Mainly I am curious if people think this seems like it makes some sense or seems reasonable in general.

My simple summary of how Tibetan Buddhism came to be the State Religion of Tibet


Many of the ideas in Buddhism evolved from the beliefs of the Hindus, whose religion is obviously very much the older of the two. At some point in time, some of Buddhists crossed the Himalayan mountains into Tibet and there practiced Buddhism. It should be noted that the Himalayas are a fairly decent barrier to travel. In the isolated context of Tibet, Buddhism combined with the local Tibetan polytheistic religions and over time a new Religion emerged – Tibetan Buddhism. This is evident because some of the beliefs, religious-symbols and religious-festivals of modern Tibetans have roots stretching back far before Buddhism. For example; the mandalas is a special symbol of polytheistic Hindu origin - which now has a special place in the Tibetan Buddhist society.

After sometime in Tibet, Buddhism inspired a religious leader, Dalai Lama, and he gathered some followers and was considered the reincarnation of Buddha. Over the centuries grand Temples were built and other enlightened religious figures (Lama) became powerful. Soon the entire society repositioned its culture to worship Buddha. Incidentally, it’s not always easy to change a native religion, of course some wars were fought along the way - the Tibetan Buddhist came out on top. Although now everyone is a Buddhist, there have been arguments as to what Buddha would want and, as usually happens, other schools of Buddhism have evolved and each has many followers today: for example the Nyingma and Kagyu.

Most Tibetan-Buddhists are not very educated and would be surprised to realize many of their beliefs are pre-Buddhist and are a combination of Buddhism and Tibetan nature worship.

Anyway, now Tibetan Buddhism is the State Religion in Tibet. Most Tibetans believe in Buddhism, raise their children to believe in Buddhism and would be god smacked to think it was anything other than the divine religion they always been taught to believe it is.


Does this seem fare enough? If so a simple yes or no would be great.

Michael

Actually many Chinese people came to India on a regular basis. They might have taken Buddhism to China and from there to Tibet.

It was the dominant religion in India for a thousand years.

Actually many Chinese people came to India on a regular basis. They might have taken Buddhism to China and from there to Tibet.

It was the dominant religion in India for a thousand years.Well that's fair enough - but, minus the route, does the rest seem OK?

What do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism

Certain Buddhist scriptures arrived in southern Tibet from India as early as 173 CE during the reign of Thothori Nyantsen, the 28th king of Tibet. During the third century the scriptures were disseminated to northern Tibet (which was not part of the same kingdom at the time). The influence of Buddhism was not great, however, and the form was certainly not tantric, as the earliest tantric scripture texts (tantras) had only just then begun to be codified in India.

The most important event in Tibetan Buddhist history, however, was the arrival of the great tantric mystic Padmasambhava in Tibet in 774 at the invitation of King Trisong Detsen. It was Padmasambhava (more commonly known in the region as Guru Rinpoche) who merged tantric Buddhism with the local Bön religion to form what we now recognize as Tibetan Buddhism. In addition to writing a number of important scriptures (some of which he hid for future tertons to find), Padmasambhava established the Nyingma school from which all schools of Tibetan Buddhism are derived.

Tibetan Buddhism exerted a strong influence from the 11th century AD among the peoples of Central Asia, especially in Mongolia and Manchuria. It was adopted as an official state religion by the Mongol Yuan dynasty and the Manchu Qing dynasty of China.

Yes, it seems so.

What about you? Do you think so?

Isn't 'Bon' shamanism missing?

Isn't 'Bon' shamanism missing?Yes, I should have said: from Hindu as well as 'Bon' shamanistic traditions.

Would you agree?
Michael

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_great

(304 BC–232 BC) was an Indian emperor, who ruled the Maurya Empire in present-day eastern India from 273 BC to 232 BC. After a number of military conquests, Ashoka reigned over most of India, South Asia and beyond, from present-day Afghanistan and parts of Persia in the west, to Bengal and Assam in the east, and as far south as Mysore. A later convert to Buddhism, Ashoka established monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Shakyamuni Buddha, and according to Buddhist tradition was closely involved in the preservation and transmission of Buddhism.

Missions to spread the Dharma/Dhamma''

Ashoka was the sponsor of the third buddhist council of Vibhajjavada (current Theravada) buddhism. After this council he sent buddhist monks to spread this religion to other countries, which were known to him at the time. The following table is a list of the countries he sent missionaries to, as described in the Mahavamsa, XII [4]:

Country name.......................................Name of leader of mission
(1) Kashmir-Gandhara.......................................Maj jhantika
(2) Mahisamandala (Mysore)................................Mahadeva
(3) Vanavasi .......................................Rakkhita
(4) Aparantaka (Gujarat and Sindh) ..................the Yona Dhammarakkhita
(5) Maharattha .......................................Mahadhammar akkhita
(6) "Country of the Yona" (Bactria/ Seleucid Empire).............Maharakkhita
(7) Himavanta (Nepal).......................................Majj hima
(8) Suvannabhumi (Thailand/ Myanmar) .....................Sona and Uttara
(9) Lankadipa (Sri Lanka) ...............................Mahamahinda (Asoka's son)

Actually buried in this small peace are a few ideas.
Perhaps they didn’t bother anyone to notice because there aren’t so many Buddhists and if there were maybe they wouldn’t care?


Lets look at this from a Secular Anthropological and Historical lens.


1) Buddhism evolved from earlier belief.
2) The physical separation (ie; Himalayas) of Tibetan Buddhism from Buddhism in India results in a separate and a new belief system which combines both the Tibetian Shamanistic/Polytheistic beliefs as well as this new Buddhist belief.
3) The proof of it’s past is in the retention of ancient symbols or structures that take on new meaning in this new religion.
4) There is always a rise of a Religious Leader who is more than generously revered (almost as a God).
5) The change in the entire structure of an entire society and the formation of a new Theocracy.
6) The natural split in belief and the different schools of thought. So Human.
7) The oblivion that today’s practitioners have in regards to the natural evolution of their belief from its polytheistic and Shamanistic roots.


This seems reasonable – from a secular view point?

It’s simple to see Tibetan Buddhism as simply a natural process of human intellect. There is no requirement of any sort for divine intervention. It could be thought of as a mental evolution of this particular meme.


I think perhaps this single event is the epiphany all Atheists have. Only they have it about their own belief. And they have the courage to accept it and with it accept their ultimate death and end.

