Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 02:37 AM

New Britain
Yesterday at 01:10 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
October 18, 2025, 09:54 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
October 15, 2025, 10:20 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 14, 2025, 11:52 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 07, 2025, 09:50 AM

What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM

Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM

Jesus mythicism
by zeca
September 13, 2025, 10:59 PM

Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
August 22, 2025, 07:41 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam

 (Read 22835 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #30 - April 26, 2009, 07:22 AM


    However, we, ordinary readers, can't help taking a metaphoric interpretation, because we are not prophetic. I use Lacan's (and Derrida's) understanding of "metaphor" here: substituting one sign for another to explain the former sign. So in this very wide sense of metaphor, a straight up Salafi Muslim is also being metaphoric: when he reads "wife" he is understanding "wife" to mean "someone who is married to a husband according to a nika ceremony".
    It's still substituting one sign for another, to explain. Any reading is metaphoric, so they all occupy the same epistemological status, for me anyway.  (etc)


    So, I read your blog, and your posts, what I'm getting here is that really, there is no Islam for the dull common man who sees 'wife' and thinks it means 'person I'm married to'.  As if that is really far out on his part.  That it is a religion for the intelligensia, the elite, and what? The rest of us are dull witted cows and sheep to follow behind you, forever doomed to never understand god's supposed message to all of us?  If we don't 'get it' that's just too bad, because people who say what they mean and mean what they say are boring?  That is not even the promise that Islam makes it to its own followers - in the Quran or in the Sunnah.  I know I'm an intelligent person; I have a college education.  I sat with some of the alleged elite ulemaa of our time - Sufis mind you not those Salafis you keep harping on - and what you're saying here is so deliberately esoteric as to almost be occult in the sense of being hidden.  What you really seem to be saying is that the Islam of the overwhelming majority of Muslims isn't the real Islam. They're not believing in and practising what god intended them to practise, but oh well.  You seem like a nice person, so I'm sure you don't mean to offend with this sort of elitism, but it really does irritate.  It reminds me of how some Salafees think they are superior to the rest of us. 

    [this space for rent]
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #31 - April 26, 2009, 07:24 AM

    Christ almighty, that comic is HILARIOUS. The artist who made it seems frightfully talented. There should be more comics like this! Muslims have to learn to laugh at themselves!


    I thought so too. That is the young comic artist who made headlines when his government - Indonesia - decided to shut down his blog, and then shut down another blog that tried to re-run the comics.  I can't remember if he was arrested or not, but it was FFI who decided to allow him to host these files. 

    [this space for rent]
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #32 - April 26, 2009, 08:04 AM

    What you really seem to be saying is that the Islam of the overwhelming majority of Muslims isn't the real Islam. They're not believing in and practising what god intended them to practise, but oh well.  You seem like a nice person, so I'm sure you don't mean to offend with this sort of elitism, but it really does irritate.

    I think Tailor is just trying to give new meanings to Islamic motifs, a laudable but imho a very difficult undertaking that can't be accomplished without changing the entire ethos of classical Islam or ignoring vast chunks of history. One simply can't get around the fact that even if it were possible to give completely new meanings to old words in a coherent and consistent way (which I doubt is the case), neither Muhammad nor his earliest followers understood Islam that way, and if they did, there's absolutely no historical record of it. So you wind up with this ahistorical, fantasy Islam that is just a product of a creative, poetic imagination but has no real connection with the historical Muhammad or Islam.

    There is a place for this sort of, as I called it earlier, "poetic alchemy", but it must be acknowledged that it is ahistorical.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #33 - April 26, 2009, 08:10 AM

    This are just my two cents into the whole "finding the deeper meaning of Islam" BS the Tailor. I hope you don't take what I'm about to say personally. This is just an attack on your idea, not you as a person.

    The attempt to find a "deeper meaning to Islam" is a waste of energy really. I wonder, if Islam should be looked at to find a deeper meaning of it's teachings, then why only stop at Islam? I mean, there are about hundreds of thousands of religions that mankind has ever created-why not put this much effort into putting those ancient gods under the light of "hidden meanings"? Like Zeus for example. Sure, Zeus and others alike are merely myths, but using your own argument, couldn't one argue perhaps Zeus shouldn't be called just a "myth" and really should be studied thoroughly? Couldn't one argue that Zeus and his companions really are the true gods and the fact that it's a myth just shows how much we today misunderstand certain "hidden messages" that are encoded within ancient stories?

    But it'd be absurd for one to make an effort to bring back Zeus. I think mostly everyone would agree. Why? Because although there is an incredibly small chance of Zeus existence, most of us can rationalize that Zeus probably doesn't exist. It's only due to the rise of monotheism, and other political reasons that polytheism became a minority. If things were the same (in the matter of competing faiths) today as it was back then, then someone else might have the same position as you have, except they'd be defending Zeus.

