General Issues / Questions

Peace all I think we need to meet in the middle with this issue. From my standpoint, I think both sides are coming from different ayat. For example, there is the message in the quran that we must obey and follow the messenger. There are many ayat but for simplicity's sake we can say 332 embodies this message. Also we must honor him, believe in him and follow the light of his message (7157). Yet in the same breath there is also the message in the quran that mentions that as believers we cannot/should not make a distinction between any messengers. Again for simplicity's sake, we can use aya 2285 as the prime example. However, the trick is to not add emphasis on any one aya. They are all equally important. So are you right KGB in your determination to honor the prophet? Absolutely you're right as is confirmed by those ayat. Are others right in their determination to cling to the message and not so much any particular person? Without a doubt, also right as confirmed by many ayat. That's why a middle ground is needed. We must honor our prophets but also never give them more power than that which God ordained for them (they are simply messengers of a letter from God to his creation). You all raised really important points but one can never reach the complete picture without bringing them all together as one, as the quran did. Peace

Peace tanveermd Just want to clarify some things about your interpretation of 547. Brother tanveermd, you said "Yes, according to 547 and the context of 546, the people of the injeel are the people to whom the injeel was sent down and they are asked to judge with WHAT GOD HAS SENT DOWN IN IT. They are not being asked to judge with the current New Testament which has things IN ADDITION TO WHAT GOD HAS SENT. Allah further says in the red part, that whoever does not judge with WHAT GOD HAS SENT DOWN (meaning the original true injeel, not the corrupted version) are the vile ones." And I agree that it (it, meaning that which was with the Nasara) was corrupted. But then why does 547 say that the people of the Injeel should judge according to the revelation therein? If when the Qur'an was revealed, the version of the Injeel with the People of the Injeel was corrupted, why would the verse tell them to judge according to the Injeel? I'm still not understanding. I understand that the Qur'an authenticates the Injeel and in this sense they can judge by the Injeel by first determining what is authentic via the Qur'an but then the question becomes, why even bother with the Injeel? As you said, brother, the NT would be redundant anyway. Would God be redundant? Peace. Bumped because I'd appreciate it if brother tanveermd or anyone else can discuss with me my above post. Peace.

Peace prashant take care of your head brickwall ... no hard feelings lk

thanks for that wakas.. yeh sorry i just skimmed through it.. inshallah ill have a better read Thanks again Barek allah fik salams

Peace, I believe our dear sugar removed her post, or i'm need to go to sleep.

Salaam Neil handshake I hope from your comments about truth that you are not into conspiracies are you? D Are you connected with ccg by any chance? Your message history is very interesting indeed. Please send an email, if you would, summarizing as much as you know. But bare in mind that forum private messages are monitored. Salaam Layth, Where does this word "sabien" come from? If what is already written is not as simple and clear enough already, then at least please do not terminate my account or delete this thread. It seems I have outstayed my welcome here now.I will be at http//www.islamicboard.com to enjoy a more exempliary, friendly, tollerant, scholastic, historical, excellently researched, academically historical, open-minded, and innovation-free environment of genuine, discovery, learning, dialogue where gentleness and loving speech is encouraged, and totalitarianism is frowned upon. Salaamu alekum wa rahmatullah wa barakhatahu. group

peace KGB, Perhaps you should look up all the verses that contain the so-called "bow" word (rakaa, Ra-Kaf-Ayn) and the so-called "prostrate" word (sujud, Siin-Jiim-Dal). The "so-called" wording was used as the meaning of these words are not accepted by all here. Simple. Arrogant? More like factual.

Sheerk is putting an ?intermediary? entity between the Lord of the worlds and the person. Such ?intermediary? is from the Lord?s creation. A Mushreek himself lowers his dignity and puts himself to an inferior position by giving up the dignity approved by his Lord. While his Lord created the universe for him, while the angels are created for the service of him, while his Omnipotent Lord, who created this huge universe and all the microscopic worlds, is ready to hear and reply to his call, while his Lord is the most near One to him, he instead subjugates himself to poor creatures of his Lord. Moreover, sheerk is the gross and supreme form of ingratitude. Man?s consciousness is such that when the degradation and the ingratitude shall become manifest to him, he himself shall find his face stained with ashes. In other word, a Mushreek wants reward from or through an entity who is incapable. So he himself can not, by his own choice, expect Allah to have mercy on him. On the other hand, a monotheist asks mercy/forgiveness to One who is capable of providing it. So logically he may expect what he wants. The final answer is that, we can not impose our desire or standard on the Omnipotent and unquestionably sovreign Allah who is Wise and Just too.

angelUSA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA angel just kidding.

how can you know what victory is when you haven't experienced defeat?

