several points

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Jan 3, 2009 at 02:33

Mr Bayezid replies:

>>
re Koran:

".....but ALLAH already declared it 1400 years ago. "
we do not agree on this point.

"its a question of having faith. apparently i do. you dont. although the message is clear and staring in your face."

I do not have faith in your concepts
It is a message that you believe in an find appropriate to yourself. Believing it to be so, naturally you asume it is appropriate for everyone else and would like to share it. That is perfectly understandable. But not appropriate as it is not the 'true' message. It's just words and stories. The true message is realisation.

GI wote:
>> It's good to see you find it OK that others can experience peace without following your belief system and that there is no need for Muslims to insist they have a monopoly on peace."

" i was only trying to calm you down, but whatever."

I was calm and remain calm

"....and as for peace, i wonder how someone can be at peace knowing god but then not obeying him. isnt that deluding the self ? i suppose some people find this situation peaceful. perhaps its because they do not know god ."

The Self cannot be deluded. One's mind can be deluded. You don't 'obey' peace - you experience it. You act consciously from an awareness of peace.

>> GI wrote:
Right - barred to the lowly 'kaffir'. The point being you are free to go anywhere you like including pilgrimage sites in Europe if you liked."

"....well ALLAH holds these sites in special importance for HIS slaves. those sites are muslim only zones to keep a fully islamic god fearing environment around them. this means maintaining a culture around those places not considered unlawful by god."

In Europe , they would hold that God is a little more generous and allows those shrines to be visited by people who were created free and whose essential true nature is freedom itself.

"then it must mean that the saudis are going against the shariah itself, dosent it?"
It means they are going about their interpretation of the much interpreted sharia

"..........it will be erroneous to equate diffeent local groups with islam. yes many are in the religion, but many hardly know islam well. i mentioned in the previous post that muslims have forgotten their own religion."

OK

"....again, its better to judge islam based on what ALLAH says than what people say. since the quran is HIS word.......... so if saudis dont do what they shouild be doing, its a case of following a bad example. religion hardly deserves the blame."
There's talk and there's actions. We can agree that many actions in many places by some Muslims have given a very bad impression to the vast majority of non-Muslims. Indeed some of the verses inthe Koran can be interpreted by Muslims (and non-Muslms) to encourage the slaughter or mistreatment of non-Muslims.

>>
GI wrote:
No axe to grind. We were not specifically limiting ourselves to discussion of the Koran. You asked the question 'what have Muslims ever done or said that was wrong" - I gave you an obvious answer. No amnesia involved. And you still haven't answered - was it wrong for the Musli leader of the ISLAMIC republic of Iran to suggest a genocidal action as the soultion for the problem he perceives?"

"........we all know about israel. ... so when you consider these, you begin to at least consider the side of the iranian president, if not suport him ."

Ahemedinijab (sp?) has wormed his way up through the ranks of their revolutionary guard and says and does things which support the aims and ideals of the people behind the Islamic republic of Iran.

"......if you still say that there was no reason for him saying that aftre the israelis actually did that, then you certainly have an axe to grind."
The Israelis have done nothing to him or to Iran other than bombing the crap out of their nuclear facilities a while ago. And in retrospect - they did it with good reason - given the sentiments he and others have expressed. Nowadays Iran has and contniues to supply arms to Hezbollah and other characters.

Did the Israelis say they should wipe Iran off the map? Has Israel ever done any harm to Iran - other than a bombing raid in the 80's that set back Iran's ambitions to produce a nuclear weapon?

"haha hamas. nice little decoy the israelis have set up. muslims, and palestinian muslis have niothing to do with hamas."

Other than in their democratic elections to vote out the incumbent moderate Fatah and vote in Hamas .

"..... the palestinians arent daft enuff not to realize that suicide bombings will nly dwindle their demographics even more. and need i mention tht this is not the way a muslim is commanded to fight."