    It was due to the monotheistic movement that polytheism died-and the monotheism movement represents a slightly better understanding of how the world works than polytheism (in terms of faith). The only reason why rationality didn't lead more people to embrace free-thought is simply because there was still an opaque understanding of the functions of the universe back then than we have now. Imagine though if someone were to bring back the idea of Zeus creating everything under the banner of "deeper meaning", and people actually paid attention to that mind blistering bullshit  whistling2

    It's about the same thing you're doing with Islam  Roll Eyes

    Also, if there is a deeper meaning to be found within Islam, then why is Allah not clear? I'd think for a god who is "all powerful" he'd have it that we get a fair chance to compete in the race of eternal salvation amongst the other human beings. After all, the Quran is said to be a fucking "guide to life."

    And when it comes to defending certain hadiths, this is really where people fuck up when they seek for a deeper meaning.

    Exactly what is the deeper meaning behind Muhammed's pedophilia?

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #34 - April 26, 2009, 08:33 AM

    Tailor, you've got some interesting ideas and I admit I'm intrigued and will keep reading the things you're writing.

    Some people have hypothesized that the medieval mind, being pre-rational, saw things in terms of symbols and archetypes and so on, from Jung to Julian Jaynes. It's an interesting idea. Still, I think one has to admit also that Muhammad, like the prophets of Israel, in trying to civilize a barbaric people probably couldn't help but get caught up in the barbarism himself.

    I very much doubt that medieval minds were "pre-rational". Frankly that sounds like a wank to me. Medieval people were very rational in many ways. They observed the world around them and made deductions and built things that worked, as did even more ancient people before them. Even hunter-gatherers are extremely rational when it comes to keeping themselves alive. This idea that only modern or "post-Enlightenment" people are rational is nothing but a modern conceit.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #35 - April 26, 2009, 08:34 AM

    Exactly what is the deeper meaning behind Muhammed's pedophilia?

    Well, Ibn Arabi had a go at reinterpreting it. According to Arabi, Muhammad represents the Intellect, which refers not to the mental-rational mind of humanity but what the Sufis see as the primordial Intellect, the Divine intelligence, and Aisha represents the soul. So the marriage between Muhammad and Aisha is an alchemical marriage between the human soul and the Divine Intellect (using human marriage to represent Divine love is quite a common motif in many mystical traditions). In short Ibn Arabi takes what appears to be something very perverse and transforms it into a symbol of an inner process of self-transformation -- quite a feat, if you ask me! ;-)

    Quote
    Since that which is true in Vision is a major part of Prophecy, we swore our belief in what such Vision confers and conveys of the Favors of the Real (Praised be He!). For I entered the House of Lights and let down the curtains and the veils, jealously protective of the harem. Then, while I was conversing intimately with the Real in His presence, the attraction of a Mighty One attracted me to him, and the Real installed me in the Station of the 'Ocean' - the waves of which heave and overflow, one entering into another and rising aloft. And I was in a State which no one can know but he who has borne it, and no one describe but he who has seen it, as has been said:

        No one knows Desire except for one who bears it,
        nor fervent Longing, but he who suffers from it.

    ... Now, consider and contemplate, O Most-perfect Saint, a Prophet whose body had been lost, while the memorial of his Way remained in Tradition: Called up from his tomb by night, he was led forth to his Gathering, the Living one joining with the dead - who, then, was 'gathered up,' the Lord of the House remaining in the House, which thus was filled with life!

    Then [the Prophet Muhammad] requested the hand of his 'Little Fair-One' [A'ishah] from his 'Noble One' [Ab? Bakr al-Sidd?q], plucking her from the hand of his Friend (sad?qu-hu). He proposed for her a bridal-price (sad?q) the figure of which was unknown to me, and requested of me a testimony to that effect. So he wrote on a piece of red silk a document in shining gold, and I was the first, by his permission and command (May God bless him!), to witness his dower - that being in his highest Stopping-place and most-manifest Station. When he had so commanded, [the Prophet's] dower was left in my care, and he entered his dwelling with his Bride, secluding himself with her, while the dower remained in my possession till the expiry of my term.

    Then, when the Dawn broke for him who has two eyes, bringing together for me the Two Lights, I did not find a 'Bride' ('irs) or a 'Husband' (ba'l) other than my own Essence, nor a dower other than my own Nature and attributes. For I was myself both the Husband and the Bride, and I married together the Intellect and the Soul. And the 'Little Fair One' became purified by her Husband, supported by the firm will of her Intellect.

    I marveled at my affair - that there was none but me! Thus, I arrived at the lifting of the veils on matters concealed: And I marveled at a Shore which has no sea for its complement to seek refuge in, and at a Sea without a shore for its waves to break upon; and at a Speaker of realities without a tongue and places of articulation, and a Silent One who ceases not to summon and show the Way to God; and a Sphere without location which is not known to anyone, nor does anyone not know it; and a Dome without supports, and a rich Earth which is not based on causes desecrated by being mentioned and adulterated by Thought. For its Causes are, rather, from the Presence of That which occurs not to the mind of man, nor does the attentive ear hear its report, nor eye-sight perceive it truly.

    An Ocean without Shore

        I marveled at an Ocean without shore,
        and at a Shore that did not have an ocean;
        And at a Morning Light without darkness,
        and at a Night that was without daybreak;
        And then a Sphere with no locality
        known to either fool or learned scholar;
        And at an azure Dome raised over the earth,
        circulating 'round its center - Compulsion;
        And at a rich Earth without o'er-arching vault
        and no specific location, the Secret concealed...

