problem with salah(contact prayer) please help me:(
-
Salat is giving your time for God, listening to Him, talking to Him, Silently sitting can also be a form of Salat.
lets not assume our ancestors had a well developed language, they used different methods to communicate, symbols and signs too were part of their communication, so ritual Salat is also good in a way we are giving our respect symbolically, it conditions ourselves.I believe the primary purpose of Salat is to take us out from excess, think of us working nonstop through out the day, our mind is occupied totally on our selves/desires, too much stress is the result. we need balance and so we stop and spend some time remembering Him(the common goodness provider) and continue.
To me Salat is no different from the worship of dieties in temples. The objective in both is all the same, only the symbols are different. -
Thanks to God, i have now started to pray again and i feel much better)
But i still have a long road to go (spiritually) because after knowing the truth and the laws of God, i made several mistakes that wasnt so good and i slipped, but now im going to start and begin with fast and pray, then Gods knows best.
Basically, i was on the str8 path and i slipped and fell. Now i need to clean the dust from my shoulders and if God wills, i have learned from my mistakes and i will not repeat them.
Being clean/pure from sins = Euphoria and happiness. <=
"therefore, be patient, for God's promise is true, and ask forgiveness for your sin, and glorify and praise your Lord night and day."
Quran 4055"For them, joy and happiness in this world, as well as in the Hereafter. This is God's unchangeable law. Such is the greatest triumph." Q 1064
"We granted him happiness in this life, and in the Hereafter he will be with the righteous." Q. 16122
"You have no idea how much joy and happiness are waiting for you as a reward for your (righteous) works." Q.3217
"These have deserved happiness." Q.9018
-
To me Salat is no different from the worship of dieties in temples. The objective in both is all the same, only the symbols are different.
Salam Amin.
While I agree to most of what you said, the last comment quoted above caught me surprised. I believe rather there is a clear distinction between ritual salaat (as expected to be practiced by a follower of millat-i-ibrahim) and the worship of dieties in temples.
The objective of worship of deity in a temple, be it some ancestors or imaginary heavenly beings or angels or even a singular deity ? is to offer respect / blessings and seek help from one or more entities that exist (or supposed to exist) separately from us. The underlying idea is, if the deity can be pleased, the deity can do good to us. Channeling one?s reverence to a deity turns one into an idolater ? fanatic and hateful towards others outside the group.
On the other hand salaat (as expected to be practiced by a follower of millat-i-ibrahim), is not offered to any entity that exist, rather it is directed to the One source of all existence. The underlying idea is, focusing all our reverence and prayer to the ?Source? of all existence ? the source of our ?soul? and our sense of right and wrong - is our natural obligation. The salat symbolizes our ritual submission to that Master ? our unconditional acceptance of our obligation of acting righteously ? and our spontaneous acceptance that whatever is the God-gifted outcome of acting righteously is indeed the best for us. The goal should not be to please Allah (for Allah does not need our worship) ? the goal should be to reaffirm ourselves that we submit to Allah. Channeling one?s reverence to the Master of all that exists turns one into muttaqui (conscious) ? peaceful from within and fair and merciful to all others.
2256 There is no compulsion in the resolution (ِ. Verily, right has become clearly distinct from the error ? then whoever represses (faith) in deity (ِ and has faith in Allah has grasped the most firm handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Listener, Knowledgeable.
2257 Allah is the patron of those who have put faith; He brings them out from darkness into light. And those who repress (faith) ? their patrons are the deities ( they bring them out from light into darkness; they are the ones ? the society of the fire; they will be in there permanently.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
The irony is, many faith repressors among the broader family of Abrahamic religion have resorted to worshipping an artificial deity defined by the books with the authority of their religious clergy. Even though they call the deity by the name Elohim / God / Allah, even though they may seem to be the strictest monotheist, they none-the-less worship a deity (ُ.
On the contrary, some purer sects within Hinduism do focus reverence on one Brahman, and many enlightened Budhdhas do focus reverence on the singular spirit sustaining this universe seeking unity with the same. Perhaps their worship can be comparable to Abrahamic salaat, with different symbolism.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Related posts
- http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607118.msg361084#msg361084
- a. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607181.msg363613#msg363613
b. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607181.msg363885#msg363885
c. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607181.msg364054#msg364054
Regards,
Arman -
Good answer!
