Origin of Religions?
-
It does not mean worship. It means to be in servitude/serve.
Why does an Almighty God need worship anyway? To boost a huge ego?
You cannot flirt with God to improve your standing. You need to show the caliber of your character.
Salaam
Valid point..
From my point of view the true God loves humility and is very humble..
He maintains his 'obscurity'.. and he always choose people with common humble background as His agent..
Carpenter, renegade, orphan, outcast and slaves..However to further understand why some people think that God needs to be worshiped.
Some Middle Easterners or should I say Westerners views God as human.
Thus they have a strong ancient belief that gods + goddesses decision can be 'influenced' by praises or words (mantra)
Just like how human king will be easily influenced by the praises of his servant.It is consistent with how they view the deed of "praying".
To them.... praying is an act of "Asking for something".. all the mantra and words are said to "persuade" the deity to grant them their wishes.(Pure) Buddhist for example didn't view God as human...
Within their mindset.. they don't have any act which is equivalent to "praying"
Their act of "meditation" is performed with self-centered goal of gaining "ultimate peace within"..
They are not trying to "alter their surrounding reality to fit their wishes" (asking for car, home, wealth, spouse, money, power, career, win something etc..) . but they're trying to "alter themselves to fit the surrounding reality".. -
Why does God need servitude/serve. To boost a huge ego?
He doesn't asked for servitude.. as everything are already His servant..
They all act in accordance to God's wishes..Now it all goes back to you...
What's your attitude about it?
Will you be His servant of 'light'? or His servant of 'darkness'? (In Jedi Lingo) -
It does not mean worship. It means to be in servitude/serve.
Why does an Almighty God need worship anyway? To boost a huge ego?
You cannot flirt with God to improve your standing. You need to show the caliber of your character.
Salaam
Worship is not for God, but for our own self, it is a reminder of our state of surrender, they are gestures which were practiced around the world for this reason and depict and enact the surrender. Worship is very empowering though, and freeing. One can not really show the caliber of their character except if God wills it, and this understanding is part of the surrender, that everything we do or think or can do is from Allah, the good and the bad is from Allah, the happiness, the sadness, the evilness, the goodness, our character, our mistakes, whatever is ultimately from Allah only, and we are in a state of surrender willingly or unwillingly to the Ultimate and only power that is behind all information, animating everything, that can transform anything. We worship for ourselves, not for God, we worship to enact the surrender. It is a good practice I think, it is a meditative exercise, but if you find that you are opposed to it, then even that is Allah's will, some people Allah does not let or make worship, others Allah does, some might not even have good ideas about it, others may understand a good reason for doing it and reap benefit from it.
-
Worship is not for God, but for our own self, it is a reminder of our state of surrender, they are gestures which were practiced around the world for this reason and depict and enact the surrender. Worship is very empowering though, and freeing. One can not really show the caliber of their character except if God wills it, and this understanding is part of the surrender, that everything we do or think or can do is from Allah, the good and the bad is from Allah, the happiness, the sadness, the evilness, the goodness, our character, our mistakes, whatever is ultimately from Allah only, and we are in a state of surrender willingly or unwillingly to the Ultimate and only power that is behind all information, animating everything, that can transform anything. We worship for ourselves, not for God, we worship to enact the surrender. It is a good practice I think, it is a meditative exercise, but if you find that you are opposed to it, then even that is Allah's will, some people Allah does not let or make worship, others Allah does, some might not even have good ideas about it, others may understand a good reason for doing it and reap benefit from it.
Outstanding!
However to further understand why some people think that God needs to be worshiped.
Allah does not need us.
In it are clear signs the station of Abraham. Anyone who enters it shall be granted safe passage.
The people owe it to GOD that they shall observe Hajj to this shrine, when they can afford it.
As for those who disbelieve, GOD does not need anyone.Now it all goes back to you...
What's your attitude about it?
Will you be His servant of 'light'? or His servant of 'darkness'? (In Jedi Lingo)What? confused
Truth of the matter is Allah guides some to worship and serve which is for the worshipper and servants benefit.
God bless
peace
-
He doesn't asked for servitude.. as everything are already His servant..
They all act in accordance to God's wishes..Now it all goes back to you...
What's your attitude about it?
Will you be His servant of 'light'? or His servant of 'darkness'? (In Jedi Lingo)Haha, since you're into Jedi lingo, I thought you might enjoy this thing I wrote
"
A long time ago...there were no divisions between the Sith religion and the religion of the Jedi, there was only one understanding of the Force throughout all the worlds, and this was a complete understanding of the Force.The Force is a word that represents many things, all of which are attributes and manifestations of One Power which pervades and encompasses all reality.
When some spoke of the Force, by it they meant the currents and waves that flow through the Universe. These are the currents that a Jedi seeks to understand, navigating through and by them, both safely and wisely. These currents are generated by all things that exist, just as a stone placed into a pool makes ripples and waves.
The term Jedi meant ?of the time? or ?in the moment? in some languages, and had been adopted by those who sought to do good through the Force within the moment that they existed.
It is no coincidence that the understanding of the Force was enhanced by space travel, as the invisible waves of the Force existed in all places traveled, and could help in giving a push that allowed many to reach their destinations more quickly. Others found that these same waves and currents could slow space travel, even to a halt, and so were deliberately avoided.
When others spoke of the Force, by it they meant the determination of a creature, their intent and desire to accomplish something. These desires could then lead to movements, and these movements would seem to cause further events to take place. In a contest of wills between life forms, some felt that the more determined creature would succeed, while the other would surrender, but wiser ones saw this as only an illusion. In truth, they said, it was not the Force manifested by the intent of a life form that determined its victory, but rather if the Force was with it, and behind it, pushing its success.
It quickly became important politically for those who claimed sensitivity and awareness to the Force to advise those interested in any kind of success. Thus, many, both truly aware of the Force and frauds who claimed knowledge of the Force, were called upon to advise upon every risky endeavor and game of chance.
The Force was also a term used for what can be called the Greater Force, the Ultimate Force, or the Deciding Force. When the activities of life were observed by those who sought to understand the motions and waves of the Force, it seemed clear to some that the Force was alive. Not only did the Force seem alive, but it seemed to have a will of its own, a will that even counteracted the desires and intentions of any life forms present.
It was also understood that the Universe and Galaxy had come into existence and was not infinite. By this time, the waves were everywhere, but it became clear that the waves were not always there, and that all their motion had a point of origin. A pool left untouched will have no waves, nor can it produce any movement of itself. Furthermore, there would be no pool if the ground were not covered in water. A pool has never filled itself, and there was no life in the Universe until life came to exist, so life forms could not be the source of the Force.
All these understandings led to the final conclusion that the Greater Force, the Ultimate Force, was the Deciding Force behind all that exists. It was through the Greater Force that all was manifest, and this could not be done by a mere pool, but that which Decides, and has Will, and Intent independent of anything else. It was this Power that existed always and before anything. It was the First Will, and is even now considered by some the Ultimate Will behind all movements everywhere.
We exist within the Force, surrounded by the Force, and all was made to exist and put into action by the Greater Force, the Deciding Force.
No matter how many waves, lead to more waves, there can not be an infinite series of waves without a single point of origin. So it was understood that The Greater Force encompasses all, and all is even manifested by it and through it, and so all is in a way part of it. Thus, in total, all these definitions came to be called "The Unifying Force" or "The Unified Force".
On the immediate level, we interact with the waves of the Force, producing them and navigating through them constantly, and on the Greater level, these waves are controlled by The Deciding Force.
The Deciding Force is a term that also came to be used alongside the Will of the Force and the Determining Force when speaking of the causes for any success.
So it was established that there was the Force, and that the Force had a Will, and was alive, and active, but did it listen?
It was simple to test, and so the Force came to be called upon in times of need, and in times of praise. It was sought for protection, and even blamed for all mishaps.
The Jedi were those who believed that the Force did listen, even when many in the Galaxy, while accepting that the Force existed, denied that it cared. Indeed it did care, for all life was created by it, and nurtured by it, and by it, all lived.
But this was only part of the story. If the Force was only life, then why was there so much death in the Universe? Stars exploding, planets obliterated, creatures ceasing to exist, alive only for a moment. Those who said the Force is life only spoke part of the truth. The Force was not merely life, and if it was, as some claimed, there would be a true problem even in a vast but finite Universe.
The Force is Balanced, and the earliest observers of the Force came to understand that this Balance was important in maintaining all that exists. Not only was it important in maintaining all things, but it was also important in other ways, ways that many struggled to understand. The Ultimate Force needs nothing to exist since it existed without anything, so why did it create the Universe and the Galaxy?
In the machinations of the Force, all things did seem to have a purpose, and not only a purpose, but a good purpose.
Then it was inspired in some that this was important because it was decided that we should exist, and beyond existing that we should learn. How could one exist, let alone learn anything without information?
Before the Ultimate Force created this Universe, there was no instruction or existence for us. So information was created, and our senses so that we could listen.
Listen to learn, fine, but why? There is much information, and much to learn, but what do we accomplish from learning for the sake of learning? We become wiser, and then what? Wiser and wiser, and wiser? Full of more information, itself arbitrary, bloated and confused?
No, if we were to learn something, it was a lesson that we were to learn. What then is the lesson the Force teaches?
The Story of the Force has always been one story, told in many different ways, through every aspect of the Force, in every place in the Universe.
It is the truth we are to learn, and the truth is that the Force does as it wills. It becomes clear to keen observers that the Will of the Force is unstoppable, and so we are left with no option at all but to learn the lesson of surrender. "Surrender to the Force, and you will find Peace."
This became the final lesson for all those who deeply studied the Force and sought to understand it. The Force could not be undone, it could not be resisted, it always wins, it always gets its way, it is an irresistible power, and the only true power, and all those who realized this would find surrender and fall prostrate before what could be called the Irresistible Force.
The Force supplies everything to everyone, and it does so without needing anything in return, we are left to either appreciate this truth or disregard it, to show our acknowledgment or our disrespect.
It was seen that the Will of the Force is in the favor of those who perform certain actions, who in some ways even act like the Force itself, performing various acts of charity without asking anything in return, soothing pain, and helping those in need. If this was the Will of the Force, then those who sought to navigate by that will and ride on its currents would do what it does in what ways they can and thus be aligned to the Flow of the Force.
The Jedi were ancient believers in all aspects of the Force, who made the greatest efforts to do good throughout the Galaxy and Universe in whatever ways they could. They would start among themselves, their families and surroundings, and expand their efforts even to the most distant worlds and star systems. To beautify the Universe and bring happiness and peace where they could. They sought no reward or payment for this, as they believed the Force itself would repay them for their actions, both in life, and after their inevitable deaths.
The Jedi were loved by those who knew them, and all was well until later generations of Jedi began to develop a new kind of orthodoxy about the Force and how it was to be interpreted.
Perhaps of good intentions, some sought to codify the Jedi beliefs, codes which became corrupted over time by political forces which manipulated the beliefs of the Jedi due to their own fears.
One of the major disputes about the nature of the Force were if it truly had a Will of its own or if it was the will of the majority of life forms in the Galaxy creating an illusion of a Greater Will.
Philosophically it was understood that such a "United Will" of life forms could not be the answer because life forms did not even exist at the time the Force brought life into existence, and so this dispute was resolved, though some were left feeling the Jedi were too religious about the nature of the Force.
The next dispute was about "using" the Force as opposed to being "used by" the Force. Using the Force was meant by some to mean using the Force as one would use a map in order to navigate through decisions and actions, while others implied that the Force could be manipulated by sheer willpower and visualization. It was at this time the famous slogan "You can't force the force" likely came into existence. This dispute was never resolved, with various practitioners, scholars, and teachers emphasizing some schools of thought over others.
The most ancient observers of the Force felt that "forcing the force" was illusory, and that those who did this were only being used by the Force themselves, but in a way which left them ignorant of that and more out of control than they realized. Other believers in the Force were excited by the prospect of "splashing in the waves" and causing things to happen, and this was used by many teachers in spreading the religion of the Force as a means to excite new believers with the prospect of personal empowerment. This was considered by older groups a cheapening of the beliefs relating to the Force and a commercial way to gain followers who were not interested in the true purpose of knowledge in the Force, which was surrender as opposed to empowerment. These older groups felt that such a method of introducing the Force to new believers would merely attract those interested in magic tricks and the pomp surrounding showmanship.
