Peacemaking and Peacemakers in the Great Reading
-
this is warner
not fireMuhammed was a warner, he came to warn people.
of the 4 hadith you were asked which is sahih and which is not, all you have done is said they are the same but for the number of women. They are ALL SAHIH hadith and ALL by the great abu huraira. Now doesnt that tell you something? How can they ALL be right? Doesnt this make you question abu huraira? doesnt this rule out ALL the other hadith he narated as he cant seem to really remember how many women for this ONE subject?
If not then you are truely among the lost
-
peace David,
By "theoretical possibility" I meant what Bro Ayman put forward is theoretically possible. I am not averse to this view, in fact, in a recent article I wrote and have linked to several times, I gave this understanding as an option.
The main problem is, as it stands, the evidence that has been put forward so far is inconclusive. I have also read Bro Ayman's article on it.
-
He is Allah, besides Whom there is no god; the King, the Holy, the Giver of peace, the Granter of security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of every greatness Glory be to Allah from what they set up (with Him).
Momin is translated as "believer" but if we translate it as in above verse, our behaviour/role in a society changes dramatically!
I read it as Muman not Mumin and translated it as Trusted. I like your rendering better. I will inshallah make note of it.
Peace,
Edip -
the evidence that has been put forward so far is inconclusive.
Peace Wakas,
Let's put it to a test, then. In the great reading, a "muhsin" is a good doer, one who executes "husna". Can this be done without faith? Do atheists and polytheists ever do anything good? Likewise, a "muslih" is one who takes corrective action, one who executes "salih". Can this be done without faith? Do atheists and polytheists ever take corrective action? Naturally, any good they do goes to waste if it's not done for the god. But, goodness and correction are universal concepts that can be understood and executed by anyone.
So what about "surrender"? Should oppressed people surrender? No. They should be peacemakers, but that may involve fighting for the cause of peace. "Surrender" and "submission" mean nothing on their own, they can even mean bad things. Surrendering to oppression is one example, submitting to lust is another. But peace, and peacemaking, are always good. Always. If people make peace for other than the god (to look good, for example), that's their problem, but peacemaking is still the natural obligation.
Now, let's think about it in terms of the time the great reading was sent down. In a multicultural, multi-faith environment, let's say you hear about a new message from the god. According to this new message (227, the god described its adherents, and all previous believers, as peacemakers. Makes good sense, doesn't it? So, the peacemakers want us to join them? Interesting. Now, substitute "surrendering folk" or "submitters" in place of that. What do you have? Unless you add "surrendering to the god" or "submitting to the god", you don't have much. When people heard about "muslimun" they didn't have to ask what it meant, because peace and those who make it are known everywhere by everyone.
I'm just saying that we should think about it using these kinds of tests, but I understand your view that nothing is concrete so far.
Finally, let's compare peacemaking (islam) to faith (iman), shall we?
In the great reading, does anyone wonder about peacemaking/islam? No. But faith is misunderstood or unknown by some
4914 The nomads said, "We have believed." Say, "You have not believed; but say 'We have made peace' so that faith will enter your hearts."
4252 As such, we inspired to you a revelation of our command. You did not know of the book or faith, yet we made it a light with which we guide.
-
.
( م - - - - .
( ) .
.
.
( )
-
.
( م - - - - .
( ) .
.
.
( )
Are you trying to demonstrate that you can copy and paste definitions offered by sectarians on other public forums?
http//ejabat.google.com/ejabat/thread?tid=765869b02ce2ca93&pli=1
Wonderful...
The best part about your plagiarized breakdown is that it proves that "islam" means peacemaking, not submission/surrender. In order to define "islam" your source used "istaslam", which is a different derivative of the root s-l-m (3726). Very amusing, thank you.
-
Are you trying to demonstrate that you can copy and paste definitions offered by sectarians on other public forums?
I gave you this answer to translate it and to understand the difference between the word peacemaking and submission from an Arabic view and then from A Fiqh view . But as I see you like your answer which is not right .
The best part about your plagiarized breakdown is that it proves that "islam" means peacemaking, not submission/surrender. In order to define "islam" your source used "istaslam", which is a different derivative of the root s-l-m (3726). Very amusing, thank you.
No, it doesn't mean peacemaking, the root of the verb is " " and it is a derivative of the first root of this word which is " " . You don't know the Arabic language so stay away from giving wrong interpretation of the arabic words .
if you think that you do know Arabic, I'm challenging you .
what is really funny and amusing is finding people speak chinese language, but someone jumps from the crowd and say no it is japanes language or korean language.
