What is the future of Islam?

[kkawohl]

And man, a product of school.

Incorrect. Man's mind may contain the byproduct of schooling.

There is no god but Al'Lah?

Hebrew word:''eloah" The pre-Moslem Arabic patron of Mecca, the god Hobal called Al-lahu (the god), was retained as the supreme god in Moslem theology; the other gods were transformed into demons. The unity and singularity of Allah is one of the primary beliefs of Islam.

Is the one God of Islam analogous to the Hebrew Jahweh?

 

[Karehndiujo Mohmid]

Incorrect. Man's mind may contain the byproduct of schooling.

Yes, that is what I said.

 

[Karehndiujo Mohmid]

Salaam Karehndiujo,

thank you for the post.


do you consider yourself to be a "proper" Muslim?

if so, do you consider that you have a firm grasp on "all" other schools of thought?

i hope you don't mind if i find that claim a bit tenuous..

Salaam.

No offense taken but...I never claimed anything.
(If you please, read my statement again.)

Any grasp at all is firm enough.

Always learning. Always growing.
All of us.

Peace.

 

[Karehndiujo Mohmid]

Incorrect. Man's mind may contain the byproduct of schooling.

There is no god but Al'Lah?

Hebrew word:''eloah" The pre-Moslem Arabic patron of Mecca, the god Hobal called Al-lahu (the god), was retained as the supreme god in Moslem theology; the other gods were transformed into demons. The unity and singularity of Allah is one of the primary beliefs of Islam.

Is the one God of Islam analogous to the Hebrew Jahweh?

"I Am A Transcendentalist"?

Remember, my friend, I am the Muslim and yOu are the Transcendentalist.

Al'Lah is your demon. Not mine.

So, if you please to ...transcend... and let the discussion continue in peace.
Before you start a war or something.

 

[Karehndiujo Mohmid]

Is the one God of Islam analogous to the Hebrew Jahweh?

YES.

And to Krishna ...and to Ganesh ...and to Re ...and to the Elohim
...and to Atum and to YHWH as well.

Analogous to any other God or Goddess that ever walked with Man on the face of this Earth.

Al'Lah is ALL of your demons, kkawohl.

And the answer to all of my prayers.


I'm sorry, my friend.
Our prayers are obviously not the same.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Brian, I recommend that you read “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong.
Kurt

Yeah, that's a good book. But while its would be wrong to deny the violent history of religion, its no good believing that such histories negates the value of faith and philosophy.

Later on you mentioned how Allah was simply a title that pre-dated Islam. Indeed! And Yahweh was a provincial deity that was inserted into Judaism. And Christ is a multi-faceted pun in Greek. And Holden Caulfield was lifted from Dear Ruth, staring William Holden and Joan Caulfield. Nevertheless, people follow the faiths and intellectuals name their kids after the Catcher in the Rye.

 

[kkawohl]

YES.

And to Krishna ...and to Ganesh ...and to Re ...and to the Elohim
...and to Atum and to YHWH as well.

Analogous to any other God or Goddess that ever walked with Man on the face of this Earth.

Allah/God, who is spirit physically walked with Man on the face of this Earth?

So, if you please to ...transcend... and let the discussion continue in peace. Before you start a war or something.

Start a war?...with whom? Does facing the truth make you combatant?....and my spirit has transcended and interacted with God. See http://www.near-death.com/forum/nde/001/14.html

 

[kkawohl]

Yeah, that's a good book. But while its would be wrong to deny the violent history of religion, its no good believing that such histories negates the value of faith and philosophy.

Later on you mentioned how Allah was simply a title that pre-dated Islam. Indeed! And Yahweh was a provincial deity that was inserted into Judaism. And Christ is a multi-faceted pun in Greek. And Holden Caulfield was lifted from Dear Ruth, staring William Holden and Joan Caulfield. Nevertheless, people follow the faiths and intellectuals name their kids after the Catcher in the Rye.

The interpretation of the meaning of Allah is not mine; it is from the Babylon dictionary...true, ALL names of people or a deity are man-made.

The value of faith and philosophy should not be negated...except when misguided faith or philosophy leads to strife...then man, not a deity, bears the vile consequences.

 

[iBrian]

Brian,

In order to intelligently appreciate something there has to be complete truth. Only when the truth behind the concept is known can one accurately judge the concept. Spirituality is an interaction of man’s spirit with the Spirit of God. This interaction was often expanded upon by followers who added their own interpretations and gradually the original message was skewed to meet the agenda of the newly formed religion. Most religions today are composed of so much added on garbage to a point where they are the culmination of their own politics and have lost the original meaning of spirituality.

One does not have to be an intellectual to see that the complexities, histories, and practices of religions have always been used to indoctrinate and keep new members from questioning the composition of the God that religions have created for the masses. This God was created to intimidate and brain-wash the gullible. True spirituality and a true God is self-sufficient and requires nothing from mankind.

