perhaps i am not a Muslim...
-
salaam
i wish sister samia, and linguists, would be so kind to spend some of their time to explain this word with root letters 'q-t-l', which has been the root of many a confusion.
i am not a linguist, nor grammarian, but i sense the word 'qatala' has various implications when used as a phrase, or in context. i think, it goes beyond 'kill' the way the common people understand it. even the english 'kill' can have very different meanings when used as a phrase. killing time is different from killing people. killing your desires is different from killing your mother in-law. you must 'uqtul' the wine, or 'uqtul' the ego, and so forth. let the linguists give us an insight.
the confusion resulting from a rigid translation of the words stemming from 'q-t-l' has caused al-qur'an which propagates peace among man, to be understood as otherwise. let us not perpetuate such a disgusting idea.
so, if it is not too much to ask, hopefully they would consider this humble request. and let us thank them in advance.
peace
jbSalam Joe,
Here is a Semitic history of the word qtl. The definition and usage of the word has been consistant through out the Semitic languages.
Hebrew
From Strong?s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary and Brown Driver Briggs? Hebrew Definitions
Strong?s H6991
qatal
kaw-tal'
A primitive root; properly to cut off, that is, (figuratively) put to death - kill, slay.
BDB Definition- (Qal) to slay, kill
Part of Speech verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number 2008
H6993
qetel
keh'-tel
From H6991; a violent death - slaughter.
BDB Definition- slaughter
Part of Speech noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number from H6991
BDB Definition
- slaughter
Part of Speech noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number from H6991
Same Word by TWOT Number 2008a
From The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament
2008 - quatal
Hebrew Word quatal
Strong's Cross Reference 6991
Definition slay (Job_2414; Job_1315; Psa_13919).Derivative TWOT Number 2008a
Derivative Transliteration qetel
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 6993
Derivative Definition slaughter (Oba_19, only).Aramaic
From Strong?s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary and Brown Driver Briggs? Hebrew Definitions
H6992
qetal
ket-al'
(Chaldee); corresponding to H6991; to kill - slay.BDB Definition
- to slay, kill
1a) (Peal) to be slain
1b) (Pael) to slay
1c) (Ithpeal) to be slain
1d) (Ithpael) to be slain
Part of Speech verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number corresponding to H6991
Same Word by TWOT Number 2969
From The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament
2969 - qe tal
Aramaic Word qe tal
Strong's Cross Reference 6992
Definition slay. This verb, so familiar to Hebrew students as a paradigm verb, is only found three times in Hebrew (Job_1315; Job_2414; Psa_13919). It may be a borrowing into Hebrew from the Aramaic. It is used seven times in Biblical Aramaic, and it occurs in early Aramaic inscriptions (KB).Arabic
From Lane?s Lexicon courtesy of PRL (http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm)
= Qaf-Ta-Lam = to kill, put to death, be accused, slay/murder/kill/slaughter, attempt to kill, render person like to one killed, to wage war/combat/battle, to master, contend/fight, deadly, knew a thing thoroughly/well, become acquainted with it.
Salam,
Arnab - (Qal) to slay, kill
-
Why did you never reply to Wakas's point concerning the verses you quotes on warfare (that these were talking about retaliation)?
You posted this under my message but I am unaware of 'Waka's point'.
However, retaliation is not a divine concept so we can easily dismiss this one as satanical.
It causes fear, and fear is the method of control of the dark forces.
God gave us free will, which excludes the notion of fear as a control tool.A better and easier to understand (oriental) concept is that of karma. It simply means action=reaction, what you sow you shall reap, law of balance.
It is a divine teaching tool, not a control tool like the satanic concept of retaliation. -
Anders said ,
Am I to understand that you belief that the quran values men and women equally and that therefore you are of the opinion that the vast majority of muslims who do not treat women as equals do so on cultural grounds and falsely claim this practise to be Islamic?I finally found something you said I agree with. Yes, mostly cultural, although im sure there are some who twist the Quran to try to interpret it as justifying unequality between man and woman.
Kurt
Hi Kurt,
Boy, am I lucky that Truth is not defined by your agreement. yayButb seriously
your name and opinion suggest you are a convert. Then perhaps you are in a better position than born muslims to come up with the answer that is never given (to my knowledge) but consistently avoided whenever the question of violence in the quran arises.So please tell me (and the rest of the world) how I can read a peaceful meaning in the following verses from chapter 9
95
929
839
474Perhaps you can also comment on the following that I found while researching
- Chapter 9 is the last revealed, therefore overrules the conflicting more peaceful verses, as per instructions from the quran itself.
