Why to guive proof from Koran if this isn't the book of God?
-
Hello Tay
Here is a verse that I classify Mutashabihat, the reason is simply as follow
- it is the only verse that discusses polygamy, i.e. we can?t use the Quran to explain it
- There are many different understandings, some clearly conflict with the spirit of the Quran (Especially Regarding Orphans)
- Because the verse concerns an important law and is also mutashabihat, the law in it was over written with another law, IRONICALLY, the other law is in the same verse
"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.)
(3)
-> The verse started with a problem related to the orphans ? If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans?, the first impression is Orphans means Orphans ?boys and girls?, others say the orphans in the verse means ?Orphaned Girls only?, they also suggest they are ready for marriage, the problem in hand which is fearing to be just to the orphans is also understood differently by others, some suggest by noit taking good care of them, others suggest to be specifically relating to the orphaned women who are ready to marry and they have wealth and the men fear after marrying them not to be just by joining their wealth to theirs, this is a very starnage indeed, we need all that sequence of events to be true, I believe they based their understanding on the previous verse
" To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their property (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.?
(2)
-> Again 42 only mentioned the Orphans in general ?Boys and Girls, Allah is advising us ? To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their property (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.?, the verse never stated that it is a case of marriage that we should not mix their property with theirs when we marry them, 42 is very clear and is not mutashabihat, they only selected a specific case that should be covered under the general rule of not abusing the property of the Orphans, I guess they were trying to prove their understanding to 43 that it meant this case of not being fair with the orphaned women, what is stricking that what they try to convince us with regarding the marrying the orphaned women IS MENTIOJED EXACTLY AS THEY SAID IN 4127, here it is
" And they ask you a decision about women. Say Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them, and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning female orphans whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them, and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it. "
(127)
-> See, but the problem is, I see no relation whatsoever between 43 and 4127, neither 43 and 42, however it is still a possibility as there is nothing firm from the Quran to refute it, I guess it can be relative here, even relative regarding what orphans means, some may say losing any of the parents, some say they must loose both their parents, another confusing matter
-> Now after we saw that the problem in hand is very confusing and can have more than one meaning, we will also find that the solution proposed is confusing and can have more than one meaning ? Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four;?, ok, whom exactly they will marry?, is it
- Any other woman
- The mother of the orphans, or
- Another woman but must not be an orphaned women
Again each one can possibly apply with a percentage according to the logic, we may sense that one option has a higher possibility than the other, but all three option still have a percentage even if it is 1%
-> How Allah do this to us? I mean we have a serious problem in hand which was not very clear and the solution is even not clearer, but what we can sense that the solution is good for men and bad for women, I guess most men know that, I guess most of them will also be in the favour of marrying more than one, but hold on a second horney men, the solution was conditioned? but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess?, now we have a mutashabihat condition as well, I guess the condition can be mutashabihat because some men may think they can be fair with women hence they will go for marrying more than 1, and others will never even think about it and just marry more than one, it doesn?t matter for them if they will deal justly and equally with their wives, in fact they always lean not to be and even deliberately
-> I found it amazing that The mutashabihat problem, the mutashabihat solution and the mutashabihat condition all fell in one verse that I call mutashabihat verse, however verse 4129 in the same sura demolish the mutashabihat condition and takes it out of the human judgment
"Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire...... "
??? (129)
-> Here we go, clearly Allah is telling us in the above Muhkam verse that ? Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire?, therefore, this important piece of information in this Muhkam verse should force the mutashabihat condition in 43, and should make our fear not to treat our multiple wives equally and justly a reality and a fact as well we were told that there no way out of it, it is in the Hu_Man nature, LOL
I can?t lie and say that I didn?t try to chase the meaning of 43, but my chase was only to see where all other understanding are coming from, NOT TO FIOLLOW ANY OF THEM, as my decision was already made according to 4129 in conjunction with 43 that true submitters to Allah should only marry ONE
Therefore 43 for me is a mutashabihat verse by design and a Muhkamat verse as it comply with 37, when I say it comply perfectly with 37 I meant the following
-
The enemy of Islam used the verse to cause discord between the believers and the others to show that our religion is sort of a lusty one
-
Many of the believers followed different understandings because it will work in their favours
-
Seeing the solution practised in my culture and even in my family then realizing ?The discord? and the horrible effects it brings on the wives and the children, made me believe it is not practised right, I hardly saw the polygamy practised for the sake of orphans anyway, I only see it practised because of lust or because husbands got sick of their aging wife, yet I hardly saw any polygamy that is working in a peaceful environment between the parties involved
And my strongest argument is it is obvious that 4129 overwrites 43 therefore there is no need to chase the meaning of the mutashabihat bits in 43 unless the decision was already made to follow 4129 and not to follow any of the different understandings for 43
Peace be with you
-
Peace be upon you Bilal76,
Some people think that the kitab called "KORAN" by traditionnal's muslims is not the truth reveled to Muhammed. They thinks that the qu'an of the kitab is the reading of the universals law. I respect their reflection but i have different questions for them
Thank you for the respect and I will try to answer your questions. First though, I must adress the premise that is already assumed when we say "revealed to Muhammad". There is no proof that there was a "Muhammad", but the context of the word "muhammadun" througthout is a vehicle of "hamd". But we can speak more on that in a thread I intend to start today regarding the prefix "MU".