That’s the point I wanted to make.
Now I’ve done the same with Islam. Feel free to read over it.

It’s verbatim.

Michael II

This is a simple summary of how Islam came to be the State Religion of Arabia


Many of the ideas in Judaism evolved from the beliefs of the Assyrians, whose religion is obviously very much the older of the two. At some point in time, some of Jews crossed the Arabian Desert into Arabia and there practiced Judaism. It should be noted that the Arabian Desert is a fairly decent barrier to travel. In the isolated context of Arabia, Judaism combined with the local Arabic polytheistic religions and over time a new Religion emerged – Islam. This is evident because some of the beliefs, religious-symbols and religious-festivals of modern Muslims have roots stretching back far before Islam. For example; the Moon is a special symbol of polytheistic Arabic origin - which now has a special place in the Islamic society.

After sometime in Arabia, Judaism inspired a religious leader, Mohammed, and he gathered some followers and was considered a prophet of Allah. Over the centuries grand Mosques were built and other enlightened religious figures (Imams) became powerful. Soon the entire society repositioned its culture to worship Islam. Incidentally, it’s not always easy to change a native religion, of course some wars were fought along the way - the Muslims came out on top. Although now everyone is a Muslim, there have been arguments as to what Allah would want and, as usually happens, other schools of Islam have evolved and each has many followers today: for example the Sunni and Shia.

Most Muslims are not very educated and would be surprised to realize many of their beliefs are pre-Islam and are a combination of Judaism and Arab nature worship.

Anyway, now Islam is the State Religion in Arabia. Most Arabians believe in Islam, raise their children to believe in Islam and would be god smacked to think it was anything other than the divine religion they always been taught to believe it is.


Fare enough?

Michael

Most Muslims are not very educated and would be surprised to realize many of their beliefs are pre-Islam and are a combination of Judaism and Arab nature worship.

Actually NO Muslim would be surprised by this at all.

Can you think why?:p

And Sunnis and Shias are not divided over what Allah wants, no Muslims are.

Again, can you think why?

Regarding Buddhism - I have always accepted it as 'a science of the mind' and heard it described as such by practising Buddhists. So it doesn't necessarily conflict with atheism.
It is an interesting history though...do you think the environment has shaped the ritual and theology during the 'caretaking' period rather than the mind of man?

Actually NO Muslim would be surprised by this at all.

Can you think why?:p

And Sunnis and Shias are not divided over what Allah wants, no Muslims are.

Again, can you think why?I once mentioned to another close friend (who has a PhD in Biochemistry speaks 3 languages and was raised Muslim for most of his life - before becoming Atheist) about how polytheistic Arabs used to perform the pilgrimage to the square rock in Arabia use to circle it and used to worship a god represented by the moon called Allah.

He was dumbfounded, I said, hey I don't know much other than that. So he himself set about researching it and I remember the next time I saw him he said: “Haa! I always knew it was some sort of bullshit like that!” (his exact words)

By “educated” I mean educated in Religious history, beginning with the very ancient Hittites Egyptians Hindu and Assyrians. How many Muslims do you know that can name the line of linguistic names that link Arabic Islam to their respective polytheistic Gods? Any that study Syriac and its influence on Islam? Any that know those words in the Qur'an that are Greek in origin? Any that know the changes that have occurred in the Qur’an over time? Any that know how the Qur’an was formed and by whom? I know some Muslims here at UNI that think that Qur’an dropped from Heaven (literally) onto Mohammed’s lap and has never changed at all. They are probably more educated than most people in the entire world (not just Muslim). So seriously, I doubt hardly any Muslims know of this stuff. If they could even find anything on the topic at all – many would not be inclined to the task of studying the topic (as most similarly uneducated Xians can attest to here in the “free” West!)


So that’s what I meant by educated.


The reason I didn’t change the word “educated” was because it is the first thing people take offence to. I have posted this exact thread before. Muslims never mind it the first time through. The second time, with the exact words and exact story those words “not very educated” hits. This is something I think is interesting – think about why and I will think on your questions too :)

So to be clear, I did not say “ignorant” nor did I say “stupid”. I said “educated” as in 7000 year old ancient Hittite and Assyrian theology. I think we can agree – its doubtful many are. I left it only because I found the response peculiar before and thought perhaps it’s an idea to ponder over.

Anyway, I only posted this so that you Sam could perhaps better understand Atheism from another viewpoint.


Have a nice weekend!
:)
Michael

Regarding Buddhism - I have always accepted it as 'a science of the mind' and heard it described as such by practising Buddhists. So it doesn't necessarily conflict with atheism.Yes me too. A Philosophy I suppose?

RIt is an interesting history though...do you think the environment has shaped the ritual and theology during the 'caretaking' period rather than the mind of man?I'm not sure of your question?

It seems Budhism builds on itself. Just as science and philosophy. Unlike many beleif it seems to accept that it can be improved upon and sets about doing so. Maybe it will so for ever?

Michael

Yes me too. A Philosophy I suppose?

I'm not sure of your question?

It seems Budhism builds on itself. Just as science and philosophy. Unlike many beleif it seems to accept that it can be improved upon and sets about doing so. Maybe it will so for ever?

Michael

As with any religion, there are exoteric and esoteric parts to it. Those who leave behind the exoteric parts of it would consider it a "science of the mind", while those who worship Buddha as a deity (with prayer requests and the like) might place more importance on exoteric rituals than their esoteric partners.

The esoteric parts of most religions (at least in the East) will build upon themselves, the exoteric parts remain quite stagnant.

The reason I didn’t change the word “educated” was because it is the first thing people take offence to. I have posted this exact thread before. Muslims never mind it the first time through. The second time, with the exact words and exact story those words “not very educated” hits. This is something I think is interesting – think about why and I will think on your questions too

Oh I am pretty aware that most Muslims know very little about religious history.

However, my questions still stand.

Though I must say, your atheist friends don't appear to have had much interest in religion anyway, if they did not know even that much about it. It is pretty common knowledge, especially for those who were "brought up Muslim".:p

And really I think atheists are just the other extreme of fundamentalists.

"I'm not sure of your question?"
Sorry Michael - I was a bit vague.
To put it another way: During the near-extinction of Buddhism, it was kept alive in the northern mountainous area; I am wondering if it had been a coastal area, for example, would this have affected the form and ideology of Buddhism in a different way?

