What does 'islam' mean to you?
-
DanishIt is essentially the personal affair of everyone and everything that exists in nature (which includes events, stories, creatures, forces, processes, characteristics, phenomenon, etc., etc.) without which the Quran wouldnt exist. You cant seem to adhere to simple rules of discussions and basic comprehension seriously, then to talk about Quran relevant to your life for crying out loud.
Is this what 'nature' means in normative terms? Kinldy provide an etymology for 'nature'.
And I profess that it is obviously you who cannot accept the fact that I am not even talking about the word nature being mentioned in the Quran or not, yet you keep on bragging about it since you've nothing else to add nor prepared to answer my questions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with discussion and my statement at hand. Nice try.
No, you're talking not about the word nature, correct. I am talking about the word. I challenge your use of it because it's not a Quranic word. Can you understand this please? If you cannot, then do say so and I will rephrase.
Quran mentions stories/events that took place in nature. Such stories/events MUST have happened in real life/nature BEFORE the Quran was revealed?
So now , is the word 'life' or 'nature' ? Would you mind getting your terms straight please?
Quran conforms to restrictions, limitations, commands, etc., for all mankind to obey, reflect, reason and follow that MUST have had its effects on events that HAPPENED in nature. Quran cannot possibly be enforcing such conformities without them; else it cannot possibly be true, let alone GODs Words
Then the word cannot be nature. Once again, look at the etymology of 'nature'.
Quran was revealed some 1400 years ago, before which it never existed. Judaism and Christianity existed before the Quran was revealed, hence the mentioning of those religions.
Al-quran never mentions judaism or christianity. Please try to actually study al-quraan before putting out false information about it.
EVERYTHING mentioned in the Quran HAS been the result of exactly what NATURE has called for and NOT the other way around.
'Nature' as you have defined it , never called for anything. Al-quraan speaks of Allah, not of nature being al-qaadir.
-
DanishIt is essentially the personal affair of everyone and everything that exists in nature (which includes events, stories, creatures, forces, processes, characteristics, phenomenon, etc., etc.) without which the Quran wouldn?t exist. You can?t seem to adhere to simple rules of discussions and basic comprehension seriously, then to talk about Quran relevant to your life for crying out loud.
Is this what 'nature' means in normative terms? Kinldy provide an etymology for 'nature'.
Please provide evidence of the word 'normative' and 'etymology' in the Quran?
Al-quran never mentions judaism or christianity. Please try to actually study al-quraan before putting out false information about it.
Then who are the ones that said "Son of GOD" in 930?
-
DanishPlease provide evidence of the word 'normative' and 'etymology' in the Quran?
I don't have to because I didn't assert anything about them. You on the other hand asserted EVERYTHING mentioned in the Quran HAS been the result of exactly what NATURE has called for and NOT the other way around. ,a total falsehood in light of Quranic metaphysics.
Then who are the ones that said "Son of GOD" in 930?
The same people who say 'WE are sons of Allah...' (5/1. Same word used.
-
SawtoothWell Danish, all I can say about the koran and what is found in it, is that you can find anything in anything if want
From a person who professes never to have read al-quraan and who also professes to come in peace, the above statement seems devious.
Sawtooth, if you can find it whatever you choose, I challenge you to do it. Find in it a command to worship Jesus. Lets see if that's possible, ok?
-
Joe Some people do find it possible. I'm not saying it is right, but it is possible to see what one wants, contrary to the evidence
You then take it to test. Does the book reject it or accept it. Al-quraan isnt an impotent text which accepts any false interpretation. This is why we're able to rediscover its primordial meanings despite centuries of obfuscation.
-
Danishlease provide evidence of the word 'normative' and 'etymology' in the Quran?
I don't have to because I didn't assert anything about them. You on the other hand asserted EVERYTHING mentioned in the Quran HAS been the result of exactly what NATURE has called for and NOT the other way around. ,a total falsehood in light of Quranic metaphysics.
Please provide evidence of the words 'metaphysics', 'normative' and 'etymology' via al Quran?
Then who are the ones that said "Son of GOD" in 930?
The same people who say 'WE are sons of Allah...' (5/1. Same word used.
Please provide evidence from the verse 930 that mentions "WE are sons of Allah"? And btw, what same people are you talking about in light of 930???? LOL!!! Would you mind translating the entire verse 930 in what YOU assert to be?
-
Danish, when you wish to continue in a mature fashion, let me know. Till then, salaam )
When your own deceptive and antagonizing tactics are thrown back at you in the same manner and reversed, the hunter gets hunted. A lesson to learn. wink That's all.
-
When your own deceptive and antagonizing tactics are thrown back at you in the same manner and reversed, the hunter gets hunted. A lesson to learn. That's all.
