I am appalled by the poor examples of spiritual evolution that I have seen in recent postings concerning Islam, where hatred and insults were flung back and forth between two verbally warring parties, of which I was part.
No, I will not let this go. I am determined to achieve UNCONDITIONAL peace, respect, and common ground. Can it be achieved? What is required for this to happen? We are stuck on this world together with no sign of interstellar travel technology in sight. Before we end up nuking each other or blowing ourselves up, we ought to AT LEAST make an ATTEMPT at peace.
Anyone who has been following my posts in the matters concerning Islam will see that nearly ALL of my attempts at peace and common ground have been largely ignored, and that I was the only person who has made any expression of this intention. Only one person responded to a series of rather neutral questions I included in ONE post, in my attempt to gather information that might lead to the discovery of common ground. No common ground was found.
I'm not saying that I didn't spout a few insults myself, but with a new thread, I hope to find common ground and form peace. This isn't really a discussion about Islam, this is about finding common ground between Muslims and non-Muslims, learning what has to happen so that peace and respect can be maintained between the two while each gets to keep their beliefs. No Jihads, no unprovoked invasions of foreign countries, no intolerance of beliefs.
I am extending an offer of peace and good will to all who wish to participate in this, to all who strive to find this common ground and achieve peace. Let us say "NO" to verbal abuse and insults. Let us say "NO" to implications and assumptions about whose religion is right and whose is wrong. Let us say "NO" to feelings of superiority or inferiority. This is a level playing field where everyone gets to post something positive and ask questions in a civilized and mature manner. At the first sign of hostility, I request that this thread be locked IMMEDIATELY to prevent further escalation.
So, who is going to give this a try, and who isn't? I'm a non-Muslim, so if no Muslims respond then I will simply promote peace with whoever responds regardless.
Hello all,
I will pick up the flag here, and suggest a different direction to try.
To all antagonists: whenever you attempt to prove your position as 'right', the battle is already lost. Because if you are right, someone (else, you hope) has to be wrong. But each of us, due to the demands of ego, has to be right. So we spend incredible amounts of time and energy justifying our position. As a people, we've spent pretty much the entire history of the human race doing this and as the other thread shows, there is no apparent end in sight.
Do you see the problem? Our historic way of resolving differences between ourselves (see above) pretty much doesn't work. It gets a lot of people killed, but it doesn't work.
Is it perhaps time for a change in tactics? At a minimum I would like to see some respect shown. Not for the other guy's opinion, which you may or may not agree with, but for the idea that the other guy has a right to his opinion.
This forum, of all places, should be a place where people that are interested in the potential for human development can rationally discuss our different points-of-view. Instead it quickly became just another war zone.
Why?
Because we need to be more right than the other guy. Just remember this: If there are seven billion human souls on this wonderful planet, then there are seven billion 'rights', seven billion versions of truth. Deal with it, and please put those rocks down.
Namaste,
Vitruvian
Hi Ambient,
Just finished posting this in the Dear Mustardseed thread. So I hope no one has a problem with it being replicated here, which is where it should have been in the first place. LOL
"When will people see that no matter what you believe, no matter what culture you were born to, no matter the indoctrinations of your society, that we are all human beings on the face of this little world who do not act towards each other in a humanitarian way?
We do not see that all people have the same desires and needs, nor do we see that they all have family and loved ones, just as I do, and you do.
We do not see therefore that we are all in the same boat, together but separated; instead of joining forces to row the boat together we persist in continuing archaic behaviors of separation based on some perceived superiority.
Yes religion has a lot to answer for. The past cruelties still live with us to this day, no matter which religion we look at.
So our only hope for a peaceful world is to see clearly what it is that unites us and therefore stop seeing the differences as something to kill each other for.
We are heading into major changes in the way human beings live on this world and if we persist in the separation drive then we will all have less chance of long term survival.
I am sure the Koran must speak of love and peace, as does the bible; both speak about the same god, albeit with a different name, and agree in the fact of a man known to us as Jesus, who is revered in both books?
With this in mind, can we then not move towards seeing the similarities? Can we then not re-unite as humanity?
If not then I am sad to say all is lost, already.
Pray to your God for clarity, for Peace and for the Love and the Light 'He' intended for us to experience but have chosen to live apart from."
Love Always.
Thanks for the replies, it is encouraging to see that I am not alone in my cause. You are right, having to be right is an ego-based "need" and it should stop. It is one thing for a person to say that they disagree, and quite another to tell the other person that they are wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUBLfcGcN5Y&feature=related
Dear AS
While I do sincerely appreciate your efforts in finding common ground I fear that it is an effort doomed to fail. Why would I say this?.....because I do not want it?.....not at all. I would welcome a common ground a mutual expression of respect ...........but ....(yes there is a but).
In order to have a mutual respectful discussion, it requires that 2 parties come together, both laying down their arms, agreeing to examine themselves, and their previous held attitudes and beliefs in the light of EQUALITY. A measure of self examination you could say.
If one of the parties does not, from the heart, adhere to this goal, the objective will be defeated.
Let us put forth a metaphor here. If a man is being robbed, beaten and mistreated, by a violent unrepentant foe, and someone happens on the incident, it might be possible that the same request be made. The victim could be required to lay down his arms, in order to come to a peaceful agreement with the very person who had the INTENT of robbing him. In other words the robber and the victim will have to assume equal responsibility for the incident. Is this fair? (I know they will claim this victims role, because of the war, but neither you or I support this war, yet they support violence toward people like us)
I ask you, is that fair?. In your pursuit for peace, are you leaving out a true and fair judgment on the parties involved, and their INTENT. It is very laudable to want peace but if peace is attained, on the dead bodies of innocent victims, it is a false peace, and the violence will only escalate, as the perpetrator moves to the next victim.
So how does that apply? I will use one example only, in order to stay away from controversy. Lets take Shams or Osama. Here you have 2 posters who state publicly that they support the execution of apostates from Islam. They support the killing of innocent people who are evolving in their religious view, exercising their human right to believe and act out their peaceful beliefs any way they see fit, in order to promote their twisted political/religion objective.
You seek peace and common ground with such people, how do you expect that to happen.
I do not support the war in Iraq, I do not believe in violence, I do not claim that Christianity must be spread through a crusade. Yet because I dare to question the violent attitudes so readily expressed by these same posters, I am called into question and considered an EQUAL part in the contention................I am not. I merely use my liberty to question a religion that permits its followers the use of VIOLENCE to promote its objectives. I question its validity as a TRUE religion and spiritual path. Such a religion has no right to be heard, no right to exist.
Like John Lennon said "I know you want a revolution we all wanna' change the world, but if your talking about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out".
