I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today

nimnimak_11

I see you chose to ignore the rest of my points. Why is that?

Sahih International Translation

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to marry her, only for you, excluding the believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. (3350)

Clearly we can see here that female war captives are lawful for sex.

I don't have a Qur'an verse to affirm the prophet's marriage to Aisha and her consummation but hadith can be recognized as historical documents if not as divine documents. Of course I'm sure as a Qur'an alone Muslim you will flat out deny anything to besmirch the character of your prophet so I won't even get into that and instead I'll focus on the sex with with female war captives.

In addition I also find it amusing that the Prophet receives special privileges in marriage rights excluding the other believers.

Not exactly, check my post to good logic

good_logic

Peace nimnimak.

Is not the burden of proof also on the one that suggest differently also?

What you provided is your understanding of MMA, not mine. Your understanding of"sex" and your understanding of the points you mentioned.

I have read the links, they do not convince me otherwise either.

I suggest for everyone to study Qoran and make up their own mind on what MMA is and is not. It seems to mean different " what you are responsible for" in different verses with different contexts.

If you choose to have sex outside " marriage/oath...However it is taken" it is up to you.I am not your guardian.

Peace.

nimnimak_11

Peace good logic

Is not the burden of proof also on the one that suggest differently also?

Say you were to suggest....beef is prohibited and I say no it is not. What do I have to prove? Should you not be the one pointing to verses?

Hence I have no burden of proof. But if I am given proof, I either acknowledge it, or the burden of proving it's falseness will fall on me.

I have read the links, they do not convince me otherwise either.

I suggest for everyone to study Qoran and make up their own mind on what MMA is and is not. It seems to mean different " what you are responsible for" in different verses with different contexts.

If you choose to have sex outside " marriage/oath...However it is taken" it is up to you.I am not your guardian.

Fair enough, and I will not further debate with you regarding this as this is not the purpose of this thread.
But should you make assertions such as sex is exclusive to marriage, you should provide evidence or reason for this. Without this, beliefs become dogmas and truths may become buried.

Peace

good_logic

Peace nimnimak.

Nevertheless, I shall provide the verses that back up my understanding

You shall encourage those of you who are single to get married. They may marry the righteous among your male and female servants, if they are poor. God will enrich them from His grace. God is Bounteous, Knower.

Those who cannot afford to get married shall maintain morality/chastity until God provides for them from His grace. Those among your servants who wish to be freed in order to marry, you shall grant them their wish, once you realize that they are honest. And give them from God's money that He has bestowed upon you. You shall not force your girls to commit prostitution, seeking the materials of this world, if they wish to be chaste. If anyone forces them, then God, seeing that they are forced, is Forgiver, Merciful.

Like you said in another thread, it is a question of " morality" Quote
As far as I know, so long as he has a good character (is morally strong and beneficient and also rational) , he is a submitter. The Quran in my opinion aids in our understanding/speed of progress with regards to morality.

Peace.

nimnimak_11

Peace Good Logic

Like you said in another thread, it is a question of " morality" Quote
As far as I know, so long as he has a good character (is morally strong and beneficient and also rational) , he is a submitter. The Quran in my opinion aids in our understanding/speed of progress with regards to morality.

Indeed it is. competence/self-sufficiency/strength and providence for others/beneficence
encompassed by zikr (which augments those traits and in turn those traits augments the zikr IMO)

If I understand you correctly, your suggestion is that 2433 tells us not to have sex until we get married. IMO that is a bad translation as it strays from the literal translation with preconceived notions.

The root of the word translated as chaste is Ayn-Fa-Fa = to abstain from what is unlawful, be abstinent, restrain.

None of the above means chaste. That is just an insertion from interpretors.
So here is a more literal translation of 2433

And let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain until God enriches them of His Bounty...

Abstain from what? Sex, touching in anyway, living together, becoming pregnant (this can be done without sex i.e sperm donor)
So how do we come to understand what we are supposed to abstain from? The clue is in the verse.

Let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain untill God enriches them of His Bounty

IMO we are told, let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain from marriage untill God enriches them of His Bounty

This makes the most sense when you consider the other options

let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain from sex untill God enriches them of His Bounty
let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain from getting pregnant untill God enriches them of His Bounty
let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain from marriage untill God enriches them of His Bounty.

