Hello - Islam
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:13 am
Subject: hello - Islam
Dear new and old friends,
Someone, I expect it was Uncle Taz's nephew,
sent me an invitation to join this conversation list yesterday.
So I did, and I thought I would now introduce myself, and make
a few comments. I've read the first 100 e-mails in the archive,
and didn't want to pass by those struggles to understand the
world, without adding from my own experience and thinking.
As a side note, the movie Charlie was not
based upon something written by Ray Bradbury, but upon a short
novel called Flowers for Algernon (Algernon being the mouse that
was experimented on before the human being was), which was written
(I had to Google this) by one Daniel Keyes [ http://www.danielkeyesauthor.com/algernon.html
].
That minor point aside, I'd now like to add
some comments to the conversation about Islam.
In my thinking, I try to distinguish a religion,
whether Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, whatever, from the life
and biography into which an incarnating spirit has entered. We
are, on the Earth, star-children, each and every one of us. We've
come from our star, and entered into life accepting our Karma
(ordained and agreed to suffering as recompense for past and
future deeds), Fate (those new trials that come given that each
biography is always an ongoing shared creation - it would be
empty were others not part of it) and Destiny (that which we
ourselves can make into Art out of our life, and which is neither
Karma or Fate, but our own individual invention).
In order to experience this threefold life
pattern and potential, we choose at the Midnight Hour, in the
company of Higher Beings, to live out our biography within a
particular time, culture, language, religion, and related and
necessary companions (family, friends and enemies - these last
are crucial for they are often our greatest teachers). What this
means is that Islam is no more crucial to the biographies of
those who have chosen to incarnate within its influence than
was/is traditional Catholicism or Hinduism.
It is context, but not essence.
Moreover, in our time, in the Age of the Consciousness
Soul, it is precisely the dead and dying aspects of these religious
traditions which the individual star-child is meant to encounter
and struggle with in order to have the possibility of finding
personal spiritual freedom. These cultural contexts exist precisely
and only for the purpose of providing us with a certain tension,
which our developing I-am needs to meet and grow within.
So as regards to Islam, there are two aspects
to it. One is tradition, and found in the Koran and other teachings.
The other is what the individual star-child does with it, out
of their own humanity, and which we can only know through personal
meetings with such individuals. Our imagination cannot supply
us with knowledge of the second, or lived Islam, which individuals
manifest, any more than our imagination can supply us with knowledge
of how an individual and particular Catholic chooses to live
out their humanity in the context of that tradition.
The fact is that Christ has given to all egos,
all star-children, the same nature in the I-am. When we meet
the Thou, in whatever circumstances or context, we meet that
about which Christ said: "Whatsoever ye do to the least
of these my brethren, you also do to me."
warm regards,
joel
for those who may be new to me
Shapes in the Fire: http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/index.html
Outlaw Anthroposophy: http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/otlwa.html
some thoughts on the nature of public life and an offer of service:
http://ipwebdev.com/campaign
Celebration and Theater - a People's Art of Statecraft:
http://ipwebdev.com/celebration
....................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] hello - Islam
At 14:13 27.11.2003, Joel wrote:
As a side note, the movie Charlie was not
based upon something written by Ray Bradbury, but upon a short
novel called Flowers for Algernon (Algernon being the mouse that
was experimented on before the human being was), which was written
(I had to Google this) by one Daniel Keyes [ http://www.danielkeyesauthor.com/algernon.html
].
Thank you for the correction and clarification.
My error.
In my thinking, I try to distinguish a
religion, whether Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, whatever, from
the life and biography into which an incarnating spirit has entered.
My sentiment exactly. In an earlier message
I wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/22
".....the distinction needs to be made
between a religion like that and its individual followers."
".....remember the Good Samaritan, who
today would translate into the Good Muslim."
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
....................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: hello - Islam
Hey Tarjei and Joel,
I wanted to share a few quotes from the Qu'ran
that I find relative to this discussion.
"Abraham in truth was
not a Jew, neither a Christian; but one who surrendered himself
(muslim) and one of pure faith (hanif); certainly he was never
of the idolators. Surely the people standing closest to Abraham
are those who followed him, and this prophet, and those who believe;
and God is the Protector of the believers."
"Say you: 'We believe
in God, and in that which has been sent down on us and sent down
on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, and that
which was given to Moses and Jesus and the Prophets, of their
Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we
surrender.'
It seems to me that this muslim is actually
the act of surrendering one self. And there are three more steps
within this whole search for God.(I showed this earlier in a
post about the Treatise of the Heart by and early Sufi writer)
Even the word jihad comes from 'struggle' and is directly tied
to the struggle within, against ones lower self. Ms. Armstrong
notes that there are many other words that could have been used
to denote war and such and they were not used in the instances
where Jihad was if what they were looking for was a war.
I have not found anything to suggest, in this
book I am reading, that Muhammed was a camel stealer and so forth.
I asked my Christian friend from Lebanon about Muhammed being
a camel stealer and she looked at me like I was crazy and then
she laughed so hard. I felt a wee bit silly and just tried to
explain some of the things I had been hearing lately and actually
before as well. I told my friend Markram that I had heard Muhammed
had stolen camels and he asked me for other things I had heard.
He seemed a bit shocked to say the least.
Markam used to ask me to search the bible
for he was sure there was a reference to Muhammed in the NT.
I told him I had searched and asked others but no where was this
acknowledged. I actually found out in this book i am reading,
that there indeed was a tradition in the early days of Islam
that mentions an Ahmet in the Syriac bible which was around that
area at the time. I wonder if anyone else knows about this particular
reference.
What I find very interesting while reading
this book is an idea long ago brought up by another list regarding
the shadow. Can it be that we indeed have made a reputation that
these people are now beholden to. And instead of fighting themselves
to surrender they have to continually fight this shadow self
concept. For truly the majority of Muslims do not hate Christians.
They do not like that we involve ourselves in their Prophet,
to the extent we have since the beginning it seems, but they
do not hate us.
