What Constitutes a Muslim?
-
Peace idolfree1,
God uses symbolism, and God uses numbers...
But people can twist everything, e.g. people can make a human being like mary a mind, and use the excuse that God used symbolism somewhere else, so He must be using it all the time and then start to see symbolism everywhere even where it doesn't exist.
God used number 19, but there are also people who abuse that and see 19 everywhere, even where it doesn't exist.
Both are extreme idolfree1. And as we can say there are 19 worshippers and making 19 their idol and focal point , QIBLA, we cam say the same about those who make everything symbolism, and call them symbolism worshippers making the symbolism their idol and QIBLA, blablabla
God using symbolism in some places doesn't mean he is using it exclusively all the time, anywhere and everywhere and never using real examples which existed on this earth, did u grasp what i wanna say?
best regards,
sabo -
Peace Kyle,
You see, on the issues we all have in common, we AUTOMATICALLY UNITE.
After much contemplation, I realize that I have subconsciously reached the same conclusion. Funny, it comes back to the 10' radius. It still holds true. All we need to do is take care of those that are within 10' of us at all times. If we all take this attitude, then the whole world is ok, and united, individually.
p.s.
check your pmPeace,
Tay -
Salaamun alaikum Kyle,
The main group is The party of the God, ONENESS. Mankind was once one community, but THEN started breaking of into sects. Sunni, is just one of those sects. I belong to the Party of the God(at least I strive to). I do not belong to Free minds group, Sunnis, shiites, christians, jews, etc. I follow the God's guidance in the Book of Life(Universe) and follow all readings that guide me through this great Book(universe). The God tells us to have faith in what was descended on us and those before us.
So breaking away from sunnism, was joining the ONE COMMUNITY. We go backwards to join another SECT, and even further to join two sects together.
Agreed, the one community, 'ummatan wahida' (2/213) but this community by its very nature cannot stay united (also 2/213)
We don't need a NAME in order to promote goodness and reject wickedness. When the God said "let there arise a community from you to call to all that is good", He did not say give that group a name. Each os us who do right is described as one who peacefully submits. A community of such people are described as a community of ones who peacefully submit. There does not need to be a NAME. When you NAME something , you define it, therefore making it SEPERATE from other things. Seperation is wickedness, we strive for UNIFICATION/ONENESS, which is above names.
THAT is why this reading(quran) does not have a name, only attributes
THAT is why our Lord is above names, olnly attributesI'd have to disagree with you there. I believe a name was given to us, 'al-muslimeen' to essentially seperate from those who are NOT working in the system of Ibrahim. I'd also have to disagree about 'al-quraan' not being a proper name because its clear defined as such.
Yes, so why cant we see that the followers of 19 have fractionalized this system? What does the God say about those who break off into sects? I am not interested in joining the fractionalized group, I only want to promote the God's system, and continue to study and debate in this FORUM
.Well, the forum to me is a great place to dig up new ideas, definitely.
Thank you for the stimulation brother, I just wish that we could be using our energy for other topics. This topic should have been rejected right away. It concerns me that it is being given real consideration, but I am at peace with my position, as is stated, this is not a group, but a forum, each will be paid according to what they earned.
Lastly, do you have any idea of what is suppossed to happen on Feb 19th accordingt o Edip? I haven't gotten an answer, I was hoping someone else had that info. Or maybe someone here who follows the 19 philosophy can calculate it themselves and tell us, unless Edip is the only one with this "power".
.I have no idea about feb 19th, sorry. But do keep up the good work on other topics. I'd love to see you get to grips with musa and firaun. plenty of metaphors there !
thanks and peace
-
Peace be upon you Sabo,
God uses symbolism, and God uses numbers...
Correct.
But people can twist everything, e.g. people can make a human being like mary a mind, and use the excuse that God used symbolism somewhere else, so He must be using it all the time and then start to see symbolism everywhere even where it doesn't exist.
Mary symbolizes that which nurtures the new paradigm, it is very old symbolism. DO your research. I have explained it in detail, but all you can do is disagree, unlike 19 which can be logically argued away in the very next verse which calls it a trial for rejectors.
God used number 19, but there are also people who abuse that and see 19 everywhere, even where it doesn't exist.
