Origin of Religions?

FreedomStands

Peace, Man of Faith.

I actually agree with you concerning this. The Arabic word "Ibaada" means to serve, not to worship. To worship God is meaningless and, from my understanding, we are never instructed to 'worship' God in the Qur'aan. We are consistently told to acknowledge and serve (e.g. through obeying) Him. If God mandated that we worship Him, it would imply that He needs us to satisfy His ego, which completely negates the idea of Him being "supreme".

If we want to please God, we need to follow His guidance and instruction. No "religion" is required.

Peace,

Ahmad

worship (n.) Look up worship at Dictionary.com
Old English wor?scip, wur?scip (Anglian), weor?scipe (West Saxon) "condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown," from weor? "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful "honorable" (c.1300).

adore (v.) Look up adore at Dictionary.com
late 14c., aouren, "to worship, pay divine honors to, bow down before," from Old French aorer "to adore, worship, praise" (10c.), from Latin adorare "speak to formally, beseech, ask in prayer," in Late Latin "to worship," from ad- "to" (see ad-) + orare "speak formally, pray" (see orator). Meaning "to honor very highly" is attested from 1590s; weakened sense of "to be very fond of" emerged by 1880s. Related Adored; adoring.

idolatry (n.) Look up idolatry at Dictionary.com
mid-13c., from Old French idolatrie, from Vulgar Latin idolatria, shortened from Late Latin idololatria (Tertullian), from Ecclesiastical Greek eidololatria "worship of idols," from eidolon "image" (see idol) + latreia "worship, service" (see -latry).

serve (v.) Look up serve at Dictionary.com
late 12c., "to render habitual obedience to," also "minister, give aid, give help," from Old French servir "to do duty toward, show devotion to; set table, serve at table; offer, provide with," from Latin servire "be a servant, be in service, be enslaved;" figuratively "be devoted; be governed by; comply with; conform; flatter," originally "be a slave," related to servus "slave," perhaps from Etruscan (compare Etruscan proper names Servi, Serve, Latinized as Servius).

By c.1200 also as "to be in the service of, perform a service for; attend upon, be personal servant to; be a slave; owe allegiance to; officiate at Mass or other religious rites;" from early 13c. as "set food at table;" mid-14c. as "to wait on (customers)." From late 14c. as "treat (someone or something) in some fashion." To serve (someone) right "to treat as he deserves" is recorded from 1580s.
He no schuld neuer wond
To seruen him fro fot to hond

Sense of "be useful, be beneficial, be suitable for a purpose or function" is from early 14c.; that of "take the place or meet the needs of, be equal to the task" is from late 14c.; that of "suffice" is from mid-15c. Meaning "render active military service" is from 1510s. Sporting sense, in tennis, badminton, etc., first recorded 1580s. Legal sense "present" (a writ, warrant,etc.), "give legal notice of" is from early 15c.

subservient (adj.) Look up subservient at Dictionary.com
1630s, "useful, serviceable," from Latin subservientem (nominative subserviens), present participle of subservire "assist, serve, come to the help of, lend support," from sub "under" (see sub-) + servire "serve" (see serve (v.)). The meaning "slavishly obedient" is first recorded 1794. Related Subserviently.

slave (n.) Look up slave at Dictionary.com
late 13c., "person who is the chattel or property of another," from Old French esclave (13c.), from Medieval Latin Sclavus "slave" (source also of Italian schiavo, French esclave, Spanish esclavo), originally "Slav" (see Slav); so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.
This sense development arose in the consequence of the wars waged by Otto the Great and his successors against the Slavs, a great number of whom they took captive and sold into slavery.
Meaning "one who has lost the power of resistance to some habit or vice" is from 1550s. Applied to devices from 1904, especially those which are controlled by others (compare slave jib in sailing, similarly of locomotives, flash bulbs, amplifiers). Slave-driver is attested from 1807; extended sense of "cruel or exacting task-master" is by 1854. Slate state in U.S. history is from 1812. Slave-trade is attested from 1734.

Old English Wealh "Briton" also began to be used in the sense of "serf, slave" c.850; and Sanskrit dasa-, which can mean "slave," apparently is connected to dasyu- "pre-Aryan inhabitant of India." Grose's dictionary (1785) has under Negroe "A black-a-moor; figuratively used for a slave," without regard to race. More common Old English words for slave were ?eow (related to ?eowian "to serve&quot and ?r?l (see thrall). The Slavic words for "slave" (Russian rab, Serbo-Croatian rob, Old Church Slavonic rabu) are from Old Slavic *orbu, from the PIE root *orbh- (also source of orphan), the ground sense of which seems to be "thing that changes allegiance" (in the case of the slave, from himself to his master). The Slavic word is also the source of robot.

slavery (n.) Look up slavery at Dictionary.com
1550s, "severe toil, hard work, drudgery;" from slave (v.) + -ery. Meaning "state of servitude" is from 1570s; meaning "keeping or holding of slaves" is from 1728.

serf (n.) Look up serf at Dictionary.com
late 15c., "servant, serving-man, slave," from Old French serf "vassal, servant, slave" (12c.), from Latin servum (nominative servus) "slave" (see serve). Fallen from use in original sense by 18c. Meaning "lowest class of cultivators of the soil in continental European countries" is from 1610s. Use by modern writers with reference to medieval Europeans first recorded 1761 (contemporary Anglo-Latin records used nativus, villanus, or servus).

servant (n.) Look up servant at Dictionary.com
c.1200, "personal or domestic attendant," from Old French servant "servant; foot-soldier," noun use of servant "serving, waiting," present participle of servir "to attend, wait upon" (see serve (v.)).

Meaning "professed lover, one devoted to the service of a lady" is from mid-14c. In North American colonies and U.S., the usual designation for "slave" 17c.-18c. (in 14c.-15c. and later in Biblical translations the word often was used to render Latin servus, Greek doulos "slave&quot. Public servant is attested from 1670s.

thrall (n.) Look up thrall at Dictionary.com
late Old English ?r?l "bondman, serf, slave," from a Scandinavian source akin to Old Norse ?r?ll "slave, servant," figuratively "wretch, scoundrel," probably from Proto-Germanic *thrakhilaz, literally "runner," from root *threh- "to run" (cognates Old High German dregil "servant," properly "runner;" Old English ?r?gan, Gothic ?ragjan "to run&quot. Meaning "condition of servitude" is from early 14c.

religion (n.) Look up religion at Dictionary.com
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name.

superstitious (adj.) Look up superstitious at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "involving faith in supernatural powers or magic; characteristic of pagan religion or false religion," from Anglo-French supersticius, Old French supersticios, or directly from Latin superstitiosus "prophetic; full of dread of the supernatural," from superstitio "prophecy, soothsaying, excessive fear of the gods" (see superstition).