This is the 21st Century and many religions still promote the existence of a vindictive, dominant, domineering, judicial God who will cast nonbelievers into a everlasting fiery pit. The Taliban movement brainwashed the illiterate and will eventually be annihilated; the Christian movement claims salvation that was invented by the Catholic Church which, in order to bypass the 1st Commandment, created the Trinity, made Jesus into God and claimed that salvation can only be achieved via the Catholic Church. If the medieval practices and the medieval beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that are based on superstitions were eliminated, then we could start building a rational and logical belief system that is based on truth and an understanding of spirituality. This is the value of truthfulness and rationality.


Brian, I recommend that you read “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong.

Kurt

I've read a lot on history - Ancient and Mediaeval history is actually a hobby of mine, which is why I feel able to separate out the politics from the spirituality.

I'm fully aware of the role of religion as a force for shaping and manipulating society - but it goes back to an argument of religion being used as a political tool.

It's worth noting that the Reformation broke the social conditions of that tool, setting us up for the massive number of denominations that have flourished since. In effect, the centralised control has broken in Christianity. However, not all denominations are certainly out to create a controlled social group, but have their own good intentions.

It was the Christian Quakers who started campainging for the abolition of slavery as long ago as the 1600's - and it was Christians who saw it abolished here in the UK. Secular America didn't overturn that practice until well over a century after.

And it was also Christianity that served the conscience of the social reformers here in the UK during the 19th century, when they fought the oppressiveness of industialisation on the working classes.

Religion is a complex issue that simply doesn't allow for easy generalisations when it comes to being critical of it. After all, just because a political tool was used as a political tool, does not mean that it doesn't also have real spiritual and altruistic effects.

I fear your view of Christianity, at least, is heavily tainted by the more aggressive US strains - over here's it's very liberal and non-combatant. In fact, you would probably be more than surprised at some of the limp-wristed leftist European liberalism that comes from the mouths of UK Christians! For example, it is the Anglicans who are splitting the entire Christian world with their appointments of gay clergy to positions of authority within their own denominational Church. Is that a sign of a people and faith looking to manipulate others into a submissive observance of an angry patriarchal Concept of God? Absolutely not. Hence the generalisation cannot work.

 

[kkawohl]

Brian,

When religions are used as a force for shaping and manipulating society it does not mean that its spiritual and altruistic effects are negated but it nevertheless is a manipulation of the masses for selfish or political reasons. Attempts at controlling society by using God as an authoritarian figure or as an angry patriarchal Concept of God has historically always had the indirect dire consequences of motivating peoples desires to please this deity to a point where they will indiscriminately fight and die for that cause. The common man is thereby used as a tool for the political enhancement of the manipulator.

We can see the results of this manipulation most often in the uneducated parts of the world. Fighting between Muslims and Christians in Sudan has for past 21 years been the cause of over two million deaths in that region. Muslims are still told by clerics to expand Islam by any means possible; this supposedly is Allah’s message to Muhammad. This goal of attempting to please Allah has caused strife between Muslims and its neighbors in the Philippines, Malaysia, Cambodia, India and many other regions of the world.

I repeat: One does not have to be an intellectual to see that the complexities, histories, and practices of religions have always been used to indoctrinate and keep new members from questioning the composition of the God that religions have created for the masses. This God was created to intimidate and brain-wash the gullible. True spirituality and a true God is self-sufficient and requires nothing from mankind.

Kurt

 

[iBrian]

The trouble there is that *any* ideology can be used to manipulate the masses. Religion suffers from it because it has often been a core foundation of a civilised society, to have an ingrained religious schema - whether it's Rome, Greece, or Victorian Britain, religion was an important ideology inseparable to the society - and the politics - of that society itself.

But secularism has more than contributed to the entire state of affairs. For example, the Cold War - which say the planet under the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction for nearly 50 years - was a state of terror promoted and postured upon by two constitutionally secular nations.

Ultimately any ideology can be used to promote violence - Christianity rebukes violence as a core mantra of the Gospels, and the Qur'an stipulates that fighting in defence is allowed. But these aspects are easily overlooked by the demagogues.

 

[kkawohl]

I agree...and when constructively used, true spirituality rather than religious dogma should be the core of all religious ideology.

Einstein said, "Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover (the) rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain, is moved by the profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason, incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life."

 

[Mus Zibii]

The value of faith and philosophy should not be negated...except when misguided faith or philosophy leads to strife...then man, not a deity, bears the vile consequences.

Isaac Bashevis Singer said, 'a voice from heaven must be ignored if it is not on the side of justice.' Summarizing a story from the Talmud, I think.

 

[kkawohl]

Isaac Bashevis Singer said, 'a voice from heaven must be ignored if it is not on the side of justice.' Summarizing a story from the Talmud, I think.

