Re: Bektashi Alevi

[John Mikes]

Bruno wrote:

*"If you agree that "2+2=4" cannot be corrupted ..."*

only, if you deny the existence of 'random' (in the physical world,
including math, of course). Otherwise 2 + 3715(?) may be 4 etc. and your
math became
illusoric. Since we agree (you and me at least,* agnostics*) in an
overwhelming unknowable infinite complexity as the *Entirety* (World?) and
reduce our accessible knowables to a tiny-tiny fraction of such, we have to
exclude the RANDOM from the potentialities of such World, to make ANY
theory believable. And that may go to religious considerations as well
(what I do not include in my train of thoughts).
I never received an answer to my skepticism about 2+2=4 in *ANY* relations.

Maybe I am not scientific enough - so be it. (Science = doubt).

Just a short remark

John Mikes

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 08 May 2016, at 23:48, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Apr 2016, at 05:30, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>> 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)?! 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?!
>>
>>
>>
>> That is cool, Samya.
>>
>>
>> And, especially, who then can better understand that tampering with the
>> PERFECT CODE only corrupts it?!
>>
>>
>>
>> If the PERFECT CODE can be corrupted, it means that it is not the perfect
>> code.
>>
>> I don't think you can corrupt the perfect code, as I don't believe there
>> is bugs in elementary arithmetic (not confuse again with possible human or
>> machine theories about it).
>>
>> If you agree that "2+2=4" cannot be corrupted then the entire universal
>> dovetailing cannot be corrupted. It emulates all programs with all possible
>> bugs, but none on this will change the elementary facts on which it
>> proceeds. Plausibly, most phenomenologies (NAFS) inherit a part of its
>> stability, and correctness, and perhaps even an atom of its perfection, who
>> nows?
>>
>> You can't corrupt the Big One. You can trust HIM/SHE/IT on this. I think.
>>
>
> My God (Allah) is the One who wrote/spoke all the codes of creation,
> including the big one(s). I trust Allah does not allow anyone, including
> the big one(s), to corrupt creation. In fact, they all humbly submit to the
> Will of Allah and live their purpose in the grand scheme of creation. Those
> created beings who misuse their free will to try to corrupt were never
> taken nor will ever be taken as part of the executive of the grand creation
> (Quran 18:51 ). Respite is given
> for a certain amount of time. When that period expires, all will be judged,
> and in perfect justice the corrupt will be contained for ever.
>
> As I understand the scripture and its message, Allah bestowed some
> advanced intelligence to humans to entrust us with some big
> responsibilities (Quran 33:72 ).
> However, we need to prove that we are worthy of undertaking those
> responsibilities (Quran 33:73 ),
> and therefore He created death and life to test us (Quran 67:2
> , 29:2
> ). Thus, He created this contained
> environment, practical exam room, (Quran 76:2
> ) where we have been granted a
> certain degree of freedom along with guidance, an open book exam (Quran
> 76:3 ).
>
> Adam was initially examined in the Garden, and in his pursuit of
> Immortality and a Kingdom that Never Decays
> 
> (Quran 20:120 ), Adam's tampering
> with his DNA resulted in the loss of the natural clothing of humans. On
> Earth, humans are among the rare creatures whose skins are bare and not
> covered with fur, feather, shell or some other form of covering to hide
> their body. Scientists have discovered pseudogenes (mutated, inactive
> genes) in humans, which indicate that perhaps sometime in the distant past,
> human skin was covered in fur or feather.
>
> Adam and his progeny (us) have been sent to this Earth to be e

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 May 2016, at 23:48, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 23 Apr 2016, at 05:30, Samiya Illias wrote:

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)?! 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?!



That is cool, Samya.


And, especially, who then can better understand that tampering with  
the PERFECT CODE only corrupts it?!



If the PERFECT CODE can be corrupted, it means that it is not the  
perfect code.


I don't think you can corrupt the perfect code, as I don't believe  
there is bugs in elementary arithmetic (not confuse again with  
possible human or machine theories about it).


If you agree that "2+2=4" cannot be corrupted then the entire  
universal dovetailing cannot be corrupted. It emulates all programs  
with all possible bugs, but none on this will change the elementary  
facts on which it proceeds. Plausibly, most phenomenologies (NAFS)  
inherit a part of its stability, and correctness, and perhaps even  
an atom of its perfection, who nows?