-
Arman,
I am fascinated with your growth of perception of what "GOD" is.
-
-
Arman,
Can't do, because I am not "reinventing" the Arabic language but rather discovering what others have not.
Besides, the translations I work on are supported by ancient lexicons over the roots.
It is you who will have to conform to my revelations or you will be stuck in the delusion unless you figure out for yourself how wrong the interpretations are.
Be well
-
Arman,
Can't do, because I am not "reinventing" the Arabic language but rather discovering what others have not.
Besides, the translations I work on are supported by ancient lexicons over the roots.
It is you who will have to conform to my revelations or you will be stuck in the delusion unless you figure out for yourself how wrong the interpretations are.
Be well
Okay brother.
Let's watch then. I am with you among those who keep watching.
Salam.
Arman
-
I gave you a compliment Arman and you gave me an insult.
But to have your newfound realization fit with Quran you first have to open your eyes to the available interpretations of it and see that people were not at all awake when they deciphered it.
Be well
-
Okay brother.
Let's watch then. I am with you among those who keep watching.
Salam.
Arman
A nice compromise is listening to what Man of Faith has to say and taking whatever might be useful from it. It might not be academically accepted at this time (or possibly ever by the mainstream), but I try to see whatever of value I can take from anything at all. If someone comes with a different take on Islam or Buddhism or whatever, to me it is a legit philosophy and I pay careful attention like a leech or a sucking creature (a creature that sucks deeply) to what blood (insight) might be derived from it, what nutrients might be in it.
In the case of the philosophy Man of Faith is presenting, however it may be derived, the message is definitely a rather old one, to turn away from the infatuation with worldly or bodily things and focus more on the spiritual. Though mainstream Islamic interpretations generally do not partake in austerities and asceticism, and tends to have a good deal of focus on the bodily, Man of Faith seems to present the idea that the proper accomplishment in life is to overcome matter and master one's urges.
-
Salam Freedom.
I have nothing against the "Philosophy" that brother MoF is preaching. In fact I have been through this with him earlier - I do consider his "no ritual - no symbolism - no holy site - no personification of God - just pure awareness" type philosophy to be one of many valid paths to understand and approach "God". In fact, this philosophical position is very similar to Shikhism philosphy (though shikhs personify God).
If one can "purify" one's awareness from all form of symbolism and still remain "Conscious (muttaqui)", that's great! But per my humble understanding Qur'an recommends a middle path where personification of God and sybmbolification is an acceptable approach. This middle path is more "digestable" to men - knowledgeable and less knowledgeable alike.
Given this, what I find problematic is he is hell bent to prove that Qur'an preaches the "no symbolism" philosophy, and to prove his point he takes a free ride in redefining even the most basic arabic words. Even when that falls apart, he happily rejects the verses he cannot reconcile - as "manmade".
This approach I do find troublesome. This is the similar problem with 19-ers. Good intension does not make falsification justified.
449 Did you not see those who purify their souls? No! Allah purifies whomever He wills and they will not be wronged (by) a hair?s breadth .
450 Watch how they invent the lie about Allah ? and it suffices as a clear sin.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
I gave you a compliment Arman and you gave me an insult.
But to have your newfound realization fit with Quran you first have to open your eyes to the available interpretations of it and see that people were not at all awake when they deciphered it.
Be well
Salam Man of Faith.
I invited you towards acceptance of the truth. If you find it insulting, I am sorry for that.
And by the way, my conception of God has not changed since I started participating in this forum. Perhaps my communication has become a bit clearer - that's all.
Best regards,
Arman
-
Salam Freedom.
I have nothing against the "Philosophy" that brother MoF is preaching. In fact I have been through this with him earlier - I do consider his "no ritual - no symbolism - no holy site - no personification of God - just pure awareness" type philosophy to be one of many valid paths to understand and approach "God". In fact, this philosophical position is very similar to Shikhism philosphy (though shikhs personify God).
If one can "purify" one's awareness from all form of symbolism and still remain "Conscious (muttaqui)", that's great! But per my humble understanding Qur'an recommends a middle path where personification of God and sybmbolification is an acceptable approach. This middle path is more "digestable" to men - knowledgeable and less knowledgeable alike.
