SECTARIANISM is what's killing us!!!!
-
You made the whole thing on-topic when you decided to write "I reject these labels and accept this, 'Muslim'; " (paraphrased).
Wrong again!! I am using the logic of "Muslim is left untranslated because 1). I know that people will always choose how to word their translation and understanding of the word and when they come across others who word it differently or understand how to apply its translation differently than them, then we have the disagreement that we are seeing from Anwar and AYman in this very thread. You can see this for yourself. They are not going to carry a debate how each of them understand "Deen" and "Islam" and whether Islam means submissiveness (Anwar's understanding) or if Islam means peacefulness (Ayman's understanding). Go back to page three of this thread and witness this for yourself. THIS is EXACTLY what I was talking about and lo and behold it came true.
I would avoid commenting on whether two people agree or disagree when the full picture isn't around, as seen by Progod's response. This is an "either/or" fallacy, and again, it just doesn't hold. As for your clarified reason, that is absolutely not good. Did you admit to using the term to expose or create an impression of dissent/disagreement? That is how this paragraph is worded, from "I know" to "very thread". You would be guilty of the original post/article.
My second reason I leave it untranslated is because unlike you, it is not a big deal at all to me. It's not important. The understanding and application of the concept behind the word itself is more important to me. So in all actuality I have no problem with the terms "submitter", "submissive one", "peaceful one" or "one who surrenders", but depending on which of those terms I use, someone will come crawling out of the woodwork and argue me down about the usage of these particular terms for the Arabic word 'muslim'. Look at those words. Ayman and Anwar are at odds on just those words alone. A total waste of time in a thread that is not about translations of Arabic terms.
Error carried forward about their percieved disagreement. Nonetheless, for the reasons I stated (that you didn't address) in my first post, it's a very important term. When speaking in English, it is useless to write "I am blah blah". It would have been fine if you were writing in Arabic to an Arabic audience, but this isn't the case - you should have used the common noun equivalents, because leaving it untranslated turns it into a proper noun, in the way some words in the Quran are such (Israel and a few others, I believe?). If you acknowledge that "muslim" is a common noun, then you should avoid using it as a proper noun, regardless of language. Simple as that. Their message had nothing to do with translations either, but of using the language barrier and common/proper noun usage as a device to make sectarian division.
Like I said, pick your English rendition of this word and there will ALWAYS be someone who will disagree with your word choice and will want to debate you about it and ask you which sources and Arabic dictionaries you are using, etc, etc. I have no time for that crap. To me it is somewhat childish because it can go on endlessly and nothing is accomplished by it.
So what? Proclaim, or let out, that you follow the Quran and not many hadeeth, and there will ALWAYS be someone who will disagree and ask you which sources and hearsays you are using, etc, etc. Nobody has time for that childish crap either, by this logic.
I am a Believer in the quran and I try my best to be one of the people Abraham speaks to GOD about in 2128
You missed out on the point of the rhetorical question. Using the term "muslim" in the same way you do, EVEN TO AVOID DISPUTE leads to simple sectarian division. There is no way out of this for you. A non-Arabic person or anyone unfamiliar with islam in general will have their own preconceptions attached to that gibberish "Muslim" and will instantly attach it to you. If you called yourself a person who submits to God, or a peacemaker, would they bring any such preconceptions? You could openly claim the latter anywhere on Earth, but do the first and it isn't the same. The reaction is entirely different, because of preconceptions.
This is nonsense to me. You create division and sectarianism when you decide to attach yourself to a particular camp or school of thought. A simple experiment. Go to a Sunni Mosque and tell them that you are a muslim. You will probably get an Al Hamdullillah response. Then tell them that you don't believe in hadeeth and their scholars and that you go by the Quran Alone and Then see what kind of reaction get. They proudly call themselves Ahlul Sunnah. Tell them that you are from the Ahlul Quran and see what happens. The reaction you will get will be a manifestation of sectarianism...the group vs. group mentality. You can use the word 'muslim' with them all day with no problems. But start going into how you differe from them and then you'll see. Don't kid yourself.
