Why to guive proof from Koran if this isn't the book of God?

[Tay]

Peace Ahmed,

You stated

Yes but only if those certain verses can not be explained using the Quran, if it will be explained using the different opinions then I will leave it out and I won?t care about it, I will only believe that it was sent by Allah and nothing more, just I donlt have the knowledge neither any human for that matter to know the meaning except Allah as per 37

I respect your method, but still disagree with your conclusion on 37.

come on bro, did I say they authored books?
No I did not
So why you are saying as such?
Anyway, I meant from the history records

Islamic history, as I'm sure you're aware, is tainted beyond recognition. I know they did not author books and was just illustrating that you referring to their methods cannot be validated via "history".

come on, you still insisting on me interpreting it, well let me surprise you, my interoperation was exactly like prophet mohammad interpretation, LOL

Perhaps when you meet him in the next life you can confirm this, inshallah. For now, it's hearsay.

well, what it will indicate then?

And where is those ayats you say they will be a contradiction?

Come on bro, try to be a bit informative

Ahmed, I think you need another nap wink
You already replied to those comments 3 posts ago and I responed in kind. I re-pasted them because you said I did not offer my understanding of 37

excuse me, it is not my understanding that you should accept, it is the common sense and the prophet understanding that you should accept, it just happened that m y understanding was exactly like the prophet understanding

Again, you have no way of confirming what the prophet understood or did not. Let's take it at face value then. It remains your understanding.

sorry, I will consider your statement a huge mistake unless youshow me WHERE IT SAYS IN 1736 THAT YOU SHOULD VERIFY THE INFORMATION FIRST

I already showed you that every single translator interpreted 1736 as such. Do you recall how 1736 ends?

now I got you cornered, LOL bro

I slipped right past you and turned the tables wink

My way only apply on me, I really care less who will buy it,

That's not what you said before, but I'll let that one slide.

I?m just happy and proud that my way regarding the verses in discussion was exactly as the prophet way according to the history records, but I knw that most Muslims don?t follow the prophet teachings properly

What history?? You keep mentioning this history but have provided no reference.

as long as the multiple meaning will not contradict each other neither it will contradict other verses in the Quran

Glad to see we agree.

I don?t need to provide any bro, I?m just a watcher to those whom verse 37 describes them, but I will try to explain 43 many meanings and show you the contradictions when I have a bit of time.

Bro, you said there are many contradictions with the understandings of the allegorical verses. Atleast have the courtesy to give us one example.

all will come later today

Inshallah.

Peace,
Tay

[unknownuser]

Peace Ahmed,

You stated

Yes but only if those certain verses can not be explained using the Quran, if it will be explained using the different opinions then I will leave it out and I won?t care about it, I will only believe that it was sent by Allah and nothing more, just I donlt have the knowledge neither any human for that matter to know the meaning except Allah as per 37

I respect your method, but still disagree with your conclusion on 37.

Peace Tay

ok, thanks but it is not my opinion, it just happen to be the opinion of the Majority

come on bro, did I say they authored books?
No I did not
So why you are saying as such?
Anyway, I meant from the history records

Islamic history, as I'm sure you're aware, is tainted beyond recognition. I know they did not author books and was just illustrating that you referring to their methods cannot be validated via "history".

Wrong, it is Satan who made it look this way to you and to others, I almost fell in the same trap, but I know what make sense at the end of the day and I can't feel more peacful and confident in my life

History is History, and we use our minds to qualify it, also part of the required belief is to believe in the messenegers of Allah, if I put the role of a messneger a side for argument sake,m then thoise people will be as any other historical record that we belive in like hitler and others people of the past, in fact the Quran told us that Allah will make these true affairs stories in the Quran so we learn from it, He never said it is a metaphor for just learning a lesson from it

anyway, it is personal choice to believe in any historical record, ironically most of my own understanidng is the same as the historical records and this on its own merit m akes feel happy and peaceful

come on, you still insisting on me interpreting it, well let me surprise you, my interoperation was exactly like prophet mohammad interpretation, LOL

Perhaps when you meet him in the next life you can confirm this, inshallah. For now, it's hearsay.

you are missing the point, prophet Mohammad was a native Arabic speaker and I was also the same, therefore most likely our unbised understanding will match

Ahmed, I think you need another nap wink
You already replied to those comments 3 posts ago and I responed in kind. I re-pasted them because you said I did not offer my understanding of 37

ok I will try to have a nap, so what you are saying that there will be humans who will crack the meaning of the Mutashabihat verse?

yes/no?

excuse me, it is not my understanding that you should accept, it is the common sense and the prophet understanding that you should accept, it just happened that m y understanding was exactly like the prophet understanding

Again, you have no way of confirming what the prophet understood or did not. Let's take it at face value then. It remains your understanding.

excuse me, it is the common sense behind the clear arabic words, for a non native arabic speaker, I know it may be hard, especially when thet are set on some made up ideas that are totally new to the Umaah, I call it Bidah

sorry, I will consider your statement a huge mistake unless youshow me WHERE IT SAYS IN 1736 THAT YOU SHOULD VERIFY THE INFORMATION FIRST