However, my questions still stand.


Actually NO Muslim would be surprised by this at all.[QUOTE]Well the Muslim friend of mine Sedek, who is still a strong Muslim and just simply knows that the Qur'an dropped from heaven in it's exact present form and landed in the Prophets lap - Ahhh he was so unsurprised because he said it was a Xian plot and nothing is different than as his Imam said it is. So maybe the answer to your question is:

Reverent Denial = Nothing at all to be surprise by.

[QUOTE=samcdkey;1284856]And Sunnis and Shias are not divided over what Allah wants, no Muslims are.I didn’t even know Allah had wants and needs? I always thought it was this hard-drive like thing: all knowing, never changing, perfect in all ways, etc…???

really I think atheists are just the other extreme of fundamentalists.Strong Atheisms may be perhaps (what is a fundamentalist?) - I'm agnostic atheist.
Speaking of which: Are you agnostic theist?

Michael

During the near-extinction of Buddhism, it was kept alive in the northern mountainous area; I am wondering if it had been a coastal area, for example, would this have affected the form and ideology of Buddhism in a different way?Hmmmm.... maybe? I have no idea.

Buddhism was translated through many languages, carried 2000km around the mountains, through time and space through Chinese and Korean interpretation and right over to Japan?

Is it similar or a lot different? Are there core beliefs and ideologies that seem to carry on? Did it evolve for the better or the worse or is that a nonsensical question to ask of Buddhism?

I have no idea!
Michael

Well the Muslim friend of mine Sedek, who is still a strong Muslim and just simply knows that the Qur'an dropped from heaven in it's exact present form and landed in the Prophets lap - Ahhh he was so unsurprised because he said it was a Xian plot and nothing is different than as his Imam said it is. So maybe the answer to your question is:

Reverent Denial = Nothing at all to be surprise by.

I didn’t even know Allah had wants and needs? I always thought it was this hard-drive like thing: all knowing, never changing, perfect in all ways, etc…???



Michael

Ask Sadek how many prophets have preceded Mohammed.

And the reason why no Muslim should be surprised is because Islam is not a new religion. It is a reiteration of the same message over and over, of which only the presently existing ones are familiar to us, whether as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity or Judaism.

As for this:

Although now everyone is a Muslim, there have been arguments as to what Allah would want and, as usually happens, other schools of Islam have evolved and each has many followers today: for example the Sunni and Shia.

There have never been theological arguments in Islam, only individual opinions. All Madhabs are taught to all Islamic scholars as differing points of view. Though there was a divide between Shias and Sunnis for a long time, it was political in nature and not religious:

The renowned al-Azhar university of theology in Egypt, originally founded by the Shia during the reign of the Fatimid caliphate in 988[10], considers Shia philosophy to be an indivisible part of the body of Islamic jurisprudence. [11] Today, both Sunni and Shia students graduate from the Al-Azhar university which also teaches regarding both doctrines and uses certain Shia material in its courses. (See List of Shia books). On July 6, 1959, Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot -the head of the al-Azhar Theological school- announced the al-Azhar Shia Fatwa

1) Islam does not require a Muslim to follow a particular Madh'hab (school of thought). Rather, we say: every Muslim has the right to follow one of the schools of thought which has been correctly narrated and its verdicts have been compiled in its books. And, everyone who is following such Madhahib [schools of thought] can transfer to another school, and there shall be no crime on him for doing so. 2) The Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought. Muslims must know this, and ought to refrain from unjust prejudice to any particular school of thought, since the religion of Allah and His Divine Law (Shari'ah) was never restricted to a particular school of thought. Their jurists (Mujtahidoon) are accepted by Almighty Allah, and it is permissible to the "non-Mujtahid" to follow them and to accord with their teaching whether in worship (Ibadaat) or transactions (Mu'amilaat)[12][13].
2006)[14]


Speaking of which: Are you agnostic theist?

That smacks of indecision. I like to think I lean more towards theism than that.


Strong Atheisms may be perhaps (what is a fundamentalist?) - I'm agnostic atheist.

Perhaps fundamentalist is the wrong word. I should say religious extremist.

I agree, its not a question of whether the environment changed Buddhism for better or worse - but the variation is interesting as it has split Buddhism into e.g. Tantric-style in the north and Japan; and the 'great vehicle' style elsewhere.
I should add that obviously I am no expert on the history of Buddhism...just interested.

There have never been theological arguments in Islam, Well when I see a nut drive a car bomb into the other group - I'd say that qualities as a theological argument! Isn’t Islam political? If so it encompasses politics as well.

(a surefire way to invite bedlam)
That smacks of indecision. I like to think I lean more towards theism than that. No I devoted some time to the topic and have come to the conclusion it is logically impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to logically say PU or FSM or Allah do not exist.

Of course the opposite is possible – it just has never occurred. I am satisfied with my small understanding of our human mind to comprehend that people who talk to invisible things that talk back usually have a mental disorder. There are prophets all around us - I met one the other day at the corner. You should have seen his face when I started talking to the invisible person he was talking to! He looked at me like he had eaten a lime and then said: “You've got to be shitting me mate, what ... ya a crazy fella...?” And then kept talking to the invisible person!

Haaa! :p


I’ve met Christian theologians who have told me they were agnostic Christians. They accepted it was not possible to prove God logically but continued in their belief.

It's fare enough isn't it?
Michael

I should say religious extremist.What is an extremist? Is it extreme to dedicate ones entire life to servituse to Allah? Is it extreme to waste 5 portions of ones' day talking to a God? is it extreme to worry one will burn in Hell or to think others will?

zenbabelfish,

My too. I'd like to reach zen someday. So far nothing :(

Michael

Well when I see a nut drive a car bomb into the other group - I'd say that qualities as a theological argument! Isn’t Islam political? If so it encompasses politics as well.

(a surefire way to invite bedlam)

Do some research on those people, the ones who fly planes and cars and kill people and let me know the results.


No I devoted some time to the topic and have come to the conclusion it is logically impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to logically say PU or FSM or Allah do not exist.

Of course the opposite is possible – it just has never occurred. I am satisfied with my small understanding of our human mind to comprehend that people who talk to invisible things that talk back usually have a mental disorder. There are prophets all around us - I met one the other day at the corner. You should have seen his face when I started talking to the invisible person he was talking to! He looked at me like he had eaten a lime and then said: “You've got to be shitting me mate, what ... ya a crazy fella...?” And then kept talking to the invisible person!

