On intuition and false prophets
-
I just wonder how it could be that a person is supposedly a believer, is shown the Qur'an, and rejects what it says and calls it a book of falsehood or lies. How can that be a believer?
Salam Freedom.
You may have noted from my earlier interactions I do not accept that the terms Mu'min and Kafir refers to believer and non-believer. For me they mean Faithful and (Faith) Repressor. You may find this to be trivial linguistic matter - but I find it a serious misconception.
To have faith in Allah it suffices that one accepts acting upon his God gifted sense of right and wrong as his/her obligation to Allah. Understanding / accepting any specific scripture is NOT a criteria for one to be "muslim"
365 O! Fraternity of the book - why do you debate concerning Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel were not sent down but from after him? So, why do you not understand?
366 Here you are ? the ones who (even) debated about which you had knowledge; then why do you debate about which you have no knowledge? And Allah knows, while you do not know.
367 Abraham did not happen to be a yahudi or a nasara, but rather, he happened to be a precise muslim (i.e. submissive) ? and he did not happen to be among the assigners of partners (to Allah).
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
Consequently Qur'an and Hadith were also not sent down but from after Abraham.
Accepting a sign only becomes mandatory upon the faithful after one has recognized the sign.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Salam Freedom.
You may have noted from my earlier interactions I do not accept that the terms Mu'min and Kafir refers to believer and non-believer. For me they mean Faithful and (Faith) Repressor. You may find this to be trivial linguistic matter - but I find it a serious misconception.
To have faith in Allah it suffices that one accepts acting upon his God gifted sense of right and wrong as his/her obligation to Allah. Understanding / accepting any specific scripture is NOT a criteria for one to be "muslim"
Consequently Qur'an and Hadith were also not sent down but from after Abraham.
Accepting a sign only becomes mandatory upon the faithful after one has recognized the sign.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
ArmanBut why isn't their "God gifted sense of right and wrong" working when they are faced with the revelations of the Qur'an? How is it right to deny the revelations of God or call them a lie and say (even to oneself) that they are false?
How can it be said, when the Qur'an seems to say that Allah makes them blind, that they are expected to understand (when they Qur'an says they will not understand, and seems to show multiple examples of instances of people who were completely ignorant and remained ignorant, calling them "deaf, dumb, and blind" and basically senseless, unable to perceive and repeatedly saying things like "but they do not know" "they do not understand" and things like that.
How can it be that Allah has chosen a person to be a "Muslim" one who apparently surrenders to Allah, yet that person lies and rejects the truth, and considers it an untruth (or else they would follow it), how can that be "right" and using their sense of "right and wrong"?
Is it not one of the greatest crimes in the Qur'an to utter lies regarding Allah, like for example to say that Allah has not sent the Qur'an, the Qur'an is a lie, that Allah is a lie, or whatever else some of these apparent "muslims" and deniers of the Qur'an might say?
Can you make sense of it to me perhaps?
How can they be expected to believe and understand when the Qur'an says they can not believe nor will the understand but were created particularly for the hellfire, misguided by God personally, and also cursed even further?
I just don't see how a person could supposedly be a heavenly person and then when they are shown the Qur'an's revelations they call it a lie, they deny them, they deny Allah, they deny the messenger, they deny all that, but then do good deeds? The Qur'an says their deeds are rendered completely null and void, because they deny the truth.
How can a truth denier, an illogical person who can not possibly understand, be considered a believer when they utter lies against the Qur'an and Allah?
Why is hell so filled with people and nations, were they all believers who then knowingly concealed the truth? Does anyone really qualify in that regard? No one who truly believes in Allah and knows Allah, who is to be utterly feared, would ever do such a thing. That is why they can never truly be believers, even Satan is a disbeliever because he doesn't comprehend enough fear to avoid the trouble ahead. I think they are "concealed" because the Qur'an repeatedly mentions them being blinded, a veil in-front of them, they are covered up, their hearts or understandings are blackened and covered and wrapped as they are unable to see past the veils or the diseases they have.
