Islam's view on Marijuana
-
so you read the article and you still say weed is forbidden?
I read the article and the Quran. The definition of "shun" still stands. God told us to stay well away from intoxicants, as pot is an intoxicant.
which argument?
because of opium the qurans argument about fruits as provisions are nullified? lolNo your argument that weed is okay because it is a plant is nullified.
truth has nothing to do with democracy or voting.
I know, you were the one who told me "convince" others.
OPF,
in my opinion cannabis provides access to higher levels of conciousness. so its comparable to "lifting the veil".
this ?access to higher levels of conciousness? is not only my understanding. it is a common knowledge among users. altought not among all the users. while many feel clouded, others feel high.
this may depend on the using culture. starting from mentioning God?s name upon it...
the substances you find in LSD occur nowhere naturally. they are synthesised by man.Wrong again. LSD is derived from a natural substance. The actual core compound in the "lysergic acid" comes from the seeds of a plant. Also, the experiences of LSD is not much different then magic mushrooms or mescaline, both of which are total intoxicants.
ofcourse, everything what happens in here, you may say comes from God. so you may also say that evil comes from God. What do you make of that, OPF?
God created both good and evil to test us. So He created the plants which are allowed, and the plants which are forbidden.
PeAcE
-
I read the article and the Quran. The definition of "shun" still stands. God told us to stay well away from intoxicants, as pot is an intoxicant.
shun does not mean forbidden.Wrong again. LSD is derived from a natural substance. The actual core compound in the "lysergic acid" comes from the seeds of a plant.
haven?t you noticed that everything is derived from natural substances? what i am talking about is that man takes natural substance to chemical lab, makes some hocus-pocus and the outcome is a substance which didnt exist before. LSD is a mix of such manmade substances.So He created the plants which are allowed, and the plants which are forbidden.
no plant is forbidden. it was the Adam and Eve story where there were one forbidden fruit. now there are not even that one forbidden fruit.lawful vs forbidden
16114 So eat from what God has provided for you, that which is good and lawful, and thank the blessings of God, if it is indeed He whom you serve.
16115 He only made forbidden for you what is already dead, and blood, and the meat of pig, and what was sacrificed to any other than God. But whoever is forced to, without disobedience or transgression, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.
16116 And do not say regarding what your tongues describe with lies ?This is lawful and that is forbidden;? that you seek to invent lies about God. Those who invent lies about God will not succeed. -
this may depend on the using culture. starting from mentioning God?s name upon it...
made a little search about cannabis and higher states of conciousness in internet and find that there are much interesting stuff on the subject.
for example this article, which in many points represents also my understandingExpand Your Consciousness Through Cannabis
It has been known for many millennia, and perhaps even before the advent of languages, that there exist in nature certain substances which greatly aid personal unfoldment. Known today as "entheogens" and also, "teacher plants", such substances are becoming more widely understood as accelerators of human consciousness. Among these is the Cannabis Herb, also known as "marijuana", whose flowers induce THE HIGH.
The high of cannabis is considered a mild hallucinogenic, but when it is properly used, it is neither mild, nor hallucinogenic. Instead, this Herb can be an extremely potent conveyor of high states of consciousness, one that can be used by the meditator for the sake of gaining greater clarity, vibration, (level of high) energy, (chi) psychic powers, greater health, intelligence and wisdom. By "properly used" I mean the Herb should be smoked with a reverent and spiritual INTENTION, and whose full potential absolutely CANNOT be realized without the practice of meditation. Most smokers assume that the high is a finite thing depending solely upon the chemistry of a given piece of bud. But the truth is that the high can be greatly amplified through meditational focus upon it, and through the conscious employment of INTENT.
...
see http//www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/9140587 -
shun does not mean forbidden.
That is why I do not neccessarily agree with making pot illegal. But it should be "shuned" willingly.
haven?t you noticed that everything is derived from natural substances? what i am talking about is that man takes natural substance to chemical lab, makes some hocus-pocus and the outcome is a substance which didnt exist before. LSD is a mix of such manmade substances.
no plant is forbidden. it was the Adam and Eve story where there were one forbidden fruit. now there are not even that one forbidden fruit.Opium has no added chemicals. Neither do many other narcotics. So again your argument that weed is okay because it is natural is flawed.
see http//www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/9140587
lol... thnx 4 such a credible source dude. P
PeAcE
-
lol... thnx 4 such a credible source dude. P
thanks for pointing it out, beacause it was not the original aadress
http//www.eoni.com/~visionquest/library/SOTH.htmlOpium has no added chemicals. Neither do many other narcotics. So again your argument that weed is okay because it is natural is flawed
this was not about opium, i talked aboud LSD.