Both are extreme idolfree1. And as we can say there are 19 worshippers and making 19 their idol and focal point , QIBLA, we cam say the same about those who make everything symbolism, and call them symbolism worshippers making the symbolism their idol and QIBLA, blablabla
But the God knew that there would be people who were overwhelmed by so much symbolism, so He descended the verse that we are discussing, stating that the God does not shy from them. Do you understand that you are getting information from a realm that you cannot understand, so you must get symbolism/similitudes?
God using symbolism in some places doesn't mean he is using it exclusively all the time, anywhere and everywhere and never using real examples which existed on this earth, did u grasp what i wanna say?
If the God used real examples, you werent here anyway to see them, so it wont be "real" for you anyway. But again, you are free to beleiev as you wish. But when you are ready to debate any symbolism, throw first. wink
-
Peace idolfree1,
What do you mean by "throw first" ? Have you been informed that I am an egyptian magican working for pharaoh or do you think you are moses? come one!
Well these examples are very much real to me, because they are not just some few events from the past which has nothing to do with our present time. On the contrary, these events are having a great effect on the world until now, that's why among other reasons they are mentioned in the Quran, and before the Quran they were mentioned too. Giving an example doesn't necessary mean that the object in the example isn't real. And when you are going out of context and saying that God doesn't shy from giving examples, this doesn't impress me.
God says he doesn't shy from giving examples and that's true, but this can not be streched to every narration in the Quran just because someone calls himself idolfree1 chose so. You became pretty obsessed with the new idol created called "symbolism" but hey also people who worship 19 will deny they are doing it and i don't expect you to see your new idol
so
- giving an example doesn't mean that the narration isn't real. Even a real event can be an example
- God is not shy from giving examples doesn't mean that everything in the Quran isn't real and can be taken as symbolism.
- These events mentioned in the Quran were mentioned before the Quran to different folks. If these folks made mistakes and understood these things as literal, do you expect the Quran being silent about that? The Quran corrected what people said about solomon, about jesus, etc.. but never said hey these people never existed. Well how are these events affecting the current events? Look at those who call themselves christians, and those who call themselves jews and wake up we are living in a very real worl, not in a fancy world of symbolism
Best regards,
sabo -
Salaam Sabo,
- giving an example doesn't mean that the narration isn't real. Even a real event can be an example
And vice-versa, so what's your beef?
God says he doesn't shy from giving examples and that's true, but this can not be streched to every narration in the Quran just because someone calls himself idolfree1 chose so.
Why not? Did this god tell a guy named Sabo such a thing?
- God is not shy from giving examples doesn't mean that everything in the Quran isn't real and can be taken as symbolism.
Why not? What is realism from one person to the next?
- These events mentioned in the Quran were mentioned before the Quran to different folks. If these folks made mistakes and understood these things as literal, do you expect the Quran being silent about that? The Quran corrected what people said about solomon, about jesus, etc.. but never said hey these people never existed.
I doubt anyone here is saying these people never existed. How they existed may be a different story. Mistakes in literal verses symbolic interpretation? Did god say which one is wrong?
Joe
-
Salaamun alaikum Sabo, Kyle, Joe,
Sabo God says he doesn't shy from giving examples and that's true, but this can not be streched to every narration in the Quran just because someone calls himself idolfree1 chose so. You became pretty obsessed with the new idol created called "symbolism" but hey also people who worship 19 will deny they are doing it and i don't expect you to see your new ido
Why is it an idol ? 41/53 tells us that
- ayaat fil afaaq (signs in the horizons)
- ayaat fil anfusl (signs in the selves)
will be shown to us till it is clear that al-quraan is the ultimate truth (al-haqq).
Therefore, firaun (being an ayat in the quran) MUST be confirmed in our horizons and in ourselves for us to know the Quran was telling the truth. We don't need history telling us his name was ramses etc, that's totally besides the point. But Firaun, the SYMBOL lives on in the world and in our selves. Kyle's strategy of reading al-qur'aan is the most correct one we can see in this forum, its vouchsafed by al-quraan itself. While most of us are busy looking for evidence in history, old parchments, miraculous calculations, Kyle's looking for it where it matters, IN HIS OWN LIFE.