Islam (n.) Look up Islam at Dictionary.com
"religious system revealed by Muhammad," 1818, from Arabic islam, literally "submission" (to the will of God), from root of aslama "he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted," causative conjunction of salima "he was safe," and related to salam "peace."
... Islam is the only major religion, along with Buddhism (if we consider the name of the religion to come from Budd, the Divine Intellect, and not the Buddha), whose name is not related to a person or ethnic group, but to the central idea of the religion.
Earlier English names for the faith include Mahometry (late 15c.), Muhammadism (1610s), Islamism (1747), and Ismaelism (c.1600), which in part is from Ishmaelite, a name formerly given (especially by Jews) to Arabs, as descendants of Ishmael (q.v.), and in part from Arabic Ismailiy, name of the Shiite sect that after 765 C.E. followed the Imamship through descendants of Ismail (Arabic for Ishmael), eldest son of Jafar, the sixth Imam. The Ismailians were not numerous, but among them were the powerful Fatimid dynasty in Egypt and the Assassins, both of whom loomed large in European imagination.

believer (n.) Look up believer at Dictionary.com
"one who has faith in religion," 1540s, agent noun from believe.
sect (n.) Look up sect at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "distinctive system of beliefs or observances; party or school within a religion," from Old French secte, sete "sect, religious community," or directly from Late Latin secta "religious group, sect in philosophy or religion," from Latin secta "manner, mode, following, school of thought," literally "a way, road, beaten path," from fem. of sectus, variant past participle of sequi "follow," from PIE *sekw- (1) "to follow" (see sequel). Confused in this sense with Latin secta, fem. past participle of secare "to cut" (see section (n.)). Meaning "separately organized religious body" is recorded from 1570s.

surrender (n.) Look up surrender at Dictionary.com
early 15c., in law, "a giving up" (of an estate, land grant, interest in property, etc.), from Anglo-French surrendre, Old French surrendre noun use of infinitive, "give up, deliver over" (see surrender (v.)).
surrender (v.) Look up surrender at Dictionary.com
mid-15c., "to give (something) up," from Old French surrendre "give up, deliver over" (13c.), from sur- "over" (see sur- (1)) + rendre "give back" (see render (v.)). Reflexive sense of "to give oneself up" (especially as a prisoner) is from 1580s. Related Surrendered; surrendering.

abandon (n.) Look up abandon at Dictionary.com
"a letting loose, surrender to natural impulses," 1822, from a sense in French abandon (see abandon (v.). Borrowed earlier (c.1400) from French in a sense "(someone's) control;" and compare Middle English adverbial phrase at abandon, i.e. "recklessly," attested from late 14c.

sacrifice (v.) Look up sacrifice at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "to offer something (to a deity, as a sacrifice)," from sacrifice (n.). Meaning "surrender, give up, suffer to be lost" is from 1706. Related Sacrificed; sacrificing. Agent noun forms include sacrificer, sacrificator (both 16c., the latter from Latin); and sacrificulist (17c.).

remise (v.) Look up remise at Dictionary.com
in law, "give up, surrender, make over to another," late 15c., from noun remise, from Old French remise, past participle of remettre "to send back," from Latin remittere (see remit). Related Remised; remising.

pray (v.) Look up pray at Dictionary.com
early 13c., "ask earnestly, beg," also (c.1300) "pray to a god or saint," from Old French preier "to pray" (c.900, Modern French prier), from Vulgar Latin *precare (also source of Italian pregare), from Latin precari "ask earnestly, beg, entreat," from *prex (plural preces, genitive precis) "prayer, request, entreaty," from PIE root *prek- "to ask, request, entreat" (cognates Sanskrit prasna-, Avestan frashna- "question;" Old Church Slavonic prositi, Lithuanian prasyti "to ask, beg;" Old High German frahen, German fragen, Old English fricgan "to ask" a question).

Parenthetical expression I pray you, "please, if you will," attested from 1510s, contracted to pray 16c. Related Prayed; praying. Praying mantis attested from 1809. The "Gardener's Monthly" of July 1861 lists other names for it as camel cricket, soothsayer, and rear horse.

imprecation (n.) Look up imprecation at Dictionary.com
mid-15c., "a curse, cursing," from Latin imprecationem (nominative imprecatio), from past participle stem of imprecari "invoke, pray, call down upon," from assimilated form of in- "into, in, within" (see in- (2)) + precari "to pray, ask, beg, request" (see pray). "Current limited sense is characteristic of human nature."

deprecation (n.) Look up deprecation at Dictionary.com
c.1500, "prayer to avert evil," from Middle French depr?cation, from Latin deprecationem (nominative deprecatio), from past participle stem of deprecari "plead in excuse, avert by prayer," literally "to pray (something) away," from de- "away" (see de-) + precari "pray" (see pray). Sense of "disapproval" is first attested 1610s.

orate (v.) Look up orate at Dictionary.com
c.1600, "to pray, to plead," from Latin oratus, past participle of orare "speak, pray, plead, speak before a court or assembly" (see orator). The meaning "make a formal speech" emerged c.1860 in American English as a back-formation of oration. Related Orated; orating.

oratory (n.1) Look up oratory at Dictionary.com
"formal public speaking, the art of eloquence," 1580s, from Latin (ars) oratoria "oratorical (art)," fem. of oratorius "of speaking or pleading, pertaining to an orator," from orare "to speak, pray, plead" (see orator).

oracle (n.) Look up oracle at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "a message from a god, expressed by divine inspiration," from Old French oracle "temple, house of prayer; oracle" (12c.) and directly from Latin oraculum "divine announcement, oracle; place where oracles are given," from orare "pray, plead" (see orator), with material instrumental suffix -culo-. In antiquity, "the agency or medium of a god," also "the place where such divine utterances were given." This sense is attested in English from c.1400.

nuzzle (v.) Look up nuzzle at Dictionary.com
early 15c., "to bring the nose to the ground," back-formation from noselyng "on the nose, prostrate," frequentative of nose (v.); meaning "burrow with the nose" is first attested 1520s; that of "lie snug" is from 1590s, influenced by nestle, or by nursle, frequentative of nurse. Related Nuzzled; nuzzling.

