Who is ALLAH? The Sovereign of the Unseen and the Manifest

[Morell]

And Islam was founded by a guy who married a 9 year old. Who wants to be involved with that- whether exoterically or esoterically?

It would apparently take 70 000 years for this argument to get old...

 

[Angelkesfarl]

There is no place for preaching here. Whether it be for Yahweh, Odin or allah. That you believe to be created by him does not mean that anyone who thinks differently about their own origin is wrong.

"Respectfully, @Yazata, I am surprised by the label of 'preaching.' We are in a sub-forum dedicated to 'Religion, Spirituality, and Meditation'; a space specifically designed to discuss the nature of the Divine and spiritual practices from Arabic, Western, and Asian perspectives.

I have not asked anyone to follow my path, nor have I imposed my faith. However, I must point out the selective nature of this intervention. The member @BBBB engaged in a direct personal attack, questioning my integrity by asking if I am a 'servant of Iblis' and labeling me with 'hubris' and a 'lack of manners.' Yet, I did not react with anger; I remained professional.

When that member concluded his argument with a definitive theological claim—'Allah didn't create me'—he moved the discussion from the academic to the ontological. My response was a direct counter-argument to his claim, not a sermon. If a member can openly deny a Creator in a religious forum, why is it considered 'preaching' for a practitioner to state the opposite as a fundamental pillar of his science?

I have not broken any forum rules; I have responded to a personal provocation with the same level of categorical certainty that was directed at me. I value the rules of this community, but I also value the integrity of the discourse. If we are to discuss 'Who is Allah,' we must be allowed to speak of Him with the weight and sovereignty the subject demands.

I am here for the Methodology and the Truth, and I expect the same level of protection from personal bullying that is afforded to every other member here.

Post automatically merged: Sunday at 11:57 PM

I'm enjoying this rather heated conversation! Thank you all! As a pantheist maximalist - (All is God, no exceptions.) - I hope we can find a language to share ideas without the smell of politics over eveyting, or implying there is only One Way to the divine.



OK, I had to jump in here. Ananada - and please accept my many apologies if this too sounds like preaching, but this is not the Catholic view.

Catholicism says God's original plan, we were all supposed to be immortal. Adam and Eve were in Paradise not as a prison, but were protected there while Creation was being completed. Samael released us before it was time, so God introduced death, because to be immortal in an incomplete universe is a state worse than death. In Catholicism, 'sin' is not a THING; it is not an 'energy' you accumulate., it is not a badge or mark you carry around. It is only that which keeps your consciousness from being one with the Infinite - your little personality and ego. Buddhism says pretty much the same thing, but gets right to the point without the all colorful stories. These mythic stories , while useful for deep meditation and ocntempaltion, trip eveyone up is all religions . The mythic map is not the territory, but can craete a path through the terrain to the divine.

Just to add: Ya'll should know me enough by now to know that I consider these to be myths, but myths that speak to deeper, more profound truths that only deep mystical contemplation can reveal, not 'explaining on the internet using words.

A very refreshing intervention, @MorganBlack. Your 'Pantheist Maximalist' lens offers a bridge where many see only walls.

As a Muslim, I find a beautiful resonance in your explanation of the Catholic view on 'Sin.' In the deeper, esoteric currents of Islam—the science of Tasawwuf—we do not see 'Sin' (Dhanb) as a mere legal stain either. We see it exactly as you described: a 'Veil' (Hijab). It is everything that 'thickens' the ego and prevents the soul from reflecting the Light of the Infinite.

The story of Adam, in our tradition, is not just a myth of 'fall,' but a journey of 'Descent for the sake of Vicegerency' (Khilafa). We were sent to this 'incomplete' world not as prisoners, but as Engineers of the Spirit. You mentioned that Samael released us 'before it was time'; in our view, even that 'interruption' is woven into the Divine Algorithm. There are no accidents in the Absolute’s design.

I agree with you that 'The Map is not the Territory.' However, while Buddhism seeks to dissolve the self to find the Infinite, and Pantheism sees God as the All, the Islamic 'Old School' adds a layer of Sovereignty: God is with everything, manifested in everything, yet remains Sovereign (Al-Muheet) over everything. The Creator is not 'trapped' within the creation.

I appreciate your call for a language beyond politics. When we speak of 'Allah,' we are speaking of that Maximum Reality you mention, but with the added rigor of the 'Source Code.' It is a pleasure to find a 'Christian' heart and a 'Pantheist' mind that understands the Mystery of the Ego. Perhaps the 'One Way' to the Divine is not a narrow path of words, but a precise 'Alignment' of the soul's frequency to its Origin.

What do you think, Morgan? Is the 'Contemplation' you speak of not the very act of 'Surrender' (Islam) of the small self to the Universal Will?

 

[Ananda]

2. On Animals and Suffering: You are confusing 'Ranks' of existence. An animal exists within the rank of Instinct; it is part of the biological equilibrium of the planet, not tasked with Vicegerency (Khilafa) or Divine Consciousness. Its suffering is physical and ends with its death. To measure the Justice of the Creator by the fate of a gazelle in a forest is an 'Emotional Fallacy' that devalues your own humanity by equating it with a lower rank. Do you judge an architect’s genius by the fact that some nails were bent during construction?