Haaa! :p


I’ve met Christian theologians who have told me they were agnostic Christians. They accepted it was not possible to prove God logically but continued in their belief.

It's fare enough isn't it?
Michael

Quite fair.

Do some research on those people, the ones who fly planes and cars and kill people and let me know the results. You see, it's hard for me to simply dismiss the people who kill in the name of God as not religious when the religion that they practice has a God who has either Itself or via Its instruction - killed humans.

We’ve all read the OT.

If ME monotheistic religion was one of pure tranquility and peace. Then sure, I'd say OK, these guys are way off base. But I know the recorded deeds of this God and Its resume’ includes blood, death, pain and punishment.

Michael

You see, it's hard for me to simply dismiss the people who kill in the name of God as not religious when the religion that they practice has a God who has either Itself or via Its instruction - killed humans.

We’ve all read the OT.

If ME monotheistic religion was one of pure tranquility and peace. Then sure, I'd say OK, these guys are way off base. But I know the recorded deeds of this God and Its resume’ includes blood, death, pain and punishment.

Michael

Just do the research.:p

Just do the research.:pThat's what I'm saying Sam, regardless of what these guys are doing their God has eithre downright killed people or supported some people to kill some other people. The OT is full of it.

So why should I expect less from the humans that subserve it?

Actually buried in this small peace are a few ideas.
Perhaps they didn’t bother anyone to notice because there aren’t so many Buddhists and if there were maybe they wouldn’t care?


Lets look at this from a Secular Anthropological and Historical lens.


1) Buddhism evolved from earlier belief.
2) The physical separation (ie; Himalayas) of Tibetan Buddhism from Buddhism in India results in a separate and a new belief system which combines both the Tibetian Shamanistic/Polytheistic beliefs as well as this new Buddhist belief.
3) The proof of it’s past is in the retention of ancient symbols or structures that take on new meaning in this new religion.
4) There is always a rise of a Religious Leader who is more than generously revered (almost as a God).
5) The change in the entire structure of an entire society and the formation of a new Theocracy.
6) The natural split in belief and the different schools of thought. So Human.
7) The oblivion that today’s practitioners have in regards to the natural evolution of their belief from its polytheistic and Shamanistic roots.


This seems reasonable – from a secular view point?

I would replace 'reasonable' with 'typical'

:rolleyes:

farecall, yet its still a valid viewpoint.

You see, it's hard for me to simply dismiss the people who kill in the name of God as not religious when the religion that they practice has a God who has either Itself or via Its instruction - killed humans.

We’ve all read the OT.

If ME monotheistic religion was one of pure tranquility and peace. Then sure, I'd say OK, these guys are way off base. But I know the recorded deeds of this God and Its resume’ includes blood, death, pain and punishment.

Michael

I think I get the situation you are into. I guess it is like this : A muslim kills, or blows a bomb, before doing those, he says 'bismillah' (in the name of Allah), or Allahu akbar (Allah the greatest), things like that. Then the killing is concluded to be done as religious practice. Is that so?

zenbabelfish,

My too. I'd like to reach zen someday. So far nothing :(

Michael

All one has to do is let go...

Bon Voyage

I think I get the situation you are into. I guess it is like this : A muslim kills, or blows a bomb, before doing those, he says 'bismillah' (in the name of Allah), or Allahu akbar (Allah the greatest), things like that. Then the killing is concluded to be done as religious practice. Is that so?It may be a part of their religious belief.

However, the festivals that I posted are not a one off individual’s interpretation of some ancient religious text - they are an annual holiday celebrated by a large community of one religious belief in this manner of either cutting themselves or cheering those that do so or cutting the upper-face/forehead of ones child.
Against all apparent observations – this bloody festival is considered secular by those involved.
That Christians impaling their hands with nails still appears religious.


I’m not a Buddhist. I do think their meditative technique is worth investigating. Probably most Buddhists do not reach Zen. That doesn’t mean that the minority that do are not a reflection on their religion.
Does it?
Many times it’s is the minority that are the best reflection on the deepest beliefs. After all, most people just do as their parents tell them and other than that couldn’t give two craps.

So while the actions of a few may not represent those of the majority it is usually these few individuals that are truly devote in their belief. And I think it is a reflection on their respective religions:

If you will, take for example a very minority act – that of committing suicide in political protest. You do not think that the act is in any way, shape or form a reflection on the individual’s religous beleif? Even if it is a minority of those that commit it?

Here are some innocent kids walking a out a bombed out restaurant in Bali - bombed by some guys that thought they’d go to heaven. The lived in Indonesia and simply don’t like the influence the West has in the country. That was their protest. The other is THICH QUANG DUC a monk protesting in Saigon.


http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1062549073722_2003/09/07/bali_hana.jpg


http://www.quangduc.com/BoTatQuangDuc/Tuthieu.jpg



Do you notice any differences? Could they be in any way a reflection on their respective religions?

Michael

Bon VoyageThanks! we'll see.....

zenbabelfish,

Have you ever been on a long retreat? Like say - 11 days?

Michael

I've lived in woodland with the bare essentials for a month...longer but with weekend breaks occasionally. I was never totally alone - maybe 48 hour stretches. Not particularly anything to do with Buddhism but very zen.
I tend not to get involved with retreat groups as sometimes it can be an unenjoyable experience and I think discovery should be fun.

Even short periods of time in nature (or peaceful man-made environments) are good for contemplation...I don't believe we have to give up our comforts to achieve enlightenment...we just have to understand out true relationship to them.

Michael,
to get more of my understanding upon your thinking, I see a bit clearer I guess, that it is unavoidable that an act of a person (or a group) in one or other ways, will implicate that their action shows or reflects their beliefs.

I kinda agree with that thoughts, under some condition. Being ignorance of what the beliefs really are, the only way to see the beliefs is thru the actions of the believers. What we see is what we get.

But sometimes what we see is not what it is.

There is mindset in everyone, which contributes to determine how one considers and treats what one sees. On the other hand, there is also mindset in a anyone which influence how one practices one's belief. In both situations, there are two factors : the human (perspective), and the belief itself; which in many cases, SEEMS likely inseparable.