prostrate (v.) Look up prostrate at Dictionary.com
early 15c., prostraten, "prostrate oneself," from prostrate (adj.). Related Prostrated; prostrating.
prostrate (adj.) Look up prostrate at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "lying face-down" (in submission, worship, etc.), from Latin prostratus, past participle of prosternere "strew in front, throw down," from pro- "forth" (see pro-) + sternere "to spread out," from PIE root *stere- "to spread, extend, stretch out" (see structure (n.)). Figurative use from 1590s. General sense of "laid out, knocked flat" is from 1670s.
prostration (n.) Look up prostration at Dictionary.com
c.1400, "action of prostrating oneself," from Old French prostracion (14c.) or directly from Late Latin prostrationem (nominative prostratio), noun of action from past participle stem of prosternere (see prostrate (v.)); or else a native formation from prostrate (v.). Meaning "weakness, exhaustion, dejection" is from 1650s.

kowtow (n.) Look up kowtow at Dictionary.com
also kow-tow, 1804, from Chinese k'o-t'ou custom of touching the ground with the forehead to show respect or submission, literally "knock the head," from k'o "knock, bump" + t'ou "head." The verb in the figurative sense of "act in an obsequious manner" is from 1826. Related Kowtowed; kowtowing.

Some words and etymologies from www.etymonline.com

We can't really give God anything, and God has no need for anything, nor can we really serve God anything, but God gives us everything, we give God nothing, though God is also what makes us worship or not worship, creating all that happens.

So even if it says "serve God" we don't serve God really. Even if it says "pay God" we can't pay God really, God gives us everything, we can give God nothing, there is nothing we can give God.

We are in a state of surrender (whether God makes us aware of this or not), and it wouldn't matter if God said "worship me" or "I have a huge ego" or any of these silly things, because we're directing our worship to the Ultimate, not some specific thing, not an idol, but whatever is absolutely Ultimate, of which there is no greater, the absolute Greatest. Why get hung up on words and their meanings so much? Yes, words are important, and we can define them carefully as to how we mean them, but they are not worth getting bogged down with or hung up about.

So lets say it was written in the Qur'an "I have a huge ego, worship me, it pleases my huge ego", would that change our religion or way, our millat, deen, tao, whatever, at all? Would it mean to throw the whole Qur'an in the garbage can and forget any benefit that might be derived from it? Would it mean that you are no longer still under the power of the Ultimate, dependent on the Ultimate, made to suffer or succeed by the will of the Ultimate alone? No, certainly, it wouldn't matter. The religion, the deen, the millat, the tao, the dharma, whatever you want to call it, this strategy is Surrender, it is the logical conclusion to the realization of the one we can not overcome or defeat who has power over everything. It is a realization only given to those God wills to give it to, and you can not come to it on your own, just like you can not come to any understanding, good or bad, on your own, nor are you ever self-sufficient as you might imagine, but always dependent from even before your birth. You do not have any immortality, you do not have any presence, you are whatever Allah makes you to be, and Allah can change you, and Allah can destroy you, and Allah can call you to account, and Allah can harm you, and Allah can give you pleasure unbounded, and Allah can make you a saint in piety, Allah can make you a devil in mischief, and to Allah belongs everything everywhere, the heavens and the earth and all that is in between and beyond. Do you imagine that you're some immortal beings that can question Allah and do as you please? It is Allah who schemes, Allah who might make you think you are able, or willing, when it is actually the will of Allah working in everything, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to their destruction, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to work righteousness and be rewarded, and Allah can harm those righteous ones too, and Allah can shower blessings upon the wicked, and Allah is capable of everything, the only Free Will who is unconditioned, unbounded, unlimited.

Now why have you all come to this website? Allah has brought you here, but for different reasons perhaps, some of you will be led astray here, others will be strengthened in goodness, some of you will take the knowledge and be harmed by it, and some will use it for benefit. Why not use this website and these words to make speeches of exceeding beauty regarding Allah and also to take what is best? Why not purify yourselves and your religions and shed away silliness and bad ideas, even by exploring your doubts and thinking "even if" such and such, we are following this way for the reason that we are aware of surrender to the Ultimate, that we can't overcome the Ultimate, so make your practice and your thoughts pure for Allah only. You will not be able to do it, save if Allah wills.

So I hope my writing above was enjoyed!

Man_of_Faith

Servants all of us or not is irrelevant. You can serve voluntarily or involuntarily. In the first chapter of Quran regarding "you we serve" implies that the reader who agrees with the statement accepts to carry out all the good in the spirit of God. The person who reads the same and does the opposite is a hypocrite.

It is also clear based on the usage of ibada from a wider context in Quran that the word refers to servitude and of being a servant since it is used in relation to other situations too and not only servant to God.

For a person who is a servant to a boss is also going under the ibada.

And you have better words for worship or glorify which is subhan. That is to glorify/worship God and the difference between worship and glorify is pretty vague.

The best way to glorify God is to serve God through good ways of being and deeds. This shows you do not just talk.

And if you do evil then you are not serving God so this person is not a servant. It is called disservice. You are a jinn in this case and a shaitaan, that kind a of spiritual affinity.

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

Harmony Freedom,

It is right that God has no need of anything. But this world is also about (spiritual) assimilation and you can also rule out alternatively dishonor the angels if you deem that no one can serve God in the foundation.

Serve is when you are assimilated with the phenomenon of God and do things in its spirit and hence serve is perfectly viable as a term. You do according to the will of this Supreme Power in symbiosis. And through your personal intention you have served God, no matter if God needs it or not. You do your deeds in assimilation with the Sustainer or you violate it and act like a jinn.

And in this case of argument God has no need of anything, neither worship nor service, so feel free to choose what you like. I honor/worship my Sustainer through meaningful ways by helping others towards a better life and by living as I teach as much as I can.

Have faith

FreedomStands

Servants all of us or not is irrelevant. You can serve voluntarily or involuntarily. In the first chapter of Quran regarding "you we serve" implies that the reader who agrees with the statement accepts to carry out all the good in the spirit of God. The person who reads the same and does the opposite is a hypocrite.

It is also clear based on the usage of ibada from a wider context in Quran that the word refers to servitude and of being a servant since it is used in relation to other situations too and not only servant to God.

For a person who is a servant to a boss is also going under the ibada.

And you have better words for worship or glorify which is subhan. That is to glorify/worship God and the difference between worship and glorify is pretty vague.

The best way to glorify God is to serve God through good ways of being and deeds. This shows you do not just talk.

And if you do evil then you are not serving God so this person is not a servant. It is called disservice. You are a jinn in this case and a shaitaan, that kind a of spiritual affinity.