Given this, what I find problematic is he is hell bent to prove that Qur'an preaches the "no symbolism" philosophy, and to prove his point he takes a free ride in redefining even the most basic arabic words. Even when that falls apart, he happily rejects the verses he cannot reconcile - as "manmade".
This approach I do find troublesome. This is the similar problem with 19-ers. Good intension does not make falsification justified.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
ArmanIn cases like that I just find it important to clarify that this is not the mainstream idea or method, but it follows such and such method etc. I do the same for the Hadith, I try to clarify that ok this is from Sahih Bukhari, written down some time after the Prophet and anyone else who might have been around was long dead by people who did not know him directly, supposedly a collection of stories that were existing at the time they were written down in Persia, take them as one may those are at least the basic accepted facts about them.
Meanwhile, that such and such is the mainstream version of the Qur'an and the academically accepted translation of a word, but here is Man of Faith's definition, which he explains is based on a method where each letter of the Arabic language has its own meaning which combined ends up making the meaning of the word, which he then also confirms somewhat based on ancient lexicons, and even if one is to disregard the methods he uses, this is at least what he says such and such means which may not correspond with the definitions accepted by academics or current linguists that specialize in the Arabic language, etc.
I notice that when I clarify things to basically what is going on or supposedly going on, then one can approach things in a more honest way and more comfortably. Things only get troublesome when false claims are made or claims are made too brashly or boldly, like "This is what Muhammed said!" or whatever.
-
Arman,
If I personify something it is the Rabb which is treated as a singular entity in Quran, and elsewhere, and frequently used. I do not make a separation of the Rabb from myself as I do not consider myself existent separate and which I consider the real idolatry and dualism or even polytheism depending on the perceptive (if you include every human who is separate from the Rabb).
Just as you say I do not understand you, you probably do not understand me either.
There is you and your Rabb or me and my Rabb or our Rabb, and we are each a separate "node" if seeing it from the perspective of a network with the Rabb being the mainframe, but yet one shall cling unto that Rabb as if you were one with it, although that is because you are not separate on one level of perception even if you are a sub-consciousness of the Rabb, sharing the source of energy streaming to you, but you first must open the "Door" by preventing the body from interfering or the signal will be weak and risks being terminated.
Here we differentiate from each other because I do not acknowledge any scriptural rituals as truly from the Rabb but being a sectarian fabrication. However, I do not know what you think of me, but I never said that a person cannot meditate, but I do not call it ritual because a ritual to me is when you need to do something or else face the consequences, e.g. as per Muslim dogma. A ritual is compulsory within a doctrine and essential to please a clearly physical representation of a god or an idol with other words.
The 'Ten Commandments', which shine with their absence from the sectarian interpretation of Quran despite being there for the perceptive, explicitly told about that in the first two commandment. The first talked about being in unity with the Rabb and there is nothing to approve except the Rabb and not even yourself aside. The second said do not take an of anything in Heaven or Earth to worship it. Notice it says "Heaven" which includes a MENTAL IMAGE or representation of the Rabb. No physical personification of the Rabb it means and the first really explained it. Abdoo Allah ahad, "Adhere to being inseparably (no separation)". Ahad means in unity/unique. Abd means "keep to inseparably" by lexical definitions. The main problem is the misconception of Allah here which is from the root Alef-Lam-Lam and is not a word for the Rabb but means "To Be" as a grammatical structure, i.e. "adhere to be inseparably".
I said it to Nabster before, but if Allah was to be an entity it would require to be written , but he denies it. Only then it is a noun because it is not a name due to the AL, otherwise the must be used to refer to another subject or predicate in a context. It is wise to learn all about the grammar and restrictions. But when people do not even know that the pronunciation for is teh then obviously you know they do not know everything about Arabic and also Aramaic.
Be well
-
Salam Man of Faith.