And also I think if we took the Gandhi approach
with a group like this, and not to change their religion but
to inspire them to the highest idea within theirs, we would have
a better world. And we would be loved greatly by God:) I don't
find them to be blindly following and any more non thinking than
the rest of the God fearing people on this planet. When these
terrorists choose to fly a plane into the tower they are only
following those like minded terrorists and not Islam. They are
a small lot affecting the whole world including their own people
who disagree with these methods. One thing that may turn against
them is the killing of innocent muslims whether intentioned or
not. This is the one thing that truly has a capactiy to bring
the wrath of good Muslims upon their heads.
What does anyone think about the concept that
being a muslim is actually meant for anyone who surrenders to
God and is the first step to self realization?
Dottie
....................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 8:27 pm
Subject: Re: hello - Islam
Dottie wrote:
I have not found anything to suggest, in this book I am reading,
that Muhammed was a camel stealer and so forth.
Me again,
Yes, I have found references towards Muhammed
being a part of caravans that stole camels, goods, women and
so forth. And in looking at this it seems that this is part of
the makeup of these people at the time and even appears in the
OT as well with the Jews. It seems to be part and parcel of how
things happened in the Arabian territories. Yet, it almost feels
like the whole Robinhood dilema of stealing from the rich to
feed their own poor: they had been kicked out of their town and
almost starved to death so the story is told by Karen Armstrong.
I am struck as well by the story of how the
veil came to take place. It seems it was an honor that would
allow Muhammeds wives to show their queenliness:) due to Muhammeds
growing popularity. It also served as a protection of sorts for
them from the possibility of any scandal that might have been
brought on Muhammeds family regarding his wives and other men.
In later years, other women wanted to show their queenliness
as well and decided to take on the veil as a show of respect
for themselves and how they wished to be treated.
I wish to bring a few suras once I can get
my hands on the Qu'ran that has a good interpretation. There
are references regarding womens rights, that were not even honored
in our country until the 19th century, that were alotted to these
women of the desert. He seems indeed to have been quite honoring
of women for a man of his time. Many of the marriages seem to
be a political brokering of sorts that allowed some further protection
from the groups wanting to annihilate him for the new religion
and so forth.
All in all I do not know how anyone can judge
this Prophet's story, taking moral high ground, when ours began
in a very similar manner. And we obviously were much more educated
than they or at least the story goes.
Does Steiner ever speak of another incarnation
of this Muhammed?
All good things,
dottie
....................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 2:30 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
At 05:27 28.11.2003, Dottie wrote:
All in all I do not know how anyone can
judge this Prophet's story, taking moral high ground, when ours
began in a very similar manner.
As a matter of fact, Norway was Christianized
a millennium ago by king "Holy Olav." His method was
to cut the heads off unbelievers, just like Mohammed. It was
quite effective. But there is no need to criticize Holy Olav
because Christians today don't look up to him as a prophet and
try to emulate him. By the same token, the criticism is not against
Mohammed and his blood-stained biography. It's a concern about
so many people regarding this barbarian historical figure as
a role model, still cutting off people's heads and limbs in public
squares.
RS said somewhere that we're making a mistake
if we compare religions with the sole purpose of finding out
what they have in common, how similar they may be. It is much
more important to discover how they differ, to distinguish between
them. Buddha and Christ didn't run around killing people. On
the contrary, they both sought to relieve suffering and offer
a way out of it.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
....................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:02 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
Tarjei wrote:
His method was to cut the heads off unbelievers, just like
Mohammed.
Dear Tarjei,
I would like some more time to look at this
subject before responding any further. In the book I am reading
I have found no instance where Muhmmed cut off heads because
people didn't believe. I have found however that he did not convert
others forcibly and it is actually in the Qu'ran that this is
not to be done. Ms. Armstrong does say that a few hundred years
after Muhammeds death his one sect of his believers did indeed
bring forced conversions but at some point this disappeared as
well.
Tarjei
By the same token, the criticism is not against Mohammed and
his blood-stained biography.
Dottie
Well, it seems to me that it is against his
biography if it happens to not be true. Scientologists claim
that Jesus was a perverter of little boys. And they can point
to the current 'outing' scandal of this issue with the many coverups
of molestations and rapes happening in their very churches to
show their claim to be true. We obviously realize this is not
true however they are giving Jesus a reputation according to
his followers.
I am so happy you brought this stream of Islam
to the group. It's actually the first time, and I have wanted
to for a while, that I am actually creating time to read on him.
My muslim friends have been encouraging me a while to take a
look at their Prophet but I didn't and so now I shall look to
see what is going on. Do you have a specific book you can recommed
that speaks to the way your understanding that you consider credible?
The only head cutting or dismembering I have
found in Muhammeds fight, before his death, is when he was determined
to not be pushed out by the Qyaarsh who were a pagan following
group. They despised Muhammed even though he came from the same
area. They did not want to give up the Goddess and move to a
one God system. There were quite a few attempts on his life and
he wasn't safe really anywhere with certain groups teaming up
with the Jews to take him out. It is not a pretty time of Islam
however it does pretty much seem spirit inspired. After the initial
war for a singular God it seems Muhammed led them to a place
of peace. In their Qu'ran they are told that if the enemy makes
a concession they are to take it no matter what it is. That peace
is better than war. He felt that physical war was the little
jihad and fighting ones self was the greater Jihad.
Gabriel seems to be the Angel in which Muhammed
was in contact.
All in all, I sense something very different
than you. I am not trying to find what is common at this point
although there is much. I am trying to point out the similarities
in which many of the great religions began well at least the
three connected to Abraham.
One difference being however is that Muhammed
does not seem to have a great personal bio, or it has not be
noted upon, with a great spiritual being inhabiting his body.
He was dependant on his faith and what he believed the messages
of God were telling him. He was not as blessed as Jesus nor that
of the Buddha. He seems to be a man who wrought out of nothing
to bring his all to God and his all to the people. And his primary
concern was for the orphans and the widows. He felt that one
of the tribe should marry these left behind groups so as to insure
them a good life. And that God would store treasures for the
good behaviour for this. I find him to be a good man of God who
did the best he could to bring a people together under one God
which allowed them to move forward with the rest of the middle
eastern world. I find him to be a man riding the dragon.
But after all this is said and done I feel
the need to read more of this man to have a better understanding
for the future.
Tarjei
It's a concern about so many people regarding this barbarian
historical figure as a role model, still cutting off people's
heads and limbs in public squares.
