Our Greatest Sin

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

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

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Translation Statistics

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Sowell

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amra wrote

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitaram responded

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitaram

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."

---

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."

"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.

"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.

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."

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 :D 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 :nod: , 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? ;)

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here is a correspondence that I had with a young man in India a few years ago:

http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan/page164.htm

entitled: Strive to Find Happiness and Meaning Within Yourself

(9-24-99)

(a young man posted this on mangalore.com message board):

Kanekodi

What is next?

Fri Sep 24 06:18:19 1999

I married a beautiful girl two year back. Somehow I could not live with her and just divorced. I do not have any child. What should I do further. How to live my remaining life? Please suggest me.

Love,

Kanekodi

Here is my response:

My sympathy goes out to you concerning your sorrow. Many people look for happiness and meaning outside of themselves, in a spouse, a child, a parent, a job, friends, material possessions, food, drink, amusements.

The religious answer is that we are always desiring things because we feel an emptiness within, somehow incomplete. We think that if we can only marry a certain person, buy a certain fancy car, earn a special academic degree, that THEN we shall finally be happy and fulfilled. But our emptiness stems from a dim memory deep within us that we were once a part of God, and now we suffer from SEPARATION. So we have a hunger which can never be filled; a thirst which can never be quenched.

Even Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, "If you drink the water in this well, you shall thirst again in a little while, but I can give you LIVING WATERS, which, once you drink, you shall never thirst again." (I am paraphrasing again, but this is the essence of what was said.)

Perhaps the first step to happiness and peace is to recognize the futility of seeking them outside ourselves.

We all know examples of very wealthy, famous, powerful people who become so unhappy as to take their own lives in suicide. This is a lesson to us that the their fame and wealth did not help alleviate the pain of their own existence.

We also know examples of people who managed to find peace in happiness and meaning even in the poorest and most oppressive circumstances, even in places such as a Jewish Concentration camp in Germany. You might like to read Viktor Frankl's book "Mans Search for Meaning". He is a medical doctor who survived a German concentration camp in WWII.

As for your life, simply meet new people, nice decent people, and try to be their friends. You will see that, if you are patient, an appropriate spouse and life partner will be provided for you. Sometimes happiness comes when we are not expecting it or looking for it.

It is ironic that the other day, I was reading something about peace and happiness which quoted Gandhi as saying, "Peace must be found in turmoil, not in tranquility. What value to me is someone who tells me to find peace in a tranquil situation. OF COURSE THERE IS PEACE IN PEACE, but what good is that to me. Peace is only of value to me if I can find it in the midst of turmoil, discord, strife, adversity." I suppose one might say the same of Holiness or Sanctity. Of course there is Holiness in the Holy, but it is more profitable to find Holiness in the midst of evil and wickedness, for it is when you are in the midst of wickedness that holiness is most needful.

This post seems sufficiently long for now, though I feel I could say more. I will think about these things, and your situation, and as more occurs to me, I will add additional posts to this one.

Hope these words help you a little.

An additional question:

Kanekodi

Re: Strive to find happiness and meaning within yourself

Fri Sep 24 08:26:25 1999

Thank you Sitaramji for your kind advice. Is there any solution in Islam for my problem?

Love,

Kanekodi

My response:

Certainly, if you read this message board regularly, you know my position on Islam, which leads me to suspect that perhaps you are baiting me for your own amusement, to see my reaction.

Nevertheless, I will answer your question honestly. Any individual who is able to achieve in their life, in their heart, a deep and abiding faith and belief and confidence IN ANY RELIGION, be it Islam, Christianity, Saivite, Vaishnav, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist, Sufi or Zoroastrian; THAT person will experience great comfort and peace and their hearts will always be filled with hope.

Such Faith is a gift from God to a particular individual. We cannot choose or will to have such faith, saying "Aha! Today I will take steps to become a person of deep faith!". No, it is a gift which is given only to those who are ripe for it, who have matured from past experiences.

Nor can one truly CHOOSE a religion or belief. This again is something which depends on the indivdual's character and nature, conditioned by past experiences in this life, or in previous births.

This is why it is a futile and ignorant effort that many religions undertake to "convert the whole world" to some "one true faith".

For those familiar with Hindu scriptures, I will point out that the wicked King Ravanna of Lanka, enemy to the Lord Ram, Avatar of Lord Vishnu; Ravanna also had a religion, and it was from this religion that Ravanna drew his strength to be an adversary of the Lord.

If we turn our attention to Jesus and His temptation in the desert, we notice that even Satan seems to have had religion, since Satan quotes chapter and verse from the scriptures several times, and asks Jesus to bow down and worship him. Even the demons in the possessed man, in a sense "prayed" to Jesus, in that they requested him to send them into the herd of swine, and their prayers were answered!

So, you see, even the wicked have a religion. Even devils and demons have a religion.

Even superstitious people, such as some professional baseball players, have a religion, in the sense that their ritualistic gestures, such as touching the brim of their cap so many times "for luck"; its a form of OFFERING or POOJA, and in return they hope for something AUSPICIOUS.

The true miracle of God is the Maya or Illusion of "the one true faith". Each of us believes that we are uniquely in possesion of the truth, the Lord's most intimate devotees, a chosen people, elect. Every pious Hasidic Jew believes this. Every Muslim Iman is convinced of this. Hindu Sanyassins and Roman Catholic priests and nuns feel this with the utmost certainty. It is the protection of this Maya or Illusion of our unique, priveliged relationship with God which gives us the strength and courage to practice our devotions.