What fits best? In particular when you consider the part that follows abstain "untill God enriches them of His Bounty" and 2432? Can it be other than

let those who are not able to marry continue to abstain from marriage untill God enriches them of His Bounty?

good_logic

Peace nimnimak.

How can you abstain from marriage if you cannot marry? You have no choice! you cannot marry. You are already abstaining.

So obviously you abstain from something else that you are able to do, even though you cannot get married!

How can you abstain from getting pregnant if you are male? Remember GOD is addressing both sexes.

To me that leaves only one possibility.

Peace.

nimnimak_11

Peace nimnimak.

How can you abstain from marriage if you cannot marry? You have no choice! you cannot marry. You are already abstaining.

So obviously you abstain from something else that you are able to do, even though you cannot get married!

How can you abstain from getting pregnant if you are male? Remember GOD is addressing both sexes.

To me that leaves only one possibility.

Peace.

I think your right with regards to abstain not being able to refer to marriage (Someone will be very angry with me) I originally understood the verse to mean those who don't have the means for marriage rather than those who cannot find marriage. This makes a lot of difference in my understanding. The clue in the verse 2433 with regards to what abstain/refrain must be referring to was that it must relate to God enriching us with his bounty. I didn't think sex would make sense. I mean how could God enrich us of his bounty such that sexual abstinence could be ended.

I thought marriage did because wealth is needed for marriage but not for sex and since it's addressing those who can't afford marriage but can still theoretically and legally do it, it is making clear....abstain from marriage until you can afford to marry.

Here is what I originally said

Savage_carrot suggested that only those who have the means to marry, can marry thus the abstaining here refers to something other than marriage since the individual who lacks the means for marriage cannot marry and it is thus impossible.
The verse is referring to those who don't have the means for marriage. Is the word means in this verse referring to necessary requirements for marriage such as witnesses and a relevant authority to enforce the marriage or is it referring to something like wealth? I think that it refers to something like wealth since witness and other conditions are almost always available and so marriage is possible as opposed to impossible. This is further implied by the following 2433 "...until God enriches them of His Bounty" I don't think one's increase in bounties corresponds to witness, documentation and so on.

Abstain remains open though to what it could be referring to. We should look at it in the context and use our aql for it to make sense. Any ideas how sex might be related to God enriching us of his Bounties? I have an idea but I need to cross-reference and think about it more to see if it's reasonable then I will post it here. I'l also have to make changes to the summary thread.

But I can't deny the good logic involved here. Your right. It does not refer to marriage. Thanks.

farida

I thought marriage did because wealth is needed for marriage but not for sex and since it's addressing those who can't afford marriage but can still theoretically and legally do it, it is making clear....abstain from marriage until you can afford to marry.

Salaam

I must admit that I have only read parts of this thread and one question comes to my mind could marriage/nikkah mean
an intention to start a family(setting up a house hold) where you take someone into nikkah?

Peace

nimnimak_11

Salaam

I must admit that I have only read parts of this thread and one question comes to my mind could marriage/nikkah mean
an intention to start a family(setting up a house hold) where you take someone into nikkah?

Peace

Salam Farida

Originally I thought that the primary purpose for marriage was to establish and document a life-long commitment to one. But the more I read verses about marriage, the more I get the impression that nikah, is primarily for establishing rights and legalities with regards to inheritance and starting a family who would come to receive inheritance. So technically it's more about the establishment of family which necessarily or ideally needs a life-long partner then it is to establish a life-long partner since a family would benefit more from a marriage than a couple with no children.

Faithful-Jinn

Peace Faithful-Jinn.

I will clarify again what I said. Sex is lawful so long as you are married to each other

There are numerous definitions of " marriage" depending of what tradition/people/part of the world.... you belong.

The verse you provided does not allow sex outside marriage.

Peace.

ignore

That is what you're doing. No evidence to support your claim and you totally ignored my own evidence by dismissing the long accepted meanings of the words.

This is one problem I have with many people on this forum. People think they can create new meanings for words and dismiss the age old usage as if they have the true meaning that God intended and that everyone else is wrong.

You can make the Qur'an say anything you want if you reinterpret all the words but there is no denying that since it was revealed and up until today there has been accepted meanings of certain words and verses and that many of these meanings are likely how Muhammad and the Sahaba applied them originally.

