From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Wed Sep 18 14:18:43 1996 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 10:10:10 -0400 (EDT) From: tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Reply-To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com To: tariqas-digest@world.std.com Subject: tariqas-digest V1 #124 tariqas-digest Wednesday, 4 September 1996 Volume 01 : Number 124 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: maarof Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:11:11 +0800 Subject: RUMI When A Madman Smiles At You When a madman smiles at you - --------------------------- Galen, the great physician, asked one of his assistants to give him a certain medicine. "Master, that medicine is for crazy people! You're far fom needing that!" Galen: "Yesterday a madman turned and smiled at me, did his eyebrows up and down, and touched my sleeve. He would't have done that if he hadn't recognized in me someone congenial." Anyone that feels drawn, for however short a time, to anyone else, those two share a common consciousness. It's only in the grave that unlike being associate. A wise man once remaked, "I saw a crow and a stock flying together, and I couldn't understand it, until I investigate and found what they shared. They were both lame." There's a reason why the beetle leaves the rose gaden. He can't stand all that loveliness. He wants to live in rotten dung, not with nightingales and flowers. Watch who avoids you. That too, reveals your inner qualities. The mark of etrenity in Adam was not only that angels bowed to him, but that Satan wouldn't. - -------------- Rumi vesion by Coleman Barks Mathnawi, II, 2095-2105, 2112-2123) maarof's note: I hope i don't infringe copyright laws by republishing this "poem" in a mail list. Honest... I bought the book (still keep the receipt and has a witness), and this action of mine is purposely for personal use only, as a comforter to my friends and adversaries in the tariqas list. ------------------------------ From: maarof Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:31:41 +0800 Subject: Re: Salat in world religions On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, John wrote: >>Assalamualaikum, >> >> >>The five daily prayer (salat) is obligatory in Islam after >>Isra and Miraj of the Prophet. At first Jerusalem was the >>prayer direction until God's revealation to change the direction >>to Kaaba. This turning point in direction is very significant. >>Before Muhammad, the religion of Allah is scattered all over >>the world -- each tribe has its prophet/s with its own rituals. >>If I can make an analogy a river or rivers, this turning point >>is like all the rivers merging and finally flow to its >>destiny -- the Ocean. >> >>salam > > >An old navigator has a question of curiosity (the worst kind of question >probably!), but it concerns how one might find the direction of Kaaba if >one is thousands of miles away. Is just a general alignment acceptable? If >one is thousands of miles away (such as in the United States) would one use >rhumb line or great circle directions? If one is, say, 12,000 miles away >from Kaaba, why not face west instead of east, or even north for that >matter. As I say, this is just a matter of curiosity, but it does seem that >each of the questions might have several "correct" answers; typical of many >religious questions. John. I have encountered this question and similar questions like if one is on Earth's position at the opposite pole of Kaaba. My personal answer is to use one's ijtihad or if there's a community, then it is a group's decision to decide the direction they should pray. Salat is a community activity (like the other 4 pillars of Islam -- Syahadah, fasting, charity and pilgrimage to Kaaba/Mecca). salam maarof ------------------------------ From: Imaan Shivani Joshi Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:57:44 +0800 (SST) Subject: Re: RUMI When A Madman Smiles At You Assalaamu 'alaikum wa Rahmatullahe wa Barakatu as salaamu 'alaikum Br Maarof:-) That was beautiful:-) It is true, is it not, that as per the modern adage, we are who we keep company with; "birds of a feather flock together" etc etc etc:-) ################################################### > > When a madman smiles at you > --------------------------- > > Galen, the great physician, asked one of his assistants > to give him a certain medicine. > "Master, that medicine > is for crazy people! You're far fom needing that!" > > Galen: "Yesterday a madman turned and smiled at me, > did his eyebrows up and down, and touched my sleeve. > He would't have done that if he hadn't recognized > in me someone congenial." > Anyone that feels drawn, > for however short a time, to anyone else, > those two share a common consciousness. > > It's only in the grave that unlike being associate. > A wise man once remaked, "I saw a crow and a stock > flying together, and I couldn't understand it, > until I investigate and found what they shared. > They were both lame." > There's a reason why the beetle > leaves the rose gaden. He can't stand > all that loveliness. > He wants to live in rotten dung, > not with nightingales and flowers. > Watch who avoids you. > That too, reveals your inner qualities. > > The mark of etrenity in Adam was not only > that angels bowed to him, > but that Satan wouldn't. > > -------------- > Rumi vesion by Coleman Barks > Mathnawi, II, 2095-2105, 2112-2123) > > maarof's note: I hope i don't infringe copyright laws by > republishing this "poem" in a mail list. Honest... I > bought the book (still keep the receipt