Post what you believe is a contradiction in the Quran and let's see the answers

Abdun_Nur

Again a contradiction is assertion of the contrary or opposite. You have the absolute statement "There is no god." which is then contradicted by the false statement "Only/but the god."

Allah, used 2851 times, when the evidence is examined carefully, actually means ?one who doesn?t engage in worship?

imrankhawaja

@ Abdun nur

still waiting for correct translation
i will proceed once i look at how you translate (la ila ha illallah)

Abdun_Nur

Peace,

I have pasted Badar Kanwar's work on the term "Allah"

We are lead through, with a careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran is not the proper noun. To understanding any word one needs to analyze the spelling of a given word. Since Quran has been initially an oral tradition one needs to pay attention to phonology of word, in addition to its written spelling. If we do this with word Allah. It actually stands for allathe = who, La = not and finally, alahun . This would mean ?One who is not alahun?.

If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word ?alahun? into the translation; this word, which actually is a sentence would mean ?One who doesn?t engage in worship?.

This sounds so radically different. Who am I to say this? What are my credentials?

Why should we trust this non-sense?

These are all defensive of held belief, so valid and legitimate questions.

Let us instead of worrying about the credentials of the informer of this information; just explore the language of the Qur'an that is presented from the Qur'an itself.

First of all let us analyze what traditionalists interpret this word to be?

And why they are wrong?

The word is thought to be a combination of a definite article Al = in English ?The? and illaha , meaning ?God? but in reality ?a deity for adoration and worship?.

Although, in actuality this "Al" here is a contraction of the word and legitimately could be written as "Al" . Can we trust this assertion despite clear references from the Lexicon of Lane 1 and Grammar of William Wright 2.

Let us turn to Qur'an itself for more evidence. In Arabic script as well in the Qur'an, where a preposition ?Lee? is added in to a word beginning with a definite article ?Al? . Alif is dropped and so Lam of the definite article ?Al? joins with ?Lam? of preposition. Let us illustrate this point with some word examples from Qur'an itself.

21 Alif of ?Al? gone, lam is present and preposition ?Lee? added.

2.. 47 and 432, is the word same concept.

However, for the word when the same preposition is added. We find that the ?Lam? of the supposed definite article ?Al? also disappears. However, following the examples above it should have been written as (in reality one cannot type this so called word using an Arabic type writer).

Example, 12 and 115 more places 222, 298 and on and on, in total 116 occurrences.

Whereas, allathe being a different word its whole contraction disappears. This also proves that this word by no means is a proper name as there is no definite article "Al". As if there would have been an "Al", it should look like this in script and not

Furthermore, although both Lane and Wright cite the contraction of as . Can we find an example in the current translation of Quran for such a contraction? Of course, we can, not one time, but multiple times.

677

Yousuf Ali When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said "unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."

799

Yousuf Ali Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!

Other examples are at 62 different places, 526, 25, 567. Any place word is used, it is at most places translated in meaning of "allathe".

Badar Kanwar,
Let us, continue to analyses this word further. In the middle there is "alif" like mark (highlighted in red) with a Shadda mark and another alif above. (In newer, print version the "alif" above Shadda is taken a fathah shape instead of 'alif" like in this example as well. The ?alif? above Shadda, is called a ?dagger alif? and is written over many other words instead being included in these words in the text of Quran. Since here it is written over Shadda, implying there are two ?alifs?.

Shadda has several uses in script. We will only discuss the relevant ones here. One use is to indicate the doubling of a consonant. It is also used to indicate such a doubling only to facilitate pronunciation in the ?Sun letters of the Arabic alphabets?. This would be a apparently plausible defensive case for the traditionalist.

Let us analysis why it is wrong. If it were to be correctly understood, then there would be no reason to keep this Shadda in place once the ?Al?, if it were really ?Al? of definite article. As in the phrase is gone , as in the example above of . However, we find in the Qur'an that this is not the case. Hence, this Shadda is not due to ?Al? of a definite article coming before the word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of allathe. Although, even if it were to be the case, as illah has already ?alif? at the start which is not considered a ?Sun letter?. Hence no Shadda would be have been added as cited above.

