The Avoidance of those who Ridicule the faith? Help please :(
-
Well I understand that God tells us not to do it because its bad, however there is clear accumulation of it which is why we are told to do good deeds and repent to clear them so we have a better chance at getting to heaven.
I don't think of it in such terms...you do something that most likely can/will have negative repercussions and if you do it enough the chances of such go up. The repentance is a way for you to psychologically clear the slate of bad habits for example and start afresh...like a resolution. In this life, that is.I understand and I guess I am a bit fussy overall lol but regardless I guess what you are saying is that walking away is probably one way God is telling us to handle the situation?
I suppose, yes...Well considering being around such crap I don't think is the idea of it having negative repercussions on you otherwise we'd be banned from reading, looking or hearing anything related to the matter such as books that do just that P Then again I am probably thinking on the scale of negative repercussions referring more to the hearer being influenced, which I guess does happen however not much I'd think. I would think one of the things probably is as you stated how one would react which for example, some of the extremists go as far as killing the person for saying such things. That whole Newspaper cartoon thing a while back that caused that massive flashback that led to many wanting his head O_O
Agreed.Regardless the situations i'm talking about that are empty "joke" like say an atheist might say "haha, and you believe a man parted the river" he isn't trying to cover the truth nor does it seem like he is mocking the book and in the end says it as a joke. When I think of this verse personally I think someone saying "You see in the Quran this (insert false interpretation/verse) has been said therefore why its so cruel and you should leave it". However what I wonder is what if someone is simply stating an argument like Athiests might use verse to explain their reason why they don't believe. The Athiest I wouldn't see him mocking the verse with a false interpretation nor purposely covering the truth trying to make you leave the Quran.
If someone is rejecting something and ridiculing it...it's a bit different from an Atheist using a verse to explain their reasoning. It's somewhat obvious to me when that is going on which is why I suggested doing visualisation exercises P If unsure then just let it go until you are sure that is what's going on. It isn't talking about a kneejerk reaction, that you have to leave within 3.0 sec of someone using a verse and swearing at it or that's it, you're a 'sinner'.Still unsure how the Gospal or Torah fit in all this too as I only unhold the Quran afterall.
What do you think?
Like I said, haven't studied it as such...will update when I do. Personally, I usually go by the rule of thumb leave if it extends to crap with an attitude regardless of what it is. Engage only when it makes sense to. I realise it doesn't answer your question regarding what's included in such but that pretty much covers it for me personally. peace.
-
I don't think of it in such terms...you do something that most likely can/will have negative repercussions and if you do it enough the chances of such go up. The repentance is a way for you to psychologically clear the slate of bad habits for example and start afresh...like a resolution. In this life, that is.
Well sure it will have negative repercussions in life which is why we are told not to do it, however God has told us punishment exists for one who does too many of these, thus why we got the concept of sin, which is always called a "transgression" and a few other things along the lines in the Quran.
If someone is rejecting something and ridiculing it...it's a bit different from an Atheist using a verse to explain their reasoning. It's somewhat obvious to me when that is going on which is why I suggested doing visualisation exercises P If unsure then just let it go until you are sure that is what's going on. It isn't talking about a kneejerk reaction, that you have to leave within 3.0 sec of someone using a verse and swearing at it or that's it, you're a 'sinner'.
Speaking of "timing", what I find interesting is that the way this is worded out is that its likely a lengthy discussion which clearly someone covering the truth or mocking it would do, while a joke is short and quick there. In regards to joking, let me throw you another example. What if someone said, "Yeah this book is as real as the existance of Jesus"? They aren't covering the truth but is that considered mocking or joking? or how about when one talks about alcohol they jokingly say, "Prophet Muhammad probably drank alcohol" or another joke I heard a while ago was "I placed the bible in the fiction section" which that one also connects to the other books I had questions about.
Basically these are empty and very quick and without the intent of covering the truth, yet what I wonder is are those considering mocking or joking? they aren't slandering it which is what I would think mocking does, which why I think joking but i'm unsure.
Also how about the case of where I hear someone telling someone else why the Quran is wrong with intention of converting them to their own religion such as christian missionaries. Or what if that is being told to me directly and I simply stay quiet?
I know you said I should let it go till i'm sure but thinking and thinking about it while it has helped hasn't fully given me a concrete answer yet that I can go on with life about.
but yeah what do you think?
-
Well sure it will have negative repercussions in life which is why we are told not to do it, however God has told us punishment exists for one who does too many of these, thus why we got the concept of sin, which is always called a "transgression" and a few other things along the lines in the Quran.
Speaking of "timing", what I find interesting is that the way this is worded out is that its likely a lengthy discussion which clearly someone covering the truth or mocking it would do, while a joke is short and quick there. In regards to joking, let me throw you another example. What if someone said, "Yeah this book is as real as the existance of Jesus"? They aren't covering the truth but is that considered mocking or joking? or how about when one talks about alcohol they jokingly say, "Prophet Muhammad probably drank alcohol" or another joke I heard a while ago was "I placed the bible in the fiction section" which that one also connects to the other books I had questions about.
Basically these are empty and very quick and without the intent of covering the truth, yet what I wonder is are those considering mocking or joking? they aren't slandering it which is what I would think mocking does, which why I think joking but i'm unsure.
Also how about the case of where I hear someone telling someone else why the Quran is wrong with intention of converting them to their own religion such as christian missionaries. Or what if that is being told to me directly and I simply stay quiet?
I know you said I should let it go till i'm sure but thinking and thinking about it while it has helped hasn't fully given me a concrete answer yet that I can go on with life about.
but yeah what do you think?
In my opinion, if someone said prophet mohammad probably drank alcohol...i'd be interested in knowing why and/or how they think so because c'mon let's be honest it is an interesting claim with probably an anti climatic observation at the end but hey...If someone said the quran is as real as jesus...I'd be really? alrighty...since I've heard that one before and not interested in rehashing. Let's say they then launch into a long rant about it which equates what I believe to something along the lines of terrorism material and then saying the quranic God is a goat with a pan flute leading people into hell using such material with the flight of the bumblebee playing badly in the background (which is quite honestly terrifying) ...I'd not partake of the conversation at that point if I can help it (if only to hear other gems). I might if I know the person and/or where I think it makes sense to engage. Hope that's clearer. And regardless of what I said, I'd probably lol in rl. Then again, if the person is serious and their comedic value goes down after a while, that's when I'll stop listening...Please don't make me come up with more such examples, I'm not very good at it.
All you need to take from this is, life is stranger than fiction...so go out there and um try to live the verse!! I fail at morale boosting too just so you know.
-
In my opinion, if someone said prophet mohammad probably drank alcohol...i'd be interested in knowing why and/or how they think so because c'mon let's be honest it is an interesting claim with probably an anti climatic observation at the end but hey
Actually that I was referring to someone saying it as an empty joke as in they know he didn't but still said it as a joke, which I have seen before.
...If someone said the quran is as real as jesus...I'd be really? alrighty...since I've heard that one before and not interested in rehashing. Let's say they then launch into a long rant about it which equates what I believe to something along the lines of terrorism material and then saying the quranic God is a goat with a pan flute leading people into hell using such material with the flight of the bumblebee playing badly in the background (which is quite honestly terrifying) ...I'd not partake of the conversation at that point if I can help it (if only to hear other gems). I might if I know the person and/or where I think it makes sense to engage.
Well obviously if they are bringing slam the Quran then that is when the verse kicks in. When I stated that "Quran is as real as Jesus" I meant that as a quick thing an atheist might say quickly in an either stating what he thinks of the Quran per his belief or even a quick joke per his belief. Of course if they ddi mentioned stuff like the Quran promotes terrorism or the Quranic God is a goat or whatever than obviously that is when that verse kicks in.
However what I find interesting is you mentioned "Quranic God", but what if they are mentioning God in general regardless of reference from the Quran? which my interpretation is that if God with reference from the Quran is where the verse would kick in.
But in the end the real issue is jokes and stating their views that i'm really wondering about. As well what if someone mentions like "Jesus did die on the cross" which is regular belief for a Christian. I hear that commonly and don't interfere as that is simply their belief. I would assume a "traditionalist" would say this is where the verse would kick in knowing how rough they are usually, but this would make think that if they are simply stating their belief and not cross referencing the Quran in mocking it/covering the truth with it, then this verse doesn't kick in... hmmm
Well here a special comic i've been seeing passed around Facebook for example http//www.quiterly.com/9930/were-all-going-to-hell?ref=nf
This is clearly a joke and by no means is trying to say that we indeed are going to hell for that. So if we say brought this into reality where someone said that, would the verse kick in and this count as a joke or mockery?