1 - Why Do you use Koran to guive proofs that "qu'an of kitab" means reading of universal laws?
Because that is the book we are here discussing. However, this is not the only book I study, so we can discuss universal laws on several different levels. As "Koran" states, we are to trust in that which descended upon us AND THOSE BEFORE US. Therefore to say that the God's Words (which never run out) are confinesd to 114 chapters is aganst its own message.
2 - Do you think that eat meat of pig is permissed to eat?
Sure, if you have no means of aquiring sustenance that is healthy and nutricious.
3- Do you think that there are a number of prohibition (list) or that it depend of the personnality and the vision of each person?
Neither, the universe is set up in a way that all things are interdependent with each other. Therefore we can weigh and measure all things according to thier relationships. To measure something is an act of SEEING, versus hearing about something (hearsay). So it is OBJECTIVE, and therefore not subject to personal opinion.
4- Who are the prophets and messangers?
The "nabi" are those that intuit knowledge from within. They "intuit" the proper relationships of things. One must attain a high degree of spiritual development to reach this level. Anyone who passes on the information that has been intuited, wether it is the "intuiter" or someone else, they are described as a messenger(rasool), one who is sent.
We are told to trust in the messengers, but many get this confused with being able to name them all and blindly believing in thier literal existence, even when many of thier stories are old stories from "religions" before they were to have even lived. To trust in all the messengers is to trust in universal law, which is the message they all came to deliver. Even in this "Koran", we are told that there are messengers that we were NEVER told about, so how can one trust in all the messengers in a literal sense when we dont know them all?
- Why do you mention the name of ibrahim, moussa, Mohammed, etc if you can't prouve their exitence by the kitab (universal laws)?
These are the symbols provided in this text we are discussing, if we were discussing Kamitic philosophy, I would be using names like "Ausar", "Auset", or "Heru". If we were discussing Yoruba religion I would use names like "Oludamare", "Elegba", or "Shango".
Furher, many of the names have more meaning to them in regards to the text. Like "muhammadun" which means one who is a vehicle of "hamd"(exaltation). Then there is Solomon, whose root is "peace"(S-L-M), giving us a clue owards understanding "his" story.
All of the charcters are slumbering within us and must be awakened.
the goal of this questions is the enrichment of our knowledge.
A very worthy goal.
-
Peace be upon you bmbmm,
That wasn't actually earth shattering proof
-
I think its simple. Quran is the reading which came in a form of a book, period.
Hello
I guess it will be more accurate if said as follow
Al Quran is a reading which came in a form of a book, period.
Peace
-
Peace be upon you idolfree and all.
Peace be upon you Bilal76,
Thank you for the respect and I will try to answer your questions. First though, I must adress the premise that is already assumed when we say "revealed to Muhammad". There is no proof that there was a "Muhammad", but the context of the word "muhammadun" througthout is a vehicle of "hamd". But we can speak more on that in a thread I intend to start today regarding the prefix "MU".
