From tariqas-digest-approval@europe.std.com Wed Sep 18 14:20:58 1996 Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:38:47 -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 #132 tariqas-digest Sunday, 8 September 1996 Volume 01 : Number 132 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: maarof Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:13:14 +0800 Subject: Re: World Peace >> I too have noticed no direct answer to my question. I think that if the >USA left Iraq then Sadam would march south if he wanted to. He would destroy >the Kurds, war could break out between Iran and Iraq, Kuwait would be in >trouble, and more attacks on Israel, and then the middle east would be in a >dangerous and precarious situation, to say the least. Everything is sitting >on a precipice as it is but just having a little control could prevent hot >heads from going wild. >If this is farfetched then I am ignorant. But prevention can be worth more >lives than we could ever know. Why wait until it is out of control? Now I >stuck my neck out but it was already out when I asked the question. Those >that do want us there cannot say publickly because of anti American >sentiment. But I am sure that many peoples breathe a little easier also. May >God bring real peace so we can lay down our arms. Until then let's face the >truth about reality. >Kaffea Lalla > Dear sister, I read Kabir Helminski's essays on Love (Threshold page) and I agree with him that the problem in this world lies in how we fail to understand love. IMO, the situation in middle east is not love for Love but love for power, greed etc. I still don't see how American policy in middle east is really related to love. salam your brother ------------------------------ From: Zainuddin Ismail Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:03:03 +0800 (SGT) Subject: Re: World Peace Salamu'alaikum.This is more important than my coffee this morning.The American public , the Russians , the Iraqis, the Iranians at the level of ordinary people are great.As the Quran states "We have made you into different nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (or learn from each other )At one time we painted Russia black and whitewashed America .Then we learn after Gulag Archipelago that it is one big Mafia inspite of Yeltsin etc controlling Russia and this behind the scenes power is really bad.But America has Federal Reserve Bank, Congress, House of Representatives, the war-lobby ,the bankers, CNN , Masonic-kind of activity and one wonders who really calls the shots ? There is very little light in Russia.But the lights are going out in America unless the people speak up .Only a minority of Americans voted.Democracy is based on elections.A minority voted the President in. And the thing is this : It appears that no President is ever elected unless the powers that be are aware of some serious skeleton in his cupboard to be used at appropriate times.Why is that so ? I am not a political analyst.So before answering the question which is not answered let us look at the background behind the backgrounds .May God guide us all. At 09:13 9/8/96 +0800, you wrote: > > > > >>> I too have noticed no direct answer to my question. I think that if the >>USA left Iraq then Sadam would march south if he wanted to. He would destroy >>the Kurds, war could break out between Iran and Iraq, Kuwait would be in >>trouble, and more attacks on Israel, and then the middle east would be in a >>dangerous and precarious situation, to say the least. Everything is sitting >>on a precipice as it is but just having a little control could prevent hot >>heads from going wild. >>If this is farfetched then I am ignorant. But prevention can be worth more >>lives than we could ever know. Why wait until it is out of control? Now I >>stuck my neck out but it was already out when I asked the question. Those >>that do want us there cannot say publickly because of anti American >>sentiment. But I am sure that many peoples breathe a little easier also. May >>God bring real peace so we can lay down our arms. Until then let's face the >>truth about reality. >>Kaffea Lalla >> > >Dear sister, > >I read Kabir Helminski's essays on Love (Threshold page) and I agree >with him that the problem in this world lies in how we fail to understand >love. > >IMO, the situation in middle east is not love for Love but love for power, >greed etc. I still don't see how American policy in middle east is really >related to love. > >salam >your brother > > ------------------------------ From: Jinavamsa@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:14:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Paraclete #1 (short side bar) hello Michael, I have not been able to keep up with all of the postings going on at tariqas, but in getting around to older messages, I