CAN ALLAH BE EVERYWHERE
-
Hi mmkhan,
Hicham contends the argument of Sustainer completely. But I find Rabb perfectly descriptive for what the Sustainer is, i.e. the One providing sustenance for everything. That is not inaccurate.
The root Ra-Ba-Ba is used for other settings as well, but it usually refers to one who is above you who determines your life and gives you your daily bread. Who does that better than the Sustainer? Hicham said boss or master, but both of those words imply that someone is your "determiner". I actually see a pattern in all those definitions. Therefore I also do not see Sustainer as wrong in any way.
If I provide for my family as a father I am also a sustainer, but that means I can also determine what we can buy and do with our daily life. And I can impose sanctions on my family if I like because I have financial upper hand. I am their master unless they have another means of sharing my role, no matter they like it or not.
This is what I consider Rabb to refer to in Arabic too. And who is a better sustainer than the Sustainer?
Apart from that I always respect your opinion. And also hicham's.
Be well
By saying that he is the sustainer you are limiting his capability, are you not?
You give an example of your family, do you feel you are a rab to your family while not having the capacity or capability to create life and/or wealth at will? And I don't mean create life through procreation because we all know that you have no power over whether you can or cannot have children.
-
Hi mmkhan,
He is okay since he does not outright accept everything of Quran's traditional interpretation as true. There is some mindworks there.
Peace brother,
I agree.
By the way, I am beginning to see the same thing as you, i.e. that there may never have been a man named Muhammad. I do not feel I have strong enough evidence personally, but there are many indications that Muhammad was a sectarian fabrication of the 7th-9th centuries, just as the "war topic" of especially chapter 8-9 are a hoax and distortion of the context. As you may have read I argue that Qatal means defeat/subdue/master, and it does not have to involve violence but you can defeat someone verbally such as Moses' co-traveler lectures a young boy who was left dumbfounded. I highly doubt Moses would stick around with the man if he murdered someone.
Be well
To me Islam means peace, hence there will not be wars.
I don't believe that means to kill/murder but couldn't find the correct description of this word yet. And waiting till Allah clarifies it for me, inshaAllah 10109].May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Hi good logic,
Peace Man Of Faith.
Here I am again giving you some verses to interpret?
527-32Do you think "Qatal" and all its derivatives here mean defeat?
I hope you won t get "defeated" here!
GOD bless you.
Peace.I get defeated everywhere. If not there is something wrong with the interpretation.
Looking at the text one can see that Quran is very incoherent in the traditional interpretation and suddenly jumps from a narrative of Moses onto another about Adam's sons that are not even mentioned by name. Have you even reflected upon the adhesion?
The truth is it does not even speak of the sons of Adam, but the text is perverted.
Due to your insistence I am going to sit down and decipher the unit specifically to reveal what it rather speaks of, even if I normally work systematically from A to B.
-
Hi again brother mmkhan,
To me Islam means peace, hence there will not be wars.
I don't believe that means to kill/murder but couldn't find the correct description of this word yet. And waiting till Allah clarifies it for me, inshaAllah .Yes, peace can be an acceptable rendition of Eslam, although I prefer sound. When you say "salaam" to someone it is like saying "be healthy". However, you can say "have the mind at peace".
You may do like me and be ready that the word means defeat/subdue/master, which makes the word fairly versatile. These definitions are available in elder lexicons that exceed thousand years of age. One should never believe any source outright, but I find it plausible that it may mean defeat. The word is used when David/Dawood defeats Goliath and I think it really says defeat Goliath and not kill. It means that he both killed Goliath and defeated his men bearing his label.
Quran rarely uses words for kill/murder, and it is basically in negative contexts where it speaks of killing/murder.
Wherever qatal does not fit with defeat/master it is likely that the whole segment is poorly interpreted. Besides, you can qatal someone and it indirectly meant you kill them although literally the text says you defeat them. It does not come forth what happens unless specified. Murder is not a desirable outcome anyways.
Be well
-
By saying that he is the sustainer you are limiting his capability, are you not?
You give an example of your family, do you feel you are a rab to your family while not having the capacity or capability to create life and/or wealth at will? And I don't mean create life through procreation because we all know that you have no power over whether you can or cannot have children.
How am I limiting the Sustainer's capability?
I gave an example over the usage of the word Ra-Ba-Ba, in case you missed that. If you depend on someone else you take them for a 'rabb'. That is what Joseph speaks about with his co-prisoners. It does not mean you cannot serve someone by working for them, but if you let them determine your thoughts and your actions. If you accept scholars or elder interpretations without reflection the interpreters, even if anonymous to you, become your arbab. The root refers to something more sophisticated while only rabb means simply 'sustain/supply/provide'. This is a controller of the situation who can determine your events and life.
