's start with a poet. John of the Cross. "Dark
>Night of the Soul". Ever read it?
>
>Maybe a nice Muslim to keep it "relevant to Islam"?
>
>How bout Rumi? Or they guy who wrote "Conference of the Birds"?
>
>All of them are making statements about reality.
I wrote:
>Now how ART - How about the painter Jackson Pollock? The universe is going to
>speak through art and so he dribbles paint on his canvas and gazes at it to
see
>that the universe is saying. He refuses to take a leap of faith and live a
delusion so
>he crashes his car. See... no communication so you either live a lie or face
the
>truth. Now the question still is argued as to whether the "Ayat" is created
or
>uncreated and Qur'anic scholars have still never come to agreement on this
after
>1,400 odd years. However some schoosl claim that the "Ayat" or "kalam"is
>created... if so it is not God and that has some implications for what you
claim.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
wrote:
>In article <sf751m...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremiah McAuliffe
><ali...@city-net.com> writes:
>
>>Well then, let's hear your answer to the question you raised.
>
>Why? You have all the answers don't you?
Well, don't ask me any sports trivia.
>But, Jeremiah, I will come back with answers later - for the moment I'm just
>trying to explore the matter with you and you have been kind enough to do it.
>Thanks
Well, you're ok in *my* book, even if you're wrong. ;-) Thank *you*.
>Honestly I am intrigued that Muslims in a post Hegelian era still stick to
>outmoded romantic philosophical notions which bit the dust 150 years ago.
Hmmm. We do agree on that to a degree.
You
>previously claimed that philosophy was post Heideggerian yet Heidegger couldn't
>live with his existentialism and had to find a new way to explain the
>impersonal "being" - remember the daft way he tried to make this out?.
<laughing> Are you talking about his Nazism?
Earlier
>in response to my claim that the Qur'anic "god" you tried to make out that he
>was indeed "personal" "...hardly impersonal" is what you wrote - yet you were
>contradicted by Saabirah (it was amusing to read all that self congratulation
>:-).
No. Not a contradiction because the being of Deity is such that it is
also-- to our minds anyway-- non-being. Deity is such another category
He/She/It is, from within our categories, both personal and
impersonal, both "is" and "is not". Is both "fullness" and
"nothingness". There is the via positiva and the via negativa, both
are valid. You can't squish Deity into our categories of thinking,
knowing, experiencing, talking, because by definition Deity transcends
all that.
>>All of them are making statements about reality.
>
>You must be joking? Are you sure you know what you mean when you claimed that
>philosophy is post Heideggerian? What did Heidegger say in his book "What is
>philosophy?" he concluded that we must listen to the poet but this does not
>mean that we listen to the "content" but to the "fact" that "there is a
>speaking which exists" What else? nothing !!! Just some mystical notion.
Ah! But here is where I go away from Heidegger. I'm sort of an
essentialist..... I think there *is* truth with a capital "T". BUT....
I will admit.... that is faith. BUT.... you have to admit, choosing to
think there is no truth with a capital "T" is faith too.
>
>This is only a ***hope*** that somehow the universe will speak through the
>"language".
Well, not *just* hope... there is also the witness of the people we
call saints, messengers, holy people. They say something. Now you may
just dismiss them with a wave of your hand. I do not.
> Not a person or personality but by carefully using the word
>"language" he tries to give the impression that there is a true personality -
>but he himself, as a rationalist did not accept that there was a "person"
>behind man.
Rationalism as religion?
Reason has its limits.....
>
>Now how ART - How about the painter Jackson Pollock? The universe is going to
>speak through art and so he dribbles paint on his canvas and gazes at it to see
>that the universe is saying. He refuses to take a leap of faith and live a
>delusion so he crashes his car.
Or did he leap into the bottle as a substitute?
>See... no communication
What do you call his paintings and his life (and death) if not a
communication?
so you either live a
>lie or face the truth. Now the question still is argued as to whether the
>"Ayat" is created or uncreated and Qur'anic scholars have still never come to
>agreement on this after 1,400 odd years. However some schoosl claim that the
>"Ayat" or "kalam"is created... if so it is not God and that has some
>implications for what you claim.