Thank you for elaborately explaining your understanding one more time. As I told you earlier, and also mentioned to Freedom on this thread, my understanding of "God" is fairly consistent with your understanding. Although I probably would not use the words "I do not make a separation of the Rabb from myself " as they could be misleading. For me better suited words are "The universe, including all of us is merely an expression of the will of Allah - whatever Allah wants to create, He asks it to be and it is." To me the best analogy of Allah is that of a novelist where we are all characters in his novel - as such we do not exist independently from Allah, but then again we are not Allah. Allah is much more than collection of us all ? much, much more. However, I do believe this slight difference of understanding is acceptable. At the end of the day we are by design incapable to comprehend the nature of Allah ? we merely come-up with some understanding that makes sense to us.
The difference between you and me does not arise so much in terms of understanding God (or the RABB) - rather in understanding "How to approach God". In your world view taking any form of symbol for the RABB is unacceptable to the RABB. You feel physical acts like prostrations imply God to be a physical entity and hence is a form of "shirk"! This is where I absolutely differ. I view there can be many different ways of approaching God or RABB and each major religion in fact preaches some different approach. To me, since humans themselves are limited in physical time and space and their body and mind are synchronized into one - physically prostrating to the RABB definitely helps him concentrate his respect and reverence to the "Foundation" of all existance. And adhering to physical rituals is one of the very many paths that can potentially lead us to the same destination.
Your excessive emphasis on "no physical ritual approach" turns you incapable of accepting and understanding approaches of others. "My path is the only right path" attitude arises out of envy of others - and is sure to lead to a narrow sectarian mindset.
2213 Mankind used to be a single community. Then Allah animated the prophets, as bearer of (glad) tidings and as bearer of warnings, and sent down with them the book in truth to judge among mankind in what they differed in it. And none differed in it except the ones ? they were given it from after clear proofs which came to them - envy among them. Then Allah guided those who had faith regarding what they differed in it from the truth with His authorization. And Allah guides to straight route whomever He wills.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
My Master has been kind enough to broaden my mind and guide me to how people differ in the teaching of various prophets - and I am not going back to a narrow mindset, no matter how much you try. I have learnt from the Qur?an that piety is not in turning to the east or the west. God does not differentiate between who goes to Mecca for spiritual awakening vs. who goes to Kailsh. God judges by faith and action of people. But of all the various paths leading to God, Qur?an recommends a middle path (millat-i-ibrahim) which encourages ritually offering our reverence, our purity and our obedience to the Master of the universe, but rejects taking any image of God and then calling it God. The criteria of judgement is not whether one is expressing his reverence physically or mentally - the criteria is whether one has been conscious and had faith and acted righteously.
4123 - By neither your wishful thinking, nor the wishful thinking of the fraternity of the book ? whoever acts in wickedness will be repaid for it and will neither find any patron nor any helper from beside Allah.
4124 And whoever acts out of righteousness ? among male or female ? and is faithful, then they are the ones to enter the garden and they will not be wronged by crumbs.
4125 And who is on an nicer resolution (ا than the one who submits his face to Allah and he has been nice and follows the religion of Abraham the precise? And Allah took Abraham as a friend.
4126 And whatever (is there) in the heavens and whatever (is there) on the earth (all) belong to Allah and Allah happens to (completely) surround everything.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
A bird which has been freed from the cage to embrace the sky, must not go back into another cage. As long as you stick to ?my path is the only path acceptable to the RABB? mindset, the difference between your world-view and my world-view is real and irreconcilable.
As for your approach to force-fitting Qur'an into your world view is concerned, I find it not worthy of discussion. Then again there are bigger non-sense fetishes that people of this forum enjoy including anti-west conspiracy mongering and flat earth fantasies. Perhaps once people distance themselves from mainstream fanaticism of the clergies, they become easier pray to shaitan?s provocation to create a world of pseudo-realities. Simply - be good, love others, live peacefully ? is too humble a message to be ?Godly? for many of us; we love to make things complicated. I am trying to distance myself from these unproductive discussions as much as possible.
However, after taking some time to think about it, I do realize that I owe you an appology. Specifically on this thread my response to your comment was a bit unnecessarily aggressive and perhaps impolite. Although I never shy away to clarify my differences with you, probably I should have deferred it for some other appropriate thread than bringing up it here. I do sincerely appologize for that.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Armanaziz,
The difference between you and me does not arise not so much in terms of understanding God (or the RABB) - rather in understanding "How to approach God". In your world VIEW taking any form of symbol for the RABB is unacceptable to the RABB. You feel physical acts like prostrations imply God to be a physical entity and hence is a form of "shirk"! This is where I absolutely differ. I view there can be many different ways of approaching God or RABB and each major religion in fact preaches some different approach. To me, since humans themselves are limited in physical time and space and their body and mind are synchronized into one - physically prostrating to the RABB definitely helps him concentrate his respect and reverence to the "Foundation" of all existance. And adhering to physical rituals is one of the very many paths that can potentially lead us to the same destination.
