CAN ALLAH BE EVERYWHERE
-
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.
-
handshake
Contextual consistency aside,
I see no etymological basis for such an assertion!Why not? I do it. Just open lexicons. If you want an Arabic - English lexicon I recommend Lane's Lexicon.
-
FreedomStands,
In fact, even traditional scholars affirm that Semitic words stem from usually trilateral roots.
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).
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.
Well. Have it your way. I tried at least.
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.
Though lying and being a rat snake is not beyond me, I don't think I was lying, nor am I being sarcastic in the above. You are in my opinion genuinely on a divine mission. It is also my genuine opinion that if someone says that things are left up to "Chance" to decide, then "Chance" is the Ultimate determiner, that is just basic language based logic.
If you said "All is God, and everything people do and think is from God entirely because there is nothing but God and All is God" that is another story, but instead you say something like "Pantheism (meaning All is God) but individuals with free will apart from the will of God, so separate in at least that sense" meaning you're going against even part of what you say. You might refine it in time.
The three letter roots are not usually added up letter by letter, that is your unique contribution to the world of linguistics.
Just because your mission is from God, your visions, experiences, all of it is from God, doesn't mean that God is not deceiving.
All I was saying was that in my case I can't define "Ultimate" as less than Ultimate, I wasn't saying I'm denying your model even.
For example, all the things which you say can be true, the only difference is just that in that one particular thing we are calling a different concept the God.
-
Hi OnlyOneGod,
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.
Can you explain how the Sustainer is limited based on the premise that the Sustainer is existence itself? If you are everything in the world then obviously you have ultimate control. The Sustainer is an advanced intelligence in the universe aware in everything.
"Normal usage" depends on the perception of the beholder. The Sustainer is the determiner of how everything should end up unless it has decided to give freedom of expression and action. It can do anything it will. If it does create a Being in its image (awareness) deceived within a outer husk then it is so.
Have you contemplated the magnitude of a "determiner" and "upholder". This kind of Being can obviously decide anything it wills since it projects the "reality" (illusion) as we see it. Without the Sustainer sustaining everything in the world it would suddenly begin to disintegrate.
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?
I am against "allah" in traditional sense because it is an appropriate term based on old misconception of its meaning. But when speaking of "Being" then it is absolutely okay. In chapter one verse two it says "alhamd lillah Rabb al-'alameen". The reason is because the "lillah" word refers to the "Commendable is (who) Being aware of (the) Sustainer" (very literally). However I suppose you will contend this argument as well. Interpreters and translators often shows a blind eye towards the fact that in, for example, an English rendition, the AL-based adjective has to be placed before the noun since in English you modify a noun placing the adjective first in most clauses. Al-'alemeen refers to a person based on affixing. Arabic words and grammar has a unique linguistic formula very foreign in English. Al-'alemeen can be perceived as genitive here with person reference.
B 'esm ' Allah ' Al-rahman al-raheem could be rendered as "With a spirit Being fully/totally complete", forming coherence to the subsequent text. Chapter one is clearly a reminding prayer in which one is reminding themselves of their purpose. In this case just like in English you can place the adjectives after the defining noun which is "esm". Allah works as an adverb. I.e. Subject + Be + adjective(s). The initial phrase (basmala) is obviously supposed to be read in conjunction with the subsequent text, like I said, i.e. "With a spirit Being fully/totally complete, (who) is commendably Being aware of (the) Sustainer".
Then again I am wondering why I write you this because you will likely reject it outright anyway.
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.
That is because ancient interpreters did a good job at ruining the interpretation with their own baseless work at inserting their doctrine in an innocent context. If one is perceptive however, it is quite easy to find the inconsistency.
No one seems to reflect upon the nature of the word allah. I have multiple times argued that it comes from the root Alif-Lam-Lam which root also has relevancy. Who hearkens onto my argument that has basis? Very few if any. The is merely a suffix. Sometimes it carries the affix . Obviously for anyone worth their caliber knows that if it was to follow the grammar rules it would be written if to be grammatically correct. I have an example of that grammar in use here from 3106. If allah was meant to be used with as part of the noun then it would add an extra . The evidence is plentiful. The "allah" itself carrying an AL prefix it is either adverb or adjective. If the word with was intended to be a defining (adjectival) noun it would require a and not . So much for for people and intelligent reflection.
And to add to that, if was intended to be a proper noun, then it would require to write apart from the word just like . Arabic does also have grammar rules you know and ways to distinguish a proper noun. Al is also not known appropriately as it is intended in the ancient grammar rules but AL comes from the root Alif-Lam-Lam (just like allah) and means to "be such as" as in giving reference and why the AL words are usually adjectives and adverbs. Hope I have given you some fruit for thought even if I have my doubts you will even read half of what I wrote and digest it. Every word carrying a AL prefix is actually two words as a compound.
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.
That is erroneous due to the meaning of the word allah. Even though the interpretations are awfully bad, you can get hints because no righteous person in Quran uses the phrase "Ya Allah", but Ya Rabb is used multiple times.
