Unity Within Diversity
-
Blank comments, blank accusations, blank claims, blank denials, blank statements etc. . .
I was again speaking up my views. Is it a crime? Why do you have to be so agressive when someone posts things that oppose to your views? You use all these words because I say something that you disagree.
I made those comments because you often base your arguments on Allah issue by making Quran as lexical book. Instead of keep telling someone how much they "don't know logical fallacy", you should learn not to repeat the same arguments too.
-
and don't even be so quick to condemn and judge people are such and such etc, and act as if you are a saint and gifted, truly guided by Allah etc. .
Sounds too defensive. Maybe you should read all your posts. All your posts and see that you are the one who have made a lot of quick judgement against others and have condemned a lot.
You are the one who acts like you know "arguments" very much, but all you do is attacking those who disagree with you by calling them nonsense and say that people who disagree with you don't know reasoning, arguments blablabla etc while you arrogantly repeat same arguments, only different wordings, to prove you right.you are not, and you are speaking nonsense, sorry.
try reasoning. .
You say all these because I disagree with you.
-
I was again speaking up my views. Is it a crime? Why do you have to be so agressive when someone posts things that oppose to your views? You use all these words because I say something that you disagree.
I made those comments because you often base your arguments on Allah issue by making Quran as lexical book. Instead of keep telling someone how much they "don't know logical fallacy", you should learn not to repeat the same arguments too.
I'm not being aggressive, but. . .
I don't know what is the issue you are trying to raise.
It's like I'm speaking about Asia , and you are speaking about there is one planet in the universe called Pluto. What ? confused
-
Sounds too defensive. Maybe you should read all your posts. All your posts and see that you are the one who have made a lot of quick judgement against others and have condemned a lot.
You are the one who acts like you know "arguments" very much, but all you do is attacking those who disagree with you by calling them nonsense and say that people who disagree with you don't know reasoning, arguments blablabla etc while you arrogantly repeat same arguments, only different wordings, to prove you right.
You say all these because I disagree with you.Really? Please quote my statement. .and distinguish whether I'm attacking the. .
- Contention, or
- Person making the contention.
Prove it.
Obviously yours are not attacking on my "contention", but attacking on the "person making the contention". laugh
p.s. by the way, the "nonsense" is about the "contention", quote all my statement and see what the word is referring to. .
-
If you define a word in a certain language using a scripture, it would become problematic. Scriptures like the Quran are not lexicons or dictionaries.
The Arabs have been using Allah for centuries, even before the Quran existed. Christian Arabs also use Allah and say Allah has a son named .
Allah = an Arabic word.It is a false lingual fact to say the Arabic word Allah is not God. Don't define a word using your favourite scripture. Quran is not a lexicon. Even in Lane's lexicon, Allah is translated into God (capital g).
Some different words in a particular language may be the same when they are translated in another language.
And lastly, when someone disagrees or speaks up views that are opposing to yours, please do not ridicule or mock them. You have done a lot here, not only to me, but to others too.
Agreed,
Peace muslims,
Sometimes an idea or subject is too difficult to grasp laugh
We all have limitations rotfl
Are you referring to the above link and documents ?
Because if you did, I don't know what is the issue you are trying to raise.
or maybe you don't read and only make blank comments.
Blank comments, blank accusations, blank claims, blank denials, blank statements etc. . .
. . .
Don't make blind accusations and speak lies , especially if you are not familiar with the rules of logic, fallacy and rules of engagement in the Quran.or I may asked you to prove your contentions.
and don't even be so quick to condemn and judge people are such and such etc, and act as if you are a saint and gifted, truly guided by Allah etc. .
you are not, and you are speaking nonsense, sorry.try reasoning. .
Wow, is there a psychiatrist in the house! brickwall
God bless
peace
-
In the midst of the usual mud slinging and wrestling of egos... I just want to pose one question
If Allah is not God, or a god, then what is Allah and what is a god, and what is God?