In the end, the commercialized Jedi won this debate by gaining the most followers most quickly, though how many of these followers truly believed and understood the Force is unknown.
It was also at this time that the Republic came into existence and became intertwined with the religion of the Jedi. The introduction of the "lightsaber" was the product of these commercialized Jedi, and the lightsaber itself became a symbol of the Jedi throughout the Galaxy. The Jedi began to assist the fledgling community of worlds in their mission to unite the Galaxy under one Galactic Republic of Law and Civilization, while the Jedi sought to spread the religion of the Force through their assistance and bring peace and harmony to all the worlds.
These sorts of Jedi can not be entirely despised for their efforts, because through them, knowledge of the Force was re-affirmed through much of the Galaxy.
The Republic came to be seen as inseparable from the Jedi, who seemed to most the clear power behind the decisions of the Republic. Due to involvement in various disputes as the Republic grew, the Jedi began training in martial skills, and became more militant than they had ever been before. Even so, the ancient teachings of passivity and peace were still a major part of the Jedi teaching, even among the militarized Jedi.
Fighting and warfare had always been considered a last resort for the Jedi, and solutions that relied on intelligence and negotiation were always emphasized. The Jedi believed in defending themselves, but killing was largely shunned as too final a solution to most problems.
The ancient Jedi, before their involvement with the Republic, had peacefully practiced their religion and spread it gently throughout the worlds. The newer Jedi of the Republic seemed to earn a different reputation for the religion of the Force than that of their peaceful predecessors. Some worlds resistant to the Jedi began to call the religion of the Force the ?religion spread by the lightsaber".
World after world came to join what started as a congregation of tribes and nations on a single world, which grew to include a small trading community within a single solar system, and finally expanded to become a galaxy wide republic with tremendous influence over the governments of many worlds.
Both the commercial version of the Jedi religion and the ancient beliefs in "surrendering to the Force" spread during this time, with those students interested in the religious aspects of the Jedi coming to the more ancient beliefs of the Jedi, while the more militant and commercial Jedi were considered superficial by some traditionalists.
Some traditionalists felt that the lightsaber should be considered more the symbol of the Republic than the Jedi, who would have no "symbol" other than the Force, which can not be encompassed by any image or idol.
Even though the majority of ?New Jedi? may have known less about their religion at this time than those in the ages before them, they continued to follow the ancient practice of surrendering to the Force during five separate periods of any planetary day. This was considered a form of meditation by some, though it was also understood as the worship and appreciation of the Force. The formal process of Force worship would include postures and transitional motions, beginning with standing, followed by bowing, kneeling, and performing a kowtow. While performing these postures and motions, the Jedi would also recite various truths about the Force and ask for help from it. There was also a moment in the process where the Jedi would kneel while raising a finger, speaking of there being only One Power, The Force.
These meditations were performed throughout the worlds, in an organized fashion when many Jedi and believers in the Force were joined together, all facing towards what could be considered an area designated and sanctified by The Force.
This was considered the Golden Age of the Jedi, where the Republic had just become the central power in the Galaxy, and the Jedi were its most highly regarded advisors. The Religion of the Force became widespread, and all was well until what might be called the Greatest Dispute in the history of the Galaxy occurred within the vast ranks of the Jedi.
It had been agreed upon by all Jedi that emotions were part of life, balance, and the lesson of the Force, and that the Force was the source of all things, including death and destruction, and the emotions which often occur in reaction to such things.
The dispute began from some devotees of the Force who felt it was insulting to The Force to associate anything unpleasant with it, and they even went so far to question the existence of the Force absolutely everywhere, saying that it was not present in places of evil because the Force was only good.
What seemed like immature reasoning to traditionalist Jedi, spread rapidly throughout the Galaxy among the new converts of the Republic brand of Jedi religion, and some even felt pressured to conform to this trend by adjusting their own teachings to better harmonize with the new believers and maintain galactic peace between all Jedi and believers in the Force.
At this time, one of the major codes of the Republic Jedi that had been spread throughout the Galaxy was called into question and some began to edit it entirely.
The original code was
Emotion, yet peace.
Ignorance, yet knowledge.
Passion, yet serenity.
Chaos, yet harmony.
Death, yet the Force.This had been found to be acceptable and in accordance with ancient Jedi teachings, but the new factions of what could be called "Good Only" Jedi sought to deny anything they felt gave the Force a less than positive image.
The code was thus recited by later Jedi as
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.This outright denial of reality left many serious devotees of the Force greatly insulted. It disregarded all they had observed about the Force. What then was the realm of emotion? Ignorance? Passion? Troubles? Death? All these were understood as part of the creation and Will of the Force, and now they were being denied outright by what were considered new comers and ignorant fools.
The "Good Only" Jedi, which can also be called the ?New Breed of Republic Jedi? seemed to believe all things they considered "negative" were "not of the Force" and also began calling it the "Darkness".
The ?Darkness? was originally meant to mean the places where they believed the Force was not present and the events it had no part in, the empty places where they claimed the Force was "weak", "slow", "cold" or "void". With this belief, a philosophy based on the actions of the Republic developed as well, where the Jedi felt they embodied the Force and "brought it" to the "dark places" in the Galaxy.
The prior understanding had been that the Force is absolutely everywhere, and there is no place where it does not exist, and it can not be "brought" anywhere, but rather, brings a Jedi to whatever place or event they may encounter.
Some sought to correct this tragic break from ancient belief by agreeing with both sides. Yes, the Force was everywhere, but there was a "dark side" to it that encompassed all that was considered harmful.
This was still not good enough to the traditionalists, who denied any "dark side" or "light side" thus in disputes they inadvertently coined the famous term "light side" due to what the term ?dark side? implied. The term ?light side" had not been used in relation to the Force by the "Good Only" Jedi who entirely denied the Force had any part in what they considered evil.
The Republic quickly picked up on these ideas and spread a concept of "spreading light through the Galaxy" while pursuing their Galactic ?civilization" projects.
Those who believed in a complete picture of the Force as One were sometimes called "Darksiders" by ignorant "Lightsider" Jedi.
The traditionalists claimed that these new Jedi only want to see the "light side" of things and do not want to face the truth about the Force.
This dispute was not only fought in words, but led to such emotions that some arguments turned violent, at times even fought with lightsabers, which had never been used against other Jedi before. Lightsabers were the tool of the Republic Jedi, and had never been drawn against other Jedi until now.
In order to resolve these disputes, the lightsaber battle was formalized and turned into an art form, an organized duel which would be fought in a "civilized" manner in order to resolve any disputes between Jedi, which were usually religious in nature.
Many of the more enthusiastic traditionalists mockingly encouraged the "Good Only" "Lightsiders" to live by their denial of emotion, by goading them into feeling anger.
The "Lightsiders" also changed the traditional Jedi training to focus only on "positivity" and would affirm themselves and attempt to control their thinking habits to "think only good thoughts" which they felt empowered them in the Force.
The traditional Jedi training included observation and experience of all emotions normally, allowing for what they considered a normal "flow" without restricting their emotions or acting upon them unconsciously.
The Jedi would not only learn to navigate the waves of the Force for easy solutions to problems, but would also train by facing difficulties and resistance to learn patience and futility, as well as to gain personal strength.
The realization of helplessness before the Force and dependency on the Force was an important part of ancient Jedi realization, which also came to be viewed unfavorably by the newer Jedi who felt empowerment and positive thinking is more important than admitting to ignorance and loss.
The ancient Jedi would meditate on sadness, and think on tragedy without justification of it, and so would claim to find much wisdom, compassion, and understanding through these practices.
Even among the early Republic Jedi who still had many traditional beliefs with them, they trained their strength when coming upon areas of the Force with strong currents that they would interact with, by both resisting them, and submitting patiently to them, allowing them to flow freely through them with varying results.
They would simulate what would later be called the ?Dark Side" by creating thick pools of motion slowing sludge and would practice movement in it, which seemed to enhance their speed and strength when outside of the sludge. They would gain even greater strength and speed while moving with the flow of the Force behind them after practicing the resistance training.
These were now all considered "the old way" or "the dark way" by the New Breed of Republic Jedi who denied these practices.
There were still traditionalists part of the Republic that maintained some level of peace between these disputing groups of Jedi, but they knew with their eventual demise, the "Good Only" faction would win out and spread their brand of the religion across the Galaxy.
When this did happen, what had not been anticipated was a complete restriction on the traditional Jedi beliefs and practices enacted by these new Jedi and the Republic they had come to ideologically control.
The traditionalist Jedi were left exiled from Galactic Community and forced to hide their own beliefs from the threat of the "Lightsiders" hostile reactions to what they considered the insulting and threatening beliefs of those they called ?Darksiders?.
Sith was an ancient practice and belief system that was identical to the ancient Jedi religion and was likely just one of the many versions of that religion that existed throughout the Galaxy. The Sith worshiped the Force, and focused largely on great admiration and respect towards all aspects of the Force.
In some languages, the word ?sith? means ?surrender? and ?peace?, while in others it meant ?then?, ?later?, and ?after that?, so this fit extremely well with traditionalist views relating to the lesson of the Force, the way of the Jedi, and the events that had taken place. This too would come to be corrupted over time into something unlike the religion of the ancient observers and worshipers of the Force and seekers of Sith.
The traditionalist Jedi, forced further and further away from the Republic Commonwealth encountered the Sith religion and recognized it as the truth that had been banished from the Community of worlds by the ?New Age? of Jedi.
The religion of Sith focused much on meditating through sadness and tragedy, which the traditionalist exiles could relate to after feeling betrayed by what seemed like the whole Galaxy. The Sith and the traditionalist Jedi religion were entirely compatible, and so in order to differentiate between the corrupt views imposed by the ?New Age? Jedi upon the ancient religion of the Force, the term "Sith" was adopted as the name for the traditional religion of the Jedi.
The Sith found peace through loss and surrender to the Force, which was the original conclusion of the ancient Jedi as well. The outlying worlds where the Sith religion spread were rugged and hostile, requiring much strength to exist within, and so the practices of the ancient Jedi were more important than ever here, where tragedy and hardship was commonplace, and strength was trained through resistance to the overwhelmingly slowing and death dealing waves of what was called "The Dark Side" by the "Lightsiders" back in the Republic which they had ideologically conquered.
When the "Lightside" Jedi finally discovered and interacted with the Sith, their religion was considered "magic" and "sorcery". They were also called "evil" and "of the dark", without much examination into their beliefs which were those of the ancient Jedi.
The exiled Jedi of the Sith found that their hate motivated them to continue to survive, and this hate became a hope that someday, through hard work and cunning strategy, they would take back the Republic, end the lies of the "Lightsiders", and bring balance back to the Galaxy and the religion of the Force.
Secular forces within the Republic began to fear the knowledge of the Force and its widespread use, even before the discovery of the exiled traditionalists and the religion of the Sith. They sought to stunt the growth of the Jedi religion by encouraging better precautions be taken to screen out those who might pose a threat by learning of the Force.
The Force became something restricted from the public, that only a highly trained Republic Jedi should know about. Though secret training by traditionalists who remained within domain of the Republic continued, the mainstream Jedi stopped the open teaching of the Force, leading it to become considered "mysterious" by new generations of outsiders.
There also came into place an age limit on those allowed to learn the Force and examinations that sought to ensure these would not "turn to the dark side" which was never a concern of the ancient Jedi who had no concept other than the unity of the Force and surrendering to it.
Besides the age limits and strict examinations, another policy came into place where a single teacher was told to take a single apprentice. There were already a tremendous amount of ?New Age? Jedi from the massive growth of the Religion and even more from the widespread adoption of the new ?Lightsider" Jedi philosophy, thus many masters available which led to a strong population of Jedi and available teachers to take on apprentices.
Finally, the Jedi took on a council that organized and coordinated the actions of all Republic Jedi "by the Force", but in truth were influenced by the "will of the Republic".
It was in this time, where the knowledge of the Force became secretive and the Republic became increasingly corrupt, that many worlds began to mistrust Jedi and even despise them. The Jedi seemed manipulative and working for a Republic with an agenda for power, rather than obeying the Force.
Many Jedi during this period also began "using the Force" for their own gains, as they had remained under payed by the Republic, leading to many "rogue Jedi" or "masterless Jedi" who manipulated people and were sought out by various sources that disobeyed the Galactic Laws of the Republic.