Perhaps the best religion is patience, persistance, reflection humility, and surrender.

Be persistant in performing life's duties or Dharma. Be patient and dont give up. At each moment of life, under every circumstance, continually reflect within yourself, "Where have I come from? What am I? Who am I? What is my ultimate purpose? What is my ultimate destination." Finally, have the humility to recognize your own dharma and nature, and accept it, surrender to it.

If you devoutly follow THIS religion, whose FIVE PILLARS are patience, persistance, reflection, humility, surrender. Then all else which is necessary for you shall be added in due time; spouse, children, friends, outward religion, career.

Remember, if you cannot be a friend to yourself, then how can you expect anyone else, even God, to be your friend. Even if they ARE your friends, if you are an enemy to yourself, you will reject their friendship, or not recognize it. If you cannot help yourself, then how any some outside agency, any angel or prophet or incarnation help you; since even if they ARE trying to help you, it is only through your CO-OPERATION, i.e. helping yourself, that you will allow them to help you.

You remember in Christian scriptures the story of the Prodigal son who asked his Father for his inheritance, and then squandered it in a foreign land, and fell into poverty. Yet, when the Prodical son reflected within himself that he had reached a low estate, and hit rock bottom; and then resolved to return to his Father,.... well, you will observe that the Prodigal son was doing everything that I am advising you hear. As the Prodigal son approached the Fathers home, the Father saw him from a long way off, and came out of the house and ran to meet the son. So for each step that the Prodigal son took homwards, the Father was taking ten running strides. But you see, it all hinged on the Prodigal sons OWN actions and freewill choice. Once the Prodigal son INITIATES those small steps, then the Father ADDS what is necessary, by running to meet the son.

Lord Krishna says in Chapter 9 of the Gita; "What ever My devotee lacks, I suppliment and compliment and complete; and whatever My devotee has achieved on their own, is preserved and conserved and in no wise lost."

As to your specific question regarding Islam, you will notice which religions and scriptures I have drawn my parables and examples from.

Islam teaches that Allah creates and pre-destines and fore-knows each and every soul as a saved soul or a damned soul. Allah simply allows them to be born into the world, so that their actions will CONFIRM their damnation, and they will have no reason to complain that they were never given a chance. Furthermore, the Koran explicitly states many times, that Allah will INTENTIONALLY blind the unbeliever, and stop their ears, and abandon them so that they may fall into even DEEPER condemnation.

Nevertheless, if it is nature to find comfort in Islamic doctrines and practices, then that is your Dharma, and you must make the best of it.

I never tire of quoting from the Koran Surah 5, verse 48 (I believe)... where Allah says, "IF I HAD WANTED TO, I could have created ALL PEOPLE as one religion and nation, BUT FOR MY OWN REASONS, I chose to create people as DIFFERENT religions and races and nations (including Hindu). So, IF YOU MUST COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER, then compete in doing GOOD WORKS, and when you return to Me, I shall explain to you the REASONS for the differences between you."

Of course, I am paraphrasing that verse of the Koran from memory, and many Orthodox Muslims will violently object that my words do not reflect the true meaning and intent of that verse (obviously, since my version ascribes to God a very tolerant INTERFAITH attitude). But my paraphrase describes what I believe God would actually say, and if God's nature is antithetical to such sentiments, then I have no interest in worshiping such a God, not even to gain the reward of a carnal Pardise, slopping like a swine in rivers of wine and milk and honey, nor to avoid the tortures of hell, wheree I am "given a fresh skin" each time my skin burns away, so that I may "taste the torment").

No thanks. No such God for me. I prefer to be in hell next to Gandhi and Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul and the Dalai Lama, since the Koran says that hell is especially reserved for those who do not submit to Islam.

I hope my honest answers will help you, assuming that your question is sincere, and that you are not simply baiting me for your own amusement.

Kanekodi

Re: Is there a solution in Islam.

Fri Sep 24 10:11:42 1999 Thank you my dear Sitaramji. I was really serious when I asked this question whether there is solution in Islam for my present problem.

I have come across many Muslims who are dragging me saying that Islam will solve all our problems. I have read many of your messages and found you have done deep study in many religions including Islam. Hence I put question to you.

I am very much grateful to you for responding me sparing your valuable time.

Hope now I will be able to think independently and take the decision of my future.

Thank you once again.

With Love and Respects,

Kanekodi

My response:

I am glad that your question was sincere. Forgive me for being suspicious.

Until I began to visit this message board (at the invitation of a Muslim) I was quite unaware of how life might be in a city in India such as Mangalore; the pressures and propaganda which Muslims aggressively exert on their neighbors to convert. Since Muslims represent only a small minority in India, between 10 or 20 per cent (I forget the exact figure) you can just imagine what tremendous pressure must be exerted upon non-Muslims in countries like Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia!

Of course, Christians also are agressive in seeking converts, but not to the extent that Muslims are, and not with such resort to force, bribes, threats, or violence.

Hindus (with the exception of Hare Krishnas) and Jews (with the exception of Lubavitchers) and Buddhists (with the excption of Soka Gakkai) are not aggressive or prosyletizing.

I am gladdened to see the Hindus on this board being so much more vocal. Perhaps there is a reason why I have come here.

I want you to choose your religion for yourself. You will notice in my posts that I always offer choices and varieties and never say that one path is particularly good over another. I even have some good things, in fact many good things, to say about the Sufi denomination of Islam.

