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 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 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] 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] 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 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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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.