as there are many poisonous plants, then ofcourse all plants are not okay to consume. as sayd already before. will you keep drumming?That is why I do not neccessarily agree with making pot illegal. But it should be "shuned" willingly.
finally you admit that intoxicants are not forbidden? and its not in your power to make plants forbidden?and if YOU are convinced that pot is an intoxicant, then yes, YOU better "shun" it willingly. because, as i have understand, most harmful is to act against your own understandings - to be a hypocrite.
as for those who dont consider pot as an intoxicant but see it as God?s blessing and gift for reaching higher states of consciousness, for those i give from the same webpage one more article which will probably affirm their current understanding and will give many interesting thoughts of how to reach from high even higher by meditation and other practices.
http//www.eoni.com/~visionquest/library/entheo1.html (there are 3 parts)God is the Most High.
-
thanks for pointing it out, beacause it was not the original aadress
http//www.eoni.com/~visionquest/library/SOTH.html"the world mind society" ..... ???
and if YOU are convinced that pot is an intoxicant, then yes, YOU better "shun" it willingly. because, as i have understand, most harmful is to act against your own understandings - to be a hypocrite.
Well then you better understand what being a hypocrite actually means
"a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs." http//dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite
If your intention is really to "lift the veil" and come closer to God, then I advise you to stop using drugs which only provide a means to escape from reality. While lifting the veil requires a person to face reality head on, drugs just make a person coast through life by ignoring the hardships of going through it sober. Use your common sense Achieving a higher state of consciousness would require more effort the the normal drugged out state of the human being, which MOST humans are usually in. Whether its pot, or alcohol, or prescription pills.
this was not about opium, i talked aboud LSD.
I know, and opium was the example I gave you to counter your claims about natural plants. (you keep losing track of the argument)
finally you admit that intoxicants are not forbidden? and its not in your power to make plants forbidden?
What do you mean by "finally" ??? How many times did I tell you that I never supported the illegalization of drugs??? I always said from the beginning that they should be willingly rejected by the individual (i.e. Shunned). I may have incorrectly used the word "forbidden" but my stance on drugs has not changed at all.
PeAcE
-
If your intention is really to "lift the veil" and come closer to God, then I advise you to stop using drugs which only provide a means to escape from reality.
691 The reality.
692 What is the reality?
693 Absolutely, do you know what is the reality?human brain itself produce tiny amounts of THC (which is the main cannabis ingridient in making HIGH). so how could it be intoxicant? we cant ?shun? it. IMPOSSIBLE !
-
human brain itself produce tiny amounts of THC (which is the main cannabis ingridient in making HIGH). so how could it be intoxicant? we cant ?shun? it. IMPOSSIBLE !
(lol) Maybe your brain produces THC, but the rest of our brains produce substances which are similar to THC (not actually THC). But even that does not help your argument because the brain also produces serotonin and dopamine as well. This does not mean we should start popping xtc and shooting heroin.
691 The reality.
692 What is the reality?
693 Absolutely, do you know what is the reality?I am not the one claiming enlightenment via drugs here bud. You're the one constantly "lifting the veil"... So go ahead... enlighten me.P
PeAcE
-
(lol) Maybe your brain produces THC, but the rest of our brains produce substances which are similar to THC (not actually THC). But even that does not help your argument because the brain also produces serotonin and dopamine as well. This does not mean we should start popping xtc and shooting heroin.
so now you admit that quantaties do mather as previously you sayd quantaties dont mather?I am not the one claiming enlightenment via drugs here bud. You're the one constantly "lifting the veil"... So go ahead... enlighten me.
i just pointed out that when you are talking about reality, you dont know what you are talking about.
however, i think you have to admit that when you had your experiences with mind altering substances your understanding about reality changed. -
so now you admit that quantaties do mather as previously you sayd quantaties dont mather?
err... no... where are you getting this from? By the way, do you still think that THC is produced in the brain? (lol)
i just pointed out that when you are talking about reality, you dont know what you are talking about.
And you do?
however, i think you have to admit that when you had your experiences with mind altering substances your understanding about reality changed.
My understanding was granted to me by Allah... not the drugs.
Unlike you, I am not crediting the drugs with inherent power.PeAcE
-
Ha ha definitely my thread
Just 2 things, talking about my own experience
1- The main difference between marijuana and alcohol is, when drinking you definitely cover your mind because you get to a point you don't know anymore what you are doing, that is why people start to speak loudly, fight etc etc after some glaces of alcohol. Instead while smoking you never get to a state where 'you don't know what you are doing'! At the max you go to sleep, that's it! So for me there is a big, huge difference there. Now why it is prohibited by law in major countries , I think it is just cultural thing.