        I courted a Secret which existence did not alter;
        for it was asked of me: "Has Thought enchanted you? "
        - To which I replied: "I have no power over that;
        I counsel you: Be patient with it while you live.
        But, truly, if Thought becomes established
        in my mind, the embers kindle into flame,
        And everything is given up to fire
        the like of which was never seen before!"
        And it was said to me: "He does not pluck a flower
        who calls himself with courtesy 'Freeborn'."
        "He who woos the belle femme in her boudoir, love-beguiled,
        will never deem the bridal-price too high!"

        I gave her the dower and was given her in marriage
        throughout the night until the break of Dawn -
        But other than Myself I did not find. - Rather,
        that One whom I married - may his affair be known:
        For added to the Sun's measure of light
        are the radiant New Moon and shining Stars;
        Like Time, dispraised - though the Prophet (Blessings on him!)
        had once declared of your Lord that He is Time.

    Taken from here:
    http://ibnarabisociety.org/articles/elmore.html

    Now the atheists / agnostics on this forum will say that this is all nonsense, but I urge you to at least admire such efforts for their literary value. Ibn Arabi is engaging in what I call a kind of "redemptive alchemy" -- take what appears to be perverse or grotesque and try to transform it in one's imagination or vision into something more profound. As I said earlier this sort of poetry and visionary writing is found in many spiritual traditions. I personally think there is a place for it -- even atheists and agnostics should be able to appreciate the literary and mythological value -- but I can't accept that Muhammad or his companions saw things like this. These are totally ahistorical (or perhaps transhistorical) interpretations of Muhammad's life.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #36 - April 26, 2009, 08:41 AM

    I very much doubt that medieval minds were "pre-rational". Frankly that sounds like a wank to me. Medieval people were very rational in many ways. They observed the world around them and made deductions and built things that worked, as did even more ancient people before them. Even hunter-gatherers are extremely rational when it comes to keeping themselves alive. This idea that only modern or "post-Enlightenment" people are rational is nothing but a modern conceit.

    A good case can be made that many ancient and medieval cultures engaged in a different type of thinking -- correlative thinking, seeing patterns, symbols, and so on. I'm not saying that this is necessarily 100% true but strong arguments have been made in its favor. Many traditional peoples saw the social order patterned according to celestial or sacred realms. Modernity represented a break from that.

    While I'm not saying medieval/ancient peoples were completely devoid of rationality, what I think is a very new phenomenon is the invention of the individual. I think prior to modernity people did not experience themselves as isolated individuals separate from the world and from others the way we do now.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #37 - April 26, 2009, 08:52 AM

    Ned, seeing patterns is a trait of rational thinking. Really. yes Humans are pattern-seeking creatures. It's a handy survival trait. Of course it misfires sometimes and leads people to "find" patterns where none exist, but that's the trade-off we get for being able to make use of it at all.

    People who see or saw the social order patterned according to celestial or sacred realms did so because they were attempting to reason out their own existence. They were hypothesising. They were trying to find the connections. They were reasoning, albeit on the basis of insufficient information.

    There is no such thing as "primitive man". All Homo sapiens sapiens have much the same brains. You can (and many people have) take a New Guinea highlander who has never seen a computer and train him to use one as well as any "modern" person.

    ETA: I'll add that many traditional or hunter-gatherer societies saw themselves as more closely bound to nature than many of us do, but that again is not necessarily due to any absence of "rationality". I think it is due to them not being as insulated from nature by technology.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #38 - April 26, 2009, 08:54 AM

    Good text, really good text, will be good on the outside, and as you delve deeper, as you try to unlock its meaning, you find more and better and double meanings.

    This is a very good point.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #39 - April 26, 2009, 08:56 AM

    Ned, seeing patterns is a trait of rational thinking. Really. yes Humans are pattern-seeking creatures. It's a handy survival trait. Of course it misfires sometimes and leads people to "find" patterns where none exist, but that's the trade-off we get for being able to make use of it at all.

    People who see or saw the social order patterned according to celestial or sacred realms did so because they were attempting to reason out their own existence. They were hypothesising. They were trying to find the connections. They were reasoning, albeit on the basis of insufficient information.

    I see what you're saying and maybe pre-rational isn't the best word ... what I meant was that people didn't have the kind of extreme experience of individuality that modernity has given us and that sense of collective identity must have put constraints on how freely people were willing to think. People had to believe in superstitious things for the sake of collective emotional stability.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #40 - April 26, 2009, 09:08 AM

    Ned, seeing patterns is a trait of rational thinking. Really. yes Humans are pattern-seeking creatures. It's a handy survival trait. Of course it misfires sometimes and leads people to "find" patterns where none exist, but that's the trade-off we get for being able to make use of it at all.

    People who see or saw the social order patterned according to celestial or sacred realms did so because they were attempting to reason out their own existence. They were hypothesising. They were trying to find the connections. They were reasoning, albeit on the basis of insufficient information.

