You Have Been Warned
-
Peace Bro Ahmed.
I am impressed by your memory of all the occurences of the word Yakhsha.
I believe the meaning depends on the context. Do not forget there are other words for fear in other languages too, how about "being scared", or "being anxious", "terrorised"..., and each produce a different shade of meaning
Again Allah never used Khawf Allah.
In some examples you cited, khashiata means giving more importance to, giving more importance to a creature or a thing than to Allah.
By the way I do not really care about translations of Quran. I agree Kashia includes fear, but not always. In the case of Khashiati Allah in Arabic, for me it means not only fear, also giving importance to and showing respect.
The Quran also warns us from taking things out of their context....And as always Allah knows best
Thank you bro
I hope you concede after reading the following verse that The Quran said we should "Nakhaf Allah"
And remember your Lord within yourself humbly and fearing and in a voice not loud in the morning and the evening and be not of the heedless ones.
(205)
-> See bro , "And remember your Lord within yourself humbly and fearing "
So fearing Allah was an order using the word "Khafa"
Salam
-
Peace
Again Bro Ahmed
And Allah was right to say that we humans are the most argumentative creatures, certainly I am... ;D
SalamPeace bro
I was one as well bro, but I'm glad I manged to take my ego away and leave it to Allah words to explaint itself
people think I'm argumantative, but the fact of the matter is verse 1736 say "Don't argue if you lack knowledge" and that is exactly what I try hard to do, the message of 1736 is very positive indeed because it allows you to argue if you have the knowledge
Take care bro
-
Peace Bro Ahmed
I love arguing, but I do not have the energy to keep it up even when I am correct...
You too take care...Peace bro
Did you notice that "Khifa" was on the same wazn as "Khashia"?
cheers
-
Peace
Bro Ahmed
Yes it has the same emphasis. However the injunction or order was for the Prophet. I know Allah said He was the ultimate example for us, but I believe that it is very hard for the average believer to have the same faith as the Prophet himself...
Also are there other occurences of the word Khifa that is linked directly as an order to the Muslims, not the Prophet in isolation...
I told you I love arguing, but will probably not keep it up with you )
Salam -
Peace bro "AB",
With Hell bro, there is no reward, if you are a kafir, you will be doomed, THIS IS A THREAT NOT A MOTIVATION
JK- I get a feeling that you might be thinking that i deny it being a threat. If thts the case then know tht i dont. I considered it BOTH a threat and a motivation. GOD Bless!
-
Peace AB
This is what I see as a proper translation to 74/30-31 by Piktchal
"Over it Nineteen
AND We have not made/appointed/set the wardens of the fire others than angels; and We have NOT made/appointed/set their number BUT a fitna for those who disbelieve(d); that those who have been given the book may attain certainty AND those who believe may increase in faith; AND those who have been given the book and the believers may not doubt, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the unbelievers may say What does Allah mean by this mathal? Thus does Allah make err whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases, and none knows the hosts of your Lord but He Himself; and this is naught but a reminder to the mortals."
Fitna also means 'to research the purity of gold' and also 'to throw it in the fire to purify it from unpurities'. And 'malikah' i wouldn't translate as 'angels' but as 'ones in control' which is a closer translation of 'malikah', angel is a given title, not a translation, so here for me it refers to the Laws which are in control of the purity of the Quran. And kafr i would translate as someone who buries the truth for his 'self'.
"And We have not made/appointed/set the wardens of the fire others than the Laws that control ; and We have not made/appointed/set their number but 1) a purifying act (fitna) for those who bury the truth for themselves(kafr); 2)that those who have been given the book may attain certainty and 3)those who believe may increase in faith; and 4)those who have been given the book and the believers may not doubt, and 5)that those in whose hearts is a disease and the ones who bury the truth for themselves may say What does Allah mean by this mathal? Thus does Allah make err whom He wills, and He guides whom He wills, and none knows the forces of your Sustainer but He Himself; and this is naught but a reminder to the mortals."
For me, the fire doesn't refer only to something in the Next Life. Fire refers to something that consumes and doesn't feed you. Like an illusion only consumes as you cannot base it on reality, so you have to feed yourself to keep it alive, instead of it feeding you and keeping you alive.
For example Idolatry is called an illusion in 3130, and in 2257 it is said that people who commit idolatry are in the fire.
-
That is so for God is the Reality(Haq), and what they invoke other than Him is illusion. Indeed God is all-high and supreme.
-
God is the friend of those who believe, and leads them out of darkness into light; but the patrons of the ones who bury the truth for themselves(kafaruu) is everything that is served next to God/idols(taghhout) who lead them from light into darkness. They are the residents of Fire, and will abide therein.
So the 'wardens of the fire are the Laws(ones in control=malikah)' refers to the borders between truth and falsehood, between reality and illusion. Between a true verse or word and even letter of the Quran and a fake one.
Peace
-
-
The 'battle-ground' as you put it was started for a very simple reason You take every opportunity to malign or belittle AQ. And you know what? I will continue to question every thing you say so that not a single one of your defecations go unquestioned. Lets hope rule 2 makes a comeback.
Your admittance to politicise this forum and to create a battle ground will not work, no matter how hard you try, with or without me, because you are not the Al-Qaeda style member-made deity nor the prophet of this forum, where people will simply succumb and submit to your hostilities. Take that stance somewhere else or keep it confined to your home.
You can give my criticisms whatever names you like, such as defecations, urinations and quran-bashings, that too won't work, simply because you yourself do exactly that, i.e. the practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating the literacy of Quranic injunctions, a deplorable state of confusion to "defecate/urinate (criticise)" on just about every word, verse and/or paragraph in the Quran in the broader sense of dicussions, including your mocking and mimicking of your "Allah".
