oldest fragments of Quran found
-
Arab or not, you are so fooled by the available understanding of Arabic and you speak an invented language. I have nothing against the Arabic ancestry, but I find a lot of pitiful people living in a delusion of thinking a language is authentic while it is a language based on lies where some hypocrites formed a language entirely incorrect with totally inaccurate definitions.
People basically have nothing right, not even the known grammar.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Arab or not, you are so fooled by the available understanding of Arabic and you speak an invented language. I have nothing against the Arabic ancestry, but I find a lot of pitiful people living in a delusion of thinking a language is authentic while it is a language based on lies where some hypocrites formed a language entirely incorrect with totally inaccurate definitions.
People basically have nothing right, not even the known grammar.
Be safe
AmenuelDoes Quran or any other scholar say classical Arabic means its words have no similarities with any other words found in other languages? The thing that looks like forging has a definition called linguistic borrowing under which many different borrowing categories exist. Then we have naturalization of words. This one touches upon the topic of linguistic borrowing.
http//rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/5997/1/RAEI_10_08.pdfI don't see how Aramaic roots or words can be an issue. I only see it as a tool from Allah to understand the verses because humans have a tendency to change words with time.
Ex gay= happy vs gay=homosexualThen think about Shirlock Holmes. A time came when it was very hard to understand many of its words simply because they were not available in dictionaries. I had that trouble. My dictionaries were not helping me. But then, how did the stories become so popular among young boys when they first appeared in Strand magazine?
-
Arab or not, you are so fooled by the available understanding of Arabic and you speak an invented language. I have nothing against the Arabic ancestry, but I find a lot of pitiful people living in a delusion of thinking a language is authentic while it is a language based on lies where some hypocrites formed a language entirely incorrect with totally inaccurate definitions.
People basically have nothing right, not even the known grammar.
Yes Amenuel, 400 million Arabs speak with one another every single day in an invented language with a fake vocabulary and fake grammar, and only you in this entire planet know the truth. Ah the burdens of genius and prophethood... must be lonely.
-
Yes and I suppose the arab christians who also happen to use the word "Allah" to mean "The God" since ages are also deluded in language.
They have nothing to do with what the Quran teaches, and it teaches that the trinity is false - the christians acknowledge this and reject the Quranic stance.
And here we have someone who says - no, even the christians bought into the hijacking of the meaning of the word "Allah".
"Muslim" arabs hypothetically, for the sake of argument, might have gotten their language robbed and accepted whatever the tamperers fed them. This is a belief issue, that is the motivation for language tampering, not the other way round, Amenuel.
But other belief adherents/"non-Muslims" who use the original language supposedly being tampered with, Why should they buy into the new meanings? It's beyond absurd.
-
Does Quran or any other scholar say classical Arabic means its words have no similarities with any other words found in other languages? The thing that looks like forging has a definition called linguistic borrowing under which many different borrowing categories exist. Then we have naturalization of words. This one touches upon the topic of linguistic borrowing.
http//rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/5997/1/RAEI_10_08.pdfI don't see how Aramaic roots or words can be an issue. I only see it as a tool from Allah to understand the verses because humans have a tendency to change words with time.
Ex gay= happy vs gay=homosexualThen think about Shirlock Holmes. A time came when it was very hard to understand many of its words simply because they were not available in dictionaries. I had that trouble. My dictionaries were not helping me. But then, how did the stories become so popular among young boys when they first appeared in Strand magazine?
The point is that Arabic words form their meaning based on the letters in formation. With Arabic, and Aramaic too, you talk descriptively very much, e.g. you can say "the thing that rattles" using the primitive letters of these languages. This is how words work in the Semitic languages.
Words could gain alternative meanings using that, but fundamentally they mean just one thing, i.e. their "talking" description.
God does not use the Arabic words of Quran to convey different meanings but they say simply one thing literally, however obviously their implication on the context may vary.
I have one example of when an Arabic word is used metaphorically. (zalam) is a word that literally means 'dark', but the word can also be used in reference to evil/shadiness when talking about a person who does wrong. Yet the word should be interpreted as saying dark, e.g. if you are saying someone is committing wrongdoing/evil you say they are "doing dark".
Both Aramaic and Arabic are basically from the same family of languages, from two divided family parts of Shem (hence the word S(h)emitic) where Ismail went south and formed what came to be the Arabs and Isaac stayed in the north and formed what was to be called Aram. Obviously both Ismail and Isaac once spoke the same language. That was about 4000 years ago, approximately, I do not have the exact dates, but you can estimate it depending on one's ability to know which Pharaoh (King) in Mesr the Mosaic lore refers to. Both branches of Semitic share the same root system where the roots mean the same but different grammar emerged and with words differentiating albeit always formed using the ancient letter system which is a characteristic of the Semitic languages.
Since originally the Semitic letters had a very basic and primitive meaning you cannot totally pervert the languages without the perceptive seeing that, but you can obviously throw dirt upon the common understanding (kafar = delude or have a cover up around you).
But Arabic (of Quran) does not have any linguistic borrowing and the language is based on the original language of Shem which is many thousands of years old. Rather many languages around the Earth borrow from these languages' letter or phonological sounds to deep down convey the same albeit in a different manner and combination of sounds.