- In last 10 years of Muhammad's 's life he waged 29 offensive wars. Totaling 77 in total, only 1 defensive.
- In 100 years time, land from india to spain was conquered by the sword.
(I visited the ruins of a beautiful peaceful culture in South India that had no army and was totally annihilated by muslim hordes) - there are 149 violent verses in total.
I can not escape from thinking that a peaceful interpretation of quran is actually a peaceful interpretation of PART of the quran, ignoring the rest including the above.
Please refrain from referring to violent texts in other religious traditions, that would be evading the serious answer the world is waiting for.
Never mind that such texts (christian, hindu etc) are never seen as instructions to follow but as mythology or history telling. -
Peace Anders,
So please tell me (and the rest of the world) how I can read a peaceful meaning in the following verses from chapter 9
95
929For a start read the whole chapter...
98 How is it that when they come upon you they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge. They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts deny, and most of them are wicked.
912 And if they break their oaths after making them, and they denounce the authority of your system; then you may kill the chiefs of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease.
913 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and intended to expel the messenger, especially while they were the ones who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God who is more worthy to be feared if you are believers.
This is all in retaliation. And you would know this if you read the Quran.
839
861 And if they seek peace, then you also seek it, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Knowledgeable.
Again you didn't read the chapter as a whole. The verses only apply to those who are not seeking peace.
474
471 Those who rejected and repelled from the path of God, He will mislead their works.
4713 And many a town was stronger than your own town, which drove you out. We destroyed them, and there was none who could help them.- Chapter 9 is the last revealed, therefore overrules the conflicting more peaceful verses, as per instructions from the quran itself.
First of all even in chapter 9 the context can be seen as self defence. There is no Quranic basis for this "overruling" as you put it. The "peaceful" verses must be read with the "violent verses" otherwise the interpretation is skewed.
- In last 10 years of Muhammad's 's life he waged 29 offensive wars. Totaling 77 in total, only 1 defensive.
- In 100 years time, land from india to spain was conquered by the sword.
(I visited the ruins of a beautiful peaceful culture in South India that had no army and was totally annihilated by muslim hordes)
Please prove this... History is just an extrapolation of the archeological record. These variables may not necessarily be connected and may even be fabricated. Ultimately it is conjecture. You cannot judge the Quran based on history. It can either stand or fall by its own merits. Everything else is just an attempt at diversion and will not settle this debate. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
- there are 149 violent verses in total.
And all are justifiable by context
I can not escape from thinking that a peaceful interpretation of quran is actually a peaceful interpretation of PART of the quran, ignoring the rest including the above.
Ironically it is you who is reading a "part" of the Quran (cherry picking the violent verses). Read it as a whole and it is all justified.
Please refrain from referring to violent texts in other religious traditions, that would be evading the serious answer the world is waiting for.
Never mind that such texts (christian, hindu etc) are never seen as instructions to follow but as mythology or history telling.Ok. The Quran can stand on its own as a righteous book. I am telling you that the majority of people have an incomplete picture of the Quran including people who call themselves muslims. There have been many "muslims" that have come out and said that the Quran does not justify unprovoked aggression. But nobody is going to believe that are they? They would rather paint it as an facist and aggressive doctrine to suit their own agenda. What serious answer is the world waiting for?
6116 And if you obey the majority of those on Earth they will lead you away from God?s path; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.
-
However, retaliation is not a divine concept so we can easily dismiss this one as satanical.
A better and easier to understand (oriental) concept is that of karma. It simply means action=reaction, what you sow you shall reap, law of balance.
It is a divine teaching tool, not a control tool like the satanic concept of retaliation.Yes and retaliation is Karma isn't it? Please point to me what the difference is? Are you saying Karma cannot be met out in this world?
817 It was not you who killed them, but it was God who killed them. And it was not you who launched when you did, but it was God who launched. And so that the believers would be tested well by Him. God is Hearer, Knowledgeable.
818 That, and God weakens the plots of the rejecters.
819 If you sought conquest, then conquest has come to you, but if you cease, then it is better for you. And if you return again, then We will also return, and your group will avail you nothing even if it is many. God is with the believers.
914 Fight them; perhaps God will punish them by your hands and humiliate them and grant you victory over them and heal the chests of the believing people.
