Shahada explained in philosophy

[runninglikezebras]

Peace runninglikeezebras,

you seriously think a sovereign would claim you cannot have any sovereign?

Many verse state the only sovereign is the Creator, this applies to all things, if I create something it is mine, at least until i exchange it for something else, which is the basis of trade, can i claim the labours of another are mine?

A sovereign makes others their subjects, meaning they impose their dictates upon them, so they become subjugated.

Sovereigns function exclusively in hierarchy being the tree of death.

The verse reference you posted has absolutely no relevance to the discussion, which is the general case with verses referenced in threads.

I tend not to reference qur'anic verses as they are so very corrupted in translation, modern Arabic is a different language to ancient Arabic, so interpretation is seldom done without bias and confusion.

The well understood concepts of the ancients seem all but lost to the modern riba cult mind, such as the tree of death (hierarchy) and the tree of life (anarchy), even riba which was in the past well understood is no long grasped even at a rudimentary level, this is clear because they cannot see why riba is not trade.

The protected source is the creation we all share perceptually, the Qur'an is a guide to that creation, or was originally.

The Qur'an has been under attack from the start as it strips away the two basic elements of slavery, hierarchy and usury (riba)

What I am trying to make clear to you is that the Quran we have today has been compiled, meddled with and was fabricated partially by sovereigns. I agree the original message may have claimed that God is the only sovereign but as I showed you 1940 is one of those examples that Muslim sovereigns have used (if not fabricated) throughout the centuries to grant themselves authority with. Another strategy the caliphs used was to identify themselves with Muhammad. As you know any type of sovereign ultimately will 'prove' their status with divine descendancy (a fiction); this is not only true for the muslim Caliphs but every royal family on this planet.

I don't know which version of Quran you own, but I can tell you it will be Uthmanic, that is the AUTHORIZED compilation by Caliph Uthman. The Quran does contain verses related to not only authorizing authority in a governmental understanding, but even explicit formats ruling over slavery. These rulings are as old as the proto-Quran and the judeo-nazarene fragments found at Qumran.

[Abdun_Nur]

Peace runninglikezebras, (that's a long user name)

I agree with what you say, I use no translation, as i stated previously i examine the fractal nature of the shared perception, which is the protected source, and I investigate single terms of ancient Arabic, among other topics I study history, physics (not the mainstream which was corrupted from the 1930's onwards, but post 1930 and areas of physics that conform to the perceptual evidence), economics (a pseudo-field of study) to explain riba, and the alternatives, and law both constructive and substantive models, these two models are dichotomous.

A caliph is an inheritor, and that is the basis of the substantive model of sharia (the path to the stream of truth), each has inherent power, this is in contrast to the constructive law model which has granted rights.

[runninglikezebras]

I watched one of your youtube videos, which I liked. I do agree with your views on anarchy and the psychopathic feudal system we live under today (I'm an anarchist myself), I do however not share your points of view concerning physics. But that's a whole different debate.

[Abdun_Nur]

Peace runninglikezebras,

thank you for taking the time to watch one of my talks, what have i said on physics that you find so wrong?

[runninglikezebras]

Your reference to the expanding earth theory produced a frown on my forehead similar to the effects of tectonic plate shifts. This while your sociological discourse seemed quite reasonable to me.

[Abdun_Nur]

Peace runninglikezebras,

well the earth increase around 19cm a year around the equator, this is well known, if you believe the conventional halfwits they tell you that the earths ocean crust is sub-ducted underneath the land crust, the oceans are 6 km thick while the land is around 34km thick this means the ocean hits a wall and proceeds to travel downward 28km then slides underneath the land, there is absolutely no evidence to support such a nonsensical idea.

The earth expanding has evidence, the earth does grow annually and the land does tie together naturally, this would also explain the decline of huge land animals like the dinosaurs, as the earth grew the gravity increased to the point they could no longer exist, again the evidence supports this as dinosaurs could never live in earths present gravity.

https//youtu.be/oJfBSc6e7QQ

[Man_of_Faith]

Did you know not every dinosaur was big?

