Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

History of Religion - Sufi viewpoint

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
For many years, Henry Bayman has been in close contact with the Sufi masters of Central Anatolia. Now, out of that heartland, he brings us a powerhouse of a book and a message of faith and hope, a message startlingly relevant to our times. He shows us how the teachings of Islamic Sufism, which constitute a body of knowledge that starts with accepted science and extends beyond it, are not only applicable to our modern and postmodern world, but how they offer a unique way out of the double binds we find ourselves in. This book will take pride of place on the bookshelf of anyone interested in spiritual growth, Sufism, Islam, and the problems that beset our world today
http://home.att.net/~nungan/sufiway/home.htm

http://home.att.net/~nungan/sufiway/07univ.htm

Prophets and Sacred Texts

To recapitulate. Throughout history, God has sent many prophets to deliver the good tidings of being human and worshiping God to humankind. Such have been the Prophets of Israel, culminating with Jesus. In addition, the Koran informs us that there have been prophets who are not named therein, and hence we must suspend judgment as to other prophets and religions; either they or their predecessors might have been true envoys or bearers of true revelations.

Until the arrival of Islam, all these revelations were culture- and society-specific, which accounts for the wide variations and even apparent discrepancies between religions. Not that the revelations themselves were divergent-all religions have taught basically the same things, up to and including Islam. But the fact that each religion was culture-bound meant that revelation had to be repeated every once in a while and in differing points of geography. Another reason for this repetition was that people tended to stray from the original true teachings with the passage of time. It was obvious that this state of affairs could not go on, and that a universal religion tailored to the needs of global humanity, capable of meeting its needs in every time and clime, would eventually be called for.

In each age, God has informed human beings of the ways in which they can worship Him and so improve themselves. To facilitate this, He has also made known His desires and commandments through sacred texts. But the law of entropy has also worked its effects on these texts, so they have not always been able to come down to us in the exact form they were revealed. In revealing a final religion, it was God's intention that this time, the revelation would remain immune to textual errors, obviating the need for yet another revelation. This has indeed proved the case-the earliest and the latest versions of the Koran are almost identical, except perhaps for a few typographical errors.

The study of the Koran as an absolute text-one dictated word for word by God Himself, rather than just conveying the general sense of His meaning-raises difficulties (but also, opportunities) not faced with elsewhere. The problem is not just one of language. One issue is the deceptive simplicity of the Koran, the most advanced of religious texts.

The Koran reveals many things that are implicit in earlier sacred texts, while things that have been explicitly mentioned in some of them are present only covertly in the Koran. This is because it is beneficial to humankind to expand on some points, whereas certain others are bound to be misunderstood. A revelatory statement must be able to withstand the test of truth at every level of existence. If a statement is true on, say, the mystical level but flagrantly contradictory on the mundane level, it is bound to mislead people and thus be a hindrance rather than a help.

In addition, the Koran has corrected accumulated communications errors and errors of transcription in earlier texts. It therefore combines all that is truthful and valuable in what preceded it. It also provides a yardstick against which the validity and truthfulness of other texts can be measured.

The Koran lays special emphasis on the Abrahamic and Mosaic prophets, and on Jesus. As such, it unites all earlier prophets, true religions and revelations. It is a lamentable fact, for instance, that the original Gospel of Jesus has not survived, simply because it was never committed to writing. The four canonical-as well as the many apocryphal-Gospels that have come down to us were all written or dictated by others, not by Jesus. But this should give no cause for despair, because the essence of Jesus' Gospel-as well as of texts belonging to the other prophets-has been preserved intact in the Koran, as close scrutiny will reveal.

In addition, the famous Oral Tradition of the Sufis has preserved surpassing wisdom implicit, but not overtly articulated, in the Koran and its counterpart, the Traditions (sayings) of the Prophet. Most of us know, for example, that Moses smashed the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written into hundreds of smithereens. But how many of us know that this prefigures subsequent Jewish Law with its 613 precepts?

God originally revealed one law to Moses. When this did not suffice, Moses was given the tablets of the Ten Commandments. When Moses came back from Mount Sinai and saw his people worshipping the golden calf, he realized that the Ten Commandments, too, would not be enough. Whereupon God said: "If they cannot run, let them walk," and it was then that the greatly elaborated Mosaic code began to be revealed. The Sufic Oral Tradition not only sheds unexpected light on such events, it is also eminently rational and logical.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the essence of Jesus' Gospel-as well as of texts belonging to the other prophets-has been preserved intact in the Koran

    Maybe you should write to all the Islamic fundamentalists and ask them to stop their Jihads, then, since they're fighting against their brothers in gospel.

    Aisha, dear, I don't think people want to read this. You come here and post, then if or when it becomes a topic, you've cleared off and aren't prepared to debate the views contained within it. One could indeed suggest that they are not your own, and therefore, you really are just copying and pasting for no good purpose.

    I don't know what anyone else thinks, so sing out if I'm out of line.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You've cleared off?