Salaam

Subhan means "void" or "nothing" in a sense, so I'm not sure how that is a good word for worship, though it does make one understand the quality of God through absolute negation. It took on the "glory be" meaning later because of the extended meaning "void is Allah (from all that they attribute)".

Where do you generally get your information? I'm curious what your sources are for the ideas, like you've said some interesting things like connecting the term Jinn to snakes and the root somehow meaning "lowly", and whatever, but where are you finding these things? Are they on some website? They don't correspond with real etymology or lexicons so I'm not sure who is putting these things online. Edward Lane's lexicon and the online collection of Akkadian language words can help lots in figuring out the meaning of Arabic roots.

Man_of_Faith

Jinn is related to the Hebrew Gen which was Gens in Latin and Gentile in English. It is basically a word to refer to a person who is faithless and as arrogant as Jews were it came to refer to anyone who was not Jewish.

If dictionaries say otherwise you can either put your faith in them or me.

If Naas and Jinn occurs together as seeming like separate living beings it is because Naas is a person with spirit whereas the Jinn is faithless. But both are humans physically as far as your very eyes can see.

Compare that to the narrative about Solomon and the jinn who says he can bring the rule of the queen before Solomon stands up while the one blessed with knowledge says he can bring it to him in the blink of an eye. Both the jinn and the one with knowledge is a human.

Have faith

FreedomStands

Jinn is related to the Hebrew Gen which was Gens in Latin and Gentile in English. It is basically a word to refer to a person who is faithless and as arrogant as Jews were it came to refer to anyone who was not Jewish.

If dictionaries say otherwise you can either put your faith in them or me.

If Naas and Jinn occurs together as seeming like separate living beings it is because Naas is a person with spirit whereas the Jinn is faithless. But both are humans physically as far as your very eyes can see.

Compare that to the narrative about Solomon and the jinn who says he can bring the rule of the queen before Solomon stands up while the one blessed with knowledge says he can bring it to him in the blink of an eye. Both the jinn and the one with knowledge is a human.

Have faith

I don't know why you're so confident about this idea that you're spreading it around, because the etymology of the term "gentile" and "gens" from Latin is from a different language family.

Many people make the serious mistake of mixing or connecting unrelated languages and words.

gentile (n.) Look up gentile at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "chivalrous person; member of the nobility;" see gentile (adj.). Also used during 14c. to mean both "one who is not a Christian" and "one who is not a Jew." The Latin word was used in Vulgate to translate Greek ethnikos, from ta ethne "the nations," which translated Hebrew ha goyim "the (non-Jewish) nations."
gentile (adj.) Look up gentile at Dictionary.com
mid-13c., "noble, kind, gracious" (mid-12c. as a surname); late 14c., "of noble rank or birth, belonging to the gentry," from Late Latin gentilis "foreign, heathen, pagan," from Latin gentilis "person belonging to the same family, fellow countryman," from gentilis (adj.) "of the same family or clan," from gens (genitive gentis) "race, clan" (see gentle).

The word Goy and Goyim has a totally different etymology and origin, and is totally unconnected to the Latin, but the term was chosen for translations.

Goyim means "nations", the eem makes it plural.

Jinn is from a totally different language family

genie (n.) Look up genie at Dictionary.com
1650s, "tutelary spirit," from French g?nie, from Latin genius (see genius); used in French translation of "Arabian Nights" to render Arabic jinni, singular of jinn, which it accidentally resembled, and attested in English with this sense from 1748.

genius (n.) Look up genius at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "tutelary god (classical or pagan)," from Latin genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent;"

The term Genius and Jinn are also unconnected, they are from different language families, though both terms refer to the same creatures.

daemon (n.) Look up daemon at Dictionary.com
alternative spelling (in specialized senses) of demon (q.v.). Related Daemonic.
demon (n.) Look up demon at Dictionary.com
c.1200, from Latin daemon "spirit," from Greek daimon "deity, divine power; lesser god; guiding spirit, tutelary deity" (sometimes including souls of the dead); "one's genius, lot, or fortune;" from PIE *dai-mon- "divider, provider" (of fortunes or destinies), from root *da- "to divide" (see tide (n.)).

Used (with daimonion) in Christian Greek translations and Vulgate for "god of the heathen" and "unclean spirit." Jewish authors earlier had employed the Greek word in this sense, using it to render shedim "lords, idols" in the Septuagint, and Matt. viii31 has daimones, translated as deofol in Old English, feend or deuil in Middle English. Another Old English word for this was hellcniht, literally "hell-knight."

air (n.1) Look up air at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "invisible gases that make up the atmosphere," from Old French air "atmosphere, breeze, weather" (12c.), from Latin aerem (nominative aer) "air, lower atmosphere, sky," from Greek aer (genitive aeros) "air" (related to aenai "to blow, breathe&quot, of unknown origin, possibly from a base *awer- and thus related to aeirein "to raise" and arteria "windpipe, artery" (see aorta) on notion of "lifting, that which rises." In Homer mostly "thick air, mist;" later "air" as one of the four elements.

The Daemons were said to be made of "aer" which in that language meant "thick mist", and that is literally what they look like, you can see for yourself in the videos.

Where do you get your information from? It is mixing etymologies that have nothing to do with each other.

The word Jinn is not etymologically connected to Genius or Daemon but refers to the same thing, while the Latin Gens has nothing to do with the word Goy etymologically, they are from different languages and language families. One is from the "indo-european" language family, and one is from the "semitic" language family.

So can you please tell me where you're getting your information from? The connections you are making do not have an etymological basis. I like the idea you are presenting, it is an interesting idea, but what is it based on? You can't take words from other languages and language families and say they are connected to words from entirely different language families. Lots of people do that though, its a fallacy, its a mistake to do that, just because words sound similar from different language families doesn't mean they are etymologically connected or have the same origin.

Why do you think they are both human, when it lists a bunch of different creatures

2717
And his hosts of the jinn and the men and the birds were gathered to him, and they were formed into groups.

Jinn and the men and the birds, three categories, why are they listed like that? Are the birds also humans in this section, since the bird talks and it says that he could understand the speech of creatures like birds and other animals?

Why is the root, if the root means "faithless" or "snake" or "lowly" as you suggest (with what evidence?) used in the word Jannah, what does Jannah have to do with faithlessness, snakes, or the quality of being degraded?

The root JNN is connected to the words Jinn, Jannah, Janin. Janin means "foetus", the fetus as it is hidden in the womb.