Then Hamas is a problem for the Palestinans.

"......and i wouldnt be all that insolent in idnetifying a countys population with a renegade terrorist org that says operates from the country. just as i cant call all lankans members of ltte. "

Hamas, up until Israel's recent actions, were the ones controlling the GazaStrip. They were policing it and also the ones sending the rockets into nearby Israel. Hamas was well armed and willing and able to carry out attacks on Israel. They did. Naturally enough the Israeli military struck back - this time to a degree that Hamas were not expecting. Not all Palestinians support Hamas - but enough did to get them over the line in their last elections.

>>
GI wrote:
One question I've often asked is why don't the Egyptians, give Sinai to their fellow Muslim Palestinians. They're not doing anything with it. The Palestinians would get better soils, waterside blocks on the Red Sea, mountain view estates, a huge amount of land much bigger than all of israel. etc. The Israelis graciously gave back the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt after their 1967 skirmish. Nothing is being done with it. Why not that area rather than the forsaken strip of desert they presently feel attached to.

He was talking about not just a war crime but a crime against the UN Charter. Yes, he was completely wrong. As expected - in your contrived hatred against a people who have never done you or any other BanglaDeshis harm - ` you cannot see that. You almost have to hate Jews don't you? I mean what sort of Muslim would you be if you didn't? Who could you blame all the Muslim world's troubles on otherwise? I do not hate jews, I do not hate anybody. I don't need to. Hatred is an emotional burden and like jealousy - eats its own heart."

"....... so let me get this straight. if i invade your country and drive you away from it, i can easily make a case of unused land somewhere for you to move to?"

It would be beyond difficult for you or indeed Bangladesh to do that - but hypothetically speaking - if Bangladesh could prove some historical connection to occupation of Australia in the last few thousand years - I'm sure some concessions could be made. We've done just this for the Aboriginals.

"....this is arrogant, insolent and down right criminal. egypt dosent hav to give the palestinians land. "
No arrogance or criminality involved. And as for 'insolence' - if you mean it is rude then that is purely your perception and that's just too bad. It is an idea. You've missed the point. I've merely put forward a possible solution. It's up to others to discuss its merits, preferably with at least first evaluating it based on non-emotional grounds,. I think we're both big enough to accept the fact that we can expect the Israelis are not going to vacate Israel at the whim of the Palestinians, Hezbollah, Syrians or anybody else for that matter. That won't happen. Given that fact, and given that Egypt does nothing with Sinai - it seems to be a better solution. Much more land, better soils, better views, no crowding, ability to grow better food, Israel won't bother you etc etc.

"the palestinians had land. their land.it was taken from them. with force."
There were Muslim Palestinians, Christian Palestinians - and before 1960 - Jewish Palestinians.
I think we both know this is not about land - it is about ideology. Muslim Palestinains and Jews are at each other's throats.many Muslims would like nothing better than for Jews to be exterminated and all of Israel to be a nother Muslim country. That's the bottom line.

"........................the same way you feel attached to the vast desert wasteland in australia,"
why assume I feel attached to the vast deserts of Australia? They were there 20 million years ago, will be there a million years hence. Why should I get attached to them?

".... the palestinians have a bond with their land. fertility or barrenness is not the issue."

Attachment to land is not a genetic thing. It is an emotional thing inculcated into the minds of the
members of the culture. I guarantee you could find many Palestinians who are not at all attached to Palestine or its culture (or lack thereof) and would much prefer to be living in Colorado for example. I guarantee many Palestinians would leave Palestine given the choice - whether Israel existed or not. Would you rather live in Palestine or the Ukraine for example? I know where I'd go.

".....so ? and why do you think a people that earned the wrath of ALLAH deserves any love from HIS slaves?"

Slavery is a very outdated concept - at least in the West and several other countries.