Bear in mind that, if you do choose Orthodox Islam, I for one will not personally condemn you. I do not believe in an eternal Hell or a powerful Satan figure, so I certainly cannot condemn you to Hell and Torments for your choice. I believe that God is very merciful, and give each soul as many chances as are necessary (in the form of re-birth) until that soul can mature and ripen and become itself Divine.

Amra made the following statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amra

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

---

Several years ago, I watched a 60 Minutes documentary about a young Pakistani who cut his sisters throat at the command of his family as an "Honor Killing." I forget the exact circumstnaces of his sister (she may have been raped by someone, but such a rape would still demand an "honor killing"). The young man was sentenced by his Pakistan government to 6 months in prison for the killing of his sister. The 60 Minutes reporter interview the young man after his release from prison. The reporter asked him why he killed his sister. He explained, "A dish has a purpose. If the dish becomes cracked then it can no longer serve its intended purpose so it is smashed and thrown in the garbage." The reporter then asked this young man how he felt about his sentence and imprisonment for 6 months. The young man stated that he felt it was unjust and that he is angry.

Now, obviously this young man was a Muslim, who, in the eyes of Islam, worshiped the true God correctly.

But I submit that the sin of sliting his sister's throat far outweights the sin of any shirk or idolatry or atheism.

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?"

If you quote something I told you to someone else, will that statement be yours or mine? The whole Qur'an is God's Word, directly said to Mohammed a.s through angel Gabreal.

Sitaram:
"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."

The analogy doesn't make any sense. Having more media presence does not mean being more powerful. I don't know where you got that from. Secondly, shaitaan has no power over human beings, except those who do not believe. He can only tempt human beings to do evil, but those who believe have Guidance from Allah s.v.t on how to ward him off and stay on the right path. And, all the power he has is only from Allah s.v.t.
Allah s.v.t says:
"Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant.
If a suggestion from Satan assail thy (mind), seek refuge with Allah; for He heareth and knoweth (all things).
Those who fear Allah, when a thought of evil from Satan assaults them, bring Allah to remembrance, when lo! they see (aright)! "(Surah al-araf, verses 199-201)

In one verse, shaaitan himself acknowledges Allah s.v.t's power:
"And when the Shaitan made their works fair seeming to them, and said: No one can overcome you this day, and surely I am your protector: but when the two parties came in sight of each other he turned upon his heels, and said: Surely I am clear of you, surely I see what you do not see, surely I fear Allah; and Allah is severe in requiting (evil).(surah al-anfal, verse 48)

Shaaitan was not damned because he didn't believe in Allah s.v.t, but because he refused to be obedient. His disobedience led to his fall, and the arrogance of thinking himself better is his reason for eternal punishment.

Then, we read about how Shaitan will admit his own lies and weakness on Judgment Day:
"And Satan will say when the matter is decided: "It was Allah Who gave you a promise of Truth: I too promised, but I failed in my promise to you. I had no authority over you except to call you but ye listened to me: then reproach not me, but reproach your own souls. I cannot listen to your cries, nor can ye listen to mine. I reject your former act in associating me with Allah. For wrong-doers there must be a grievous penalty.

But those who believe and work righteousness will be admitted to gardens beneath which rivers flow,- to dwell therein for aye with the leave of their Lord. Their greeting therein will be: "Peace!" " (Surah Abraham, verses 22, 23)

So, there are many places in the Qur'an that exactly state what kind of power shaitan has, and how limited it is when compared to the power Allah s.v.t has. But, human beings have free will, and we choose who to follow. Our choice doesn't decide who has greater power, but rather whether or not we can follow our reason and not our desires and temptations.

Sitaram:

"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."

Allah is not like anything else. The noun "he" is only a limitation of our own languages. We have to express ourselves in some way, and since our language is limited, we have to limit Allah s.v.t in those terms. However, that is why we call Him Allah s.v.t. That word does not imply a gender, nor can it be changed in any way to mean anything else, like the word "god" can be manibulated in many ways; for example, God or god, gods, goddess...etc.

Sitaram:
"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."

Allah s.v.t does not refer to himself as a rope or cable, but He says:

"And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah, and do not separate. And remember Allah's favour unto you: How ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided, "

The rope in this context means the Qur'an, meaning that people should follow the Qur'an and not diverge from it in any way, because if they do, they will become divided. In the following hadith this notion is further elaborated. Ebu Seid r.a, narrates that Mohammed a.s said: "Allah's book is Allah's rope put down from the heavens to the Earth".(Bukhari)

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."

Nor did my first post to your thread have anything to do with Islam. It was you however who started in that direction and here we are. Also, in many other topics, you have mentioned Islam in various ways, so I felt compelled to reply. That is all.

