Safaa

From : Safaa Sent : Saturday, November 4, 2006 1:26 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... What went wrong Ala, While fully agree with the personal factors in drawing the collective Social and religious beliefs and thoughts, I would also put the Social-economic factors as the real reason behind the early evolution in Islam. Which, I think, governed the main stream Islam till now. Islam had also brought its own conflict in a dialectic Hegelian paradigm... Under sever Poor deserted Arabia, calling for peace and prohibiting Ghazoo" attacks" that Arab Bedouins were used to in their life survival, early Muslims were in natural need to develop a new paradigm of survival... Some of their leaders thought it to be through attacking other non Muslim neighbors under big umbrella of spreading Islam... Such survival mechanism found itself through the transformation of Islam from the religion of people to the religion of State. A transformation that necessitate a big evolution in the theological and Social believes. One can easily trace such evolution with the creation of the Khaliefa position after the death of Mohamed. A central position that is critically needed to run the new absolute religious state that ruled Muslims for next fourteen centuries. If you look deeply into that political change, you might end up with a whole new set of teachings that are based on the core teachings of Quran but to steer it into completely different direction. For example, the self centric Islam is now the nation "Ummah" centric one. Also in order to facilitate the new strong central government, the notion of absolute obedience to the Khalief became part of Islam pillars... The message of defense ONLY fight by Quran would be replaced by aggression under the spreading of Islam. The tolerance was replaced by cruelty... Such transformation was not without opposition by those who failed to understand such necessity. Some had refused it considering it as non Islamic such as those who refused to admit to the new Khaleef "Ahel rida" . They were fought to death as we know. Though might be in agree with the new system, others asked to implement it in some other ways that have some religious legitimacy, these were Ali's party "Alrawafid". Such change had also generated a new set of thoughts on how to interpret Quran and deal with Mohamed and his Successors "Khalief". Instituting the absolute power of the Khlaif necessitates the absolute power of the original source "the prophet".. From there the Sunna of Mohamed became sacred to the same level of Quran, and so the Sunna of the Khaleefs for Sunnis and Imams for Shia. Abo Baker was quoted in his first speech as Khaleef one disgraced Muslim immediately jumped in The old highly spiritual Khaleef agreed, but later on, his successors went too far to consider them selves as equivalent to GOD him/herself! Inorder to give legitimacy to the Khaleef, the sacred prophet biography "sunna" was much easier to manipulate and to be used to re interept Quran itself. The notion of secrecy was extended later to include the early companions too, specially those who agreed to this new paradigm. I don't know if such sacrecy was known during Mohamed life. Muslims used to question him “Is it from you or from Allah?" The conflict had ended up with two parties in action, those who believe in using mind to interpret Quran and Islam against those who believed in using same mind but in following the formers "Takleed".. The leader of the first , Ali, was quoted when some of his followers asked him to comply with Maweia's call during Safeen war for judging per the Quran, The later finaly won while the first's groups were brutally fought. They either got extinct "e.g. Muatazilis and Failasoofs" or got evolved in much more irrational paradigms of Welaya and sacred Imama "e.g. Sofi and Shia" . Let me know your comment on this. It is important to examine my thoughts from different prospective before step further into this very interesting subject that I think critical in understanding our current problems... Cheers Safaa

From : ala Sent : Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:24 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD This is terribly good question since it doesn't exploit the benign initial intention of Quran to assume a guaranteed better development of the current version of Islam. It appears that one of the reasons can be traced to the dominant influence of cultural/biological/psychological factors over the Quranic instructional and spiritual factors during the process of our social development. In other words, we, humans, though are more tempted to follow a particular religious path to set some religious discipline ( to recover from emotional crisis, for instance) in our lives we are also tempted to develop capacities to meet our cultural/biological/psychological needs. The forces involved in such conflicting process are more in favour of the cultural/biological/psychological needs which subsequently developing to meet the humans’ desires and physical needs, but then you may argue by saying that religious/spiritual factors can be part of the cultural set of factors and that where we suggest that cultural/biological/psychological factors dominate leaving humans to develop in-line with our psychological/biological desires more than the spiritual ones. For example our hunter and gatherer ancestors’ societies suggest the need for dominant/aggressive male for secure food for instance for the family, so earlier societies including the west develop religions that let male’s domination as a normal course of action. Following this line of reasoning we can conclude that for instance hijab can be seen as a gesture of male subjugation of female to maintain a biological set up that prevent the attraction of other male to his (a particular male) female and to guarantee the production of offsprings for this female……..Salam Ala

From : Safaa Sent : Monday, October 30, 2006 10:28 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Ala, You wrote I would like to throw a question.. If all what we talked about the decoupling, tolerance and ration is what Quran was calling for and what Mohamed wanted to implement, then what had happened to twist all this up down in the completely other direction. In other word, to make the main current stream Islam so irrational .. Cheers Safaa

My years in a habit taught me the paradox of veiling If ministers really want a proper debate, they must learn that where the veil is forbidden, women hasten to wear it Karen Armstrong Thursday October 26, 2006 The Guardian I spent seven years of my girlhood heavily veiled - not in a Muslim niqab but in a nun's habit. We wore voluminous black robes, large rosaries and crucifixes, and an elaborate headdress: you could see a small slice of my face from the front, but from the side I was entirely shielded from view. We must have looked very odd indeed, walking dourly through the colourful carnival of London during the swinging 60s, but nobody ever asked us to exchange our habits for more conventional attire. When my order was founded in the 1840s, not long after Catholic emancipation, people were so enraged to see nuns brazenly wearing their habits in the streets that they pelted them with rotten fruit and horse dung. Nuns had been banned from Britain since the Reformation; their return seemed to herald the resurgence of barbarism. Two hundred and fifty years after the gunpowder plot, Catholicism was still feared as unassimilable, irredeemably alien to the British ethos, fanatically opposed to democracy and freedom, and a fifth column allied to dangerous enemies abroad. Today the veiled Muslim woman appears to symbolise the perceived Islamic threat, as nuns once epitomised the evils of popery. She seems a barbaric affront to hard-won values that are essential to our cultural identity: gender equality, freedom, transparency and openness. But in the Muslim world the veil has also acquired a new symbolism. If government ministers really want to debate the issue fruitfully, they must become familiar with the bitterly ironic history of veiling during the last hundred years. Until the late 19th century, veiling was neither a central nor a universal practice in the Islamic world. The Qur'an does not command all women to cover their heads; the full hijab was traditionally worn only by aristocratic women, as a mark of status. In Egypt, under Muhammad Ali's leadership (1805-48), the lot of women improved dramatically, and many were abandoning the veil and moving more freely in society. But after the British occupied Egypt in 1882, the consul general, Lord Cromer, ignored this development. He argued that veiling was the "fatal obstacle" that prevented Egyptians from participating fully in western civilisation. Until it was abolished, Egypt would need the benevolent supervision of the colonialists. But Cromer had cynically exploited feminist ideas to advance the colonial project. Egyptian women lost many of their new educational and professional opportunities under the British, and Cromer was co-founder in London of the Anti-Women's Suffrage League. When Egyptian pundits sycophantically supported Cromer, veiling became a hot issue. In 1899 Qassim Amin published Tahrir al-Mara - The Liberation of Women - which obsequiously praised the nobility of European culture, arguing that the veil symbolised everything that was wrong with Islam and Egypt. It was no feminist tract: Egyptian women, according to Amin, were dirty, ignorant and hopelessly inadequate parents. The book created a furore, and the ensuing debate made the veil a symbol of resistance to colonialism. The problem was compounded in other parts of the Muslim world by reformers who wanted their countries to look modern, even though most of the population had no real understanding of secular institutions. When Ataturk secularised Turkey, men and women were forced into European costumes that felt like fancy dress. In Iran, the shahs' soldiers used to march through the streets with their bayonets at the ready, tearing off the women's veils and ripping them to pieces. In 1935, Shah Reza Pahlavi ordered the army to shoot at unarmed demonstrators who were protesting against obligatory western dress. Hundreds of Iranians died that day. Many women, whose mothers had happily discarded the veil, adopted the hijab in order to dissociate themselves from aggressively secular regimes. This happened in Egypt under President Anwar Sadat and it continues under Hosni Mubarak. When the shah banned the chador, during the Iranian revolution, women wore it as a matter of principle - even those who usually wore western clothes. Today in the US, more and more Muslim women are wearing the hijab to distance themselves from the foreign policy of the Bush administration; something similar may well be happening in Britain. In the patriarchal society of Victorian Britain, nuns offended by tacitly proclaiming that they had no need of men. I found my habit liberating: for seven years I never had to give a thought to my clothes, makeup and hair - all the rubbish that clutters the minds of the most liberated women. In the same way, Muslim women feel that the veil frees them from the constraints of some uncongenial aspects of western modernity. They argue that you do not have to look western to be modern. The veiled woman defies the sexual mores of the west, with its strange compulsion to "reveal all". Where western men and women display their expensive clothes and flaunt their finely honed bodies as a mark of privilege, the uniformity of traditional Muslim dress stresses the egalitarian and communal ethos of Islam. Muslims feel embattled at present, and at such times the bodies of women often symbolise the beleaguered community. Because of its complex history, Jack Straw and his supporters must realise that many Muslims now suspect such western interventions about the veil as having a hidden agenda. Instead of improving relations, they usually make matters worse. Lord Cromer made the originally marginal practice of veiling problematic in the first place. When women are forbidden to wear the veil, they hasten in ever greater numbers to put it on. In Victorian Britain, nuns believed that until they could appear in public fully veiled, Catholics would never be accepted in this country. But Britain got over its visceral dread of popery. In the late 1960s, shortly before I left my order, we decided to give up the full habit. This decision expressed, among other things, our new confidence, but had it been forced upon us, our deeply ingrained fears of persecution would have revived. But Muslims today do not feel similarly empowered. The unfolding tragedy of the Middle East has convinced some that the west is bent on the destruction of Islam. The demand that they abandon the veil will exacerbate these fears, and make some women cling more fiercely to the garment that now symbolises their resistance to oppression. · Karen Armstrong is the author of Muhammad: Prophet for Our Time comment@guardian.co.uk