Wait, are we going in circles now? EVERYTHING we experience is an
ayat.
>Mis-communication does not exist - it's an illusion... a get out for those who
>can't be honest with themselves.
Oh please. Communication and miscommunication imply the presence of
community. Some miscommunication is due to the other simply not
listening, is it not? We are not, after all, isolated
subjectivities... we are always in a world with others. We are always
social.
>Jameel
>>> I have no need to take a "leap
>>>of faith"
>>
>>Now you really do make me laugh, except for the fact that it is so
>>sad.... you DO make a leap of faith.... you're just obviously in
>>denial of it.
>
>Well laughing will not make you right. Yes there was a time when I did think
>in terms of a "leap of faith". When I was challenged that all I was doing was
>commiting intellectual suicide I had to look for an explanation.
Maybe its a semantic issue.
When I say "faith" I mean a basic interpretation regarding the fact
that reality transcends us. Simply by virtue of being human we make a
faith statement regarding the transcendent..... it is for us, against
us, or indifferent to us. It is personal or impersonal. Your faith
seems to be that it is basically hostile.... that is, we live an
absurd, meaningless existence.
Your statements as are much statements of faith as are mine. However,
I opt for meaning and purpose in life.
>>No matter what your real assumptions or presuppositions
>>may be.... there is, at the heart and foundation of your worldview, a
>>leap of faith.
>
><grin> Only when one cannot make sense of their presuppositions do they have to
>resort to a leap of faith.
Most people don't even know what their presuppositions REALLY are.....
what people articulate is not necessarily what is really going on at
that level.....
> "Worldview" does not come into this as it is a
>seperate issue to "personality".
I'm not real sure what you're getting at with this.
>Worldview in my humble opinion is
>experience+chance+time.
Part of it certainly is..... we are usually the victims of
socially-recieved worldviews..... I call it the "tyranny of received
views". I think some choice also comes into this.....
>That is not my definition of personality
Well, I'd love to see a good definition of personality! I prefer to
talk about the unique aspects of our being, as distinguished from the
social aspects of our being.
and
>personality is my claim to how I know anything and that which sets me aside
>from an automaton.
That's a nice faith statement. Your personality-- whatever that is--
is not just an automatic function too? Didn't you just say that
regarding worldviews? Just experience, chance, and time rolled
together?
>>Even to say "there is no God" is a statement of faith.
>
>The people I speak to who would state this claim believe that they are being
>totally rational.
But they aren't because to be totally rational you must acknowledge
the limits of reason, and the importance of the non-rational.... i.e.
art. Then you move into religious language.....
Interestingly, the people I talk to would also claim that they are
being totally rational. I would argue they are *more* rational than
those you seem to talk to!
>>Bud, you don't seek an existential experience. You already exist!
>>You're having an existential experience right now!
>>
>>Wow! Groovin'! Isn't it? :-D
>
>Yes not bad.... Do you do Jackson Browne impersonations too? :-)
Hey dude! Get up and do it again. Amen!
- What I meant
>was a "final experience" the term used by Karl Jaspers.
Whew! There's a name I haven't heard for a while, and certainly not on
this group! You get an "A". :-D
>The crucial experience
>by which one hopes to obtain meaning. Like the kind of "Leap of Faith" which
>allowed you to disregard all the books and everything else so that you could
>believe in Muhammad and his Qur'an :-)
>
>I believe there is a ***real*** "final experience" but that it does not require
>intellectually suicidal leaps of faith. If I consider my presuppositions to be
>rational then I don't think I have to leap in the dark.
You keep missing it.... your consideration IS your leap of faith!
<laughing>
The crucial experience is death. Only death.
><smile> I remember that subject when I was in school in India But I learned
>more in one evening by travelling across town to Nizammuddin Nagar and spending
>an evening with a Sufi Sheikh.
Well, if you were with a real Sufi Sheikh, you either didn't listen or
didn't stay long enough.
>>Or just basic philosophy.
>
>tut tut.
Hee Hee!
Actually, I'm sorry I was such a snot with you. You really don't merit
it.