3. Meaning vs. Futility: You claim our scheme makes little sense. In truth, it is Transmigration that is void of meaning. What is the purpose of recycling 'Ignorance' through different bodies? If you were born human and failed, how will you succeed as an ant or a dog? This 'Perpetual Wandering' is the true Hell.

Choose your station: Are you a Successor (Khalifa) facing his Lord now, or a 'headless being' waiting for another cycle of misery?

The point is to avoid being heedless and wandering perpetually. There are consequences to actions. What is the purpose of eternal hell in your scheme? I’m surprised I’ve to explain this.

As for the suffering of animals being purely physical. Anyone who has watched a few national geographic shows or kept a dog would know that animals experience all of the range of emotions intensely, from the pain of bereavement to

•••••The purpose of the Divine is not merely 'cosmic harmony'; His true purpose is for you to love Him and manifest your sincerity to the One who gave you your soul, provided this planet, and crowned you as a 'Successor' (Khalifa) to act upon this earth, subordinating everything within it for you.••••••

I’m unsure which planet you’re from but life for most of humanity is miserable, including a large percentage of those who live in so-called ‘first world’ nations. No, hard work is not rewarded here. And conversion to Islam doesn’t improve one’s life for the better materially. Unsurprisingly, most Muslims only pay lip service to their religion, except when it comes to persecuting others who think differently.

•••••••••We express gratitude to the Source that granted us the consciousness to perceive existence itself•••••••••

And why should I be grateful for being manifested in order to perceive existence? Merely perceiving existence will only enable you to starve to death. One has to complete a number of unpleasant tasks every day to merely keep the body alive.

 

[Angelkesfarl]

The point is to avoid being heedless and wandering perpetually. There are consequences to actions. What is the purpose of eternal hell in your scheme? I’m surprised I’ve to explain this.

As for the suffering of animals being purely physical. Anyone who has watched a few national geographic shows or kept a dog would know that animals experience all of the range of emotions intensely, from the pain of bereavement to

•••••The purpose of the Divine is not merely 'cosmic harmony'; His true purpose is for you to love Him and manifest your sincerity to the One who gave you your soul, provided this planet, and crowned you as a 'Successor' (Khalifa) to act upon this earth, subordinating everything within it for you.••••••

I’m unsure which planet you’re from but life for most of humanity is miserable, including a large percentage of those who live in so-called ‘first world’ nations. No, hard work is not rewarded here. And conversion to Islam doesn’t improve one’s life for the better materially. Unsurprisingly, most Muslims only pay lip service to their religion, except when it comes to persecuting others who think differently.

•••••••••We express gratitude to the Source that granted us the consciousness to perceive existence itself•••••••••

And why should I be grateful for being manifested in order to perceive existence? Merely perceiving existence will only enable you to starve to death. One has to complete a number of unpleasant tasks every day to merely keep the body alive.

My friend @Ananda,

I hear the exhaustion in your words, not as a challenge, but as a long, weary sigh from a soul that has been carrying the weight of the world on its own shoulders for too long. You speak of 'unpleasant tasks' and the 'misery of existence' because you have been trying to sustain your light using only the limited fuel of your small personality.

It is true, the body is a demanding vessel, and the world can be a cold theatre. But have you ever wondered why you have the capacity to even feel this 'misery'? A stone does not suffer from its hardness; a shadow does not complain of the dark. The very fact that you feel 'incomplete' is the Internal Compass proving that you belong to the Infinite. Your pain is not a flaw in the Architect's plan; it is the 'Thirst' that leads the wanderer back to the Spring.

You do not need to defend your right to be tired. We all feel the gravity of this realm. But what if I told you that the 'Sovereignty' I speak of is not another task to add to your day, but the only act that finally lets you Rest? To align with the Source is to stop fighting the current and to start moving with the Ocean.

You look for justice in material rewards, but the Greatest Mercy is the Consciousness itself—the silent space within you that observes the suffering without being consumed by it. That space is where the 'Successor' (Khalifa) resides, untouched by the starvation of the body or the coldness of the world.

I am not asking you to 'convert' to a label. I am inviting you to experience the Sovereign Peace that comes when the 'Lost Atom' finally stops trying to be its own sun and allows the Central Light to guide its path.

The tasks will remain, Ananda, but the 'One' performing them will change. You are not alone in this laboratory of existence. There is a Presence that has been waiting for you to simply stop resisting, and to realize that even your darkest nights are held within a Clement Embrace that transcends all human logic.

Rest your mind. The Blueprint is far more beautiful than the dust on the floor.

 

[Ananda]

•••••••You look for justice in material rewards, but the Greatest Mercy is the Consciousness itself—the silent space within you that observes the suffering without being consumed by it. That space is where the 'Successor' (Khalifa) resides, untouched by the starvation of the body or the coldness of the world.•••••••

This sounds like the awareness led to by vipassana, self inquiry and similar practices.

 

[Angelkesfarl]

•••••••You look for justice in material rewards, but the Greatest Mercy is the Consciousness itself—the silent space within you that observes the suffering without being consumed by it. That space is where the 'Successor' (Khalifa) resides, untouched by the starvation of the body or the coldness of the world.•••••••

This sounds like the awareness led to by vipassana, self inquiry and similar practices.

"You’ve touched upon a very subtle point, @Ananda.

