Concept of God in Quran

[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

 

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ لَيْسَتِ النَّصَارَى عَلَىَ شَيْءٍ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى لَيْسَتِ الْيَهُودُ عَلَى شَيْءٍ وَهُمْ يَتْلُونَ الْكِتَابَ كَذَلِكَ قَالَ الَّذِينَ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ مِثْلَ قَوْلِهِمْ فَاللّهُ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فِيمَا كَانُواْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ (113)

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

بيان

قوله تعالى: لا إكراه في الدين قد تبين الرشد من الغي، الإكراه هو الإجبار و الحمل على الفعل من غير رضى، و الرشد بالضم و الضمتين: إصابة وجه الأمر و محجة الطريق و يقابله الغي، فهما أعم من الهدى و الضلال، فإنهما إصابة الطريق الموصل و عدمها على ما قيل، و الظاهر أن استعمال الرشد في إصابة محجة الطريق من باب الانطباق على المصداق، فإن إصابة وجه الأمر من سالك الطريق أن يركب المحجة و سواء السبيل، فلزومه الطريق من مصاديق إصابة وجه الأمر، فالحق أن معنى الرشد و الهدى معنيان مختلفان ينطبق أحدهما بعناية خاصة على مصاديق الآخر و هو ظاهر، قال تعالى: «فإن آنستم منهم رشدا»: النساء - 6، و قال تعالى: «و لقد آتينا إبراهيم رشده من قبل:» الأنبياء - 51، و كذلك القول في الغي و الضلال، و لذلك ذكرنا سابقا: أن الضلال هو العدول عن الطريق مع ذكر الغاية و المقصد، و الغي هو العدول مع نسيان الغاية فلا يدري الإنسان الغوي ما ذا يريد و ما ذا يقصد

 

.

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,

 

فقوله: لا إكراه في الدين، إن كان قضية إخبارية حاكية عن حال التكوين أنتج حكما

دينيا بنفي الإكراه على الدين و الاعتقاد، و إن كان حكما إنشائيا تشريعيا كما يشهد به ما عقبه تعالى من قوله: قد تبين الرشد من الغي، كان نهيا عن الحمل على الاعتقاد و الإيمان كرها، و هو نهي متك على حقيقة تكوينية، و هي التي مر بيانها أن الإكراه إنما يعمل و يؤثر في مرحلة الأفعال البدنية دون الاعتقادات القلبية

و من الشواهد على أن الآية غير منسوخة التعليل الذي فيها أعني قوله: قد تبين الرشد من الغي، فإن الناسخ ما لم ينسخ علة الحكم لم ينسخ نفس الحكم، فإن الحكم باق ببقاء سببه، و معلوم أن تبين الرشد من الغي في أمر الإسلام أمر غير قابل للارتفاع بمثل آية السيف، فإن قوله: فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم مثلا، أو قوله: و قاتلوا في سبيل الله الآية لا يؤثران في ظهور حقية الدين شيئا حتى ينسخا حكما معلولا لهذا الظهور.

 

 

 

My personal understand to Quran, is that human are equiped with all necessary tools to recognize GOD

(لقد خلقنا الإنسان في أحسن تقويم)

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

{ لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا ٱلإِنسَانَ فِيۤ أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍ } * { ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَاهُ أَسْفَلَ سَافِلِينَ } * { إِلاَّ ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ ٱلصَّالِحَاتِ فَلَهُمْ أَجْرٌ غَيْرُ مَمْنُونٍ

}

 

Which Clearly demonstrated that the best cretion is regarding such ability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

[Safaa]

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

 

 

 

قوله تعالى: «إن الله و ملائكته يصلون على النبي يا أيها الذين آمنوا صلوا عليه و سلموا تسليما»

 

قد تقدم أن أصل الصلاة الانعطاف فصلاته تعالى انعطافه عليه بالرحمة انعطافا مطلقا لم يقيد في الآية بشيء دون شيء و كذلك صلاة الملائكة عليه انعطاف عليه بالتزكية و الاستغفار و هي من المؤمنين الدعاء بالرحمة.

 

و في ذكر صلاته تعالى و صلاة ملائكته عليه قبل أمر المؤمنين بالصلاة عليه دلالة على أن في صلاة المؤمنين له اتباعا لله سبحانه و ملائكته و تأكيدا للنهي الآتي.

 

و قد استفاضت الروايات من طرق الشيعة و أهل السنة أن طريق صلاة المؤمنين أن يسألوا الله تعالى أن يصلي عليه و آله

.

 

Another scholar explained the salah toward allah

 

وأما معنى الصلاة في أصل اللغة فقيل: إنها الدعاء ومنه الحديث: " إذا دُعي أحدُكم الى طعامٍ فليُجبْ، فإن كان صائماً فليُصَلِّ. أي: فليَدْعُ له بالبركة والخير ".

 

وقيل: مشتقّ من الصَّلَى، وهي النار من قولهم: صَلَيْتُ العصا، إذا قوّمتها بالصَّلَى، فالمصلّي يسعى في تعديل ظاهره وباطنه، مثل من يحاول تقويم الخشبَة وإصلاحها بعَرْضها على النار.

