EDUCATION OF ANWAR AZIM

unknownuser

We make best use of our limited human language, though it does not do justice to the reality that many have called God, Tao, Nirvana, Brahman-Atman. That is why language of scripture is very specific. It is the language of poetry. It is poetry with its power of signs and symbols that can hint at a reality that lies beyond Language and Reason.

There you go again.... Now language of poetry, signs and symbols blah blah blah...

Do you know a man who can say too many blah's in a sentence? He was Blahbelous -)

You can joke too? I am surprised!! -)

There are lots of surprises in life. )

You write in Clich? too? Be original man -)

I meant it in a affectionate way chap -)

No thanks. I do not need your affection. nope

It's ok I still love you -)

So I am telling you, compare Muhammad experiences with that of the seers, sages, prophets and mystics and you will see the experience is similiar. Go and read.

I don't believe cock and bull stories. By the way, do you have any attachment with "Muhammad"? Are you a follower of "Muhammad"?

I am no follower of any one man. I am a guide on to myself -)
Cheers,

Regards,

Leyla

Salaam, peace, Lote, all readers.

I won?t have good computer access for some time from this evening on and so I won?t be able, unfortunately, to go on with this discussion.
So, if I should disappear for some time, don?t take this personally.
Also, I am in a hurry now so let me only address some few few basic points that I think of as important.
No time to elaborate much further.

First of all, Lote Tree, if your would really read the posts of your discussions partners in detail and understand their thoughts in its context you would be familiar with teh phrase `spit into jesus? face?.
I have used that phrase in our discussion before, just some days before, and I explained where it comes from and what it means!!!!!! wink
I think that this is also the reason of the problems you have with mquran?s position
As I said, you should read all parts of an argument, not just excerpts from it. Understand thoughts in their meant frame!
You just need to read carefully!

First of all, historical discussions are a difficult thing and mquran is right with distrusting history. Written history is a hadeeth that can?t be verified in a direct way. And written history is always written by the influential who have their own policies as well. And, furthermore, most written history is based on assumptions from discoveries or on oral knowledge.
Written history is revised every now and then.
My main argument for the quran is not a historical one. It is the one of proof within my life.
The Sana?a manuscripts have said nothing. They were just some old unpunctuated manuscripts that a certain Luxenberg has read in a certain way. Teh found manuscripts were read by Luxenberg in his way, but they can also easily be read in the usual way Other (non-muslim) remarkable scientists of semitism and orientalism have refutted his claims.
And, furthermore, just because these old manuscripts were unpunctuated it doesn?t mean that the oldest manuscripts were not punctuated as well. Punctuation was known from documents before that time already. One shouldn?t base claims on the foundability of a certain manuscript.

The problematics of history are also quite true for what you claim as the development of the concept of God. I am sorry to say this but this idea of a primitive concept evolving into elaborate forms is in itself primitive.
I definitely don?t want to brag but maybe I should mention that I am a university student of comparative religious sciences and cultural anthropology. These sciences these days strongly refute any evolutionary notion in religion. There is no proof for this.
Actually, so called tribal societies have a wide range of religious ideas. Some have concepts very close to the quran, others might be what you would call animistic. There is no development here.
Some people even cling to a theory (although this was and is also debated) that if there was a development then a universalist monotheism was primordial and not some rpimitive concepts?. The whole evolutionary idea of religious development was a fruit of 19th century racist Europe. One wanted to proof that there was an evolution in which so called high civilizations (including the self defined white empires) had a higher notion of religion than e.g. black and red barbars? in Africa and other uncivilized?parts of the world that needed to be colonialized?.
Modern social science rejects these positions in all ways.

Well, you gave a good example with the child reasoning. But see that?s exactly the problem with your reason?. Reason is never objective. As a child you have another reason then as a teenager. A person in a certain culture has a reason different from a person from another culture. The Boas? theory of cultural relativism? has elaborated on this.
People from different social classes?have differing ways of reasoning. None is better or worse, don?t mistake me. In their relevant frame they are all reasonable?.
You don?t want to see reason as a means but as a goal? Great.
Whose reason?
Is you?rs superior? Mine?
You don?t want us to turn the book into an idol?
That?s a true and relevant objection.
But don?t turn what you perceive in your own little frame as reason into an idol as well.