    I see what you're saying and maybe pre-rational isn't the best word ... what I meant was that people didn't have the kind of extreme experience of individuality that modernity has given us and that sense of collective identity must have put constraints on how freely people were willing to think. People had to believe in superstitious things for the sake of collective emotional stability.

    I don't think so. I think they just did believe it because of a combination of it being the best theories they could come up with at the time (and we are still bound by that even if we prefer to not think about it too much) and some other quirks of human psychology.

    Look at superstitious and/or highly religious people these days. They don't believe for the sake of collective emotional stability. They just bloody well believe. I can't see why our ancestors should regarded as radically different in this respect. It looks to me as if this desire on the part of some people to differentiate themselves from their ancestors is partly due to narcissism (as in we aren't as primitive) and partly due to a yearning for some other way (which leads to the sentimental view of noble savages or whatever).

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #41 - April 26, 2009, 09:22 AM

    Osman, surely you can concede that there is more individual freedom today on a collective level than there was in the past. There were exceptional individuals in the past (like the Greek philosophers) who exercised rationality but these were elites and this rationalism never did trickle down to the masses who preferred to obey external authorities.

    And even today I feel that most people are religious because of the sense of community, emotional stability, sense of social connection, etc., that it offers them. So imagine how much worse it must have been in highly hierarchical, patriarchal, traditional, authoritarian societies. Free thought was very much stifled at a collective level. It still is in many societies, but the situation today is better than before.

    I'm not saying that the brains of medieval/ancient people were different from the brains of modern humans in any major sense, but they simply didn't have the freedom to exercise individual rational thought the way we do now. They were chained in and limited by dogmas and fixed beliefs that provided a certain amount of cultural stability in the past.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #42 - April 26, 2009, 09:37 AM

    Osman, surely you can concede that there is more individual freedom today on a collective level than there was in the past. There were exceptional individuals in the past (like the Greek philosophers) who exercised rationality but these were elites and this rationalism never did trickle down to the masses who preferred to obey external authorities.

    There is probably more individual freedom but what makes you think rationalism has trickled down to the masses? Sometimes I wonder about that one. Grin


    Quote
    And even today I feel that most people are religious because of the sense of community, emotional stability, sense of social connection, etc., that it offers them. So imagine how much worse it must have been in highly hierarchical, patriarchal, traditional, authoritarian societies. Free thought was very much stifled at a collective level. It still is in many societies, but the situation today is better than before.

    Yes but you said that they had to believe for the sake of collective emotional stability. I still think they just believed without any real sense of having to for whatever reason. The ones that would have thought like that were probably people who would just pretend to believe for their own safety or advancement.


    Quote
    I'm not saying that the brains of medieval/ancient people were different from the brains of modern humans in any major sense, but they simply didn't have the freedom to exercise individual rational thought the way we do now. They were chained in and limited by dogmas and fixed beliefs that provided a certain amount of cultural stability in the past.

    A lot of people still work like that, even people who aren't adherents of any particular religion.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #43 - April 26, 2009, 09:40 AM

    Osman, surely you can concede that there is more individual freedom today on a collective level than there was in the past. There were exceptional individuals in the past (like the Greek philosophers) who exercised rationality but these were elites and this rationalism never did trickle down to the masses who preferred to obey external authorities.

    There is probably more individual freedom but what makes you think rationalism has trickled down to the masses? Sometimes I wonder about that one. Grin

    It's happening very slowly I would suggest. Modernity has led to a kind of mass democratization. The Internet in particular is playing a huge role in this process.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #44 - April 26, 2009, 09:50 AM

    But it'd be absurd for one to make an effort to bring back Zeus.

    Now, now, don't count him dead yet. He's come back and I'm sure he'll be in good shape soon.  Smiley

    German ex-Muslim forumMy YouTubeList of Ex-Muslims
    Wikis: en de fr ar tr
    CEMB-Chat
    I'm on an indefinite break...
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #45 - April 26, 2009, 09:53 AM

    What you really seem to be saying is that the Islam of the overwhelming majority of Muslims isn't the real Islam. They're not believing in and practising what god intended them to practise, but oh well.  You seem like a nice person, so I'm sure you don't mean to offend with this sort of elitism, but it really does irritate.

    I think Tailor is just trying to give new meanings to Islamic motifs, a laudable but imho a very difficult undertaking that can't be accomplished without changing the entire ethos of classical Islam or ignoring vast chunks of history. One simply can't get around the fact that even if it were possible to give completely new meanings to old words in a coherent and consistent way (which I doubt is the case), neither Muhammad nor his earliest followers understood Islam that way, and if they did, there's absolutely no historical record of it. So you wind up with this ahistorical, fantasy Islam that is just a product of a creative, poetic imagination but has no real connection with the historical Muhammad or Islam.

    There is a place for this sort of, as I called it earlier, "poetic alchemy", but it must be acknowledged that it is ahistorical.