In the effort to find common ground, please do not make the mistake of lowering your own spiritual standard.......... just to find a common denominator. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Killing people to promote a religious point of view is WRONG. Don't get blinded by the mirrors.
This is no lofty religious debate, it is real. If these 2 posters state their clear intent, of applauding and calling for such a violent line, and shows no remorse, they should be called out for what they are. Hatemongers! Yea I said it.
It is my opinion, that while you may find common ground with Muslims, based on mutually held humanistic world view, you will never find common ground with Islam and the Koran, unless you convert to it's teachings that is.
All that said I find your post kind and thoughtful, and in spirit I applaud your effort. Lets see who comes forward.
Regards Mustardseed
Change Mao for Muhammed and you you have my point of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUs5yuWp6Ro
Hi Mustardseed
I will have peace with or without the Muslims. Whether they choose to take part is entirely up to them. I will not give up a micron of my sacred spiritual space or energy to anyone, nor do I ask others to do this for me. What I do demand is the respect of an equal, what I do demand is empirical data, data that is objective and is universally accepted, not just from one (even if collective) viewpoint. What I do demand is a level playing field and that everyone plays by the same rules. There is a universally accepted way of having an argument, and then there is simply contradiction, the half-assed attempt and failure to have an argument. In other words, the automatic gainsaying of whatever the opposition says.
Arguments can be respectful, they don't have to be fierce battles. But again, everyone has to be playing by the same rules and on a level playing field.
So far no expressions of peaceful intentions from the Muslims here in this thread... I wonder what's going on with them, if they were banned, have not read this thread, etc. Has anyone heard from them?
I hate to post three replies in a row, but I haven't heard a peep out of Shams or Usaama. If they truly intended peace, they would have replied by now. It has been a couple weeks since I started this thread. They've had plenty of time to cool off and re-think things. I know that if they were not banned, then they have read my first post in this thread and all that followed. I know because I have carefully and painstakingly monitored and analyzed their reply patterns in the other threads (no, not Homeland Security-type surveillance or anything like that), which seemed very fishy to me to begin with, filled with blanket statements and prejudices about Western societies and lacking in answers to an endless array of questions asked of them. They have been reading the responses in previous threads almost constantly, a few times a day. They have responded only when they felt like it and they only answered the questions they felt like answering. Their lack of a response, by my logic, is a testament to their negative intentions and shows their true colors, exposing them for what they really are- hatemongers, as Mustardseed pointed out. If you disagree with them, they insult you, and when you extend your hand and offer peace and good will... silence is all you get in return. I cannot find common ground or make peace with such individuals.
Sorry, I don't mean to stir up the muck, but the evidence clearly speaks for itself. I had no intention to change their minds, I just wanted to deliver a final blow to their argument by offering unconditional peace and good will, which I knew they would never accept. There is no way that I will ever become a Muslim, if whomever I may encounter that acts to represent them, cannot extend peace beyond their own, even if it is offered to them first.
I don't think anything else needs to be said.
Dear AS
My experience is that once you have exposed the tactic they use, in drawing attention to western imperialism, to avoid answering questions about Islam, they simply leave. Islam is totalitarian, and does not allow questions. It is......thats all, and must be accepted without question as absolute and perfect.
I hope, that what happens is that individuals such as Osama and Shams, will start to question their own beliefsystem, rather than listening to the propaganda they are being fed. This seem to be the only way some learn, by personally being confronted with what they claim to believe. Sadly it is very difficult to have a reasonable conversation with such folk.
Regards MS
No one was banned. I think it's as simple as the thread's title: There's not really any common ground. And if none can be found, then silence is probably best.
well-said
Quote from: AmbientSound on May 20, 2008, 21:59:44
I am appalled by the poor examples of spiritual evolution that I have seen in recent postings concerning Islam, where hatred and insults were flung back and forth between two verbally warring parties, of which I was part.
No, I will not let this go. I am determined to achieve UNCONDITIONAL peace, respect, and common ground. Can it be achieved? What is required for this to happen? We are stuck on this world together with no sign of interstellar travel technology in sight. Before we end up nuking each other or blowing ourselves up, we ought to AT LEAST make an ATTEMPT at peace.
Anyone who has been following my posts in the matters concerning Islam will see that nearly ALL of my attempts at peace and common ground have been largely ignored........
I am extending an offer of peace and good will to all who wish to participate in this, to all who strive to find this common ground and achieve peace. ......
So, who is going to give this a try, and who isn't? I'm a non-Muslim, so if no Muslims respond then I will simply promote peace with whoever responds regardless.
As a Muslim I am game, so to speak. I've had a long absence from this forum (2 years... I think) and I itch to step back in.
There are a few things to note, which is that a good deal of negative emotion is fundamentally based in ignorance and selective vision, on the part of non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Frankly, many non-Western born Muslims have a lack of knowledge of many aspects of Western cultures and religions that affects their reactions.
SO TOO, and on a greater scale, is there massive ignorance among Westerners (Americans in particular) of the range of opinions, views, and teachings in the Islamic world. People have a mutually narrow vision of the other, and like all narrow visions, such is fundamentally grounded IN FACT, but in a narrow range of facts and a nuanced picture is lost.
Adding to this is the ignorance of many Western non-Muslims of many aspects of their own religious history, AS WELL AS the very real ignorance of many Muslims of aspects of our religious history.
Knowledge is the first antidote.
Some of this is UNAVOIDABLE and any attempt at meaningful mutual discourse (which I favor) has to acknowledge this fact. Much of what contributes to mutual ill will and animosity in this topic is, frankly, the burden of history. Certain things have happened throughout history that conditions our modern emotional and intellectual responses. We exist in history, not floating around in the astral plane perpetually, that is to say that we are embodied beings perceiving time in a linear manner with a finite survey of the world. We try to stretch these boundaries, push the envelopes of perception, but fundamentally we exist here, now, and this conditions our perceptions.
So GOOD WILL IS NOT ENOUGH, and indeed it has to be truly good will with an openness to "the other", to the differences of "the other" with a willingness to learn.
Each side needs to realize, truly realize, that the reactions of the other may often be based in real pain, and real suffering, that was experienced by the other in history.
For example, just as many non-Muslim Americans were profoundly psychically wounded by 9/11, many Muslims have been profoundly psychically wounded in similar traumas whose history and existence many Americans are simply unaware of. The historical sense of being betrayed, conquered, subjugated, these feelings are very real and failure to understand how someone from a part of the world whose mother was raped, village was bombed, and sister blown up by shrapnel, in a conflict in history that you are unaware of, failure to understand that person's rage will prevent mutual communication.