From : ala Sent : Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:09 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Interesting................... Of course we are free to worship God the way we choose, it is God who gave us the free will as its/his/her ultimate gift and no one should tamper with the legitimacy of the free will. My principle belief is to allow humans to reach God in whatever mean possible/available for them and in-line with humanistic and existential belief, humans are free and entitled to connect to God with or without religion. So when I refer to critiques of religious people's thoughts I don't mean to degrade or demonise their religious belief system but to open grounds for furthering the debate for the sake of humans' development rather than just the development of our religious beliefs, although you may argue by saying that humans' potential development is directly related to or an extension of their religious belief development, then I would disagree with that and suggest that our religious development is an extension to our personal development to reach our full potential. My concept of reaching God is more related to reaching human's potential than developing religious nonsense to avoid or I should say to be rescued from been punished after death. The coupling of God and prophets can be seen as the inability of some of us of reaching God in ways beyond the worldly sense and experience of such association, in other words they cannot see prophets as mediums that don't need glorification. People who takes such coupling as their main paradigm to reach God they lack experiencing deep inspirational sense of reaching God with or without prophets. Now...as for the beauty of Quranic text and the fascination with its linguistic beauty and rigour I would say that those people set a hard task for themselves to defend linguistic beauty and rigour that may fade at some point in future human history. .")) First the concept of perfection is beyond, as you've suggested before, the physical or cognitive or emotional or spiritual perfection but the ability to cope, or tolerate/accept the physical/emotional/spiritual pain and pleasure if I can say so, with our in-built inner conflicting forces and also to cope and tolerate our blind/unknown evolution in its physically and mental sense from whatever we were to whatever we're going to be. Second, such human's complexity is more interesting to God than a monotonous and bland compliance with a proposed perfect image of humans. In other words, one can argue saying that God would've created humans perfect without an inherent ability to sin or deviate, i.e. in an angelic form metaphorically speaking, and save itself/herself/himself (i.e. God) the trouble of dealing such tiresome creature, that is human!! as you can see I am using teleology here to reach a conclusion. I don't think you or others should see my reference to contradictions in Quranic text as a reference to a weak point, but as an indication of the complexity of humans that reflect God's capacity to create such unique thing. As for a Quranic textual proof here is a start: Referring to the above ayaa...if God awhaa the wisdom then how God warns us of taking another God and then reminds of the ultimate punishment in -hhel-? The way I read the above is that regardless of the given wisdom (a kind of perfection in some sense) we possibly take another God to worship (ignorance of taking another God) for reasons not mentioned in this ayaa but then there is always a price for that and the price here is that we will be left in a metaphorical -hhel- not burnt but left living on earth with the pain of been blamed and defeated or in other words the pain of not developing beyond the humans sense of defeat. The sense of defeat and blame are not something that are beyond our current world but while living this world. But then what is the meaning of another God? and how we can have another God? and if so what this God can be? and is there a possibility that this reference to the other God is simply a reference to our unacceptable deeds within the way we live??? The perfection here is as I referred to earlier. I want to say that the concept of Satan isn't beyond our us but within us too. Maybe we can say that experience in their general sense is a tautology and experiencing God is a tautology then religion can be or cannot be tautology and if religion can or cannot be a tautology then it is not a tautology...................Salam Ala

From : Safaa Sent : Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:23 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Ala, It might be my misunderstanding taking your emphasizing iterations as a point of difference. What I wanted to confirm is that I found a Quranic agreement with those points of having free choice as a base line. As for those who glorify Quran or religion, there should be no objection to their ways. They have the full right to experience their interface "faith" the way that they think more closer to them selves. Those who believe in coupling and merging God and Prophecy as one identity might find my comment on Quran's beauty wordings as odd. I think this issue need to be detailed before we move to other points. Indeed these words are not mine , these are of Quran. To the possible surprise of those who might consider your hypothesis , of possible Mohamed visioning of God words ,as non Islamic. I would refer them to the most power statement by Quran describing the process of revelation of Quran.. Quran used the word "inspire" Wahee.. Have a look Quran is very sensitive in using words. So using such Wahee word need to be examined. And your point is not violating the broad meaning of inspiration by God. I think Quran is the miracle of Mohamed, not because of it's wordings though. if wording style is the miracle then it would be contradicting to the message of Quran that clearly specifies that Mohamed was send as blessing to the whole humanity Alanbia 21-107 The blessing here wouldn't be completed when Quran gets translated. Indeed Muslim Ulamaa "scholars" had noticed this and prohibited translation till about one hundreds years ago. They knew that it's beautiful wording might losses it's power upon translation. I think if there is a Quran miracle then it is through setting a new rules of interacting God , that is the rule of using free mind and choice. Prior to Mohamed, prophets used to come up with physical miracles to prove their divine identity.That was the case when such prophets had came with limited mission, either time wise or people extension wise. So such physical miracle might be convincing to those who experienced it in person. With Mohamed the mission was claimed to be unlimited, time and people wise. It claims itself for every one.. So what type of miracle this should be. I think it chooses to preach the absolute fact , the fact of free experience of God which should be there among all people any time.. That is where I put the Quran statement of Khatam Al nabeen .. the end of prophets There is no any boarder for such fact and so there is no any meaning of a later prophecy. every one from now is the prophet of him/her self.! Commenting on your specific exercising God practice , let me remind you of a very interesting aspect of Quranic Sin and good deeds. Among all other religions , Quran was unique in instating checks and balances count for this. There is no absolute Sinful or absolute virtue deed. The final decision is based on the final balance Almuaminon 23-102 Such balances came in a very up normal counting, the virtue is multiplied by ten.So committing ten sins , in religious code, can easily be counter weighted withone act of Charity " Hasana" ! that what Muslims call "Kufara" ..However,looking into main stream Islamic message , the count seems to be ten for the sin not for the good deeds!! Those who drink a cup of wine, might not be able to avoid the punishment of 80 wiping in a sharia ruled state. Such mechanism of bad and good might comply with your zoologist interesting point of human struggle between the two.. I think Quran is emphasizing such fact, admitting that bad is much harder to resist ,OR doing good might so hard to accomplish knowing how much greedy those early were ! So setting the one to ten in balance counting.. I couldn't digest your Do you have a proof to the above from a Quranic text, or you might be referring to interpretations by some Scholars.? I personally think Quran has one unified message.. Human are the most perfect creature on earth.You might be referring to the fact that Quran criticizing human for not being some times able to find out the right path, that has nothing to do with perfection. According to Quran , human were equipped with the necessary tools to visualize the way. It is Satan , the other force, that make the struggle of find it so fun, and so hard too! As for the tautology aspect of religion. Quran went to say that other ways of practicing are accepted, so no meaning of tautology as far as religion is concerned. It is experiencing God, the absolute power, that makes sense of such tautology in Quran. Cheers Safaa