Rabb does not imply creation or initiation by word definition. You must look for other words. Anyone can create something by just using their hands, but there is only one Initiator. Only the Rabb can initiate life. We can even use raw atoms to form artificial matter so this religious talk is not accurate. However, the Rabb gets the last say since it is sustaining the universe.
Sustainer (Rabb) is the most fundamental of words to use for the function of the Sustainer. It upholds existence itself and being the surge of power. Actually if one reflects it is a more powerful term than master/lord that do not say much.
Be well
-
but the text is perverted.
I know! It touched me!
-
In my book, the equivalent of. Sustainer is QA l-Razq () = He* who supplies/provides sustenance ().
I agree that Allah is the sustainer (Ar Razzaq)
To me Islam means peace, hence there will not be wars.
So if you are attacked you do what?
I don't believe that means to kill/murder but couldn't find the correct description of this word yet.
You may have great difficulty finding another meaning, but then again
others have succeeded )God bless
-
Aha hicham,
That is not what I consider to mean in my book. Someone's portion/share/part is . Example If I speak of knowing my part (of a job) I use .
Anyways, Being sound is much more important than these details.
Be healthy
-
Hawk99,
The etymology of says otherwise. It is your clerical friends of the Islam you follow who fabricated the definition you use due to ignorance. As far as I am concerned, one is beaten/defeated with , but per word it does not come forth if the person dies or not unless specified in the context.
-
Bad editing on my part ... see next msg.
-
How am I limiting the Sustainer's capability?
Rabb does not imply creation or initiation by word definition. You must look for other words. Anyone can create something by just using their hands, but there is only one Initiator. Only the Rabb can initiate life. We can even use raw atoms to form artificial matter so this religious talk is not accurate. However, the Rabb gets the last say since it is sustaining the universe.
Sustainer (Rabb) is the most fundamental of words to use for the function of the Sustainer. It upholds existence itself and being the surge of power. Actually if one reflects it is a more powerful term than master/lord that do not say much.
Be well
Rabb as per normal usage does not simply encompass the acts of a sustainer and creator as defined by pantheism. It encompasses a much broader scope, which includes his attributes of the greatest judge and jury, the most beneficent, the most merciful, he has no partners, he begets none etc. While your word "sustainer" is limiting.
You ask
"Rabb does not imply creation or initiation by word definition. You must look for other words. "Why are you so against the use of the word Allah, which in its scope talks of both the sustainer as you believe, and much more? Do you believe that the other attributes of God mentioned throughout the Quran are not accurate?
The word Rabb can have multiple interpretations in the same way Lord (in the bible) can have multiple interpretations. But Allah and his attributes are pretty clearly defined in the Quran. We know that when we speak of Rabb in the Quran, it means Allah. So better to just say Allah rather than sustainer as Allah is more accurate.
-
I agree that Allah is the sustainer (Ar Razzaq)
handshake
Aha hicham,
That is not what I consider to mean in my book.
Someone's portion/share/part is .
Example If I speak of knowing my part (of a job) I use .Contextual consistency aside,
I see no etymological basis for such an assertion! -
handshake
Contextual consistency aside,
I see no etymological basis for such an assertion!You'll have to wait for Man of Faith's etymology book to come out.
-
What kind of frivolous excuse is this!
Man of Faith has a (lol by the way to your style and comment) technique that is generally new to the world of linguistics, where he "adds" the meanings of each letter in a Semitic root to come to a meaning, each letter means something on its own (based on looking at the many words it is used in and other inspiration) and then combined into a three letter word (we usually use four letter words) which has its own meaning combining all three letters individual meanings that he discovered.
So this has caused great difficultly in communication with people since not everyone knows what in the world he is talking about, and even those who do don't have access to his methods or lexicons or anything.
The only option left is to say "According to Man of Faith" such and such means such and such, and then to either regret or not regret having taken that amount of time to mention any of this.
Man of Faith is on a divine mission (this is not mockery), the only two options are that he is either deceived by God or whoever disagrees with him is deceived by God. In my world though, there is just no option where he isn't deceived by God, since I will never call anything that looks to Chance for answers and determination a God.
So at the end of the day, my God is Chance and his God is Sustainer, which looks to Chance (which he calls Probability) for answers and determination. My God is the determiner, not the one looking for answers. A God that looks for answers is "condition based" the answers then drive that God's decisions, just like factors seem to drive a human's decisions. Not so with my God Chance, who is not driven by anything, but is the driver of all things.