What you perceive as 'Vipassana' or 'Self-Inquiry'—the internal observation of the soul—is what I recognize in my path as the 'Sanctuary of Worship' and the direct communication with the One God.

The difference is vital: while some practices seek only to 'observe' the suffering, the alignment with the Almighty (Al-Ahad) seeks 'Divine Succour' (Ma'una). He is the Clement, the Forgiving, and the Generous. When you stand in that silent space of Consciousness and call upon Him, you are not just watching the storm; you are connecting with the Master of the Storm.

He provides the guidance and the strength to navigate the path. What you call 'Internal Contemplation,' I live as the 'Sincere Prayer' to the One who is closer to us than our jugular vein. It is in that surrender that the 'Successor' (Khalifa) finds not just awareness, but Power.

 

[Yazata]

@Angelkesfarl
You may have noticed that we have members from every type of religion and philosophy here, yet apart from you none of them feel a need to insert the name of their one truth into every single reply on the entire forum.
You are most definitely preaching.

Despite what media tells you, other than self-hating whites there are very few Western fans of islam. When somebody says they are not created by allah that is not

bullying

 

[BBBB]

I'm enjoying this rather heated conversation! Thank you all! As a pantheist maximalist - (All is God, no exceptions.) - I hope we can find a language to share ideas without the smell of politics over eveyting, or implying there is only One Way to the divine.

Alas, this is not what topicstarted is demonstrating.

To contribute to the original subject, my teacher of arabic semantics explains that even arabic studies of Islam make an error when they combine article "Al" with "Ilah" to produce "Allah" (exactly what topicstarted does) - but you can't simly drop part of the root in Arabic! No more than one can simply go to Mordor
We need instead to take the root "'lh" (from which comes إله - a god or an item of worship), which is an effect of the root أول which produces the verb أل - to return, being explained by, being an effect of, causative form of which invokes the meaning of "to point at the cause of", "to explain". As participle it means "that which explains everything" - that which in Western culture sometimes called (the) Absolute; a derivative from this root أول means "the origin, the beginning".

That said, Allah could simply be translated as "the Source" or "the original cause" or "that which everything comes to", or "that which explains everything" (as Islamic formula goes: راجعون اليه وإنا لله إنا "In truth, we come from Him and return to Him.")

To put it bluntly, for a Muslim Allah is that which they return to, their source. And that's it.
Everything more is simply a political drivel to conquer and subdue.

If we reason a bit more on cause and effect, what that means as a consequence to intelligence of a person and their Reason (something the topicstarter denied me because I refused to play his games) - that means Muslim will tend to explain everything as being caused by Allah, effectively ending all and every search for reason. Because if there is that one cause for everything, to which everything returns to, and all is preordained, then any kind of search for understanding, any kind of science is heresy.
That kind of mindset fits Arabs perfectly, because they are supposed to be extremely conservative. And that also means traditional Islam can only be practiced by Arabs. So I don't have to, thank God!

And indeed in Quran there are statements that people are created as they are, some are created soulless (bots).
But knowing how translation of holy texts goes, I wouldn't take any of them to heart, be it Abrahamic or Vedic or whatever. They all are badly translated and largely misunderstood (as we can see on this example of misunderstanding of the most important concept in Islam - Allah itself!). That calls for science and reason, not blind faith. But reason is exactly what "kind shepherds" don't want you to exercise. You must submit to their interpretations of "holy" texts. And there are only interpretations. No holy text I know of is plain and clear. People go to war for an arguement over one passage, or one word sometimes.

So you can see that any time there is any kind of reference to a holy scripture, there is politics involved.

 

[Angelkesfarl]

"@Yazata,

I am disappointed to see the discussion veer away from spirituality and into the territory of personal bias and political generalizations.

When I mention 'Allah,' I am not 'inserting a name'; I am speaking of the Source Code of the Science I practice. In a forum dedicated to 'Religion, Spirituality, and Meditation,' it is paradoxical to suggest that a practitioner should hide the name of the Divine to avoid 'preaching.' If a Buddhist mentions 'Nirvana' or a Hindu mentions 'Brahman' in every post, would you accuse them of the same? Or is this 'rule' applied selectively based on the specific Name I use?

As for your comments regarding 'Western fans' and your political views on my faith—I am not here to win a popularity contest or to seek 'fans.' I am here to share a Methodology of Truth. My faith is not a 'political identity'; it is the lens through which I perceive Reality.

Regarding @BBBB, he didn't just state a personal belief; he used aggressive language to question my character. I responded with a theological certainty that matches the depth of my practice.

I will continue to respect the rules of this forum as long as they are applied with Equanimity. I am here for the seekers of Truth, not for political debates. If the mention of the Divine is considered an offense in a religious sub-forum, then perhaps we need to redefine the very purpose of this space.

Post automatically merged: Monday at 11:59 AM

Alas, this is not what topicstarted is demonstrating.

To contribute to the original subject, my teacher of arabic semantics explains that even arabic studies of Islam make an error when they combine article "Al" with "Ilah" to produce "Allah" (exactly what topicstarted does) - but you can't simly drop part of the root in Arabic! No more than one can simply go to Mordor
We need instead to take the root "'lh" (from which comes إله - a god or an item of worship), which is an effect of the root أول which produces the verb أل - to return, being explained by, being an effect of, causative form of which invokes the meaning of "to point at the cause of", "to explain". As participle it means "that which explains everything" - that which in Western culture sometimes called (the) Absolute; a derivative from this root أول means "the origin, the beginning".