Be safe
Emanuel

[Abdun_Nur]

Yes, but the dinosaurs meaning terrible lizard were big, the small ones were not so terrible, and as all things the small ones evolved this evolution created the mammals, the birds, the reptiles and the marsupials of the modern world.

[good_logic]

Peace All

I am at a loss of why any language can be so difficult for the people that speak it,to the point where it becomes confusing to them?

Is Arabic not supposed to be a language its people should communicate with?

How are they ever going to understand each other if it is that complicated?

If GOD sends a message to a people in their language through a messenger who speaks the same language,what happens if they cannot comprehend the message?

Are we saying the words,sentences.meaning of the message are so difficult to grasp?

Are there no simple instruction that everybody can clearly understand?

It seems to me some are making it into puzzles , riddles and mysticism?

Too complicated for my liking. Has GOD really intended this or are we making simple things too difficult?

GOD bless.
Peace

[runninglikezebras]

Peace runninglikezebras,

well the earth increase around 19cm a year around the equator, this is well known, if you believe the conventional halfwits they tell you that the earths ocean crust is sub-ducted underneath the land crust, the oceans are 6 km thick while the land is around 34km thick this means the ocean hits a wall and proceeds to travel downward 28km then slides underneath the land, there is absolutely no evidence to support such a nonsensical idea.

The earth expanding has evidence, the earth does grow annually and the land does tie together naturally, this would also explain the decline of huge land animals like the dinosaurs, as the earth grew the gravity increased to the point they could no longer exist, again the evidence supports this as dinosaurs could never live in earths present gravity.

https//youtu.be/oJfBSc6e7QQ

I cant possibly take the task upon me to re-educate people about physics. All I can say is that 19 cm increase of the equator is NOT A FACT. Please show us some source references backing this up. To respond to the expanding earth theory this video is quite brilliant (quite humorous as well) https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8

[Man_of_Faith]

Peace All

I am at a loss of why any language can be so difficult for the people that speak it,to the point where it becomes confusing to them?

Is Arabic not supposed to be a language its people should communicate with?

How are they ever going to understand each other if it is that complicated?

If GOD sends a message to a people in their language through a messenger who speaks the same language,what happens if they cannot comprehend the message?

Are we saying the words,sentences.meaning of the message are so difficult to grasp?

Are there no simple instruction that everybody can clearly understand?

It seems to me some are making it into puzzles , riddles and mysticism?

Too complicated for my liking. Has GOD really intended this or are we making simple things too difficult?

GOD bless.
Peace

For some reason yes, when people begin to invent meanings for words they do not understand themselves. The ones that sat down and interpreted Quran over 1000 years ago were more concerned about confirming their invented doctrine than discovering what it really said.

Be safe
Amenuel

[Abdun_Nur]

Peace runninglikezebras,

ok believe the nonsense of sliding plates sub-ducting around a molten ocean if you wish, it is not important, that idea i myself find humorous, next you'll be telling me you believe the big bang theory, now that would make laugh out loud, but physics isn't for everyone.

[runninglikezebras]

I don't believe in the big bang theory at all. I think however the big bang theory is the best hypothesis we have about the origins of this universe. So far big bang theory has not been refuted yet. There is even evidence (primordial deuterium) which supports it. Once I see convincing counterevidence which contradicts big bang theory, I'm forced to change my opinion about it.

See

http//www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_1/primordial_deuterium.htm
https//archive.stsci.edu/fuse/scisumm/sci_d2h_solved.html

for more info on primordial deuterium and how it supports the big bang theory.

[Abdun_Nur]

Peace runninglikezebras,

see you made me laugh, there is a great deal of evidence to disprove the nonsense of the jesuit invented big bang theory, which is why they invent to cover the gapping holes for the public to swallow their nonsense, otherwise even the uneducated would see how silly the big bang theory is, with the emperors new suits ideas like black holes, dark matter and dark energy, and why they abandoned quaternion mathematics for abstract.

But believe as you wish.

[runninglikezebras]

Science is not a matter of belief as you keep projecting. I'm not claiming science has a perfect understanding of everything. There are both experimentalist and theoretical approaches to science. I'm not claiming the concept of "dark matter" is true, nor that our understanding of "black holes" is perfect. More than likely at some point in time those understandings will be improved by future research.

Your allergy for anything scientifical seems largely explained by your misunderstanding of how science works. It is not a belief system with sacred dogmas that are not allowed to be criticized. In fact science thrives on proving old theories wrong and providing a better one. It's an eternal process that is never completed.

[Abdun_Nur]

Peace runninglikezebras,

there is nothing scientific about black holes, dark matter or dark energy, it is invent, unproven and simply fancy. This fabrication of what is claimed science by the institutions does not concern you, what sort of science invents without any reference to the evidence it is tasked with explaining?

[Abdun_Nur]

Peace Amanuel,

I didn't see your reply earlier strangely just noticed it now.

You are deeply invested in the Jewish religions described within the Bible, and with such a mental state little i could say would make an atoms worth of difference.

israeela Israel - originally in Hebrew, "Yisrael".
Yisrael means, quite literally, "He has to contend in opposition, battle, or any conflict; compete with God? - based on which translation of "sra" was meant to be used.
"Yi", in the Hebrew, is the masculine form "he". "Sra", in the Hebrew, comes from the Semitic root "Sry", which means "to striven " The word "El," in the Hebrew, is a form of the word for God, (meaning in this context the creator). The holy trinity - IS-RA-EL. Isis, Ra & El. The Mother, the Father & EL, aka Saturn/Satan.

The Bible is a fiction.

[bkanwar2]

I would argue that stems from the root though which means you have nearness to an attribute. This root is used for the famous article too in its simple form. The respective are no less than pronouns. The whole word means "Who is such as" (literally "Be Such Such It&quot.
Emanuel

Dear Emanuel, first of all Alif Lam Lam, is really not an established root. Many lexicons/Dictionaries including Lane do not cite this as an independent root.

Furthermore, if one were to accept this hypothesis or notion that it is the root for word Allah. Please explain full Orthography/spelling of this word a letter by letter?

Allah means "one who is not at all a deity for worship" explained letter by letter above. This is a paradigm changing concept of Quran.

Which paradigm? Currently, almost all inhabitants of this planet have only two world views about all that exists. It is either theistic/god based or atheistic/no god or nothing at all behind all existence. This one word or realistically phrase of Quranic, demolishes both these world views. It will save time by not having to argue what is correct amongst both these world views and what is wrong, since their basic assumptions are wrong.

With Quran it is a new world view about existence and Universe. But to be able to grasp it, one needs to get over fully either of the held beliefs or world views, be theistic or atheistic.

Regards,

[Man_of_Faith]

Indeed is a root and it says what it says.. Arabic letters speak with innate meanings in themselves.. Be Such Such It... not some other invented label... The AL article (prefix) uses the same root and it is obvious since it also says "Is Such/like".

Besides I have already showed before that Allah cannot be a name because you do not attach AL in proper nouns (obviously since AL is used to form adjectives) and it cannot be an entity since then the word requires for singular.

Allah is not used in Quran 's real interpretation for God but is a grammatical function, i.e. "Who such is" + attribute given by context. It is a third-person version of the Mosaic "I am who am I" (I wonder how many times I have repeated this?)

Everything is a big fail with the traditional interpretation of Quran.

who is not at all a deity for worship

How can you even get that long and complex definition from a word with only 4 letters?

Be safe
Emanuel

[runninglikezebras]

How can you even get that long and complex definition from a word with only 4 letters?

Be safe
Emanuel

Good question. It obviously is not a name for God but simply stating the God. Given the shahada has a precursor in early christian writings (more specifically a chapter of the Clementine Homilies which is stressing the unity of God) there is little to misunderstand about its meaning.

The word itself has a hebrew cognate Eloah. The Arabic ilah can denote any deity. Therefor the Quran uses in the shahada al ilah - the God - stressing the concept of unity of God (which is a judeo-christian and more specifically a nazarene understanding and equal to the use of Eloah - a singular form of Elohim). As such Allah is not a name of God but only expresses "there is no deity except the deity".