DanishYour question 1, deviates from subject matter, which is "fearing Allah" as claimed? If you need definitions of words, then check dictionaries.
Lol. How am I deviating from the subject matter. You said 'DanishFearing an "Allah" is historically correct but realistically, scientifically and logically incorrect.'
So the subject matter is still 'fear of allah' and why its 'realistically and logically' incorrect.
The dictionaries do not contain a usage which agrees with your comments.Now kindly tell me what you mean
mquran's 3-in-1 question 1. Why is it 'realistically' incorrect? Please define 'realistically' and your evidence that this definition is wholly objective. The definition of 'realistically' and its evidence, along with other definitions of 'historically', 'logically' and 'scientifically' can be found in dictionaries.
I shall only explain what I wrote and that is "Fearing an "Allah" is historically correct but realistically, scientifically and logically incorrect." I am not here to give definitions to words you pick and choose but to explain my statement and in accordance to the following
My approach towards certain verses mentioned above in relations to 7431 and others comes from analysing historical significance. It has nothing to do with "afterlife" or code-19. If I bring my thoughts into this, I'm sure I'll be bashed out by some belligerents unecessarily and become a battle ground. What say you? Do I get a green light?
Moderators, I invoke rule 2. This person should be made to answer for his critique.
Started crying again, eh. You can shed tears all you want all over the forum and I will respond only once you start behaving and get back into serious discussion. Here's a reminder
mquranThat's all Im asking for here responsible, amicable discussion.
This is not found in your ?dictionary?. Just dream on. As can be seen that this discussion itself is getting detoriated; thanks to "defecations/urinations" of mquran.
-
Danishmquran's 3-in-1 question 1. Why is it 'realistically' incorrect? Please define 'realistically' and your evidence that this definition is wholly objective. The definition of 'realistically' and its evidence, along with other definitions of 'historically', 'logically' and 'scientifically' can be found in dictionaries.
I shall only explain what I wrote and that is "Fearing an "Allah" is historically correct but realistically, scientifically and logically incorrect."
Ok, let me switch modes to 'kindergarten' and ask again
Danish Fearing an Allah is REALISTICALLY, LOGICALLY, AND SCIENTIFICALLY incorrect.
Mquran Why is it INCORRECT ? What constitutes 'correct' ? Please show me a 'correct' answer and by what measure this is correct ?
Do you understand what 'why' means ? This means that, by the definitions in the dictionary, there's a reason that you said 'fearing an Allah is incorrect'. WHAT are those reasons?
Kindly remember rule 2 please. This isn't some kuffar forum for you to play with.
-
This isn't some kuffar forum for you to play with.
If it isn't a kuffar forum, then it is certainly not meant for a "prophet of doom"; a bigoted and pychopathic ayatollah (mquran) whose clone can be witnessed here http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBplylx55Zc&mode=related&search=mullah
You want a battle field by such insurgencies, there you have it. Unless you stop infiltrated remarks to begin/end every discussion or criticism put forth and your kindergarten switching modes, I shall only respond to your "fair play" of beating the drums.
A psychiatrist is much needed on your behalf at this time before any further discussion commences.
-
peace
the above two posts are a great example of how it all starts.
If you're asking a question, why not just ask the question instead of topping it with insults?
and if someone asks you a question (yes you Danish), it's polite to answer it instead of throwing more insults.
grow up!
peace -
Phoenix, this isn't the first time I'm addressing him. Danish's tactic is pretending to delay answering on the pretext that he's busy. However, he's not too busy to answer other threads or to do continue his disparagement of AQ. I suggest you grow up and wise up to this, no offense.
-
Peace "Danish" and "mquran",
A psychiatrist is much needed on your behalf at this time before any further discussion commences.
JK- I can see Danish that you didnt totally quit your old habbits. Remember when you said to me that i needed a brain surgeon and how colorful you highlighted it at
http//19.org/forum/index.php/m/9686/222/
Besides the first part of you i quoted thast you were once a very strong believer in RK n code-19. You changed your view for the 3rd time now i believe.
GOD Bless! -
Danish If it isn't a kuffar forum, then it is certainly not meant for a "prophet of doom"; a bigoted and pychopathic ayatollah (mquran) whose clone can be witnessed here http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBplylx55Zc&mode=related&search=mullah
You want a battle field by such insurgencies, there you have it. Unless you stop infiltrated remarks to begin/end every discussion or criticism put forth and your kindergarten switching modes, I shall only respond to your "fair play" of beating the drums.
A psychiatrist is much needed on your behalf at this time before any further discussion commences.
Is this your answer or are you still working on it?
The question again WHY is the 'fear of Allah' realistically, logically and scientifically incorrect ? What IS correct ? By what standard is this correct ?
-
-
peac mq,
no offence taken peace
my point was, if your post contained nothing but the question in plain language, Danish (or anyone else) would have no reason to be offended, they would have no reason to insult you or "AQ". If he still did insult you, or ignore your question, people would know that he cannot answer it. It's as simple as that until people add all these sour toppings yuck to their pizzas (do not take this literally) when all that's needed, and wanted, is cheese (;D like that).I would recommend that the next time you address a post to Danish, or enquirer, or Truth, or M. Mehdi, or me (eventually...it's a pattern I can't escape), or anyone you don't like, just keep the font plain, avoid smilies and insults.
Because, as I've always said, the focus shouldn't be on who is right and who is wrong, but on WHAT is correct and incorrect.
When we type our posts, we should be at peace, and we should focus on the right thing.
The focus of the whole discussion, the whole forum, is destroyed by offensive posts.