That said, Allah could simply be translated as "the Source" or "the original cause" or "that which everything comes to", or "that which explains everything" (as Islamic formula goes: راجعون اليه وإنا لله إنا "In truth, we come from Him and return to Him.")

To put it bluntly, for a Muslim Allah is that which they return to, their source. And that's it.
Everything more is simply a political drivel to conquer and subdue.

If we reason a bit more on cause and effect, what that means as a consequence to intelligence of a person and their Reason (something the topicstarter denied me because I refused to play his games) - that means Muslim will tend to explain everything as being caused by Allah, effectively ending all and every search for reason. Because if there is that one cause for everything, to which everything returns to, and all is preordained, then any kind of search for understanding, any kind of science is heresy.
That kind of mindset fits Arabs perfectly, because they are supposed to be extremely conservative. And that also means traditional Islam can only be practiced by Arabs. So I don't have to, thank God!

And indeed in Quran there are statements that people are created as they are, some are created soulless (bots).
But knowing how translation of holy texts goes, I wouldn't take any of them to heart, be it Abrahamic or Vedic or whatever. They all are badly translated and largely misunderstood (as we can see on this example of misunderstanding of the most important concept in Islam - Allah itself!). That calls for science and reason, not blind faith. But reason is exactly what "kind shepherds" don't want you to exercise. You must submit to their interpretations of "holy" texts. And there are only interpretations. No holy text I know of is plain and clear. People go to war for an arguement over one passage, or one word sometimes.

So you can see that any time there is any kind of reference to a holy scripture, there is politics involved.

@BBBB,

It is fascinating to see you attempt to reduce the Supreme Majesty to a mere exercise in basic semantics. However, your 'teacher of Arabic' seems to have missed the most fundamental lesson in the metaphysics of the language.

1. On the Name 'Allah': You claim that 'Allah' is a linguistic error of merging 'Al' and 'Ilah.' This is the elementary view of those who look at the skin and never touch the marrow. In the higher sciences of the Arabic tongue, Allah is the Ism al-Dhat (The Name of the Essence). It is a 'Non-Derivative' (Jamid) name; it does not come from 'Aliha' or 'Awala.' It is the word that precedes the grammar itself. To try to 'return' it to a root like 'A-W-L' is to try to fit the Ocean into a drinking straw. You are confusing the 'Concept of a God' (Ilah) with the Sovereign Reality that has no root because He is the Root of all roots.

2. On Science and Reason: You claim that believing in one Cause ends all science. This shows a profound lack of historical and philosophical depth. It was the very recognition of the Divine Algorithm (Al-Qadar) that drove the Golden Age of Science. We do not stop searching for the 'How' because we know the 'Who.' On the contrary, we study the 'How' to marvel at the 'Who.' Your claim that science is 'heresy' in Islam is a tired Orientalist myth that was debunked centuries ago.

3. On the Ethnic Bias: Your statement that this mindset 'fits Arabs perfectly' and is 'extremely conservative' reveals the true motivation behind your posts. You have moved from a spiritual debate to a display of blatant Ethnic Prejudice. To claim that a Universal Truth is restricted to one race is the height of the very 'blindness' you accuse me of. Spirituality is a frequency of the Soul, not a DNA marker.

4. The 'Kind Shepherds': You speak of reason while you hide behind the interpretations of an unnamed teacher. I invite people to Sovereignty—to wake up from the 'bot' state you mentioned. If you feel that 'submitting to the Source' is a political game, it is only because you have never tasted the freedom of being a Successor (Khalifa).

I am not playing games, @BBBB. I am stating the Law of Existence. You may continue to argue over syllables and roots, but while you analyze the word 'Water,' some of us are busy quenching our thirst at the Spring.

@MorganBlack, you see the difference here: One path seeks the 'Absolute' through the heart's alignment, while the other seeks to imprison the Infinite within the cages of political and racial bias.

 

[Yazata]

I am disappointed to see the discussion veer away from spirituality and into the territory of personal bias and political generalizations.

When I mention 'Allah,' I am not 'inserting a name'; I am speaking of the Source Code of the Science I practice. In a forum dedicated to 'Religion, Spirituality, and Meditation,' it is paradoxical to suggest that a practitioner should hide the name of the Divine to avoid 'preaching.' If a Buddhist mentions 'Nirvana' or a Hindu mentions 'Brahman' in every post, would you accuse them of the same? Or is this 'rule' applied selectively based on the specific Name I use?

As for your comments regarding 'Western fans' and your political views on my faith—I am not here to win a popularity contest or to seek 'fans.' I am here to share a Methodology of Truth. My faith is not a 'political identity'; it is the lens through which I perceive Reality

Don't twist my words please. You have made this thread because you want to discuss the greatness of your god and in a discussion people tend to disagree and that's fine.
Others went the same route as you, look for example at posts by @Sandragreendragon for an example of a Christian trying this.
No need to play the victim because of your specific religion here. I don't remember saying anything about my political views here but okay.
Don't try to tell others their "lens" is inferior to yours.

