CAN ALLAH BE EVERYWHERE
-
The Bible suggests an easy test for example, for those who claim certain spiritual "gifts", all they have to do is drink lethal poison and survive.
Mark 1618
they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."See? So if I say to a Christian, please drink this lethal poison to prove your status, it is a simple test provided by the Bible they approve of so much.
If they die by such a trial though, they are according to their taking on such a test, a hypocrite, and if they refuse to take on such a test, also a hypocrite.
Thus it is appropriate to say that Christians should be provided with poison to drink if they claim to be at that level at least.
Now if you want to know what I am A.W., what kind of person I am, I'm a vicious demonic entity, I even bought a cobra necklace the other day made of surgical steel just to remind myself of certain things.
What is my function as a vicious demonic entity? My function is to bring things like this "poison test" to people. I do this by stating things about the Qur'an as well. It is to make people face their own ideas, to really put them under the heat of trial, it is what us demons do as our function sometimes.
This can have the effect of exposing the hypocrisy or erroneous ideas of people, leading them astray, or refining and strengthening them. It is not within my jurisdiction and power to control what effect my statements have.
The Qur'an uses similar vicious methods, because my God is the Lord of Demons
Remember when it tells people to simply ask for death if they are so confident about being the beloved chosen ones? 294 is an example. I am not confident about any of that stuff, and so I dread death and I dread God who is Death (non-information, when everything is Annihilated, only God is left).
Once I told a supposed little boy on a forum who claimed he was God, simply get his father to hold a bag over his head and see if he could manage to continue to live without being able to breathe. People were offended by this though, yet they weren't offended by someone calling themselves a God? They all knew it wouldn't work, so then why the bold claims? I would've been happy if he were God, then perhaps I could have asked him to do things for me, but no, they were just cowards and liars.
So when people say something, I offer them a test. When someone said in the Qur'an to Abraham "I am God", it was said he replied with the suggestion it be demonstrated by making the sun rise from the opposite side of the sky.
If a plastic bag with tape was handy though, he could have also offered my tests.
2214
God will admit those who believe and act righteously into Gardens watered by flowing rivers. God does whatever He wills.
2215
Anyone who thinks that Allah will not help him in this world and the Next World should stretch a rope up to the ceiling and then hang himself. Let him see whether his stratagem gets rid of what enrages him! -
Relevant video, and watch for the quote in the end!
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBFXajsIaSk
-
OnlyOneGod,
In fact it is not a reinterpretation of a language that has never been interpreted. A bunch of people who could not understand much at all were sitting down "interpreting" some 1400 years ago and they were not familiar with the language. The Arabic we know is a lie. These people were only interested in validating a religious doctrine and not particularly interested in knowing the truth of this language.
Your scholars do not know a thing and are illogical in their grammar rules. I told you the structure of "allah" and said it cannot be a noun because it lacks the grammar style (it needs to at all speak of noun). And AL marked words are adjectival words and often adverbs. Scholars may not agree with my rendition of 11-12, but that does not say it is wrong. Allah the word is a word of adhesion like adverb saying the condition, i.e. (such) Being and Al-'alemeen says itself modifies Rabb and would not end in if it were not talk about another subject and that Rabb was an object in this phrase. AL-'alameen means "such" (are) aware" because it is a conditional on them who surely are aware. The word allah itself contains the necessary conditional third person. And AL marked word is only true if someone fits the attribute and allah contains the whole root Alif-Lam-Lam very clearly. Only if you are you are it means... allah.
Arabic was not simply one language but it was like Aramaic, i.e. many different variations talked. But it is quite clear after my research that Quran contains a language not previously deciphered and "amateurs" tried although they were probably not interested in knowing what it really said.
One thing that catches my eye is how many words they have invented to say "no" in a language. That Arabic is really the language with the many no's. But it is because they liked no's I guess. Clerics seem to like forbidding or speaking negatively about things.
Only (ma) exclusively means "no" in Arabic. All other are invented definitions such as (la, ila, lan, lam) These are all lies. They do not mean no. as a letter means such/like. "Such Integrity", "Such Thereof", "Such Be", "Be Such Be". Since Arabic letters have innate meanings it is all related to the AL prefix, i.e. "Be Such". In fact has the same root. That is why is replaced by in some prefixing to make "Such Such + attribute".
And you cannot really come now 1400 years later and think the Arabic spoken today has anything to do with Quran. Languages change and not to mention the Arabic had many different dialects to the extent they were like different languages.