and has a witness), and > this action of mine is purposely for personal use only, > as a comforter to my friends and adversaries in the tariqas list. > > > ------------------------------ From: Imaan Shivani Joshi Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:57:44 +0800 (SST) Subject: Re: RUMI When A Madman Smiles At You Assalaamu 'alaikum wa Rahmatullahe wa Barakatu as salaamu 'alaikum Br Maarof:-) That was beautiful:-) It is true, is it not, that as per the modern adage, we are who we keep company with; "birds of a feather flock together" etc etc etc:-) ################################################### > > When a madman smiles at you > --------------------------- > > Galen, the great physician, asked one of his assistants > to give him a certain medicine. > "Master, that medicine > is for crazy people! You're far fom needing that!" > > Galen: "Yesterday a madman turned and smiled at me, > did his eyebrows up and down, and touched my sleeve. > He would't have done that if he hadn't recognized > in me someone congenial." > Anyone that feels drawn, > for however short a time, to anyone else, > those two share a common consciousness. > > It's only in the grave that unlike being associate. > A wise man once remaked, "I saw a crow and a stock > flying together, and I couldn't understand it, > until I investigate and found what they shared. > They were both lame." > There's a reason why the beetle > leaves the rose gaden. He can't stand > all that loveliness. > He wants to live in rotten dung, > not with nightingales and flowers. > Watch who avoids you. > That too, reveals your inner qualities. > > The mark of etrenity in Adam was not only > that angels bowed to him, > but that Satan wouldn't. > > -------------- > Rumi vesion by Coleman Barks > Mathnawi, II, 2095-2105, 2112-2123) > > maarof's note: I hope i don't infringe copyright laws by > republishing this "poem" in a mail list. Honest... I > bought the book (still keep the receipt and has a witness), and > this action of mine is purposely for personal use only, > as a comforter to my friends and adversaries in the tariqas list. > > > ------------------------------ From: Gale Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:00:39 -0700 Subject: academia Greetings Simon, i wish to make a remark on what you wrote, recognizing = it also follows your sentence before it: > I still agree that the viewing of other traditons from the outside or > from OTHERNESS never really leads to any truth but to ?Comparative > Religions? and that only leads to comparing the outer shells which > obscure the real essence that unites all under one God -- whatever > people chose to call the Divine. =20 Unless i am misunderstanding you, i would have to comment that i have = found much greater respect among academics of different faiths when they = gather together than i do of many practitioners who have not = investigated their own tradition in any kind of depth, even among those = within a single community. And even better are when the academics are = devoted practitioners of a contemplative path as well. That is only my = experience from having a foot in both of those worlds. Who brought us = Ibn 'Arabi's Bezels of Wisdom so we can read it in English and be = inspired by it? i've discussed the problems of academic study with some = great scholars such as Mircea Eliade, my own mentor, and all of them who = have any sense of the Sacred in their lives will acknowledge academia's = limitations, and don't treat it as an excuse for not becoming a better, = loving human being. I don't really know why but in the West among many = following spiritual paths, supposedly, there are strong = anti-intelligensia sentiments -- especially since so many mystics in = history were intellectuals as well. If any one can give me some reasons = why this is the case, i would sure appreciate it. Blessings, Nur ------------------------------ From: Imaan Shivani Joshi Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:09:24 +0800 (SST) Subject: Re: Tasawwuf Assalaamu 'alaikum wa Rahmatullahe wa Barakatu For quite some time now, I have I suppose, been teetering on the brink of entering the world of tasawwuf, if not already putting one foot in:-) alHamdulillah, I know some very good brs here, where I live who have also been helpful to me...one thing that bothers me somewhat however, is this; before any of you embraced tasawwuf as islam, did any of you feel any doubt? did you ever question this practice? For me as a new muslim, unbeknownst to me, most books I came acroos and was inspired by were in fact books by shaykhs, linked to tasawwuf; they outlined, in a manner that I completely identified with [ and still do, in fact] a way of life that was simple, and devoted to the One God, Allah. Hoewvwr, this was of course not known to me then; I was given the Fundamentals of Tawheed by a br; this was a wahabbe book, altho I did not know it then. I was I suppose, influenced by it, and hence, in some ways, it is difficult for me to reconcile some of the practices of tasawwuf with islam, and esp when these are warned against by the wahabbis. I would given a choice, align myself with the sufis, and I trust them more than any other muslim; as a sister said, there is really no diference between tasawwuf and islam. I came to one and came to the other...but doubts still exist, for unknown reasons; did any of you feel this way? did it take a meeting with a truly belssed shaykh[a] to influence you perhaps in favor of tasawwuf where previously there may hev been doubts? I am feeling this way; I pray to HIm everyday[ or almost] that if