see that this one by you is addressed to a message sent by Jinavamsa. So perhaps I can reply. more below. In a message dated 96-09-04 01:13:12 EDT, you write: >Subj: Re: Paraclete #1 (short side bar) >Date: 96-09-04 01:13:12 EDT >From: mmoore@antares.Tymnet.COM (Michael Moore) >Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com >Reply-to: tariqas@europe.std.com >To: tariqas@europe.std.com > >Hello, I am at a loss. Why have you chopped off the first paragraph >of the post you are quoting where I explain that I am only telling the >story of what I was taught as a child? Why did you chop off my last >paragraph where I again make a disclaimer? I quoted only part of your posting in order to save what people refer to as bandwidth. >Never once did I say that >any of this was true or accurate. You have taken my quote out >of context. You are correct, Michael. I was not wanting to distort anything that you said by doing so. >I was responding to another member who asked me >about Moses and Abraham as perceived my the main line run >of the mill Christian. I confessed right up front that I was >only capable if giving MY experience. quite so. > >Geesh! I can see why some people are afraid to post anything. But I >guess >part of living is risk, even the risk of being misunderstood by >people who are honest and mean well. I see you ascribe no maliciousness to Jinavamsa! > > >Jinavamsa@aol.com wrote: > >> >> to all, >> in peace and love of al-Haqq (Allah, Reality, as Truth), >> I think we have the potential for distortion whenever we learn about one >> tradition through the eyes of another tradition which is trying to prove >> itself superior to that first tradition. > >> The excerpts below might be taken as a reflection of this sort of teaching. > well, Michael, I have not gone back to the original posting here quoted immediately above, but this does seem to be what it was, basically. >Maybe you are not saying that this is my teaching but rather the >teaching >that I was given. That's it. I was not saying that that was your teaching. I was making a general point about the general program of learning about one tradition through the eyes of another tradition. I think this general point is especially relevant when such a second tradition is trying to prove something internal to its own doctrines through this viewing of the other. >This would be correct, but still, by copying this >section >out of context, it now appears as though I am advocating this rather >than telling about what I was taught. I was not attempting to portray you as advocating anything in particular. And I do see through another posting which preceded this one --- (as it happens, perhaps, in the order in which email was downloaded at this computer) and which, relatedly, I read just a minute ago, --- that in fact you were quite clear about this being something that you were taught as a boy, were quite explicit about the weight that you were giving to that learning, and were quite up-front about wanting to speak from the limits of your own experience. >I am also guessing that Simon was >responding to your quotation of me rather than my original post. This >would >explain why he thinks I am at risk of loosing my credibility and making >a fool of myself. I will let Simon speak to this point. It was distinct from what I was writing about. I notice that in another posting of yours, Michael, you address his posting directly, anyway. > >But just to set the record straight, and I want to make this perfectly >clear, I am a fool and I have no credibility. ... and have a vibrant wit, to boot! > >I will try to do better in the future and I hope that you can accept >a fool for a friend. > >Salams >-Michael- and unto you peace, as well, Michael, Jinavamsa > > >> iOPO. >> Jinavamsa >> >> In a message dated 96-09-03 17:47:14 EDT, you write: >> >> > >> >Basicaly Abraham and Moses are minor characters. They are from >> >the Old Testament part of the Bible (the old Jewish tradition >> >and laws). Jesus brought a new covenant which means that he >> >superseded the existing Jewish laws. He does not contradict >---- snipped for your protection ---- I miss the point of the snipping and of the comment here. Also, I did not remember my posting as being a comment to this, but perhaps the part snipped would refresh my memory. I do recognize this comment, though, as one which came through tariqas. >> >suitable sacrifice, and without the voluntary sacrifice >> >of the 'Son of God', man's sins could not be forgiven and >> >men would go to hell forever. >> > >> > > ------------------------------ From: Jinavamsa@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:14:06 -0400 Subject: unlikes associating [was Re: RUMI When A Madman Smiles At You hello Maarof, This is a nice touch. I've been wondering where the idea comes