Be well
-
If you said "All is God, and everything people do and think is from God entirely because there is nothing but God and All is God" that is another story, but instead you say something like "Pantheism (meaning All is God) but individuals with free will apart from the will of God, so separate in at least that sense" meaning you're going against even part of what you say. You might refine it in time.
The (underlying) "will" for the Sustainer was to refine forth the perfect specimen. If you accomplish that you do not go against the will of your Sustainer. The Sustainer does not outright make you feel the more dire consequences of your doings if you are going against the will, but you will likely see yourself cursed to the recurring Gehennom. The thing you may be blind to is that you secondarily will right away feel the consequence of further delusion and severance from the Sustainer.
I think it is you who cannot comprehend what I write because I am not going against what I write. The will for those who are aware is to do the will of the Sustainer which is exactly what I am doing right now. The world likes to go against the will of the Sustainer despite that the illusion/delusion is the deceptive works of the Sustainer and why it has often been called evil in some gnostic sects. The human that does not balance its influence from the spirit but lets themselves be controlled by the beast will certainly be evil so they are right in ways. The human animal is mostly evil in its nature, very egotistical and instinctive even if it is among the more advanced primates. So in that way the Sustainer did create evil, but that was because it was supposed to be a contradiction. The test is obviously supposed to be hard to filter out the absolutely best initiates. It is indeed hard to find the way, I can admit that. But people delude themselves with this and that instead of simply following logic and rationality. That is why the so-called 'books of guidance' often are cursed, but not in themselves but because of what people do with them.
I am however glad that the Sustainer is doing this refining because it is always important to filter out the garbage. Yet I am amazed at the immense mercy of the Sustainer letting anyone have their chances for a long time until it is too late.
The three letter roots are not usually added up letter by letter, that is your unique contribution to the world of linguistics.
Yet any knowledgeable scholar worth their caliber must affirm that there is a relationship between the letters comprising a word and their meaning. That the very ancient letters did carry innate meanings is well-known to people who research on the most distant etymological background of languages. That the letters themselves have names is something that should rise suspicion.
And Quran helps the perceptive by having lonely letters initiating several of the chapters as a demonstration that one may look at the meaning of the letter. That it uses the letter PLUS the conjunction "wa" is further assistance to figuring that out. I did it some year ago or even two. Obviously if the letter was not part of the discourse it would not begin with that conjunction since it marks adhesion.
Just because your mission is from God, your visions, experiences, all of it is from God, doesn't mean that God is not deceiving.
The Sustainer has been deceiving as part of the test. So that evil has been from the Sustainer. But it is still man's fault succumbing to the beast.
For example, all the things which you say can be true, the only difference is just that in that one particular thing we are calling a different concept the God.
Very well then, but you do apply quite heavy sarcasm no matter if it meant to be sarcasm, but irony often becomes sarcasm if it is aimed in a certain way.
Be well
-
Why not?
I dismiss your case for lack of evidence and acumen,
yet, instead of presenting proof (to demonstrate otherwise), you ask me "why not"!?I do it.
Do what!?
Conjecture!?Just open lexicons. If you want an Arabic - English lexicon I recommend Lane's Lexicon.
Ok, here's Ed's dictionary
http//oi62.tinypic.com/nqcitc.jpg
... QA l-Razq (ق = He* who supplies/provides sustenance ().
Now what!?
-
hicham,
That be your opinion. I presented you my evidence based on lexical definitions. It is thus not baseless.
Conjecture the people did of the past who came up with inaccurate definitions. No work which needs to be done as is already done.
And you must check all definitions a lexicon gives because it does not only state one. Only one can be right. If you have a share or portion of a job then this your part of it. You provide that input being your share.
It is not possible to compare that to the sustenance of Rabb which is another word.
Anyway, there is nothing else to say than we could possibly agree to disagree.
-
I presented you my evidence based on lexical definitions. It is thus not baseless.
Sure it is.
For it's based on conjecture instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.
Conjecture the people did of the past who came up with inaccurate definitions.
No work which needs to be done as is already done.This argument is invalid!
Ignoratio elenchi, composition fallacy, &c.!And you must check all definitions a lexicon gives because it does not only state one.
Only one can be right.I don't need a (post-quranic) Arabic-to-English dictionary (by a dead brit) to understand the Arabian Quran @M0F!
rzq is a word I use daily, in my L1!If you have a share or portion of a job then this your part of it.
You provide that input being your share.n. is not the quranic term for "share, portion" ...
rzq denoting sustenance, subsistence, or (daily) supply/provision is attested but, most importantly, definite, as it provides contextual consistency.It is not possible to compare that to the sustenance of Rabb which is another word.
You're appealing to the stone (ad lapidem), equivocation, and persuasive definition, ...
Anyway, there is nothing else to say than we could possibly agree to disagree.
With pleasure.
-
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.
Well said. bravo