If someone could elaborate on this, in simple words, I'd be happy. I actually find it quite interesting. I see it that we are not supposed to associate ANYTHING with Allah, except perhaps certain qualities like wahid, or rahman etc. In this sense, we can simply not define Allah properly. But on the other hand, what are the definitions of god and God that make them incompatible with Allah? Doesn't it simply depend on the definition? Suppose you DEFINE God=Allah, then it is just a matter of usage of language.In any case, I'm going to read that pdf, Muhammad's Allah by Hulusi, that member muslims linked to, and see what it says and to see if the author will be able to explain in a clear language why Allah is not a God.
Peace all. Peace.
-
In any case, I'm going to read that pdf, Muhammad's Allah by Hulusi, that member muslims linked to, and see what it says and to see if the author will be able to explain in a clear language why Allah is not a God.
Yes, I suggest you read the book and the explanation is very clear about the concept of tawheed, the true nature of "no shirk" in the doctrine of Islam. It is just a simple book.
In summary, none is equivalent to Allah. . and we must not associate anything at ALL with Allah, absolutely no "duality".
. . .
Suppose you DEFINE God=Allah, then it is just a matter of usage of language.
The actual issue in this thread about what is in the book, ie. what is the true nature of "no shirk" in the doctrine of Islam.
It is not the issue of translation of "Ilah" or "Allah".- There is no God in the doctrine of Islam
No (ا God (َ Only (ا Allah (ُ
However, it has been interrupted by the "issue of translation", it ended here. . .
Get back to the topic Unity in Diversity.
That's better. . laugh
I then post the book etc relating to the main issue of this thread, but then people raise the issue of translation, and say such and such, claim such and such etc. I guess they don't read and just answer.
So, now I'm quite confused which issue they are referring to
- The true nature of "no shirk" in the doctrine of Islam, or
- The translation issue of "Allah" and "Ilah".
It's like I'm speaking about Asia , and you are speaking about there is one planet in the universe called Pluto. What ? confused
If they want to discuss the issue of translation, then the issue remains unanswered is in this post.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606622.msg352206#msg352206
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606622.msg352209#msg352209
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606622.msg352221#msg352221
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606622.msg352225#msg352225However, this thread is not about the issue of translation of "Ilah" or "Allah" etc. . .
but it is about tawheed, "no shirk", no duality. -
Peace,
Allah is a powerful energy in the universe and the only one of that kind. Nothing in existence that we know of can rival with God and according to The Master there is nothing either. And how can you challenge God too considered we are all within a say from being put out of misery should Allah want (says die and you die).
But I suppose muslims would like to get back to his topic of unity within diversity however weird idea that sounds.
Personally I think sects with additional gods have a problem being accepted by The Master though. You cannot expect Allah to like not trying to invite to The Master's command and criticize them for what they do by informing them about the one God and why it would not work with many gods in command simultaneously. That would be utter chaos.
But, to give a little credit to 'muslims', I would say that the assembly should respect and accept those misguided and in a friendly and strategical way invite to the assembly of God. And that respect as long as they do not turn violent and oppressive and then only use as much violence as required to settle things. But zealotry to force the command of God upon people is not allowed.
God bless you
-
But I suppose muslims would like to get back to his topic of unity within diversity however weird idea that sounds.
The whole theme of the Quran is telling the story of our Prophets and the Believers being killed, stoned, attack, oppressed etc. .
and people are fighting and kill each other, battle, oppression, crimes, complicating the law and order etc . .
simply because there is no "freedom of ways of life".
This is the main theme of the Quran.The opposite idea of the above theme is "unconditional freedom of religion"
This is what distinguish Islam from other religions
There is no religion can give "unconditional freedom of religion"For you is your deen (sectarianism)
and for me is my deen (unconditional freedom of religion, unity within diversity)."
(109.6)The whole system of the Quran is, to bring balance and simplify our life for the foundation of "unconditional freedom of religion"
So that people can unite, and there is "unity within diversity". . peaceful living.The core values of Islam is that there is no argument in the areas of
- Nature of their Texts and Belief.
- Nature of their God.
- Nature of their Rituals.
So. . I believe it is not weird, it is the main theme of the Quran and Islam.