Another topic you raise is the poetry. First of all, I might say I was rather suprised to see that you draw on your references from such sites, that so obviously are biased and have very little credibility. Secondly, you raise so many different issues that it is rather hard to stay on one topic and gain some insight, since you keep moving from one thing to another, and post so many quotes from other sources. Anyway, poetry is not forbidden in Islam, and the "proof" that you brought here is really so out of context, that it only shows what childish means the people working on that site are using to support their ideas. As I stated earlier, there are two sources of Islam, Qur'an and hadith, and everything is interpreted within these two sources. Not everyone can claim to be a mudztehid (people who interpret the Qur'an), and we have an official ulemah (groups of scholars) who do that. I already posted the link to the site where there is one of the most credible and accepted scholar Ibn Kathir's interpretaion of the Qu'ran. Now, let's go back to the subject of poetry. The poetry and the use of language in such way was greatly used in the pre islamic arab societies. The arabs were knows for the literature they produced, and the language was one of the most beatiful and best suited for descriptions and abstract ways of expressing feelings. So, when Prophet Mohammed a.s received the revelation, he was accused of being a great poet. That was a way to discredit him, saying that all he said was simple poetry, lies and fiction. Therefore, to distance the Qur'an from that, to distance the truth from lies, Allah s.v.t says many times that the Qur'an and poetry have nothing in common:
"And We have not taught him poetry, nor is it suitable for him. This is only a Reminder and a plain Qur'an.) (36:69)
The strong need to confirm that Prophet Mohammed a.s came with the true word of God, and not only with heresay, fiction and fairy tales, the Qur'an takes a strong stand on those who accuse him of being that. Qur'an is one great work of art, and it is poetic in its way, but it is different from poetry because it speaks the ultimate truth about life, death, existence, God, etc, whereas poetry is simply human imagination, and cannot be a basis for truth and reality. So, in that context, the poets were seen as bad, because they wanted to discredit Allah s.v.t and his Messenger a.s. The verse that you quoted was revealed because at that time, there were two different, respected and acknowledged poets among two competing tribes, and they would challenge each other on a sort of context, making accusations about one another and ridiculing each other. So, Allah s.v.t says:
"As for the poets, the erring ones follow them. See you not that they speak about every subject in their poetry And that they say what they do not do"

and Allah s.v.t says about Prophet MOhammed:
"That this is verily, the word of an honored Messenger. It is not the word of a poet, little is that you believe! Nor is it the word of a soothsayer, little is that you remember! This is the Revelation sent down from the Lord of all that exits.) (69:40-43)

This is the context within which the accusations about poets is to be interpreted. The poetry itself is not forbidden, and was encouraged by Prophet Mohammed himself. There are various hadith that speak of that, when he asked his apostels to recite poetry to him. Islamic literature is filled with poetry, and some of the world's greatest poets are muslims, who lived in the awakening of Islam.

Prophet Mohammed a.s encouraged education, and encouraged people to seek knowledge. In one hadith he says, I paraphrase, "seek knowledge, even if it is in china". China at that time had nothing in common with islamic teachings, but it is used precisely because of that, since it implies that knowledge about things is universal, and those who seek it should not be limited in any way. If one can acquire knowledge that is useful from people who don't believe in God, then one should do it, because one can be seperated from the other. There are narrations about the time when Prophet MOhammed a.s was fighting with the non believers who attacked him, and he said to those who were captured that whoever teaches 10 muslims to read will be released. This shows how much importance he placed on knowledge and education. However, in Islam it is forbidden to read and expose oneself to things that will make a person lust or sin, so in that context, it is of course forbidden to read literature, or listen to things that promote such things. Even if two people are arguing and start using profanity, a muslim has to distance himself from those two. It is just a way to protect our souls and hearts from impurities.

As for all those articles about what Saudi Arabia does or doesn't do, that is really not the issue here. As I stated, Saudi Arabia is not implementing shariah law, and therefore does not represent Islam. The saudi family is a corrupt, unjust regime, and have no authority in Islam, so whatever they do or not do is simply representative of their own country and their own culture. Some things they do I agree with, some I detest, like any muslim would, but we could pick any country and have those same feelings, so it is rather irrelevant. However, banning of books is not specific to muslim countries, but has been a practice of any society, at some point in their history, or even today. If you want to discuss this further, we can start a new thread, but that would have little to do with Islam.

I'll continue later.... God willing.

Sitaram:
"Several years ago, I watched a 60 Minutes documentary about a young Pakistani who cut his sisters throat at the command of his family as an "Honor Killing." I forget the exact circumstnaces of his sister (she may have been raped by someone, but such a rape would still demand an "honor killing"). The young man was sentenced by his Pakistan government to 6 months in prison for the killing of his sister. The 60 Minutes reporter interview the young man after his release from prison. The reporter asked him why he killed his sister. He explained, "A dish has a purpose. If the dish becomes cracked then it can no longer serve its intended purpose so it is smashed and thrown in the garbage." The reporter then asked this young man how he felt about his sentence and imprisonment for 6 months. The young man stated that he felt it was unjust and that he is angry.

Now, obviously this young man was a Muslim, who, in the eyes of Islam, worshiped the true God correctly.

But I submit that the sin of sliting his sister's throat far outweights the sin of any shirk or idolatry or atheism."

Sitaram, the comments you make are not to be used in theological discussion, but rather for a nice conversation of what kind of artrocities people commit. Scot Peterson killed his pregnant wife because he had a mistress. Does that represent Christianity? I mean, after all, he was a christian. And Hitler? Or Stalin? Or that woman who drowned her five children? I mean, come on.. Let's be serious here. The life of a human being is sacred, and if a person kills one innocent human being, it is as if he has killed the whole human kind. ( a verse in the qur'an). If he had truly worshiped the Creator, that guy most certainly would have not killed his sister. Will you be more serious in your comments from now on? :)

Regarding the honor killing, it is kind of obvious that it was done in an Islamic nation, Pakistan, under Sharia law, and that the government did not think TOO harshly of him, since he only got six months, which is hardly a slap on the wrist. And the man appeared on international television and stated that his religious beliefs justified his actions and that his government was wrong to give him even one day in jail. Come on. Be serious. There is no comparing his situation with some killing in America.

==============================================



Picture me as Snoopy, seated in my Sopwith Camel, with my goggles, my scarf flying valiantly in the wind, my trusty co-pilot, Woodstock, at my side, in a desparate mid-air dog-fight with my arch-enemy "The Red Baron."