I mean I can speak to you and say that a verse says "He Allah is One" and then you can tell me that Allah really means not a god and that one really means three and then we just have nonsense and conjecture. This is ridiculous.

nimnimak_11

ignore

That is what you're doing. No evidence to support your claim and you totally ignored my own evidence by dismissing the long accepted meanings of the words.

This is one problem I have with many people on this forum. People think they can create new meanings for words and dismiss the age old usage as if they have the true meaning that God intended and that everyone else is wrong.

You can make the Qur'an say anything you want if you reinterpret all the words but there is no denying that since it was revealed and up until today there has been accepted meanings of certain words and verses and that many of these meanings are likely how Muhammad and the Sahaba applied them originally.

I mean I can speak to you and say that a verse says "He Allah is One" and then you can tell me that Allah really means not a god and that one really means three and then we just have nonsense and conjecture. This is ridiculous.

and that's when it becomes established that someone is likely just making things up. This may be sometimes be the case here but not all the time.

farida

Salam Farida

Originally I thought that the primary purpose for marriage was to establish and document a life-long commitment to one. But the more I read verses about marriage, the more I get the impression that nikah, is primarily for establishing rights and legalities with regards to inheritance and starting a family who would come to receive inheritance. So technically it's more about the establishment of family which necessarily or ideally needs a life-long partner then it is to establish a life-long partner since a family would benefit more from a marriage than a couple with no children.

Salaam nimnimak

I too deduce similar understandings.
At the moment there are at least three threads running on this subject so its will condfuse things if I start discussing MMK but I agree with your view based on the Qur'an on this subject, even though I am a woman o .

Bigmo

Salam Farida

Originally I thought that the primary purpose for marriage was to establish and document a life-long commitment to one. But the more I read verses about marriage, the more I get the impression that nikah, is primarily for establishing rights and legalities with regards to inheritance and starting a family who would come to receive inheritance. So technically it's more about the establishment of family which necessarily or ideally needs a life-long partner then it is to establish a life-long partner since a family would benefit more from a marriage than a couple with no children.

Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who think.

nimnimak_11

Salaam nimnimak

I too deduce similar understandings.
At the moment there are at least three threads running on this subject so its will condfuse things if I start discussing MMK but I agree with your view based on the Qur'an on this subject, even though I am a woman o .

Salam Farida

Thanks. I'm still waiting on the discussion with others to end in the other thread (I still need to hear back from Wakas to see if he has anything to add. Plus I need to respond to noon and mazhar) and then I'm planning on doing an update on the summary. Plus I need to respond to good logic but I'l do it in the other thread and post the link to him in this thread so as not to lead this conversation purely in that direction. I have an answer to him, but I want to triple check it first.

Salam Bigmo

Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who think.

I'm not suggesting that marriage is exclusively for children and the start of families. I think it is of more benefit and relevance to a couple who plan on children (whether this be natural pregnancy or adoption) than a couple who do not have this same goal in mind.

Love and affection, tranquility and contentment can occur outside of marriage and a proposal/agreement to marriage can enhance this and add to the security of this.

But I don't think that it can be said that a couple who don't have wealth and resources should try for a child outside of marriage. Here I think it becomes more important, relevant and necessary that a couple marry. Inheritance and rights plus identity of the child ought to be established so that ideally, the child will not become an orphan.

I think there is a clear seperation and distinction between sexual activity and trying for a child and in my opinion the waiting periods and the refrain/abstain at 2433 must be referring to those that seek to start a family or try for a child. I say this because I have the following in mind

There are sperm donors and there are egg donors. Someone who seeks to have children, can do so without any sexual activity. For example men who want children could go after an egg donor and women who want children could go after a sperm donor. A couple can even be each other's donors and get pregnant without any sexual activity and without marrying and without having the resources to bring up their respective children.

Thus it needs to be made clear what the Quran's intention is with regards to the waiting periods, the purpose of nikah and what one should refrain/abstain from before marriage. In my opinion since the two are distinguishable (trying for children and sexual activity) it needs to be determined which the Quran is referring to and in my opinion, it is with regards to children andd pregnancies rather than sexual activity.