I too very much agree with you on this. Thanks for your explanation )
Peace.
-
Man of Faith tries hard though to interpret the Quran so as to free people from being forced to perform rituals whether they prefer them or not, from fixed ancient culture government laws as according to the current version of Quran translation, limited gender roles, a God who professes to have excellent traits yet actions show something else, etc into a softer and more spiritual version of the Quran. His method of translation has been interesting to me, mainly because of the meanings he has been deriving from them.
So yeah, there would still be clash of perspectives every now and then, but then at least Man of Faith tries to deliver what he finds suitable from his perspective, and hence help a number of people (such as me) to gain better understandings and peace as well.
I appreciate you guys, Armanaziz and others, to have interesting discussions and deliver valuable insights and perspectives. May Allah bless you all for the amount of time you guys spend to try to understand spiritual matters better.
Peace.
-
Arman,
Your excessive emphasis on "no physical ritual approach" turns you incapable of accepting and understanding approaches of others. "My path is the only right path" attitude arises out of envy of others - and is sure to lead to a narrow sectarian mindset.
I can understand others, but it is a dangerous path and erroneous because you agreed yourself that the Rabb it not separate from yourself nor the world and other beings since it is the platform of existence itself. That is not "excessive emphasis" but a word of advice to everyone around me, and many people believe that this Quran says it while it does not due to sectarian meddling with its interpretation.
Obsessive-compulsive rituals are not part of the deen even though one can on own volition do some sort of "concentration exercise" that they have found to work on them, e.g. meditation.
You are still wrong about me because I can accept and understand the practices of others, but I can still say that they are deluded due to misguidance out there if I have the appropriate information. My work here is out of empathy and compassion for other humans and that I seek to help them and not boast my ego.
"Your excessive emphasis on "no physical ritual approach"" is simply because that is not the way of the Rabb, with an emphasis on PHYSICAL. Prostration as a practice requires a target and that target is lacking with the Rabb. And to have a "holy" location on Earth requires a concentration of energy over that spot making it an idol, i.e. an image of the Rabb somewhere which is against parameter 2 on the 'Ten Commandments'.
You see, it is just a propagation of information that I am commencing on this forum and not a dogmatic spree. Not do I wish for my fellow humans to be stuck in the god delusion with Pagan rituals. But should they not desire to hearken unto my words they are free to continue with whatever practice they were doing. I just like to free them of shackles that are meaningless that they do because of a delusion of a dogmatic god is enforcing them. If they still want to do rituals and rites without it being thought of being enforced by a scripture then that is up to them. I personally do meditation every now and then and it could count as a ritual depending on how you see it, although a ritual to me is compulsive behavior. I interpret 'ritual' as a word with a negative implication which is dumbening because in the end you just do it due to the compulsive nature.
My Master has been kind enough to broaden my mind and guide me to how people differ in the teaching of various prophets - and I am not going back to a narrow mindset, no matter how much you try. I have learnt from the Qur?an that piety is not in turning to the east or the west. God does not differentiate between who goes to Mecca for spiritual awakening vs. who goes to Kailsh. God judges by faith and action of people. But of all the various paths leading to God, Qur?an recommends a middle path (millat-i-ibrahim) which encourages ritually offering our reverence, our purity and our obedience to the Master of the universe, but rejects taking any image of God and then calling it God. The criteria of judgement is not whether one is expressing his reverence physically or mentally - the criteria is whether one has been conscious and had faith and acted righteously.
With all due respect, "millat abraham" as per the sectarian interpretation of Quran is definitely not the "middle way". It has a clear distinction of the god rather than evening the god out on all of existence in oneness. The only middle way is by seeing the world from the perspective of pantheism or otherwise it is dualism or more theism. Despite their strange deviation in Buddhism and Hinduism they have more of a middle way on the god perception than "millat abraham' because they do not really have any central god at all.