From : ala Sent : Friday, October 27, 2006 5:55 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD No Safaa...I don't think I went short in reading your points, but if you feel I did let me know where. The more we talk about this issue the clearer the meeting points become. You may see in my responses a reiteration of the line of my questioning or explanation and that is to develop context and proper grasp to what we discuss coupled with isolating some harmful current misconception of glorified Quran and religion. Now...if you can tell me where I went short of reading your points please do refer to them so we can communicate more effectively. But I can tell you that we shed some good light on some good points and we crystallised some views and angles. These are very courageous words and reflect a lot of real faith in God and you see Safaa talking about these kind of topics require a lot of repetitive clarifications. Interesting you say this, actually I feel more in touch with God than many practising Muslims regardless of my habits that may contradicts with some Islamic principles. I never believed in the glorification of Islam in particular or religion in general, but in what I can do during my life to secure good meeting with God regardless of my sinful deeds speaking the traditional language of religion :-). ...Interesting indeed and shed some brighter light on your decoupling hypothesis. Reading some Quranic text remind me with a book titled "The naked ape" written by a well known zoologist by the name of Desmond Morris who attempts to find the roots of human behaviour by studying animal behaviours. Desmond, in his above book, suggests the presence of inner conflicting forces that push and pull in different directions and causes distress to humans who finds hard to behave in a fixed and particular way. This leads me to say that when reading some Quranic text there is a pattern of contradictions and such contradiction is there to illustrate the complexity of human inners rather than a contradiction in the truth value. Here is an example: Quran at times refers to our perfection but does mention that God inflicts us with ignorance of so many things and then God demands from us to follow the right undefined path to faith. To me God's existence is a tautology with true value, but religion is not. As for humans' experience it is the other tautology that we need to keep in mind (tautology in formal logic is a logical state where a statement is always true and under all circumstances)......Salam Ala

From : Safaa Sent : Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:39 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Ala, I got it.. I am wondering why you went short in reading my points.. Indeed I was trying to reach almost same meaning that you had just elegantly1 explained. I said ," it isn't matter who create these words of Quran , what is important is their meanings". I don't believe in beauty of these words as a prove to their divine origin. For me this is a contradictory argument made by current main stream Islam. If this is the case then we can't judge those who can't taste such rigorness or beauty, either by lacking Arabic language experiences or due to lack of access, at a time Quran had considered all those who believe in the absolute power as Muslims though they never read Quran. I found one of the Quran's core values is to emphasis the decoupling between God and prophecy. The absolute power that is beyond the comprehension of human from the personal practices "prophets" to reach that power.. Reading through your points, I have a believe that you are much more closer to Quran on this point than many who claim authority of it today. When I talked about the interfaces, I was trying to explain my understanding to what possibly Mohamed's call is through reading Quran as the sole source . So it might not reflect my personal thoughts but what my understanding to Quran is. Quran defines such interface to God as a mere personal experience.. Quran set the human mind as the only media to reach god, no metaphysics , no miracles, no social or political effects.. If you read through Mohamed's life , you would find that he got to his "personal" God through mere self thinking in Haraa Cave.. That is to say that he discovered God and not the other way. As in the Quran, Gabriel used to be the media , as no way one can reach or communicate with God in the physical sense. The question is if this Gabriel is part of our self or something with a physical identity.. Quran never elaborate on this. Other Ibrahimic books went completely different by detailing Angeles.. In Quran Angels are not well defined. It might worth mentioning that in some places in Quran, Allah refer to Angeles as "His Angeles" Malaekatahoo, is there other Angeles than the one of Allah? Sofi's went much far to believe that it is one's career to reach God, not the God will only.. Your theory of Quran being the words of Mohamed's conception of God words, make a sense to me. That would help more the theory of two interfaces.. I mean , those words that are related to Mohamed's specific experience that might not apply to others and those with regard to the Absolute power , that is general. That would explain to me why you got a long with some and didn't with others.. Cheers

From : ala Sent : Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:44 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD I was refering your below statement: Then I commented saying: this can be seen as a teleological evaluation (not analysis as I mentioned in my previous email). "Teleology: Belief in purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history OR The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena"............... Now...having assumed the Quran's absoluteness of textual beauty and linguistic robustness and rigor (this is the first part of teleological evaluation) you conclude that Quran must not be seen as words of human, and subsequently it has to be seen as the word of God (This is the second part of the teleological evaluation). Then I refered to a possible conclusion to show the opposite as in: it (Quran or other holy books) are words of God whispered, metaphorically speaking, in the ears of prophets through unique insights and deep spiritual/emotional experiences, and because of that it (Quran) has textual examples of specific reference and endorsement of events/nations of the time. This is coupled with me wondering why some Quranic text are not strong enough to sweep me and others by its divine breeze? on the other hand it confirms that deep human experience and insights in their own right can guide us to the path of God with possible assistance from insightful prophets. This is by no means to deny the existence of God or prophets but to indicate that prophets are good optional mediums (i.e. humans can reach connectedness with God without prophets) to guide us with Godly insights and guidance that there is an absolute God. I hope this clarify my point. To summerise: I am pro the choice of reaching God with or without particular religious beleifs. Going back to the concept of interface; I would like you to say few words on the nature of the interface, whether it has physical elements, if so what are they? Whether it can be seen as human experiences, if so are we restricted by religious experiences only? whether it is metaphysical; where it may be lying in human lives? and what is the Quran role in such interface? There may be some repetition in the line of questions but necessary to reflect upon.....Salam Ala

##################################################### From Safaa Ala, This is a heavy dose for me.. Would you elaborate and give some examples to help me understand better your points Cheers safaa

From : ala Sent : Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:04 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD We need to bear in mind that in itself shouldn't be read as if they are correct in all their action and that shouldn't be seen as a qualification of their total competence. There may be harsh actions needed to preserved an identity, a belief system...etc and without those harsh and maybe inhumane actions holy books can be preserved but that itself a double edge sword one edge to maintain and preserve the holy book which is an ultimate duty and the other one to chop the head or or suppress who dare to defy the preservation process and this is an act God may not tolerate. Obviously would be of great interest, and not to forget that who are fond of Islam may dictates social necessities. To me this can be seen as a qualifying evidence of how God was/is not troubled in creating such creature (human) which has many conflicting inner forces but for good humans the resultant of those inner forces is what only God can know by the end one's life. Here I am just using a sideline evidence of the possible redundancy of humans' intervention in setting punishing devices to punish whoever takes his/her own path of the connectedness with the absolute god. In other words, I want to say that I refuse to accept punishments of anyone who goes beyond a defined Islamic path. My comment on the swimming example wasn't to show your mistake but to say that the choices I am talking about are at a level where any choice to get connected to the absolute God is valid and that goes hand in hand with the ayaa that suggests that God created us complete but inflict our lives with indecision and indecisiveness of what constitutes a good deed. Interesting point but it has its teleological analysis (the analysis that takes valid results to prove valid premises)...clever... but one can argue that there are some inconsistencies in the Quranic text as in: first is the concrete endorsement of events of the time which may clash with reading or quoting them not in their own times but at any future time; second is the contradictory statements that can be acceptable if they are taken to reflect Hymans' deep emotional states and experiences all guided by especial insights from God to those prophets. This is coupled with an increasing evidence, my evidence in reading parts of the Quran, which indicates some of Quran's ultimate textual beauty but some fails to ring the bells of it's purely a word of God. Will be looking at your last interesting conclusion later....Salam Ala