Does 41/53 have ANY exception , Sabo ?
thanks and peace.
-
Peace mquran,
- ayaat fil afaaq (signs in the horizons)
- ayaat fil anfusl (signs in the selves)
will be shown to us till it is clear that al-quraan is the ultimate truth (al-haqq).
I agree, perceptions of life and what we have experienced personally will show us the quran is the truth.
Therefore, firaun (being an ayat in the quran) MUST be confirmed in our horizons and in ourselves for us to know the Quran was telling the truth.
Firaun being an ayat in the quran CAN be confirmed by either knowing people today that exhibit those characteristics and/or reading about the said firaun and coming across evidence that such and such existed...obviously, it's easier if we know such people (generally) but the other way is open for those whose inclinations lead them towards an interest in archeology, history etc in their lifetimes...the reading caters to diversity in human nature after all...
Kyle's strategy of reading al-qur'aan is the most correct one we can see in this forum, its vouchsafed by al-quraan itself.
I can see that what's vouchsafed are different methods from which we might see the quran as the truth...not 'just' symbology....
While most of us are busy looking for evidence in history, old parchments, miraculous calculations, Kyle's looking for it where it matters, IN HIS OWN LIFE.
You see, here is where it becomes subjective and relative. We have different ways of living our lives...to someone their personal experiences and say, their studies e.g hermetic teachings, might shape how they see truth in the quran...someone else, an archeologist who spends days looking for old history etc, see's the truth in the quran according to how he has lived his life, to a scientist it's yet another way how he perceives truth in the quran. The point is, if ALL kinds of people are seeing truth in the quran from their OWN personal experiences...that's what matters. No one can say, that one way is the right way in such a scenario...
Regards,
Nadia -
Salaamun alaikum Nadia,
Firaun being an ayat in the quran CAN be confirmed by either knowing people today that exhibit those characteristics and/or reading about the said firaun and coming across evidence that such and such existed...obviously, it's easier if we know such people (generally) but the other way is open for those whose inclinations lead them towards an interest in archeology, history etc in their lifetimes...the reading caters to diversity in human nature after all...
I'm afraid, while i would love to be pluralist in this issue, my reading of The Reading doesn't tell me so. I believe 41/53 only refers to 'live' rotation of signs. Anything textual or archeological doesn't apply.
You see, here is where it becomes subjective and relative. We have different ways of living our lives...to someone their personal experiences and say, their studies e.g hermetic teachings, might shape how they see truth in the quran...someone else, an archeologist who spends days looking for old history etc, see's the truth in the quran according to how he has lived his life, to a scientist it's yet another way how he perceives truth in the quran. The point is, if ALL kinds of people are seeing truth in the quran from their OWN personal experiences...that's what matters. No one can say, that one way is the right way in such a scenario...
Oh agreed. It's a personal subjective experience. There's no objective experience until our 'hour' (as-saat in quranic language) comes. And of course my reading that 41/53 only involves 'live' signs is my own opinion.
no offense intended, but i have to be honest about my understanding
thanks and peace.
-
Peace mquran,
I'm afraid, while i would love to be pluralist in this issue, my reading of The Reading doesn't tell me so. I believe 41/53 only refers to 'live' rotation of signs. Anything textual or archeological doesn't apply.
I understand. My understanding of the reading is different. I believe these signs are prevalent in every layer of conceivable life...whether it's chemistry, archeology or my indepth study of the characteristics of my awful uncle steve...
Oh agreed. It's a personal subjective experience. There's no objective experience until our 'hour' (as-saat in quranic language) comes. And of course my reading that 41/53 only involves 'live' signs is my own opinion.
Of course, perfectly valid.
no offense intended, but i have to be honest about my understanding
None taken...it was a pleasure discussing with you. )
Regards,
Nadia
-
Peace be upon you Nadia,
I understand. My understanding of the reading is different. I believe these signs are prevalent in every layer of conceivable life...whether it's chemistry, archeology or my indepth study of the characteristics of my awful uncle steve...
Nadia, how is that different? YOu take the "symbolism", the lesson contained in the symbolism, and apply it to all levels of objectivity (objective creation).
The part of wisdom that cannot be known is the subjective realm.
I fail to see how that is different from my position, can you explain?