As for your approach to force-fitting Qur'an into your world view is concerned, I find it not worthy of discussion.
It is not my world view. It is the Rabb's view as teaching in Quran. I relay it here on the forum. If you ever would wake up to the fact that what I say is actually true then you would speak otherwise. I am not forcing Quran to say anything other than what it really says. It is those everyday copy-pasted passages on the forum with sectarian ancient interpretations that are "force-fitting" Quran. There you have "force-fitting" Quran. Do you think I am speaking because it is my idea of the world? No it is wrong, it is because that is how the world looks like and its functionality.
The network parable with the Rabb as the system it an modern adaptation of a way to metaphorize the way the Rabb works as Quran really expresses itself. Each human that opens their "Door", i.e. manages to connect to the Rabb, has immense wisdom and knowledge flowing through the "Door". That last sentence is nearly exactly what the Quran says.
The world is a contradiction that was made to test a species that which was made in the copy of the being of the Rabb but put into the Homo Sapiens body. Every soul is identical but comes along differently depending on bias etc. It is like the Rabb being a Father and then spreads a lot of seeds to later harvest the better of the results. And those people are later malekat.
Those are not my words but of the Rabb. It can come forth in the Biblical Gospels, but most people here do not believe them to be authentic words but invented by the Greco-Roman clergy. It does not help that Quran was interpreted by Persian clerics who invented Islam as a sort of offshoot of Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Obviously those clerics in the Middle-East did not accept Jesus' words then and obviously they needed an entirely opposite doctrine that reinforces the typical god delusion. You see how much exaggerated emphasis there is on the deeds of the allah in Quran to the extent of the god being mad about self-gratification. This is not the true message that it speaks of beneath the sectarian clerical interpretation. It just takes to understand what you and others read is not even remotely close to what Quran really says.
The god is not righteous in Quran as traditionally implied. It wants to proclaim an ego more huge than a mountain yet ask every human to be humble beneath it. That is hypocrisy of the biggest sort. To ask something of someone else but you yourself can be in any mode you like. That is why a sharp-minded person can see that these are clerics who have been sitting down with their human view of the world to compile an interpretation of it. Obviously the Rabb does not need to sit around a whole scripture bragging of its deeds because that it not the point. Why brag about a delusion that was enabled to be a contradiction to deceive foolish and insincere humans that they are actually part of a test? I suppose if you enabled your mind you can see that it appears hypocritical by the Rabb then.
Be well
-
Man of Faith tries hard though to interpret the Quran so as to free people from being forced to perform rituals whether they prefer them or not, from fixed ancient culture government laws as according to the current version of Quran translation, limited gender roles, a God who professes to have excellent traits yet actions show something else, etc into a softer and more spiritual version of the Quran. His method of translation has been interesting to me, mainly because of the meanings he has been deriving from them.
Exactly. My main effort is on making people understand that they are deceived by interpretations to believe it is compulsory to perform rituals. If they when they know the Rabb does not ask for anything like it in a scripture deemed authentic still desire to perform rituals it is up to them, but they know this is voluntary and their own venture.
Red Yet the ancient lexicons have the definitions that I use during the reinterpretation and translation project. They are not taken out of the blue which people accuse me of.
So yeah, there would still be clash of perspectives every now and then, but then at least Man of Faith tries to deliver what he finds suitable from his perspective, and hence help a number of people (such as me) to gain better understandings and peace as well.
I do not desire to have a huge ego. These views are brought entirely from Quran and insight that I have through the "Door". Quran does confirm all of them.
I may seem dogmatic but that is because I am one who speaks with authority due to confidence since I know things. Obviously I would not speak of something I was not sure about because I am actually quite a meek person and afraid of committing errors. It took me nearly three years to stop the ritual salat because I was afraid lest I was wrong so I continued it even if I was already relatively sure it was not a ritual "in case of", so one could rest assured I know what I am talking about. In 2014 it was that I finally made the move of cessation on the ritual of delusion. And nothing has impacted me negatively ever since and my understanding has continued to grow steadily. In fact what has rather caused it to grow is an increased abstention from the world with less indulgence.
Be well