Yeah, Mr. http//t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn65wRIDNBCaHBXMhttp//blogs.poz.com/paul/upload/satan.jpg
is probably more into extreme body mods ... simple circumcision .. pshaw, thats for amateurs.
I think the key to understanding this issue lies with the clear understanding of these words ..
But understanding of course has to follow the desire to seek understanding. If someone is specifically searching for fault, or a reason to verify their own belief, or a reason to simply discredit the belief of another, then they are not looking for truth. And no amount of sense, logic or proof will suffice.
Personally, when I come across parts of the Quran that seem morally ambiguous depending on how the understanding of the verses are rendered, I refer to this
The Hue/tone of Allah. And what Hue/tone is there that is better than Allah. And He is the one whom we serve.
We all have an a priori understanding of the way things should be. The very reason many challenge the current translations and accepted interpretations is because it doesn't feel right. One who is truly Almighty and All-Aware and All-merciful ... etc, would not subjugate any of his creation to injustice at any level.
So if the accepted interpretation and dogma go against what you innately know is fair and just, then it is simply not correct.
I've been to your site and spent most of the day reading some of the articles found there. They are very thought provoking.
But as far as the subject of this thread, I do not know that I would agree with the "No God" translation for Allah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that by stating that there is no god but the "No God," you are implying that the there is a problem with associating any sort of deification to Allah. I can appreciate the effort since the idea of deities have been programed into our mythos and psyche to be conceptually limited in some way; be it through gender, capability or even philosophical traps. And of course Allah is without any limitation.
My issue is that such a redefinition causes more constriction than less. A god, gods, the godhead or other nomenclature have a universal meaning that spans the various cultures and their respective religions; that a god is an entity much greater than a human with supreme authority and control over all that is created by the gods' will. This universal understanding permeates throughout the various mythos that add varying details, details that will be the focus of whoever tries to ponder the concept of the "No God," which alludes (at least to me) to the "not God," or the "unGod."
I say it is more constricting because it attempts to define Allah, not just the word but the Almighty, and I doubt we have the faculties for such a feat.
The verses below indicate to me that Allah has no issue with calling Himself God.
Surely your God is One,
Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them and the Lord of the sun?s risings.
that phrase can be interpreted as "... before you and in the end"
before you
and
in
the end, presumably indicative of the hereafter
Now, what does this have to do with the subject at hand? Simple. Since the Qur'aan is a message to the entire world, this passage emphasizes that we all, humans and jinns, come from ONE PERSON. However, this person was NOT Adam, it was his wife (the passage repeatedly refers to "her". So, since humans are called "bani Adam", then the jinns must be the descendants of someone else other than Adam. And the only other person mentioned as being banished to this earth was Iblis, the one who rejected. Therefore, Iblis must've reproduced with Eve (Adam's wife) to produce the race of jinns, who are a separate race from the humans.
Peace,
Ahmad
Wow, normally I'm very open minded to various opinions, but those statements above are assumptions with no logical basis. There is way too much that we do not know about everything that relates to the story of Adam. To simply create statements out of one or two variables is a good way to create a faulty foundation.
The Quran clearly states that Satan was an angel, by virtue of the immense powers and rank bestowed upon him. This is why he is addressed as an angel (234, 711, 1529, 1761, 1850, 20116, 3871) prior to his fall. By definition, a jinn is a fallen angel (1850). Satan's rebellion teaches us that the angels were created with minds of their own, and absolute freedom of choice (234).
I don't know that the Quran clearly states that Iblees was an angel. It might be implied, and even then by association only. And only then if whoever is making the implication can state what the nature an "angel" might be. Linguistically "angel" is originated from the greek for messenger. This doesn't work with the arabic word Malaak, which is closer to "controller" as was previously stated. We know that Djinn and Man were created, from the essence of fire and the essence of clay, respectively. I haven't been able to find a place in the Reading that mentions that Mala'ikah were created entities, let alone from light or what have you. This indicates to me that a Malaak is more of a title or a function.