Meanwhile, those who sought out the Traditionalist and Ancient beliefs of the Jedi, gravitated towards the Sith, and found a greater freedom to practice the true religion as Sith. Where there had been severe restrictions and penalties for feeling normal emotions among the New Breed of Republic Jedi, those who wished to interact with the Force more honestly fled for systems that enhanced their experience with what they had been taught was called the ?Dark Side" of life.
The "Dark Side" of life is undeniable. There is hunger, there is sadness, there is anger, and there is great pain. Even these teach us our complete and utter subjugation to the Force, and to try to block the flow of the Force through us by denying these is only denial of the truth.
The true seeker of wisdom is willing to meditate on that which some consider the "dark side" of life. Hunger, Sadness, Anger, and Pain all exist, and were important to the ancient Jedi.
The new Jedi have become cruel in their denial of the truth, turning away from hungry worlds and waiting for "signs from the Force" for them to intercede, when they are blind to such signs, as the hunger itself is the sign that they should be fed.
These starving and desolate worlds are rapidly adopting the Sith religion, which is suited to the ruggedness of the barren places which the Jedi stay away from considering them hubs of "dark side energy".
The Jedi have even started to deny charity to the people, saying that "if it were the will of the Force, they would be rich", and making other terrible excuses for helping the Republic keep worlds weak and dependent on them.
Among the Jedi it is not even uncommon to hear them call other life forms "pathetic" in their twisted form of "compassion" and dispassionate "pity".
The Sith admire the creations of the Force, and do not disparage them as the New Jedi have begun to. The new breed of Jedi, finding that they are limited by their physical bodies, have begun to insult the creation of the Force by calling all material things "crude" and claiming that they are secretly greater than themselves as "luminous beings".
As any traditionalist can clearly see, their denial has led to outright delusion, and where they had dealt with the truth before, now only deal in lies to themselves and others.
The Sith build monuments to the dead to honor their life and the beauty of their creation, while some Jedi have already taken their disrespect to a new level, by burning the bodies of the dead from fear of having to face the lessons of decay.
Their fear of decay and death is so great that they will even deny the worlds from their natural processes of decay and energy recycling.
The new Jedi deny these things are "fears", since they fear even admitting to being afraid in the first place.
Further trends have led to the discovery of things called "midichlorians", which some claim exist in larger quantities in some life forms and less in others, as their excuse for turning people away from learning about the Force.
The Jedi religion has been hijacked by mad and evil men. The Republic is a power hungry and corrupt power that fears the truth and wishes to leave the Galaxy in ignorance and weakness.
All the ancient Jedi techniques that would make them stronger, which the Sith maintain, have been disallowed by the New Jedi, keeping them even unable to resist the Republic ultimately if ever there was a need.
Meanwhile, the Jedi spread lies in the histories they write, attempting to mislead any who study the Sith. They teach that the Sith destroy themselves and claim that there are such things as the "Rule of Two" whereby a Sith apprentice must kill their teacher.
This is only put in place to prevent any curious parties from practicing the ancient Jedi religion, and if they do practice, to limit the number by spreading murder and madness among the Sith.
The ?New Age? Jedi are evil, and if the time comes to end their sickening reign and vanquish the Republic, it is important to be ready to face them and be aware of their manipulative techniques.
A wise follower of the Sith way should avoid any enemies, being friends to all sides when able, but when an enemy must be faced, determined to strike us down, we must be ready for even the worst circumstances. That is why the Sith train in the worst conditions, with the heaviest weights, with the most handicaps.
When you are nearly completely disabled, in the worst case scenario, how will you get out?
This is an important technique for understanding how to deal with any situation, and especially in dealing with the Jedi.
Underestimation is the worst error, and knowing how to interact with the "Darkest" of situations is what truly saves lives.
The new Jedi have weakened themselves and left themselves completely vulnerable and ignorant through their newfound denial of the "Dark Side" of the Force.
They are unprepared now even for the most mild hint of emotion, being uncertain how to react when they "feel" anything.
This slows them, and makes them incredibly foolish and weak. Thank the Force, multitudes of Jedi are leaving their training, recognizing the lies they are being taught about the Force, and joining the Sith which is the true religion of the Jedi from the ancient past.
Balance is being restored, but the distorted teachings of the new Jedi must also come to an end. This can be done without violence, as long as the Sith religion spreads back throughout the Galaxy to correct the errors of the Jedi.
The central problem faced by the Sith in the spread of the truth are the Jedi "knights" and their violent and prejudiced reaction to the teachings of the Sith and ancient Jedi due to their brainwashing by the Jedi Order and the Republic.
Artifacts which teach of the Sith and the ancient Jedi ways of the truth and the Force, are quickly confiscated by the New Jedi and the Republic and kept away from the public, sometimes displayed as exotic and otherworldly things of play but never to be looked into or listened to seriously.
Even this holocron was surely taken into their custody, though it will continue to function for those interested enough to pursue what is within it. As for the others, it remains as an unworkable piece of trash that they will be unable to open.
The seduction of the Sith is not a seduction at all, but only the truth of the ancient religion of the Jedi which survived among the Sith and other far away places, as well as among the traditionalists who would not let go of the undeniable truth about the Force.
Someday, the corruption of the Jedi will hopefully come to an end or the truth will be revived. This may be done by the Sith, or even by better Jedi that will come into being, inspired by the Force.
We will only do what we can do, in the time we can do it, and will do as the Force commands us, willingly or unwillingly, in utter submission. This is the way of the Sith, and this is the way of the Jedi.
--_----
Some sayings of Zerishad
When Zerishad came upon a group of students being ordered to stand in a line, kneel, and recite a series of lines representing Sith philosophy, Zerishad said "So many people so willing to follow orders". One of those kneeling in the line said "I dont follow orders, I do as I wish". Zerishad agreed and said "Everyone does as they wish, and apparently a large group of people wish to be obedient, perhaps they will learn something though".A student named Garai overheard this dialogue and said "We may follow orders and be obedient but it is all a means to an end, eventually we are all our own masters" and to this Zerishad replied "Does one master the dark side, or is the dark side the master of us all?" which another student named Cilrono overheard and said of Zerishad "Oh joy, a philosopher" in a sarcastic tone.
To Garai, Zerishad replied "I agree Garai, but the dark side does not need life to exist. It exists in even the most lifeless places. It is self sufficient, relying on nothing but itself, and those who touch it can only at best serve it, taking what gifts it gives us". Cilrono's tone changed upon hearing this and enthusiastically agreed saying "
The students who were kneeling began to recite the lines they were told to by their instructor, reciting slowly, one line at a time
"Peace is a lie,
there is only passion.
Through passion,
I gain strength.
Through strength,
I gain power.
Through power,
I gain victory.
Through victory,
my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me."Witnessing the students blankly repeating lines as they were instructed, Zerishad said "Words are not actions, parroting a code is not swimming in the truth of suffering". Cilrono's tone changed upon hearing this and he enthusiastically agreed saying "You hit the nail on the head Zerishad". Zerishad said after the lines about passion were recited "I wonder how many of these people know that passion also means suffering".
Cilrono feeling inspired by the earlier speech of Zerishad said "From darkness light was born, when light is extinguished, darkness shall endure. For darkness is the heart of all existence". This speech pleased Zerishad who then said joyously "That is absolutely right Cilrono! The Ultimate Reality is the Dark Side, needing no life or light, the cause of all existence and pain and pleasure".
The recited lines concluded with the statements about freedom to which Zerishad replied skeptically "Who can be free from the Dark Side? Why would anyone want that? To be free is to cease to exist, to exist is to feel" Zerishad continued "The Jedi try not to feel, to deny the full nature of the force".
A student called Jasbo added to this, saying "They wallow in their celibacy before emotion" and Zerishad readily affirmed this by saying "Exactly! The force provides experience, emotion, and they cut themselves off from it due to fear, while we thrive in fear. To be afraid is to be alive, to know that the dark side is to be feared because it is the Ultimate Power, it lives and it does as it wills. One can at best accept it, at worst deny it".
The next task for the students was to duel an expert in combat, and each lost their round and were sent back to their positions. Zerishad comforted them by saying "To lose brings one closer to the Dark Side"."
-
Outstanding!
Thank you so much for your reply and letting me know that you liked what I wrote, it is very encouraging and kind of you! If you would like to correspond in private at all, my email is [email protected] and you may enjoy other posts I've made on the website, recently I sent a message via PM to one member, then another, and I can share it here as well for you, since it includes links to some of the topics where I wrote some things
"What you wrote in reply to me was beautiful and clear! I would be so honored to assist you in your journey, I mean that with the deepest tear filled sincerity. Such would be a tremendous gift! I mean that! Wow, thank you so much!
I think it might be a little easier possibly if you email me, unless that is too much trouble for you. My email is [email protected] and for me the gmail correspondence goes pretty smoothly (since this website seems to load a little slowly for me sometimes), but that is alright if you prefer to discuss things here as well.
Currently I have three main threads here, two at least where I've said some things which you may enjoy, the other one is about the jinn which is just generally interesting and fun to talk about but not of the greatest importance perhaps.
In the first important thread, I write some long speeches to Samira that tries to bypass the issue at hand and strike at the heart of the issue
Speeches to Samira
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607127.0The next important thread, I write some long speeches to Sushi, which again bring the topic back to allowing oneself to go to the end limits in our thinking in order that we realize what our religion really is
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607120.0Here I discuss the Jinn and show evidence and information which is meant to make people incredibly confident about them
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607124.0I have also made some other posts in this forum recently which you may find interesting, but I can share those with you later, as this website is having some trouble loading for me (which is why I thought email correspondence might be a little more easy or rapid for me, though we could also type on a program called Skype, where my username is abrahimesker)
I would like to share with you other speeches I've made, a while back and also very recently (in one I tell a person interested in Islam about the "five pillars" which they ask about).
If you have questions or doubts or concerns or anything, I believe it would be a great opportunity to share those with me and I can assist you Insha'Allah with strengthening your religion tremendously if Allah wills.
I know lots about other religions, I can tie them all in beautifully so that your beliefs become incredibly firm and based in the strongest logic and reasoning.
As for the Hadith, you do not need to feel concerned or afraid, because my stance on that matter is very lenient towards the Hadith. Basically, I say, that people should simply recognize it for what it actually is, and use whatever is good from it, just like anything else. We neither need to throw it in the trash, nor take it as another Qur'an, but simply to recognize that they are what they are said to be, stories collected and written a long time after Muhammed peace be upon him was dead, and all who knew him were dead as well, and if even one person in the supposed chains of narration were misquoted, or didn't exist, or said something in error, the whole chain would be wrong, so it is not a safe or certain way to trust it as absolutely necessarily true at all, they were written long after the events in an entirely different country after many decades of stories traveling around and with a possible agenda in what was said in order to show the Prophet's "stamp of approval" on certain culturally normal things at the time, but to say one knows if it is absolute truth or not is really just an overstatement and conjecture, but that doesn't mean they should necessarily be thrown in the trash either. They are books and stories which may have some benefit for people, and may also be beneficial in trying to moderate the beliefs and behaviors of those who believe in them strongly, but there is no way to know for certain if they are certainly what was said by the Prophet or done by the Prophet, especially considering that the earliest records are very vague and they get more detailed as time grew further away making it seem a little curious, since usually details become harder as time goes further regarding historical events.
So knowing fully what the Hadith is, a person should not exaggerate in their religion and make claims regarding the Hadith that they can not really back up, but should use it if they wish to derive good ideas from it and good practices, while not needing to necessarily take everything it says as certainly true or verifiable, and certainly shouldn't prefer it over the Qur'an or what the Qur'an teaches, the writings of the Qur'an and the Hadith are clearly of a different quality and nature.
For some, the Hadith is a way in which people can also be mislead from Islam or good understandings, and Allah is the Ultimate source of all these things, and may have even talked about it
6112
And, thus, We made an enemy for every Prophet, satans from among humankind and the jinn. Some of them reveal to some others an ornamented saying, a delusion. And if thy Lord willed, they would not have done it. So leave them alone to their fabrications,
I would love to tell you about all kinds of things, how to talk about Islam in all kinds of ways, and the beautiful things the Qur'an says and teaches as far as I can tell and as far as I am able to discuss it from the understanding given to me.
So again, you don't need to feel any pressure to throw away the Hadith, merely recognize that it is supposed to be collections of hearsay and stories written down long after those who supposedly heard the stories firsthand were long dead (nearly a hundred years later or more), and that the Qur'an is actually from an earlier time and one might be best served in following it closely and learning from it. Though one should absolutely derive as much benefit from whatever they can while avoid harm, and so take from the Hadith what is useful, but be careful about stating that it is certainly what was said by the Prophet, since all we can say is that "such and such was a story described in this Hadith collection", since that is a more accurate way of describing it rather than to say "The Prophet said".