Well basically it has come to two things with me now
1)If I see the truth being covered and the mocked as in changing the meaning of verses, adding lies with the intention of getting people to stop believing in it or turning something haram into halal or halal into haram is when this verse kicks in.
2)How about people like Christian missionaries who are stating why their religion is right why everyones including ours is wrong? Does this only kick in in regards to cross referencing the Quran only? or does this also include the bible and Torah. As well does joking fit into this catagory? are mocking and covering the truth possibly separately linked? or together?What do you think?
Hope that's clearer. And regardless of what I said, I'd probably lol in rl. Then again, if the person is serious and their comedic value goes down after a while, that's when I'll stop listening...Please don't make me come up with more such examples, I'm not very good at it.
All you need to take from this is, life is stranger than fiction...so go out there and um try to live the verse!! I fail at morale boosting too just so you know.
Its fine if you don't list examples, but you seem to be on the basis as with me that if its simply a joke than its okay but if those jokes are out to hurt the religion than thats that.
Also haha you far from fail at moral boosting. Simply your realistic sense of things is moral boost as i've noticed since I came to these forms as you first helped me with that topic I made about film making
Anyways thanks so far I believe things are starting to become more clear. Almost done this topic hopefully
-
However what I find interesting is you mentioned "Quranic God", but what if they are mentioning God in general regardless of reference from the Quran? which my interpretation is that if God with reference from the Quran is where the verse would kick in.
Which is why I gave an example of something we believe in for sure rather than things we are unsure about as well as kind of an extreme example for a baseline I guess. The word is referred to as signs which includes more than the quran (4153). Basically if you recognise them as rejecting and ridiculing God's signs would be more accurate.But in the end the real issue is jokes and stating their views that i'm really wondering about. As well what if someone mentions like "Jesus did die on the cross" which is regular belief for a Christian. I hear that commonly and don't interfere as that is simply their belief. I would assume a "traditionalist" would say this is where the verse would kick in knowing how rough they are usually, but this would make think that if they are simply stating their belief and not cross referencing the Quran in mocking it/covering the truth with it, then this verse doesn't kick in... hmmm
Well here a special comic i've been seeing passed around Facebook for example http//www.quiterly.com/9930/were-all-going-to-hell?ref=nf
This is clearly a joke and by no means is trying to say that we indeed are going to hell for that. So if we say brought this into reality where someone said that, would the verse kick in and this count as a joke or mockery?
When someone mentions "Jesus died on the cross" why do you think that's rejection and ridicule? What are they rejecting? Maybe they haven't examined any other accounts to come to that conclusion? How is that ridicule? They obviously believe it themselves? Since we can't check the rejection and ridicule box...it's out. The comic appears to check the ridicule box but is it associated with rejection? Is it even ridiculing God's signs i.e. is the concept of pearly gates and arbitrary tests, not getting into heaven based on such etc one of God's signs?Well basically it has come to two things with me now
1)If I see the truth being covered and the mocked as in changing the meaning of verses, adding lies with the intention of getting people to stop believing in it or turning something haram into halal or halal into haram is when this verse kicks in.
2)How about people like Christian missionaries who are stating why their religion is right why everyones including ours is wrong? Does this only kick in in regards to cross referencing the Quran only? or does this also include the bible and Torah. As well does joking fit into this catagory? are mocking and covering the truth possibly separately linked? or together?
Check the boxes and reason. For one, it doesn't mention motivations as such so could be any number of reasons why they are doing it, that's not our concern at the moment with the verse. 1 would suggest yes, though there are other verses on engagement so it would depend on how we choose to deal with the situation/whether it makes sense in that particular setting and/or whether they are too far gone for any engagement etc. 2 check the boxes. They should be associated because it mentions both. In my opinion it's giving a specific situation which to me seems like a setting where there are people who are futile to engage with/or even destructive to oneself? In which case, it's better to not do so. Doesn't mean that good can't come out of engaging them 1 times out of 10?Its fine if you don't list examples, but you seem to be on the basis as with me that if its simply a joke than its okay but if those jokes are out to hurt the religion than thats that.
Also haha you far from fail at moral boosting. Simply your realistic sense of things is moral boost as i've noticed since I came to these forms as you first helped me with that topic I made about film making D
Anyways thanks so far D I believe things are starting to become more clear. Almost done this topic hopefully D
Hurt the religion? No, no. I don't think the quran is talking about such. I think it's meant for the people to realise where not to engage and hopefully why which in my opinion is self evident in a way once you gain experience etc.Hope that helps
-
In my opinion, if someone said prophet mohammad probably drank alcohol...i'd be interested in knowing why and/or how they think so because c'mon let's be honest it is an interesting claim with probably an anti climatic observation at the end but hey...If someone said the quran is as real as jesus...I'd be really? alrighty...since I've heard that one before and not interested in rehashing. Let's say they then launch into a long rant about it which equates what I believe to something along the lines of terrorism material and then saying the quranic God is a goat with a pan flute leading people into hell using such material with the flight of the bumblebee playing badly in the background (which is quite honestly terrifying) ...I'd not partake of the conversation at that point if I can help it (if only to hear other gems). I might if I know the person and/or where I think it makes sense to engage. Hope that's clearer. And regardless of what I said, I'd probably lol in rl. Then again, if the person is serious and their comedic value goes down after a while, that's when I'll stop listening...Please don't make me come up with more such examples, I'm not very good at it.
All you need to take from this is, life is stranger than fiction...so go out there and um try to live the verse!! I fail at morale boosting too just so you know.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIm1ul2E-o
-
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIm1ul2E-o
Brilliant yaani, thanks! Best was "it is so powerful i can't read it" lol
-
Which is why I gave an example of something we believe in for sure rather than things we are unsure about as well as kind of an extreme example for a baseline I guess. The word is referred to as signs which includes more than the quran (4153). Basically if you recognise them as rejecting and ridiculing God's signs would be more accurate.
Actually...the word is ?ayats? that is used here. Ayats is usually translated as signs or verses to which I believe here it probably is referring directly to the verses of the Quran considering it the word ?kufr? is mentioned soon after which is usually mentioned only towards covering the truth of the Quran. It also isn?t referring to books as it would have state ?kitabi? instead as it did earlier in this same verse. Therefore it would make more sense for them to be cross referencing the Quran for this type of kufr. Though I still do fear as to the inclusion of the Torah and Bible in this too as they have verses...but verses that have been rewritten and corrupted quite a bit /
When someone mentions "Jesus died on the cross" why do you think that's rejection and ridicule? What are they rejecting? Maybe they haven't examined any other accounts to come to that conclusion? How is that ridicule? They obviously believe it themselves? Since we can't check the rejection and ridicule box...it's out. The comic appears to check the ridicule box but is it associated with rejection? Is it even ridiculing God's signs i.e. is the concept of pearly gates and arbitrary tests, not getting into heaven based on such etc one of God's signs?
Indeed, when someone mentions ?Jesus died on the cross? it isn?t those two. The way to make it rejection is if they started cross referencing the Quran by stating that? Jesus died on the cross is in the quran? which is covering the truth with such a lie. Thus why i?m thinking as to why cross referecing is when this verse kicks in. However what I wonder is if they state ?The Quran is wrong, Jesus did die on the cross? would have this verse kick in? It is their belief they are stating simply. Hmm what do you think here?
As for the comic, how is that ridicule at all? Ridicule is mockery, insults, reriding something. This comic looks to be simply joking and isn?t seriously saying that that test is indeed the real thing nor how things will indeed look when in heaven. The pearly gates don?t seem to be ridicule and rather is a of the usual beliefs we see of heaven. The lack of a cross reference of the Quran also I would also point to the check box staying unchecked. Of course.... this has me confused now hmmm / so unsure still....
Check the boxes and reason. For one, it doesn't mention motivations as such so could be any number of reasons why they are doing it, that's not our concern at the moment with the verse. 1 would suggest yes, though there are other verses on engagement so it would depend on how we choose to deal with the situation/whether it makes sense in that particular setting and/or whether they are too far gone for any engagement etc. 2 check the boxes. They should be associated because it mentions both. In my opinion it's giving a specific situation which to me seems like a setting where there are people who are futile to engage with/or even destructive to oneself? In which case, it's better to not do so. Doesn't mean that good can't come out of engaging them 1 times out of 10?
But motivation is needed to for anything that is done. If one is influenced by someone is covering the truth without that person intending it, then covering of truth wasn?t taking place and the blame is simply on the guy who was affected I?d think. Not sure what you mean there exactly...
I understand what you mean in regards to being destructive to oneself. As i?ve said earlier, the way I always imagine this verse is some twisting the obvious meaning of verses to sound problematic (contradictory), adding in lies into the verses, turning stuff haram and halal, and try to state that its cruel with the intent of covering the truth and therefore the person who has believed and intaken all that might enter kufr. Yet I still worry about the smaller elements like simply joking like that comic I mentioned which I don?t see as neither ridicule nor rejection hmmm...