Dottie
What books on Muhammed have you read that
show him to be a barbarian or maybe what websites?
Tarjei
Buddha and Christ didn't run around killing people. On the
contrary, they both sought to relieve suffering and offer a way
out of it.
Dottie
Muhammed sought to find a way out of the killing
and suffering as well and he did. He led his people, as the Jews
and Christians did, to one God. The main difference that I have
noted earlier is the idea that this Muhammed had no great spiritual
being inhabit his body he was totally guided by his heartmind
connected to the Cosmos. He seemed to be heading towards the
I AM.
Thanks for sticking with me during this discussion.
I feel the need to go deeper than what others have said and told
us about this Prophet in the same way I have felt about searching
for the Mother.
All my best,
Dottie
....................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 10:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
At 15:02 28.11.2003, Dottie wrote:
In the book I am reading I have found no
instance where Muhmmed cut off heads because people didn't believe.
I have found however that he did not convert others forcibly
and it is actually in the Qu'ran that this is not to be done.
Ms. Armstrong does say that a few hundred years after Muhammeds
death his one sect of his believers did indeed bring forced conversions
but at some point this disappeared as well.
It seems like I'm picking up conflicting info
about Mohammed's biography, so you may be right; there are plenty
of articles supporting you here, e.g. "Mohammed The Prophet"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/lifeofprophet.html
Like I said, my perceptions may be biased
and ignorant. I'm still learning.
<snip>
Gabriel seems to be the Angel in which
Muhammed was in contact.
Corroborated by RS too, as far as I remember.
<snip>
What books on Muhammed have you read that
show him to be a barbarian or maybe what websites?
I do have a book by Idries Shah entitled "The
Way of the Sufi," but I haven't gotten very far, because
it is bewildering in the sense that Mohammed and the Qu'ran are
sidestepped when the Sufis themselves claim that their knowledge
has existed for thousands of years: An equivalence of the Hermetic,
Pythagorean and Platonic streams.
The way of the Sufi, therefore, is not the
way of Islam:
http://www.yelwan.com/islam/shahada49.asp
"....there is no need
of a Prophet after Prophet Muhammad, for the Message, i.e., the
Holy Quran (that he has brought for the whole world) is the final
and the completest Code of Religion, and is and will be preserved
for all time absolutely intact in its original form; besides
the authentic record of the Prophet's eventful life covering
all human activities is also extant, and will always remain as
a Model for mankind. Hence no Prophet either with code and commandments,
or without, is required after him, and therefore the Holy Quran
says that Prophet Muhammad is the last and the Seal of all Prophets."
Here is an interesting set of rules from a
bona fide Muslim website:
http://www.yelwan.com/islam/shahada55.asp
Can you name some of the
acts that are major sins and are liable for severe punishment
?
Yes. Some of the acts that
are major sins are liable for severe punishment are :
1. To believe in anyone as
partner of Allah.
2. To disbelieve in Allah or His Prophets or His Books or to
deny any of the Fundamental Principles of Islam.
3. To lie
4. To commit adultery or sodomy
5. To rob or steal
6. To cheat or deceive anyone
7. To bear false witness
8. To bring false charge against anyone.
9. To backbite
10. To abuse anybody or injure anyone's feelings.
This is why the Mujaddid of the Age (Hazrat
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Sahib of Qadian) found it necessary to include
in his oath of allegiance the condition: "I shall put religion
above the world." His aim was to instil in the lives of
Muslims a practical manifestation of their faith in Allah.
Islam: A false religion that was invented
by illiterate individual who was a pedophile rapist, a robber,
a mass murderer, and who made Charlie Manson look like a nice
guy in comparison. The so-called prophet Mohammed was for all
practical purposes was an Enemy of Mankind in General..
"Mohammed (aka: Muhammad) - Terrorist
or Prophet?" (Christian-Jewish site)
http://feistymama.com/bp/mohammed.htm
http://www.allahjones.org/pro_mo.htm
"The Truth About Islam"
http://www.pagerealm.com/celinet/
And here is a little special quote from the
Quran:
Quran 4:34: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has
made some of them to excel others and because they spend out
of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding
the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part
you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their
sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not
seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Plus a few choice pieces from Islam Review
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/issuesoflife.shtml
Islam teaches that women are less than equal
to men in at least two major areas:
First, in inheritance: A woman's share is
half that of a man.
"To the male a portion
equal to that of two females..."
Surah 4:11
Second, in court witness: The witness of two
women equals the witness of one man.
"And get two witnesses
out of your own men, and if there are not two men,
then a man and two women such as ye choose, for witness..."
Surah 2:282
Islam teaches that a wife is subject to punishment
by her husband. As a punishment, beating a wife or abstaining
from sexual relations with her is allowed.
"...As to those women
on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct,
Admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them,..."
Surah 4:34
"For those who take an
oath for abstention from their wives, a waiting for four months
is ordained; if they return, God is oft-forgiving, most merciful."
Surah 2:226
Islam teaches that any person who accepts
Islam and then later turns away from it will be subject to death.
"But if they violate
their oath after their covenant, and taunt you for your faith,
fight ye the chiefs of unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to
them." Surah 9:12 (See also Surah
4:89)
Resisting Islam: punished by death, crucifixion
or the cutting off of the hands and feet.
"The punishment of those
who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might
and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion,
or the cutting off of the hands and feet from opposite sides
or exile from the land..." Surah
5:33
Adultery and Fornication: punished by public
flogging for the unmarried person. For the married, the punishment
is stoning.
"The woman and the man
guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred
stripes; let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter
prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day;
and let a party of the believers witness their punishment."
Surah 24:2
Stealing: punished by amputation of the hands.
"As to the thief, male
or female, cut off his or her hands: A punishment, by way of
example, from Allah for their crime: and Allah is exalted in
power." Surah 5:38
Drinking: punished by 40 to 80 lashes according
to the Hadith (Mohammed's sayings). - See Sahih al-Bukhari vol.
8:770
Islam forbids wine.
"O ye who believe! Intoxicants
and gambling, stones and arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's
handiwork: Eschew such that you may prosper." Surah 5:90
Ironically, the faithful are promised "rivers
of wine" in Paradise.