The belief (system) forbids to kill until certain condition reached (eg. war). They maybe setting their minds that they are in war (and actually they have been chased to every point of the earth; by interpol and intelligence; and anytime could be killed, like Imam Samudera, the one already killed, was considered to be the actor behind the Bali Bomb), and thus justifying themselves to blow bomb in a cafe full of people like in Bali (it is a shame for muslims).

In this case, is this the belief (system) itself, or the perspective ?
I guess, the whole countries on the earth agree that killing in war is just a duty, unavoidable, which is acceptable.

PS: I emphasize the word "system', in the consideration that a system could not work when certain parts of it is taken off.

LiveInFaith,

A couple questions:

- Did the first example (about Tibetan Buddhism) seem reasonable? I’m not asking if it is historically exact. Just does it seem reasonable?

- What about the Islamic analogy?

- Most monotheisms purport there is only one God and hence most monotheists take an attitude that their one manner of religion must be correct as everyone else is inherently wrong – particularly if they should be polytheistic or atheistic. In Indonesia a recent survey showed that >90% of Indonesians believe it should be a criminal offence to freely choose ones religion if one is a Muslim. That is, they should be punished by the State for attempting to leave Islam.
* Do you agree with this thinking?
* If not, do you think that this highly corrosive attitude is related in any way to their monotheistic belief at all?


Michael

A couple questions:

- Did the first example (about Tibetan Buddhism) seem reasonable? I’m not asking if it is historically exact. Just does it seem reasonable?

- What about the Islamic analogy?

Yes, they did.


- Most monotheisms purport there is only one God and hence most monotheists take an attitude that their one manner of religion must be correct as everyone else is inherently wrong – particularly if they should be polytheistic or atheistic. In Indonesia a recent survey showed that >90% of Indonesians believe it should be a criminal offence to freely choose ones religion if one is a Muslim. That is, they should be punished by the State for attempting to leave Islam.
* Do you agree with this thinking?
* If not, do you think that this highly corrosive attitude is related in any way to their monotheistic belief at all?

Michael

- I don't agree.
- It's a practice of non comprehensive thought of muslims, thus to the people, not to the belief system. They just don't want to loose their society members.

The belief system (Islam) says, once one reaches adultness, it's all on his/hers, and no one has responsibility or obligation upon his/her life (under assumption there is no destruction involved).

It's their fanatism which drives them not willing to loose any members of society. I don't know on what base they accuse conversion to be crime. I never find any verse in qur'an to support that stance. What I know, if one is not muslim, then it's the business between one and God, nothing to do with other muslims. Only once one a muslim, one should follow qur'an.

- I don't agree.

It's their fanatism which drives them not willing to loose any members of society. I don't know on what base they accuse conversion to be crime. I never find any verse in qur'an to support that stance. What I know, if one is not muslim, then it's the business between one and God, nothing to do with other muslims. Only once one a muslim, one should follow qur'an.Don’t we find a similar occurrence in monotheistic Xian Europe?
Doesn’t the Torah contain verses that justify the mistreatment of non-Jewish?
Doesn’t the Qur’an contain edicts that suggest non-Muslims to be treated differently than Muslims?

I don’t know about you but, with such a mind-set, it seems a very very small step towards discrimination - and even smaller step towards a Religious State controlling the very thoughts of it’s citizens. Surely not a place I want to live.


1) Why do you suppose that most majority Muslim countries (actually Xian and Jewish can be lumped in here - so lets say "monotheistic") have such despicable attitudes? It has nothing, nothing at all, to do with their religion? From SE Asian Indonesia to Arab KSA we have this same identical caustic attitude – yet you "disagree" it has anything at all to do with the Islamic Belief System? I find that very hard to swallow. If it has nothing to do with the religious belief system – then why? What else is there that connects Islamic Indonesia culturally with Islamic KSA other than Islam? (language – no, history – no, religion – yes)


One more question:
If, (lets just suppose here) … if, the USA bombed the Kaaba flat- into a million small little peaces of dust and rubble.

2) What would the response be in the Muslim world? What would your response be?


Yes, they did. I have another question:
According to Wiki, in 631-ish Muhammad rode a magical animal (of course this was overnight and no one saw him!) to the Al-Aqsa “Mosque” and back again. This was because this was considered the furthest Mosque. (Is this correct?) I wondered, why was this a “mosque” – when at this time Jerusalem was still under Byzantine rule? Wouldn’t it have been the Temple Mount or a Xian building?

Why a “Mosque”? Were there "Muslims" living there? Who were they? How many were there? Where did they live and what did they worship as a belief system?? There was no "Qur'an" at this time point after all.

Doesn’t this add some support to the notion that Muslims are actually conservative Jews? Basically Muhammad would have been an Arab that converted to Judaism and then someone added his story to the end of the Torha.

3) Is it reasonable that Muhammad was a conservative Jewish convert?
4) Do you really believe Muhammad rode a magical animal over night or is this simply a story?


Just curious,

Michael

FYI A mosque does not signify a building but a place of prostration.

The word Masjid derived from the root word "Saa" "Jaa" "Daa" in arabic which means (to prostrate) (act of worship). In this case not only the Mosque of Umar is considered as Masjid al-Aqsa but the entire precinct too. Muslims belief that the Temple of Solomon meant by the Jews was a Masjid and not a temple because Islam believe that all prophet conveyed the same message and prostrated to God during prayers.


According to the teachings of Islam, God in the Qur'an used the word Mosque when referring to the sites established by Abraham and his progeny as houses of worship to God centuries before the revelation of the Qur'an. The first of these spots is Masjid al-Haram in Mecca and the second is Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Before Mecca and Jerusalem came under muslim control in 630 CE and 638 CE, the site of the Kaaba, which was established by Abraham and Ishmael but at the time of Muhammad was used by pagans. In Jerusalem the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque, which was under Roman Empire, was an abadoned and abused area by the Romans but on which a house of worship established originally by Jacob forty years after his grandfather Abraham established the Kaabah and was used by succeeding prophets like David, Solomon, and Zacharias.

Don’t we find a similar occurrence in monotheistic Xian Europe?
Doesn’t the Torah contain verses that justify the mistreatment of non-Jewish?
Doesn’t the Qur’an contain edicts that suggest non-Muslims to be treated differently than Muslims?