Hurt the religion? No, no. I don't think the quran is talking about such. I think it's meant for the people to realise where not to engage and hopefully why which in my opinion is self evident in a way once you gain experience etc.
Hope that helps )
You are right, rather it hurts the faith of the person (bad choice of words ) However I do like to argue sometimes rather than storm out which makes one someone look ?fundamental? in this society if one all of sudden storms out like that / Thus why I?d rather argue instead, but unsure if i?m allowed to due to the instructions /
Anyways what do you think?
-
Actually...the word is ?ayats? that is used here. Ayats is usually translated as signs or verses to which I believe here it probably is referring directly to the verses of the Quran considering it the word ?kufr? is mentioned soon after which is usually mentioned only towards covering the truth of the Quran. It also isn?t referring to books as it would have state ?kitabi? instead as it did earlier in this same verse. Therefore it would make more sense for them to be cross referencing the Quran for this type of kufr. Though I still do fear as to the inclusion of the Torah and Bible in this too as they have verses...but verses that have been rewritten and corrupted quite a bit /
Fair enough. Do we have to get into a literal word by word match the similar verse? Are concepts not to be included in signs? and I'll tell you why I ask Can the parts of the torah/bible etc that have similar ideas/concepts to the quran be included? If the concept of judgement for example after death is taken...and we have a bunch of people sneering, pooh pooh'ing and rejecting it as a load of horse crap, would it not extend to all sources which have such judgement after death? Why is a similar (heck, put in exact even) concept coming from another source not to be included in God's signs?^These are just thoughts running through while reading, I usually like bringing things down to basics/what is solid and rebuilding, discussing concepts, alternates, playing around with such to see what fits where, make connections etc. That is why when I participate and it gives me the chance to do that, I'll bring such up even if it's not something that is giving you a clear cut answer. Just a quirk, bear with me and thanks for the opportunity.
Indeed, when someone mentions ?Jesus died on the cross? it isn?t those two. The way to make it rejection is if they started cross referencing the Quran by stating that? Jesus died on the cross is in the quran? which is covering the truth with such a lie. Thus why i?m thinking as to why cross referecing is when this verse kicks in. However what I wonder is if they state ?The Quran is wrong, Jesus did die on the cross? would have this verse kick in? It is their belief they are stating simply. Hmm what do you think here?
This is a thread that talks about kafirshttp//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12019.0 I found it very interesting back in the day, however I need to read it again. It could be relevant to the topic and how rejection figures in, why etc.
As for the comic, how is that ridicule at all? Ridicule is mockery, insults, reriding something. This comic looks to be simply joking and isn?t seriously saying that that test is indeed the real thing nor how things will indeed look when in heaven. The pearly gates don?t seem to be ridicule and rather is a of the usual beliefs we see of heaven. The lack of a cross reference of the Quran also I would also point to the check box staying unchecked. Of course.... this has me confused now hmmm / so unsure still....
What about the people who believe in pearly gates? I can bet you there is someone out there who considers this mockery and an insult to his pearly gate belief and good luck with 'it was only a joke' ) Thing is, ridicule seems to be connected with the rejection in a lot of verses. It's like those that reject such can't do it without ridiculing it as well. Which may lead one to think that it's connected because it aids in adding what they consider validity to their rejection. Lets take 3714-17 (btw I love the response in 18...it's like yes, and egg on your face). They reject that we will be resurrected by using an appeal to ridicule. It's aiding their rejection to do so and also a logical fallacy.But motivation is needed to for anything that is done. If one is influenced by someone is covering the truth without that person intending it, then covering of truth wasn?t taking place and the blame is simply on the guy who was affected I?d think. Not sure what you mean there exactly...
My point is you can never discern the exact or true motivations for why someone in front of you right now is doing what. So why bother to bring in more uncertainty that we already have regarding the rest at this point. We need to understand what they are doing rather than why at the moment.I understand what you mean in regards to being destructive to oneself. As i?ve said earlier, the way I always imagine this verse is some twisting the obvious meaning of verses to sound problematic (contradictory), adding in lies into the verses, turning stuff haram and halal, and try to state that its cruel with the intent of covering the truth and therefore the person who has believed and intaken all that might enter kufr. Yet I still worry about the smaller elements like simply joking like that comic I mentioned which I don?t see as neither ridicule nor rejection hmmm...
I think we can leave aside intent for now because we can't really know intent unless God tells us what's in their hearts and also if they put into action what seems clear of their intent, then the actions are what we have to go by. So while their intent can be an interesting discussion and open up doors in our understanding, what we can actually act on or should be looking at in either case, is what they do and how.You are right, rather it hurts the faith of the person (bad choice of words ) However I do like to argue sometimes rather than storm out which makes one someone look ?fundamental? in this society if one all of sudden storms out like that / Thus why I?d rather argue instead, but unsure if i?m allowed to due to the instructions /
Anyways what do you think?
Sure, and you could also just leave well enough alone if they situation is just a rehash, not going anywhere or if the guy says he knows where you live -
Fair enough. Do we have to get into a literal word by word match the similar verse? Are concepts not to be included in signs? and I'll tell you why I ask Can the parts of the torah/bible etc that have similar ideas/concepts to the quran be included? If the concept of judgement for example after death is taken...and we have a bunch of people sneering, pooh pooh'ing and rejecting it as a load of horse crap, would it not extend to all sources which have such judgement after death? Why is a similar (heck, put in exact even) concept coming from another source not to be included in God's signs?
^These are just thoughts running through while reading, I usually like bringing things down to basics/what is solid and rebuilding, discussing concepts, alternates, playing around with such to see what fits where, make connections etc. That is why when I participate and it gives me the chance to do that, I'll bring such up even if it's not something that is giving you a clear cut answer. Just a quirk, bear with me and thanks for the opportunity.Well the concept of judgement differs for many people. So some without ever referencing us might say ?We believe we will go to Hades without any real judgment?. If they obviously cross-reference stuff that are the same as ours from the Torah or Bible like the Day of Judgment with ridicule and rejection then I agree. However if they cross reference stuff from those two that have nothing to do with the Quran then I would say not our problem. However what I wonder is what if a Christian were to say ?the Quran is wrong and only the Bible is correct? if that will kick in? I don?t see ridicule in it exactly but rather a statement of belief hmm....
This is a thread that talks about kafirs
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12019.0 I found it very interesting back in the day, however I need to read it again. It could be relevant to the topic and how rejection figures in, why etc.Well i?ve already studied what kafir was through a couple different topics in this forum (possibly looked at that one too at some point P) and as i?ve stated the conclusion i?ve seen is that Kafir refers to someone who covers the truth whether to themselves or to someone else. The origins of the word Kafir referring to a farmer who covered seeds in the ground that even was used to refer to this rather. Thus while we have someone who does reject (as in covering the truth for themselves) it also extends to one who covers the truth like those who wanted all the muslims dead during the Prophets era.
What about the people who believe in pearly gates? I can bet you there is someone out there who considers this mockery and an insult to his pearly gate belief and good luck with 'it was only a joke' ) Thing is, ridicule seems to be connected with the rejection in a lot of verses. It's like those that reject such can't do it without ridiculing it as well. Which may lead one to think that it's connected because it aids in adding what they consider validity to their rejection. Lets take 3714-17 (btw I love the response in 18...it's like yes, and egg on your face). They reject that we will be resurrected by using an appeal to ridicule. It's aiding their rejection to do so and also a logical fallacy.
If anyone takes a comic that is such an obvious joke as mockery and insult to their to their belief, they are like any religious fundamentalist XD Obvious joke is obvious and the lack of cross referencing anything from our books would make that comic moot in the end anyways as that is simply quite a general idea of heaven being thrown and not even seriously but as a joke. Thus if we were to look back as the alcohol one for example someone might simply say ?Why don?t you drink alcohol? Muhammad drank it all the time XD? which by the tone would be obvious its a joke. Course if serious, then i?d think the verse kicks in. Another popular example i?ve seen on Facebook are these pictures of people that depict Prophet Noah as ?The First Pokemon Master?while he wears Ash Ketchems hat because of how had two of every animal. Obviously they aren?t saying that is true nor are they cross referencing our book and saying we are wrong and they are right (if somehow that was actually their belief) but in the end it is purely an empty joke. Course this is all a comic and not a real life conversation with someone as the verse points towards which makes these comics not even be considered under such context but still say if these were said in conversation with the same joke like manner, I wonder if this might all still fit under this verse even though their was no intent of covering the truth nor ridicule hmmm. What do you think?
