EDUCATION OF ANWAR AZIM

unknownuser

Hola LoteTree,

And "He" does doesn't "He"?
He has endowed us with Reason, intuition and imagination to make us take responsibility for our own lives. And because He is just he guides each individual, he speaks to each individual. And when we are at peace within ourselves we can "hear" his Divine Guidance.

Oh really! "He guides each individual, he speaks to each individial"? Man, you must be out of your mind roll What about the suicide bombers who blew up children for no just reason? "He" must have abandoned them, instead of guiding them and speaking to them !

Yes, each individual recieves guidance. But to hear it, you have to be at peace within yourself. Do you not understand this?

What I tried to show is that you do not remain consistent. If you say that "God" is beyond "Language" and "Reason", then you cannot say anything or reason about "God" using "Language" and "Reason". Got it? You can't start saying "He" is compassionate, or that "because He is just" or that "He" guides each individual" or that "he speaks to each individual". You have described in "Language" and also used "Reason". You are not consistent with your assertion.

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.

I thought you are my mentor? That means you are far wiser than me?

The mentor thing, that was a joke. Nah... I'm not wiser than you.

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

Maybe I'm not wise at all.

Why may be? -)

See, you consider me as "my Naive Anwar". How could I be wiser than you?

I meant it in a affectionate way chap -)

What the "heck" I am trying to tell you is that "transcendence" is the key to the religious experience and it is from this experience that reality that many have called God, Nirvana, Tao and Brahman-Atman came from. Go and study this for youself.

What religious experience? I don't practice any religious thingy. Any other way ?

What I am saying that all spirituality comes from the human experience of "transcendence", so God, Nirvana, Tao, Brahman-Atman comes from this experience. Go and study it.

But do you not know that Muhammad also encountered "God" in a Meditative-Trance? Read the revelation verses and the historical information how revelation came about. Muhammad use to retreat to coolness of the cave to meditate. Compare Muhammad experiences with that of the seers, sages, prophets and mystics and you will see the experience is similiar.

Oh man, do you think I will believe you because you flash "Muhammad"? And besides which verses mention that he "encountered "God" in a "Meditative-Trance"? Care to give reference to them, or are you just bluffing me? I don't believe in the so-called "historical information how revelation came about". Are you a follower of "Muhammad"?

That's it Anwar. I am not asking you or anyone to believe me! I want each individual to find the Truth for themselves.

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.

But you can if you are dedicated, courageous, compassionate, sincere and you are at peace within yourself.

You have put a lot of conditions there. Are all of them necessary?
Anwar Azim

Yes -)

Regards,

Leyla

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

unknownuser

Peace Lote!
And this is one of the many points where, quite frankly, you didn?t understandd him right or misread him.
But I am not here to speak for him, so maybe you should wait for his reappearance.

Hello Leyla,

"Peace" with explanation mark!
I hope I have not upset you -)

But yes, lets wait his reappearance -)

You forget one very big thing here
To believe in the quran means to believe in all its verses.
And numerous of its verses tell us that everyone who has a sincere confidence in the One Divinity, the last day and who does good and constructive deeds will have salvation, no matter what his outward religious affiliation.

But in Buddhism there is no Last Day or notion of a theistic God, so are they all doomed? Is there no salvation for them?

It is hard to imagine all those compassionate Buddhist burning in hell simply they did not "believe" in the Last Day or a theistic God.

So, everyone who wholeheartedly attaches himself to the quran has to aknowledge the possibility of salvation for others who don?t.

That is a good view.

So, when we insist on the quran, we also insist on salvation for others.

Again a noble vision.

Poor guy, don?t you have a girlfriend? ;c)
We should find you a nice quranic wife here who will teach you ... ;c).

Yes, but having just one girl friend, it is hard to go "wild" with! -)
Just kiddin -)

Hey I don't need a Quranic wife, I prefer a intelligent and spiritual one.
As for quranic teaching, I have studied Quran for 2 years and memorised about 6 sifaras. But don't ask me to recite any because I can't remember a thing!

