FOOD FOR THOUGHT: "Ignorance is an affront."

 

YOU ARE IN DARKNESS.

  
 supreme being page 1 supreme being page 2 supreme being page 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

"WE SHOULD GO BACK TO  ABRAHAM'S RELIGION"

The Arab Prophet had learned that some of the Arabs in Syria had already rediscovered the 'authentic religion of Av'ram/Abraham.' This person called Abraham was alive before either Torah or the Gospels. Therefore he was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Therefore Abraham's religion seemed as an appropriate faith to choose. Arabs must have thought that this choice would give them an extra opportunity to pull the Jews and Christians to their side, because Abraham was their Patriarch. This was extremely important for the specific purpose of the Sabian Messenger from Midian. He was aware that  there were serious problems between Jews and Christians and Arabs were not obliged to choose the one or the other. Before his supposed call(!) this Midianite camel trader had heard that four well-known members of the Kureysh tribe had decided to seek the hanifiyya, the true religion of Abraham. The Midianite warlike horseman, skilled with his sword has reasoned that the 'oral tradition' of the rabbis and the Trinity of the Christians had made amendments to hanifiyya, which is  believed by the Midianite tradesman ('Muhammad') to be the pure and true faith of Abraham (This Abraham is the Bahram of the Mandaeans. We will read his story in a separate section). On top of that, the Old Testament is the proof  that Jews had deviated many many times from the Mosaic faith. This meant that they had acted against the original revelation. Therefore the Midianite tradesman decided  that Abraham's religion was the true religion of god.

According to the story of Islam, one day that momentous event happened and the Messenger received the first revelation on mount Hira (don't forget that  mountains have always been considered as one of the places for gods since animism, and paganism). An angel appeared to the Messenger and gave him the command: "Recite!" (ikra!). We are told that the Messenger had acted as it was usual for the messengers of the region, especially the Hebrew nabîs-messengers, who were reluctant to utter the word of god. The Messenger refused, protesting that he is neither a person who recites nor a kahin. Kahins were the ecstatic soothsayers of Arabia who claimed to recite inspired oracles (the origin of kahin is Hebrew, kohan/kohen - a Jewish priest). The angel embraced him three times and the Messenger found himself reciting the new scripture. Upon receiving messages from his god  the Messenger called upon Jews to join him. Jews, finding out that the revelation given to the Messenger was not different from theirs,  rejected him and left him alone. The Messenger answered by openly declaring and introducing his belief system, which he claimed would turn the distorted religion of Abraham back to its original (You will read the real story in the pages on Islam).

According to the story of Islam, the Messenger  ('Mohamed') claimed that messenger Abraham and his son Ish'mael  have built  the Ka'ba together. In short, Abraham was the forefather of Arabs, and the Arabs were the progeny of Abraham. With this solution Arabs are raised to the level of Jews, or even higher, because they effectively reintroduced  the original of the belief system which was distorted by the Jews. Muslims have gone back to the original belief system of Abraham, who was the one who built the house of god, thus the first Muslim (meaning the 'one who surrendered to god').

This was the first time this supreme being has revealed his word in supposedly Arabic. Actually it was in Nabataean, a language of the eastern Aramaic branch and the source of the present Arabic. Later on this language was Arabicised by the desert Arabs. Previously this supreme being gave his messages in Aramaic, Syriac, Egyptian, and Hebrew (western Aramaic), and in many other local languages and dialects.

 

A NADHIR : ONE WHO WARNS, ONE WHO REMINDS

If one goes by the style of Kuran, the duty of the Messenger, in reality, seems to have been to warn only; in other words he is considered to be only a nadhir (one who warnes) in Makka. His mandate was  to warn the Kureyshis on what would happen if they did not heed the orders of god. This nadhir was in no obligation to prove to Kureysh the existence of god, because all of them believed tacitly in Lah who was the creator of the sky and earth, and the majority of them knew that this god was the 'One' worshipped by the Jews and the Christians. Which meant that, introducing a new belief system on the existing foundation by using the traditional elements and values was very easy. Lah's existence was not questioned. From this angle, the 'unbelievers' (mentioned in Kuran), should not be understood as atheists, but as the persons who knew that they owed everything to god, but still were ungrateful to him. This shows that Kuran was not in a position to teach Kureysh anything new. This codebook was just the reminder of the things already known. The  frequent questions asked every now and then in Kuran like "Have you not seen?", "Have you not considered?", "Have you not known?", and "Have you not thought?"  exhibit this side of Kuran effectively.