Anyways yes you are right in regards to ridicule being connected to rejection, however what if one ridicules by saying something like ?This verse is very cruel and horrible? or something like that. Course I would assume that probably would link to rejection in the end as well as that might be their link to trying to cover the truth. 3714-17 is a great example I must say. The ridicule kicked in when they called it ?magic? and if the rejection but cross referencing us at ?"Can it be that after we die and become dust and bones, that we are resurrected?"?. Course I can see an atheist when stating his belief to say that rejection part without the ridicule, but I wonder if this verse would kick in then as it?s only half the requirements?My point is you can never discern the exact or true motivations for why someone in front of you right now is doing what. So why bother to bring in more uncertainty that we already have regarding the rest at this point. We need to understand what they are doing rather than why at the moment.
I think we can leave aside intent for now because we can't really know intent unless God tells us what's in their hearts and also if they put into action what seems clear of their intent, then the actions are what we have to go by. So while their intent can be an interesting discussion and open up doors in our understanding, what we can actually act on or should be looking at in either case, is what they do and how.Well I guess I should be more clear with what meant. Basically I mean one might be saying a simple joke without wanting to cover the truth which is rather obvious. One might simply be stating their belief which includes that they might say that ?the Quran is fake? and whatever they belief is right without a desire to be covering the truth for others (not too sure about this one, need more clarification). Then you got the one who obviously is trying to cover the truth and ridicule with their serious tone by using every trick in the book and such.
In regards to earlier how it would be "destructive" to us...well I don't think that is the intent of this really as it didn't forbid us on reading books or other mediums that might say such things, so I think it might be more a protest of what they say and for us not to indulge in transgression by abusing them over what they say like many traditionalists do nowadays. Afterall Youtube, TV, and many many books do ridicule and cover the truth in regards to the Quran and there is nothing forbidden there as long as we don't believe them P
Sure, and you could also just leave well enough alone if they situation is just a rehash, not going anywhere or if the guy says he knows where you live P
Well I understand that ) What I wonder is what if they say it quickly and move on without making it an argument, such it lasting maybe 5-10 seconds as simply their passing thought meaning by the time you would try to respond or get up and leave it is already over P
What do you think?
-
Well the concept of judgement differs for many people. So some without ever referencing us might say ?We believe we will go to Hades without any real judgment?. If they obviously cross-reference stuff that are the same as ours from the Torah or Bible like the Day of Judgment with ridicule and rejection then I agree. However if they cross reference stuff from those two that have nothing to do with the Quran then I would say not our problem. However what I wonder is what if a Christian were to say ?the Quran is wrong and only the Bible is correct? if that will kick in? I don?t see ridicule in it exactly but rather a statement of belief hmm....
Agreed.Well i?ve already studied what kafir was through a couple different topics in this forum (possibly looked at that one too at some point P) and as i?ve stated the conclusion i?ve seen is that Kafir refers to someone who covers the truth whether to themselves or to someone else. The origins of the word Kafir referring to a farmer who covered seeds in the ground that even was used to refer to this rather. Thus while we have someone who does reject (as in covering the truth for themselves) it also extends to one who covers the truth like those who wanted all the muslims dead during the Prophets era.
Could mean denying/rejecting the truth and thus hiding it from 'view' themselves/extending to others. Which makes sense to me because we have kafirs as blind/deaf because they've put themselves into a position where they can't see/hear the truth anymore as they've suppressed it to that extent in their own minds. Who else goes around telling people life after death is crap if they actually know it for the truth. It's like a chain of events always, like an air crash.If anyone takes a comic that is such an obvious joke as mockery and insult to their to their belief, they are like any religious fundamentalist XD Obvious joke is obvious and the lack of cross referencing anything from our books would make that comic moot in the end anyways as that is simply quite a general idea of heaven being thrown and not even seriously but as a joke. Thus if we were to look back as the alcohol one for example someone might simply say ?Why don?t you drink alcohol? Muhammad drank it all the time XD? which by the tone would be obvious its a joke. Course if serious, then i?d think the verse kicks in. Another popular example i?ve seen on Facebook are these pictures of people that depict Prophet Noah as ?The First Pokemon Master?while he wears Ash Ketchems hat because of how had two of every animal. Obviously they aren?t saying that is true nor are they cross referencing our book and saying we are wrong and they are right (if somehow that was actually their belief) but in the end it is purely an empty joke. Course this is all a comic and not a real life conversation with someone as the verse points towards which makes these comics not even be considered under such context but still say if these were said in conversation with the same joke like manner, I wonder if this might all still fit under this verse even though their was no intent of covering the truth nor ridicule hmmm. What do you think?
I'd like to see The First Pokemon Master haha...knew all the pokemon by heart too, but yes obvious jokes are obvious. No need to fret. I've seen some however that aren't funny and actually in bad taste. But they aren't interactive, so who cares, just close the tab. No one needs to be amused by everything in life anyways is what I say to console myself PAnyways yes you are right in regards to ridicule being connected to rejection, however what if one ridicules by saying something like ?This verse is very cruel and horrible? or something like that. Course I would assume that probably would link to rejection in the end as well as that might be their link to trying to cover the truth. 3714-17 is a great example I must say. The ridicule kicked in when they called it ?magic? and if the rejection but cross referencing us at ?"Can it be that after we die and become dust and bones, that we are resurrected?"?. Course I can see an atheist when stating his belief to say that rejection part without the ridicule, but I wonder if this verse would kick in then as it?s only half the requirements?
Like I said, a certain type of attitude is present. They've already covered the truth for themselves...so, what good does it do to engage? Sure, I can understand if there are others present that might warrant an alternate view and thus it becomes an engagement if it makes sense.Well I guess I should be more clear with what meant. Basically I mean one might be saying a simple joke without wanting to cover the truth which is rather obvious. One might simply be stating their belief which includes that they might say that ?the Quran is fake? and whatever they belief is right without a desire to be covering the truth for others (not too sure about this one, need more clarification). Then you got the one who obviously is trying to cover the truth and ridicule with their serious tone by using every trick in the book and such.
For himself he's already done it, now he's extending that to others inclusive of jeering with his groupies. Think that's the type.In regards to earlier how it would be "destructive" to us...well I don't think that is the intent of this really as it didn't forbid us on reading books or other mediums that might say such things, so I think it might be more a protest of what they say and for us not to indulge in transgression by abusing them over what they say like many traditionalists do nowadays. Afterall Youtube, TV, and many many books do ridicule and cover the truth in regards to the Quran and there is nothing forbidden there as long as we don't believe them
Definitely, I'm against censorship of that type.Well I understand that ) What I wonder is what if they say it quickly and move on without making it an argument, such it lasting maybe 5-10 seconds as simply their passing thought meaning by the time you would try to respond or get up and leave it is already over
Don't think that seems like an issue.peace
-
Could also mean denying/rejecting the truth and thus hiding it from 'view' themselves/extending to others. Which makes sense to me because we have kafirs as blind/deaf because they've put themselves into a position where they can't see/hear the truth anymore as they've suppressed it to that extent in their own minds. Who else goes around telling people life after death is crap if they actually know it for the truth. It's like a chain of events always, like an air crash.
Denying/rejecting the truth is exactly the same thing as covering the truth for yourself. Thus one can say its apostacy in the end. Someone though cannot cover the truth for themselves if they never believed it in the first place like those of other religions thus why they are kafirs. As for telling others ?life after death is crap? if they know it for the truth, remember that the polytheists who fought the Prophet use to say just that and they had never believed before, but are labeled kafirs for trying to cover the truth . Of course remember that Atheists will say life after death is fake but they aren?t kafirs if they haven?t believed the truth first hand unless they are trying to cover the truth to the others by cross referencing the Quran. If an Atheist or some other religion simply states life after death is fake without cross referencing us, it simply means they are simply stating their beliefs and not trying to get others to believe their believes and if they aren?t cross referencing the Quran to prove their point using ridicule nor cover the truth, then I would think the verse doesn?t kick in. Though you did bring up a good point though about something like them saying ?life after death being crap/fake? in that it very loosely does reference us, however that is also very general and found in almost any religion, which without an obvious point of referencing us like actually stating the ?Day of Judgment? which clearly points to us, then I wouldn?t think this verse kicks in, though unsure hmmm what do you think?
I'd like to see The First Pokemon Master haha...knew all the pokemon by heart too, but yes obvious jokes are obvious. No need to fret. I've seen some however that aren't funny and actually in bad taste. But they aren't interactive, so who cares, just close the tab. No one needs to be amused by everything in life anyways is what I say to console myself P
Yeah true some are in bad taste, though bad taste I guess as far as jokes go? Of course if its something like Family Guy on TV, I would have to watch the religious jokes in bad taste till they get back to the stuff that actually ?seems? funny. Now I?m thinking more real life now in that if I hear this ?joke? that is in bad taste, does that mean this verse would kick in for it being in bad taste?