Let us, further show in Arabic script, how this concept could be explained? First, all three words are written separately, then allathe written as contracted and finally first to ?lams? and subsequent ?alif? combined, due use of Shadda, to make Allah.

=

This clearly, further shows that the persistence of this Shadda is due, not to the Shadda of ?Al?; but in reality it indicates a real doubling of the consonants.

Peace,

this is Badar's work on the term "Allah"
Badar Kanwar,
We are lead through, with a careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran is not the proper noun. To understanding any word one needs to analyze the spelling of a given word. Since Quran has been initially an oral tradition one needs to pay attention to phonology of word, in addition to its written spelling. If we do this with word Allah. It actually stands for allathe = who, La = not and finally, alahun . This would mean ?One who is not alahun?.

If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word ?alahun? into the translation; this word, which actually is a sentence would mean ?One who doesn?t engage in worship?.

This sounds so radically different. Who am I to say this? What are my credentials?

Why should we trust this non-sense?

These are all defensive of held belief, so valid and legitimate questions.

Let us instead of worrying about the credentials of the informer of this information; just explore the language of the Qur'an that is presented from the Qur'an itself.

First of all let us analyze what traditionalists interpret this word to be?

And why they are wrong?

The word is thought to be a combination of a definite article Al = in English ?The? and illaha , meaning ?God? but in reality ?a deity for adoration and worship?.

Although, in actuality this "Al" here is a contraction of the word and legitimately could be written as "Al" . Can we trust this assertion despite clear references from the Lexicon of Lane 1 and Grammar of William Wright 2.

Let us turn to Qur'an itself for more evidence. In Arabic script as well in the Qur'an, where a preposition ?Lee? is added in to a word beginning with a definite article ?Al? . Alif is dropped and so Lam of the definite article ?Al? joins with ?Lam? of preposition. Let us illustrate this point with some word examples from Qur'an itself.

21 Alif of ?Al? gone, lam is present and preposition ?Lee? added.

2.. 47 and 432, is the word same concept.

However, for the word when the same preposition is added. We find that the ?Lam? of the supposed definite article ?Al? also disappears. However, following the examples above it should have been written as (in reality one cannot type this so called word using an Arabic type writer).

Example, 12 and 115 more places 222, 298 and on and on, in total 116 occurrences.

Whereas, allathe being a different word its whole contraction disappears. This also proves that this word by no means is a proper name as there is no definite article "Al". As if there would have been an "Al", it should look like this in script and not

Furthermore, although both Lane and Wright cite the contraction of as . Can we find an example in the current translation of Quran for such a contraction? Of course, we can, not one time, but multiple times.

677

Yousuf Ali When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said "unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."

799

Yousuf Ali Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!

Other examples are at 62 different places, 526, 25, 567. Any place word is used, it is at most places translated in meaning of "allathe".

Badar Kanwar,
Let us, continue to analyses this word further. In the middle there is "alif" like mark (highlighted in red) with a Shadda mark and another alif above. (In newer, print version the "alif" above Shadda is taken a fathah shape instead of 'alif" like in this example as well. The ?alif? above Shadda, is called a ?dagger alif? and is written over many other words instead being included in these words in the text of Quran. Since here it is written over Shadda, implying there are two ?alifs?.

Shadda has several uses in script. We will only discuss the relevant ones here. One use is to indicate the doubling of a consonant. It is also used to indicate such a doubling only to facilitate pronunciation in the ?Sun letters of the Arabic alphabets?. This would be a apparently plausible defensive case for the traditionalist.

Let us analysis why it is wrong. If it were to be correctly understood, then there would be no reason to keep this Shadda in place once the ?Al?, if it were really ?Al? of definite article. As in the phrase is gone , as in the example above of . However, we find in the Qur'an that this is not the case. Hence, this Shadda is not due to ?Al? of a definite article coming before the word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of allathe. Although, even if it were to be the case, as illah has already ?alif? at the start which is not considered a ?Sun letter?. Hence no Shadda would be have been added as cited above.

Let us, further show in Arabic script, how this concept could be explained? First, all three words are written separately, then allathe written as contracted and finally first to ?lams? and subsequent ?alif? combined, due use of Shadda, to make Allah.