-
Peace Kyle,
I fail to see how that is different from my position, can you explain?
Sure, i'll try.
Nadia, how is that different? YOu take the "symbolism", the lesson contained in the symbolism, and apply it to all levels of objectivity (objective creation).
My understanding above is about the signs we were talking about...which can be seen to confirm the truth in the quran can come from different places, be it archeology, chemistry or whatever depending on the experiences of the people who study it...indeed we take the symbolism (this is my personal understanding, i am not saying it is the sole truth, or the only correct understanding, maybe somewhere down the line it might change according to new information) which is a PART of it and apply it if we so choose(the wonder about symbolism is that it is relative and different people will see it differently all according to what their understandings are) that doesn't take away a PART that is literal or physical...and can be used to confirm the truth to people whose inclinations or experience in this life extends to the physical sciences etc....
Like i wrote to mquran I can see that what's vouchsafed are different methods from which we might see the quran as the truth...not 'just' symbology....
You can't insist that ONLY one way is right or correct...there are many ways to confirm the truth...and the quran caters to all kind of people.
The part of wisdom that cannot be known is the subjective realm.
If it cannot be known then it is not known. But i bet we even have different understandings regarding what we consider known and unknowns...this is rumsfelds understanding
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Nadia
-
Peace,
Here are my 2 cents on "What constitutes a Muslim?"...
In my opinion, there are ONLY two kinds of people in this world
- Those who love themseleves the most and
- Those who love God the most.
Those who love God the most are guided by God and once they recieve such guidance they leave everything near & dear to them for the love of God. Thus, a Muslim is one who loves God the most.
-
Peace greenleaves
you wrote
once they recieve such guidance they leave everything near & dear to them for the love of God
I believe this is excessively simplified even though there is a parcel of truth in it. Any human being, believing in god or not, makes choices in his life. Once these choices made responsabilities come from them and people can't just leave everything behind. I believe the god also wants us to assume our responsabilities in this life, while submitting. One doesn't have to exclude the other. May be I just didn't get what you really meant, because in a short post it's impossible to state it all. Life is never that simple.
Elke
-
Salaamun All
It is my understanding that a muslim is one who obeys the following ayat
2.131 When his Lord said to him, Be a Muslim, he said I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds.
- Behold! his Lord said to him "Bow (thy will to Me)" He said "I bow (my will) to the Lord and Cherisher of the Universe.
Allah, specifically, asks Abraham to "surrender" to Him and not to "bear witness" to anything. A muslim, then, is one who surrenders to Allah by establishing solaa as delineated in Al-Quran.
-
Peace Elke,
One doesn't have to exclude the other. May be I just didn't get what you really meant, because in a short post it's impossible to state it all. Life is never that simple.
Of course not! I love God and for God I am not going to forget about my parents, pets and friends just because God is there.
My point was when we recieve guidance from God, the true Muslims are those who once realize what they were believing in or doing was wrong will leave it even if it means leaving those/such things would cause them hardship at first instead of ease.
A classic example is that of any prophet...take Moses as an example. Moses was raised in the royal pharoh's family as one of their own, but when he recieved guidance from God, he stood up against the pharoh, though he knew all too well doing so would cause him hardships not ease.
-
Peace be upon you Green Leaves,
Of course not! I love God and for God I am not going to forget about my parents, pets and friends just because God is there.
The God permeates the parents , pets, and friends. It is about recognizing that oneness.
-
Peace be upon you Nadia,
Nadia, how is that different? YOu take the "symbolism", the lesson contained in the symbolism, and apply it to all levels of objectivity (objective creation).
My understanding above is about the signs we were talking about...which can be seen to confirm the truth in the quran can come from different places, be it archeology, chemistry or whatever depending on the experiences of the people who study it...indeed we take the symbolism (this is my personal understanding, i am not saying it is the sole truth, or the only correct understanding, maybe somewhere down the line it might change according to new information) which is a PART of it and apply it if we so choose(the wonder about symbolism is that it is relative and different people will see it differently all according to what their understandings are) that doesn't take away a PART that is literal or physical...and can be used to confirm the truth to people whose inclinations or experience in this life extends to the physical sciences etc....
Give me an example of the literal so I can understand better.