Peace, Thanks, I just had a look on Open Burhan, it is a great system, but I believe it will be even greater if we can add more functions to it. -) To my knowledge, this has not been done so far, but I'm not sure if this is the most effective way in determining the best translation/meaning for a word in Quran. I am currently co-ordinating a project which aims to do this, you can read about it here http//www.studyquran.co.uk/Projects_page.htm You are welcome to help. And if you need some money, you can be paid for your work, that is no problem. See the above page for contact details and feel free to contact me. Regards, Wakas Thanks for the info..I will be happy to help..but first I have to find a way to get back my broadband...As currently I am unable to surf the net at home due to my problem...

peace How about we start a new thread analyzing -or posting previous analyses- of every "similitude" in the quran.

http//www.studyquran.co.uk/

Salaam all, Bro AB, could you please translate the arabic articles you posted? My arabic is read only Good Morning Andy It is 530 AM sydney time and I promise i will translate it in the bery near future, as i have been flat out, the article is simple refuting the Sabin and Sabun alleged grammar error, and the one who wrote the article is a top class arabic language professional as well a minister in the egyptian government, please be patiet with me and i will translate Where is this article please? Sabioon and Sabieen is no mistake. In the previous page. For bro AB, don't worry bro ...if you are busy or have many things to do then take your time wisely )

You are right it is not such a simple thing. It is a way of trying to express the idea of a Divine Name. The Name of The Spirit which comes from it. It is the Arabic way of rendering the same idea that is rendered Ton Theon in Greek. In Hebrew the same idea is now rendered HaShem.

Islamisist? Me? whatever No seriously guys you have to do some more reading and less guess-work. This is a good starting place http//63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=49048&dgn=4 Wa salaam

Peace Ahmed, All (43 Seest thou such a one as taketh for his god his own passion (or impulse)? Couldst thou be a disposer of affairs for him? And what made Iblees disobey Allah if it was not his pride and his fully blown ego. Iblees believed in himself more than he believed in Allah. When one believes in two gods, one can not obey both at the same time. Iblees obeyed his impulse to the extent of disobeying Allah. But he still believed in Allah as his God, beside his ego, his (Ana)/ his impulse (Hawa). Good darling the verse above is talking about those who take other gods according to their own desires the verse above never mentioned the ego, I challenge you to prove it cheers sister

peace how come no responses to AB post? BTW Great find on the connection of those two stories AB salam God Bless Cheers man, I discovered it on the same day i posted my comment with the help of Allah Peace

Peace mquran and all. I recommend quranic arabic by ibrahim r surty as well....Thats what i learnt 'quranic' arabic from...

ZainabRight on again .. however, as I had talked briefly on this topic earlier, differences are inherent of human temperament. There are lots of values that the universal human community ought to acquire, but they don't. Thus, from the practical view point, we need to see matters the way they are, rather than the way they should be. I'm afraid I have a problem with that because what you phrased as 'the way they are' (are - to be, existing) isn't real. It's based on a baathil system, a system that would crumble in the coming of al-haqq (21/18, al-haqq smashes the brains of al-baathil). Having said that, al-quraan isn't a binary reality in the sense that it's either a 0 value (no quranic values) or 1 (100% quranic values). There are various stages along The Way. Allah SWT mentions in the Glorious Qur'aan that if He so wanted He could have made all mankind one community. But He wants to put us through tests & trials in this earthly world, so He has created us the way we are. I disagree. While 'insaaniyat' (where 'ins' is a word described in the Quraan in mostly negative terms) is an aspect of an-naas (humankind), there's also the 'bashariyat' (where 'bashar' is the aspect of the Adamic man, who knows of his position in the world). So both states, the fall and the awakening are possible. Presently however, the world is in the fall. Besides, as I already stated, creating a Muslim Ummah must not be taken as a gesture for dividing the world community. In fact, Muslims are not the only ones who are supposed to have an Ummah. Such community cultures exist in every society. What's important is to have the right goal of smooth interaction, understanding and harmony between these various sections of people in our planet. Not division but direction. I say a 'muslim ummah' should lead the world in actualising the human being and spreading God's light in the world. Salaams and Peace .. It's really very simple and I wish to keep it that way. Without going into the intricacies of words, my meaning was only that differences of opinions and thoughts are natural among humans, and there's just no denying about that. However, that by itself is not frightening. What's important is how we handle these differences. Allah SWT has clearly mentioned in the Qur'aan that He has created mankind with this characteristic. Thus obviously, we have the ability to choose our path of conduct on the basis of which He judges us. Unfortunately I don't have the time now to look for that verse. But InshAllah I will put it as soon as I find it. And yes, a Muslim Ummah should lead the world and keep spreading the word of Allah. I never said that it shouldn't. In fact I clearly referred to the Muslim "Ummah" while LT and you referred to Ummah of humanity. My point was to clarify this issue. I wasn't referring to a division either, but LT's apparent sarcasm over the word "Ummah" and your agreement with him puzzled me because such an idea usually comes from a mindset when people pre-suppose that forming an Ummah means being reclusive or parochial. All I wanted to say was that that's not so. If by mentioning ummah of humanity, you meant that the Muslim Ummah should be leading the way, perhaps you should have clarified that as you did it now and then I would have understood it more correctly.