This differentiates it from the Arabic words ?Hadeeqa? and ?Bostan? that have different descriptions and are used for gardens, while Jannah specifically refers to the "Hidden" aspect of the garden, and Jinn are etymologically known by linguists (who are also non-muslim linguists) as "hidden" as well, and the JNN root has this meaning of being hidden.

The term used for faithless people is kaffir, which has a different sense of the term "covered up", which is referenced many times, that their seeing, hearing, and understanding is covered up, while the JNN word means concealment, like being hidden as a fetus hides or is concealed in the womb, that Paradise is hidden from us and hidden from view, hidden in the future.

What is this Hebrew term you keep mentioning "Gens"? Do you think the word Gentile is Hebrew? It isn't Hebrew, it is a translation of the term Goy.

The other form of the Latin Gen, means origination, to beget, like Genesis, Generation, and stuff like that. It still isn't connected to the Semitic language family so has nothing to do with Hebrew or the term Goy.

So do you just get inspired with these ideas and think they are automatically the way it is or do you have some evidence to back up what you are spreading around with so much sudden confidence, when just a few months ago you didn't seem so confident on the matter, so how did you come to decide this thing?

What is the Hebrew word "gens", Latin is from a distinct language family, it is not directly related to Hebrew, but even in Latin the term Genius refers to the same creatures though this is called "accidental" or "coincidence" because the Arabic root JNN and the Latin word Genius come from entirely different language families and are unrelated, and also their meaning is unrelated, since the root JNN means hidden and is well attested among linguists to have this meaning or sense.

Plus, I'm not just making this stuff up, not only is it linguistically real, but I understand why they said the "daemons" were made of "aer" because they actually physically look like that, but they didn't know they were actually made of something described as "smokeless fire" which the Qur'an revealed.

So to recap

I'd like to know where exactly you are getting your information and the back up for it. Do you just follow what you imagine or are you reading it somewhere and have evidence? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm trying to understand.

What is your objection to this history and idea?

What is the Hebrew word "gens" that you keep mentioning?

Gentile comes from an entirely different language family, it is not a Hebrew word at all, and the term Genesis, Generation, and whatever else have nothing to do with Hebrew, they are from a different language family, called the Indo-European Language Family, not the Semitic Language family, the Semitic language family works differently, all words are based on a three letter radix or root in the Semitic Language family.

The Hebrew, even the Hebrew root "gnn" is the same as the Arabic JNN, and means "to cover" to "hide" to "be hidden".

The idea of "covering" is used in its other sense in the word Kaffir, which means that they are covered up from the truth, from understanding, or that they conceal the truth (or both).

What basis do you have to say Nas, which is well known to refer to the whole human race, are all spiritual? The Qur'an talks about people who do not believe in Allah and never refers to them as Jinn.

Yet, the Jinn believe in Allah, so how can they be called faithless?

5916
the like of when Satan says unto man, ?Deny the truth!? - but as soon as has denied the truth, says, ?Behold, I am not responsible for thee behold, I fear God, the Sustainer of all the worlds!?

3441
They will say Be Thou Glorified. Thou (alone) art our Guardian, not them! Nay, but they worshipped the jinn; most of them were believers in them.

5156
I did not create the Jinns and the human beings except for the purpose that they should worship Me(created the faithless to worship him?).

Read the Surah about the Jinn, 72

Say It has been revealed to me that a party of the jinn listened, and they said Surely we have heard a wonderful Quran,
Which guideth unto righteousness, so we believe in it and we ascribe no partner unto our Lord
'And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord He has taken neither a wife nor a son.
Certainly the foolish among us say preposterous things of God.
But we, truly, thought that the humankind, nor the jinn would ever say a lie about God (These are the faithless talking?)
And indeed (O Muhammad) individuals of humankind used to invoke the protection of individuals of the jinn, so that they increased them in revolt against Allah);(This is well attested to, this was a practice of people around the world, they are called Shin in Japan, from another coincidental unrelated language root from the Chinese term jinn).
They thought, as you did, that God would never raise up anyone from the dead.
And that we sought to touch the heaven but we found it filled (with) guards severe, and flaming fires.
And we used to sit on places (high) therein to listen. But he who listeneth now findeth a flame in wait for him; (these are humans?)
And that we know not whether evil is meant for those who are on earth or whether their Lord means to bring them good
And among us there are righteous folk and among us there are far from that. We are sects having different rules.(Righteous folk, and disbelievers being made distinct here, "We (The Jinn Race) are sects having different rules" Why exactly is the Qur'an giving this person a whole Surah to talk in as if this would impress anyone unless its talking about some other beings of which people have little knowledge?)
And we know that we cannot escape from Allah in the earth, nor can we escape by flight. (The faithless know this? Oh yeah? Might you consider that your inspiration on this matter, of which you were not so sure a few months ago, might be not be accurate?)
Hence, as soon as we heard this guidance, we came to believe in it and he who believes in his Sustainer need never have fear of loss or injustice.
"'Yet that among us are such as have surrendered themselves to God - just as there are among us such as have abandoned themselves to wrongdoing. Now as for those who surrender themselves to Him - it is they that have attained to consciousness of what is right;(WHAT? THE "FAITHLESS" ARE MUSLIMS!? WOW! Do you see that your understanding does not really make much sense anymore? Is it a matter of pride now? Don't let it be! Here is another translation of that 7214 And that we, among us (are) Muslims and among us (are) unjust. And whoever submits, then those have sought (the) right path.)
but as for those who abandon themselves to wrongdoing - they are indeed but fuel for hell!?"
If they are steadfast on the path , We shall provide them with abundant water,
so as to test them by this means for he who shall turn away from the remembrance of his Sustainer, him will He cause to undergo suffering most grievous.
And the places of worship are only for Allah, so pray not unto anyone along with Allah.
And when the slave of Allah stood up in prayer to Him, they densely crowded on him, almost stifling. (if this is still talking about the jinn, then it is talking about how the mist came around him almost stifling his breathing with the dense mist, and if you've encountered jinn you wouldn't doubt this, its just a matter of fact thing, but because you haven't recognized or dealt with jinn, that doesn't mean you must reject their existence.)
Say "I invoke my Sustainer alone, for I do not ascribe divinity to anyone beside Him."
Say "Verily, it is not in my power to cause you harm or to endow you with consciousness of what is right."
Say "Verily, no one could ever protect me from God, nor could I ever find a place to hide from Him
"Unless I proclaim what I receive from Allah and His Messages for any that disobey Allah and His Messenger,- for them is Hell they shall dwell therein for ever."
Until when they see what they are threatened with, then shall they know who is weaker in helpers and fewer in number.
Say "I do not know whether that of which you were forewarned is near, or whether my Sustainer has set for it a distant term."
(He is) the Knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret, (Unseen is a different word here, the Jinn are totally visible to people if you know what to recognize).
Save unto every messenger whom He hath chosen, and then He maketh a guard to go before him and a guard behind him
That He may know that they have indeed conveyed the messages of their Lord. He surroundeth all their doings, and He keepeth count of all things.