    To Fading: your response of irritation at perceived elitism is interesting. Certainly many Sufi tarqias might be said to have this attitude: that there is an elite, True Islam, and one for the masses. Ned has called this way of reading ?pre-rational? and ?poetic alchemy?. I have spent time with tribal Aboriginals, and can attest that they do read signs in the kind of way Ned is referring to. They would see a water hole and see something like the water of Life in its sign -- they would perceive the deeper meaning of the sign, when all I saw was a water hole. Carl Jung thought of it as our original way of relating to the world. Now, those Aboriginals (in spite of the ways of the west encroaching on them) live this way, without classes of elite and non-elite. In my view, they are richer than us out here, because of their perception. And yet they are poorer and worse educated than anyone on the forum.

    If they (and our ancestors) could perceive signs in this kind of way, why couldn't the early nomadic Hebrews and a core group of Muhammed?s followers (a core group, I emphasize -- I think a great many of his followers did employ the kind of ?ordinary? reading you guys have rejected -- and the abuse of it began almost from the beginning).
    And if they can do it, why can?t the masses of today do it? I don't mean they <<should>> -- I just mean it is feasible, so at least in principle I am not being elitist Afro

     

    The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

    https://vimeo.com/110528857
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #46 - April 26, 2009, 09:54 AM

    I cannot see what kind of "collective identity" was supposed to be present in the past.
    Most humans probably lived all their life in their own village, without knowing what was happening anywhere else in the world.
    They most likely did not care who ruled them, what kind of government it was, who they were at war with, or what the official state religion was, if any.
    I think their life revolved around getting enough food to eat while avoiding to get robbed/raped/killed by their own neighbors.

    Maybe you could find a sense collective identity in the elite social classes.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #47 - April 26, 2009, 10:14 AM

    Tailor, you have made a fundamental assumption that your entire scheme depends on. You are assuming that a religious text cannot be bullshit. You are assuming that it must have a deeper meaning than is apparent, which indicates that you realise that what it actually says is thoroughly uninspiring at best and downright nasty at worst.

    Your assumption is only an assumption, though. It's one you make because of your own idiosyncrasies. You desire deeper meaning and therefore you are going to bloody well find it, so there.

    Now let's take your assertion that Mohammed was speaking in a prophetic/symbolic fashion rather than in clear Arabic as the Quran itself claims. For a start this means you are directly contradicting the Quran. Not a great start for a Muslim, I would suggest. Leaving that aside though you have another and greater problem. You claimed that Mohammed had to speak in this fashion because God is beyond human language and therefore the "mind of God" or whatever could not be revealed in a straightforward fashion. Your own posts shoot this claim down in flames. Why? Because you are managing to explain your views in plain, everyday English. If you can do that and God is more capable than you then surely a prophet could be spoken to clearly and could in turn speak clearly.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #48 - April 26, 2009, 10:22 AM

    But it'd be absurd for one to make an effort to bring back Zeus.


    Well yes, this is actually the whole project set in motion by Carl Jung?s psychoanalysis. To categorize, comprehend and unlock the archetypes within all religions. He did this with Ancient Greek mythology. He did it with Sumerian mythology. Zeus has been brought back, in a very positive sense, within Jung's approach.

    By the way, this forum is fascinating! It is very much an anti-Mosque. I see many of the threads are forms of "literalist" hadith analysis and tafsir. This forum I think represents the end-game for "literalist" Islam. If people consider things fully, rationally, scientifically and "literally", they will end here and you guys will have to buy a bigger server!

    But then what happens? Why does the tafsir continue, still in the same mode of discussion as you had at your mosque? Obviously it is nice to have a support group and a forum where you can say, all together, "this is ridiculous!" Particularly if you are still stuck with Muslim friends or family members.

    Everyone needs to burn off anger against the damage a fascist mode of thinking. But after you have burnt off the anger, what then? Will there be a point at which you can walk away from the past, and forget about that Prophet, his wives, the companions and what you were taught of them? Or will you constantly recall those figures, those stories full of sex, violence and incomprehensible actions, recalling them in disgust that you could have followed so blindly?

    Ned told me to be careful with my use of metaphor: advising not to confuse metaphor with reality (I responded to that rather esoterically, citing a bunch of difficult philosophers). But I guess what Ned was actually saying was: don't commit shirk in my blog, worshipping my gendered "metaphors" for something real. Perhaps Ned is a stronger monotheist than I!

    But let me use metaphor just a little bit. I am certainly not asking anyone to play my game. But how long do you think you will have to play <<their>> game?

    The Tailor
    http://thegoodgarment.wordpress.com/




    The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

    https://vimeo.com/110528857
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #49 - April 26, 2009, 10:26 AM

    That last post was almost entirely free of content IMO.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #50 - April 26, 2009, 10:33 AM

    That last post was almost entirely free of content IMO.


    He he he  Roll Eyes

    The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

    https://vimeo.com/110528857
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #51 - April 26, 2009, 10:42 AM

    Well you weren't really saying much, and to be honest I do think that despite your claim you are asking people to play your game. You are not demanding it, but you sure are asking.

    The content was minimal because it boils down to stating that debunking mainstream Islam is being bound to playing someone else's game. You ask how long this will be necessary, but the way you phrase it comes across as an accusation of weakness. I think you are uncomfortable with it because it focuses on something you regard as false and you would prefer people to focus on something you regard as true. In that respect you're just like anyone else.