Arabic is heavily based on Aramaic and mostly share all the roots. Both language families are based on letters that originally had an innate meaning and the thousands of years old words were formed by the letters in formation.
That you find myriad definitions in lexicons show that people were involved who did not really know the right definitions. Arabic words do have only one general meaning and they cannot really mean two completely different things. That due to their descriptive nature.
Personally I find it strange that before the advent of the fabricated religion Islam and the great zeal that happened in the Middle-East, Aramaic was still the most common language throughout Arabia. That is something which catches my mind.
The "modern" Arabic script was not invented before the 4th-5th centuries AD, and Quran ought to have been one of the first literary works in this "new" script. Just when this script was just invented and not spread throughout Arabia then Quran suddenly occurs as a full compilation despite that before the 7th century people mostly used Aramaic until the zeal of Islam came.
And the writer of Quran did leave a hint at the innate meanings of individual Arabic letters. The so-called initials of 14 chapters are mostly there to preserve to help a future interpreter that they are supposed to carry a meaning. There is absolutely no reason why a chapter would start with a lonely letter and then have a clear conjunction to make adhesion to the context and the lonely letter has no own meaning.
People think they are scholars, but in fact they do not know much at all. I do not know all and I still lack knowledge, but at least I am unto more than these people who follow others blindly.
Be well
-
You are right, Freedomstands. I am looking forward to my death, but not really the death itself but the release.
-
You are right, Freedomstands. I am looking forward to my death, but not really the death itself but the release.
I know! I do understand your beliefs, and I even share many aspects of them too, pretty much entirely, but we'll continue to work on refining the statements involved. If you look back even recently to your posts from a few months or years ago, they have been evolving and adapting, so you're a continuing work in progress, as we are all of course, as you continue to be refined, even if the methods are somewhat harsh seeming at times, they are so that you deal with these things and come up with adaptions accordingly, like resistance training.
-
By the way Freedomstands,
In your sarcastic way of representing what I stand behind including the prophets you also misrepresent it. You say I hate my body which I cannot recall that I ever said. It simply has its purpose and it is an animal and I am not abusive towards animals. I have to keep the animal fed and watered sufficiently and not starving it but giving it the proper nutrition. Have you never had a cat or a dog?
Your prejudice towards me is based on people in Buddhism or Hinduism which sects I do not represent. I represent Abraham, Moses, Jesus, various "Buddhas" etc. The goal is not killing or tormenting the beast but merely having it restrained and being its master. You should love it in ways of caretaking and thus doing what is best for it. You view of me is a misconception. The goal here like I said in parables is to tend the cultivation, your single plant grown from a seed sown by the Sustainer and protect it from thistles.
You say I do not practice what I teach, but in fact I do to the extent I can. I am also in a human body. I do avoid sugar at all. Only water to meals. I barely drink any tea at all and no coffee. I avoid feeling aroused around beautiful women. I avoid masturbation. I avoid emotionality. I avoid the ego (=the beast).
I do not fast ritually, but that I do not to conform to fabricated religions and because I have control without tormenting the animal. Occasionally I practice a 1-2 day fast since it is scientifically proved to be healthy.
But I do have sex if my wife likes it. And it is hardly a sin or detrimental since I can control the instinctive drive, and she is not illicit sex. But I do feel like an animal doing it. Mating. It is disgusting and pleasant at the same time.
People call my interpretations self-righteous, but I sincerely doubt the Sustainer (Rabb) would agree about that. I am the only one who have been even remotely close to what Quran says for over a millennium. My interpretation still needs work on, but yet it is the closest to what Quran really says that you have available.
And definitions in general I gather from ancient Arabic lexicons while cross-checking them contextually in Quran. I have not a word that it not verified in those except the misconception about the word although it uses the same root as .
Be well
-
Freedomstands,
even if the methods are somewhat harsh seeming at times, they are so that you deal with these things and come up with adaptions accordingly, like resistance training.
They are guidelines and the utopia. Even I am not there although I do practice to the extent possible.
The point is not being tormenting and inhumane but treating the body as the animal it is and grow the spirit. A rule of thumb is to not let the animal express itself in your decisions in life for that is what is misconceived as Shaytaan the outcast. Shaytaan is the instinctive drive itself. Throughout history everyone has been told to be wary of Shaytaan and that is true. They only have had the wrong information about what Shaytaan is to begin with. Your body has Shaytaan for God sake! It is why Gnostic sects called the flesh evil.