from, that the unlike only associate in the graves. You cite Rumi's Mathnawi! I had been struck by the scene in a movie (Exodus) which I watched again last year. As I remember it, at the gravesite of his Arab friend, Paul Newman (or rather the character played by Paul Newman) prays for the day when unlike can not only lie in peace side by side in death, but can live in peace side by side in life. in peace, Jinavamsa In a message dated 96-09-04 03:17:03 EDT, you write: >Subj: RUMI When A Madman Smiles At You >Date: 96-09-04 03:17:03 EDT >From: maarof@pc.jaring.my (maarof) >Sender: tariqas-approval@world.std.com >Reply-to: tariqas@europe.std.com >To: tariqas@world.std.com > > > >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 ------------------------------ From: Zainuddin Ismail Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 12:55:45 +0800 (SGT) Subject: Re: World Peace Just a little bit of humour this morning Zainal Alam went to a Maharaja's Palace and there ensued this dialougue Zainal: Maharaja you have several swimming pools and each one of them is coloured differently ? What is the swimming pool with the blue water for ? Maharaja :That is for people who like to swim in cool waters Zainal:Maharaja Sir, what is the pool with the red water for ? Maharaja : That is for people who like to swim in warm waters Zainal: Colorology! Maharaja what is that pool without any water for ? Maharaja: That is for non-swimmers ? At 09:13 9/8/96 +0800, you wrote: > > > > >>> I too have noticed no direct answer to my question. I think that if the >>USA left Iraq then Sadam would march south if he wanted to. He would destroy >>the Kurds, war could break out between Iran and Iraq, Kuwait would be in >>trouble, and more attacks on Israel, and then the middle east would be in a >>dangerous and precarious situation, to say the least. Everything is sitting >>on a precipice as it is but just having a little control could prevent hot >>heads from going wild. >>If this is farfetched then I am ignorant. But prevention can be worth more >>lives than we could ever know. Why wait until it is out of control? Now I >>stuck my neck out but it was already out when I asked the question. Those >>that do want us there cannot say publickly because of anti American >>sentiment. But I am sure that many peoples breathe a little easier also. May >>God bring real peace so we can lay down our arms. Until then let's face the >>truth about reality. >>Kaffea Lalla >> > >Dear sister, > >I read Kabir Helminski's essays on Love (Threshold page) and I agree >with him that the problem in this world lies in how we fail to understand >love. > >IMO, the situation in middle east is not love for Love but love for power, >greed etc. I still don't see how American policy in middle east is really >related to love. > >salam >your brother > > ------------------------------ From: woodsong@juno.com (Carol Woodsong) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 01:09:36 EDT Subject: Re: World Peace Hello, Dear Ones! :) sorry, i can't sit on my hands any more... :) I think we can always find /justification/ for war. It's easy to 'hate' the 'bad guy'. It's easy to feel responsible for repressed peoples and want to 'fix' all that we see 'wrong' in the world. But, as soon as we take sides... we create an 'us' and we create a 'them'. And we lose sight of God. As soon as we resort to the use of force, /we/ become the repressor... and war is perpetuated -- hate is strengthened. How do we end war? By refusing to participate in it! By taking personal responsibility for /living/ peace... a very personal peace. By allowing God's Love to flow through us... I think in the long run all we have is our thoughts/deeds.... if they are not of God, we are lost. I used to wonder... WHAT is it God wants from me? What can i give to God? How do i surrender to God? How do i LOVE God? And the answer was always right in front of me... it keeps returning to me... again and again, in many different ways, from the sacred scripture of so many different religious traditions... the same thing... over and over and over... it's so simple. (and easy to forget!) The whole creation is one. To Love God /is/ to Love my neighbor as myself. All is God. All is Love. We are all part of that beautiful Light of God... that Light that burns within us... ALL of us. There is no separation. with love, your sister, carol ------------------------------ From: pathway@dnet.net (John Womack) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 01:15:15 -0500 Subject: Re: pray for world peace while speaking out against oppression >Craig Johannsen wrote: >> >> Zainuddin Ismail wrote: >> > >> > Salams. >> > The machinations of the anti-religion secularists whether >>Soviet,American or >> > Maoist created a monster which I call Izlamic statism which is