"The garden which the
righteous are promised...in it are rivers of wine, a joy to those
who drink..." Surah 47:15
"...truly the righteous
will be in bliss,,, their thirst will be slaked with pure wine
sealed." Surah 83:22, 25
Muhammed sought to find a way out of the
killing and suffering as well and he did. He led his people,
as the Jews and Christians did, to one God.
We've already been through this monotheism
bit, but even as such, the "one God" we're talking
about there is not identical with the God described by RS, who
was previously quoted:
"The all-encompassing
attribute of the Godhead is not omnipotence, neither is it omniscience,
but it is love - the attribute in respect of which no enhancement
is possible. God is uttermost love, unalloyed love, is born as
it were out of love, is the very substance and essence of love.
God is pure love, not supreme wisdom, not supreme might." - http://www.uncletaz.com/lovemeaning.html
I'm sorry I had to snip some interesting parts
of your text to make my response relatively brief. If I get the
time, I'll get back to those snipped parts.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
....................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 7:42 pm
Subject: Re: hello - Islam
Tarjei wrote:
We've already been through this monotheism bit, but even as
such, the "one God" we're talking about there is not
identical with the God described by RS, who was previously quoted:
Hey Dear Tarjei,
I'm going to the Imam; in a veil:) The great
thing about this internet communication reality is that we get
to interact and be inspired to look at things we may not have
naturally.
I read your quotes to my friend Markram and
he agreed these were things said. He says how there are also
many words that speak to the opposite of what these specific
quotes are saying. Contradictions all over the place and his
particular group looks to those particular quotes for understanding
while fundies tend to ignore these aspects and go with the most
outrageous of understandings.
The greatest thing is that I get to go to
the Imam and we are going to ask about these particular questions
and quotes you have supplied.
As a gnostic minded christian I will say I
as well go along with the idea that the OT speaks to a tyrant
god similar to the god of the muslims. AND this tyrant god is
the foundation of Christianity. So, the question is if the OT
god is the same Islam god? I believe they are. I also had to
come to an understanding, which was really hard for me, for I
was convinced that the God we were calling Father God was a false
Father, was really the one and same Father God of the NT: it
was the Son that was the new salvation and inspiration for the
Father to not be so mean minded. So, here I am with Islam looking
at the same questions as arose for me when I argued this point
on the Ark. How could God say, 'kill all those people, leave
no women men or children alive' and so forth, was what kept me
from reading the OT my whole life till just two years ago. How
do we reconcile these things?
So, here you are calling this a different
God and I have to disagree. But anyway we shall look inside and
see what is going on. I will tell you that since my reading of
this Muhammed book I feel a 'pull' of sorts to look to God more
often that I usually do. I mean my heart is in a state of prayer
most of the time but this 'pull' I am experiencing is a definite
'feeling' towards prayer.
All my best,
Dottie
....................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 3:24 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
At 04:42 30.11.2003, Dottie wrote:
As a gnostic minded christian I will say
I as well go along with the idea that the OT speaks to a tyrant
god similar to the god of the muslims. AND this tyrant god is
the foundation of Christianity. So, the question is if the OT
god is the same Islam god?
That does not make sense to me, because the
god of the Muslims denies the divinity of the Christ, "God's
only begotten Son." Jesus is depicted as a great prophet
just like all other wise and great men and prophets, but the
idea that Allah should have a son is blasphemous according to
Muslims. For that reason, I don't see how Yahve, who promises
the coming of Christ in the OT, can possibly be the same god
as Allah.
Whether we think of these two gods in the
classical mythological sense as flawed, superhuman characters,
or in the psychological-philosophical sense as pure concepts,
they remain strikingly dissimilar.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
....................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
Hello Dottie, Tarjei and Everyone!
Dottie, Steiner makes a tremendous distinction
between "God" of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham
and Issac and Jacob and "God the Father". "God"
as revealed in the Old Testament is Yahweh,
or Jehovah, one of the Seven Main Exusiai (Spirits of Form) that
live in the Sun Sphere. Whereas six of the seven are Exusiai
AND Spirits of the Sun, Jehovah was an Exusiai but a Spirit of
the Moon. His special task was as "God" of the Hebrew
nation/race whose task was to specially prepare the physical
body that would be able to withstand and support the reality
of the Christ Being's Incarnation for the three years between
Baptism and Crucifixtion. The Buddha stream prepared and "donated"
(my terminology) the Etheric Body of the Nathan Child within
that Physical Body of the Hebrews. Moses/ Hermes out of the Egyptian
stream "donated" the Astral Body which was first with
the Solomon Child and carried over when the Ego of Jesus (ie
Zarathustra) entered the Nathan Child (which carried the Adam
Kadmon as well). And the Zarathustra Ego carried the stream from
the Persian mysteries with which to work on the body from 12
to 30 to complete the preparation for the Incarnation.
Yaweh or Jehovah, being a Spirit of Form,
yet a Moon Exusiai had everything to do with bloodline and heredity,
which is part of the story of Cain and Abel and why the gift
of the shepherd (Abel) was acceptable while the gift of the farmer
(Cain) was not. He was never "God the Father". Maybe
one could say he was "the God of the Fathers" in a
sense - Abraham, etc.. In relating themselves to Abraham through
Ishmael, his first son, those of the Mohammedan stream are really
relating themselves to "the God of the Fathers" not
"God the Father." I don't really know WHO Allah is,
but what I have read so far leans me toward Jehovah or some such
Spiritual Being. After all, Steiner says that if a person sees
an Angel, he or she is going to think it is "GOD" for
lack of understanding of the hierarchies and who they are.
PLEASE don't take this the wrong way - with
what I am about to say, I really don't mean to criticize in any
way. You told me that you have been reading Steiner for years
and I am sure that you have. But you might want to take some
time with his lectures on the Gospels and really sort out some
of his work on the whole incarnation and OT/ NT transition. I
really feel in some of your questions and responses that you
are "mixing" up some basic ideas and that some of the
confusion that is arising in trying to make sense of things like
the relationship of Christianity to Islam starts with mixing
up some concepts in Steiner's Christology.
