Julian Jaynes Society Forum: Exploring Consciousness and Bicameral Mind Theory

This is a very interesting article on Mohammed's trance states (reminiscent of the Oracle at Delphi) and auditory/visual hallucinations:

Wahi: the Supernatural Basis of Islam

It raises the possibility that Islam was founded on the auditory hallucinations of Mohammed, who perhaps experienced a partial relapse to the bicameral mind.

Very interesting article. I particularly like chapter 3, the Hindu-Buddhist interpretation.

The specifically Hindu contribution to our understanding of the Quranic revelation is to bring in the yogic experience. As an example of how yogic practice can go wrong, warning against the dangers of experimenting with yoga without competent guidance, Vivekananda mentioned Mohammed: "The yogi says there is a great danger in stumbling upon this state. In a good many cases, there is the danger of the brain being deranged, and, as a rule, you will find that all those men, however great they were, who had stumbled upon this superconscious state without understanding it, groped in the dark...

One of the major issues we are all facing is how to relate to others who commit extreme violent behaviour and also continually state they are obeying a god.

Jaynes has got some fascinating insights into religious behaviours that are very important.

For example, might the rituals of Islam, like the bowing, reinforce right brain activity? Are the calls to prayer hexamic?

Of course , Julian Jaynes was one of greatest thinkers of humanity.

I think he was misunderstood not by his opponents only, but also by the proponents of his theory

First, Jaynes proposed a hypothesis for explaining the Mechanism of the emergence of the self-narrative consciousness as an abstract functional relationship on the ground of perceptions or what to be called animal consciousness (even if it's not true consciousness according to his definition, however we mean that vivid sensual experience of our minds). Jaynes noted that for the majority of our awakening times (as during performing most of our daily activities), we are not truly conscious about our inner selves. This doesn't mean that we have no awareness of these events and their memories during the day.

This is the background of awareness that Jaynes touched nothing of it. As he was aware of the vast perplexity of terms and definitions in this field. Worth noting that most of the current theories and studies about consciousness are considered with that background. From reductionists who see these experiences to be just an epiphenomenon of the electrical activities of the brain, to Roger Penrose who is convinced that it represents quantum actions (with all the mysteries of quantum physics and its superpositions that doesn't differ so much from the old age's superstitions), to the pan-psychists which include eminent characters like Erwin Shrodinger, who see it as in essential attribute of everything.

I mention this just to be oriented with the fact that the description of Jaynesian mechanism of consciousness as abstract functions derived from material perception, is something yet to be proved after proving that the mere sensual perceptions themselves are not abstractions performed by the brain at the mind-world boundary.

Second, I think Jaynes delivered his theory about the hallucinatory nature of religions to the world, and let the implications of this idea an open motto for those who are concerned.

Clearly, Jaynes himself confessed that the "Eureka moment" that solved his hard problem, and pushed forward the wagon of his magnum opus, was an event of auditory hallucinations telling him to merge the Known with the Knower. Just to be careful. Absolutely, he wanted not to invoke souls and oracles. Instead, he tried to emphasize that the right hemisphere is endowed with some sort of special abilities that aren't always false or misguiding.

He even tried to give famous and well recognized examples of great scientists from the 20th century, for whom the gates of science opened under the control of their un-consiousness (an idea, that was enough for Carl Jung, to suggest the existence of the collective Subconsciousness). Anyway, the great hierarchies of the old ages wouldn't be owed to just mere dictatorial voices keeping the order under control.

‌Third, unfortunately for who asks, Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism were ideological movements against the paganism (an explicit ancient form of bicameralism according to Jaynes. No, it is one of the fundamental producers and sustainers of bicameralism).
‌
‌Moreover, a special religious tradition in Islam is to do a anything you do by your right side, open the door or the book or whatever by your right hand, enter the room or the mosque by your right leg. For example, If two persons are in front of an entrance and they are inviting each other respectfully to enter first. An end of discussion is to that who on the right side.
‌
‌Even, there's a tradition that some Muslims laugh about it, when they learn their children to eat by their right hand, or otherwise the devil will eat with who uses his left. Some children may ask their dads: I ate with my left, and I saw nothing in short in the dinner !!!!!
‌
‌Enough to say that in Islam, the right hemisphere-controlled left side of the body is recommended fiercely to be in dormancy !!! Needless to say that training either side of the body has a direct positive feedback on the hemisphere that controls it.
‌
‌Even more, to know that sadly, some Muslim families in the past times were acting to enforce their child if they noticed that he is right-dominant and uses his left hand in manipulating his toys...... were acting to enforce him to use his right hand (e.g. by tying his whole left upper limb for some weeks).

Enough again to say that if Jaynes was true, the traditions of Islam regarding the human body are working (intentionally or not) against bicameralism.

Well, I don't think that citing a paper or a book from a religious or spiritual sect here or there while attacking another religious or spiritual sect there or here, just to support the idea of hallucinatory origin of both of them .. here and there !

I think not it's a smart strategy to work with.

I am Muslim and am committed to the my religion. This doesn't make the ideas of Jaynes (as demonstrated by himself in his book of dawn and breakdown) unacceptable to me, even if he declared his belief in the absence of God at the end of his book. I think this doesn't make difference to anyone who is concerned about science and only science. Max Planck declared as well his belief in cosmic consciousness, A God that's different from that known in human religions. Whatever, this made no difference to the generations of scientists that succeeded him.

‌What I want to say, Jaynes was battling hardly and honestly to solve the most or better to say the main and the only existential problem of human mind .. its essence .. and its deep longing for finding itself. Not to mock some people here or some nations there.
‌
‌The theory of course should have brought an eagerly needed solace and consolation to the Subconsciousness of him, regarding the sorrowful sickness of his lovely sister. It should be helpful also, for finding new and highly effective therapeutic strategies ..(cognitive and behavioral).. to treat patients with different types of mental illnesses. A work on something like this, inspired by the main pillars of his theory, it by itself would give the truly needed credence for the theory.
‌
‌Lastly, from the summit of the mount of our ignorance, we think that the very amazing sketches of Jaynes on the walls of the city of consciousness, to fulfill their (and his) purpose, need to not ignore the other theories advanced by Penrose, Jung and others. We think that at least some of them, even if modified, would provide a substantial help.
‌
‌Best regards

THanks for your explanation, it's rare to see in-depth explanations from an actual Muslim, that sort of long text often comes from people who have never read the Quran, don't speak Arabic, don't talk to Muslims yet are world class experts
I'll make sure to keep your comments in mind when I receive my copy of The Origin of Consciousness and read more into it.

Mohieddin, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I'm glad you've been able to integrate Jaynes's theory into your existing beliefs. That's certainly what Jaynes encouraged. His theory of the origin of consciousness was the most important to him, and he did not want people to be potentially turned off to those ideas due to the implications of his theory for the origin of religion.

It's certainly not my intention to promote or attack one religion over another. You're responding to a post from 15 years ago. Articles are sometimes posted here quickly that may be items of interest. You certainly have more knowledge about Islam than I do, and the article may have additional layers of meaning associated with it for you than it does for me.

So again, Jaynes went out of his way to encourage people to view his theory within the context of their own religious (or non-religious) beliefs, and I'm glad you've done that.

In my own view, 40+ years on now since the publication of Jaynes's book, perhaps it is time to begin to challenge some of those beliefs. In my view, Jaynes's theory offers a compelling explanation for the origin of our god-beliefs and the modern religious that evolved from those beliefs. Obviously it's debatable, as there are many pros and cons, but in my view religion is a net-negative on our civilization, and the sooner we move beyond it, the better off we'll be... while at the same time perhaps replacing some of the positive elements with secular equivalents.