I already showed you that every single translator interpreted 1736 as such. Do you recall how 1736 ends?

excuse me you said it the verse says "WE SHOULD VERIFY EVERYTHING" now there is no such thing in the arbic verse therefore it has to be a clear cut lie, sorry

now I got you cornered, LOL bro

I slipped right past you and turned the tables wink

cool bro, LOL

look mate, the arabic verse does not have this bit "WE SHOULD VERIFY EVERYTHING", now all I'm asking you to show me where it says this in the arabic verse, unless you are following the translators blindly and I see this worse than following the sunnah, wink

My way only apply on me, I really care less who will buy it,

That's not what you said before, but I'll let that one slide.

please don't and give me a chance to clear any misunderstanding you have

I?m just happy and proud that my way regarding the verses in discussion was exactly as the prophet way according to the history records, but I knw that most Muslims don?t follow the prophet teachings properly

What history?? You keep mentioning this history but have provided no reference.

The history of the people of the past, as I said it is a personal choice to belive in it or not, however I'm really felighted that my understanding matched those historical people who were arabs as well not a confused non arabic speakers who to stick their nose in what they don't know, this is revolting mate

do you believe that your great great great great great grand pa existed?, if so can you prove it to me beyond doubt? thanks

as long as the multiple meaning will not contradict each other neither it will contradict other verses in the Quran

Glad to see we agree.

cool, it make us feel happy indeed lol

I don?t need to provide any bro, I?m just a watcher to those whom verse 37 describes them, but I will try to explain 43 many meanings and show you the contradictions when I have a bit of time.

Bro, you said there are many contradictions with the understandings of the allegorical verses. Atleast have the courtesy to give us one example.

yep I will inshallah, and will use 43 as an example, just give me some time bro, I do have a life lol

all will come later today

Inshallah.

Peace,
Tay

Thanks from reminding me to say Inshallah, this is actually a law according to the Quran, may Allah forgive me

peace

[unknownuser]

Hello Tay

Here is an example of a few Muhkamat verses, the verses is telling us that Allah is telling Mohammad to tell us the story of Adam sons, then it goes in a bit of details then it ends with a law, that law was forced opon the children of Israel and will be forced on any human until the judgment day

27- And relate to them the story of the two sons of Adam with truth when they both offered an offering, but it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. He said I I will most certainly slay you. (The other) said Allah only accepts from those who guard (against evil).

28- If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you surely I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds

29- Surely I wish that you should bear the sin committed against me and your own sin, and so you would be of the inmates of the fire, and this is the recompense of the unjust.

30- Then his mind facilitated to him the slaying of his brother so he slew him; then he became one of the losers

31- Then Allah sent a crow digging up the earth so that he might show him how he should cover the dead body of his brother. He said Woe me! do I lack the strength that I should be like this crow and cover the dead body of my brother? So he became of those who regret.

32- For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

(27)
(2
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)

-> Please before you come and tell me that the story is a metaphor and never happened, you have to be aware that Allah said in 527 the following ? ?, which means ? And relate to them the story of the two sons of Adam WITH TRUTH?, i.e. it was Haqq, i.e. a true story, because Allah does not need to tell stories like our grannies before we go to bed, He can simply tell us NOT TO KILL ANY ONE, in fact He did as such in another Muhakam verse, here it is

And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.

(33)

-> See, Allah does not need to tell us unreal stories like our grannies unless it happened for real that is why He told Mohammad to say these stories WITH HAQQ

-> The point is we read in verse 532, the law that was created because of what Adam son did by killing his innocent brother ? ?, i.e. ? For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men;? and this law will stand from the day of Adam sons till the day of Judgment

All the verses posted above are Muhkam verses and will stand true in all generations, without any changes, in my next example inshallah I will show a Muhkam verses that accommodate for the changes between the generations and will stand true from the day of revelation till they day of Judgment

Peace

[unknownuser]

Hello again Tay

Here is a verse that will accommodate for the generations changes and its meaning will keep changing as humans develop their way of life on earth, we read in sura no 16 the following muhkamat verses

5- And He created the Anaam for you; you have in them warm clothing and (many) advantages, and of them do you eat.

6- And there is beauty in them for you when you drive them back (to home), and when you send them forth (to pasture).

7- And they carry your heavy loads to regions which you could not reach but with distress of the souls; most surely your Lord is Compassionate, Merciful.

8- And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament; and He creates what you do not know.

