Sirius in the Qur’an

Astrology is a core part of occultism. Obviously, ancient peoples relied upon observation of the skies to determine their religion. The most obvious deity is the Sun. We have named our holiest day after the Sun (Sunday/Domingo, the day of our Lord) — but what about when the Sun goes away? We have night, and the brightest star in the sky is Sirius.

The reappearance of Sirius before the summer solstice foretold the flooding of the Nile, around which the Egyptians formed the cult of Isis, Osirus, and their son Horus. This trinity represented fertility and rebirth in the afterlife.

The Egyptians used the below logo for Sirius.

Instead of swearing on the gods, Socrates suggested swearing by the star Sirius.  It turns out, the Qur’an acknowledges our 5th closest star system.

The chapter itself is named an-Najm (“The Star”) for an unknown star mentioned in the first verse, which scholars prefer not to guess. I propose it is Sirius.

– This chapter also contains the infamous verse which Salman Rushdie was condemned for, referring to the three pagan goddesses of the Quraysh tribe, said to be the daughters of Allah (sura 53, verses 19-20).

– This sura endorses the idea that Sufi scholars like Prince Dara Sikuh came up with, that the Hindu deities are merely names for the angels.

– In a sura that begins with an ambiguous invocation of a star, invokes three pagan goddesses, and the star of the Egyptian fertility cult, and the one Socrates intuitively thought most holy?

Below is the literal text and translation of verse 49.

The “Lord of al-Shi’ra (The Leader)” could be an appropriate translation, but from my observation, it says, “and it is He, the god (represented by) Sirius“. Whatever meaning Sirius has, the Qur’an is co-opting it. (I’m hardly a translator of classical Arabic, I’m just observing a trend. It is highly suggested you read the surah yourself, to this audio.)

I would like to interpret the hieroglyph the Egyptians gave to Sirius.

Not only was it central to the trinitarian cult of Horus, to me it represents the division the classical Islamic scholar al-Qushayri gave to everything in reality: “the signs of God” and “human beings”. Obviously, the stick figure to me represents human beings, and I propose the triangle represents the mountains, which the Qur’an describes as one of the physical signs of God.

“Have We not made the earth as a bed, And the mountains as pegs?” (Quran 78: 6-7)

“And We have set on earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them.” (Quran 21:31)

“[On the Day of Judgement], when the earth is shaken with convulsion, and the mountains are broken down, crumbling, and become scattered dust.” (Quran 56:4-6)

References to mountains and other natural phenomena are  “the signs on the horizon”, and human beings are “the signs in their souls”. It is an interesting coincidence that the hieroglyph for Sirius mimics Qushayri’s dichotomy, considering that stars were crucial to the understanding of ancient people.

The Qur’an takes all that is true in other religions and exalts it. Rumi said both the Pharaoh’s sorcerers and Moses were able to convert their staffs to snakes, but the difference was that the Pharaoh’s men were in illusion, and Moses was inspired by the real.

It is strange to see astrology in the Qur’an. Astronomy was inseparable from astrology for most of human existence, almost certainly, prehistoric peoples could banter and exchange star charts. The cosmos was our nightly tablet before pen and computers. This may be a key to primordial religion, one that Socrates never cared to write down.










We should do this…

Julia Roberts, Christy Turlington ads banned in UK for misleading representation of beauty

“L’Oreal admitted post-production techniques had been used in its advert featuring Turlington to “lighten the skin, clean up make-up, reduce dark shadows and shading around the eyes, smooth the lips and darken the eyebrows”.

However, the beauty firm said it believed the image accurately illustrated the results the product could achieve.”

I gotta read Ibn Arabi in the morning

Concerning the Companions, he writes:

The Companions of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) gained the supreme station (maqam) in this abode, and in the abode of peace (dar al-Salam), the highest degrees of nearness (qurba) to God, the realization (tahaqquq) of faith (iman) through companionship (suhba). If any of us were to spend for the sake of God an amount that is equal to the mountain ‘Uhud’, it would never reach in reward a mudd [a measure of weight equal to 543 gr.] of theirs, or even half of it, and none of us will be good enough to be a servant to any of them. We are the brothers; security (aman) is ours; they are the Companions, hence they are the loved ones. (Ibn al-`Arabi, Rasa`il, Kitab al-Qurba).