".....what you dont read the bible? the torah or the talmud? the jews werent exactly upstanding citizens. how is it peaceful for someone when that person loves something GOD hates. "
What exactly did 'they' do? Which particular ones? There are Jews all over the world right now - what particular things are they doing wrong - that have not been detected by and in the general populations they live amongst?

".....peace is acquired thru submitting to god."
Where is 'God' and 'peace' - if not already inside you? So you are 'submitting' to nothing outside yourself really. You are just recognising what is already there and giving yourself the chance to be who you really are.

"...... and as naive as you are, "
You keep coming out with these little personal attacks here and there, unnecessarily. Why assume I am naive?

".....it is not a hate that ALLAH tells us to utilize to kill. this is simply disapporioval that ALLAH speaks. muslims arent allowed to kill jews just cuz they are jews. lets get that straight."

Good - but many of the more devoted Muslims would disagree. If they had access to a magic button that could remove all Jews from the world - many, many Muslims would press that button.

GI wrote:
>> What are you - a robot? A lot of things were left out of the Koran - do you need instructions on everything?. In any case I am not a land law professional."

".......robots are the parody of living sentients. and all sentients, be it a lowly animal or a complex human, are creatures of program."

Robots are just tools - not a parody of anything. They are tools designed to do work - in fact the word means 'work' in Russian and Czech. The primary distinction between a sentient being and anything else is Life itself. And after a certain level of complexity - consciousness.

".... the man's program may be more complex than that of a simple animals but it is program nonetheless. we are all creatures that are conditioned."
Human beings can be programmed by others. But then there is meta-programming of the self - by the self. That is not really a 'program'.

".....even if you are not religious, you have your set of beliefs and suppositions that you go by. it is an indication that we all need direction.and with direction comes purpose."

Conditioned consciousness is not free awareness - and does not give you the ability to see things as they actually are - or more acurately - as close to their real nature as they really are. Conditioned consciousness is a kind of dream. Real direction is toward more 'awareness' for want of a better term.

GI wrote:
>> Does it say that in the Koran too? What is the Kaffir's fallacy?"

".....I woulnt hve said it otherwise. ALLAH says that the disbelievers hearts and minds are sealed up. and that no matter howm any proofs they receive, they will never believe. scary situation."

So what you are inferring is that anyone who does not believe what you believe has their 'hearts and minds' sealed up?

".....ALLAH says that to hve faith is to believe in the unseen. the disbeliever is arrogant and thinks he knows it all. the point of knowing the unseen means to accept the existence of any possibility that ALLAH can order to come into existence."

Some things by definition cannot come into existence. Common examples - an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.

GI wrote:
>> One of the several is you take things that are metaphorical as literal. By definition that makes you a 'fundamentalist' - as bad as Christian or Hindu fundamentalists."

".......with all due respect, you do not know what is metaphorical and literal in the quran."

Not hard to see why is it?

"........i think what you meant for me was a radical. although i am not one and ALLAH condemns radicals too."

Good to hear. The problem is radicals would say you are wrong and that 'Allah' has given them free reign to do what they consider at the time to be 'Allah's' will. How do you stop that? Do you try to stop that - or consider that in some way - it is OK for them to do that - because they are sincere?

The Prophet (saaw) reportedly said,"Beware of excessiveness in religion before you have perished as a result of such excessiveness in religion." (Reported by Ahmad)

as the proverb goes: - " he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword'.

>>
GI wrote:
"I believe in unseen things too - what does that make me?"

"...............couldve fooled me."

Why do you feel fooled? Because I do not agree with everything you believe in? It's just common sense -

GI wrote:
>> That would include the possibility that the kaffir is much more aware of and in touch with reality than the Muslim, who generally likes to criticise others with no justification and blame others for his plight while at the same time thinking he had some insight into what we would call 'God.'

