SOME VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS...
-
salam br zenje,
you musn't overdo the analysis of the watch. I provided that analogy just to show that something can be complete without being FULLY detailed. Since my analogy was referring to the Quran, I take it your question means "Do I believe that any outside information is vital to understanding/implementing the Quran."
The answer of course is no. The Quran is independent, and totally sufficient for guidance. Br. PB and I are in agreement on this.. and actually, though he perhaps won't admit it, we actually agree on all our concepts.. the only thing we disagree on is terminology.
-
salam br PB,
I dont know why you are acting so threatened by me. If I'm so much a fool then no one will listen anyway.. so please stop acting that way.
I gave that analogy in the hopes of explaining my understanding of the difference between NECESSARY details and UNNECESSARY details... you need both together to have "FULLY" detailed.
That is my terminology. You have your terminology. You refuse to accept my terminology for various reasons.
I tried to explain the folly in using the term fully detailed, and tried to explain how the Arabic does not even mean that.. and I've said pretty much all I can say.
Let's just agree now to peacefully go our separate ways.
-
Salaam Shuaib,
Thank you for answering my question, and thanks for seeing where I was going with it. DSalaam PB,
Why cant we all just get along? grouphug It seems to me that the essence of the message is accepted by both of you. Pardon the pun, but the rest is just details... isn't it? DAllah's Quran, pertinent to/relative to/specific to Guidance...
If I understand correctly... you guys are in agreement up to this point. And that to me, is the important part.)>-
-
PEACE, SHUAIB,
I dont know why you are acting so threatened by me. If I'm so much a fool then no one will listen anyway.. so please stop acting that way.
Threatened??? LOL!, you've got to be kidding, right?? Nothing about you is threatening, in fact, it is the opposite that is the case. Your comment is nothing but projection, and that is why you refuse, after numerous requests to do so, to answer the following question with a yes or a no
Did Allah, leave out any detail from Al-Quran, which could result in an individual going astray and thus going to HELL?
If you aren't threatened by me, then, you will answer the above question this time with a yes or a no.
I gave that analogy in the hopes of explaining my understanding of the difference between NECESSARY details and UNNECESSARY details... you need both together to have "FULLY" detailed.
You anaolgy fails. Just in case you din't read my explanation for why it fails, here it is again
His anology fails miserably. By his own admission, the watch, without the "other" details, told time completely and is sufficent for telling the time, hence, there are no other details necessary to achieve the end of knowing what time it is by that watch. Do you agree, yes or no? Details not necessary to the purpose or function of something, are called....ACCESSORIES.
Main Entry ACCESSORYan object or device not essential in itself but adding to the beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of something else.
Allah's Quran, pertinent to/relative to/specific to Guidance , is fully detailed...not accessorized, because an accessory is something that is not necessary for a thing to fulfill its purpose.
I would very much like to know how you, relative to/specific to, Al-Quran that, complete and fully detailed are not the same. Please read the following and answer this question
Did Allah, leave out any NECESSARY/INDISPENSIBLE PARTS, ELEMENTS, STEPS, from Al-Quran, which could result in an individual going astray and thus going to HELL...yes or no?
WAKAS It is fully detailed with respect to its purpose as a guide.
SHUAIB it should be obvious that the guidance IS complete
Now, as did Wakas, you contradict yourself all over the place.
SHUAIB Thus, the Quran IS complete, despite leaving out "details."
It is a contradiction to state that Al-Quran, as you admit, is complete guidance. Main Entry COMPLETE having all necessary parts, elements, or steps, and then turn right around and say...it is complete, despite, leaving out details. What you've said is that, some necessary details, relative to/specific to, GUIDANCE, are not in Al-Quran.
That is my terminology. You have your terminology. You refuse to accept my terminology for various reasons. I tried to explain the folly in using the term fully detailed, and tried to explain how the Arabic does not even mean that.. and I've said pretty much all I can say.
Your terminology and explantions are nothing more than your own conjectures/opinions, and an excuse for not answering the following question, which terrifies you, with a simple yes or no
Did Allah, leave out any detail from Al-Quran, which could result in an individual going astray and thus going to HELL?