-
the root of the verb is " "
What you're saying is total nonsense. "The root of the verb is 'istaslam'" is like saying "The root of the verb is TO SURRENDER", which is already a verb and not a root at all. You're arrogance drove you to copy and paste some bogus jurisprudence from the same hoodlums and marauders that effectively distorted every other aspect of the truth in lying about the great reading. Nice work.
The source you ripped off states, and I quote ...
"Islam in the language is Istaslam" = "Islam in the language is surrender"
This proves my point. In order to define "islam" according to the sectarian view, you have to use a different derivative of s-l-m. You completely evaded the fact that in the great reading the word "islam" is the action of "salam"
"Salam" means peace, not surrender. Look at how the great reading uses these words
salam (peace) --> aslama (to make peace) --> muslim (peacemaker)
husna (goodness) --> ahsana (to do good) --> muhsin (good doer)
salih (correct) --> aslaha (to make correct) --> muslih (one who corrects)
garam (crime) --> agrama (to commit crime) --> mugrim (criminal)Surrender is meaningless on its own, while peacemaking is not.
-
What you're saying is total nonsense. "The root of the verb is 'istaslam'" is like saying "The root of the verb is TO SURRENDER", which is already a verb and not a root at all. You're arrogance drove you to copy and paste some bogus jurisprudence from the same hoodlums and marauders that effectively distorted every other aspect of the truth in lying about the great reading. Nice work.
The source you ripped off states, and I quote ... "Islam in the language is Istaslam" = "Islam in the language is surrender"you don't know nothing about Arabic . The word Islam is the act of giving up(emotionaly and physically) to your creator.
The only nonsense I see is what you said . I'm a native speaker of Arabic not you and I've learned it from primary school and I'm still let me remind you I've studied my language 12 years let alone that I heard it every day.And of course you're not going to show me my language .
This proves my point. In order to define "islam" according to the sectarian view, you have to use a different derivative of s-l-m. You completely evaded the fact that in the great reading the word "islam" is the action of "salam"
Islam is "Inkiyade li Awamere lahi wa nawahih" means " means Surrender to God's commands and prohibitions ".Typically in english is the act of "(to surrender+to submit+to give up+to back+ to return+ to give your attention+to resign+to succumb...etc ) to the creator which make its origin from the verb "" and his derivative " " .
Surrender is meaningless on its own, while peacemaking is not.
it's meaningless for you as a non-speaker of arabic . Peacemking is a word created by your own desires, Satan is whispering in your ears.
-
Peace brother Wakas,
Also, I do not think your rendering of Solomon's story is entirely correct, e.g.
No. The message she receives tells them "come to me/Me as muslimeen".
Maybe there is no mention of "peace" because this is not even relevant?
Are you sure? See M. Asad's understanding, www.quranix.net
Is this likely considering Solomon was unaware of who they were? 2722-28. He did not even know how they would react to his letter. Also, not only did Sheba not react in a hostile manner, her action throughout was not of a war-mongerer.Here is what the people of the queen said
Here is the meaning of the word "ba's" in the passage (from Lisan Alarab)
.
.
Translation
"Ba's" is extreme in war, war, torture.So "ulu ba's"/ would literally mean "those with extreme war", "those with war", "those with torture". Doesn't sound peaceful to me. It sounds like they were literally a warring nation. So instead of becoming a peacemaking nation they decided to give Solomon a bribe to let them be a bully. The queen's statement actually shows that she only cared about the elite and not her people.
It is like if back at school the bully bribed you with a pack of gum if you tried to stop him from being a bully and beat up other kids.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Here is the meaning of the word "ba's" in the passage (from Lisan Alarab)
..
Translation
"Ba's" is extreme in war, war, torture.So "ulu ba's"/ would literally mean "those with extreme war", "those with war", "those with torture". Doesn't sound peaceful to me. It sounds like they were literally a warring nation.
I didn't know this, hence my poor translation. This strengthens the point regarding 4816
4816 Say to the nomads who stayed behind, "You will be called on to a people of extreme war, to fight them, unless they make peace."
It's not good enough for them to surrender, they have to "make peace" and give up their warmongering. What if they surrender and stockpile armaments in the meantime? Making peace is something that lasts, so the peacemakers/muslimun use their strength against tyranny. Solomon was a wonderful example. As far as I know, the name comes from the Hebrew Shlomo, related to Shalom, meaning one who is of peace, right?