Due respect to Progod and Zlatan. They have done a good job and ther is much to learn from them.
But there is also much to criticise.
E.g. Progod comes from a position that tries to translate one language directly into another. However, this is impossible, imho.
Languages are in itself a self supporting system. E.g. an example that just came to me in a fruitful discussion I had today
You can not directly translate the English word argument?into German. You need two words for this. One possibility would be the word Argument?, the other the word Streit?. Both translate the word argument? but within German they have different meanings and are in no way identical!
See what I mean?
So, for me, Progod hasn?t demolished anything.
Mquran has presented a way to see quranic Arabic as a selfsupporting system and that?s a (yes, I will use that famed word) reasonable approach, much more reasonable than trying to translate every quranic word with a full English equivalent.

If that?s not your path, ok. As I said, go on your path. As long as you belief in the Absolute, in the last day and try to be a good human, that?s wonderful for me.
And I will do the same on my path.
So, we have aperfect agreement. )
As brother Olusanya has said it beautifully some days ago, in the end our actions will count and not endless babbling.

By the way, that Angelina Jolie is happy with another man is only a hadeeth that I haven?t been able to verify for myself. Have you?
Maybe it is not a sahih hadeeth and you still have a chance.
So, try and go on ..... . wink

Best wishes,
Allah Hafiz,

Leyla

unknownuser

Salaam!

Well, well, well ..... .
Yes, Lote, personal search and eyperiences do indeed play a part in becoming a prophet or a messenger of Allah.
The quran e.g. tells us about this in the story of Ibrahim.
Allah choses his messengers in the best way and he would probably not chose someone who does not already have a connection to Him.
And maybe the historically related stories are true, about Jesus going to the desert and Muhammad to a cave.
Maybe. I tend to trust them, though Anwar is perfectly right when he says that reliance on them is problematic.
These histories were never recorded as exactly as the quran.
Its ironic that you use this problematically historically transmitted stories to contest trust in a much more authentically transmitted source.

I also cannot contest the truth in the experiences of what you call the mystics and seers. They are surely some kind of an experience of the Absolute. Muhammad Iqbal once wrote a good piece about experiences like these and how we can not judge them with normal rationality, althought they themselves are rational of some own sort.
I can not even contest your own personal experiences.

And I perfectly agree that everyone who is at perfetc peace will receive petrsonal guidance by God. This is the teaching of the quran itself!

However, whatever experiences you made, you are still a human being with failures. And you think that from your experiences you can have a judgement about the relevance of the quran??
The great mystics were more sceptical about their experiences.
The Christian Catholic mystic Theresa of Avila once said `when Jesus appears to you, first of all spit into his face?.
Because she knew that not everything that appears as mystical and transcendent to a small human being is really that true!

There is one big mistake in your manner of thinking
You believe in the One Divine that people call Allah, Tao, Brahman. The highest state and most transcendent of consciousness.
Fine. That?s wonderful. This faith might create for you a path to the garden.
And it is true that we simple human being can not formulate anything definit about the Absolute because we don?t have such a high consciousness.
Fine as well.
However, the Absolute has the highest consciousness of all, right?
And you doubt that this highest consciousness of all would be able to formulate a revelation and transmit it to us in framed human words that would give us the best understanding of the path to Him.
You doubt that a consciousness much much higher than you would be able to transmit objective guidelines for each and everyone of us.
You think that this can only be human poetical language.
You dare to judge, with your smaller consciousness, the abilities of the highest form or consciousness! You dare to judge from your worthfull but nevertheless small human experiences that abilities of Allah!
Where is the logic here .......... ?
Think about that a little bit please, before you give an answer on that.

Youre lack of believing what we believe is a lack of believe in the abilities of the Absolute. Not a criticism of fanatism.

With best wishes,

Leyla

Hello Leyla,

Somehow I have missed your above post altogether where you gave "spit in jesus face"... Sorry -(

First of all, historical discussions are a difficult thing and mquran is right with distrusting history. Written history is a hadeeth that can?t be verified in a direct way. And written history is always written by the influential who have their own policies as well. And, furthermore, most written history is based on assumptions from discoveries or on oral knowledge.