Muslim Jinn, Jinn being worshiped (as they were and have been throughout the world), Jinn touching the sky but being harassed by radiation or flames. These are the "faithless" of old? These are "snakes" or "lowly"? It is some point of interest that the Jinn should talk so much about themselves "we are of differing sects" as if that is some news to people? The jinn made before humankind yet are humankind?

1526
Verily We created man of potter's clay of black mud altered,

1527
And the jinn We created before, of intensely hot fire.

Are you still going to deny all this?

Are you going to turn away from all this in favor of your own idea which does not have any strong basis?

What is the Hebrew word Gens? Do you know that the Latin language and the Hebrew language are unrelated from different language families?

Will you deny that the words Jinn and Gentile have nothing to do with each other and are from entirely different language families?

Will you keep to your theory even when it says of the jinn there are Muslims in contrast to disbelieving jinn?

I mean there is so much, why would you continue to resist? Is it just because you haven't seen jinn? I showed links to videos which show you what they look like. Do you really need to encounter them yourself in order to believe in their existence? They are creatures, jinn, men, birds. They were made before humans and made from a different material, we are made of mud, they are made of fire, this was the whole argument of Iblis who was a jinn, he existed before Adam, was Iblis a human who existed before Adam and claimed to be made of fire while he is made of mud? What are you talking about? The Qur'an says the jinn were made before humans and were made of fire while the humans were made of mud, and that is why Iblis existed before Adam, the Qur'an remains consistent on the matter, your theory doesn't seem to match up (it is a good idea, an interesting theory, but it doesn't fit properly).

There is not Hebrew word Gentile, the word Gentile is not a Hebrew word, the word Goy is not connected to the root GNN in Hebrew which is the same as JNN, both mean Hidden, and Gentile has nothing to do with that word because its from a different language and was meant to be a translation of the word Goyim used by Jews to refer to all the "nations".

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, FreedomStands.

Thanks for posting all of those etymological definitions. They can be very helpful for those who don't understand the meanings of the words used in the Qur'aan, especially from a linguistic point of view...

We can't really give God anything, and God has no need for anything, nor can we really serve God anything, but God gives us everything, we give God nothing, though God is also what makes us worship or not worship, creating all that happens.

So even if it says "serve God" we don't serve God really. Even if it says "pay God" we can't pay God really, God gives us everything, we can give God nothing, there is nothing we can give God.

I think this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". Who and what is Allah to you?

In addition, if God is Who dictates whether we 'worship' Him or not (assuming that this is a commandment of His), then how can He manifest justice if He punishes us for not doing so? Given your position, there's no free will, and we can't voluntarily make the decision to worship (or serve) God at all; He's actually the One doing everything. So, how could heaven and hell/paradise ever be justified for those who worship God and those who don't?

We are in a state of surrender (whether God makes us aware of this or not), and it wouldn't matter if God said "worship me" or "I have a huge ego" or any of these silly things, because we're directing our worship to the Ultimate, not some specific thing, not an idol, but whatever is absolutely Ultimate, of which there is no greater, the absolute Greatest. Why get hung up on words and their meanings so much? Yes, words are important, and we can define them carefully as to how we mean them, but they are not worth getting bogged down with or hung up about.

So lets say it was written in the Qur'an "I have a huge ego, worship me, it pleases my huge ego", would that change our religion or way, our millat, deen, tao, whatever, at all? Would it mean to throw the whole Qur'an in the garbage can and forget any benefit that might be derived from it? Would it mean that you are no longer still under the power of the Ultimate, dependent on the Ultimate, made to suffer or succeed by the will of the Ultimate alone? No, certainly, it wouldn't matter. The religion, the deen, the millat, the tao, the dharma, whatever you want to call it, this strategy is Surrender, it is the logical conclusion to the realization of the one we can not overcome or defeat who has power over everything. It is a realization only given to those God wills to give it to, and you can not come to it on your own, just like you can not come to any understanding, good or bad, on your own, nor are you ever self-sufficient as you might imagine, but always dependent from even before your birth. You do not have any immortality, you do not have any presence, you are whatever Allah makes you to be, and Allah can change you, and Allah can destroy you, and Allah can call you to account, and Allah can harm you, and Allah can give you pleasure unbounded, and Allah can make you a saint in piety, Allah can make you a devil in mischief, and to Allah belongs everything everywhere, the heavens and the earth and all that is in between and beyond. Do you imagine that you're some immortal beings that can question Allah and do as you please? It is Allah who schemes, Allah who might make you think you are able, or willing, when it is actually the will of Allah working in everything, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to their destruction, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to work righteousness and be rewarded, and Allah can harm those righteous ones too, and Allah can shower blessings upon the wicked, and Allah is capable of everything, the only Free Will who is unconditioned, unbounded, unlimited.

Now why have you all come to this website? Allah has brought you here, but for different reasons perhaps, some of you will be led astray here, others will be strengthened in goodness, some of you will take the knowledge and be harmed by it, and some will use it for benefit. Why not use this website and these words to make speeches of exceeding beauty regarding Allah and also to take what is best? Why not purify yourselves and your religions and shed away silliness and bad ideas, even by exploring your doubts and thinking "even if" such and such, we are following this way for the reason that we are aware of surrender to the Ultimate, that we can't overcome the Ultimate, so make your practice and your thoughts pure for Allah only. You will not be able to do it, save if Allah wills.

Again, this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". When you refer to God as being "The Ultimate", what do you mean? What exactly is Allah to you? Is He some type of celestial being, like an alien? Is He a Universal force of some kind, like gravity or electricity? Is He a base of material, like an atom? Is He a human like us? Some people portray God as some type of superhero character out of a comic book, like Thor or Superman. Reasonably, we must conclude that, if He can write books, talk to people and send prophets, He must be something; otherwise, we could logically conclude that He (probably) doesn't exist at all... So, what is He? How do you perceive God, and how do you validate your view of Him?

When you (assumingly) make the choice to worship God, what are you worshiping?

Many people say that they don't know what God is, and that's reasonable based on the context. However, that logic has its own share of problems, the biggest being If you don't know what (and, therefore, "who&quot God is, then how can you be sure that you're not worshiping an idol or false deity?