-
Peace to all,
Thanks aalmakto, I couldnt have said it better myself. very well argued. It is ironic how anders cherry picks and reads out of context to try and make his point, which is easily defeated by the Quran itself. Also, the Quran always says to tend towards peace and forgiveness and restraint, and not ransgressing, what more do they want, and even if they think some verses are used by some muslims to justify violence this is not the fault of God or the Quran, it is their own decision to use violence unjustly and they will answer to God someday. The Quran says to foloow what is good in it, so where some of us may differ over meanings and interpretations, if we foloow what we believe is good then we should be ok, and we all know that it is good to have peace not war, and that it is good to forgive and not retaliate, so there are no satanic verses in the Quran as anders tried to say.
Kurt
-
Salaam Anders,
I am not going to answer any of your questions nor exonerate the Qur'aan, but I am going to give you some advice, even if you do not want it
More humility would suit you a lot and would help you a lot to see what you do not see.
You have come here as a judge and accuser at the same time. All the polite answers other sisters and brothers may give you will not tell you anything because you come with the firm conviction that islam and Quran owes explanations to anybody. It doesn't. If you are interested in learning what the Qur'aan can teach you, come as a person looking for knowledge. If you are only interested in putting us in our place, you waste your time, we know our place.
You even go as far as asking us to explain to you, and the rest of the world... Speak for yourself, leave the rest of the world alone, it can look after itself without you acting on its behalf.
You also lie when you say that no other scripture gives injunctions or commandments to fight or kill... I know the bible contains of few of those, and I am fairly sure that if a look for them i will find them in all those scriptures you mention as an example to follow by the Quran... Do not ask me though to prove it, because it is not me who is defying anybody to point that kind of thing out and I am not interested in it at all. You are, you are not interested in finding what the Qur'aan has to offer to you, but to see if as a merchandise you can find a blot in it. That is not the right spirit to find anything at all, which makes me think that you have not found it either in any of those scriptures you mention and probably through your own lack of sincerity.
Is this a competing market see who has the best good to offer to the consumers of religion?
The Qur'aan has nothing to offer you if yo do not come with a pure heart, and this is the Quran who says. So know you know.
Salaam
-
Salaam Anders,
Is this a competing market see who has the best good to offer to the consumers of religion?
The Qur'aan has nothing to offer you if yo do not come with a pure heart, and this is the Quran who says. So know you know.
Salaam
Salaam huruf,
handshake
I am putting here quote from Ander?s to sum up.
One should at least recognize that there is, or could be, more 'holy' objects than just one book.
Alternatively, one can ask is the quran holier than any other book?
Clearly, a positive answer to that question can be given only by those who have studied AND understood all relevant books.
Contrary to many christians who love studying a diversity of books, no muslim ever did that precisely because their programming compels them to look at quran only.
No need to object and say you know a muslim who did. I am generalizing here. Besides,open minded reading is still a far cry from reading with the intention to 'proof' that all others books are inferior.
Seek and ye shall find. This applies also to illusion, if thats what you seek.
Therefore it can not be that muslims could answer this question.Above is part of Anders first post on this forum, I hope he can see his own narrow- mindedness, as he has come with the very intention he accuses others of
"....open minded reading is still a far cry from reading with the intention to 'prove' ...."
By yourself you judge others."Contrary to many christians who love studying a diversity of books, no muslim ever did that precisely because their programming compels them to look at quran only"
For your information Anders, there was in the Middle ages a strong faction of Catholic scholastics (scholars of religion) called ?Averroists? after the Andalusian Muslim philosopher Averroes, due to their closely following his philosophy(Google it).
peace -
You also lie when you say that no other scripture gives injunctions or commandments to fight or kill... I know the bible contains of few of those,
you speak wise words (I could have said it) but out of misunderstanding I did not lie.
I did not say other books contain no violence, they do. I said that these texts are not considered instructions to follow, but mythology and story telling.
That is the difference with muslims (not with the quran) who follow the violent verses.I did not place the message merely to criticize, all of you are really to edgy.
And I 'cherry picked' because it is those particular cherries that are the basis of the never ending story of accusations of islam being violent!
I did this because violence and islam is the subject of this topic and has not been properly addressed so far.Furthermore, I chose to read in EXACTLY the same simple way as in general the violence prone muslims read, for the very purpose of challenging you to respond in a way that those violence prone muslims can relate to and accept.