From:Safaa Ala, Many good points as usual.. Regarding the current version of main stream Islam, my comments shouldn't be read in context of total criticizing .. What I meant is that with these issues where GOD and prophecy interact, I find the Islamic common theological understanding is setting certain rules that i fail match those rules set by Quran. We need here not to forget the huge work by all Muslim scholars who work so hard to assure other important aspects. Islam is not only about this issue, though very important, but a whole set of human values with moral and ethical dimensions that set the background of cultural and mind set of one quarter population of Human beings over fifteen centuries. It was the main stream Islam which preserved the great Book from being misprinted or lost.. Does Islam get evolved by necessities of society developments or by those who fond it.., that I would like to discuss later. But for sure it is an interactive process with political concur and domination playing central rule. Your point of personal experience might have it's Quran confirming statement " Khlakakum le yablowakum ayakum ahsan amela" : You are created to be examined on your good deeds.. The swimming example that I mentioned is to reflect the symbolic relation of our normal hesitation to choose between different paths.. Back to the main point about Mohamed himself..Mohamed's cousin Ali had a very interesting quot " Don't care about who said it, look to what is telling". What is important is the message and wouldn't make much difference if the words of Quran are some else's or as you put it Mohamed's sightfull of God's, or as Quran claims of being sole God's that Mohamed is just a container and messenger for. I don't feel Mohamed is discredited by suspecting the divine relation of Quran. On contrary, I think the more we believe that it is Mohamed's words, the more credit he gets... Being messenger of such beautiful book is way less value than being the author! I failed to buy Selman Rushdie 's courageous point that the divine link, claimed by Mohamed, is nothing but to prove symptoms of delusion resulted of seizure. Such theory might be possible if these words were kind of interrupted un related statements but not when having them bit by bit recited over more than twenty years at such same level of strong one message of calling for unity of universe through the only single beyond comprehension absolute power. All this while the other interface of practicing is getting evolved gradually according to the level of ,what you perfectly called it, self realization. It is unlikely that Mr. Rushde's theory could stand to any measure of scientific assessment.. Mohamed from the beginning knew where he is heading to. Though he used a very complex dynamic and pragmatic day to day micromanagement, he kept the main goal of God understanding since day one unchanged Recite, bring recitation into existence, beginning with: In the Name of your Lord Who created, all creatures; 96-1 same call same focus while even the way and direction of praying toward Allah had changed during that time.. Not mentioning the over written “Nasikh “and changing of religious rules.. Some thing that might add more support to my theory of separation of the two interfaces... Cheers Safaa

From : Safaa subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Ala You wrote That is exactly what Mohamed's call is all about and that is why I think Quran is unique . However, Islam is a religion and not an academic research, it would be very expected that Mohamed should assume his call as the best one, the issue is if he enforced it on others or not.. To my understanding , this is the central battle that Islam had went through and got finally evolved into the unfortunate other way around due to pure political reasons. It losses the battle to the main stream Islam which had succeeded in the recoupling of the two interfaces, making today's Islam-only-interfaces to the Quranic abstracted beautiful God as very ugly hard coded one. Using computer programming terms, just like an ignorant programmer who is calling the object oriented C++ using C style interface .. ! It ends up losing the good of both, performance and portability in one shot!! Choosing is absolutely personal decision. What I meant by "wrong" is that one might keep practicing in a way that he/she isn't fully convinced of, not what you might thought of mine and yours. I had a story that might be behind my personal conservative stand. At age of about 11, my elder brother used to take us swimming in Razaza lake. I couldn't swim, so I used to ride a tube "choob" while other swimmers are playing around. All of a sudden the wind started to push the tube a way from the shore, I got scared thinking that it will take me no where. For my bad luck "decision" I chose to jump out of the ride . I immediately found my self in the deep water, the rest of story you know, I made it but was just about to be not able to make it to this interesting debate! It was a horrible experience that taught me a lesson: the other side is not greener until you are sure of.. However, I feel very proud of those who can jump and can make it all the way to the shore! I would like to comment on your interesting point of Mohamed's call might being way beyond his time. I used to ask myself a question. If all what we are talking about here is true, and I think it is, then what type of person was he . A philosopher, a merchant, a fighter or pragmatic shroud politician or all of them. How come some one in the desert of no civilization could reach such complicated paradigm to the extent of scarifying his whole life unrest in spreading and educating others about it. How come he is considered by Sufis as the highest in their levels of Irfan " knowing god" , at same time to be as the greatest philosopher by one of the most knowledgeable Philosopher " Ibn Siena" , as the most brutal and pragmatic politician by mainstream Islam. How it is possible that such a man with his book is standing today in front of the US supreme court in Washington DC while the most brutal terrorist is claiming belonging to same book. !! What type of book is that Isn't that a mystery by itself? Cheers Safaa Althal is the Arabic word for those who miss the right path.. However, I think your considered Hafiah , which considered Muslims too!!! ################################################## From : ala Sent : Saturday, October 21, 2006 3:33 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Although the talk is still incomplete but has a lot of interesting angles and veiws, I'll just jump to your comment on Mohamad and what kind of person was he or could've been? It is an interesting question and requires analysis rather than just an answer. Before I comment on the above issue I feel the need to say few words regarding the evolution of Islam to its "unfortunate current version" as you suggested rightly. I would say that the evolution/regression of Islam to its current version isn't the evolution of Islam as such but the evolution/regression of whoever is fond of it and defend it for all sort of reasons. Subsequently, Islam evolution/regression became an extension of the pschology of those people, i.e. an extension of human psychology. In other words, muslims as humans cannot escape the desire to control, to dominate, to raise their self-esteem, to tolerate things and not others...etc as attempts to feel better about themselves, but humans have less perception of how to seek self realisation/actualisation or self-fullfilment through life experiences which (i.e. self-realisation) can be enhanced by some aspects of religion as the sufis may have done. So God who drafted the Quran as its/his/her final word to humans gave it to fallable humans and have the capacity to distort its (Quran) use!!!! This isn't to say that God made a mistake but to say that God and its/his/her dealing with a world it/s/he created is more complex than our comprehesion but then the same God gave a huge human capacity to deal and investigate or research complex phenomena!!!!!!! Though these may be seen as indicative of contradictions and have the power to incapacitate human thought I see it as the ultimate gift from the absolute God. Your example of swimming and drowning can be seen to trivialise the argument of the choice of personal connectedness to God. Choices can be of different levels and experiences can be of different levels too, therefore a deep spiritual experience cannot be compared to a physical sensational experience such as the swimming/drowning one. Now....what kind of person Mohammad was? Let me start by saying that at the moment I am reading a historical account of Mohammad's life. I am not reading the two volums as in cover to cover but selectively. This historical account tells us about Mohammad's life events and how those events are associated with Quran's suras and ayaat, in other words the author states Mohammad's life events and give a particular sura or aya to endorse them to indicate that God has its/his/her endorsement to Mohammad's acts. Regardles of whether this historical account is accurate or not I may conclude from it that Mohammad had a unique insight to life experiences and I may debate that the Quran is his words but had some insight from God, furthermore God always did that(giving unique insights to particualr humans) with humans to tell them that there is an absolute entity that is bigger than anything we can imagine. This particular hypothesis goes well hand in hand with why there wasn't a Quran or Bible or Tora or a word of God 2000000000000000000000 years ago or instance? or may there was but we have no evidence of it. An answer or I should say an attempt to an answer is that because God it/s/he had created the evolutionary process of man, animal, plants....etc itself and that what makes God as eternal as this evolutionary process itself.....Salam Ala

From : ala Sent : Friday, October 20, 2006 7:13 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD This is getting qutie interesting, it may mean that we are getting into terroteries beyond the known ones by traditional anxious muslims. Now...it may appear to me, it may be the case, that Mohammad was a medium for passing God's message to the rest of the world (This can be compatible with some Quranic text where there are emphasis on him as a messager rather than an extension of God in some form, and this what may make Islam beyond time of Mohammad as you suggest quoting various ayats) and he (Mohammad) shouldn't be seen as an interface by the definition of the interface, i.e. no clergy can constitute an interface to God and any physical entity that is used by God to facilitate the understanding of God's absoluteness is simply a facilitator rather an interface or part of the interface. Interesting indeed, but we need to recongnise and stress the fact that experiencing or exercising the experience, as you've referred to it, shoulndn't be bound by muslims' interpretation of the Quran of any particualr given time but bound to the ethical code of the time coupled with some "absolute" ethical code (I say "absolute" because of humans' ignorance of the far future social and ethical development) This is absolutely a natural step toward knowing God better and exercising the given gifts of God. One can't claim that his/her boat, metaphorically speaking, is safer than mine or vice versa, because living safe life as in believing in an absolute God is the ground we all have in common apart from the specific religious practises or muslims, christians, Jews and others which can be seen as begnin practises required to psychologically facilitate a form of attachment to God and reduce the daily humans' anxieties. Kierkagaard has an interesting views on human anxiety called it at the time "the concept of anxiety"...nevermind this is a side issue. By the way what exactly an Althal is?....Salam Ala

