CAN ALLAH BE EVERYWHERE
-
Okay, hicham. Your opinion is noted.
-
Hi OnlyOneGod,
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.
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.
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.
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
Salaam Man of Faith,
After reading your reply it seems to me that you are creating a new language based on Arabic. Because no Arabic scholar would agree with your interpretations of words that you are putting forth. You are connecting words and coming up with meanings that seem to satisfy the goal you have set out to achieve. I think a better methodology for you to be to simply say that you do not agree with the Quran, rather than going on this extensive mission of reinterpreting even such commonly used Arabic words like rizq, to mean something that it was never ever meant to mean. Can I tomorrow go to England and claim that followers of pantheism are those who believe in the frying pan as a god deity (Pan + theism = very logical)? To learn the meanings of a language you go to the source of the language and how words are interpreted in that language by those people.
Your whole argument is based on your reinterpretation of Arabic for the Arabs. They say one thing while you tell them they know nothing of Arabic and hence they (and we) should follow your way. Does that make any sense?
-
Peace brother,
No ways! My Rabb will protect me as He always do . Better to check from 10102-10105.
If Allah wills. handshake
Peace brother,
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
mmKhanMay Allah give you what you need.
peace
-
Salaam Man of Faith,
After reading your reply it seems to me that you are creating a new language based on Arabic. Because no Arabic scholar would agree with your interpretations of words that you are putting forth. You are connecting words and coming up with meanings that seem to satisfy the goal you have set out to achieve. I think a better methodology for you to be to simply say that you do not agree with the Quran, rather than going on this extensive mission of reinterpreting even such commonly used Arabic words like rizq, to mean something that it was never ever meant to mean. Can I tomorrow go to England and claim that followers of pantheism are those who believe in the frying pan as a god deity (Pan + theism = very logical)? To learn the meanings of a language you go to the source of the language and how words are interpreted in that language by those people.
Your whole argument is based on your reinterpretation of Arabic for the Arabs. They say one thing while you tell them they know nothing of Arabic and hence they (and we) should follow your way. Does that make any sense?
Though I want to see his re-translations of the Qur'an, I think the better strategy would be to simply state the religion and not necessarily associate it with any of these things that have long established and stubborn associations at this time.
If you really want more Malakat for God (why more?), the best might be to drop the stubborn Islamic or Christian groups and just go for a totally independent religion. It can be called anything, even something strange like Malakat Drive, or Malakat Avenue.
Seriously, Islam is a stubborn old religion and you don't have so much time to waste on dealing with a change in language that maybe no one well receive very well once they have been academically brainwashed.
So you just have to announce the differing religion.
This seems to be the natural progression, from going away from the mainstream, then going away from the fasting, and the old Salat, then from the Qur'an's mainstream translation maybe, and then from the whole religion or any association with it whatsoever.
The Path to Spiritual Freedom. God's Garden. God's Farmville. Farmer Sustainer's Harvest. So many options for names.
"I am not a Muslim by the standard definition of the word" "I believe in something else other than Islam as it is understood by most people" "I have my own particular religion, which holds that we are spirits in conflict with the beast-body and have to overcome it in order to achieve our spiritual non-bodily state again" "My religion may resemble others, but it actually differs in some way, so we can call my religion _______ instead, a term I've designated to mean my particular beliefs on everything".
"I have a certain method of translating Semitic language words that is not widely accepted by anyone, but my way of translating words actually seems to confirm everything I want to say to people anyway, which is a great happenstance".
"I am on a mission from God, and I am working diligently to leave this body and never return to the prison of the beast-body and its needs, but to be free and powerful, a bodiless spiritual ruler over people and things".
"I used to be a Muslim for a little while and I married a Muslim, but I am no longer associating with that word or that religion, because I realized that it is false and that the truth is instead what I say, which is that the Sustainer is the mainframe underlying everything, that created a contradiction where beings were made who are essentially like God in that they are bodiless spirits and were placed into animal beast bodies which they have to struggle to overcome. Evil stems from following beast-body desires, and so the best path for anyone is to forsake all their material desires as much as possible, this even includes things like food and sex."
