You Have Been Warned
-
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. -
Peace all,
Just look at how "Danish" believed here
http//19.org/forum/index.php/m/3536/0/#msg_3536
I quote from the aboveSalaams brothers and sisters
- Believe in GOD Alone.
- Believe in Quran Alone.
- Do not idolize Prophet Muhammad or Hazrat Ali or any other human.
- Do not believe in falsehood and conjecture such as hadiths.
- Do not make any partners to GOD or equal to GOD or above GOD while taking GOD's name, specially in prayers.
- The awesome discovery of mathematical code of 19.
- The most accurately and beautifully translated English version of the Quran whilst easy to comprehend alongwith appendices, footnotes, etc.
- Challenging not only the so-called Muslim community but the entire world.
- Facing disastrous consequences to the extent of his own death while announcing his messengership with solid proofs.
ONLY ONE MAN OUT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD STOOD FIRM FOR ALL THE ABOVE AND MUCH MUCH MORE, JUST TO PROVE HIS POINT AND GOT SLAINED. NO ONE DARE CAME FORWARD. MANY, INCLUDING THE SO-CALLED SUBMITTERS, POINT FINGERS FROM EVERY WHICH WAY THEY CAN, YET THERE ARE HUNDREDS, PERHAPS THOUSANDS BECOMING TRUE BELIEVERS EACH DAY, CHANGING THEIR COURSE SURELY BUT GRADUALLY....ALL BUT BY ALLAH'S WILL. THIS MAN WAS RASHAD KHALIFA (pbuh), MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT. Smile
-
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.Dude, you don't get it, do you ? Once again, no offense but let me spell it out for you, ok
Your beliefs are of no concern to me. We all have to face Allah on our own.
What DOES concern me is what is displayed in this (still called Quranic) forum. We get people who come, criticise AQ and REFUSE TO ANSWER. If they just say 'well, i dont know thats my feeling', that's fine but when someone says 'REALISTICALLY, LOGICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY', its referring to an objective epistemology which of course, does not exist. Danish isn't out to discuss anything. He's out to vent and I hope you understand this.
-
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!
peacePoliteness and fairness in discussions seems a martian theory in mquran's "dictionary"? Each time I bring about a criticism, he addresses them with 'defecations/unrinations", condemnations and either begins or ends with insulting remarks (as seen above and in all his other posts), which obviously gets retaliated. How can one be polite to begin with while the other impolite to end it, in order to take up any discussion for its intended purpose?
He has already made clear of his position to make this forum a political battle zone. So much for polite and fair discussions. Where do members go from here? As mentioned earlier, everyone must succumb and submit to this hostile, dreadful and dictatorial ayatollah-cum-regime he wants to take over.
-
peace Danish, MQ,
why don't you two have a one-on-one debate (not "moderated". Just you two post. Keep out the insults so we can get some things cleared up. And maybe you'll find you agree on more than you think.
and Danish, aap ko meri post ka jawaab dene mein koi etraaz to nahin? "nature of God" section mein.
-
Here is another one of mquran's posts which is begging its proper place on this forum
Re The Tragedy of TYRANNICAL-minds (formerly 'free-minds'
? Reply #89 on July 25, 2006, 044137 AM ?
Quote
DanishYou seriously need is a psychiatric help.Those madrassa people really should import a qualified english teacher.
Quote
What is criticism? Lets have a closer look- The act of criticizing, especially adversely.
- A critical comment or judgment.
- a. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.
b. A critical article or essay; a critique.
c. The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism
Your dictionary is not my furqaan. My furqaan is AQ and its concept of jidaal/argumention doesnt include part 3c. It's sad that your limited capacities cannot grasp this, but hey-ho.
Quote
There's no harm per se in saying 'AQ is an old book, not suitable for modern times'
When I and Enquirer mentioned this very statement above, he jumped head-over-heels in defiance and here he is saying that ?there?s no harm?.Did you madrassa teach you to lie or did they forget to teach you how read complete paragraphs? Here's what I said
Criticism is a good thing. There's no harm per se in saying 'AQ is an old book, not suitable for modern times' but if you're going to say it, stand by it. What is modernity and why is it our criteria? This the critics of AQ have refused to face. This isn't about accepting AQ as divine, this is about decency.
It's only a low and deceptive person who would use such tactics. You're really the bottom of the barrel, Danish.
-
I think its very clear from this episode that Danish doesn't know what he's on about. He simply says anything he can to disaparage the Quran while not caring about the beliefs of others. Phoenix, if this isnt clear to you, then there's nothing else I cant say. Don't bother calling this guy to debate. He needs to learn the meaning of the word first. Actually, AFTER he learns about 'realistic, logic and scientific'.
-
DanishHere is another one of mquran's posts which is begging its proper place on this forum
In case you havent noticed, you deliberately misrepresented my quote there. Did the God you can never know teach you this or was this 'essence of nature' rubbish you keep bandying about?
-
Enough has been said about this insane 'ayatollah' and I am done with this thread. I will not respond to this belligerent, bigoted and fanatic mquran unless he stops infiltrated remarks to begin/end his every rebuttal. I shall take my criticisms at the 'divinity' section and hope members can fairly DISCUSS and NOT CUSS around by carefully analyzing my criticisms. I will explain my statements there.
-
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 )
SalamPeace bro
I meant the same wazn not emphasis, I have to say bro that I can't argue this anymore, 7205 is actually to the believers not specific to the prophet, please read 7204 and you will see what I mean, however even if it is, do you think Allah is ordering the prophet to be humbe and fear Him and not be of the Ghafilin, and thos message os not for us as well?, it does not make sense bro, all the prophets are examples to us
Peace bro