The Quran, Chapter 112 <http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=112&translator=4> Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.
The God I worship is not part of creation but rather outside and independent of creation. My God, Allah, The Deity is The One who *conceived* the entire creation, *coded* the software, *executed* to create the hardware, and *sustains* the program wholly and entirely. Allah is independent of the program and all within it. Everything and everyone within the program is dependent on the All-Knowing God for everything. I worship not that which you worship, nor worship you that which I worship! Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. <http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=109&translator=4> Samiya On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 24 Apr 2016, at 05:19, Samiya Illias wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Samiya, >> >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Telmo for your kind words. Appreciate it! >>> >>> You ask 'please respect mine' - I do not know what your faith and >>> beliefs are, and if I have unknowingly shown any disrespect, I apologise to >>> you for it and pray to Allah for forgiveness. >>> >> >> No need for apologies (well I don't know about Allah, but I'm cool). What >> I mean is this: we have a mailing list dedicated to theories of everything. >> > > Scripture is essentially a Theory of Everything! > > > I agree. > > Yet, to be franc, a rather naive one, which takes for granted a lot of > infinities, and a problem with the big One that we cannot name. > > In mathematics, we get approximation of sort of "everything theory", like > Set theory (in which you can formalize very big part of mathematics. yet, > we know that we cannot formalize completely even just the arithmetical > reality. It transcend us, and provably so assuming we are correct > machine/program/number. > > > > >> It seems to be polite to discuss topics that can be communicated, that >> can have some hope of being meaningful to the audience. >> > > I think I mostly write in response to questions raised. I cite and quote > the Quran so that everyone knows the original source and can check for > themselves. > > > I did, but, the validity worked also with judaism, christianism, and even > neoplatonisme, and my new favorite one, neopythagoreanism (Moderatus de > Gades). > > Then you made not the statistics right all the time, and argue like those > who say that cannabis leads to heroin (the most common error, if not > propaganda technic, to build scapegoats. I refer to older conversations). > > > > > > Suppose I started writing emails every day describing my dreams in >> excruciating detail, citing from things that happened in them and how they >> affected me. >> > >> >>> >>> I do not ask anyone to believe the Quran to be among the divinely >>> revealed scriptures because of my faith in it. Rather, I attempt to show >>> that it is a factually accurate text ( >>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ ) and thus must be taken >>> seriously! >>> >> >> You are suffering from an extreme case of confirmation bias. When you >> arrive at the conclusion that the Quran is compatible with modern science, >> you fail to take into account the probability of your interpretation of >> each sentence being the one that the author had in mind. >> > > Of course, I can be wrong, but I also can be right. How would you know if > you refuse you verify for yourself? > > > The Quran is a poem. The bible(s) too. The texts are written by humans, > and are allegory of their experiences. > > Any machine looking inward, and remaining sound in the process, cannot > avoid grasping the nature of what they can't grasp, and they can discovered > that those things which extends their mean of justification obeys laws, etc. > > Those who meet God, or those who drink the Glass of Milk, will NVER say > so, as they know that whatever they could say after that is implicitly > referring to the worst argument of authority ever. > > I made the verification, but it works also for the bible, and even for > Alice in Wonderland. I can argue that Lewis Carroll has anticipated the > whole science which has succeeded him, (including Gödel and Löb, but also > Einstein and Schroedinger and even Bell) and he, at least, did not fall in > the trap of the authoritative argument (although he did fall in it in > "Sylvie and Bruno" though!). > > Yes, some people intuit the big picture, and get variate mystical > experience. To me, the understanding that some equation have no solutions, > like 2(x^2) = y^2, is already a (small) mystical experience. > > > > > > >> There are interpretations of the Quran that indicate that the Quran says >> that the earth is flat. >> > > Well, the Arabic word used implies spreading out like a carpet, which is > indeed closer to how one would define the crust/surface of the Earth. > > >> >> The text was written a long time ago, in the context of a long gone >> culture and set of circumstances. >> > > The text is still relevant, and warns us of events to come, both in this > world and in the Hereafter: > For every news (is) a fixed time, and soon you will know. > http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/67/ > > > >> It's hard to agree on the intention behind many sentences in the US >> constitution, let alone this. >> >> If the Quran told me that the runtime complexity