the ver= y >> > opposite of Islamic theodemocracy . >> > [snip] >> >> I like the way you contrasted the two types of state. >> Which states would currently fit your definition of theodemocracy? > > > > Greetings friends and adversaries: Let me posit that there is only one rational reason for democracy, and that is the presence of Doubt. Hence "Theodemocracy", as I see it presented above is actually theo-psudo-democracy, or the old wolf seen again dressed in sheep's clothing. Democracy is only effective if enough people believe that no one has an effective answer to the problem at hand. Then, under democratic principles, there comes a common endeavor whereby free and equal people meet to face that doubt, or problem, to discuss it, analyze it, and by honorable compromise, to determine their common action. If there should be a wise old woman (or man) who Knows, Really Knows, what to do, then democracy is just a lot of bother. One might say: "She knows what to do, just listen to her; she is responsible for decision, we are only responsible to repeat her commands and carry them out with glory." However, when it becomes apparent that no one really knows the solution to a problem (such as peace in the Middle East), then it would seem prudent that the survivors might feel that they have inherited the responsibility of decision, and realise that theocracy, in this case, is a solution for the wrong problem. John Stuart Mill said in "On Liberty" that the refusal to enter into democratic discussion is based the assumption of infallibility. He pointed out that this is a human condition since many people act as if they think they, themselves, are infallible, even though they live in a community of other also "infallible" people who can't agree with them on the solution of basic human needs. His remedy for testing possible solutions is to see that each has suggestion been afforded every opportunity to be tested, and to see which have, by common agreement, not been refuted. "Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right." (Mill, On Liberty, Ch 2, =BC6) I suggest that this is the fundamental concept of democracy, and I don't see how it can exist with theocracy, except as a pretense to justify theocratic control, permitting the preist, imman, rabbi, roshi, (ie. theocratic lawyer) too determine what issues are so unimportant that they may be decided by the people. What do you think? ------------------------------ From: maarof Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:08:53 +0800 Subject: Re: World Peace On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Zainuddin Ismail wrote: >Just a little bit of humour this morning >Zainal Alam went to a Maharaja's Palace and there ensued this dialougue >Zainal: Maharaja you have several swimming pools and each one of them is >coloured differently ? >What is the swimming pool with the blue water for ? >Maharaja :That is for people who like to swim in cool waters >Zainal:Maharaja Sir, what is the pool with the red water for ? >Maharaja : That is for people who like to swim in warm waters >Zainal: Colorology! Maharaja what is that pool without any water for ? >Maharaja: That is for non-swimmers ? > I have a good laugh! But to post Zainal Alam joke on Sunday morning to world-wide audidence of Tariqas.. is.. rather... CRUEL.. is it? ps (for newcomer to Zainal Alam joke) - --the joke is none whatsoever about the dialogue. it is on Zainal Alam himself :) May God bless his soul. ------------------------------ From: Giles Davidson Date: Fri, 06 Sep 96 07:51:14 Subject: Re: Paraclete #1 (short side bar) Asalamu alaykum, The Catholics do not teach Old Testament at all. Some one I know recently applied for a theology course and was refused because her OT knowledge was inadequate. She was a Catholic and hadn;t been taught this. Had she mentioned this fact she might have then been accepted on the course. This really surprised me - coming from an Anglican background where OT was was taught along with NT I had assumed that all Christians read the whole bible. - -- Giles Davidson ------------------------------ From: ASHA101@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 03:16:31 -0400 Subject: Re: pray for world peace.... work for a transfiggured Earth >>>I suggest that this is the fundamental concept of democracy, and I don't see how it can exist with theocracy<<< Well, yes John, i see what you mean exactly. If a theocracy were actually moulded upon the spiritual hierarchy and the way in which they work, then, like my shaykah, you would never see the Head of a theocracy telling anyone what to do, and niether would any of his or her officers. There is a time and a place for everything, even a time for when church and state can exist as one externally. Then will come a time when the idea of church has become