From : ala Sent : Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:34 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD I don't think we should worry about the depth of your understanding of Quranic text or your referecning to parts of the Quran rather than compiling a a bigger picture, because we are here openly discussing issues that many people may be anxious to discuss. There are many interesting points in your below email and will be commenting on them....Salam Ala

انسان هل لي ان اطلب منك تلخيص الافكار الرئيسيه التي يدعوا لها مؤلف الكتاب السيد النجار الكتاب طوبل وربما تكون بدايه افضل لو تكرمت بشرح الخطوط الرئيسيه . فمن خلال قرائتي لبعض ما جاء فيه فاني اجده يطرح نقاط مهمه ارجوا ان لايكون التعليق على الكتاب من خلال نقل المحتويات بل من خلال الاشاره الى الافكار والمعاني الاساسيه لكي يمنح القارئ فرصه فهم ما يريد ان يقوله الكاتب وليس ما قاله

From: Safaa Sent : Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:39 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Ala, We are touching many points . I am trying here to raise concerns that I found important to be taken care of when judging Mohamed and Quran. I might be missing the whole picture though. Such concerns need much more thorough understanding of Quran as a whole , some thing I am anxious for my retirement to go for :-). I don't think Quran had undermined the rule of Clergy as a whole, Mohamed himself is a clergy ! There are many Sura's in Quran that acknowledges those who know Quran better " Al rasikhoon fe Alilim" , the most knowledgeable. what Quran is credited for though might be the elimination of any rule of Clergy in the person's interaction with God. Even Mohamed has nothing to do with that . Today, even fanatic Shia who believe in strict Takleed " follow ship" to a Marjea "Imam", they consider this to be limited to the Ahkam "Sharia" and not to the belief. Indeed the mainstream Islam might used this window of "rasikhooon fe Alilm" to hijack the whole text.. However, even for such hijacking , I consider it as a normal consequence of Quranic call encouraging personal experience of God. The problem is that any vision needs not to contradict Quran by claiming sole authority of it. What I meant by the two interfaces is that there is a decoupling between the personal recognision of the absolute power and the way you are exercising such experience. All known religions had fused the two in one . For Judaism, God is only for Jews. In christianity, God had melted down with prophecy. However, In Quran, the decoupling between the two is the core of the message. Opening the way for human methodologies to be unlimited and to be a whole personal ration than a strict doctrine based. Does Quran pushed for certain way ? yes. Does it blocks others, NO! and here how Mohamed is different.. During Mohamed's era, there were "Hanafia" who are a strong believer in Absolute power but didn't believe in any of the known religions. One of them, by name Zeyad Ibn Aamir, used to practice worshipping in Mecca with other mushrikeen . He was quoted talking to the Quraysh who were making the ritual circumambulations around Kaaba , "O Quraysh, by him in whose hand is the soul of Zeyad, not one of you follows the religion of Abraham but I". Then he added sadly , "O GOD, if I KNEW HOW YOU WISH TO BE WORSHIPPED I WOULD SO WORSHIP YOU;BUT I DO NOT KNOW". I think many of Muslims today are just like Zeyad, they have the sense of believing in the absolute power that is beyond the human reach, but they don't know any way other than the one they are used to worship . There are some, like you, who have the courage to break that barrier. They might question the wisdom behind such power to be a ware of sending messengers .A smart concern that we might go through later. The question is if these people are doing better. Frankly speaking , I failed to find it so. Keep riding the wrong boat might be much safer than throwing your self in the deep water. To Quranic definitions, you might call your self Althal. Mushrik in Quran is the one who believes that there is some sharing power with GOD . Quran has a very vigorous stand to such Mushrikeen. It is even threatening them of a very sever punishments if they keep the course. I need to spend more time understanding these Ayas. However, the blessing is that such punishments are only done in the other world, so nothing to be afraid of if you don't believe in it any how!! Cheers Safaa

From : ala Sent : Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:21 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Quite interesting and needs a bit of clarification............. My concept of the interfaces seem different from yours but they have some meeting points. I wasn't referring to the role of clergies as part of the interfaces but to the unique personal and daily humans experiences. As you said, of course the role of the clergies was rightly condemned by Islam but then the various interpretations of Quran can be seen as a hindering barrier, may be an interface!!, to the joy of humans' experiences whatever shape of form they may take. Quite interesting views..... but from your description I couldn't see clearly the two interfaces yet!!! It is quite interesting to see how the decoupling concept emerging from its initial form to its current one and I here use it to my advantage as a "mushrik" (perhaps by the definition of Islam for not practising Islamic duties), and here I go: someone believes in an absolute God, he does not belong to any of the Ibrahimic religion and actively living a life of a good doer in relation to a well-defined good set of moral criteria or ethical code and believing in the personal experience to develop self-actualisation/realisation nearly a Sufi but not quite. We need to ask ourselves where such person stands in his/her value to God and your interesting views of Quranic ayats and what they mean? or I should say would s/he be seen as muslim? And since you've touched on the direct link with God via salah, then can salah take different form from the one muslims/christians/jews know????.....Salam Ala

From:Safaa Sent : Monday, October 16, 2006 11:01 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Ala, Let me go into some details of this two interfaces issue I fully agree with you regarding the two layers issue. Indeed Quran is the only "claimed" divine known doctrinee that had facilitated this concept by removing the rule of Clergy as a gateway, short cutting the path to God to be an absolutely direct one. Muslims can set their direct link any where, any time through Salah. . .. Two interfaces are not two layers. I think this is the core of the Quran and Mohamed revolutionary concept that makes it the only Abrahamic religion that decouple the believe in God from the way you practice such believe.. In Islam there are the two witnesses " No god but alah " and " mohamed is his profit".. it didn't say "no prophet but Mohamed".. Those who believe in the first , might be considered by Quran as Muslims , have a look alUmran 3-67 "Abraham was not Christian or Jew, he was a Muslim" Also Yousif 12-101 "Let me die as Muslim" Prophet Josef was quated asking God. The question here is how could these earlier prophets be Muslims at a time they had never experience Mohamed's call not knowing about him? Main stream Islam tried to manipulate the answer by going around the issue claiming that this prove that Mohamed's is nothing but to represent the true version of Abraham.. They might be right but this wouldn't answer the question. How some one become a muslim without witnessing " Mohamed is a prophet".. The answer to me is hidden in the two interfaces paradigm :You can be Muslim, as to the Quran definition, without even believe in Mohamed's prophecy, in other word way of practicing God. This decoupling had implemented tolerance and abstraction to it's up most. To the surprise of many, Quran doesn't need to be evoluted to be read in a tolerance context , as the case with other religions. It is already structured on it by nature.. It is the main stream islam who diverted that aspect and had misprinted. Have a look Albakara 2-62 "Surely ..Jews and Christians and Sabae ..will be rewarded" You might never find a religion that considers other faiths followers as legitimate and be rewarded. The most reforms by other religions would go at it's best to accept others to worship under free thinking tolerance. Having said that, Quran went to dictate that only Islam, surrendering to God, is acceptable by God Alumran 3-85 "Those who don't follow Islam are not be acknowledged" Only through the above context of broad definition of islam, one can put the two Ayas with no contradiction.. Other wise we might end up pleasing those who discredited Quran by ading one more conflicting Ayas. Cheers safaa

هل هي دعوه للهروب من الواقع؟ سؤال برئ وليس محاوله لجرك الى نقاش

######################################## From : ala Sent : Monday, October 16, 2006 4:01 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Interesting.................I am not sure why you've introduce two layers of interactional media (i.e. interfaces). I think God as the absolute entity intended to give us direct access to connecting with it/her/him via our experiences rather than layers of such medium because we may be a little bit scared to describe our relation to God as close as in being single interface, and therefore get close to God via single layer of experiential medium. To my understanding those interfaces are some sort of experiential interfaces rather than dull specific practising, and such experiential interfaces are connected to our feelings and thougths while experiencing life. Any mechanical practise of religious stuff is not more than avoiding the joy of the scared gift given to us by God. Actually the above ayaa of Bakara sura 2-113 can be seen as a good indication for the given God's space for our experiences and how it/s/he would judge us. This particular example (i.e. Mohammad's command to fight Mushrekeen) is quite clear in its intention and quite pragmatic depending on the circumstances faced at the time. The above ayaa can be good example of God's tolerance of humans' experiences. Here God is telling us that we, humans, were created with all kind of behavioural forms but the same God is suggesting a very open criteria, not specific at all, of the good deeds. Actually God here suggesting another a very important gift of it/her/his granted us and that is the "free will". Free will is the very concept that we need to embody in every and each of our interpretations of religious text, and any thing that deny us this gift is short of been right. Will be commenting on salah later............Salam Ala

