Our Greatest Sin

[Sitaram]

What is our greatest sin? Our greatest sin is that we lack vision.

Our greatest sin is that we became gods, but we never became godly.

Unlike Faust, we do have the means to sweep back the ocean and make dry land. We have power but we lack vision. It is not that God looked and saw that it was very good. The goodness was in the seeing, in the vision.

Vision is seeing before there is yet anything to look at.

Our second greatest sin is that, lacking vision, we do not even go in search of vision. We do not look for vision, and we look askance at visionaries because we do not care. None so blind as those who will not see. None so deaf as those who will not here. The age of miracles is when the blind see, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised. But we are the miracle of the walking dead, who neither see nor hear. We are not Moses without his staff. We are Moses who leans upon his staff and does nothing.

We have laid down our instrumentality upon the shores of Babylon, and we weep, not for Sion, but for our lack of tears. Lack of tears is the greatest draught. Lack of hunger is the greatest famine. As Rumi said, “Do not seek water. Seek thirst!" Water is everywhere, but without thirst, all the water in the world is useless.

http://toosmallforsupernova.org/page022.htm

[Amra]

The greatest sin is to worship anyone but the Creator himself.

[Taliesin]

Really?
This seems rather....religious approach. This looks a bit if that the Creator was so envious that He thought that there was no greater sin than not worshipping him.

To us it seems that a great sin and evil and the root of most of the great sins and evils is when people are treated as things. That is where it starts.

This seems much more evil to Us than not worshipping someone who, by definition, shouldn't be an egoist so great, that anyone who didn't worship him , would be the greatest sinner.

[Sitaram]

Since the subject of "correct worship" has been raised, I shall respond
with some observations:

It occurs to me that the practice of any religion should "yield fruit,"
that is, visible, tangible, palpable positive results, IN THIS LIFE, as well
as any benefits or rewards in the next life.

Gandhi once said of himself, "my life is my message."

I admire the life of Gandhi, though certainly he has his critics and
detractors. I admire the life of Mother Theresa, though she had her
critics. There are many lives that I admire. Somehow, an admirable
life is the product of one's culture and heritage. I suppose the only
hero from Islamic society which I came to admire was Kemal Attaturk
of Turkey, but my admiration stems from the fact that he struggled to
secularize his nation and make it less of a theocracy.


All of us who are drawn here to http://www.online-literature.com
have in common, if nothing else, at least a love of books.


Some months ago, I was listening to a forum discussion on PBS public
educational television which made a statement which not only caught
my attention but literally burned into my mind:

The number of books translated into Arabic over the past thousand
years is about the same as the number translated into Spanish in one
year.

If this statistic is true, then I see it as a SYMPTOM of something
serious.

I have no way to either substantiate or disprove this statistic. I just
now did a quick search with google.com and came up with the
following link.

I want to know how a nation or people shall benefit IN THIS LIFETIME
from a worship of the "one true God," if there be such a thing.

You will notice that my original post levels a criticism against all of
humanity. I do not single out a particular culture or religion.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3566

Thomas Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen
books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of
topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil
rights to choosing the right college.

(here are a few excerpts)

Nowhere have whole peoples seen their situation reversed more
visibly or more painfully than the peoples of the Islamic world. In
medieval times, Europe lagged far behind the Islamic world in science,
mathematics, scholarship, and military power.

.....................................

The number of books translated into Arabic over the past thousand
years is about the same as the number translated into Spanish in one
year.

................................

Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard
themselves as far superior to the "infidels" of the West, while
everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise.
Worse yet, what the whole world sees with their own eyes tells them
that the Middle East has made few contributions to human
advancement in our times.

.........................................

What will happen in the meantime? Are millions of proud human
beings supposed to quietly accept inferiority for themselves and their
children, and perhaps their children's children?

Or are they more likely to listen to demagogues, whether political or
religious, who tell them that their lowly place in the world is due to the
evils of others -- the West, the Americans, the Jews?

If the peoples of the Islamic world disregarded such demagogues,
they would be the exceptions, rather than the rule, among people who
lag painfully far behind others. Even in the West, there have been
powerful political movements based on the notion that the rich have
gotten rich by keeping others poor -- and that things need to be set
right "by all means necessary."

.....................

Against this background, we may want to consider the question asked
by hand-wringers in the West: Why do they hate us? Maybe it is
because the alternative to hating us is to hate themselves.

.................

I have made several points in other posts which are crucial to the question of the value of worship.