internally activated and it will not be needed externally, that time may have already come but it is still in process. If one can see the ideal with which Mohammud (saws) established his sense of rule, then one may be able to internalize that sense of rule. When our ideals match our capacity (or is it the other way around) then surely his (saws) intention will be fulfilled. When the westerners come to recognize the Islam in themselves and recognize the ideal of the present Islamic world, and when the present Islamic world comes to recognize the internalised Islam of the West and are recognized for their corresponding Islam, and when the present Islamic world feels recognized for thier ideal but also recognises the ideal of the West, then i think we will see what is ment by a truely islamic government (non captalization intentional) - Humanity will become gardeners of paradise, what will be ment by an islamic goverment is really, simply a transfiggured Earth. I cannot imagine a state where a shaykh or murshid is head, or even mouth! As my murshid once said when someone asked him if he were the head of the spiritual order to which we belong he said, "No, I am the feet." - -A ------------------------------ From: ASHA101@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 03:36:26 -0400 Subject: Re: World Peace Marrof wrote: >>> I still don't see how American policy in middle east is really related to love.<<< I don't think the U.S. is related to love. It is related to freedom. It seems to me that there are two great living ideals in this world. One is freedom and the other is love. Not that people in Europe and U.S. don't do a lot of loveing (and i don't wish to offend Christians who use the word love a lot but i think they mean freedom) and not that people in the Middle East do not like and appreciate freedom. It is simply to say that for the West we would gladly die for the idea of freedom (even if we do not have the slightest notion that anyone in my own neighborhood would agree with my definnition of the word still we would all stand together and die for it ... but for love, that is an ideal of the East. Sadaam, it seems to me, represents that kind of manliness that existed before the Prophet (saws) came and turned that sense from the idea of simply being the biggest baddest bully into the concept of ishk, love and fealty. This is an ideal which for the West is prised but not considered life itself. love, Asha ------------------------------ From: ASHA101@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 03:42:34 -0400 Subject: Re: World Peace Marrof wrote: >>> I still don't see how American policy in middle east is really related to love.<<< I don't think the U.S. policy is related to love. It is related to freedom. It seems to me that there are two great living ideals in this world. One is freedom and the other is love. Not that people in Europe and U.S. don't do a lot of loveing (and i don't wish to offend Christians who use the word love a lot but i think they mean freedom) and not that people in the Middle East do not like and appreciate freedom. It is simply to say that for the West we would gladly die for the idea of freedom (I do not have the slightest notion that most and maybe not even anyone in my own neighborhood would agree with each others definnition or understanding of the word Freedom and still we would all stand together and die for it ... For love, that is the living ideal of the East. Sadaam, it seems to me, represents that kind of manliness that existed before the Prophet (saws) came and turned that sense from the idea of simply being the biggest baddest bully into the concept of ishk, love and fealty. This is an ideal which the West prizes but it is not considered life itself. love, Asha ------------------------------ From: maarof Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:00:47 +0800 Subject: Peace Carol wrote: [...] >How do we end war? By refusing to participate in it! By taking personal >responsibility for /living/ peace... a very personal peace. By allowing >God's Love to flow through us... >I think in the long run all we have is our thoughts/deeds.... if they are >not of God, we are lost. [...] Assalamualaikum, I hope we can continue this tread on the subject of peace (salam). Hopefully too, awareness of it will contribute to make this world, that God prepared us as our *home*, a better place to live for generations of mankind to come. I probably understand Carol's position in refusing to participate in war. Anybody of sane mind would not want to be in war. But the reality of times, the war machinery (the armies, weaponry, etc) will be part of our life. I really hope and pray, humanity will be always have the sanity to reject war of senseless killings and destructions. But in mean time, what are the options to