 

It would go even further to include other faithfull muslims

وقد أخبر سبحانه وتعالى بأنه يصلي على عباده المؤمنين في قوله تعالى:

{ يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ ٱذْكُرُواْ ٱللَّهَ ذِكْراً كَثِيراً وَسَبِّحُوهُ بُكْرَةً وَأَصِيلاً هُوَ ٱلَّذِى يُصَلِّى عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَلَـٰئِكَتُهُ }

[الأحزاب: 41 ــــ 43] الآية، وقال تعالى:

{ وَبَشِّرِ ٱلصَّـٰبِرِينَ ٱلَّذِينَ إِذَآ أَصَـٰبَتْهُم مُّصِيبَةٌ قَالُوۤاْ إِنَّا لِلَّهِ وَإِنَّـآ إِلَيْهِ رَٰجِعونَ أُولَـٰئِكَ عَلَيْهِمْ صَلَوَٰتٌ مِّن رَّبْهِمْ }

[البقرة: 155 ــــ 157] الآية

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

 

 

وروح الصلاة، وهي معرفة الحقّ وتعظيمه وتنزيهه عن نقائص الإمكان، أشدّ وجوباً على بواطن العقلاء الكاملين من صورتها، وهي القيام والقعود والقراءة والركوع وسائر الهيئات والأوضاع على ظوهر سائر الناس،

 

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

[Safaa]

########################################

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.

 

 

{ لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا ٱلإِنسَانَ فِيۤ أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍ } * { ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَاهُ أَسْفَلَ سَافِلِينَ } * { إِلاَّ ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ ٱلصَّالِحَاتِ فَلَهُمْ أَجْرٌ غَيْرُ مَمْنُونٍ }

 

 

 

 

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

[Safaa]

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

 

{ مَا كَانَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ يَهُودِيّاً وَلاَ نَصْرَانِيّاً وَلَكِن كَانَ حَنِيفاً مُّسْلِماً وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ }

 

 

alUmran 3-67 "Abraham was not Christian or Jew, he was a Muslim"

 

Also

 

{ رَبِّ قَدْ آتَيْتَنِي مِنَ ٱلْمُلْكِ وَعَلَّمْتَنِي مِن تَأْوِيلِ ٱلأَحَادِيثِ فَاطِرَ ٱلسَّمَاوَاتِ وَٱلأَرْضِ أَنتَ وَلِيِّي فِي ٱلدُّنُيَا وَٱلآخِرَةِ تَوَفَّنِي مُسْلِماً وَأَلْحِقْنِي بِٱلصَّالِحِينَ }

 

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

 

{ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَٱلَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَٱلنَّصَارَىٰ وَٱلصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ }

 

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

 

{ وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ ٱلإِسْلاَمِ دِيناً فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي ٱلآخِرَةِ مِنَ ٱلْخَاسِرِينَ }

 

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

[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

[Safaa]

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

[Safaa]

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

[Safaa]

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.

 

What I meant by the two interfaces is that there is a decoupling between the personal recognising of the absolute power and the way you are exercising such experience

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)

"They might question the wisdom behind such power to be a ware of sending messengers "

This is absolutely a natural step toward knowing God better and exercising the given gifts of God.

 

" 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."

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

[Safaa]

From : Safaa

subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD

 

 

 

 

Ala

 

You wrote

 

"Interesting indeed, but we need to recognize and stress the fact that experiencing or exercising the experience, as you've referred to it, shouldn't be bound by muslims' interpretation of the Quran of any particular given time"

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!!

"One can't claim that his/her boat, metaphorically speaking, is safer than mine or vice versa"

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

[Safaa]

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

 

{ ٱقْرَأْ بِٱسْمِ رَبِّكَ ٱلَّذِي خَلَقَ } * { خَلَقَ ٱلإِنسَانَ مِنْ عَلَقٍ } * { ٱقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ ٱلأَكْرَمُ } * { ٱلَّذِى عَلَّمَ بِٱلْقَلَمِ } * { عَلَّمَ ٱلإِنسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ }

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

[Safaa]

From : ala

Sent : Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:04 PM

Subject : RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires... the concept of GOD

 

"It was the main stream Islam which preserved the great Book from being misprinted or lost."

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.

 

"Does Islam get evolved by necessities of society developments or by those who fond it.., that I would like to discuss later."

Obviously would be of great interest, and not to forget that who are fond of Islam may dictates social necessities.

" Khlakakum le yablowakum ayakum ahsan amela: You are created to be examined on your good deeds."

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.

"The swimming example that I mentioned is to reflect the symbolic relation of our normal hesitation to choose between different paths."

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.

 

"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!"

 

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

[Safaa]

#####################################################

 

From Safaa

Ala,

 

"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."

This is a heavy dose for me.. Would you elaborate and give some examples to help me understand better your points

 

 

 

Cheers

safaa

[Safaa]

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:

"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!"

 

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

[Safaa]

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.

"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"

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..

"A la taakloon" Don't you mind it

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

[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.

 

((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.))

 

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.

 

((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.))

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 :-).

 

((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 other 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.))

...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