this path is indeed the right one, then pls guide me to the one who will guide me to HIm...and patience is a virtue that I have to work hard at:-) but I wonder if I may have some feedback from some of you? I practice some of the things that sufis do [ enuff said; any more and it might come across as a boast], and I...do dhikr, altho I am told that the feeling is just not the same without a shaykh...point taken, but shaykhs are not exactly a dime a dozen esp in this part of the world:-) so, any one with any feedback? I really do wish to know, and...learn. I can relate so well with sister Amatullah Armstring of the "And the sky is not the limit" series, it is uncanny at times; yet it took her 5 years or so to find her shaykh; another br, it took 35 years; the thot of waiting that long makes me want to die:_) but submitting to His will is an impt part of islam, no? Yet others are on the list who are married to no sufis...is this a problem? I imagined it would be, to be married to someone who was lax abt their ibada,...but what abt someone who was not lax, but not a sufi either:-) I am running around in circles, perhaps:-) Did not mean to inconvenience anyone:-) I look forward to replies. Personally would be good, if not, then on the list; Jazak Allahu Khair in advance, and peace. Wa 'alaikum salaam wa Rahmatullahe wa Barakatu Fee Amaan Allah, Wasalaam. Imaan Shivani Joshi, sci30342@cobra.nus.sg If you want what Allah[swt] wants then there is no confusion as what Allah[swt] wants happens. From the moment you came into the world of being, a ladder was placed before you that you might escape. "If I will something that my LOrd does not will for me, I should then be guilty of unbelief." [Rabi'a] ------------------------------ From: ASHA101@aol.com Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:04:18 -0400 Subject: Re: academia >>> there are strong anti-intelligensia sentiments -- especially since so many mystics in history were intellectuals as well. If any one can give me some reasons why this is the case, i would sure appreciate it.<<< because when mind preceeds (or does not follow) heart everything that follows is all of those unfortunate things that we associate with religion. Of course, hearts not followed by mind can also mess up the course, perhaps with even more insidious consequences (so mind is very important) but this is not the most common problem of the world today. The poor state of the world's ecology was not produced so much by evil hearts as is minds not following hearts. By mind i don't only mean academia but academia is an prime example of a powerful mind, non powerful minds don't cause so much trouble except in so far as they follow powerful minds that aren't following powerful hearts. - - Asha ------------------------------ From: dlb@severn.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:54:43 -0400 Subject: Re: More on the Paraclete Fred Rice (Fariduddien) writes: What I find interesting is the term "_another_ [Paraclete]".... if it is _another_ Paraclete, then there was a Paraclete before. If this is a reference to the Holy Spirit (like John 14:26 says), then how many "Holy Spirits" are there? Saying the Father will send "another Holy Spirit" doesn't seem to me it would make sense in normal Christian theology, since to my understanding in standard Christian theology there is only one unique Holy Spirit..... I also checkd the translation of John in the book "The Complete Gospels," translated by the "Jesus Seminar". Anyhow, as a footnote to John 14:16, they write "yet another advocate": That is, beside Jesus himself. This interpretation seems to me to possibly make sense - Jesus (peace be with him) would say "another paraclete," meaning that he himself was also a "comforter/advocate", i.e. he himself is a "Paraclete," and there would be another one. Anyhow, this could lead to the interpretation favoured by many Muslims that the "Paraclete" mentioned in the Gospel of John is a (probably corrupted) prediction of Muhammad, peace be with him. Jesus's role as the Pareclete is well established in the Epistles of the New Testament, among other places. In the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer one of these passages is given center stage in the service of Holy Communion, as one of the "comfortable words": "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world." So your interpretation of Jesus as the First Paraclete (capitalized, not because it is a common Christian term but just because it seems important to me) is commonly accepted (as is indicated by your footnote) in the Christian community. As to the extension, I cannot speak. Certainly the commonly accepted Christian interpretation of the passage is that it refers to the Holy Spirit, but we need not take it as right because it is commonly accepted in the Christian community. Dave Barton <*> dlb@wash.inmet.com )0( http://www.intermetrics.com/~dlb ------------------------------ From: dlb@severn.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:28:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Paraclete #1 (short side bar) Marrof writes: What are the views of Christianity on Abraham and Moses? Is it similar to Islam? In general, the Christian view of Abraham and Moses is close to the Jewish view; the Christians simply believe that Christ came to complete the picture. To wit: Abraham was the founder and father of Israel and the Jewish nation, who were (and are) God's chosen people (chosen in the sense that they received His law). Moses was the lawgiver, who brought the First Covenant to the world and gave us the Law of God by which we should live. Thus, both of these presaged the coming of Christ. They are frequently referred to as Prophets in the Christian Church. It is well worth noting that the relative importance given to Old Testament figures like Abraham and Moses varies tremendously from denomination to denomination. What may be called "fundamentalist" denominations often place great emphasis on both Abraham and Moses, and they are frequently mentioned in revivalist sermons and hymns. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church rarely mentions them; it has been years since I read a Roman catechism, but I don't recall a single mention. So I am not at all surprised by Michael Moore's reply, given that (again, according to my all to fallible memory) he spent his boyhood in the Catholic church. I hope this helps; I am *still* not sure it is on topic...... Dave Barton <*> dlb@wash.inmet.com )0( http://www.intermetrics.com/~dlb ------------------------------ From: dlb@severn.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:38:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Paraclete #1 (short side bar) Frank Gaude writes: Craig Johannsen wrote: > Unitarians generally think (and sometimes speak) of Jesus as > a prophet rather than a divinity. (They accept the validity > of most other religions, seeing each as a different path to > the Truth. However, they assume no one has a monopoly on the > Truth.) > Mainstream Christians typically say that Unitarians are > "not really Christians". Seems to me to be a follower of Jesus, i.e., a Christian, would only require that one keep the commandment that he gave as the "full law and prophets": Love God with your whole being, and love your neighbor as yourself. Simple, in theory! Good, no one has a monopoly Truth... Good and Truth equate to God as "written" the Book of Nature. There are two approaches to the question of "not really Christians". Unfortunately, they are frequently mixed up with one another, and this results in much confusion and even more bad feeling and hatred. First, one may say that they are "not real Christians" in the sense of looking down on someone else's beliefs. This is an insult, or at least derogatory, and deserves somethiong of the response that Frank gave --- that no one has a monopoly on the Truth. Second, one may simply choose to look at it as a descriptive statement. If the generally accepted definition of Christian with respect to a set of beliefs is that the beliefs include the one that Christ is, in fact, God made Man, and is Divine, then strictly speaking Unitarians are not really Christians (in that they do not believe this). It is not an insult, but a description. I could therefore say that the Morman church is Christian (at least, if I tried real hard; their doctrine of a physical existence of God makes it unclear that they mean the same thing as I do when I say "God made man"), but the Unitarian is not. This neither compliments the Mormons, nor insults the Unitarians; it simply describes them. In fact, I am much more comfortable in a Unitarian church, and with Unitarian theology than I am with Morman theology. This double standard can really mix things up; people can say the most hateful things and then protest, wide-eyed, that they were "just being descriptive". Nevertheless, and I am *not* being hateful (since I do not hate Unitarians at all), it is accurate to say that Unitarians are "not really Christians" simply by the definition of the term. If "Christian" begins to mean "thinking Christ is a good fellow", or even "thinking Christ was a Prophet and an important moral leader" we are led to the conclusion that every Muslim is also a Christian (a statement to which most Muslims would surely object). The Unitarian view of Christ is very close to that of Islam. Dave Barton <*> dlb@wash.inmet.com )0( http://www.intermetrics.com/~dlb ------------------------------ From: dlb@severn.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:54:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Atonement for sins Heavens, we are heavily into Christian theology lately. As a Christian, I feel compelled to speak up; however, I really hope that others on the list are not offended. I am not trying to proselytize here. Michael J. Moore writes: >So, they would say in my chatechism classes 'Jesus died >for your sins.' Now as a child, I could never understand >this. It was as though a Judge, holding a man found >guilty of murder desided to accept another man as >a substitute to be executed! Rubbish! I thought. >Only receintly I learned a little about tribal blood >laws and how it was common place to retaliate >against any member of the offending tribe. You didn't >need to get the guy that did it, any member from that >tribe would do. This was the mentality of the people >in that place at that time, and so the sacrifice of >Jesus as a substitue for all of mankind made perfect > sense to them. The doctrine of the Atonement --- the fact that Christ's death somehow wiped out our sins and reconciled us to God --- is central to Christian belief. However, (and here I am departing from my previous practice of only giving the prevailing Christian view and going more out on my own hook), IMHO this is not about "taking our punishment for us". The sacrifice part of things is indeed vital; however, it is more in the vein of a father who throws himself on a grenade when a child, in spite of warnings, has pulled the pin and doesn't know what to do with it, nor how dangerous it is. A frequent objection made to the whole notion of "sacrifice" is that God, in his omnipotence, can simply