Likewise, from the Qur'an take all that you can that is good and useful to you from it, because religion is for your benefit, and Allah is free from needs, and does not benefit from anything, and is never at a loss. Worship is for your benefit, Prayer is for your benefit, Knowledge is for your benefit, and all these are gifts and favors from Allah, who alone is your Wali, your caretaker, your custodian, your helper, and Insha'Allah, your friend, from whom everything comes in your experience.
So please take advantage of talking to me, utilize me in this beautiful service, where I will joyfully help you in making you (if Allah so wills) so strong in Islam, so beautiful in conduct, so pure in thought, that you should be among the foremost in this life and the Day of Judgment and in the afterlife.
If such is your desire, a desire which Allah can bestow on anyone, then may we being our work in accomplishing this, and the task can be accomplished quickly too, if Allah so wills!
In doing so, I strengthen myself as well, and together we can both say beautiful things, recorded by Allah and willed by Allah.
I'm excited!
I would really like if you could email me though if it isn't too much of a hassle or difficulty for you to do that, or to correspond with me in some way that might be a little more convenient, though I can communicate here as well.
Please feel free to bring to me any of your questions, concerns, desire for knowledge on certain matters, wanting to know my opinions, or whatever you may want to talk about!
I'm very happy to have met you and it was so kind of you to respond to my message, thank you so much for your patience and taking the time to read all this!"
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
I actually agree with you concerning this. The Arabic word "Ibaada" means to serve, not to worship. To worship God is meaningless and, from my understanding, we are never instructed to 'worship' God in the Qur'aan. We are consistently told to acknowledge and serve (e.g. through obeying) Him. If God mandated that we worship Him, it would imply that He needs us to satisfy His ego, which completely negates the idea of Him being "supreme".
If we want to please God, we need to follow His guidance and instruction. No "religion" is required.
Peace,
Ahmad
worship (n.) Look up worship at Dictionary.com
Old English wor?scip, wur?scip (Anglian), weor?scipe (West Saxon) "condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown," from weor? "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful "honorable" (c.1300).adore (v.) Look up adore at Dictionary.com
late 14c., aouren, "to worship, pay divine honors to, bow down before," from Old French aorer "to adore, worship, praise" (10c.), from Latin adorare "speak to formally, beseech, ask in prayer," in Late Latin "to worship," from ad- "to" (see ad-) + orare "speak formally, pray" (see orator). Meaning "to honor very highly" is attested from 1590s; weakened sense of "to be very fond of" emerged by 1880s. Related Adored; adoring.idolatry (n.) Look up idolatry at Dictionary.com
mid-13c., from Old French idolatrie, from Vulgar Latin idolatria, shortened from Late Latin idololatria (Tertullian), from Ecclesiastical Greek eidololatria "worship of idols," from eidolon "image" (see idol) + latreia "worship, service" (see -latry).serve (v.) Look up serve at Dictionary.com
late 12c., "to render habitual obedience to," also "minister, give aid, give help," from Old French servir "to do duty toward, show devotion to; set table, serve at table; offer, provide with," from Latin servire "be a servant, be in service, be enslaved;" figuratively "be devoted; be governed by; comply with; conform; flatter," originally "be a slave," related to servus "slave," perhaps from Etruscan (compare Etruscan proper names Servi, Serve, Latinized as Servius).By c.1200 also as "to be in the service of, perform a service for; attend upon, be personal servant to; be a slave; owe allegiance to; officiate at Mass or other religious rites;" from early 13c. as "set food at table;" mid-14c. as "to wait on (customers)." From late 14c. as "treat (someone or something) in some fashion." To serve (someone) right "to treat as he deserves" is recorded from 1580s.
He no schuld neuer wond
To seruen him fro fot to hondSense of "be useful, be beneficial, be suitable for a purpose or function" is from early 14c.; that of "take the place or meet the needs of, be equal to the task" is from late 14c.; that of "suffice" is from mid-15c. Meaning "render active military service" is from 1510s. Sporting sense, in tennis, badminton, etc., first recorded 1580s. Legal sense "present" (a writ, warrant,etc.), "give legal notice of" is from early 15c.
subservient (adj.) Look up subservient at Dictionary.com
1630s, "useful, serviceable," from Latin subservientem (nominative subserviens), present participle of subservire "assist, serve, come to the help of, lend support," from sub "under" (see sub-) + servire "serve" (see serve (v.)). The meaning "slavishly obedient" is first recorded 1794. Related Subserviently.slave (n.) Look up slave at Dictionary.com
late 13c., "person who is the chattel or property of another," from Old French esclave (13c.), from Medieval Latin Sclavus "slave" (source also of Italian schiavo, French esclave, Spanish esclavo), originally "Slav" (see Slav); so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.
This sense development arose in the consequence of the wars waged by Otto the Great and his successors against the Slavs, a great number of whom they took captive and sold into slavery.
Meaning "one who has lost the power of resistance to some habit or vice" is from 1550s. Applied to devices from 1904, especially those which are controlled by others (compare slave jib in sailing, similarly of locomotives, flash bulbs, amplifiers). Slave-driver is attested from 1807; extended sense of "cruel or exacting task-master" is by 1854. Slate state in U.S. history is from 1812. Slave-trade is attested from 1734.Old English Wealh "Briton" also began to be used in the sense of "serf, slave" c.850; and Sanskrit dasa-, which can mean "slave," apparently is connected to dasyu- "pre-Aryan inhabitant of India." Grose's dictionary (1785) has under Negroe "A black-a-moor; figuratively used for a slave," without regard to race. More common Old English words for slave were ?eow (related to ?eowian "to serve" and ?r?l (see thrall). The Slavic words for "slave" (Russian rab, Serbo-Croatian rob, Old Church Slavonic rabu) are from Old Slavic *orbu, from the PIE root *orbh- (also source of orphan), the ground sense of which seems to be "thing that changes allegiance" (in the case of the slave, from himself to his master). The Slavic word is also the source of robot.
slavery (n.) Look up slavery at Dictionary.com
1550s, "severe toil, hard work, drudgery;" from slave (v.) + -ery. Meaning "state of servitude" is from 1570s; meaning "keeping or holding of slaves" is from 1728.serf (n.) Look up serf at Dictionary.com
late 15c., "servant, serving-man, slave," from Old French serf "vassal, servant, slave" (12c.), from Latin servum (nominative servus) "slave" (see serve). Fallen from use in original sense by 18c. Meaning "lowest class of cultivators of the soil in continental European countries" is from 1610s. Use by modern writers with reference to medieval Europeans first recorded 1761 (contemporary Anglo-Latin records used nativus, villanus, or servus).servant (n.) Look up servant at Dictionary.com
c.1200, "personal or domestic attendant," from Old French servant "servant; foot-soldier," noun use of servant "serving, waiting," present participle of servir "to attend, wait upon" (see serve (v.)).Meaning "professed lover, one devoted to the service of a lady" is from mid-14c. In North American colonies and U.S., the usual designation for "slave" 17c.-18c. (in 14c.-15c. and later in Biblical translations the word often was used to render Latin servus, Greek doulos "slave". Public servant is attested from 1670s.
thrall (n.) Look up thrall at Dictionary.com
late Old English ?r?l "bondman, serf, slave," from a Scandinavian source akin to Old Norse ?r?ll "slave, servant," figuratively "wretch, scoundrel," probably from Proto-Germanic *thrakhilaz, literally "runner," from root *threh- "to run" (cognates Old High German dregil "servant," properly "runner;" Old English ?r?gan, Gothic ?ragjan "to run". Meaning "condition of servitude" is from early 14c.religion (n.) Look up religion at Dictionary.com
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name.
superstitious (adj.) Look up superstitious at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "involving faith in supernatural powers or magic; characteristic of pagan religion or false religion," from Anglo-French supersticius, Old French supersticios, or directly from Latin superstitiosus "prophetic; full of dread of the supernatural," from superstitio "prophecy, soothsaying, excessive fear of the gods" (see superstition).Islam (n.) Look up Islam at Dictionary.com
"religious system revealed by Muhammad," 1818, from Arabic islam, literally "submission" (to the will of God), from root of aslama "he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted," causative conjunction of salima "he was safe," and related to salam "peace."
... Islam is the only major religion, along with Buddhism (if we consider the name of the religion to come from Budd, the Divine Intellect, and not the Buddha), whose name is not related to a person or ethnic group, but to the central idea of the religion.
Earlier English names for the faith include Mahometry (late 15c.), Muhammadism (1610s), Islamism (1747), and Ismaelism (c.1600), which in part is from Ishmaelite, a name formerly given (especially by Jews) to Arabs, as descendants of Ishmael (q.v.), and in part from Arabic Ismailiy, name of the Shiite sect that after 765 C.E. followed the Imamship through descendants of Ismail (Arabic for Ishmael), eldest son of Jafar, the sixth Imam. The Ismailians were not numerous, but among them were the powerful Fatimid dynasty in Egypt and the Assassins, both of whom loomed large in European imagination.believer (n.) Look up believer at Dictionary.com
"one who has faith in religion," 1540s, agent noun from believe.
sect (n.) Look up sect at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "distinctive system of beliefs or observances; party or school within a religion," from Old French secte, sete "sect, religious community," or directly from Late Latin secta "religious group, sect in philosophy or religion," from Latin secta "manner, mode, following, school of thought," literally "a way, road, beaten path," from fem. of sectus, variant past participle of sequi "follow," from PIE *sekw- (1) "to follow" (see sequel). Confused in this sense with Latin secta, fem. past participle of secare "to cut" (see section (n.)). Meaning "separately organized religious body" is recorded from 1570s.surrender (n.) Look up surrender at Dictionary.com
early 15c., in law, "a giving up" (of an estate, land grant, interest in property, etc.), from Anglo-French surrendre, Old French surrendre noun use of infinitive, "give up, deliver over" (see surrender (v.)).
surrender (v.) Look up surrender at Dictionary.com
mid-15c., "to give (something) up," from Old French surrendre "give up, deliver over" (13c.), from sur- "over" (see sur- (1)) + rendre "give back" (see render (v.)). Reflexive sense of "to give oneself up" (especially as a prisoner) is from 1580s. Related Surrendered; surrendering.abandon (n.) Look up abandon at Dictionary.com
"a letting loose, surrender to natural impulses," 1822, from a sense in French abandon (see abandon (v.). Borrowed earlier (c.1400) from French in a sense "(someone's) control;" and compare Middle English adverbial phrase at abandon, i.e. "recklessly," attested from late 14c.sacrifice (v.) Look up sacrifice at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "to offer something (to a deity, as a sacrifice)," from sacrifice (n.). Meaning "surrender, give up, suffer to be lost" is from 1706. Related Sacrificed; sacrificing. Agent noun forms include sacrificer, sacrificator (both 16c., the latter from Latin); and sacrificulist (17c.).remise (v.) Look up remise at Dictionary.com
in law, "give up, surrender, make over to another," late 15c., from noun remise, from Old French remise, past participle of remettre "to send back," from Latin remittere (see remit). Related Remised; remising.pray (v.) Look up pray at Dictionary.com
early 13c., "ask earnestly, beg," also (c.1300) "pray to a god or saint," from Old French preier "to pray" (c.900, Modern French prier), from Vulgar Latin *precare (also source of Italian pregare), from Latin precari "ask earnestly, beg, entreat," from *prex (plural preces, genitive precis) "prayer, request, entreaty," from PIE root *prek- "to ask, request, entreat" (cognates Sanskrit prasna-, Avestan frashna- "question;" Old Church Slavonic prositi, Lithuanian prasyti "to ask, beg;" Old High German frahen, German fragen, Old English fricgan "to ask" a question).Parenthetical expression I pray you, "please, if you will," attested from 1510s, contracted to pray 16c. Related Prayed; praying. Praying mantis attested from 1809. The "Gardener's Monthly" of July 1861 lists other names for it as camel cricket, soothsayer, and rear horse.