It is not evil in itself, but it is what you do with it. The human spirit is dangerously combined with the flesh. It makes a dangerous and potent combination. The ability to open-minded thought (abstract thinking) together with a primate's animalistic (reptilian brain) can cause chaos. The more you separate the spirit from this beast the better you become at reducing the influence of Shaytaan. This is why Jesus taught "separate the spirit from the flesh". Now you have an even better elaboration on the same, and often in the light of science which was lacking 2000 years ago.
And through the computer age I am available globally quite often and I can write and spread written text all over the World Wide Web while the old prophets only could walk from temple to temple and perhaps write down texts on parchment that sinister clerics and scholars later corrupted.
Another prophecy which is to be fulfilled now in this millennium is Isaiah's words that the compilation is to be preserved which is possible due to the computer age and technology allowing to encode data and many measures that make it nearly impossible to corrupt it, and even if they corrupt or destroy one there can be billions of backups around the globe, even offline ones.
Be well
-
Good distinctions made, well done.
Also you had stated at one point about a shower or something and wishing you could wash your body away, not something one might say about a beloved dog or cat of theirs hopefully, which might have, among other things, given the impression that you despise the body, or like your disgust with "mating" for example.
In any case, it is good you're trying to live by what you say while still being reasonable about it.
You did well with your answers, and you'll likely be tested again.
-
Freedomstands,
No. But compared to the dog or cat I am not forced to be it while taking care of it.
I can wish I could wash my body away without hating it. It is more the feeling I wish I could be bodiless straight away. It is awkward in comparison to being an angel.
And you said I am not considering myself muslim, but per word definition I try to be that, i.e. sound, but I suppose a lot of angry or upset folks around here do not exactly agree.
-
Freedomstands,
No. But compared to the dog or cat I am not forced to be it while taking care of it.
I can wish I could wash my body away without hating it. It is more the feeling I wish I could be bodiless straight away. It is awkward in comparison to being an angel.
And you said I am not considering myself muslim, but per word definition I try to be that, i.e. sound, but I suppose a lot of angry or upset folks around here do not exactly agree.
Yeah, I was aware that you consider yourself to "Be sound" and so qualified as a "Muslim" if the term is considered to mean that, but I meant in the mainstream sense you do not qualify as a Muslim pretty much at this time since they have different ideas about what qualifies. Also those "quotes" were possible things you "could say" as alternatives, but were not meant to actually represent what might be your views currently.
-
Freedomstands,
You can say I am no Muslim but muslim per linguistic term. I see no dishonor in not being a sectarian Muslim, so it does not matter to me. People can call me whatever they like and it is the Rabb that sees.
-
Freedomstands,
You can say I am no Muslim but muslim per linguistic term. I see no dishonor in not being a sectarian Muslim, so it does not matter to me. People can call me whatever they like and it is the Rabb that sees.
Silly people might even say crazy things about me too.
-
OnlyOneGod,
In fact it is not a reinterpretation of a language that has never been interpreted. A bunch of people who could not understand much at all were sitting down "interpreting" some 1400 years ago and they were not familiar with the language. The Arabic we know is a lie. These people were only interested in validating a religious doctrine and not particularly interested in knowing the truth of this language.
Your scholars do not know a thing and are illogical in their grammar rules. I told you the structure of "allah" and said it cannot be a noun because it lacks the grammar style (it needs to at all speak of noun). And AL marked words are adjectival words and often adverbs. Scholars may not agree with my rendition of 11-12, but that does not say it is wrong. Allah the word is a word of adhesion like adverb saying the condition, i.e. (such) Being and Al-'alemeen says itself modifies Rabb and would not end in if it were not talk about another subject and that Rabb was an object in this phrase. AL-'alameen means "such" (are) aware" because it is a conditional on them who surely are aware. The word allah itself contains the necessary conditional third person. And AL marked word is only true if someone fits the attribute and allah contains the whole root Alif-Lam-Lam very clearly. Only if you are you are it means... allah.
Arabic was not simply one language but it was like Aramaic, i.e. many different variations talked. But it is quite clear after my research that Quran contains a language not previously deciphered and "amateurs" tried although they were probably not interested in knowing what it really said.
One thing that catches my eye is how many words they have invented to say "no" in a language. That Arabic is really the language with the many no's. But it is because they liked no's I guess. Clerics seem to like forbidding or speaking negatively about things.