All of us have been conditioned into certain worldviews, educated in certain ways, and the inability to examine our OWN subjective conditioning will affect our abilities to meaningfully discourse. I submit also that some differences can not be overcome on the plane of discourse and ideas. That at the end of the day, honest discoursers may find much in common, but also must have the honesty to respect the irreconcilable differences of the other. And some differences are irreconcilable.
However many are very reconcilable. It is a choice, spiritual and intellectual maturity is in part an ability to accept the way things are, and the way things are is that non-Muslims and Muslims can come to agree on many things, but will also disagree on many things, and that is ok if we can disagree, and agree, in an air of honor and respect.
Dear Kamals
Welcome. I would agree that I have at times posted things that I should have refrained from posting, I was rather frustrated with the posters as my questions were met with insults , and instead of keeping cool I jumped in with both feet, and retaliated. If you take the time however to read how the thread progressed you will understand why this happened.
My questions are related to the Koran not Islam on a whole or Muslims, as a group. They remain unanswered.
I have studied the Koran and find that people are confused. Firstly every time one refers to the warlike suras one is told that there are many peaceful verses as well, yet the Koran cannot be personally interpreted because of the doctrine of ABORGATION.
Another very often used tactic is to attack the Bible instead of explaining the doctrine in the Koran. (the Bible or even America or the west). It is as if Muslims believe that the "wickedness of the west and the evils of America" is their justification for any and all warlike attitudes and actions.
I have posted many things and never got any answer but instead have been called a variety of names and been threatened with hell fire or even on 1 occasion with Violence.
Regards Mustardseed
Please read this and reply the issues if you have the time thank you very much for your time
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_world_religions/peaceful_religious_dialogue_islamchristianity-t26626.30.html
Hello Mustardseed.
Fair enough, I'll have a go at your questions, keeping in mind I am one Muslim, with his own conditioning, education, and emotions, trying to make hermeunetics of a text that predates all of us and emerged in a very different world, just like the Bible, just like the Talmud, just like the Baghvad Gita.
Some of my replies may make muslim and non-Muslim alike uncomfortable and should not be seen as absolute truth in any way, I think that my replies will be informed by a real and honest exploration of Islam's tradition, but at the end of the day I am a layman, and not a scholar, and thus none of my replies should be taken as authoritative in any way.
I'll give it a shot :-)
Thank you for your real and sincere efforts, Kamals. I welcome and accept the observations and expressions of all paths so that I may learn from them and grow- I am still open to Islam and what it has to say, despite what has taken place in previous threads. You have said what I have been trying to say in the other threads, and you have said it respectfully, rationally, and reasonably. I look forward to the insights you have to offer.
Mustardseed, you asked a number of questions, scattered through a few different threads, some in reply to replies to previous questions of his.
My replies are simply my best efforts to the extent of my capacity; spiritual and intellectual; to the extent of my limited knowledge and understanding. To better deal with this mass of interlocking questions, I will confine myself to dealing with one question at a time, and its implications.
These are matters far greater men than I spent years exploring, in some cases lifetimes. None are simple topics, to adequately explain Islam's stance on a certain question it is necessary to put it in a wider context. Moreover since your explicit aim seems polemical; your questions of Islam are to buttress your views, rooted in your understanding of Christianity, it is necessary for me to reference Christianity in my answers. In many cases a normative Christianity (or at least historically predominate expression of the faith) really doesn't differ from Islam greatly in some of these matters.
What unites essentially may be greater than what divides, and what some think divides us may simply be a matter of a limited perspective.
I have to admit; I agreed to answer with certain unspoken reservations and suspicions lacking overt proof. I suspect no matter what answer I give, fault will be found with them. Indeed you expressed frustration that none of your questions were answered – but it should be noted that in actuality your questions were answered, copiously, by others – simply none were answered to *your* satisfaction, or perhaps in accordance with what you expected, or desired, the answer to be. When I look back through these threads plenty of questions have been answered and replied to.
So I ask of you three things; one comprehension, that you encounter my words, read them thoroughly, and comprehend them to the degree of your capacity, before you reply; two honesty, that you examine your assumptions to the same degree that you examine ours; and three, etiquite, no insults, no barbed statements, I expect you to engage my words with rigor – it is obvious that you find Islam to be highly distasteful and that you believe it to be a false religion. You need not hold your pen or tongue here, but I do expect maturity and that such is expressed in a rigorous and responsible manner. We are meeting on the plane of ideas and when we clash, we should do so in the best of manners, and not the lowest.
I seek not only honest exchange of ideas and knowledge, but honest engagement; not polemics. It is clear by being a Muslim, Christian, or neither, one finds fault with essential points within another's view.
iT IS MY BELIEF that one should question one's own assumptions as ruthlessly as one questions the other, that it is possible that while you have issues of grave concern with Islam, a Muslims may you're your concerns trivial due to his knowledge or belief; and vice versa those issues a Muslim finds enormous with Christianity, a Christian may find trivial based on his knowledge or belief.
Fundamentally we will reach a point where we must agree that we disagree. But it is possible that we may find a greater degree of harmony between our views than before, or perhaps not. It is ok to disagree, conflict is ok.
We should always have humility in the face of seeking knowledge, the probability of one being seriously wrong in one's worldview is enormous, Muslim, Christian, New Ager, Pagan, Jew; and the reason is that Perception is NOT reality, to disagree with post-modern thought. Perception is the illusion of reality, beneath all perception, beneath all illusion, is a fundamental matrix of Being that alone can be called The Real. All of our attempts to apprehend its being are contingent on the finite natures of our manifest corporeal beings.
These are answers according to my knowledge; the questioner can not reply that "his questions are not being answered" because frankly they are being answered here; he can only reply that they are not being answered to his satisfaction, or that he suspects the intent of the answerer (Mustardseed's offensive barb at "taqiya" for instance) - which is really a function of the questioner's comprehension. I can't be responsible for how the questioner takes the answer given, I can only give the answer to the best degree of my capacity.
Question 1 asked by Mustardseed:
- Do you believe that in order to fully understand the content of the Koran and the Hadith one must understand Arabic (CA - Classical Arabic)?
My answer – with NO dissimulation, and a straight face, is that it depends on what you mean by "fully"
It depends on what you mean by "Understand".
And it depends on what you mean by "content".
This is not a dissimulation nor an evasion, it's a statement of reality. Many modern readers approaching these problems have a HIGHLY simplistic understanding of language, religion, and what is at stake with such questions.
There is Essential understanding and ADEQUATE understanding. I argue that a reader, believer or non-believer, can arrive at an adequate understanding of the meaning of a text, say the Quran, if it is translated into another language.
