What does 'islam' mean to you?
-
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.
-
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.Absolutely and thank you 'peacefulmuslim'. I must further add to mention that while nature always existed since its creation, many revelations came down from time to time by the very nature that these revelations were called for. Quran is one such relevation that came in its own specific time which nature called for.
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?
Prior to al-Quran, everything existed in its good and bad ways and in continuation. Torah was revealed in its specific time for what nature had called for at that time. Things got out of hand and Injeel was revealed in its specific time for what nature had called for at that time and finally when life further worsened, the Quran was revealed in its specific time for what nature had called for at that time and to carry its final message over.
Now, it wasn't that difficult after all to understand my statement and the fuss and fiasco brought about by mquran was unecessary. He could have simply requested me to explain my statement further right from the start, rather than nitpicking on the word 'nature' out of its context and projecting onto the Quran to be found or not, thus taking the discussion and subject matter at martian levels.
-
Absolutely and thank you 'peacefulmuslim'. I must further add to mention that while nature always existed since its creation, many revelations came down from time to time by the very nature that these revelations were called for. Quran is one such relevation that came in its own specific time which nature called for.
Falsehood. Al-quraan is the detailling of al-kitaab (10/37) and al-kitaab was one and the same for all its receipients (2/213). Therefore this notion of 'its own specific time' is nonsense and the reason for its use will disclose itself once the word 'nature' is admitted into our lexicons. Sadly, Danish's lack of seriousness when it comes to studying the book of Allah has allowed him to make frivolous statements. Nowhere has nature called for anything in al-quraan. Allah is the agent behind khalq-as-samaawati-wal-ardh and its an ayaat for believers.
I advise people in this discussion to question the motives behind the word 'nature'. This notion of al-quraan coming for its own specific time is a movement - consciously or otherwise - to place al-quraan in the relativist domain. This is why the term 'in its own specific time' is used. The next move is to subjectivise 'nature' and hey presto, we will have an al-quraan unsuitable for modern times (another relative notion created by humankind). Be wary of concepts which al-quraan doesn't specify. Al-quraan is tafseel likulli shaiyin or a detailling of every THING.
-
Absolutely and thank you 'peacefulmuslim'. I must further add to mention that while nature always existed since its creation, many revelations came down from time to time by the very nature that these revelations were called for. Quran is one such relevation that came in its own specific time which nature called for.
Falsehood. Al-quraan is the detailling of al-kitaab (10/37) and al-kitaab was one and the same for all its receipients (2/213). Therefore this notion of 'its own specific time' is nonsense and the reason for its use will disclose itself once the word 'nature' is admitted into our lexicons. Sadly, Danish's lack of seriousness when it comes to studying the book of Allah has allowed him to make frivolous statements. Nowhere has nature called for anything in al-quraan. Allah is the agent behind khalq-as-samaawati-wal-ardh and its an ayaat for believers.
I advise people in this discussion to question the motives behind the word 'nature'. This notion of al-quraan coming for its own specific time is a movement - consciously or otherwise - to place al-quraan in the relativist domain. This is why the term 'in its own specific time' is used. The next move is to subjectivise 'nature' and hey presto, we will have an al-quraan unsuitable for modern times (another relative notion created by humankind). Be wary of concepts which al-quraan doesn't specify. Al-quraan is tafseel likulli shaiyin or a detailling of every THING.
One can clearly notice the fuss and fiasco mquran brings about unecessarily. His comprehension of what is being discussed is deterioting at every post. Baseless and foolish talks are all that is left out of this thread. "peacefulmuslim' seems to be the only one that basically understands what I am talking about. Go right ahead mquran, speak your vain heart out, if that makes you feel any better.
-
One can clearly notice the fuss and fiasco mquran brings about unecessarily. His comprehension of what is being discussed is deterioting at every post. Baseless and foolish talks are all that is left out of this thread. "peacefulmuslim' seems to be the only one that basically understands what I am talking about.
One advantage about remaining within the traditional fold (sunni, shia etc) is that they will never knowingly disparage al-quraan. They may idolise it or accept false interpretations from thier priesthood but never will they disparage it. Modernists, naturists and rationalists on the other hand, treat al-quraan as if its simply another book which came down 'in its own time' as Danish very clearly puts it. This is born out of an unconscious need to belong to 'modern society'. To me, the ephemerality of science can never compete with hukumullah, God's permanent legislation in reality. I will do my best never to speak so carelessly about His Book. We need to ask ourselves, do we want to be muslims to Allah or muslims to 'modern values'. There is no 'two gods', there's only the one.