Only (ma) exclusively means "no" in Arabic. All other are invented definitions such as (la, ila, lan, lam) These are all lies. They do not mean no. as a letter means such/like. "Such Integrity", "Such Thereof", "Such Be", "Be Such Be". Since Arabic letters have innate meanings it is all related to the AL prefix, i.e. "Be Such". In fact has the same root. That is why is replaced by in some prefixing to make "Such Such + attribute".
And you cannot really come now 1400 years later and think the Arabic spoken today has anything to do with Quran. Languages change and not to mention the Arabic had many different dialects to the extent they were like different languages.
Arabic is heavily based on Aramaic and mostly share all the roots. Both language families are based on letters that originally had an innate meaning and the thousands of years old words were formed by the letters in formation.
That you find myriad definitions in lexicons show that people were involved who did not really know the right definitions. Arabic words do have only one general meaning and they cannot really mean two completely different things. That due to their descriptive nature.
Personally I find it strange that before the advent of the fabricated religion Islam and the great zeal that happened in the Middle-East, Aramaic was still the most common language throughout Arabia. That is something which catches my mind.
The "modern" Arabic script was not invented before the 4th-5th centuries AD, and Quran ought to have been one of the first literary works in this "new" script. Just when this script was just invented and not spread throughout Arabia then Quran suddenly occurs as a full compilation despite that before the 7th century people mostly used Aramaic until the zeal of Islam came.
And the writer of Quran did leave a hint at the innate meanings of individual Arabic letters. The so-called initials of 14 chapters are mostly there to preserve to help a future interpreter that they are supposed to carry a meaning. There is absolutely no reason why a chapter would start with a lonely letter and then have a clear conjunction to make adhesion to the context and the lonely letter has no own meaning.
People think they are scholars, but in fact they do not know much at all. I do not know all and I still lack knowledge, but at least I am unto more than these people who follow others blindly.
Be well
As I'm no linguist, while you claim to deeply understand the arabic language (whether you speak it or not is a different thing), but for me, I'll personally take the opinion of the worldwide Quranic specialists. This is not even the opinion of the sectarian muslim linguists, even the non-muslim orientalists have mostly agreed as far as the translations of the Quran are concerned. I've never heard of a non-muslim actually challenging such things in open debate, as you claim here, and probably because they knew what the outcome would be within an academic peer reviewed setting. These texts have been extensively studied by non-muslim Phd scholars from across the world and they have not made half the claims that you make here. This forum is filled with such new-age interpretations of the Quranic arabic by people who would be considered amateurs at best.
I would like to ask you the following
Do you consider Qur'an to be the words of God ?
- if you do then you would also accept that God would preserve the primary interpretations of the Quranic text, and not leave it in a state of utter distortion for 1400 years until 'Man of Faith' comes along to set it right. If the meaning was to be left distorted then there was no need for such a text to begin with as no one would be following it as intended. The Qur'an does emphasize that it is a text preserved by God, whether you agree with that or not is another thing.
- If you don't consider it to be words of God then the matter should be closed and no need for re-interpretation in the first place.
So which category would say you fall in?
And on another note, why do you find the body or sex for that matter to be such an disagreeable thing where it disgusts you? Sex, and especially with a life partner has its own role to play in a persons life. It not only helps in the continuation of the species but is also enjoyable and can bring a husband and wife closer together. Would you not feel it a form of emotional cruelty towards your wife to be so obviously disgusted by sex with her? Do you consider that hurting her feelings in such a direct and degrading way would be looked on badly by the creator? I know that what I asked may be a bit personal but I only ask it because you yourself have mentioned it in your posts.
And Btw you say you do not follow Hinduism, may I ask what it is about Hinduism that you disagree with, is it their concept of God, the rituals or something else? You site Abrahamic religions as your belief system which mostly claim monotheism as their core belief while you do not accept that. With your pantheistic beliefs wouldn't Hinduism or Taosim be a better fit for you?
-
As I'm no linguist, while you claim to deeply understand the arabic language (whether you speak it or not is a different thing), but for me, I'll personally take the opinion of the worldwide Quranic specialists. This is not even the opinion of the sectarian muslim linguists, even the non-muslim orientalists have mostly agreed as far as the translations of the Quran are concerned. I've never heard of a non-muslim actually challenging such things in open debate, as you claim here, and probably because they knew what the outcome would be within an academic peer reviewed setting. These texts have been extensively studied by non-muslim Phd scholars from across the world and they have not made half the claims that you make here. This forum is filled with such new-age interpretations of the Quranic arabic by people who would be considered amateurs at best.