>>At the foundation is always a "stance towards reality". God exists.
>>God doesn't exist. Don't know one way or the other. Life is good. Life
>>sucks. The optimist. The pessimist. The suicide-- ALL are based upon a
>>faith..... the big gamble regarding the meaning of life. Life is a
>>jungle, its dog eat dog. Life is what you make it. Whoever has the
>>most toys, wins. You die, and that's it. All of these are faith
>>statements and one of them, or some variation on them, is at the root
>>of everything you do, say, or think.
>
>So you'd like to believe - and you have to believe it and work to justify it
>because that is all you have - sad. I'm not surprised though...
Not belief! A choice! Everyone chooses their stance.... or, in light
of received views.... could choose. Perhaps its the only actual thing
we do choose..... our stance towards life and reality: its good, its
bad, its indifferent.
>Jeremiah
>>>>Then you will be on your way towards understanding religious language!
>Jameel
>>>No.. "Religious language" comes from ones' need to advance the case for
>>>"revelation",
>>
>>No. Basic error buddy-bud. Not all religious language refers to
>>revelation. For instance, ever read Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu? "The Way
>>that can be spoken of is not the eternal Way...."
>
>No error - You can play games with the words such as "language" :-)
What game is being played? Well, I guess if you deny the reality of
human communication, or its meaningfulness, well then yes, all
language is just a game. I take the stand that words are meaningful,
that they do indeed communciate *something* about reality, and given
that, religious language offers statements regarding reality.
>No I've not
>read Tao Te Ching but that is not an unique source of the idea. Philo of
>Alexandria held to similar thoughts
Well, I just put the quote because its the opening of the book. But
surely you see the point..... similar ideas.... regarding the
transcendent.... throughout history, across cultures.... doesn't that
count for *anything* to you???
>claiming that to be eternal God was without
>any qualities, without any name;
That isn't what Lao Tzu said... the Tao does have qualities. It is the
source of "ten thousand things" i.e. creation.
> hence wholly unrecognisable by
>man......unspeakable." (You get the same ideas in the Bible - Psalms - but in
>context).
In all the religions....
>
>"Religious language" is irrelevant. It is in the main just connotations which
>those initiated into it think they know the meaning of.
<laughing> Because YOU don't get it, its meaningless?
Irrelevant? Hardly... it has spurred great evil and tremendous
heroics.
Have you ever thought of being initiated? Maybe then you would
know....
>Why run around in circles introducing Tao Te Ching as if it helps you cause -
>it blows away what you earlier claimed which was:
>
>>That is, the unknowable transcendint *itself* communicated
>>to us what it "is"--- in this case, that it is a Who, and that it is
>>personal and benevolent: God. For Muslims, it also communicates a
>>personal name: Allah.
No, it doesn't. Sorry, but you just show yourself as being unfamiliar
with the fullness of religious language. Or obtuse.
In Islamic thought we might say Lao Tzu apprehended Transcendent Truth
by virtue of fitrah-- an in-born sense, or homing device towards The
Transcendent Unity-- which is just another name for God.
>So you speak of "it" and then offer an opinion that what you "speak of" is not
>"eternal". What is the point of discussing anything? You don't refer to what
>you wrote from one post to the next. Now you will no doubt try to spin a yarn
>to justify yourself <smile>
No doubt. :-D
>>You didn't reak James or Underhill, did you? I give you such good
>>advice so you won't make a fool of yourself. I'm hurt.
>
>No I don't make a fool of myself. It is rediculous for you to go around trying
>to play the bibliography card. What about all the Sufi Sheiks and Gurus in
>India that never ever heard of James or Underhill?
I used something from the Euro-American traditions that are considered
standard. You know Hegel, Jaspers, Heidegger...... the same types of
stuff is found in all cultures.....
>What about the billions of people who were like me living in an Indian village
>who never had the opportunity to ever read any "books"? You want to partonise
>them too and offer them advice which will help them to not look foolish?
Oh please. Your rhetoric is REALLY showing.
Like you, no books, and yet you refer to at least three great names in
philosophy, and a major artist. C'mon!