Have you had any contact, written or in person
with the Christian Community. Many Christian Community priests
have written very beautiful and clear descriptions of this Christology
and what is really a new way of reading the Gospels and understanding
both the Old and New Testaments.
Well, there is so much to explore in Steiner's
work, I think maybe we all need to be Initiates just to be able
to figure out where to begin!
: ) Christine
....................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 10:24 pm
Subject: Re: hello - Islam
Christine
PLEASE don't take this the wrong way - with what I am about
to say, I really don't mean to criticize in any way. You told
me that you have been reading Steiner for years and I am sure
that you have. But you might want to take some time with his
lectures on the Gospels and really sort out some of his work
on the whole incarnation and OT/ NT transition.
Hi Christine,
I do not take it as an insult because I know
one is not intended. And I also know that some things I was not
able to 'think' on, while first reading Steiners books, I can
now. My spirit grasped onto certain aspects that I felt we could
make my own out of my own personal experiences.
It's funny because I just wrote Tarjei about
the idea of the OT god being the same god as the Muslim god.
And here you touch on that for a second. AND for me as always
I see a oneness in all things, and in all that would be, at the
End. Almost like two sides of one coin in a sense. I find alot
of transformation from one to the other with the end being One.
Christine
I really feel in some of your questions and responses that
you are "mixing" up some basic ideas and that some
of the confusion that is arising in trying to make sense of things
like the relationship of Christianity to Islam starts with mixing
up some concepts in Steiner's Christology.
Dottie
Well, I am not trying to make sense of Christianity
and Islam to one another. I sense Sophia in there and feel there
is a real 'human' relationship to this Muhammed through it. In
my mind we are all One. Even if we do not see it now. And I think
we return to that Oneness once we find the I AM. I believe once
we find our I AM we come WE ARE.
Unfortunately you may have to explain what
concepts you think I am mixing up because I am not aware I am
using any Steiner concepts to express my thoughts on Islam. I
am using Christ concepts. And these are concepts I made my own
and my prism is through this.
Christine
Have you had any contact, written or in person with the Christian
Community. Many Christian Community priests have written very
beautiful and clear descriptions of this Christology and what
is really a new way of reading the Gospels and understanding
both the Old and New Testaments.
Dottie:
Again, I read the bible differently before
Steiner ever came into the picture. These questions were posed
from childhood just about. I just did not know others felt the
same way. I use Steiner as a jumping point in a sense and then
I find myself in a whole stream of spiritual understandings.
I get confused sometimes when I hear people say, oh well such
and such and such and such, as facts, when it may not be what
they 'got' for themselves, rather it is what Steiner said that
felt self evident. And I can hear what he is saying but if I
don't find it on my own it is not mine, even to the littlest
thing. My beginning and end point is not Steiner its Christ.
I guess what I am trying to say...is that I get an intuitive
feeling about something and then I feel led to something, me
being the guide to my self, that shows me what I was intuitively
feeling before I even knew what it was. Mostly it is a confirmation
of this 'thought/feeling and then I see others speaking of it
although I did not get it mentally in the same way they did.
And then I know it is mine. And usually it is Steiners work that
confirms for me, on an outer level, what I had found and it never
ceases to astound me.
Christine
Well, there is so much to explore in Steiner's work, I think
maybe we all need to be Initiates just to be able to figure out
where to begin!
Dottie
Well I think we are initiates. That is the
path I am committed to and that seems to be a Michaelic path
to me. An initiate is not the end result to me, rather it is
the journey that becomes the initiate.
And I like that you point these things out
to me. I trust you. And I am committed to understanding.
Love,
Dottie
p.s. You spoke of this Christian community
before and Steiners comments to them. I am wondering if you can
tell me where I can view these lectures or talks?
....................................................................................................................................
From: Richard
Distasi
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:01 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
Christine wrote:
Yaweh or Jehovah, being a Spirit of Form, yet a Moon Exusiai
had everything to do with bloodline and heredity, which is part
of the story of Cain and Abel and why the gift of the shepherd
(Abel) was acceptable while the gift of the farmer (Cain) was
not. He was never "God the Father"."
Steiner made mention that Jehovah was called the "Father"
not because he is God the Father as you point out but because
when we descend back to earth for each incarnation we pass through
the elliptical sphere of the moon; the sphere of Jehovah. He
gives us physical form, the forces that build our physical/mineral
bodies and is perceived in a sense as our Father.
rick distasi
....................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:32 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
I found some interesting articles comparing
Allah to Jehova. They were written anonymously by someone calling
themselves "Fatima" and posted on a weblog at http://www.secularislam.net.
The first essay she posted on March 4th, 2003, "The Distance
of Allah from His Creatures". This was followed on June
2nd, 2003 by "Bible vs. Qur'an: Part 1 Abraham Bargains
with God". While I can take no stance on the subject (I
really lack the expertice) I found them quite interesting, and
perhaps relavant to our discussion. I also found interesting
the fact that the arguements are supported with extensive quotes
from the source documents. Our discussion of Islam here so far
has mostly been characterized by generous generalizations drawn
from the somewhat superficial overviews of the subject. In this
there is always the danger that we impose too much of our own
culture and attitudes to the subject, perhaps working out of
a desire to be "fair" to the subject. Were this to
happen, then the irony would be that we would be guilty of ethnocentrism,
imposing our values on Moslem culture, rather than letting it
speak for itself. Against the quotes from the Qur'an and the
Bible below, the similarities and differences between Allah and
Jehova will hopefully become clear.
Daniel Hindes
The Distance of Allah from His Creatures
The last post about free will vs. predestination made me think
of the differing distances between God and His creatures in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. This subject has been bothering me for
a long time. I read the Bible and I feel as though God is close,
wanting us to love Him; I read the Qur'an and feel that Allah
is much more distant, wanting us to submit to Him. No wonder
Sufi mysticism, with its emphasis on love of Allah and closeness,
even unity, with Him, has been so widespread in the Islamic world.
Allah seems more distant in Islam than in
Judaism and Christianity; there is more of an emphasis on His
might and His power, His inapproachability, the fact that He
has no need of His creation and says, "I have only created
Jinns and men, that they may serve Me." (51:56) Note the
word serve, not love. In Islam one submits to Allah; in Judaism
(repeated in Christianity) the Shema says, "And you shall
love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your might," a concept totally lacking
in Islamic prayers. Men and women are slaves of Allah in Islam;
in Christianity they are children of God. Children are a source
of love and worry for their parents; slaves exist merely to serve.