You can't corrupt the Big One. You can trust HIM/SHE/IT on this. I  
think.


My God (Allah) is the One who wrote/spoke all the codes of creation,  
including the big one(s). I trust Allah does not allow anyone,  
including the big one(s), to corrupt creation. In fact, they all  
humbly submit to the Will of Allah and live their purpose in the  
grand scheme of creation. Those created beings who misuse their free  
will to try to corrupt were never taken nor will ever be taken as  
part of the executive of the grand creation (Quran 18:51). Respite  
is given for a certain amount of time. When that period expires, all  
will be judged, and in perfect justice the corrupt will be contained  
for ever.


As I understand the scripture and its message, Allah bestowed some  
advanced intelligence to humans to entrust us with some big  
responsibilities (Quran 33:72). However, we need to prove that we  
are worthy of undertaking those responsibilities (Quran 33:73), and  
therefore He created death and life to test us (Quran 67:2, 29:2).  
Thus, He created this contained environment, practical exam room,  
(Quran 76:2) where we have been granted a certain degree of freedom  
along with guidance, an open book exam (Quran 76:3).


Adam was initially examined in the Garden, and in his pursuit of  
Immortality and a Kingdom that Never Decays (Quran 20:120), Adam's  
tampering with his DNA resulted in the loss of the natural clothing  
of humans. On Earth, humans are among the rare creatures whose skins  
are bare and not covered with fur, feather, shell or some other form  
of covering to hide their body. Scientists have discovered  
pseudogenes (mutated, inactive genes) in humans, which indicate that  
perhaps sometime in the distant past, human skin was covered in fur  
or feather.


Adam and his progeny (us) have been sent to this Earth to be  
examined. People before us were examined, and so are we also here to  
take our exam (Quran 29:3). Mighty civilisations have preceded us,  
who were given knowledge of or from Everything, yet when they  
arrogantly refused to submit to the guidance and will of God, they  
were warned of impending punishment, and eventually destroyed for  
their corruptions.



And Allah knows best!


According to your interpretation of the Quran, and actually, mine, too  
(for the last sentence). Where we differ is that I interpret the Quran  
as identfying Allah and the Big One, which automatically prevents me  
(us, the believers) to attribute any saying to Him/It/Her, unless  
allegorically or metaphorically.
All verses in the Quran can only be invoked personally. They mention  
Allah, and so using them in practice or terrestrial matter would  
become an authoritative argument (as it does with some sunni  
literalist reading as we can see in some part of the Muslim world).
Only Allah can judge, no humans can refer to Allah or the Quran, nor  
the Bible, to judge another one. Now, my point was just that many  
Muslims throughout the age agreed with this point, and I found  
interesting that there is still today a branch of Islam (Bektashi)  
which interpret the Quran in that way. It is "mechanist"-compatible.  
Only such interpretati

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 23 Apr 2016, at 05:30, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
> 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)?! 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?!
>
>
>
> That is cool, Samya.
>
>
> And, especially, who then can better understand that tampering with the
> PERFECT CODE only corrupts it?!
>
>
>
> If the PERFECT CODE can be corrupted, it means that it is not the perfect
> code.
>
> I don't think you can corrupt the perfect code, as I don't believe there
> is bugs in elementary arithmetic (not confuse again with possible human or
> machine theories about it).
>
> If you agree that "2+2=4" cannot be corrupted then the entire universal
> dovetailing cannot be corrupted. It emulates all programs with all possible
> bugs, but none on this will change the elementary facts on which it
> proceeds. Plausibly, most phenomenologies (NAFS) inherit a part of its
> stability, and correctness, and perhaps even an atom of its perfection, who
> nows?
>
> You can't corrupt the Big One. You can trust HIM/SHE/IT on this. I think.
>

My God (Allah) is the One who wrote/spoke all the codes of creation,
including the big one(s). I trust Allah does not allow anyone, including
the big one(s), to corrupt creation. In fact, they all humbly submit to the
Will of Allah and live their purpose in the grand scheme of creation. Those
created beings who misuse their free will to try to corrupt were never
taken nor will ever be taken as part of the executive of the grand creation
(Quran 18:51 ). Respite is given for
a certain amount of time. When that period expires, all will be judged, and
in perfect justice the corrupt will be contained for ever.