Who, if knowing Allah truly and believing truly, would then defy the revelation? It is simply impossible to do so, anyone who would dare to do so clearly does not comprehend, anyone who comprehends would be afraid.
Why then do they say they didn't know when it comes to face them? Isn't it clear that they had no belief whatsoever and so they took the chances they did because they clearly never believed in any of it as coming to face them? They used to call it "magic" and "fairy tales", and they seem to have meant it, because if they really believed in it, they would never deny it, never, because if you know the truth truly, you will never turn your back on it ever. They are literally disbelievers, and Allah has said enough I think to indicate they really can't hear or see or understand at all.
-
But why isn't their "God gifted sense of right and wrong" working when they are faced with the revelations of the Qur'an? How is it right to deny the revelations of God or call them a lie and say (even to oneself) that they are false?
Salam FreedomStands.
The key is in the word "when they are faced with the revelations of the Qur'an". If by this phrase you mean when someone recognizes the sign of Allah in Qur'an - yes if that is the case, and one still rejects the sign, then of course they are faith repressors.
However, recognizing the signs of Allah in Qur'an may not be as straight forward as reading the Qur'an or a translation thereof. Nor does everyone have the capacity to do so. There will always be the ones who do not know the book except wishful thinking
278 And among them are the uninformed - they don?t know the book except wishful thinking ? and nor they but believe.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
As a side question - what is your best estimate of the % of roughly 2 billion "Mainstream Muslims" who have actually read Qur'an cover - to - cover with understanding of the meaning?
Regards,
Arman -
Salam FreedomStands.
The key is in the word "when they are faced with the revelations of the Qur'an". If by this phrase you mean when someone recognizes the sign of Allah in Qur'an - yes if that is the case, and one still rejects the sign, then of course they are faith repressors.
However, recognizing the signs of Allah in Qur'an may not be as straight forward as reading the Qur'an or a translation thereof. Nor does everyone have the capacity to do so. There will always be the ones who do not know the book except wishful thinking
As a side question - what is your best estimate of the % of roughly 2 billion "Mainstream Muslims" who have actually read Qur'an cover - to - cover with understanding of the meaning?
Regards,
ArmanI think only a very, very tiny percentage out of those supposed 2 billion or more "Muslims". Many I've encountered have a poor understanding of the Qur'an and even the Hadith, not knowing much at all, just following traditions in a relatively blind fashion, almost like Christians. I think a person can worship Allah all their life, standing, bowing, and prostrating, and it can all mean nothing if one has not grasped Islam in thought and deed.
I believe one can spend their life in charity, helping the poor and being tireless in goodness apparently, but be a spreader of deceit and lies and harmful, even unknowingly, imagining that they are doing good, and Allah will judge all cases, but I think such can be thrown into hell for their lies or their shirk. It may be that Allah might spare them, but Allah can do whatever at all Allah wills to do.
I don't think they could possibly ever "know" and then while truly and deeply "knowing" they deny it, because if they really "knew" they would never deny it at all.
The Qur'an says things like "if they but knew", which seems to indicate, they did not know, and really were deaf, dumb, and blind.
-
Hello Samira,
I am actually fascinated by how modern Quran feels in its language if you interpret it as intended.
Today I noticed this It speaks of what you should say and act like in a lecture about GOD with psychological tricks people used today despite that the book is over thousand years old.
For example, right now I am deciphering on a part about murder and it uses a parable at first instead of moving on to the topic at once and then tells the lecturer to elicit responses and get the crowd to reflect. And it used an immense amount of humor too that I even laughed when I figured out the interpretation because I saw some humor in the parable's contents. One line was "Seek refuge in Being from becoming emotional".
While coming to the point about murder it had covered much of the falsehood that scholars have brought forth about religion along the path, simultaneously.
For those on the forum who are staunch worshipers would be disappointed though because it calls worship practices "dubious" while Being (It) is lifted forth.
Before even coming to the end it had already covered like 4 commandments while not mentioning it explicitly. That I call intelligent.