Maybe that M-HAMMAD is built on the same basis as MU-SALLIN.
To tell the truth it is too early for the statement because I control
not yet well the Arab language.Because that is the book we are here discussing. However, this is not the only book I study, so we can discuss universal laws on several different levels. As "Koran" states, we are to trust in that which descended upon us AND THOSE BEFORE US. Therefore to say that the God's Words (which never run out) are confinesd to 114 chapters is aganst its own message.
according to you is "the Koran" only one means of distinguishing the
laws universal among others? correct me if I am mistakenSure, if you have no means of aquiring sustenance that is healthy and nutricious.
put besides this situation, the flesh of pig is not allowed?
Neither, the universe is set up in a way that all things are interdependent with each other. Therefore we can weigh and measure all things according to thier relationships. To measure something is an act of SEEING, versus hearing about something (hearsay). So it is OBJECTIVE, and therefore not subject to personal opinion.
who fixes the common limits not to exceed? Think that the limits
differ according to people's or that these limits are fixed by The
Law?The "nabi" are those that intuit knowledge from within. They "intuit" the proper relationships of things. One must attain a high degree of spiritual development to reach this level. Anyone who passes on the information that has been intuited, wether it is the "intuiter" or someone else, they are described as a messenger(rasool), one who is sent.
would it be possible for you to support your understing of the
nabi by the Koran? thank you in advanceFurher, many of the names have more meaning to them in regards to the text. Like "muhammadun" which means one who is a vehicle of "hamd"(exaltation). Then there is Solomon, whose root is "peace"(S-L-M), giving us a clue owards understanding "his" story.
it could be interessent to referer for all the verses referant itself with SOLOMON
to see whether this assumption can be checked.Thanks
-
Peace Ahmed,
In consideration of the nature of this thread, I feel we've strayed a bit off-topic. Would you mind copying and pasting your Mutashabihat replies in a new thread. I truly appreciate your effort and would like to reply to each of them in their proper place, rather than hijack this thread.
In the meantime, here are my replies to your first post
You stated
ok, thanks but it is not my opinion, it just happen to be the opinion of the Majority
And what does the Qur'an tell is about the majority?
I stated
Islamic history, as I'm sure you're aware, is tainted beyond recognition. I know they did not author books and was just illustrating that you referring to their methods cannot be validated via "history".
and you replied
Wrong, it is Satan who made it look this way to you and to others, I almost fell in the same trap,
Well, then, please, verify it for us, so that we all may learn from this valid history that you keep referring to.
but I know what make sense at the end of the day and I can't feel more peacful and confident in my life
So, you judge whether or not a historical record is valid based on how it makes you feel?
History is History, and we use our minds to qualify it,
History once taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America. I'm sure many minds were quite satisfied with that fact.
also part of the required belief is to believe in the messenegers of Allah
Irrelevant, but OK
if I put the role of a messneger a side for argument sake,m then thoise people will be as any other historical record that we belive in like hitler and others people of the past, in fact the Quran told us that Allah will make these true affairs stories in the Quran so we learn from it, He never said it is a metaphor for just learning a lesson from it
Bro, you're slipping away here. What does historical validity have to do with metaphors?
it is personal choice to believe in any historical record
So it is subjective now? Ahmed, you have to make up your mind on this in order for us to move on.
ironically most of my own understanidng is the same as the historical records and this on its own merit m akes feel happy and peaceful
I don't see the irony in that, but if it makes you feel happy, who am I to argue. However, whether or not your beliefs match those of any thus unreferenced historical records remains irrelevant until you provide something for us to examine.
you are missing the point, prophet Mohammad was a native Arabic speaker and I was also the same, therefore most likely our unbised understanding will match
Following your logic, you and every Arab on the planet should have the same understanding. Is this what you believe?
so what you are saying that there will be humans who will crack the meaning of the Mutashabihat verse?
