Muslims and the Road to Perdition

Blowing shofar on kaalchakra: La Illaha Il-llah,means there is no God by God, you are mixing different eras into one to prove your point which is your mistake. If the following was said in lifetime of Jesus Christ: LA ILLAHA ILL-LALLAH, JESUS IS RASOOL ALLAH,
Technically this is true but will sound PROVOCATIVE in muslim era of Prophet Mohammad

teshah

Further, `La illaha illillah` does not sound very different from the frequently used Christian quote -

``God is God and Jesus is his Son.``

The latter has the same focus on exclusivity - the only God is the God that Christians worship; and if you don`t believe Jesus is God`s son, then your God is not the real God (which is the Christian God).

tesah

Sure. My undestanding of `La illaha illillah` is that it has the connotations of exclusivity and perfection. The context is the following -

According to Islam -

1. Prior to Prophet Muhammad`s arrival and revelations to him, people either believed that there existed many Gods, which was false, or they believed in one God, but the wrong God; or

2. Even if some people were worshipping the one right god, they just weren`t doing it the right way.

3. Islam made two contributions - It claimed that those who were worshipping many gods were wrong, and those who were worshipping One God were also wrong if their God differed from Islam`s God. That is, Islam`s God was the only God - the claim of exclusivity. Two, Islam not only discovered the right God, it also found the right way of worshipping the right god - the claim of perfection.

I don`t know whether people realize but the recent khuda kushi committed en masse by the younger Pakistanis is a direct consequence of absorbing this `La illaha illillah` teaching.

Khuda was the wrong god, and the right God should not be called khuda.

---

Neither you nor I belong to the generation committing this en masse Khuda Kushi, but do you see the connection? :)

#319 by dost-mittar
#318 by kaalchakra

dost-mittar

``I am not sure if the `la illaha` and `neti, neti` mean the same thing: The former negates the existence of any gods (absence of `shirk`) whereas the latter refers to the non-definability of God.``

You are right when you say `la illaha` negates the existence of any gods but it does not mean `absence of shirk`. It actually means worship of false gods negated by Islam. Strange as it may seem, I learnt the concept of `Touheed` from Bhgwat Gita. I was however not sure about `neti, neti` which I thought wishfully as an other ground of similarity between the two great religions of South Asia. I would like to know more about it.

kalachakra

``Interesting. I had interpreted `La illaha illillah` differently. What does the phrase actually mean?``

We can discuss it only if you could tell us how you had interpretted `la illaha illillah`. It is a very interesting formula indeed but too vague to lend to any interpretation one likes. Interestingly it is not the invention of Islam. Socratese was also accused of preaching this formula. In fact it is the most powerful weapon against `Kufr` by which I mean communalism or sectarianism, i.e., dividing humanity by preaching worship of false gods as Ghalib says:

Dero haram aainae taqraare tamanna
Wamaandagie shouq tarashe he panahein

Chowk administratio

I am sorry I inadvertantly got my pevious post submitted twice.

kaalchakra, teshah:

I am not sure if the `la illaha` and `neti, neti` mean the same thing: The former negates the existence of any gods (absence of `shirk`) whereas the latter refers to the non-definability of God.

tesah

Interesting. I had interpreted `La illaha illillah` differently. What does the phrase actually mean?

Re: # 315

kalachakra

``By the way, I don`t see a clear equivalent of ``neti neti`` approach in semitic traditions. Do you? It would be an interesting piece of research for an objective investigator.``

Islam has also this `neti neti` approach as its very Kalima `La illaha illillah` starts with `La` which in Arabic means `neti`. The essence of Islam is also negation of false gods. It is veritably a `neti` approach as you reach God only when your heart (Qalb) is clear of false gods as an Urdu poet has said:

Charon taraf se surate janaan ho jalwah gar
dil saaf ho tera to khanae aainah kia

I was actually surprised to know that it was also there in the Hindu traditions.

In fact what is the major difference between semitic and Hindu religious thought is that the latter is more subtle believing in `oneness of reality` (Wadatul Wajood) of which the former have no idea. So in the former case communication between God who resides in heaven is established only through angels and prophets while in the latter case God himself has to appear as an `Autar` to speak out to man. But in `net neti` and the black stone worship they both agree.

Re: # 315

kalachakra

``By the way, I don`t see a clear equivalent of ``neti neti`` approach in semitic traditions. Do you? It would be an interesting piece of research for an objective investigator.``

Islam has also this `neti neti` approach as its very Kalima `La illaha illillah` starts with `La` which in Arabic means `neti`. The essence of Islam is also negation of false gods. It is veritably a `neti` approach as you reach God only when your heart (Qalb) is clear of false gods as an Urdu poet has said:

Charon taraf se surate janaan ho jalwah gar
dil saaf ho tera to khanae aainah kia

I was actually surprised to know that it was also there in the Hindu traditions.

In fact what is the major difference between semitic and Hindu religious thought is that the latter is more subtle believing in `oneness of reality` (Wadatul Wajood) of which the former have no idea. So in the former case communication between God who resides in heaven is established only through angels and prophets while in the latter case God himself has to appear as an `Autar` to speak out to man. But in `net neti` and the black stone worship they both agree.

re: Kalihawa # 314

``Neti Neti..``

And I thought this too was something that the great fundamentalist Samirfs had arrived at all by himself or by reading his oh-so-wonderful Sufi texts :)

When the man tried to teach me the wisdom of this appraoch, I almost puked at his brazen pretensions.

---

By the way, I don`t see a clear equivalent of ``neti neti`` approach in semitic traditions. Do you? It would be an interesting piece of research for an objective investigator.

Re: # 313 {`` the concept of God is so vast that it is impossible to define it by any human means possible (please refer to my other methaphors in earlier posts for clearer explanations)`` }

You sound like ancient Hindus. ``Neti Neti`` is actually negative way of describing God. Literally it means Not this, Not this. So instead of directly defining God, ancient Hindus described what is not God.

`` the concept of God is so vast that it is impossible to define it by any human means possible (please refer to my other methaphors in earlier posts for clearer explanations)``

Actually, this is similar to the Old Testament. The Book of Job is a telling example where the majesty of God is impossible to conceptualize b mere mortals. Faith alone is key.

hamidm #303 you write ``if ``the concept of God is so vast that it is impossible to define it by any human means possible `` then why should humans bother with it in the first place ?``

Actually, YOU dont write that. That was my line, and I had asked that question rhetorically. You could at least have acknowledged that.

Anyway...carry on with your profound dotted talk about how miserable you are to be a muslim.

Dude,

You have had plenty of time to produce the source of the quotation. If it is a genuine quotation, and has the same contextual meaning you mentioned, I will be happy to add to my knowledge.

Again, kindly produce the source, with whatever contextual information may be available.

Thanks.

Re: # 309

You are indeed amusing.
I wasn`t planning to mention it for fear of losing the delight (but now I know I will never lose the joy), but it`s fun to watch you get all worked up and dance around.

And could you kindly attach one of the following two lines to each of your posts.

``In this post, I, samirfs, have lied.``

Or,

``In this post, I, samirfs, have not lied.``

Smirfs

I cannot believe you are not Temporal. Your attempts at obfuscation have the same puerile flavor. But no. I have not known Temporal to deliberately lie :)

Is lying a part of YOUR religion?