=

This clearly, further shows that the persistence of this Shadda is due, not to the Shadda of ?Al?; but in reality it indicates a real doubling of the consonants.

This means inescapably, that one was to follow the order of pronunciation of, this word. It actually is a sequence of words, a phrase, not just a word. Allathe (written as a contraction in script as "Al&quot, La and alahun. This would further imply that the middle Shadda is suggesting ?two lams? and two alifs?.

Hence, if translated word for word, this word or more accurately sentence would mean ?One who doesn?t engage in worship?.

Lexicon of Arabic Language; Edward W Lane; 1968, Vol. 1, page 74.
A Grammar of the Arabic Language; William Wright. Revised 3RD Edition, Dover Edition 2005 Vol. 1 page 269 D.

The_Sardar

But what about those verses?

Wahuwa allathee fee alssama-iilahun wafee al-ardi ilahun wahuwa alhakeemualAAaleemu
4384 He is the One who is a god in the heaven and a god on earth. He is the Wise, the Knowledgeable.

Qul innama yooha ilayya annamailahukum ilahun wahidun fahal antummuslimoona
21108 Say"It is inspired to me that your god is but One god, so will you submit to Him?"

Innama ilahukumu Allahuallathee la ilaha illa huwa wasiAAakulla shay-in AAilman
2098 Your god is God; whom there is no god but He. His knowledge encompasses all things.

Waqala Allahu latattakhithoo ilahayni ithnayni innama huwailahun wahidun fa-iyyaya fairhabooni
1651 And God said "Do not take two gods, there is only One god, so it is Me that you shall reverence."

Qul ayyu shay-in akbaru shahadatanquli Allahu shaheedun baynee wabaynakum waoohiyailayya hatha alqur-anu li-onthirakum bihiwaman balagha a-innakum latashhadoona anna maAAa Allahi alihatanokhra qul la ashhadu qul innama huwa ilahunwahidun wa-innanee baree-on mimma tushrikoona
619 Say "Which is the greatest testimony?" Say "God is witness between me and you, and He has inspired to me this Qur'an that I may warn you with it and whoever it reaches, that you are bearing witness that with God are other gods!" Say "I do not bear witness!" Say "He is only One god, and I am innocent of what you have set up!"
4171
Ya ahla alkitabi lataghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahiilla alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesaibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqahaila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahiwarusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahookhayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidunsubhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawatiwama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahiwakeelan
O people of the Book, do not overstep in your system, nor say about God except the truth. Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of God and the fulfillment of His word to Mary and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say "Trinity." Cease, for it is better for you. God is only One god, be He glorified that He should have a son! To Him is all that is in the heavens and the earth; and God is enough as a Caretaker.
1452
Hatha balaghun lilnnasiwaliyuntharoo bihi waliyaAAlamoo annama huwa ilahunwahidun waliyaththakkara oloo al-albabi
This is a proclamation for the people and so that they are warned with it, and so that they know that there is but One god, and so that those who possess intelligence will remember.

While i don't agree with worshiping, we are to serve Allah/God (SWTAY) https//mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/god-is-not-to-be-worshiped/#comment-16306

I learned that the proto-indoeuropean root word of God has some dispute ?dh
Inner Light and Meditation

Once the Indo-Europeans had used the consonant d, symbol of light, to denote the divine (divya) and god (deva), they then used the d to mean ?to bear light ? within the human soul and they consequently formed the root dh ?to think in contemplation? or ?contemplative thinking?.

From dh came the word dhti ?devotion?, ?prayer? or ?meditation?, which, in Latin, corresponds to the word fides ?faith? ?

(Please, note that the development of indoeuropean dh > latin f is very common.

From "Comparative etymological Dictionary of classical Indo-European languages Indo-European - Sanskrit - Greek - Latin", Rendich Franco, p. 88 (2014)

From this, the root for Greek theos (&#962 and latin deus have been recognised

Quote
dyeu-

To shine (and in many derivatives, "sky, heaven, god&quot. Zero-grades *dyu and *diw.
Derivatives include Tuesday, divine, jovial, Jupiter, diary, dismal, journey, and psychedelic.