"I reject the body entirely, I hate the body, and so should you if you were wise, because the body is the cause of all evils and troubles, an escaping it should be the goal of anyone with any senses. Give up on all the lures of the material world, the body in all its supposed charms, give up on sex, food, and whatever else because it is a deception and illusion which keeps you bound to the world of the material which is the only hell you'll know. You will keep being reincarnated into the body over and over until you learn to ascend to your bodiless state by simply giving up on the material and not being controlled by sexual desire or desire for food."
Haha, funnily enough, I'm ahead of you in this by far, which is a great joke.
Would you consider yourself a hypocrite in some regards? Not living up to what you say quite as well as you might hope? Perhaps you should start to practice these things much more seriously if you really believe them? You're still having sex on occasion, you're still eating possibly rather regularly rather than appropriately practicing as little food as possible. What else are you failing in as you waste your time typing on free-minds? I'm succeeding in your religion, but you're not succeeding in mine or yours? Isn't it a serious matter?
It seems rather simple to abandon your wife and go and live alone somewhere with no sex, no masturbation, very little food verging on no food at all, and making a quick escape of your body.
As you progress, you'll notice becoming more and more apathetic from concerns as you basically starve your beast to death.
If you accidentally get reincarnated, then see if you can remember to refuse to eat as a baby or a worm or whatever you might reincarnate as. They will probably force feed you if you are baby though, so you'll have to wait until you become a teenager at least to practice anorexia, you'll actually get away with it more if you're a boy possibly.
The problem with being a boy though is your testacles, which seem to be causing you problems as it is, so you mind want to get those surgically removed as it can assist resisting the need for sex. The mainstream New Testament says if such and such body part causes you to sin, simply cut it off, so you might consider doing that to your genitals entirely, maybe making them some form which can't have any sort of sex even if you tried.
As you stop eating, you'll also stop defecating eventually, and you'll be right on your way to achieving your suggested goals, with bodily results to boot.
Do you have any objections to the suggestion that you should follow what you preach full force?
-
Though I want to see his re-translations of the Qur'an, I think the better strategy would be to simply state the religion and not necessarily associate it with any of these things that have long established and stubborn associations at this time.
If you really want more Malakat for God (why more?), the best might be to drop the stubborn Islamic or Christian groups and just go for a totally independent religion. It can be called anything, even something strange like Malakat Drive, or Malakat Avenue.
Seriously, Islam is a stubborn old religion and you don't have so much time to waste on dealing with a change in language that maybe no one well receive very well once they have been academically brainwashed.
So you just have to announce the differing religion.
This seems to be the natural progression, from going away from the mainstream, then going away from the fasting, and the old Salat, then from the Qur'an's mainstream translation maybe, and then from the whole religion or any association with it whatsoever.
The Path to Spiritual Freedom. God's Garden. God's Farmville. Farmer Sustainer's Harvest. So many options for names.
"I am not a Muslim by the standard definition of the word" "I believe in something else other than Islam as it is understood by most people" "I have my own particular religion, which holds that we are spirits in conflict with the beast-body and have to overcome it in order to achieve our spiritual non-bodily state again" "My religion may resemble others, but it actually differs in some way, so we can call my religion _______ instead, a term I've designated to mean my particular beliefs on everything".
"I have a certain method of translating Semitic language words that is not widely accepted by anyone, but my way of translating words actually seems to confirm everything I want to say to people anyway, which is a great happenstance".
"I am on a mission from God, and I am working diligently to leave this body and never return to the prison of the beast-body and its needs, but to be free and powerful, a bodiless spiritual ruler over people and things".
"I used to be a Muslim for a little while and I married a Muslim, but I am no longer associating with that word or that religion, because I realized that it is false and that the truth is instead what I say, which is that the Sustainer is the mainframe underlying everything, that created a contradiction where beings were made who are essentially like God in that they are bodiless spirits and were placed into animal beast bodies which they have to struggle to overcome. Evil stems from following beast-body desires, and so the best path for anyone is to forsake all their material desires as much as possible, this even includes things like food and sex."
"I reject the body entirely, I hate the body, and so should you if you were wise, because the body is the cause of all evils and troubles, an escaping it should be the goal of anyone with any senses. Give up on all the lures of the material world, the body in all its supposed charms, give up on sex, food, and whatever else because it is a deception and illusion which keeps you bound to the world of the material which is the only hell you'll know. You will keep being reincarnated into the body over and over until you learn to ascend to your bodiless state by simply giving up on the material and not being controlled by sexual desire or desire for food."