This is a matter of contention amongst Muslim scholars so there is no consensus, regarding adequate ranges of meaning. Almost all scholars of knowledge will agree that full and comprehensive understanding of the meanings of the Quran is impossible without a THROUGH knowledge of Classical Arabic, in its 7 main dialects, its rare dialects (including the Southern ones of Yemen), vocabulary, syntax, and grammar, as well as a good deal of gnosis ('irfan and ilham) and a pure heart.
Obviously this is a tall order.
I believe, and many Muslims would agree with me, that Allah doesn't expect this full depth of understanding, we believe that the Quran "gives" to each his or her capacity as long as he or she approaches it with the right attitude.
As for adequate understanding, I say "YES" contingent on the skill of the translator, the skill of the reader (for reading and comprehension are skills), and the degree of adequacy we seek.
A good deal depends on one's receptivity to the text and openness to what it says, that is an OPENESS TO ENCOUNTER IT ON ITS OWN LEVEL without imposing one's own agenda and limited understanding.
Frankly this is what should be expected when one approaches ANY text in ANY language.
In every act of translation there will always be depths of meaning lost, however.
Few who possess command over multiple languages, and who have a superior degree of literacy, will disagree with this.
In other words, anyone with any degree of linguistic sophistication.
To "fully" understand the Quran and Hadith, it is necessary to read them in their original language as well as possess some degree of spiritual aptitude.
To "fully" understand the Quran and Hadith is an act of several lifetimes.
JUST AS to fully understand the Baghvad Gita, or the Old Testament, or Shakespeare, it is necessary to be conversant in the original languages of these discourses, in generalities and particulars. Shakespeare is MODERBN English, in fact Shakespeare almost invented modern English since he has the largest set of neologisms of any English writer in history (a more contentious claim is that Chaucer all but established middle English in a similar manner)
By that reasoning any dolt who graduated high school should be conversant with Shakespeare and 4 or 5 generations ago this was the case. It is not the case today.
The bible is far more important than Shakespeare. There are very few I have seen who really understand the King James Bible in spite of its being one of the foundational texts of High Modern English. Some do, which is why lots of little black church ladies in the deep south pepper their speech unconsciously with Tudor English. The secular bulk of modern Anglo-American society, however, is utterly un-conversant with the King James Bible and hence the constant requirement that its language be "dumbed down" into an increasingly vulgar and crude parlance.
Instead of raising people in understanding, what you regard as the word of God is being debased along an increasingly downward trajectory.
I argue that few in the traditional pre-modern world would have seriously disagreed with my claims, prior to the rise of Protestantism. I am open to criticism on this point, but I suspect that few will find any solid grounds to critique this point. I argue that it was taken for granted in most societies, and I am being generous, that to fully understand a religious text it was necessary to read it in its original language... and to understand that language in great depth.
This is why all religions have had liturgical languages as opposed to lay languages. Why do you think Orthodox Churches still preserve Old Slavonic and Greek? Why not just make the liturgical languages Russian or Serbian?
Why is it that until Vatican II (And many Catholics STILL contest this) Latin was the language of liturgy?
Why is it that Parsis and Zoroastrians still preserve one of the oldest Indo-Aryan languages known to man, the language of the Avesta that pre-dates or at least shows more archaic features than even the Oldest forms of ancient Persian? And the Hindus preserved Sanskrit, a dead language based on a re-ordering of the languages of the Vedas (the Vedas were not written in Sanskrit, rather a more ancient Indo-Aryan dialect VERY similar to the language of the Persian Avesta)
Why do the Jews still preserve Biblical Hebrew?
Because in spite of our vast theological gulfs they all agree with the Muslims on one superficial point and that is the utter importance of understanding a text in its original language.
On a secular level; it is impossible to fully understand any poem outside of its language since the very act of translation is a selective filtering process, reliant on human judgment as to what apparent or subtle meanings in a text to render literally, or figuratively.
And most religious texts are, in essence, akin to sacred poetry. If Goethe can not be fully understood in English (and English is a very close language to German) only one who has not considered the question fully, one who is ignorant of the issues, or one who is downright obstinate would insist that what characterizes the inferior (secular poetry) does not characterize the superior (sacred poetry and scripture).
I contend that there is immense loss of meaning in even a responsible act of translation: that anyone who truly knows Latin or Greek can look at the King James Bible and see leagues of distance in the loss of subtle meaning; subtle allusions, word plays, and the internal non-overt correspondences between words and passages.
The only way out of this bind is to claim that a given translator is acting by divine inspiration or a superior degree of illumination and intuition. This is an act of intellection, par excellence; what Catholic theologians and the philosophers called intellectual intuition. By this one can argue that the ancients translated the Tanakh into perfectly adequate Greek and this translation was by divine inspiration, and the Greek texts of the New Testament (many of whom may possibly have originally been written in Aramaic) were perfectly adequately rendered into Latin.
To argue that an English translation of a Latin Translation of a Greek Translation or an Aramaic or Hebrew original perfectly preserves the fidelity of the original is, frankly, teetering on the edge of the abyss of perfect absurdity.
As for a translator's illumination in his translation, a non-believer is free to reject such a one's claims to possessing this degree of intuition and illumination in his or her translations unless evidence or superior authority merits otherwise. A believer will tend to take this on faith, I regard faith ungrounded in knowledge to be inferior.
Since Protestant protests regarding translation of the bible arose 1600 years after Christ - I can safely dispense with its protest that the bible can be translated with full fidelity into any language.
Since the ONLY Christians I've met who take Islam to task for the requirements of Arabic are by and large Protestants or Catholics under the influence of the thoroughly modernistic Vatican II conference, and in EVERY case I have encountered anyone with significant knowledge and erudition in these matters do not make such theological broadsides against Islam (they sensibly choose easier stones to throw at us) my first instinct is to simply not take such protests seriously.
MOREOVER I doubt that Calvin or Luther would have fully intended that the Bible, or any inspired text, could be COMPLETELY understood in translation – again what we are probably considering is adequate meaning: does God lay burdens upon us greater than we can bear? The Quran says no, so as a Muslim I regard this as an existential fact – since most of the world is not 'Arab, Allah does not expect us to know Arabic with full fidelity, Allah expects us to follow what we know and have been taught or learned. We are held accountable to the degree of our knowledge, and god knows best.
As for as I know the scholars of Islam do not claim that learning Arabic perfectly is incumbent upon all Muslims, it is not "Fard 'ayn" it is only incumbent on a collectivity to have some people able to understand the sacred texts and TEACH their ESSENTIALS and fundamentals to the collectivity, this it is "Fard Kifiyyah" – or obligatory on the collectivity to the degree that if a few possess this degree of knowledge the majority are exempt and excused.