Be safe
Amenuel -
And here we have someone who says - no, even the christians bought into the hijacking of the meaning of the word "Allah".
"Muslim" arabs hypothetically, for the sake of argument, might have gotten their language robbed and accepted whatever the tamperers fed them. This is a belief issue, that is the motivation for language tampering, not the other way round, Amenuel.
Depending on what you make of what you refer to God, Allah does refer to God, but not in the way people think. The one who is it, is Allah (is as such). Rabb is the accurate word for the unit God, which means Foundation basically, "(something which) gives/provides a foundation" literally for the two letters Ra-Ba.
Allah is not a "robbed" word but exists also in Aramaic and does not have an Arabic origin and the word does mean something and is not a proper noun which it cannot be carrying the AL grammatical prefix and in fact it is not even a noun but a kind of adjective meaning "such is" or even a verb when it is used with its full root such as in Allah together with the (heh) third person singular suffix, so one can say simply "who is" to not make it too complicated. You can compare it to Shakespeare's "to be or not to be, is the question" where "who such is" is the positive aspect of this. I can agree that Elah/Allah is a hijacked word by Pagans however to create some separate god entity with a word that does not have such implication. It is as symbiotic/assimilated as it can get.
The trap with Arabic is that it does virtually never refer to distinct objects unless it is supported by grammar, for example with words ending with for plural and for singular, and also then they do not always refer to physical objects. If Allah was a direct object reference (i.e. a god) then it would be written and it is not. However, Rabb is used in Quran as a name and is often address by "Ya Rabb". No one in Quran ever says "Ya Allah", for a reason you can make out yourself if you accept the argument that I presented above (since allah is used merely grammatically throughout the whole scripture).
People who know Arabic grammar ought to know that an AL-prefixed word would not ever be used as a proper noun but as an adjective, e.g al-hakiim "(AL = such is) wise". Rabbakum al-hakiim = Your wise Sustainer. Emanuel al-hamid = Emanuel - the commendable.
You can make an adjectival noun of words too with for example AL-Hakmateh (ة simply meaning 'Wisdom', i.e. (such is) - wise - dom with being the objectifying marker in singular.
Be safe
Amenuel -
The point is that Arabic words form their meaning based on the letters in formation. With Arabic, and Aramaic too, you talk descriptively very much, e.g. you can say "the thing that rattles" using the primitive letters of these languages. This is how words work in the Semitic languages.
Words could gain alternative meanings using that, but fundamentally they mean just one thing, i.e. their "talking" description.
God does not use the Arabic words of Quran to convey different meanings but they say simply one thing literally, however obviously their implication on the context may vary.
But God has to use words that the people for whom the message is can understand. In this case, its the Arabs. Words get naturalized with sometimes completely changed meanings. It is true in every language.
Allah is not a "robbed" word but exists also in Aramaic and does not have an Arabic origin and the word does mean something
But it looks like Allah has been naturalized to mean God in Arabic. That said, it is not a secret that Allah is not the only name of the creator.
I can agree that Elah/Allah is a hijacked word by Pagans however to create some separate god entity with a word that does not have such implication. It is as symbiotic/assimilated as it can get.
It isn't hijacked, but simply naturalized by pagans to make it a deity. For them, back then, it was the moon God.
The trap with Arabic is that it does virtually never refer to distinct objects unless it is supported by grammar, for example with words ending with for plural and for singular, and also then they do not always refer to physical objects.
Sometimes the mess occurs when grammar of one language is used to understand the sentences of another language.
If Allah was a direct object reference (i.e. a god) then it would be written and it is not.
We find it in Quran, don't we?
However, Rabb is used in Quran as a name and is often address by "Ya Rabb".
Because Rabb means sustainer and when it is used in dua, it assumes that you want him to sustain something? This is actually cultural.
Let me give you example of how people of other regions and religions use it.
We know shiva to be one of the main gods of hindus. When they ask him for something in their "dua" they don't call him shiva, but bholenath. The idea is that he is kind and innocent enough to listen to everyone's dua without caring about their personality. When they are happy with him they call him mahadev, meaning greatest god.
Here is something even far more complicated
Try looking for the meaning of satan in sanskrit and you will see it means "truth".
A little bit of digging would lead you to satan=eternal truth.
Does that mean our God is a lie? -
I know this thread has again steered off in a weird tangent as usually topics seem to behave these days but quickly
The word Allah is a name that translates as the perfect being who exists necessarily by itself, in other words, the true God. It is not and can never be a reference to a human being or a collection of beings that are themselves created, at all. It is essentially a reference to nothing other than to a perfect being, i.e. God. Exactly like the Farsi word "Khuda" and older Farsi "Xavatadh" / "Xvatay" (reminder a being that exists by itself (nothing else created it). It has absolutely nothing to do with Khod meaning "self" or Khodam meaning "myself/I", other than the common root "Khay".
That's like saying Khor a word used to refer to a small bay or a narrow gulf has something to do with the word Khod or even Khuda meaning "God" just because they share the same root(s).
