What are the limits of your belief?
-
peace Nadeem,
I've changed quite a bit since last time, and there is a chance I've become too different for FM. But I'll let the sunrise shed some light on that.
Life is constant flux bro.
When a man is living, he is soft and pliable, when he is dead he becomes rigid. Pliability is life, rigidity is death, whether one speaks of man's body, mind or spirit. ~Bruce Lee
There is no internal logic without the words that express it, and there are no words without the dictionaries that give them meaning. Ultimately, the Quran too has to rely on some external factor. Don't you think?
Of course The Quran relies on externals to a certain extent, like every book in the world. My main point was that it is more than just language and grammar determining its meaning.
I did not find in the verses any support for your interpretation, but it does not matter. Your statement is correct anyways. People project their own qualities, sentiments, thoughts, feelings and expextations on every object they see. The Quran is not immune. Hence, someone read the Quran and blew himself up, while someone else read it too but instead spoke kindly to his enemies.
I am surprised you found no evidence for my interpretation. 4153 is pretty clear to me for example. Simply put, if AQ did not resonate with who we are and what we experience, it wouldn't make much sense.
Intent may give solace, but no solution. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Wakas, we both know many people who have harmed others in total sincerity. Are they not to blame? I don't really care too much about blame, really, but is sincerity such a moral panacea?
I am familiar with that saying, and I have quoted it on occassion.
Humans are imperfect, thus are almost inevitibly going to make mistakes, so whilst we may not be able to control the unforseen, we can control our intentions/sincerity.Are you indifferent to the outcome?
Good question. I try to be, but it is very difficult. The greatest battle is the battle within. I am an imperfect human, thus I will have my own bias, upbringing, finite information, limited logic etc. I aim to be sincere in seeking the truth, and when one is trying to be sincere in this, they must try not to be 'for' or 'against' a particular outcome. Whether I acheive it or not, well, only God knows.
I would not object to the focus if the debate was restricted to linguistic curiosity, but the issue is more often than not confused with real life.
Last time I checked, most of us here believe the Quran to be the literal word of god, beyond doubt.
In this context, you are forced to chose semantics over sensitivity, and linguistics over love.Are you alluding to 'confirmation bias'?
Personally, I think AQ is the Word of God, that is my working hypothesis, and I am in an ongoing verification process.
All knowledge if self-knowledge.
-
I watched that video, and I understood it to mean that in each person's own frame of reference each is correct, which I agree with. However, if they were to compare and weigh the evidence, there is only one truth, and that is it was a simultaneous double lightning strike. This would be worked out if the train passenger took into account the speed of the train heading towards the front strike, and away from the back strike, resulting in seeing the front strike first.
Or at least, that is my understanding.
-
I watched that video, and I understood it to mean that in each person's own frame of reference each is correct, which I agree with. However, if they were to compare and weigh the evidence, there is only one truth, and that is it was a simultaneous double lightning strike. This would be worked out if the train passenger took into account the speed of the train heading towards the front strike, and away from the back strike, resulting in seeing the front strike first.
Or at least, that is my understanding.
but how do you know that both lighting bolts struck simultaneously, it depends on context...
it would only be a simultaneous double lightning strike if a person was standing equidistant to both lightning strikes. lets say the man was standing an foot to the other side he would then notice that the lightning bolts were in quick succession to each other, and the lady in the train would also come to this same conclusion, if they compared and weighed the evidence they would agree that one lightning bolt came first and then followed by another. (where they would disagree is the timing between the lightning bolts)i agree with you though wakas...
this and the quran are two different things, the video is based on visual perception and what your eyes see, so depending on context two people can be correct. the quran however is not based on visual perseption, and depending upon context only one conclusion can truly be made. a persons interpretation of the quran is also dependent on his intentions. If a person reads the quran with bias to his own beleifs and schema then he will only find what he wants to find for example a friend of mine justified eating pork and smoking drugs ( wow) saying "things arent haram but it is the way how you do it makes it haram" and qouting verses that were clearly out of context, or a better example are the suicide bombers murdering innocent people. hence the reason why the quran states that ones intentions must be pure when reading the quran. -
Peace
I said in my previous that I must stress that this topic is not about the divinity of the Quran, nor its content.
Then, like I have already said I wouldn't do things that I think are wrong.
It is possible for two people to witness the same event, and come to logically sound and mutually exclusive conclusions that are equally correct.
Impossible? Check out Relativity http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoMHence, I can read the Quran and see a divorce where someone else sees a stick, and we can both be equally right.