Haha, funnily enough, I'm ahead of you in this by far, which is a great joke.
Would you consider yourself a hypocrite in some regards? Not living up to what you say quite as well as you might hope? Perhaps you should start to practice these things much more seriously if you really believe them? You're still having sex on occasion, you're still eating possibly rather regularly rather than appropriately practicing as little food as possible. What else are you failing in as you waste your time typing on free-minds? I'm succeeding in your religion, but you're not succeeding in mine or yours? Isn't it a serious matter?
It seems rather simple to abandon your wife and go and live alone somewhere with no sex, no masturbation, very little food verging on no food at all, and making a quick escape of your body.
As you progress, you'll notice becoming more and more apathetic from concerns as you basically starve your beast to death.
If you accidentally get reincarnated, then see if you can remember to refuse to eat as a baby or a worm or whatever you might reincarnate as. They will probably force feed you if you are baby though, so you'll have to wait until you become a teenager at least to practice anorexia, you'll actually get away with it more if you're a boy possibly.
The problem with being a boy though is your testacles, which seem to be causing you problems as it is, so you mind want to get those surgically removed as it can assist resisting the need for sex. The mainstream New Testament says if such and such body part causes you to sin, simply cut it off, so you might consider doing that to your genitals entirely, maybe making them some form which can't have any sort of sex even if you tried.
As you stop eating, you'll also stop defecating eventually, and you'll be right on your way to achieving your suggested goals, with bodily results to boot.
Do you have any objections to the suggestion that you should follow what you preach full force?
I do not agree with Man of Faith's views, nor his methodologies, nor his self-righteous interpretation. But this attack in sarcasm and pathetic implied humor was uncalled for. Remember, your ways only expose you as a person, what you're made of and what you're looking for.
-
FreedomStands, have you converted already.
May the "full force" be with you.
Well ,who is going to clean up free minds,then?
GOD (The sustainer) bless you.
Peace. -
I do not agree with Man of Faith's views, nor his methodologies, nor his self-righteous interpretation. But this attack in sarcasm and pathetic implied humor was uncalled for. Remember, your ways only expose you as a person, what you're made of and what you're looking for.
What exactly are you talking about?
Maybe you don't understand Man of Faith's views at all, my suggestions to him were clear and had a purpose to assist him. There is nothing humorous about chopping off one's genitals in order to ascend, yet what is the difference between genitals and hair? People shave off their hair all the time, it grows from the body too, likewise the genitals can be chopped off eliminating the need for any sexual intercourse. This can be done with a medical procedure.
What is it you find objectionable in this suggestion if it assists Man of Faith in ascending more easily and releasing him from the great struggle he has controlling his sexual desires?
I'd like to hear more of your objections, but as usual, I think you might have misunderstood my statements. They were about Man of Faith taking his views to the next level, being more serious about practicing what is preached. The quality of hypocrite is someone who doesn't do what they say. I try to practice what is preached at least. I'm even ahead in regard to the genital removal thing.
If this is a race for us to grow, I'm only working to suggest things which may assist him, otherwise to make him look at the presented beliefs carefully.
It is like you say "I'm a fish" and I say go and breathe water. It may be "funny" sounding, but it is serious. If you're a fish, go jump in the water and breathe water. The joke there is also that I can do that more than you, I can actually cycle water through my nose a bit to extend my time in water. I'm more qualified as a human fish than you for example.
What else? Someone wants a magician? I'm qualified in that regard too, as a sorcerer. If these people are talking about manipulation of reality and influence over nature, and various psychic powers I've done that as well, clearly appearing to control the winds with lots of witnesses too. I'm ahead in every regard, so when I'm being how I am with Man of Faith I am trying to refine him. If it leads to his harm, he simply is not worthy of being harvested at this time. We are working diligently in his favor in all sorts of directions. No one gives him half that care here, because the people here lack compassion perhaps.
When a person says that their goal is such and such, then a person who cares about them can suggest options for them and see how those options might influence them, if the options make them reconsider their stance or if taken then safely lead them towards their goal.
By suggesting that he gradually starve his body to death, it is only to make him learn what he is suggesting generally in regard to detachment from the body and worldliness. Such starvation was practiced by ascetics, even to this day, in India. It is not in accordance with "mainstream Islam" but Man of Faith doesn't care about "mainstream Islam".