(5)
(6)
(7)
(

-> In 165, Allah is telling us some important hard core facts about the ?Al Anaam? ?The Cattle and similar?, and what I mean by hard core facts that it will stand true till the judgment day, ? And He created the cattle for you; you have in them warm clothing and (many) advantages, and of them do you eat.?, the facts regarding Al Anaam are as follow

1. we have in them warm clothing
2. we have in them (many) advantages
3. we eat them

-> I guess no generation can dispute the above hard core facts, Allah continued In 166 to give us more facts about Al Anaam And there is beauty in them for us when we drive them back (to home), and when you send them forth (to pasture)., one fact can be extracted from here, this is very accurate stuff indeed, as if you go to the countryside where the farmers use the cattle for many things you will see how hard they appreciate their cattle and worry about them, 166 always amazes me with its accuracy, a very Muhkam verse indeed,

-> In 167, we read more facts about Al Anaam ? And they carry your heavy loads to regions which you could not reach but with distress of the souls?, this is one hard core fact about Al Anaam, please pay attention to this fact regarding ? they carry our heavy loads to regions which we could not reach but with distress of the souls?, again very accurate stuff in here as up to this day in many undeveloped countries we see that they use many of Al Anaam for that purpose of carrying our heavy loads, another very Muhkam verse, I guess the majority now day don?t use the Anaam as a method of transporting, it is obvious that they use, cars, trucks, trains and aeroplanes, this is what the next very Muhakam verse will tell us, it did it in a way that will never cause confusion to those primitive people then , and to us assuming that we will be considered primitive to later generations

-> Verse 168 is one of the most amazing Muhkam verses in the Quran, I actually managed to realize this fact over 15 years ago, and till today this verse just stuns me every time I read it, the verse started by telling us further hard core facts about Al Anaam ? And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament;?, See, the verse now started to be more specific by mentioning some Anaam (horses and mules and asses) that we might ride them as well they are an ornament , we know riding horses and similar happens up to this moment in many countries, either for fun or for real day to day life, if the verses stopped here then we have a problem in hand, according to the trend in the last 1400 years, it seems that eventually riding horses as day to day life will disappear, riding may stay for fun forever, but for day to day life I guess in 2000 years form now (a rough guess) there will be no horses or donkeys used to transfer or heavy loads and stuff, so if Allah mentioned that he will create cars in the future, the verse will cause confusion to the ones who don?t know what cars is, in fact the Quran will look silly, but instead Allah ended the verse with a mighty statement ? and He creates what you do not know?, THIS IS GREAT STUFF Tay, the verse is telling us that Allah may create other things that we don?t know, there is no question that this means cars, trucks, trains, and aeroplanes that we see now days along with the Al Anaam, carrying our heavy stuff, therefore the verses was valid then, and valid now and will be valid in 2000 years and will surely be valid until the judgment day, as every generation manages to create a new type of transport verse 168 will always stand true, you may argue and say Humans created those cars, trucks, trains and aeroplanes, well, what was used in these invention is another gift Allah gave it to us, this gift called iron, and in another Muhkam verse, this is exactly what Allah told us, that He sent to us the Iron for the benefit of mankind

Certainly We sent Our messengers with clear arguments, and sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may conduct themselves with equity; and We have made the iron, wherein is great violence and advantages to men, and that Allah may know who helps Him and His messengers in the secret; surely Allah is Strong, Mighty..

(25)

-> Another very Muhkam verse that will stand true till the Judgment day, we can also read that The Book was sent down with the Rusul, i.e. they received books with them that was SENT down to them, like the Iron was SENT down, this must refute the confusion promoted by those saying Al Kitab is the book of the universal laws, I found it laughable as in 5725 we read that Al Kitab was sent down to them, now NONE of theses Rusul as far as I know claimed to have the same book of the universal laws

In my next comment I will try to show you how verse 43 is a mutashabihat verse (inshallah)

Peace be with you

[unknownuser]

Hello Tay

Here is a verse that I classify Mutashabihat, the reason is simply as follow

1. it is the only verse that discusses polygamy, i.e. we can?t use the Quran to explain it
2. There are many different understandings, some clearly conflict with the spirit of the Quran (Especially Regarding Orphans)
3. Because the verse concerns an important law and is also mutashabihat, the law in it was over written with another law, IRONICALLY, the other law is in the same verse

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.)

(3)

-> The verse started with a problem related to the orphans ? If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans?, the first impression is Orphans means Orphans ?boys and girls?, others say the orphans in the verse means ?Orphaned Girls only?, they also suggest they are ready for marriage, the problem in hand which is fearing to be just to the orphans is also understood differently by others, some suggest by noit taking good care of them, others suggest to be specifically relating to the orphaned women who are ready to marry and they have wealth and the men fear after marrying them not to be just by joining their wealth to theirs, this is a very starnage indeed, we need all that sequence of events to be true, I believe they based their understanding on the previous verse

" To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their property (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.?