He also says:

The Companions of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) have our good opinion (may God be pleased with all of them); we have no reason to defame any of them, even though they disagreed amongst themselves, and it is not for us to plunge into the dispute that broke out between them, for they are the people of knowledge and ijtihad and were newly acquainted with Prophet-hood. They are rewarded in all their judgements based on ijtihad whether it was right or wrong (Fut., I, p. 518).

As for Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him), we find he says:

The highest among God’s (awliya`) is Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him). It was inevitable [with leadership at stake] that there were those who were for, and those who were against [among the Companions]. One who was reluctantly plunged into the affair did so, either because of an uncertainty (shubuha) that troubled him if he had fear of God, or because of desire and passion if he had no fear of God. As for those Companions who did not accept his leadership, if it was not out of egocentric desire, we should excuse them through good opinion, but the rejection was the result of uncertainty [about Abu Bakr’s leadership] which caused any one of them to consider himself as being more qualified for leadership (imama) than Abu Bakr. This knowledge gained from such uncertainty is contradictory to God’s knowledge; for in the knowledge of God it had already been decreed that Abu Bakr would be a Caliph on earth (Fut., III, p. 16).

He also says about Abu Bakr:

None of Abu Bakr’s knowledge was ever exposed until the day the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) died, and the majority of the Companions were baffled, and said what we know except for Abu Bakr. God granted him success to demonstrate the strength He had given him, and that He exclusively qualified him to step forward and lead. The Imam must be sober not drunk. The strength that he showed on that day proved that God had assigned him as the head (muqaddim) of the group, to lead (Khalif) the community after the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace). The community then acknowledged the excellence of Abu Bakr over the rest of the Companions; therefore, he deserved to be put forward and deserved leadership (Fut., III, p. 16).

In another passage Ibn al-`Arbi says:

The ones who gave him allegiance (bay`a) did not do it in vain. Those who did not, refused either because they did not know about him that which they were also ignorant of concerning the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace), or because Abu Bakr’s leadership was disputable in his opinion, or because of interpretation (ta`wil). For the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) confirmed the excellence of Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him), over the rest of the Companions because of a secret that settled in his chest. The virtue of that secret became manifest later on that day (Fut., III, p. 372).

He also says: It is possible that the Pole (Qutb) of the time is the Imam himself, as was Abu Bakr and others during their time (Fut., III, p. 137). .

About `umar Ibn al-Khattab (may God be pleased with him), he wrote:

This is `Umar the solid, the strong, the one over whom Satan has no means of access, and hopes most just to escape from him into safety. The Qur`an descended in agreement with his judgement. He used to say: ‘If the veil was left I would not increase in certainty’. He does not know of it [the veil] because of his faith and knowledge. He gathered both knowledge and direct witnessing (`ayan) and took the lead in the forefront of eye-witnessing (mushahada al-`ayan). Since his time and up until the day of resurrection (qiyama) no-one shall surpass him, and in no state (hal) would anyone come before him (Ibn al-`Arabi, Ruh al-Quds fi Muhasabat al-Nafs).

Concerning the Shi`ites, he wrote:

If you find yourself in the company of one of the Rawafid, and you know that he slanders the Companions, then you should never praise or even mention any of them, as he might, because of his disputatiousness, slander them, and therefore you will be responsible for their slander, for it was you who mentioned them in the first place (Fut., IV, p. 484).

He also wrote:
To God belongs all that is within us settled
And all that is hidden and concealed
He, glory be to Him for our heart
Is the best abode [tranquility]
Do not [wonder] saying, how could it be
[Truly] the heart is but an abode
And do not be like one who out of ignorance
Exceeded the limit [of love] hence was tested
Surely the people of rejection exceeded the limit
In the affair of Husayn and Hasan.
(Ibn al-`Arabi, al-Diwan, p. 460)

When he speaks about the people of innovation (bid`a) and desire (hawa`), he says:

Satan have given them a true premise (asl) which they cannot doubt, and, due to their lack of understanding, deceptions came upon them and led them astray. They attribute their misguidance to Satan because it was him that gave the original premise. While, in reality, Satan in that case is but a student learning from them, if only they knew. This is mostly dominant among the Shi`ites, especially the Imamis. At first Satans of jinn lured them into the exhaustive love of the Prophet’s family, which they considered the most sublime oblation to God. In fact it is, if they only stopped at the limits of loving the Prophet’s family; instead they violated all limits of such love in two different ways. One group imagined that the Prophet’s family are more entitled to these worldly positions [leadership], therefore took to hate, and insulted the Companions because they gave the Prophet’s family no precedence; and carried on with all the details [of slander] that are known about them in this regard. The second group, in addition to insulting the Companions, blamed the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace), and Gabriel (peace be upon him), and God (supreme is His greatness), because they did not state clearly the rank of the Prophet’s family, nor their entitlement to the leadership (khilafa) of the community, to the extent that one of them wrote: ‘He who sent the trustworthy is not trustworthy.’ All of these emanated from a true premise, i.e. the love of the Prophet’s family, which was corrupted through their reflection, so they went astray and led others astray too (Fut., I, p. 282).

In his book “Ijaz al-Bayan fi al-Tarjama `an al-Qur`an”, when Ibn al-`Arabi interprets the verse: ‘Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel – for he brings down the [revelation] on thy heart by God’s will’ (Quran 2:97), he says:

The Jews claim that God ordered Gabriel to keep the Prophethood in the children of Israel, but instead he gave it to the Arabs, therefore they took him as an enemy. This is similar to what the people of rejection (Rafida) did, when they claimed that God ordered Gabriel to give the Prophethood to `Ali, and instead he gave it to Muhammad (may God bless him and grant him peace). This is just an aspect of what the Prophet foretold would happen to his community when he said in the hadith: ‘You shall follow the footsteps [course of action] of those who came before you, handspan by handspan, and a cubit by a cubit’; and in the same report, ‘They asked, “O Messenger of God, the Jews and the Christians?” He replied, “Precisely”. That the people of Rejection followed the Jews, and accused Gabriel of betrayal, is only a confirmation of that report. It was precisely for this reason that God the exalted said: ‘Say: Whoever is enemy to Gabriel’, because Gabriel did not act of his own accord, neither did he deviate from the command of God; for it is God who revealed it on the heart of Muhammad ‘by God’s will’, meaning by His command the exalted said, [the angels say]: ‘We descend not but by command of thy Lord.’

The meaning of a republic

India and the United States have one thing in common. Not only are they democracies, but they are republics. In their true ideal, a republic is a state of its citizens, not of any religion or ethnicity. The nation and its people are the state religion and ideology — the bond that glues society together. We are all equal citizens.

This can be argued to mean many things. The first Republic was Rome — it was in contrast to an empire, where the sovereign is supreme and all rights flow through him. Caesar was killed for threatening to turn the Republic into an Empire. (Ironically, his death brought upon exactly that.) — But Roman society was still very stratified. The Roman Senate, the chief lawmaking body, was backed by patricians. There was a massive slave population, as well as constant harassment of Germanic tribes at the fringes of the empire. Not everyone was equal in the Roman Empire, but citizens were. Civis romanus was a legal status that ensured protections against arrest without evidence, and trial without due process.

These days, even the worst human rights abusers call themselves Republics, or People’s Republics. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the heinous North Korea, the official name for Libya is the Libyan Arab Gamhariyya (Republic), and Syria is the Syrian Arab Republic. These countries are not what we think of republics.

But India and the United States come to mind when we think of republics. I was thinking about a man who killed an Indian Hindu and injured a Bangladeshi Muslim in response to the 9/11 attacks — and I thought, Muslims serve in this country’s military. Candidates for President have said that Muslims do not have a right to build mosques in the United States. — The promise of a republic is equal service and equal opportunity for all its citizens. Our national bond is the religion.

This is replete in Indian and American history. In this early 60s Indian film, the uniform of the Indian republic is neither religion nor caste, but the simple tunic of humility and patriotism.

This is the Pakistani version – note the importance of “re-taking Kashmir”.

This 1899 photo of pledging loyalty to the United States also illustrates the concept. No doubt, the photo of the President of the United States was framed in the classroom.