"......then that person would hardly be a kafir. and we wouldnt have this conversation otherwise. muslims are aware that GOD alone originates possibilities and if HE intended some kafir to have the paradoxical quality of a believer "
But many so called Kafirs - i.e. people who do not believe what you believe, or even people who have believed part or all of what you believe but have changed their understanding have realised they are not the cause of the universe and do not control what happens.

>>
GI wrote:
The man could consider it a possibility. If however I told that same man there is a gigantic pink rabbit sitting in a depression on one of the moons of Saturn and it is controlling everyone's thoughts on Earth - so well that they could never detect that this is what is happening - would that man believe me? Should that man believe me?"

"...........the man would consider it a possibility. again, it is something the likes of we have never seen or experienced. so it is always unwise for us to choose a polarity with certainty. mabe a rabbit like creature can exist in pink or red or blue, how do you kow? how does anyone know? if you think rabbit like creatures can exist only on earth then it is a shortcoming. just because it dosent seem logical to him dosent mean it is not possible. it just does not conform to his logical premise."

Exactly - so although being highly unlikely - it is possible.

GI wrote:
>> and what if the man had never seen even a normal rabbit?

".....does not matter. it still woldnt give him the ability to say for certain that the laws that apply to your world or consciousness are absolute . you know nothing beyond your own laws of nature."

Not having seen a normal rabbit would make it harder for him to conceive of the giantic pink rabbit.

" ......so it is not wise for you to determine conditions outside it that may give rise to things that occur only in the wildest imaginations."

it is quite OK to use the imagination to conjecture what may lie outside the known and observed circumstances.

GI wrote:
>>Logic is used to deduce information based on facts to arrive at a new hypothesis. Hypotheses can be tested to see if the assumptions are correct.
Implementing hypotheses leads to new discoveries. Discoveries lead to more facts in which yet newer hypotheses can be deduced and so on. A cycle of continuous refinement and improvement. This leads to improvements in the quality of life in every field. You use it (or should use it) every day.

"....youre awfully big hearted for a kafir. thanks anyway for the definition even though i did not need it."

That's OK, just making sure we both understand what we agree on is a definition of logic.
For all I know you may have a different defintion - in which case we would be discussing issues on yet another false premise.

"..........facts in question can be multifaceted. theres more than meets the eye. we use logic based on what little we know of things around us. there was a time people thought trees werent living. later they found it was. they thought trees are not stimulated by outside actions. they were wrong now they say trees display anxiety, joy and even sorrow. as time passes, the more we become aware of how less we know. so to say that it int logical for a tree to be happy since its not a possess a brain like us mammals, itll be wrong. the same way it will be wrong if i say dead on, no pink rabbits with psychic abilities dont xist on the moon. its just that it does not seem plausible to me. to me. dosent mean it is totally outside the pale of any possibility. to my smll mind so enamored by the earthly terrestrial logic, it seems imposible."

As Donald Rumsfeld so succinctly put it:

"...... because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

GI wrote:
>> I don't know many sceptics who believe that. Information changes incessantly."

".......then i dont believe there are too many skeptics nowadys. why is a peron a skeptic? why does a person not believe? because he cannot think of going outside his own logicl premises. a believer says ok i havent seen a demon before, but i believe it exists, judging by the nature of things, anything and everything is possible. a skeptic woould say i havent seen demons and i dont believe in any ither. y not? because it does not ocur to him? just because of that. so he has absolute faith in the static nature of his understanding.rather partial about the truth, isnt he?"

That person is not a true sceptic. A true sceptic is willing to consider other possibilities. What you are describing is someone who will not consider other possibilities. That is just somebody with a closed mind. But equally , a person can believe things which bear no relation to what is actually true.

GI wrote:
>> logic allows us to infer from previosuly known facts."

"......i agree, however it is not all that it is. how much of facts do we know?"

Only the previously known ones of course. We are limted by what we know already and the sensitivity of the instruments we have at our disposal.