17110 Say, "Invoke Allah or invoke the Mighty. By whatever you invoke, to It (God) the Most Beautiful Names. And not be loud in your prayers and not be silent therein, but seek between that a way."
Al-Rehman is also a reference to The God with a particular attribute "Might" and Al-Rahim like wise is the same with a particular attribute "Mercy". Allah is a named reference to this being to whom belong all of these numerous attributes simultaneously. All these attributes can only really simultaneously belong to that which is unlike any other i.e. - The one and only true God.
Also, I wanted to point out that it was "al-Lat" who was a fabricated moon goddess along with "Manat and "al-Uzza".
-
The so called Arab prophet was born in the 570 CE. This parchment was written sometime between 568 and 645. C14 test has an accuracy of 95%.
Furthermore Hijazi aka Jazm script had been used since 5th Century CE. It was later change to Kuffic Script by the Abbasiyah , when they took over the Caliphate in the 7th Century. This proof that the history of the sectarian Islam are a big lie.
THE QURAN THAT WAS SENT TO THE LAST PROPHET WAS MUCH OLDER THAN WHAT WE THAUGHT!
peace
Where exactly do you get your assumption that the Quran is older than we thaught? if anything it confirms that the Quran came when it is generaly excepted that it did to the Prophet Muhammad
-
Thanks for your input A.W.
Unfortunately you do not really contemplate the grammatical implications or you would not argue as you do.
Regarding Khoda I am well aware of what I have been talking about.
Be safe
Amenuel -
But God has to use words that the people for whom the message is can understand. In this case, its the Arabs. Words get naturalized with sometimes completely changed meanings. It is true in every language.
Yes, that is a kind of perversion of the language which sadly occurs. That means the word is not used as it once was and with Arabic and the Semitic languages it is relatively easy to expose such distortion due to their "innate letter meanings".
With Arabic this language is a bit special and no one understood Quran at its time, but there were hypocrites who claimed they could and whose interpretation you have today 2015. These people invented some kind of fake Arabic which one you have today, so Arabs actually speak an incorrect form of Quranic Arabic based on the invention of the clerics. No matter "naturalization", it is not possible to "naturalize" a word into no (la ا from meaning "to be" or "which is"; that is an obvious incapability to comprehend the language in the first place. Additionally, it would be far-fetched to assume the real word for no (ma ا would possible mean different things depending on context since that clearly opens up for misunderstanding. Finally it is absurd that a language has like 4-5 ways of saying no/not in a formal writing using bilateral words.
The truth with Arabic is that it is only (ma) that means no/not, and that is in all occasions of the word. It says itself that the ancient interpreters only worked hard to fill a religious doctrine into their work on "deciphering" it, and it is clear when we take into consideration what the sectarian Quran wants to convey with all its rituals, rites and exaggerated hatred and aggression of the god. Beneath that hoaxed interpretation is hidden a totally different narration, which I have partially revealed during my research and which is stored on my Personal Computer plus sent to select people around the World.
But it looks like Allah has been naturalized to mean God in Arabic. That said, it is not a secret that Allah is not the only name of the creator.
Yes, but that does not say it is correct. Because they could not understand Quran or the usage of it from the past they have "Paganized" it into God. "Rabb" is the accurate word for God in Arabic actually, i.e. the word that best translates the English god word. The misconception is because some people simply could not understand.
Allah is actually not even a noun but a verb with an attached third-person pronoun and should be used as such within a linguistic context, but can be used standalone to mark that "one is", i.e. is alive or existent, however that thanks to the attached pronoun. Like I have said 9385687528 times, Allah is a construct of A L L which root is also used when you add the prefix AL to words to create an adjectival word (such be + attribute), but in the case of allah it forms a verb plus attached pronoun reference (ه which word would come first in an English rendition most of the time.
Had the word referred to an object reference by the word itself, the word would have been written (Allateh), but these grammar rules people seem to disregard, not to mention you would not make a name of a word attached with AL without making a separation between AL and the name. You have an example with Pharaoh which is treated as a proper noun in Quran and is written , i.e. with AL separate from the name and in this case it is because the context makes a sample reference to Pharaoh to say "such as Pharaoh". Using that kind of grammar you would write for allah if you would follow this fact. Now you do not write as such to give a direct reference to a person because the attached AL would make a sample reference as "such as" about the person mentioned. A difference would be if you instead said (ahl) which is also a construct using AL but with attached in the word, e.g. ahl Musa which would imply that like-minded people "such like" Moses who are with him.
You will not see Quran use AL-Rabb for example for a reason, because it is simply linguistically incorrect.
Despite highlighting fallacies like these, people of this forum do seem to cling unto their fallacious perception despite multiple errors in their linguistic usage when they say about the word allah what it is not as explained above, because they are very insistent on making allah a word for God.
See this checklist of various forms that would be acceptable to make an object out of the word properly
allah - Cannot be used as a proper noun because it is linguistically incorrect and also impossible to make into an object alone too (no , see below).
allateh - the only way to make a direct object reference of the AL marked word. Can still not be used as a proper noun, and in fact the word turns into an adjectival noun.
lah - the word could theoretically be used as a proper noun, but it would be very unspecific and lacking in meaning and Semitic words are supposed to carry a Spiritual meaning.