The Red Baron shoots, but misses. "Curse you Red Baron!" I shout, shaking my fist.

You know, during World War I, when a enemy pilot was shot down, the Germans would hold a fancy funeral for the fallen enemy, with the greatest honor.

Those were the days when wars were fought with honor, and one could admire the enemy.

Yes, friends, Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker shall meet again upon this glorious field of battle.

Tune in next week, same time, same station, for the next thrilling episode of, "As the Word Turns."

This is an FYI for the benefit of everyone, but you do realise there is an

`Add (insert members' name here) to Your Ignore List' function here?

If you click on a person's profile the link is there, it causes their posts to be `hidden'.

If anyone has issues with what someone is posting, and you feel it can't be resolved, or it is very upsetting to you, there is always this option to be used to (hopefully) keep some sort of harmony around here.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Wow Logos, must be a hard to be a Mod and have to read all those posts above to find inappropriate lines ;).


The greatest sin? Not being ourselves.

"Regarding the honor killing, it is kind of obvious that it was done in an Islamic nation, Pakistan, under Sharia law, and that the government did not think TOO harshly of him, since he only got six months, which is hardly a slap on the wrist. And the man appeared on international television and stated that his religious beliefs justified his actions and that his government was wrong to give him even one day in jail. Come on. Be serious. There is no comparing his situation with some killing in America."

Pakistan is not implementing shariah law. They don't even claim to be doing that. If you want to talk about shariah law, you need to give reference from the Qur'an and the hadith. Not Saudi arabia, not Pakistan, not an unknown person who killed his sister, and not Tariq Ali. If you say there is justification of honor killing in shariah law, then you need to provide the proof of that. Find one verse in the Qur'an, or one hadith, that supports that idea. If you cannot, then anything anyboday says is irrelevant. Another thing, bringing up some case of a lunatic as a reference to disredit Islam is really absurd. A person can claim to be anything they want, that doesn't mean they truly are what they claim to be. If there is injustice done to someone, then call it by its name, injustice, not Islam, and not shariah. So, for the last time, if you want to discuss theology, use releveant sources, if you want to discuss lunatics, then we can find some other sources for that. Make your choice, but don't play those games pulling some unidentifiable story without all the facts, where it happens that people were muslims, or claim to be muslims, and use that to discredit shariah and Islam. It just doesn't work like that. For the last time, there is no such thing as honor killing in Islam, and anyone who claims differently, needs to provide proof of that, from the Qur'an or hadith.

Sitaram:
"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.)"

I have already answered the part about poetry. Drawings of any creation are forbidden, just like making sculptures of creatures, because of the fear of idolizing that which we create ourselves. Throughout human history we have noticed this trend of people wanting to humanize God s.v.t, so that He may become more closer to us, and more understandable to our mind. Because of this wish, people have created images of God, and expressed those in pictures, drawings and sculptures. With time, those images became the truth, and were idolized as such by others. A notion of visualizing Allah s.v.t is not present in Islam, and it is strictly forbidden to try to create an image of Him in any possible way. That is the reason that Allah s.v.t has forbidden muslims to keep any sculptures of any creation in their homes, or to hang pictures of human beings or animals in their homes. Those who make sculptures of another creation are in an implicit way trying to imitate God, and only He has the power to create. Many times that which was created became a subject of worship and admiration, which in a way leads to idoltory. Sculptures in the pagan societies were mostly representing gods or were used as subjects of mediation between gods and human beings. When Prophet MOhammed a.s introduced Islam to those societies, he abolished that idea that God can be represented in any humanly imaginable way, and because the sculptures were diverting people from accepting the supremacy of God's being, they were forbidden. In one verse in the Qur'an, Allah s.v.t tells those who worship those sculptures that on the day of Judgment, He will tell them to call upon those they created and ask them for help. So, the underlying cause for forbidding images of creatures is that they could become a subject of worship and undeserving admiration leading to shirk.

Sitaram:
"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."

Heaven is nothing like a human mind can imagine, nor is it like anything anyone has ever seen. The life as it exists on Earth will not exist in heaven. Human beings as they are on Earth will not exist as such in Heaven. In Heaven, Allah s.v.t rules by absolute justice. The Qur'an explains this in the following way in surah Al-Araf:
"007.043 And We shall remove from their hearts any lurking sense of injury;- beneath them will be rivers flowing;- and they shall say: "Praise be to Allah, who hath guided us to this (felicity): never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of Allah: indeed it was the truth, that the messengers of our Lord brought unto us." And they shall hear the cry: "Behold! the garden before you! Ye have been made its inheritors, for your deeds (of righteousness).

007.044
The Companions of the Garden will call out to the Companions of the Fire: "We have indeed found the promises of our Lord to us true: Have you also found Your Lord's promises true?" They shall say, "Yes"; but a crier shall proclaim between them: "The curse of Allah is on the wrong-doers;-

007.045 "Those who would hinder (men) from the path of Allah and would seek in it something crooked: they were those who denied the Hereafter."

007.047 When their eyes shall be turned towards the Companions of the Fire, they will say: "Our Lord! send us not to the company of the wrong-doers."

007.050 The Companions of the Fire will call to the Companions of the Garden: "Pour down to us water or anything that Allah doth provide for your sustenance." They will say: "Both these things hath Allah forbidden to those who rejected Him."