of the quicksort >> algorithm is O(n log n), or that the sun is x times further away from the >> earth than the moon on average, I would be impressed. But it never says >> anything of the sort, does it? It's always up to the reader to squint >> really hard to find the "scientific truth", isn't it? >> > > Well, it depends on the knowledge and intelligence of the reader, as well > as the willingness of the reader to try to understand and take guidance. > For example, it states repeatedly that the water was sent to Earth. Some > translators translate the arabic word for water as rain, which naturally > changes the meaning. However, latest findings seem to confirm that water > was delivered to Earth: > http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/10/origins-of-water.html > >> >> Maybe the Quran inspires you personally. I understand that, I have my own >> things that inspire me personally. That help me get in touch with >> transcendence. Some music, for example, and also some books. I don't wish >> to diminish your love of the Quran, but I would like it if you stopped >> citing it as evidence for anything whatsoever. It's a personal thing, keep >> it to yourself please. By not doing so, you are polluting our environment. >> It's not respectful or polite. >> > > That's a strange remark. Citing Plato or Aristotle or Einstein or Alice in > Wonderland is okay, but citing the scripture, and specifically the Quran is > not? > >> >> >>> >>> This email list has been pondering, discussing and debating machine >>> theology, the mind-body problem, 1P, 3P, and so on. You understand the >>> relationship between the software and the hardware. Who then can better >>> appreciate the scriptures when they speak of the WORD preceding everything, >>> that is, the CODE which generated the entire creation and everyone and >>> everything in it?! Who then can better understand that it is the COMMAND >>> which effects changes in the PROGRAM, and the COMMAND is generated by the >>> PROGRAMMER (God)?! >>> >> >> Either God is itself part of the (infinite) program, in some sense, or >> you are invoking dualism. Dualism has its own set of problems and I find it >> trivially refutable. >> > > God is not part of creation. God is the Creator. > > > Here, I have a problem. Or at least I have to be very cautious. > > In the machine theology God's role if played by the Arithmetical > truth/reality (the structure (N, 0, s, +, *)). > > I hope you agree that Ex(x + 2 = 5) is true, independently of you and me. > > But with computationalism, we know that the machine/program/number cannot > distinguish the complete truth for the Sigma_1 complete truth, and they can > justify the necessity of the consistent extensions (non sigma_1) without > any ontological commitment above the sigma_1 truth. > > But the sigma_1 truth coincides with the sigma_1 provability. We have p > <-> []p, > > and this makes me able to tell you who God is: you, or any sigma_1 > complete entity (assuming mechanism). > > But now, I did it! I made the blasphem! And I bring the creator in the > creation! > > What will save us from the blasphem here, is that if p <-> []p is indeed > true, it will be that only p -> []p is provable by the machine (p sigma_1). > > []p -> p remains non provable (even with p restricted to the sigma_1), so > the identity of God and one of its creature remains absolutely incognito, > which is coherent with not invoking God in argument as they become argument > of authority. > > God is the universal machine is true, but belongs to G* \ G. No machine > will tell you that, but all will tell why they would become unsound, if not > inconsistent, if they communicate this without an interrogation mark (which > is implicit in the acceptance that computationalism belongs to religion, > which is the modesty that we don't know for sure that we can survive with a > digital brain). > > > > >> >>> Who then knows that even what appears RANDOM is generated by CODE?! Who >>> then can better relate to the concepts of NAFS (1P) and OBSERVERS & >>> WITNESSES (3P)?! Who then can better realise that if a CODE was originally >>> conceived and has been WRITTEN, then repeating the CODE to RECREATE it is >>> far easier?! >>> >> >> >> We talk a lot about computacionalism, and then it makes sense to talk of >> programs, but that doesn't giver you carte blanche to run with the analogy >> so far without further inspection. >> >> The name "everything list" comes from a possible answer to where the >> program comes from: the possibility that all things exist. Bruno provides a >> more rigorous definition (assuming computationalism) of this idea with his >> Universal Dovetailer. You can take it or leave it, but you have to concede >> that it is possible to conceive of programs without a programmer >> (interventionist god) in the sense that you want. >> > > I cannot conceive a program without a programmer. > > > Take any programming language. By the compilation theorem, all programs, > in any language, can be complied into a combinator. But the syntax of the > combinator is very simple, as K is a program, S is a program, and if X and > Y are programs then (X, Y) is a program. > > You have all programs then > K, > S, > (K K), > (K S) > (S K) > (S S) > ((K K) K), > (K ( K K)), > ((K K) S) > (K (K S)) > (K (S K)) > ... > > "K" and "S" are abstract symbols, the operational meaning is in the > equation ((K x) y) =x, and (((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z)). > > If you agree that Ex(x + 2 = 5) is true independently of you and me, you > need to agree that the combinators exists in arithmetic, without the letter > K and S, of course, but with the relevant relations. > > To be a program can be translated into being a number verify some (simple) > arithmetical relation, and the same is true for halting, and non halting > computations. > > If you agree that Ex(x + 2 = 5), and are open to the idea that we are > machine, then what even a God cannot do, is to select one computation to > make it feel realler than the one which emerge statistically (in the > relative way) from all computations (the Church-Turing arithmetical notion). > > > > > >> >> >>> And, especially, who then can better understand that tampering with the >>> PERFECT CODE only corrupts it?! >>> >> >> If the original code is perfect, and this perfect code is running us from >> the start, then everything we do is perfect. There is no need to fear >> corruption. If you fear corruption, then you don't believe that the >> original code is perfect. >> > > The worst thing that can be done to a software is to corrupt it. > > > OK. But that is a relative notion. Thanks to God, we cannot corrupt > arithmetic, at least that is my faith! > > But the software can contain relative bugs, and what the universal number > *can* know is that if they are not corrupted then they can be corrupted or > relatively deluded. > > > > We humans have been granted knowledge and the responsibility that comes > with it. When we try to self-destruct by tampering with our own code, > divine intervention comes to prevent it. > > > When we lie, truth soon or later shows itself. > > > > This is the lesson I've understood so far from the narrations of past > civilisations in the Quran who were destroyed. Not only were they punished > for their corruption, > > > "corruption" is an heavy words. And "punished" invoke moral, which might > be protagorean (teachable by examplar behavior, and not by moral > discourses). > > > > > humanity was saved from extinction through these divine acts. The divine > intervention was an act of mercy for the rest of mankind! > > > I can see it in that way, remaining quite cautious on the precise meaning > of term like mercy, or even humanity. > > > > >> >>> >>> *Quran 30:30* <http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/30/30/> So direct >>> your face toward the religion, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] *the >>> fitrah of Allah upon which He has created [all] people*. *No change >>> should there be in the creation of Allah* . *That is the correct >>> religion*, but most of the people do not know. >>> >>> And who better to realise that a PROGRAM is WRITTEN and EXECUTED for a >>> PURPOSE?! >>> >>> *Quran 42:51 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/42/51/> *And it was not >>> (vouchsafed) to any mortal that Allah should speak to him unless (it be) by >>> revelation or from behind a veil, or (that) He sendeth a messenger to >>> reveal what He will by His leave. Lo! He is Exalted, Wise. And thus have We >>> inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit of Our command. [Q42:52 >>> <http://islamawakened.com/quran/42/52/>] Thou knewest not what the >>> Scripture was, nor what the Faith. But We have made it a light whereby We >>> guide whom We will of Our bondmen. And lo! thou verily dost guide unto a >>> right path, [Q42:53 <http://islamawakened.com/quran/42/53/>] The path >>> of Allah, unto Whom belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever >>> is in the earth. Do not all things reach Allah at last? >>> [Translator: Pickthall] >>> >>> *Quran 27:82 <http://quran.com/27/82>* warns us that: ‘And when the >>> word is fulfilled concerning them, We shall bring forth a *beast* of >>> the earth to speak unto them because mankind had not faith in Our >>> revelations.’ >>> >>> With advances in computing and genetic engineering, we are fast >>> approaching the foretold terrible outcome of tampering with creation. >>> Please think about it. >>> >> >> If you mean deliberately changing DNA with technology according to our >> whims, we've been doing this for centuries (millennia?) to other species >> and we already do it to humans in several ways. >> > > And if Allah (were to) punish the people for what they have earned, not He > would leave on its back any creature. But He gives them till a term > appointed. And when comes their term, then indeed, Allah is of His slaves > All-Seer. > http://islamawakened.com/quran/35/45/ > > >> Not even mentioning many other forms of "tampering with creation" >> including surgery (without one I would be dead at the age of 1 month >> because of a birth defect in my stomach valve). >> > > Correction and corruption are two different things - one has to do with > end-user interacting with the program, the other tampering with the source > code. > > > The frontier between end user and source code is not clear, and relative > to universal numbers, and you cannot do the thinking for the others. You > can only run if they do the thinking for you. > > There will be a large varieties of different theotechnologies, some > imposing themselves by limiting biotechnologies, some involving brain > perturbations, plants, etc. > Those are the kind of things which we should not prohibit, because that > interdiction only accelerates the process by making it uncontrollable and > in the underground. Legalization and regulation, like with the > medication/drug when they are all legal (to let the genuine free > markets/people decide, and not the money making of a minority. > > Religion must come back in science. It must remain separated from > politics. The same with the art of health, etc. > > The God of Mechanism looks like the Existent of Sri Aurobindo. He lost > itself in his creation for the *sheer delight* to say hello to itself > *innumerably*(*). > > Bruno > > (*) *What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?