Really? Let's extend your analogy. Go to a Jewish circle or a Unitarian church. Tell them you are muslim. What will be their impression of you? Tell another such set of people you are a peacemaker who submits to God, they will acknowledge you as of their own. God, peace, and submission are the uniting factors. "Muslim", "Jew", "Christian" are dividing words. Words of wisdom from a certain person - "Labels belong on boxes, not on humans". Group versus group mentality exists, even with the terminology you are using. Of course, this doesn't apply if you only use "muslim" amongst "muslims". Regardless, concepts make people think, labels make people react. When I used to think all "kafir" were dehumanised, and heard concepts of peace and other things, that got me questioning, why are these people doomed to hell? I'm sure many people can relate.
And what article would you be speaking of?
The original post.
4914 shows a differention between "Muslim" and something else in comparison. The quran also says that the vast majority of humanity not only follow conjecture, but that the majority of them will not believe and come to this way. Humanity is not one as you are trying to claim. Otherwise there would be no clear lines drawn between believers vs disbeleviers and submitters vs rejectors, etc.
No it does not. It makes an example of people who claim to be X and don't follow through by actions. It instructs the people to submit. Not call themselves "Submitters" but TO SUBMIT. There is a difference between a label and a command/acknowledgement of one. For instance, 367. You are correct, because in 2278 we are called muslims by God, and there is a distinction. However, in my original post, I didn't state that everyone on Earth is a muslim and there is no need for differentiation. Don't spin the wording. Simply saying the vast majority of humanity do not follow conjecture and that they will not believe and come to this way is not the same thing as saying the vast majority of humans are not people who have submitted themselves to God. This is, quite a touchy subject, because profound religious experiences happen a lot towards Jesus, not just God alone.
None of this concerns me as my usage and understanding of the word I strictly get from the quran. Not from sunni books or sunni history or from free-minds or 19.org understanding either.
Free-minds is not your blog or diary - when you made the original post, were you addressing yourself? So it may not concern you towards yourself but it does concern everyone towards each other, the point of your original post/article. Those are highly relevant because it shows that they, the early generations, did not refer to themselves as "muslim" in regards to people outside who could never understand the meaning of that concept.
Why are their opinions/deeds relevant?
056.011
YUSUFALI These will be those Nearest to Allah
PICKTHAL Those are they who will be brought nigh
SHAKIR These are they who are drawn nigh (to Allah),056.012
YUSUFALI In Gardens of Bliss
PICKTHAL In gardens of delight;
SHAKIR In the gardens of bliss.056.013
YUSUFALI A number of people from those of old,
PICKTHAL A multitude of those of old
SHAKIR A numerous company from among the first,056.014
YUSUFALI And a few from those of later times.
PICKTHAL And a few of those of later time.
SHAKIR And a few from among the latter.Simple as that. The early muslims, clearly knew what 2278 meant, but did they ascribe to themselves "blah blah blah" when talking to others who didn't understand?
No, it is People who cause disunity between mankind. Post your quranic references proving what you say and I'll post mine.
I already posted my reality references that will easily show that the LABEL "Muslim" creates division amongst the followers of Abraham (see 227. That verse, 2278, ties us to other claimed followers of Abraham whether you like it or not. Guns don't kill people, people kill people - Guess what? It's very hard to kill someone with a stick, very easy to do with a gun.
I agree with you on this note but I have to add that free-minds forum is not innocent of this. It's a difficult pill to swallow but pretty much undeniable. I'm not saying all members here are guilty of the sectarian US vs THEM mentality, but the responses I have gotten from certain people in this thread solidified my original belief of this mindset existing here.
Not unexpected from a forum. Forums are places for people who have no consensus, simple as that.
-
Peace,
Damon. I love you man, but it really seems like you are being touchy and ambiguous here. Your topic consists of these linguistic issues and we can't discuss it fully without discussing them. Below are some quotes from OPF which I agree with completely and I think he has nailed it on the head.
-
You made the whole thing on-topic when you decided to write "I reject these labels and accept this, 'Muslim'; " (paraphrased).
-
Using the term "muslim" in the same way you do, EVEN TO AVOID DISPUTE leads to simple sectarian division. There is no way out of this for you. A non-Arabic person or anyone unfamiliar with islam in general will have their own preconceptions attached to that gibberish "Muslim" and will instantly attach it to you. If you called yourself a person who submits to God, or a peacemaker, would they bring any such preconceptions? You could openly claim the latter anywhere on Earth, but do the first and it isn't the same. The reaction is entirely different, because of preconceptions.