(2)

-> Again 42 only mentioned the Orphans in general ?Boys and Girls, Allah is advising us ? To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their property (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.?, the verse never stated that it is a case of marriage that we should not mix their property with theirs when we marry them, 42 is very clear and is not mutashabihat, they only selected a specific case that should be covered under the general rule of not abusing the property of the Orphans, I guess they were trying to prove their understanding to 43 that it meant this case of not being fair with the orphaned women, what is stricking that what they try to convince us with regarding the marrying the orphaned women IS MENTIOJED EXACTLY AS THEY SAID IN 4127, here it is

" And they ask you a decision about women. Say Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them, and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning female orphans whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them, and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it. "

(127)

-> See, but the problem is, I see no relation whatsoever between 43 and 4127, neither 43 and 42, however it is still a possibility as there is nothing firm from the Quran to refute it, I guess it can be relative here, even relative regarding what orphans means, some may say losing any of the parents, some say they must loose both their parents, another confusing matter

-> Now after we saw that the problem in hand is very confusing and can have more than one meaning, we will also find that the solution proposed is confusing and can have more than one meaning ? Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four;?, ok, whom exactly they will marry?, is it

1. Any other woman
2. The mother of the orphans, or
3. Another woman but must not be an orphaned women

Again each one can possibly apply with a percentage according to the logic, we may sense that one option has a higher possibility than the other, but all three option still have a percentage even if it is 1%

-> How Allah do this to us? I mean we have a serious problem in hand which was not very clear and the solution is even not clearer, but what we can sense that the solution is good for men and bad for women, I guess most men know that, I guess most of them will also be in the favour of marrying more than one, but hold on a second horney men, the solution was conditioned? but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess?, now we have a mutashabihat condition as well, I guess the condition can be mutashabihat because some men may think they can be fair with women hence they will go for marrying more than 1, and others will never even think about it and just marry more than one, it doesn?t matter for them if they will deal justly and equally with their wives, in fact they always lean not to be and even deliberately

-> I found it amazing that The mutashabihat problem, the mutashabihat solution and the mutashabihat condition all fell in one verse that I call mutashabihat verse, however verse 4129 in the same sura demolish the mutashabihat condition and takes it out of the human judgment

"Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire...... "

??? (129)

-> Here we go, clearly Allah is telling us in the above Muhkam verse that ? Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire?, therefore, this important piece of information in this Muhkam verse should force the mutashabihat condition in 43, and should make our fear not to treat our multiple wives equally and justly a reality and a fact as well we were told that there no way out of it, it is in the Hu_Man nature, LOL

I can?t lie and say that I didn?t try to chase the meaning of 43, but my chase was only to see where all other understanding are coming from, NOT TO FIOLLOW ANY OF THEM, as my decision was already made according to 4129 in conjunction with 43 that true submitters to Allah should only marry ONE

Therefore 43 for me is a mutashabihat verse by design and a Muhkamat verse as it comply with 37, when I say it comply perfectly with 37 I meant the following

1. The enemy of Islam used the verse to cause discord between the believers and the others to show that our religion is sort of a lusty one

2. Many of the believers followed different understandings because it will work in their favours

3. Seeing the solution practised in my culture and even in my family then realizing ?The discord? and the horrible effects it brings on the wives and the children, made me believe it is not practised right, I hardly saw the polygamy practised for the sake of orphans anyway, I only see it practised because of lust or because husbands got sick of their aging wife, yet I hardly saw any polygamy that is working in a peaceful environment between the parties involved

And my strongest argument is it is obvious that 4129 overwrites 43 therefore there is no need to chase the meaning of the mutashabihat bits in 43 unless the decision was already made to follow 4129 and not to follow any of the different understandings for 43

Peace be with you

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you Bilal76,

Some people think that the kitab called "KORAN" by traditionnal's muslims is not the truth reveled to Muhammed. They thinks that the qu'an of the kitab is the reading of the universals law. I respect their reflection but i have different questions for them

Thank you for the respect and I will try to answer your questions. First though, I must adress the premise that is already assumed when we say "revealed to Muhammad". There is no proof that there was a "Muhammad", but the context of the word "muhammadun" througthout is a vehicle of "hamd". But we can speak more on that in a thread I intend to start today regarding the prefix "MU".

1 - Why Do you use Koran to guive proofs that "qu'an of kitab" means reading of universal laws?

Because that is the book we are here discussing. However, this is not the only book I study, so we can discuss universal laws on several different levels. As "Koran" states, we are to trust in that which descended upon us AND THOSE BEFORE US. Therefore to say that the God's Words (which never run out) are confinesd to 114 chapters is aganst its own message.

2 - Do you think that eat meat of pig is permissed to eat?

Sure, if you have no means of aquiring sustenance that is healthy and nutricious.

3- Do you think that there are a number of prohibition (list) or that it depend of the personnality and the vision of each person?

Neither, the universe is set up in a way that all things are interdependent with each other. Therefore we can weigh and measure all things according to thier relationships. To measure something is an act of SEEING, versus hearing about something (hearsay). So it is OBJECTIVE, and therefore not subject to personal opinion.

4- Who are the prophets and messangers?

The "nabi" are those that intuit knowledge from within. They "intuit" the proper relationships of things. One must attain a high degree of spiritual development to reach this level. Anyone who passes on the information that has been intuited, wether it is the "intuiter" or someone else, they are described as a messenger(rasool), one who is sent.

We are told to trust in the messengers, but many get this confused with being able to name them all and blindly believing in thier literal existence, even when many of thier stories are old stories from "religions" before they were to have even lived. To trust in all the messengers is to trust in universal law, which is the message they all came to deliver. Even in this "Koran", we are told that there are messengers that we were NEVER told about, so how can one trust in all the messengers in a literal sense when we dont know them all?