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, SHUAIB,
Let's just agree now to peacefully go our separate ways.
I'm not holding you back from going anywhere, however, I wish you would have the intestinal fortitude to stop running away and answer the following question...yes or no. What say you?
If you won't answer the following question with a yes or no response, then you will clearly show that you are only interested in avoiding the truth, and your ego.
Did Allah, leave out any detail from Al-Quran, which could result in an individual going astray and thus going to HELL?
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, ZENJE,
Why cant we all just get along? grouphug It seems to me that the essence of the message is accepted by both of you. Pardon the pun, but the rest is just details... isn't it? D
Don't misread my tenacity as being antipathy for Shauib, Wakas, or Idol. I like then all very much...and you too )
Allah's Quran, pertinent to/relative to/specific to Guidance...
If I understand correctly... you guys are in agreement up to this point. And that to me, is the important part.
Shuaib, Wakas, and I, are not in agreement, in fact, our positions are antithetical, to wit
WAKAS It is fully detailed with respect to its purpose as a guide.
Then he turns around and undoes what he previously asserted, to wit
WAKAS One could infer from the attribute 'fassala', that the text would be clear in what the text means thus it is sufficiently detailed with respect to gaining a meaning, but not 'fully detailed' as a blanket term. When someone says a text is 'fully detailed' one must give an object of reference (i.e. fully detailed with respect to what)
But, didn't he previously say that?
WAKAS With respect to its purpose as a guide, it is fully detailed.
It is obvious that we are talking about Al-Quran being fully detailed in respect to guidance , and not in some "blanket use" of the term.
Now he is stating that, Al-Quran--The Text, relative to/specific to/in respect to...guidance, is not fully detailed.
SHUAIB it should be obvious that the guidance IS complete
The he turns around undoes what he says
SHUAIB Thus, the Quran IS complete, despite leaving out "details."
My position is
Al-Quran is fassalnahu/fully detalied, Al-Quran--The Text, relative to/specific to/in respect to...guidance , and omits no details regarding guidance.
As you can see, Shuaib and Wakas, while agreeing with each other's position, are in contradiction with mine. My position supports Tauhid Allah, while their's does not.
Did Allah, leave out any detail from Al-Quran, which could result in an individual going astray and thus going to HELL?
What say you, Zenje?
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, ZENJE,
Did Allah, leave out any detail from Al-Quran, which could result in an individual going astray and thus going to HELL?
No.
I hope that suffices.
Yes, your answer absolutely suffices.
The only sane/taqwa answer to that question is "no", hence, Al-Quran, relative to/specific to/in respect to--- the instructions on how to live a righteous life in this world (especially, not to do shirk) , so that, one may successfuly pass the test of conduct , so that, one may avoid the destiny of Hell and gain the destiny of Paradise , is fully detailed. For if it weren't, then mankind would inevitably/inexorably...be lead to...HELL.
Now, isn't it interesting that Shuaib, Wakas, and Idol, cannot/will not simply answer "no" as you and I have done, what is up with that??
Thanks for an honest response, Zenje. Perhaps the others will be lead by your example and simply answer "no" as well.
Peace.
-
PEACE, SHUAIB,
you are only interested in avoiding the truth, and your ego.
my sentiments exactly.
Still cannot answer yes or no, eh?, simply pitiful. Anyway, I hope you will, at some point, show the kind of forthrightness/intellectual honesty that Zenje, has.
By not answering the question put to you, you sacrificed/forsook Al-Quran, to you ego. Good work.
Peace.
-
Salaams all,
zenje wrote
PRIEST_BOKMEI wrote
Did Allah, leave out any detail from Al-Quran, which could result in an individual going astray and thus going to HELL?No.
I hope that suffices.
I also agree 100%.
Salaam.
-
PEACE, MZ357,
Salaams all,
zenje wrote
PRIEST_BOKMEI wrote
Did Allah, leave out any detail from Al-Quran, which could result in an individual going astray and thus going to HELL?No.