From:safaa Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:37 PM I just wanted to comment more on the issue of the salah of allah on the prophet.. Here what an Islamic scholar put it as covering him with mercy Another scholar explained the salah toward allah It would go even further to include other faithfull muslims The use of the term Salah is really intersting. Though it is completely refering to the main practice of worshipping, the arabic meaning of it has no thing to do with such meaning in a direct terms Some meanings are , glorification, or modification using fire " ysla naran This might high light the Quranic special relation between Muslim and the absolute God which is more like friendship and deep respect and absolute surrender Let me point here to the same great philosopher of the the seventeenth century "Mulla "sadra 1650 AD In his definition to the Salah where he emphasised the knowledge and personal glorification and recognize of Allah as the real aspect by those who got wisdom than what the ordinary Muslims who are more concerned by the physical movements . Such meaning was completely distorted by the main stream Islam to mean fear and sin mentality though Cheers Safaa

This is the second round of debate as was started in the link below http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?sho...t=0&gopid=6907& The debate is moving toward the concept of God in Quran and other relevent Islamic views.. ############################################ From Ala: Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD I think it is good idea to bring some ayats to make comparision. Interesting to see the two types of Quranic texts you've pointed at, the concrete (specific to the events of the time) and the abstract (independent of time and historical events). The concrete ones illustrating how Muslims should deal with issues depending on events of the time. It is even more interesting to see different Interpretations of those two types. One may ask what is the rationale behind having these two types of text in a book of God. Are they there to cater for all times and places? Are they attempts of humans to portray God in a more powerful image? or are they mistakes of our illusion of a superior God? We can simply say that the concrete ones are redundant and don't serve future religious purposes because they served Islam at the time and no longer serving the promotion of religion in modern times. But they may be of interest because of their historical context. On the other hand the abstracted ones may be seen as a vehicle for future interpretations that go in line with modern life. Having said that, one can say that those abstract texts may be interpreted in the light of modern theories of human psychology or theories explaining natural phenomena. So those abstract texts are useless without modern theories generated and created by human minds. Therefore we are more driven by modern theories than an abstract holey text and we are better off been driven by those theories rather hanging on to abstract text that have no meaning unless modern theories give it meaning; and if human mental product is driving God's word (i.e. the abstracted Quranic text) then God' word should stay where it is and let modern theories to sort out human problems. But then humans need some sort of supernatural power to hang on to when they are in depression or desperation to see a meaning of life. That is where religions come handy as a temporary solution!! but the key solution comes from the search within to find our human potential to overcome depression, desperation and our fears. Although this may seem a bit out of context but really related to the last bit in the above paragraph. My general observation is that many people resort to religion because of a life crises of some sort, and during the life crisis's torment practicing religion can be very soothing, but my objection is that we start delegating serious personal issues to God rather than dealing with it by developing ourselves further and that is why I need my personal God whom I thank for every good thing I develop to get stronger rather than a christian or muslim or jewish which don't give the strenght from within myself but from their God....Salam Ala ################################################ Safaa wrote: Ala, The concept of personal GOD is going in so many definitions. I would like to know more about the one that you r experiencing.. I found a lot of sufi's talking about that God that they claim themselves the only to have chance to experience. Frankly speaking I have a lot of reservation on such mystical vision. My concern is If god is personal experience, then what about those who had no chance of intellectual ability, like kids and mentally challenged. Not mentioning non human beings.! I would like if detail this experience.. Cheers Safaa ######################################### From : ala Sent : Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:08 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Through my life I never believed in a particular religion, but I went through difficulties similar to other people’s from situations that are beyond my control (meaning I couldn’t control their outcomes) to situation that hurt me emotionally at certain depth and the only thing I learnt is that one cannot predict or control every thing that surrounds us or even within ourselves and that in itself is one of the unrecognised gifts of God, in other words God gave us the capacity to experience all sort of experiences including our capacity to sin (sin by the definition of religions) but not by the definition of humans who believe that certain sins may make them better people. The measure of sin hasn’t been revealed completely to humans and no human can know in complete sense the nature of sinful deeds and only God knows it and we will know it when we meet God again where it/s/he will not get a list of our good and bad deeds and tell us whether we are going to go to heaven or badWord, but it/s/he may be examining us in ways that we don’t know or even will never know. Obviously this isn’t about the relative measure of sinful deeds, but about our in-borne capacity for self-regulation. The whole idea of personal God isn’t about how intellectual the person is? But how intuitive and how internally balanced the person is? Therefore, children are in the process of developing the concept of personal God, as for the others it is about experiencing what they are able to experience and leaving the rest taking its course of action…..Salam Ala. ################################################## From : Safaa Sent : Friday, October 13, 2006 7:13 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Thanks Ala for sharing your wonderful experiences . Seems to me that Sin is playing a major rule in your relation with your God. Something i found bit similar to the usual message conveyed by traditional religions. I don't know if I got it right , but don't you think that Sin " what ever definition one might put" is just very small aspect of such relation that would , as the case with Sufis , fuse the soul of a person into the loving his God.. Today the traditional islamic message is almost completely relying on Sin and punishment in the other world. Some thing I found to be inconsistent with a great say by Ali Ibn Abi Talib preaching his god " I don't worship you being afraid of your punishment but because you deserve it "! However, the description to your God is more like a friend or personal Guardian that has nothing to do with relation to the surroundings.. The impersonal God might go bit beyond that to manage that part, such as the theory of being responsible to all existence in the current life.. Your God is more like being part of your self than being you part of it/s/his/her self! interesting but kind of hard to imagine, specially by some one who raised and educated himself to believe that the hole universe is not but simplicity and unity.. the best description I found is the greatest Sofi saying " Hoo allah " Alah is himself, some thing that might comply with Quran Sura " Alah la elaha ela Hoo" . This Sufi's expression might go further to the extent that Alhalaj used to say " Ana Alhak" which thought to mean that God is what I can discover, so our souls are the great wisdom. I found , Quran is the only document that have a strange mix between personal and impersonal concept of God. I have a feeling that Mohamed had experienced that God through two great concepts of abstraction and decoupling, that we already talk about.. What Quran message is , as I understood it and not to main stream Islam saying, the impersonal God is indeed a personal one. You need to discover it through your own experience.. Quran set generic definitions, but ask you to build the whole picture through your own practice. That is why there is no clergy in Islam. That is why Quran consider all faiths as legitimate to worship. Cheers Safaa ################################################ From : ala Sent : Friday, October 13, 2006 7:39 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD When I refer to the concept of personal God we shouldn't take it as a God that is personal to individuals, but we should see it through the special relationship with the absolute God. I mention this just to explain for the sake of no further confusion. On the contrary I am not referring to the fear of sinning and its subsequent punishment, but suggesting that even sins can be part of human experiences which we shouldn't deny completely. As for the love of God, I can't see how human get attached lovingly to a God through abstract life, we human experience and those experiences good or bad guide us to self-fulfilment and self-realisation and a special relationship with God. I think your Al Halaj example is an interesting example (i.e. I discover God in my own way and through experience and not just through indoctrination and conditioning) to complement my account.....Salam Ala ################################################## From : Safaa Sent : Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:40 AM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Ala, I thought that Sin " not afraid it" was as a critical issue in your personal God image... Thanks for the clarification Interesting point of questioning love being part of human relation to absolute God. Sufis, as the case with current Christianity, put the notion of Love " Alah Mahabah" as critical to their theology. While In Quran, the relation with God is instituted through two rational pragmatic containers. The first is through believing in Mohamed's prophecy and the other is to worship the abstracted God, Alah. The first is to practice as instructed by the Quran call and the second through "Alsalah". What is important here is the second. Alsalah in Arabic means Glorification, a term that strangely used by Muslims also to ask Alah to Alsalah upon Mohamed... That might flag a believe of bidirectional relation of “respect” between God and some of special followers“Mohamed, his family and campaigns"... How is it possible that a God do Salah to a human? A question that I don't have answer to... I might come to this later I think what people call it their God, is indeed their "interface to God" and not their real absolute God. Your point of personal God to be not the same absolute God might went in that sense. Pagan used physical symbols as idols which their gate to their God, Sufis use their mystical images where love is playing a central role, Torah prototypes God in human image that eats, talks and even conducts sexual intercourse. Quran on the other hand came with an abstraction that details the interface in a human like terms " Kareem, raheem, adil, , etc.." but in a very abstracted context " AlThat Alelahia " in saying Alahh is himself. Such abstraction might reflect ambiguity which would be expected when talking about the absolute power that should be beyond the human mental reach... Yes agree with you that Halaj "950 AD" is a way more sophesticated than his times. He paid the high price too. He was crusefied by Almukteder Abasee Khaleef for three days until death , during which Baghdad's citizens were "asked" to share throwing rocks on him. His discipal was forced to do it. he did but he throw a flower while the great philosipher gave him a pardon deep look. He was the first Muslim scholar to be killed in such barbaric way. ' Cheers Safaa ################################################# From : ala Sent : Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:07 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD No Safaa...sin shouldn't be a frightening issue neither to me nor to others, it may be an enriching one. Talking about God....An absolute entity exists without us been able to see it in a particular way to agree on its shape or form. God is more complex than that otherwise it/s/he wouldn't be a God. But what humans do is to interact with this absolute entity through their own unique experiences given to them by this absolute entity as a gift. So your reference to the interfaces may seem interesting concept, and I say "may" because I don't know what's your vision of those interfaces? Are they defined Islamic practises? are they practises of the Quranic text or what Mohammad said during his life? are they purely humans visions? are they something beyond us to analyse?...etc Though I respect pagans' belief, but I am not interested in them as such, and as for the Sufis they may have got it wrong through their mystical and humanly constructed condensed and abstracted image which need a closer look; as for the Torah not very interesting too at the moment; now ...for the Quran (at the moment that touches my interest more than others) it hasn't defined clearly those interfaces, are they just the dictated Islamic practises? are they religious indoctrination and conditioning? and if they are then to me they are useless humans' creation. Are they mere experiences? if they are what makes them acceptable? and why the unacceptable ones are not acceptable despite their richness and not to forget they are gifts of God to be experienced so when we meet God we are matured and may reflect his own image? He (Al Hallaj) was the first Muslim scholar to be killed in such barbaric way. ' A typical humans' brutality when it comes to going beyond the known to know God better. .....Salam Ala ################################################# From : Safaa Sent : Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:37 PM Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD Your questions are reflection of a very legitimate concerns. There are so many different ways one might go with the interface issue. Current main stream Islamic theology might go with an ugly conservative definition that fuse the first interface of practicing with the second "the believe in the absolute power" and some might go to an extreme of judging right and wrong interfaces. Such definition might go much further in narrowing this concept to include even those who differ in the minor issues. For example , you find some Shia consider their fellow Shia as " Thaal" infidels , same with Sunnis. Not mentioning the Salafees who might judge to kill both Shia and Sunni based on different practicing.. My personal interpretation to Quran " not Islam" is that the message of Mohamed is very clear. It differentiates between the first "Mohamed's practicing" and the second interfaces " the believe in the absolute power that is beyond the human recognition" .. That is why according to Quran, those who share Muslims in the second are judged according to their faith Albakra 2-113 As for those who don't, I would repeat what I mentioned before. When Mohamed concurred Mekka in an absolute dominating win of surrendering without fight, he didn't asked the Mushrekeen of abandoning their belief. They kept practicing Hajj to Mecca for the next two years side by side with Muslims. Another example, those Islamic Sira and hadith scholars who think that killing Mushrekeen is legitamate in Islam, I would refer them to the known fact that Mohamed didn't fight Mushrekeen of Medina through all his life in it. The fight was with those Mushrekeen who abused Muslims and block them from practicing their believes.. Of course these scholars would refer you to so many Hadiths and Sira incidents. I personally don't buy it simply because it contradicts Quran in the absolute statement " No obligation in religion".. Not arguing credibility of documents that had archived two hundreds years after the death of the prophet and under the absolute religious and political tyranny of Amaweed and Abaseed Khaleefs. A late shai scholar " Altabatabaei 1982 AD" argued such claims of Aya " No obligation in religion" being restricted only to religions of Books " Jews and Christians, etc" , look how he defend it If it is applied only to other faiths followers, Quran should use " Thala" not "Ghaey".. And it should use " Huda" and not " Rushid".. According to Quran, the other faiths are just another way to reach Allah , though it is not best way, while Ghay is only applicable to those who don't have a path or " Deen".. Quran try to say "even for those who Don't have a religion , you can't use obligation in forcing religion on them.." The scholar went even further to rationally declining any possibilty of being exposed to a later " Naskh" over-written by Quran, My personal understand to Quran, is that human are equiped with all necessary tools to recognize GOD Which same Scholar went to say that Taqweem is regarding ability of Human to reach God and not physical perfection as some other scholar though. He defend his point by refering the next Aya Which Clearly demonstrated that the best cretion is regarding such ability >