By the way, they are not called commandments literally but stones, because they are intended as a prevention from going where one should not go. Yet if one likes they can walk around the stone if they insist. So much for religious dogma.
Be well
-
I don't think so a @M0F!
- Your gibberish ain't a "fact"!
Sorry, but I need not this alleged "wisdom" of yours.
Funny that you might be talking about Man of Faith here in this particular thread entitled as it is, since many might consider Man of Faith this website's premiere "false prophet".
-
I don't think so a @M0F!
- Your gibberish ain't a "fact"!
Sorry, but I need not this alleged "wisdom" of yours.
Your opinion, hicham. It is respected.
It is not forced on you.
Be well
-
Funny that you might be talking about Man of Faith here in this particular thread entitled as it is, since many might consider Man of Faith this website's premiere "false prophet".
There sure was many false prophets too. The hypocrites who came up with the Islam people follow and the interpretation people so blindly accept.
Be well
-
There sure was many false prophets too. The hypocrites who came up with the Islam people follow and the interpretation people so blindly accept.
Be well
Yeah, and maybe me too, being considered that.
Though I think the ones considered Prophets (that are considered false) are the ones that seem to be bringing something "new" and so they are rejected.
My innovations or "new" stuff is just maybe the idea of reclaiming or seizing words back to use them more effectively, in order that people don't make up other partners with God, so how I was defining the term Lucifer for example.
In your case its the interpretation work that seems "new" to people and the translations.
Since I use the mainstream translations generally, people can't say I'm inventing things, since I'm quoting the mainstream established translations.
-
Funny that you might be talking about Man of Faith here in this particular thread entitled as it is, since many might consider Man of Faith this website's premiere "false prophet".
I don't think he's a "false prophet," nor a "prophet" for that matter!
Beside the hazy methodology, and the cheesy percept, ...
the tireless repetition of the same misconception/s (here and there) I find vexatious!
It is no secret that if anything is repeated sufficiently frequently it will be believed, even outright lies.SLM
-
Yes hicham. And it is exactly what happened with the traditional interpretation of Quran from where you get your information.
-
Yes hicham. And it is exactly what happened with the traditional interpretation of Quran from where you get your information.
Well I like several of his ideas. He made me feel less trapped regarding Islam, compared to the mainstream version of it.
Peace.
-
Samira,
For someone using the same traditional interpretation and language rules his ideas are sound which shows that there is some mindworks.
Be well
-
I don't rely on "traditional interpretations"!
Do traditionalists interpret 'Iblys' as hybris @M0F!?
'mr' as Mesopotamia!? 'gn' as incorporeal!? or 'lq' as suspension!? ...I rely on reason and linguistics.
You, however, rely on whatever suits your fancy.
You put your hand in your pocket. You bring out "platform" ~ then you call it RB!SLM
-
I don't rely on "traditional interpretations" @M0F!
Do traditionalists interpret 'mr' as Mesopotamia!? 'Jn' as incorporeal!? or 'aleq' as suspension!? ...I rely on reason and linguistics.
Our fallible dictionaries are not authoritative at all.
SLM
But Misr was the recognized term used in those days to refer to Egypt. It means "civilization" yeah, but that is the term used in the Semitic languages of the period to refer to Egypt, not Mesopotamia which had its own word.
The Jews, speaking Hebrew and Aramaic have the same word for Egypt and recognized it as Egypt, you can check any of those dictionaries and lexicons.
The word recognized for Mesopotamia or that area was totally different.
Would God speak in some futuristic definition for words or unknown ancient ways so that the people don't recognize what is being talked about, when the Jews and the Christians, both Aramaic and Arabic and others like Hebrew and whatever all recognized a certain word Misr and Misra as referring to Egypt while another word referring to another place?
The definition of words seem to come from the definition assigned to them by people and how they are used and what they are used to refer to.
Misr was used of Egypt by the Jews and the Christians, all the Semitic language speakers before even the Qur'an, and another word was used of Mesopotamia.