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ead.php?t=3863

The verses in the Qur'an that speak of afterlife are not to be taken literary. Allah s.v.t says that heaven is not like anything a human mind can conceive. That is why when one reads the verses in the Qur'an about the heaven, it describes it in the way a human mind could understand. Therefore, there are references to those things we can identify with, the things we desire and cannot have, etc. It is just meant to show that no desire will be unfulfilled, nor will people suffer or feel pain. The only thing that we can be sure of is that Allah s.v.t will be just and will reward the believers in ways one cannot imagine.

I wonder if, in Paradise, Allah shall grant anyone freedom from the thrall of boundless desire for pleasure and self-gratification. I wonder if anyone shall ask for such a boon. I wonder if anyone shall ask that all those suffering in the torment of hell be admitted into Paradise. And, if someone DID ask Allah, would their petition be granted? And if it would not be granted, then one cannot say that Allah would grant them anything they request.

And, pray tell, how can you be certain that the "one true God" which you worship is really God and not a "demon disguised as God," since each religion levels a charge against all other religions that they are demonically deceived?

A Demon Disguised as God


Various major religions have one or more verses in their scriptures which hint that the gods of other religions are actually devils or demons disguised as God. It is difficult for anyone to disprove an assertion that the god which they worship is actually a demon.

St. Paul, in his epistles, actually has a verse or two to suggest that satan, as an angel of light, will assume the appearance of Christ for those "false" misguided sectarian Christians.

For example:

II Corinthians 11:13-15 says,

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness . . .”

And in the Qur'an we read:

"And when they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe," but when they are alone with their Shayâtin (devils - polytheists, hypocrites, etc.), they say: "Truly, we are with you; verily, we were but mocking." Al-Baqarah 2:14


And in the Old Testament of the Jews, we find:

http://www.ucc.ie/milmart/Victor.html

The following is based on a translation of
"For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens". Psalm 96:5

The word translated as idols may also be translated as demons/devils.

(example of an interpretation of Psalm 96:5)

Then the emperor Maximianus was filled with anger and ordered that clubs be brought, and that Victor be stretched out in his sight and beaten. He commanded that the torturers should go beyond the third mark of the rack, and should shout at him, "Sacrifice to the Gods whom the emperor and everyone wor- ship." When Victor had been beaten the emperor ordered that he be set up straight, and said to him, "Victor, hear my advice, yield to and serve those gods: because no-one can better serve them than you, especially since you are distinguished by your grey hairs". Saint Victor replied, "Blessed David, king and prophet, teaches, "All the gods of the nations are demons, but our God made the heavens: if, therefore, they are called demons from the start, how will I worship them ?" Then the emperor Maximianus said to him, "Behold I give to you the rank of magister militum, much gold and silver, retinues and property, only sacrifice to the gods whom we worship". Victor replied, "I have already said, and will say it again: I will not sacrifice to the demons but I offer myself as a sacrifice of praise to God: because it is written "everyone who sacrifices to demons and not to God will be destroyed."


One may even find this notion in the Hindu Gita, but with an unusual twist:

God in the form of Krishna says, essentially, that all worship everywhere, comes to him, even though the worshippers be ignorant of His identity. Elsewhere, Krishna says that those who worship demons go to the demons, those who worship ancestors go to the ancestors, those who worship the demi-gods go to the demigods (i.e. everyone finds what they seek).


Apparently, Pres. Bush was asked publically if he thought that all worship the same God. Everyone held their breath, hoping that the answer would be a politically correct "yes" (which indeed it was.) But this is ignoring one of the final Surahs of the Qur'an, "The Surah to the Kafir (Unbeliever)": Say therefore to the unbelievers, "The god which you worship is NOT the God which we worship; and the God which we worship is NOT the god which you worship. So therefore, unto you your god and unto us our God."


Huston Smith, professor of comparative religion from M.I.T., cites Surah 5, verse 48 as one of the seemingly most ecumenical/interfaith verses: (paraphrasing from memory) "For my own purposes I have created you as different religions, so if you must compete with one another, compete in doing good works, and when you return to Me, I shall explain to you the reasons for the religious differences." But the next verse says "Therefore, do not be friends with Christians and Jews. They have each other to be friends with. He who is friends with them is one of them, and Allah does not help evil doers."

[Sitaram]

Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that all of the
non-Islamic world decided TOMORROW to convert to Islam for the
sake of world peace and unity. Would fighting stop? I rather imagine that the fighting would not stop.