imprecation (n.) Look up imprecation at Dictionary.com
mid-15c., "a curse, cursing," from Latin imprecationem (nominative imprecatio), from past participle stem of imprecari "invoke, pray, call down upon," from assimilated form of in- "into, in, within" (see in- (2)) + precari "to pray, ask, beg, request" (see pray). "Current limited sense is characteristic of human nature."deprecation (n.) Look up deprecation at Dictionary.com
c.1500, "prayer to avert evil," from Middle French depr?cation, from Latin deprecationem (nominative deprecatio), from past participle stem of deprecari "plead in excuse, avert by prayer," literally "to pray (something) away," from de- "away" (see de-) + precari "pray" (see pray). Sense of "disapproval" is first attested 1610s.orate (v.) Look up orate at Dictionary.com
c.1600, "to pray, to plead," from Latin oratus, past participle of orare "speak, pray, plead, speak before a court or assembly" (see orator). The meaning "make a formal speech" emerged c.1860 in American English as a back-formation of oration. Related Orated; orating.oratory (n.1) Look up oratory at Dictionary.com
"formal public speaking, the art of eloquence," 1580s, from Latin (ars) oratoria "oratorical (art)," fem. of oratorius "of speaking or pleading, pertaining to an orator," from orare "to speak, pray, plead" (see orator).oracle (n.) Look up oracle at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "a message from a god, expressed by divine inspiration," from Old French oracle "temple, house of prayer; oracle" (12c.) and directly from Latin oraculum "divine announcement, oracle; place where oracles are given," from orare "pray, plead" (see orator), with material instrumental suffix -culo-. In antiquity, "the agency or medium of a god," also "the place where such divine utterances were given." This sense is attested in English from c.1400.nuzzle (v.) Look up nuzzle at Dictionary.com
early 15c., "to bring the nose to the ground," back-formation from noselyng "on the nose, prostrate," frequentative of nose (v.); meaning "burrow with the nose" is first attested 1520s; that of "lie snug" is from 1590s, influenced by nestle, or by nursle, frequentative of nurse. Related Nuzzled; nuzzling.prostrate (v.) Look up prostrate at Dictionary.com
early 15c., prostraten, "prostrate oneself," from prostrate (adj.). Related Prostrated; prostrating.
prostrate (adj.) Look up prostrate at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "lying face-down" (in submission, worship, etc.), from Latin prostratus, past participle of prosternere "strew in front, throw down," from pro- "forth" (see pro-) + sternere "to spread out," from PIE root *stere- "to spread, extend, stretch out" (see structure (n.)). Figurative use from 1590s. General sense of "laid out, knocked flat" is from 1670s.
prostration (n.) Look up prostration at Dictionary.com
c.1400, "action of prostrating oneself," from Old French prostracion (14c.) or directly from Late Latin prostrationem (nominative prostratio), noun of action from past participle stem of prosternere (see prostrate (v.)); or else a native formation from prostrate (v.). Meaning "weakness, exhaustion, dejection" is from 1650s.kowtow (n.) Look up kowtow at Dictionary.com
also kow-tow, 1804, from Chinese k'o-t'ou custom of touching the ground with the forehead to show respect or submission, literally "knock the head," from k'o "knock, bump" + t'ou "head." The verb in the figurative sense of "act in an obsequious manner" is from 1826. Related Kowtowed; kowtowing.Some words and etymologies from www.etymonline.com
We can't really give God anything, and God has no need for anything, nor can we really serve God anything, but God gives us everything, we give God nothing, though God is also what makes us worship or not worship, creating all that happens.
So even if it says "serve God" we don't serve God really. Even if it says "pay God" we can't pay God really, God gives us everything, we can give God nothing, there is nothing we can give God.
We are in a state of surrender (whether God makes us aware of this or not), and it wouldn't matter if God said "worship me" or "I have a huge ego" or any of these silly things, because we're directing our worship to the Ultimate, not some specific thing, not an idol, but whatever is absolutely Ultimate, of which there is no greater, the absolute Greatest. Why get hung up on words and their meanings so much? Yes, words are important, and we can define them carefully as to how we mean them, but they are not worth getting bogged down with or hung up about.
So lets say it was written in the Qur'an "I have a huge ego, worship me, it pleases my huge ego", would that change our religion or way, our millat, deen, tao, whatever, at all? Would it mean to throw the whole Qur'an in the garbage can and forget any benefit that might be derived from it? Would it mean that you are no longer still under the power of the Ultimate, dependent on the Ultimate, made to suffer or succeed by the will of the Ultimate alone? No, certainly, it wouldn't matter. The religion, the deen, the millat, the tao, the dharma, whatever you want to call it, this strategy is Surrender, it is the logical conclusion to the realization of the one we can not overcome or defeat who has power over everything. It is a realization only given to those God wills to give it to, and you can not come to it on your own, just like you can not come to any understanding, good or bad, on your own, nor are you ever self-sufficient as you might imagine, but always dependent from even before your birth. You do not have any immortality, you do not have any presence, you are whatever Allah makes you to be, and Allah can change you, and Allah can destroy you, and Allah can call you to account, and Allah can harm you, and Allah can give you pleasure unbounded, and Allah can make you a saint in piety, Allah can make you a devil in mischief, and to Allah belongs everything everywhere, the heavens and the earth and all that is in between and beyond. Do you imagine that you're some immortal beings that can question Allah and do as you please? It is Allah who schemes, Allah who might make you think you are able, or willing, when it is actually the will of Allah working in everything, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to their destruction, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to work righteousness and be rewarded, and Allah can harm those righteous ones too, and Allah can shower blessings upon the wicked, and Allah is capable of everything, the only Free Will who is unconditioned, unbounded, unlimited.
Now why have you all come to this website? Allah has brought you here, but for different reasons perhaps, some of you will be led astray here, others will be strengthened in goodness, some of you will take the knowledge and be harmed by it, and some will use it for benefit. Why not use this website and these words to make speeches of exceeding beauty regarding Allah and also to take what is best? Why not purify yourselves and your religions and shed away silliness and bad ideas, even by exploring your doubts and thinking "even if" such and such, we are following this way for the reason that we are aware of surrender to the Ultimate, that we can't overcome the Ultimate, so make your practice and your thoughts pure for Allah only. You will not be able to do it, save if Allah wills.
So I hope my writing above was enjoyed!
-
Servants all of us or not is irrelevant. You can serve voluntarily or involuntarily. In the first chapter of Quran regarding "you we serve" implies that the reader who agrees with the statement accepts to carry out all the good in the spirit of God. The person who reads the same and does the opposite is a hypocrite.
It is also clear based on the usage of ibada from a wider context in Quran that the word refers to servitude and of being a servant since it is used in relation to other situations too and not only servant to God.
For a person who is a servant to a boss is also going under the ibada.
And you have better words for worship or glorify which is subhan. That is to glorify/worship God and the difference between worship and glorify is pretty vague.
The best way to glorify God is to serve God through good ways of being and deeds. This shows you do not just talk.
And if you do evil then you are not serving God so this person is not a servant. It is called disservice. You are a jinn in this case and a shaitaan, that kind a of spiritual affinity.
Salaam
-
Harmony Freedom,
It is right that God has no need of anything. But this world is also about (spiritual) assimilation and you can also rule out alternatively dishonor the angels if you deem that no one can serve God in the foundation.
Serve is when you are assimilated with the phenomenon of God and do things in its spirit and hence serve is perfectly viable as a term. You do according to the will of this Supreme Power in symbiosis. And through your personal intention you have served God, no matter if God needs it or not. You do your deeds in assimilation with the Sustainer or you violate it and act like a jinn.
And in this case of argument God has no need of anything, neither worship nor service, so feel free to choose what you like. I honor/worship my Sustainer through meaningful ways by helping others towards a better life and by living as I teach as much as I can.
Have faith
-
Servants all of us or not is irrelevant. You can serve voluntarily or involuntarily. In the first chapter of Quran regarding "you we serve" implies that the reader who agrees with the statement accepts to carry out all the good in the spirit of God. The person who reads the same and does the opposite is a hypocrite.
It is also clear based on the usage of ibada from a wider context in Quran that the word refers to servitude and of being a servant since it is used in relation to other situations too and not only servant to God.
For a person who is a servant to a boss is also going under the ibada.
And you have better words for worship or glorify which is subhan. That is to glorify/worship God and the difference between worship and glorify is pretty vague.
The best way to glorify God is to serve God through good ways of being and deeds. This shows you do not just talk.
And if you do evil then you are not serving God so this person is not a servant. It is called disservice. You are a jinn in this case and a shaitaan, that kind a of spiritual affinity.
Salaam
Subhan means "void" or "nothing" in a sense, so I'm not sure how that is a good word for worship, though it does make one understand the quality of God through absolute negation. It took on the "glory be" meaning later because of the extended meaning "void is Allah (from all that they attribute)".
Where do you generally get your information? I'm curious what your sources are for the ideas, like you've said some interesting things like connecting the term Jinn to snakes and the root somehow meaning "lowly", and whatever, but where are you finding these things? Are they on some website? They don't correspond with real etymology or lexicons so I'm not sure who is putting these things online. Edward Lane's lexicon and the online collection of Akkadian language words can help lots in figuring out the meaning of Arabic roots.
-
Jinn is related to the Hebrew Gen which was Gens in Latin and Gentile in English. It is basically a word to refer to a person who is faithless and as arrogant as Jews were it came to refer to anyone who was not Jewish.
If dictionaries say otherwise you can either put your faith in them or me.
If Naas and Jinn occurs together as seeming like separate living beings it is because Naas is a person with spirit whereas the Jinn is faithless. But both are humans physically as far as your very eyes can see.
Compare that to the narrative about Solomon and the jinn who says he can bring the rule of the queen before Solomon stands up while the one blessed with knowledge says he can bring it to him in the blink of an eye. Both the jinn and the one with knowledge is a human.
Have faith
-
Jinn is related to the Hebrew Gen which was Gens in Latin and Gentile in English. It is basically a word to refer to a person who is faithless and as arrogant as Jews were it came to refer to anyone who was not Jewish.
If dictionaries say otherwise you can either put your faith in them or me.
If Naas and Jinn occurs together as seeming like separate living beings it is because Naas is a person with spirit whereas the Jinn is faithless. But both are humans physically as far as your very eyes can see.
Compare that to the narrative about Solomon and the jinn who says he can bring the rule of the queen before Solomon stands up while the one blessed with knowledge says he can bring it to him in the blink of an eye. Both the jinn and the one with knowledge is a human.
Have faith
I don't know why you're so confident about this idea that you're spreading it around, because the etymology of the term "gentile" and "gens" from Latin is from a different language family.
Many people make the serious mistake of mixing or connecting unrelated languages and words.
gentile (n.) Look up gentile at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "chivalrous person; member of the nobility;" see gentile (adj.). Also used during 14c. to mean both "one who is not a Christian" and "one who is not a Jew." The Latin word was used in Vulgate to translate Greek ethnikos, from ta ethne "the nations," which translated Hebrew ha goyim "the (non-Jewish) nations."
gentile (adj.) Look up gentile at Dictionary.com
mid-13c., "noble, kind, gracious" (mid-12c. as a surname); late 14c., "of noble rank or birth, belonging to the gentry," from Late Latin gentilis "foreign, heathen, pagan," from Latin gentilis "person belonging to the same family, fellow countryman," from gentilis (adj.) "of the same family or clan," from gens (genitive gentis) "race, clan" (see gentle).The word Goy and Goyim has a totally different etymology and origin, and is totally unconnected to the Latin, but the term was chosen for translations.
Goyim means "nations", the eem makes it plural.
Jinn is from a totally different language family
genie (n.) Look up genie at Dictionary.com
1650s, "tutelary spirit," from French g?nie, from Latin genius (see genius); used in French translation of "Arabian Nights" to render Arabic jinni, singular of jinn, which it accidentally resembled, and attested in English with this sense from 1748.genius (n.) Look up genius at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "tutelary god (classical or pagan)," from Latin genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent;"The term Genius and Jinn are also unconnected, they are from different language families, though both terms refer to the same creatures.
daemon (n.) Look up daemon at Dictionary.com
alternative spelling (in specialized senses) of demon (q.v.). Related Daemonic.
demon (n.) Look up demon at Dictionary.com
c.1200, from Latin daemon "spirit," from Greek daimon "deity, divine power; lesser god; guiding spirit, tutelary deity" (sometimes including souls of the dead); "one's genius, lot, or fortune;" from PIE *dai-mon- "divider, provider" (of fortunes or destinies), from root *da- "to divide" (see tide (n.)).Used (with daimonion) in Christian Greek translations and Vulgate for "god of the heathen" and "unclean spirit." Jewish authors earlier had employed the Greek word in this sense, using it to render shedim "lords, idols" in the Septuagint, and Matt. viii31 has daimones, translated as deofol in Old English, feend or deuil in Middle English. Another Old English word for this was hellcniht, literally "hell-knight."
air (n.1) Look up air at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "invisible gases that make up the atmosphere," from Old French air "atmosphere, breeze, weather" (12c.), from Latin aerem (nominative aer) "air, lower atmosphere, sky," from Greek aer (genitive aeros) "air" (related to aenai "to blow, breathe", of unknown origin, possibly from a base *awer- and thus related to aeirein "to raise" and arteria "windpipe, artery" (see aorta) on notion of "lifting, that which rises." In Homer mostly "thick air, mist;" later "air" as one of the four elements.The Daemons were said to be made of "aer" which in that language meant "thick mist", and that is literally what they look like, you can see for yourself in the videos.