-
Let's extend your analogy. Go to a Jewish circle or a Unitarian church. Tell them you are muslim. What will be their impression of you? Tell another such set of people you are a peacemaker who submits to God, they will acknowledge you as of their own. God, peace, and submission are the uniting factors. "Muslim", "Jew", "Christian" are dividing words. Words of wisdom from a certain person - "Labels belong on boxes, not on humans". Group versus group mentality exists, even with the terminology you are using. Of course, this doesn't apply if you only use "muslim" amongst "muslims". Regardless, concepts make people think, labels make people react.
-
It instructs the people to submit. Not call themselves "Submitters" but TO SUBMIT. There is a difference between a label and a command/acknowledgement of one.
As it concerns Yuksel knowing Arabic and me knowing Arabic. I dicussed with you before that you can know a language but you also cannot have the correct concept of that language to approach a non-current text. I haven't been able to sit down with Yuksel to evaluate his knowledge of Arabic. However, remember that as you know some people have certain investments and that will affect how they interpret things. This question can also go for all of the Arabic scholars out there who hold other beliefs that if you and I study the Quran we can see are obviously against the Quran. It is how they interpret the words. And how they interpret the word will be based on their understandings of these words. I wonder how Yuksel understands the words Zakat and Salat. Last time I saw I think he says it is connnected to the word Silah. This is dead wrong. Maybe he still believes that Zakat means charity? So does he really know Arabic? I tried to help you understand how there are different Arabics. You cannot just say that you know Arabic, and that makes you qualified to read the Quran. You have to focus on Pre-Islamic meanings of Classical Arabic and understand the way Classical Arabic forms work. I can explain to you in a zip how Salat from silla (connection) is grammatically dead wrong (but peole who know Arabic like Yuksel and Layth still hold onto them). And I know many Arabs who know Arabic but who do not know Classical grammatic forms well at all. If we get down to the crux of 19 it is the role of nineteen which is the issue. When i read into that verse and I hear their claims I think they are reading too much into it (why doesn't this verse mention anything about a miracle? The idea of being a a point of discord for the disbelievers is bent backwards to imply that those who believe in it (the way they do) will not be subject to such discord, and somehow by imaginative wording it becomes a miracle and then some pattern is searched for in the Quran). But you have got to understand, the mindset (like you said) is what causes a person TO IGNORE SOUND LINGUISTICS and invent their own when they read a text. This can manifest by them being too rigid and traditional or way to loose and imaginative.
And to reply to this
A peoples mindset and their thinking that the group they give their allegience to is the only rightly guided group
So what are you looking for? I don't think Quranists are the ONLY united group and as OPF puts it I think the concept of submission to God, being children of Abraham and being peacemakers are what the righteous really are. We can come accross many other people who may ascribe to the same way of life we do without the Quran. But are you looking to unite all Muslims despite the untruths that they ascribe to. Even if you succeed at banishing the terms Sunni and Shiite so that people don't openly ascribe to these titles, they can still use them as descriptions if they hold to the Sunnis school of throught or the Shiite school of thought. Shiites believe that their political leader should be a relative of our last prophet, Sunnis will never agree with that. The point of difference if it goes beyond this (claiming righteousness etc) does not form apart of why they really disagree. So sectarianism is not about the names but in how they treat and regard one another. In the end if you know that following the Quran and the precepts laid within it only is what is really true then what real unity can you accomplish by shunning the terms that describe the way different Muslims think when they will still think like that anyway?
I personally feel that Quranists should unite but only to help each other out and more and thought that we could be of more use to each other than traditonal Muslims or Shiites in actually applying the message of the Quran and educating ourselves on it. As well as being able to join forces and successfully promote the Quranist idea. I'm starting to think I was wrong though.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Peace Damon,
Where are you getting the idea that I am missing this point??
I am getting it from statements such as these (in the very same post)
Everyone here should be well aware of this, hence my statement of how delicate and tricky it would be to work with the traditional so-called muslims in establishing the Deen in it's purity while Not becoming guilty of seperatism/divisionism ourselves.