The Reading Level formula, Wikipedia–Kincaid_readability_test

Reader’s Digest magazine has a readability index of about 65, Time magazine scores about 52, an average 6th grade student’s (an 11-year-old) written assignment has a readability test of 60–70 (and a reading grade level of 6–7), and the Harvard Law Review has a general readability score in the low 30s. The highest (easiest) readability score possible is around 120 (e.g. every sentence consisting of only two one-syllable words). The score does not have a theoretical lower bound. It is possible to make the score as low as you want by including words with arbitrarily many syllables. This sentence, for example, taken as a reading passage unto itself, has a readability score of about 18.5. This paragraph has a readability score of 21.7. The sentence, “The Australian platypus is seemingly a hybrid of a mammal and reptilian creature” is a 24.4. This article has a readability score of around 42.0.”

Wolves are Family Animals

I was watching a Nature documentary, of which I am a big addict of. And i learn so much about human behavior, and biological behavior that I (as an intellectual) lose track of, I am addicted to these documentaries.

In the Valley of the Wolves — there’s a wolf pack which benevolently presides over a plentiful valley. They are headed by an alpha couple, an aging male and female, who do most of the hunting. But once the hunt is over, all 12 members of their pack join in on the carcass. And then the birds (magpies, ravens) are free to feed on the meat as well. And even another wolf pack which roams the area is welcome to food.

A black wolf comes along, a veritable omega (Ω). The parents are not happy to see him — but their daughter is. She frolicks with him briefly, joyous upon seeing him, until he is chased away by her father, the alpha male. The omega returns, and requests to join the pack (having been estranged from his own). This time, three daughters dance around him, hoping to convince their parents to let him join. His membership admission is denied, and he slinks away, dejected.

The old female will be dead in a week. Both wolf leaders are past their prime. Another wolf pack suddenly comes over the valley, and kill the female, and expel our wolf pack from having a presence in the valley. They now dominate this territory, and have dispossessed the previous inhabitants.

Things are not as pleasant with the new rulers. This wolf pack refuses to let other wolves and creatures eat from their kill. One wolf from a weaker clan merely takes a bite out of the carcass, when the other pack is stuffed from their hunt. But when they see the transgression on their kill, six wolves chase the transgressor, clamping down upon his body, showing no mercy. The victim was accompanied by a female, who must flee without her mate.

WHEN SPRING COMES, the evil wolf pack’s pups are emaciated, dying, victims of a disease spreading through the northeast. Three-quarters of the pups will die by next spring.

SUDDENLY, another wolf pack comes into the valley. They kill the alpha and several other males. They proceed to a cave where the wolf den is. The surviving wolves dare not stop them from approaching, where the attackers sit outside patiently for three days. After laying seige to the entrance of the cave for three days, all the wolf pups inside have died of starvation, unable to access food. The attackers leave, going back wherever they came from, over the valley.

NEXT SPRING, the good wolf pack which was dispossessed of the valley returns, with at least two dozen children. And they are lead by none other than our black omega wolf who was refused membership earlier. He went on to reproduce litters for the pack, and *their young have grown up quite healthy.

TO ME, this documentary shows several thing. First, the MAGNIFICENT GLORY OF GOD, in that when no one is watching (save PBS filmmakers with three years of observation funding), righteousness always triumphs. Just like the Bible says, the seed of the righteous (Abraham) will “be fruitful and multiply”, while various plagues and calalmities will befall the children of the wicked (Pharaoah and Nimrod).

Second, the omega male is the rightful ruler of human societies.

Third, that omega wolf pack which starved the evil pack’s children was the manifestation of God’s justice, or the avatar of Vishnu that vanquishes the unrighteous (see Jesus’ Second Coming, or any Madhi/Redeemer prophesy). They literally came from nowhere, and went back after the mission was complete.

Fourth, that nature mimicks religion, in that the struggle for the throne is as old as the earliest human myths — but specifically, the Mahabharat, which is a battle between the noble Pandavas and the wicked Kaurav stepbrothers.

Fifth, humans are territorial (like the evil wolf pack), but living in modern society, we have become detached from these instincts. Now, $600,000 will get you a piece of real estate that is indisputably yours — when was the last time someone occupied your apartment? — I think we should get less serious about property rights, like the wolves who let the birds and other wolf packs eat from their spoils of the hunt.