According to the story of Islam the Messenger took over directly the essence of monotheism.

Israel's transformation to monotheism took about 800-900 years, but the Midianite camel trader has achieved the transformation of his followers to monotheism in only 23 years. Of course, as explained earlier,  the already existing ground in the pre-Islamic Arab society was of tremendous help in this process.

Kuran went back to the Semitic doctrine of divine oneness, and rejected the idea that god could have an offspring. There is no other god but Allah who has created the sky and the earth, and mankind's salvation is through him only. Only by accepting that this god was the uncaused cause of all the created (es-Samed) Muslims could address a dimension of reality unbound by time and space, and prevent the tribal fragmentation of the Arab society. The Hagarene Messenger knew that monotheism was the enemy of tribalism and a sole god, the aim of all the worship, would establish the togetherness amongst  the individuals and in the society. His plan was to form a large following to capture from the Romans Palestine in general and particularly the 'first house of god' in Bakka. That is why he has created an 'umma'  of Jews, Hagarenes, and pagans around the Medina Constitution.

 

HE 'WISHED TO BE KNOWN'

According to an early tradition, the incomprehensible god of Islam wished to be known. The related hadith has god saying  to the the Messenger,"I was a secret treasure and wished to be known, and I created the world so that I would be known." Islam continues with the traditional approach which claims that mankind could see god in his acts. Through his activities god makes himself known, thus presenting his inexpressible being to the limited understanding of the mankind. Islam wants Muslims to develop a perpetual consciousness (taqwa) of the face or self of god that surrounds them on all sides. Islam is in parallel with the Christian Fathers in seeing god as the absolute, who alone has a true existence. So, we are back to square one. Nothing has been explained. We are still faced with something inexpressible, unseen, incomprehensible, and beyond the intellectual capacity of the mankind.

Let us go on without getting bogged down in endless and fruitless debate. Islam had its own gnostics: The Mutazila/Mutazile sect or the Mutazilis / Mutazilites. These are the ones who have tried to apply rational arguments systematically to Kuran. The Mutazilites defended free will in order to safeguard the ethical nature of humanity. Muslims who believed that god was above the human notions of right or wrong were disparaging his justice. According to Mutazilites, a god who violated all decent principles and got away simply because he was god, would be a monster, no better than a tyrannical caliph. The Mutazilites declared that justice was the essence of god. He could not wrong anybody. He could not demand anything contrary to reason. Traditionists claimed that by making man the author and creator of his own fate, the Mutazilites were insulting the omnipotence of god. Traditionists maintained the doctrine of predestination in order to emphasize god's essential incomprehensibility. Who has decided on this quality of incomprehensibility? Human beings! If man claims to understand god, god could not be god but a mere human projection,  the Traditionists say. (The concept of god is a human projection. So if this concept is incomprehensible we should ask ourselves, and seek the answers to how we have managed to invent such an idea). The Traditionists also came up with the idea which was also used by the Jews and Christians: god's essence and god's activities are separate. Another criticism levelled at the Mutazilites was related to the interpretation of the anthropomorphic terms like god 'speaks', 'sees', 'sits upon his throne.'  Ibn Hanbal insisted that these terms should be interpreted literally, without asking how.  But Ibn Hanbal was himself criticised because of his approach: Kuran constantly emphasises the importance of reason and understanding. Therefore Ibn Hanbal's position was just simple-mindedness. According to many Muslims, his position was perverse and opposing the spread of knowledge. This knowledge is very very important, because  it is not  the  knowledge as we understand the word today. It was a knowledge about the unknowable, about the supernatural, about life after death, about destiny, about  paradise and hell, about   creation etc. These are  matters out of this world, which has no relevance to our lives. Aren't you happy that human beings have realized that the real knowledge is not this, but  about the universe, and nature itself? Otherwise we would have been still in darkness  seeking the immortality - godly existence - through our prayers, offerings, rituals etc. Whereas today we are seeking the extension of life through medicine, in the form of prevention and treatment of diseases; through the research in genetics and science in general. Isn't this better?