If your reasoning is (and I don't know what your reasoning is), that since Mesopotamia is considered the first or one of the earliest Civilizations or "Cradle of Civilization" today and that the word Misr means that, it should be noted that the word Misr meant Egypt to the Jews even before the Qur'an, and the Qur'an seems to use terms people are familiar with at the time.
Placing the whole story of Moses in Mesopotamia makes it particularly odd that the term "Pharoah" would be used, but one could say Firon was the person's actual name, where as Pharoah seems to come from a term meaning "Big House" and Musa in Egyptian would mean "Child" which would have seemed to make sense along with the nearby sea crossing but maybe none of that is true, and generations of Jews and Christians have been looking towards Egypt and using the word Misr to refer to Egypt, and without warning the Qur'an starts using this well established word for Egypt to refer to Mesopotamia (which is mentioned in the Qur'an under another name as well, when Harut and Marut are mentioned for example).
So the Qur'an couldn't inform people that another meaning is intended and a well established word is being used to supersede other well established words for no apparent reason except that the word means civilization so is somehow more rightfully belonging to Mesopotamia?
That is like me suddenly saying Egypt to you, and I secretly mean Japan. What the heck.
So many strange things happening on this flat Earth of ours.
-
But Misr was the recognized term used in those days to refer to Egypt. It means "civilization" yeah, but that is the term used in the Semitic languages of the period to refer to Egypt, not Mesopotamia which had its own word.
The Jews, speaking Hebrew and Aramaic have the same word for Egypt and recognized it as Egypt, you can check any of those dictionaries and lexicons.
The word recognized for Mesopotamia or that area was totally different.
Would God speak in some futuristic definition for words or unknown ancient ways so that the people don't recognize what is being talked about, when the Jews and the Christians, both Aramaic and Arabic and others like Hebrew and whatever all recognized a certain word Misr and Misra as referring to Egypt while another word referring to another place?
The definition of words seem to come from the definition assigned to them by people and how they are used and what they are used to refer to.
Misr was used of Egypt by the Jews and the Christians, all the Semitic language speakers before even the Qur'an, and another word was used of Mesopotamia.
If your reasoning is (and I don't know what your reasoning is), that since Mesopotamia is considered the first or one of the earliest Civilizations or "Cradle of Civilization" today and that the word Misr means that, it should be noted that the word Misr meant Egypt to the Jews even before the Qur'an, and the Qur'an seems to use terms people are familiar with at the time.
Placing the whole story of Moses in Mesopotamia makes it particularly odd that the term "Pharoah" would be used, but one could say Firon was the person's actual name, where as Pharoah seems to come from a term meaning "Big House" and Musa in Egyptian would mean "Child" which would have seemed to make sense along with the nearby sea crossing but maybe none of that is true, and generations of Jews and Christians have been looking towards Egypt and using the word Misr to refer to Egypt, and without warning the Qur'an starts using this well established word for Egypt to refer to Mesopotamia (which is mentioned in the Qur'an under another name as well, when Harut and Marut are mentioned for example).
So the Qur'an couldn't inform people that another meaning is intended and a well established word is being used to supersede other well established words for no apparent reason except that the word means civilization so is somehow more rightfully belonging to Mesopotamia?
That is like me suddenly saying Egypt to you, and I secretly mean Japan. What the heck.
So many strange things happening on this flat Earth of ours.
Sorry @FS, but I don't intend to do ur homework for you.
The learned few know well what I'm talking about.SLM
-
Sorry @FS, but I don't intend to do ur homework for you.
The learned few know well what I'm talking about.SLM
lol I thought I gave good reasoning. I had some questions in there I had hoped you could answer at least.
-
lol I thought I gave good reasoning. I had some questions in there I had hoped you could answer at least.
Very well!
Here's the dealI promise to waste my time refuting your invalid argument/s (point-by-point)
if you can provide positive evidence for your very first claim.Misr was the recognized term used in those days to refer to Egypt.
SLM