• Why do you mention the name of ibrahim, moussa, Mohammed, etc if you can't prouve their exitence by the kitab (universal laws)?

These are the symbols provided in this text we are discussing, if we were discussing Kamitic philosophy, I would be using names like "Ausar", "Auset", or "Heru". If we were discussing Yoruba religion I would use names like "Oludamare", "Elegba", or "Shango".

Furher, many of the names have more meaning to them in regards to the text. Like "muhammadun" which means one who is a vehicle of "hamd"(exaltation). Then there is Solomon, whose root is "peace"(S-L-M), giving us a clue owards understanding "his" story.

All of the charcters are slumbering within us and must be awakened.

the goal of this questions is the enrichment of our knowledge.

A very worthy goal.

[bmbmm]

I think its simple. Quran is the reading which came in a form of a book, period.

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you bmbmm,

That wasn't actually earth shattering proof

[unknownuser]

I think its simple. Quran is the reading which came in a form of a book, period.

Hello

I guess it will be more accurate if said as follow

Al Quran is a reading which came in a form of a book, period.

Peace

[bmbmm]

Thanks AB!

Idolefree,

We do not need theoretical physics or earth shattering proof. The din from Allah is simple.

Just chill...

[Bilal76]

Peace be upon you idolfree and all.

Peace be upon you Bilal76,

Thank you for the respect and I will try to answer your questions. First though, I must adress the premise that is already assumed when we say "revealed to Muhammad". There is no proof that there was a "Muhammad", but the context of the word "muhammadun" througthout is a vehicle of "hamd". But we can speak more on that in a thread I intend to start today regarding the prefix "MU".

Maybe that M-HAMMAD is built on the same basis as MU-SALLIN.
To tell the truth it is too early for the statement because I control
not yet well the Arab language.

Because that is the book we are here discussing. However, this is not the only book I study, so we can discuss universal laws on several different levels. As "Koran" states, we are to trust in that which descended upon us AND THOSE BEFORE US. Therefore to say that the God's Words (which never run out) are confinesd to 114 chapters is aganst its own message.

according to you is "the Koran" only one means of distinguishing the
laws universal among others? correct me if I am mistaken

Sure, if you have no means of aquiring sustenance that is healthy and nutricious.

put besides this situation, the flesh of pig is not allowed?

Neither, the universe is set up in a way that all things are interdependent with each other. Therefore we can weigh and measure all things according to thier relationships. To measure something is an act of SEEING, versus hearing about something (hearsay). So it is OBJECTIVE, and therefore not subject to personal opinion.

who fixes the common limits not to exceed? Think that the limits
differ according to people's or that these limits are fixed by The
Law?

The "nabi" are those that intuit knowledge from within. They "intuit" the proper relationships of things. One must attain a high degree of spiritual development to reach this level. Anyone who passes on the information that has been intuited, wether it is the "intuiter" or someone else, they are described as a messenger(rasool), one who is sent.

would it be possible for you to support your understing of the
nabi by the Koran? thank you in advance

Furher, many of the names have more meaning to them in regards to the text. Like "muhammadun" which means one who is a vehicle of "hamd"(exaltation). Then there is Solomon, whose root is "peace"(S-L-M), giving us a clue owards understanding "his" story.

it could be interessent to referer for all the verses referant itself with SOLOMON
to see whether this assumption can be checked.

Thanks

[Tay]

Peace Ahmed,

In consideration of the nature of this thread, I feel we've strayed a bit off-topic. Would you mind copying and pasting your Mutashabihat replies in a new thread. I truly appreciate your effort and would like to reply to each of them in their proper place, rather than hijack this thread.

In the meantime, here are my replies to your first post

You stated

ok, thanks but it is not my opinion, it just happen to be the opinion of the Majority

And what does the Qur'an tell is about the majority?

I stated

Islamic history, as I'm sure you're aware, is tainted beyond recognition. I know they did not author books and was just illustrating that you referring to their methods cannot be validated via "history".

and you replied

Wrong, it is Satan who made it look this way to you and to others, I almost fell in the same trap,

Well, then, please, verify it for us, so that we all may learn from this valid history that you keep referring to.

but I know what make sense at the end of the day and I can't feel more peacful and confident in my life

So, you judge whether or not a historical record is valid based on how it makes you feel?

History is History, and we use our minds to qualify it,

History once taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America. I'm sure many minds were quite satisfied with that fact.

also part of the required belief is to believe in the messenegers of Allah

Irrelevant, but OK

if I put the role of a messneger a side for argument sake,m then thoise people will be as any other historical record that we belive in like hitler and others people of the past, in fact the Quran told us that Allah will make these true affairs stories in the Quran so we learn from it, He never said it is a metaphor for just learning a lesson from it

Bro, you're slipping away here. What does historical validity have to do with metaphors?

it is personal choice to believe in any historical record

So it is subjective now? Ahmed, you have to make up your mind on this in order for us to move on.

ironically most of my own understanidng is the same as the historical records and this on its own merit m akes feel happy and peaceful

I don't see the irony in that, but if it makes you feel happy, who am I to argue. However, whether or not your beliefs match those of any thus unreferenced historical records remains irrelevant until you provide something for us to examine.

you are missing the point, prophet Mohammad was a native Arabic speaker and I was also the same, therefore most likely our unbised understanding will match

Following your logic, you and every Arab on the planet should have the same understanding. Is this what you believe?

so what you are saying that there will be humans who will crack the meaning of the Mutashabihat verse?