As to the value of Penrose's ideas on consciousness, we'll have to agree to disagree : )

Tanker62 wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:14 am THanks for your explanation, it's rare to see in-depth explanations from an actual Muslim, that sort of long text often comes from people who have never read the Quran, don't speak Arabic, don't talk to Muslims yet are world class experts
I'll make sure to keep your comments in mind when I receive my copy of The Origin of Consciousness and read more into it.

Thanks a lot for your praise which I really don't deserve.

Unfortunately, I can't qualify your justifications about Arabs and Muslims as unfair. It's a true fact for which the explanation would be exhaustive and debatable as well.

For just one point that we could, easily agree about it: it's not because of the Quran or Islam itself as a religion. The same is to be said as well for Christianity and Galileo (put aside the church).

Or in Julian words:
" We sometimes think, and even like to think, that the two greatest exertions that have influenced mankind, religion and science, have always been historical enemies, intriguing us in opposite directions. But this effort at special identity is loudly false. It is not religion but the church and science that were hostile to each other. And it was rivalry, not contravention. Both were religious."

Whatever, thank you again.

And my best regards.

Dear Moderator, Thank you very much Sir.

I'm really glad to hear your kind and polite response.

Indeed, I wasn't trying to accuse you of intentionally promoting a religion over another, I just think it's not a good way for an article like this to be posted here.
Koenraad Elst is a some sort of Hindu and Hindusim is one of the most ancient religions in the world before all the semitic religions (according to Jaynes, it should be the Diamond of bicamerality).
Yes, you could cite some points in his work (any thought or insight) after emphasizing what, why ..etc.
Otherwise, you may agree with me that almost everybody (except the very few) who believes in any religion in this world, looks at other religions and their apostles and saints as (they were deluded and hallucinating) !

And yes, I really was shocked after posting the reply when I realized that the post is very old !! The cause I found the post that I was searching for an article or lecture for Jaynes talking about Islam. For it was only once، when Jaynes talked about Islam in his book, and it was a vague translation of the meaning of poetry and poet in Arabic, and upon which he built his interpretation.

Anyway, we may disagree with you as Freeman Dyson disagreed with who says that religion is a mere evil or a net-evil in our world.

First of all, the existential point that seems to be missed in Jaynes' theory is that the religion (whatever hallucinatory in nature) is the fountain from which had springed our most precious privilege (Consciousness). These hallucinatory scenes are sparkled according to Jaynes, in due to some sort of great sympathy and love that early tribes of humans expressed towards their parents, leaders, friends and lovers. Love that tried to pass the snag of death to reach those who departed.

What we try to emphasize is that Jaynes himself, while seeing clearly that his theory disproves the religion, we by anyway are compelled to treat it reverently. If you're going to espouse the bicamerality, you should look at religion as a some sort of high-quality art .. much higher in quality than Davinci's or Michelangelo's. Forgive me for any rhetorics, but it's the very words of Jaynes (The Genie) in the last chapter of his magnum opus (The Auguries of Science):

" Indeed, the tough-minded materialist scientist today will feel uncomfortable with the fact that science in such divergent and various directions only two centuries ago was a religious endeavor, sharing the same striving as the ancient psalms, the effort to once again see the elohim “face to face.”
This drama, this immense scenario in which humanity has been performing on this planet over the last 4000 years, is clear when we take the large view of the central intellectual tendency of world history."

"In this period of transition from its religious basis, science often shares with the celestial maps of astrology, or a hundred other irrationalisms, the same nostalgia for the Final Answer, the One Truth, the Single Cause.
...................
AND THIS ESSAY IS NO EXCEPTION. "

This is the impassable fence. That according to Jaynes religion is what did make and still make humans what they are !!!

For example, without the uprise of Christianity in Europe and the subsequent rise of Islam in the Middle East and the conflict that flared up between their territories, the history of science would never progressed in the way we see it now. Or as the Genie said it in much more eloquent way:

"THIS DRAMA ..
THIS IMMENSE SCENARIO" ..
performed over the last four thousand years of history is directed and played by its single Playwright, that's religion.

In a short way, approve it or disapprove it, You Must Pay For It.
(Indeed religion in Arabic "Deen" means the same as "Debt" in English.. something to be paid. "Credit" in English fulfill the same meaning for both"

Second, for saying that religion is to be replaced by secular equivalents, you are of course meaning replacing it by law. Well, it seems obvious that the power of national laws (without deep ethics) disintegrate rapidly if people could safely avoid the punishment.

So we must say the equivalent would be ethics and morals, then let us be aware that any non-relegiously based morals (or in other words: any morals based on a view of the universe as messy and purposeless) is doomed for its very basics, to be also nonsense and inconsistent.
For absolutely we mean by religion not Christianity or Islam or any other formal religion, we clearly mean a Purposeful Universe. Although, it may seem an out of reach point today and needs much further explorations, we think it's an obligatory target, without which no light of hope is looming for humanity in this horizon.

I think that Jaynes in his last chapter was very aware of the point that his theory is still in its phases of backward exploration. And didn't give yet fill the full answers, to ask after that: what's the next move .. forward.

Third, then why religion is a net-negative choice? Violence?
Just remember that the two versions of World War are purely nonrelgious events!. Even more, they happened exactly at the climax of the age of materialism.
Moreover, Nazism is well known to be an explicit clinical application of darwinian evolution in its secular and random form !. Not trying then to say that Darwin' theory is a net-negative for our civilization, for Darwin is not to be blamed for anyone who misinterpreted or misused his book. The same is absolutely true for religion.

Fourth, one more point for which I couldn't pass over without commenting. The 3rd version of world war which flared up in the Middle East, after 2011 and still running in today, by what's said to be the Islamic state (ISIS) is worthy of some contemplation.
The war was ignited by the fighters who are descendents from the same unit, supported before by USA against the Russians in the cold war. But this time they are against Al-Assad, one of the greatest allies of Russia in the Middle East. The amazing coincidence is that in the same time they were fighting Al-Assad, USA was supporting another fighters (called the revolutionists), however they are not religious terrorists !!!. I mean that Al-Assad was attacked by both USA and ISIS in the very same moment ( this moment lasted about six hot years at least) !!!

Give me your mind, maybe i could understand ! Or read "Secret affairs" by Mark Curtis to get the point that ISIS and Muslim Brotherhood (the alleged religious warriors) are indeed fighting us !!!
Fighting the Muslims in Egypt, Syria, Libya ... etc. And the terroristic attacks that occur in the West from time to time is less than 1 part of millions from what's occuring everyday in our homelands.

I'm so sorry, not for those faked religious criminals, but for this digression away from the main subject of discussion. But it's actually a very abstract comment on this perplexing issue and we touched on it because it's one of the hot topics that are taken for granted today against religion generally and Islam particularly.

Lastly, the amazing Jaynes while he was telling the story of his own auditory hallucinations (about the known and the knower) which made the day of his theory, and his talking about (the three Bees) that used to be stinging the minds of the greatest scientists of the world, he was clearly redefining the meaning of hallucinations (as internal perceptions triggered without external stimulus, and that MAY or may-not BE truly INFORMATIVE).

An idea that's, As Niels Bohr said: (CRAZY ENOUGH), .. to be eagerly and keenly explored.

What I mean, is that his theory disproves the presence of Angels out there, but is leaving the door open for the Well-Known, Well-Knower, WHO once said:
What you're searching for is not out there,

"IT IS WITHIN" (Luke 17:21, King James)

Agree or disagree, let's wait and see

All wishes of Love and Peace, and my Best Regards.