From Safaa Ala, When I talk about Islam in this thread, I try my best to be subjective and not biased. Having said that, I might still be not able to get out of my background education being raised as repulsive to current main stream islam which I find non satisfactory. This might get me try to escape to a reform vision of finding a rosy picture in early islam. So please point me to those instances that you would find inconsistent.As for those points that I am raising , the main intention was not to say that eary Islam is all-posative as might my comment misleadinglee implied. What I was refering to is the fact that there is an outstanding clear statements in Quran that are in relavent to our bench mark of tolerance and in contradiction to the current main stream Islamic views ofg supiriority and concure . That is at a time all Muslim sects undebatibily have no issue with Quran, indeed it is the only document that they agree upon. BTW, my refernce to " debatable" was in that meaning and not to imply any other divine authority one. There are some other statements "aya" in Quran that might look very unusaul. For example the Sura that is called the aya of Sword " Alsaif" Sura al "Touba-5" , have a look Which most interpreters use to legatimize the killing of Mushreeken or become muslims, they even include the prophet hadith "sahih" Which has a very clear contradiction with basic rules in Quran, that of " Laekrah fe aldeen". However, you might have a look to the whole picture of this Sura, I personally found that these interpreters try to take this Aya out of it's context http://quran.al-islam.com/Display/Display....=9&nAya=1&l=arb It is very clear from the Sura , as in the first aya , that this is in regard to those who had violated their contrat with Mohamed and killed Muslims after the concure of Mecca. Not all Mushrekeen as these interepreters might go for.. Even with those criminal Mushrekeen , Quran had set a window for forgiveness That is in my humbel understanding to it. I need to emphazize that I am not an expert in Quranic language but it is an arabic text that I might understand , the way that those who recieved it from the prophet, did. From above it should not , by any mean, make me saying that there is a wrong and right in the evolution of islamic understanding to Quran. I think this was the intention by Quran auther and that what had happened. It is a path that people need to go through and have their own experience [الروم:32]. And as that great Islamic phelosipher said once As for your point that though Quran is having no objection of being different, but to say later that it is Islam the best way to Alah, we need to remeber that all religons are going that way. Otherwise why they call people for it.. The problem is when it impose it self on others. which is clear not to be the path of Quran, despite the claims that it is not so."both islamic claims and non " The other point that you raised regarding the concern that I might be promoting for the concept of Quran being for evry era and time through the concept of portability and abstraction. I never said that, however, if this what such abstraction might lead to then why are we upset of it?.. The abstraction of having tolerance as good way of behaving among human is an example of good one for all era and times.. right? Cheers Safaa ####################################################### From Ala, Your account seems honest and raising interesting points and intentions and there may a lot to talk to you about. Can I get back to you as soon as possible?. The trouble with people like me Safaa is that I don't have an Internet connection at home with an immediate access and accessible all times, so I rely on the Internet access while being in libraries, bookshops, work and Internet cafes. I know this may seem quite funny but it is true, I am a bit behind the rest of humanity in this respect :-).....Salam Ala ########################################### End of the debate From here the debate is going to deal with the more interesting debate about definition of God in Quran.. This this the last post for this thread and I will open new one to deal with the next level of debate.. Feel free to comment now and thank you for your patiance..