    This focus will be necessary as long as the current mainstream of Islam has significant influence. It isn't just a question of burning off anger and then walking away. It goes deeper than that, at least for some people.

    Anyway, do you have any response to my earlier post?

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #52 - April 26, 2009, 10:58 AM

    ...Yes, this is certainly something that all "mystics" need to face up to, and I know that (even within my order) they turn their face from this suffering...


    I'm afraid this isn't good enough. If we are talking about a purely human attempt at guiding mankind then I could be more forgiving. But if the "Divine" is involved in some way then it simply isn't good enough.

    Maybe I'm just not clever enough to grasp what you're saying. That is quite possible since it is not the first time that I have been confused or bewildered by mystical or philosophical explanations that seem to make no sense to me.

    I prefer the more obvious answer. That the myths created and developed by the Jewish people (from earlier myths) and taken on and developed by Christians and later Muhammad are just man-made with nothing to do with any Divine inspiration.

    If I am wrong, then surely no God worthy of the name can blame me in the slightest for coming to such a conclusion and he'll just have to put me in the 'stupid heaven' put aside for those on a lower level of intelligence - that would clearly contain most of mankind.

    But as I say, I wish you good luck with all this - and I mean that sincerely. Smiley
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #53 - April 26, 2009, 11:13 AM

    I'd still like a response to my earlier post because it is about a central issue here. I'll paraphrase it in case it was misunderstood. Sometimes my posts have meanings that aren't immediately apparent. Wink

    The issue is that you (Tailor) claim that the Quran contains divine revelations that could not be revealed in straightforward language, yet you also claim you understand these revelations and then proceed to explain them in straightforward language.

    Question: if you can do it why couldn't Mohammed?

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #54 - April 26, 2009, 11:14 AM

    Ah, Osman, my apologies: I missed your earlier comment.

    Tailor, you have made a fundamental assumption that your entire scheme depends on. You are assuming that a religious text cannot be bullshit. You are assuming that it must have a deeper meaning than is apparent, which indicates that you realise that what it actually says is thoroughly uninspiring at best and downright nasty at worst.


    Yes, it is quite dark at times, isn?t it? It?s rather like that 90's Gangsta Rap, which was all about using the signs and images of those Fancis Ford Coppola movies as a poetic conceit to express daily life in the slums of America. But then rather violent nature of those images and metaphors began to be taken literally by the kids, and a genuinely violent gangsta culture was born. But as the grandfather of rap Rakim once made quite clear: when I say I'm going to shoot you in the head, I'm going to shoot you in the head with a rhyme. He never rhymed that though, cause that would be wicky wicky wak. So his words got lost in the whole subculture of rap because there are a lot of idiots who listen to this stuff. I think I'll put on my old Snoop Dogg album ... anyone here enjoy a bit of gansta rap?

    Your assumption is only an assumption, though. It's one you make because of your own idiosyncrasies. You desire deeper meaning and therefore you are going to bloody well find it, so there.

    Quite right. It is only an assumption, that has become an axiom for me due to my own personal experience, and all journeys are individual journeys. I work in research professionally, so in my day job I desire deeper meaning and am bloody well going to find it. Ditto for my night work Tongue

    But I grant you this is all very subjective. All religion comes down to one person relating to the Mystery through their creativity, be it a "literalist" creativity or something a bit more far out.

    Now let's take your assertion that Mohammed was speaking in a prophetic/symbolic fashion rather than in clear Arabic as the Quran itself claims. For a start this means you are directly contradicting the Quran. Not a great start for a Muslim, I would suggest. Leaving that aside though you have another and greater problem. You claimed that Mohammed had to speak in this fashion because God is beyond human language and therefore the "mind of God" or whatever could not be revealed in a straightforward fashion. Your own posts shoot this claim down in flames. Why? Because you are managing to explain your views in plain, everyday English. If you can do that and God is more capable than you then surely a prophet could be spoken to clearly and could in turn speak clearly.


    Well, first I am terribly flattered that you consider me to be speaking clearly. But, as Ned was careful to indicate earlier, my metaphors are unsophisticated and inaccurate. As the poststructural philosophers such as Derrida have shown: all explanations are ultimately doomed to failure. All explanations, not just religious ones: I will never be able to capture the meaning of "table" for example, using an explanation. Because signs evade capture. Metaphor is explanation: the Salafi tafsir, my tafsir, the ex-Muslim forum tafisr: all are creative applications of metaphor to explain. Signs in place of signs. And anyone who believes that, within language, an absolute totality of meaning -- for "table" or "9" or "God" -- can be captured by a collection of explanatory sentences is committing an act of Linguistic Fascism. This is why we can legitimately call many religious groups spiritually fascist.

    So we communicate through approximation. And therefore I do not express myself clearly at all. Explanation is by definition unclear. And never will: it is the inevitable "failure" of the philosopher. But what happens when we abandon metaphor, abandon explanation and tafsir, and simply apply signs? A life without explanation? This is pure Prophecy: and the reason why the Prophetic books are clear.