But anyone seeking the heights will seek the heights, and those who are content with the depths fall to the depths, and Allah lays not upon ANY of us more than what we can individually bear.
"Fully understand" is a boundless oceans since traditional Muslims believed (based on the statement of Ali Ibn Abi Talib) that here are 7 meanings to every verse of the Quran, and the Sufis believed that the words of the Quran are a boundless ocean of esoteric and inward meaning. Even the external legalists realize that many of the words in Arabic have multiple harmonizing meanings conveying different shades of meaning.
And why should this be a surprise since even modern English possesses multiple meanings to most words, and middle English possessed a greater degree of complexity and ancient Anglo-Saxon an even greater degree of internal complexity even while possessing a smaller actual vocabulary.
Every truly sacred text is an ocean. I believe that only one who is ignorant can believe that he understands the essence of the Tanakh without knowing ancient Hebrew.
Every learned Jew would laugh at this,
Biblical scriptures' verses have outward meanings and subtle implications to them and frequently engage in word-play and various rhetorical devises that convey meaning on levels of depth (Beth on this forum wrote a book on this.)
As to whether I speak "CA" this is a simplistic question, I am LEARNING Quranic Arabic, modern Standard Arabic (the Arabic of newspapers and general business discourse) is based on "CA" entirely though is a bit less complex in its vocabulary and syntax. As for "CA" Classical Arabic is a misnomer, there is the "Fusha" which tends to be the dialect of the tribe of Quraysh. Any serious Islamic scholar will possess facility with multiple dialects of ancient Arabic, the corpus of Pagan Arabic poetry, and the Quran. A non scholar is not expected to possess this but there are still many alive today – in particular in Yemen - who natively speak an Arabic incredibly close to ancient Arabic, and anyone who is educated and went to college speaks Modern Standard Arabic with perfect fluency and thus can read the Quran with a high degree of comprehension.
Your question on Abrogation is one best suited for a scholar, I am not a scholar, so I will simply repeat the well known ("Jumhur") views on the issue noting of course that there is NOT total consensus on the range and degree of abrogation. It is an issue that can not be dumbed down for an internet forum given that people spend years researching and studying just this one issue. And that will have to wait for another day
Dear Kamals
Thanks for the reply. I will look at it in depth on monday as I work all weekend, but just wanted to let you know I saw it. I would like to thank you for your attitude, one of respect and sincerity. I shall do my best to reply in the same manner.
My first question and really a important question was answered well, and within what I myself believe. You explain it well. My reason for this question is that I have engaged in several discussions over the years and have found that Muslims who have no answer, or have been cornered in an argument, will often use this argument to leave with their dignity intact. I say cornered, but do not mean this in an aggressive way.
These sweeping type of answers, serve to only further complicate things. My point is, that if we, who do not speak CA, cannot "understand" the Koran, we have no right to ask questions about its content. Another similar sweeping argument is incidentally the one you used about the question of abrogation.
Your question on Abrogation is one best suited for a scholar, I am not a scholar, so I will simply repeat the well known ("Jumhur") views on the issue noting of course that there is NOT total consensus on the range and degree of abrogation. It is an issue that can not be dumbed down for an internet forum given that people spend years researching and studying just this one issue.
The question of Abrogation is probably the single most important question in this debate, as it holds within itself the direction of Islam, and as you know, the future of the world. If the doctrine of Abrogation is accepted as proper, Sura 9:5 (the verse of the sword), is the chronologically latest sura, and stands as the last command, regarding a Muslims attitude toward the Kaffir, agreed?
If only a scholar can tell, how do we know what is right or not. If scholars disagree and do not believe Abrogation is acceptable, how do we know that they are not applying "Taqiyya", as denying abrogation would be the absolute perfect dissimulation.
I am studying these issues and look forward to your point of view.
Regards Mustardseed
PS for those of you who would like to take a more in depth view of these questions here are a few links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28exegesis%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
I am very happy to see a positive thread on what I consider to be a very important subject and applaud Ambient Sound in starting it.
I do agree with most in it that we at this point in time have been used to see the differences in the way we see things, and all have reacted defensively when aggression has been perceived, something that seems to be 'the way things have been lately' in the world.
I hope this develops into one of those threads that all can come to look at to see how things should be done in matters of religious diversity and the understanding that what we really want to do, regardless of religious affiliation is come together for mutual peace and if possible, understanding.
Peace all.
Well-put, Kamals, I agree with what you have said about respect, examining our own beliefs as we would the beliefs of others, and that a text will be best understood in its original language. I also agree that what unites is typically greater than what divides. I believe that it is better to live in a world in which people can agree to disagree when necessary and allow others to be different as they wish to be. All knowledge and wisdom has common ground, even if we cannot always put our finger on it. It is important that we step back and examine this common ground in order to observe how another may have come to their own conclusion.
All knowledge that flows from the pen to the paper must pass through the mind of a human - unless it is somehow magically manifested by greater spiritual entities (I have yet to see evidence of this happening). As you convey the information that comes to you to the best of your ability, so too do those who have made the attempt to pass on the knowledge and wisdom that has come to them, including all the world's most important spiritual and religious figures.
I applaud and thank you for your lengthy response. I have read it all the way through and it is obvious that you have put great time and care into it. I appreciate your viewpoint on these matters and look forward to whatever knowledge and wisdom you wish to share with the rest of us.
Hi Kamals
I now read through your post. It was very long and I wonder if we should maybe try as best we can to keep them a little shorter. I know that you wanna be detailed to explain well, but It gets very complicated and as you yourself noted regarding MY many questions, they all get interwoven and hard to pull out.
Before we get into more issues, I would like to ask you 1 very important question, actually 2.
Do you as an individual, have a moral standard for yourself, any other than what can be derived from and understood in the Koran?.
The reason I ask this is: If you accept actions and ethics as they are laid out in the Koran ONLY, and do not judge behavior based on human rights, we could be talking in vain.
Let me give you an example. In one post I questioned the Islamic doctrine of death for apostasy. One of the posters said that he did not personally know what was the proper interpretation of the Suras relating to this issue, but if a death penalty was chosen by scholars to be the appropriate way of dealing with the issue it would be ok with him.
In my own opinion this is where I draw the line. If any pastor, minister or Christian in general, be he the Pope or what-have-you proved from the Bible that God wanted me to kill people who left the faith, I would leave such a faith.