Any of you had the opportunity to categorically denounce the literal interpretation of the violent verses on their own merit. You did not. So they will continue to be taken literally by the violence prone.
Saying that the must be understood in the 'context' is evasive once again.
Reversely, why do you deny others the right to read peace loving verses in a violent way?
At least those who do that have the extra argument of chapter 9 being the last written and in general the later the 'send down' messages, the more violent they turn.As for me, I feel no need to prove anything to anyone. Bibliolatry is not for me, but if others feel its the way to go they have my blessing.
My position is that ink and paper can not, and never have, escaped the influence of the dark forces because paper and ink are its very tools!
My position is that only the Living Word is reliable and that it can not be heard by those who place their confidence in paper and ink.
That is also the position of both bible and quran!! Both warn not to read and study it UNLESS your eyes (especially inner eye) are opened, untill you are ready for it.
In other words, you can read correctly only if you already know what the truth in the verses is, but you can not intellectually extract it.
You (Huruf) are right here; if you read with a clean and open heart the understanding may placed in your heart instantly and than you can see it reflected in the writings.
BUT harboring bibliolatry is not a clean heart!!!What I do, before I accept a truth, is to try to falsify it myself. If I fail, I must assume it to be truthful. For the time being...
I challenge you to consider whether bibliolatry is acceptable, even in the case of the quran.
For this, please consult e.g. http//debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
You will have a hard time falsifying ALL historical data mentioned.The whole point of this exercise is the question of this topic 'perhaps I am not a good muslim'
Nobody should even feel such a question is relevant. Who is to judge???
The only relevant question is Do I seek to be truthful, have I finally understood that seeking god equals seeking WITHIN?
Have I finally understood that no man/woman shall rule over another in matters of god? -
I do not know how youget into the thing about bibliolatry and seem to hang it on me. If you read a book, it either tells you something or not, and you profit from what it tells you if it is profitable. On the other hand, either what is being said, in book or in word is alive and inspires you and touches you and makes sense to you or not. I hope that getting meaning and sense out of something is not some "latry". It is in a book, is could be in the gutter in the sky anywhere where you see something that speaks to you en enlightens you...
As to the "violence prone muslims", I think I have had my fill of havint to answer for that when I know none of them and they who speak so much aout them seem to know so many. Please those of you who know those men or women, speak to them and tell them what you think, I do not know any. But I know of a lot of injustices visiting many predominantely muslim countries just because they are accused of this and that. And you may not use the bible to visit such tragedies on them but certainly you use a sense of moral superiority to do so. Does it come from the bible or not? I don't care. Injustice, whether you commit while not mentioning a holy book or mentioning it doesn't change a damned thing nor hurts less. And whatever you say that violence is not justified on a book, it is still fed on the fact that you (I mean those who think the way you say) think that you are morally superior because you do have that jolly holy book, and the others don't. The worse lie is the one that is not mentioned but nontheless is there as something taken for granted and acted upon. You may invade and kill peoples, but since you do not say the bible tells you to kill that your book is safe and you can go and kill with good conscience, because it is not because of a book, but because thanks to that book or to whatever you are superior and that therefore you have lessons to teach others and therefore are justified in punishing them till they learn what made of you such a wonder.
On the other hand you, anders, and excuse me, are superbly ignorant So, according to you no muslims are speaking up against a twisted interpretation of the Quran? You must be buried very deep in some hole.
As for myself I find that no many first world people get informed or ever care a damn to know how much their intelligence agencies and their whole apparatus have invested in creating among muslims precisely that kind of "violence" that will give the pretext to kill and invade.
There is very little religious "violence" or interests in everything that is going on, I hope you do know that, although it is very convenient to say that everything that goes on is religious. It is not. It is political and very dirty. Nothing to do with religion. Which is another reason why I particularly will not waste an atom of the little energy I have in barking at the wrong tree. I will contradict within my psosibilities whoever I think says something wrong because it is wrong, but I am not going to go on a crusade in which the parties I have mentioned are ahead of me by light years as if that was the esssential thing.
I found relevant one of your posts, can't remember where, about every person having feminine and masculine in her or him, although I find that the use of the very terms "feminine" and "masculine" confuses the issue instead of clarifying it, I would do away with that.
Salaam and welcome
-
Salam anders. I read your intial post earlier, and waited to watch the reaction of the forum members. I had certain conclusions about you when I read your post, and I waited to see what replies you would get from the forum members.