Where do you get your information from? It is mixing etymologies that have nothing to do with each other.
The word Jinn is not etymologically connected to Genius or Daemon but refers to the same thing, while the Latin Gens has nothing to do with the word Goy etymologically, they are from different languages and language families. One is from the "indo-european" language family, and one is from the "semitic" language family.
So can you please tell me where you're getting your information from? The connections you are making do not have an etymological basis. I like the idea you are presenting, it is an interesting idea, but what is it based on? You can't take words from other languages and language families and say they are connected to words from entirely different language families. Lots of people do that though, its a fallacy, its a mistake to do that, just because words sound similar from different language families doesn't mean they are etymologically connected or have the same origin.
Why do you think they are both human, when it lists a bunch of different creatures
2717
And his hosts of the jinn and the men and the birds were gathered to him, and they were formed into groups.Jinn and the men and the birds, three categories, why are they listed like that? Are the birds also humans in this section, since the bird talks and it says that he could understand the speech of creatures like birds and other animals?
Why is the root, if the root means "faithless" or "snake" or "lowly" as you suggest (with what evidence?) used in the word Jannah, what does Jannah have to do with faithlessness, snakes, or the quality of being degraded?
The root JNN is connected to the words Jinn, Jannah, Janin. Janin means "foetus", the fetus as it is hidden in the womb.
This differentiates it from the Arabic words ?Hadeeqa? and ?Bostan? that have different descriptions and are used for gardens, while Jannah specifically refers to the "Hidden" aspect of the garden, and Jinn are etymologically known by linguists (who are also non-muslim linguists) as "hidden" as well, and the JNN root has this meaning of being hidden.
The term used for faithless people is kaffir, which has a different sense of the term "covered up", which is referenced many times, that their seeing, hearing, and understanding is covered up, while the JNN word means concealment, like being hidden as a fetus hides or is concealed in the womb, that Paradise is hidden from us and hidden from view, hidden in the future.
What is this Hebrew term you keep mentioning "Gens"? Do you think the word Gentile is Hebrew? It isn't Hebrew, it is a translation of the term Goy.
The other form of the Latin Gen, means origination, to beget, like Genesis, Generation, and stuff like that. It still isn't connected to the Semitic language family so has nothing to do with Hebrew or the term Goy.
So do you just get inspired with these ideas and think they are automatically the way it is or do you have some evidence to back up what you are spreading around with so much sudden confidence, when just a few months ago you didn't seem so confident on the matter, so how did you come to decide this thing?
What is the Hebrew word "gens", Latin is from a distinct language family, it is not directly related to Hebrew, but even in Latin the term Genius refers to the same creatures though this is called "accidental" or "coincidence" because the Arabic root JNN and the Latin word Genius come from entirely different language families and are unrelated, and also their meaning is unrelated, since the root JNN means hidden and is well attested among linguists to have this meaning or sense.
Plus, I'm not just making this stuff up, not only is it linguistically real, but I understand why they said the "daemons" were made of "aer" because they actually physically look like that, but they didn't know they were actually made of something described as "smokeless fire" which the Qur'an revealed.
So to recap
I'd like to know where exactly you are getting your information and the back up for it. Do you just follow what you imagine or are you reading it somewhere and have evidence? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm trying to understand.
What is your objection to this history and idea?
What is the Hebrew word "gens" that you keep mentioning?
Gentile comes from an entirely different language family, it is not a Hebrew word at all, and the term Genesis, Generation, and whatever else have nothing to do with Hebrew, they are from a different language family, called the Indo-European Language Family, not the Semitic Language family, the Semitic language family works differently, all words are based on a three letter radix or root in the Semitic Language family.
The Hebrew, even the Hebrew root "gnn" is the same as the Arabic JNN, and means "to cover" to "hide" to "be hidden".
The idea of "covering" is used in its other sense in the word Kaffir, which means that they are covered up from the truth, from understanding, or that they conceal the truth (or both).
What basis do you have to say Nas, which is well known to refer to the whole human race, are all spiritual? The Qur'an talks about people who do not believe in Allah and never refers to them as Jinn.
Yet, the Jinn believe in Allah, so how can they be called faithless?
5916
the like of when Satan says unto man, ?Deny the truth!? - but as soon as has denied the truth, says, ?Behold, I am not responsible for thee behold, I fear God, the Sustainer of all the worlds!?3441
They will say Be Thou Glorified. Thou (alone) art our Guardian, not them! Nay, but they worshipped the jinn; most of them were believers in them.5156
I did not create the Jinns and the human beings except for the purpose that they should worship Me(created the faithless to worship him?).Read the Surah about the Jinn, 72
Say It has been revealed to me that a party of the jinn listened, and they said Surely we have heard a wonderful Quran,
Which guideth unto righteousness, so we believe in it and we ascribe no partner unto our Lord
'And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord He has taken neither a wife nor a son.
Certainly the foolish among us say preposterous things of God.
But we, truly, thought that the humankind, nor the jinn would ever say a lie about God (These are the faithless talking?)
And indeed (O Muhammad) individuals of humankind used to invoke the protection of individuals of the jinn, so that they increased them in revolt against Allah);(This is well attested to, this was a practice of people around the world, they are called Shin in Japan, from another coincidental unrelated language root from the Chinese term jinn).
They thought, as you did, that God would never raise up anyone from the dead.
And that we sought to touch the heaven but we found it filled (with) guards severe, and flaming fires.
And we used to sit on places (high) therein to listen. But he who listeneth now findeth a flame in wait for him; (these are humans?)
And that we know not whether evil is meant for those who are on earth or whether their Lord means to bring them good
And among us there are righteous folk and among us there are far from that. We are sects having different rules.(Righteous folk, and disbelievers being made distinct here, "We (The Jinn Race) are sects having different rules" Why exactly is the Qur'an giving this person a whole Surah to talk in as if this would impress anyone unless its talking about some other beings of which people have little knowledge?)
And we know that we cannot escape from Allah in the earth, nor can we escape by flight. (The faithless know this? Oh yeah? Might you consider that your inspiration on this matter, of which you were not so sure a few months ago, might be not be accurate?)
Hence, as soon as we heard this guidance, we came to believe in it and he who believes in his Sustainer need never have fear of loss or injustice.
"'Yet that among us are such as have surrendered themselves to God - just as there are among us such as have abandoned themselves to wrongdoing. Now as for those who surrender themselves to Him - it is they that have attained to consciousness of what is right;(WHAT? THE "FAITHLESS" ARE MUSLIMS!? WOW! Do you see that your understanding does not really make much sense anymore? Is it a matter of pride now? Don't let it be! Here is another translation of that 7214 And that we, among us (are) Muslims and among us (are) unjust. And whoever submits, then those have sought (the) right path.)
but as for those who abandon themselves to wrongdoing - they are indeed but fuel for hell!?"
If they are steadfast on the path , We shall provide them with abundant water,
so as to test them by this means for he who shall turn away from the remembrance of his Sustainer, him will He cause to undergo suffering most grievous.
And the places of worship are only for Allah, so pray not unto anyone along with Allah.
And when the slave of Allah stood up in prayer to Him, they densely crowded on him, almost stifling. (if this is still talking about the jinn, then it is talking about how the mist came around him almost stifling his breathing with the dense mist, and if you've encountered jinn you wouldn't doubt this, its just a matter of fact thing, but because you haven't recognized or dealt with jinn, that doesn't mean you must reject their existence.)
Say "I invoke my Sustainer alone, for I do not ascribe divinity to anyone beside Him."
Say "Verily, it is not in my power to cause you harm or to endow you with consciousness of what is right."
Say "Verily, no one could ever protect me from God, nor could I ever find a place to hide from Him
"Unless I proclaim what I receive from Allah and His Messages for any that disobey Allah and His Messenger,- for them is Hell they shall dwell therein for ever."
Until when they see what they are threatened with, then shall they know who is weaker in helpers and fewer in number.
Say "I do not know whether that of which you were forewarned is near, or whether my Sustainer has set for it a distant term."
(He is) the Knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret, (Unseen is a different word here, the Jinn are totally visible to people if you know what to recognize).
Save unto every messenger whom He hath chosen, and then He maketh a guard to go before him and a guard behind him
That He may know that they have indeed conveyed the messages of their Lord. He surroundeth all their doings, and He keepeth count of all things.
Muslim Jinn, Jinn being worshiped (as they were and have been throughout the world), Jinn touching the sky but being harassed by radiation or flames. These are the "faithless" of old? These are "snakes" or "lowly"? It is some point of interest that the Jinn should talk so much about themselves "we are of differing sects" as if that is some news to people? The jinn made before humankind yet are humankind?
1526
Verily We created man of potter's clay of black mud altered,1527
And the jinn We created before, of intensely hot fire.
Are you still going to deny all this?
Are you going to turn away from all this in favor of your own idea which does not have any strong basis?
What is the Hebrew word Gens? Do you know that the Latin language and the Hebrew language are unrelated from different language families?
Will you deny that the words Jinn and Gentile have nothing to do with each other and are from entirely different language families?
Will you keep to your theory even when it says of the jinn there are Muslims in contrast to disbelieving jinn?
I mean there is so much, why would you continue to resist? Is it just because you haven't seen jinn? I showed links to videos which show you what they look like. Do you really need to encounter them yourself in order to believe in their existence? They are creatures, jinn, men, birds. They were made before humans and made from a different material, we are made of mud, they are made of fire, this was the whole argument of Iblis who was a jinn, he existed before Adam, was Iblis a human who existed before Adam and claimed to be made of fire while he is made of mud? What are you talking about? The Qur'an says the jinn were made before humans and were made of fire while the humans were made of mud, and that is why Iblis existed before Adam, the Qur'an remains consistent on the matter, your theory doesn't seem to match up (it is a good idea, an interesting theory, but it doesn't fit properly).
There is not Hebrew word Gentile, the word Gentile is not a Hebrew word, the word Goy is not connected to the root GNN in Hebrew which is the same as JNN, both mean Hidden, and Gentile has nothing to do with that word because its from a different language and was meant to be a translation of the word Goyim used by Jews to refer to all the "nations".
-
Peace, FreedomStands.
Thanks for posting all of those etymological definitions. They can be very helpful for those who don't understand the meanings of the words used in the Qur'aan, especially from a linguistic point of view...
We can't really give God anything, and God has no need for anything, nor can we really serve God anything, but God gives us everything, we give God nothing, though God is also what makes us worship or not worship, creating all that happens.
So even if it says "serve God" we don't serve God really. Even if it says "pay God" we can't pay God really, God gives us everything, we can give God nothing, there is nothing we can give God.
I think this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". Who and what is Allah to you?
In addition, if God is Who dictates whether we 'worship' Him or not (assuming that this is a commandment of His), then how can He manifest justice if He punishes us for not doing so? Given your position, there's no free will, and we can't voluntarily make the decision to worship (or serve) God at all; He's actually the One doing everything. So, how could heaven and hell/paradise ever be justified for those who worship God and those who don't?
We are in a state of surrender (whether God makes us aware of this or not), and it wouldn't matter if God said "worship me" or "I have a huge ego" or any of these silly things, because we're directing our worship to the Ultimate, not some specific thing, not an idol, but whatever is absolutely Ultimate, of which there is no greater, the absolute Greatest. Why get hung up on words and their meanings so much? Yes, words are important, and we can define them carefully as to how we mean them, but they are not worth getting bogged down with or hung up about.