From: a atar Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 07:59:46 +0100 (BST) I will be coming back to the underlined issues in your previous email, but needed to comment on few general issues which may have been implied by the Sura. Obviously the first interpretation may show some basic development in the general understanding of human psychology, but less detailed understanding of for example the interaction between the rational processes and the uncontrollable emotional processes. Having said that, what are the Muslims' current attempts to interpret Quranic text to cater for deeper aspects of human psychology in the light of for example modern theories of human motivation to worship God without been forced as the Sura indicated? Below are few points that need to be considered: • The imposition of the Jiza is in contradiction with the modern definition of human rights, because extra tax cannot be imposed on citizens who are of other faith living under Islamic laws. It also may contravene with modern equality laws such as laws to prevent discrimination on ground of race, religion and gender. • There may be practices in societies that may contradict religious values but not social values and because the Sura suggests that religion mustn’t be forced upon people then such practices must tolerated regardless of their conflict with the doctrine’s values and principles. • If individuals have chosen not to practice any religion and may practice other line of thoughts which may argue the validity of religion (i.e. to put it simply they are the Kafers by Islamic definitions) then those people must be left alone as the Sura may have suggested. Mustn’t the above points, for instance, included in any new attempt to interpret Quranic text to prove the current evolution of the interpretation of Quran?.....Salam Ala ############################################# Safaa wrote: Many interesting points.. The interpretation by first scholar was in the sixteenth century, that is way before the enlightenment in Europe and all of it's revolutionary human right new concepts, so it might be not appropriate to root it to the coop with the current era. That scholar is simply belonging to a different mind sect than the second's. It might be worth mentioning that those who follow the same second's sect are still using his methodology till today and are considered as one of the main stream muslims while the other is considered as another main stream. As for your point of conducting contradicting practices.. Let me refer you to the followings: First: when Mohamed concurred Mecca, he didn't ask Mushrekeen to disband their faith, though he was an absolute winner,. all what he asked for, was to enter their homes to isolate them from those who might fight back.. Quran tells that these Mushrekeen were allowed to practice their faith for the next two years before an incident happened that distract Muslims from doing their haj, then Mushrekeen were abundant to do so in Mecca.. We might discuss this incident in more details later second: The only physical punishment that Quran imposed was toward those who violate others rights, such as stealing or committing homicide. The Irony is that there is no physical punishment in Quran to those who violate Islamic believes even the greatest duty in Islam, praying, or any other islamic pillars like fasting or paying Zakaa not mentioning drinking alcohol which punishment had never been known till lately after the death of the prophet when the second Khleef imposed it after noticing so many Muslims became addicted to it. Some thing that would block them from conducting well or participating in the wars.. . This might raise many concerns towards those Muslims who believe in physically enforcing people to their spirtual or personal rights or wrongs.It is very clear that the Quranic philosophy is that these violations be managed only by Allah in the other life and not by people on earth. I think that sharia laws enforcement at the personal conduct level on people , muslims or non muslims, was part of evolution , some times backward :-), which was a necessity of political order than of Islamic core intention. something that had happened after the death of the prophet when the stronger central state started to control religion. A phynomina that is still governing muslim world till today " and not the other way that one might misleadingly think". .. It would be another interesting subject to discuss later. As for Jezia law . I think it's current state is one of the proofs of Islamic thinking evolution. Let us have two current Muslim based systems.. A shia Iran constitution and Sunni Saudi sharia based. Both of them don't apply such concept of Jizia on their citizens . As far as discussing the analogy of the concept it self, we might come to this later but the way I put it, is to be part of the social political dynamics. Let me give you two different examples that might explain what I mean. Today in Israel, as example of democratic based constitutional system, any Jew in the world has the right to Israeli citizenship even if they have never visited the country, while those who still hold the keys of their grand grand father's homes are denied from such access. Another example of current civilized political system, rich people are exposed to higher tax percentage than lower income ones. Is that fair? I think all of these are part of the social political requirements to rule and manage .. Cheers Safaa #################################################### From: a atar Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:41:33 +0100 (BST) Having said the above, it seems to me and many others that Mohammad’s era may stand to be the only reference and eras after Mohammad may have had practices that may not be approved by Quran if the Quran is interpreted to cater for the current modern social development. To push the argument even further one can suggest that any social practice that contradict previous Quran’s interpretation are ok if Quran is reinterpreted to cater for modern thoughts. Final possible conclusion: there must be separation of social and political development and religious practices but there may be some moral and ethical input from religion and that in itself can be seen as some form of secularism too…. .Salam Ala ##################################################### Alaa, Generally I would agree with your conclusions, however I have some concerns One can't separate different islamic eras on bases of black and white. It is way more complex to be easily draw lines. What I was referring to is that there are some flag points that might raise a lot of concerns about current Islamic concepts and to how much it is complying with the only authenticity non debatable document " Quran". Most of these islamic concepts and judgment are based on interpretations of Quran which were based on two sources First what is called credible Sunna " Hadith" and narrated stories, the second is the one you mentioned before: history. In order to interpret Quran , one might need to understand the surrounding circumstances and history behind any Aya. Muslims scholars through history had put a whole structure of Hadith and history to support their findings ..So it is not as easy as one might thought to understand the real intention by quran ayat. On Hadith side, there are today more hadiths than what Mohamed could speak within his life time. Different sects put so much effort in " managing " credible hadiths to support their visions. All those hadiths " alsihah" were written at least two hundreds years after Mohamed death. That is because ,as All historians and Islamic sects confirmed, Mohamed himself prohibited writing his hadiths . This might put a real concern on the extent that Muslim can rely on what is called today "hadith sahih" and to be used on any legitimate argument base . As for history of that early era, we need to remember that what most of what we call early Islam conduct and stories were written by Ibn Ishaq , 154 HJ, who used to be a non religious scholar but a narrator " kasakhoon" in the coffee shops of Kufa. All those who wrote about Mohamed life , from Ibn Kuthair to tabaree, used Ibn ishak's " sera" that was written during the tyranny Almansour period and on demand by the horrible khaleefa. So one might consider the extent of manipulation that such sera might bring to islamic history. By the way Ibn ishaq never met Mohamed nor even any of his companion's sons, he is just a non known Mowalli's of Kufa but with a nice voice , some thing like any shia "rawzakhon" who is ready to kill alhusain hundred times a day for couple of Dinars. Reading through Ibn Ishak's Sera, Mohamed is no more than a cruel, sexually disturbed that would look even after his adopted son's beautiful wife. Some thing typical to image a tyrant khaleef. When I referred you to the first example, I wanted to drew your attention that there is a line of interpretation to Quaran that try it's best to keep it within the text and not based on manipulated sources. To enjoy more quran great text, have a look to this Just scan through these words that were written fifteen's centuries ago and compare it with what is told today by those who claim authority of that book. are they related? Is it possible that the messenger of these words could be as the one whom Ibn ishak did narrated! The most important question is if such complexity would make us in despair.? I personally don't think so. There are so many scholars today and before who work very hard to liberate QURAN FROM THE LONG TIME HIJACKING. They have a very powerful tool which is the fact that any muslim can't oppose " what ever contradict quran is worthless, even a credible hadith". rather than try to kill Islam, try to liberate it.. ! Killing Mohamed's teachings is just another way to help the fanatics who had hijacked him Cheers safaa ############################################# From: a atar Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires...interpretation Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:23:48 +0100 (BST) I may agree with you on not separating Islamic eras but I may disagree with you, as you may have implicitly suggested that a whole picture of Islam and its practices have been completely revealed, and say that our discussions so far hasn't revealed the whole picture of Quran's interpretations and inhumane past/current Muslims' practices and the implications of those interpretation/practices on societies under the rule of Islam. On the other hand, I can see a hint of current attempts to push more humane image of Islam and its practices which may cause problems for you when encountering the current dominant Islamic trends. But then we all have to face our demons at some point in our lives. Furthermore, I need to make sure that you are not trying just to give all-positive image of Islam just because it is your belief system or you sympathise with it more than other belief systems. What I can say to you now is that people like you are trying hard to make Islam a more acceptable religion which is fair to say and I hope that input like yours may change the way practising Islam means. Just to pick on the undecidablility of Quran, to me and many others it may be fair to assume that the intensive abstraction of Quran may (not must) suggest its undebatability but its interpretations can be quite debatable. I feel what you are trying to suggest here is that Quran is a dynamic document and can fit all eras and times by referring to its complex abstractionism and intention, but one can argue and say for example, the below Quranic text Sura Al Maeda 48 has either a contradictory text as in giving us the choices and making us different but plague us with difficulties and asking us to follow the good path. OR it may be interpreted as in the granting of free will and subsequently only God has the definition of good and evil, therefore God is a very personal matter and anyone on earth cannot judge others for a presumed evil they have done......Salam Ala ###############################################