Bingo!
excuse me, it is the common sense behind the clear arabic words
You keep saying this, but your common sense doesn't seem to match the common sense of other "native Arabic speakers". Therefore, it is your understanding. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this. We're all individuals bro. There's nothing wrong with having your own understanding.
excuse me you said it the verse says "WE SHOULD VERIFY EVERYTHING" now there is no such thing in the arbic verse therefore it has to be a clear cut lie, sorry
Ahemd, I did not say that the verse said WORD for WORD "We should verify everything". So, please stop with the nonsense. Every translator I quoted stated, in paraphrase, that we should not accept nor follow what we have no knowledge of. The ayah ends in saying that we will be held accountable for our hearing, our sight, and our hearts.
What does this mean to you?
To me, it means that we should not follow blindly. How does one avoid following blindly? Answer by verifying the information presented.
Now, am I stretching the understanding or are you just nitpicking at this point in order to "win" an argument?
The history of the people of the past, as I said it is a personal choice to belive in it or not, however I'm really felighted that my understanding matched those historical people who were arabs as well not a confused non arabic speakers who to stick their nose in what they don't know, this is revolting mate
Sounds a bit racist to me.
do you believe that your great great great great great grand pa existed?, if so can you prove it to me beyond doubt? thanks
If I'm alive, then of course he existed. There's your proof wink
Looking forward to the new thread.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Ahmed,
In consideration of the nature of this thread, I feel we've strayed a bit off-topic. Would you mind copying and pasting your Mutashabihat replies in a new thread. I truly appreciate your effort and would like to reply to each of them in their proper place, rather than hijack this thread.
Peace Tay
I guess if the poster of the thread is annoyed he would have told us as such, it is also a possibility that he enjoys our discussion
No hijacking here mate, but the option is still available for us to start a new thread
In the meantime, here are my replies to your first post
You stated
ok, thanks but it is not my opinion, it just happen to be the opinion of the Majority
And what does the Qur'an tell is about the majority?
I don?t understand your question mate?
However I meant the majority that I liaised with in my entire life, as well the majority as it seems from the hundreds of books that I read by many scholars and non scholars
I stated
Islamic history, as I'm sure you're aware, is tainted beyond recognition. I know they did not author books and was just illustrating that you referring to their methods cannot be validated via "history".
and you replied
Wrong, it is Satan who made it look this way to you and to others, I almost fell in the same trap,
Well, then, please, verify it for us, so that we all may learn from this valid history that you keep referring to.
Why I have to do it for ya mate?, it is there available to every one, it is even taught at many schools
but I know what make sense at the end of the day and I can't feel more peacful and confident in my life
So, you judge whether or not a historical record is valid based on how it makes you feel?
not just that, but everything in my life for that matter
History is History, and we use our minds to qualify it,
History once taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America. I'm sure many minds were quite satisfied with that fact.
but because the history statement above does not make sense, I will throw it in the rubbish bin
also part of the required belief is to believe in the messenegers of Allah
Irrelevant, but OK
how come a muslim say it is irrelevant?
Do you consider yourself a muslim?
And if you do, how you consider yourself a muslim
If your understanding is the same as Kyle then we are worlds apart and we have nothing to say to each other.
The Quran says cleary that we have to believe in all the Rusul sent. period
if I put the role of a messneger a side for argument sake,m then thoise people will be as any other historical record that we belive in like hitler and others people of the past, in fact the Quran told us that Allah will make these true affairs stories in the Quran so we learn from it, He never said it is a metaphor for just learning a lesson from it
Bro, you're slipping away here. What does historical validity have to do with metaphors?
it is nit that I?m slipping away, it is a case you want to look that way, but as I said many times now, the history of Mohammad can be validated by the Quran. period
it is personal choice to believe in any historical record
So it is subjective now? Ahmed, you have to make up your mind on this in order for us to move on.
of course it is subjective to the Quran and the common sense, not to the non sense, my mind is made up, please stop trying to give the wrong impressions because you have no string argument but some funny ideas with no verse to back it up from the Quran.
ironically most of my own understanidng is the same as the historical records and this on its own merit m akes feel happy and peaceful
I don't see the irony in that, but if it makes you feel happy,
I see the irony as common sense, and sure the common sense will always make my senses happy
who am I to argue.
1737 tell you NOT TO ARGUE IF YOU LACK KNOWEGE, this means you can argue if you have knowledge, now your statement ?who are you to argue? means that you admit you don?t have knowledge to argue
However, whether or not your beliefs match those of any thus unreferenced historical records remains irrelevant until you provide something for us to examine.