What "establishing the Deen in its purity"? This doesn't make any sense. If you really understood what "deen" is then why make such nice sounding but meaningless statements?
Our obligation is peacemaking. You are either a peacemaker or you are not. This is defined by your actions. There is no problem with seperatism/divisionism from any group. There is a problem with seperatism/divisionism of our obligation of peacemaking.
Only in matters of Deen as GOD says in 911. That is, if they mend their ways and stand firm in the salaat and the purification/betterment. In that case we are not only permitted to unite with them, but as per my understanding of 911 we are indeed obliged to do so.
We are not obliged to unite with those who setup partners. If they are peacemakers, then we are only united in our obligation to make peace. We are not to unite with them in their idolatry or religion, falsehood, etc...
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Damon,
I
Our obligation is peacemaking. You are either a peacemaker or you are not. This is defined by your actions. There is no problem with seperatism/divisionism from any group. There is a problem with seperatism/divisionism of our obligation of peacemaking.Peace,
Ayman
Muslim and peace making??
2191 And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing. And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.
Waoqtuloohum haythu thaqiftumoohum waakhrijoohum min haythu akhrajookum waalfitnatu ashaddu mina alqatli wala tuqatiloohum AAinda almasjidi alharami hatta yuqatilookum feehi fain qatalookum faoqtuloohum kathalika jazao alkafireena
(2191)
How will you explain it?
-
Hello Leo V2 (or should that be V3? Hehe.)...
Explain it by, perhaps, taking the verse in context.
2190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
And of course
2193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
In any case, well off topic, but I guess those evil Quranists should be stopped at any opportunity.
-
Salaams Ayman, All,
If they are peacemakers
.
we are only united in our obligation to make peace. We are not to unite with them in their idolatry
I thought peace making is what its all about.
If they are peace makers and we are too, how can we be idolaters - we both seem to be following Gods Laws to make peace e.t.c
This is meant as a series question, i hope you consider it likewise.
God Bless.
-
Salaams,
giveup
Peace to you all.
-
Peace guys,
Please allow me this last statement. OPF, Anwar and Ayman are definately misunderstanding where I'm coming from and what I am trying to say. I don't know how else to explain it. Let me give you a perfect example of how Ayman is either missing my point or he is just not reading my statements.
I was asked if we can unite and work with mushrikeen for the betterment of society and my reply was
Only in matters of Deen as GOD says in 911. That is, if they mend their ways and stand firm in the salaat and the purification/betterment. In that case we are not only permitted to unite with them, but as per my understanding of 911 we are indeed obliged to do so.
To which Ayamn replies
We are not obliged to unite with those who setup partners. If they are peacemakers, then we are only united in our obligation to make peace. We are not to unite with them in their idolatry or religion, falsehood, etc...
See the bold statements in my quote and see the bold statements in Ayman's quote. The same thing was done in Anwar's and OPF's latest statements as well. But I don't have the stamina for a sensless back-and-forth, so I am bowing out with grace. You guys win.
-
Peace,
Don't leave yet Damon. I need to understand what you are saying.
Are you criticizing the Quranist mindset that seeks to claim righteousness over other kinds of Muslims?
And if so should we be focusing on names and descriptives when mindsets are really the problem.Godbless,
Anwar -
I just had a talk with Damon. He said is point is
-
We all know that the Quran's message is submission to God and doing good.
-
We should not get obsessed about how we do that focusing on being Sunnis, Qurani, Christian, Jewish or whatever else.
-
Obsessing with the group we are apart of instead of submitting to God and doing good is the epitome of Sectarianism and we should stay away from that.
-
We should not let the ways in which we find ourselves submitting to God keep us from doing good with others who do not follow our exact way but who also do believe in submitting to God and doing good. As this is the core of our religion and if we let anything keep us from uniting with others in this cause then we are obsessing about things other than what the core of our religion is and we are becoming or are sectarians.
I know this not how most of you read it and this is not how I saw it either from when I was talking to him. However, we was going off an assumption that we all consider Islam as Submission to God (and in essence this would include Non-Unitarian Christians and Jews). However the debate soon ensued about the definition of the word Islam , which was bound to happen and all Damon was meaning to say were the above 3 points, as he confirmed to me after we went back and forth on the phone about what he was really getting at.