In my understanding, the act of the Sajdah commanded of Mala'ikah to Adam can be interpreted as the forces of the universe and all that controls them "re-arranging themselves" in favor of this new creation. Like the way everything on earth is "man-sized" and how the moon and sun and stars seem to be convenient in how they make our lives easier. One of the reasons why mankind always felt they were the center of the universe.
The Mala'ikah could be composed of an innumerable number of creations, with Iblis of the Djinn being one of them. Perhaps the Malaak of gravity, math, chemistry, etc. all acquiesced and submitted to Man except the Malaak of passion, unpredictability and desire represented by fire. God knows best.
As far as the Djinn are concerned, the Qur'an indicates to me that they are a separate entity from us 2739 and 727 for example.
I think the confusion comes in when we try to fit all the concepts of the unseen into the small cube of our existence. We are creatures that live in the third-dimension. Can we really grasp the real nature of that which exists in dimensions that are beyond our own? We know that every higher dimension contains the entirety of the dimensions below it. However lesser dimensions only experience aspects of higher dimensions as only they intersect with them.
To the two dimensional being, everything it will see will be in two dimensions. If a two dimensional being were to see us, they wouldn't understand us. A two dimensional cutout of you will look like an MRI slide. However if they catch us at the right "slice" they will be able to recognize that we have eyes and the like and then talk about us around a campfire.
Djinn and all things of the "beyond" might be nebulous but they can also just be beyond our comprehension, doesn't mean they don't exist as sentient beings. As for the Shayateen al-Jinn, the method of their interaction with us could be through our fantasies and emotions. The same way as the Shayateen of the marketing industries interact with us through our desires and emotions.
Just because I believe these entities might be sentient does not mean that I believe they will look like anything hollywood or our imaginations can come up with. There is no reason for them to be required to submit to the same laws of the universe as we do, they do not have to be biological, physical or even quantum mechanical. Simply because the Mala'ikah have sajadu to us does not mean they have recreated the entirety of reality in our image. We are an arrogant race.
A very interesting experience )
The only one thing we truly know is that we don't know all that much. What you experienced could very well be metaphysical. No one can attest to how real it was, except you. I've had a few interesting experiences of my own in my youth, but at the time I was obsessed with Djinn, the unseen worlds and mythologies of various cultures. And I was reading Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike, seeking to unlock the secrets of the Templars.
In retrospect, I can chalk it off as my subconscious playing games with me, but I can remember them being real to me at the time. I honestly believe that there is much more than what is readily apparent. Something is animating our bodies, all those who've died are somewhere. If we were created, and we are sentient; who are we to say that we, and our dimension, are all that exist.
If you were given a peek beyond the veil while you still live, then you are lucky )
Personally, I think evil is the "lack" or willing lack of "good" similar to how cold is the lack of heat. I don't believe that something that is evil, in the traditional sense of the word, exists. >D What are your thoughts? confused
This concept is an ancient one, used to delineate the distinction between hot/cold and light/dark by stating that cold is merely the absence of heat and the same for darkness.
Certain schools link this outlook symbolically to piety. Good is basking in the light of God while evil is being distant from God, thus being in darkness. There are schools of thought that link the analogy to heaven as the state of being close to God and hell as being further away, refuting a physical location.
Evil/darkness/cold being the absence of /good/light/heat ... for cold and darkness, you can measure them, so maybe it works in the physics of it all. But for good and evil, to make it work you would have to play a few moral puzzles, like the one Samia posted, and debate the philosophy of it, then decide on what you want to believe. I don't think good and evil can be defined so linearly.
I tend to see evil as purely subjective and a victim of semantics. People have been debating its definition for as long as they have been trying to define the mind. We know there are some phenomena out there that we can't grasp so we give them these general terms. I mean, how do you categorize what evil is?