That is why I point out the unimportance of the content in this context. What is important is to know that you see what are you are seeing, because it is you who are seeing.
A banana is not yellow, it is yellow in your eyes. Turn on some UV light, and it becomes blue.
Likewise, the Quran seems non-violent to you, but it may seem violent to others. And the mystery, the paradox, the beauty and the very genius of this existence is that you may both be right.Correct, that's why the Quran states
37 He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning...
And I must ask, perhaps somewhat offtopic What does it mean when you say that god is most wise? What does god need wisdom for? He already knows the answers. Wisdom, I thought was a tool for us fools, as a cane is for the blind. We need to figure things out, and we can chose to go about it with wisdom or with ignorance. But god doesn't need to figure anything out. What does it matter if he is wise or ignorant? Again, this question has nothing to do with god. It is about you. Do you understand? Remember what I said earlier Humans tend to project their own qualities onto objects.
Interesting point. God states that he is the "Most Wise" in the Quran. Furthermore, what I was trying to bring across was that God would never ordain anything evil/bad.
That's why God says
728 When they commit evil acts, they say, "We found our fathers doing such, and God ordered us to it." Say, "God does not order evil! Do you say about God what you do not know?"
So this is what I was getting at. I also said that I wouldnt do things that I personally find bad. If it were an option for us to beat our wives, I wouldnt. But then again, God is Most Wise and didnt ordain such a thing. (sorry to get into that again laugh)
-
crap i meant to modify my earlier comment because of spelling mistakes and i accidently posted a new comment P sorry
-
I didn?t read the whole posts but I wanted to share this..
Nadeem you gave an example of beating wife, and maybe from that it made you think ?I?m trying to justify that Quran doesn?t uphold this, but the view is there so maybe that?s another (logical) meaning?? maybe, maybe not? But something along those lines.
Clearly Quran is against injustice but like you said you?re not going on about the content or divinity. For sure I can read a passage and take one meaning and another person can take another. I think that can make conforming feel unstable or that there is no well unity? But the fact is I can?t create a meaning without reasoning.
The banana is yellow in my eyes, because of how light and colour system works it gives off that visual output to me but also as you said the banana is not yellow it is blue under UV light. but that concept all together is confusing because the colour of pure uv light is different to white light. Someone with visual (colour) impairment may say the banana is another color! It?s all about the reasoning why they view the banana that way. You gave meaning why the banana is blue. You can?t just say banana is blue without meaning. Same goes with everything else.
You mention ultimately the Quran needs to rely on something else. I think rather it is us who has to rely on something else. My Arabic ain?t so good so when I read I refer back to dictionaries or translation because I could say one word means something just out of nothing out of my head, only because I wanted to. But that meaning is flawed without justification.
I remember reading Wakas views on salat as reading the Quran and he justifies it his way whereas Truthseeker11 believes the act to be reading as well as physical involvement and he justifies it his way (there might be more to it than that... just trying to show an example). You can only give meaning by justifying it. Maybe they?re both right? Maybe one is more right than the other. But isn?t it why God tells us to think and reason and search and find out and conclude? I mean maybe we never conclude because we?re always learning. But we get judged according to our actions right? And this judgment is based on our deeds which reflect our learning.
When you read a book and there is a word in there you don?t understand, if you?re bothered you?ll look it up in the dictionary to understand the word. so when you read the sentence again you can understand what the meaning is in that context. The dictionary is to aide our knowledge, not that the Quran is incomplete and needing dictionaries to make the meaning.
just my opinion, salam )
-
peace,
but how do you know that both lighting bolts struck simultaneously, it depends on context...
it would only be a simultaneous double lightning strike if a person was standing equidistant to both lightning strikes. lets say the man was standing an foot to the other side he would then notice that the lightning bolts were in quick succession to each other, and the lady in the train would also come to this same conclusion, if they compared and weighed the evidence they would agree that one lightning bolt came first and then followed by another. (where they would disagree is the timing between the lightning bolts)I said they were simultaneous because the video seemed to imply the stationary person on the platform was equidistant between the strikes and he saw them the same time.
Actually, I think the video does not give the full story of the train passenger, there is a difference between
which strike did you perceive first?
taking all the information into account (e.g. train speed), which strike occurred first?Interestingly, that video seems to show that only the person who has all the info knows the truth. Read in conjunction with 37, in this case, that would be God.
-
I must stress that this topic is not about the divinity of the Quran, nor its content.
It is possible for two people to witness the same event, and come to logically sound and mutually exclusive conclusions that are equally correct.
