On intuition and false prophets
-
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
-
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.SLM
That Misr was recognized as the word used to refer to Egypt? What would qualify as proof of that? Its what they translate the word as in the Bible too.
-
Hicham,
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
Relax from your hostility friend.
Platform was just an alternative interpretation of the word, but the word means to continually supply something to someone and this is supported by lexicons that are even over 1000 years old. Why I chose platform is because such does do a similar thing.
I meant that you rely on their system of interpretation, grammar rules and you do still interpret Quran with their fog before your eyes. No rudeness intended. But you apply much more reason and logic that many other interpreters do.
But it is not true that I interpret according to my fancy because I study these ancient lexicons. But you have to take it a little lightly when I said platform because you need to know what I meant before you just come with attacks or say that I claim the word means literally platform. I did not say the word means platform. I said it means Sustainer, but if you consider that it means something else then so be it. But I say that something that is your Sustainer that is indirectly your platform because it maintains the platform of life.
I do not interpret Ebless even as a proper noun but part of the language as a normal word in the context. If you consider it to be a name then so be it. Nothing to fight over and be unpleasant.
Do traditionalists interpret 'Iblys' as hybris @M0F!?
'mr' as Mesopotamia!? 'gn' as incorporeal!? or 'lq' as suspension!? ...I rely on reason and linguistics.
And I do really consider that you are interpreting things according to your fancy, but like I said. It is more important not to be nasty than to argue over something in an unpleasant tone.
What is your argument for interpreting 'djen' as "incorporeal"? Ancient lexicons make indications towards the "outer layer" of something, i.e. body. The invisible or non-material entity illusion is something induced by the sectarian crowd.
What is your argument for interpreting Mesr as "Mesopotamia"? The syllables appear to be somewhat off for that purpose.
What is your argument for interpreting ebless as "hybris"? Have you ever considered that it is a bit crazy that a person is called something negative as a name even if the person does something bad?
Be well