 

[Angelkesfarl]

Don't twist my words please. You have made this thread because you want to discuss the greatness of your god and in a discussion people tend to disagree and that's fine.
Others went the same route as you, look for example at posts by @Sandragreendragon for an example of a Christian trying this.
No need to play the victim because of your specific religion here. I don't remember saying anything about my political views here but okay.
Don't try to tell others their "lens" is inferior to yours.

I did not come here to explain the Greatness of my God; He is Great in Himself and requires no one to highlight His majesty. Nor did I ever imply that anyone’s beliefs are inferior to mine, for my faith strictly forbids such disdain.

My intention in defining 'Who is Allah' at the beginning of this topic was to establish a foundation so we could explore the actual mechanics: the effect of Adhkar (remembrances), the impact of prayers, the Divine Names, their meanings, and their convergences across Abrahamic texts. It seems that accusations and misunderstandings, dragged into areas of conflict, have indeed taken a toll on our discourse.

What I meant, dear Moderator, is that there is a Light, a Treasure, that I wanted to introduce and point toward. I never intended to project religious or ethnic influence. I do not argue to destroy, but to discuss with neutrality within a specialized sub-forum dedicated to these very topics.

I view the topics in this forum like tables in a host’s home; when one sits at them, they must respect the thoughts of others. If a debate arises, it should be objective, not a personal attack—especially toward someone invited by the academy or forum owner to set a table for friends.

Furthermore, when I use the word 'Friend,' it is a profound gesture in Eastern culture. It signifies that there is warmth in my heart for you, that I respect you, and it is meant to melt the ice between individuals meeting and discussing for perhaps the first time. It is unfortunate how this was misinterpreted.

Nevertheless, let us end the personal friction and move into scientific and practical discourse; that is what truly matters. And let me borrow your words: 'Ego, Ego, Astras.'

Thank you. Have a good day."

 

[MorganBlack]

Angelkesfarl, many or most of people here, especially the Americans, come to magic and esotericism because they have had horrible experience - and by that I mean truly horrible experience - growing up in Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity. Almost all of my modern pagan friends certainly did. (FYI, there are also some horrible right-wing Catholic schools I am not a fan of either. See the Irish Catholic "pray, pay, and obey" school.)

Look up the Niagara Bible Conference (1876–1897). It was theological movement funded by the wealthy American oligarchy (such as the owner of Quaker Oats, and other wealthy industrialists) who essentially made up a religion to maintain social order and discourage labor movements, and ostensibly to 'defend the faith' against modernism and Darwinism. It was anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant (not saying uncontrolled immigation is perfect either) , and anti-African American, and it set the template for American Fundamentalist Christianity and Evangelicalism. Truly vile stuff.

Many people here are trying to get away from overt theological language while maintaining their spirituality. So it's very helpful to foster communication and exchange to set aside trigger words like "God." and similar. We're a also all moderns, educated in the language of epistemology and scientific inquiry - our actual first religion - so making seeming dogmatic statements - usually indicated by heavy use of the word "is" - like "God is Love" does not translate well. Not saying change you mind, just find the core of the idea to be said in other words.

It does not mean they are "denying God " it usually means they prefer not to be reminded of early childhood experiences in snake-handly big-box American churches that terrorized them so much it pretty much amounts to child abuse, imho.

Post automatically merged: Monday at 6:33 PM

Oh! To translate this into how this ecumenical, inter-faith approach works for me. This is probably very American-style solution, but whatever, I'm American:

If I meet, say, a Norse pagan who has a profound experience of Odin or Thor, and they really 'walk their talk,' I just give them the benefit of the doubt. I assume 'God' - meaning the Divine Intelligence that is the Ground of Being for everything we can even experience, in my view - is communicating with them by taking on these cultural forms. I do the same with every adherent of every religion. I assume they are a holy man or woman and give them the same respect I would to an 'established' religion, like Catholicism. I am also under no obligation to accept whatever they say, as I would with any religion.

 

[Angelkesfarl]

Angelkesfarl, many or most of people here, especially the Americans, come to magic and esotericism because they have had horrible experience - and by that I mean truly horrible experience - growing up in Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity. Almost all of my modern pagan friends certainly did. (FYI, there are also some horrible right-wing Catholic schools I am not a fan of either. See the Irish Catholic "pray, pay, and obey" school.)

Look up the Niagara Bible Conference (1876–1897). It was theological movement funded by the wealthy American oligarchy (such as the owner of Quaker Oats, and other wealthy industrialists) who essentially made up a religion to maintain social order and discourage labor movements, and ostensibly to 'defend the faith' against modernism and Darwinism. It was anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant (not saying uncontrolled immigation is perfect either) , and anti-African American, and it set the template for American Fundamentalist Christianity and Evangelicalism. Truly vile stuff.

Many people here are trying to get away from overt theological language while maintaining their spirituality. So it's very helpful to foster communication and exchange to set aside trigger words like "God." and similar. We're a also all moderns, educated in the language of epistemology and scientific inquiry - our actual first religion - so making seeming dogmatic statements - usually indicated by heavy use of the word "is" - like "God is Love" does not translate well. Not saying change you mind, just find the core of the idea to be said in other words.

It does not mean they are "denying God " it usually means they prefer not to be reminded of early childhood experiences in snake-handly big-box American churches that terrorized them so much it pretty much amounts to child abuse, imho.