These verses state how those who enter heaven do not want to be with those who rejected faith, and do not feel any wish to help them in any way. This is not to mean they are self centered or egoistic, but Allah s.v.t decides what is right and what is wrong, and He says that only that which is close to Him is good. So, those who are punished deserve that punishment, and ultimate justice is served when they receive it. The believers who are in heaven will not feel any sorrow or pain, because Allah s.v.t promised them eternal bliss. Even in this world, when a criminal commits a crime and is punished for it by the law, we hear everyone say that justice is served and that he deserved it. Even family members come forward, and although they may feel sorrow, they accept the punishment because it is just(assuming it is). So, why would it be any different in heaven, where there is absolute justice, and Allah s.v.t promised that no one will be wronged in the smallest way? Would it be fair to let the criminal go free because his family felt sorry for him? What about the family he wronged? Our reason tells us that criminals should be punished if justice is to be served, and it would seem rather absurd to let the wrongdoers be free because someone feels sorry for them. Would we accept such law in this life? Of course not. So, what about those who wrong God? Don't they implicitly wrong other people also? What about justice if those who spend their lives serving God would be rewarded just as same as those who spent their lives serving Shaitan?
Also, it is believed that everyone will eventually enter heaven, after their punishment is served; that is everyone who didn't commit shirk.

Ok, gee, thanks! Glad you cleared that up for me....

So... how's life? Read any good books lately (I mean any OTHER good books?)

Aha... the very next post I read answers my question:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amra

Oh, I loved "Gone with the Wind". I guess many other factors that influence us at the time we read a book, help form our opinion of it. I was probably 15 when I read it, and loved it so much that I felt a sense of loss when I finished the last page. I was completely convinced that I will never read a better book in my life. I made the ultimate mistake of reading the horrific sequel named "Scarlett" (i forgot the author...) simply because I wanted Rhett and Scarlet to end up together. I didn't care much about the war but was mostly grasped by the romance of Rhett and Scarlet. I guess being a 15 year old teenager hopelessly in love, might have clouded my judgment about the book somewhat. However, I still like to think of that book, and it always brings memories back....sigh..

As for what I find to be the most boring book, I would probably say "One Hundred Years of Solitute" by Garcia Marquez. It is supposed to be this great book and I have attempted to finish it for the last 8 years, but never came even half way through. I just can't get into the story and don't find the magic or the depth it is supposed to have. Can anyone convince me otherwise, so I can find motivation to make another attempt?

---

I am really glad to see that you are posting and reading something other than Islam on the forum.

Regarding "Honor Killings" here is a link which give a lot of information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

I will grant to you or concede that there are ways to look upon it has having nothing to do with Qur'an or Hadith,.... but there are other ways to look at it as being a product of the religion and culture.

Rabbi Abraham Heschel, in his book "The Prophets" says "few are guilty but all are responsible." What he means, I think, is that you will find only a few Hitlers and Eichmanns and Goerings who should stand trial at some Nuremberg, but the entire people of a nation are "responsible" in the sense that by their silence and inaction they condoned what was happening. A good book to illustrate that principle is "Hitler's Willing Assasins," which, by the way, on the very first page, attempts to lay the blame for the Holocaust at the feet of Martin Luther of the 16th century.

I also concede that I am in error in saying that Pakistan is under Sharia. Upon a google search, I see that one province is now agitating to enforce Sharia.

But, you really did not address my precise question which is:

1.) You claim that the GREATEST sin is to worship anything other than the one true God/creator

2.) I pose the question, SUPPOSE someone is Mulsim, has taken Shahad, prays 5 times a day, says the proper racas, etc etc. (and I dont think it is fair or honest to say that such a person is not a REAL Muslim should they do something horrible) .... and let us say that such a Muslim DOES kill his own sister with the misguided notion that he is doing something which Islam condones (and certainly, according to the above link, it happens in many but not all Muslim countries THOUSANDS of times in a year....

THEN...

3.) I ask you, is the killing of ones sister to be considered a greater sin that the sin of worshiping something other than the one true Creator/God


OR LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY..... suppose you had one son and one daughter... and, for the sake of argument, you were FORCED to choose only one of two fates for your son. You may choose that he makes the error of killing his sister as an honor killing, but he worships the one true creator/God all of his life... OR, the second choice, your son leaves Islam, and hence commits what you have called the greatest sin,... but he never kills his sister or anyone else, and leads a commendable (albeit non-Islamic) life.

WHICH DO YOU CHOOSE..

This sort of "what-if" scenario is a form of moral calculus which can sometimes help us to sort out our real values and feelings. Call this an "Islamic Sophie's Choice" if you will.

"1.) You claim that the GREATEST sin is to worship anything other than the one true God/creator

2.) I pose the question, SUPPOSE someone is Mulsim, has taken Shahad, prays 5 times a day, says the proper racas, etc etc. (and I dont think it is fair or honest to say that such a person is not a REAL Muslim should they do something horrible) .... and let us say that such a Muslim DOES kill his own sister with the misguided notion that he is doing something which Islam condones (and certainly, according to the above link, it happens in many but not all Muslim countries THOUSANDS of times in a year....

