Powered by UITechs
Get password? Username Password
 
 
Page 1 of 1

  Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly 

AuthorTopic
Junaidj

CANADA
Topic initiated on Tuesday, November 09, 2004  -  8:39 PM Reply with quote
Not all that glitters is gold.


1) Karen Armstrong is one of the foremost authorities on comparative religion in both Britain and the United States. .......and received the 1999 Muslim Public Affairs Council Media Award.

http://www.synchronicity.org/Products/Books_by_Author/Karen_Armstrong.aspx

The following are extracted from her book:

Thus, a great scholar like Ibn Sina, who considered it a religious duty to discover God, died of excessive indulgence in wine and sex. Shams-u-Al-Din of Tabriz believed he was a reincarnation of the Holy Prophet (sws), the philosophers had their loyalties with the Hellenic Sciences, and similar arguments can be made for the proponents of Kalam.

Our purpose is not to malign the great luminaries but only to impress upon the Muslims that their scholars were not infallible and that many of them were often not from the mainstream.

http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/tobore.html

2) Maulana Rumi's Mathnavi: Saint or Dirty old man?

Rumi used the language of romance, but was often outrageous - many poems are about sexual love or drunkenness; and there's also a sense of ambiguity and frisson of the forbidden, common to much Sufi poetry. Early last century, some poems were translated only into Latin, to protect delicate sensibilities. One is the story of an effeminate looking man who, because of his looks, gets a job in a female bath-house and spends all day in a permanent state of excitement massaging women. Only when he is nearly discovered is he forced to rethink the way he lives his life. Another is a symbolic parable about two women who have sex with a donkey.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,608935,00.html

3) The The Essential Rumi p.283 says that the Sufi poet Sanai’s style impressed Rumi. Sanai said that dirty jokes can be instructional.

See the following website for details, they are not fit to be posted on this website.

http://www.muslimhope.com/rumi.htm

Conclusion: the readers are encouraged to make up their minds. Confront the truth on past scholars' imperfections and the filth that ensues in religious seminaries today or keep ignoring them.

The choice is yours.

Edited by: junaidj on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:41 PM
surgeonakhlaq

PAKISTAN
Posted - Wednesday, November 10, 2004  -  11:59 PM Reply with quote
THE BIOSTATISTICS??????????

The topic is de-tracked here.

The truth might be there in the present or past at random and, which might not be denied, but the problem is use of such material in the treatment, the answer of which is only and only with the biostatistics.

By the way, what is the definition and protocol of biostatistics, which govern all the matter??

GOLD IS GOLD!
surgeonakhlaq

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, November 12, 2004  -  12:06 AM Reply with quote
CONCLUSION

According to me, the subject, “Confronting the truth on the past scholar’s imperfections and the filth” in the form of “Homosexuality guilt” was not highlighted properly (Pl, see that forum again) and now the topic “Not all that glitters is gold” is right and excellent.

I am with all scavenging this filth.

May Allah help and forgive us, Aameen!

EID MUBARAK TO ALL!
saadiamalik

PAKISTAN
Posted - Monday, November 15, 2004  -  2:31 PM Reply with quote
Imam Bukhari (of 'Sahih Bukhari' fame), it is said, refused to take hadith from a person he witnessed bluffing his animal - luring it with an empty fist, as if offering grain. I'd agree with the Imam's approach. Similarly, I wouldn't pay much heed to anyone who appears to me to be of doubtful character. We all sin. But if any among us perpetually and knowingly keeps sinning, I wouldn't lend even half an ear to such a person - be it a modern day 'maulvi', be it Rumi. I wouldn't allow either of them to glitter in my world, let alone, accept them as 'gold'.

Wasalaam.

Saadia


Edited by: saadiamalik on Monday, November 15, 2004 2:34 PM
Loveall

PAKISTAN
Posted - Wednesday, December 15, 2004  -  12:24 AM Reply with quote
Assalaamu’alaikum, Dear Saadia,

Quote: I wouldn't allow either of them to glitter in my world, let alone, accept them as 'gold'.

I am feared to read the above post.

What is meant please by “My world”?
saadiamalik

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, December 17, 2004  -  1:52 AM Reply with quote
Simply that if someone is of dubious character, I won't let him/her be a source of my religious knowledge. What's to fear!
Loveall

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, December 17, 2004  -  8:25 PM Reply with quote
Remember, It is not an answer of My world
saadiamalik

PAKISTAN
Posted - Friday, December 17, 2004  -  11:08 PM Reply with quote
quote:

Remember, It is not an answer of My world


It is, in fact, because no two people can always agree.
Loveall

PAKISTAN
Posted - Saturday, December 18, 2004  -  11:55 PM Reply with quote
“My world” means “My Dunya” owned only by God.
saadiamalik

PAKISTAN
Posted - Sunday, December 19, 2004  -  11:10 PM Reply with quote
No comments!
Loveall

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, December 21, 2004  -  9:33 PM Reply with quote
According to me “No comments” means “No answer” or to ignore. Why do you hesitate to say that it was just your mistake OR you used “world” as non literal meanings.

According to me, it was not a mistake but “world” was used the as non literal meanings otherwise only owned by God, which confused not only me but surely others also. Could you please allow someone doing the non literal meanings of some poetry which might confuse?

This was just by the way, not to let the gold glitter.
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Another problem that was put in your post is as following.

“I won't let him/her be a source of MY RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE”.

Some people always prefix some word before their statements. Therefore I ignore the word “My” for a while. Then could you please define “RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE (ISLAM)” for me and the other readers, therefore we must differentiate?

You must please answer comprehensively not “No comments”
saadiamalik

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, December 21, 2004  -  10:56 PM Reply with quote
quote:

According to me, it was not a mistake but “world” was used the as non literal meanings otherwise only owned by God, which confused not only me but surely others also. Could you please allow someone doing the non literal meanings of some poetry which might confuse?


Okay loveall/surgeonakhlaq (by whichever people know you with), was anyone else confused by "my" post? Why so?

Edited by: saadiamalik on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:58 PM
Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Wednesday, December 22, 2004  -  6:55 AM Reply with quote
Why is this site being reduced to having trivial and nonsensical comments, when much remains to be understood and done?

Perhaps this forum can be locked.

Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly
Jump To:

Page 1 of 1


Share |


Copyright Studying-Islam © 2003-7  | Privacy Policy  | Code of Conduct  | An Affiliate of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®
Top    





eXTReMe Tracker