You speak of worshipping the one true God, but it seems that Islam
itself predicts that it shall be divided into 73 sects and that only ONE
will enter into paradise but the rest shall enter into hell. It seems
that even if one is a Muslim and surrenders to the will of Allah, one
cannot be certain if one is the RIGHT sort of Muslim, or one of the 72
condemned sects.

http://www.sunnah.org/msaec/articles/madhhabs.htm

Hafiz Ibn Kathir (Rahimahullah) in The Signs Before The Day of
Judgement (pg. 14):

"Awf ibn Malik reported that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said,
'The Jews split into 71 sects: one will enter Paradise and 70 will enter
Hell. The Christians split into 72 sects: 71 will enter Hell and one will
enter Paradise. By Him in Whose hand is my soul, my Ummah will split
into 73 sects: one will enter Paradise and 72 will enter Hell.' Someone
asked, 'O Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him), who will they be?'
He replied, 'The main body of the Muslims (al-Jama'ah).'



http://www.askislam.com/Religions_an...nswer_289.html

http://www.askislam.com/Religions_an...s/Islam/Sects/

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/ahlsunna.htm

Many people today like to classify themselves as belonging to the
Saved Sect (Firqatun-Najiyyah) - Ahl as-Sunnah Wa'l Jama'ah; but do
these people really know which is the Saved Sect, from the many
sects we have today? The following is an attempt to clarify some
misconceptions by way of definitive proofs from the Qur'an and
Sunnah, as well as quotes from the profoundly learned Classical
Scholars of Islam. Know that there is only one Saved Sect in Islam,
and this is the original pristine form of Islam that has been
transmitted to us by Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala in his Qur'an, his Rasul
(Peace and blessings be upon him), the blessed Companions (may
Allah be pleased with them all) and the great scholars of Islam (Allah's
mercy be upon them all) who have been following their Straight Path
for more than one thousand years of Islam's history. The first question
that should be raised is: "What differentiates one sect from another
sect?" The answer to this is simple and definitive! Know that the chief
characteristic that distinguishes one sect from another, lies not in the
differences of opinion that its scholars have attained by making
ijtihad from the sources of the Shari'ah (this leads to the formation of
the Madhhabs), but rather the actual belief (aqid'ah or i'tiqad in
Arabic) that the scholars and laity of the sect in question are clinging
onto - since the founding of their respective sect.

Qur'anic Evidence

(1) Surah al-Imran (3:103):

"And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah and be not
divided."

Imam Sayf ad-Din al-Amidi (d. 631/1233; Rahimahullah) said in his
al-Ihkam fi usul al-ahkam (The proficiency: on the fundamentals of
legal rulings, pg. 295) with regard to the above Qur'anic verse:

"Allah has forbidden separation, and disagreement with consensus
(ijma) is separation."

Hence, if Allah has forbidden separation then surely we must all unite
on the unanimously accepted aqid'ah of our pious predecessors. And I
have already quoted Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (Rahimahullah) as
saying: "This unanimity (in aqidah) was transmitted by the two great
Imam's Abu'l Hasan al-Ashari and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (Allah's
mercy be upon them) and the scholars who followed their path."

[Amra]

"Really?
This seems rather....religious approach. This looks a bit if that the Creator was so envious that He thought that there was no greater sin than not worshipping him.
To us it seems that a great sin and evil and the root of most of the great sins and evils is when people are treated as things. That is where it starts.
This seems much more evil to Us than not worshipping someone who, by definition, shouldn't be an egoist so great, that anyone who didn't worship him , would be the greatest sinner."

Well, I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Namely, worship is not only expressed in religious prayer. It is a way of life. Everything we do, if it is done according to the way God has told us to do things, it is considered worship. Islam is a way of life, and one does not seperate prayer with every day activities, or religion from every day life. If a person does something and he or she does it because they fear Allah s.v.t or want to satisfy Him and follow HIs commendments, then that person is worshiping God, the Almighty. The first verse that was revealed to Mohammed s.a.v.s was "ikre, bissmi rabbike"... "read/learn, in the name of Allah". So, whatever a person intends to do, it should be done in the name of God, meaning that you do it because either God commended you to do that thing, or you don't do it, because he forbade you to do it. If you keep that in mind, and your intention is always the wish to satisfy God, than everything you do is considered a worship. However, if your driving force is something else; for instance, you choose to donate charity, but you do it because you want other people to admire you, then you are not worshiping Allah s.v.t, but your ego. That is what is meant with the complete submission to the will of God, and to be His servant only. If a person lets someone else govern his or her life, then that person has let desire, temptation and lust become the driving force of his life. When we worship the Creator, it is not because He needs us, or He is an egoist, but it is for our own good. Being aware of the presence of God in everything you do gives you guidance in life and protects you from sin. Being an honest person, being good to other people, giving charity, being honorable and just, and all other good qualities that a person can attain and strives for because he or she wants to become closer to God, are a way of worshiping Allah s.v.t. So, it has nothing to do with only praying and praising Him, but rather creating for ourselves a meaningful life with direction and focus because of Him.