Like i wrote to mquran I can see that what's vouchsafed are different methods from which we might see the quran as the truth...not 'just' symbology....
You can't insist that ONLY one way is right or correct...there are many ways to confirm the truth...and the quran caters to all kind of people.
Please give an example.
Quote
The part of wisdom that cannot be known is the subjective realm.If it cannot be known then it is not known. But i bet we even have different understandings regarding what we consider known and unknowns...this is rumsfelds understanding
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
I don't think either of us are being deceptive like Rummie D
We know of the subjective realm by the experience of not being able to percieve that which percieves, the seer. -
Peace Kyle,
Give me an example of the literal so I can understand better.
Sure, this is a thread that has an interesting article that has many points that i already knew about...but here's an excerpt from it...
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3050
Many centuries before the onset of Muhammed's Prophethood, there was a well-known theory of atomism advanced by the Greek philosopher, Democritus. He and the people who came after him assumed that matter consists of tiny, indestructible, indivisible particles called atoms. The Arabs too, used to deal in the same concept; in fact, the Arabic word dharrah commonly referred to the smallest particle known to man. Now, modern science has discovered that this smallest unit of matter (i.e., the atom, which has all of the same properties as its element) can be split into its component parts. This is a new idea, a development of the last century; yet, interestingly enough, this information had already been documented in the Qur'an which states
" He is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that..."
I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Keith Moore for a television presentation, and we talked a great deal about this - it was illustrated by slides and so on. He mentioned that some of the things that the Qur'an states about the growth of the human being were not known until thirty years ago. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur'an's description of the human being as a "leech-like clot" ('alaqah) at one stage - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book. He said, "I never thought of that before," and he went to the zoology department and asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo, he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks. Dr. Moore also wrote a book on clinical embryology, and when he presented this information in Toronto, it caused quite a stir throughout Canada. It was on the front pages of some of the newspapers across Canada, and some of the headlines were quite funny. For instance, one headline read "SURPRISING THING FOUND IN ANCIENT BOOK!"! It seems obvious from this example that people do not clearly understand what it is all about. As a matter of fact, one newspaper reporter asked Professor Moore, "Don't you think That maybe the Arabs might have known about these things - the description of the embryo, its appearance and how it changes and grows? Maybe there were not scientists, but maybe they did something crude dissections on their own - carved up people and examined these things."
The professor immediately pointed out to him that he had missed a very important point - all of the slides of the embryo that had been shown and had been projected in the film had come from pictures taken through a microscope. He said, "It does not matter if someone had tried to discover embryology fourteen centuries ago, they could not have seen it!". All of the descriptions in the Qur'an of the appearance of the embryo are of the item when it is still too small to see with the eye; therefore, one needs a microscope to see it. Since such a device had only been around for little more than two hundred years, Dr. Moore taunted, "Maybe fourteen centuries ago someone secretly had a microscope and did this research, making no mistakes anywhere. Then he somehow taught Muhammad and convinced him to put this information in his book. Then he destroyed his equipment and kept it a secret forever. Do you believe that? You really should not unless you bring some proof because it is such a ridiculous theory." In fact, when he was asked "How do you explain this information in the Qur'an?" Dr. Moore's reply was, "It could only have been divinely revealed."!
Additionally, the 89th chapter of the Qur'an mentions a certain city by the name of 'Iram (a city of pillars), which was not known in ancient history and which was non-existent as far as historians were concerned. However, the December 1978 edition of National Geographic introduced interesting information which mentioned that in 1973, the city of Elba was excavated in Syria. The city was discovered to be 43 centuries old, but that is not the most amazing part. Researchers found in the library of Elba a record of all of the cities with which Elba had done business. Believe or not, there on the list was the name of the city of 'Iram. The people of Elba had done business with the people of 'Iram!
In these examples, we see people having different inclinations/experiences/professions might find the reading to hold truths that are as literal/physical as others might consider them to be symbolic.
I don't think either of us are being deceptive like Rummie
We know of the subjective realm by the experience of not being able to percieve that which percieves, the seer.That quote is quite something isn't it lol
But honestly, you have to explain the last statement...i can't pretend to have understood the implications of a sentence actually having the word seer and subjective in them! ? )Nadia