Islam was revealed for this purpose, unconditional freedom of religion, unity within diversity
To each of you We prescribed a law and a method <- it is Allah who made them that way
Had Allah willed <- meaning, Allah had not wished for one religion, please respect Allah wishes!
He would have made you one nationand I believe Muhammad has no time to preach and compile the Quran
because he take his sword and go to battle, they are establishing unconditional freedom of religion and unity within diversity
They jihad against the hypocrites in all religions, and they unite with True Believers in all religions. -
I believe this is the basic principles and which must be incorporated in every Constitution.
The core values of Islam is that there is no argument in the areas of
- Nature of their Texts and Belief.
- Nature of their God.
- Nature of their Rituals.
For that, you shall preach and be upright (living justly balanced)
as you have been commanded
and do not follow their wishes (for sectarianism). And say?I believe in all that God has sent down from Scripture, <- nature of their texts and belief
and I was commanded to be with justice with you. <- Muslim's concern, creating balance in the society
God is our Lord and your Lord. <- nature of their God
We have our deeds and you have your deeds. <- nature of their rituals/practices
There is no argument between us and you. <- unity within diversity
God will gather us all together, and to Him is the ultimate destiny.?
42.15and . .no religion on earth can be more tolerance as what is in Islam.
-
Contradicting the above principle. . .
And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth,"
they say, "We are but reformers." <- for their religion, no freedom of religion
Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters <- cause division in the society, consequences. . war!
but they perceive not. <- because they thought it is religion, for the sake of their God, Allah etc!
211-12 -
Yes, I suggest you read the book and the explanation is very clear about the concept of tawheed, the true nature of "no shirk" in the doctrine of Islam. It is just a simple book.
I've read a third to half so far... and I like it! My thinking is very similar to what the book is saying. I think I'll be able to learn and expand/elaborate my thinking further with the help of this book.
Peace
-
I suppose "Unity within Diversity" most likely will work if all parties/groups (who are willing to unite) are not being selfish and genuinely uphold & apply tolerance to achieve peaceful situation for all parties/groups.
True, it's all had to do with tolerance and humility.
As selfish sprung from pride.
With pride there cannot be any tolerance to differences.
From pride came the need of proving that I/We are right and You/They are wrong, I/We are winner and You/They are loser.However, tolerance must have it's limits.
Otherwise these deeds- Murder / Human Sacrifice
- Oppression / Slavery
- Rape
- Robbery / Theft / Raid
Will be tolerated for the sake of 'unity'.
-
I've read a third to half so far... and I like it! My thinking is very similar to what the book is saying. I think I'll be able to learn and expand/elaborate my thinking further with the help of this book.
Please share. . . I believe our thinking will expand when our Tawheed is correct, ie. the understanding of the true nature of "no shirk" and which against the concept of "illusionary god" taught to us since our childhood and by the society etc. The God who think and act like a man.
-
Haven't finished it yet, but in the meantime I can say that by the word god/God, we can say that we mean God-image, i.e. whatever image we make up of God in our minds, and which by default will be incorrect, especially if it involve God having human emotions etc. I often tend to agree with the standpoints of atheists who denounce the existence of God, because what they generally reject are the man-like images of God that religion often throw at us. I believe the atheists rightly reject these silly images... but then they don't go any further, but instead shut down on anything unseen, which doesn't bring them any closer to reality either.
-
Haven't finished it yet, but in the meantime I can say that by the word god/God, we can say that we mean God-image, i.e. whatever image we make up of God in our minds, and which by default will be incorrect, especially if it involve God having human emotions etc. I often tend to agree with the standpoints of atheists who denounce the existence of God, because what they generally reject are the man-like images of God that religion often throw at us. I believe the atheists rightly reject these silly images... but then they don't go any further, but instead shut down on anything unseen, which doesn't bring them any closer to reality either.
I believe an Atheist is searching for "direct evidence" of God and this is impossible, especially when they can't even understand their body organs and emotions, or even flies. . . It doesn't work that way because we human being must rely on "circumstantial and corroborative evidence" and choose the right path. There will never be "direct evidence" for the existence of Allah.