>>GI wrote

OK, we disagree on this crucial point. I say that 'God', or Supreme Intelligence or whatever label you give to it is continuously interacting with what we call 'reality'. There have been many 'prophets' and there always will be. In a sense, we are all 'prophets'."

"......we have no problem with that notion that ALLAH interacts with people. but we also believe there are different levels of interaction. since HE is GOD, it is upto HIM to decide what level of interaction to have with whomever. just because you feel youve been guided by god in a way dosent mean that is it. "

And it doesn't mean it is not although I am not claiming any special circumstance.Lunatics in asylums claim 'God' is talking to them too. We give the label 'God' to what ultimately for us is an experiential thing. If someone tells me about a piece of fruit that I've never heard of before -say a pineapple. I read about pineapples and find out everything about them. I find people really like them.
I believe the pineapple exists. But I've never actually felt or tasted a pineapple.There's a big difference between know and believe.

"......all is possibe for him, he can talk to someone or sing to somene if he likes. that where prophets come in. best among people. people with extremely lofty caracters that even rare would call rare. ALLAH spke to prophets and guided them in special ways ."

people are growing in their understanding of everything - but forget their own connection with their real selves.

GI wrote:
>> OK, Imams can therefore be misleading their followers."

"..............absolutely right. perhaps the only place i agree with you so wholeheartedly.
many imams arent even well versed in the sources. so its no big wonder that their activities mak islam seem what it isnt."

This is one of THE biggest problem for Muslim. What to do about people dressing up as religious figures and spouting what they think is correct - when it is not. Thereby influencing others to act incorrectly. What to do about that?

GI wrote:
" I have an Afghani Sunni friend - a doctor who also agrees that separation of religion and state is a good thing. He has lived under several regimes - Afghanistan, Iran, Russia. That is his conclusion. Another bit of anecdotal evidence for you to consider.

".............i must say your muslim friend dosent know much. chances are he isnt even a good muslim.
he could be westernized for all i know and he could be therefore just doing lip service to islam."

He is actually quite a nice guy. He's seen enough of the West to realise it is not the great place of 'Satan' that it is made out to be in the Islamic world.
He lives here, goes to the mosque etc but he has no desire at all to live under the Taliban in Afghanistan. It doesn't bother him that other people have other beliefs. He is being westernized - because he's opened his eyes to see that people of different beliefs can get along quite well governed by a secular government that doesn't try to promote one belief system over another. It works and works well. And get this, his boss is actually Jewish and they both get along fine..

".....our governemnt is based on our faith. if someone is not ok with it within the state, tough. but his place is ensured within the state of islam. thats the way it is. islam accounts for all the minorities living inside its borders and observes equal rights for them as well as the muslims. fact. so there really isnt much to worry about. minorities propered under slamic rule in the past."

Good. Our government is not based on faith. Like 'Allah' - we leave that up to the individual. If someone is not OK with it - they are perfectly free to leave.

"....and as for the revelation. ALLAH says that the truth has been sperated from falsehood. in the quran. it is clear. quran dosent say anything strange or new that prior mesages havent proclaimed bit by bit in the past. they have to prove that the quran is wrong. they have to compare their books with this one.
i already explained to you how it works. shariah is important because it is from ALLAH. not from any man. so if buddha wrote one, tough. too bad. ill certainly not follow it. im looking for ALLAH's guidance. and ALLAH says HE sent the criterion for mankind to follow. al quran. HIS words. not mine."

Any book should point to the inner truth. The Koran is just one book among many. It is not particularly clear about stressing the need for the individual to find enlightenment - or where to find it. It's all very well describing the wonders of external universe - but there is little to no focus on self-realisation. Christ says continually things like 'seek ye first the Kingdom of heaven (within) and all these things will be added unto you'. Socrates says 'Know thyself' ,Buddha says to meditate on the Self..

GI wrote:
>> The washing powder box in my laundry claims it gives the 'best and brightest wash' too. It is not based on fact - it's just a claim - to get me to buy that brand over another. People will say anything to try to influence others that their beliefs are correct. Mostly it's a security thing."