I have come to certain conclusions about you, based upon your own remarks. I will share my conclusions with you and the members of the forum.
The first issue is are you a Muslim or a non Muslim. Most importantly, you stated "So you see, those who claim to follow the quran are really confused" This sentence tells me a lot about your motives. You are claiming that anyone who follows the Quran is confused. You are claiming, that to claim that one is following the Quran, means a person is confused. Because following the word of Allah as stated by him in the Quran is a pre-requisite for being a Muslim, your opposition to those who follow the Quran classifies you as a non Muslim.
The second issue is, what exactly are you? You state "God and his kingdom are an inner reality" and the "the lost sheep" These two phrases are very revealing as to what you actually believe. From my knowledge of the diffferent religions, the claim of "the inner kingdom" is a baptist concept, wherein many baptists are opposed to going to church every sunday, because they believe the church is in their heart, the kingdom of God is within. The second phrase "the lost sheep" is the baptist metaphor for other christians, all christians being sheep, however the baptists believe only they are not lost. This classifies your identity as baptist.
The third issue is what is the motive in your post. You state "keep it up ladies!" "Its you who are the salvation of suffering mankind" "Where the quran says you are valued only half a man" and "Shake off this male oppression!" You have singled out a class of people, the women, which is a very gender biased manner in which to proceed. You claim the Quran and men opress women. You claim only women can provide salvation to mankind. These gender biased phrases tell me the reader that you are prejudiced, that you believe that you as a man are yourself an opressor. And last but not least you are TROLLING. This is a well known practice of baptist missionaries, to seek to instigate hatred and bloodshed, by making Muslim women believe that the Quran and Muslim men are evil. Therefore your motive is you are a baptist missionary.
The fourth issue is why do you think what you are is superior to what a Muslim is? The answer lies in your phrase "that would perpetuate the barbarism of the stone age" "Truth that will in time slowly be absorbed and offer the way out of the desert/illusion" and "Note that the arab/islamic culture is a desert culture. That is not a coincidence" You claim that arabs and Muslims are from the stone age, that the arab and muslim culture will be wiped out.
The stone age is not a classification of the intellectual ability of mankind, the stone age is a classification of the tools that mankind used. All of mankind used stone tools for tens of thousands of years, even those who did not live in a desert, even those who were not arabs. When I examine the wonderful writings of those that lived in the stone age, one thing comes to mind, human beings are not defined by whether their tools are stone or metal. Human beings have always had an amazing intellect.
The barbarism of the allegedly modern era is without paralell, I would submit the sixty million people killed in world war two, is possibly the ultimate example of barbarism. Without going into the details, the barbarians who constantly start wars, invade countries, kill thousands of people, torture people, engage in genocide, are not using stone tools, they are using metal tools. Your claim that stone age correlates to barbarism is dashed by the facts.
In sum mr. anders, your post is a miserable troll. Your rambling confused posts, are confused, and ramble, because you deceitfully intend to conceal your true purpose. You dont want people to follow the word of Allah, you hate the barbarian arabs and muslims who opress women. You are attacking the fathers and brothers of Muslim women. You are gender biased. You think by creating hatred amongst Muslim women against Muslim men, you will destroy Islam and the way of Allah.
Allah exposes falsehood and establishes the truth.
-
In sum mr. anders, your post is a miserable troll. Your rambling confused posts, are confused, and ramble, because you deceitfully intend to conceal your true purpose. You dont want people to follow the word of Allah, you hate the barbarian arabs and muslims who opress women. You are attacking the fathers and brothers of Muslim women. You are gender biased. You think by creating hatred amongst Muslim women against Muslim men, you will destroy Islam and the way of Allah.
Allah exposes falsehood and establishes the truth.
Salaam
I just read your post to Anders and you are reminding him that You are attacking the fathers and brothers of Muslim women. But learned sir what about when you slanderded a Muslim woman who happens to be someone's daughter or sister. One rule for you and another for those who say anything against Muslim men?
Remember The whole story is riddled with completely implausible scenarios, most likely the construction of a person who is mentally ill. My take on the story is, we have a woman who has taken off on her own after 19 years of marriage, has concocted this story of being tricked to elicit sympathy, and is looking for someone to be taken in by her fanciful story.Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.
peace
-
I did this because violence and islam is the subject of this topic and has not been properly addressed so far.