As I understand the scripture and its message, Allah bestowed some advanced
intelligence to humans to entrust us with some big responsibilities (Quran
33:72 ). However, we need to prove
that we are worthy of undertaking those responsibilities (Quran 33:73
), and therefore He created death
and life to test us (Quran 67:2 , 29:2
). Thus, He created this contained
environment, practical exam room, (Quran 76:2
) where we have been granted a
certain degree of freedom along with guidance, an open book exam (Quran 76:3
).

Adam was initially examined in the Garden, and in his pursuit of
Immortality and a Kingdom that Never Decays

(Quran 20:120 ), Adam's tampering
with his DNA resulted in the loss of the natural clothing of humans. On
Earth, humans are among the rare creatures whose skins are bare and not
covered with fur, feather, shell or some other form of covering to hide
their body. Scientists have discovered pseudogenes (mutated, inactive
genes) in humans, which indicate that perhaps sometime in the distant past,
human skin was covered in fur or feather.

Adam and his progeny (us) have been sent to this Earth to be examined.
People before us were examined, and so are we also here to take our exam
(Quran 29:3 ). Mighty civilisations
 have
preceded us, who were given knowledge of or from Everything, yet when they
arrogantly refused to submit to the guidance and will of God
,
they were warned of impending punishment, and eventually destroyed for
their corruptions
.


And Allah knows best!

Samiya




> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this g

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Apr 2016, at 05:30, Samiya Illias wrote:

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)?! 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?!



That is cool, Samya.


And, especially, who then can better understand that tampering with  
the PERFECT CODE only corrupts it?!



If the PERFECT CODE can be corrupted, it means that it is not the  
perfect code.


I don't think you can corrupt the perfect code, as I don't believe  
there is bugs in elementary arithmetic (not confuse again with  
possible human or machine theories about it).


If you agree that "2+2=4" cannot be corrupted then the entire  
universal dovetailing cannot be corrupted. It emulates all programs  
with all possible bugs, but none on this will change the elementary  
facts on which it proceeds. Plausibly, most phenomenologies (NAFS)  
inherit a part of its stability, and correctness, and perhaps even an  
atom of its perfection, who nows?