2-Also smoking one join from time to time does not hurt but smoking frequently could hurt memory, breathing system etc again I think the tobacco is much much more dangerous than marijuana in term of addiction, --> it is more difficult to stop smoking tobacco than marijuana!!!!!! Definitely true!!!! still tobacco is not
hope this help
-
c0de,
thanks for a challange, you had many good arguments and i also gain some new knowledge (forex. similar to THC), but i feel like im wasting my time here, specially when i look at the last lines, to which i suppousedly should reply... so i am out. for now.
hope you enjoy arguing with herbman here, its definitely his thread, as his name tells O0i know, many muslims dont take bible seriously, so it will propably not be very strong argument, but still, see what the bible tells about cannabis
http//www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/mayjune96/kanehbosm.html -
err... no... where are you getting this from? By the way, do you still think that THC is produced in the brain? (lol) P
And you do?
My understanding was granted to me by Allah... not the drugs.
Unlike you, I am not crediting the drugs with inherent power.PeAcE
Yet all understandings come from "Allah" when you think about it. I understand that this concept fits in quranically (6104) but this is a clear cut abuse of that passage. Why don't I then claim that "It was God that gave me nutrition, not the food that I ate" and "It was God that fixed my crankshaft, not the mechanic with his spanner"? Because clearly, these are ridiculous statements, just because someone/something facilitates an improvement does not mean that God is suddenly disconnected from the process. Would you credit the guillotine with inherent power or does that also have "no power" and it chops people's heads off purely by the will of God, a magical entity separate from the physical realm which our creator has placed us in?
Likewise, the same argument can be extended to psychedelic substances. Tarmo does have a point in that nobody looks at prescription medicines which tend to be obscenely evil. There are an obscene number of "intoxicants" which "cloud the mind" and the majority of Muslims, ignorant of their subtle effects and interactions in the brain have no issues taking them. So while diacetylmorphine is an intoxicating tool of Shaitan, there is no issue with say, diazepam, risperidone, fluoxetine, etc. All of which "cloud the mind" and "intoxicate", some rendering the user emotionally blunted and unaware that they are in such a state.
As long as you live in the physical realm, you will be submitting to physical laws, the laws which our Creator has ordained, laws which cannot be broken. So why denounce a small amount of emergent phenomena such as the subjective effects of a small collection of psychedelic drugs when there is practically a world of harm that lies in the "halal"? I find that drugs are bad only when abused and of course, the abuse potential is very high for most of them.
Ha ha definitely my thread
Just 2 things, talking about my own experience
1- The main difference between marijuana and alcohol is, when drinking you definitely cover your mind because you get to a point you don't know anymore what you are doing, that is why people start to speak loudly, fight etc etc after some glaces of alcohol. Instead while smoking you never get to a state where 'you don't know what you are doing'! At the max you go to sleep, that's it! So for me there is a big, huge difference there. Now why it is prohibited by law in major countries , I think it is just cultural thing.
2-Also smoking one join from time to time does not hurt but smoking frequently could hurt memory, breathing system etc again I think the tobacco is much much more dangerous than marijuana in term of addiction, --> it is more difficult to stop smoking tobacco than marijuana!!!!!! Definitely true!!!! still tobacco is not
hope this help
Raw BS, marijuana also induces depersonalisation and other symptoms of anxiety which can lead to paranoid delusions and other psychotic thought processes. People can and do get to a point where they "do not know what they are doing".
-
Yet all understandings come from "Allah" when you think about it. I understand that this concept fits in quranically (6104) but this is a clear cut abuse of that passage. Why don't I then claim that "It was God that gave me nutrition, not the food that I ate" and "It was God that fixed my crankshaft, not the mechanic with his spanner"? Because clearly, these are ridiculous statements, just because someone/something facilitates an improvement does not mean that God is suddenly disconnected from the process. Would you credit the guillotine with inherent power or does that also have "no power" and it chops people's heads off purely by the will of God, a magical entity separate from the physical realm which our creator has placed us in?
I agree with al-Ghazali and the occasionalists when he posited that "when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire". My agreement with the occasionalists ends there, but I love quoting this example as I simply love it.
Likewise, the same argument can be extended to psychedelic substances. Tarmo does have a point in that nobody looks at prescription medicines which tend to be obscenely evil. There are an obscene number of "intoxicants" which "cloud the mind" and the majority of Muslims, ignorant of their subtle effects and interactions in the brain have no issues taking them. So while diacetylmorphine is an intoxicating tool of Shaitan?, there is no issue with say, diazepam, risperidone, fluoxetine, etc. All of which "cloud the mind" and "intoxicate", some rendering the user emotionally blunted and unaware that they are in such a state.