Basic form *dyeu, Jove, the name of the god of the bright sky, head of the Indo-European pantheon.
Jove, jovial; apojove, perijove, Sangiovese, from Latin Iovis, Jupiter, or Iov, stem of Iuppiter, Jupiter.
July, from Latin Ilius, "descended from Jupiter" (name of a Roman gens), from derivative *iou-il.
Vocative compound *dyeu-pter, "O father Jove" (*pter, father; see pter-). Jupiter, from Latin Iuppiter, Ipiter, head of the Roman pantheon.
Dione, Zeus; dianthus, Dioscuri, from Greek Zeus (genitive Dios), Zeus.
Noun *deiwos, god, formed by e-insertion to the zero-grade *diw and suffixation of (accented) -o.
Tiu, Tuesday, from Old English Tw (genitive Twes), god of war and sky;
Tyr, from Old Norse Tr, sky god. Both a and b from Germanic *Twaz.
deism, deity, joss; adieu, adios, deific, deus ex machina, from Latin deus, god.
diva, divine, from Latin dvus, divine, god.
Dis, Dives, from Latin dves, rich (< "fortunate, blessed, divine&quot.
Suffixed zero-grade form *diw-yo, heavenly. Diana, from Latin Dina, moon goddess.
deva, Devi; deodar, Devanagari, from Sanskrit deva, god, and deva, divine.
Asmodeus, from Avestan dauua, spirit, demon.
Variant *dy (< *dye&#8209 dial, diary, diet2, dismal, diurnal, journal, journey; adjourn, ajour?, circadian, meridian, postmeridian, quotidian, sojourn, from Latin dis, day.
Variant *dei. psychedelic, adelgid, from Greek dlos (< *deyalos), clear.

From https//www.ahdictionary.com/word/indoeurop.html#IR017200

And also the Germanic Gott and English God

Quote

gheu(&#601-
To call, invoke. Oldest form *gheu(h2/3), becoming *gheu(h2/3) in centum languages. Suffixed zero-grade form *ghu-to, "the invoked," god.

god, from Old English god, god;
giddy, from Old English gydig, gidig, possessed, insane, from Germanic *gud-iga, possessed by a god;
g?tterd?mmerung, from Old High German got, god. a-c all from Germanic *gudam, god.

From https//www.ahdictionary.com/word/indoeurop.html#IR031900

This root gheu(&#601- is closely related to the root *ged-

Quote
*ged-
to join, to unite
Lith. guodas, Ltv. gods, Eng. gd/good, Gm. guot/gut, Goth. g?s; gds, ON g?r, Skr. (gadhya), OCS god, Russ. (god), Polish gody, Toch. ktk/ktk

from https//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/AppendixList_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots/g%CA%B0

Oxford English Dictionary

"god (gd). Also 3-4 godd. [Com. Teut. OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. go?, gu? neut. and masc., pl. go?, gu? neut. (later Icel. pl. gu?ir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. gu?(masc. in sing.; pl. gu?a, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *guom neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter sb., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. ss, OE. ?s- in personal names, ?sa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.

The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gubom implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghut?-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *glheu, with palatal aspirate) one meaning ?to invoke? (Skr. h&#363, the other ?to pour, to offer sacrifice? (Skr. hu, Gr. , OE. y?otan YETE v.). Hence *glhut?-m has been variously interpreted as ?what is invoked? (cf. Skr. puru-hta ?much-invoked?, an epithet of Indra) and as ?what is worshipped by sacrifice? (cf. Skr. hut?, which occurs in the sense ?sacrificed to? as well as in that of ?offered in sacrifice?). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, ?an object of worship?.

Some scholars, accepting the derivation from the root *glheu- to pour, have supposed the etymological sense to be ?molten image? (= Gr. &#957, but the assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely.

From the Oxford English Dictionary.

I dont know very much about the particular stem, but I think that it is obvious why gheu(&#601? (invoke, call) and other root *ged- (unite, join) come from the same seme since when you ?call?, people get ?united? and ?joined? and ?gathered?. This *ged- also became ?gut? in German and ?good? in English. You still use it in the English words "gather" or "together".

In any case, I could only give a proper linguistic approach myself about the Greek "theos" and latin "deus", but I think your issue is about the English "god".

Also you must know there are other approaches which reject the above widely accepted etymology ( check http//search.proquest.com/openview/168623f5623c2cb08baa85e718377752/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1817105 ), although personally I dont see any problem in the acceptance of no laryngeal development.

Note Proto Indoeuropean is a family of languages that consists on more than 100 languages (from German and Latin to Sanskrit or Armenian). These languages are supposed to come from a language (Indieuropean) talked around 4500 BC in Central Asia and spread until Europe in several migration waves. Those people had several names but the general one is Aryans. Take into account that the PIE reconstruction project is not only a project held by linguistics, it is a huge attempt that counts on genetics, archaeology, anthropology and g
eology)

Personally i believe it's ged- because there are verses in Quran that speak about Allah (SWTAY) unites us like in 3103 & 863.
3103

WaiAAtasimoo bihabliAllahi jameeAAan wala tafarraqoo waothkurooniAAmata Allahi AAalaykum ith kuntum aAAdaanfaallafa bayna quloobikum faasbahtum biniAAmatihiikhwanan wakuntum AAala shafa hufratinmina alnnari faanqathakum minha kathalikayubayyinu Allahu lakum ayatihi laAAallakumtahtadoona
And hold firmly to the rope of God, all of you, and do not be separated. And remember the blessing of God upon you when you were enemies and He united your hearts. Then you became, with His blessing, brothers; and you were on the edge of a pit of fire and He saved you from it; it is thus that God clarifies for you His signs that you may be guided.

863

Waallafa bayna quloobihim law anfaqta mafee al-ardi jameeAAan ma allafta bayna quloobihimwalakinna Allaha allafa baynahum innahu AAazeezun hakeemun
And He made unity between their hearts. And if you had spent all that is on the earth, you would not have united between their hearts, but God united between them. He is Noble, Wise.

Just letting you know i am not linguistic expert the Arabic language. So i leave it the experts like Noon or Imran. Salamun Aleykum. group group

Noon_waalqalami

Again a contradiction is assertion of the contrary or opposite. You have the absolute statement "There is no god." which is then contradicted by the false statement "Only/but the god."

No that is false logic mixing two distinct words.

incorrect no X only X
correctly no X only Y

2014 indeed I am I the god not deity except am I so devotes ye me and establish the connection for remembrance mine

Allah, used 2851 times, when the evidence is examined carefully, actually means ?one who doesn?t engage in worship?

No total = 2699 (a prime number) excluding 112 chapter titles 2 to 114.

Likewise please translate verses posted and who exactly does ?he? refer?

https//s10.postimg.org/vlba62b6h/ch2v161-167.jpg

The_Sardar

No that is false logic mixing two distinct words.

incorrect no X only X
correctly no X only Y

2014 indeed I am I the god not deity except am I so devotes ye me and establish the connection for remembrance mine

Salam dear brother Noon in that verse the arabic word illa (&#1575 is used as a restriction particle. I got that info from Quranix.org. What does that mean brother Noon?

imrankhawaja

Just letting you know i am not linguistic expert the Arabic language. So i leave it the experts like Noon or Imran. Salamun Aleykum. group group

peace brother sardar just to let you know i m not a language expert but a simple randam human being who try to learn and understand things since childhood

you ll get surprise to know that one of your favourite doctor who is posting stuff in linkdn once blame that quran only islam make pig meat halal and you know the only perosn i come across who claim this is "bk anwar" while asking he said i did not make it halal i m not mufti but he give this translation for (laham hanzeer) as (cunning intelligence) although i asked him what is his method of translating things then he disappeared or ignore my question may b he dnt want to share the hidden treasure of language with me so he did not show his source

so as a brotherly advise dnt try to understand the name of your creator under the language rules he is far above from anything what we can associate with him (forget about proper/common noun) just know that he is the creator and rules maker

NOTE when we discover or claim something new its always very fasinating so while reading the stuff if you use wishful thinking then the design of internal faith will force you to beleive it. example the one who life is miserbale and want to get birth again if you twist the meanings of langauge this idea of reincarnation can become truth for him (think about it)
thats why some of the members in this forum get reincarnated several times lol

imrankhawaja

peace abdun nun

as expected u did not translate that for me but u refer it to another person let me make it easy for the readers

"there is no god except for the one who does not engagge in worship"

first of all you are relying on someone else interpretation and moreover the person is not showing the method how he translate. i have a good memory but i want you to remind my nonsense once again you call me half wit (about 2 yrs ago) and my nonsense remarks in the first reply of yout post but dnt worry i will not say you a blind follower in return so plz try not to use this langauage again specially when we are dealing complicated things.

NOTE i asked from bk anwar lot of times lot of things out of which he hardly give any answer to my questions i feel he is struggling in finding answers

reel

There are injonctions in 4.23 where simultaneous marriage to two sisters is forbidden, except for what is past. Obvioysly it refer sto marriages already ongoing, they did not have to disolve. With the prophet is the same, things were not more slack for him than for others, in fact they were stricter. In sura 33 he is forbidden from marry any new women or for divorcing or for exchanging one for another. Nobody else was forbiden divorce. So, if thre are special disposition for the prophet after that point it was to make them "harder".

I agree with that.

And yes, again we are ordered to marry the singles, but what if there are no singles?And I am not talking about what mullahs say,. Your objection with mullahs is that you are saying that there can never be any unbalance in populations save for what the mullas say, as if mullahs were God, but that is nto so, nor do we have ny guarantee that it can naver happen. It may happen. So let us leave the mullahs out of the equation, they are no authority in population or demography, not even in Qur'an. Nor do they interest me in the least.

God will get someone for the person looking for a mate. But from practical point of view and theory of compatibility, it is useless to marry just about anyone. The person has to make sure he or she can live under one roof with the mate peacefully.

The fact is that there have been occasions and we do not know that there may not to be again, where proportion between the sexes has been very unbalanced. If the population is going to recover minimally and if you do not want sexual and social morals to run riot and have a lawless society you have to provide for some legal and social structure. I have a very clear example in mind. The war of the Triple alliance against Paraguay from 1864 to 1870. There were almost no males left between the ages of 13 an 70 and very few women. But still the few women left outnumbered the males by more than ten to one. The government of the time proclaimed free love as the legal family which was maintained till the population recovered. Of course there was poligamy, what else? And nobody complained aobut it but took it as the only fair and intelligent way to have a nation again. They shouldered their burden and carried on. Since They died for their nation, they did want a nation. Poligamy was the least of their worries and rather than a worry, was the only thing possible. So, no, it does not happen all the time, thank God, but that shows why it is not prohibited in the Qur'an.

This world is huge. They could have welcomed interracial marriages. For Paraguay, it would have been quite easy since many of the countries nearby speak Spanish and share cultural similarities. I am usually not very convinced by what comes out of South America about women. I haven't seen a time when that side didn't consider females to be nothing but pieces of meat. And they are usually quite good at turning almost anything into sob story.

You ask that there shoudl be some line saying it is nto allowed. No, that is not the way it works. It is the same when somebody asks where is a line in Qur'an that says that women can lead prayers or be judges or whatever.

The two aren't same. God has nothing in Quran about leading prayer at all.

Each society makes its rules to suit the context and the circumstances, but we should not attribute to God something God has nto said. Marry the single yes, He says, poligamy is prohibited forever no, He has not said and I insist lest it be forgotten, neither feminine nor masculine. When there are no singles we can marry, then we may see to it, may be we would rather remain single ourselves. But if the ones who do not find singles to marry are too many, it may be that at some point they start spilling over and the general good should be looked after in the real circumstances, not in ideal sircumstances.

Marry the single does cancel polygamy. The world is huge. Only if we remove the ego of "oh I must marry only someone from my country" then it becomes easy to see that shortage of males and females do not exist. I do remember discussing the people with my husband some years ago. They do have a problem in how they think. They don't marry for companionship, but for pleasing the society. For them, mating is simply a deal to enhance their name, expand their culture, gene, etc. This is how things don't work.

The_Sardar

peace brother sardar just to let you know i m not a language expert but a simple randam human being who try to learn and understand things since childhood

You can read arabic though right? I can send you 2 websites that could help linguistic skills in your PM if you want.