Bingo!

excuse me, it is the common sense behind the clear arabic words

You keep saying this, but your common sense doesn't seem to match the common sense of other "native Arabic speakers". Therefore, it is your understanding. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this. We're all individuals bro. There's nothing wrong with having your own understanding.

excuse me you said it the verse says "WE SHOULD VERIFY EVERYTHING" now there is no such thing in the arbic verse therefore it has to be a clear cut lie, sorry

Ahemd, I did not say that the verse said WORD for WORD "We should verify everything". So, please stop with the nonsense. Every translator I quoted stated, in paraphrase, that we should not accept nor follow what we have no knowledge of. The ayah ends in saying that we will be held accountable for our hearing, our sight, and our hearts.

What does this mean to you?

To me, it means that we should not follow blindly. How does one avoid following blindly? Answer by verifying the information presented.

Now, am I stretching the understanding or are you just nitpicking at this point in order to "win" an argument?

The history of the people of the past, as I said it is a personal choice to belive in it or not, however I'm really felighted that my understanding matched those historical people who were arabs as well not a confused non arabic speakers who to stick their nose in what they don't know, this is revolting mate

Sounds a bit racist to me.

do you believe that your great great great great great grand pa existed?, if so can you prove it to me beyond doubt? thanks

If I'm alive, then of course he existed. There's your proof wink

Looking forward to the new thread.

Peace,
Tay

[Someone]

This post was deleted by me.

that was just some nonsense ? not worth sharing mrgreen

--

[unknownuser]

Peace Ahmed,

In consideration of the nature of this thread, I feel we've strayed a bit off-topic. Would you mind copying and pasting your Mutashabihat replies in a new thread. I truly appreciate your effort and would like to reply to each of them in their proper place, rather than hijack this thread.

Peace Tay

I guess if the poster of the thread is annoyed he would have told us as such, it is also a possibility that he enjoys our discussion

No hijacking here mate, but the option is still available for us to start a new thread

In the meantime, here are my replies to your first post

You stated

ok, thanks but it is not my opinion, it just happen to be the opinion of the Majority

And what does the Qur'an tell is about the majority?

I don?t understand your question mate?

However I meant the majority that I liaised with in my entire life, as well the majority as it seems from the hundreds of books that I read by many scholars and non scholars

I stated

Islamic history, as I'm sure you're aware, is tainted beyond recognition. I know they did not author books and was just illustrating that you referring to their methods cannot be validated via "history".

and you replied

Wrong, it is Satan who made it look this way to you and to others, I almost fell in the same trap,

Well, then, please, verify it for us, so that we all may learn from this valid history that you keep referring to.

Why I have to do it for ya mate?, it is there available to every one, it is even taught at many schools

but I know what make sense at the end of the day and I can't feel more peacful and confident in my life

So, you judge whether or not a historical record is valid based on how it makes you feel?

not just that, but everything in my life for that matter

History is History, and we use our minds to qualify it,

History once taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America. I'm sure many minds were quite satisfied with that fact.

but because the history statement above does not make sense, I will throw it in the rubbish bin

also part of the required belief is to believe in the messenegers of Allah

Irrelevant, but OK

how come a muslim say it is irrelevant?

Do you consider yourself a muslim?

And if you do, how you consider yourself a muslim

If your understanding is the same as Kyle then we are worlds apart and we have nothing to say to each other.

The Quran says cleary that we have to believe in all the Rusul sent. period

if I put the role of a messneger a side for argument sake,m then thoise people will be as any other historical record that we belive in like hitler and others people of the past, in fact the Quran told us that Allah will make these true affairs stories in the Quran so we learn from it, He never said it is a metaphor for just learning a lesson from it

Bro, you're slipping away here. What does historical validity have to do with metaphors?

it is nit that I?m slipping away, it is a case you want to look that way, but as I said many times now, the history of Mohammad can be validated by the Quran. period

it is personal choice to believe in any historical record

So it is subjective now? Ahmed, you have to make up your mind on this in order for us to move on.

of course it is subjective to the Quran and the common sense, not to the non sense, my mind is made up, please stop trying to give the wrong impressions because you have no string argument but some funny ideas with no verse to back it up from the Quran.

ironically most of my own understanidng is the same as the historical records and this on its own merit m akes feel happy and peaceful

I don't see the irony in that, but if it makes you feel happy,

I see the irony as common sense, and sure the common sense will always make my senses happy

who am I to argue.