Peace, and thanks for your post.

Ahmad

FreedomStands

Peace, FreedomStands.

Thanks for posting all of those etymological definitions. They can be very helpful for those who don't understand the meanings of the words used in the Qur'aan, especially from a linguistic point of view...

I think this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". Who and what is Allah to you?

In addition, if God is Who dictates whether we 'worship' Him or not (assuming that this is a commandment of His), then how can He manifest justice if He punishes us for not doing so? Given your position, there's no free will, and we can't voluntarily make the decision to worship (or serve) God at all; He's actually the One doing everything. So, how could heaven and hell/paradise ever be justified for those who worship God and those who don't?

Again, this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". When you refer to God as being "The Ultimate", what do you mean? What exactly is Allah to you? Is He some type of celestial being, like an alien? Is He a Universal force of some kind, like gravity or electricity? Is He a base of material, like an atom? Is He a human like us? Some people portray God as some type of superhero character out of a comic book, like Thor or Superman. Reasonably, we must conclude that, if He can write books, talk to people and send prophets, He must be something; otherwise, we could logically conclude that He (probably) doesn't exist at all... So, what is He? How do you perceive God, and how do you validate your view of Him?

When you (assumingly) make the choice to worship God, what are you worshiping?

Many people say that they don't know what God is, and that's reasonable based on the context. However, that logic has its own share of problems, the biggest being If you don't know what (and, therefore, "who&quot God is, then how can you be sure that you're not worshiping an idol or false deity?

Peace, and thanks for your post.

Ahmad

Thank you so much for your message. Most people misunderstand me, What people are experiencing as "Free will" does exist. Also, God can create any form of justice system, and God created this particular form we know of, that is all I've been saying, but people keep misinterpreting me and claiming I am denying their experience of "free will" which I am saying is something they are experiencing and I am not denying that experience they are clearly having, and I am also saying that God created the justice system. If someone says that the Justice system was before Allah or Allah didn't make everything then these are simply people who are not really following logic or even what the Qur'an says.

You bring up some fantastic points which I have been trying to make myself for the same reasons! Yes, you must know what you are worshiping, and if you "don't know" or think "it could be this or that" then you do not have a strong or accurate concept of God at all and those people are just flirting with idolatrous notions.

I have explained everything at length and in clear detail (though people still seem to misunderstand it strongly) in this post, which I'd appreciate greatly if you read, since it answers your questions

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607171.msg362129#msg362129

I speak of only what is absolutely knowable through thinking carefully, and if anyone denies the existence of "anything" such as the experience of "stuff" in the vaguest sense or the existence of "information being experienced by them in any way" they are just being contentious liars and I frankly hate their guts for it.

As you'll see in my posts after my nice explanation there. I will read it along with you, and I hope you read it very slowly and carefully and see how cautious I have been to only speak of what is absolutely necessary to any common sense thinking person, and have not gone into conjecture or guessing and I know very clearly what it is that I worship and why it can only be that and I will not worship anything but that because I explain why anything less than that is not something I would call God ever.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, FreedomStands.

Most people misunderstand me, What people are experiencing as "Free will" does exist. Also, God can create any form of justice system, and God created this particular form we know of, that is all I've been saying, but people keep misinterpreting me and claiming I am denying their experience of "free will" which I am saying is something they are experiencing and I am not denying that experience they are clearly having, and I am also saying that God created the justice system. If someone says that the Justice system was before Allah or Allah didn't make everything then these are simply people who are not really following logic or even what the Qur'an says.

You bring up some fantastic points which I have been trying to make myself for the same reasons! Yes, you must know what you are worshiping, and if you "don't know" or think "it could be this or that" then you do not have a strong or accurate concept of God at all and those people are just flirting with idolatrous notions.

I have explained everything at length and in clear detail (though people still seem to misunderstand it strongly) in this post, which I'd appreciate greatly if you read, since it answers your questions

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607171.msg362129#msg362129

I speak of only what is absolutely knowable through thinking carefully, and if anyone denies the existence of "anything" such as the experience of "stuff" in the vaguest sense or the existence of "information being experienced by them in any way" they are just being contentious liars and I frankly hate their guts for it.

As you'll see in my posts after my nice explanation there. I will read it along with you, and I hope you read it very slowly and carefully and see how cautious I have been to only speak of what is absolutely necessary to any common sense thinking person, and have not gone into conjecture or guessing and I know very clearly what it is that I worship and why it can only be that and I will not worship anything but that because I explain why anything less than that is not something I would call God ever.

Thanks for the link. I understood your post, and I agree with it to a great degree... I disagree to a degree also, however. For example, if we characterize God from that perspective, how could we rationally suggest that "he" could be encompassed within a framework of informational stimulation at all? In fact, from this standpoint, wouldn't God actually be an inanimate "it" more than anything? Logically, the only things we can associate with the notions in which Allah is characterized (by way of your description) are inanimate, at least from our perspective. For example, most of the things you mentioned can be said of the Universe, or existence/reality, itself. However, does the Universe have a "will"? Can it make "decisions"? Again, not from our perspective. The Universe, as it appears to me, is completely unaware of, and unconcerned with, our existence and experience. Worshiping God is as meaningless as worshiping the Universe; as baseless as 'bowing down' to Reality.

You seem to be depicting God, in a way, as a type of "eternal, conscious force or power". The problem I have with this is based on the comparative view of things we have NOTHING with which to associate this. God, from this viewpoint, is literally unlike anything we could possibly imagine or characterize, and that makes it impossible to define or understand him/it.

In addition, your notion raises the question of whether or not God is bound by the "laws" of cause and effect (or 'karma&#039. You made the statement that God 'creates what he/it wills', to which I agree. Yet, everything is stimulated through the means of previous causes, which can generally be assessed, evaluated, and even predetermined. Here's a fictional (and completely unrealistic too, but spare me) example

A man smokes a cigarette at a gas station while putting fuel in his vehicle. He pulls the nozzle out of the tank prematurely, spilling gas on the ground. He notices what he did, and gets alarmed. This causes him to jump backwards to avoid getting gas on his clothes, consequently dropping the cigarette from his mouth. The cigarette lands in the spilled gas. A fire is generated, and it quickly begins spreading. His vehicle explodes, igniting a fire throughout the rest of the gas station. The entire gas station blows up. Four people are killed in the explosion.