Thank you, you raise some good point. A lot to digest here. I hope to respond more fully soon.

Tanker62 wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:14 amTHanks for your explanation, it's rare to see in-depth explanations from an actual Muslim, that sort of long text often comes from people who have never read the Quran, don't speak Arabic, don't talk to Muslims yet are world class experts

You might be interested in my perspective. I've been thinking about Jaynes' work for a long time. But over the past decade, conversations with an Islamic friend led me to consider the relationship of Islam to Jaynesian scholarship. Islam represents an interesting example as a relatively later monotheistic religion, long after the Axial Age. It does seem different from Judaism and Christianity. And that difference seems to touch upon what Jaynes wrote about in terms of a growing distance in the experience of the divine.

I was raised Christian, although an extremely liberal and new agey variety, that of the Unity Church. I never lost faith nor had a deconversion experience, if I slowly grew away from my early religious experience. These days I'm spiritually and intellectually agnostic about organized religion, while being a weak atheist about the existence of a monotheistic god (neither believing nor disbelieving). So, I have no interest in defending or attacking any particular religion or religiosity. My curiosity and skepticism is equal opportunity, and held lightly.

benjamindavidsteele wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2023 4:18 pm

Tanker62 wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:14 amTHanks for your explanation, it's rare to see in-depth explanations from an actual Muslim, that sort of long text often comes from people who have never read the Quran, don't speak Arabic, don't talk to Muslims yet are world class experts

You might be interested in my perspective. I've been thinking about Jaynes' work for a long time. But over the past decade, conversations with an Islamic friend led me to consider the relationship of Islam to Jaynesian scholarship. Islam represents an interesting example as a relatively later monotheistic religion, long after the Axial Age. It does seem different from Judaism and Christianity. And that difference seems to touch upon what Jaynes wrote about in terms of a growing distance in the experience of the divine.

I was raised Christian, although an extremely liberal and new agey variety, that of the Unity Church. I never lost faith nor had a deconversion experience, if I slowly grew away from my early religious experience. These days I'm spiritually and intellectually agnostic about organized religion, while being a weak atheist about the existence of a monotheistic god (neither believing nor disbelieving). So, I have no interest in defending or attacking any particular religion or religiosity. My curiosity and skepticism is equal opportunity, and held lightly.

Very interesting perspective, Sir

1- First, and before anything, we should reemphasize a very important point about the bicameral mind theory.

The computer-like (Godlike) power of the right hemisphere, that sometimes proves to be a very accurate (subconscious) analysis and decision-making !!

Remember again Jaynes' words about the great scientific discoveries, the scientists' three subconscious Bs, and also the auditory hallucinations that occured to jaynes himself (and helped to solve the riddle of consciousness, according to him)

What are these?

If this have something common with what some theoretical physicists say about the universe as a quantum computer;
(Well,
that's GOD,
in flesh
and blood) !

So, this point is obviously underestimated and undervalued in the discussions about the theory.

In another words: This insight proclaimed for the right hemisphere.. what's the explanation for it?

It reminds us of Newton's gravity till Einstein, and Quantum physics till now (It Works.. yet , not explained).

Another phrase:
This doesn't explain God out, while letting the door open to explain him IN.

2- What's God?

I think you can have 8.1 billion conception of God (that's the world population now)

But, if we talk about it philosophically and logically, God (if He will ever exist) , he/she/it should be one & only.

And "one & only" means not that idea conceived by the majority of the followers of traditional religions (A personal God that's different from the universe)

Actually, saying "one and only" means literally: ( Nothing but it/him/her ). Yes, that's a sort of the pantheism of Leibniz. (One God / One Verse)

Maybe right, maybe wrong.

But, I humbly think, if will be there a solution to the riddle, it would be the only one.

3- What about Islam (excluding Sufism, as you said)

Actually, Benjamin,
By excluding Sufism, you are already excluding Islam

A. I really appreciate your conclusions, from a discussion with a muslim friend (and I see well that any misunderstanding is excused).

But really, the situation in Islam doesn't differ so much from its christian counterpart.

And in your words:
Islam, also [was filled with diverse groups and disagreements, and that has only increased over time] .. literally.

B. Islam doesn't differ much from Christianity and Judaism.

In fact, about half of the verses of the Quran are Biblical quotes rephrased in Arabic; a fact that led many of opponents of the prophet (in his life), and many Christians today, to accuse him of "just rewriting the Bible in Arabic prose"

C. Jesus in Quran .. is the Main Figure, indeed.

And the apparent conflict of Islam with the concept of godness of Jesus is just a critical philosophy.

(.i.e. He is divine, fully divine .. but a red line is drawn here: he is Not The GOD .. if we take it to the area of rigid philosophy)

And when you dive deeply into this doctrine (In Sufism/Christianity of Islam), you will discover that esoterically, things are different.

And YES, YESus was a god. (small g intended)

And I'm not really playing with words and the discussion of this point is intended to demonstrate the essential idea in Islam. (& I will try hardly to make it as clear as possible).

Or to say it like that:
Jesus came to amend Judaism, And Muhammad came to advocate Jesus.

(You are very welcome to object to it, and I promise you with satisfying answers.

And the father/master transformation in the doctrine of God/human relationship is actually not a big difference .. again .. a critical philosophy)

But Jesus is the culmination of the progress of humanity in Quran (The divine human who became like God: the Resurrected and the Resurrector/ the Immortal and the Revivor of the mortals)

Not just Jesus, but (YES .. US, also).

And all the humanity according to Islam, are endowed with the gift of being able to be like Jesus (gods: Images of God)

D- And to make sure that I'm not wandering so far. Let's return to the concept of God.

Let me ask you:
From the Greeks till now;
& for everybody who believes in God; what's the main criteria that all of them would agree about?

Answer:-
Just one.
It is.. (MIND)

That's there is (a mind/a being with a mind) that created, mends and judges the universe.

Well, Mind is also the common criteria of all humans (that's the image of God, I see)

Again, maybe right, maybe wrong.

However, this is the essence of the message of Islam (and all religions, I think)

E- Then, why this misunderstanding of Islam?

It's a very long story. I can't indulge in it here (in a first-hand manner). But, if you would ask any question, it would be for my great pleasure.

However, I think You may need to read about the political and military conflicts that occured after the prophet of Islam, to know that (as in all world religions) the majority of the followers of Islam themselves don't understand (and don't have the time, the power, or even, the wish to understand anything about it)

And most of the leaders of all its sects, their ideas and concepts are mainly shaped by the different political conflicts that occured across the ages.

Imam Ali (Cousin of the prophet & husband of his daughter & father of his grandchildren) says:
(People are slaves of worldly life, and religion is a licking on their tongue. Till an inflection strikes, you'll barely see a religious man)

So, it's not easy to take a good picture (not even full) about any religion, even from a sheikh or a religious teacher (not mention a secular person)

And no offense is intended to anyone (but, it's the truth)

F- Why excluding Sufism= excluding Islam

Not only because Sufism across the history represents a major sect of the islamic world, till now.
But, because the historical origins of Sufism are well known to be from Imam Ali and the family of Prophet Muhammad.

I means it originated from the house of the prophet himself (Shia' like Iran also doesn't differ so much from Sufism except in carrying the same ideology plus a political agenda).

So, it's obviously unjust and unfair to consider Sufism a minor sect of Islam !

4- Absent god in Islam?

A- If you depend on the idea in Islam about (No prophet after me), to conclude that it ushers the collapse of bicameral mind and the evanescence of the voice of God in Islam, you are obviously mistaken.

In Islam, the hearing of guiding voices or even the seeing of angels or souls (awake) is not prohibited/closed at all.

