Dissecting dead bodies in Islam
-
Sooner or later you may discover the same. Quran as according to the sectarian people is very misleading. Either they exaggerated words or fabricated new meanings and they were not particularly skilled in Arabic either.
Clearly the Arabs living in the Middle East 1000 years ago weren't nearly as skilled as a Norwegian guy living in his mother's basement.
We are truly blessed to have a person as insightful as yourself among us Amenuel.
http//www.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3b74e158254a2a06b3d4482e736ebc9fe80002a63856e525903ef7d37e888f0e.jpg
-
Clearly the Arabs living in the Middle East 1000 years ago weren't nearly as skilled as a Norwegian guy living in his mother's basement.
If you are sheep the risk is that you do not become skilled and insightful, Osman. It is gullible to right away exclude the possibility that there can be a systematic perversion of a language.
Before the advent of Islamism, Aramaic was the common language around the Middle-East. There are many questions that arise around the development of the Arabic language. It turns suspicious, not to say the least, if you browse through lexicons from old times and keep an open mind rather than just accept what scholars say in their blindness.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Hello,
That is what I was trying to convey, i.e. that all Quran does is to recommend what to do to thrive spiritually.
That alcohol is forbidden is one of those false sectarian inferences. During centuries in early "Islamic" history people were drinking alcohol. I have read poems in which they drank alcohol, circa 1200 AD. It is not the essence of faith although a person is obviously recommended to avoid alcohol for their own sake. Alchol is a thinning agent and does have detrimental health effects and the person affected may impair their ability of sound judgment because the functionality of the brain is hampered.
Alcohol can lure forth satan in ourselves and we tend to become even more primitive in our mind while the drug is in effect. It is that instinct influence we should avoid and if we cannot control it then we are in trouble.
Sooner or later you may discover the same. Quran as according to the sectarian people is very misleading. Either they exaggerated words or fabricated new meanings and they were not particularly skilled in Arabic either.
Be safe
Amenuelyes people were used to drink it before and during Islam as well.
It was not recommended but then one last verse of the Quran prohibits it. V. 590
"O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by)arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful. The Shaitan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. Will you then desist?"
The above to me sounds like a prohibition. Are you saying the verse above is mistranslated?
-
The translation is a strong discouragement, but I cannot see that there is any explicit prohibition.
Be safe
Amenuel -
What would you classify as prohibition then?
Does everything need to be explicit when it comes to prohibition or not?
In my little knowledge of the Quran, I understand that not everything it's explicitly expressed simply because some verses need to be more general in order to cover a bigger domain.
The verse I have posted earlier explicitly says to avoid it; what's about the verse that makes you think it's not a prohibition?
Is it because it doesn't state a punishment?Is it because it doesn't use the word haram or prohibition explicitly ? -
I am allergic to the sectarian attribution of forbidden to things from right to left without really focusing on the reasons behind. There is a difference between advised not to and a prohibition.
Alcohol is among the only drugs that are legal in the West but I suppose there would be real problems today if they imposed a law against its consumption. The human species seems to wish to arouse their bodies with some kind of drug. If it was not alcohol which is legal it would be something else or people drink illegally in the shadows. People will do even if they risk punishment and prohibition is seldom an effective method but enlightenment of the community is better.
Education and proper guidance is better than prohibitions. That is God's way of seeing it too. Contemplating the Decree's application is better than reinforcing its strictness.
Be safe
Amenuel -
I do understand your point in regards to sectarian attribution of forbidden; I,my self, struggle to follow religious figures that make claims but have no knowledge of reason behind them but most importantly are incapable of referencing such claims from verses of the Quran.
However, I am under the impression that you're not showing both sides of the coin either( not a criticism,just an impression that maybe is as a result of me not understanding your logic).
Starting with the premise that I have no much knowledge of the Quran and agree many things have been misinterpreted by sectarians; I will try to reason with on the grounds of rationality.
You claim to be allergic to claims about what is forbidden without focusing on the reasons behind. This suggests that you believe everything that is allowed/forbidden recommended/not recommended in the Quran but also in general has always a reason behind; I have this opinion too. However, what if something is forbidden/not recommended has a reason that we have yet to understand? does it mean that we are simply allowed to do it ?
Children are not capable to understand many things and sometime you can't explain them the reasons because they are complicated for them to understand so you simply forbid them from doing things.
The human species seems to do this as a result of living in an ill society in my opinion. You're talking about a society that is allowed to do anything in the name of freedom.
Prohibiting alcohol will cause an issue for sure as people will look for alternatives but who created this problem; just because we have a problem it doesn't mean we can't get rid of it. alcohol is an issue, causes a lot of health issues and destroyed many lives so by logic,something that causes more disadvantages than advantages, it should be prohibited.Bayer, the pharmaceutical company that sold diamorphine for different type of pain relief in the 80s, was selling this product with the name of Heroin; this product was sold to everyone and children had it too. The product went viral later they realised that one of the negative effects of this product was strong physical dependance.
The product was withdrawn but people became dependant and as a result this product started being sold illegally(however with only few percents of purity).
What I'm trying to explain with the above is that what once was known to be a medicine for pain relief is now a drug with awful effects and cause of many exploitations.
Why alcohol should be considered any different ? Your approach of not recommending rather than prohibiting doesn't make sense to me, simply because I don't think it works; if it did, why law against not recommending excessive alcohol, even educating people about is not really working? (I'm talking about the UK, not sure what's the approach in other countries but I know in the uK it doesn't work).
Prohibiting it will lead people to seek alternative, sometime more harmful but we have arrived to such situation as a result of generating the initial problem. if you want to prevent an issue you have to take drastic actions and just not recommending and educating people about it isn't a good action.You have mentioned it a few a times that the Quran doesn't forbid but aggressively recommend to avoid alcohol. Can I ask if you know verses in Quran that explicitly prohibit things?(this is my curiosity, I'm relying on your view simply because if I search I will find that most things fall under the category of what is "forbiddeb"
-
Hello,
I do understand your point in regards to sectarian attribution of forbidden; I,my self, struggle to follow religious figures that make claims but have no knowledge of reason behind them but most importantly are incapable of referencing such claims from verses of the Quran.
The point I am trying to make is that just religious figures have made sure to create a cruel and harsh God that does not really exist. I am into heavy research on this and there are hints for you regarding the word for "forbidden" in Arabic which is as you may already know "haram". However, it is ridiculous actually since it would be quite illogical to call a place "forbidden" unless people are not allowed to go there such as "Al-masjed al-haram. At least I for one perceive this as contradictory.
Ha-Ra-Miim = To forbid/prevent/prohibit, make or declare unlawful, deprive, to be sacred/inviolable/entitled to reverence or respect or honour, deny or refuse a thing, render one hopeless, denied prosperity, render unfortunate, ill-fated, persist obstinately, persist in contention or litigation or wrangling, be refractory or untractable, bind a thing hard, refrain from a thing, overcome someone in contending for stakes or wagers in a game of hazard, to be in a state of prohibition, protect or defend oneself.
In ancient Middle-East, the rooms with trophy-women were called "harem". Why do you think it was so? They were not called "forbidden" but perhaps "sacred" or "goodies".
There are several hints at its non-meaning as "forbidden" by studying linguistics. If people simply concentrated on things like this they would soon realize the Arabic as used in Quran is very different from the commonly understood version of it by sectarians. I wish that more people would understand that Quranic Arabic has been twisted immensely to say what it does not really say.
I can refer to myriad passages of Quran, but since I have an alternative interpretation it may not make sense to you. It does however not necessarily mean I have "no knowledge of reason". I can however put out a lot of contradictions within the sectarian interpretation and I can also put out things which ought to be too primitive to be from the most advanced phenomenon in existence, i.e. God. Some days I consider not to fight people over their choice of translation but simply use the Quran for the instruction on holding spiritual lectures as it is meant to be. There is often no reason in debating people but instead coming with what is better and let the power of God solve the rest.
Anyhow, the passage which you referred to does in its sectarian translation not say that what you suggest is forbidden only strongly encouraged not to.
However, I am under the impression that you're not showing both sides of the coin either( not a criticism,just an impression that maybe is as a result of me not understanding your logic).
I am intending to be entirely honest about what I am saying (writing). In my logic, either you choose the faith for the kind of eye-opener it is or you live a life indulged in a Pagan religion that does not really exist within Quran or anywhere else for that sake. It is utterly fabricated by Jewish Persian clerics.
Numerous times I have repeatedly said that the word (allah) is not really a name but it means "Such Who Is". People do not comprehend that words like (lah, elah, allah, al) all have relevancy linguistically and also. Allah is a cryptic construct obviously made by the 'Higher Intelligence' itself. Morphologically I have mentioned that Allah would mean "Be Such Such Who" (plus possible argument by sentence application). If you seek the root in ancient lexicons it can be found in Alif-Lam-(Lam).
Furthermore there is other signs such as that Allah is never used together with the word (ya) that is used for addressing someone. No one in Quran says "ya Allah" ever in Quran. You can verify this yourself. However, a lot of people say "Ya Rabb" in Quran as Rabb is a personal address for the 'Higher Intelligence'. Rabb is like saying God in English, not allah.
If you care to read a few extract from Edward Lane's lexicon from the 19th century which is based on definitions from several ancient Arabic lexicons albeit interpreted in English, I can give you words that are based around the root (AL). Each of these are branded under the root .
(alal) also signifies God (T, S, M, K so say Muj?hid
and EshShaabee (T and so it is said to signify in the verse of the Kur cited above (Hence, A fulfiller, performer, or keeper, of the compact, or
covenant. (TA, from a trad.)Good origin. (K.) So, accord. to some, in a saying of AbooBekr, which see below. (TA.)
Relationship; or nearness with respect to kindred; (Fr, T, S, M, R, K as also , (Fr, T, K,) of which
the pl. is . (K.) So in the Kur .I hope you pay attention to that is used here above. Same is used for the sectarian's silly god with a lower-case letter. But is meaning "Such Be as Who" or "Such be of Whom" in English. Rabb is exclusively the word in Quran that refers to what you usually refer to as God.
I am offering you both sides of the coin, but you have to read me obviously.
Starting with the premise that I have no much knowledge of the Quran and agree many things have been misinterpreted by sectarians; I will try to reason with on the grounds of rationality.
I surely understand your situation and I suffer with you having to rely upon someone else's interpretation to reach your answers. That I also used to do, but I realized I had to put myself into a world of lies since I grasped that things were not as they seemed. The problem people have is that they do not realize the magnitude of the falsehood with the interpretation of Quran. It is more than bad, it is utterly bad, to the extent that Quran could barely be considered worthy of being called guidance.
I try to make people wake up and I understand it is a hopeless situation I am in since I have everything against me. I try to reason rationally and aim at particularly inconsistent bits of Quran's interpretation to cause an alarm bell to ring in each person. Obviously this would make sense in everyone, but the prejudices are often too great. Many people think it is unbelievable that it could be like this and they tend to prefer to put my arguments aside without really considering them.
You claim to be allergic to claims about what is forbidden without focusing on the reasons behind. This suggests that you believe everything that is allowed/forbidden recommended/not recommended in the Quran but also in general has always a reason behind; I have this opinion too. However, what if something is forbidden/not recommended has a reason that we have yet to understand? does it mean that we are simply allowed to do it ?
Well, obviously there is a reason in everything, even our existence. Everything has a purpose. If God made written that something is not recommended or say forbidden as you like, then there was a reason more than mere obedience to God that was accounted for in that. If God says that pork is not anything good to eat, then there is a reason for that. A wise person today 2015 can probably understand why it is not good to eat an already dead animal found in the meadow. If you worship idols then this is also understandable since you get no intelligent exchange and it occupies your mind. If you gamble then this can be detrimental for your spiritual growth and all your wake time can go on gambling. Towards the end, the recommendations towards the non-doing of something is to avoid you to give in to satan, which in my interpretation is your instinct rather than some paranormal and supernatural being with evil intentions whose only interest is being evil. Considered by a sound mind, satan as a separate being does not make sense, but immediately when religion is involved then suddenly it is sensible.
Between you and me, Quran usually says "It is not goodly/sanctified/wholesome for you to" ( anema harama aleikum) rather than saying "It is forbidden" due to a gross interpretation error by the ancient interpreters of Quran. There are vast differences between both interpretations. This phrase can be found in 2173
This is probably going to be contended by other people who call themselves experts at Arabic however and that I am ignorant. When comparing their arguments and mine then think about what I said above about the harem compartment with trophy-women that often wealthy men in the past had. Consider what haram could really mean. Add into this what "al-masjed al-haram" would mean because if it was the forbidden Masjed then this is just ridiculous if you apply reason.
My wish is that you would realize that it is I who am unto something and these people just follow what people of old wished them to follow as they were proud of their interpretation which they ignorantly inferred. No ill-feelings as I know how easy it is to be deluded in this World. If it was not only for God deluding us by a kind of experiment then people often fool themselves as well. I think it is wisest to see God's little contradiction for what it is which is the World including our attached Bodies and then discard all other nonsense. When you remove all distractions from yourself then you can focus on what really matters. And what matters is you getting to know yourself and your origin. From there you can grow spiritually.
Children are not capable to understand many things and sometime you can't explain them the reasons because they are complicated for them to understand so you simply forbid them from doing things.
That is often committed pedagogical mistake. It is always best to intensify to disclose why something is not allowed rather than simply telling the child it is forbidden for them. If something is only perceived as a prohibition then they will not care so much to obey them. Usually only fear of punishment will keep them obeying your law and even then many children challenge that. One should give children as much information as possible and give them a solid foundation to begin their life. Sometimes we have problems with our own invented etiquette and customs which have no real reason to uphold them and explaining them to kids can be troublesome.
The human species seems to do this as a result of living in an ill society in my opinion. You're talking about a society that is allowed to do anything in the name of freedom.
Prohibiting alcohol will cause an issue for sure as people will look for alternatives but who created this problem; just because we have a problem it doesn't mean we can't get rid of it. alcohol is an issue, causes a lot of health issues and destroyed many lives so by logic,something that causes more disadvantages than advantages, it should be prohibited.It is the lack of information by every parent and adult on Earth which causes the situation we have. If people had the right perception to begin with and not letting themselves be corrupted by the state of the community, then people would not need any prohibitions and they would abstain from such as alcohol without a law against it.
You cannot prohibit people from seeking means of intoxicating themselves in order to be high. They will always find other methods. Like I told you, the solution is changing the life perception of people rather than reinforcing some strictness of the law.
Bayer, the pharmaceutical company that sold diamorphine for different type of pain relief in the 80s, was selling this product with the name of Heroin; this product was sold to everyone and children had it too. The product went viral later they realised that one of the negative effects of this product was strong physical dependance.
The product was withdrawn but people became dependant and as a result this product started being sold illegally(however with only few percents of purity).
What I'm trying to explain with the above is that what once was known to be a medicine for pain relief is now a drug with awful effects and cause of many exploitations.
Why alcohol should be considered any different ? Your approach of not recommending rather than prohibiting doesn't make sense to me, simply because I don't think it works; if it did, why law against not recommending excessive alcohol, even educating people about is not really working? (I'm talking about the UK, not sure what's the approach in other countries but I know in the uK it doesn't work).Massive campaigns against smoking has had immense effects on the community. Smoking has gone down tremendously. The campaigns highlight the effects of smoking such as lung cancer.
If alcohol was attacked in campaigns the way smoking was and the behavior abnormalized, it would have a similar impact on the consumption. But alcohol consumption is a normalized behavior in the societies today and this makes its consumption continue almost as strongly as before. There are also people who call themselves scientists who claim that moderate alcohol consumption is healthy, so many people do not really realize the negative impacts of its consumption.
Those who continue with drug abuse despite everything, such as smoking, are exposed to peer pressure from negative influences or careless enough to make themselves addicted. Drugs are often a way to escape a dreadful everyday.
The key is to act pedagogically and psychologically with people to change their behavior rather than slamming a prohibition in their faces.
You have mentioned it a few a times that the Quran doesn't forbid but aggressively recommend to avoid alcohol. Can I ask if you know verses in Quran that explicitly prohibit things?(this is my curiosity, I'm relying on your view simply because if I search I will find that most things fall under the category of what is "forbiddeb"
It tends to disfavor such terms. Quran is pedagogically and psychologically compiled. Like I wrote, rather than saying it is forbidden, Quran appears to say "it is not goodly to". It is obvious since it is authored by the 'Higher Intelligence' called Rabb in Arabic which being is careful not to give any exploit to malicious clerics and scholars and that the text can be misinterpreted. It does not help though if people take the words into their own hands and change them.
If you know that something is not good and do really contemplate its implication, then this helps you more than if it is merely stated as forbidden.
If I am told "pork is forbidden" then I would like to know why. If I am told it is not goodly this satisfies me more than just forbidden. It is also not forbidden by this term but from the wording you clearly see that to your health then pork is less good than other meat. It not really a secret that pork holds a lower quality than other meat.
Be safe
Amenuel -
The point I am trying to make is that just religious figures have made sure to create a cruel and harsh God that does not really exist. I am into heavy research on this and there are hints for you regarding the word for "forbidden" in Arabic which is as you may already know "haram". However, it is ridiculous actually since it would be quite illogical to call a place "forbidden" unless people are not allowed to go there such as "Al-masjed al-haram. At least I for one perceive this as contradictory.
Ha-Ra-Miim = To forbid/prevent/prohibit, make or declare unlawful, deprive, to be sacred/inviolable/entitled to reverence or respect or honour, deny or refuse a thing, render one hopeless, denied prosperity, render unfortunate, ill-fated, persist obstinately, persist in contention or litigation or wrangling, be refractory or untractable, bind a thing hard, refrain from a thing, overcome someone in contending for stakes or wagers in a game of hazard, to be in a state of prohibition, protect or defend oneself.
In ancient Middle-East, the rooms with trophy-women were called "harem". Why do you think it was so? They were not called "forbidden" but perhaps "sacred" or "goodies".
There are several hints at its non-meaning as "forbidden" by studying linguistics. If people simply concentrated on things like this they would soon realize the Arabic as used in Quran is very different from the commonly understood version of it by sectarians. I wish that more people would understand that Quranic Arabic has been twisted immensely to say what it does not really say.
What exactly is your point here, you're saying that the word haram has two different meaning.
Haram can both mean forbidden and sacred; So in the case of masjid-al-haram it means it's sacred.
where do you think it's the contradiction?Numerous times I have repeatedly said that the word (allah) is not really a name but it means "Such Who Is". People do not comprehend that words like (lah, elah, allah, al) all have relevancy linguistically and also. Allah is a cryptic construct obviously made by the 'Higher Intelligence' itself. Morphologically I have mentioned that Allah would mean "Be Such Such Who" (plus possible argument by sentence application). If you seek the root in ancient lexicons it can be found in Alif-Lam-(Lam).
Furthermore there is other signs such as that Allah is never used together with the word (ya) that is used for addressing someone. No one in Quran says "ya Allah" ever in Quran. You can verify this yourself. However, a lot of people say "Ya Rabb" in Quran as Rabb is a personal address for the 'Higher Intelligence'. Rabb is like saying God in English, not allah.
If you care to read a few extract from Edward Lane's lexicon from the 19th century which is based on definitions from several ancient Arabic lexicons albeit interpreted in English, I can give you words that are based around the root (AL). Each of these are branded under the root .
(alal) also signifies God (T, S, M, K so say Muj?hid
and EshShaabee (T and so it is said to signify in the verse of the Kur cited above (Hence, A fulfiller, performer, or keeper, of the compact, or
covenant. (TA, from a trad.)Good origin. (K.) So, accord. to some, in a saying of AbooBekr, which see below. (TA.)
Relationship; or nearness with respect to kindred; (Fr, T, S, M, R, K as also , (Fr, T, K,) of which
the pl. is . (K.) So in the Kur .I hope you pay attention to that is used here above. Same is used for the sectarian's silly god with a lower-case letter. But is meaning "Such Be as Who" or "Such be of Whom" in English. Rabb is exclusively the word in Quran that refers to what you usually refer to as God.
I am offering you both sides of the coin, but you have to read me obviously.
I am sorry but I have some difficulty understanding this, I'm not going to ask you to explain this as you already did; it's just that I am not sure about what those acronym represent (T,S,MK,K Bd,Fr and so on). Can you please just refer me a link that I can use to read how to interpret that?
That is often committed pedagogical mistake. It is always best to intensify to disclose why something is not allowed rather than simply telling the child it is forbidden for them. If something is only perceived as a prohibition then they will not care so much to obey them. Usually only fear of punishment will keep them obeying your law and even then many children challenge that. One should give children as much information as possible and give them a solid foundation to begin their life. Sometimes we have problems with our own invented etiquette and customs which have no real reason to uphold them and explaining them to kids can be troublesome.
It is the lack of information by every parent and adult on Earth which causes the situation we have. If people had the right perception to begin with and not letting themselves be corrupted by the state of the community, then people would not need any prohibitions and they would abstain from such as alcohol without a law against it.
You cannot prohibit people from seeking means of intoxicating themselves in order to be high. They will always find other methods. Like I told you, the solution is changing the life perception of people rather than reinforcing some strictness of the law.
Massive campaigns against smoking has had immense effects on the community. Smoking has gone down tremendously. The campaigns highlight the effects of smoking such as lung cancer.
If alcohol was attacked in campaigns the way smoking was and the behavior abnormalized, it would have a similar impact on the consumption. But alcohol consumption is a normalized behavior in the societies today and this makes its consumption continue almost as strongly as before. There are also people who call themselves scientists who claim that moderate alcohol consumption is healthy, so many people do not really realize the negative impacts of its consumption.
Those who continue with drug abuse despite everything, such as smoking, are exposed to peer pressure from negative influences or careless enough to make themselves addicted. Drugs are often a way to escape a dreadful everyday.
The key is to act pedagogically and psychologically with people to change their behavior rather than slamming a prohibition in their faces.
However this is not how the real world works, it's not always possible to educate someone and just expect they will understand it. In primary school you don't read books from universities.
Children are not capable of understand the real meaning behind what they're told so you have to put actions in place to prevent that they don't harm themselves by doing so.If I tell a child that you can't drink alcohol because is bad and it can cause diseases and so on and then have alcohol that is within his/her reach; should he/she decide to reach it to drink it anyway, what are my options? let him/her do it or physically stop them from doing so(so to forbid them in essence)
I disagree with your comment in regards to campaigns having massive influence on the public. Matter of fact is that they had very little influence; Several studies and surveys showed that people didn't really care.
People were surveyed about how much impact did pictures of damaged lungs,throat on cigarette packs had on them. The majority said that they know it was bad but there are so many other bad things that can kill you so smoking shouldn't be really the main issue.However,studies have suggested that smoking has gone down as a results of smoking bans in restaurants and indoor areas (therefore smoking indoors is forbidden,prohibiting people from smoking , nothing to do with educating)
I don't think the forbidding something should be classified as something bad and there's a very fine line between strongly not recommending and forbidding; I will have to do some research into this but let me ask you something. Is it there something in the Quran that explicitly forbids something or everything is expressed as non recommendation?
Thanks
-
What exactly is your point here, you're saying that the word haram has two different meaning.
Haram can both mean forbidden and sacred; So in the case of masjid-al-haram it means it's sacred.
where do you think it's the contradiction?No, a word in Arabic does not have two totally different indications. Either it means forbidden or sacred. Do you not see the contradiction?
If words are used for different applications, then they at least have something similar in common. Do you see anything similar with "forbidden" and "sacred"? No, they are totally incompatible with each other. Totally illogical.
This is the way that ancient interpreters have been able to use interpretation acrobatics by simply just claiming it means different things in various contexts.
Do you realize the level of misunderstanding it can impose if a person is to interpret haram if it in one occasion mean sacred which means it is very goodly/sanctified and then in another means forbidden. It may cause problem.
I am sorry but I have some difficulty understanding this, I'm not going to ask you to explain this as you already did; it's just that I am not sure about what those acronym represent (T,S,MK,K Bd,Fr and so on). Can you please just refer me a link that I can use to read how to interpret that?
Use Google and browse for "Lane's Lexicon". You can find reference to the ancient lexicons in question in it. Okay, because I am so kind I will do the job for you
?A The ?Asas? of EzZamakhsheree.
AA Aboo'Amr IbnEl'Ala, and Aboo'Amr EshSheybanee each being cited simply by the
name of ?AbooAmr?
AAF Aboo'Alee ElFarisee
ADk AbudDukeysh
AHat AbooHatim EsSijistanee
AHei AbooHeiydn
AHeyth AbulHeythem
AHn AbooHaneefeh EdDeenawaree, author of the ?Book of Plants?
?AM ?AbooMansoor (same as Az).
AO Aboo'Obeydeh
A?Obeyd Aboo'Obeyd
AZ AbooZeyd
Aal ElAalam
Akh ElAkhfash
As ElAsma?ee
?Az ElAzheree (same as AM), author of the ?Tahdheeb?
B The ?Basd'ir,? by the author of the ?Kimonos?
?Bd ElBeyddwee's ?Exposition of the Kurds?
Bkh EIBukharee
Btl ElBatidyowsee
?CK The Calcutta edition of the ?K?moos?
Dmr EdDemeeree
?EM The ?Exposition of the Mo'allakdt,? printed at Calcutta
?F ElFeyroozdbddee, author of the ?K?moos?
?Fei ElFeivoomee, author of the ?Misbah?
Fr EIFarra
Fs The ?Faseeh? of Thaalab
?Ham The ?Exposition of the Hamdseh,? (?Hamasae Carmina,?) by EtTebreezee
?Har ElHareeree's ?Makamat,? the Commentary on; 2nd edit, of Paris
Hr ElHarawee
IAar IbnElAarabee
I?Ab IbnAbbas
?I?Ak IbnAkeel's ?Exposition of the Alfeeyeh of IbnMdlik,? edited by Dr. Dieterici
Iamb IbnElAmbdree
IAth IbnElAtheer ElJezeree, (MejdedDeen,) author of the ?Nihdyeh?
IB IbnBarree, author of the ?Annotations on the Sih?h,? with ElBustee
?lDrd IbnDureyd, author of the ?Jemharah? &c.
IDrst IbnDurustaweyh
IF IbnFaris, author of the ?Mujmal?
?IHsh IbnHishdm, author of the ?Mughnee?
IJ IbnJinnee
IKh IbnKhalaweyh
IKoot IbnElKooteeyeh
IKt IbnKuteybeh
IKtt IbnElKattaa
?IM IbnMukarram, (commonly called in the Tdj el'Aroos ?Ibn Mandhoor,?) author of the
?Lisan el'Arab?
IO Ibn'Odey's
?ISd IbnSeedeh, author of the ?Mohkam?
ISh IbnShumevl (EnNadr)
ISk IbnEsSikkeet (Yaak'oob)
?lbrD Ibrdheem EdDasookee
?J ElJowharee, author of the ?Sih?h?
?JK A MS. supposed to be the ?Jami'? of ElKarmdnee a lexicon founded upon the ?'Eyn,?
with additions from the ?Tekmilet el'Eyn? of ElKhdrzenjee
?JM The ?J?mi'? of the Seyyid Mohammad
?Jel The ?Exposition of the Kurds? by the Jelaleyn
Jm The ?Jemharah? of IbnDureyd
?K The ?Kamoos?
KI The kadee 'Iyad
?KL The ?Kenz elLoghah,? of IbnMaaroof; an ArabicPersian Dictionary
?KT The ?Kitab etTaareefat?
Kf The ? Kifdyet elMutahaffidh?
Kh EIKhaleel, commonly supposed to be the author of the ?Eyn?
?Kr Kuraa, author of the ?Munjid?
Ks ElKisaee
?Ksh The ?Keshshaf? of EzZamakhsheree
Kt ElKuteybee
Ktr Kutrub
?Kull The ?Kulleeyat? of AbulBaka
?Kur The ?Kuran?
Kz ElKazzdz
?Kzw ElKazweenee
?L The ?Lisan elArab?
Lb ElLeblee
Lh ElLihyanee
Lth ElLeyth IbnNasr IbnSeiydr, held by ElAzberee to be the author of the ?Eyn,? which he
calls ?Kitab Leyth?
?M The ?Mohkam?
?MA The ?Mukaddamet elAdab? of EzZamakhsheree
?MF Mohammad IbnEtTeiyib ElFdsee, author of ?Annotations on the K?moos?
?MS The ?Mukhtar esSih?h?
Mbr ElMubarrad
?Meyd ElMeyddnee's ?Proverbs?
?Mgh The ?Mughrib? of ElMutarrizee
Mj The ?Mujmal ? of I bnFdris
?Msb The ?Misbdh? of ElFeiyoomee
?Mtr EIMutarrizee, author of the ?Mughrib?
?Mughnee The ? MughnilLebeeb ? of IbnHishdm
?Mz, The ?Muzhir? of EsSuyootee
Nh The ?Nihdyeh? of 1 bnElAtheer ElJezeree (Mejd ed Deen)
Ns EnNesaee
O The ?Ob?b? of EsSaghdnee.
?PS The ?Persian Translation of the Sih?h?
R The ?Rowd ? (? ErRowd elUnuf?) of EsSuheylee
?S The ?Sih?h.?
?SM The seyyid Murtada, author of the ?Taj el'Aroos.?
Sb Seebaweyh
Seer EsSecrdfee
Sgh EsSaghdnee, author of the ?Ob?b ? and of the ?Tekmileh ?fisSih?h?
Sh Shemir
?Skr EsSukkaree, author of an ?Exposition of the Deewan El Hudhaleeyeen?
Suh EsSuhevlee, author of the ?Rowd?
?T The ?Tahdheeb? of ElAzheree
?TA The ?Taj el'Aroos?
?TK The ?Turkish Translation of the Kamoos?
TS The ?Tekmileh fisSih?h? of EsSaghanee
?TT The ?Tahdheeb etTahdheeb?
Th Thaalab, author of the ?Faseeh?
?W ElWdhidee's ? Exposition of the Deewan of ElMutanebbee,? edited by Dr. Dieterici
Yoo Yoonus
Yz ElYezeedee
?Z EzZamakhsheree.
Zbd EzZubeydee, author of an ?Abridgment of the Eyn?
?Zj EzZejjajI disagree with your comment in regards to campaigns having massive influence on the public. Matter of fact is that they had very little influence; Several studies and surveys showed that people didn't really care.
That is because more is required. You have to change the perception of people on a deeper level. There has to be some (good) indoctrination on deep level from a societal perspective. If you pump out information but the mental level of people is incompatible, then the social information will be ineffective. It says itself. You have to use a sound strategy in changing people, starting very early in life.
If a population has bad mental health, then more people will also begin to abuse narcotic substances in order to handle the pressure. It is an evil circle. These people will often do it despite every issued information by the authorities.
However,studies have suggested that smoking has gone down as a results of smoking bans in restaurants and indoor areas (therefore smoking indoors is forbidden,prohibiting people from smoking , nothing to do with educating)
Smoking was on the downfall after massive campaigning as well. If you study socioeconomic differences you can see that people will low education tend to be smoking on overall more than those with high education. Because the people with low education are less bright in their minds, this means they will be less likely to absorb the issued information by the authorities while the ones with high education will heed it. They are also often the people with the best health, the high education people.
You see a connection. It is better to educate and inform the society and make sure people are kept out of low socioeconomic conditions to make information campaigns effective.
Is it there something in the Quran that explicitly forbids something or everything is expressed as non recommendation?
It uses the wording "Not goodly/wholesome to"
Be safe
Amenuel -
No, a word in Arabic does not have two totally different indications. Either it means forbidden or sacred. Do you not see the contradiction?
If words are used for different applications, then they at least have something similar in common. Do you see anything similar with "forbidden" and "sacred"? No, they are totally incompatible with each other. Totally illogical.
This is the way that ancient interpreters have been able to use interpretation acrobatics by simply just claiming it means different things in various contexts.
Do you realize the level of misunderstanding it can impose if a person is to interpret haram if it in one occasion mean sacred which means it is very goodly/sanctified and then in another means forbidden. It may cause problem.
Thank you, now I understand your point.
What I am wondering is that these sort of terms that have contradictory meanings, are known as contronyms, do exists in other languages as well and have different meaning depending on the context, for example the following words have contradictory meanings depending on the contextHold up To support, or to impede
Left Remained, or departed
Transparent Invisible, or obvious
Wear To endure, or to deteriorateIn other languages such as italian and latin also have these antonyms, they are called neutral words though as they are not negative or positive, but the can have opposite meaning depending on the context (therefore both negative and positive)
So if done now, it was done with ancient languages such as latin and it seems to appear in the arabic language as well like you suggested, what exactly is wrong ?
Use Google and browse for "Lane's Lexicon". You can find reference to the ancient lexicons in question in it. Okay, because I am so kind I will do the job for you
Thanks a lot, I will read into that so I can understand your cryptic message
That is because more is required. You have to change the perception of people on a deeper level. There has to be some (good) indoctrination on deep level from a societal perspective. If you pump out information but the mental level of people is incompatible, then the social information will be ineffective. It says itself. You have to use a sound strategy in changing people, starting very early in life.
If a population has bad mental health, then more people will also begin to abuse narcotic substances in order to handle the pressure. It is an evil circle. These people will often do it despite every issued information by the authorities.
Smoking was on the downfall after massive campaigning as well. If you study socioeconomic differences you can see that people will low education tend to be smoking on overall more than those with high education. Because the people with low education are less bright in their minds, this means they will be less likely to absorb the issued information by the authorities while the ones with high education will heed it. They are also often the people with the best health, the high education people.
You see a connection. It is better to educate and inform the society and make sure people are kept out of low socioeconomic conditions to make information campaigns effective.
Those studies are not conclusive and they don't link smoking with education because the link is unclear; however they suggest that this happens during adolescence and is as a result of many factors such as environment, family status and obviously education but my point is education alone can't help,forbidding such things is necessary.
The people in high education are in better health because they can afford a better life;
A rich person smoking is more likely to be in good health than a poor person and yet the poor can be smarter; the education itself doesn't set the rules.I agree that education is vital but again I don't see how such thing can work without the presence of prohibition.
I believe we both are adults and have a good education and good common sense, yet I might think that having drugs is fine(even if I am aware that it damages me); hadn't there been a law to punish me for such consequences, I might have started using drugs extensively and publicly.
There's a law to stop though, now you say can argue that I will find another means/ways to find drugs and do them in silence without getting caught but such situation will be more contained as you stop a person's bad behaviour from harming those that are around him in a more controlled manner(someone will still get harmed but less damage to compare to a situation where drugs were not forbidden by law).It uses the wording "Not goodly/wholesome to"
I checked those words and they have nothing to do with forbidden, am I missing something?
-
Salam, I don't find any restrictions in the Quran regarding dissecting dead bodies. The dead are recommended to be buried otherwise the decay can cause harm to humans living nearby and also leaves behind an awful stench. Its just about respect to the living when dealing with dead bodies especially when an autopsy is required.
-
What I am wondering is that these sort of terms that have contradictory meanings, are known as contronyms, do exists in other languages as well and have different meaning depending on the context, for example the following words have contradictory meanings depending on the context
Hold up To support, or to impede
Left Remained, or departed
Transparent Invisible, or obvious
Wear To endure, or to deteriorateIn other languages such as italian and latin also have these antonyms, they are called neutral words though as they are not negative or positive, but the can have opposite meaning depending on the context (therefore both negative and positive)
So if done now, it was done with ancient languages such as latin and it seems to appear in the arabic language as well like you suggested, what exactly is wrong ?
In English, we can have two different words with the same spelling, e.g. fly (insect) & fly (like a bird). These are two different words in meaning, but the same word in terms of spelling.
In Arabic however, there is one level more to keep in mind. The roots. Arabic is not like English in it's word structure. The debate will now be Is it possible for one particular root to have opposing or unrelated meanings?