AL Lah - could be used like the previous example in reference to a proper noun, but the AL gives sample reference to the person lah. A usage in Quran would clearly write AL and LAH apart from each other.But because we know better we know that allah means "who is" and is a verb in the language, and at best one can claim that the word is a pronoun substitute for a proper noun if one likes to keep arguing, but yet the "name" predicate is in the last letter alone.
Busting a myth is difficult business, especially when it is imprinted into the skull bones of people and part of an indoctrinated doctrine. Not making it easier is that people possess an invented language too and are deluded into believing that this is authentic and truthfully representing an ancient scripture speaking of something vastly different.
It isn't hijacked, but simply naturalized by pagans to make it a deity. For them, back then, it was the moon God.
You can actually say it is also hijacked, because these Pagan clerics took Quran and then used it for such doctrine. They used it to "confirm" their dogma. The word Elah/Allah is a very very very old word that is thousands of years old and obviously misconception has also branched out from the trunk and AL as two letters means just "Such as" or even THAT (the SUCH) and ALEH "the such is", i.e. "what simply is". They made the God phenomenon exclusive and degraded themselves into slaves while God actually seeks associates, i.e. maleikat (angels). These madmen actually kill people who likes to become associated with God because they claim that they are blasphemers in their delusion, and this is a reason they executed Jesua (Jesus).
If they seek for God they have it in the word Rabb and that means Foundation-Provider literally and people are "within that sphere", so to say. It is like a singularity, i.e. a phenomenon with immense content yet not taking any space (allegorically speaking).
Sometimes the mess occurs when grammar of one language is used to understand the sentences of another language.
You could have told that to the Persian clerics who had a hand in the interpretation of Quran, but they would probably have branded you as a blasphemer and stoned you.
Because Rabb means sustainer and when it is used in dua, it assumes that you want him to sustain something? This is actually cultural.
You do not comprehend the full magnitude of its implication. It is not cultural but the Rabb who made Quran written refers to the word's literal meaning of "Foundation-Provider", i.e. "the phenomenon that gives a foundation". The whole existence including the World is dependent on Rabb, this is why God is called Rabb linguistically. The World itself is the Rabb it can be said. 'Ra' as a letter is the actual "foundation" marker and is also used in words such as "eaRth" in English which is a direct loanword from aRdh in the Semitic languages. Ardh means "the visible foundation" morphologically. It is not the planet alone that is ardh, but everything visible is ardh. It is the word for (this) world in Quran.
On this level it does not have to do with belief but this is factual information from your Creator.
Rabb is obviously descriptive of God's role in the Existence just like aware people name themselves appropriately according to their destiny as well. My name is Amenuel which means "Be Of Integrity Such As" which is a symbiotic reference to Rabb and the allah unity. This is a little saga or drama that God created to make Existence a little fictionalized. Our whereabouts here is filled with divinely influenced signs actually which the perceptive can see by reading the ancient lore, if they can read between the lines where there are nonsensical insertions.
Also besides the Lore there is God's amusing imagination because A ' rabb (the people) obviously have to do with Rabb as a word just as A ' ramm have to do with another aspect of God and Miryem (virgin Mary "Mi - rayem" have something to do with it.
Let me give you example of how people of other regions and religions use it.
We know shiva to be one of the main gods of hindus. When they ask him for something in their "dua" they don't call him shiva, but bholenath. The idea is that he is kind and innocent enough to listen to everyone's dua without caring about their personality. When they are happy with him they call him mahadev, meaning greatest god.
The symbiotic 'Higher Intelligence' obviously knows about the human tendency to make gods but rabb is not meant to be objectified that way but it is a function description and reference. God is everything and in you, in me, and in that fool who cannot perceive it too.
If you say "ya Rabb" you call upon the Foundation itself, which means you call upon everything, if you understand the word's meaning. In English you could say God as well, it does not matter and this is not what I meant. In Arabic and other Semitic languages, Rabb is the best choice linguistically, but then that they have ignorantly turned other words which suit it poorly is their choice where Allah probably is the worst choice not even being an object reference but a verb with pronoun.
I think you misunderstood that I gave exclusivity to Rabb for the whole World, but that is not correct. You can choose any appropriate word in any language, but it would be wise if the word well describes the function of God. Personally if I used an English word I could say "My Foundation", or "Sustainer" which sounds more natural, or if I want a really long and the most accurate word I could say "My Foundation-Provider". Like I wrote, you need to be aware that Arabic exclusively conveys its meaning descriptively for what kind of function or features something has.
Here is something even far more complicated
Try looking for the meaning of satan in sanskrit and you will see it means "truth".
A little bit of digging would lead you to satan=eternal truth.
Does that mean our God is a lie?Satan means "Charge/apply Judgment BY Integrity" (in a morphological breakdown) which would mean to follow sincerely what you see before you without thinking deeper. It is the most natural choice but that choice is a delusion created by God. If you like to make Satan an easy-to-understand word you could use "instinct" in English.
a natural tendency to behave in a particular way or a natural ability to know something, which is not learned
In ways it is the truth that you know without digging deeper. The Sanskrit definition may not be incorrect, but you need to also reflect upon how it should be interpreted. If you just give in to the World sincerely as it is designed then that is to follow Satan, and "truth" may not be entirely wrong, but I think "eternal truth" is not the correct definition from the Sanskrit version of Satan.