1737 tell you NOT TO ARGUE IF YOU LACK KNOWEGE, this means you can argue if you have knowledge, now your statement ?who are you to argue? means that you admit you don?t have knowledge to argue

However, whether or not your beliefs match those of any thus unreferenced historical records remains irrelevant until you provide something for us to examine.

The references is there and is called the sirah of the prophet, you chose to follow others by ignoring it, then good luck to you, I guess when we die we will know who was right and who was following conjecture, unfortunately neither me or you can go back to fix it, so let?s leave it to Him

you are missing the point, prophet Mohammad was a native Arabic speaker and I was also the same, therefore most likely our unbised understanding will match

Following your logic, you and every Arab on the planet should have the same understanding. Is this what you believe?

of course not, it is the knowledgeable ones who spent plenty of times looking for the truth in the Arabic Quran, not following some ignorant non Arabs

so what you are saying that there will be humans who will crack the meaning of the Mutashabihat verse?

Bingo!

what was that?

Is that is the answer to my simple question?

If so, then who is Bingo who will crack the Quran verses?

excuse me, it is the common sense behind the clear arabic words

You keep saying this,

of course I will, because I understand arabic better than you and better than any non arabic speaker, this is a hard core fact that only the ignorant will deny, it is exactly as you speak English better than me

but your common sense doesn't seem to match the common sense of other "native Arabic speakers".

really, and who are them

Ayman?

But that is only one so far

Therefore, it is your understanding. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this. We're all individuals bro.

because I have to do my best against the others to deploy the internet to mislead the sincere muslim brothers and sisters without compelling evidences form the Arabic Quran, this is what the Quran told me to do as a submitter, I can?t conceal the truth that Allah revealed in the clear Arabic quran, now why you have a problem with that?

There's nothing wrong with having your own understanding.

fine as long as it will not put the Quran in fault, if it does then we have a problem in hand

excuse me you said it the verse says "WE SHOULD VERIFY EVERYTHING" now there is no such thing in the arbic verse therefore it has to be a clear cut lie, sorry

Ahemd, I did not say that the verse said WORD for WORD "We should verify everything". So, please stop with the nonsense. Every translator I quoted stated, in paraphrase, that we should not accept nor follow what we have no knowledge of. The ayah ends in saying that we will be held accountable for our hearing, our sight, and our hearts.

if you go to a country that you have not been before, and you hired a car to go from point a to point b, how can you do it unless you FOLLOW a street directory, now you are following without verfying it, right? See the conflict, here is another conflict

if you are following Mohammad now that there is a god, how come you verified this data before you follow Mohammad, and if you managed to verify it you don?t need to follow mohammad any more, because you now have the knowledge to follow yourself,

The verse anyway never said to verify the info, this is a clear cut lie by some bunch of ignorant translators who want to justify their wrong translation by deception

What does this mean to you?

it means non sense to me

To me, it means that we should not follow blindly.

I?m sure you do follow blindly, you follow a street directory blindly, you follow your teacher at school blindly, we follow the prophets blindly

You argument has 0 sense because if you verify something then you will only be following yourself, not another one

How does one avoid following blindly? Answer by verifying the information presented.

then you are not following the person no more after verification, you will be following yourself

NOW PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU VERFIED THAT ALLAH EXISTS AND THE JUSGMENT DAY EXISTS?

Now, am I stretching the understanding or are you just nitpicking at this point in order to "win" an argument?

no winners or losers here, I see it as we all should be winners

The history of the people of the past, as I said it is a personal choice to belive in it or not, however I'm really felighted that my understanding matched those historical people who were arabs as well not a confused non arabic speakers who to stick their nose in what they don't know, this is revolting mate

Sounds a bit racist to me.

very strange that the many comments degrading the arab intellect don?t sound racist to you

do you believe that your great great great great great grand pa existed?, if so can you prove it to me beyond doubt? thanks

If I'm alive, then of course he existed. There's your proof wink

then Mohammad existed because no one said he brought the quran in our hands today? but a person called Mohammad from the past, i.e. he was real, do you believe the Mohammad existed and if you do then how you verified that?

Looking forward to the new thread.

Peace,
Tay

Peace Tay

[Tay]

Peace Ahmed,

If your understanding is the same as Kyle then we are worlds apart and we have nothing to say to each other.

Kyle and I agree on many points, but not everything. And if that's the way you feel, then so be it. The rest of your post has become moot.

Peace,
Tay

[unknownuser]

Peace Ahmed,

If your understanding is the same as Kyle then we are worlds apart and we have nothing to say to each other.

Kyle and I agree on many points, but not everything. And if that's the way you feel, then so be it. The rest of your post has become moot.

Peace,
Tay

Peace Tay

Yeh mate that is what I wanted to confirm before I continue discussing other issues with you, as truely I'm not intested into the flawed uncomplete concept you and kyle promote

peace

[Tay]

Peace Ahmed,

Of course you couldn't say goodbye without one last jab. That's ok, bro...

7310 And endure with patience whatever people may say, and leave them with a noble leaving.

May peace be upon you,
Tay

[unknownuser]

Peace Ahmed,

Of course you couldn't say goodbye without one last jab. That's ok, bro...