I completely agree with your sentiments, and Tarmo's opinion on this issue. I never challenged it. I only challenged the idea that marijuana is not "khamr".
As long as you live in the physical realm, you will be submitting to physical laws, the laws which our Creator has ordained, laws which cannot be broken. So why denounce a small amount of emergent phenomena such as the subjective effects of a small collection of psychedelic drugs when there is practically a world of harm that lies in the "halal"? I find that drugs are bad only when abused and of course, the abuse potential is very high for most of them.
I realize the insignificance of such a substance when compared with the other problems in society. This is part of the reason why I am against the so called "drug war"...
PeAcE
-
I agree with al-Ghazali and the occasionalists when he posited that "when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire". My agreement with the occasionalists ends there, but I love quoting this example as I simply love it.
PeAcE
AFAIK the closest thing to this concept in the Quran is 226, but that describes something very different. So what is your justification for believing this to be true? It's almost magical and seemingly irrational to believe when we have enough insight into the workings of the universe to know that everything follows certain rules and causes have effects. Why place God in between a cause and an effect?
If you say that God gave you good understanding then that argument can be extended to bad understanding and following one's base desires, things which can also come from say, psychedelics or cannabis intoxication. Quranically, one has to be responsible for their own actions, desires and thought patterns/intentions (3044).
-
Why place God in between a cause and an effect?
Because ultimately, the "causes" all run out.
If you say that God gave you good understanding then that argument can be extended to bad understanding and following one's base desires,
I know. This is why I do not believe in "free will".
Quranically, one has to be responsible for their own actions, desires and thought patterns/intentions (3044).
Its much more complicated then that.
PeAcE
-
Because ultimately, the "causes" all run out.
Fallacious. It depends from what framework you use to look at the world. If you are using the big bang theory, and the evidence is overwhelming, there is no need for a "first cause". The "causes run out" because you attempt to ask "what came before the beginning of time?" and of course, you need time to determine cause and effect (unless you are going to prove that cause and effect are independent of time). In modern times we now know that time itself is a part of the universe and does not pass independent to the existence of the dimensions of space, nor can it. Interestingly enough at the beginning of the universe, everything was joined together as one in a zero dimensional point, time was not even in the picture, and all fundamental forces of the universe were one (or rather, every fundamental force is a different aspect of the same one force except that they come out to play when the amount of energy filling whatever space we are talking about dips below certain thresholds). If anything can be called a "first case" then "the universe" in that state of oneness can be considered a first cause. I'm sure it is a lot more complicated then that but I know this is the general picture.
I know. This is why I do not believe in "free will".
Please expand.
Its much more complicated then that.
PeAcE
As above. I fail to see the whole point of judgement when that principle is not upheld.
Peace.
-
Fallacious. It depends from what framework you use to look at the world.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself here, rite? How is my view "fallacious" if I am using a different framework (in which cause and effect hold true for finite things?... unless of course you somehow prove that the universe is infinite... but you can't.. because multi-verse and string-theories are not technically "sciences" yet, are they? But then again, even if they were, you would still not be able to disprove the alternative as it will always creep in to that argument)
If you are using the big bang theory, and the evidence is overwhelming, there is no need for a "first cause".
You are mistaken, you need a first cause in a big bang model of the universe, and such a model is totally deterministic.
Interestingly enough at the beginning of the universe, everything was joined together as one in a zero dimensional point, time was not even in the picture, and all fundamental forces of the universe were one (or rather, every fundamental force is a different aspect of the same one force except that they come out to play when the amount of energy filling whatever space we are talking about dips below certain thresholds). If anything can be called a "first case" then "the universe" in that state of oneness can be considered a first cause. I'm sure it is a lot more complicated then that but I know this is the general picture.
Again, you are mistaken. The first cause was the event which "began time". Or in terms of thermodynamics (which is the only indicator of an arrow of time) set the second law in motion.
The "causes run out" because you attempt to ask "what came before the beginning of time?" and of course, you need time to determine cause and effect (unless you are going to prove that cause and effect are independent of time).
Actually, in a deterministic universe, "time" can be shown to be an illusion. I have hope that the new Hologram theory will shed light on this idea.
Please expand.
I rather not.
As above. I fail to see the whole point of judgement when that principle is not upheld.
What "judgment" are you referring to? The person said marijuana was not "khamr"... I was disagreeing with him.
PeAcE