Peace,
-David
-
Peace brother Wakas,
Here is what the people of the queen said
Here is the meaning of the word "ba's" in the passage (from Lisan Alarab)
.
.
Translation
"Ba's" is extreme in war, war, torture.So "ulu ba's"/ would literally mean "those with extreme war", "those with war", "those with torture". Doesn't sound peaceful to me. It sounds like they were literally a warring nation. So instead of becoming a peacemaking nation they decided to give Solomon a bribe to let them be a bully. The queen's statement actually shows that she only cared about the elite and not her people.
It is like if back at school the bully bribed you with a pack of gum if you tried to stop him from being a bully and beat up other kids.
Peace,
Ayman
did they say it before or after the letter of Solomon?
-
Peace
One of the arguments against the meaning of ?Al-Islam? being ?submission/surrender to the will of God? is that there is no "will", "of" and "God" in the word "islam". But if God names his system/deen which was sent to mankind as ?Al Islam? can that argument still be valid. ( IMO a complex system can be named by its creator/manufacturer using a single word and that word can represent or denote everything that complex system is)
53 ??????This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL- ISLAM?...
319 The Religion before Allah is Al Islam?????
385 If anyone desires a religion other than Al Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)
Also the argument that peace should be voluntary/willing whereas surrender can be unwilling cannot not stand due to the following verse.
383 Is (it) other than God's religion they desire, and to Him submitted/surrendered (aslama) whom (is) in the skies/space and the earth/Planet Earth voluntarily and compellingly/forcefully, and to Him you are being returned?
I still believe the debate is inconclusive as mentioned earlier.
-
Also the argument that peace should be voluntary/willing whereas surrender can be unwilling cannot not stand due to the following verse.
383 Is (it) other than God's religion they desire, and to Him submitted/surrendered (aslama) whom (is) in the skies/space and the earth/Planet Earth voluntarily and compellingly/forcefully, and to Him you are being returned?Peace Warner,
383 is in the past tense, so it could refer to the ending (akhirah) of this world. It's like saying, "Do they want an obligation other than the god's? Everything made peace to/for him." In the end, everything will make peace to/for him. Those who failed to make peace in this world will regret it
152 Those who rejected will wish that they were peacemakers.
I disagree with the translation of "din" as "religion"; it means "obligation" (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11946.msg86235#msg86235). So, all people are obligated to be peacemakers. According to 2278 we have to go out into the world as witnesses to see if people are striving to make peace.
2278 And strive for the god his true striving. He has brought you and has made no hardship on you in the obligation, the creed of your father Ibrahim. He named you the peacemakers before and in this , so that the messenger will be a witness against you and you will be witnesses against the people.
Peace to you all,
-David
-
Peace
One of the arguments against the meaning of ?Al-Islam? being ?submission/surrender to the will of God? is that there is no "will", "of" and "God" in the word "islam". But if God names his system/deen which was sent to mankind as ?Al Islam? can that argument still be valid. ( IMO a complex system can be named by its creator/manufacturer using a single word and that word can represent or denote everything that complex system is)
53 ??????This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL- ISLAM?...
319 The Religion before Allah is Al Islam?????
385 If anyone desires a religion other than Al Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)
Also the argument that peace should be voluntary/willing whereas surrender can be unwilling cannot not stand due to the following verse.
383 Is (it) other than God's religion they desire, and to Him submitted/surrendered (aslama) whom (is) in the skies/space and the earth/Planet Earth voluntarily and compellingly/forcefully, and to Him you are being returned?
I still believe the debate is inconclusive as mentioned earlier.
Salam,
do you translate deen by religion? Do you think it is correct? e.g. surate 1 v4 Yamu deen, "The day of Judgment/" vs "The day of the Religion".
This leads to rong translation as You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion. which I think is wrong!Peace
-
Salam,
do you translate deen by religion? Do you think it is correct? e.g. surate 1 v4 Yamu deen, "The day of Judgment/" vs "The day of the Religion".
This leads to rong translation as You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion. which I think is wrong!
PeaceHe is not Arab and he doesn't have knowledge of the Arabic words neither in his hand to understand the difference between two words have the same letters and yet he is translating Quran by his own desires and what Satan told him.
This is for you verses from Quran talks about you.
{ {
( )