(!!No, I?m not free for you!!)

Ah good! But with due respects, you are not my type anyway -)

If you are able to play one of Mozart Piano Sonata and recite Shakespear, Wordsworth, Tagore, Omar Khayyam or Khalil Gibran from memory and beat me in a game of chess and beautiful as Angelina Jolie then perhaps I will consider it.

Just joking -)

Otherwise, I wish you more nice dreams .... .

Thank you very much -)

To discuss the danger of absolutist belief is always good. But you view as absolutist soem things that are not, that?s the problem I have.

To say Quran is the only and final word of God to humanity for all eternity - is that not absolutist belief?

Or are you saying Quran is not the final word of God for all humanity for all time?

Well, of course you can question the trust of everyone else to everything. But please do so with more research and more indepths knowledge.

If someone says Quran is the absolute word of God, then my question is how can you be sure? Since Quran came through a human being so how can you be sure? That is my question. Is this a valid question or not? How much in depth knowledge do you need to ask this question Leyla?

You?re a clever guy, I think. You should be able to do so.

I am no such thing Leyla. I am a questioning guy.

Mquran does not abdicate his reason to the quran. He uses his reason to understand the quran and to give this divine book its rightful place as al-furqan.

I think you are wrong there Leyla please read what he has written. He says if his reason conflicts with the scripture then he abdicates his reason to scripture.

I don?t need to see the connection between Brahman, Tao, Nirvana, Allah.
I know the connection. Or, to be precise

If you do then why the insistence on the superiority of Quran above all else? If you have this insight, can you not see how unifying this understanding is?

There is no connection because connections only exist between things that are separated. But the Tao is Allah is Brahman.

Yes, the connection is unity. God, Allah, Nirvana, Brahaman-Atman is the same thing. These are just labels for the same thing. These are human interepretation albeit differently of the same thing.

How do I know?
Because I used the quran as the furqan to integrate all my sources of wisdom ...... .

If know then you will know scripture for what it is - A Guide.

Regards,

Leyla

Peace again Lote

Huh, finally I realized how I can quote your post!
I hope I am doing it the right way now.
And use emoticons ...... .
I am not as dumb as I thought .....

"Peace" with explanation mark!
I hope I have not upset you -)

But yes, lets wait his reappearance -)

You didn?t upset me. We just simply have differing opinions.

But in Buddhism there is no Last Day or notion of a theistic God, so are they all doomed? Is there no salvation for them?

It is hard to imagine all those compassionate Buddhist burning in hell simply they did not "believe" in the Last Day or a theistic God.

First of all, when you read the quran in a plain way (and I have learned to to do so from ..... amongst some others especially mquran)
it is not the Last Day, it is the last day. Just simply, the formulation means whoever has trust/confidence in the last day?. Buddhists are certainly aware that all personal lifes in this world are not for eternity and that the truth (al-Haqq) is the only eternal. Being aware that this life is not for eternity and deriving from this a sense of responsibility towards the eternal is the thing here. The quran here does not say whoever believes in a garden and a fire and God sitting on a throne?.
And the quranic Allah is much more than a theistic God. To be fully coincidentia oppositorum He needs to be the speaking theistic God. But He is also quite frankly called as-Salaam (the peace) and al-Haqq (the truth).

So, everyone who wholeheartedly attaches himself to the quran has to aknowledge the possibility of salvation for others who don?t.

That is a good view.

It?s the quran?s view.

(!!No, I?m not free for you!!)

Ah good! But with due respects, you are not my type anyway -)

Huh? evil

If you are able to play one of Mozart Piano Sonata and recite Shakespear, Wordsworth, Tagore, Omar Khayyam or Khalil Gibran from memory and beat me in a game of chess and beautiful as Angelina Jolie then perhaps I will consider it.

Just joking -)

Have fun searching ....... .

To say Quran is the only and final word of God to humanity for all eternity - is that not absolutist belief?