You can't corrupt the Big One. You can trust HIM/SHE/IT on this. I  
think.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 26 Apr 2016, at 04:35, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Samiya Illias 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Quran, Chapter 112
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> That's fine, except that now we need a theory of Allah, because
>> everything else is irrelevant under that model. In fact, you just renamed
>> "everything" to "Allah". So what's your theory of Allah?
>>
>
> Allah: there is nothing comparable to Him‏
> The Quran introduces us to the attributes of Allah, but does not describe
> the form of Allah, and that is where we must stop if we are believers.
>
> G* introduces the machines to the attributes of the Arithmetical Truth,
> but does not describe the form of Arithmetical Truth (and even explain why
> that is impossible), and that is where we must stop (to try to justify
> rationally what is Truth) if we are believers (in Truth).
>
>
>
> As per Quran 112:4 there is nothing like Allah, thus a believer in the
> Quran should not try to imagine or state what Allah is.
>
> To state? I agree. But to imagine or conceive new axioms is *always*
> possible. If you state that we must stop to not only justify but to search
> new axioms, you are explicitly using an argument per authority of the kind
> of those who want religion opposed to science. That is obscurantism. It
> often lead to persecution of the honest modest researchers.
>
>
>
> Quran 31:30 describes Allah as Al-Haq.
>
> ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْحَقُّ وَأَنَّ مَا يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِهِ
> الْبَاطِلُ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْعَلِيُّ الْكَبِيرُ
>
> Al-Haq is among the many names or attributes of God. Though generally
> translated as The Truth, the word al-Haq encompasses a range of meanings,
> and as contrasted to baatil [falsehood], the primary signification the word
> ‘haq’ is  suitableness to the requirements of  wisdom, justice, right, or
> rightness, truth, reality, or fact. The state, or quality, or property, of
> being just, proper, right, correct. Lane’s Lexicon covers around six pages:
> http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/
> Al-Haq is merely one of the aspects of Allah (God) who is much more than
> any word or concept that we can imagine or relate to. This link has a list
> of names/attributes mentioned in the Quran:
> http://www.whyislam.org/god/names-and-attributes-of-allah/
>
>
> No problem here, a priori. But not all branches of Islam will interpret
> the names in the same way. What I say, is that the evidence from logic and
> observation might be much closer to the Bektashi interpretation than any
> interpretation dismissing automatically the other interpretations. They
> take correctly into account that we are humans or even that we are finite
> creature, and so must be modest and cautious when discussing possible
> attribute of the One Which has no name at the source of everything.
>
>
>
>
>
> Quran 17:85 informs us that:
>
> وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا
> أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
>
> We are informed by verse 17:85 that the Ar-Ruh, generally translated as
> Spirit,  is the Command of God, and of it we have been given very little
> knowledge. Thus, it would be erroneous to think that God is Spirit. With
> reference to what was breathed into Mary, mother of Jesus, please see:
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/10/virgin-birth.html
>
> Quran 24:35 informs us that:
>
> اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ مَثَلُ نُورِهِ كَمِشْكَاةٍ فِيهَا
> مِصْبَاحٌ الْمِصْبَاحُ فِي زُجَاجَةٍ الزُّجَاجَةُ كَأَنَّهَا كَوْكَبٌ
> دُرِّيٌّ يُوقَدُ مِن شَجَرَةٍ مُّبَارَكَةٍ زَيْتُونَةٍ لَّا شَرْقِيَّةٍ
> وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِيءُ وَلَوْ لَمْ تَمْسَسْهُ نَارٌ
> نُّورٌ عَلَىٰ نُورٍ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ لِنُورِهِ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَضْرِبُ
> اللَّهُ الْأَمْثَالَ لِلنَّاسِ وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ
>
> The verse uses the term Nur to describe the presence of Allah in Samawaat
> (Heavens/Skies) and Earth. The verse itself says that Allah is using
> examples here for humans. Hence, the following are some of the terms as I
> understand them:
> Nur: light or something with similar properties which helps us see in the
> dark
> Glass: Nur is enclosed in Glass, an amorphous substance which we are very
>

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

art 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 > wrote:



On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal  
 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 y

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

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 >>> > 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 >>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Apr 2016, at 04:35, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Telmo Menezes  
 wrote:



On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Samiya Illias > wrote:

The Quran, Chapter 112
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.  
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.


That's fine, except that now we need a theory of Allah, because  
everything else is irrelevant under that model. In fact, you just  
renamed "everything" to "Allah". So what's your theory of Allah?


Allah: there is nothing comparable to Him‏
The Quran introduces us to the attributes of Allah, but does not  
describe the form of Allah, and that is where we must stop if we are  
believers.
G* introduces the machines to the attributes of the Arithmetical  
Truth, but does not describe the form of Arithmetical Truth (and even  
explain why that is impossible), and that is where we must stop (to  
try to justify rationally what is Truth) if we are believers (in Truth).




As per Quran 112:4 there is nothing like Allah, thus a believer in  
the Quran should not try to imagine or state what Allah is.
To state? I agree. But to imagine or conceive new axioms is *always*  
possible. If you state that we must stop to not only justify but to  
search new axioms, you are explicitly using an argument per authority  
of the kind of those who want religion opposed to science. That is  
obscurantism. It often lead to persecution of the honest modest  
researchers.





Quran 31:30 describes Allah as Al-Haq.