This unending and fruitless debate went on and on. Muslims tried to find out whether they could speak about god like they speak about other subjects. Greeks, earlier, had decided that they could not do that, therefore silence was the solution. The majority of the Muslims have decided to do the same in the end.

Faylasufs (the wisdom seekers; philosophers), instead of seeing god as a mystery, believed that he was the intellect. Faylasufs tried to merge their views with the main Islamic belief and ended up with the revolutionary thought inspired by the Greeks. God of the Faylasufs would be discovered in the debates of logic, not in the special revelations coming to individuals. They did not see any fundamental contradiction between science and revelation and between rationalism and faith. Al-Kindi believed that there should have been an unmoved mover to start it all. The 'first principle' was the 'being' itself, unchangeable, perfect and indestructible. When it was time to deal with the creation he maintaned that action can be defined as the bringing of something out of nothing (The ex nihilo principle). Al-Kindi maintained that this was god's prerogative. god was the only entity who can truly act in this sense and it is he who is the real cause of all the activity. But falsafah (philosophy) came to reject creation ex nihilo later on. So in that sense Al-Kindi cannot be described as a true Faylasuf. But he was the first one who has  tried to harmonise the religious truth with systematic metaphysics.

Al-Razi said that only reason and philosophy could save us. Al-Razi was not a monotheist really. He was the first free-thinker to find the concept of god incompatible with a scientific outlook.

 

THIS IS THE CREED

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) believed that there was no contradiction between religion and intellect. Both had different explanations for the same reality. Both were addressing the same god. But not everyone had the ability to think philosophically. Falsafah (philosophy) was only for the intellectual elite. The same falsafah may lead to confusion among the masses and cause mistakes which would jeopardize their eternal salvation (what a ridiculous idea!). Therefore these dangerous doctrines should be kept away from those who are not suitably fitted (Esoteric tradition in Judaism and Christianity has identical approach). Only Faylasufs were the chief authorities on doctrine. Only they were capable of interpreting the scriptures. Faylasufs were said to be the people described in Kuran as 'deeply rooted in knowledge' (This is wrong. They were the Mandaeans/Sabians). Everybody should take Kuran at face value and read it literally, without any questions on why's, how's, when's etc. Only faylasuf could attempt a symbolic exegesis. But even a faylasuf had to subscribe to the creed of obligatory doctrines. What were those doctrines? Here they are as Ibn Rushd has listed:

All of these doctrines must be accepted. Averroes (Ibn Rushd) says that the world was created by god. But he does not say how or whether it was created at a specific time. Because either there is nothing on this point or if there is something it does not suit the needs of the writers of Kuran.

 

THIS IS ANOTHER CREED

Moses ben Maimonides (Jewish theologian) has believed that falsafah was the most advanced form of religious knowledge and the royal road to god which should not be revealed to masses but should remain the preserve of a philosophical elite. Maimonides has announced a list of creed  of thirteen articles:

 

Some people put forth a doctrine which went on like this: We know that god cannot be compared to anything in existence. Therefore using a negative terminology is better while trying to define god; like rejecting the idea that he does not exist, instead of saying that god exists. This negative style will help us understand god's transcendence. If god was not deficient his acts should be perfect (Clever, is it not?).

Do not trouble yourself to find  the details of the above arguments. They won't take you anywhere.

 

THIS IS ANOTHER JEWISH SUPREME ENTITY: EN SOF

While mysticism was progressing in Islam, Jews  have  developed the Kabbala. The name of the god of the Jewish mystics is En Sof. En Sof and YHVH are separate and different gods. En Sof does not have a specific name, it would be right to call En Sof 'He'. Imagine! Monotheist Jews, who are ordered by YHVH to believe only in Him (YHVH), have invented another god, En Sof. Whether mystic or not all the Jews are Jews and according to their codebook they have to observe the root of their faith, the Ten Commandments. Ten Commandments and En Sof. Unbelievable. This alone reminds us again that there is no universal concept of god. Every single person has his own concept of god.