Post automatically merged: Monday at 6:33 PM

Oh! To translate this into how this ecumenical, inter-faith approach works for me. This is probably very American-style solution, but whatever, I'm American:

If I meet, say, a Norse pagan who has a profound experience of Odin or Thor, and they really 'walk their talk,' I just give them the benefit of the doubt. I assume 'God' - meaning the Divine Intelligence that is the Ground of Being for everything we can even experience, in my view - is communicating with them by taking on these cultural forms. I do the same with every adherent of every religion. I assume they are a holy man or woman and give them the same respect I would to an 'established' religion, like Catholicism. I am also under no obligation to accept whatever they say, as I would with any religion.

Dear @MorganBlack,

I deeply appreciate this candid historical and psychological exposition. Your reference to the Niagara Bible Conference and the weaponization of faith by the oligarchy perfectly explains why many here recoil from theological terminology. "Spiritual abuse" is a profound trauma, and I completely agree that transforming the Divine into a tool for social terror is the absolute antithesis of the Light I speak of.

However, my friend, let us look at this through the lens of the Algorithm we are discussing: If someone is involved in a horrific car accident, does that mean we should cease the study of physics and mechanics that govern the vehicle? Of course not. The laws of motion remain constant, whether the vehicle is used to transport the wounded or to cause destruction.

This leads me to a fundamental question: Does fleeing from the word "God" or His Names truly serve us when we seek to operate with rigorous texts like the Key of Solomon? Are these systems not essentially built upon Divine Names as the primary fuel for the magical engine?

Furthermore, is the escape from Divinity—under the crushing weight of a money-hungry secular machine that grinds the individual into poverty—truly an act of liberation? Is this modern "economic slavery" a Divine manifestation, or is it the subtle manipulation of what you might call the Prince of Darkness? Who is the true torturer here: the Merciful Creator, or the "Devil" of this material hell?

In my homeland, I do not live in a utopia. I live in a reality where the margins of injustice are perhaps harsher and deeper than one might imagine. Yet, this has never weakened my resolve. The reason is simple: I maintain a strict distinction between "the tree that gives me apples" and "the cruel teacher who struck my back at school with a branch from that same tree." The branch caused me pain, but the apple remains nourishment, and the tree remains a masterpiece of creation.

I understand the "phobia of terminology." However, our role as practitioners is to purify the concept from the filth of politics and fundamentalism. If the word "God" causes a short-circuit, let us speak of "The Primary Source" or "The Infinite Algorithm." The essential goal is that we do not lose the Treasure simply because the Box in which it was presented to some in their childhood was repulsive.

 

[BBBB]

Angelkesfarl, many or most of people here, especially the Americans, come to magic and esotericism because they have had horrible experience - and by that I mean truly horrible experience - growing up in Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity. Almost all of my modern pagan friends certainly did. (FYI, there are also some horrible right-wing Catholic schools I am not a fan of either. See the Irish Catholic "pray, pay, and obey" school.)

Look up the Niagara Bible Conference (1876–1897). It was theological movement funded by the wealthy American oligarchy (such as the owner of Quaker Oats, and other wealthy industrialists) who essentially made up a religion to maintain social order and discourage labor movements, and ostensibly to 'defend the faith' against modernism and Darwinism. It was anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant (not saying uncontrolled immigation is perfect either) , and anti-African American, and it set the template for American Fundamentalist Christianity and Evangelicalism. Truly vile stuff.

Many people here are trying to get away from overt theological language while maintaining their spirituality. So it's very helpful to foster communication and exchange to set aside trigger words like "God." and similar. We're a also all moderns, educated in the language of epistemology and scientific inquiry - our actual first religion - so making seeming dogmatic statements - usually indicated by heavy use of the word "is" - like "God is Love" does not translate well. Not saying change you mind, just find the core of the idea to be said in other words.

It does not mean they are "denying God " it usually means they prefer not to be reminded of early childhood experiences in snake-handly big-box American churches that terrorized them so much it pretty much amounts to child abuse, imho.

Post automatically merged: Monday at 6:33 PM

Oh! To translate this into how this ecumenical, inter-faith approach works for me. This is probably very American-style solution, but whatever, I'm American:

If I meet, say, a Norse pagan who has a profound experience of Odin or Thor, and they really 'walk their talk,' I just give them the benefit of the doubt. I assume 'God' - meaning the Divine Intelligence that is the Ground of Being for everything we can even experience, in my view - is communicating with them by taking on these cultural forms. I do the same with every adherent of every religion. I assume they are a holy man or woman and give them the same respect I would to an 'established' religion, like Catholicism. I am also under no obligation to accept whatever they say, as I would with any religion.

Maybe you're right, MorganBlack, and it is all about cultural differences. But I also don't find any sincerity in this one. And when confronted, he tries to simply talk more of the same, instead of trying to understand why it's not working. If truth was like a woman, he reminds me of the type who believes if he pesters her enough, she will say yes, just to get rid of him. Playing a victim when browbeating and justifications didn't work, it's so immature. I have no problem with Islam or God or any of the terms, it's about the entity behind the words.