3.) I ask you, is the killing of ones sister to be considered a greater sin that the sin of worshiping something other than the one true Creator/God"

There is no greater sin than not worshiping the Creator, or worshiping someone/something else. Period. Everything else is secondary. If a person is worshiping the Creator, then he or she will NOT kill other innocent people. If they do, then they were not worshiping the Creator in the first place. That is how the argument goes, because one is the cause for the other. However, murder is one of the greatest sins in Islam, and Allah s.v.t says:
"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. " (surah Al-Maeda, verse 32)

Sitaram:
"OR LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY..... suppose you had one son and one daughter... and, for the sake of argument, you were FORCED to choose only one of two fates for your son. You may choose that he makes the error of killing his sister as an honor killing, but he worships the one true creator/God all of his life... OR, the second choice, your son leaves Islam, and hence commits what you have called the greatest sin,... but he never kills his sister or anyone else, and leads a commendable (albeit non-Islamic) life."

I don't really see the point of this at all. It is totally unrealistic and serves no purpose. First of all, I would never be given such a choice in real life, so it is rather pointless to worry about something like that. Allah s.v.t says:

"023.062 On no soul do We place a burden greater than it can bear: before Us is a record which clearly shows the truth: they will never be wronged. "

Also, the choice is a subjective matter, and therefore different people would make different choice, which doesn't prove which one is the right one. But, the ultimate truth and justice is only with Allah s.v.t, and if he didn't ask us to make such decisions, it is certainly for a reason. Therefore, I am thankful that Our God is a just God, and Merciful towards His creation. In Islam, there are no "what if" scenarios; they are left for philosophers to ponder about. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amra

There is no greater sin than not worshiping the Creator, or worshiping someone/something else. Period. Everything else is secondary. If a person is worshiping the Creator, then he or she will NOT kill other innocent people. If they do, then they were not worshiping the Creator in the first place. That is how the argument goes, because one is the cause for the other. However, murder is one of the greatest sins in Islam, and Allah s.v.t says:
"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. " (surah Al-Maeda, verse 32)

---

Hmm... interesting...

So, in your personal opinion, would you say that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, worshipping Allah?

You are setting up a kind of "Catch-22" situation, similar to the Christians who ask "are you SAVED?" It someone points out to such Christians one of their ministers who was caught in a terrible scandal of a sexual nature, then they will say "Oh, well, in HIS case, he was not REALLY saved."

Sitaram,

I refuse to discuss political issues here, since they are sort of not allowed, as my understanding is.

Thank you Amra you're correct they're not allowed here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amra

Sitaram,

I refuse to discuss political issues here, since they are sort of not allowed, as my understanding is.

---

My apologies. I withdraw the question (though it seemed to me more of a religious question than political), but nevertheless, I concede and withdraw it.

I realize I am raising a bit of a technicality, BUT , I must say, I would be utterly fascinated to hear an explantion of how bin Laden is a POLITICAL figure. If I were to mention a President, or Prime Minister or Governor or Mayor, or Royal Family, or an election, then I can easily see how that is political.

Now, bin Laden certainly is a controversial figure, and certainly plays some great role as the cause of military actions. But what startles me is the notion that, well ...., if people consider him a political figure, then they acknowledge that bin Laden is a leader of sorts, but a leader of whom, and by what authority? Yet, my understanding is that he is a private individual acting on his own, and without the approval or support of the government of his native land. You do, I hope, understand why I am a bit intrigued. I have no intentions of pursuing my line of questioning regarding Osama, or his status as a Muslim. And you are certainly free to leave my question unanswered regarding HOW he is a political figure. But I would be intrigued to hear your definition of what is political and how bin Laden fits into that forbidden topic category.

But, feel free to leave my question unanswered if answering it constitutes "politics." I shall not raise the question again.

It will be interesting to consider what each other religion ranks as "the greatest sin"

Here is a take on the Sikh religion:

http://srec.gurmat.info/srecarticles...sisdivine.html

A forgiving heart is a joyful and peaceful heart. One does not pick up fights against others, simply because they hold different views or even they are considered as sinners. Assuming of the Self Righteous Role is the Greatest Sin. He who assumes the Self Righteous Man's Role, is the Greatest Sinner - Aapas ko jo bhalla kahavai, tisai bhalahi nikat na avai (Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Rag Gauri, Sukhmani Sahib) - One sees a mole in another's eye, but is unaware of the beam in his own eye. No one is competent to take law in his own hands against any one. If any one had inflicted an injury to us and we were taken unaware and could not defend ourselves, subsequently we have no right to take law in our hands to avenge the wrong done to us. Taking of revenge by us would complicate the matter and would cause all-round unrest and series of chain re-actions. We are all God's creatures and He resides within every one alike and it is He Who motivates our actions. No actions by any one, Good or Evil, go unnoticed, unaccounted and unrewarded by God. He is Infinite, His Ways are Mysterious, the only Doer and Most Just, Kind and Compassionate. The correct approach should be that man should not worry about settling out his scores with others, but should worry about establishing his own relationship with his Creator, surely, all the problems will be justly solved by Him.

The greatest sin in Christianity:

The New Testament mentions a "sin against the Holy Spirit" which cannot be forgiven.

Ancient Greek theologians speculate on the nature of this "one unforgivable sin" as follows:

"There is no sin which cannot be repented of and forgiven. BUT, when you ascribe the the workings of God to Satan, and the work of Satan to God, then you shall never achieve forgiveness for the simple reason that you will go looking for forgiveness in the wrong place, where it does not exist."

Of course, this example of "the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit" is a very specific example.

In general, Christianity sees the greatest sin as steming from pride and disobediance. Satan is the brightest angel (Lucifer, bearer of light), but because of pride, Satan refuses to worship God, but instead desires that the other angels worship Satan (which is a created thing, as opposed to worshiping the creator.) Hence, for disobedience and pride, God casts Satan and all his follower angels out of heaven (which is 1/3 of all the angels).