To ignore all history is not rational. You make best use of what you have of history and when many sources agree on certain historical event then this needs to be accepted.

My main argument for the quran is not a historical one. It is the one of proof within my life.

But I am saying will you use this proof as absolute to others?

The Sana?a manuscripts have said nothing. They were just some old unpunctuated manuscripts that a certain Luxenberg has read in a certain way. Teh found manuscripts were read by Luxenberg in his way, but they can also easily be read in the usual way Other (non-muslim) remarkable scientists of semitism and orientalism have refutted his claims.

Sana manuscripts also has smal deviation from standard text. Even archeological finds of coins has small deviation from standard quranic text. Therefore let Quranic text undergo close scrutiny like Biblical texts have undergone close scrutiny for centuries. Let Sana and other Quranic manuscripts undergo scrutiny. Let the evaluation of sana and other manuscript be published and then we can all decide for ourselves.

And, furthermore, just because these old manuscripts were unpunctuated it doesn?t mean that the oldest manuscripts were not punctuated as well. Punctuation was known from documents before that time already. One shouldn?t base claims on the foundability of a certain manuscript.

I say let text undergo close scrutiny.

The problematics of history are also quite true for what you claim as the development of the concept of God. I am sorry to say this but this idea of a primitive concept evolving into elaborate forms is in itself primitive.

The Idea of God did not evolve in a linear fashion. Only scientific ideas work in this way. Evolution of God has been hap-hazzard but Idea of God has indeed evolved from its Pagan origins to God of transcendance.

I definitely don?t want to brag but maybe I should mention that I am a university student of comparative religious sciences and cultural anthropology. These sciences these days strongly refute any evolutionary notion in religion. There is no proof for this.

We humans are evolutionary product or do you deny human evolution?

Actually, so called tribal societies have a wide range of religious ideas. Some have concepts very close to the quran, others might be what you would call animistic. There is no development here.

As I said before The Idea of God did not evolve in a linear fashion. Only scientific ideas work in this way. Evolution of God has been hap-hazzard but Idea of God has indeed evolved from its Pagan origins to God of transcendance.

I shall respond to rest of your post in due course but I have to go now...

Regards,

yfn123

Guten tag, Herr LoteTree,

There you go again.... Now language of poetry, signs and symbols blah blah blah...

Do you know a man who can say too many blah's in a sentence? He was Blahbelous -)

It looks like it's a dead end.

There are lots of surprises in life.

You write in Clich? too? Be original man -)

I did write it on my own. If it happens to overlap with a Clich?, so be it. I can't help that.

No thanks. I do not need your affection. nope

It's ok I still love you -)

Oh well, I can't stop you from loving me. yawn

I don't believe cock and bull stories. By the way, do you have any attachment with "Muhammad"? Are you a follower of "Muhammad"?

I am no follower of any one man. I am a guide on to myself -)

This implies you are a follower of SOME MEN, not just yourself. You writings so far have alluded that you ARE a follower of SOME MEN. Read your own posts in the past.

Have a nice day.
Anwar Azim

unknownuser

It looks like it's a dead end.

What do yo expect when your brain starts breaking out into "blah blahs..." -)

You write in Clich? too? Be original man

I did write it on my own. If it happens to overlap with a Clich?, so be it.

Ignorance is no defense. That is why you need to educate yourself so that you will come to know what other people have already written and said -)

Oh well, I can't stop you from loving me.

Well, you can't help but love little babies when they start "blah-bing" at you.

This implies you are a follower of SOME MEN, not just yourself. You writings so far have alluded that you ARE a follower of SOME MEN. Read your own posts in the past.

Hey I am not gay! -)

But I see what you mean. But we are all followers of men aren't we? But I am no follower of any one man. I look at the all available information and make my own mind up. By following the footsteps of other people you don't learn anything new. You just end up tracing their footsteps. Spoon-fed wisdom does not get you far. It is when you make your own path, when you strike out on your own, then you have the possibility learning something new of the "infinity" of "God".

Have a nice day...

Regards,

yfn123

Hola LoteTree,

What do yo expect when your brain starts breaking out into "blah blahs..." -)

You were repeating the same thing again... hence blah blah... Understand?