In fact, it would be a sign of high spirituality (providing that the received data are correct or it would be a sign of insanity )

Remember, Baha'is are a sect of islamic Shia'.

B- The Quran speaks clearly about the pious believers who meet/hear/see angels in their life:

(Indeed, those who have said, "Our Lord is God " and then remained on a right course - the angels will descend upon them, [saying], "Do not fear and do not grieve but receive good tidings of Paradise, which you were promised.

We [angels] are your allies in worldly life and in the Hereafter. And you will have therein whatever your souls desire, and you will have therein whatever you wish]

{Quran; Fusselat (Detailed) Sura 41; Verse 31, 32}

C- The prophet himself promised his companions (if they persisted on Zikr "prayers and Duaa") by meeting angels Alive:-

(By Him, in Whose Hands, my soul is,
if your state of mind remains the same as it is in your presence with me & in Zikr, the Angels Will Shake Your Hands in Home and Outdoors).

D- More importantly, the whole message of the Quran is not absence or even distant presence of God. Quite the opposite: it's talking recurrently about the Overwhelming Presence of God in everything !!!

{He is the first and the last, the Explicit (Apparent) and the Implicit (Hidden)}
(Quran; Iron Sura 57; Verse 3)

E- So, Muslims (Sufis or not) believe that any one of them could, by spirituality, see/hear/meet angels or even the souls of prophets and martyrs (again .. awake .. not just in dreams)

And with no contradiction with their belief that there's no prophet after their prophet???

As according to Islam, these things are not exclusive for prophets (Mary and Mother of Moses, both weren't prophets and both were hearing/meeting angels)

More than that:
(Al-Khedr) who, according to "The Cave Sura", learned Prophet Moses many hard things about the works of divinity; he wasn't a prophet (while in the same time, was in deep connection with God himself)
(Quran; the Cave Sura 18; Verses 65-82)

6- Last point
The father/master and son/slave transformation is not a big thing.

A. God in Christianity and Judaism still, the Lord/the Master.

B. In Islam according to prophet:
(All the people are children of God, and the most beloved one to him, he who is the most beneficial to his children)

C. Moreover, in Arabic, there's two words for son:
(Ibn & Walad)

- Walad:
"from tawleed/milad" (birth)
So when said must be followed by the parents who actually gave birth to him)
And they are called (Father=Waled/Mother=Waleda).

- Ibn: "from benaa/bana" (build)
And here: Father=Up, Mother=Om
So it can be said followed by different people (i.e. his uncle or even any person who raised or teached him) (e.g. Ishmael the brother of Isaac, is said in Quran to be the father (Up) of Jacob "He was his uncle as well")

It's even can be said about countries (I could say Egypt is my Om, but not my Waleda).

Why saying this?

Because in Quran, the absolute rejection is for saying that Jesus is the {Walad} of God "not the Ibn .. a little objection is here also, but for different reasons)

But the recurrent and persistent objection across the Quran is the Tawleed concept. Why?

Because, philosophically and logically, the born should be from the essence/nature of who gave birth to him.

Otherwise, if son of God means (Ibn) who is raised, protected and loved by God (no objection)

Even, in Bible the literal words of Jesus means this:
( But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children/sons of your Father in heaven)
Matthew 5:44,45

According to this, every believer who is pious and a good doer is to be considered a son (Ibn Not Walad) of God (Not Jesus or even Muhammad "peace is upon them" alone).

7- Lastly, I hope, after this very long and exhausting comment, that many things are clarified.

Alas, if not.

And again,

Anytime, it would be a pleasure for me to hear any question or reply.

Best regards

This is a difficult discussion to have. You apparently are a believer in a specific religion and doctrine, whereas I'm agnostic toward all religions and doctrines. Not only is my critical view directed at Islam but also Christianity, Judaism, and all others. Most conventional Christians would be feel defensive about my heretical take on their religion, which in many ways I still consider my religion as it's part of my cultural upbringing.

The challenge is that, between a believer and a non-believer, full communication is near impossible simply because they have no basis of agreement even about what they are discussing, why, and to what end. One side has to prove something absolutely true, at least in their own mind, while the other quite likely has little personal stake in the game.

It doesn't matter to me which religious groups believe God can or does speak to them or not. It's largely irrelevant. My curiosity is mostly intellectual. If I were to hear God's voice right now, it wouldn't really bother me and I'd have no particular opinion about it. It would neither bolster nor shake a faith that I lack. I would simply acknowledge that I heard a voice claimed to be God and leave it at that. I'd think to myself, that was interesting.

"By excluding Sufism, you are already excluding Islam"

There is debate within and outside of Islam about when Sufism began, whether early or much later. But even if earlier, it likely would've been far different. In any case, the point remains that even Muslims can't agree on that issue and so it would be false to pretend there is a consensus view on this point. Besides, that is largely irrelevant, particularly as Islam itself has incorporated many non-Islamic cultural influences over time, the same as with any other religion.

"Islam doesn't differ much from Christianity and Judaism."

It's significantly different. Yes, Islam borrows from Judaism and Christianity. As Judaism and Christianity borrow from ancient paganism, of which was bicameral at one point. Yet Judaism and Christianity, particularly in the modern world, aren't the same as ancient paganism; and certainly not bicameral, if ancient Jews and Christians were closer to bicameral mentality. Borrowing from a previous tradition is not the same as being identical to it. That is part of the point of Jaynesian scholarship. When someone in the Bronze Age spoke of a 'god', it meant something entirely different than when someone did the same in the Axial and post-Axial ages.

"Jesus in Quran .. is the Main Figure, indeed."

Jesus is interpreted entirely differently than in Christianity, or at least the Christianity that survived. The Islamic Jesus is closer to some early Gnostic sects. It's not only a difference in theology but probably also different in experience. The Pauline Epistles seem to describe an entirely immaterial Cosmic Christ, the complete opposite of a completely material Jesus as in the Quran. It's quite possible that Jesus was at one point a voice in the lingering bicameral mind, only later to be turned into a historical figure as the bicameral mind further receded.

We don't know because literacy itself, in the act of recording, is itself antithetical to the bicameral mentality. For obvious reasons, we don't have any oral traditions of ancient religions, including original Christianity. Even the Pauline Epistles are a literary account of what was at the time a non-literary practice. But at least it gives us some hints about what Christianity was like prior to the alterations that began with the much later Gospels.

"If you depend on the idea in Islam about (No prophet after me), to conclude that it ushers the collapse of bicameral mind and the evanescence of the voice of God in Islam, you are obviously mistaken."

It's a fact that Muslims believe God will never speak again until the end of time. That is not a belief among Jews and Christians who accept that God can still be a presently heard living voice. This is a vast difference experientially. In Islam, even the archangels are no longer to be heard. Only lower spiritual beings are still within human range. The divine had grown more distant by the time of Islam's founding, if not entirely disappeared. But yes, it is undeniable that God Himself was deemed silent. That is a profound difference.

It might be hard for some Muslims to realize how different is their religion from the much earlier monotheistic religions, since modern fundamentalism has so altered all of the monotheistic traditions and flattened out some of the once starker distinctions. Still, the differences stand out when we take these religions on their own terms. The anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann, as influenced by Jaynes, did research on a Christian church that taught people to hear God's voice. Such a thing would be not just heretical, sinful, or a threat to the soul in Islam but considered impossible.