Is it an emotion? There is cruelty, maliciousness, lust, avarice, envy ... are these emotions evil, or is acting upon them what is evil? Murder, rape, necrophilia ... are these acts evil, or is the perpetrator the evil one? Like a female that paralyzes her mate so she can feed on his head in nibbles while she pleasures herself on him, is she evil?
Evil, is it a feeling, a deed or a personality? Maybe combinations of all three? Well, all of those examples exist in the animal kingdom. Or can one believe that evil is inherent in the natural world?
Personally I think the concept of evil and good are not spiritual measures, more so a categorization for a society to distance itself from what it doesn't care for.
The arabic word attributed to the word "evil" is Shar, which can mean anything negative. One place it is used in the Reading is in chapter 997 - "And who soever does the smallest measure of ill shall see it."
Imho all things attributed to "evil" and what is negative in general is simply us giving into our animal instincts. Our Nafs, or spirit, drives us relentlessly, commanding us to feed it with endorphins from our hypothalamus for its drug habit. God calls this the Commanding Spirit, in the Reading. Our spirit, in its raw unbridled state, will compel us to do anything that feels good if we can get away with it. This Nafs al-Ammarah, however can be tamed, or tempered. From my understanding the stages it can evolve through are the
Nafs al-Ammarah - the commanding or compelling spirit
Nafs al-Lawwamah - the lamenting spirit
Nafs al-Mutma'innah - the spirit of contentment
I believe through Salah and Sawm we can learn to tame this spirit of ours which will probably then help to clear our mind ('Aql) and give more jurisdiction to our soul (Ruh) on our body (Jism).
Regardless of metaphysical philosophy or finding suitable definitions, we do know that by consistently remembering God and striving to purify ourselves, we will guard ourselves and others from what is devolving and we will incite progress around us.
So this is my view on "Evil the ultimate separation from all that is good and holy." There is no such thing, we just like to do what releases the drugs in the brain. For some, it is eating lots of candy. For others it is serial killing. And yet for others, it is being depressed or angry all the time. It is all about how the neurons have stabilized during a person's past and whatever conditioning or trauma or the lack thereof occurred during it. The good news is that neuron pathways that have fixated are not permanent and a person can recondition themselves to dislike certain acts or can condition themselves to enjoy things they haven't before. How? The best way is in the Reading. Controlling your Nafs, or rendering it content will not only give you control over your desires but it will also protect you from being manipulated unknowingly by external forces.
Thank you Sarat and $aze for you replies
As far as the consensus, what you suggest would be a great if everyone agreed to it, wouldn't you think? As far as the individuals' existence, I assume that would be all that is required, to strive to grow ever closer to our Creator by learning from the signs he left for us in His book and in the universe. But when it comes to community and society, issues like how to deal with thieves, hajj, ramadan, congregational prayer ... you know all the hot topics. I think we need to understand the foundation before we can build, if we intend to.
And Sarat, I really don't think guilt is a word needed in practicing any aspect of traditional Islam. I understand that was a way of softening the blow in telling me to ease up on the C4 . To clarify I didn't mean that these practices are un-Islamic. I am starting to believe that Islam by its very nature is flexible in allowing anyone to express what is in their heart however they choose, as long as their intentions are pure and seek to ever learn more. The fault probably only show's itself when one is simply practicing TaQlid, mimicry, without understanding the origins or the reasoning of what they are doing.
I mean I would follow the Messenger's slightest suggestions as law, since God anointed him to that station. Sadly, he's not here and all the things attributed to him are laced with cyanide. Many people tend to forget the scale of time involved here. 1400 and some odd years, we all know that was a long time ago... but do we really? Lets think back to WW2 ... now that was a long time ago. We know quite a bit about that time since it was relatively recent, so we can appreciate the age of time, and that was only 60 or 70 years ago. How about the time when slavery was rife? Three hundred years ago? America is said to have been discovered in 1492, how ancient was that time? That was half a century ago. The time of the Messenger is three times the time between today and Columbus. A lot can happen in that span of time.