The references is there and is called the sirah of the prophet, you chose to follow others by ignoring it, then good luck to you, I guess when we die we will know who was right and who was following conjecture, unfortunately neither me or you can go back to fix it, so let?s leave it to Him
you are missing the point, prophet Mohammad was a native Arabic speaker and I was also the same, therefore most likely our unbised understanding will match
Following your logic, you and every Arab on the planet should have the same understanding. Is this what you believe?
of course not, it is the knowledgeable ones who spent plenty of times looking for the truth in the Arabic Quran, not following some ignorant non Arabs
so what you are saying that there will be humans who will crack the meaning of the Mutashabihat verse?
Bingo!
what was that?
Is that is the answer to my simple question?
If so, then who is Bingo who will crack the Quran verses?
excuse me, it is the common sense behind the clear arabic words
You keep saying this,
of course I will, because I understand arabic better than you and better than any non arabic speaker, this is a hard core fact that only the ignorant will deny, it is exactly as you speak English better than me
but your common sense doesn't seem to match the common sense of other "native Arabic speakers".
really, and who are them
Ayman?
But that is only one so far
Therefore, it is your understanding. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this. We're all individuals bro.
because I have to do my best against the others to deploy the internet to mislead the sincere muslim brothers and sisters without compelling evidences form the Arabic Quran, this is what the Quran told me to do as a submitter, I can?t conceal the truth that Allah revealed in the clear Arabic quran, now why you have a problem with that?
There's nothing wrong with having your own understanding.
fine as long as it will not put the Quran in fault, if it does then we have a problem in hand
excuse me you said it the verse says "WE SHOULD VERIFY EVERYTHING" now there is no such thing in the arbic verse therefore it has to be a clear cut lie, sorry
Ahemd, I did not say that the verse said WORD for WORD "We should verify everything". So, please stop with the nonsense. Every translator I quoted stated, in paraphrase, that we should not accept nor follow what we have no knowledge of. The ayah ends in saying that we will be held accountable for our hearing, our sight, and our hearts.
if you go to a country that you have not been before, and you hired a car to go from point a to point b, how can you do it unless you FOLLOW a street directory, now you are following without verfying it, right? See the conflict, here is another conflict
if you are following Mohammad now that there is a god, how come you verified this data before you follow Mohammad, and if you managed to verify it you don?t need to follow mohammad any more, because you now have the knowledge to follow yourself,
The verse anyway never said to verify the info, this is a clear cut lie by some bunch of ignorant translators who want to justify their wrong translation by deception
What does this mean to you?
it means non sense to me
To me, it means that we should not follow blindly.
I?m sure you do follow blindly, you follow a street directory blindly, you follow your teacher at school blindly, we follow the prophets blindly
You argument has 0 sense because if you verify something then you will only be following yourself, not another one
How does one avoid following blindly? Answer by verifying the information presented.
then you are not following the person no more after verification, you will be following yourself
NOW PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU VERFIED THAT ALLAH EXISTS AND THE JUSGMENT DAY EXISTS?
Now, am I stretching the understanding or are you just nitpicking at this point in order to "win" an argument?
no winners or losers here, I see it as we all should be winners
The history of the people of the past, as I said it is a personal choice to belive in it or not, however I'm really felighted that my understanding matched those historical people who were arabs as well not a confused non arabic speakers who to stick their nose in what they don't know, this is revolting mate
Sounds a bit racist to me.
very strange that the many comments degrading the arab intellect don?t sound racist to you
do you believe that your great great great great great grand pa existed?, if so can you prove it to me beyond doubt? thanks
If I'm alive, then of course he existed. There's your proof wink
then Mohammad existed because no one said he brought the quran in our hands today? but a person called Mohammad from the past, i.e. he was real, do you believe the Mohammad existed and if you do then how you verified that?
Looking forward to the new thread.
Peace,
TayPeace Tay
-
Peace Ahmed,
If your understanding is the same as Kyle then we are worlds apart and we have nothing to say to each other.