To emphasize this point, look at another later monotheistic religion, that of Bahai. I'm also familiar with it from a friend who is a convert. If claiming to be based on a later direct revelation of God, as Islam claims couldn't happen, Bahai has come to the same conclusion. It's prophet is the last one to hear God's voice in our time. Anyone who claims to hear God in the next 10 thousand years or whatever (i.e., the end of this age) is to be considered a liar or worse. This attitude is an absolute demarcation from earlier and later monotheistic religions, however one wants to interpret it.

For a Jew or Christian to have a voice speak to them claiming to God would be a glorious experience that would support and strengthen one's faith. But to a Muslim or Bahai it could cause a crisis of faith, since it either is a false spirit or a hallucination, neither of which is comforting. Even just believing you can't hear God in your lifetime is a very different experience, in that it means you can never know God directly but only through the words of people from the distant past. Even lesser spirits you might hear can only give you an indirect knowledge, not coming from the highest and ultimate source(s) of direct divine authority.

It's like having a landlord you can see and talk to versus having an absentee landlord. In the former case, you can call your landlord on the phone and he'll call back; and maybe on occasion you'll run into him and speak to him in person. But the latter situation means the only person you see is the building manager, maintenance workers, etc who might claim that a landlord exists; if even they have never met him either. In a practical sense, you might think it matters little. If you make a complaint about a problem, it gets fixed by someone. What difference does it make if the landlord himself shows up to personally oversee what's going on? Is seeing the landlord any more reassuring? Not necessarily. But residing in a rental where you've never met the landlord is a different experience than having the landlord live upstairs from you or down the street.

I have no opinion if that is better or worse. But obviously to Muslims and Bahai, it's good because having different people speak to God would, to their mind, lead to competing claims of authority (e.g., your neighbor having spoken to the landlord about the same issue as you did but having received a different response). If any random person could have a revelation or prophecy equal to Mohammad, then the entire basis of their religion is on shaky ground. Whereas for Christians, in particular, such spiritual experiences of God Himself are par for the course. Since the time of the earliest Christians, there might've been thousands or millions of Christians who have believed or claimed to have had a direct divine experience of the highest source of divinity.

Christianity almost demands that God speaks on a regular basis. This has been the basis of centuries of revivalism and reforms. This is why there are over 200,000 sects of Christianity in the United States alone. Every time God is heard it's yet another new authority. A more hierarchically controlled religion like Islam is more difficult to accomplish within Christianity. For Christians, it leads to a rather chaotic religious culture with no lineage of authority to settle disputes. Is that good or bad? Depends on who you ask. To my mind, it's simply different, but importantly that difference is obvious, not to mention intriguing. It says a lot about how society and humanity has changed over time.

For me, I'm used to that religious splintering of authority where there are thousand sources of authority, individual and group. It's simply what I'm used to. And having been raised Christian, the individual experience of God often is taught as trumping any official authority of a priestly class to act as an intermediary, at least if one is Protestant, Anabaptist, Anglican, Quaker, etc. In fact, I was raised in one of those Christian sects on the extreme end of perceiving God as intimately accessible with that being the aspiration of every believer. But presently as a non-believer, it's a bit moot to me. Still, I recognize my cultural biases. But that is part of the point, in that our respective cultural biases diverge because of having been raised in different religious traditions.

It is a difference that makes a vast difference. To only have one prophecy, revelation, and vision of God in more than a millennia is different than having endless such things. A singular claim of ultimate authority is not like a situation where every individual potentially has the capacity, not to mention God-given right, to speak to and hear from God. What a strange thing that is. It's what makes the West so dynamic in many ways, as everything can be challenged by anyone. What arose within Christianity has at this point formed a larger secular society. It's on the basis of Christianity's splintered sources of authority that secularism was formed. Christians, not atheists, were the ones that built a secular society. Atheists only later inherited it.

There is a reason Islamic majority societies are so different, particularly from societies that are or were majority Christian and even more so non-Catholic. The vastness of this difference, in certain ways, makes cultural mindsets that are so alien that many can't see or appreciate how vast is the difference. In the modern world, we have tended to emphasize the similarities of religion, a modern liberal tendency that has been incorporated to varying degrees by even fundamentalists. But the idea that different people live in different worlds would've been much more clearly understood by those of a bicameral mentality. Unlike us, they didn't see themselves as inhabiting a single world ruled by a single god, and so they felt no need to make claims of a single truth to be asserted and/or enforced upon all others.

I've read the holy scriptures of all three of the main monotheistic religions. The Tanakh is more diverse as it represents myths, traditions, and writings collected over millennia; some of it revised stories from earlier bicameral-minded religions. But ignoring that complexity, we could just compare the New Testament and the Quran. Early Christians inherited liberty of the soul from the Stoics, in opposition to Roman slavery. But early Muslims, instead, embraced slavery as the model for the relationship to God; and that is exemplified also by an Islamic storytelling tradition that involves characters meeting their fate. That is an underlying theological distinction that sent the two religions into entirely separate directions.

Liberty of soul just doesn't allow strong, singular authorization in the way does enslavement to God. This is likely a large part of the reason the W.E.I.R.D. mind (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) is so splintered. There isn't a whole lot to hold together Western diversity within Christian-originated secularism. The Roman Catholic Church attempted to enforce social order with authoritarian theocracy, but that ultimately failed because Jesus' teachings never supported it. It's problematic, once people start reading for themselves, when the holy texts contradict the claims of a religious authority. After that failure, Christianity has been Humpty Dumpty, never to be put together again. I suspect that is why we have such rigid, narrow hyper-individualism; as a last ditch attempt to create a container that can hold it together. That doesn't seem to be as required for Islam.

[quote=benjamindavidsteele post_id=2568 time=1724598912 user_id=6377]
This is a difficult discussion to have. You apparently are a believer in a specific religion and doctrine, whereas I'm agnostic toward all religions and doctrines.
.....
.....
[/quote]

1- {This is a difficult discussion to have}

Not at all. We actually are running the discussion here from the perspective of agnostic/bicameral point of view that you adopt.

Without any doubt, I'm on the side of defense against you, but not with my beliefs (Proofs are what we both care about.. even if either me or you, may appear, at many levels, to be having only shreds of proofs & non concrete ones, or even just speculations. Whatever, it's all what we do & must have)

2- {The challenge is that, between a believer and a non-believer, full communication is near impossible simply because they have no basis of agreement even about what they are discussing, why, and to what end}

Disagree. I think that respect & open-minded discussion is (in itself) a very good result. Even if disagreement reigns supreme after all, Sharing ideas is enough.
Again each one needs to put forth his evidences, and to try to untie the knots imposed by his opponent.

To be more honest with you, I strongly believe that convincing me by your idea or vice versa, is of no real benefit either to you or me, respectively.

And if you ask me what i need, i just need (in the first place) to learn more about everything and to assure to myself that I'm not missing anything important in the process of forming my ideology and point of view on the world. I hope that I could be proven sincere in this big claim (again to myself, in the 1st place).

3- "By excluding Sufism, you are already excluding Islam"

{There is debate within and outside of Islam about when Sufism began, whether early or much later}

I. First, I just want to point that my phrase wasn't decisive or determinative (I've put the laughing emoji for that)

Say it's my own belief in its totality. But I know, what i said before, that Islam now is of many different and sometimes (totally opposing) theses.

II. But again, and here what I see as an evidence (a pretty good one, maybe)

The origin of sufism is exclusively attributed to AhlulBayt (Muhammad's Family). Not mattering the debate about whether it's originated (early in the 1st century ,, or later in the 2nd/3rd century after prophet).

For example, A very early and famous sufis (Maarouf AlKarkhi) is said to be converted to Islam at the hands of Imam Ali Al-Redha (a grandson of Hussein son of Ali).

Or let that debate away and get a look at the main doctrine of Sufism. It's the Love. Love of God, Prophet and his Ahlulbayt. Not a trivial thing. It's something deeply entrenched in their prayers and practices.

E.g. The pilgrimage (as some of them would cleary say) to the shrines of Ahlulbayt is a thing that if you wouldn't do, a true sufi .. you wouldn't be.

And from here, to return back to what we said before: Sufism is well known in the Muslim world to be a sect of Shiaa but with no political agenda (A big difference that let them be classified as Sunna, for the main and very boiling point of conflict "historically/politically/even.. military" between Sunna and Shiaa was and remains this).

And you can ask your Muslim friend about the common saying particularly by what is called (radical Muslims/Salafeya) that Sufism and Shias are two faces of the same coin.

It's the truth. But this Coin represents a truly significant section of Muslim's population.

III. Why saying excluding them, like excluding Islam?

Cause while wandering across the very different sects of Islam, we are really wandering across different religions. And we need to differentiate precisely as possible as between them, just to identify what is from them deserves to be called Islam, the prototypical one. (The same applies directly to Christianity and any other religion at well)

I think that, It's a very important process of identification. And whatever what you'll find out later, your findings would be of very significant importance in every aspect. In the study, the analysis, the critic,,, etc for this particular religion.

E.g. When you're going to criticize the thesis in itself, the prophet himself (Being Muhammad or Jesus or whoever).

And here, I strongly recommend that we should here trace the way that leads to the most intimate figures to the prophet himself (His family). And it's a pretty difficult adventure as well, but whatever the bias that we couldn't avoid, there's no way else.

4- "Islam doesn't differ much from Christianity and Judaism."

{It's significantly different. Yes, Islam borrows from Judaism and Christianity}

Again .. Disagree.

Of course there's many differences (a million ones, let it be).

I think significance depends upon the perspective.
All the three pray to God (with a million differences in their prayers, practices and festivals)
All of them believe in God & afterlife.
All of them believe in Abraham, Jacob, David and Moses.
All of them (in their essence) seeks for nurturing the morality of human.

Islam and Judaism differ about Jesus (The former recognises him as a holy prophet, the later do not)

Christianity and Judaism don't recognise Muhammad.

You may see my saying, that the denial of Judaism and Christianity for my prophet is nonsignificant in my point of view, to be little baffling. Indeed it's not. In Sufism and for Shias as well, this is very welcome and very healthy for the community (even if many of muslims particularly don't see this)

5- Hence, we can observe what seems to be a big difference between Islam and Christianity > the nature of Jesus

{The Pauline Epistles seem to describe an entirely immaterial Cosmic Christ, the complete opposite of a completely material Jesus as in the Quran}

I think this is a type of delineation that's aggressive to some extent. Let not forget that both religions don't believe in complete materiality in general. That's a major theme in all autre monde's religions.

Humans, essentially, are immaterial souls that are embodied in clay. They are immortals.

I'm not trying to object to the fact that most of Muslims and christians see that there's a big difference in their taking over this subject. But, as you like it, {My curiosity is mostly intellectual}

If both believe that God is an immortal Soul/Mind. Humans are also immortal Souls/Minds. The only difference that you can see here is just one .. The beginning of this immortality/eternality.

God is God because he is Eternal with no beginning (1st) & no end
(2nd) (Humans are not eternal in the 1st, bu do well with the 2d = image of God).

And here's the difference between the 2 religions (Christianity claims full eternity for Jesus with God)

If we are still pursuing the intellectual path, I still see it as I was seeing it .. Trivial difference. I can't also hide my opinion on it that Christians have a hard obstacle to pass through with this. (Nowadays as you see, we face so many harsh problems in proving that there's a one eternal being, and so many people are not happy with it . The last thing we need is to say: wait, there's another one)

No offense is intended .. just kidding.

6- Moreover, to make the chiasm a little narrower. In Islam, Jesus is special, so special (I beg to you to take this considerably)

A- Rouh-Allah (Soul of God)
B- Born without human father (with a whisper from the holy spirit in the ears of holy Mary)
C- Was speaking with holy verses while he was neonate
D- Was miraculous (Resuscitating the dead, Curing the diseased, Returning vision to the blind)
E- Islam also denies that he was crucified, but ascended to heaven.. even he's still alive.
F- Moreover, Quran says that no one from who denied him from any religion, will never die .. before believing in him (even if it was at his death' moments) (Quran 4: Verse 159)

He's not just an immortal holy soul and a prophet. He is up to a level of an Archangel as well.

Yes, most of Christians still see that there's also a big difference (most of Muslims do the same as well)

7- {Islamic Jesus is closer to some early Gnostic sects} ..

Here, You did actually hit the point, perfectly.

And let whoever from the two sects see that this difference is so big (Intellectually, we see it a luxury of thinking)

Or in past words, it should be seen in a context of a philosophical/theological issue (that neither most of Muslims or Christians even want to bother themselves to comprehend what it actually means).

For example, most of Muslims look at Christians as polytheists (Mushrekins-Gentiles) because they believe in a partner/Son with God in his eternity.

But theologically also, it appears that believing that God is confined in a place (e.g. sky) or having a body or can be seen by eyes or sensed by senses (is a polytheistic & parternership- problem as well). And actually, so many Muslims believe in some or all of these.

Ironically, Quran itself says this about most of believers in God

[ And most of the people, even if you strived for it, are not believers ] (Quran 12: 103)
...
...
[ And most of those who believe in God, don't believe except while they associate with Him ] ( Quran 12: 106)

What I mean that the problem with Christianity in Islamic theology applies also to many (if not most of) Muslims themselves.

And you should ask here, from where do you get that theology of Islam that you're talking about.

And the answer is Ahlulbayt (Family of the prophet)

And we will return to it in details, later.

8- {Yet Judaism and Christianity,.... certainly not bicameral}

{That is not a belief among Jews and Christians who accept that God can still be a presently heard living voice}

I don't intend to show you as contradicting yourself. But I think you mean that not totally bicameral. Since believing in the ability of hearing God's voice up to now is a good criterion of bicameral mentality, even if vestigial.

9- Whatever, I should admit and confess that the last 9 paragraphs of your article are so rich in very good informations.

- Some of them are really so precious and explanatory to many things. The beneficial situation of Islam is not one of them. It's detrimental, another way. You alluded to it, by saying that
{so they felt no need to make claims of a single truth to be asserted and/or enforced upon all others}

This is a big problem in Muslim world, indeed.

- Another one about slavery, although I will object to it, it still so revealing to me.

I will comment on it as a last point in this reply. Unfortunately the reply is not completed yet.

The voice of God in Islam
The Theology of Prophet as revealed by his family. This is the vertebral column of the discussion and very important points on it needs to be clear.

It will be so soon (insha'Allah). Tomorrow.. at most.

But about slavery. I should remind you that the main political problem of prophet Muhammad with the leaders of Arabs wasn't actually his refusal to their paganism but was exactly the problem of slavery and slaves.

The most intimate companions of the prophet were slaves (Salman, Ammar, Sohayb, Bilal .. etc)

His caller for prayers was Bilal (an African slave). Take care here that those in islamic history, literature and in public cultures are called lords (our lord (Sayedna) Bilal, our lord (Sayedna) Ammar .. etc)

This was a disaster to the leaders of Arabs (try to review this please). To tell them that you and your slave are the same in the eye of God. Even, he may be better than you if he was by his heart and his deeds.

Just to the point that some of the critics and opponents of the prophet, saw that this was his clever play. For in that community, the elites were few, and the majority were either slaved or oppressed. You see the point? He was the Savior, the Mentor, the Freedom-Giver to all of these people.