-
One can clearly notice the fuss and fiasco mquran brings about unecessarily. His comprehension of what is being discussed is deterioting at every post. Baseless and foolish talks are all that is left out of this thread. "peacefulmuslim' seems to be the only one that basically understands what I am talking about.
One advantage about remaining within the traditional fold (sunni, shia etc) is that they will never knowingly disparage al-quraan. They may idolise it or accept false interpretations from thier priesthood but never will they disparage it. Modernists, naturists and rationalists on the other hand, treat al-quraan as if its simply another book which came down 'in its own time' as Danish very clearly puts it. This is born out of an unconscious need to belong to 'modern society'. To me, the ephemerality of science can never compete with hukumullah, God's permanent legislation in reality. I will do my best never to speak so carelessly about His Book. We need to ask ourselves, do we want to be muslims to Allah or muslims to 'modern values'. There is no 'two gods', there's only the one.
WOW! More spewing and senseless talks for entertainment purposes. Admins, please do take note.
-
-
WOW! More spewing and senseless talks for entertainment purposes. Admins, please do take note
Danish, I have not been impolite once and have accepted your disparaging remarks but since you wish to be litigious, I will meet you on your own ground.
I already did that, i.e. giving you the taste of your own games. You should be ashamed of yourself for continuously putting up with unwanted discussion. Read and understand what is being discussed without venturing out of subject matter and becoming personal at every given post of mine. If you do not understand what I am talking about, then simply ask. You have several questions unanswered right from the get go. Learn to discipline yourself about how discussions are carried in coherent manner without getting off-track.
-
Hi
I must further add to mention that while nature always existed since its creation, many revelations came down from time to time by the very nature that these revelations were called for. Quran is one such relevation that came in its own specific time which nature called for.
Prior to al-Quran, everything existed in its good and bad ways and in continuation. Torah was revealed in its specific time for what nature had called for at that time. Things got out of hand and Injeel was revealed in its specific time for what nature had called for at that time and finally when life further worsened, the Quran was revealed in its specific time for what nature had called for at that time and to carry its final message over.
Danish, the way I see it, Allah decides when to send to his revelations and to whom. He knows it before hand.
He knows what nature is and how will it be, coz its He who created it in the first place. So, in that sense, God decides on sending his revelation as He has planned out. So, its not nature that calls for revelations. But Its God who decided when to send Quran, just like He decided how nature was to be.Its all a part of God's plan.Allah is all-knowing.
So, its neither Quran that calls for nature nor nature that calls for God. Its God who decided on both.
So, Its Allah who decides when and how He will send His guidance.Now, it wasn't that difficult after all to understand my statement and the fuss and fiasco brought about by mquran was unecessary. He could have simply requested me to explain my statement further right from the start, rather than nitpicking on the word 'nature' out of its context and projecting onto the Quran to be found or not, thus taking the discussion and subject matter at martian levels.
I didnt quite inderstand why any one should get offended. It's just an opinion put forth for discussion. I dont think Danish claimed that his statement is from Quran. It was only his opinion.
I advise people in this discussion to question the motives behind the word 'nature'. This notion of al-quraan coming for its own specific time is a movement - consciously or otherwise - to place al-quraan in the relativist domain. This is why the term 'in its own specific time' is used. The next move is to subjectivise 'nature' and hey presto, we will have an al-quraan unsuitable for modern times (another relative notion created by humankind). Be wary of concepts which al-quraan doesn't specify. Al-quraan is tafseel likulli shaiyin or a detailling of every THING.
Was such a suggestion made? Danish mentioned''the Quran was revealed in its specific time for what nature had called for, at that time and to carry its final message over.''
Even according to his post, I dont see any suggestion that Quran is a message meant for specific period of time only?
Though I do not agree, nature called for Quran. But its just his opinion. And its open for discussion and exchange of views.