My opinion in how to get other Muslims to see and understand the viewpoints here, it has to be by example. I don't believe we have to try to reconvert Muslims away from Hadithism, but to instead just create a new way of life. If what we have is the Truth, they will come to us, either in tears or with teargas.
Peace FM,
I've been haunting these forums for a while now, I figure its time to step out of the shadows. I have to say that I'm glad I stumbled upon you guys. The perspective and insight provided here has been invaluable in my search.
My story is nothing new, like so many others, when I was but a wee boy, I would asked myself the question ... no, not why am I here. The answer to that question I've known since I was old enough to be beaten...
But I would ask myself what was it that made me so lucky to be born into the correct religion, to get that mile long head start in a fifty yard dash, while every one else is pretty much damned. I would ask those whom I thought would know, but all the answers were patronizing, even to my young mind. With no good answer, I rationalized this enigma to myself by deciding that the scales of good and bad deeds must be skewed more so in favor of those with less ... cheats?
So a member of the ruling elite, lets say in Saudi, with wealth and status and the true knowledge of reality ... well they would only get one good deed per good act and maybe bad deeds would be multiplied a few fold for every act they did that was "un-islamic." While on the other hand, a poor jew from the ghettos of east Berlin ..., hrmm, no, never mind, jews are cursed. Let me start over. A poor Jamaican living in the slums of his/her country, without a job in the tourism industry and spends all his/her time on the ganja ... well for them it would be reversed.
I didn't care about the technicalities, it worked for me. Until about high school when I began to wonder why all these kuf-far do not see the light. I mean, it was so clear to me and my community, a community that wasn't necessarily composed of the brightest minds on earth. Something must be holding them back. I had to help them, it was my job after all. They have to worship God alongside the Djinn the way I was doing.
After building some resolve, I decided to approach the line of blasphemy, I took a peak into their books. Unknowingly, I had just taken the step that would begin this aspect of my journey.
From the Bible to the Vedas and some of those in between. Oh I attacked them with fervor and fanaticism. Using the Qur'an as the measure of authenticity and the Hadith for everything else. I armed myself with the myriad debate points on Islam vs the world and set off on my Sunnisade. I learned how to tactically approach these other faiths, mostly Christians, since there was an over abundance of them. If the foe happened to be Christians that only took the new testament ... I would smite them with knowledge of Paul and the cult of Mithra. Be they Catholics, I would leave them gift wrapped IEDs on their pagan origins, beneath the yule tree.
I look back on some of my most successful battles now with chagrin. One of them, a good friend of mine from the military and devout Christian who believed the entire Bible was the world of God. He and I had a nice extended amicable religious debate war. Though it was pretty unfair, it was pretty much us talking theology, then me attacking his book and him defending. I would present contradictions and he would justify them. Like the one instance when Satan tricked David to number Israel in one book and God telling David to number them in another. He would say, "Well, Satan was doing God's will." How could I rebut a statement like that? However, what broke him was when I showed him the differences in the number of stables in Solomans' Temple, thanks to Ahmed Deedats' handy pamphlets (this was back in 98, when Al Gore was still perfecting the net). My friend, well he completely lost his faith. He went back to his old life of sex, drugs and alcohol ... literally, he started a garage band. I'm not saying that is bad, actually I think that was pretty cool, I just wish/hope I wasn't/am not an instrument that barred/bars him from asking God for guidance.
Smug in my spiritual superiority, I wondered why no one knew enough about the Qur'an to challenge me on my own turf. Well it was a couple years ago that I met a fanatical, but pleasant, atheist who decided to pick up the gauntlet. And he happened to be a fellow Arabic linguist. Oh how he tried. As he put it, he was mostly frustrated by the fact that the style of the Qur'an was almost impossible to attack, that it was nebulous by nature and vague on concrete facts.