I would say "any voices", whether from heaven or elsewhere, should be ignored unless one physically sees the speaker. Spiritual interaction is only possible via our spirit; this is then often tranlated by a conditioned fallible mind.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I would say "any voices", whether from heaven or elsewhere, should be ignored unless one physically sees the speaker. Spiritual interaction is only possible via our spirit; this is then often tranlated by a conditioned fallible mind.

Well, that was a figurative statement. As in, those who claim to speak with religious authority should only be recognized if they're on the side of truth, justice and all that other good stuff.

 

[iBrian]

I would say "any voices", whether from heaven or elsewhere, should be ignored unless one physically sees the speaker. Spiritual interaction is only possible via our spirit; this is then often tranlated by a conditioned fallible mind.

Ah, but could this process of translation not take the form of the aural experience?

I have to admit in my most aware period of life, I found myself experiencing something of this - something towards a voice, not of God, but of an enlightened intercessionary, whose words I would write down.

Of course, I'm rationalist enough to be able to question the objectiveness of the experience - but it was interesting. I do quite have sympathy for the tin hat wearing people, though I should not think aluminium foil would suit myself.

 

[kkawohl]

Ah, but could this process of translation not take the form of the aural experience?

I have to admit in my most aware period of life, I found myself experiencing something of this - something towards a voice, not of God, but of an enlightened intercessionary, whose words I would write down.

Of course, I'm rationalist enough to be able to question the objectiveness of the experience - but it was interesting. I do quite have sympathy for the tin hat wearing people, though I should not think aluminium foil would suit myself.

Let those who wish to wear tin hats walk amongst the tin hat wearers; there they will be least obtrusive.

Enlightenment is a state of intellectual or spiritual awareness, the process of this spiritual awareness is translated by the mind. An aural experience is the mind's interpretation of either a spiritual or intellectual interaction with the subconscious which can also be considered the spirit. ANY translation is subject to the mind's conditioning, hence, when the interceder, the mind is enlightened, it tranlates the reception accordingly; if the person believes in a spiritual existence or God the resulting translation is adapted thereto. Buddha considered his enlightenment an intellectual experience.

I also consider myself a rationalist & when I had an enlightenment or spiritual experiences at age 15 I eventually considered it to be a possible dream. The second episode was almost identical but more vivid 45 years later and the third a week after that was even more illuminating. Could these experiences be the mind's creation? Possibly, but I now personally believe the spiritual existence to be a reality.

See http://www.near-death.com/forum/nde/001/14.html

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste kkawohl,

thank you for the post.

. Buddha considered his enlightenment an intellectual experience.

not to get too far afield here... do you have ANY Sutta or Sutra references to affirm this position? i have, however, quite a few that state, conclusively that intellect is not it....

 

[Avinash]

Enlightenment is a state of intellectual or spiritual awareness, the process of this spiritual awareness is translated by the mind.
Buddha considered his enlightenment an intellectual experience.

Namaskar,

Enlightenment cannot be called an "experience" nor a "state of intellectual or spiritual awareness" because at the moment of enlightenment, there is nobody left to actually have the experience or awareness. After it has happened however, there are certain after-effects which may be described with the help of the intellect.

But, how is this relevant to the future of Islam?

 

[kkawohl]

Namaskar,

Enlightenment cannot be called an "experience" nor a "state of intellectual or spiritual awareness" because at the moment of enlightenment, there is nobody left to actually have the experience or awareness. After it has happened however, there are certain after-effects which may be described with the help of the intellect.

But, how is this relevant to the future of Islam?

Vajradhara & Avinash,

Enlightenment is the translation of the Sanskrit word “bodhi” which literally means “awakening” or “supreme knowledge”. In Buddhism it is achieved by following the “Eight-fold path” and constitutes freedom from all desires. Enlightenment gives the person who achieves it the wisdom of perceiving the ultimate reality, which entails the power and the ability to work to change that reality in certain ways--especially to help people in need. For example, "Amitabha” created the western land--the "Pure Land"-as a heaven for his followers. Enlightenment is often described as "emptiness’ . This is the final step before "nirvana“. Gaining Enlightenment can be likened to breaking through a wall. At first, only a small hole may be created, through which one can briefly see a small part of the other side. Ultimately, the whole wall may be destroyed and all will be visible.

“Enlightenment” was also a European intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries, enlightenment in which ideas concerning God, reason, nature, and man were synthesized into a worldview that gained wide assent and that instigated revolutionary developments in art, philosophy, and politics.

“Now” the English interpretation of enlightenment is considered “the state of intellectual or spiritual awareness, therefrom “my” interpretation is, if Buddha’s enlightenment was not spiritual, his enlightenment was an intellectual awareness, an experience of consciousness.

IMHO, the future of Islam will be governed by an enlightenment of spiritual awareness verified by intellectualism.

Namaste,
Kurt