    Am I being circular in my arguments? Yes: but some forms of circularity are acceptable in logic:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinduction



     

    The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

    https://vimeo.com/110528857
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #55 - April 26, 2009, 11:27 AM

    You're not being circular. You're being obscurantist. If Derrida claimed that all explanations are doomed to failure then Derrida was being stupid. Personally I have heard in my time plenty of good explanations that succeeded very well. I have even been the originator of some of them. Yes, they do involve a degree of approximation but calling that "doomed to failure" is a ridiculous and unnecessary extrapolation. Good explanations are functional, not an idealised Platonic structure.

    In case you're about to tell me that Derrida was far from stupid I'll point out that intelligence is no barrier to intermittent stupidity. Kant was a good example of this. Attempting to derive a moral system by use of pure logic was, in hindsight at least, an idiotic stunt. No wonder it failed. Godel was smarter than Kant. Grin

    You can explain your views and you do explain them. Whether or not your explanations are perfect isn't the problem. I expect that explanations of personal, unshared, idiosyncratic views will themselves require further explanation at times.This is a normal part of human interaction.

    What I was getting at is that you have no trouble (or not that much) explaining what you think the Quran and ahadith really mean under their surface layers, yet you still want to claim that they had to be presented as being those surface layers because Mohammed's mind couldn't deal with what was being imparted to it.

    This is directly equivalent to claiming that your mind is vastly superior to Mohammed's mind.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #56 - April 26, 2009, 11:38 AM

    You know, I agree he is a problematic character, but I get the impression that the Meccan Muhammad and Medinan Muhammad are quite different. I get the sense that he started off as decent person but the later military conquests and the influx of concubines, slaves, etc. etc. just went to his head.

    Reminds me of this, from Michael Muhammad Knight:

    Quote from: Ending to a failed novel
    ...With an arm around Noorjahan, Ben proposed his new take:

    "I've been lugging around my Marmaduke Pickthall," he said, "and before every sura he mentions whether it was revealed at Mecca or Medina. It had me thinking?and I need to check it out further, but here's an idea - what if something changed after the Hijra??

    "What do you mean?"

    "When Muhammad first began his mission, they shit on the Muslims left and right and the whole time Allah said don't react violently, bear it with patience, leave it up to the Lord of all the Worlds, you know? That's when Islam was beautiful."

    "Then what?" she asked, propping up her head to look at him.

    "Then the Muslims emigrated to Medina and it was a different world. The Muslims were no longer persecuted. Muhammad wasn't getting intestines smeared on his head in the street. He had become a statesman and was building his power. If I think about all the rotten or at least questionable things he did that make it hard for me to be Muslim... Jesus, they're all post-Hijra. The Muslims emigrated in 622, right?"

    "Right," she said.

    "Aisha wore pigtails when Muhammad tapped her in 623. The Muslims fought at Badr in 624. Uhud, Banu Nadir and the second Badr in 625. The Qurayza massacre in 627. And in 628 he began sending egomaniacal letters to kings and world leaders. I wonder if the Quran's Mecca parts are any different from its Medina ones?what if getting all famous and powerful corrupted him and he lost the mantle?"

    "There was a guy who already came up with this," she told him.

    "You're kidding!"

    "No. He was Somalian. He flat-out said, "Muhammad in Mecca is my prophet, not in Medina." So they fatwa'd his ass."

    "It makes sense. Maybe the Prophet just sold out - like a little garage band with all the sincerity in the world until that big record deal comes through and cheeses everything up."

    "You know what else happened in Muhammad's life around that time?"

    "No, what?"

    "620, two years before Hijra- Khadija died."

    Ben thought about that as he held a warm naked girl in his arms who had love for him that wasn't only lusting or crushing or puppy-something and it wasn't the kind of love that'd make her bound to his bed forever. What she really had for Ben could best be called a ridiculous extreme of compassion.

    Somebody had that for the Prophet, even when he'd run down mountaintops and tell her what crazy voices were saying to him. I?m going nuts, he'd cry, I'm really losing it this time and Khadjia would just bury his head in her bosom and hold him tight. What would it be like to not have that after so long?

    If Rasullullah's downfall was being mean over a girl, Ben Majnun could see a little Sunni in himself.

    THE END


    I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #57 - April 26, 2009, 11:41 AM

    Tailor, my point is just that it's impossible to establish the historicity of what you're saying anyway. You're saying that Muhammad really had this profound archetypal understanding of reality and he used these archetypes and metaphors in ways consistent with that understanding. But where's the historical evidence for this?

    I know of no evidence that Muhammad himself understood the Quranic verses in the manner you describe (especially the ones on women, etc.).