To Sitaram...

I will try to answer all the questions you raised without quoting from your post too much since there is a post from a previous topic also, and I have answered partly about the issues you raised there in the other topic. (surah Al-kaafiroon..etc.). Anyway, the main point that you are raising is that the practice of any religion should yield fruit, and since you provided a statistic about the number of books translated into Arabic, that should somehow shows that Islam is not showing those yields. Well, I think it is superfloous to remind any one that Islam revolutionized the World during the first 1000 years of its development. Someone once noted that if Islam didn't come to the Europe, Europe would have been in the Dark Ages for another couple of hundred years. The Arabs revolutionized science, literature, built cities, infrastructure, and raised morals of the whole society. The notion of progress is integral to Islam, and the need for education, knowledge and wisdom is mentioned numerous times in the Qur'an. The stagnation came only then when the rulers and people started to distance themselves from Islam. Then we recorded more and more injustice, want for material goods, enriching the rulers and sultans, building harems and promoting amoral behavior. That was what led to the destruction of the islamic state. When the people followed what Islam tought them, they ruled and the socieity prospered in every way, when they distanced themselves from the teachings of Islam, the stagnation came. The christian world experienced the same effect, only reversed. When the church ruled, they stagnated, once the seperation of church and state came, then they prospered. Therefore, you cannot really take credit and say that it is Christianity that is responisble for the materialistic good of the western world today, because Christianity plays only a minor role in the affairs of a secular state. I am sure when someone equted the teachings of Christinaity and the western world as it is today, it would be hard to find anything in common. So, what are the yields of the fruit? Would it be fair to say that the yields of the fruit are the number of divorces? the use of alcohol? the domination of pre marital sex? homosexuality? Are those yields of christianity? Of course not. So, you cannot say that the western world prospered because of Christianity, because Christianity is nowhere to be found in any aspects of the secular western world, except in the private lives of a minority. The yields of Islam have been witnessed by the world. Today, we see a stagnation because people are not following Islam. There is not one country that is implementing shariah law today, and so none of them represent Islam. They are all secular societies, some of them implementing parts of shariah law, but the regimes are corrupt and injust, and hopefully will brought down soon. The rule of tyranny, dynasty, communist or monarchy have no basis in Islam, but most of the muslim countries are ruled by one of those regimes. The fruits we see today are not the fruits of Islam, but the fruits of injustice and corruption that came from seperation of Islam and the state.

"And, pray tell, how can you be certain that the "one true God" which you worship is really God and not a "demon disguised as God," since each religion levels a charge against all other religions that they are demonically deceived?"

Well, your question certainly is a complex one and we could go into a discussion forever, but in the end it is the faith that decides those things. I believe with all my heart and all of my reason that there is no God but Allah s.v.t and that Mohammed a.s is His last prophet. To me, I have found all the proof I need, and I am perfectly satisfied with that decision. The main thing that strenghens my belief is the fact that Islam accepts all God's prophets, from Adem a.s to MOhammed a.s. One verse in the Qur'an states:
"Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)." (Surah Al-Baqare, verse 136) It's perfectly logical that Allah s.v.t sent His prophets to the world from the first day he created human beings, and we believe that every Prophet came with the same message; the belief in only one God and the total submission only to Him. As for false prophets, the Bible itself mentions that a way to recognize a true prophet is that he will speak in the name of Lord and will confirm that Jesus a.s was Christ. Islam fulfills both of those criteria. Mohammed a.s never said one word that was his, but the words came directly from God, and every surah in the Qur'an (excpet one) begins with "In the Name of God, most Gracious, most Merciful". As for Jesus, Qur'an only speaks in praises of him, and he is respected as a great messenger of God and His servant. There is a whole verse Maryam that talks about his birth and prophethood...Here is a part of it:

"19.27] And she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). They said: O Marium! surely you have done a strange thing.
[19.28] O sister of Haroun! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.
[19.29] But she pointed to him. They said: How should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle?
[19.30] He said: Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet;
[19.31] And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live;
[19.32] And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed;
[19.33] And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.
[19.34] Such is Jesus, son of Marium; (this is) the saying of truth about which they dispute.
[19.35] It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a ! son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is.
[19.36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.

