On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 25 Apr 2016, at 23:50, Samiya Illias wrote: > > 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. > > > So, at this stage, if we are machine, Allah might be either the > arithmetical truth, or even the computable part of the arithmetical truth. > In that last case, Allah is part of the creation, but you can avoid this by > taking Allah being the whole of arithmetical truth, or something in between. > > I recall that there is a program which generates all programs, and > executes them all. It does that an infinity of time, and that work is out > of time and space, which are explained as phenomenological (and indexical) > views from inside in arithmetic. > > There is nothing comparable to Allah. If you can imagine God as arithmetic or a part of it, or if you can imagine God as a program, you are making a huge mistake. > > > > > 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> > > > > But given that we seem to agree on the definition of Allah, what makes you > sure a priori that it is not the same religion, just using different words > (and using it differently)? > Your definition of Allah seems to be a part of creation while my understanding is that Allah is the Creator and is apart and independent of creation. I don't see how the two definitions agree. Samiya > > Bruno > > > > 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. > > > 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.