I would like to ask you the following
Do you consider Qur'an to be the words of God ?
- if you do then you would also accept that God would preserve the primary interpretations of the Quranic text, and not leave it in a state of utter distortion for 1400 years until 'Man of Faith' comes along to set it right. If the meaning was to be left distorted then there was no need for such a text to begin with as no one would be following it as intended. The Qur'an does emphasize that it is a text preserved by God, whether you agree with that or not is another thing.
- If you don't consider it to be words of God then the matter should be closed and no need for re-interpretation in the first place.
So which category would say you fall in?
And on another note, why do you find the body or sex for that matter to be such an disagreeable thing where it disgusts you? Sex, and especially with a life partner has its own role to play in a persons life. It not only helps in the continuation of the species but is also enjoyable and can bring a husband and wife closer together. Would you not feel it a form of emotional cruelty towards your wife to be so obviously disgusted by sex with her? Do you consider that hurting her feelings in such a direct and degrading way would be looked on badly by the creator? I know that what I asked may be a bit personal but I only ask it because you yourself have mentioned it in your posts.
And Btw you say you do not follow Hinduism, may I ask what it is about Hinduism that you disagree with, is it their concept of God, the rituals or something else? You site Abrahamic religions as your belief system which mostly claim monotheism as their core belief while you do not accept that. With your pantheistic beliefs wouldn't Hinduism or Taosim be a better fit for you?
I laughed!
Also, I get pretty personal with Man of Faith too, and those were good questions you brought up for him.
-
Salaam,
Would just like to add to this, user "OnlyOneGod"s questions are very good. However Man of Faith, if he believes to be the first and the only one to attempt such a reinterpretation, then he is incorrect.
See here
https//m.youtube.com/watch?v=ttWZyozXAc8Nevermind the title, some biased religion adherent put this up hoping to discredit the Quran. The clip itself is from an actual documentary. Some of you may already know of this.
-
Salaam,
Would just like to add to this, user "OnlyOneGod"s questions are very good. However Man of Faith, if he believes to be the first and the only one to attempt such a reinterpretation, then he is incorrect.
See here
https//m.youtube.com/watch?v=ttWZyozXAc8Nevermind the title, some biased religion adherent put this up hoping to discredit the Quran. The clip itself is from an actual documentary. Some of you may already know of this.
I like OnlyOneGod.
-
Am I going to be impressed by nominations to PhD's too?
Anyone can be a PhD of falsehood. You can study falsehood if you are deluded. The people in ancient time fabricated a language on top of another language and of course you can learn and study an invented language since it functions as a working language even if it is not the original one.
These people are PhD of a fabricated language and grammar rules and morphology etc. They can be experts at this for sure, but that does not really mean they know the author of Quran's intended meanings.
-
Am I going to be impressed by nominations to PhD's too?
Anyone can be a PhD of falsehood. You can study falsehood if you are deluded. The people in ancient time fabricated a language on top of another language and of course you can learn and study an invented language since it functions as a working language even if it is not the original one.
These people are PhD of a fabricated language and grammar rules and morphology etc. They can be experts at this for sure, but that does not really mean they know the author of Quran's intended meanings.
Just as a Devil's Advocate, how is it you are certain that you are not the one fabricating a language on top of another language?
-
Salaam,
Would just like to add to this, user "OnlyOneGod"s questions are very good. However Man of Faith, if he believes to be the first and the only one to attempt such a reinterpretation, then he is incorrect.
See here
https//m.youtube.com/watch?v=ttWZyozXAc8Nevermind the title, some biased religion adherent put this up hoping to discredit the Quran. The clip itself is from an actual documentary. Some of you may already know of this.
Yes I've seen this before and all the claims made within have been debunked by other scholars.
-
Am I going to be impressed by nominations to PhD's too?
Anyone can be a PhD of falsehood. You can study falsehood if you are deluded. The people in ancient time fabricated a language on top of another language and of course you can learn and study an invented language since it functions as a working language even if it is not the original one.
These people are PhD of a fabricated language and grammar rules and morphology etc. They can be experts at this for sure, but that does not really mean they know the author of Quran's intended meanings.
May I ask what your qualification is to be re-interpreting historical arabic texts, other then your references to corpus Quran. Which you also supposedly disagree with?