control war? I think there is what is called The Geneva Conventions Of War, among other things contain provisions about the safety of civillian population from attack in a war. I think if we can strenghtened this piece of document, by making a binding document to all parties of war, then there might be hope to end war. Do we have the will and strenght to do it? salam maarof ------------------------------ From: Imaan Joshi Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 21:36:32 +0800 Subject: Limits as salaamu 'alaikum I apologise, I have been "off" for a few days now:-) But Insh'Allah, you will permit me to share something with you again:-) From "And the Sky is not the Limit" by sister Amatullah Armstrong, Book 1. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Real faith is that which penetrates all a man's feeling and consciousness. Faith is sometimes only rational, sometimes only emotional, and sometimes confined only to action, just as when a person onventioanlly performs certain ritual observances without his heart being in them. Faith in the true sense means that which infuses our every faculty, so that the reason the emotions, the desires and consequently the behaviour, and conduct of affairs are all governed by and enlightened by it. The fountainhead of faith is neither the reason nor the emotions, but a faculty which lies in the depths of the heart which is called aaperception. Allah[swt] has placed in us a spiritual sense whose function is to know Him, which can be described as a point of light. As He says in His book, :" When I fashion him[ Adam[as]] and breathe My spirit into him, then [O angels] fall before him in prostration." [15:29] It is this breath or light of Allah[swt] within us which knows Him, otherwise how could we know Him? It is against reason that the limited human heart should by itself be able to apprehend an unlimited being as Allah[swt] is. Those in whom this power of apprehension is dormant, or dead, and who deny the existence of Allah[swt], use this argument because human reason is unable to conceive God therefore we cannot admit to His existence. They only make this assertion because they are not aware of this point of light which Allah[swt] has enclosed within every man's heart. It is only by this that he recognises Him, for it is of HIm, and as the saying goes like attracts like. The more this faculty is awakened, the greater the apprehension of Allah[swt]. A necessary condition of this is that the dirt covering the rest of the faculties should be cleansed, so that this light may spread throughtout his whole being. This is the light of faith, and this is apprehension [ma'arifa], for this is a superior form of faith. The fana[ passing away] and baqa[ enduring] spoken of by the sufis mean that a man perceives the light within him is in reality the light of Allah [swt] and that his individualily is not separate from it. When he apprehends that his every thought his every deed becomes controlled by this light, and he conceives himself as the dead body being washed by the living person, which moves only when the washer moves it. This does not mean that he actually has no will of his own, as some pple object, saying that this state means complete passivity and helplessness, and the loss of power of resolution. This objection only denotes their lack of comprehension. When such terms are used that his will does not remain his own, it means that his will no longer exists as something separate from Allah[swt]'s and it is evident that Allah[swt]'s will is such a mighty one that everything in the universe bows down befroe it, and such a powerful resolution that in the face of it, no other resolve has the strength of a blade of grass. Anyone who has sincerely made the testament of faith, has recognised Allah[swt]; but Allah[swt] is such a great unlimited and infinite being that His recognition too has no bounds. To whatever extent a man may recognise Him, he is compelled to conceive of HIm as something greater. Tasawwuf and Suluk are just this. To recognise Him more and more, though in fact we possess not the strength to recognise HIm. It is HE Himself who makes Himself recognised, that is to say, reveals HImself. When a person attains to faith, it means that Allah[swt] has revealed Himself to him to a limited extent. When someone becomes one of those who know Allah[swt] [Arif Billah] it means that Allah[swt] has revealed Himself to him to an incalculable extent. This is all part of Allah[swt]'s mercy, to whom and to what extent He reveals Himself. [Shahidullah Faridi--Inner Aspects of Faith] Imaan Shivani Joshi sci30342@leonis.nus.sg He who painted you all by Himself will not leave you alone in your mad desire. [Jalaluddin Rumi] ------------------------------ End of tariqas-digest V1 #132 *****************************