I suppose it's not so different from American style, to first check the sincerity of a person, and if there is something fishy about them, to doubt anything they say. I already mentioned some of the red flags, here's another: he is constantly praising his collection which rivals Alexandria library, while spoon-feeding us crumbs. People who want to teach, they write tutorials or start threads with their personal experience, they share content, which rivals commercial books sometimes. That one? A crumb here, a crumb there, always more promisses. I absolutely hate that. It's so Middle Ages: "Praise the teacher, praise his wisdom, so he would deem you worthy of giving you another crumb. Praise him some more! And maybe he will share another crumb." I prefer giving praise that is true (and due), but I know that sycophancy is the way of the Middle East. Well, if that's the price to pay for his exclusive knowledge, I'll prefer to retain my self-respect and reject the false teacher who goes by Angelkesfarl here. If Allah sees him, let him get what he deserves for discrediting Islam, his own school and all arabic people. For no manuscript is more valuable than being true and good to others. "Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly" is one of Islam's maxim. That also means no gatekeeping, no collecting toll for accessing it, be it monetary or in form of flattery. Not mentioning that occult practices are likely considered wrong for the faithful, as Allah is supposed to be the source of all knowledge, and one should pray to Him directly for it, instead of sucking up to some occult human teacher for another part of secret manuscript. That's my two cents. For me the subject is exhausted, I don't wish to argue about it, never did.

 

[Angelkesfarl]

Definition of the Deity
Allah is the Creator; there is no creator before Him and no creator with Him. He has no father, no mother, no wife, and no child. Who is Allah? Allah, in both the Islamic and Jewish definitions by their mutual agreement, is the only Deity and does not accept that His servants have another god with Him. He is not described by pre-eternity (in a temporal sense) nor by occurrence; He is the First without beginning and the Last without end. He is the Manifest, with nothing above Him, and the Hidden, with nothing beyond Him.

Attributes of the Deity: The Deity has names inseparable from the meaning of "Allah." He is Living, Volitional, the One with Absolute Will, All-Powerful, Intelligent, and Deciding; no one compels Him, nothing is hidden from Him, no creature can reach Him, and no other power can rival Him. Every Name of Allah has three significations: a signification of the Essence, a signification of the attribute derived from that Name, and a signification of the remaining attributes.

Signification of the Essence is called "Signification of Identity" (Mutabaqah). Signification of the derived attribute is called "Signification of Inclusion" (Tadamun). Signification of the remaining names is called "Signification of Implication" (Iltizam).

Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "All His names agree in pointing to His Sacred Self, yet each name signifies a meaning of His attributes that is not the meaning signified by the other name. Al-Aziz (The Mighty) points to His Self with Might; Al-Khaliq (The Creator) points to His Self with Creation; Al-Rahim (The Merciful) points to His Self with Mercy." (Source: Al-Iman al-Kabir: 1/107).

Thus: The Living, the All-Knowing, the All-Powerful, the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, the Mighty, and the Wise are all names for one Single Entity, which is Allah (Exalted and Majestic). However, the meaning of "The Living" is different from "The Merciful," which is different from "The Ever-Relenting," which is different from "The All-Powerful," and so on. There are names close in meaning, and there are names where the difference is clear, such as in the case of opposites.

The result is that some say: "The names of Allah are other than Allah," and others say: "The names of Allah are created." Perhaps what led them to this was the belief that if names multiply, the existing entities multiply—as they express it—and this is a false statement. It is not necessary to prove the "Multiplicity of Eternals" as they claim. The specific attribute for the Mutazilites is the attribute of "Pre-eternity" (Al-Qidam); they believe Allah is eternal and was not preceded by non-existence. They say: "Allah's names are occurred (temporary), and if they are occurred, they are not eternal." They argue: "If we affirmed that He is described by them eternally, we would be affirming the Multiplicity of Eternals, which necessitates multiplicity."

This reasoning is weak. If we say that Allah is Eternal with His attributes, it does not necessitate multiplicity, because the attributes follow the Essence. Affirming attributes for the Essence does not require a numerical count, just as with a creature. If you say, for example: "Zaid came to us," there is no need to say: "Zaid came to us, along with his hearing, his sight, his ears, his hands, his legs, his stomach, his back, his head, his tongue, and his lips." It is enough to say: "Zaid came." He is one. The affirmation of the Named is followed by the affirmation of the attributes and the Essence. If we say that Allah is Eternal, there is no need to say: "Allah is Eternal, and His knowledge, His power, His hands, His face, and His will are eternal." Rather, Allah is Eternal with His attributes; it does not require a multiplicity of eternals as they claim.

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "For this reason, Allah applied actions to Himself from which He did not take names of the doer. For instance, He 'Willed' (Arada), yet 'The Willer' (Al-Murid) is not among His names. He 'Wished' (Sha'a) and 'Brought forth' (Ahdatha) but did not name Himself as such. He was not named in any authentic text as 'The Willer,' 'The Wisher,' or 'The Bringer-forth,' just as He did not name Himself 'The Maker,' 'The Doer,' or 'The Perfecter,' and other such names applied by some people out of ignorance. For example, some say 'The Existing' (Al-Mawjud), and some name children 'Abd al-Mawjud,' even though 'The Existing' is not among the names of Allah."