Which part of the explosion did God cause? Did He cause the man to begin smoking? Did He cause the spill, the dropped cigarette, the location in which it fell, the fire, the initial explosion, etc.? Did He cause all of them individually, or did one naturally lead to the others? Did God plan everything out in advance and 'cause' the man to need gas, or was this due to his excessive driving habits? Or were all the said events completely due to "chance"? That question may sound completely trivial, but I think it's important because the 'answer' illustrates exactly how much control God actually has over everyday events. Are we the ONLY 'information' being projected through our experience, or do the other factors (e.g. cigarette, gas, fire, pump, vehicle, etc.) also experience events as well, as (seemingly) 'primitive' forms of information?

Peace,

Ahmad

FreedomStands

Peace, FreedomStands.

Thanks for the link. I understood your post, and I agree with it to a great degree... I disagree to a degree also, however. For example, if we characterize God from that perspective, how could we rationally suggest that "he" could be encompassed within a framework of informational stimulation at all? In fact, from this standpoint, wouldn't God actually be an inanimate "it" more than anything? Logically, the only things we can associate with the notions in which Allah is characterized (by way of your description) are inanimate, at least from our perspective. For example, most of the things you mentioned can be said of the Universe, or existence/reality, itself. However, does the Universe have a "will"? Can it make "decisions"? Again, not from our perspective. The Universe, as it appears to me, is completely unaware of, and unconcerned with, our existence and experience. Worshiping God is as meaningless as worshiping the Universe; as baseless as 'bowing down' to Reality.

You seem to be depicting God, in a way, as a type of "eternal, conscious force or power". The problem I have with this is based on the comparative view of things we have NOTHING with which to associate this. God, from this viewpoint, is literally unlike anything we could possibly imagine or characterize, and that makes it impossible to define or understand him/it.

In addition, your notion raises the question of whether or not God is bound by the "laws" of cause and effect (or 'karma&#039. You made the statement that God 'creates what he/it wills', to which I agree. Yet, everything is stimulated through the means of previous causes, which can generally be assessed, evaluated, and even predetermined. Here's a fictional (and completely unrealistic too, but spare me) example

A man smokes a cigarette at a gas station while putting fuel in his vehicle. He pulls the nozzle out of the tank prematurely, spilling gas on the ground. He notices what he did, and gets alarmed. This causes him to jump backwards to avoid getting gas on his clothes, consequently dropping the cigarette from his mouth. The cigarette lands in the spilled gas. A fire is generated, and it quickly begins spreading. His vehicle explodes, igniting a fire throughout the rest of the gas station. The entire gas station blows up. Four people are killed in the explosion.

Which part of the explosion did God cause? Did He cause the man to begin smoking? Did He cause the spill, the dropped cigarette, the location in which it fell, the fire, the initial explosion, etc.? Did He cause all of them individually, or did one naturally lead to the others? Did God plan everything out in advance and 'cause' the man to need gas, or was this due to his excessive driving habits? Or were all the said events completely due to "chance"? That question may sound completely trivial, but I think it's important because the 'answer' illustrates exactly how much control God actually has over everyday events. Are we the ONLY 'information' being projected through our experience, or do the other factors (e.g. cigarette, gas, fire, pump, vehicle, etc.) also experience events as well, as (seemingly) 'primitive' forms of information?

Peace,

Ahmad

I'm very surprised you somehow came to those conclusions when I thought I had been explicit about how God must have a "will" and "decision" making ability and can not be "blind" or a "blind force". Is it really true that you read all that I wrote and still came out of it without seeing any of those points I made? This is highly disturbing to me.

Firstly, God is neither a "he" or "she" because those terms have to do with genitalia mainly.

God is not conditioned, not bound by causation, if there is any law of karma it is law that only exists by God continuously upholding it and is under the power of God, there is nothing working "automatically" or "self-animated" without God.

Every single aspect of your example, moment to moment, was "information" and no part of it could exist if God did not create that specific information and who received it and how they received it and what they received was the specific information they received and no others received that same information. I explained all this at length in my post, so I'm kind of doubting you really thoroughly read it.

To plan out things "in advance" there has to be Time over God when Time is under God it is a perception created by God and God is not under anything nor is there any power other than God or "law or system" that "co-exists" with God or "before God" or "above God" or "with God" and things like "time" were the very names of the other "Gods" people used to associate with God (Zurvan for example). It is quite clearly Shirk.

The only "information" you yourself have specific access to is whatever you experience as you experience it which is unique to you, and all that information, that specific experience and everything in it and how it is, is the creation of God, there is no other creator.

Please, can you read it? How could it be that you read what I wrote out in such a lengthy way explaining all these things and come up with these questions when I was so explicit in my detailing all that. How could you come to these conclusions by reading all I wrote? Please tell me you didn't feel like reading the whole thing and just skimmed it to get what you thought was the "jist" and came up with those questions that were clearly outlined in what I wrote, because it is just too saddening and disturbing to me that you could have read every single word I wrote in that thread carefully and then still come up with these things even when they were explained at length in what I wrote.

Maybe try these links then as well, which also answer these things, but please read the article I linked thoroughly and slowly and carefully even if you did before, because I was very clear in that I thought

http//lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=59014

amin

Freedomstands,

Can you explain whats worship, why we need worship or what we need to worship? make it simple and short please.

FreedomStands

Freedomstands,

Can you explain whats worship, why we need worship or what we need to worship? make it simple and short please.

Worship is just a word I use for the meditative exercise of realizing or enacting "surrender". It is meant as a practice to meditate and remind oneself of our natural state of surrender before the power of God. It is for your benefit, not for the benefit of any other, nor does God benefit from it or anything at all.

Worship is an important thing to understand and practice and remember throughout the day. If Allah's promise is made true, then it will be one of the important keys that may help us to achieve the Paradise which is the ultimate goal of lasting ultimate pleasure. Buddhists do it for the same reason often and so did many others throughout history. It reminds us of our humble state before God and also gives a great energetic feeling of empowerment if one understands why they are doing it and can provide insights while praying too, its basically just a meditative exercise.

We should direct our worship to the only power that can actually do anything about anything, and that is whatever at all is the Ultimate or Utmost in power of which there is none greater, and that can only be One, and I've described what the qualities must be necessarily in my article here

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607171.msg362129#msg362129

If you worship an idea of God that is an idol or a form, or one that has partners in power, or multiple gods or false concepts, it is said your worship goes not to any of those concepts and they can't do anything to help you and your worship is rendered wasted and you will also possibly be destroyed for it, and it has many other consequences in life too for the kind of mentality that can come along with that kind of false worship or foolish ideas and this includes flirting with the possibilities of "we don't know what God is for sure" or "God might have a body, who knows" or not being sure and not knowing and not thinking it through to the very end.

Ahmad_Bilal