Impossible? Check out Relativity http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoMInteresting video
-
peace Sarah, all,
AQ = al quran
I remember reading Wakas views on salat as reading the Quran and he justifies it his way whereas Truthseeker11 believes the act to be reading as well as physical involvement and he justifies it his way (there might be more to it than that... just trying to show an example).
Please be careful when quoting another's view. If unsure, best to stick with a direct quote, with link so person can read the context.
For example, my view is not what you said, and I'm not even sure there is a difference between my view and T11's now, perhaps in the past.
My view is that slw / verb "salla" means "to go/turn towards" (in a positive/close manner). This is its core meaning. For better readability in AQ, I prefer to use "bond", particularly for the noun, which is "salat". When AQ discusses the regular timed salat/bond it is always upon the mumineen. There is only one thing the mumineen can be said to have a bond with, and that is to God / God's system / God's revelation, thus the source for this is obvious, it is AQ, hence regular reading/reflection/oration of it. This can be done individually or groups.
Imagine if God were to manifest Himself to you and hand you a book by Him written for you, and simply said "uphold the bond", would there be any need for further explanation?
-
peace,
I said they were simultaneous because the video seemed to imply the stationary person on the platform was equidistant between the strikes and he saw them the same time.
Actually, I think the video does not give the full story of the train passenger, there is a difference between
which strike did you perceive first?
taking all the information into account (e.g. train speed), which strike occurred first?Interestingly, that video seems to show that only the person who has all the info knows the truth. Read in conjunction with 37, in this case, that would be God.
aah, i see your point now D
-
Imagine if God were to manifest Himself to you and hand you a book by Him written for you, and simply said "uphold the bond", would there be any need for further explanation?
Good point.
Do you think salah should be physical (ie. with bowing, prostration, etc.) or just standing and reciting the Quran?
-
Sure, sorry my bad.
I guess people?s view change I was just going off by memory, next time I?ll avoid it. Sorry.
In regards to your question? If it was specifically ?uphold the bond" someone might say HOW can I uphold the bond? What are the examples of upholding the bond if any?. Another person will do what they feel best to uphold the bond. I guess it depends on how a person ?thinks?.
-
Asalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh
John, I must disagree with you on Jesus and his teachings.. it is quite clear in Matthew 518-19;
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.This would mean to say, that all the laws of the Old Testament are to be upheld, in their punishments and such. Before someone quotes the adultress story, this is faulty and most biblical scholars see it as an interpolation to the text.
I am a former Christian Minister, this was taught as how we as ministers were supposed to look at it and teach to our congregations. There are many places though, in the New Testament, where you would think Christians are just not reading their holy book closely. Re-reading the New Testament and the Old in a critical manner coupled with the revelations of the Qur'an is what brought about my change. I suppose you could say, my heavy study of christianity led me to Islam. Conversely, my heavy study of Islam led me away from hadiths as viable.
-
In regards to your question? If it was specifically ?uphold the bond" someone might say HOW can I uphold the bond? What are the examples of upholding the bond if any?. Another person will do what they feel best to uphold the bond. I guess it depends on how a person ?thinks?.
Dude, you are over-thinking it. If God is all knowing etc then if He gives you a book and says "uphold the bond", it implies you have all the info you need. So if a person asks "how?" then it is obviously in the book. As for examples, if you have a bond with something/someone, then the examples are fairly obvious, it will be how you act, what you say etc. And of course different people will do different things, one way of being tested is by means of each other as AQ says, and at the end of the day we will not be judged upon what others do, it's all on the individual, hence the best approach is put the effort in, as usually this is related to the benefit out. The law of requital is even in effect with AQ, it is a book that gives out what you put in. That is the beauty of the system.
And yes, how a person thinks is critical, as this shapes almost everything that person does. I cannot emphasise this enough. People should never be afraid of changing their view, see Abraham's excellent example 675-79. Life is a continual learning process, like the expression goes water only goes stale when its still, so keep on flowing.
-
Maybe I am over thinking but I think that?s what people do sometimes. Look at the example of sura albaqara 267, it could have been any cow but they kept questioning 268 - 270. So sometimes being pedantic complicates things. I?m in a position where I am basically questioning everything I have come to believe. It?s hard to break loose of the bias that existed so sometimes it?s hard to ?think? right.
yeh the ?how? is obviously in the book, I?m just trying to understand the book. And different people will do different things based on understanding. So I?m trying to accept that rather than thinking there is a singular way.