He has a wife who has to suffer knowing him for example while she is bodily absorbed and his presence and marriage might be rather insulting for her since he wants to run away from all that and considers it bad to have sex with her generally.
So by suggesting he leave his wife, live alone, not participate in any sexual activity even if it takes surgical assistance, and keep away from worldly contact for the most part as he gradually starves his "beast" it is only to suggest things, like a computer might suggest things (or a search engine) to assist him in his apparently stated goals.
So what humor? Do you think Man of Faith is a joke? I don't. I think he is being told what he is told directly by God. That God guided him through all this, took him away from Salat, from the mainstream Islam, and is now perhaps guiding him to take his religious more seriously, and why if he is so confident should he fear death? I don't think he fears death at all, and thus should embrace the path he promotes so frequently, what is wrong with that?
That is not a rhetorical question, I want you to state if possible what is wrong with all of it in detail.
-
FreedomStands, have you converted already.
May the "full force" be with you.
Well ,who is going to clean up free minds,then?
GOD (The sustainer) bless you.
Peace.Haha thank you! I really appreciate you taking a look at my posts and enjoying them hopefully!
Hey man! What a pleasure it is to be eating again, fasting has brought a great appreciation for the energy and tastiness food provides.
Eid Mubarak.
I want A.W. to talk to me more!
-
The Bible suggests an easy test for example, for those who claim certain spiritual "gifts", all they have to do is drink lethal poison and survive.
Mark 1618
they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."See? So if I say to a Christian, please drink this lethal poison to prove your status, it is a simple test provided by the Bible they approve of so much.
If they die by such a trial though, they are according to their taking on such a test, a hypocrite, and if they refuse to take on such a test, also a hypocrite.
Thus it is appropriate to say that Christians should be provided with poison to drink if they claim to be at that level at least.
Now if you want to know what I am A.W., what kind of person I am, I'm a vicious demonic entity, I even bought a cobra necklace the other day made of surgical steel just to remind myself of certain things.
What is my function as a vicious demonic entity? My function is to bring things like this "poison test" to people. I do this by stating things about the Qur'an as well. It is to make people face their own ideas, to really put them under the heat of trial, it is what us demons do as our function sometimes.
This can have the effect of exposing the hypocrisy or erroneous ideas of people, leading them astray, or refining and strengthening them. It is not within my jurisdiction and power to control what effect my statements have.
The Qur'an uses similar vicious methods, because my God is the Lord of Demons
Remember when it tells people to simply ask for death if they are so confident about being the beloved chosen ones? 294 is an example. I am not confident about any of that stuff, and so I dread death and I dread God who is Death (non-information, when everything is Annihilated, only God is left).
Once I told a supposed little boy on a forum who claimed he was God, simply get his father to hold a bag over his head and see if he could manage to continue to live without being able to breathe. People were offended by this though, yet they weren't offended by someone calling themselves a God? They all knew it wouldn't work, so then why the bold claims? I would've been happy if he were God, then perhaps I could have asked him to do things for me, but no, they were just cowards and liars.
So when people say something, I offer them a test. When someone said in the Qur'an to Abraham "I am God", it was said he replied with the suggestion it be demonstrated by making the sun rise from the opposite side of the sky.
If a plastic bag with tape was handy though, he could have also offered my tests.
2214
God will admit those who believe and act righteously into Gardens watered by flowing rivers. God does whatever He wills.
2215
Anyone who thinks that Allah will not help him in this world and the Next World should stretch a rope up to the ceiling and then hang himself. Let him see whether his stratagem gets rid of what enrages him! -
Relevant video, and watch for the quote in the end!
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBFXajsIaSk
-
OnlyOneGod,
In fact it is not a reinterpretation of a language that has never been interpreted. A bunch of people who could not understand much at all were sitting down "interpreting" some 1400 years ago and they were not familiar with the language. The Arabic we know is a lie. These people were only interested in validating a religious doctrine and not particularly interested in knowing the truth of this language.
Your scholars do not know a thing and are illogical in their grammar rules. I told you the structure of "allah" and said it cannot be a noun because it lacks the grammar style (it needs to at all speak of noun). And AL marked words are adjectival words and often adverbs. Scholars may not agree with my rendition of 11-12, but that does not say it is wrong. Allah the word is a word of adhesion like adverb saying the condition, i.e. (such) Being and Al-'alemeen says itself modifies Rabb and would not end in if it were not talk about another subject and that Rabb was an object in this phrase. AL-'alameen means "such" (are) aware" because it is a conditional on them who surely are aware. The word allah itself contains the necessary conditional third person. And AL marked word is only true if someone fits the attribute and allah contains the whole root Alif-Lam-Lam very clearly. Only if you are you are it means... allah.