Allah lets it be known in the Qur'an that if a people or nation
rejects His message, He will simply wipe them out and put another
people in their place who will serve Him better. Islam means
submission; this does not leave much in the way of personal interaction.
Allah orders, you obey. No debating or bargaining, like when
Abraham got God down from fifty to ten righteous people to save
Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction. Moses speaks directly with
God; Allah communicates with Muhammad via the angel Gabriel,
since "it is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak
to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the
sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what
Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise." (42:51)
The Qur'an mentions that Allah is closer to
man than his jugular vein (50:16), and Allah is constantly referred
to as the Most Merciful and All Forgiving, but I have to say
that I don't feel much warmth in the relationship. Allah is usually
angry with man for constantly disobeying Him and constantly mentions
how those who disobey and disbelieve will burn in Hell (quite
graphically, too.) The portrayal of Paradise is mostly a picture
of earthly delights such as flowing rivers, green gardens, cool
fountains, cushions, green garments, fruits, cold drinks, and
even "houris whom no man nor jinn has touched," not
a picture of blissful union with Allah. Of course, these descriptions
can easily be taken as metaphorical, but it is interesting that
Paradise is described in these terms. Not to mention the fact
that they generally have in fact been taken quite literally!
The promise of 72 virgins to martyrs killed in jihad is only
the best known, but there also have been Muslim scholars claiming
that a man will be given the sexual strength of a hundred men,
or the claim that a man will find, each time he has sex with
a houri he will find her a virgin, or that houris supposedly
will have no periods and will never need to go to the bathroom.
The point is, this doesn't seem like a very spiritual haven,
to say the least, more like a heavenly Playboy Mansion (and what's
in it for the girls anyway???).
The heavy emphasis on rewards and punishments
in the Qur'an and on fearing Allah and what He will do to you
if you don't repent and submit to His will doesn't leave much
room for really loving Him. The legalistic nature of Islam and
the intricacies, even the often anal nit-picking of shari'ah,
only serve to strengthen this idea of Allah as demanding slave-master,
quick to punish.
Hence the huge appeal of Sufism among Muslims,
even some non-Muslims. Sufism may have grown out of Hindu or
Christian mysticism. At least it was sufficiently exotic and
suspect to be distrusted and sometimes even banned by the scholars
of religion. Some Sufis became infamous for flouting the exoteric
Law of Allah in favor of personal contact with the Divine, which
of course cut into the ulama's job. Other Sufis insisted that
it was necessary to follow the Law, but that was only the beginning
of a journey to meet the Face of Allah. In any case, it was the
personal experience of Him, the overpowering love for Him, that
counted. This was necessary to bridge the gap between the believer
and Allah the All-Powerful, Almighty, who was to be served by
fastidious obedience to His law in all aspects of life.
There is just nothing similar to the writings
of the Hebrew prophets of the Bible in Islamic literature, whether
Qur'an, hadiths, or sirah (lives of Muhammad). These demonstrate
a very close and affectionate relationship between Israel and
its God, God the loving, often chastising parent who nevertheless
mourned over His people and promised them redemption. There is
nothing like Isaiah's, "When Israel was a child I loved
him; out of Egypt I called my son," or "Come now, let
us reason together," (which would suggest a level of closeness
and intimacy with God that would never be permitted in Islam--Allah
would never condescend to reason with His slaves). Instead Allah
of the Qur'an simply literally blows away those who refuse His
message and goes on to the next people.
I've already gone on much too long, but I
wish there was some way to get more of that intimacy into the
Qur'an and less legalism and threats. I guess in this I am influenced
by Christianity, but I don't think it's too much to ask for.
Bible vs Qur'an: Part 1 Abraham Bargains
With God
In this entry, I will compare and contrast the Bible and Qur'anic
stories of one incident: when Abraham pleads for the lives of
the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. In both versions, messengers
from God have been sent to him and his wife Sarah to inform them
of the birth of Isaac, and then Abraham is told (by the messengers
in the Qur'an, but by God himself in the Bible) that the people
of Sodom and Gomorrah will be destroyed for their horrific sins.
Here is the passage from the Bible (NIV translation):
Genesis 18:16-33, but I will also include the first part of of
the chapter because it is an integral part of the story, and
shows up in the Qur'anic version(s).
1 The LORD appeared to Abraham
near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance
to his tent in the heat of the day.
2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he
saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them
and bowed low to the ground.
3 He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,
do not pass your servant by.
4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your
feet and rest under this tree.
5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and
then go on your way, now that you have come to your servant."
"Very well," they answered, "do as you say."
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. "Quick,"
he said, "get three seahs of fine flour and knead it and
bake some bread."
7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf
and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it.
8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been
prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood
near them under a tree.
9 "Where is your wife Sarah?" they asked him. "There,
in the tent," he said.
10 Then the LORD said, "I will surely return to you about
this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son."
Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was
behind him.
11 Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years,
and Sarah was past the age of childbearing.
12 So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, "After I
am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?"
13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and
say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?'
14 Is anything too hard for the LORD ? I will return to you at
the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son."
15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, "I did not laugh."
But he said, "Yes, you did laugh."
16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom,
and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way.
17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I
am about to do?
18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and
all nations on earth will be blessed through him.
19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children
and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing
what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for
Abraham what he has promised him."
20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah
is so great and their sin so grievous
21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad
as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained
standing before the LORD.
23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep
away the righteous with the wicked?
24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will
you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake
of the fifty righteous people in it?
25 Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous
with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike.
Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the
city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so
bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and
ashes,
28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty?
Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will
not destroy it."
29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found
there?" He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not
do it."
30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me
speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered,
"I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak
to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He
said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me
speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left,
and Abraham returned home.
Now here is the first Qur'anic version, which,
like most Biblical stories told in the Qur'an, is very compressed.