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ  
الْحَقُّ وَأَنَّ مَا يَدْعُونَ مِن  
دُونِهِ الْبَاطِلُ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ  
هُوَ الْعَلِيُّ الْكَبِيرُ


Al-Haq is among the many names or attributes of God. Though  
generally translated as The Truth, the word al-Haq encompasses a  
range of meanings, and as contrasted to baatil [falsehood], the  
primary signification the word ‘haq’ is  suitableness to the  
requirements of  wisdom, justice, right, or rightness, truth,  
reality, or fact. The state, or quality, or property, of being just,  
proper, right, correct. Lane’s Lexicon covers around six pages:http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lan 
e/
Al-Haq is merely one of the aspects of Allah (God) who is much more  
than any word or concept that we can imagine or relate to. This link  
has a list of names/attributes mentioned in the Quran:http://www.whyislam.org/god/names-and-attributes-of-allah/




No problem here, a priori. But not all branches of Islam will  
interpret the names in the same way. What I say, is that the evidence  
from logic and observation might be much closer to the Bektashi  
interpretation than any interpretation dismissing automatically the  
other interpretations. They take correctly into account that we are  
humans or even that we are finite creature, and so must be modest and  
cautious when discussing possible attribute of the One Which has no  
name at the source of everything.







Quran 17:85 informs us that:

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ  
الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا  
أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا  
قَلِيلًا


We are informed by verse 17:85 that the Ar-Ruh, generally translated  
as Spirit,  is the Command of God, and of it we have been given very  
little knowledge. Thus, it would be erroneous to think that God is  
Spirit. With reference to what was breathed into Mary, mother of  
Jesus, please see:http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/10/virgin-birth.html


Quran 24:35 informs us that:

اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ  
وَالْأَرْضِ مَثَلُ نُورِهِ  
كَمِشْكَاةٍ فِيهَا مِصْبَاحٌ  
الْمِصْبَاحُ فِي زُجَاجَةٍ  
الزُّجَاجَةُ كَأَنَّهَا كَوْكَبٌ  
دُرِّيٌّ يُوقَدُ مِن شَجَرَةٍ  
مُّبَارَكَةٍ زَيْتُونَةٍ لَّا  
شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ  
يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِيءُ وَلَوْ  
لَمْ تَمْسَسْهُ نَارٌ نُّورٌ عَلَىٰ  
نُورٍ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ لِنُورِهِ مَن  
يَشَاءُ وَيَضْرِبُ اللَّهُ  
الْأَمْثَالَ لِلنَّاسِ وَاللَّهُ  
بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ


The verse uses the term Nur to describe the presence of Allah in  
Samawaat (Heavens/Skies) and Earth. The verse itself says that Allah  
is using examples here for humans. Hence, the following are some of  
the terms as I understand them:
Nur: light or something with similar properties which helps us see  
in the dark
Glass: Nur is enclosed in Glass, an amorphous substance which we are  
very familiar with on Earth, having the properties of transmitting,  
reflecting and refracting light
Kawkab: the glass is likened to a Kawkab. The term  
‘كَوْكَبٌ’  used in the Quran seems to refer to objects  
which do not p

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

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 

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> The Quran, Chapter 112
>> 
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>
> That's fine, except that now we need a theory of Allah, because everything
> else is irrelevant under that model. In fact, you just renamed "everything"
> to "Allah". So what's your theory of Allah?
>

Allah: there is nothing comparable to Him‏
The Quran introduces us to the attributes of Allah, but does not describe
the form of Allah, and that is where we must stop if we are believers.  As
per Quran 112:4 there is nothing like Allah, thus a believer in the Quran
should not try to imagine or state what Allah is.

Quran 31:30 describes Allah as Al-Haq.

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْحَقُّ وَأَنَّ مَا يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِهِ
الْبَاطِلُ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْعَلِيُّ الْكَبِيرُ

Al-Haq is among the many names or attributes of God. Though generally
translated as The Truth, the word al-Haq encompasses a range of meanings,
and as contrasted to baatil [falsehood], the primary signification the word
‘haq’ is  suitableness to the requirements of  wisdom, justice, right, or
rightness, truth, reality, or fact. The state, or quality, or property, of
being just, proper, right, correct. Lane’s Lexicon covers around six pages:
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/
Al-Haq is merely one of the aspects of Allah (God) who is much more than
any word or concept that we can imagine or relate to. This link has a list
of names/attributes mentioned in the Quran:
http://www.whyislam.org/god/names-and-attributes-of-allah/

Quran 17:85 informs us that:

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا
أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا

We are informed by verse 17:85 that the Ar-Ruh, generally translated as
Spirit,  is the Command of God, and of it we have been given very little
knowledge. Thus, it would be erroneous to think that God is Spirit. With
reference to what was breathed into Mary, mother of Jesus, please see:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/10/virgin-birth.html