Arabic was not simply one language but it was like Aramaic, i.e. many different variations talked. But it is quite clear after my research that Quran contains a language not previously deciphered and "amateurs" tried although they were probably not interested in knowing what it really said.
One thing that catches my eye is how many words they have invented to say "no" in a language. That Arabic is really the language with the many no's. But it is because they liked no's I guess. Clerics seem to like forbidding or speaking negatively about things.
Only (ma) exclusively means "no" in Arabic. All other are invented definitions such as (la, ila, lan, lam) These are all lies. They do not mean no. as a letter means such/like. "Such Integrity", "Such Thereof", "Such Be", "Be Such Be". Since Arabic letters have innate meanings it is all related to the AL prefix, i.e. "Be Such". In fact has the same root. That is why is replaced by in some prefixing to make "Such Such + attribute".
And you cannot really come now 1400 years later and think the Arabic spoken today has anything to do with Quran. Languages change and not to mention the Arabic had many different dialects to the extent they were like different languages.
Arabic is heavily based on Aramaic and mostly share all the roots. Both language families are based on letters that originally had an innate meaning and the thousands of years old words were formed by the letters in formation.
That you find myriad definitions in lexicons show that people were involved who did not really know the right definitions. Arabic words do have only one general meaning and they cannot really mean two completely different things. That due to their descriptive nature.
Personally I find it strange that before the advent of the fabricated religion Islam and the great zeal that happened in the Middle-East, Aramaic was still the most common language throughout Arabia. That is something which catches my mind.
The "modern" Arabic script was not invented before the 4th-5th centuries AD, and Quran ought to have been one of the first literary works in this "new" script. Just when this script was just invented and not spread throughout Arabia then Quran suddenly occurs as a full compilation despite that before the 7th century people mostly used Aramaic until the zeal of Islam came.
And the writer of Quran did leave a hint at the innate meanings of individual Arabic letters. The so-called initials of 14 chapters are mostly there to preserve to help a future interpreter that they are supposed to carry a meaning. There is absolutely no reason why a chapter would start with a lonely letter and then have a clear conjunction to make adhesion to the context and the lonely letter has no own meaning.
People think they are scholars, but in fact they do not know much at all. I do not know all and I still lack knowledge, but at least I am unto more than these people who follow others blindly.
Be well
-
You are right, Freedomstands. I am looking forward to my death, but not really the death itself but the release.
-
You are right, Freedomstands. I am looking forward to my death, but not really the death itself but the release.
I know! I do understand your beliefs, and I even share many aspects of them too, pretty much entirely, but we'll continue to work on refining the statements involved. If you look back even recently to your posts from a few months or years ago, they have been evolving and adapting, so you're a continuing work in progress, as we are all of course, as you continue to be refined, even if the methods are somewhat harsh seeming at times, they are so that you deal with these things and come up with adaptions accordingly, like resistance training.
-
By the way Freedomstands,
In your sarcastic way of representing what I stand behind including the prophets you also misrepresent it. You say I hate my body which I cannot recall that I ever said. It simply has its purpose and it is an animal and I am not abusive towards animals. I have to keep the animal fed and watered sufficiently and not starving it but giving it the proper nutrition. Have you never had a cat or a dog?
Your prejudice towards me is based on people in Buddhism or Hinduism which sects I do not represent. I represent Abraham, Moses, Jesus, various "Buddhas" etc. The goal is not killing or tormenting the beast but merely having it restrained and being its master. You should love it in ways of caretaking and thus doing what is best for it. You view of me is a misconception. The goal here like I said in parables is to tend the cultivation, your single plant grown from a seed sown by the Sustainer and protect it from thistles.
You say I do not practice what I teach, but in fact I do to the extent I can. I am also in a human body. I do avoid sugar at all. Only water to meals. I barely drink any tea at all and no coffee. I avoid feeling aroused around beautiful women. I avoid masturbation. I avoid emotionality. I avoid the ego (=the beast).