This means that I as a person have limits, I have things that I will not do, and if a religion tells me that I have to do things that strives against my own standard, my UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF GOD, I will leave such a religion. Do you have any such personal limits?
Incidentally it brings us to another equally important issue. Nr 2 Who speaks for Islam? Is it possible for you as an individual to believe differently than your Immam. Is there allowance for a personal interpretation of the Koran, or is the Koran interpreted for you, like fx in Catholicism. In Catholicism the Pope decides what is proper doctrine, and anyone who publicly disagrees will be excommunicated. This goes to a lesser degree for many other denominations and stems from a scripture that states "No scripture is of a private interpretation"
So if you have time, I look forward to your answers. I also appreciate your input. I am a bit hurt that you count me an enemy of Islam and a protagonist, I am not. (I will get over it ha ) I have however not seen very much love in Islam and have been attacked threatened and maligned by Muslims ever since I started asking questions about the religion. Just for asking questions.
Look forward to your post
Regards Mustardseed
Religion and the modern time is a hotly debated item. Here you see a prime example. Throughout time and throughout world you see a great deal of conflict over the subject matter. As for Islam and Christianity, it's a tough pair. They are in my mind a lot alike. Extremist views in both sects, 2 very large bodies on opposing sides but the same. They both originate from pretty much the same region. I really don't know that much about either, besides some brief study.
The violence of the past few thousand years, the turmoil, the red painted about the world in the name of God is intrigueing. Some say it's due to the religion, I'm not all too sure. Perhaps it's an excuse to do for another purpose. i.e. Nazis didn't reclaim Jewish Property solely for Racial Purity, it was a Profitable issue also
War, Religion, Sex, Morales, Ethics. They will be debated for a lot longer. Someone will always be argueing what is right and wrong. Ultimately should some survive through it all. I feel a middle ground will be found, and all of what we hold dear today will be shunned and forgotton tomorrow.
Especially as the human mind/body/soul are fully understood by Science and or True Seekers of Truth... Not dogmatic or otherwise ignorant specimens.
Hello Mustardseed, Ambientsound, and others. Thank you for the cogent replies to my post. While I prepare (and try to trim down to size) my post on abrogation I will try to briefly answer the question posted below - without straying too far into another thread of discussion.
Mustardseed, you ask:
1. "Do you as an individual, have a moral standard for yourself, any other than what can be derived from and understood in the Koran?."
The reason I ask this is: If you accept actions and ethics as they are laid out in the Koran ONLY, and do not judge behavior based on human rights, we could be talking in vain."
After this question you laid out the example of the classical Sunni ruling of death for apostasy - a topic that is highly nuanced and best saved for a later response to your older questions. For now I confine my answer to this:
- I believe assuming that a discourse is in vain, when the two sides of the discourse do not share particular fundamental axioms or all aspects of a common worldview, is at worst a "cop-out", and at best a well-meaning but TRAGIC expression of regrettable despair.
This is because, invariably, both sides usually share something essential in common
that may transcend narrow contested axioms, and this attitude denies the essential humanity of the other because it assumes that the other is so distant from one as to preclude effective conversation, this is a dehumanizing act. It is a type of sublimated violence, in a sense.
- I accept certain sources of knowledge as having binding authority on my moral, ethical,
social, and spiritual behavior, decisions and transactions
These sources are consistent with classical Islamic views as expressed by our men of knowledge. There may be differences here and there regarding one or two sources, or their ordering, but their being privileged as sources of information is fully in line with Classical Islamic worldviews.
They form an epistemological hierarchy in which some forms of knowing are regarded as ontologically superior, and thus possessing a greater priority, than others.
1. The Quran and its meanings - as the revealed Word of God.
2. The Sunnah - or normative wont - of the Prophet Muhammad, as either expressed
in textual transmission (Hadith) or in the living patterns of the normative behavior
of his earliest community in Madina. This second source is primarily esteemed by the Malikite school, which I follow, and may in cases trump recorded Hadiths.
3. Logic, analogy, intellection and reason - "mantiqu", "qiyas", "'aql" respectively in Arabic.
4. "Firasat" or perspicacity and intuition.
5. Inner Illumination, Gnosis - known as "marifa" or "irfan" in Arabic, it is non-discursive direct knowledge "by taste" (bi'dhawq) by presence in which, to varying degrees, the object known is experienced as a form of union with the knower and thus becomes, in a sense, a subject: in this mode MEANINGS are more or less EMPOSSED
on the heart of the knower, the images and forms before her are simply loci in which meanings are apprehended and behelden.
No Muslim, of any significant degree of education, would ever say that the Quran alone is the sole source of knowledge, though she may say that the Quran contains in itself a synthesis of all possible knowledge in an implicit way. This is an esoteric matter, regarded by the people of unveiling and gnosis, and is simply mentioned in passing.
I believe that you are mixing up modes of knowing and priorities. You mention a legal judgment in conjunction with a private moral stance, and assimilate the two together. I think this is, with all due respect, a muddling of things. This is inevitable, perhaps, without a clear criterion and set of inward principles.
You make a moral stance on the notion of "human rights" but can you clearly define these "rights" define their source, and their locus, from whence they come, and by what they are conditioned? Or do you simply accept the notion in a vague and hazy way?
-I note that the very notion of "human rights" itself is particular to a certain worldview, betraying certain Historical origins and influences. There is no judgement in any of this stated below, these are observations made upon culture and civilization.
Here is an observation: I have Canadian friends who view universal dental coverage as "a human right", most Good 'Ol Boys in Kansas would certainly not view this as being the case. This is not frivioulsy, universal dental coverage may well be a highly important right, health care (as anyone who has watched Michael Moore's "Sicko would attest) is important, highly so, and one can argue that a responsible civilization invests in its citizen's healthcare. One can indeed argue that this is a right we have, to be protected medically. However this is a debate, which indicates that we are in the realm of the relative and historically conditioned, not absolutes.
Here too is an observation, again in the realm of the relative and historically conditioned, we see in one generation Gay rights and Gay marriage, more or less on the margins of the civil and human rights discourse until the 1980's, have become pressing issues of human rights today. 100 years ago the very phrase "human rights" barely existed, 100 years ago the British Army, the most civilized Army in the world, had the death penalty for homosexual officers. Really, it is a historical fact look it up.
No one questions the essential foundations of Anglo-American society due to historically embarrassing treatment of homosexual Army Officers. Such treatment was seen as right and just, a RIGHT of the state and society, 100 years ago. Today it is seen as unjust and wrong, and a violation of the RIGHT of the individual. 50 years from now no one here has any idea what will or will not be considered a right in Anglo-American culture (or global monoculture)
What is or is not considered to be a human right has changed considerably in our lifetimes, several times. None dispute this. Some attribute it to progress, the notion of progress itself I regard as an absurdity founded upon a gross type of dialectical materialism and evolutionism. Today there are, in sheer numbers, more Slaves alive than in 1900, or in 1800 for that matter. Proportionately who knows, globally. Ottoman Sultans no longer have slave girls and concubines, but a lot of imporverished raped and coerced girls from Belarus and the Ukraine walk the night in the most progressive European cities as sex-slaves, facing HIV, beatings, and murder and selling their sex and souls as commodities...
Not much has changed, there is no progress, there is only change.
Spanking one's children is a violation of their human rights in some Nordic countries. 100 years ago this was not the case, it is NOT the case in Ohio though if some goody-two-shoe policy wonks had their way it would be :-)
With this in mind some thoughtful persons, who truly, honestly, reflect on the issue, must acknowledge that "judging behavior based on human rights" is contingent to the notion of human rights held by the ones doing the judging and their unique cultural context.
Many such thoughtful persons have reflected on the issue, in absence of a transcendent core principle in their being, and this tends to leave them in some existential angst when doing so....
Others who do not lack transcendent reference points may have different reactions.
With this in mind I increasingly reject the discourse of "human rights" as being a cynical manipulation of the idealistic by the jaded for the purposes of social engineering or maintain a certain useful social order...
This is why I regard the idea of Universal Human Rights as laughable.
Human rights do exist, but the particular expression of "human rights" articulated by some sectors of modern Western society are entirely particular, historically conditioned, and far from general or universal.
This is not an excuse for evil and oppression, it is a fact.
When this is pointed out some have a tendency to react, emotionally, and make veiled insinuations concerning fascism and such like. I trust that the readers here are more honest, and more sophisticated.
Social order is highly useful, but it is far from ultimate truth.
A man who possesses principles that are immutable and regarded by him as superior would fain set them aside for the passing progressive whims of the general populace.
Human beings DO have rights, some of these rights are immutable, but some are contingent and contextual and are mutable, it is a matter of which rights, and what the context is.
Human beings also have duties and mutual responsibilities, and indeed their rights are rights upon others, which indicates a reciprocal analog which are DUTIES, and duty is the dirty four-letter-word that our generation is uncomfortable with because a duty requires effort. And it requires obligation, and no one wants to feel obliged, because feeling obliged makes our egos feel bad.
You are obliged.
You are obliged to treat your neighbor with justice, to feed and clothe and nurture your child. This is obligation, it is also their right; you SHOULD do it out of love and tenderness, however at its root it is still an obligation and I question the maturity of an outlook that rejects this, or persists in a certain discomfort here. Grow up. I OWE you something, and you OWE me something, and these things we owe to each other are rights and duties depending on which side of the fence we sit upon.
The Quran lays out certain obligations, duties, describes certain rights and attitudes to be taken. In that my soul recognizes the Quran as the word of Allah I would be a fool not to take them seriously.
- I believe that the Quran is the world of Allah, not to be taken literally as the English phrase "word of God" may imply, it is a highly nuanced and context driven matter, but in general however the words of the Quran are loci of meanings communicated to humanity by its existential source of being - Allah - and in itself is a Symbol, of the archetype of
Divine speech itself, the Logos, and as such its statements, prohibitions, commands, encouragements, riddles, and similitude are to be regarded with a certain primacy.
Since I view morality as an ontological matter, and not rooted in social respectability or judgments, but in the nature of Being itself, that moral laws are natural and supernatural, in turn, laws reflecting The Real, "al-Haqq" (being one of the 99 names of Allah) the Quran's statements are moral injunctions par excellence.
It does not follow, however, that the Quran is alone top be regarded as a source of moral
injunctions. But as a Muslim I must give it primacy.
I may not understand certain of the Quran's positions, and to reflect on them is to understand them in greater depth, and they may or may not make uncomfortable due to my social conditioning, but this social conditioning is contingent, derivative, and unique to particular times and conditions.
The Quran, being the Word of Allah, possesses a dimension that is a-historical, and stands outside the flux of history. If one examines it carefully, many of its laws and injunctions are very similar to, or identical with, injunctions and divine laws in other past archaic traditions from the most ancient of the Romans and Greeks, the most ancient Hebrews, or Indians or Persians, or Mayans – modern eyes tend to gloss over these things and see only what they WANT to see in ancient law, ancient Dharma.
The notion of sacred Law is found in all of the earliest traditions, or a sacred way of being and acting in which acting in accordance to it brings felicity, and in opposition to it brings abasement. This is expressed in metaphysical and naturalistic terms in some traditions, like the Ancient Chinese Tao or some ancient Indian teachings, or in theomorphic or deistic terms in other traditions such as Judaic, Christian, or say the European Paganisms.
Regarding the specific issue of the classical judgment of Death for an Apostate, this is extra-Quranic, in any case, is not found in the Quran, though it is possible that certain ayats (verses) may be interpreted as alluding to such. This judgment is a matter of fiqh (sacred law) derived from the understanding of the Prophet's Sunnah by the earliest scholars of the community.
In making this derivation they did not rely on the Quran alone and thus their "moral standard" in this matter was not restricted to "what can be derived from and understood in the Koran.."
Neither is mine.
Not quite a nutshell, but this is a complex question.
Dear Kamals
Your posts are very long and very complicated. I have to again ask for patience as I will have to study your answer in debth.
you said
I believe that you are mixing up modes of knowing and priorities. You mention a legal judgment in conjunction with a private moral stance, and assimilate the two together. I think this is, with all due respect, a muddling of things. This is inevitable, perhaps, without a clear criterion and set of inward principles.
You make a moral stance on the notion of "human rights" but can you clearly define these "rights" define their source, and their locus, from whence they come, and by what they are conditioned? Or do you simply accept the notion in a vague and hazy way
I do not think I have mixed anything up but that I was very clear. I asked as to YOUR standard, what YOU believe. I did not ask for your considerations in the matter, nor did I ask for a reiteration of the complexity of my question.
I asked
1. "Do you as an individual, have a moral standard for yourself, any other than what can be derived from and understood in the Koran?."
The reason I ask this is: If you accept actions and ethics as they are laid out in the Koran ONLY, and do not judge behavior based on human rights, we could be talking in vain."
My question stands. Do YOU as an INDIVIDUAL have a moral standard for yourself.......
Pretty simple question. You seem to have gotten hung up on human rights, and the example of dentistry in Canada, shows that you shift the focus to the Human rights , instead of the main focus which was YOU.
So let me rephrase my question. Do you believe that humans have any rights, if they are not Muslims. Do they have the right to live side by side with Muslims in or outside a Islamic state, without paying taxes to Islam, without being discriminated against, etc.
Personally I believe that Muslims have these rights to equal opportunity, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation etc I am a Kaffir, so what do you think being a Muslim.
Regards Mustardseed
Kamals, you said:
"In making this derivation they did not rely on the Quran alone and thus their "moral standard" in this matter was not restricted to "what can be derived from and understood in the Koran.."
Neither is mine."
From this, I deduce that you do have a moral standard, and that it is not derived from the Quran alone. I am not going to ask you to elaborate on this, as I think it sufficiently answers the question for me. I cannot speak for others regarding this matter.
I believe that Mustardseed's use of a legal judgment with a private moral stance was to provide an example of a private moral stance on said legal judgment. In Western societies, an individual is supposed to have the freedom to explore ideals and values. This is one reason why Western governments on the whole are rather complex. Democracy in its purest form is actually a terrible idea- the possibility that 49 percent of the population is ruled by the other 51 percent is not one I care to experience. Hence, modifications have to be made. The government needs to be divided into regions, and then regions within those regions, and so on until it gets down to communities and neighborhoods, family households, etc.
The idea is that you find the group of people who have similar values to your own on a larger scale, and work your way down to the right neighborhood, etc.
You also said:
"Here is an observation: I have Canadian friends who view universal dental coverage as "a human right", most Good 'Ol Boys in Kansas would certainly not view this as being the case. This is not frivioulsy, universal dental coverage may well be a highly important right, health care (as anyone who has watched Michael Moore's "Sicko would attest) is important, highly so, and one can argue that a responsible civilization invests in its citizen's healthcare. One can indeed argue that this is a right we have, to be protected medically. However this is a debate, which indicates that we are in the realm of the relative and historically conditioned, not absolutes."
When we as a group of people burden a government with responsibilities, such as our medical treatment, we give up a portion of our sovereignty. I am of the opinion that we are all entirely responsible for our own existence. Even so, I use the system of health care available to me and I hope that my government will do everything in its power to invest in the well-being of its citizens to the extent of the responsibilities and duties with which it is burdened (which, hopefully, aren't beyond its abilities or numerous enough to create imbalance in an individual's responsibilities for their own existence).
You see my problem is this Kamals.!!!
Most Muslims who post on these and other boards are of 2 different categories.
1st one is a Muslim or Muslims, who live in the mid east who have a basic knowledge of Islam, and a chip on their shoulder against the west. Most of these folks are very unhappy about Islam as it is played out in their day to day lives, (living in a country ruled by sharia is a drag) yet they would rather have Islam in the whole world than live as second hand citizens. They envy the west its wealth, most of it has been stolen from the 3rd world anyway, and are actually quite destructive in their attitude. Sort of in a, if I cant play no one should play, kind of way. They say they are Muslims, adhere to the stricter line, endorse Jihad, death for apostasy, Dhimmies paying tax etc the whole packet, connected with Islamic supremacy. All they want is a fair world.
2nd one are Muslims living in the west. Most of those are quite educated. They see Islam as an IDENTITY. THEIR identity. They embrace Sufism, some of them Wahabism, but generally they are anti establishment, and believe in the establishment of the Kaliphat. They are educated enough and smart enough to realise that sharia has never worked, as a good system, but is corrupt to the core, so they project their wishes for Islamic supremacy onto a future state, the Kaliphat, "where righteousness will rule and PROPER sharia will be instated". Their problem is they have no credibility. They have been educated by the west and enjoy western rights of free speech equal opportunity etc and know very well that sharia will never be instated in the west. Actually they are personally pretty abhorred by some of the antics of Muhammed, (marrying a 6 year old and f......her at 9). Yet they have to apologize for these actions. They also realize that Dhimmitude is not possible but have to apologize for the doctrine. They also know that Death for apostasy is barbaric but they have to....apologize for it. In general they are quite aware of the barbaric qualities of Islam, yet because it has become their identity, with feigned words, lofty elaborately constructed theories they .....apologize for it.
They are called apologists.
Maybe there is another group. please let me know. You yourself, either by choice or by ignorance, speak in such complicated English that people simply avoid your posts. I am not a native English speaker, and it takes me hours to read them. It irritates me to no end, and while you may think it is quite the show and very sophisticated, it is actually pretty disrespectful and does very little to further dialog. I find it condescending. With all your education you have got to know that your language borders "Lower syllable latin" to most posters.
Put your cookies on a lower shelf Kamals and lets talk about these issues. Lets address actual problems, and stay away from lengthy boring discourses on Muslim philosophy etc. I really would like some answers and I believe that you do too. What do we have in common.
Regards Mudstardseed
Mustardseed seems to perceive disrespect and offense from the long posts, though I do not necessarily agree. I find no disrespect in long posts, though I understand people do not have loads of free time on their hands to read them and I can understand how frustrating it might be to read something that long when it is not one's native language. If this were a general problem on the forum in all topics and subjects, the moderators could simply limit posts to a certain number of characters, say, something between 4,000 to 8,000 (this is possible to do using HTML and/or Java-script programming).
Actually, Kamals, I did not read the entire post, but since I was able to grasp your style of forum dialogue, I understood how your post was structured and was able to read according to that.
Kamals, perhaps there is a way to maintain the long posts so that you get to say everything you want to say, but structure them differently so that, for example, there's a short answer in bold and then it is explained in its own indented paragraph. I can tell from your posts that your thoughts start with a general idea and then go in depth to each part of that idea. I have a similar style of analysis, which is why I am so interested in system analysis and engineering.
Anyway, my point is that minor changes can be made so that everyone can have what they want. I must once again express my gratitude and thanks for your efforts and time spent on trying to answer some questions about Islam. I pray that this open discussion can remain free of negativity and insults. This one has a far better chance than the last two and my faith remains strong.
So Kamals what can we deduct from your absence? Until you answer my questions and actually take a stand in your own life to some of these issues I will deduct nothing? I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you have an exam, maybe you are busy with your garden or your many other activities, or maybe you have decided that you will only engage in a debate with those who either are undecided or pro your point of view. Who knows?
I would like to know what you think about the issues I brought out. How do you negate or explain the obvious fascist attitudes found in the Sunnah the Koran and the Hadith, toward Christians and Jews? What is your explational model. How do you justify your own life as a Muslim, living and enjoying the hospitality of a nation of Kaffirs? What does Jihad mean to YOU and not to some 1600 century Muslim?
As I said, down to earth questions, and I am looking forward to your answers.
Regards Mustardseed
PS I think I gave you plenty of time