The user "reel" has, after a dream from what is certainly the great Deceiver, is convinced of whatever Man of Faith is saying and seems to generally believe in the same transitory model of things and a God that looks to Chance for answers.
In fact almost all the users on this website worship some version of a God that looks to Chance for answers or leaves things for Chance to determine. They are the ones who blabber on about Free Will because of their human sense of Justice, without looking at how even according to very basic experience things are conditional and driven by conditions, but even besides that, a true devotee of what is Ultimate can never say that what looks to Chance for answers or leaves things to Chance or that there are many powers which Chance decides for (since they can go this way or that way, so Chance is what determines if they go this way or that way) is God.
So that ends the tale of most people on this website, very likely including yourself.
I might join you too in the place where you'll have your BBQ party, but for me I never said that God is anything but the Absolute Ultimate and never did I say there is any share in the power with the Ultimate nor that God looks to anything else to determine things. In that, I simply can't be "wrong", I just worship the Ultimate, even if the Ultimate won't save me from the "God" that looks to it for answers.
-
So if you are attacked you do what?
Peace brother,
No ways! My Rabb will protect me as He always do . Better to check from 10102-10105.
You may have great difficulty finding another meaning, but then again
others have succeededGod bless
Thank you for your concern. I do not rush but wait till Allah clarifies it for me .
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Peace brother,
No ways! My Rabb will protect me as He always do 10103]. Better to check from 10102-10105.
Thank you for your concern. I do not rush but wait till Allah clarifies it for me 10109].
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanGod does not necessarily protect everyone from physical harm. In the case of the early Muslims, they even fought and killed people to defend their lives, many of them were killed. Do you think those of them who were killed were somehow sinners for getting killed in the name of Allah? Was it some spiritual weakness of theirs which caused them to die, rather than Allah who determined it?
You said "Allah will protect me" or something, but I'd add "insha'Allah" or if God so wills, since there is no secret covenant or deal that you have where God will definitely protect you from all harm, since you don't know even if you qualify, and even if you did qualify, this is the same God who says even Jesus and his mother can be destroyed freely and no one could stop God. Knowing this, then one can properly "Fear God as God is meant to be Feared" among other things.
-
FreedomStands,
Man of Faith has a (lol by the way to your style and comment) technique that is generally new to the world of linguistics, where he "adds" the meanings of each letter in a Semitic root to come to a meaning, each letter means something on its own (based on looking at the many words it is used in and other inspiration) and then combined into a three letter word (we usually use four letter words) which has its own meaning combining all three letters individual meanings that he discovered.
In fact, even traditional scholars affirm that Semitic words stem from usually trilateral roots.
So this has caused great difficultly in communication with people since not everyone knows what in the world he is talking about, and even those who do don't have access to his methods or lexicons or anything.
To talk about lexicons I utilize Lane's Arabic English lexicon. It can be downloaded on the Internet. Most any definition I refer to can be found there and my innate letter meanings in sequence favor at least one of the definitions (since words have only one general meaning it is not strange).
The only option left is to say "According to Man of Faith" such and such means such and such, and then to either regret or not regret having taken that amount of time to mention any of this.
Not sure what else I should do. Quran is an absolute scam when it comes to the interpretation and I happen to have found the interpretation after over 1000 years and it is almost impossible to prove it except by fighting for its cause. In the end when I am to deliver the finished rendition it all falls to how plausible it will seem. I have generated a kind of hate-love relationship to Quran. One part of me would love to throw the book behind my back, but the other part says to have an impact I have to eventually prove the falsehood in the available interpretations to get people to abandon the delusion.
Man of Faith is on a divine mission (this is not mockery), the only two options are that he is either deceived by God or whoever disagrees with him is deceived by God. In my world though, there is just no option where he isn't deceived by God, since I will never call anything that looks to Chance for answers and determination a God.
Well. Have it your way. I tried at least.
The user "reel" has, after a dream from what is certainly the great Deceiver, is convinced of whatever Man of Faith is saying and seems to generally believe in the same transitory model of things and a God that looks to Chance for answers.
Somehow I must be relieved in this tireless struggle to make people hearken by some external miracle.
You told me that you were not sarcastic about me before, but I am absolutely certain that you outright lied now. You were sarcastic the last time as well. It does not matter. Make fun of it all the way you like. Humor is a good way of discrediting someone's work as nonsense without even reflecting upon it just as conformity to over-academic methodology is another way of easily refuting someone's inspirational work in the shadows of great falsehood.