Furthermore, I chose to read in EXACTLY the same simple way as in general the violence prone muslims read, for the very purpose of challenging you to respond in a way that those violence prone muslims can relate to and accept.
Any of you had the opportunity to categorically denounce the literal interpretation of the violent verses on their own merit. You did not. So they will continue to be taken literally by the violence prone.
Saying that the must be understood in the 'context' is evasive once again.Whats your point? If people choose to be violent thats not my problem. It must be understood in context, this is not being evasive.
Reversely, why do you deny others the right to read peace loving verses in a violent way?
At least those who do that have the extra argument of chapter 9 being the last written and in general the later the 'send down' messages, the more violent they turn.They have the freewill to do what they want. More violent? later they "send down" messages"? Where are you getting the chronology of chapters from? Your making an issue out of nothing.
As for me, I feel no need to prove anything to anyone. Bibliolatry is not for me, but if others feel its the way to go they have my blessing.
My position is that ink and paper can not, and never have, escaped the influence of the dark forces because paper and ink are its very tools!
My position is that only the Living Word is reliable and that it can not be heard by those who place their confidence in paper and ink.
That is also the position of both bible and quran!!691 And they did not appreciate God as He deserves to be appreciated, for they said ?God has never sent down anything to any human being.? Say ?Who then has sent down the Scripture which Moses had come with, a light and a guidance for the people? You treat it just as paper, you show some of it and conceal much, and you were taught what neither you nor your fathers knew.? Say ?God has.? Then leave them playing in their folly.
3120 Did you not see that God has committed in your service everything in the heavens and the Earth, and He has showered you with His blessings, both apparent and hidden? Yet from the people are some who argue about God without knowledge, without guidance, and without an enlightening Scripture.
Paper is something you write on. Ink is something you use to write with. God sends revelations to mankind. Thats my position.
Both warn not to read and study it UNLESS your eyes (especially inner eye) are opened, untill you are ready for it.
In other words, you can read correctly only if you already know what the truth in the verses is, but you can not intellectually extract it.
You (Huruf) are right here; if you read with a clean and open heart the understanding may placed in your heart instantly and than you can see it reflected in the writings.
BUT harboring bibliolatry is not a clean heart!!!Thanks for the accusing us of having dirty hearts and closed "inner eyes".
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemOn the contrary it takes "intelligence" to heed the scripture
3829 A Scripture that We have sent down to you, that is blessed, so that they may reflect upon its verses, and so that those with intelligence will take heed.
What I do, before I accept a truth, is to try to falsify it myself. If I fail, I must assume it to be truthful. For the time being...
You are living in the Matrix. Try and falisify that.
You will have a hard time falsifying ALL historical data mentioned.
I already told you history is flawed. You are associating the Quran with something I see as irrelevant.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacyThe whole point of this exercise is the question of this topic 'perhaps I am not a good muslim'
Nobody should even feel such a question is relevant. Who is to judge???
The only relevant question is Do I seek to be truthful, have I finally understood that seeking god equals seeking WITHIN?
Have I finally understood that no man/woman shall rule over another in matters of god?http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
I don't see who you are convincing.
-
Salam farida. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, is a quote from the bible, wherein esa asked the people who were going to stone a woman for adultery, if they were without sin. Remember the context of the question, John 82-11, the context was that of a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. Since you bring up this verse, why does this verse come to mind? I ask you, have you been caught in the act of adultery?
The scribes and the pharisees brought the woman to esa, claiming she has been caught in the act of adultery. Esa wrote in the ground twice, while stating "let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her" The scribes and pharisees left one by one, nobody asked them to leave, they left of their own accord. Then Esa asked the woman "where are your accusers" The woman LIED and said "no man" The woman knew there were accusers, she knew who they were, and lied claiming there were none. Esa then said "neither do I accuse you" because Esa had not seen her in the act.
Esa was following the hudood of Allah. He knew that in order to convict her of adultery, he needed four witnesses. The same rule as in the Quran. Esa did not forgive her, he said "neither do I accuse you" However make no mistake, if four witnesses had stood there and accused her, the stoning to death punishment would have most likely been carried out. Esa knew she had sinned, he told her so when he said "go and sin no more"
Your claim that I have slandered you is FALSE. Your claim of slander is FALSE. The claim of adultery is most likely TRUE. You are going from possible adultery to false claims of slander.