In our discussion he helped me see something very interesting and my comments about it will be in the following post. But again Damon's points were the above four.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
I just had a talk with Damon. He said is point is
-
We all know that the Quran's message is submission to God and doing good.
-
We should not get obsessed about how we do that focusing on being Sunnis, Qurani, Christian, Jewish or whatever else.
-
Obsessing with the group we are apart of instead of submitting to God and doing good is the epitome of Sectarianism and we should stay away from that.
-
We should not let the ways in which we find ourselves submitting to God keep us from doing good with others who do not follow our exact way but who also do believe in submitting to God and doing good. As this is the core of our religion and if we let anything keep us from uniting with others in this cause then we are obsessing about things other than what the core of our religion is and we are becoming or are sectarians.
I know this not how most of you read it and this is not how I saw it either from when I was talking to him. However, we was going off an assumption that we all consider Islam as Submission to God (and in essence this would include Non-Unitarian Christians and Jews). However the debate soon ensued about the definition of the word Islam , which was bound to happen and all Damon was meaning to say were the above 3 points, as he confirmed to me after we went back and forth on the phone about what he was really getting at.
In our discussion he helped me see something very interesting and my comments about it will be in the following post. But again Damon's points were the above four.
Godbless,
AnwarI and I think most here agree with that. For the most part, I don't think we excessively obsess over following quran alone as opposed to being Sunni, Christian, etc. Brother Damon himself even mentioned that most here do not even attent Sunni forums, for example. We choose not to "troll" other forums.
Peace
-
-
Quote from progod on September 16, 2007, 074007 AM
Although peacemaking is only ONE meaning of Islam it is still only one. The other, most important in my opinion is 'submission' which in most places in the Quran referred to God who is mentioned in the context. That submission can validly be understood as making peace with God, however.
Quote from Ayman
I disagree. Mohamed didn't invent a new thing that was not already very well known to the people of the book since the time of Abraham. The fact is that the noun "submission" is NEVER mentioned in the Bible while peace/peacemaking/peacemaker are mentioned no less than 450 times in the Bible. Also, "submission" is incomplete and thus can be taken to mean very bad things, including a sexual fetish, while peacemaking is complete, self explanatory and is inherently good.
o o o o
Did this actually come out of your mouth Ayman? Since when is submission a new concept. Of course by itself it is incomplete that is why in the Quran in comes in the context of God. God is mentioned first and submission is mentioned after. That submission is obviously to God. Secondly what does the Bible have to do with any of this? And when does the Bible dictate our understanding of words in the Quran? Listen, as I have said peacemaking is ONE of the meanings of Islam, but submission is also. And since when does the idea of submission have to do with bad things like sexual fetishes?!!!!!!! Are you out of your mind or what?!!! Sexual FETISHES!!!????? What kind of trash is that?!!!!! Why are you making up just anything to defend your ideas? 450 times in the bible? What does that have to do with ANYTHING!!?
Again since when is the idea of submission not in ANY langauge? And why are you denying that the Quran speaks of Islam to God, that is Submission TO GOD, not Islam i.e. submission all by itself? Furthermore STOP PIDGEON-HOLING ARABIC WORDS. You know just as well as I do that this word can mean different things. This sounds like a fatwa from an Al-Azhar scholar. This post was appalling and i can't believe that you actually had the audacity to post it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
wow sexual fetish!!!...one must submit to and become a peacemaker. yes
-
The fact is that the noun "submission" is NEVER mentioned in the Bible while peace/peacemaking/peacemaker are mentioned no less than 450 times in the Bible.
Incorrect.. Brother Ayman,
Check this out
Job 2221
Submit to God and be at peace with him; in this way prosperity will come to you.James 47
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.James 3
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.Quran does confirms the previous scripture...
But its human readers sometimes (or always?) misses out what is the main theme / the important message on the scriptures.Salam / Shalom / Peace
-
Hmm, I missed that piece about submission vs peacemaking, sorry Damon.
I see your point now that it's been put in steps.