So its deceptive and antagonistic to ask you to bring evidence and define a word which you use in your allegation? Can we speak about the Book of Allah as we like?
Hunter and hunted? I'm sorry but I'm not here for the gratification of my ego. Perhaps you are as your words have betrayed and if so, good luck to you.
When you're ready to tell us where Al-quraan uses the word 'nature' or intends for its meaning, let me know.
-
danish
I will now state in direct words what mquran had wished you to find out on your own.
What you would have maybe realized if you would have maybe really studied the qur'?n, its language and its internal consistencies is that both the words al-yah?d and an-naSar? do have very significant meanings within it that go way beyond "Jews" and "Christians". E.g. the etymological root meaning of al-yah?d is not even related to the Hebrew derived root meaning of "Jew", even despite the fact that Arabic and Hebrew are closely related languages.
On the contrary, al-yah?d has a meaning related to the qur'anic Arabic etymology of al-hud? (guidance).The qur'?n does not talk about cultural or religious labels. It talks about universal patterns of human behaviour. It gives significant attributes to people with these patterns, attributes having a consistent meaning within its own qur'?nic Arabic language (which is not the same as modern standard Arabic!).
And then the qur'?n describes these people so that we can recognize them when we meet them.
When you read 5/18 you will see one of the main characteristics of al-yah?d and an-naSar?, seeing themselves as specially loved children of All?h.
While this characteristic applies to many Christians and Jews, it also applies to many other people. Including adherents of several nationalisms and, yes, also many traditional muslims. So they all belong to this category. We can all recognize them as such.It was a bold step when traditional muslims manipulated the meaning of 5/18 to only refer to Jews and Christians to let these two groups look bad. Manipulating it against the consistent qur'?nic etymology. But why did they take this bold step?
Ironically, because so they could then see themselves as better than Jews and Christians, as specially loved children of All?h ....... its very funny how these things work.Furthermore, even IF al-yah?d and an-naSara would indeed only refer to Jews and Christians that would not give enough support to your approach. Even then you would have to come up with something more solid. With a clear evidence of your concepts being mirrored within the qur'?n.
Mqurans's approach is, as you see, in no way antagonistic and deceptive.
It is very logical because it uses the language that the qur'?n itself uses.
He tried to tell you that your approach is not very convincing because you use an approach that has no base whatsoever within the qur'?n.
Your concept of nature does not mirror itself within the qur'?n and its concepts.
That is just simply the observable truth, sorry.
So you are just projecting personal prejudices onto a text that you did not even study sufficiently.
That?s very easy to do but it is not an acceptable methodology.
If you claim that this is not the case, then bring your proof. This is all what mquran has asked you for.
But instead of doing so you started to do silly rhetorics ..... your rhetorics are not too bad, I have to say. But rhetorics have only few to do with truth.You should try acquiring a more sure and consistent knowledge of the qur'?n and its language before you make claims about it.
peace,
Leyla
-
When your own deceptive and antagonizing tactics are thrown back at you in the same manner and reversed, the hunter gets hunted. A lesson to learn. That's all.
So its deceptive and antagonistic to ask you to bring evidence and define a word which you use in your allegation? Can we speak about the Book of Allah as we like?
?allegation?, my foot, LOL! You and Ahmed conveniently, thoughtlessly and cunningly nitpicked the word ?nature? out of the statement I made and started spewing it onto the Quran without reflecting on the entire statement itself.
My statement was a general statement, not a VERSE out of the Quran nor an allegation. It requires no authentication or explanation of any part/s therein, simply because the ENTIRE QURAN AS A WHOLE puts up with what NATURE has called for, without which the Quran cannot exist, PERIOD. I?ve already explained my statement, given examples and asked questions in my previous posts, which you altogether disregarded and got glued onto the nitpicked word 'nature' in total deviation and disharmony.
The real problem resides in your total misunderstanding of my statement in the first place. It seems beyond your comprehension level in this case. And not only that, you dodged all my questions, questioning on top of my questions without answering, straying off of what is being discussed and finally when I started giving back the taste of your own games, you have the nerve to talk about maturity, allegations, gratification of your ego. Dude, grow up and stop being a cry baby. Your deceptive and antagonistic behavior won?t work with me.
Hunter and hunted? I'm sorry but I'm not here for the gratification of my ego. Perhaps you are as your words have betrayed and if so, good luck to you.
See above in betraying your own self while implying on me. Hunter gets hunted after all.
When you're ready to tell us where Al-quraan uses the word 'nature' or intends for its meaning, let me know.
And when you?re ready to comprehend my entire general statement and when you?re ready to discuss things out in succession and in proper merit, without nitpicking words out-of-context, dodging questions and sidetracking, then come talk to me. In other words, get disciplined first.