Gnosis

As-Salaam Alaikum,

A bit more of my input on the subject

In reality only two "religions" exist, and that's 1). Self Knowledge and 2). Spiritual Ignorance

Self Knowledge is Truth. To seek anywhere else for Truth (any other philosophy, religion, or way of life) other than Self Knowledge is only following conjecture. This is not a belief of mine, this I KNOW.

All the ancient scriptures and the Prophets that brought them, from Musa with the Torah, Krishna with the Gita, Buddha with his teachings, Isa with the Gospel, to Muhammad with the Qur'an (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all), when you read their uncorrupted teachings from the correct perspective they all teach about Self Knowledge. I can't stress Self Knowledge enough. It has nothing to do with religion, it has nothing to do with a wrathful sky deity, it's about the Oneness with ALL in existance and the understanding of this huge energy matrix we call reality and your place in it, as a microcosm within the macrocosm.

The problem is how people understand Allah and Islam. There are two huge distractions that lead people to the wrong understanding

The Bible - I know many here like to defend the authencity of the Bible saying that the Qur'an confirms these scriptures but that's simply not true. The Bible is not the original Torah/Gospel the Qur'an refers to. The Bible is a Jesuit/Masonic spell book created purposely to enslave your mind and percieve the Creator as some wrathful sky deity. In reality, the Bible makes you submit to the demiurge. Since most people see the god of the Bible as being the same God of the Qur'an (which they are not), they view the concept of Allah with the same understanding they have of YHWH given in the Bible. This is the error. (The concept of Allah is the God of Abraham, not the concept of YHWH, and they are not the same). When you couple this with
The Hadith - This only further adds to the confusion trying to have the proper understanding of Allah and Islam. Faithful Jinn I disagree that you should use the hadith as historical evidence for the hadith was also written by Jesuits/Masons. In the hadith they say the Prophet (pbuh) was white, when there is in fact clear real historical evidence that proves he was black. Not that the color of the Prophet (pbuh) matters in this discussion, I'm just pointing out to you that they aren't even reliable for historical proof. And of course everyone here already rejects them as being authorative on the deen.

Again, all the scriptures and their Prophets true teachings were about Self Knowledge. I will say this to you Faithful Jinn, I can tell by your post that you are sincere with wanting to walk the path of Truth, I support you on that and I say that to say this The Qur'an is the best scripture you can use on your journey towards Truth simply because it is uncorrupted and the most current and relevant, but IT IS NOT NECESSARY. A man can find Allah/Truth without ever having to read the Qur'an for the eternal law and scripture is already written inside every persons heart. It is simply a map, a great map at that! Sure, you can start in Washington D.C. and make it to Los Angeles without every looking at a map, but if you were to use a map it'd be much easier to maybe avoid a lot of obstacles on your journey. Whether you choose to use a map on your journey or not matters not, what matters is just the fact that you're on the journey! It's when you stay still that you are in error (and in your case "staying still" would be accepted a "faith" just because it feels or sounds good or just blindly accepting something as truth).

I support you brother, I wish I could have a one on one discussion with you about things. My suggestion, study Egypt and ancient cultures. A wise man once said "words like god are Greek or Latin, so if you study Egypt, you'll see the truth written by the masters".

GODsubmitter

As-Salaam Alaikum,

A bit more of my input on the subject

In reality only two "religions" exist, and that's 1). Self Knowledge and 2). Spiritual Ignorance

Self Knowledge is Truth. To seek anywhere else for Truth (any other philosophy, religion, or way of life) other than Self Knowledge is only following conjecture. This is not a belief of mine, this I KNOW.

All the ancient scriptures and the Prophets that brought them, from Musa with the Torah, Krishna with the Gita, Buddha with his teachings, Isa with the Gospel, to Muhammad with the Qur'an (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all), when you read their uncorrupted teachings from the correct perspective they all teach about Self Knowledge. I can't stress Self Knowledge enough. It has nothing to do with religion, it has nothing to do with a wrathful sky deity, it's about the Oneness with ALL in existance and the understanding of this huge energy matrix we call reality and your place in it, as a microcosm within the macrocosm.

The problem is how people understand Allah and Islam. There are two huge distractions that lead people to the wrong understanding

The Bible - I know many here like to defend the authencity of the Bible saying that the Qur'an confirms these scriptures but that's simply not true. The Bible is not the original Torah/Gospel the Qur'an refers to. The Bible is a Jesuit/Masonic spell book created purposely to enslave your mind and percieve the Creator as some wrathful sky deity. In reality, the Bible makes you submit to the demiurge. Since most people see the god of the Bible as being the same God of the Qur'an (which they are not), they view the concept of Allah with the same understanding they have of YHWH given in the Bible. This is the error. (The concept of Allah is the God of Abraham, not the concept of YHWH, and they are not the same). When you couple this with
The Hadith - This only further adds to the confusion trying to have the proper understanding of Allah and Islam. Faithful Jinn I disagree that you should use the hadith as historical evidence for the hadith was also written by Jesuits/Masons. In the hadith they say the Prophet (pbuh) was white, when there is in fact clear real historical evidence that proves he was black. Not that the color of the Prophet (pbuh) matters in this discussion, I'm just pointing out to you that they aren't even reliable for historical proof. And of course everyone here already rejects them as being authorative on the deen.

Again, all the scriptures and their Prophets true teachings were about Self Knowledge. I will say this to you Faithful Jinn, I can tell by your post that you are sincere with wanting to walk the path of Truth, I support you on that and I say that to say this The Qur'an is the best scripture you can use on your journey towards Truth simply because it is uncorrupted and the most current and relevant, but IT IS NOT NECESSARY. A man can find Allah/Truth without ever having to read the Qur'an for the eternal law and scripture is already written inside every persons heart. It is simply a map, a great map at that! Sure, you can start in Washington D.C. and make it to Los Angeles without every looking at a map, but if you were to use a map it'd be much easier to maybe avoid a lot of obstacles on your journey. Whether you choose to use a map on your journey or not matters not, what matters is just the fact that you're on the journey! It's when you stay still that you are in error (and in your case "staying still" would be accepted a "faith" just because it feels or sounds good or just blindly accepting something as truth).

I support you brother, I wish I could have a one on one discussion with you about things. My suggestion, study Egypt and ancient cultures. A wise man once said "words like god are Greek or Latin, so if you study Egypt, you'll see the truth written by the masters".

Piece @Gnosis,

I am replying to the part of your post which I colored red, to show that in the Bible Allah is in fact probably the variation of the same CONCEPT that is in the Qur'an!
Here you have it colored green and red in my post

Genesis 11

In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11

In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11

In the beginning YeYa created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11

In the beginning Elaha created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11

In the beginning Alaha created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11
.
In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11
(&#8054 .
In principal God created the heaven and the earth.

is literal translation of that should not be translated in English.

Gen 11
?
In the beginning?

Gen 11
In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram.
In the beginning God made heaven, and earth.

The Old Latin has fecit instead of creavit. This word is usually inscribed after the name of an artist or sculptor.

Gen 11
In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.
In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

YeYa is Tanakh.info?s English transliteration of which is an abbreviation for the Tetragrammaton YHWH or Adonay. In the Targums, the name YHWH was replaced by two ?yods? with a ?waw? over them, thus , which letters are equal in value to YHWH (10+6+10 = 10+5+6+5= 26).

I agree that self-knowledge is very important, but it is not all, and someone's inclination to Esoterism can be as precious as dangerous without an initiated Teacher.
I apologize to @Faithful Jinn for a slight digression to the thread by my post.

johan

You do know that every human being that has believed in a religion has thought the same thing right? That is how religion began in the first place! Mankind has a natural tendency to rationalize the world around him and try to influence that world. This is the basis of religion.

That is your conjecture
I doubt conjectures

The ancient Aztecs used to think that if they didn't sacrifice a beating human heart to their gods on a regular basis that the sun would fail to rise the next day! So on a regular basis they would select one of their people, have the priests take them to the altar/temple/pyramid and they would brutally cut out their heart while they were still alive and offer it to their gods.

i don't believe what the Aztecs believe in

They continued to do this and the sun continued to rise. It was a perfectly good and consistent life and it was consistent with how they saw the world around them. Didn't make it true.

then don't believe in it
at the end of the day, if it becomes hard on you it's probably a sign that it's not the right thing..