forgive our sins right out. No sacrifice is needed. However, talking of "forgiveness" is only part of the story, and in some sense the easy part (at least for God). Reconciliation is necessary. God's action must do two things: reconcile us to Him, and avoid overcoming our feeble wills with the overwhelming glory of His presence. The death of Christ is, by His grace, the answer to this question. It not only wipes out our sin; it brings us together, and *transforms* our sin, and our death, into light and love and glory. Sin is death in a very real sense; not death in this world, but eternal death, eternal separation from God who is the only source of life. By encountering death, by our hand, and overcoming it with His resurrection, Jesus has taken the death of our sin and transformed it into an opportunity to turn to Him, and come to God who is the source of all Life. Note that I do not mean to contradict Michael here; I am posting this as much in response to M. Tahir's comments as anything else. Dave Barton <*> dlb@wash.inmet.com )0( http://www.intermetrics.com/~dlb ------------------------------ From: Fred Rice Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:36:45 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: More on the Paraclete Assalamu alaikum (peace be with you), On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, David Barton wrote: > Jesus's role as the Pareclete is well established in the Epistles of > the New Testament, among other places. In the Episcopal Book of > Common Prayer one of these passages is given center stage in the > service of Holy Communion, as one of the "comfortable words": > > "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the > Righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our > sins only, but for the sins of the whole world." > > So your interpretation of Jesus as the First Paraclete (capitalized, > not because it is a common Christian term but just because it seems > important to me) is commonly accepted (as is indicated by your > footnote) in the Christian community. > > As to the extension, I cannot speak. Certainly the commonly accepted > Christian interpretation of the passage is that it refers to the Holy > Spirit, but we need not take it as right because it is commonly > accepted in the Christian community. Thanks for your explanation, David... so it is accepted that Jesus (peace be with him) was a "paraclete".... The original passage I quoted was: And I will pray the Father, and will give you another Counselor [Paraclete], to be with you for ever.... [John 14:16, Revised Standard Version] By the phrase "will give you another Couselor" [Paraclete], the implication is that the next Paraclete wasn't there before. If this refers to the Holy Spirit, the implication seems to me that the Holy Spirit was not present while Jesus (peace be with him) was present, since the _other_ Paraclete _will_ be coming (i.e. [he] is not here now). However, saying that the Holy Spirit was not present while Jesus (peace be with him) was on earth, seems to me to be against standard Christian theology. A possible explanation is that the Paraclete which was _coming_ referred to another Prophet, like Jesus (peace be with him) who was himself a "Paraclete" (as you pointed out). By the way, I am not trying to cause division, but I find this an interesting topic.... Comments welcomed. Wassalam, Fariduddien ------------------------------ From: an525@lafn.org (Ivan Ickovits) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:02:32 -0700 Subject: Re: Tasawwuf > > > >wahabbis. I would given a choice, align myself with the sufis, and I trust >them more than any other muslim; as a sister said, there is really no >diference between tasawwuf and islam. I came to one and came to the >other...but doubts still exist, for unknown reasons; did any of you feel >this way? did it take a meeting with a truly belssed shaykh[a] to >influence you perhaps in favor of tasawwuf where previously there may hev >been doubts? I am feeling this way; I pray to HIm everyday[ or almost] >that if this path is indeed the right one, then pls guide me to the one >who will guide me to HIm...and patience is a virtue that I have to work >hard at:-) but I wonder if I may have some feedback from some of you? Dear One: To my limited point of view, it appears that doubt and patience are two aspects of the human condition. We work to increase patience and diminish doubt. THere are moments for me when doubt disappears, but it is probably a manifestation of my lack of development that doubts do return and of course there are all those things going on in the world and within me that I allow to point me to doubt again. Or perhaps doubts are a gift - a means of measuring progress on the greater battle within. I have heard that there are those without doubt and have absolute certainty all the time. I cannot help but wonder how wonderful and terifyingly awful such a condition could be. Raqib - -- <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>> ------------------------------ From: Saint Download Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:13:05 -0800 Subject: Re: Paraclete #1 (short but kind side bar) > I would suggest Michael before making those kind of statements in a > public forum one would inform oneself -- at least a little, otherwise > one can come very close to not only lose credibility but also make a > fool of oneself. > > Salaams > > Simon Bryquer May I suggest using the heart a little more? I for one find it better to be a fool for God's sake. There is no shame in being considered lower than ones peers.