Also lol, props for knowing all the Pokemon DDNow I wanna introduce one other verse that is related
?And if you encounter those who make fun of Our revelations, then turn away from them until they move on to a different topic; and if the devil lets you forget, then do not sit after remembering with the wicked people. ? (66Here it states ?make fun? rather than mockery and doesn?t mention anything about rejection. Thus what i?m wondering here is if this covers for empty jokes too? Hmmm... What do you think here?
Like I said, a certain type of attitude is present. They've already covered the truth for themselves...so, what good does it do to engage? Sure, I can understand if there are others present that might warrant an alternate view and thus it becomes an engagement if it makes sense.
Well I am saying it in the scenario where they are covering the truth for others as covering the truth for themselves is done in their own head. Thus that isn?t my worry there as the truth is already covered for themselves. However what I do wonder is that an atheist simply telling someone else that ?God is fake? or ?the Quran is fake? mean this verse starts kicks in? There is no ridicule in what they said there but they are ?covering the truth? by saying the Quran is fake, thus checks only one of two but its the heftier of the two here which makes me wonder if this verse kicks in hmmmm...also I just wanna throw it out that the part I just stated that said ?God is fake? probably wouldn?t be included in this verse at all as God is separate from his verses I think.... well what do you think?
For himself he's already done it, now he's extending that to others inclusive of jeering with his groupies. Think that's the type.
True, I doubt that one, though I am not including himself in it as that is done in private. Course most atheists i?ve met don?t ever try to get others to become like them.
Definitely, I'm against censorship of that type.
Agreed. A funny story I actually wanna share is that last week while researching this, I found a scary traditionalist blog that talked about this verse and stated that this somehow extended to stuff like video games and that there is no difference between interaction of people or on TV, even though the Quran is talking about engaging with people directly in all obviousness and hasn?t prevented any other mediums. He started going through a list of games by banning stuff like ?God of War?, ?Bayonetta?, "Final Fantasy XIII" and so many other fun games (FF13s fun is debatable though XD) just cause of polytheism in those game that we all know is fake, but he claimed it was ?challenging God? O_O Traditionalist truly scare me sometimes XD
Don't think that seems like an issue.
peace
Alright, so if its over before I plan to do anything, it isn?t a problem them.
One final thing I wanna add in is what if say a group of rejectors say stuff like ?And Christians have been taking forever to find Jesus? and they burst in laughter, while I am near them? They aren?t covering the truth as its something they personally believe at this point and aren?t trying to get anyone else to believe that though they do ridicule it here. Hmm..
-
Denying/rejecting the truth is exactly the same thing as covering the truth for yourself. Thus one can say its apostacy in the end. Someone though cannot cover the truth for themselves if they never believed it in the first place like those of other religions thus why they are kafirs. As for telling others ?life after death is crap? if they know it for the truth, remember that the polytheists who fought the Prophet use to say just that and they had never believed before, but are labeled kafirs for trying to cover the truth . Of course remember that Atheists will say life after death is fake but they aren?t kafirs if they haven?t believed the truth first hand unless they are trying to cover the truth to the others by cross referencing the Quran. If an Atheist or some other religion simply states life after death is fake without cross referencing us, it simply means they are simply stating their beliefs and not trying to get others to believe their believes and if they aren?t cross referencing the Quran to prove their point using ridicule nor cover the truth, then I would think the verse doesn?t kick in. Though you did bring up a good point though about something like them saying ?life after death being crap/fake? in that it very loosely does reference us, however that is also very general and found in almost any religion, which without an obvious point of referencing us like actually stating the ?Day of Judgment? which clearly points to us, then I wouldn?t think this verse kicks in, though unsure hmmm what do you think?
See, I question cannot cover the truth for themselves if they never believed it. Belief is itself in stages for one like you said. Rejection is important then. As you cannot disbelieve unless you reject as well. Disbelief is rejection of belief.So...even if you never believed the truth so to say...you rejected it/covered it up for yourself. Means you were exposed to the truth at some point to have rejected/disbelieved it. The polytheists were exposed to the truth, they rejected/disbelieved and were kafirs. People that reject God mean they are exposed to the truth at some point to have rejected/disbelieved it. You can't say life after death is fake without knowing that such a concept exists. You don't have to believe in something to reject that concept/disbelieve in it do you? In which case they 'could never cover the truth for themselves' only cover it up for others...how would they do that? By hiding the concept of life after death for example in front of others even though they are on the fence about it? That's why it would be extend that to others...the extension part being, well, the extension of their rejection/disbelief/hiding the truth. And just...day of judgement? really? I mean if a person doesn't use the exact terms and skims around them to attack and ridicule the concept that's alright?
Yeah true some are in bad taste, though bad taste I guess as far as jokes go? Of course if its something like Family Guy on TV, I would have to watch the religious jokes in bad taste till they get back to the stuff that actually ?seems? funny. Now I?m thinking more real life now in that if I hear this ?joke? that is in bad taste, does that mean this verse would kick in for it being in bad taste?
Also lol, props for knowing all the Pokemon DD
Nooooo... and we were doing so well, too! Forget bad taste, quick!Now I wanna introduce one other verse that is related
?And if you encounter those who make fun of Our revelations, then turn away from them until they move on to a different topic; and if the devil lets you forget, then do not sit after remembering with the wicked people. ? (66Here it states ?make fun? rather than mockery and doesn?t mention anything about rejection. Thus what i?m wondering here is if this covers for empty jokes too? Hmmm... What do you think here?
Same word. Supposed to be connected with the similar verse suggesting the attitude. Adding in the advice at the end. Look, don't lose ground that we've already covered. We've covered empty jokes being not worthy of the ridicule talked about so why go back now?Well I am saying it in the scenario where they are covering the truth for others as covering the truth for themselves is done in their own head. Thus that isn?t my worry there as the truth is already covered for themselves. However what I do wonder is that an atheist simply telling someone else that ?God is fake? or ?the Quran is fake? mean this verse starts kicks in? There is no ridicule in what they said there but they are ?covering the truth? by saying the Quran is fake, thus checks only one of two but its the heftier of the two here which makes me wonder if this verse kicks in hmmmm...also I just wanna throw it out that the part I just stated that said ?God is fake? probably wouldn?t be included in this verse at all as God is separate from his verses I think.... well what do you think?
Um, that's why we have the advice on turning away? because they aren't exactly going to welcome your input with open arms? That's the attitude that they have reject and ridicule. We've already covered ground regarding two boxes, if there is only one box to tick it should be the ridicule one as per 668. This covers those that are just stating their views of rejection for example without ridicule and thus should satisfy on that score. God is separate from the verses? How?True, I doubt that one, though I am not including himself in it as that is done in private. Course most atheists i?ve met don?t ever try to get others to become like them.
Done what in private? I mention extension above.Agreed. A funny story I actually wanna share is that last week while researching this, I found a scary traditionalist blog that talked about this verse and stated that this somehow extended to stuff like video games and that there is no difference between interaction of people or on TV, even though the Quran is talking about engaging with people directly in all obviousness and hasn?t prevented any other mediums. He started going through a list of games by banning stuff like ?God of War?, ?Bayonetta?, "Final Fantasy XIII" and so many other fun games (FF13s fun is debatable though XD) just cause of polytheism in those game that we all know is fake, but he claimed it was ?challenging God? O_O Traditionalist truly scare me sometimes XD
Wow. They banned certain names on the mmo I was playing too. Stuff like first name Hand, second name er, rhymes with a prophet. Then there was the Jedi Master title and on every server we had someone called Bates. Made me chuckle a bit. The guy seems typical of the type.Alright, so if its over before I plan to do anything, it isn?t a problem them.
One final thing I wanna add in is what if say a group of rejectors say stuff like ?And Christians have been taking forever to find Jesus? and they burst in laughter, while I am near them? They aren?t covering the truth as its something they personally believe at this point and aren?t trying to get anyone else to believe that though they do ridicule it here. Hmm..
I believe I can sincerely say at this point...chillax ) -
See, I question cannot cover the truth for themselves if they never believed it. Belief is itself in stages for one like you said. Rejection is important then. As you cannot disbelieve unless you reject as well. Disbelief is rejection of belief.
