Nearness and Guidance -> Knowledge and Wisdom = Peace and Prosperity

Man_of_Faith

Salaam Jafar,

He did not do so for there was not a whole scripture which was completely chaotic in interpretation. The Tawrateh is just the 'Commandments' plus a few supplementary rules. Yet Jesus did comment on invented traditions which the sectarian clergy had come up with, so you cannot say that Jesus did not comment on their religious practices. And he referred negatively to the concept with GOD while favoring Father.

He even said that their religious practices even contradicted the very decree they claimed to follow. I can also that, for example, regarding that house in a place called Mecca, if they claim they follow Torawteh.

And Jesus referred to Paganism although in the tongue of Jesus it would have been another word. In Arabic it is Jinn. It is not meant as a curse word but a definition for a particular perception of life. It is a choice, or blindness, and no one should be discriminated because of it. The term Pagan used in the Gospels is probably be meant to refer to worldliness and a worldly person. And if you read a dictionary definition for the word you will find the connotation. It does not have to do with polytheism or serving another god but the concept of materializing gods and their world.

Quran is bringing sorrow in the world. Just look at the third world. And then refer back to the mainstream interpretation of Quran. They are both equally tragic.

And you just echo my words with that he did not write any "Holy Book". A prophet does not have to do that, and the majority of prophets did not. It is not what it means to be a prophet.

However they may help with interpretation of current texts, highlight inconsistency in followed traditions, but most importantly they offer a good alternative.

I am clearing out everything that is distorted in Quran. Do I not have the right to do so?

If I can show I master the winemaking then I can give everyone a new wineskin to pour the new wine in, because they will accept my wine. But if my wine is of poor quality then they will not accept and drink it, even if the old wine they drink is only mediocre and bitter.

(to make a new parable for you if you can understand it)

I could care less about a religion called Islam or Quran actually too for that sake, it is only that to reach the consciousness of many people I have to draw their attention first by astonishing them with ability to actually make sense of the senseless text Quran.

And our friend Jesus was very fixated with the prophecies of Isaiah. You say he did not refer to some scripture but he actually did. He followed the prophecy of Isaiah to the letter. And everyone was amazed at his ability to interpret the holy scriptures when teaching in the synagogues, so you cannot say he did not use the tradition at hand even if he explained the dynamics of the realm/kingdom and used his own words such as Father. Anyway, he avoided religious vocabulary and instead spoke mainly in parables to people.

And I doubt the Biblical Gospels cover everything that he ever said in his life. It would be strange in that case. It often says he went and taught, but frequently no reference what he said.

He did refer to old statutes, commented on falsehood and religious practices, so you cannot say he did not interfere on the sectarian bias. He was executed because of his claims and it was the explanation on how the GOD phenomenon works which was it for the clergy. They called it blasphemy. And Jesus also forgave sins whereas the clerics were upset over this, for "who but GOD can forgive sins".

And he also fulfilled the whole prophecy of Isaiah in the end, which he referred to the whole time, as an additional sign.

But just like him, I do not intend to give people new wine in old wineskins. Never.

Had it not been for other people, to help them, I would have thrown Quran out the window, nearly. There are so many wise men and women teaching something better than that corrupt interpretation, especially in certain Buddhist monasteries, and even Christian priests about the love of Jesus (disregarding the errors in perception).

And like you see, I refer to any source of knowledge and wisdom, but I prefer the better and it might come out of the mouth of man directly than on paper. It is harder to truly apply it rather than it being only lipservice.

Salaam

IAMOP

Salaam,

And if an enlightened person (nabi/prophet) has the immersion in the realm then obviously they can compile a work like Quran since they have the insight, and knowledge and wisdom.

Anyone with some spiritual ascension/growth could make a substitute for Quran with varying quality depending on their immersion and growth. However, the one who wrote Quran most likely had the highest level of wisdom available when this person chose to write it, probably by incitement of The Rabb (The Foundation/Platform itself).

Exactly how the phenomenon of the Platform (Rabb) works (its nature) I have no particular clue about. It seems like be an independent source of intelligence and a consciousness. The Rabb appears to be a personality though although perfect since with no desires or needs. It simply is, exists and is existence itself, the underlying foundation. It is the best boss you can have due to no bias. Considered how it all works dynamically, if you have The Rabb as boss you are boss over yourself since you are part of that existence (Allah). It is wonderful to have that knowledge, but also difficult to explain it except through parables.

Just in response to this;
Peace be with you first and foremost in this time of profound earthly change and a divergence of the multifarious paths laying ahead

No human or jinn could have written the quran, no, it is not of that nature. This is because the beings currently under trial ARE the man and jinn and the quran is designated a perfect guidance TO man and jinn, a failsafe, so it is consequently comprehended from the sheer simplicity of this fact of the matter )

Regardless we may approach the point from a different vantage point - that of the observation of individual enlightened beings. It is said 'before enlightenment chop wood and fetch water, after enlightenment chop wood and fetch water' - a statement from which much meaning may be gleamed, one aspect being that the trial continues! Purity is still to be attained - physical, mental, spiritual, much work remains to be done post-enlightenment. The actual direct enlightenment/union point is a complete cleansing of the nafs and a complete rest and reset, thenward on the soul has many choices wherefrom to continue development. Ultimately the gravity of one's actions post-enlightenment becomes in a way even more significant in that one fully is now aware of the highest and lowest aspects of consciousness and truth and good and evil consequently these actions shall more than likely by the Creator be examined in far more detail but that remains to be recognised by this individuated vehicle of expression.

It is simply not possible in any way shape or form to create alike the likeness of the quran, absolutely no, nada, not possible. Every individual enlightened being must continue onward in their journey to the Infinite Truth... Further study of the quran is necessary

Many enlightened individuals do not take the quran itself as their foremost guidance in my recognition thus far, whereby it is predicted that the Creator may be preparing the Earth for a new kind of quranically guided enlightened being, this transcending the limitations fully of prior knowledge heralding the doorway into hyperspatial communication between individuated sentient beings

A little birdy told me

peace

Man_of_Faith

Salaam brother IAMOP,

Quran is written by a human which was immersed in the spirit of Allah. It could be said that it was not written by a jinn, at least. A "nirvana" most probably. And the words are not the writer's own but what is inspired to this person in "sync" with the Rabb in Allah. I think you know this due to your insightful ascension.

It contains peculiar riddles, particularly in the beginning of several chapters, too ingeniously devised to be a standard human who would be too narrow-minded to leave such trails, especially when the lonely letters are a hint to how the language is meant to be understood in the first place and at the same time be part of the discourse carrying their own meaning to an extent that it becomes a riddle.

But a person who had the grace of Allah then they would be able to compile a similar work a Quran, beyond doubt, if The Rabb willed and it was prophecied.

I read your elaboration about that the path continues after enlightenment and that is true. For as long as you have to stick around with your beast body you will always encounter challenges, even if the enlightenment will make it easier to handle them.

When you grow spiritually you will however feel that the body becomes more a robot and more like some clumsy piece of meat you have to take care of. If you perceive it that way you have progressed far and you instantly see why the word Shaytaan actually means Temptation (desire). The instincts are Shaytaan, the flesh.

Since you are barred inside a hopeless advanced primate, you have to balance its desire (so that you do not kill it since it is a gross sin). But if you are killed it is an immense blessing, if you were ready spiritually, like Jesus was when he got murdered. So never be afraid of dying and look forward to the day you die as your Rabb has foreseen. But do not hasten it. I look forward to the day I die personally. I know my dissolved body and ethereal consciousness will feel indescribably different from having to drag along with this beast, as long as I reach SALAM (soundness/perfection).

Salam is like Arabic's word for nirvana. Why else would people in semitic tradition greet each other with salaam? Because you wish them perfection and thus salvation. The tradition has forgotten itself why they live and it has become a blind chase for a separate image called Allah. Talk about delusion.

You die in salam when you have freed yourself from your flesh and gained the spirit. As much as you can replace desire with filling a need detached from instinct the better.

Some people may hate it if I say it, but copulation is good if one avoids since it is a prime instinctive drive and if they suppress it then it is easier to find the spirit. People should try if they can comprehend that it would be beneficial.

It will probably hurt in the reproductive organs after a while, but then they can "sin" and 'do it' for the sake of their beast's peace, with their spouse or privately. I know some people say "what he heck", but honestly people should try to detach themselves from instinctive drive and see the result. I do not try to be the pope, it is an advice and not a doctrinal ruling.

Some people may argue, giving themselves an instinctively influenced excuse that it helps against their arousal among the opposite gender, but been there done that and experimenting. It makes little difference after training. You may even become fairly pacified in company of the opposite gender. The asexual soul comes forth since the spirit has no gender. Train yourself and they will no longer be a turn on factor for you anymore.

No need for segregation for people who can control themselves.

The only problem is some pain below if it goes too long... your beast reminds you. It has production ongoing whether you like it or not. I dislike this dependency, but I am freed from it hopefully soon.

This kind of living does not mean you will be miserable. On the contrary, soon it will feel like a huge relief and it is a step towards your spirit controlling the beast rather than the opposite. You are no slave anymore. You are in control. You lack desire. You lack Shaytaan, or at least until you make your next mistake provoked by your neighbor's desire which disturbs your defense.

But it is possible to vaccinate yourself; if you practice on dealing with that neighbor in clear Jesus manner you can avoid desire being provoked and you can be relatively immune. Learn to Be humble, if the other wants something give him the double, if they slap you on one cheek offer the next (instead of giving back), do not fight them unnecessarily over their ego for it will be fighting fire with fire, be opposite of how you would have reacted and so to say dare to try your temptation of instincts, say okay and do more often than complaining even if you have to do more, even if you do a favor for someone 100 times do not expect anything in return, forgive the sins of your brother towards you infinitely and so on.

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

Salaam,

Arabic, and Hebrew/Aramaic for that sake, are very intriguing languages due to their linguistic structure which interestingly either was news or forgotten knowledge now in the 21st century AD.

It appears more and more to me that its structure is based on the combination of letters used more than a traditional semantic combination, since the meaning is built fundamentally on the individual letters themselves to give what the language wants to convey. It has been hard for people around me to accept and it would appear quite farfetched so to a part I can understand their reluctance to accept my stance.

It seems so peculiarly constructed, Arabic, that it nearly does not feel like a human invention that language. If it is then it is very ingeniously done and I must applaud that person. The Arabic used for Quran has a very high precision and is extremely logical. It is hard to misunderstand which is ironical since the grand majority of interpretations out there contain gross errors where many passages do not even represent the correct context as the original Arabic text conveys for real. The interpreters had often absolutely not a clue what they were doing. And it is showing by the amount of sectarian bias inserted.

Quran's sectarian interpretation resembles Rabbinical Judaism and to some extent Zoroastrianism. The interpreters had "namaz", strict duty ritual, in their doctrine and they forced Quran to convey the same. Persians are to blame including Judaism. I see little difference between the sects. Both treat GOD physically and like a separate object and that perception contaminated Quran's interpretation.

Quran, in their perception, teaches people to be very instinctive and worldly completely contrary to what GOD stands for. It says you can enjoy the provisions of the Earth to the verge of total indulgence which is against the message. It says the Hereafter is a physical paradise which is completely wrong.

Hereafter is dissolution, if one manages to succeed, i.e. no more flesh and an ethereal state of being.

A physical "paradise" simply shows the Pagan idealism. And sure, the losers will feel that physical delusion because they will be given more of it. Body upon body will be given them, like an endless curse.

The Quran, in their perception, teaches that GOD is a distinctly separate entity rather than following up on Jesus' enlightened information about the symbiotic coexistence with GOD to which phenomenon he said "I am in the Father (Creator) and the Father (Creator) is in me" and additionally he said "If you do like me you will all children of the Father". He showed the way. He invited. "Repent, for the Kingdom is at hand", he and John the Baptist said.

Quran's traditional interpretation is in line with the sectarian doctrine and dogma of the time of Jesus and presents the Pagan delusion. What you follow, unless you have the perception of assimilation and immersion, is centuries of sectarian views on the matter which follow classical Pagan ideology about a materialized deity entity. Does not help it is called Allah, it is equally bad.

The Rabb is a constitution, not an entity.
The prophets came several times teaching against this concept of Pagan-style gods but people truly have stubborn hearts. "I am that am I" The Rabb, visible as a shining light expressed to Moses. "Go to the 'Children of Israel' and say 'I AM' has sent you", expressed The Rabb through the shining light. The concept of immersion in the realm and symbiosis was taught already back then thousands of years ago.

You see a pattern, if you read the Gospel testimonies written by the followers of Jesus, for Jesus teaches the exactly same kind of concept with no difference except that it has gone a couple of millennia since Moses. The clergy is going crazy, they cannot stand his teaching about immersion in the Father, as Jesus puts it. It diminished all what the clergy had been standing for during centuries. The separate GOD image was threatened. Jesus was accused of blasphemy towards GOD.

"Who can forgive sins but GOD alone", they murmured.

"I am in the Father and the Father is in me" was enough for the boiling clergymen. In their ignorance they had not expected such a prophet/messiah but one who would confirm their religious doctrine. Interestingly, the fate of Jesus had already been prophesied by Isaiah, so it was already clear that they would not have faith as they did not have faith before.

The same kind of information would not be taken in with open arms if it was preached today 2015 to the sects. People can simply not comprehend a constitutional phenomenon "which is who it is" (the literal meaning of Allah). People would like to put me in jail or even murder me if I argued too strongly about this view of the GOD phenomenon. And it is all due to their instincts (Shaytaan) and they cannot stand what they have no knowledge of in their pride and not be humble enough to consider all the elaboration to show how it is.

The symbiotic GOD phenomenon is very clear. It has been so for thousands of years. Even the writers of the Genesis (a story from the Biblical scriptures) knew. It says that man was made (to be) in GOD's image. You see what kind of connection/link is expected. Not some kind of delusional ritual to establish connection, so-called "Contact Prayer" (salat). The link should be permanent and in the manner of immersion.

Quran teaches the same as two key prophets in the context, Moses and Jesus. Rest assured. Quran does not teach that GOD is separate from Creation except for those who deliberately choose that direction whom are given more of the world. Worth noticing is that the realm (Allah) is not the flesh. Those who choose the flesh are not with GOD but they are jinn. And in this regard, flesh = the physical world/illusion, not the real existence. Be realized, the one who loves his/her body and physical surroundings rather than his/her/its soul has missed the point (genders do only exist in the flesh, the soul is asexual/genderless). So GOD could use just one third person letter to mark that since no gender exists and the letter used (&#1607 also means 'attachment'.

The main reason to marry and stay with the opposite gender is to have an easier time controlling the instincts of your beastly gender because the two genders complement each other. When you can think through the eyes of the other gender by union, then it interestingly has the spectacular effect of mildering the instinctive affection on your soul. To much of a man is not good and the woman balances that. And too much of a woman is not good and the man balances that. But when misogyny or misoandry (oppression) occurs then this reason for marriage falls completely and the person may as well not have married in the first place for he is a lost jinn and shaytaan.

But we have to be aware of our beastly selves. It is utterly important. If we are then we can find our spirit which we are after. The one who is blinded by this world will not see the purpose and they risk eternal tormenting because the world becomes like a curse. They just become more and more broken.

Salaam

Zulf

Nice!

I was also wondering. Some people have no confidence in the official grammar rules of the Quranic Arabic. I know that words can be given wrong meanings, but how can a grammar be faulty? Is it part of the grammar that is faulty/invented, or is it all of the grammar? I mean, the grammar taught as Quranic Arabic is not just random. Grammar is by definition a system with coherence, and with some exceptions.
I would really like to know from those who dismiss arabic grammar as unreliable, how they view the current taught grammar. What is false with it? I'm asking because I haven't learnt quranic arabic myself. It's nt something you do over night.

Peace

Man_of_Faith

Salaam brother Zulf,

It is hard to say what is the failing link without a time machine at hand. Based on my constant research and discoveries it is as if Arabic, at least the version used for Quran, had never been understood properly since there are so gross errors.

Obviously there is grammar for Arabic just as for any other coherent language. I do not reject grammar, I just find the available grammar knowledge to be severely flawed.

During the ongoing project I have seen that words are given an armada of meanings despite there is no justification for this. Because Arabic words are constructed out of peculiar 'Innate Letter Meanings' it means that words basically only have one type of meaning which cannot have several completely opposite meanings but need to mean something "along the lines".

The grammar of Arabic is quite logical and straightforward unless some scholar is complicating things. Usually you can easily see where a new segment of text is supposed to start and stop with some practice. The sentences are interestingly simple in structure thanks to the logical and straightforward grammar.

Interpreters have made it complicated by saying 'not' for words such as because it takes another grammar to fit that to become no in the Quranic Arabic. has a meaning similar to 'to be' in English but would likely attain the "that is/are" in a translation to make sense. Ironically, the word Allah, with similar letters, means 'to be that it is'. An alternative recent understanding for is also 'relate'. Arabic letters have the simplest/most primitive possible meaning.

And I tell you that if my claim does not fit when you try to check it that is because the passage you try it on does in itself need reinterpretation. This is why I have such problems getting any positive response to my work because everyone is skeptical but I know this is the truth behind the Arabic and it is a matter of time before I can start delivering fully reinterpreted passages with thorough ability to explain how I reached the conclusion. I have up to this day a fully finished translation up until 28 with 21 as part of the discourse as intended by the author.

Like I said, the grammar in Quran is not faulty in itself, it is those who interpreted it who applied erroneous grammar rules and then lived a life in deception. This tragedy is exposed by my work and could be a bit embarrassing for those who thought they knew Arabic. With my correction the language is far more streamlined than the traditional Arabic you know. It has a very fluent and logical rhythm to convey its meaning.

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

Salaam,

Concerning the word Elah/Allah.

To those who have doubts that I know a thing or two.

I just happened to search Lane's Lexicon for the root of and this definition was included there "a unity comprising all the essences of living things". It is just what I have been arguing for GOD's sake!

I claim that Allah is like saying the realm (the realm is that unity).

I happen to know the literal breakdown of the very word Allah too so this just confirms it from a traditional source.

It is

Be Relate/To Relate/To Attachment (=It="Unity"/One).

Or if you remove the AL particle/prefix it is easier to see

Be Relate/To Attachment (=It="Unity"/One).

, the letter is also constantly recurring in the Arabic language as third person object pronoun (he/she/it). You got the reason why the same letter is used in the word Allah.

I have already mentioned before that no righteous person calls upon Allah in prayer and this is the reason. Those who are knowledgeable call upon 'Rabb' like ya Rabb ( &#1576 and not ya Allah.

To continue; the root alif-lam-lam (which probably is the real root for the Allah word) has connotations Neighbor, bond (could be seen as unity), good origin, "anything which has a quality requiring it to be regarded as sacred", nearness with regard to kindred, promise or an assurance of safety or security.

Note If Lane's Lexicon is based on Arabic/semitic origin then safety or secruity may as well be taken from which does not mean safe/secure but affinity/to be realized in, i.e. the definition may refer to promise to be of affinity.

It is true which is taken from the Biblical scriptures when GOD says to Moses "I AM THAT AM I", only that people misinterpret the statement. "Go to the 'Children of Israel' and say 'I AM' has sent you". Allah is a third person version of this 'I AM THAT AM I' statement. Allah is "IS THAT IT IS", i.e. third person.

In the Genesis it was written Man was created (to be) in GOD's image. It is from the same knowledge. It is only that it is not as easy as it sounds since we have bias and a beastly body constantly deceiving us through its instincts.

With a little careful research you can learn a great deal even from lexicons with a high amount of bias.

And you can also learn that roots are not absolutely correct as understood.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to discover jinn sources which can prove something for those who require jinn evidence and cannot just take my enlightened word for it. This goes hand in hand with my 'Innate Letter Meaning' discovery since more or less everything I have argued about can be confirmed through worldly material.

Soon if you argue against me I do not really know what to do with you. I have showered you with all sorts of signs you know.

The phrase "La Elah ila Allah" does not mean what traditionally implied.

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

Salaam,

I kept studying Lane's Lexicon (while working hard to remain unbiased) and checked the root for jinn and was intrigued but not surprised to find the following definitions for it "Greater part of mankind, mad/insane/UNSOUND in mind/intellect, confusedness, bereft of reason". Of course some of the definitions are a bit exaggerated what a Jinn is, but the point is that the commonly accepted interpretation about concealed/invisible beings is incorrect. The word jinn is supposed to refer to worldly/fleshly people (who are absorbed and lost to their beastly selves) and why it also has connotation as garden through Jannateh because the flesh conceals the ground. It is the actual physical layer of the ground which is referred to as Jannateh and the same logic applies to the people who are Jann in mind, i.e. their thinking is worldly/beastly.

That it refers to something invisible is a misunderstanding of the definitions probably by people (scholars) who worked on interpretation of these texts. Actually the word is supposed to refer to a particular way of thinking and reasoning as opposed to nawasa (root of naas) which refers to a person who has an edge (conscious), so it does not merely refer to mankind but only those who are truly human (i.e. tread in the image of Allah).

Anyway, I tend to be inclined to say that a jinn is a person who simply loves the world, gives in to instincts (shaytaan) and lives their life in indulgence. They are often emotionally attached to their possessions, cry excessively when someone dies, wish for a long life, accept instinctive/beastly behavior, accept their errors as simply human without intention to have a vision of becoming perfected (&#1605 etc.

The jinn is simply not a supernatural invisible being but only desiring, ignorantly, to indulge in what is a pleasure to the beast they have succumbed to. Shaytaan (their beast inside) has deceived and conquered them.

Neither Nas nor Jinn is guaranteed a dissolution of their beastly curse (salvation), but obviously nas have an edge against one who is jinn-minded. A nas-minded has grasped all or part of the essence of faith/life philosophy and are thus triggered to do something about it but they often let their beast bias themselves and they only manage half-way. And they may still give in and succumb to instincts (shaytaan) and let themselves be inspired by jinn-minded people to love the world, so that they are biased.

I urge critics to check the narrative with Solomon where the Jinn among the people suggested to bring down the rule of the Queen through mere violence while the one with an edge (marked with knowledge) suggested diplomacy. What was the jinn here? A narrow-minded person or a supernatural invisible superstitious being? If you are sound, yes obviously the person was just able to think inside the box (their beastly perception). Please understand this. A Jinn is no supernatural being but merely a person without an edge and worldly.

Salaam

seekingthetruth

Salam Man of Faith

This an interesting and very informative topic. Although i did not read most of it, but i'll be back later to read it carefully and ask you some questions. So far, it gave me a new perspective and insight about hajj specifically.

Regards

roshan_m

Peace everyone,

MoF, wow, as always insightful and inspiring explanation of 'jinn'. Could you please provide your interpretation of this verse in surah rahman (sorry its Sahih International but you get the point)

55 15 And He created the jinn from a smokeless flame of fire.

What does this word refer to it? the ground/earth created during the 'Big Bang'??
and also
55 14 He created man from clay like pottery.

For some reason I've been always inspired by surah rahman but those two verse were really fascinating for me and I didn't manage to get the full meaning of them. I would appreciate your humble understanding of those.

Salam
M.

Man_of_Faith

,

There may be updates to older posts which I have not written yet based on improved understanding.

Regarding the word hajj I think I still have the same understanding as when I last wrote about it though. However, the passages I have attempted translation on I could probably do better today.

I know there are quite some pages to browse through on this thread, so just take it carefully and do not hurry.

When I begun writing on this general topic I had the title phrase "Nearness and Guidance -> Knowledge and Wisdom = Peace and Prosperity" on my mind. A lot has been added to that since then, although I suppose I can say that the argument is still valid. Since then, my insight has grown several times. I do however still say that doing/being good is the essence of our faith albeit the belief argument has changed a little into what I call immersion. I do no longer deem that GOD expects people to believe, and that concept is open to abuse, but whoever realizes themselves in what is ALLAH (you can see another post from March 19 concerning what I say about the word ALLAH) will be eligible for "transition" (&#1577. By realization is meant to take on that spirit of mind and be together in ALLAH as the rest of people (angels, prophets, righteous people etc). I am working hard to prove that words like actually refer to such phenomena. This word means 'to realize' literally. I also say that is not a root but it is + i.e. the comes from the root and can be said being simply with a grammatical prefix attached to it to say be + of (thereof integrity). It is more talking about immersion than anything else like belief.

You may know that in Christianity people believe that (amen) means "may it be so" and their idea is not wrong at all. There probably used to be scholars who knew something. In the Biblical Gospels amen is amen (they have not translated it) and the text uses another word for faith/belief, so one can add to the suspicion that amen is not supposed to mean any of those two words. Jesus probably spoke Hebrew/Aramaic so the Biblical texts are more than likely derived from that language even if Greek was prominent due to the occupation influence. In the Gospels, amen is used in such a way that one can easily see it is meant to say "realize, realize" when Jesus says "amen amen I say to you". Another reason is because both Christians and Muslims say amen/amin after prayers and that is because they wish their prayer to be "realized". I have worked hard for perhaps a couple of years on the phenomenon of amen and I see a pattern and also in Arabic it does not refer to to belief/faith. You can believe/have faith and it is perhaps an advantage, but it is not really what GOD is expecting. You need to have faith that you can realize yourself too in whatever you venture into.

So with that knowledge and wisdom at hand, I would say for salvation (actually it says "transition&quot according to Qur'an the people have to realize themselves in ALLAH (BE THAT IT IS) by "BISMILLAH ALRAHMAN ALRAHEEM", i.e. "with the spirit of 'THAT IS' Benevolent, Merciful', and every other typical trait of GOD there is. If GOD is something then others are supposed to attain the same image. Jesus was not out bicycling (Swedish saying) or misquoted when he said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me". That is the way he willed to show but people, particularly the clergy, got extremely upset by his words, since according to the sectarian dogma that is a clear blasphemy.

5116 in Qur'an is misrepresented; it is supposed to clear out the misconception that people have concerning Jesus being part of a trinity, i.e. separate from GOD rather than inside the realm (ALLAH). I worked hard today to clear it out. Jesus clears out what he said and he said that he made no distinction of his soul compared to that of ALLAH. He did the will of the Father in unity, just as everyone else righteous.

You have further signs from the Biblical "Old Testament" (Tanakh/Torateh) in that GOD said to Moses in response to his question "Who are you?" "I AM THAT AM I". This is a hint to the dynamics of the GOD phenomenon and this was perhaps a 4000 years ago approximately. Hence the real information on how GOD works has been with people for millennia yet the sects always blur what have been said with their traditional Pagan mindset. GOD said to Moses "Go you to the 'Children of Israel' and say 'I AM' has sent you". ALLAH and ELOH(IM) are third-person variants of what GOD said to Moses about the phenomenon.

The famous 'Ten Commandments' say "do not make an image of anything in Heaven or Earth to worship". This commandment is part of the revelation about the dynamics of the GOD phenomenon to the 'Children of Israel' and it explicitly means "NO IMAGE" (even if the image is called ALLAH) and it includes a materialized view of GOD as an entity at all and goes along with the 'I AM THAT AM I' statement. Actually our mind is some severe case of schizophrenia rotfl

I mean we pray to 'The Rabb' and this is an authentic practice, but in truth in ways we pray to ourselves since our 'Rabb' is not separate from us. That means if we pray to the 'Rabb' and treat 'The Rabb' as some sort of slave/secretary that will do all the hard work for us as long as we "worship", then nothing will become realized. The sectarians are not aware of this. 'The Rabb' word could also be regarded as Jesus puts it "Father", because it is something that will foster us (you can check Lane's for the root to see the idea).

Jews regard 'Rabbi' as teacher and 'The Rabb' is like your foster parent. You see that before you can understand this lesson you have to separate the spirit from the flesh because this is absolutely disconnected from jinn world and thus the usual Father - Son concept does not work the same. You see all Jesus taught about the Father - Son stuff were merely parables. Jesus never implied that he was some separate beastly Son of GOD. His best utterance to clear that out was the famous "I am in the Father and the Father in me". If we can find the spirit (by being able to subdue our beastly self) and "tune in" then we can gain "The Rabb" as our Father, this is what Jesus basically tries to convey. It is a kind of complicated (to explain) symbiotic condition. Anyway, it relates to a part in 'Genesis' where the text says that GOD created man in its image". Well, it is true, but that is the goal to be, i.e. in the image of GOD.

As you can see, what the disciples wrote about Jesus is not a pack of lies after all but are fairly much according to the truth. It is mostly mistranslation causing problems and one has to understand what he meant.

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

Salaam roshan,

After you wrote your post I took a look at those passages.

What I can see is that the "flesh" is what the jaan (&#1606 is referring to here in 5515. refers to in commotion (animated) of light (Quran's word for energy or the kind of phenomenon atoms are of. It does refer to light and that is why nahar is day in Arabic because light is attached). For a human we can say it is like the flesh is from nothingness, i.e. nothing you can touch which refers to the nature of atoms and molecules.

There is no mention of any smokeless fire here. It is an idea of ignorant minds. Nothing can be made of fire because it is a chemical reaction and not a substance. It is a reaction that turns the substance from one to another (ashes/coal) and is caused by excessive heat greater than its flammability and is caused by the reaction of energy (friction, relationship to other atoms etc).

It is quite logical that jaan refers to flesh if jannateh refers to garden (Arabic words are very descriptive in their nature). Gehenna refers to the permanency of being doomed to eternal flesh (what differs from jan it is the which means attached like in nahaar (day) rather than facing dissolution (the real goal for us). I think few actually know that (Gehennom) actually refer to this. The word is derived from with being formed just like the word for day in Arabic to mark a state/condition (attachment).

Of course the sects do not want you to have this knowledge because they are slaves to the flesh.

And no, jinn are hence no supernatural invisible beings except a distracting illusion.

In 5514 it appears to refer to the image of a spirit that man is supposed to attain. It speaks a about some sort of magnification/growth. It is very likely not speaking of clay in any way. GOD made man to be in its image. The jaan (flesh) is a distraction. You must perceive this spirit to stay on track. Like Jesus said "separate the spirit from the flesh". By this lesson above I suppose you can even understand his words.

Salaam

seekingthetruth