Ignorance is no defense. That is why you need to educate yourself so that you will come to know what other people have already written and said -)

It is better to think on your own rather than mindlessly follow others. Understand? It doesn't mean that I don't read anything else. You, Mr. LoteTree, just see what you want to see. )

Well, you can't help but love little babies when they start "blah-bing" at you.

I figure you didn't understand at all what I meant earlier when I said blah blah... (From observing your pattern, I assume you are going to come up with something to twist this.)

But I see what you mean. But we are all followers of men aren't we? But I am no follower of any one man. I look at the all available information and make my own mind up. By following the footsteps of other people you don't learn anything new. You just end up tracing their footsteps. Spoon-fed wisdom does not get you far. It is when you make your own path, when you strike out on your own, then you have the possibility learning something new of the "infinity" of "God".

You still have ended up following their footsteps, or else you wouldn't be appealing to their authority, of whom one of them is "Muhammad".

Have a nice day.
Anwar Azim

unknownuser

What do yo expect when your brain starts breaking out into "blah blahs..." -)

You were repeating the same thing again...?

Because you are not understanding perhaps -)

Ignorance is no defense. That is why you need to educate yourself so that you will come to know what other people have already written and said -)

It is better to think on your own rather than mindlessly follow others. Understand? It doesn't mean that I don't read anything else.

It does not show that you read anything else. You read only one thing and do you want to guess what that one thing is?

You, Mr. LoteTree, just see what you want to see. )

I see things for what they are - you on the other hand see only one thing -)

Well, you can't help but love little babies when they start "blah-bing" at you.

I figure you didn't understand at all what I meant earlier when I said blah blah... (From observing your pattern, I assume you are going to come up with something to twist this.)

It is called being witty chap -)
Not understand?

But I see what you mean. But we are all followers of men aren't we? But I am no follower of any one man. I look at the all available information and make my own mind up. By following the footsteps of other people you don't learn anything new. You just end up tracing their footsteps. Spoon-fed wisdom does not get you far. It is when you make your own path, when you strike out on your own, then you have the possibility learning something new of the "infinity" of "God".

You still have ended up following their footsteps, or else you wouldn't be appealing to their authority, of whom one of them is "Muhammad".

Muhammad, Buddah, the Prophets they all experienced "transcendence". These people shared something in common and this common thing is "transcendence". You have to study them to see this. This is not following their footsteps but recoginising what they achieved -)

Have a nice day... -)

Regards,

yfn123

Hi LoteTree,

Because you are not understanding perhaps -)

Nope... nope You go round and round and you don't see it.

It does not show that you read anything else. You read only one thing and do you want to guess what that one thing is?

The quran? Free-minds.org? Nah... But if you believe so, you may believe so.

I see things for what they are - you on the other hand see only one thing -)

That's what you believe. )

It is called being witty chap -)

They are just derogatory, ill-timed attempts at wit or humor. If I have made any, I hereby apologize. serious

Muhammad, Buddah, the Prophets they all experienced "transcendence". These people shared something in common and this common thing is "transcendence". You have to study them to see this. This is not following their footsteps but recoginising what they achieved -)

Have a nice day... -)

If they were alive now, I would have certainly asked them if I could.

You, on the other hand, are alive. Have you experienced this "transcendence" that you speak of? If you have, then you would be able to talk about it without mentioning them. Or else you are just appealing to their authority to make belief. If you haven't experienced it, then I will not further ask you about it. I will thereby assume that you speak without actual knowledge of it.

You have a nice day too.
Anwar Azim

unknownuser

Nope... nope You go round and round and you don't see it.

Re read my posts -)

It does not show that you read anything else. You read only one thing and do you want to guess what that one thing is?

The quran? Free-minds.org? Nah... But if you believe so, you may believe so.

So you DO understand what I am talking about! -)

It is called being witty chap -)

They are just derogatory, ill-timed attempts at wit or humor. If I have made any, I hereby apologize. serious

Derogatory? Now, now chap sorry to hurt you.
Show me where it hurts and I will massage it better for you -)
Is that being derogatory?