-
Asalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh
John, I must disagree with you on Jesus and his teachings.. it is quite clear in Matthew 518-19;
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.This would mean to say, that all the laws of the Old Testament are to be upheld, in their punishments and such. Before someone quotes the adultress story, this is faulty and most biblical scholars see it as an interpolation to the text.
I am a former Christian Minister, this was taught as how we as ministers were supposed to look at it and teach to our congregations. There are many places though, in the New Testament, where you would think Christians are just not reading their holy book closely. Re-reading the New Testament and the Old in a critical manner coupled with the revelations of the Qur'an is what brought about my change. I suppose you could say, my heavy study of christianity led me to Islam. Conversely, my heavy study of Islam led me away from hadiths as viable.
I am a Christian Minister, but my studies of the bible have led me to become a God-alone Christian and a Muslim/Christian.
-
Peace,
I said in my previous that I must stress that this topic is not about the divinity of the Quran, nor its content.
It is possible for two people to witness the same event, and come to logically sound and mutually exclusive conclusions that are equally correct.
Impossible? Check out Relativity http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoMHence, I can read the Quran and see a divorce where someone else sees a stick, and we can both be equally right.
The two persons were neither on the same platform nor were they both mobile. What's the different values between you and the other person?
If it's era/time, well, this can be understandable. Since the qur'ann is for all the people all the time everywhere, we cannot get stuck to past interpretations. In fact, we do not keep to our own same understanding throughout our life, because our experience changes, and we see more/different points that were hidden from us before.To your question I believe that the qur'aan is from God, otherwise, I wouldn't bother. So the extent of my belief is illimted. Yet, because of what God tells us of His attributes, I cannot uphold an interpretation that is contradictory to His attributes.
Taking the example of wife beating, I can't see that the god who describes Himself as fare and just, would sanction a punishment based solely on gender. The god that describes Himself as all knowing, does not know that females also can be bread winners; the god who describes Himself as wise will not sanction a punishment for a wife who is nashez, but not a wife who is committing adultery in front of her husband. And above all, I believe that when God says that it's for people who reflect, who have working minds, who reason...etc He means what He says. -
Peace all,
@ Wakas
I am surprised you found no evidence for my interpretation. 4153 is pretty clear to me for example. Simply put, if AQ did not resonate with who we are and what we experience, it wouldn't make much sense.
Then I must've misunderstood you. Perhaps you are talking about the alledged universal, and timeless appeal of the Quran, which the verses do speak of. Previously I thought you were referring to the theory of the "evolving Quran" in which the meanings of the verses adapt to the ever changing circumstances. I am sceptical to this theory. There is no denying that the Quran does evolve, but this is our own doing, and not some inherent quality in the quran, nor do I think its author intended it to be so, at least not completely.
The verses speak of a change in us that will make the Quran more acceptable. However, what is happening now is a changing of the Quran, not us, to be make it more acceptable. Sure, we are not tinkering with the ink, but we are transforming it through interpretation. It it is the same thing, basically. Free-Minds is exhibit A.
In the times when women were of no political import, there was no demand for a women friendly Quran. Now that we have changed, we are demanding a quran that gives women rights, and we have got it. Hence, we are changing the Quran towards us, and not changing ourselves to the Quran. That is why I am asking what the limits of belief are. How much are you ready to change in the name of the Quran, and what do you require from the Quran?
Many people are not aware of their limits, and what this implies. You believe in the divinity of the Quran, but you have projected so much of yourself on the Quran that in fact you have made yourself holy.
God is like a blank canvas. It is pure, untainted, fresh, innocent. These are the qualitites that the color white symbolizes, and white is a balanced combination of all colors.
Then you come along and emphasize one color and reject the other, and all of a sudden you have a caricature of yourself which you do not recognize. And that caricature you confuse with god. You are only worshipping yourself.This is not ill-intended criticism of you, Wakas. But do you think this applies to you?
Are you alluding to 'confirmation bias'?
I was not, but I see will have to later in this post.
This is what I was saying Some take the word of the Quran as final. If this someone is having difficulties with his wife, and is engaged in a literary debate about the word Idrib, then what will happen is that linguistics decides whether the wife gets a divorce or a beating. Do you see my point? I recall reading one forum member saying that if the meaning was to shoot his wife, he would do that too. That scared me a bit, since that very same forum member did not believe idrib meant beat. He had allowed dictionaries to decide, and luckily for his wife, the dictionaries just happened to save her. What do you think of this? Is this any way to go about such important issues?
Good question. I try to be, but it is very difficult.
You said this when I asked you about your indifference to the outcome, but then you say later Personally, I think AQ is the Word of God, that is my working hypothesis, and I am in an ongoing verification process.