Kyle and I agree on many points, but not everything. And if that's the way you feel, then so be it. The rest of your post has become moot.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Ahmed,
If your understanding is the same as Kyle then we are worlds apart and we have nothing to say to each other.
Kyle and I agree on many points, but not everything. And if that's the way you feel, then so be it. The rest of your post has become moot.
Peace,
TayPeace Tay
Yeh mate that is what I wanted to confirm before I continue discussing other issues with you, as truely I'm not intested into the flawed uncomplete concept you and kyle promote
peace
-
Peace Ahmed,
Of course you couldn't say goodbye without one last jab. That's ok, bro...
7310 And endure with patience whatever people may say, and leave them with a noble leaving.
May peace be upon you,
TayBro why I have to say goodbye?
it is not the end of discussion between us in any other subject but religion, we can talk about politics, sports, sex but not religion please, I honestly like you bro
peace be with you
-
Peace be upon you Bilal76,
Quote
Thank you for the respect and I will try to answer your questions. First though, I must adress the premise that is already assumed when we say "revealed to Muhammad". There is no proof that there was a "Muhammad", but the context of the word "muhammadun" througthout is a vehicle of "hamd". But we can speak more on that in a thread I intend to start today regarding the prefix "MU".Maybe that M-HAMMAD is built on the same basis as MU-SALLIN.
To tell the truth it is too early for the statement because I control
not yet well the Arab language.Yes, this is exactly my position, that MU -hammadun is the same structure as MU- salleen, Mu - Min, Mu-staqeem, etc
Quote
Because that is the book we are here discussing. However, this is not the only book I study, so we can discuss universal laws on several different levels. As "Koran" states, we are to trust in that which descended upon us AND THOSE BEFORE US. Therefore to say that the God's Words (which never run out) are confinesd to 114 chapters is aganst its own message.according to you is "the Koran" only one means of distinguishing the
laws universal among others? correct me if I am mistakenThe book named "KORAN" is one of several means of proclaiming the truths of life. It is a guide which POINTS TO the signs of the universe. We are over and over again directed to the universe for examples and one verse states that "We will show you our signs in the horizon and within your Spirit/Minds until you KNOW this (the message) is the truth." I do not hold that it is the one and only Book and should be idolized in any way. The "BOOK" (al kitaab) spoke of inside of "Koran" is an allegory to the Universal Laws.
Quote
Sure, if you have no means of aquiring sustenance that is healthy and nutricious.put besides this situation, the flesh of pig is not allowed?
Yes, based on the relationship of consuming pork and the response that you wil get from your body based on Universal Law. But we must keep in mind that each person has been passed down, by Universal Law, a stronger or weaker body from thier family line, so although it might appear that it is not a uniform response, it is just that some people are working with a stronger immune system and so forth.
Quote
Neither, the universe is set up in a way that all things are interdependent with each other. Therefore we can weigh and measure all things according to thier relationships. To measure something is an act of SEEING, versus hearing about something (hearsay). So it is OBJECTIVE, and therefore not subject to personal opinion.who fixes the common limits not to exceed? Think that the limits
differ according to people's or that these limits are fixed by The
Law?The limits of universal law? It is the God who creates this structure, humans are subject to it. I hope I answered that question, I am not sure I understood what you were asking, please advise.
Quote
The "nabi" are those that intuit knowledge from within. They "intuit" the proper relationships of things. One must attain a high degree of spiritual development to reach this level. Anyone who passes on the information that has been intuited, wether it is the "intuiter" or someone else, they are described as a messenger(rasool), one who is sent.would it be possible for you to support your understing of the
nabi by the Koran? thank you in advanceThe verses state that the 'nabi' are sent the 'Book'(universal law). When we reflect upon the message, we realize that ALL things MUST be intuited by a human FIRST, then passed on externally to others. This is not simply a mater of posting a verse, because al I can show you is how the 'nabi" is associated with having the "Book" revealed to them, we must REFLECT that ALL THINGS HAVE to be intuited by someone first. There is always a first person to do something, where did they get it from? It had to come from within.