If you see my morphological Semitic breakdown of Satan you see it is to "(naively) judge the world by its appearance". If you contemplate then you see that we are not supposed to follow the "programming" of our Bodies, i.e. the instinct. The instinct is our most ardent enemy and stumbling block.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Peace Man Of Faith.
That was a long post. Back to normal now!
You know when you said,quote
Beneath that hoaxed interpretation is hidden a totally different narration, which I have partially revealed during my research and which is stored on my Personal Computer plus sent to select people around the World.
I hope I am getting a copy soon?
GOD bless you brother.
Peace. -
Hello good logic,
That was a long post. Back to normal now!
When the Rabb wills. I loathe all this writing and the responses. I prefer being a quiet observer but that does not change anything, even if it may retain my own peace.
I hope I am getting a copy soon?
You may, it is not my decision to make. Eventually the finished rendition will be published for everyone on Earth free of charge unless the governments censor them away from it. Sadly this "re"interpretation of Quran will not bring peace to the World but more turbulence even if there are also people who will benefit greatly from its cleansed appearance. And I may be a persecuted man.
According to the prophecy of Isaiah "the Compilation" is supposed to be put in order and then placed among disciples for safekeeping. Yes, we are actually fulfilling a prophecy right now and the prophetic lore is not over yet. I hope you understand why Isaiah is mentioned in chapter 36 and the chapter initialed Ya-Siin which are the two first letters in his name, and why I was given word that there was something special about chapter 36. After a careful analysis I discovered a whole lot of information. This may resonate with your own reasoning, taken from chapter 36
And show which of them that originally accompanied the collection; about the directives that were made, then two of those directives were lied about to strengthen the third. Then say ?These are your directives.?
(The directives are namely the two first lines of the Decree of Moses. Those abused to create a materialized separate god)
(they) Say ?You are not any announced one and that comprehensively reveals the fact that you are nothing but a liar?
Say ?The Rabb taught that these are the directives for you and only those in pursuit of clarity are unto them.?
Say ?This doctrine that you proposed is conjecture of yours and why do you choose to insist on it??
Say ?Your doctrine is from yourselves. If you are mindfully acquainted then why do you remain in transgression / and commit the same acts as the people of the community of Isaiah?? Tell ?O friends, accept the directives, / accept what affects your fate and are authentic ones / and the one who breaks the bond is not bonded and that one will face the consequences for their lifestyle of adversity to the entirety of the deed upon themselves of something and that which is the solution / it is then clearly in the error.
He/she who behaves like your Sustainer hearkens unto what was said about entering the body. Said ?Approach it by the way of awareness without a shield/helmet towards its Sustainer and make it a noble one and what is showed by his/her ways of remoteness widens ?The Door?, but it does not appear for he who is such as it was blasphemed by which it will fade / away upon such lack of attachment to what was given of directions to turn to carry its weight??
"...to what you have been alluded equivocally to be included in those previous Testaments by those of them that give answers / and every which does not apply the system at hand / and the World has their parable. The parable is life itself and is clear through everyone taking pleasure from it / and we take the bodies for evaluation and sifting and so the final delivery is delayed / so to allow everyone which will bear fruit and so does not the one whose quality is absent in the produce".
Successful is the one who perfect all their roots to not grow in this World and by their people, but of those who do not learn, / the parable of their appearance is as if the light/strength was removed as when they are in darkness / but the shine continues to have an effect while having a great feeling of potency / but that fresh potency will eventually fade to turn into withered old / like the fading of the sun (shine) which has reached its destination to make the light vanish, and every surviving one is successful.
(sometimes parables in languages are difficult to transfer into another language. I hope it is possible to understand this one. The human life cycle is the parable here and to waste it indulging here)
And their parable is that they were planted to rise in a manner of survival and perfected by example of not passing on / in a manner that they are choked by which overwhelms them and this is their deliverance into completion and benefit at harvest.
And when talking about those who do not swallow your share of Being (Allah), say ?These ones delude the ones who realize/have integrity to control the matter of Being (Allah), to control those of you who have a proper/healthy/sound lifestyle.?
And they are replying ?I have been given such word that you should not truly consider what is a blasphemy to accept them and they oppose that which has been traduced by the preaching and it is within their answers and utterances that prepares for when one has the consolation of their Sustainer in the grave.?
Say ?Approach the liberation from such slumber. Such word is not in its entirety true directives. / What makes such is preached unique when they can join such ?Kingdom? at hand, / to recourse to what protects the ways of a person and which leaves that which is not you who do / but the accompanying Body that such inclines to tempt one to be them and binds one to constrained remain, / such as those who proceed into being it and are those who are not seeking soundness in sayings of the absolute Sustainer / and to remove the inclination to be its slaves.
(Note The phrase I made bold is nearly identical to what Jesus once said, and I did not force the text to say this but it is an honest translation and interpretation of the ancient Arabic.)