><humph> You don't seem to recognise the flaws in these claims regarding the
>"knowing" God.
Oh go humph yourself. <lol>
If now you want to switch tunes, fine. But then let's not pretend
we're actually having a real conversation, for it would be *you*
playing language games, not me.
>>But then, whatever are you doing on a Muslim newsgroup?
>
>Trying to figure out why Muslims think they have a God given right to take over
>the world :-)
Well, 'cause we're cooler than everyone else. You know that!
And..... we're right.
>Jameel
>>> For example: When a mother asks her son, who has returned from many
>>>months pilgrimage in the Mountains spending time in meditation and learing
>>>from the Gurus, "Did you meet with God?" - I believe her question is valid
>and it
>>>requires no Abrahamic tradition, Qur'an or "revelation" to be valid.
>>
>>Yer right! And actually very Islamic. Strictly speaking, in Islamic
>>thought, revelation is not absolutely necessary. Why? Because all of
>>creation is an ayat-- a sign of God.
>
>So? That does not make it "Islamic"
Sure it does. It might not make it *Qur'anic* but "Islamic" does not
necessarily refer to the Qur'anic religious traditions. Its primary
meaning is an existential state of being.... thus, Abraham was Muslim,
but not in the Qur'anic traditions.... obviously, they did not yet
exist.
Much confusion enters because "Islam" and "Muslim" today *also* refer
to the Qur'anic religious traditions.
> Everyone who wants to can claim that - but
>it is pointless trying to remind you what you wrote earlier isn't it? here it
>is:
>
>>No. *Revelation* verifies it! The major presupposition/assumption of
>>all three Abrahamic traditions regarding reality is that revelation
>>happened.
>
>"Revelation" doesn't verify anything as I said earlier it is not necessary !!!
Uh, no.
If one apprehends The Truth, The Transcendent Reality as did, say,
Abraham, with no Torah, no Gospel, no Qur'an. Or as did, say, Lao Tzu,
the Qur'an then DOES verify their apprehension.
To say the Qur'an is not strictly necessary to find The Truth (another
name for God, for Allah) is true. But to say that means it doesn't
verify anything is bizarre!
Remember, there are the "Most Beautiful Names" and whichever you use
is fine, according to the Qur'an. Thus, Lao Tzu gets verified, even
though he made no claim to revelation and did not call The Tao
personal....
>>In the Qur'an the rhetorical
>>statement is made: How could Abraham be Jew or Christian when neither
>>the Torah nor the Gospel had yet been revealed? <laughing>
>
>Yes but - as a "prophet" but he had his "Book" didn't he? <can I laugh too?>
I don't think so. Not all of them had a book, except as "a Book" is
used metaphorically. We say creation is "a Book".
>>> If God is real and exists then He requires none of these to validate Himself
>in the
>>>human personality.
>>
>>Correct-o-mundo!
>
>Hey !! did we get somewhere?
I don't know. Maybe.
Not requiring something doesn't mean it was not the means He used.....
>Or the poor village folk who can't afford books :-(
Yeah, well that doesn't seem to be *you*.....
>>Did the kitchen get a bit too hot for ya bud?
>
>No... But I bet my curry will blow your head off :-)
I am a chile head, and I have a jar of hot mango chutney in the
fridge. Woo hoo!
Ever try "Ring of Fire"? Its the best.
However, in general, I only eat it when alone, as it really makes me
sweat and thus causes dining companions to worry.
>>I never had you pegged as being so cliche, TajMahal. ;-)
>
>C'mon Jeremiah. Leave off the bibliography bit and we'll get along just fine
>you and me :-)
Yeah. Sorry, again.
And God love you too.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>In article <sf751m...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremiah McAuliffe
><ali...@city-net.com> writes:
>Assuming that my first reply gets posted there is a clarification I need to
>make regarding my answer on this subject to Jeremiah who wrote:
If it got posted, I didn't see it.
>I am sad to have used the example of Jackson Pollock - my comments sound
>trivial to me as I read them but I do not mean them to so. I have a deep
>sympathy with his work and for people like him.
Well...... as said, faith can also be that there is no meaning to
life.