You see, we have been "misguided" by those who dont understand science nor religion to believe that "nabi" and "rasool" are superheroes that only blossom in the Middle east in the past. No, this is a LIVING MESSAGE for all people. We have "nabi" and "rasool" potential in all of us if we cultivate it with the same vigor that many cultivate going to school and college and making money.
Quote
Furher, many of the names have more meaning to them in regards to the text. Like "muhammadun" which means one who is a vehicle of "hamd"(exaltation). Then there is Solomon, whose root is "peace"(S-L-M), giving us a clue owards understanding "his" story.it could be interessent to referer for all the verses referant itself with SOLOMON
to see whether this assumption can be checked.Well, I am not sure I have a clear cut assumption yet But it is indeed interesting that the name Solomon comes from the same root (s-l-m) which means Peace. And it is Solomon that is the one who has a "kingdom like no other" and is in control of the "forces". In ancient spiritual cultures, many which are still practiced today, state that being at PEACE is the only way to "control" the forces within MAN. One cannot be subject to emotions and see clearly, they are described as spiritually dead and blind.
-
Peace be upon you Bilal76,
Peace be upon you idolfree1
The limits of universal law? It is the God who creates this structure, humans are subject to it. I hope I answered that question, I am not sure I understood what you were asking, please advise.
I talk about the limit of permission to do something. The interpretation of the laws can be different according to the perception of the people. The risk is that somebody can considered something "haram" whereas an other person don't see the bad thing which justifies the "haram".
Sorry for my bad english. Tell me if i did mistake in my language in order to correct it.Peace
-
Peace Ahmed,
You stated
Bro why I have to say goodbye?
So, you saw the "goodbye" but you didn't see the "jab"?
Look bro, I have no problem with you or your views. However, I come to this forum for a few reasons
- To learn
- To share what I've learned elsewhere with people I genuinely like, and who actually have an interest in what I'm sharing
- To generally interact with somewhat like-minded people
I'm slowly learning to curb my voice when I can see that none of the above 3 reasons are a possibility. It's taking longer than I anticipated, but I think I'm making progress.
Anyway, I look forward to chatting with you in the future. I will, however, do my best to avoid your posts in the threads where you and I clearly don't see eye to eye. It does neither of us any good. I hope you'll do the same.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Ahmed,
You stated
Bro why I have to say goodbye?
So, you saw the "goodbye" but you didn't see the "jab"?
Peace Tay
obviously if I didnlt see jabs then there was no jabs intended
Look bro, I have no problem with you or your views. However, I come to this forum for a few reasons
- To learn
- To share what I've learned elsewhere with people I genuinely like, and who actually have an interest in what I'm sharing
- To generally interact with somewhat like-minded people
cool bro, I have no issues with you either, I guess both of us have a strong opinion at the end of the day
I'm slowly learning to curb my voice when I can see that none of the above 3 reasons are a possibility. It's taking longer than I anticipated, but I think I'm making progress.
to be honest bro I'm here for a totally different purpose, but is still under the category of good will
Anyway, I look forward to chatting with you in the future.
sure, here is my email address if you would like me to contact me privately and with high priority
ahmed at epilepsy dot org dot au
I will, however, do my best to avoid your posts in the threads where you and I clearly don't see eye to eye. It does neither of us any good. I hope you'll do the same.
Peace,
Taydidn't you notice that this what I do for your posts?, i realized quickly what you have realized, that it will do us no good and most likely both of us will stand by whatever they believe in, i was responding to you in this thread, that's all
take care mate
-
peace tay and ahmed
maybe you two shouldn't have a debate, but a dialogue.
we learned this in english class
a debate is when two people are trying to prove eachother wrong and themselves right. A debate is between two close-minded people who are not open to being wrong.
a dialogue is when two people are open-minded to eachother's views and instead of debating, try to understand eachother's views by questioning.
You all probably already knew this but...i had to.
This is what we all should be doing. First we must understand eachother's views thoroughly. Then, only if there is something seriously wrong in their views, we must debate.
Everyone has different views. And instead of just avoiding them, we must understand them. And i think learning different views is part of the learning process. You don't know the whole thing unless you know both sides of the story.So instead of just saying "let's agree to disagree" we must find out why we disagree. Why does the other person think what he/she thinks?
sorry for the lecture.