Victory, I sent for the banner men with the medieval trumpets to come and herald "my" triumph. It was the eleventh hour when he stabbed me in the back. With 867. Yes, the loins and ribs. He preceded to educate me on the history of medicine.
And part two of my journey began.
I began to realize that these people who have been translating the Qur'an are not infallible. I decided that it was now the time for me to actually study the Qur'an that I knew so much about.
I've never sleep walked, but you can imagine a sleep walking person that suddenly awoke in the middle of an express way. It was kind of like that. Boy did my eyes begin to open, a new found respect for the Reading took seed in my heart. I read it from beginning to end, using the tools I've learned from my trade as an arabic linguist for the military. I'm no expert in Arabic, but I know how to research to get to the crux of the meaning of a word, and coupled with the fact that I grew up in an Arabic speaking family, I can kind of get a "feel" intuitively on the timbre of a phrase when it comes down to interpreting. Needless to say, my perspective on reality began to shift.
Then came time for the Hadith, yes I've studied them all my life but it was time for an academic approach. I felt I had a foundation and was now ready to begin the advanced level of my spiritual training. The six compilations, al-Muwatta, various tafsir's and other scholarly works were needed. Luckily I happened to have them all handy, my father being an Imam and a player in the North American world of Muslim scholars. I started with Bukhari, that being second only to the Qur'an, I cracked it open and I think the first Hadith I read was about a wolf standing on its tail prophesying the birth of prophet Muhammad to a shepherd.
Studying the Hadith, especially in light of a different perspective on the Qur'an indicated that there was something wrong. Studying the Hadith felt like I was reading an unedited version of the Talmud.
It occured to me that maybe, maybe ... I should put "Islam" to the same screws I did with the other religions. Using the same standard by researching any pagan or extra-Islamic similarities, the historicity and authenticity of any statement that imposes itself on the finality of my soul (as in Ruh, not nafs) and how it stands up to the most vicious test of them all, common sense. This was probably the hardest thing I've ever done. I had no idea how deeply I was programmed. And I don't mean that there is a better system at hand, the way every system believes members of every other system are brainwashed, but merely that I was conditioned to not see or sense something that was right in front of my eyes.
Coming to these forums has helped immensely, with the clear concise and precise proofs and arguments, I was able to convince myself that Bukhari and the gang are not divine and cannot define what is divine outside the context of the Divine. Strange isn't it that this was so hard to do.
And its been much easier to breathe once I mustered the courage to unshackle the harness of taboo and tradition that was chaining me to my feet. I can look back into my past now and see the absurdity that was compromising and complicating my existence, as if I was holding the key, that would have freed me, the entire time and I simply refused to look at it. I mean, it was being held by my left hand after all ...
So now, I'm anxious to see where the third stage on my journey will take me. Anxious and a little perturbed, I mean this isn't just a simple make over. Its easy to show the flaw in Hadithism, but what is the alternative. It cannot be a simple swap from one school of thought to another groups' school.
The Qur'an is complex even in its simplicity and provides guidelines that must not be transgressed. We know this much, but what those guidelines are, that is the question. Throwing out certain things from tradition and keeping with others might feel comfortable, and a few posters here have stated that one should stick with what they are doing until they achieve further enlightenment. I disagree and I think this way is implementing ordo ab chao, when I more a believer in the second law of thermodynamics. Traditional Islam needs a tabula rasa approach, a re-discovery more so than a revival.
Many of the senior members of this site have given some great suggestions backed with meticulous research. The opposing views and debates are great tools for learning as well, as it challenges me to think, contemplate and not just take what is shoved down my throat. But there has to be a certain defined consensus no? Especially when in comes to interpretations. I know this is what FM is struggling to do, to build a community that is based on the Qur'an and devoid of ego and I salute you. Of course there will always be opposition from outside as well as from within, chapter 78 says it best. I wish you all the greatest of success in this life and the next and I hope to be a part of the coming dawn.
This is what I know now, and it is in sync with the a priori, that I believe in God alone.