* > > *And it is this ...* > *Existence that multiplied itself* > *For sheer delight of being* > *And plunged into numberless trillions of forms* > *So that it might* > *Find * > *Itself* > *Innumerably (Aurobindo)* > > > > Samiya > > >> >> Cheers >> Telmo. >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Samiya >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Samya, >>>> >>>> I am sorry to tell you but you are infected by a thought virus. I hope >>>> you are cured from it eventually. >>>> >>>> You state that the Quran is the ultimate source of truth. Many people >>>> claim, and have claimed, throughout the ages, that X is the ultimate source >>>> of truth. You are claiming that all of these people are wrong, but you are >>>> right. Why? >>>> >>>> I see two possibilities: >>>> >>>> a) [I suspect you will start here...] Because the Quran says so. The >>>> problem is that there are many other sources that make that claim for >>>> themselves. Why believe the Quran and not these other sources? >>>> >>>> b) [...and then you will escape here] Because you *know inside you* >>>> that the Quran is the truth. Ok, I have no argument to make against that, >>>> but I don't feel that way. Trying to convince me to feel such things like >>>> you is insane. I have my own life and experiences. My own sources of >>>> transcendence. I respect yours, please respect mine, anything else is >>>> insanity and leads to the horrors that we all know about. >>>> >>>> I think you are a very polite and well-meaning person, and I am sorry >>>> that you are stuck in this mental loop. I hope you manage to get out of it >>>> soon. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Telmo. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Samya, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the >>>>>>> theological point of view, the closer to the machine's theology, which >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> not astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism too (and I >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> explained that the mathematical theology of the universal machine is >>>>>>> close >>>>>>> to Neoplatonism, and also to the Neopythagoreanism of the earlier >>>>>>> centuries). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have discovered the Alevi Bektashi sects since, and they confirmed >>>>>>> my feeling, not only with respect to the theological science, but also >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> respect to practice and their openness to other religion (which *is* a >>>>>>> sign >>>>>>> of genuine faith in the machine's faith). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know them? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't know about this sect, but just read it up on Wikipedia. >>>>>> There are several sects in Islam, as in all other religions. Though I >>>>>> disagree with their beliefs, I will not comment upon it or criticise it, >>>>>> as >>>>>> I am held back by these verses of the Quran: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, those who divide their religion and become sects, you are not >>>>>> with them in anything. Only their affair (is) with Allah, then He will >>>>>> inform them of what they used to do. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/159/ >>>>>> >>>>>> And hold firmly to (the) rope (of) Allah all together and (do) not be >>>>>> divided. And remember (the) Favor (of) Allah on you when you were enemies >>>>>> then He made friendship between your hearts then you became by His Favor >>>>>> brothers. And you were on (the) brink (of) pit of the Fire then He saved >>>>>> you from it. Thus Allah makes clear for you His Verses so that you may >>>>>> (be) >>>>>> guided. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/3/103/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I realise also that Ataturk made a big mistake. Wanting to eliminate >>>>>>> the weight of religion in Turkey, he persecuted them and installed the >>>>>>> Sunni instead, which are rarely open to other religion and can often use >>>>>>> the "argument" of force (as we can see today in some countries, alas). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2340/the-bektashi-alevi-continuum-from-the-balkans-to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the french wikipedia, they assert also that the veil is not >>>>>>> obligatory, >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree that the veil is not obligatory. It is not even ordained to >>>>>> ordinary Muslims in the Quran. The veil or partition was ordained upon >>>>>> the >>>>>> believers as regards to the Prophet's wives in Chapter 33: >>>>>> >>>>>> O you who believe! (Do) not enter (the) houses (of) the Prophet >>>>>> except when permission is given to you for a meal, without awaiting its >>>>>> preparation. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have >>>>>> eaten, >>>>>> then disperse and not seeking to remain for a conversation. Indeed, that >>>>>> was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of (dismissing) you. But Allah >>>>>> is >>>>>> not shy of the truth. *And when you ask them (for) anything then ask >>>>>> them from behind a screen. That (is) purer for your hearts and their >>>>>> hearts.* And not is for you that you trouble (the) Messenger (of) >>>>>> Allah and not that you should marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, >>>>>> that >>>>>> is near Allah an enormity. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/53/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Consider the above in the light of these verses which precede verse >>>>>> 53 in the same chapter: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Prophet (is) closer to the believers than their own selves, and >>>>>> his wives (are) their mothers. And possessors (of) relationships, some of >>>>>> them (are) closer to another in (the) Decree (of) Allah than the >>>>>> believers >>>>>> and the emigrants, except that you do to your friends a kindness. That is >>>>>> in the Book written. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/6/ >>>>>> >>>>>> O wives (of) the Prophet! You are not like anyone among the women. If >>>>>> you fear (Allah), then (do) not be soft in speech, lest should be moved >>>>>> with he who, in his heart (is) a disease, but say a word appropriate. And >>>>>> stay in your houses and (do) not display yourselves (as was the) display >>>>>> (of the times of) ignorance the former. And establish the prayer and give >>>>>> zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Only Allah wishes to remove from >>>>>> you the impurity, (O) People (of) the House! And to purify you (with >>>>>> thorough) purification. And remember what is recited in your houses of >>>>>> (the) Verses (of) Allah and the wisdom. Indeed, Allah is All-Subtle, >>>>>> All-Aware. Indeed, the Muslim men and the Muslimen, and the believing men >>>>>> and the believing women, and the obedient men and the obedient women, and >>>>>> the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the >>>>>> patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the men who >>>>>> give charity and the women who give charity and the men who fast and the >>>>>> women who fast, and the men who guard their chastity and the women who >>>>>> guard (it), and the men who remember Allah much and the women who >>>>>> remember >>>>>> Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a reward great. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/32/ ; >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/33/ ; >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/34/ ; >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/35/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Relevant to the veil is also the issue of Head Cover. Someone on >>>>>> another list raised a question about head cover a while back. This is >>>>>> how I >>>>>> understand it: http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2016/01/head-cover.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and that the bektashi woman can marry without any problem a man with >>>>>>> another religion. The woman bektashi prays together with the man, which >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> nice, but also religiously serious if I can say. Woman are treated like >>>>>>> man. They are egalitarian, and have often fight against the use of >>>>>>> authority in religion and politics. Nor do they pray in the direction of >>>>>>> the Mecca. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding prayer and direction, we can sometimes pray together or >>>>>> segregated at the Grand Mosque at Mecca, as the situation may be. In many >>>>>> other mosques, separate arrangements are made for men and women, while in >>>>>> some local/small mosques, there is only prayer area for men, while women >>>>>> pray at home. >>>>>> >>>>>> Quran, Chapter 2, verses 142 onwards mention the Qibla, and the >>>>>> following verse orders and explains it thus: >>>>>> *And from wherever you start forth [so] turn your face (in the) >>>>>> direction (of) Al-Masjid Al-Haraam. And wherever that you (all) are [so] >>>>>> turn your faces (in) its direction*, *so that not will be for the >>>>>> people against you any argument* except those who wronged among >>>>>> them; so (do) not fear them, but fear Me. And that I complete My favor >>>>>> upon >>>>>> you [and] so that you may (be) guided. As We sent among you a Messenger >>>>>> from you (who) recites to you Our verses and purifies you and teaches you >>>>>> the Book and the wisdom and teaches you what not you were knowing. So >>>>>> remember Me, I will remember you and be grateful to Me and (do) not (be) >>>>>> ungrateful to Me. O you who believe[d]! Seek help through patience and >>>>>> the >>>>>> prayer. Indeed, Allah (is) with the patient ones. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/2/150/ ; >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/2/151/ ; >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/2/152/ ; >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/2/153/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The turning towards Qibla in Mecca is simply following the order for >>>>>> unity, and not an act of piety, as clarified by the following verse: >>>>>> It is not [the] righteousness that you turn your faces towards the >>>>>> east and the west, [and] but the righteous[ness] (is he) who believes in >>>>>> Allah and the Day [the] Last, and the Angels, and the Book, and the >>>>>> Prophets, and gives the wealth in spite of his love (for it) (to) the >>>>>> near >>>>>> relatives, and the orphans, and the needy, and (of) the wayfarer, and >>>>>> those >>>>>> who ask, and in freeing the necks (slaves) and (who) establish the >>>>>> prayer, >>>>>> and give the zakah, and those who fulfill their covenant when they make >>>>>> it; >>>>>> and those who are in [the] suffering and [the] hardship, and (the) time >>>>>> (of) [the] stress. Those (are) the ones who are true and those, [they] >>>>>> (are) the righteous. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/2/177/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Alevi (alone) people have originally claim that their religion >>>>>>> is anterior to Islam, despite close to Shi'ism after the influence of >>>>>>> Muhammad and Ali (Muhammad's nephew and sun in law). There are obvious >>>>>>> link >>>>>>> with Zoroastrism (the "mother" of the abrahamic religion). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I find them very interesting. The main point closer to machine's >>>>>>> theology, is that they have a non literal, mystic interpretation of the >>>>>>> Quran, >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose >>>>>> (i) someone receives a legal notice, and does not read it literally: >>>>>> would that be an intelligent or sensible thing to do? >>>>>> (ii) someone is entering into a contract with someone, and does not >>>>>> read the agreement literally: will this ignorance of the contract hold as >>>>>> an excuse if things do not go well and they eventually have to go to >>>>>> court? >>>>>> (iii) you write a paper or an email, and the recipients do not read >>>>>> it literally, even though they have a high regard for you and your >>>>>> knowledge, but choose to instead only keep it? suppose you wrote >>>>>> important >>>>>> information and vital instructions in it, not following which would cause >>>>>> the reader terrible loss, then would the recipients not be terribly >>>>>> unjust >>>>>> to themselves by not attempting to study, understand and follow it? >>>>>> >>>>>> What proof is there that the mystic non-literal interpretations are >>>>>> correct, and which one? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why would God send a non-literal text when God created all languages >>>>>> and can clearly express and instruct in any language? I believe that the >>>>>> Quran is a guidance for all believers*, so that they have the opportunity >>>>>> in this life to do good deeds accordingly and prove themselves worthy of >>>>>> God's forgiveness, and thus be purified** and granted inheritance of the >>>>>> Gardens of Eden. >>>>>> >>>>>> As the Quran itself states: >>>>>> *Only you (can) warn (him) who follows the Reminder and fears the >>>>>> Most Gracious in the unseen*. So give him glad tidings of >>>>>> forgiveness and a reward noble. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/36/11/ >>>>>> >>>>>> And not We taught him [the] poetry, and not it is befitting for him. *Not >>>>>> it (is) except a Reminder and a Quran clear, To warn (him) who is alive >>>>>> and >>>>>> may be proved true the Word against the disbelievers*. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/36/69/ ; >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/36/70/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Say, "What thing (is) greatest (as) a testimony?" Say, "Allah (is) >>>>>> Witness between me and between you, and has been revealed to me *this >>>>>> [the] Quran that I may warn you with it and whoever it reaches*. Do >>>>>> you truly testify that with Allah (there are) gods other?" Say, "I (do) >>>>>> not >>>>>> testify." Say, "Only He (is) One God, and indeed, I am free of what you >>>>>> associate (with Him) >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/19/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The Quran claims repeatedly that it is explained in detail: >>>>>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/03/explained-in-detail.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *believers: God knows who is a believer in the only true God, and who >>>>>> is a hypocrite, and who is a polytheist, and who is a disbeliever. I >>>>>> think >>>>>> these terminologies used in the Quran are independent of the religious >>>>>> titles we are born with or profess. Thus, the Quran exhorts: >>>>>> And remind, for indeed, the reminder benefits the believers. >>>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/51/55/ >>>>>> >>>>>> **purified: I understand the purification to be that our software is >>>>>> restored to its pristine original perfect condition, as I've discussed in >>>>>> my Mission of the Messengers blogposts, about how the Adam's genome got >>>>>> corrupted, and we have inherited it: >>>>>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/11/mission-of-messengers-iii.