Or are you saying Quran is not the final word of God for all humanity for all time?

The issue is too complicated to answer it with a simple yes? or no?.
If you ask me, there is one divine word of Allaht hat reflects itself in the whole universe and has manifestes itself in many messengers in all cultures.
However, the quran is the reading that splits (faraqa) truth from falsehood when you apply it as the criterion (furqan) to understand this eternal word.
You want proof?
One might give historical reasons. The teachings of Buddha and the Tao Te King are wonderful, but they haven?t come to us as authentic as the quran. I know, there?s this hafs and warsh thing ...... but still, the authenticity of the quran is superior.
But much much more important than this historical reason is that through trusting the quran a revelation of truth came to me that proved its authenticity to me without doubt.
If this truth didn?t come to you, that?s fine with me. Then try to go on on your path with best righteousness possible and you will receive your reward.
However, for me this truth became the mark of proof. We can not discuss this. Either this truth came to you or it didn?t.

Mquran does not abdicate his reason to the quran. He uses his reason to understand the quran and to give this divine book its rightful place as al-furqan.

I think you are wrong there Leyla please read what he has written. He says if his reason conflicts with the scripture then he abdicates his reason to scripture.

I know that this is a shocking and provocative statement to you. But if this truth came to you it wouldn?t seem like that.
See, if you read mquran more carefully you would have also read that before coming to this statement he went a long long path and he had to use his reason to get to the true meaning of the scripture.
My friend, you need to learn that reason is not the goal in itself. Reason is a mean, not a goal. We need it to come to a certain conclusion. But when you finally came to the conclusion then the conclusion alone suffices.
After the experience of the revelation of truth I do understand mqurans take very much.
I myself have to admit that before this experience I didn?t as well. And I have to admit that he did indeed put his ideas into quite provocative words that are easily misunderstood and maybe he should have done otherwise. But that?s his personal decision.
Sometimes being radical and provocative is needed to tingle minds.

I don?t want to talk too much about others here. I already did so and I fear a little bit that maybe my stepping in in this issue was not comfortable to mquran. I just wanted to give an impression of where I think you `did not get it?. But more important to me is the basic issue of this misunderstanding, not the persons involved.
So, let?s move on from this.

If you do then why the insistence on the superiority of Quran above all else? If you have this insight, can you not see how unifying this understanding is?

If you really studied the quran, can you not see how unifying its teaching is?

I ask you again, why do you think that your human experience can judge the abilities of the most superior form of consciousness?
Why do you doubt that this consciousness much higher than yours is able to reveal Himself in the most clear and straight guidelines to a receptive human?
Please read again the last part of ma last post and reflect on it.
Because I think that with the issue adressed there lies the nature of your misunderstanding.
There are always two sides, Lote. Yes, revelation is about human experience. But it is much more so about the activities of Divine Consciousness.
Before judging the quran from your meditations, start to `spit into Jesus? face?.
Allah has much more abilities than we will ever have.

Best wishes,

Leyla

yfn123

Hello LoteTree,

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...

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

There are lots of surprises in life. )

I meant it in a affectionate way chap -)

No thanks. I do not need your affection. nope

That's it Anwar. I am not asking you or anyone to believe me! I want each individual to find the Truth for themselves.

To find the truth in some cock and bull story? Are you a follower of "Muhammad"?

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"?

Anwar Azim

unknownuser

You didn?t upset me. We just simply have differing opinions.

That's good. Glad to hear that -)

First of all, when you read the quran in a plain way (and I have learned to
to do so from ..... amongst some others especially mquran)

Plain way? It is said that about 1/5 of the Quran is opaque to interpretation. Even highly educated Arab scholars find it hard to make sense of it. If the Quran is untranslateable how can its message be for all humanity? Even forum members here cannot agree on the meaning of the Quran. Thats why you have this "ping-pong" game of throwing translated verses at each other. If the Quran is untranslateable how can its message be for all humanity?

As for mquran trying to read quran by itself without the aid of dictinaries, the Forum member "Progod" seemed to have demolished the validity of such a method of reading the Quran (progod can correct if I understood him wrong). And the Forum member Zlatan is suggesting that some messages of the Quran is only specific to the Arabs of the 6th century arabia and does not apply to us (Zlatan can correct me on this). So what is the plain way of reading?

We are able to decipher the cuneiform texts on clay tablet of the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians and the Hieroglyphs of the Egyptians that llived 5000 years ago and yet we are struggling with this one Semitic Human Language which has its origins in the 5th century Aramaic and Hebrew! Therefore take the Quran and all scriptures for what they are They are mere guides in limted human language and limited human language can never do justice to the reality that it is trying to convey. A reality that lies beyond Reason and Language.

If you are able to play one of Mozart Piano Sonata and recite Shakespear, Wordsworth, Tagore, Omar Khayyam or Khalil Gibran from memory and beat me in a game of chess and beautiful as Angelina Jolie then perhaps I will consider it.
Just joking

Have fun searching ....... .

I think I found one and she is Angelina Jolie but she is involved with a
another man -( Oh the "pain of the Eternal-Love-Triangle!

Ah, Love! could you and I with Him conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits--and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!

Lote Tree wrote
To say Quran is the only and final word of God to humanity for all eternity

is that not absolutist belief? Or are you saying Quran is not the final
word of God for all humanity for all time? The issue is too complicated to answer it with a simple yes? or no?. If you ask me, there is one divine word of Allaht hat reflects itself in the whole universe and has manifestes itself in many messengers in all cultures.

For others it is not complicated as you make it out. It may be simple as
"No" but perhaps it takes little courage to say that.

However, the quran is the reading that splits (faraqa) truth from falsehood when you apply it as the criterion (furqan) to understand this eternal word.

Yes, for you it is perhaps but to others it might be Baghavad Gita or the
Buddha's Fire Sermon?

You want proof?
One might give historical reasons. The teachings of Buddha and the Tao Te King are wonderful, but they haven?t come to us as authentic as the quran. I know, there?s this hafs and warsh thing ...... but still, the
authenticity of the quran is superior.

I am not just asking for the proof of authenticity of the scripture but even there there might be some difficulties like little but significant deviations between the samarkand manuscripts and the current Quran. And also recent find of the Sana manuscripts in Yemen is also highlighting such deviations.

I am saying how can you be sure that it is the word of God? All scriptures came through human beings therefore where is the proof that it is the word of God?

There is no proof of that is there?
So I am saying to you is that you either "believe" in it that it is the word of God or you don't.

I see scripture as an interpretation of the human experience of "transcendence" because it is through this experience of "transcendence" that all scripture came about. That is why this interpretation has been varied for example Buddhist will interepret as "Nirvana", Hindus will interpret it as "Brahman-Atman", The Hebrew Prophets interpreted as "God" etc.

But much much more important than this historical reason is that through
trusting the quran a revelation of truth came to me that proved its
authenticity to me without doubt.

But you would not claim this "revelation of Truth" as absolute to others
would you?

If this truth didn?t come to you, that?s fine with me. Then try to go on on
your path with best righteousness possible and you will receive your
reward.

This is the "Truth" that has come to me Leyla God, Allah, Brahman-atman, Tao, Nirvana they have all come from the human experience of "Transcendence". It is through this that you can verify the reality that many have called "God", "Allah", "Brahman-Atman", "Tao" and "Nirvana". But perhaps you are right that I continue to walk the path of righteouness and as for reward I don't think about such thing, perhaps trying to live a righteous life is reward enough.

However, for me this truth became the mark of proof. We can not discuss
this. Either this truth came to you or it didn?t.

To remain a "Free Mind" you should be able to question your most cherished beliefs.

See, if you read mquran more carefully you would have also read that before coming to this statement he went a long long path and he had to use his reason to get to the true meaning of the scripture.

Here what he has written

Ok, well lets call this point in time 'x'. X can never be known to me because I do not believe in history.

Perhaps if this long path had involved looking at history he would have known that our Idea of God evolved from it's primitive pagan beginings about 14,000 years ago to a God of transcendence.

My friend, you need to learn that reason is not the goal in itself. Reason
is a mean, not a goal. We need it to come to a certain conclusion. But when you finally came to the conclusion then the conclusion alone suffices.

I say this is where you might be going wrong Leyla. When we were a child we have "concluded" or (led to conclude) that God is a benovolent father-Figure with long beard who sits on a throne. But as we grow older and acquire knowledge this kind of understanding is no longer acceptable to us. The more we develop as individuals so does our idea and understanding of God develops. This is a natural process. As human beings we have gone from the Idea of a Tribal God with his chosen people to a God of trascendence who embraces everything. But "Reality" of God is the same but it is our understanding and interpretation have changed throughtout history. So it might not be wise to "conclude" and set it in concrete. Our understanding of God can only be provisional. We can conclude only to the limits of our abilities and knowledge therefore our minds must remain open and free to develop.

I myself have to admit that before this experience I didn?t as well. And I
have to admit that he did indeed put his ideas into quite provocative words that are easily misunderstood and maybe he should have done otherwise. But that?s his personal decision.

Sometimes being radical and provocative is needed to tingle minds.

Well, he has not "tingled" my mind Leyla -)
Perhaps we are "tingled" by different things. But anyway lets move on from this.

I just wanted to give an impression of where I think you `did not get it?.

OK.

If you really studied the quran, can you not see how unifying its teaching
is?

But I am saying this is the message of all scriptures. Lets unite on this.

I ask you again, why do you think that your human experience can judge the abilities of the most superior form of consciousness?

I think you did not get it Leyla. I said it is the human experience of "transcendence" that is the key to spirituality. It is from this experience that Allah, God, Nirvana, Tao, Brahman-Atman came from. It is through this kind of experience that you can verify the reality "God", "Allah", "Nirvana", "Tao", "Brahman-Atman" even though there is no objective proof of this reality. These realities are experienced within, they are not some external events out there in the physical world. "Revelation" is an event that happens in each individual soul.

I have previously argued that scripture is an interpretation of the Divine Reality with the limited capabilities of human language. All religions assert that God is beyond Reason and Language. So how do you describe with words something that is beyond language and reason? How do you describe the truth of colour to someone who is born blind? or truth of music to someone who is born deaf? You can't, not with words. They have to experience this truth for themselves to "know" that it exists. Some truths, have to be experienced and can't be described with words. The Truth of Divinity is one of them. But this has not stopped human beings in trying to describe this ineffable experience with words. Scripture therefore are the attempts to describe this ineffable experience of "God" in human language. Therefore scripture is an "interpretation" of a reality that is beyond words and reason.

Why do you doubt that this consciousness much higher than yours is able to reveal Himself in the most clear and straight guidelines to a receptive
human?

Thats it Leyla I don't doubt this. "Transcendence" is the way in which the
encounter between "God" and Man occurs. But my argument to you is that every individual has the ability of meeting his\her "God" in this way. We can all make our minds "receptive" to God's message. And it is through dedication, courage, compassion and sincerety that we make our minds receptive to divine message and when we are at peace within ourselves we can then "hear" this divine message.

Before judging the quran from your meditations, start to `spit into Jesus?
face?.

I am not judging Quran from my meditations. But I am saying all scriptures came from the meditative practices and it is through meditative practices that gives rise to the human experience of "transcendence". You can check this for yourself. Study it.

I see Quran for what it is. I see all scriptures for what they are They are mere Guides. And a Guide is like little canoe that you use to cross the river to the other shore. But once you have passed on to the other shore then it is pointless carrying this canoe around on your back.

"spit into jesus face" - I am not familiar with that expression.
Can you elaborate?

Allah has much more abilities than we will ever have.

See my first post regarding this.

Regards,

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.