Among the names of Allah are those mentioned individually, and those mentioned only in conjunction with others. What is permissible to mention individually include: The All-Powerful, The All-Hearing, The All-Seeing, The Mighty, The Wise. However, "The Withholder" (Al-Mani') cannot be mentioned individually; it must be paired with "The Giver" (Al-Mu'ti). Likewise, "The Harmful" (Al-Darr) with "The Beneficial" (Al-Nafi'), and "The Avenger" (Al-Muntaqim) with "The Pardoner" (Al-Afu). You cannot, for example, mention "The Abaser" (Al-Mudhill) without mentioning "The Exalter" (Al-Mu'izz), because perfection is only achieved through the pairing here. If you said only "The Abaser," you would not have completed the meaning, but if you said "The All-Powerful," it is complete; "The All-Hearing" is complete.

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "As for praising Him by mere withholding, mere vengeance, or mere harming, it is not permissible. These dual names function as a single name, where it is prohibited to separate their parts from one another." Just as you cannot separate the letters of the name "The All-Hearing," you cannot separate "The Harmful" from "The Beneficial," or "The Abaser" from "The Exalter." He said: "Even if they are multiple, they function as a single name, and for this reason, they did not appear individually in the texts." Observe their occurrence in the scriptures and the words of the Messenger (PBUH); you will find they only appear paired.

It is prescribed for the servant to seek refuge in Allah’s names and attributes. Seeking refuge in names is like saying: "I seek refuge in Allah," "in The Mighty," "in The All-Hearing," "in The Compeller." "She said: 'I seek refuge in the Most Gracious from you, if you should be God-fearing'" [Maryam: 18]. Is it permissible to seek refuge in His attributes? The answer: Yes, because the evidence has established that. "I seek refuge in Your Pleasure from Your Wrath, and in Your Forgiveness from Your Punishment" [Muslim: 486]. "I seek refuge in Allah and His Power from the evil of what I find and fear" [Muslim: 2202]. "I seek refuge in the Might of Allah and His Power" [Abu Dawood: 3893]. The Might of Allah is an attribute; the Power of Allah is an attribute; the Forgiveness of Allah is an attribute. Therefore, seeking refuge in His attributes is permissible.

Regarding oaths: Swearing by Allah, by The Compeller, by The Mighty, The Wise. Swearing by an attribute: "I swear by the Might of Allah." Seeking refuge and swearing are permissible by both the Beautiful Names and the Sublime Attributes of Allah. As for Supplication (Du'a) and Servitude (Ta'beed), they are only done by the names. In servitude, we say: "Abd al-Rahman," "Abd-Allah," "Abd al-Hamid," and we do not say: "Abd al-Rahmah" (Servant of Mercy), "Abd al-Izzah" (Servant of Might), or "Abd al-Qudra" (Servant of Power). Similarly, in supplication, we call upon Him by His Beautiful Names: "O Most Gracious, have mercy on me," "O Living, O Sustainer." It is not permissible for us to call upon the attribute itself; we cannot say: "O Mercy of Allah, have mercy on us" or "O Forgiveness of Allah, forgive us." Here, we must distinguish between two important things:

The distinction between "Supplication of an Attribute" (Du'a al-Sifa) and "Supplication by an Attribute" (Al-Du'a bi al-Sifa): "Supplication of an Attribute" means the attribute itself is being called upon as if it were something other than Allah. This is false, because Allah’s attributes do not separate from Him or His Essence. When one calls upon the attribute alone, it implies the attribute exists independently, which is impermissible. Saying: "O Mercy of Allah, have mercy on me" or "O Might of Allah, strengthen me" implies a belief that the attribute is separate from the One Described, and that the attribute forgives, heals, or strengthens on its own. This would make the attribute a worshipped deity alongside Allah, which is disbelief by the consensus of scholars, because Allah’s attributes are inseparable from His Being.

Among the rules: Allah must be described by everything He described Himself with in His Book, or through the tongue of His Messenger (PBUH), without distortion (Tahrif), negation (Ta’til), visualization (Takyif), or resemblance (Tamthil). What is Resemblance? Believing Allah is like any of His creation (Disbelief). What is Visualization? Believing an attribute of Allah has a specific physical "how" (modality). We do not deny the modality itself, but we deny our knowledge of it. What is Negation? Denying the attribute or the name. Some innovators say "The Merciful" or "The All-Hearing" are just hollow names with no attributes behind them—this is a great innovation. What is Distortion? Turning the word away from its true meaning.

Sharing a general name does not necessitate a resemblance in reality. Can a human be called "mighty," "generous," or "noble"? Yes. Can you say a human "loves," "hates," or "is pleased"? Yes. Can you call a human a "king"? Yes. But does naming Allah "The King," "The All-Hearing," or "The Generous" mean His kingdom, hearing, or generosity is like that of a creature? No. The mere sharing of a term does not indicate resemblance in meaning or reality. There is no harm in a linguistic overlap for some names, though other names (like Razzaq, Rahman, Bari') are strictly forbidden for humans. In all cases, sharing the word does not imply sharing the essence.

The majesty of the Unseen is governed by these precise laws of Identity. If you seek to invoke the Power that sustains the cosmos, you must first understand the Sovereign who holds the keys to all names. Are you ready to align your intent with the Absolute Frequency?

 

[BBBB]

Allah is the Creator; there is no creator before Him and no creator with Him. He has no father, no mother, no wife, and no child.

That is especially good to know in the time of Christmas

 

[Yazata]

That is especially good to know in the time of Christmas

It is indeed a fantastic and absolutely not tone-deaf time to post this. But @BBBB please stop engaging if you are not seeking the marvelous wisdom and blessings of that benign allah