7310 And endure with patience whatever people may say, and leave them with a noble leaving.

May peace be upon you,
Tay

Bro why I have to say goodbye?

it is not the end of discussion between us in any other subject but religion, we can talk about politics, sports, sex but not religion please, I honestly like you bro

peace be with you

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you Bilal76,

Quote
Thank you for the respect and I will try to answer your questions. First though, I must adress the premise that is already assumed when we say "revealed to Muhammad". There is no proof that there was a "Muhammad", but the context of the word "muhammadun" througthout is a vehicle of "hamd". But we can speak more on that in a thread I intend to start today regarding the prefix "MU".

Maybe that M-HAMMAD is built on the same basis as MU-SALLIN.
To tell the truth it is too early for the statement because I control
not yet well the Arab language.

Yes, this is exactly my position, that MU -hammadun is the same structure as MU- salleen, Mu - Min, Mu-staqeem, etc

Quote
Because that is the book we are here discussing. However, this is not the only book I study, so we can discuss universal laws on several different levels. As "Koran" states, we are to trust in that which descended upon us AND THOSE BEFORE US. Therefore to say that the God's Words (which never run out) are confinesd to 114 chapters is aganst its own message.

according to you is "the Koran" only one means of distinguishing the
laws universal among others? correct me if I am mistaken

The book named "KORAN" is one of several means of proclaiming the truths of life. It is a guide which POINTS TO the signs of the universe. We are over and over again directed to the universe for examples and one verse states that "We will show you our signs in the horizon and within your Spirit/Minds until you KNOW this (the message) is the truth." I do not hold that it is the one and only Book and should be idolized in any way. The "BOOK" (al kitaab) spoke of inside of "Koran" is an allegory to the Universal Laws.

Quote
Sure, if you have no means of aquiring sustenance that is healthy and nutricious.

put besides this situation, the flesh of pig is not allowed?

Yes, based on the relationship of consuming pork and the response that you wil get from your body based on Universal Law. But we must keep in mind that each person has been passed down, by Universal Law, a stronger or weaker body from thier family line, so although it might appear that it is not a uniform response, it is just that some people are working with a stronger immune system and so forth.

Quote
Neither, the universe is set up in a way that all things are interdependent with each other. Therefore we can weigh and measure all things according to thier relationships. To measure something is an act of SEEING, versus hearing about something (hearsay). So it is OBJECTIVE, and therefore not subject to personal opinion.

who fixes the common limits not to exceed? Think that the limits
differ according to people's or that these limits are fixed by The
Law?

The limits of universal law? It is the God who creates this structure, humans are subject to it. I hope I answered that question, I am not sure I understood what you were asking, please advise.

Quote
The "nabi" are those that intuit knowledge from within. They "intuit" the proper relationships of things. One must attain a high degree of spiritual development to reach this level. Anyone who passes on the information that has been intuited, wether it is the "intuiter" or someone else, they are described as a messenger(rasool), one who is sent.

would it be possible for you to support your understing of the
nabi by the Koran? thank you in advance

The verses state that the 'nabi' are sent the 'Book'(universal law). When we reflect upon the message, we realize that ALL things MUST be intuited by a human FIRST, then passed on externally to others. This is not simply a mater of posting a verse, because al I can show you is how the 'nabi" is associated with having the "Book" revealed to them, we must REFLECT that ALL THINGS HAVE to be intuited by someone first. There is always a first person to do something, where did they get it from? It had to come from within.

You see, we have been "misguided" by those who dont understand science nor religion to believe that "nabi" and "rasool" are superheroes that only blossom in the Middle east in the past. No, this is a LIVING MESSAGE for all people. We have "nabi" and "rasool" potential in all of us if we cultivate it with the same vigor that many cultivate going to school and college and making money.

Quote
Furher, many of the names have more meaning to them in regards to the text. Like "muhammadun" which means one who is a vehicle of "hamd"(exaltation). Then there is Solomon, whose root is "peace"(S-L-M), giving us a clue owards understanding "his" story.

it could be interessent to referer for all the verses referant itself with SOLOMON
to see whether this assumption can be checked.

Well, I am not sure I have a clear cut assumption yet But it is indeed interesting that the name Solomon comes from the same root (s-l-m) which means Peace. And it is Solomon that is the one who has a "kingdom like no other" and is in control of the "forces". In ancient spiritual cultures, many which are still practiced today, state that being at PEACE is the only way to "control" the forces within MAN. One cannot be subject to emotions and see clearly, they are described as spiritually dead and blind.

[Bilal76]

Peace be upon you Bilal76,

Peace be upon you idolfree1

The limits of universal law? It is the God who creates this structure, humans are subject to it. I hope I answered that question, I am not sure I understood what you were asking, please advise.

I talk about the limit of permission to do something. The interpretation of the laws can be different according to the perception of the people. The risk is that somebody can considered something "haram" whereas an other person don't see the bad thing which justifies the "haram".
Sorry for my bad english. Tell me if i did mistake in my language in order to correct it.

Peace