If you take it seriously then it can become derogatory. So don't take anything seriously Anwar -)

As for ill-timed timed attempts at humour - hey at last I have got a critic! -)

Do you no what they say about critics?
They are just jelous of the people they criticise.
Just kiddin -)

Muhammad, Buddah, the Prophets they all experienced "transcendence". These people shared something in common and this common thing is "transcendence". You have to study them to see this. This is not following their footsteps but recoginising what they achieved -)

Have a nice day... -)

If they were alive now, I would have certainly asked them if I could.

You, on the other hand, are alive. Have you experienced this "transcendence" that you speak of? If you have, then you would be able to talk about it without mentioning them. Or else you are just appealing to their authority to make belief. If you haven't experienced it, then I will not further ask you about it. I will thereby assume that you speak without actual knowledge of it.

You have a nice day too.
Anwar Azim

You just don't get it do you?
I blame myself for trying so hard -(

Adios

Regards,

Jaxal

SaLaM LT and yfn123

Kids... stop it now handshake

yfn123

Hello Mr. LoteTree,

Re read my posts -)

It's been enough reading them. Going into circles won't change anything.

Derogatory? Now, now chap sorry to hurt you.
Show me where it hurts and I will massage it better for you -)
Is that being derogatory?

Our correspondence has degenerated a lot. I don't feel inclined to continue along these lines.

If you take it seriously then it can become derogatory. So don't take anything seriously Anwar -)

Sometimes you should know when to draw the line. Don't ask me when to. Educate yourself on this.

As for ill-timed timed attempts at humour - hey at last I have got a critic! -)

Do you no what they say about critics?
They are just jelous of the people they criticise.
Just kiddin -)

They say and you believe! And you want me to believe you! I am not jealous of you, Mr. LoteTree. Know that.

You just don't get it do you?
I blame myself for trying so hard -(

You just don't get it, do you? And yet you think you know it. It's not going anywhere, Mr. LoteTree. It will just go in circles and come to the same point again and again.

Adios.
Anwar Azim

unknownuser

SaLaM LT and yfn123

Kids... stop it now handshake

Grandad its not what you think -)

No one's fighting here honest...

Regards,

unknownuser

It does not show that you read anything else. You read only one thing and do you want to guess what that one thing is?

The quran? Free-minds.org? Nah... But if you believe so, you may believe so.

So you DO understand what I am talking about!

And yet you think you know it.

I think I know it? Is that all this was about?
Ha ha -)

You just don't get it do you? Scripture came from human experience of "transcendence" - what else is there to know? If you study it then you will recognise this also -)

As for knowing things, I will echo the old Socratic phrase "I know nothing" -)

Adios.

Regards,

yfn123

Good evening Mr. LoteTree,

It does not show that you read anything else. You read only one thing and do you want to guess what that one thing is?

The quran? Free-minds.org? Nah... But if you believe so, you may believe so.

So you DO understand what I am talking about!

Because that's what you would like to believe. Believing what one wants to believe is the easiest thing to do. ) Is this hard to understand?

And yet you think you know it.

I think I know it? Is that all this was about?
Ha ha -)

That's not all there is to it. I won't tell you what more there is, but I will let you excercise your mind on this. )

You just don't get it do you? Scripture came from human experience of "transcendence" - what else is there to know? If you study it then you will recognise this also -)

Are you saying that there is nothing else to know other than "Scripture came from human experience of "transcendence""? So it seems you KNOW something.

The so-called experience of "transcendence" you talk of, is ITSELF a human experience ! Human experience is subject to error, regardless of it being a "Scripture" or not. I wonder why you are so tied up with "Scripture". It seems to me that you cannot talk without mentioning "Scripture", just like you cannot talk without mentioning your authority figures.

As for knowing things, I will echo the old Socratic phrase "I know nothing" -)

There is nothing that Socrates wrote which one could analyze. You have to go through either Plato's presentation or Xenophon's presentation and read the critical views of authors who have writen ABOUT Socrates based on Plato's and Xenophon's presentations/writings. But since you like appealing to others, you can parrot what you want and hide behind them, which is again another easy thing to do, just like believing what one wants to believe. )

Good night.
Anwar Azim
PS Fall is coming soon. Just to let you know that I will be busy again and might not get the time to continue this correspondence with you as often as now.