Quran 24:35 informs us that:

اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ مَثَلُ نُورِهِ كَمِشْكَاةٍ فِيهَا
مِصْبَاحٌ الْمِصْبَاحُ فِي زُجَاجَةٍ الزُّجَاجَةُ كَأَنَّهَا كَوْكَبٌ
دُرِّيٌّ يُوقَدُ مِن شَجَرَةٍ مُّبَارَكَةٍ زَيْتُونَةٍ لَّا شَرْقِيَّةٍ
وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِيءُ وَلَوْ لَمْ تَمْسَسْهُ نَارٌ
نُّورٌ عَلَىٰ نُورٍ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ لِنُورِهِ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَضْرِبُ
اللَّهُ الْأَمْثَالَ لِلنَّاسِ وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

The verse uses the term Nur to describe the presence of Allah in Samawaat
(Heavens/Skies) and Earth. The verse itself says that Allah is using
examples here for humans. Hence, the following are some of the terms as I
understand them:
Nur: light or something with similar properties which helps us see in the
dark
Glass: Nur is enclosed in Glass, an amorphous substance which we are very
familiar with on Earth, having the properties of transmitting, reflecting
and refracting light
Kawkab: the glass is likened to a Kawkab. The term ‘كَوْكَبٌ’  used in the
Quran seems to refer to objects which do not produce light, but shine due
to the light of another source. I think they are solid objects made from
sand/soil/clay, and have rocky features. Planets, asteroids, meteoroids and
comets, all fit in this description.  [
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/kawakib-planets-comets-and-other-rocky.html]

The verse goes on to give an example of the external source of the Nur as
an olive, a blessed tree, whose oil almost glows forth even if not touched
by fire, hence a radiant, continuous source of Nur in the As-Samawaat (the
seven concentric skies) and Al-Ard (the Earth).
I understand the terms  لَّا شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ as 'not of the
two origins and not of the two endings' that is the source of Nur is
external to the first(this) and second(Hereafter) creation of السَّمَاوَاتِ
وَالْأَرْضِ. I've discussed the reasons in some detail at:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/guarding-sky.html
Allah can use examples as Allah knows everything.
However, we should not use examples for Allah, as we do not know, as Quran
 16:74 warns us:

فَلَا تَضْرِبُوا لِلَّهِ الْأَمْثَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لَا
تَعْلَمُونَ

Multiple translations of the verses are available at:
ht

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> The Quran, Chapter 112
> 
> 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.
> 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.
>

That's fine, except that now we need a theory of Allah, because everything
else is irrelevant under that model. In fact, you just renamed "everything"
to "Allah". So what's your theory of Allah?

Cheers
Telmo.


>
> I worship not that which you worship, nor worship you that which I
> worship! Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
> 
>
> Samiya
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

;>> 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 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>>>>>> 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 s

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

he 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 > 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  
 wrote:



On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal   
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 fo

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

>>> 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 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>>>>> 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).
>>>

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Telmo Menezes]

fs, 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 rewa

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

y, 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-Sub

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Telmo Menezes]

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 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>> 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. In

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal  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
>

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Apr 2016, at 00:15, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal   
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

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 Apr 2016, at 14:53, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Do you have any essays floating about, that you have written  
concerning machine theology (Lobian machines I am guessing)?


Have you seen my Plotinus paper? Here is a PDF:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf

(It has been published in the proceeding of the CIE meeting of 2007)

There is also my paper "La machine Mystique" (published in french in  
"Logique et Analyse"). I can give you reference, but they are only  
available if you are member of research.gate or academia.edu.  I can  
send you a copy if you ask, but the Plotinus paper is more  
informative. Same for my last papers, but they are more technical. I  
suggest you begin with the Plotinus paper, and I send more if  
interested.


Best,

Bruno








-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 20, 2016 3:21 am
Subject: Bektashi Alevi


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 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, 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.


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, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal  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. 

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Do you have any essays floating about, that you have written concerning machine 
theology (Lobian machines I am guessing)? 



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 20, 2016 3:21 am
Subject: Bektashi Alevi




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 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, 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.


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, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

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 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, 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.


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, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.