    By the way, I have actually done a study of different spiritual traditions so to some degree I'm following what you're saying. But I expect that many of the atheists / agnostics / deists are just kind of confused reading your posts. You'll have to start from first principles. What's your metaphysic? Do you think there are planes of reality? How does God relate to the manifested, physical, visible world? How do we acquire authentic knowledge about reality? What are the different ways or modes of knowing we can employ? What really happens when a prophet receives a revelation (i.e. what is his or her psychological state)? Etc. Etc.
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #58 - April 26, 2009, 12:09 PM


    @ the Tailor,

    Here are some OT verses regarding "wives" straight as YHWH instructed:

    Deuteronomy 22:13-21  Stone a woman if her husband thinks she isn't a virgin and there isn't a bloody cloth from the wedding night to prove him wrong. She is guilty until proven innocent even though not all women bleed their first time having sex. Not only is this law sexist, as there's no equivalent for men (who were definitely allowed to sleep with more than one woman), but it seems impossible for an omniscient God, who would have known that not bleeding doesn't have to mean not being a virgin. One could argue that this law was so important (which I disagree with anyway, but ok) that God needed to just do the best he could, and we're all sinners anyway, so it's ok to kill some innocent women in order to make sure to get the unchaste women. But even that doesn't work, because if God knew the hymen wasn't a virginity test, he could have used the magic test described in Numbers:

    Numbers 5:11-31 'If a man thinks his wife has cheated on him, he can have her drink 'bitter water' to see if she becomes cursed. There is no similar test for unfaithful husbands. We have three ways of looking at this: 1) the bitter water was poison and the wives were always shown to be cheaters.  This would condemn innocent women, just like the hymen test above.  2) The bitter water was harmless, and the test was prescribed in order to placate jealous husbands so they wouldn?t beat their wives.  This would be dishonest to the husbands of women who actually had cheated, and would leave us with the puzzle of why a God so concerned about avoiding domestic violence wouldn?t go ahead and outlaw it explicitly.  3) The bitter water really worked.  This would still prop up the sexual double standard, and there' no excuse for this magic not to have been used for newlyweds instead of the very flawed hymen test above.

    As Hassan said, there is absolutely nothing esoteric or symbolic about Allah's prescription to "hit" a rebellious wife, similarly there is absolutely nothing beautiful,mystical or symbolic about YHWH's command that a suspicious husband can feed his wife mud water which can be extremely harmful to her health, or that a newlywed who doesn't bleed can be stoned on her dad's doorstep.


    If such simple & straight cut laws were found in The Code of Hammurabi (Codex Hammurabi ) most people would be quick to dismiss the laws as the barbaric ideas of ancients, instead of looking at some symbolic beauty or mystery in them.

    Yet, just like laws given by YHWH & Moses, the Hammurabi Code was also apparently given by a God-Marduk, the High Lord of the Ancient Sumerians.

    Here are extracts from Hammurabi's Code:

    If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.  

    Cutting off a woman's breasts seems barbaric to us, & no one would attempt to find symbolic beauty in the idea, nor will they try to imagine that the God Marduk intended something radically different-we'll simply dismiss both the God & His barbaric instructions.

    Ditto with any country's Constitution, today South Africans would mostly accept that their country's Apartheid era constitution was discriminatory towards blacks, they'll not try to find the "symbolic equality" towards blacks from that Constitution. Anyone doing so will be dismissed as a looney at best, & a racist at worst.

    Unfortunately with YHWH or Allah, people still worship them, so they'll try to defend the indefensible by trying to interpret stuff differently than is obvious.

    Muslims are not even succeeding at fooling themselves, which is why they can't get over stonings, floggings & wife beatings.



    Quote from: the tailor
    If they (and our ancestors) could perceive signs in this kind of way, why couldn't the early nomadic Hebrews and a core group of Muhammed?s followers (a core group, I emphasize -- I think a great many of his followers did employ the kind of ?ordinary? reading you guys have rejected -- and the abuse of it began almost from the beginning).
    And if they can do it, why can?t the masses of today do it? I don't mean they <<should>> -- I just mean it is feasible, so at least in principle I am not being elitist

     

    What  makes you think that our ancient ancestors perceived signs in this way tailor?

    Most probably the Hebrews used their laws to stone, the Muslims in many countries still use their laws to stone.

    Why interpret a text which is obviously barbaric symbolically?
    Only because its a religious text?
    Would you interpret the "Proticols of the Elders of Zion" symbolically as some text with great inner beauty??

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Hyper-Salafism: the True Meaning of Islam
     Reply #59 - April 26, 2009, 12:13 PM

    Peace and blessings traveller Ned,

    Tailor, my point is just that it's impossible to establish the historicity of what you're saying anyway. You're saying that Muhammad really had this profound archetypal understanding of reality and he used these archetypes and metaphors in ways consistent with that understanding. But where's the historical evidence for this?

    I know of no evidence that Muhammad himself understood the Quranic verses in the manner you describe (especially the ones on women, etc.).


    I have just posted something about historical authenticity, the essential impossibility of an authentic recreation of history (within the space of measured years), and the impact this has on my religious understanding:

    http://thegoodgarment.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/the-historical-jesus/

    If you want me to prove that Muhammed understood the verses in this style, this can't be done (apart from idle psychological speculation based on his very peculiar behaviour that intimates he was certainly not an normal politician).
    There are other proofs that I could show you I suppose. Do you astral travel? He he he  Cheesy

    Love and Light,

    The Tailor

    The Divisions of Love, second album by my Cabbalacore band, the Friends of Design, out now:

    https://vimeo.com/110528857
  • Previous page 1 23 4 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »