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

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