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I will take a look at some of those links, but the reason why I think >>>>>> we should not interpret literally the sacred text is that the "divine >>>>>> experience" is not communicable as such. It can inspire legal texts, but >>>>>> I >>>>>> take democracy as a human progress, and I prefer people voting the laws, >>>>>> than making them relying on the divine, because too many people could >>>>>> abuse >>>>>> them. In invoking the divine in the terrestrial affair, we automatically >>>>>> make an argument from authority, which cannot be valid. >>>>>> >>>>>> An official religion is sometimes a sect which has succeeded. The >>>>>> Quran says that we should not divide islam or religion, but that is >>>>>> exactly >>>>>> the spirit of the backteshi people: they manage to see what is common in >>>>>> all religion and build from that. officials and sectarian people points >>>>>> on >>>>>> the difference, which most of the time are details, which can be useful >>>>>> in >>>>>> some context, but should not be taken as literal truth. Today many >>>>>> muslims >>>>>> fight against each other: it is because of details, which strictly >>>>>> speaking >>>>>> have nothing to do with the divine message, and all to do with >>>>>> terrestrial >>>>>> power. It the literalism which prevents to see the truth behind the means >>>>>> of its expression, and that truth is available to any creature which >>>>>> looks >>>>>> inward. It is a personal undertaking, where it is better to not let >>>>>> anyone >>>>>> standing between you and the "glass of Milk" (to not given It a name). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> According to the Quran, the most beautiful names denoting perfection >>>>> belong to Allah, and we are encouraged to address Allah with those names: >>>>> >>>>> And for Allah (are) the names - the most beautiful, so invoke Him by >>>>> them. And leave those who deviate concerning His names. They will be >>>>> recompensed for what they used to do. >>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/7/180/ >>>>> >>>>> Allah - (there is) no god except Him. To Him (belong) the Names, the >>>>> Most Beautiful. >>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/20/8/ >>>>> >>>>> He (is) Allah, the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner. For Him (are) >>>>> the names the beautiful. Glorifies Him whatever (is) in the heavens and >>>>> the >>>>> earth. And He (is) the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. >>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/59/24/ >>>>> >>>>> List, translation and recitation of the 99 names of Allah mentioned in >>>>> the Quran >>>>> http://www.searchtruth.com/Allah/99Names.php >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no intermediate between a person and the ultimate truth. I >>>>>> have the feeling that literalism makes the prophet(s) into a sort of >>>>>> intermediate, but this might already be a blasphem, at least in the >>>>>> "correct religion" of the honest introspectibe being (machine or more >>>>>> general). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is no intercessor between a worshipper and Allah. Quran strictly >>>>> refutes the concept of intermediates. We pray directly to Allah. >>>>> >>>>> And warn with it those who fear that they will be gathered to their >>>>> Lord, not for them other than Him any protector and not any intercessor, >>>>> so >>>>> that they may (become) righteous. >>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/51/ >>>>> >>>>> A list of ten verses refuting intercessor: >>>>> http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=intercessor&chapter=&translator=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Scripture is revealed indirectly because: >>>>> And it was not (vouchsafed) to any mortal that Allah should speak to >>>>> him unless (it be) by revelation or from behind a veil, or (that) He >>>>> sendeth a messenger to reveal what He will by His leave. Lo! He is >>>>> Exalted, >>>>> Wise. >>>>> http://islamawakened.com/quran/42/51/ Translator: Pickthall >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We have already discussed this. I gave only the Bektashi Alevi Muslim >>>>>> branch as a nice example of people calling themselves Muslim and which >>>>>> are >>>>>> very close to the mathematical theology of the ideally correct machines. >>>>>> For the Sufi, that point was not so clear (especially concerning some >>>>>> modern sects). >>>>>> >>>>>> To expand ourself in the galaxy, we need the mechanist machine >>>>>> theology (many machine will be non mechanist too, as the machine soul >>>>>> cannot believe she is a machine). We must be open that God's creatures >>>>>> can >>>>>> be very different on different planets and galaxies. Again a case where >>>>>> literalism can divide instead of uniting. I think. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why? We already believe in the unseen, for example the existence of >>>>> jinns made from fire (energy lifeforms perhaps?) >>>>> >>>>> Samiya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Samiya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> which is directly reflected in their spiritual flexibility and >>>>>>> openness to *apparently different* faith. They understand that sacred >>>>>>> texts >>>>>>> are parabola to help the attempt to the personal experience of the >>>>>>> divine, >>>>>>> which is very often discouraged if not forbidden once a religion is >>>>>>> institutionalized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bruno >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>>>> . >>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>>>> . >>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