Here is your remedy, O Children of Adam. It is that which applies the instincts that you should distinctively turn away from. That makes one cling unto a path of having mindfulness and which kindles the life of yours to be able to avoid / such is ?Attachment to Body? (Hell). If you reform / following what you have been instructed you will not be deluded. You should proceed with the process of changing them and the arguments of their benefit and watch the footsteps to not become hoarders.
And care to put into them by being an aid to have a permanent path to perception / and a care out of generosity for them to make them not have to experience separation and which is recurring / and such abode is reversed into perfection by withholding and not consciously get acquainted with it / and not desire it. This is what is a regard and a proper Testament (Quran) / that spreads after been prepared and with true expressions that the deluded alluded equivocally to be shaped according to them which deed does not help that blindness on them compared to those who manage theirs...
And (they*) lose that which they had in their possession and from their supply / and which they profited and passionately attained bounties / and experience the fate of Being (Allah) it upon them. Saved / are (those) who enabled their salvation and they are those who strive towards readiness. / About this you sadly tell them ?It was present, not secret nor manifest, / yet eluded the senses as it was of perfect availability when its clarity was disputed and (it*) was revealed about its messages and model of spirituality?. Say ?This is a great revelation and what it unraveled?
Say ?Have their preservation will the one who cared for their ultimate destination and this one is in its entirety perfectly aware that / the one who caused you burdening hardship will disintegrate meanwhile it is you who are already / absorbed in the one who shaped ?The Doors? and ?The World? with power over those who shaped (their*) mindlessness example and this one perfectly understands that there is no predestination (lit. ?determination what matter arrives? in Arabic). It is to be told that he/she who is to become / successful is the one who in all ways master to be a controller (angel) and such is his/her destiny.?
- In Arabic the pronoun in a continuous clause is often omitted since Arabic is a minimalist language. I remained sincere to the original Arabic by adding it only within parenthesis.
My translations are very literal and often follow the rhythm of the original Arabic hence it may be difficult to understand my renditions. Later there will be a better adaptation to the English language.
I did not give any verse number reference because it has no relevance to you anyway since there is simply nothing to relate to for you or other people.
This is not wasted work even if you do not accept it because I had the opportunity to revise my translations. It is not easy to deal with a forgotten or unknown language.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Thanks Man Of Faith.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
No reason to thank me, good logic. You are welcome.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Yes, that is a kind of perversion of the language which sadly occurs. That means the word is not used as it once was and with Arabic and the Semitic languages it is relatively easy to expose such distortion due to their "innate letter meanings".
I wouldn't call it distortion. With time, many words are dropped in majority of the languages. Although the west has done a great job of keeping collection of the dropped English words they are not always available in dictionaries.
Try looking for these words in dictionary
Interfactor it actually means murderer
Olitor this one means kitchen gardener
English came long after Semitic languages. Yet so many of its ancient words are missing now.With Arabic this language is a bit special and no one understood Quran at its time
Evidence?
These people invented some kind of fake Arabic which one you have today
Its not fake Arabic. Just like every language, for convenience sake, some words are dropped for which some verses of Quran seem incomprehensible. We have to take evolution of culture, rulers and their hadiths into consideration.
Yes, but that does not say it is correct. Because they could not understand Quran or the usage of it from the past they have "Paganized" it into God. "Rabb" is the accurate word for God in Arabic actually, i.e. the word that best translates the English god word. The misconception is because some people simply could not understand.
Allah is actually not even a noun but a verb with an attached third-person pronoun and should be used as such within a linguistic context, but can be used standalone to mark that "one is", i.e. is alive or existent, however that thanks to the attached pronoun. Like I have said 9385687528 times, Allah is a construct of A L L which root is also used when you add the prefix AL to words to create an adjectival word (such be + attribute), but in the case of allah it forms a verb plus attached pronoun reference (ه which word would come first in an English rendition most of the time.
My sibling starting from day 1 of her life used to call "Allah" whenever she cried. Also it seems when used in duas, God doesn't seem to have problem with it. He ends up fulfilling the wish. Many pious people including Quran followers call him by that name. If they were being wrong they would have got his signal long time ago.
Had the word referred to an object reference by the word itself, the word would have been written (Allateh), but these grammar rules people seem to disregard, not to mention you would not make a name of a word attached with AL without making a separation between AL and the name. You have an example with Pharaoh which is treated as a proper noun in Quran and is written , i.e. with AL separate from the name and in this case it is because the context makes a sample reference to Pharaoh to say "such as Pharaoh". Using that kind of grammar you would write for allah if you would follow this fact. Now you do not write as such to give a direct reference to a person because the attached AL would make a sample reference as "such as" about the person mentioned. A difference would be if you instead said (ahl) which is also a construct using AL but with attached in the word, e.g. ahl Musa which would imply that like-minded people "such like" Moses who are with him.
I wouldn't read too much into it anymore, for when I went to research on it I found out the article Al first showed up in Al-lt. That's preclassical Arabic. The name belongs to their goddess.