I don’t know about you but, with such a mind-set, it seems a very very small step towards discrimination - and even smaller step towards a Religious State controlling the very thoughts of it’s citizens. Surely not a place I want to live.


It you mean is 'jizya', that I think is valid only in war period, where muslims obliged to go war, and non-muslim citizens under protection not-obliged, so they are charged with materials.

If there is different treatment, it is normal from the view point of society livinghood. Muslim brotherhood is a society.When you are not a member of such society, you will be treated differently by the society. In any societies, members have such privileges which not valid for non-members.

A prestigious club will reject you to enter when you come without wearing a nice suit.



1) Why do you suppose that most majority Muslim countries (actually Xian and Jewish can be lumped in here - so lets say "monotheistic") have such despicable attitudes? It has nothing, nothing at all, to do with their religion? From SE Asian Indonesia to Arab KSA we have this same identical caustic attitude – yet you "disagree" it has anything at all to do with the Islamic Belief System? I find that very hard to swallow. If it has nothing to do with the religious belief system – then why? What else is there that connects Islamic Indonesia culturally with Islamic KSA other than Islam? (language – no, history – no, religion – yes)


Yes they are connected by muslim brotherhood.
Yes, (most of them) see others of different religion will go to hell. But I also have some people with same interpretation with me that heaven and hell is fully god's wish, not us human to know, what to say determine.

You could be right.
There should be some reforms in the way of teachings of Islam. But I would not say to reform qur'an. It just needs a modern interpretation. Most indonesian muslims are taught using traditional way, which has been conducted since hundreds of years ago (the complex of madrasas in Indonesia - they call it 'pesantren', used to be an isolated place to defend themselves from the influence of Dutch colonials in 16th - 20th centuries). Sadly, they still use the same old yellowed book until now. Some has changed appropriate to the era, but most are still on their old traditional way.


One more question:
If, (lets just suppose here) … if, the USA bombed the Kaaba flat- into a million small little peaces of dust and rubble.

2) What would the response be in the Muslim world? What would your response be?



First, it's a destruction. I bet what you (I guess) think will happen.
I will curse the bomber, first for making destruction, and the second for triggering muslims angers, which then snowballing other destructions. It is triggering a predicted actions. If you are mostly predicted to kill someone when I do such things, why would I do?
Kaaba is symbol of unity and equality in brotherhood, where all muslims all over the world gather and no one brings their social status, all are equal.


I have another question:
According to Wiki, in 631-ish Muhammad rode a magical animal (of course this was overnight and no one saw him!) to the Al-Aqsa “Mosque” and back again. This was because this was considered the furthest Mosque. (Is this correct?) I wondered, why was this a “mosque” – when at this time Jerusalem was still under Byzantine rule? Wouldn’t it have been the Temple Mount or a Xian building?

Why a “Mosque”? Were there "Muslims" living there? Who were they? How many were there? Where did they live and what did they worship as a belief system?? There was no "Qur'an" at this time point after all.


sam explained it.



3) Is it reasonable that Muhammad was a conservative Jewish convert?
4) Do you really believe Muhammad rode a magical animal over night or is this simply a story?


Just curious,

Michael

3. I guess, could be Christian, Jews, or pagan.
4. This is faith. I believe what qur'an says.

Just for comparisaon, if we believe startrek transport mode could be achieved one day, why not?.
And some clerics has capability of knowing things far away, like they were in two places at the same time.

FYI A mosque does not signify a building but a place of prostration.
I suppose my question was along the lines of why would Mohammed choose a place that is significant to Jews unless he was Jewish? It seems obvious enough to me. He wasn’t born Jewish so he must have been a Jewish convert. Why else would the Qur’an be a 70% rewrite of the Torah? Either, it is just a big coincidence that Judaism is the heart of Islam, (over, say, another religious - like Aztec or Shinto) and another big coincidence that Jews just happened to live in the same area as Mohammed (over say native Americans or Japanese) and yet another big coincidence that Jewish religious sites just happen to also be “Islamic” religious sites and Mohammad just happened to ride a magic fairy creature though the night to Jerusalem the center of Jewish religious belief .................... or, and I am sure you will agree, the more likely answer is that Mohammed was a Jew.

Surely that is the only reasonable explanation? Don't you think so?

It you mean is 'jizya', that I think is valid only in war period, where muslims obliged to go war, and non-muslim citizens under protection not-obliged, so they are charged with materials. Apologist?
Surely you don’t think people should be distinguished based on their personal belief?
Do you?
Perhaps from a naïve perspective it may seem reasonable, but as we look throughout history we can clear-as-day see that millions upon millions of peoples were murdered, raped, plundered and enslaved, all for such an asinine distinction. I think with 20/20 hindsight, the more informed person would agree that such a distinction is not at allbeneficial for society.

Don’t you think so?

You yourself said it’s time for the traditional Islamic mindset to advance into modernity. Or so that’s what I thought you said????



A couple questions as to the Kaaba example:
Am I correct in assuming that you are suggesting that if the Kaaba was bombed to peaces that all hell would break loose in the Islamic world? If so then we agree. I mean, if the couple of silly cartoons caused such ramped death and destruction in the Islamic World - could you imagine what the destruction of the Kaaba would lead to!?!?

Anyway, the reason I brought this up is because I was again thinking about religion and the effect it has on the general person’s attitude. Somewhere in the mindset of society rests some religious influence? And if we must have religion (and we must) – why not pick one that promotes a peaceful state of mind?


Do you remember when some Muslims destroyed the two and a half millennia old Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? You know, these statues were, to some Buddhists, as sacred as the Kaaba is to many Muslims. After their utter animation we didn’t see a World were Buddhist leaders were chanting death to Islam and henceforth calling for revenge and ensuing carnage and rampages did we?
No we didn’t.
1) Why?
2) Why do you suppose the two religions inspire such different responses in their practitioners?
3) Which religion do you think the more peaceful: Islam or Buddhism?
4) If you were not a religious person- Which of the two would you choose to practice and why?

Michael

I suppose my question was along the lines of why would Mohammed choose a place that is significant to Jews unless he was Jewish? It seems obvious enough to me. He wasn’t born Jewish so he must have been a Jewish convert. Why else would the Qur’an be a 70% rewrite of the Torah? Either, it is just a big coincidence that Judaism is the heart of Islam, (over, say, another religious - like Aztec or Shinto) and another big coincidence that Jews just happened to live in the same area as Mohammed (over say native Americans or Japanese) and yet another big coincidence that Jewish religious sites just happen to also be “Islamic” religious sites and Mohammad just happened to ride a magic fairy creature though the night to Jerusalem the center of Jewish religious belief .................... or, and I am sure you will agree, the more likely answer is that Mohammed was a Jew.

Surely that is the only reasonable explanation? Don't you think so?

Michael

So what, in your opinion, is a Jew?

So what, in your opinion, is a Jew?A person who holds the majority of Jewish religious myths as their religious belief.

There is no such a thing as “race” and hence I do not believe in a race of Jews.

Both Xianity and Islam are Judaic in that they are centered around Jewish myths.

In the Xian faith the mythical character of Yehoshua is Jewish religious leader. He is a Jew. This is evident in the religion he, supposedly, founded – Xianity is Judaic. Half of Xianity is a plagiarism of the Torah.
The same reasoning holds true for Islam. And so the only reasonable conclusion is the Mohammed was Jewish. Why else copy and add to their particular religious myths?

If the Islamic myths mainly centered around Buddhist religous myths - then I would have said Mohammed was a Buddhist convert.
If Islam was a new and unique myth then I would say he was a Mohammedian – but that isn’t the case and so the likelihood is he was Jewish.

Doesn't that seem reasonable?
What do you think?

Michael

Apologist?
Surely you don’t think people should be distinguished based on their personal belief?
Do you?

Perhaps from a naïve perspective it may seem reasonable, but as we look throughout history we can clear-as-day see that millions upon millions of peoples were murdered, raped, plundered and enslaved, all for such an asinine distinction. I think with 20/20 hindsight, the more informed person would agree that such a distinction is not at allbeneficial for society.

Don’t you think so?

You yourself said it’s time for the traditional Islamic mindset to advance into modernity. Or so that’s what I thought you said????



No distintion, should be applied as general principle. That's the basic I agree with you.
The apology you saw in my post, I was talking about historical fact, in context to the beginiing of Islam, when there were wars. Not for today. I mean that's a practice contextual with situation, not a general principle.


A couple questions as to the Kaaba example:
Am I correct in assuming that you are suggesting that if the Kaaba was bombed to peaces that all hell would break loose in the Islamic world? If so then we agree. I mean, if the couple of silly cartoons caused such ramped death and destruction in the Islamic World - could you imagine what the destruction of the Kaaba would lead to!?!?


What else could happen? Anyone would imagine the same thing.


Anyway, the reason I brought this up is because I was again thinking about religion and the effect it has on the general person’s attitude. Somewhere in the mindset of society rests some religious influence? And if we must have religion (and we must) – why not pick one that promotes a peaceful state of mind?


That's very reasonable. Infact religion does give great influence on people's minds.
I don't know the others, only can speak for myself. I choose Islam because that's the first taught to me, then I found it gives me good influence, it promotes peace in me. No need to find other.

It doesn't allow me to cross the line (this course is called 'AKHLAQ', means morality), but it also asks me to fight when my rights under assaults.



Do you remember when some Muslims destroyed the two and a half millennia old Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? You know, these statues were, to some Buddhists, as sacred as the Kaaba is to many Muslims. After their utter animation we didn’t see a World were Buddhist leaders were chanting death to Islam and henceforth calling for revenge and ensuing carnage and rampages did we?
No we didn’t.
1) Why?
2) Why do you suppose the two religions inspire such different responses in their practitioners?
3) Which religion do you think the more peaceful: Islam or Buddhism?
4) If you were not a religious person- Which of the two would you choose to practice and why?

Michael

1. I don't know how the statue situation, was it still used, or just left no use? If it is not used, and the place of it was under the authority of government, then it's their business how to treat the land location. But if it were still used for Buddhists to worship, that was an assault. Buddhists supposed to protest.
The same for Kaaba. (If for instance), once it is left with no religion functions/activities, and Arabia were under authority of non-muslim which has no interest of having it, it's their business what to do with that rock-box.
So, surely muslim will angry for their place of worship is destroyed.

2. I don;t know much about Buddhism. From a Buddhist friend I get impression of fatalistic practice. But I could get wrong impression.

3. I could not compare. What do you mean with peace? No fight until one kills you, is it a peace?

4. I would still choose Islam, more balance in pursuing human nature of ambitions. It promotes to be well-being in material world, in line with being rich spiritually: be a great, pursue wealth, enjoy life, but do it right with 'akhlaq' (moral), don't cross the line.

A person who holds the majority of Jewish religious myths as their religious belief.

There is no such a thing as “race” and hence I do not believe in a race of Jews.

Both Xianity and Islam are Judaic in that they are centered around Jewish myths.

In the Xian faith the mythical character of Yehoshua is Jewish religious leader. He is a Jew. This is evident in the religion he, supposedly, founded – Xianity is Judaic. Half of Xianity is a plagiarism of the Torah.
The same reasoning holds true for Islam. And so the only reasonable conclusion is the Mohammed was Jewish. Why else copy and add to their particular religious myths?

If the Islamic myths mainly centered around Buddhist religous myths - then I would have said Mohammed was a Buddhist convert.
If Islam was a new and unique myth then I would say he was a Mohammedian – but that isn’t the case and so the likelihood is he was Jewish.

Doesn't that seem reasonable?
What do you think?

Michael

Putting aside faith, I agree with you.
There is no story what Muhammad believe in his life before 40. The community around him was pagan with hundreds of statues to worship. And being illiterate, who did teach him Torah?

Putting aside faith, I agree with you.
There is no story what Muhammad believe in his life before 40. The community around him was pagan with hundreds of statues to worship. And being illiterate, who did teach him Torah?You know, it’s really hard to say exactly what the “real” history is behind the “accepted” history.

For example: Most people believe “Jesus” was a real person. However, I think if one were to seriously investigate the matter they will come to the conclusion Jesus is an allegory. Ironically enough, half of the Xian population in the first century understood Jesus was not a real person.

Interesting huh?

So it may be that Mohammed could read and write. Or it may be that Mohammed was illiterate and that he heard the stories and instructed people to write down his interpretation? He may have had a memory like Mozart – who could write the musical score for each instrument for entire opera on just one listening! Maybe his advisors wrote the everything? Perhaps the Quran itself was written by Zoroastrians well versed in Jewish literature?