I hope that suffices.
I also agree 100%.
Salaam.
All praises due to Allah. You are another intellectually honest individual. Perhaps now Shuiab, Idol, and Wakas, will come out of hiding and follow yours and Zenje's lead and respond with a simple yes or no as well. Let's see.
It is my understanding that, the questions I asked, will demarcate the Muslim from the mushrik /munafiq .
Peace.
-
It is my understanding that, the questions I asked, will demarcate the Muslim from the mushrik /munafiq .
Peace.Oh Priest Bokmei,
Demacrate the Muslim? But I don't label myself with anything! Why do you intend to label others with polythiest or hypocrite?
Simply a belief in God not enough?Regards,
-
Peace be upon you PB,
We've come to that time again, you are losing your patience like Musa when he was learning higher wisdom from the unnamed teacher. I have to say Peace to you, maybe we will resume our debate another day.
-
Peace be upon you PB,
We've come to that time again, you are losing your patience like Musa when he was learning higher wisdom from the unnamed teacher. I have to say Peace to you, maybe we will resume our debate another day.
LOL! Listen, the questions put to you were not trick questions or some profound philosophical problem. All you needed do was answer yes or no. Anyway, you have to live with yourself not me, but your credibility, at least for me, is now suspect. I will not question you after this.
Peace.
-
PEACE, LOTE TREE,
It is my understanding that, the questions I asked, will demarcate the Muslim from the mushrik /munafiq .
Peace.Oh Priest Bokmei,
Demacrate the Muslim? But I don't label myself with anything! Why do you intend to label others with polythiest or hypocrite?
Simply a belief in God not enough?Regards,
I'm sorry if this makes you feel uncomfortable, Lote. If we are not submitting to Allah by obeying His Quran, then we are taking something else a god to guide.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, LOTE TREE,
It is my understanding that, the questions I asked, will demarcate the Muslim from the mushrik /munafiq .
Peace.Oh Priest Bokmei,
Demacrate the Muslim? But I don't label myself with anything! Why do you intend to label others with polythiest or hypocrite?
Simply a belief in God not enough?Regards,
I'm sorry if this makes you feel uncomfortable, Lote. If we are not submitting to Allah by obeying His Quran, then we are taking something else a god to guide.
Looking forward to your reply.
Hello Priest Bokmei,
No, it does not make me uncomfortable at all.
But I believe by labelling it makes it easy to deny another human beings dignity. Just by saying this person is a Kaffir he becomes instantly less of a human being doesn't he? I feel that is wrong. What say you?Regards,
-
PEACE, LOTE TREE,
No, it does not make me uncomfortable at all.
But I believe by labelling it makes it easy to deny another human beings dignity. Just by saying this person is a Kaffir he becomes instantly less of a human being doesn't he? I feel that is wrong. What say you?I'm gald you are not uncomfortable, good deal.
There is nothing wrong with labeling, and it is wrong thinking to believe that it is. Allah has labelled those who submit to Him...Muslims, and has labelled those who do not, rejectors.
I haven't called anyone a kaffir.
What say you?
-
I'm gald you are not uncomfortable, good deal.
There is nothing wrong with labeling, and it is wrong thinking to believe that it is. Allah has labelled those who submit to Him...Muslims, and has labelled those who do not, rejectors.
Read this on Power of Labels http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3604
I haven't called anyone a kaffir.
What say you?Kaffir is Unbeliever isn't it? The demarcation between Muslim and others?
Regards,
-
Salaams lote,
you said
"But I believe by labelling it makes it easy to deny another human beings dignity. Just by saying this person is a Kaffir he becomes instantly less of a human being doesn't he? I feel that is wrong. What say you? "
Can't we have a temporary label?to define a person according to their actions?
like a thief is a thief,but only when ever his actions are such.
But if he persists for a life time then he is one for life ain't he?
Don't you deny a thief the dignity which you would give him otherwise?
Same with one who commits or doesn't commit,believes or doesn't believe temporary or for life.
May be i am not comprehending this as you , but please explain -thanks.
Salaams.