So...even if you never believed the truth so to say...you rejected it/covered it up for yourself. Means you were exposed to the truth at some point to have rejected/disbelieved it. The polytheists were exposed to the truth, they rejected/disbelieved and were kafirs. People that reject God mean they are exposed to the truth at some point to have rejected/disbelieved it. You can't say life after death is fake without knowing that such a concept exists. You don't have to believe in something to reject that concept/disbelieve in it do you? In which case they 'could never cover the truth for themselves' only cover it up for others...how would they do that? By hiding the concept of life after death for example in front of others even though they are on the fence about it? That's why it would be extend that to others...the extension part being, well, the extension of their rejection/disbelief/hiding the truth. And just...day of judgement? really? I mean if a person doesn't use the exact terms and skims around them to attack and ridicule the concept that's alright?
But remember that would mean anyone who doesn?t accept the Quran is a kafir by that logic and thus destined for hell, which is a bit extreme I think, plus it also creates a problem in that the People of the Book have been declared as not kaffirs unless they are indeed covering the truth to others, and those people even though they do not accept the Quran are not labelled as such. Thus why I believe that concealing the truth to oneself can only mean concealed once belief has entered beforehand. The polytheists are simply labeled as polytheists but they were labeled as kafirs due to their actions which including warfare on the believers in order to ?cover the truth? through murder and they spread lies such as how they said that eating animals that died on their own was lawful due to how it was ?killed by Allah?, and the list goes on. Of course this isn?t really what we are getting to the bottom of in regards to the topic as one who covers the truth to themselves is on their own and we never see or witness it happening.
As for the life after death thing remember that it did mention the ayats of God, which means that it should reference us of course. But the bigger thing is that remember that almost every religion has had talks of life after death, so an atheist simply saying there is no life after death doesn?t refer to us directly as all as there is the Greek Pagan life after death, the Egyptian Pagan life after death, the Shinto life after death, Hindus, etc... Thus why I don?t think that simply saying that concept would invoke such a verse. Course just saying it doesn?t mean they are covering the truth as they simply could be talking about their beliefs there, but if they start telling people by intending to conceal the truth by cross referencing the Quran, then this verse would kick in i?d think. But I do not mean the exact words ?day of Judgment? but rather referencing that exact concept of a day when all are raised up at once and judged to either heaven or hell. 3714-17 states that they had seen the ayat and proceeded right after to ridicule it by calling it ?magic?, thus shows that they cross referenced the Quran.Nooooo... and we were doing so well, too! Forget bad taste, quick!
Lolol but some bad taste is cheesy to laugh at even XD so then I guess I take it hearing the bad taste jokes is no problem even though I don?t like them P
Same word. Supposed to be connected with the similar verse suggesting the attitude. Adding in the advice at the end. Look, don't lose ground that we've already covered. We've covered empty jokes being not worthy of the ridicule talked about so why go back now?
I understand, however the words are actually different TBQH. The word for ridicule in 4140 was ?yus'tahza-u? while 668 uses yakhna which translates to ?engage?. This had me confused cause in that verse there was no extra word to state ridicule or anything else and that translations of yakhna have always been to ?engage in vain talk? which vain talk is basically ridicule I believe, but I have been trying to figure out that translation of that word properly.
Basically the reason I stated this verse was because I wanted to show a verse that talks just about the ridicule and not ridicule+rejection and this is where I get confused in that if this is ridicule here alone, does that mean ridicule and rejection are separate from each other for 4140? Thus if one does rejection only without ridicule that 4140 is to be activated? Or is that word in 668 different from ridicule all together in the end and thus this is covering something else while 4140 is covering ridicule+rejection together? Hmm what do you think?Um, that's why we have the advice on turning away? because they aren't exactly going to welcome your input with open arms? That's the attitude that they have reject and ridicule. We've already covered ground regarding two boxes, if there is only one box to tick it should be the ridicule one as per 668. This covers those that are just stating their views of rejection for example without ridicule and thus should satisfy on that score. God is separate from the verses? How?
Okay I understand, so if they cover the truth then it automatically checks both boxes. Course I don?t see many people trying to turn to others and sating stuff like ??This and this? are fake? with the intention of making the other a rejector. At most I see them simply stating their own view that ??this and this? are fake? without seemingly planning or trying to get the other to reject and usually as a passing speech such as, ?I think i?m going to marry that girl, and doesn?t matter what she believes as there is no day of judgment for me to be punished in...so anyways lets go get some food? therefore trying to get others to reject nor ridicule in it but simply stating his views there as I see.
As for God being separate from his verses, here is a verse amongst many that shows it
And if you ask them they say "We were only jesting and playing." Say "Is it in God and His verses and His messenger you were mocking?" (965)
Here you can see that God puts Himself as separately from the verses. God afterall is a very general concept, and thus somebody rejecting God without crossreferencing the Quran in front of us therefore wouldn?t really concern us as it is general and not based on our concept I believe. However I may be wrong and not convinced yet of this part.Done what in private? I mention extension above.
The covering of the truth to themselves is done in private I mean. When one does such a thing, it is done in their mind usually and therefore why it is ?private? and we don?t see it happen until he says it has happened already. Thus the only thing we gotta be concerned about are people who try to cover the truth to others.
Wow. They banned certain names on the mmo I was playing too. Stuff like first name Hand, second name er, rhymes with a prophet. Then there was the Jedi Master title and on every server we had someone called Bates. Made me chuckle a bit. The guy seems typical of the type.
Wow I didn?t think censorship was that tough in Dubai (as your profile states you are from) considering the tourism that happens there too O_O What other types of games are banned then for such reasons?
I believe I can sincerely say at this point...chillax
I guess your right lol. It doesn?t check both boxes for 4140, but I guess i?m just worried about 668 which seems solely related to ridicule alone, not sure if this is exactly ridicule there or not hmmmmmm.....
Tell me what you think -
But remember that would mean anyone who doesn?t accept the Quran is a kafir by that logic and thus destined for hell, which is a bit extreme I think, plus it also creates a problem in that the People of the Book have been declared as not kaffirs unless they are indeed covering the truth to others, and those people even though they do not accept the Quran are not labelled as such. Thus why I believe that concealing the truth to oneself can only mean concealed once belief has entered beforehand. The polytheists are simply labeled as polytheists but they were labeled as kafirs due to their actions which including warfare on the believers in order to ?cover the truth? through murder and they spread lies such as how they said that eating animals that died on their own was lawful due to how it was ?killed by Allah?, and the list goes on. Of course this isn?t really what we are getting to the bottom of in regards to the topic as one who covers the truth to themselves is on their own and we never see or witness it happening.
If you take the meaning of it being something active rather than passive like in regards to being a muslim, you'll better see the point. The active part is when they are doing it which is the extension meaning they believe in rejecting and are actively engaged in extending it. You yourself can see it but they were labeled as kafirs due to their actions which including warfare on the believers in order to ?cover the truth? through murder and they spread lies such as how they said that eating animals that died on their own was lawful due to how it was ?killed by Allah?, and the list goes on. They obviously didn't believe in quranic morality (basics etc) and extended that to others actively. kufr is something that is actively done. So you'd call the actions kufr. In the act of such, the people become kafirs. It's not a one time label like people mistakenly assume Muslim/Momin etc are. My discussion regarding 'themselves' had to do with such a point about belief and disbelief/rejecting. You believe in doing something termed as a kufr act hence at that moment you are indeed kafir and we gauge that from the actions. If you keep on actively engaging in kufr you keep on being a kafir. If at any point you stop, doesn't mean that you're saved wallah...means that you now have to make up the skewed balance, if you have the time that is, and/or the realisation of sincerely believing in your repentance and subsequent and active acceptance etc1091 Now? And you had disobeyed before and were of the corrupters?
418 Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, Now have I repented indeed; nor of those who die rejecting Faith for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous.As for the life after death thing remember that it did mention the ayats of God, which means that it should reference us of course. But the bigger thing is that remember that almost every religion has had talks of life after death, so an atheist simply saying there is no life after death doesn?t refer to us directly as all as there is the Greek Pagan life after death, the Egyptian Pagan life after death, the Shinto life after death, Hindus, etc... Thus why I don?t think that simply saying that concept would invoke such a verse. Course just saying it doesn?t mean they are covering the truth as they simply could be talking about their beliefs there, but if they start telling people by intending to conceal the truth by cross referencing the Quran, then this verse would kick in i?d think. But I do not mean the exact words ?day of Judgment? but rather referencing that exact concept of a day when all are raised up at once and judged to either heaven or hell. 3714-17 states that they had seen the ayat and proceeded right after to ridicule it by calling it ?magic?, thus shows that they cross referenced the Quran.