So, it’s hard to say when hearsay becomes myth and myth becomes belief and belief become religion… … … .. ..

Michael


OK – I’m off to the coast for 5 days of R&R! Take care!

A person who holds the majority of Jewish religious myths as their religious belief.

There is no such a thing as “race” and hence I do not believe in a race of Jews.

Both Xianity and Islam are Judaic in that they are centered around Jewish myths.

In the Xian faith the mythical character of Yehoshua is Jewish religious leader. He is a Jew. This is evident in the religion he, supposedly, founded – Xianity is Judaic. Half of Xianity is a plagiarism of the Torah.
The same reasoning holds true for Islam. And so the only reasonable conclusion is the Mohammed was Jewish. Why else copy and add to their particular religious myths?

If the Islamic myths mainly centered around Buddhist religous myths - then I would have said Mohammed was a Buddhist convert.
If Islam was a new and unique myth then I would say he was a Mohammedian – but that isn’t the case and so the likelihood is he was Jewish.

Doesn't that seem reasonable?
What do you think?

Michael

And where did Mohammed claim otherwise?
(i.e claim he was bringing a different religion?)

And where did Mohammed claim otherwise?
(i.e claim he was bringing a different religion?)Point taken, and, in another thread, you did say something to the effect that Jerusalem held great significance in very early Islam?

So with this in mind, the notion that God needed a new Prophet to fix some things, well, as an atheist (one that accepts the World needs some sort of religious belief) I kind of think to myself – what kind of idiot God thinks its worthwhile to make a couple insignificant corrections to one particular religion that happens to be biased towards Jewish myths, corrections that don’t seem to add value but instead leave the World in angst for thousands of years.

Xians killing Jews, Muslims killing Xians, Jews killing Muslims .. .. .. all over what?

What was the great revelation into the human condition that was worth the rivers of blood? The phrase: “…. and Mohammed was the Last Prophet”.

One must ask – was it worth it? Really, it seems more a cult of personality as you yourself said that this is the second act one must fulfill to be Muslim.

Anyway, to me, as I see all religion as simply myth, I have a feeling that if one were to invent a religion then perhaps the years that this Buddha fellow sat in silent contemplation on the human condition were probably much better spent than simply adding this simple nondescript phrase.

But, then again, my Chinese friend once told me: “I’m converting from Buddhism’s to Xianity – Buddhism is too difficult and too much of a downer…” Knowing full well what I think of Xianity! :p

Well now, I accept I was wrong.

It’s not that the World needs some sort of religious belief – its that the World needs many different kinds of belief. Maybe even monotheisms ;)


OK, I’m taking 5 days off to swim in the ocean!

Take care!
Michael

The Kaaba is also associated with Abraham, just like the precinct of the Masjid al Aqsa

The Kaaba is also associated with Abraham, just like the precinct of the Masjid al AqsaWas the Kaaba associated with Abraham pre-Islam? Did traditional Jews think that the Kaaba was a sacred place?

Was the Kaaba associated with Abraham pre-Islam? Did traditional Jews think that the Kaaba was a sacred place?

It was a sacred place, though associations with Abraham are not known.

Academics believe that the stories of Abraham and Ishmael and the divine origin of the Kaaba are myths. Most academics do accept that the Kaaba was a cult center housing a number of gods, that it was a pilgrimage center, and that the Black Stone was a feature of the pre-Islamic Kaaba. However, there is not enough evidence to prove the theories one way or another.

It was a sacred place, though associations with Abraham are not known.

*************
M*W: As I understand the myth, the Kaaba is the house that Abraham built for Hagar and Ishmael. Legend is it that he traveled to their house every year, and he continued to take care of them. In fact, I believe I've also read that Abraham had other children with Hagar. I know he had more than just Ishmael and Isaac.

*************
M*W: As I understand the myth, the Kaaba is the house that Abraham built for Hagar and Ishmael. Legend is it that he traveled to their house every year, and he continued to take care of them. In fact, I believe I've also read that Abraham had other children with Hagar. I know he had more than just Ishmael and Isaac.

In the Quran, it is sometimes referred to as Becca

The Qur'ân talks about Bakkah (the older name of Makkah) being the first house of worship appointed for mankind. It also addresses this place as Umm ul-Qurâ i.e., Mother of the Settlements.

"The most important shrine established for the people is the one in Becca; a blessed beacon for all the people. In it are clear signs: the station of Abraham.

The station of Abraham or Muqaam-e-Ibrahim is a site designated as such in the Masjid al Haram, but the origin(for deciding this location) is unknown to me.

http://www5.flickr.mud.yahoo.com/photos/70511280@N00/295493495/

Gibbons has also indicated its pre-Islamic status:

The genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era: in describing the coast of the Red sea the Greek historian Diodorus has remarked, between the Thamudites and the Sabeans, a famous temple, whose superior sanctity was revered by all the Arabians; the linen of silken veil, which is annually renewed by the Turkish emperor, was first offered by the Homerites, who reigned seven hundred years before the time of Mohammad.

There are several stories associated with it:

The pre-Islamic records of the Kaʿbah indicate that it was an ancient shrine and place of sacrifice. The geographer Ptolemy refers to Mecca as Macoraba, a term that is likely cognate with South Arabian mikrab (temple), and Northwest Semitic qurbān (sacrifice). Arabic records indicate that the Kaʿbah was a place of pagan sacrifice until the arrival of Islam. Qur˒anic verses and Muslim legends assign an importance to the Kaʿbah similar to the position of the Jerusalem Temple for Judaism. Many Western scholars have pointed to similarities among stories about the two shrines. It is said to be at the center of the earth and the location at which Adam first performed worship of God. It is thought to be directly beneath a heavenly counterpart that some hold to be the "real" Kaʿbah. Under heavenly guidance, it is said to have been first constructed by Abraham (Ibrāhīm) and his son Ishmael (Ishmā'īl) when the Sakīnah circled the spot and instructed them to build. The Black Stone is believed to have been brought from heaven by the angel Gabriel (Jibrīl), giving rise to modern, secular speculation that the stone is a meteorite. The nearby well of Zamzam was the source of water for Ishmael and Hagar when they were cast into the desert. Abraham was the first to institute the pilgrimage (ḥājj), and it is held to be the location of the graves of Abraham, Ishmael, Hagar and a number of prophets.