[Amra]

"Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that all of the
non-Islamic world decided TOMORROW to convert to Islam for the
sake of world peace and unity. Would fighting stop? I rather imagine that the fighting would not stop."

Well, your premise is wrong because Allah s.v.t Himself said that most people will NOT believe, no matter how much you want them to. So, because the premise is wrong, the whole argument doesn't really make much sense. The people will never unite and believe in one true God, but will always fight amongst each other and stay no-nbelievers. That is the fact we are told about in the Qur'an. It is our free will that makes that choice and most people choose not to believe. But, if we even get past the faulty premise, you make another mistake when you say "would fighting stop if all converted to Islam", and you discredit that by stating that there will be division and the 72 sects. Well, there is only one Islam, one way to submit to God, and if all united and became muslims, then of course there would be no fighting, because there would be no 72 sects and therefore no division. The 72 sects have a wrong aqaid (belief), and the only right aqaid and the basis of the whole Islam, is the belief that there is no God but Allah s.v.t and that Mohammed is his last Messenger. If a sect has a wrong aqaid, then their whole belief is based on nonsense, and as such, is not part of Islam. So, if all united and became muslims, then all would have ONE aqaid, there would be no division, and all would live peacfully with each other. Hope you can see the point I tried to make.

[Sitaram]

Amra, I have visited your profile and viewed all of your posts. Every single post is about Islam. There is nothing about any novels or literature, or even anything in a personal, lighter area. Hey, thats ok. That your choice. Its a free country (at least that is a saying in some countries.)

But an overview of your posting history does seem to reveal that you have a purpose, an agenda. What did Voltaire say? "I do not believe in what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

What is your goal in coming here and posting? What is my goal? What is anyone's goal who comes here? These are certainly valid questions which may be politely asked.

Do you hope that we shall all gradually be convinced to embrace Islam?

Is it my hope that you shall loosen up, become more secular, perhaps read Dostoevsky or Harry Potter and treat us to a post on that?

I don't think its likely that you will change, Amra. I dont think its likely that all of us will change.

No, we shall just go on and on. The Jehovah's Witnesses will keep on ringing doorbells and handing out their Awake magazines. The Hare Krishnas will keep dancing and chanting. The fundamentalist Christians will keep on about "being saved" and accepting Jesus as your personal savior. The secular folks will keep on being secular and post-modernist and existential.

I say that everyone should loosen up, take a look at something different. I read the Qur'an in English and visited Masjids, many years ago. It just wasn't my cup of tea.

I have spent a considerable number of years worshiping with Christians, a number of years practicing with Buddhists, and a few years with Hindus.

I once met a man in his 50's who had practiced so may religions in his life that it would take your breath away. He dresses as a Sikh, goes regulary to Hare Krishna meetings, and took many Sufi initiations. He has a wonderful sense of humor. He once confided to me that, when he is with the Hare Krishna people, he repeats in his mind, "Im dancing with the idolaters. I'm dancing with the idolators." But when he is with the Sufis, in his mind, he repeats "Im chanting with the meat-eaters. Im chanting with the meat-eaters."

[Amra]

Sitaram, I am not really sure what the purpose of your last post was, but it is not in my power to see your intentions. However, as I recall, you are the one who started this thread, and I only replied. What was your intention of starting this thread? And another one just now on almost the same issue? If you do not want a discussion about Islam, then why do you keep starting new threads about issues either related to Islam, or about Islam? I have never started a thread here about Islam, nor tried to preach to anyone. All I have done, and you can check my history on that, is replied to threads that have already been started, where I thought my input might shed some light on certain issues.
As for other comments, I do not recall that we needed to identify our agendas and intentions before being admitted to the forum. I have neither checked your history, nor have I ascribed to you any particular agenda, but rather tried to have a discussion on the issues you raised, without going into personal attacks. I don't know why it should always be assumed that a discussion about religion has the purpose of converting someone and preaching. If we talk about a certain book and discuss it's characters, no one is afraid that there is an agenda and that someone is trying to force you to only read that specific author, and love only his books. It's rather interesting, I might say. Anyways, I came to the forum because I was searching for a book club to see what books are still out there that I should read and haven't gotten a chance to read or get my self interested in. And I do read many things, believe it or not , and enjoy great literature. I do not need to become more secular to be able to that that, since literature doesn't form my life, but is interpreted within the context of my belief. That which agrees with it, I accept and implement in my life, that which doesn't, I use to study and understand other ideas, or simply read it for the pleasure of reading. Scary, eh?

[Sitaram]

Amra, you keep saying that Allah "himself" has said this and that.

I was under the impression that Allah "himself" has never said a word. It is my understanding that Muhammed was told everything by the angel Gabreel. Or am I mistaken in this point?

Islamic tradition says that each time there is a call to prayer, the Shaitan devil whispers in each and every believers ear regarding worldly matters, in order to distract them from the call to prayer. But no one has ever heard Allah, not even prophet Muhammed, but only the angel Gabreel.

That Shaitan devil sounds more powerful that Allah since he has more media presence.

Now, it is my understanding that one of the most fundamental beliefs in Islam is that "Allah is not like unto anything else." Well, why call Allah "him" since him designates a male, and the male gender conjures to mind certain attributes, and Allah is supposed to be beyond all existential attributes of being.

Or, for that matter, why does the Qur'an refer to Allah as a rope or cable, that we should all hold onto. Sounds like the verge of heresy and blasphemy to me.

[Sitaram]

My post had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. It is every single one of your posts that has to do with Islam. Had I wanted to go deeply into Islam, I could have entered that one thread entitled something like "What is Islam all about."

[Sitaram]

I suggest, Amra, that you NEVER read any poetry, because the prophet Muhammed DEFINITELY disapproved of all poetry.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles...nd_poverty.htm

026.224
YUSUFALI: And the Poets,- It is those straying in Evil, who follow them:

Here are some ahadith that clearly demonstrates Mohammad’s hatred for the poets and poetry.

It is better to fill one's inside body with pus than to fill it with poetry...8.73.175, 176

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 175:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

The Prophet said, "It is better for a man to fill the inside of his body with pus than to fill it with poetry."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 176:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle; said, "It is better for anyone of you that the inside of his body be filled with pus which may consume his body, than it be filled with poetry."

It is better for a man’s stomach to be stuffed with pus than to fill one’s mind with frivolous poetry…28.5609

Sahih Muslim Book 028, Number 5609:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: It is better for a man's belly to be stuffed with pus which corrodes it than to stuff one's mind with frivolous poetry. Abd Bakr has reported it with a slight variation of wording.

[Sitaram]

Now, novels in there present form were unknown in the 7th century during the time of the prophet Muhammed. I honestly cannot imagine that the prophet would approve of Muslims reading novels if he did not approve of poetry.

Here are some excerpts from a google.com search on the question of whether it is advisable for a devout Muslim to read novels.


http://shariahboard.com/August4Week.php

Is it permissible to read novels? If not, what if you have to read the novel for school? No one really has the option to decline reading a novel for class, because that's apart of the curriculum, like for American literature class..

(the answer to this question is an audio clip in Arabic, so perhaps someone who speaks Arabic can listen and translate.)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0408/p05s01-wome.html

JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA – The two latest bestselling novels on Neelwafurat, an online bookstore based in Lebanon, are by Saudi authors. But "Cities of Salt" by the late Abdul-Rahman Munif and "The Insane Asylum" by Ghazi al-Gosaibi - the Saudi Minister of Water and Electricity - are not available in Saudi bookstores.

These books and other more recent ones by the country's most celebrated novelists, a small avant-garde group who often write in realistic detail about life in Saudi Arabia, are banned here.


12/10/03

Cairo sheikhs find book bans tougher

"It's amazing that Saudi Arabia has produced some of the finest writers in the Arab world, given the lack of support they get from their society and the government, and the unhealthy environment they are living in," says Youssef al-Dayni, a Saudi researcher who writes for the local press on literature and religious affairs.

The success of Saudi novelists abroad is casting a fresh spotlight on the tension here between conservative Islam and the principles of free speech. It also illuminates a deeper divide: the gap between what is officially sanctioned and what is privately watched, read, or talked about behind closed doors.

For example, there are no movies in the country. But most Saudis can buy the latest films on DVD in stores and watch Arabic language programs showing scantily-clad pop singers and dancers on satellite TV at home. They also can hear Saudi dissidents criticizing the government and clerics talking openly about more moderate strains of Islam not allowed in the country. But what is acceptable when it originates outside the country is still taboo when it comes from inside the kingdom.

Writer Abdo Khal, who has written five novels, says his books are not sold in Saudi Arabia because they "address the sacrosanct trio of taboos in the Arab world: sex, politics, and religion. But these are the things that make up people's lives," he argues.

'Celebrating immoral behavior'

Typically, novels are banned here because Saudi Arabia is home to Islam's most sacred shrines and the royal Saud family's legitimacy rests on their religious as well as political credentials. The Saudi government is held accountable by conservative factions for upholding strict Islamic values.

"Issues like illicit sex, doubting God's existence, all these things should be treated with an Islamic sensibility," says Saeed Nasser al-Ghamdi, professor of religion at King Khalid University. "My criticism is that these novels make these sins appear normal, desirable, and commonplace. Intellectuals should write novels that serve humanity instead of celebrating immoral behavior and vices."

Dr. Ghamdi, who has written articles condemning several of the new novelists, says the direction they are taking is "dangerous and destructive."

But neither the bans nor the criticism are stopping some Saudi novelists. Mr. Khal, an elementary school teacher, publishes overseas like other novelists. He paid a Lebanese publisher $3,000 in 1995 for 1,000 copies of his first novel and brought back a dozen himself to hand out to friends and newspaper critics.

He now has a contract with an Arab publishing company based in Germany, which distributes his books to online bookstores and bookstores in most Arab countries - except Saudi Arabia.

Novels by Saudi authors are gaining recognition abroad, and, despite the ban, are often widely- circulated in the kingdom. When Saudis return from Egypt or Lebanon, they'll bring in as many books as they can. Others are photocopied and passed around informally.

Mahmoud Trawri, a literary editor at the newspaper al-Watan, won the 2001 Sharjah Award for Arab Creativity for his first novel, "Maimouna." It's a story of several generations of a family of African immigrants to Saudi Arabia, which touches on the racism they encountered and the role of local merchants in the slave trade.

The Sharjah award, established in 1998 by the Emirate of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates to promote literature and the arts in the region, also published 500 copies of the novel. Mr. Trawri posted several chapters on literary websites and handed copies out to friends, who reviewed it in the local press. He also provided the Jeddah Literary Society with a copy, which was then photocopied, handed out to about 20 members, and discussed in their book club last year. When he received dozens of e-mails and phone calls from people wanting copies of Maimouna, he didn't have any.

"I had nothing left to hand out. A writer here has to be a writer, publisher, and distributor," says Trawri, who carried crates of his second collection of short stories to local bookstores to sell. He says the main reason his novel hasn't been published in Saudi Arabia is because local publishing houses don't promote fiction and steer clear of sensitive issues like racism and slavery.

A more realistic style

The main reason these novelists are facing resistance is because "they're pioneers, writing openly and in a more realistic style about real life," says Abubaker Bagader, a sociology professor.

Saudi Arabia's religious conservatives say fiction should address only issues of brotherhood, unity, and high moral and religious values, says Mr. Bagader, who teaches at King Abdul-Aziz University and is an administrator at the Jeddah Literary Society.

"The reason our writing style is developing this way is because we're living in a changing world and being affected by it," says Mr. Trawri.

Nonfiction books about Islam, and Minister Gosaibi's autobiography about his career as a diplomat, are easily found in local bookstores. His more politically and sexually risqué novels are not. Yet Saudis can watch one of Gosaibi's banned novels, "Freedom's Apartment," on television. It was serialized and broadcast several years ago by Saudi-owned satellite channel MBC, based in London.

Leila al-Jihani's award-winning novel "Lost Heaven," tells in gritty, realistic detail the story of a Saudi village girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock in the big city of Jeddah, is abandoned by her lover, and gets an abortion. Several articles questioning the author's morals and intentions in writing about illicit sex and abortion appeared in the local press following the novel's publication outside of Saudi Arabia. Ms. Jihani, a teacher living in the holy city of Medina, has kept a low profile since.

Professor Ghamdi criticizes Turki al-Hamad's "Abandoned Alleys" for passages about Islam that are unacceptable. In Mr. Hamad's novel, a young Saudi who discovers sex, dabbles in political opposition, and during a stint in prison questions his faith in God.

"In Munif's novel he likens God's presence to uncomfortable underwear, saying they're both stifling when too tight. And in Hamad's novel, he says God and the devil are two faces of the same coin. That kind of language is incredibly offensive to anyone," says Ghamdi.

He says the books should not be sold in Saudi Arabia because this kind of literature incapacitates the mind, the way alcohol does the body.

'We should be supporting our writers'

But fans of the Saudi novelists say that creativity should not be stifled for any reason.

"We should be supporting our writers, teaching their books in our universities, and publishing and distributing their novels, not attacking them," says Mr. Dayni, who is writing a book on Saudi literature.

Despite the unwelcoming atmosphere and hardships, the authors say they will continue to write.

"We're more than just writers. We're also activists fighting for change," says Khal, who has not made any money and continues to struggle to get his novels published. "I will keep writing for as long as I have things to say because this is the only way I have of expressing myself," he says.

[Sitaram]

http://unix.dfn.org/banned_writings.shtml

National Geographic Magazine
October 2003

Not normally banned in Saudi Arabia, the October 2003 issue of the National Geographic Magazine was banned from Saudi news racks for publishing a full length article that the Saudis considered uncomplimentary to the nation. Speculation was that the glaring contrasts between the grinding poverty of the nation as compared to the decadent lifestyles of the 5,000 princes of the House of Saud was too great an exposure for them to countenance. Even though the Saudi government gave express permission for the article, the final state approval was withdrawn. The Saudis also banned a 1987 issue for showing a Saudi female aerobics instructor in her leotard while conducting a class.


The Stoning of Soraya M.
by Friedoune Sahebjam

Friedoune Sahebjam’s novel about the stoning of an Iranian woman by her village for adultery is banned in Iran. According to the book, Soraya’s husband falsely accused her of adultery, which she did not protest, and was sentenced to death by stoning. Soraya’s aunt gave her eyewitness description of the stoning to Mr. Sahebjam.

The Buru Quartet
by Pramoedya Anata Toer (Pak Pan)

Pramoedya Anata Toer (aka Pak Pan)’s compliation of four novels is banned in Indonesia. Written while he was a prisoner in the 1970s under the Suharto regime, Pak Pan conceived the stories without pen or paper and recited them orally to fellow inmates. After his release from prison he wrote four volumes: The Earth of Mankind, Child of All Nations, Footsteps and House of Glass. They were immediately banned by the Indonesian government, but are well-known abroad and read in secret in Indonesia.


The Satanic Verses
by Salman Rushdie

Banned in India, South Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses set off a firestorm of protest within the Islamic world and a book burning in Bradford, Yorkshire. According to the New York Times, "Mr. Rushdie's character the Prophet Mahound resembles the portrayal of Jesus Christ in Martin Scorsese's film 'The Last Temptation of Christ,' in that Mahound is depicted as having a human nature and wrestling with temptation. The work is clearly perceived as offensive to Islam, but what exactly is regarded as insulting has not been spelled out." His comments on Islam resulted in Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa (according to Merriam-Webster a fatwa is "a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader") that called for the death of Rushdie and all those who published his book. He was eventually forced to go into hiding in London to escape potential assassins. Although Rushdie now makes public appearances, the fatwa has never been lifted.

[Sitaram]

Thanks for joining in, Den.

I dont feel that my original post has anything at all to do with Islam, except through the most tenuous stretch of the imagination that I speak of sin, and Islam speaks of sin. So, therefore, if I post something about "The Scarlet Letter" then that has something to do about Islam, because it mentions God and it mentions adultery, and of course, Islam mentions God and adultery as well.

But, Amra wants to discuss Islam in all Amra's posts to date, so, hey..... I am obliging... you want to talk about Islam, Qur'an, Allah, Muhammed, Hadith, Sharia, Ummah... I'm game. And I will certainly give you a "run for your money."

Hey, this may be a controversial thread, but it is provocative and interesting. I dont think anyone is being mean to anyone or resorting to ad hominem.

Let's face it. We all have our agendas as to why we do things and what we expect from it. Some people simply love genres of fiction that have to do with vampires (Im just picking something at random). So, they post here to show the stories they have written, the books they like, they look for fellowship from others who share their interests, perhaps some leads on new titles they will enjoy. Others will have no use for the vampire genre.

The way Amra talks about being wholeheartedly convinced in the truth of Islam, I do question whether reading poetry or secular literature or even looking at pictures and illustrations is compatible with being a devout Muslim. Even drawings are forbidden in strict Islam. One of the Caliphs of the Ottoman empire stated that at the judgment, all the animals in those drawings would rise up and condemn the artists (I am not joking, this is true.)


Amra had stated, in a different thread, that in paradise, one will be able to ask ANYTHING of Allah and it shall be granted.

So, I pose the following question: What if someone asked that all the souls in torment be freed and brought to paradise?

If Allah would not do this, then there is one boon which would never be granted to someone in paradise.


But, if Allah WOULD grant such a boon, and no one asks, then it shows that the Muslims in paradise are self-centered and lacking in compassion. But, if one compassionate soul DOES exist in paradise and does ask for this boon, then hell shall be empty, and some verses of the Qur'an regarding eternal torture will be in error.

I will be honest with you. I am totally sick of having fundamentalist Christians and Muslims in my face, shoving their ideas down my throat, for years.

The only acceptable way to "fight back" is to "fight fire with fire" namely to attempt to become MORE knowledgable that they are about their scriptures and history.