. . .
Secondly, they don't believe in "God" and "no God".
The believe in the "possibility". . .
That's why they define as "lack of belief in God", which they insist as "without belief in God".
(which is quite absurd, because "lack" is not "without", eg. "Lack of faith" does not mean there is no faith. . and they also refused to say they don't believe in God, because then they have to bring evidence "Why God doesn't exists?", when there is supernatural higher intelligence and everything is subjected to the law of cause and effect)According to them. . . the issue is
Whether it is impossible that god exists
Whether it is possible that god exists
They said their ideology it is not about God, but about the "possibility"
However, I concluded that . . .
The assumption here is "god exists",
ie. it is the "subject matter" or "facts of the discussion"
The "possibility" is the issue, it is not the "subject matter" or "facts of the discussion"
Thus, the "possibility" on its own is "meaningless".
It must have the "subject matter", ie. "God".
For example. . ."The House"
"The" is meaningless. . .it must have the subject matter, ie. "House". . .
For this reason . . we can say that they are "invisible" and have "no argument"
No one can have a rational argument with them. .
because one have to acknowledge in something before there can be any "possibility", ie. they must believe . .- There is no God
- There is God
(both existed and it this the issue and subject matter of "possibility"
It follows that they cannot deny and must admit that part of them . .
Believe in God.
Is this hypocrisy or not?
Therefore, I believe to be an Atheist is about the religion of hypocrisy (hypocrites) . . they are not the true atheist, and
They are still struggling for the "correct definition for their ideology" so that they can escape any "burden of proof"
and said "I deny, I deny, I deny". . without making any "contention", without confirming or denying to anything.This is their main mission and objective, to escape any "burden of proof", create doubt, deny everything and create division.
It is the religion of hypocrisy and religion of negativism.On the other hand, their definition infers that they have to believe in "God" before they can create the the "possibility" there is no god, before they can counter their believe or confirmation that there is "no god", ie. another contention which they must prove and bring evidence to show "Why God doesn't exists?", the same way we must prove "Why God exists?".
Else, the "possibility" on its own is "meaningless". .
They need to "Be invisible"
No Belief = No Existence. . . and therefore "No Argument"
. . .
Contradictorily, Muslim believe in the "Quran" (real evidence), and the system in the Quran, ie. the "Deen" of Islam.
None is equivalent to Allah, and no one knows what is Allah. . .
and the Quran commands us to ignore the "allegorical" (3.7) because no one knows its interpretation.and that's why there is "follow the Messenger", ie.
It is about the believe in the Quran (real evidence), words from Muhammad. . .
The Quran is the "hadith", and no one witnessing how Allah reveals the Quran to Muhammad.
No one on its own can prove that it is from Allah.Further, the Quran distinguish, "Believers" (faith), and "Muslim" (obedience).
It is a trade system, we sell our "obedience" (muslim) to Allah , and Allah pay us with "faith" (believers)
The more we sell to Allah, the more "faith" we have.Refer here One don't have to believe in Allah to be a Muslim
This is the difference between Islam and Atheist
Muslim believe in the Quran (real evidence)
and the Atheist is struggling to escape any "burden of proof"
They have no real products (ideology or doctrine),
They are not the "trees", but they are the "parasitic plants" that kill the trees.and I believe Islam "products" is about,
No God
No Religion
No NonsenseOnly Deen of Islam, ie. universal and practical living, ie. "real products" (trees).
-
If you wish to call Allah as God, then no problem at all. . . . it is just an issue of languages.
So, now I'm quite confused which issue they are referring to
- The true nature of "no shirk" in the doctrine of Islam, or
- The translation issue of "Allah" and "Ilah".
If they want to discuss the issue of translation, then the issue remains unanswered is in this post.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606622.msg352206#msg352206
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606622.msg352209#msg352209
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606622.msg352221#msg352221
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606622.msg352225#msg352225However, this thread is not about the issue of translation of "Ilah" or "Allah" etc. . .
but it is about tawheed, "no shirk", no duality.