-
Although the main point was intelligible I found some orthographic mistakes which affect meaning. So I'm choosing to post this again with the corrections
I just had a talk with Damon over the phone. He said that his point is
-
We all know that the Quran's message is submission to God and doing good.
-
We should not get obsessed about how we do that, focusing on being Sunnis, Qurani, Christian, Jewish or whatever else.
-
Obsessing with the group we are apart of instead of submitting to God and doing good is the epitome of Sectarianism and we should stay away from that.
-
We should not let the ways in which we find ourselves submitting to God keep us from doing good with others who do not follow our exact way but who also do believe in submitting to God and doing good. As this is the core of our religion and if we let anything keep us from uniting with others in this cause then we are obsessing about things other than what the core of our religion is and we are becoming, or already are sectarians.
I know this is not how most of you read Damon's posts and this is not how I saw them either. I understood his point better by talking with him on the phone. He was going off an assumption that we all consider and assume that Islam means Submission to God (and in essence this would include Non-Unitarian Christians and Jews). However, naturallly the debate soon ensued about the correct definition of the word Islam; which was bound to happen. Nonetheless all Damon was meaning to say were the above 4 points, as he confirmed to me after we went back and forth on the phone about what he was really getting at.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Peace,
"Should we call out to other than God, that which can neither help nor harm us? And are we to go back on our heals after God has guided us like those whom the wicked have charmed/sought after. For such people in this earth there will be utter confusion. They have companions who do call him to God. . . We have been commanded to submit to and to make peace with the lord of the nations and the worlds (liNUSLIMA LIRABBIL-"&AALAMEENA) .''
From our beloved last prophet 671 the compilation of Al-Quran
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
Did this actually come out of your mouth Ayman? Since when is submission a new concept.
As far as the people of the book are concerned, the concept of submission was not a key concept.
Of course by itself it is incomplete that is why in the Quran in comes in the context of God. God is mentioned first and submission is mentioned after. That submission is obviously to God.
This is false. There are many instances where it is mentioned without "to the god" and many instances where the god is not mentioned first. For example, 37103, 544, 492, 152, 2731, 2738, 7214, etc. Again, while submission by itself is incomplete, peacemaking with the god is complete and peacemaking by itself is also complete. So it works everywhere.
Secondly what does the Bible have to do with any of this? And when does the Bible dictate our understanding of words in the Quran?
The Bible tells us what concepts the people of the book were already well familiar with and considered to be important and while peace/peacemaking is certainly one of them, "submission" is not.
Listen, as I have said peacemaking is ONE of the meanings of Islam, but submission is also. And since when does the idea of submission have to do with bad things like sexual fetishes?!!!!!!! Are you out of your mind or what?!!! Sexual FETISHES!!!????? What kind of trash is that?!!!!! Why are you making up just anything to defend your ideas? 450 times in the bible? What does that have to do with ANYTHING!!?
Unfortunately, this is well known so do a web search. In fact, if you mistakenly type submission.net instead of submission.org, you would be taken to a pornographic site. So yes "submission" can indeed be a VERY bad thing.
Again since when is the idea of submission not in ANY langauge?
You are the one who just said "submission is not in any language" now. I didn't make that strawman.
And why are you denying that the Quran speaks of Islam to God, that is Submission TO GOD, not Islam i.e. submission all by itself? Furthermore STOP PIDGEON-HOLING ARABIC WORDS. You know just as well as I do that this word can mean different things. This sounds like a fatwa from an Al-Azhar scholar. This post was appalling and i can't believe that you actually had the audacity to post it.
The great reading speaks of makingpeace with the god. This implies "submission to the god" but it is not the direct meaning.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Jafar,
Incorrect.. Brother Ayman,
Check this out
Job 2221
Submit to God and be at peace with him; in this way prosperity will come to you.James 47
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.James 3
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.Exactly, the noun "submission" is never found in the Bible.
All other forms of "submit" are mentioned a total of only 9 times in the Bible and in many of those instances as you can see above, they are mentioned in conjunction with peacemaking.
Quran does confirms the previous scripture...
But its human readers sometimes (or always?) misses out what is the main theme / the important message on the scriptures.
Salam / Shalom / PeaceI agree.
Peace,
Ayman