The_Sardar

peace abdun nun

as expected u did not translate that for me but u refer it to another person let me make it easy for the readers

"there is no god except for the one who does not engagge in worship"

first of all you are relying on someone else interpretation and moreover the person is not showing the method how he translate. i have a good memory but i want you to remind my nonsense once again you call me half wit (about 2 yrs ago) and my nonsense remarks in the first reply of yout post but dnt worry i will not say you a blind follower in return so plz try not to use this langauage again specially when we are dealing complicated things.

NOTE i asked from bk anwar lot of times lot of things out of which he hardly give any answer to my questions i feel he is struggling in finding answers

Bold i did remember seeing that post a while ago (not 2 years ago)
Orange What questions are these?

imrankhawaja

You can read arabic though right? I can send you 2 websites that could help linguistic skills in your PM if you want.

lol i said i m not expert
but i can read arabic since i was 7
and its not only arabic at this age of life we have everything(online libraries,corpus,lexicon,classical arabic dictionaries,interpretors) etc so i feel it easy when i have to search for something

although i always appreciate a gift of learning when somebody give it to me so thanks for offering these websites i ll look for it.

imrankhawaja

Bold i did remember seeing that post a while ago (not 2 years ago)
Orange What questions are these?

aah hahaha no it was two years ago mr abdun nun call me half wit and it was funny though coz i dnt understand why he call me half wit i even ask but he did not replied there lol

https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607893.msg377890#msg377890 herez the link

aww about questions my first question from him (bk anwar)to show me his source of translating text and the method he applied to his interpretations but i did not get a satisfactory reply

owlwithbow

There is pretty comprehensive list here.
http//www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

And I am sure you'll find rebuttals on the internet too.

A very boring exercise if you ask me. I think it's much better to discuss what ideas the Quran promotes and if bad ideas are just misunderstanding then why has it been unable to communicate them effectively.

We shouldn't be afraid if we trust God and want to learn from these so called rebuttals. It grants you a different kind of angle and perspectif and actually fuels your faith.

huruf

I agree with that.

This world is huge. They could have welcomed interracial marriages. For Paraguay, it would have been quite easy since many of the countries nearby speak Spanish and share cultural similarities. I am usually not very convinced by what comes out of South America about women. I haven't seen a time when that side didn't consider females to be nothing but pieces of meat. And they are usually quite good at turning almost anything into sob story.

The two aren't same. God has nothing in Quran about leading prayer at all.

Marry the single does cancel polygamy. The world is huge. Only if we remove the ego of "oh I must marry only someone from my country" then it becomes easy to see that shortage of males and females do not exist. I do remember discussing the people with my husband some years ago. They do have a problem in how they think. They don't marry for companionship, but for pleasing the society. For them, mating is simply a deal to enhance their name, expand their culture, gene, etc. This is how things don't work.

I doubt that you have any idea whatsoever of what did happen or even of what happens and goes around.

Would you flock now to southern Sudan to help lift up the Country? Woudl you flock to make a living in a completely destroyed country where nothing works nor stands and is militarily occupied?

A resent deply that you call those people racists that they did not want to mix because if they had wanted they cpould have brought men over. No, they could not. Those few who might come did not come to marry from a people practically without anything to eat, dipossessed of everything by the winners and their backers. Nobody flocks to a country like that except to get the spoils.

The paraguayan people were mixed and they used to get people from many lands too and later on did too, but to imagine that men would go to Paraguay to marry women in the hardest predicaments completely destroyed and their economy destroyed is to be thinking out of this world. It took them many years to recover. YOu have not tought about this with sufficient knowledge or with sufficient understanding, otherwise you would realise how insulting, heartless and overbearing your assumptions are for those who suffered such horror and for any paraguayan of any time. They are the most hospitable, unpretentious and open people.

But they committed the worst sin they tried to advance and develop and have a strong economy and they were succeeding, so they were crushed.

Your ideas about south Americans are simply shocking. Pieces of meat... ?For God's sake! It is not only insulting for South American males, but to south American women particularly. Do you think they are idiots and have no guts?