Satan means "Charge/apply Judgment BY Integrity" (in a morphological breakdown) which would mean to follow sincerely what you see before you without thinking deeper. It is the most natural choice but that choice is a delusion created by God. If you like to make Satan an easy-to-understand word you could use "instinct" in English.
a natural tendency to behave in a particular way or a natural ability to know something, which is not learned
In ways it is the truth that you know without digging deeper. The Sanskrit definition may not be incorrect, but you need to also reflect upon how it should be interpreted. If you just give in to the World sincerely as it is designed then that is to follow Satan, and "truth" may not be entirely wrong, but I think "eternal truth" is not the correct definition from the Sanskrit version of Satan.
Agree
-
Update on mr olaf it seems that he has finally taken his mask off to reveal that he is the long lost brother of terrorist pamela geller.
From his twitter
How to explain that 1 out of 75 is Muslim in prison in France without understanding congenital link Islam-violence?
220 dead, 450 injured in a stampede in Mecca want, Muslims are victims of the 1st themselves
source https//twitter.com/OdonLAFontaine
check his youtube profile pic https//www.youtube.com/user/levraiolafIts hard for me to believe people take him seriously.
-
Hello reel,
I wouldn't call it distortion. With time, many words are dropped in majority of the languages. Although the west has done a great job of keeping collection of the dropped English words they are not always available in dictionaries.
Yes, but in many cases the changes are not good, particularly when a word changes in meaning. In the case of Quran it is obvious that a clergy did it so that it fit their ideas.
Evidence?
The evidence is empirical, there is simply no source that portrays Quran's interpretation in any proper light. Besides that during my interpretation work of chapter 36, a passage says itself that it was not interpreted previously.
It is perhaps not evidence to you but I also got firsthand words that the Quran is not an interpreted source and "Islam is not My religion".
Its not fake Arabic. Just like every language, for convenience sake, some words are dropped for which some verses of Quran seem incomprehensible. We have to take evolution of culture, rulers and their hadiths into consideration.
It is fake Arabic, or at least it is not the kind of Arabic that Quran stands for. Quran is written by the Holy Spirit and hypocrites attempted to understand it and a fabricated language emerged. Arabs and other nationalities that are Arab speaking speak a clerical invention based on a very poor interpretation of a scripture where even very primitive bilateral words can have totally opposite meanings, and then I speak about 'la' that is twisted into not and that is simply not possible even with a natural evolution of languages. The plain answer is that someone read this scripture and then began to speak it as according to their understood it as a "holy language" which it also is but not their "version". Even many medieval lexicons from past times do not agree with "their language" oftentimes after some research. A lexicon called Taj el'Aroos is most truthful to the ancient tongue of Arabic.
You can call a language anything but the Arabic that Arabs speak today is not the language of Quran.
During the official advent of Quran the majority of Arabia spoke Aramaic, particularly the northern parts, and that kind of historical documentation is well available if you study a little. Then all of a sudden the whole continent begins to speak Arabic, and an Arabic that is completely wrong. That is the (evil) power of religion; Islam began to suppress the Gnostic faiths calling them associators with God in a negative light while Quran actually advocates the opposite, i.e. association with God. This misconception is the power of changing yes into no. Just check the phrase 'la elah ila allah' given its correct rendition "To be 'Who Is' is to be 'As Such Who Is'". You see that the purpose is "TO BE ALLAH", i.e. "who is".
Who are the culprits? Individual Persian clerics seeking domination using their allies.
Who are the victims? Superstitious undeveloped Arabs.
What was the plot? Beat down on the "blasphemous" association that the Aram, Ashur and Median faiths indulged in and was spreading and a raging rebellion against Rome and the Christian movement. Islam is an answer to early Christianity, and in their opinion derailed Judaism, by Persian clergymen. It was an instrument of politics. There was a great turmoil politically within the Persian empire due to the chaos Jesus left behind within the religious realm. Behind the scenes it had to do mostly about religion.
I dislike being opinionated, but Christianity is based on a drastically more solid doctrinal ground even if it obviously has been sectarianized because they believe in "Father, daughter/son and the Holy Spirit" which is an accurate metaphor over the nature of God. A mistake that the adherents to Christianity have done is that they treat Jesus other than what they can themselves be. He actually taught that everyone who followed his example would be children of the Father and it is in the very same scripture that the Christians claim to follow. They have not understand the meaning of "son".
My sibling starting from day 1 of her life used to call "Allah" whenever she cried. Also it seems when used in duas, God doesn't seem to have problem with it. He ends up fulfilling the wish. Many pious people including Quran followers call him by that name. If they were being wrong they would have got his signal long time ago.
It is not "a bad thing" only ignorant and obviously God is used to ignorance and obviously God knows what people who say Allah mean when they ignorantly use an inaccurate term.
God (Rabb) is included in the Allah unity, but also those of us who are ascended into awareness. I can also say I am Allah. In the Allah unity, God is Rabb. Disregarding this, NO ONE IN QURAN SAYS "YA ALLAH" and YA is a word you use when you address someone meaning there is no one who addresses God using YA ALLAH, for a reason.
In the end it is worth knowing that God does not really care about words but what is in your heart and what you do with yourself. Yet it may be an idea to properly use a language that you claim to master using proper definitions, even if God knows what you mean, even if you only think in your mind what you would like to say.
If someone likes to use (Quranic) Arabic terms they ought to use Rabb, if they like to speak the language properly.