Pollock was alcoholic. Are you familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous?
They would clearly state that he was thus suffering from what was
*primarily* a spiritual disorder. It was an untreated spiritual
disease that led to the alcohol abuse, which led to the addiction.
My dissertation just happens to be on that very topic! Check it out
here:
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/dissertationcontents.htm
>I do not advance to the notion that should an artist produce a work from chaos,
>chance, design or any other technique that he or she by some mystical means
>conveys the reality of "God". The possibility is that they are not
>communicating anything at all.
Well, not to get too abstract, but is not form itself a meaningful
communication? Do you think meaning is *only* utilitarian? I mean,
what does a beautiful sunset-- either real or painted-- communicate?
To me, everything is (at least potentially) filled with meaning-- that
is, communication. The artist may not be able to articulate verbally
what he or she is communicating, but the very act of creating a work
that is then viewed by others is, prima facie, a communication from
the artist.
>On the subject of the createdness of the "ayat" or word - my presuppostion is
>that it is uncreated - it is one with God in unity from eternity.
That would probably fit in nicely with the "Qur'an is uncreated" idea!
But, your presupposition regarding what the word means does not define
the word! A tree is an ayat. A bird is, the wind is, the seasons are
all ayat Allah. Clearly those are things created. Yes?
Saabirah
Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:38f6a4ee$2$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:16:20 GMT, mytaj...@aol.com
(MyTajMahal)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <sf751m...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremiah
McAuliffe
> ><ali...@city-net.com> writes:
TajMahal wrote:
> >yet you were contradicted by Saabirah
Jeremiah:
> There is the via positiva and the via negativa,
> both are valid. You can't squish Deity into our
> categories of thinking, knowing, experiencing,
> talking, because by definition Deity transcends
> all that.
I'd just like to confirm here what Brother Jeremiah has said...
i.e., I wasn't disagreeing with him. The explaination in regard
to the via positiva and via negativa is exactly what you are
seeing in his response and in mine. I tend to follow more of the
"via negativa" although Islam lends itself to more of a "balance"
in this regard than Christianity does (as evidenced in the great
works of John of the Cross and his doctrine of complete
negation).
In another post Brother Jeremiah mentioned the works of John of
the Cross as a means of proving that art does give us a vehicle
by which we may come closer to an "understanding" of deity. I'm
a fan of John of the Cross.... many people are... many other
non-Christians are as well. The reason for that is that John is
less "Chrisocentric" than other Christian mystics.
Just a little bit of background in regard to John of the Cross
and in an attempt to show that John was most-likely influenced by
Islamic thought....... John's father, Gonzalo de Yepes, came
>from a very wealthy family of silk merchants. When he married an
Arab woman, Catalina Alvarez, he was disowned by his family and
therefore the family lived in poverty. John's father died when
Juan de Yepes (John) was very young and therefore he was raised
almost exclusively by his Arab mother in the slums of northern
Spain among Islamic converts and their descendants. The great
mystical poetry that he wrote as an adult was strongly influenced
by the Moorish ballads that he heard throughout his youth. (I do
not doubt that Theresa of Avila.... John's "sidekick" was also
greatly-influenced by leftover Islamic ways of approaching deity
although she tends toward more of a balance between via positiva
and via negativa.)
Although John's mother was a Christian I do not doubt that she
was a descendant from earlier Arab Muslims who once lived in,
leant their industry to in the building up of Spain and greatly
influenced religious thought at the time. I believe that to be
true after having lived with Christian and Muslim Arabs in
Palestine... most of the Christians were Eastern Orthodox or
Syrian Catholic. Their daily lives are very, very much influenced
by Islam even though they will not admit it.
Perusing the Qur'an.... (again!) I came across this ayat ....
Surat Al-An'am Ayaat 102 and 103:
"Such is God, your Sustainer: there is no deity save Him, the
Creator of everything: worship, then, Him alone -- for it is He
who has everything in His care. No human vision can encompass
Him, whereas He encompasses all human vision: for He alone is
unfathomable, all-aware."
Carry on..... :-)
waAllahu 'Alim,
Saabirah