So lets say it was written in the Qur'an "I have a huge ego, worship me, it pleases my huge ego", would that change our religion or way, our millat, deen, tao, whatever, at all? Would it mean to throw the whole Qur'an in the garbage can and forget any benefit that might be derived from it? Would it mean that you are no longer still under the power of the Ultimate, dependent on the Ultimate, made to suffer or succeed by the will of the Ultimate alone? No, certainly, it wouldn't matter. The religion, the deen, the millat, the tao, the dharma, whatever you want to call it, this strategy is Surrender, it is the logical conclusion to the realization of the one we can not overcome or defeat who has power over everything. It is a realization only given to those God wills to give it to, and you can not come to it on your own, just like you can not come to any understanding, good or bad, on your own, nor are you ever self-sufficient as you might imagine, but always dependent from even before your birth. You do not have any immortality, you do not have any presence, you are whatever Allah makes you to be, and Allah can change you, and Allah can destroy you, and Allah can call you to account, and Allah can harm you, and Allah can give you pleasure unbounded, and Allah can make you a saint in piety, Allah can make you a devil in mischief, and to Allah belongs everything everywhere, the heavens and the earth and all that is in between and beyond. Do you imagine that you're some immortal beings that can question Allah and do as you please? It is Allah who schemes, Allah who might make you think you are able, or willing, when it is actually the will of Allah working in everything, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to their destruction, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to work righteousness and be rewarded, and Allah can harm those righteous ones too, and Allah can shower blessings upon the wicked, and Allah is capable of everything, the only Free Will who is unconditioned, unbounded, unlimited.
Now why have you all come to this website? Allah has brought you here, but for different reasons perhaps, some of you will be led astray here, others will be strengthened in goodness, some of you will take the knowledge and be harmed by it, and some will use it for benefit. Why not use this website and these words to make speeches of exceeding beauty regarding Allah and also to take what is best? Why not purify yourselves and your religions and shed away silliness and bad ideas, even by exploring your doubts and thinking "even if" such and such, we are following this way for the reason that we are aware of surrender to the Ultimate, that we can't overcome the Ultimate, so make your practice and your thoughts pure for Allah only. You will not be able to do it, save if Allah wills.
Again, this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". When you refer to God as being "The Ultimate", what do you mean? What exactly is Allah to you? Is He some type of celestial being, like an alien? Is He a Universal force of some kind, like gravity or electricity? Is He a base of material, like an atom? Is He a human like us? Some people portray God as some type of superhero character out of a comic book, like Thor or Superman. Reasonably, we must conclude that, if He can write books, talk to people and send prophets, He must be something; otherwise, we could logically conclude that He (probably) doesn't exist at all... So, what is He? How do you perceive God, and how do you validate your view of Him?
When you (assumingly) make the choice to worship God, what are you worshiping?
Many people say that they don't know what God is, and that's reasonable based on the context. However, that logic has its own share of problems, the biggest being If you don't know what (and, therefore, "who" God is, then how can you be sure that you're not worshiping an idol or false deity?
Peace, and thanks for your post.
Ahmad
-
Peace, FreedomStands.
Thanks for posting all of those etymological definitions. They can be very helpful for those who don't understand the meanings of the words used in the Qur'aan, especially from a linguistic point of view...
I think this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". Who and what is Allah to you?
In addition, if God is Who dictates whether we 'worship' Him or not (assuming that this is a commandment of His), then how can He manifest justice if He punishes us for not doing so? Given your position, there's no free will, and we can't voluntarily make the decision to worship (or serve) God at all; He's actually the One doing everything. So, how could heaven and hell/paradise ever be justified for those who worship God and those who don't?
Again, this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". When you refer to God as being "The Ultimate", what do you mean? What exactly is Allah to you? Is He some type of celestial being, like an alien? Is He a Universal force of some kind, like gravity or electricity? Is He a base of material, like an atom? Is He a human like us? Some people portray God as some type of superhero character out of a comic book, like Thor or Superman. Reasonably, we must conclude that, if He can write books, talk to people and send prophets, He must be something; otherwise, we could logically conclude that He (probably) doesn't exist at all... So, what is He? How do you perceive God, and how do you validate your view of Him?
When you (assumingly) make the choice to worship God, what are you worshiping?
Many people say that they don't know what God is, and that's reasonable based on the context. However, that logic has its own share of problems, the biggest being If you don't know what (and, therefore, "who" God is, then how can you be sure that you're not worshiping an idol or false deity?
Peace, and thanks for your post.
Ahmad
Thank you so much for your message. Most people misunderstand me, What people are experiencing as "Free will" does exist. Also, God can create any form of justice system, and God created this particular form we know of, that is all I've been saying, but people keep misinterpreting me and claiming I am denying their experience of "free will" which I am saying is something they are experiencing and I am not denying that experience they are clearly having, and I am also saying that God created the justice system. If someone says that the Justice system was before Allah or Allah didn't make everything then these are simply people who are not really following logic or even what the Qur'an says.
You bring up some fantastic points which I have been trying to make myself for the same reasons! Yes, you must know what you are worshiping, and if you "don't know" or think "it could be this or that" then you do not have a strong or accurate concept of God at all and those people are just flirting with idolatrous notions.
I have explained everything at length and in clear detail (though people still seem to misunderstand it strongly) in this post, which I'd appreciate greatly if you read, since it answers your questions
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607171.msg362129#msg362129
I speak of only what is absolutely knowable through thinking carefully, and if anyone denies the existence of "anything" such as the experience of "stuff" in the vaguest sense or the existence of "information being experienced by them in any way" they are just being contentious liars and I frankly hate their guts for it.
As you'll see in my posts after my nice explanation there. I will read it along with you, and I hope you read it very slowly and carefully and see how cautious I have been to only speak of what is absolutely necessary to any common sense thinking person, and have not gone into conjecture or guessing and I know very clearly what it is that I worship and why it can only be that and I will not worship anything but that because I explain why anything less than that is not something I would call God ever.
-
Peace, FreedomStands.
Most people misunderstand me, What people are experiencing as "Free will" does exist. Also, God can create any form of justice system, and God created this particular form we know of, that is all I've been saying, but people keep misinterpreting me and claiming I am denying their experience of "free will" which I am saying is something they are experiencing and I am not denying that experience they are clearly having, and I am also saying that God created the justice system. If someone says that the Justice system was before Allah or Allah didn't make everything then these are simply people who are not really following logic or even what the Qur'an says.
You bring up some fantastic points which I have been trying to make myself for the same reasons! Yes, you must know what you are worshiping, and if you "don't know" or think "it could be this or that" then you do not have a strong or accurate concept of God at all and those people are just flirting with idolatrous notions.
I have explained everything at length and in clear detail (though people still seem to misunderstand it strongly) in this post, which I'd appreciate greatly if you read, since it answers your questions
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607171.msg362129#msg362129
I speak of only what is absolutely knowable through thinking carefully, and if anyone denies the existence of "anything" such as the experience of "stuff" in the vaguest sense or the existence of "information being experienced by them in any way" they are just being contentious liars and I frankly hate their guts for it.
As you'll see in my posts after my nice explanation there. I will read it along with you, and I hope you read it very slowly and carefully and see how cautious I have been to only speak of what is absolutely necessary to any common sense thinking person, and have not gone into conjecture or guessing and I know very clearly what it is that I worship and why it can only be that and I will not worship anything but that because I explain why anything less than that is not something I would call God ever.
Thanks for the link. I understood your post, and I agree with it to a great degree... I disagree to a degree also, however. For example, if we characterize God from that perspective, how could we rationally suggest that "he" could be encompassed within a framework of informational stimulation at all? In fact, from this standpoint, wouldn't God actually be an inanimate "it" more than anything? Logically, the only things we can associate with the notions in which Allah is characterized (by way of your description) are inanimate, at least from our perspective. For example, most of the things you mentioned can be said of the Universe, or existence/reality, itself. However, does the Universe have a "will"? Can it make "decisions"? Again, not from our perspective. The Universe, as it appears to me, is completely unaware of, and unconcerned with, our existence and experience. Worshiping God is as meaningless as worshiping the Universe; as baseless as 'bowing down' to Reality.
You seem to be depicting God, in a way, as a type of "eternal, conscious force or power". The problem I have with this is based on the comparative view of things we have NOTHING with which to associate this. God, from this viewpoint, is literally unlike anything we could possibly imagine or characterize, and that makes it impossible to define or understand him/it.
In addition, your notion raises the question of whether or not God is bound by the "laws" of cause and effect (or 'karma'. You made the statement that God 'creates what he/it wills', to which I agree. Yet, everything is stimulated through the means of previous causes, which can generally be assessed, evaluated, and even predetermined. Here's a fictional (and completely unrealistic too, but spare me) example
A man smokes a cigarette at a gas station while putting fuel in his vehicle. He pulls the nozzle out of the tank prematurely, spilling gas on the ground. He notices what he did, and gets alarmed. This causes him to jump backwards to avoid getting gas on his clothes, consequently dropping the cigarette from his mouth. The cigarette lands in the spilled gas. A fire is generated, and it quickly begins spreading. His vehicle explodes, igniting a fire throughout the rest of the gas station. The entire gas station blows up. Four people are killed in the explosion.
Which part of the explosion did God cause? Did He cause the man to begin smoking? Did He cause the spill, the dropped cigarette, the location in which it fell, the fire, the initial explosion, etc.? Did He cause all of them individually, or did one naturally lead to the others? Did God plan everything out in advance and 'cause' the man to need gas, or was this due to his excessive driving habits? Or were all the said events completely due to "chance"? That question may sound completely trivial, but I think it's important because the 'answer' illustrates exactly how much control God actually has over everyday events. Are we the ONLY 'information' being projected through our experience, or do the other factors (e.g. cigarette, gas, fire, pump, vehicle, etc.) also experience events as well, as (seemingly) 'primitive' forms of information?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace, FreedomStands.
Thanks for the link. I understood your post, and I agree with it to a great degree... I disagree to a degree also, however. For example, if we characterize God from that perspective, how could we rationally suggest that "he" could be encompassed within a framework of informational stimulation at all? In fact, from this standpoint, wouldn't God actually be an inanimate "it" more than anything? Logically, the only things we can associate with the notions in which Allah is characterized (by way of your description) are inanimate, at least from our perspective. For example, most of the things you mentioned can be said of the Universe, or existence/reality, itself. However, does the Universe have a "will"? Can it make "decisions"? Again, not from our perspective. The Universe, as it appears to me, is completely unaware of, and unconcerned with, our existence and experience. Worshiping God is as meaningless as worshiping the Universe; as baseless as 'bowing down' to Reality.
You seem to be depicting God, in a way, as a type of "eternal, conscious force or power". The problem I have with this is based on the comparative view of things we have NOTHING with which to associate this. God, from this viewpoint, is literally unlike anything we could possibly imagine or characterize, and that makes it impossible to define or understand him/it.
In addition, your notion raises the question of whether or not God is bound by the "laws" of cause and effect (or 'karma'. You made the statement that God 'creates what he/it wills', to which I agree. Yet, everything is stimulated through the means of previous causes, which can generally be assessed, evaluated, and even predetermined. Here's a fictional (and completely unrealistic too, but spare me) example
A man smokes a cigarette at a gas station while putting fuel in his vehicle. He pulls the nozzle out of the tank prematurely, spilling gas on the ground. He notices what he did, and gets alarmed. This causes him to jump backwards to avoid getting gas on his clothes, consequently dropping the cigarette from his mouth. The cigarette lands in the spilled gas. A fire is generated, and it quickly begins spreading. His vehicle explodes, igniting a fire throughout the rest of the gas station. The entire gas station blows up. Four people are killed in the explosion.
Which part of the explosion did God cause? Did He cause the man to begin smoking? Did He cause the spill, the dropped cigarette, the location in which it fell, the fire, the initial explosion, etc.? Did He cause all of them individually, or did one naturally lead to the others? Did God plan everything out in advance and 'cause' the man to need gas, or was this due to his excessive driving habits? Or were all the said events completely due to "chance"? That question may sound completely trivial, but I think it's important because the 'answer' illustrates exactly how much control God actually has over everyday events. Are we the ONLY 'information' being projected through our experience, or do the other factors (e.g. cigarette, gas, fire, pump, vehicle, etc.) also experience events as well, as (seemingly) 'primitive' forms of information?