    What you mean by that. I replied to the Cutting your hand off post and only morrocan roll replied. No-one replied to the post of mine on Validity of the Bible.

    However, in hindsight that post was a little large and there's too many points raised. I don't have that much time (only visit here on weekends) so I may delete it.

    Someone did ask about the penalty for adultery in the cutting your hand thread.

    I must remind you in true Islamic Law you need either confession from the person commiting the crime or 4 eyewitnesses who have seen the act of penetration. It was very rare at the Prophet time to have such a penalty occurring and even today with those conditions it is rare.

    Islamic Law is different from Western Law. 100% proof of the crime is required and not "beyond reasonable doubt".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You didn't address a single one of my points. Not even vaguely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is evident

    the post above was not mine, I thought the article was quite good.

    If you have the address of OBL, please forward it. I'll type up a letter. Happy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: You've cleared off?
    Originally posted by Aisha
    Someone did ask about the penalty for adultery in the cutting your hand thread.

    I must remind you in true Islamic Law you need either confession from the person commiting the crime or 4 eyewitnesses who have seen the act of penetration. It was very rare at the Prophet time to have such a penalty occurring and even today with those conditions it is rare.

    Islamic Law is different from Western Law. 100% proof of the crime is required and not "beyond reasonable doubt".

    for example in that recent case where a woman was going to get stoned to death, it was because her having a child out of wedlock was proof of her adultery, whereas the father wouldnt have got done at all since there would never have been 4 witnesses to the act of penetration. Its a very anti women law really, I guess if a woman was raped she would be convicted of adultery if she got pregnant, but there would be no way of convicting a rapist unless he did it in front of 4 other people.

    Aisha what do you think of that particular law?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: It is evident
    Originally posted by Aisha
    the post above was not mine, I thought the article was quite good.

    It wasn't evident. Not to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rainbow brite

    Obviously it is unjust to the woman if she is able to be proven guilty and the man can simply deny it (mind you, with DNA testing that may not be so easy for him, but then who has the money for DNA testing). Only though the Maliki school allows this, the others need 4 witnesses as the Qur'an indicates.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul2.htm

    There are multiple forms of Sharia laws. For example, the Maliki Law School accepts evidence of pregnancy as proof that an unmarried woman has either committed adultery or been raped. "The other schools, namely Shafii, Hanbali, Hanafi and even the Shia do not recognize evidence of pregnancy as proof of Zina [Adultery]."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does anyone get these posts at all? There were tons of them in sex a while back. There just seems to be a copy and pasted article every time, and then when a point is raised we get a response that has no relevance to the question, just about how Islam is so superior to the West. Give it a rest! Nothing is superior to anything, because it is merely our opinions. Sheesh!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by DJP
    Maybe you should write to all the Islamic fundamentalists and ask them to stop their Jihads, then, since they're fighting against their brothers in gospel.
    I don't know much about Islam but I do know that Jihad does not mean just war. Jihad means struggle in Islam and for most Muslims Jihad means a personal struggle against sin. Jihad has often been called the sixth pillar of Islam and it is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Muslim religon.

    Islam lays down special rules for any war the first being that war is only permitted as a defensive measure and that non combatants who are not directly involved in the fighting are not to be harmed. Islam in no way permits any acts of random violence such as terrorism. This Islamic website explains more on the subject.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Citizen_Bertie

    it wasn't my fault Teagan and Clandestine started going on about this and that in Islam. I then had to reply

    Harlequin: Thanks for your very accurate and correct answer. 9/11 was the exact opposite of what you say and thus very un-Islamic.

    Restrictions begin with an obligation to prevent an assault by asking the intruder (even in one's home) to lay their weapon down, in an attempt to resolve the problem in a non-violent way. In the middle of battle, the Muslim is obligated to do everything possible to stop the battle and to stop violence and bloodshed if the opposition stops fighting. 1400 years before the Geneva Convention, Islam required Muslims not to touch women and children and other innocents and to treat prisoners of war with respect and dignity. Islam views war as evil, but an evil that should only be used to overcome a greater evil and to protect oneself.

    Hamza Yusuf, American Muslim leader:

    Religious zealots of any creed are defeated people who lash out in desperation, and they often do horrific things. And if these people [who committed murder on September 11] indeed are Arabs, Muslims, they're obviously very sick people and I can't even look at it in religious terms. It's politics, tragic politics.

    "There's no Islamic justification for any of it. ... You can't kill innocent people. There's no Islamic declaration of war against the United States. I think every Muslim country except Afghanistan has an embassy in this country. And in Islam, a country where you have embassies is not considered a belligerent country. In Islam, the only wars that are permitted are between armies and they should engage on battlefields and engage nobly.

    The Prophet Muhammad said, ``Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people,'' and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. And he said, ``Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies.'' The Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, say that no one can punish with fire except the Lord of fire. It's prohibited to burn anyone in Islam as a punishment. No one can grant these attackers any legitimacy. It was evil.
Sign In or Register to comment.