 

BLAISE PASCAL : 'BELIEF IN GOD IS A PERSONAL CHOICE'

Contrary to many of his contemporaries  Blaise Pascal  has believed that there was no way to prove the existence of god. He was unable to find any proof of the existence of god when he discussed the matter with a non-believer. This was the first move towards  reason in the history of monotheism. No one dared until that day to question the existence of god. Pascal was the first person to announce that the belief in god was a matter of personal choice. Pascal has insisted that faith should be a reasonable acceptance resting on common sense. Proving the existence of god was impossible, but rejecting god's existence with reason is also impossible. Neither the never ending debate of hundreds of years nor reason or accepting what the Church tradition has taught was succesful in leading mankind over the 'gulf' to the faraway god.

 

DESCARTES : 'THERE IS NO GOD IN THE COSMOS. IT IS IN HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS'

René Descartes has insisted that the intellect alone could provide us with the certainty he sought. Faith told us nothing that could not be demonstrated rationally. Apostle Paul himself had asserted as much in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans: "For what can be known about god is perfectly plain to (mankind) since god himself has made it plain. Ever since god created the world his everlasting power and deity -however invisible- have been there for the mind to see in the things that he has made." Descartes argued that god could be known more easily and certainly than any of the other things in existence. Descartes has attempted to establish an equally analytical demonstration of god's existence, but he found no god in cosmos. There was no design in nature. Universe was chaotic and there was not a single sign of design, or intelligent planning. Descartes found evidence of god in human consciousness; even doubt proved the existence of the doubter! We cannot be certain of anything in the external world, but we can be certain of our own inner experience.. We could not arrive at the idea of  imperfection if we did not have a prior conception of  perfection. A perfection that did not exist would be a contradiction in terms. Our experience of doubt, therefore, tells us that a supreme and perfect  being  must exist. Descartes' god is the god of the faylasufs, who did not interfere with the worldly affairs. This god has made known of himself not through miracles, but in the eternal laws he has decreed.

 

EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO NEWTON : 'DISTANCES BETWEEN THE CELESTIAL BODIES'

Isaac Newton has  found the proof of god's existence. Why don't the 'bodies' in the Universe become a single mass despite the force of gravity? Because they are scattered through the universe with sufficient distances in between. This was only possible with a powerful divine administrator.

 

DIDEROT : 'NO NEED FOR A CREATOR.. NOTHING BUT MATTER EXISTS'

According to Diderot there was no need for a creator. Matter was not  a passive and  ignoble thing as imagined by Newton and the Protestants. It has its own dynamics. What is responsible for what we see today is the law of matter. Nothing but matter exists.

 

HOLBACH : 'BELIEF IN GOD IS DISHONEST AND A DENIAL OF TRUE EXPERIENCE'

According to Holbach there was no supernatural alternative to nature, but an immense chain of causes and effects which unceasingly flow from one to another. To believe in a god was dishonest and a denial of our true experience. It was also an act of despair. Religion created supreme beings because people could not find any other explanation to console them for the tragedy of life in this world (That is only one of the reasons).

 

BACK TO SQUARE ONE

This is the summary of the concept of god summarized from the excellent book by Karen Armstrong, A History of God  interspersed with my remarks. As I have told earlier, the story does not follow a progression, it presents only instances from the never ending story of the supreme entity. That's all! The story of man and his invented god has begun side by side sharing the same environment. The human intellect was in its infancy. It was an era where the lack of knowledge, ignorance, and an assortment of human frailties had prevailed. Myths and legends tell us that in those days both gods and mankind were happy(!) about sharing the same environment, there were no problems. But when humanity started leaving the age of myths and legends behind problems have started. This supposedly existing god is nowhere to be seen. He isn't  heard. He supposedly has  different shapes and forms, and sometimes no shape and form at all. As if this is  not enough to create a confusion, some thinkers have claimed  that god was nothingness. Some even went as far as claiming that god does not exist - at least in the sense that we understand the existence. Human mind has decided that this god must move up to its befitting place in the sky. Another possible solution was separating the essence and the manifestation of god. Essence was beyond the reach of human intellect, but manifestations which are within the capacity of the human mind did show his existence. Did someone say existence?

 

 

   chronology of the region

 1