Peace,
Ahmad
I'm very surprised you somehow came to those conclusions when I thought I had been explicit about how God must have a "will" and "decision" making ability and can not be "blind" or a "blind force". Is it really true that you read all that I wrote and still came out of it without seeing any of those points I made? This is highly disturbing to me.
Firstly, God is neither a "he" or "she" because those terms have to do with genitalia mainly.
God is not conditioned, not bound by causation, if there is any law of karma it is law that only exists by God continuously upholding it and is under the power of God, there is nothing working "automatically" or "self-animated" without God.
Every single aspect of your example, moment to moment, was "information" and no part of it could exist if God did not create that specific information and who received it and how they received it and what they received was the specific information they received and no others received that same information. I explained all this at length in my post, so I'm kind of doubting you really thoroughly read it.
To plan out things "in advance" there has to be Time over God when Time is under God it is a perception created by God and God is not under anything nor is there any power other than God or "law or system" that "co-exists" with God or "before God" or "above God" or "with God" and things like "time" were the very names of the other "Gods" people used to associate with God (Zurvan for example). It is quite clearly Shirk.
The only "information" you yourself have specific access to is whatever you experience as you experience it which is unique to you, and all that information, that specific experience and everything in it and how it is, is the creation of God, there is no other creator.
Please, can you read it? How could it be that you read what I wrote out in such a lengthy way explaining all these things and come up with these questions when I was so explicit in my detailing all that. How could you come to these conclusions by reading all I wrote? Please tell me you didn't feel like reading the whole thing and just skimmed it to get what you thought was the "jist" and came up with those questions that were clearly outlined in what I wrote, because it is just too saddening and disturbing to me that you could have read every single word I wrote in that thread carefully and then still come up with these things even when they were explained at length in what I wrote.
Maybe try these links then as well, which also answer these things, but please read the article I linked thoroughly and slowly and carefully even if you did before, because I was very clear in that I thought
http//lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=59014
-
Freedomstands,
Can you explain whats worship, why we need worship or what we need to worship? make it simple and short please.
Worship is just a word I use for the meditative exercise of realizing or enacting "surrender". It is meant as a practice to meditate and remind oneself of our natural state of surrender before the power of God. It is for your benefit, not for the benefit of any other, nor does God benefit from it or anything at all.
Worship is an important thing to understand and practice and remember throughout the day. If Allah's promise is made true, then it will be one of the important keys that may help us to achieve the Paradise which is the ultimate goal of lasting ultimate pleasure. Buddhists do it for the same reason often and so did many others throughout history. It reminds us of our humble state before God and also gives a great energetic feeling of empowerment if one understands why they are doing it and can provide insights while praying too, its basically just a meditative exercise.
We should direct our worship to the only power that can actually do anything about anything, and that is whatever at all is the Ultimate or Utmost in power of which there is none greater, and that can only be One, and I've described what the qualities must be necessarily in my article here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607171.msg362129#msg362129
If you worship an idea of God that is an idol or a form, or one that has partners in power, or multiple gods or false concepts, it is said your worship goes not to any of those concepts and they can't do anything to help you and your worship is rendered wasted and you will also possibly be destroyed for it, and it has many other consequences in life too for the kind of mentality that can come along with that kind of false worship or foolish ideas and this includes flirting with the possibilities of "we don't know what God is for sure" or "God might have a body, who knows" or not being sure and not knowing and not thinking it through to the very end.
-
Peace, FreedomStands.
I'm very surprised you somehow came to those conclusions when I thought I had been explicit about how God must have a "will" and "decision" making ability and can not be "blind" or a "blind force". Is it really true that you read all that I wrote and still came out of it without seeing any of those points I made? This is highly disturbing to me.
Firstly, God is neither a "he" or "she" because those terms have to do with genitalia mainly.
God is not conditioned, not bound by causation, if there is any law of karma it is law that only exists by God continuously upholding it and is under the power of God, there is nothing working "automatically" or "self-animated" without God.
Every single aspect of your example, moment to moment, was "information" and no part of it could exist if God did not create that specific information and who received it and how they received it and what they received was the specific information they received and no others received that same information. I explained all this at length in my post, so I'm kind of doubting you really thoroughly read it.
To plan out things "in advance" there has to be Time over God when Time is under God it is a perception created by God and God is not under anything nor is there any power other than God or "law or system" that "co-exists" with God or "before God" or "above God" or "with God" and things like "time" were the very names of the other "Gods" people used to associate with God (Zurvan for example). It is quite clearly Shirk.
The only "information" you yourself have specific access to is whatever you experience as you experience it which is unique to you, and all that information, that specific experience and everything in it and how it is, is the creation of God, there is no other creator.
Please, can you read it? How could it be that you read what I wrote out in such a lengthy way explaining all these things and come up with these questions when I was so explicit in my detailing all that. How could you come to these conclusions by reading all I wrote? Please tell me you didn't feel like reading the whole thing and just skimmed it to get what you thought was the "jist" and came up with those questions that were clearly outlined in what I wrote, because it is just too saddening and disturbing to me that you could have read every single word I wrote in that thread carefully and then still come up with these things even when they were explained at length in what I wrote.
Maybe try these links then as well, which also answer these things, but please read the article I linked thoroughly and slowly and carefully even if you did before, because I was very clear in that I thought
http//lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=59014
Actually, I did read the entire post. In fact, I read it several times to grasp the entirety of the information you were promoting. That's how I came up with the questions - because they appear to conflict with certain notions outlined in the Qur'aan itself. You said previously that you're not negating the notion of free will, but it certainly seems like you are. God is the Only One in control of anything, and every action taken by anyone (along with any of the effects orchestrated by those actions) are carefully planned and caused by God.
The example I gave concerning the smoker dropping his cigarette and initiating a fire (and explosion) are proponents of this same concept, and that's why I find it very intriguing. You're saying that God not only caused the smoker to drive to that specific gas station and get gas, you're also saying that He also caused the man to light up and smoke the cigarette. He caused the man to drop the cigarette, but He also directed the cigarette to land in that specific spot on the spilled gas, rather than causing it to fall somewhere else. That's absolute control; there's no getting around that point. With that kind of control, there can be no "free will". And that would make God a monster! If we remove the smoker and replace him with a drunk driver, an even bigger theological problem ensues, especially since, according to most Islamic enthusiasts, God explicitly condemns the drinking of alcohol. If I drink a bunch of liquor, get excessively intoxicated, hop in my car and drive down the road, and ultimately hit someone, killing the person, you're implying that God is responsible for taking the life. In fact, from the notion you provided, it seems as if I hold no responsibility in it at all God was the one Who drank alcohol (e.g. using my body, that is), got behind the wheel of an automobile, and killed someone.
How can he, therefore, justifiably throw me into hell for HIS/ITS own wrongdoing?
If God has a (and, from your perspective, the only) free will and mind, then He/It also has the ability to stop me from doing whatever I did and the outcomes associated with it. How could God possibly be "good" if, considering all the circumstances, He makes the decision to cause me to commit wrongdoing and take a life unnecessarily? If He has instituted 'divine laws' and mandates, such as 'not murdering others' or 'not drinking alcohol' (some would say 'getting intoxicated', why is He not following His Own precepts? Wouldn't that make God a hypocrite? And, if God somehow fell to the depths of depravity, which you are indirectly implying that He does quite frequently (due to causing people to commit horrendous crimes), having the knowledge of all of these events "in advance" (if we use time as a reference point) but not stopping them, wouldn't this make God to appear powerless?
My questions are based on my interpretation of your assessments. According to you, I am nothing more than information. If I asked you, "What does God do?", I assume that you would probably assert that God does EVERYTHING. And, philosophically, that presents a major problem. If God does everything, that means that I don't do anything - thereby ridding myself of all forms of blame and accountability. God is the One Who does everything. God is the One Who kills people. God is the One Who commits adultery. God is the One Who steals and robs banks and grocery stores. God is the One Who associates partners with Himself! I don't - and, in fact, CAN'T - do any of it; God is the One Who is responsible. And, based on this assessment, God is the One Who should be judged and thrown into hell - not me. I was just the 'vessel' that God used to perform all types of deplorable acts. None of it was me. It was all God.
On a larger scale, we could even conclude, based on this assessment, that God alone is responsible for the havoc wreaked by Islamic groups like ISIS and Boko Haram. God is the One Who tortured and killed millions of Jewish people during the holocaust, using Adolf Hitler as His vessel. God is the One Who caused men to travel on ships to enslave African people for hundreds of years. God is the One Who caused Islamic militants to kidnap hundreds of schoolchildren and brutally rape, torture and kill them. God is the One Who causes, by means of implanting "information" (or unavoidable direction), serial killers to slaughter masses of innocent people. Why should any of them be "punished" for crimes they ultimately had no control over? In addition, God is the One Who performs all righteous and pious acts, which negates the idea of people being "rewarded" for following His laws and policies. Everything is designed, planned and orchestrated by God. And, obviously, this throws JUSTICE out of the window completely.
So, based on this perspective, I should "worship" God; why? Simply because He's 'bigger' than I am? Not because He's good or admirable or just? It should solely be based on the idea that He's more powerful than I am and that He's in control of my life and death (even though none of that can truly be substantiated anyway)? That's called FEAR, not reverence. I can't admire God, based on those circumstances, any more than I could admire a bully who forces people to submit to his terror. God just happens to be a bigger bully than all of the other ones...
If that's not how you were trying to convey your points, then please make the correction; but that's exactly how I interpreted your essay. We are nothing more than information, and we are living out our experiences by means of this information. However, we don't have any control over the information (in which we are or receive), nor do we have any control over the experience. We're, more or less, robots doing what we've been programmed to do by our "designer". We can't turn to the right or to the left unless the "designer" causes us to do so. Everything is out of our control, and God is the One directing and causing.
On a side note, when I refer to God as a "he", I do that solely because that's the way people generally grasp the concept of God, as conveyed in the Bible, Qur'aan, etc. It's just an easier way to express the concept, based on societal norms. Even the Hindu "Brahma", who is said to be genderless, is referred to as "he". I'm not saying that God is a 'male'.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
That is nice that you read it, thank you, I was kind of surprised that those questions weren't already answered in there.
You capitalized the word "FEAR", that is good. I find that fearing God is an essential practice and natural to anyone who really understands what they might be dealing with. Each religion also seems to mention fear and the fear of God and usually in a positive way.
Yeah, I wouldn't pick on you for saying he or "He" or whatever, I try not to be annoying like that, I really can't stand when people try to break down communication by messing about obsessing over certain words like "he" or "He" or "Muslim" vs "muslim" or whatever else.
I find it curious that you would somehow feel that you didn't do the thing when you are the one doing the thing? Do you have any experience contrary to that? It is you who is doing the thing, you are the one, those are your hands moving, your body doing it, whatever else. Just like if a tree catches on fire, it is the tree that is burning.
It might help you to understand what I was saying if you think of a book in which things are written yet the characters in the book are the ones doing the things, they have no idea that they are in a book and it is being written. Yet if this is too mind-boggling and offensive to you, then don't concern yourself with it at all, and concern yourself only with the immediate level of awareness where you are clearly doing the things.
God is the only power, the power in and behind everything, but if that is where you find some objection, then there are many options of Shirk that are welcoming and ready to associate with God other creators. As for me though, I can not ever claim any other power or creative ability attributed to any but God, and this is a religion called Islam.
It is a religion that believes that deaths are not accidental even if they appear to be, but they are all precise and not even a minute of difference can be made in them.
These ideas are present in both the Bible and the Qur'an and elsewhere.
"Chance" "Justice" "Time" are not considered co-powers with God, but just elements and concepts that are put in some realities and experiences. Reality could be any way at all, we are experiencing something particular this moment, but we could experience anything else too, this has been mentioned in the Qur'an too in several ways, talking about how experiences can be changed and reality.
Not even "Justice" can save you in the end, from that "Monster" behind the veil of life, that is like Death. God will be the Judge because God is the one with power. If we had the power, we would be able to fight it, but God is known as the Irresistible. The Unstoppable.
Some people are born into luxurious estates, some are born into squalor, some are born with terrible diseases, some are born perfectly healthy but then have parts of their bodies damaged. Certainly anyone with power could stop these things or stop death itself. We should work diligently, as much as we are able and aware, against all harm, particularly the most lasting kinds. Don't worry about things you might not be able to understand at this time, if you can understand avoiding harm and seeking pleasure and particularly avoiding the most lasting harm (hell) and seeking the most lasting pleasure (paradise) then do that.