Quote from savage_carrot on Yesterday at 042652 PM
the 'ayats' of God are everywhere for one. I don't understand why you're so hung up on constraining it to a pinhead! D Yes, and why is that different from someone who believes in a concept that when we die we will be judged? Separately or collectively? Hands behind backs, no hands? Why do the details matter? The concept is the same. But if it's easier for you, by all means take this approach. I'm just saying that there is more to this in a way.Lolol but some bad taste is cheesy to laugh at even XD so then I guess I take it hearing the bad taste jokes is no problem even though I don?t like them
yess, we caught it in time.I understand, however the words are actually different TBQH. The word for ridicule in 4140 was ?yus'tahza-u? while 668 uses yakhna which translates to ?engage?. This had me confused cause in that verse there was no extra word to state ridicule or anything else and that translations of yakhna have always been to ?engage in vain talk? which vain talk is basically ridicule I believe, but I have been trying to figure out that translation of that word properly.
Do a concordance corpus quran.Basically the reason I stated this verse was because I wanted to show a verse that talks just about the ridicule and not ridicule+rejection and this is where I get confused in that if this is ridicule here alone, does that mean ridicule and rejection are separate from each other for 4140? Thus if one does rejection only without ridicule that 4140 is to be activated? Or is that word in 668 different from ridicule all together in the end and thus this is covering something else while 4140 is covering ridicule+rejection together? Hmm what do you think?
I just mentioned in my previous point...that if there is rejection without ridicule it would be someone just stating his beliefs of disbelief. You can do whatever you want in that case (obviously not whatever but whatever) and where we are told to leave it is when there is ridicule or rejection with ridicule. Now, I'll ask you why do you think that is? Isn't it because ridicule involves something which is going to be counter productive for us? And then we have rejection plus ridicule. We've discussed this many times. I'm sure one of these days someone is going to put this all in a list which would be awesome. Perhaps there already is...the 'etiquette' list I believe I read once? Try to see if you can find it and then we'll analyse ALL the myriad ways of dealing with such.As for God being separate from his verses, here is a verse amongst many that shows it
And if you ask them they say "We were only jesting and playing." Say "Is it in God and His verses and His messenger you were mocking?" (965)
Here you can see that God puts Himself as separately from the verses. God afterall is a very general concept, and thus somebody rejecting God without crossreferencing the Quran in front of us therefore wouldn?t really concern us as it is general and not based on our concept I believe. However I may be wrong and not convinced yet of this part.
That just shows that they are all connected?The covering of the truth to themselves is done in private I mean. When one does such a thing, it is done in their mind usually and therefore why it is ?private? and we don?t see it happen until he says it has happened already. Thus the only thing we gotta be concerned about are people who try to cover the truth to others.
Explained.Wow I didn?t think censorship was that tough in Dubai (as your profile states you are from) considering the tourism that happens there too O_O What other types of games are banned then for such reasons?
Ah no, the mmo isn't Dubai based...It isn't that tough but tourists etc are going to have to cover their butt cheeks in the mall after the new rules in place for a polite dress code. Some thought that was crazy harsh.I guess your right lol. It doesn?t check both boxes for 4140, but I guess i?m just worried about 668 which seems solely related to ridicule alone, not sure if this is exactly ridicule there or not hmmmmmm.....
Tell me what you think
This is what often happens during discussion of a verse and why we can't constrain The concepts are all over the quran and each verse would require you to delve into other verses not to mention the concepts present therein. Which is well and good, just not as effortless as we'd have wanted. -
If you take the meaning of it being something active rather than passive like in regards to being a muslim, you'll better see the point. The active part is when they are doing it which is the extension meaning they believe in rejecting and are actively engaged in extending it. You yourself can see it but they were labeled as kafirs due to their actions which including warfare on the believers in order to ?cover the truth? through murder and they spread lies such as how they said that eating animals that died on their own was lawful due to how it was ?killed by Allah?, and the list goes on. They obviously didn't believe in quranic morality (basics etc) and extended that to others actively. kufr is something that is actively done. So you'd call the actions kufr. In the act of such, the people become kafirs. It's not a one time label like people mistakenly assume Muslim/Momin etc are. My discussion regarding 'themselves' had to do with such a point about belief and disbelief/rejecting. You believe in doing something termed as a kufr act hence at that moment you are indeed kafir and we gauge that from the actions. If you keep on actively engaging in kufr you keep on being a kafir. If at any point you stop, doesn't mean that you're saved wallah...means that you now have to make up the skewed balance, if you have the time that is, and/or the realisation of sincerely believing in your repentance and subsequent and active acceptance etc
1091 Now? And you had disobeyed before and were of the corrupters?
418 Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, Now have I repented indeed; nor of those who die rejecting Faith for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous.I don?t deny that their actions of covering the truth is what makes them kafir, in fact that is my argument. One does believe that they are doing it no doubt, but what I am saying, is that someone who has done it to themselves as in denied the truth after believing it, but that is it and doesn?t try to provoke others to denying the truth too. They are kafirs for covering the truth AFTER they had believed it even if they aren?t doing the action any further to others, however I don?t accept the idea of someone who never believed in the first place to be a kafir as there was no truth in their head to cover for themselves and if they aren?t covering the truth to others either, they are not kafirs in anyways, shape or form.
the 'ayats' of God are everywhere for one. I don't understand why you're so hung up on constraining it to a pinhead! D Yes, and why is that different from someone who believes in a concept that when we die we will be judged? Separately or collectively? Hands behind backs, no hands? Why do the details matter? The concept is the same. But if it's easier for you, by all means take this approach. I'm just saying that there is more to this in a way.
Problem is that if it is that loose in term this would create a lot of problems. Lets bring an example of something not directly related to the major elements like the afterlife and such but rather...pork. Pork is forbidden in the Quran and whoever believes otherwise is a Kafir. So let?s say a person hands a piece of pork to someone to eat. That so far is not kufr and at most its encouraging haram if it was the one handing it out was a sinning believer. Now if he declared that its allowed in the Quran then that is Kufr as the truth that the Quran conveyed there is has been covered by that false word. Those two are clear cut ones no doubt. Now comes a vague one which the guy gives it to him and simply states that ?its lawful?. Lawful? Lawful in what ways? Lawful to a Buddhist sure, lawful to some countries laws sure, but not lawful to the believer. Basically what i?m getting at is that simply saying something that vaguely isn?t what is kufr , otherwise Buddhists who declare something like pork lawful or simply anyone including the people of the book who vaguely states something is lawful according to his belief which include some different laws due to changes in the their books would be kafirs too. Thus why here we see it state rejection as having to do with the ?Ayats? of God which directly refer to the verses we hear. Thus someone saying something is lawful in the Quran for example, that is kufr as they covered what is the truth with what is false. If someone states simply states that alcohol is lawful...what are they referring to is the question here... to which it might simply be to Judism alcohol is not forbidden by their belief (which is from the book that has been corrupted over time of course) and yet they aren?t deemed kafirs. Thus why it requires cross referencing the Quran for it to count and thus the after life being fake is mentioned without reference to the Quran, I would not think is covering the truth of the Quran as that is vague and the afterlife is quite different from religion to religion. Some say one is sent directly to hell (I believe the ancient Greeks said that), some say everyone is sent to simply another world to continue life as is without judgment (Egyptians), another set says reincarnation (Buddhists, Hindus, and I think Shintos?) and it goes on. I believe only of the Abraham faiths and I also believe Zoroastrianism is there such a direct concept of The Day of Judgment, which therefore why here, it states rejection is a result of covering the truth using the ?verse? of God. Afterall the whole idea of covering the ?truth? clearly refers to the replacing the truth (which the truth IS the Quran) with the false and if its vague it includes pretty much everything that is false too.
Also...if I wanted to accept things for just being easy, I wouldn?t be fearful all the time XD
Do a concordance corpus quran.
Actually that is exactly where I went which simply had that word listed as ?engage? with ?vain talk? in brackets next to it. I then took the Arabic word and put it into a translator and only came out as engage, which made me wonder here... hmmm...
I just mentioned in my previous point...that if there is rejection without ridicule it would be someone just stating his beliefs of disbelief. You can do whatever you want in that case (obviously not whatever but whatever) and where we are told to leave it is when there is ridicule or rejection with ridicule. Now, I'll ask you why do you think that is? Isn't it because ridicule involves something which is going to be counter productive for us? And then we have rejection plus ridicule. We've discussed this many times. I'm sure one of these days someone is going to put this all in a list which would be awesome. Perhaps there already is...the 'etiquette' list I believe I read once? Try to see if you can find it and then we'll analyse ALL the myriad ways of dealing with such.
Hmmm okay but Rejection on its own is covering the truth, so one can cover the truth by saying something like ?Alcohol is allowed in the Quran? which is straight up without any ridicule as far as I can see. One would state his belief by saying ?Alcohol is lawful to me? he isn?t cover the truth , even though he may have already covered the truth for himself earlier, but that time has passed and we are more talking of the now. Then you got rejection with ridicule which is saying something bad about it at the same time as covering the truth like ?The Day of Judgment is utter crap and is faker than sorecery?. Thus the confusion. What do you think?