He taught his companions that freeing a neck (of a slave) is worth so much of prayers and good deeds.

He made it, alone, as a unique expiation for many sins.

Even more, for those who can't or don't want to free their slaves, they are obliged to treat them as their family, to feed them from what they eat, to clothe them from what they wear.

Hence, they all are slaves (Abeed) of God. Not just that. True worshipping/Active Slavery (Obodeya-Ebad) to God is a high degree that not everyone can reach it.

For to be a true slave to God, you must not fear anyone or anything.

In opinion of many scholars, this slavery doesn't mean oppression. Come on please, it's the actual world that we live in. Even, if you don't believe in God, you can't deny the fact that all of us are enslaved by this universe and affected by everything in it (the temperature, the air, the water, the earth .. etc)

And this is not a digression, because this will be discussed later on part of theology. The omnipresence of God that means directly that everything if it's not him, it's from him, it belongs to him.

There's a verse in Quran that's recommended strongly to be said in sufferings and losses

[ Who, when afflicted with calamity, say:
We belong to God and to him we shall be back ] (Quran 2:156)

I mean that the slavery to God in Islam, is a recurrent theme in many political revolutions and upsets that occured through history in islamic world. And all the sects of Islam nearly concur that's it's a way of human freedom, not the reverse.

Last thing to be mentioned here is a saying of prophet (a sort of saying that's called the forty holy sayings of God)

[ And as My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (extra prayers or deeds) till I love him. When I love him I become his ears with which he hears, his eyes with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his leg with which he walks ]

And this saying (Hadith) is universal among all sects of Islam. You can ask our Muslim friend about it, also.

10- So enough today & excuse me. I'm actually writing on the phone.

Keep on waiting till I end the remaining part.

Best wishes and regards

[b][size=150]{Ali .. The Forgotten and the Unforgettable}[/size][/b]

A necessary prologue for identification of Quran and of Ali (The philosopher of Islam).

[b][size=150]A- Relationship to prophet:[/size][/b]
- Cousin of Muhammad, raised by him from his early childhood
- Husband of Prophet's daughter Fatima and father of the only legacy of him (AlHasan & AlHussayn)
- The most intimate person to Muhammad, the leader of his army and the only heir of his knowledge.

[b][size=150]B- Sayings of Muhammad about Ali[/size][/b]

I just need to remind, that all of this is not to convince you about anything, but to put the responsibility on the responsible and to take the word from the mouth that pronounced it.

And just 3 sayings of Muhammad about Ali from many hundred ones (the three also are universal among all islamic sects, no one denied it ever)

I. I'm the town of knowledge & Ali is the Gate.

II. Ali for me is as Aaron for Moses (Aaron is the spokesman of Moses in Quran).

III. No one Conveys/Communicates/Tells about me, except me .. and Ali.

This is a very very important thing to know while trying to discuss/criticize Islam. For from the many Islams that you see now in the world, here's where you can find the original/prototypical one.

[b][size=150]C- Quran[/size][/b]

If we want to discuss Quran we must be very aware of an ignored fact about it (not even most of Muslims ignore it, but it's the very source of confusion, radicalism, extremism, loss, conflict, violence .. etc that you can see easily in the Muslim world by a little glancing on it)

This fact is that Quran speaks about itself, that it's veiled scripture (Hidden/veiled book) and that no one except the so purified ones, can decipher its secrets.

*

α- [[b]That is indeed an honourable recitation
In a Hidden (Maknoun) Book
Which none can touch but the purified[/b]]
[Quran 56 : 77-79]

Ironically, when you search the translation of (Maknoun = Hidden) over internet, you will find it translated (Well-guarded or Well-protected)

And this is horribly wrong. If you just put the arabic word
مكنون
In google translate, it will give you > [b]Be Hidden[/b] !!!

Indeed, in arabic it means deeply hidden.

Doesn't the muslim arabic translators know arabic??
Absolutely not.

Quran also used the same adjective to describe the hidden pearls in Oyster Shells in the depths of sea (Al-LoaLoa Al-Maknoun)

So, They know the meaning well.
But it's the general denial of the idea ! (No one agrees that it's a scripture beyond their reach)

*

β- Not just this verse.
Quran talks implicity about a coming day when its hermeneutics and exegesis will be done

[Quran 7:53]

[ [b]Do they await except its interpretation/exegesis? The Day its exegesis comes, those who had ignored it before will say, "The messengers of our Lord had come with the truth[/b].....]

Again, look for the English translations over internet you will find exegesis translated as [results]

Just do it again .. this the arabic word in Quran (Taaweel)

تأويل

Copy and paste it in Google translate and see (the result) .. it will give you [Interpretation]

Again, this is unforgivable because the science of Taaweel is the oldest science in Islam (The science of Interpretation of Quran)

Every child in primary school know that it doesn't have any thing to do with (result)!

It comes from arabic word (Aowal) means (the First).. and meant to be like (going to the first and original meaning) .. not the other way (the last .. result) !!!

*

γ- Another verse where (Taaweel/interpretation) is mentioned in [Quran 3:7]

And here you'll find the translation true (on the same webpages), cause it's so hard to twist its neck here.

[[b]they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation. And NO ONE KNOWS ITS INTERPRETATION EXCEPT GOD[/b]]

This is a significant fact to know.

Significant to the point that many of the arab christians notice it clearly and are used to be laughing on it, saying: your God gave you a book that he says about it that no one knows its interpretation except him ! For the sake of what? Or what you do with this?!!!!

δ- You can ask any muslim about the singular letters that some chapters of Quran begin with like (Alpha, Lambda, Mu) ([b]Alef, Lam, Meem[/b]). What's the true meaning of it, the true not the speculations here and there. And you'll see the mouths shutting, and the hands raising, up.

And you will excuse me, but this is the most little things that we need to explain to make the picture just deserving to be called (somewhat.. clear)

[b][size=150]D- The theological legacy of Ali[/size][/b] (Very brief historical facts)

I. Historically, it should be known that after the early conflict over the leadership of the state after the prophet, all history books keep silent about Ali (actually, he who was silent, no matter what was the cause)

II. He reappeared suddenly upon the Egyptian revolution against Othman (the 3rd leader/Caliphate in Islam). Othman was killed. And Ali was asked violently by the revolutionaries to be the new Caliphate. Strong objections and rebels arose from many different sides, and bloody wars began. To meet the first, Ali was obliged to travel to Iraq where he will live his last four years before being killed in his prayer.

III. Here and only here, the Theology and Philosophy of Muhammad could be clearly seen. Just wait and see.

Through these years, hundreds of sermons and letters were documented after Ali. The most famous and trusted of them were collected by one of his grandsons (the 11th grandson) in a book called (Nahjul Balagh) [The Approach of RHETORIC/ The Path to Eloquence]

IV. The book was collected from many different trusted sources, just before the collapse and destruction of Baghdad by the Mongolian invasion.

From its title, It was meant to be a book of learning arabic language, rhetorics and eloquence (not meant to discuss politics or theology. Both of them are involved in it).

V. Authorization of the book

In the Sunni world, it's famous to be exclusively a Shiaa's book, but the authority of it (particularly the long and very famous sermons) is nearly beyond doubt. Not just for authorization by many scholars, but for the language and the content itself that as some of interpreters of the book says .. it's just beyond the capability of anyone in the arabic world.

Or another words, at these times particularly, the poetry and rhetorics was a holy thing (it was always the situation in the arabic world .. and this is the main reason the Quran was astonishing to them .. its rhetorics).