I should recount briefly how the Qur'an tells the story of Lot
(Lut in this translation). It holds that Lot was the prophet
of Sodom, who was sent to make the people stop their despicable
homosexual practices (Lot says, "Ye do commit lewdness,
such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do
ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway? And practice
wickedness (even) in your councils?" (Qur'an 29-28-29) When
the people refused to change their ways, Lot called for help
on Allah, who sent him messengers to destroy the city and save
him and those who believed with him, but Lot's wife was evil,
for what reason we are not told, and she was apparently destroyed
with the city, though there are references to her as one who
"lags behind," perhaps a relic of the story of Lot's
wife looking back and turned into a pillar of salt, which is
not explicitly told. There is also nothing of the tale of Lot's
incestuous antics with his daughters in Genesis 19:30-38.
Anyway, here, without further ado, is the
story from the Qur'an (Surah Hud, 11:69-76; Yusuf Ali translation):
11:69 There came Our messengers
to Abraham with glad tidings. They said, "Peace!" He
answered, "Peace!" and hastened to entertain them with
a roasted calf.
11:70 But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal),
he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them.
They said: "Fear not: We have been sent against the people
of Lut."
11:71 And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But
we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.
11:72 She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing
I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would
indeed be a wonderful thing!"
11:73 They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The
grace of Allah and His blessings on you, O ye people of the house!
for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!"
11:74 When fear had passed from (the mind of) Abraham and the
glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with Us for Lut's
people.
11:75 For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of faults),
compassionate, and given to look to Allah.
11:76 O Abraham! Seek not this. The decree of thy Lord hath gone
forth: for them there cometh a penalty that cannot be turned
back!
Another, somewhat different, version appears
in Surah 29, Al-Ankabut, verses 31-35 (it is very, very common
for the same story to be told multiple times in the Qur'an, with
some differences). This incorporates the destruction itself:
29:31 When Our Messengers
came to Abraham with the good news, they said: "We are indeed
going to destroy the people of this township: for truly they
are (addicted to) crime."
29:32 He said: "But there is Lut there." They said:
"Well do we know who is there : we will certainly save him
and his following, except his wife: she is of those who lag behind!"
29:33 And when Our Messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on
their account, and felt himself powerless (to protect) them,
but they said: "Fear thou not, nor grieve: we are (here)
to save thee and thy following, except thy wife: she is of those
who lag behind.
29:34 "For we are going to bring down on the people of this
township a Punishment from heaven, because they have been wickedly
rebellious."
29:35 And We have left thereof an evident Sign, for any people
who (care to) understand.
The arguing isn't mentioned, except in an
oblique way in 29:32, where Abraham shows concern for Lot.
This story is also told in a somewhat different
way in Surah 51, Ad-Dhariyat, verses 24-37 (it is very, very
common for the same story to be told multiple times in the Qur'an,
with some differences):
51:24 Has the story reached
thee, of the honoured guests of Abraham?
51:25 Behold, they entered his presence, and said: "Peace!"
He said, "Peace!" (and thought, "These seem) unusual
people."
51:26 Then he turned quickly to his household, brought out a
fatted calf,
51:27 And placed it before them. He said, "Will ye not eat?"
51:28 (When they did not eat), He conceived a fear of them. They
said, "Fear not," and they gave him glad tidings of
a son endowed with knowledge.
51:29 But his wife came forward (laughing) aloud: she smote her
forehead and said: "A barren old woman!"
51:30 They said, "Even so has thy Lord spoken: and He is
full of Wisdom and Knowledge."
51:31 (Abraham) said: "And what, O ye Messengers, is your
errand (now)?"
51:32 They said, "We have been sent to a people (deep) in
sin;-
51:33 "To bring on, on them, (a shower of) stones of clay
(brimstone),
51:34 "Marked as from thy Lord for those who trespass beyond
bounds."
51:35 Then We evacuated those of the Believers who were there,
51:36 But We found not there any just (Muslim) persons except
in one house:
51:37 And We left there a Sign for such as fear the Grievous
Penalty.
In this version, Abraham's arguing with Allah
for the people of Sodom isn't even mentioned, though it seems
to be obliquely referred to in 51:36, about not finding any just
people except for Lot's family (or more accurately, those who
were in his home who believed in Lot's message).
You will notice that while Abraham is directly
speaking to God and being answered by him in the Bible story,
the Qur'an simply says that Abraham was "pleading with Us"
for Lot's people. It doesn't say that he was directly answered,
or that any bargaining took place; it might have just been a
simple prayer for all we know. The words of Allah that follow
that verse ("For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing
(of faults), compassionate, and given to look to Allah. O Abraham!
Seek not this. The decree of thy Lord hath gone forth: for them
there cometh a penalty that cannot be turned back!") seem
to be more of a later commentary on Abraham's acts than actual
words addressed to him. Allah does not converse with mere mortals;
instead he sends an angel or a prophet or a vision (42:51: "It
is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except
by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a
messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills:
for He is Most High, Most Wise.") In Genesis and Exodus,
God speaks personally with Abraham and Moses, and even addresses
the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, who shudder in fear and ask not
to hear the voice of God anymore, with which God acquiesces,
but he does continue to speak directly to Moses. By contrast
Muhammad had to receive his sacred scriptures, which are supposed
to be the speech of Allah himself, through the angel Gabriel.
More importantly, the whole concept of Abraham
bargaining with God, the spectacle of a mere man telling God
Almighty that he is being unjust, is fundamentally against the
entire nature of Islam, which after all means "submission"
and whose most salient trait is total submission to the decrees
of Allah, instead of rebelling against them or trying to bargain
out with them. This is why Abraham's request for pity is followed
by an "excuse" that Abraham was very tender-hearted,
perhaps too much so, and a reproach and an insistence that Abraham
must accept the decree of Allah for the destruction of Lot's
people. Abraham's kindness and tender-heartedness, which seem
to be exceed even that of Allah the All-Merciful, is also referred
to in 9:113-114: "It is not fitting, for the Prophet and
those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for
Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them
that they are companions of the Fire. And Abraham prayed for
his father's forgiveness only because of a promise he had made
to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy
to Allah, he dissociated himself from him: for Abraham was most
tender-hearted, forbearing."