If they were being wrong they would have got his signal long time ago.
That is why you receive a signal from me. Allah is not an accurate address for God since the word is not even a noun and it can grammatically strictly not be a proper noun as those words would not carry an AL prefix and even if they did the meaning would be silly.
I wouldn't read too much into it anymore, for when I went to research on it I found out the article Al first showed up in Al-lt. That's preclassical Arabic. The name belongs to their goddess.
Yes, Allat is an ancient goddess and there you have an example when it can be an object since it is flagged as such. Allah on the other hand can grammatically not be an object.
The word Elah/Allah however is thousands of years old and originally referred in third person to what God said to Moses, i.e. "I am who am I" (I AM) and thus "Who is". It predates Quran and exists natively in Aramaic too and the whole people of Shem used the word within their language. In the Arabic language its root is an integral part of the grammar while people are blind to this fact. AL is used to unspecific refer to something as an attribute, or you can add a (teh) to make it a passive attribute such as that you can say Wisdom in English.
You have not realized that there may have been Pagan misconceptions in between the time that the word Elah/Allah came into use and now today? You have to realize it may be 4000 years ago that the word Elah/Allah went into use. They may have misunderstood the concept utterly and then created a feminine kind of God named Allat which is physical/objectified per grammar.
Furthermore, during my deciphering work on Quran, it has been revealed that "allah" is used in the way I have explained to you more than once, i.e. it should be read as "who such is" formed by a verb plus pronoun. Because it is descriptive concerning the condition of 'Being' the word is only true for "who is", obviously. If you are alive, conscious, acting "as such", you are Allah, or otherwise you are al-mowt, which means lifeless (even unconscious/no consciousness). The Rabb is obviously Allah, but the question is who is included in the Allah unity. I am as bold as to raise a hand.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Yes, but in many cases the changes are not good, particularly when a word changes in meaning. In the case of Quran it is obvious that a clergy did it so that it fit their ideas.
They couldn't change every meaning though. Whatever remained was covered up by hadiths so people didn't even bother checking.
The evidence is empirical, there is simply no source that portrays Quran's interpretation in any proper light. Besides that during my interpretation work of chapter 36, a passage says itself that it was not interpreted previously.
Quran wasn't new though and we are told in verses how things were corrupted by the previous people.
It is fake Arabic, or at least it is not the kind of Arabic that Quran stands for. Quran is written by the Holy Spirit and hypocrites attempted to understand it and a fabricated language emerged.
That's true, but I really don't think humans have the ability to speak Quranic language just as in the west people are not capable of speaking Shakespearean English.
Arabs and other nationalities that are Arab speaking speak a clerical invention based on a very poor interpretation of a scripture where even very primitive bilateral words can have totally opposite meanings, and then I speak about 'la' that is twisted into not and that is simply not possible even with a natural evolution of languages.
The plain answer is that someone read this scripture and then began to speak it as according to their understood it as a "holy language" which it also is but not their "version". Even many medieval lexicons from past times do not agree with "their language" oftentimes after some research. A lexicon called Taj el'Aroos is most truthful to the ancient tongue of Arabic.
Arabic didn't come from Quran though. There are poems from preIslamic time. If only they could speak the Quranic language they would decoded everything from the book. Apparently, certain things from Quran are still in the process of being revealed as true because of progress in our own knowledge. One example is how death is similar to how we sleep every night. A scientist recently confirmed this to be true. The secret is in a specific hormone.
You can call a language anything but the Arabic that Arabs speak today is not the language of Quran.
Arabs know it though.
During the official advent of Quran the majority of Arabia spoke Aramaic, particularly the northern parts, and that kind of historical documentation is well available if you study a little. Then all of a sudden the whole continent begins to speak Arabic, and an Arabic that is completely wrong.
Not all of middle east is in the north right? Is it possible to make a conclusion about America by studying Canada? Inscription showing Quranic Arabic mixed with Aramaic has been discovered on a tomb before the birth of christ.
That is the (evil) power of religion; Islam began to suppress the Gnostic faiths calling them associators with God in a negative light while Quran actually advocates the opposite, i.e. association with God. This misconception is the power of changing yes into no. Just check the phrase 'la elah ila allah' given its correct rendition "To be 'Who Is' is to be 'As Such Who Is'". You see that the purpose is "TO BE ALLAH", i.e. "who is".
That is why you receive a signal from me. Allah is not an accurate address for God since the word is not even a noun and it can grammatically strictly not be a proper noun as those words would not carry an AL prefix and even if they did the meaning would be silly.
This has connection to kundalini aka new age religion. I know you support it. I wouldn't stop you from this. But I am so used to seeing the damages "I am Allah" causes to people that there is no way I would see it in positive light.
I dislike being opinionated, but Christianity is based on a drastically more solid doctrinal ground even if it obviously has been sectarianized because they believe in "Father, daughter/son and the Holy Spirit" which is an accurate metaphor over the nature of God. A mistake that the adherents to Christianity have done is that they treat Jesus other than what they can themselves be. He actually taught that everyone who followed his example would be children of the Father and it is in the very same scripture that the Christians claim to follow. They have not understand the meaning of "son".
Yet too many christians are leaving christianity.