The Zoroastrians are interesting. My understanding is that one of the greatest sin is to marry a non zoroastrian.

Camus stated: "Perhaps the greates sin of all is to hanker after some future life and ignore the implacable grandure of this life which we already have

The most ancient continuously practiced religion in the world today is the religion of the Australian Aborigines, which dates back 50,000 yrs. based on cave paintings.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...283155&s=books


Totem and Taboo; Some Points of Agreement Between the Mental Lives of Aboriginal Natives and Neurotics. (Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud) by Sigmund Freud, Peter Gay

In this work, Freud draws heavily on observations and theories of ethnology, emphasizing on studies of Australian aborigines and Frazer's work. He
draws a parellel with his personal observations from treatment of "neurotic" patients and claims to have found common patterns in these two classes of
subjects, which tend to explain certain social and psychological phenomena, as well as the "birth" of religion.

He focuses on the concepts of "Totem" and "Taboo".

While familiar with taboo (although our understanding of the term is narrower than Freud's), totem is remote to us. Certain aboriginal peoples were grouped in social groupings, centered on the cult of and belief of descent from a certain animal. So, you are the "Kangaroo tribe", we are the "Ostrich tribe" etc. The topic most interesting Freud, to which he devotes the first essay in the book, is "exogamy", i.e. marriage outside one's group. This practice of exogamy seems to be in contradiction to what is pursued by some ethnic groups in America (Jews and Greeks come to mind) i.e. "endogamy" - a push to have children marry within their parents' ethnic group. This practice of exogamy in Australian aborigines is attributed by Freud to fear of incest, with quite convincing arguments.

What is challenging is to concoct a theory that suggests totemism and exogamy are not orthogonal social institutions that just happenned to coexist, but intricately bound together. Freud accomplishes that through intricate reasoning that draws heavily on religion (in his 4th essay). His argumentation may seem far-fetched to many, but is plausible, although it is hard to get convinced that it is the single, or most probable, theory explaining the issue.

Freud makes the analogy that what primitive people are to ethnography, "neurotics" are to psychoanalysis and tries to map patterns from one domain to the other. Another goal is to establish the theory of totemism as the primordial religion from which all known religions and beliefs have spawned over time. The fact that Hinduists rever and never kill cows, seems to me (my example, not Freud's) to support this theory; Hinduists could be considered an outgrowth of a "Cow totem". Also, in modern Judeochristian societies, the totem, for intermarriage avoidance, has been replaced by the blood relatives group. Greek civil law for instance, forbids marrying blood relatives to the 4th degree and relatives through marriage to the 3th degree (i.e. after marriage your also become a member of your spouse's "totem" - for life).

His 2nd essay discusses the concept of taboo. He defines it as "a set of limitations that primitive people apply to themselves". He contends that people who do "taboo things" become taboo themselves (certainly prostitutes would fit that profile). In our modern society, one's car is taboo, such as one's tools and guns were in prehistory.

Deists may have a hard time with Freud, especially since he states "we know well that just like gods, demons too are figments of the human imagination".

Freud was an atheist and his train of thought is naturally and instictively atheistic, and this could be challenging for a deist.

Amazing is how some taboos of primitive times, remain alive, even in a degenerate form, in our times. For instance, just as primitives of New Guinea don't eat meat after killing an enemy (a taboo), modern Greek Orthodox people don't eat meat in the lunch following the funeral ceremony (only fish and veggies allowed). Also, the "dirtiness" taboo, where primitives were subjected to purification ceremonies, seems to be alive in the Eastern Orthodox sacrament of baptism where the to-be-christened baby is washed in the baptisery.

Female "uncleanliness" during menstruation is also taboo in the Eastern Church; women are never allowed in the santum (blood taboo). It is considered taboo in Greek to say that a woman is menstruating, whereas politeness calls to say that "she feels sick". Also, the death taboo is alive in an incomprehensible to me (but "self-evident" to them as Freud would say) avoidance by many to refer to cancer by its name, opting instead the expressions "the bad thing" or "the cursed disease".

Also, the taboo, Freud mentions, whereby the archpriest of Zeus in Rome, was forbidden to ride horses, seems to be alive, in that the heads of states rarely drive cars themselves, but are rather given a ride by their chauffers. Regarding king-priests, last time I checked the Queen of England was also the head of the Church of England...

The third essay (animism and magic) is also important. Interestingly, Freud considers animism as the only weltanschaung completely and comprehensively (albeit incorrectly) explaining world's nature. He does not believe that subsequent religious and scientific weltanschaungen have achieved this. The animism->religion->science progression of world views discussed is extremely important and core for understanding his work. I guess that were he alive and learned that 90% of Americans are religious (Source: Euronews) he would be rather skeptical of the "progress" of mankind...

In his fourth essay, he returns to totemism, reaching the culmination of this work, in an awe-inspiring scene, where the young brothers kill and devour their own father. This vivid scene of patricide, which he subsequently manages to mitigate, suggesting the possibility that it was perpetrated only in people's minds (temptation), he proclaims as the original sin of mankind, which young males throughout the millenia try to redeem.

This theory is highly controversial, albeit very interesting and thought-provoking. This scene is worth the whole book not only for its intensity,
but also for the dexterity with which Freud creatively combines and correlates findings from fields so diverse, such as psychiatry, psychology,
sociology, ethnology, religion, and philosophy, along with deep understanding of the human psyche, to reach a conclusion of such importance, and arguably impact, regarding who we are, and why we are doing things the way we are.