The figure of YHWH (God, the LORD) in the
Pentateuch is very close to his chosen people (the patriarchs
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the Israelites, and so on), who
is very much a part of the action and susceptible to many quite
human traits, such as being bargained with, "regretting"
and "repenting" (as in the case of the Flood and threatening
to leave the Israelites out in the desert for their disobedience;
what this means has been hotly debated by Jewish and Christian
scholars). He takes a personal interest in the Israelites, vowing
to never abandon them and to admonish them with punishments for
the sake of correcting them. The figure of Allah in the Qur'an
is much more distant, one who will utterly destroy a people that
have rejected his message without a second though, and replace
them with a new people, who will be destroyed in their turn if
they don't believe, the Qur'an warns. By contrast, God as portrayed
in the Prophetic books of the Bible feels a great deal of sorrow
about how his people Israel have turned their backs on him and
that he has to punish them for their misdeeds, and with the promise
that they will eventually be redeemed, that he will always be
there waiting for their repentance. In the Qur'an, they would
have just been wiped out and that would be that. (44:29: "And
neither heaven nor earth shed a tear over them: nor were they
given a respite.") In the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures;
Tanakh) Israel is God's son (Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was
a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.").
In the New Testament, humans are the children of God (Romans
8:16: "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that
we are God's children."); in the Qur'an they are the slaves
of Allah (51:56: "I have only created Jinns and men that
they may serve Me."). In the Bible are many references to
loving God (Deuteronomy 6:4-5: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD
our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your
heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."--the
opening of the Jewish Shema or profession of faith); in the Qur'an
are constant references to serving Allah (20:14: "Verily,
I am Allah: There is no god but I: So serve thou Me (only), and
establish regular prayer for celebrating My praise." 29:56:
"O My slaves who believe! truly spacious is My Earth: therefore
serve ye Me!")
This topic is also discussed in the essay
I wrote called "The Distance of Allah from His Creatures,"
and I find it a fascinating topic. It really throws into relief
one of the major differences between Islam and Judaism and Christianity.
....................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
Great post, Daniel! Thanks!
Here are a few comments to some of it:
At 17:32 30.11.2003, Daniel wrote:
Our discussion of Islam here so far has
mostly been characterized by generous generalizations drawn from
the somewhat superficial overviews of the subject. In this there
is always the danger that we impose too much of our own culture
and attitudes to the subject, perhaps working out of a desire
to be "fair" to the subject. Were this to happen, then
the irony would be that we would be guilty of ethnocentrism,
imposing our values on Moslem culture, rather than letting it
speak for itself.
Islam is being agressively marketed the throughout
whole world, including the West, with the expressed intention
of winning humanity for Islam through proselytizing. With this
in mind, it is unfair for Islam to use "ethnicity"
in its defence in order to seek immunity against Western criticism.
They even cry racism if need be. Moslem culture is already part
and parcel of Western culture, which it seeks to dominate. For
this reason, it is only fair and square to analyze it in the
light of Western thinking and Western traditions.
Allah seems more distant in Islam than
in Judaism and Christianity; there is more of an emphasis on
His might and His power, His inapproachability, the fact that
He has no need of His creation and says, "I have only created
Jinns and men, that they may serve Me." (51:56) Note the
word serve, not love.
Although there are some clear similarities
and parallels between Judaism and Islam, some of which are counter-productive
(especially when we look at orthodox Jews and fundamentalist
Muslims), there are also some striking differences. Jewish culture
is so much a part of the West that in some ways it's the very
backbone of the West. "Jewish" thinking is much more
similar to Christian thinking than is Muslim thinking. Judaism
does not seek to convert new members and win the world for Jewry.
Although a Jew who adopts another religion or world view is not
considered a Jew proper by the orthodox, Jews, as the term is
commonly understood today, are atheists (Issac Asimov), Christians
(Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen), Buddhists (Allan Ginsburg), agnostics
(Albert Einstein), Anthroposophists, Theosophists and so on.
They have a relaxed relationship to their heritage. There is
pressure in some circles to preserve the Jewish faith at all
costs, but no persecution of those who leave it, and certainly
no death penalty, like in Islam.
For this reason, it is no wonder that Allah
comes across as more inapproachable and impersonal than Jehovah,
and with more emphasis on his might and power.
In Islam one submits to Allah; in Judaism
(repeated in Christianity) the Shema says, "And you shall
love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your might," a concept totally lacking
in Islamic prayers. Men and women are slaves of Allah in Islam;
in Christianity they are children of God. Children are a source
of love and worry for their parents; slaves exist merely to serve.
Allah lets it be known in the Qur'an that if a people or nation
rejects His message, He will simply wipe them out and put another
people in their place who will serve Him better. Islam means
submission; this does not leave much in the way of personal interaction.
Allah orders, you obey. No debating or bargaining, like when
Abraham got God down from fifty to ten righteous people to save
Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction. Moses speaks directly with
God; Allah communicates with Muhammad via the angel Gabriel,
since "it is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak
to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the
sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what
Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise." (42:51)
You've hit the nail on the head. And at the
risk of appearing ethnocentric, I dare say that Islam seems most
incompatible with the individual freedom proposed in the PoF.
I also have a question: There are Roman Catholic
Anthroposophists, Buddhist Anthroposophists, Australian Aborigine
Anthroposophists and so on. (And I'm talking about AS members
here too.) Are there any Muslim Anthroposophists? If so, we need
one right here at Anthroposophy Tomorrow. Please pass the request.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
....................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
Anyone know of any place where RS actually
says WHO ALLAH is?? If he can illumine the Being of Jehovah,
surely he could do the same with ALLAH. I haven't found it yet.
OK - just my own quirky idea - please don't
think I can defend this in any way, but *** What If **** Allah
were Jehovah who felt left out, discarded and pissed off once
the mission of the Hebrew people was fulfilled????? I have absolutely
no idea why that comes into my head!!! Anybody can say definitely
why not or is there some kind of possiblity
here?
Nothing like pouring gas on the fire, eh?
: )
....................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: hello - Islam
Tarje,
I'm glad that you found my posting helpful. In the interest of
clarity, the second two sections you quote and attribute to me
were actually written by one anonymous "Fatima" (and
I will state for the record that I am not "Fatima")
and posted on http://www.secularislam.net.
Credit where credit is due...
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
November/December
2003
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