".....your powder boxes and the companies making them are in constant competition. the revealed books arent. where one powder company is trying to outdo the other, the books from god are merely adding and modifying the last one. so if you look at religious scriptures as powder boxes, then the manufacturer here is not many, just one. GOD. no cmpetition. only compilation."

OK then - in that analogy - same powder - different packages. The different packaging companies might not even realise its the same powder - they're just concerned with getting their boxes out to as many customers as they can. BUt the important thin is - to open the box and actually use the powder.

>> I see your point but it's a fictitious claim that Mohammed is mentioned in the Bible as you seem to be saying. You would like to think that - but it is not true. Neither is Mohammed mentioned in the Upanishads or Gita or any Buddhist scripture."

muhammad's pbuh reference in bible -

"AND THE BOOK IS DELIVERED TO HIM THAT IS NOT LEARNED, SAYING, READ THIS I PRAY THEE: AND HE SAITH, I AM NOT LEARNED." (Isaiah 29:12).

I can he was say talking about Isaiah himself - or the writers of Proverbs

'AND I WILL PUT MY WORDS IN HIS MOUTH.'(Deut. 18:18).

When you use the phrase 'don't put words in my mouth' - you literally don't mean to put 'words' in someone's mouth do you?

jesus said, "Therefore, say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof" (Matthew 21:43

Christian Israelites would say he's talking about the Anglo-Saxon peoples. It makes more sense when you look at the world and who actually took on and promoted Christianity. So it's not a particularly good one to pick out in an attempt to explain how Mohammed was referred to in the Bible.

"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Matthew 21:44)."

Not sure what you're trying to promote here. The idea that whoever falls on Islam shall end up being a broken person. That's not really in keeping with your idea of tryin to promote Islam is it?

muhammad peace be upon him in hindu scriptures, purana, prati swarg parv 3 from the works of dr. vidyarth: verses 5-27

" a maleccha (foreigner) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. his name will be Mahamad. Raja bhoj after giving this Mahadev Arab(of angelic disposition) a bath in the panchgavya and the ganges water...........

I know 'Maha' means 'great' in Hindi. What does 'Mad' mean - hopefully not what it means in English.
Who is Raja bhoj?
He was giving a bath to an arab in a river? So arabs and Indians were at that stage presumeably having trade links - and I expect this was some time before Mohammed was around - otherwise it would hardly be called a prophecy would it?
And it is quite possible he was referring to someone else.
And there are entirely different Hindu prophecies that do not refer to Mohammed. And out of the hundreds of thousands of Hindu rishis etc that have lived - we have to consider the possibility that he was referring to the 'Mohammed' - but what else did he say of him - that he would waylay the lands of the Huindus and cause millions to be killed? If he did not mention all the history that would occur because of the arrival of 'Mohammed' - then he his prophecy was incomplete. Just mentioning a name is not much help.

Buddhists have prophecies speaking of Maitreya Buddha - who will appear and unite all mankind with the true teaching.
Some Muslims like to claim he was speaking about Mohammed as well but clearly he was not as Islam has not even served
to unite Muslims - and divides itself from the rest of humanity. But here Muslims pick and choose - as they dismiss much of
what Buddhists and other faiths write.

"........if inner truth is indeed what its cracked up to be, it has to be confirmed. "
It is self validating. I don't know who is 'cracking it up' to be anything - as it can't be cracked up to be anything. It is what it is - but it is also infinite. It's a journey with limitless depth. The more you see - the more you see and the more you realise how things it together.

"...there must be reciprocation involved. the TRUTH isnt blind or unmoving to our pleas or questions.
.......inner truth is realizaton of ALLAH"
good - then you should have no objection to the fact that the reverse of this is true - that finding 'Allah' is the realization of inner truth. That this is the goal of all religions - which are just attempts at describing something that can only be experienced.