And nearly, till the collapse of the arabic empires and the rise of the turkish (Ottoman) one, the capability of arabic poetry and rhetorics was something not just like a treasure, it was a dangerous power that even the caliphates and princes feared it so much. (Review this please)

So, (in the words of Ibn Abi-AlHadid, one of the most famous interpreters of the book): (No body whoever he is, could make these masterpieces and go to attribute it to anyone else, but himself).

And we are going finally to take some excerpts from the book and see what's the content of it, and see the forgotten theology of Islam.

And from here we can finally judge, is it a collapse of bicamerality or not?

Are the voices of God absent in Islam or not?

If not, why it's not and .. even cannot?

{Theology of Muhammad, according to Ali}

We will take excerpts from ten sermons the most important and significant of them is the first, 8th and 10th (Sermons 1, 182 & 186).

Here we will see a detailed description of the essence of divinity as seen by the most intimate student of Muhammad. (we should actually be getting direct knowledge about Muhammad's theology)

1- Sermon 1

{Praise is due to God (Allah) ..., whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach;

He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence

I- The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him,
II- the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him,
III- the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness,
IV- the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure,
V- and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute.

VI- Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like,
VII- and whoever recognises His like regards Him two;
VIII- and whoever regards Him as two recognises parts for Him;
IX- and whoever recognises parts for Him mistook Him;
X- and whoever mistook Him pointed at Him;
XI- and whoever pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him;
XII- and whoever admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.
XIII- Whoever said: ‘In what is He?’, held that He is contained.
XIV- and whoever said: ‘On what is He?’, held He is not on something else.

XV- He is a Being, but not through phenomenon of coming into being.
XVI- He exists but not from non-existence.

XVII- He is with everything but not in physical nearness.
XVIII- He is different from everything but not in physical separation.

XIX- He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments.
XX- He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation.
XXI-He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence}

In conclusion .. God is the unknowable Unknown ..
Look at (XVII & XVIII) .. a some sort of divine paradox as Fritjof Capra in "the Tao of Physics" like to say).
Or you can say God (from Ali's perspective) is everything and the same time he's different from everything.

Remember, we are not concerned about the trueness or falseness of this doctrine (we just need to describe it)

*

2- Sermon 65

{Praise be to Allah for Whom one condition does not proceed another so that He may be the First before being the Last or He may be Manifest before being Hidden}

Pure Mysticism.

*

3- Sermon 91

{Time does not change over Him, so as to admit of any change of condition about Him. He is not in any place so as to allow Him movement (from one place to another)}

*

4- Sermon 152 (A & B)

A- {Praise be to Allah who is proof of His existence through His creation, of His being eternal through the newness of His creation, and through their mutual similarities of the fact that nothing is similar to Him.

((Senses cannot touch Him and curtains cannot veil Him)), because of the difference between the Maker and the made, the Limiter and the limited and the Sustainer and the sustained}

The same paradox again .. Cannot be veiled .. Cannot be revealed !

Again, pure Mysticism.

B- {He is One but not by the first in counting, is Creator but not through activity or labour, is Hearer but not by means of any physical organ, is Looker but not by a stretching of eyelids, is Witness but not by nearness, is Distinct but not by measurement of distance, is Manifest but not by seeing and is Hidden but not by subtlety (of body). He is Distinct from things because He overpowers them and exercises might over them, while things are distinct from Him because of their subjugation to Him and their turning towards Him}

A lot could be said here but we just want to point to the distinction and the reasons for the distinction (not distance/ not even materiality)
And being one (not in counting or in the literal translation "one not by interpretation of numbers)

*

5- Sermon 155

{Intellects cannot comprehend Him by fixing limits for Him since in that case to Him would be attributed shape. Imagination cannot catch Him by fixing quantities for Him for in that case to Him would be attributed body}

*

6- Sermon 163

{He determined the limits of things at the time of His creating them, keeping Himself away from any likeness.

Imagination cannot surmise Him within the limits of movements limbs or senses.

It cannot be said about Him: "whence";

and no time limit can be attributed to Him by saying "till".

He is apparent, but it cannot be said "from what".

He is hidden, but it cannot be said "in what".

He is not a body which can die, nor is He veiled so as to be enclosed therein.

He is not near to things by way of touch, nor is He remote from them by way of separation.

He precedes every extremity and limit, and every counting and numbering.

He is far above what those whose regard is limited attribute to Him, such as the qualities of measure}

*

7- Sermon 179

{ He is near to things but not (physically) contiguous. He is far from them but not (physically) separate.

He is a speaker, but not with reflection.

He intends, but not with preparation.

He moulds, but not with (the assistance of) limbs.

He is subtle but cannot be attributed with being concealed.

He is great but cannot be attributed with haughtiness.

He sees but cannot be attributed with the sense (of sight).

He is Merciful but cannot be attributed with softness of heart}

*

8- Sermon 182

{Time and period have not preceded Him. Increase and decrease do not occur to Him.

He cannot be perceived by imagination nor measured by understanding.

IHe who spoke to Moses clearly and showed him His great signs without the use of bodily parts, organs of speech or pronunciation}

Take notice please of the last phrase about the voices of God without pronunciation.

(بلا نطق) !

9- Sermon 185

{He is such that senses cannot perceive Him, place cannot contain Him, eyes cannot see Him and veils cannot cover Him.

Imagination cannot encompass Him. He manifests Himself to the imagination with his help for the imagination, and refuses to be imagined by the imagination. He has made imagination the arbiter (in this matter).

He is not great in the sense that he has a vast volume and great body.

Nor is He mighty in the sense that He has extended limits and extensive frame.

But He is great in affairs and mighty in authority}

*

10- Sermon 186

{He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His Oneness, nor does he who likens him, grasp His reality.

He who illustrates Him does not signify Him.

He who points at Him and imagines Him does not mean Him.

Everything that is known through itself has been created,

and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause).

He works but not with the help of instruments. He fixes measures but not with the activity of thinking.
He is rich but not by acquisition.

By His creating the senses it is known that He has no senses.

By the contraries in various matters it is known that He has no contrary,

and by the similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him.

He produces affection among inimical things. He fuses together diverse things, brings near remote things and separates things which are joined together. He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers.

Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out things similar to themselves.

The word "munzhu" (since) disproves their eternity,

the word "qad" (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence= about to), disproves their being from ever

and the word "lawla" (if it were not) keep them remote from perfection.

Through them the Creator manifests Himself to the intelligence, and through them He is guarded from the sight of the eyes.

Stillness and motion do not occur in Him, and how can that thing occur in Him which He has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert to Him which He first created, and how can a thing appear in Him which He first brought to appearance.

If it had not been so, His Self would have become subject to diversity, His Being would have become divisible, and His reality would have been prevented from being deemed Eternal.

If there was a front to Him there would have been a rear also. He would need completing only if shortage befell Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him.

Through the might of His abstention (from affectedness) He is far above being affected by things which affect others.

He is that which does not change or vanish. The process of setting does not behove Him.

Imagination cannot reach Him so as to assign Him quantity. Understanding cannot think of Him so as to give him shape.

He cannot be described through (the possession of) parts, or through limbs and organs, or by a an accidental quality or alteration or portions. It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, or end or termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect.

[He is not inside things or outside them]

[He conveys news, but not with the tongue or voice]

He listens, but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing.

[He says, but does not utter words]

He remembers, but does not memorise. He determines, but not by exercising His mind. He loves and approves without any sentimentality (of heart). He hates and feels angry without any painstaking.

When He intends to create something He says ‘"..Be" and it is’ (2:117),
[ but not through a voice that strikes (the ears) is that call heard].

[His speech is an act of His creation]

End of excerpts

Discussion follows.