Whats there to get offended about?rollOne advantage about remaining within the traditional fold (sunni, shia etc) is that they will never knowingly disparage al-quraan. They may idolise it or accept false interpretations from thier priesthood but never will they disparage it. Modernists, naturists and rationalists on the other hand, treat al-quraan as if its simply another book which came down 'in its own time' as Danish very clearly puts it. This is born out of an unconscious need to belong to 'modern society'. We need to ask ourselves, do we want to be muslims to Allah or muslims to 'modern values'. There is no 'two gods', there's only the one.
What is ''muslims to 'modern values' ''? ?
And who said anything about 2 Gods?shock
Aren't muslims those who believe in one God and live a righteous life?Am I missing something? I didnt see how Danish disparaged Quran in the above post. All he suggested was nature was responsible for God to decide to send Quran...Though I dont agree with it, its just his opinion/view. Why should anyone get offended by it? And its not as if he declared it or something. Its just a discussion, isnt it? Whats wrong if he puts forth his view in a discussion? I dont really understand what the fuss is about.
And where did he disparage Quran? Have I missed something?
Peace!
-
I didnt quite inderstand why any one should get offended. It's just an opinion put forth for discussion. I dont think Danish claimed that his statement is from Quran. It was only his opinion.
PM, I have to ask you, what is our supposed common criteria? I don't know about you, but to me, I'm here because this forum is meant to centralise al-quraan. Its like when you said 'be respectful to all'. Does al-quraan validate this? So same thing for Danish's comment. We can't speak about al-quraan as we like, can we?
There're some things said about language in al-quraan and what happens when you displace language (mutaharrif) from their correct places. Do read about it if you can.
Was such a suggestion made? Danish mentioned''the Quran was revealed in its specific time for what nature had called for, at that time and to carry its final message over.''
This is false. The concept of 'at a specific time' is the accusation which al-quraan repudiates most strongly. 41/53 shows that at any given time, al-quraan prophecises the truth. So there's no 'at its own specific time'.
Even according to his post, I dont see any suggestion that Quran is a message meant for specific period of time only?
Whew...that's what the whole nature comment is all about. Nature calls for this, nature calls for that. If 'nature' has now evolved, then what of the book born of nature?
Though I do not agree, nature called for Quran. But its just his opinion. And its open for discussion and exchange of views.
Whats there to get offended about?I'm not offended but insofar as in my perception Im following forum rules, I will speak out against such falsehoods. Whether people believe it or not, that's not the problem. If you follow the thread upwards, you will see that all I asked for is where al-quraan says this falsehood. If you think people shouldn't be accountable for what they say, then that's up to you. I'd be afraid to speak so carelessly about al-quraan if i believed it came from Allah.
What is ''muslims to 'modern values' ''?
Being a 'muslim' if decontextualised, i.e. taken without rooting in a text is to mean being a 'peaceful/submissive/compliant' person to a given entity. In al-quraan it means being a muslim to Allah through HIS LAWS, i.e. whatever Allah commands, you do.
So in the same way, if you're muslim to modern values, then whatever modern values dictate you do. Modernity (or should I say post-modernity) dictates for example that there is no ultimate values, that all values are relative (read Postmodernism and the Other by Sardar), the evolving human nature cannot be constricted by a single text written in its own time. Does that sound familliar to you, PM ?
And who said anything about 2 Gods?
Please tell me what you understand by the word 'ilah'?
Aren't muslims those who believe in one God and live a righteous life?
Actually no, you can be a muslim without imaan. Obviously your deeds would be pointless in the afterlife.
-
This is not about what the word means, it is about what it means to you.
For me, it is about equality and justice. Also I consider it as more of a lifestyle as well. A lifestyle that is healthy and progressive and a source of knowlegde.
-
PM, I have to ask you, what is our supposed common criteria? .
My criteria is "Truth".
Was such a suggestion made? Danish mentioned''the Quran was revealed in its specific time for what nature had called for, at that time and to carry its final message over.''
This is false. The concept of 'at a specific time' is the accusation which al-quraan repudiates most strongly. 41/53 shows that at any given time, al-quraan prophecises the truth. So there's no 'at its own specific time'.
And looks to me, u r the one putting a time frame to muslims such as 'muslims to modern values' etc. There is no such thing. According to my understanding, a muslim is one who believes in one God and lives a righteous life.
And its a fact, that Quran was revealed to prophet Mohammed in his lifetime(610-632 CE). So to say, Quran was revealed at a specific time period. U seem to be having a problem accepting a fact.
And as always, u have misunderstood/manipulated his statement.Peace!