"....... . if you have realized god"
it's not a past participle - it's a process.

".... then god will say 'yes, thats it, glad tidings to you.' he will put us at ease. "

One of Christ's followers called it 'the peace that surpasses all understanding."

".......unlike your idea of the truth, the TRUTH responds back to the caller."
You should know the idea is not to have just have an idea of truth.

GI wrote:
>> right and where is that 'God' - where do you perceive anything from ? Of necessity it is within (but not limited to) your own consciousness. Consciousness is primary. It is not dependent on anything. Books are symbols - written in characters that make a meaning in your mind. You could give me a Bible or Koran or anything written in Urdu to me - it would be a bunch of meaningless scribbles to me. I could give you a Bible or Koran or Zendavesta written in German - which I could read - but would be meaningless to you. Consciousness and meaning are the primary things. Not words, not books, not rules."

".........right, and i keep saying that GOD is not GOD if there is a where, when and how involved. hes beyond it. yes ALLAH tells us he governs from the his throne he created just to give us a direction, but HIS essence can never be understood. thats why HE is called god. thats y there is no sense in worshipping a finite thing. thats y idolatry is punished by him."

I have no idea what 'Allah' tells you - but certainly that essence is inside you. It is Life itself. The 'throne' is inside you and not what you think it is.

GI wrote:
>> that is not what was said. It means the mind has lost the intention or even the capacity to rob, cheat or steal or malign other people. Protection of other people or self is another thing."

"....i agree. once truth is realized. but another thing you have to realie about truth is truth also intended for you to be flawed. ecause the truth wants to test you. the truth isnt some force that yoda was talking about. the truth is conscious and has designs for you. "

Consciousness is by definition conscious. No it's not an unconscious force at all. It is to be connected with.

".....so by the will of the truth, you are never outside of comitting a crime. until the after life is reached, that is. so no matter how saintly you may be, you will always have impulses to do bad time to time. you will feel weak to crimes like infidelity, stealing, even murder. realizing the truth is more of a day to day duty."

It's not by the will of the truth. The more you realize, the more you realize that unconscious aspects of your makeup keep you from experiencing life properly. So you do not do them. Uncosnciousness leads to self harm. Once you've woken up - you stay awake.

GI wrote
>> Looked at from the right perspective - it could be. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But would I see a 20 tonne truck 5 metres away, travelling at 100kph , headed straight for me as beautiful? I hardly think so."

".....how can you say it isnt beautiful. it has to have a certain curious quality about it. i mean i know not most will live to tell his experiences lol but still. thi beauty here is the awe. beauty is in every molecule, in every moment. its just a matter of waking up to it."

Actually you were the one who suggested that everything isn't beautiful. Looked at deeply enough - everything can be beautiful, depending on where you see it from. I mean, you could say that even the A-bomb that vapourised Hirsoshima had a certain beauty about it. The people involved in the conflagration ,had you been able to ask them, wouldn't have seen it in the same light.

GI wrote:
>> You do not have to follow a dogma. The purpose of dogma is to get you beyond dogma - to the direct realisation of truth."

".... isnt that why muslims follow dogma? dogma does have its purpose. "

Maybe they don't know any better. Having rules and regulations leads to the trap that following those rules
and regulations will get you where you need to go.

If I have a car - and really need to travel - I can learn all the rules - but if there is no gasoline in the car
and I really don't know how to drive because no one has shown me how to and I couldn't figure it out for myself - what's the point?

>>
GI wrote:
I've wondered about this - who is this 'WE' "

"....its the royal we. kings say it. princes say it and queens say it. or used to anyways. this is the problem of transating the arabic in english. ALLAH is referred by HIMSELF in a grand manner. it wasnt exactly a plural we per se in arabic. this is like saying his majesty and eminence or his exquisiteness or gallantry sir this and that."

Self-praise is a human thing.

..

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".