As for the etiquette list http//www.free-minds.org/islamic-etiquette
I didn?t see anything related to Kufr and ridicule here in regards to the verses. However maybe you can find something PThat just shows that they are all connected?
Well true it does but it still shows that God has kept the verses as a separate subject from Himself. Course they are connected based on the interpretation of God that we get from the Quran and thus why we have been told not to cover the truth which includes our interpretation of God. Thus why someone slamming fake Gods and such really isn?t our business in the end.
Ah no, the mmo isn't Dubai based...It isn't that tough but tourists etc are going to have to cover their butt cheeks in the mall after the new rules in place for a polite dress code. Some thought that was crazy harsh
Butt cheeks were exposed!? Not even in the west have I seen people having their buttcheek out XD
This is what often happens during discussion of a verse and why we can't constrain P The concepts are all over the quran and each verse would require you to delve into other verses not to mention the concepts present therein. Which is well and good, just not as effortless as we'd have wanted.
True which has always led to a ton of problems as far as i?ve seen in the past, but also some good news at times too P But still unsure of how to deal with 668 on the ridicule section hm...
-
I don?t deny that their actions of covering the truth is what makes them kafir, in fact that is my argument. One does believe that they are doing it no doubt, but what I am saying, is that someone who has done it to themselves as in denied the truth after believing it, but that is it and doesn?t try to provoke others to denying the truth too. They are kafirs for covering the truth AFTER they had believed it even if they aren?t doing the action any further to others, however I don?t accept the idea of someone who never believed in the first place to be a kafir as there was no truth in their head to cover for themselves and if they aren?t covering the truth to others either, they are not kafirs in anyways, shape or form.
So if a person hasn't believed in God/scripture/signs but instead actively rejects it after exposure to such, they can't be kafirs? If there is 'no truth in their heads to cover', how exactly are they covering it to others? Wouldn't this contradict 'they have to believe it then reject it' concept of yours? They'd need to have something in their mind? You'd need to know what you're doing you know? In this the mind is the first link in a chain to the doing. One doesn't just out of the blue stumble upon a parchment with bad things written on it for example and having no idea what it means starts distributing it to all and sundry calling it the best thing since sliced eel and all other parchments crap. Yes, horrible analogy but it'd make a great book title..."The Accidental Kafir A tale of a zebra who stubbed his hoof and found...APOSTASY!!! (but didn't know it)" Must pm Edip for his next blockbuster.Like I explained...you need to understand the concept of kufr better. To reject a concept one has to be exposed to it, to actively reject it, one would start extending such in their actions. These actions may affect them and/or the people around them. Sustained or progressive rejection of concepts etc just in the mind without ever affecting actions is improbable. This is why we are what we do and what we are, we do (I'm going to start pasting my quotes around as confucicarrot). This is entirely different from 'no truth in their heads to cover'. We have the ability to recognise God's signs everywhere if we reflect/reason (1612/abraham/etc). To be exposed to God and the truth is not dependent on believing. It's all around us anyways, everything submits willingly or unwillingly (1315) to God. It's when we reason, we really see and when we really see, we accept. When we really accept we start believing etc etc.
Problem is that if it is that loose in term this would create a lot of problems. Lets bring an example of something not directly related to the major elements like the afterlife and such but rather...pork. Pork is forbidden in the Quran and whoever believes otherwise is a Kafir. So let?s say a person hands a piece of pork to someone to eat. That so far is not kufr and at most its encouraging haram if it was the one handing it out was a sinning believer. Now if he declared that its allowed in the Quran then that is Kufr as the truth that the Quran conveyed there is has been covered by that false word. Those two are clear cut ones no doubt. Now comes a vague one which the guy gives it to him and simply states that ?its lawful?. Lawful? Lawful in what ways? Lawful to a Buddhist sure, lawful to some countries laws sure, but not lawful to the believer. Basically what i?m getting at is that simply saying something that vaguely isn?t what is kufr , otherwise Buddhists who declare something like pork lawful or simply anyone including the people of the book who vaguely states something is lawful according to his belief which include some different laws due to changes in the their books would be kafirs too. Thus why here we see it state rejection as having to do with the ?Ayats? of God which directly refer to the verses we hear. Thus someone saying something is lawful in the Quran for example, that is kufr as they covered what is the truth with what is false. If someone states simply states that alcohol is lawful...what are they referring to is the question here... to which it might simply be to Judism alcohol is not forbidden by their belief (which is from the book that has been corrupted over time of course) and yet they aren?t deemed kafirs. Thus why it requires cross referencing the Quran for it to count and thus the after life being fake is mentioned without reference to the Quran, I would not think is covering the truth of the Quran as that is vague and the afterlife is quite different from religion to religion. Some say one is sent directly to hell (I believe the ancient Greeks said that), some say everyone is sent to simply another world to continue life as is without judgment (Egyptians), another set says reincarnation (Buddhists, Hindus, and I think Shintos?) and it goes on. I believe only of the Abraham faiths and I also believe Zoroastrianism is there such a direct concept of The Day of Judgment, which therefore why here, it states rejection is a result of covering the truth using the ?verse? of God. Afterall the whole idea of covering the ?truth? clearly refers to the replacing the truth (which the truth IS the Quran) with the false and if its vague it includes pretty much everything that is false too.
We were discussing major elements because we were discussing muslims. Pork is forbidden in the quran and whoever believes otherwise is a kafir? I'm not sure what to say here other than you really need to revisit the concept of kufr. You're missing the point, it's like we are talking about 2 different things!Also...if I wanted to accept things for just being easy, I wouldn?t be fearful all the time XD
Yes, I know...was general.Actually that is exactly where I went which simply had that word listed as ?engage? with ?vain talk? in brackets next to it. I then took the Arabic word and put it into a translator and only came out as engage, which made me wonder here... hmmm...
my bad...this is 668 http//corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=pos%3Av+root%3AxwD
4140 http//corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=pos%3Av+%28X%29+root%3AhzACheck the root as well as the other verses in which it is present to give you a better idea? Giving it a look The two seem to be mocking/ridicule and conversing idly/vainly. The blandly suggested root for the latter constraining oneself wading through water. Applying to say 668, one could say it's a type of conversation which is hindering progress? Not fruitful?...towards what? growth/truth/God? It doesn't help us as contrasted to a conversation leading us/allowing us to grow closer to God. Applying to 969 could be useless/purposeless/futile indulgences/engagements which hindered progress?... towards growth/truth/God? In reference to other verses it's connected with rejection. Maybe it means wading through things/conversations not exactly aware of what the significance is/what lies beneath? 668 types of conversation that are mostly oblivious to truth? Since it's still connected to rejection/what the rejectors do, it would be something that would not help us get any closer to God/growth/truth...But maybe it doesn't mean that, maybe it's got nothing to do with wading through and water and horses, maybe the way I'm taking Lane's strangely worded little summary is completely off. Even if we take the commonly translated idle/vain talk/indulgences/engagements...it's still connected to rejection/what the rejectors do. Idle/vain having the idea in itself of being useless/in vain. In contrast to the concept of having a use/a purpose. What use or purpose could that be? Obviously towards God as opposed to away. Now does this apply to an argument about which pokemon is the best using Noah's animals? If someone is unsure, or says yes...I have nothing further to say.
Hmmm okay but Rejection on its own is covering the truth, so one can cover the truth by saying something like ?Alcohol is allowed in the Quran? which is straight up without any ridicule as far as I can see. One would state his belief by saying ?Alcohol is lawful to me? he isn?t cover the truth , even though he may have already covered the truth for himself earlier, but that time has passed and we are more talking of the now. Then you got rejection with ridicule which is saying something bad about it at the same time as covering the truth like ?The Day of Judgment is utter crap and is faker than sorecery?. Thus the confusion. What do you think?
As for the etiquette list http//www.free-minds.org/islamic-etiquette
I didn?t see anything related to Kufr and ridicule here in regards to the verses. However maybe you can find something
Didn't mean that one. Saw it on the forum once way back. With pithy comments on each as well as I recall. You could just use the concordance for the two.Well true it does but it still shows that God has kept the verses as a separate subject from Himself. Course they are connected based on the interpretation of God that we get from the Quran and thus why we have been told not to cover the truth which includes our interpretation of God. Thus why someone slamming fake Gods and such really isn?t our business in the end.
God differentiating using different subjects is not saying "also I just wanna throw it out that the part I just stated that said ?God is fake? probably wouldn?t be included in this verse at all as God is separate from his verses I think".Butt cheeks were exposed!? Not even in the west have I seen people having their buttcheek out XD
Oh yes. Both. Or is it just one? Not sure on the correct number to use. Seen it in europe a lot. US not so much.