Don't you see a conflict between the two? How can you remain indifferent to the word of God?
And it is somewhat ironic that you wrote that sentence right after mentioning confirmation bias, when that sentence is a classic example of such bias.
What made you chose your current working hypothesis? Also have you tried changing your working hypothesis?The greatest battle is the battle within.
And the battle is pointless. Why are you fighting yourself? That only fuels the fire.
Yes, you are imperfect, but you are not incomplete. True, there will be bias, there will be all kinds of limits, but this is how it must be when you have the courage to be involved.
Love your foolishness, it is required, it is mandatory. When you get involved, when you jump in the ocean, you will get wet. You cannot avoid it.
You need not drown though, simply be aware of the water. Similarly, you need not let your foolishness fool you, just be aware of it. If you are unaware, then even your sincerity will be insincere!
In the ocean, you cannot avoid to get wet. You can cheat, you can put on swimsuits, wetsuits and all kinds of suits, but then you are not involved. It merely appears so.
Similarly, people appear involved in Islam, with their suits on. Their traditional, ali baba clothing. Their beards, their curly toe shoes, their hijabs, their ups and downs in prayer.
Even when they are fasting they are merely feeding their ego "Look how devoted I am, I have fasted every day, how many days have you fasted?".This is because believers are unaware, and awareness is what I'm trying to raise. People believe in the Quran, but they have never known the fabric of their belief.
Be aware and love your flaws. Muhammed did so. In the Quran we find many of his flaws. They were so dear, so important that he mentioned them in the Quran!
And here we are, trying to forget our flaws. Suppressing them, avoiding them. The most foolish battle is the battle within.
But people love it! We love those who fight themselves. We revere them, honor them!
The celibate is honored, the virgin is honored, the one who fasts is honored, and everyone of them is doing nothing but fighting themselves.
Fighting sexuality, and they become the most sexual people, all their dreams are just about sex. Fighting hunger all they can think of is eating.
If you fight your foolishness, you will become the greatest fool ever!I watched that video, and I understood it to mean that in each person's own frame of reference each is correct, which I agree with. However, if they were to compare and weigh the evidence, there is only one truth, and that is it was a simultaneous double lightning strike. This would be worked out if the train passenger took into account the speed of the train heading towards the front strike, and away from the back strike, resulting in seeing the front strike first.
Or at least, that is my understanding.
What you refer to as evidence is simply a set of assumptions. Speed, who is moving, and who is not, cannot be determined. Try it. Motion is relative.
I said they were simultaneous because the video seemed to imply the stationary person on the platform was equidistant between the strikes and he saw them the same time.
This is also an assumption, the distance need not be equidistant at all. It is also an assumption in the video that the lightning did hit simultaneously. It might as well have hit first on the back of the train, and then on the front. This way the train passenger would have seen the lights hit simultaneously, and the observer on the platform seen one before the other. Also, the case is further made more complex because you cannot determine the nature of you frame of reference when you are inside it. Cosider the fact that if you are inside a train with no windows, you cannot decide whether or not it is moving if it does not accelerate.
Interestingly, that video seems to show that only the person who has all the info knows the truth. Read in conjunction with 37, in this case, that would be God.
This seems reasonable.
@everyone else
I'm off to see Transformers on the cinema. Will reply to you ASAP.
Nadeem
-
Greetings, John.
scratches head I am very confused and maybe you can help me here.. I was struggling with whether to make this a private message or not.
I will keep it brief. I would be rather fascinated to see how you remain christian and yet know the truth of the Qur'an?
When I came across the truths of the endless revisions of the bible and how none of the OT prophecies apply to Jesus, and how Jesus could be God. Perhaps you are blithely ignoring those masses of verses that deal with this to make the NT palatable.
I mean no disrespect nor to be facetious.. I am genuinely curious.
-
Greetings, John.
scratches head I am very confused and maybe you can help me here.. I was struggling with whether to make this a private message or not.
I will keep it brief. I would be rather fascinated to see how you remain christian and yet know the truth of the Qur'an?
When I came across the truths of the endless revisions of the bible and how none of the OT prophecies apply to Jesus, and how Jesus could be God. Perhaps you are blithely ignoring those masses of verses that deal with this to make the NT palatable.
I mean no disrespect nor to be facetious.. I am genuinely curious.
I consider myself Christian because I follow the message of Jesus, not the man (yes I did say man). I do not believe Jesus was the only begotten son of God. I believe he was the son of Joseph. Have a look at my website at www.ChristianChurchOfReality.com that will explain it completely.