-
Leyla,
Please read from my very first post on thenceforth on this thread and let me know how my statement got nitpicked and deviated. My statement talks about two seperate entities; NATURE and QURAN, not "GOD and QURAN" OR "GOD AND NATURE" and neither does my statement has anything to do with the word 'nature' being mentioned in the Quran or not. These are irrelevant arguments insensibly put forth against my statement.
Its a general statement made. In other words, how did the incidents and events which happened back then BEFORE the Quran's revelation got mentioned into the Quran. Obviously, the Quran calls for eveything that nature has called for or do you think it was the other way around? Are books written first before anything happens out of no where? What does the word 'nature' mean to you? Perhaps mquran and Ahmed need to open up their dictionaries and encyclopedias and study the word 'nature'.
Mqurans's approach is, as you see, in no way antagonistic and deceptive.
It is very logical because it uses the language that the qur'?n itself uses.
He tried to tell you that your approach is not very convincing because you use an approach that has no base whatsoever within the qur'?n.
Your concept of nature does not mirror itself within the qur'?n and its concepts.
That is just simply the observable truth, sorry.
So you are just projecting personal prejudices onto a text that you did not even study sufficiently.
That?s very easy to do but it is not an acceptable methodology.
If you claim that this is not the case, then bring your proof. This is all what mquran has asked you for.
But instead of doing so you started to do silly rhetorics ..... your rhetorics are not too bad, I have to say. But rhetorics have only few to do with truth.You should try acquiring a more sure and consistent knowledge of the qur'?n and its language before you make claims about it.
Great, more bickering. Read my last post to mquran and above. On the contrary, please translate the verse 930 for me in its entirety as was already requested to mquran. Thanks.
-
Hi all,
I dont really understand what the fuss is all about.
It is God who created nature.
It is God who created Quran.God created nature first, and by nature, I mean all that is present naturally such as sky, moon, man ,land, water, animals,etc Life cycles, also events and happenings ......all of it.
And then Quran came down later to explain and guide stuff about life and nature to mankind.EVERYTHING mentioned in the Quran HAS been the result of exactly what NATURE has called for and NOT the other way around.
So, If there was no nature(no creation), then there would be no need for Quran to explain life and other stuff to man. Thats like saying, if there is no man in the first place, How will the Quran serve its purpose of guiding man?
To comment on Danish's original statement, Its kind of a tricky one.
Coz God knows the nature He created. He well knows what and how things will be. So, nature doesnt really call for Quran. Its God who decided when to send Quran, just like He decided how nature was to be.Peace!
-
What you would have maybe realized if you would have maybe really studied the qur'?n, its language and its internal consistencies is that both the words al-yah?d and an-naSar? do have very significant meanings within it that go way beyond "Jews" and "Christians". E.g. the etymological root meaning of al-yah?d is not even related to the Hebrew derived root meaning of "Jew", even despite the fact that Arabic and Hebrew are
closely related languages.Oh. What would 'jew' be etymologised to in Hebrew?
On the contrary, al-yah?d has a meaning related to the qur'anic Arabic
etymology of al-hud? (guidance).I'm more in favour of HWD which is associated with approaching. I believe alladhina haadu are people who constantly on the approach, still of two minds as they failed to engage with the ayaat of Allah directly.
The qur'?n does not talk about cultural or religious labels. It talks about universal patterns of human behaviour. It gives significant attributes to people with these patterns, attributes having a consistent meaning within its own qur'?nic Arabic language (which is not the same as modern standard Arabic!).
And then the qur'?n describes these people so that we can recognize them when we meet them.This is what proves it to be al-haqq (41/53)
When you read 5/18 you will see one of the main characteristics of al-yah?d and an-naSar?, seeing themselves as specially loved children of All?h.
While this characteristic applies to many Christians and Jews, it also applies to many other people. Including adherents of several nationalisms and, yes, also many traditional muslims. So they all belong to this category. We can all recognize them as such.It's only racism which prevents us from doing so. Sunnis love to use al-quraan to justify thier views against the Christians and Jews but fail to see the ayaat working against themselves.
-
Salaam mquran.
The etymology of Jew and Judah (the same word, actually) in Hebrew means something like "one who praises Yah (God)".
I don?t think that this can be related in any way to the Arabc etymology of yah?d. Furthermore, the y of yah is not even present at all in the variant alladhina hud?.bye,
Leyla
-
The etymology of Jew and Judah (the same word, actually) in Hebrew means something like "one who praises Yah (God)".
I don?t think that this can be related in any way to the Arabc etymology of yah?d. Furthermore, the y of yah is not even present at all in the variant alladhina hud?.Yes, indeed a long way away. Thanks for the info.