Well that's because your basis of morality is based on the Qur'an. Your God doesn't think you know what right and wrong are and so he gives you law to follow. Nothing you think can be correct or incorrect it is all up to the Qur'an to think for you.

and you think you know?
good luck to that

You must think then that it is "correct" to own slaves and have sex with female war captives. Also you must think it was "correct" for a grown adult to marry a 6 year old child and marry her at age 9.

your assumption doesn't hold
there is no verse that talks about slaves the way you think of it
afaa is no slave
MMA is no slave
raqaba is slave
we are ordered to free the raqaba
you are mixing 7adeeth with truth, that is your fault not mine
see, the problem is that you have no faith, you have no optimism in Allah SWT

So you like the fact that there is an established guide and you don't have to struggle to come up with your own morals or concepts of right and wrong?
If the Qur'an is direct from God how can it be inconsistent?!

inconsistent is your understanding
that's why you live in this world, to weed out the misunderstood ideas
to experience the pain out of misunderstood concept so that you become enlightened

Surely if it is the direct word of God you must accept and follow every single letter as perfect and unchangeable wisdom for humanity.

How do you decide which part is consistent and which part is inconsistent?

by looking at His signs
by trying to see from His prespective of the world
only then can you be united in action but not necesserily united in soul

embrace the change
happy raya (taqabballah minna wa minkum, minal 3aideen wal faaizeen inshaallah)
won't be around for the next two-three weeks
take care

Zulf

@Gnosis

Very interesting

@GODSubmitter

The most important thing I think is the approach and underlying reasons and aims with the seeking.
When you seek something e.g. to escape you inner or to sooth your mind, or any other "symptom treating" path, then anything can become the drug/breather/escape/distraction. This goes for example for things like entertainment, drugs, sex, social events, tv, exercise, hobbies, spirituality, religion... i.e. anything. This is also when it is easy to start follow a certain teacher, instead of following ones path, towards betterment and insight. So, the dangers lie in oneself. Self ignorance can never sustain a straight path. Self knowledge is a must, i.e. it is of utmost importance to continuously work on and improve one's self knowledge, simply because your perceive your entire world through your senses and filter it through your mind. If you have poor self knowledge, then how can you get any good knowledge about the rest of the world? It all starts with oneself. That's why it is said "know thyself".

Gnosis

Piece @Gnosis,

I am replying to the part of your post which I colored red, to show that in the Bible Allah is in fact probably the variation of the same CONCEPT that is in the Qur'an!
Here you have it colored green and red in my post

Genesis 11

In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11

In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11

In the beginning YeYa created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11

In the beginning Elaha created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11

In the beginning Alaha created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11
.
In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.

Gen 11
(&#8054 .
In principal God created the heaven and the earth.

is literal translation of that should not be translated in English.

Gen 11
?
In the beginning?

Gen 11
In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram.
In the beginning God made heaven, and earth.

The Old Latin has fecit instead of creavit. This word is usually inscribed after the name of an artist or sculptor.

Gen 11
In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.
In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

YeYa is Tanakh.info?s English transliteration of which is an abbreviation for the Tetragrammaton YHWH or Adonay. In the Targums, the name YHWH was replaced by two ?yods? with a ?waw? over them, thus , which letters are equal in value to YHWH (10+6+10 = 10+5+6+5= 26).

Yes, what you poiunted out here is true the original text does say Elohim which can be tied to Allah, this is due to the story of Genesis coming from two different sources. The source from Genesis 1 is from the source that always refers to god as "Elohim" but the source from which Genesis 2 and the story of Adam, Eve and the garden comes from what they call the Yawhist source that always refers to god as YHWH. If you go back and reread the original text from the story of the garden you will see the other always calls god YHWH.

I wasn't necessarily referring to the semantics of YHWH/Allah though, I was more so referring to the concepts themselves and how they are understood from scripture. The understanding of YHWH and the understanding of Allah are two different concepts totally when broken down.

I agree that self-knowledge is very important, but it is not all, and someone's inclination to Esoterism can be as precious as dangerous without an initiated Teacher.I apologize to @Faithful Jinn for a slight digression to the thread by my post.

I am interested on what you meant by the underlined.

nimnimak_11

Peace good logic

I've further replied to you here at post number 765
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599777.760

I didn't want to derail the thread. Just wanted point out that evidence should be used.

Farida, thanks again for reminding me. Once I got into the discussion I forgot I was derailing the thread.