I do not fast ritually, but that I do not to conform to fabricated religions and because I have control without tormenting the animal. Occasionally I practice a 1-2 day fast since it is scientifically proved to be healthy.
But I do have sex if my wife likes it. And it is hardly a sin or detrimental since I can control the instinctive drive, and she is not illicit sex. But I do feel like an animal doing it. Mating. It is disgusting and pleasant at the same time.
People call my interpretations self-righteous, but I sincerely doubt the Sustainer (Rabb) would agree about that. I am the only one who have been even remotely close to what Quran says for over a millennium. My interpretation still needs work on, but yet it is the closest to what Quran really says that you have available.
And definitions in general I gather from ancient Arabic lexicons while cross-checking them contextually in Quran. I have not a word that it not verified in those except the misconception about the word although it uses the same root as .
Be well
-
Freedomstands,
even if the methods are somewhat harsh seeming at times, they are so that you deal with these things and come up with adaptions accordingly, like resistance training.
They are guidelines and the utopia. Even I am not there although I do practice to the extent possible.
The point is not being tormenting and inhumane but treating the body as the animal it is and grow the spirit. A rule of thumb is to not let the animal express itself in your decisions in life for that is what is misconceived as Shaytaan the outcast. Shaytaan is the instinctive drive itself. Throughout history everyone has been told to be wary of Shaytaan and that is true. They only have had the wrong information about what Shaytaan is to begin with. Your body has Shaytaan for God sake! It is why Gnostic sects called the flesh evil.
It is not evil in itself, but it is what you do with it. The human spirit is dangerously combined with the flesh. It makes a dangerous and potent combination. The ability to open-minded thought (abstract thinking) together with a primate's animalistic (reptilian brain) can cause chaos. The more you separate the spirit from this beast the better you become at reducing the influence of Shaytaan. This is why Jesus taught "separate the spirit from the flesh". Now you have an even better elaboration on the same, and often in the light of science which was lacking 2000 years ago.
And through the computer age I am available globally quite often and I can write and spread written text all over the World Wide Web while the old prophets only could walk from temple to temple and perhaps write down texts on parchment that sinister clerics and scholars later corrupted.
Another prophecy which is to be fulfilled now in this millennium is Isaiah's words that the compilation is to be preserved which is possible due to the computer age and technology allowing to encode data and many measures that make it nearly impossible to corrupt it, and even if they corrupt or destroy one there can be billions of backups around the globe, even offline ones.
Be well
-
Good distinctions made, well done.
Also you had stated at one point about a shower or something and wishing you could wash your body away, not something one might say about a beloved dog or cat of theirs hopefully, which might have, among other things, given the impression that you despise the body, or like your disgust with "mating" for example.
In any case, it is good you're trying to live by what you say while still being reasonable about it.
You did well with your answers, and you'll likely be tested again.
-
Freedomstands,
No. But compared to the dog or cat I am not forced to be it while taking care of it.
I can wish I could wash my body away without hating it. It is more the feeling I wish I could be bodiless straight away. It is awkward in comparison to being an angel.
And you said I am not considering myself muslim, but per word definition I try to be that, i.e. sound, but I suppose a lot of angry or upset folks around here do not exactly agree.
-
Freedomstands,
No. But compared to the dog or cat I am not forced to be it while taking care of it.
I can wish I could wash my body away without hating it. It is more the feeling I wish I could be bodiless straight away. It is awkward in comparison to being an angel.
And you said I am not considering myself muslim, but per word definition I try to be that, i.e. sound, but I suppose a lot of angry or upset folks around here do not exactly agree.
Yeah, I was aware that you consider yourself to "Be sound" and so qualified as a "Muslim" if the term is considered to mean that, but I meant in the mainstream sense you do not qualify as a Muslim pretty much at this time since they have different ideas about what qualifies. Also those "quotes" were possible things you "could say" as alternatives, but were not meant to actually represent what might be your views currently.
-
Freedomstands,
You can say I am no Muslim but muslim per linguistic term. I see no dishonor in not being a sectarian Muslim, so it does not matter to me. People can call me whatever they like and it is the Rabb that sees.
-
Freedomstands,
You can say I am no Muslim but muslim per linguistic term. I see no dishonor in not being a sectarian Muslim, so it does not matter to me. People can call me whatever they like and it is the Rabb that sees.
Silly people might even say crazy things about me too.