Just as a side note, the first woman president of a Republic in the World was precisely a South American.

Salaam

The_Sardar

While i don't agree with worshiping, we are to serve Allah/God (SWTAY) https//mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/god-is-not-to-be-worshiped/#comment-16306

Yellow Wait let me edit that little mistake https//mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/god-is-not-to-be-worshiped/
There you go, sorry. -\

huruf

Does God need to be served? Does God need anything in fact? No. Does he want to be served? No. That, we may do to other people if we have a pact of any sort with them. God is not a creature, what we do with respect to Him is like nothing we would do for any creature or thing. We may know of the usefulness of anything we do for somebody or something else. We do know God does not need a damned thing from us or from anything or anybody else, but we need to do or be something with respect to Him, for our own sake and what we should do in the first place is acknowledge our true nature and it is that we are contingent creatures who only exist because there is a God that make them exist, and from there follows everything else. God tells us the ways by which we can fulfill our nature. If we want to serve ourselves we will follow God's teachings so that we can live in Reality and not in vain dreamings. We are not solving God's problems or fulfulling His needs, but ours.

We may serve somebody who exacts from us certain services and still dislike that person and feel enmity towards her or him, but we cannot do that with God, that is, we can, but then it will avail us nothing.

Salaam

The_Sardar

Does God need to be served? Does God need anything in fact? No. Does he want to be served? No. That we may do to other people if we have a pact of any sort with them. Gid is not a creature, what we do with respect to Him is like nothing we would do for any creature or thing. We may know of the usefulness of anything we do for somebody or something else. We do know God does not need a damned thing from us or from anything or anybody else, but we need to do or be something with respect to Him, for our own sake and what we should do in the first place is acknowledge our true nature and it is that we are contingent creatures who only exist because there is a God that make them exist, and from there follows everything else. God tell us the ways by which we can fulfill our nature. If we want to serve ourselves we will follow God's teachings so that we can live in Reality and not in vain dreamings. We are not solving God's problems or fulfulling His needs, but ours.

We may serve somebody who exacts from us certain services and still dislike that person and feel enmity towards her or him, but we cannot do that with God, that is, we can, but then it will avail us nothing.

Salaam

You did read the article right? Besides i serve God because i want to, i want to be learn from Allah (SWTAY), also because i love & revere The Divine Infinite Creator. Here is a verse 5156 Wama khalaqtu aljinna waal-insailla liyaAAbudooni I did not create the Jinn and mankind except to serve Me.

huruf

It is a matter of how you translate 3-b-d, if you choose to translate serve or worship. Worship is not equal to ritual, which is what some people seem to make it. Ritual is ritual and worship is worship. worship is from the heart and the mind.

If you choose to translate serve, then serve is serve, not serve plus something else. If you translate worship it is just worship, the certainty that you belong to Him that you exist because He makes you existe at every single instant and that if He did not do that you would cease to exist or have existed.

And if you do not "serve" Him, you still serve Him, because He is the one o whom you belong and you are not wronging Him but yourself. So anything you do you do, right or wrong, you do "serve" Him. That is what He created and wanted. But if you worship Him with all your being, you are serving Him equally, but it does not serve you.

Salaam

imrankhawaja

peace all,

Glorification Allah
praising (alhamdulliah)
remembring (zikar of Allah)
sabeeh Allah
and also serving Allah ( doing anything here mean we are actually doing it in the kingdom of the one who created All this ) so officialy we acknowledge or not it will not change the fact that we are creation and any created thing is totally belong to creator.this word also in urdu and punjabi taken as ibadat mean worshiping by a lip service or actions but in real terms this word is something like a duty how a slave/servant/worker do it to the reporting person(BOSS/MASTER) but obviously God is not human neither he need his servant to make a cup of tea for him or doing rituals etc

example a rich man earn money and was very clingy with the money people think he did not serve creator but infact he indirectly did. whatever he collect will remain at this physical world just ownership will get change. the next owner possibly serve humanity and it reffers to God that serving humanity = serving God as you share the provision of God mean u just did a good caretaking of his providings

every single atom is serving God directly or indirectly willingly or unwillingly
by different modes of actions what i post above one more SubhanAllah