Slander is oral defamation. A defamation spoken by the mouth. There is no words from anyones mouth in this forum, everything is written, therefore there CANNOT be a slander in this forum. Defamation is "the injury to a persons character, fame, or reputation by FALSE... AND... malicious statements" If in fact a woman has not received a talaq, and gets another nikah, that is per se adultery. Therefore, since the woman HAS another two nikahs and no talaq from the first nikah, the statement of adultery is TRUE, and not NOT FALSE, and CANNOT be defamation.
I have noticed that you are going from thread to thread in this forum, in anger, because you are annoyed that I said, a woman without a talaq who marries another man has comitted adultery. That is the general rule whether it annoys you or not. I will not conceal the word of Allah. If this general rule fits your personal situation, nothing more needs to be said. You wont be stoned to death because there are not four witnesses and I am not a qazi. You are making false and malicious claims that I am a slanderer. THAT... IS... DEFAMATION AND LIBEL.
Allah is the best of those who judge.
-
Salam farida. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, is a quote from the bible, wherein esa asked the people who were going to stone a woman for adultery, if they were without sin. Remember the context of the question, John 82-11, the context was that of a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. Since you bring up this verse, why does this verse come to mind? I ask you, have you been caught in the act of adultery?
The scribes and the pharisees brought the woman to esa, claiming she has been caught in the act of adultery. Esa wrote in the ground twice, while stating "let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her" The scribes and pharisees left one by one, nobody asked them to leave, they left of their own accord. Then Esa asked the woman "where are your accusers" The woman LIED and said "no man" The woman knew there were accusers, she knew who they were, and lied claiming there were none. Esa then said "neither do I accuse you" because Esa had not seen her in the act.
Esa was following the hudood of Allah. He knew that in order to convict her of adultery, he needed four witnesses. The same rule as in the Quran. Esa did not forgive her, he said "neither do I accuse you" However make no mistake, if four witnesses had stood there and accused her, the stoning to death punishment would have most likely been carried out. Esa knew she had sinned, he told her so when he said "go and sin no more"
Your claim that I have slandered you is FALSE. Your claim of slander is FALSE. The claim of adultery is most likely TRUE. You are going from possible adultery to false claims of slander.
Slander is oral defamation. A defamation spoken by the mouth. There is no words from anyones mouth in this forum, everything is written, therefore there CANNOT be a slander in this forum. Defamation is "the injury to a persons character, fame, or reputation by FALSE... AND... malicious statements" If in fact a woman has not received a talaq, and gets another nikah, that is per se adultery. Therefore, since the woman HAS another two nikahs and no talaq from the first nikah, the statement of adultery is TRUE, and not NOT FALSE, and CANNOT be defamation.
I have noticed that you are going from thread to thread in this forum, in anger, because you are annoyed that I said, a woman without a talaq who marries another man has comitted adultery. That is the general rule whether it annoys you or not. I will not conceal the word of Allah. If this general rule fits your personal situation, nothing more needs to be said. You wont be stoned to death because there are not four witnesses and I am not a qazi. You are making false and malicious claims that I am a slanderer. THAT... IS... DEFAMATION AND LIBEL.
Allah is the best of those who judge.
Yes Allah is the best of the Judge but itlooks lke you're trying to take over holding stones in his hand to hit woman after woman.
You mind is sick; that's all I can see from your post's and yes every time you would try and preach to others about US Women I will respond as you have no right what so ever to speak on behalf of believing muslim women. police -
Salam farida. Yes my mind is sick to you, because my mind belongs to Allah. Allah says to stone if there are four witnesses, do you reject and oppose Allah and conceal the truth when you know the truth. Believing women do not commit adultery, an unbelieving woman who commits adultery is not a spokesperson for believing women.
Allah is the best of those who judge.
-
Salam farida. Yes my mind is sick to you, because my mind belongs to Allah. Allah says to stone if there are four witnesses, do you reject and oppose Allah and conceal the truth when you know the truth. Believing women do not commit adultery, an unbelieving woman who commits adultery is not a spokesperson for believing women.
Allah is the best of those who judge.
Yes you are very sick man in my eyes and don't say salaam to me keep it to yourself. Your mind does not belong to Allah it belongs to Satan.
Learn this is how a believer thinks
O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion (speculation) , indeed some suspicions are sins. And spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it (so hate backbiting)] . And fear All?h. Verily, All?h is the One Who forgives and accepts repentance, Most Merciful. (49-12)
(Gossips are what believers will always hear, and truth is what they will always seek.
And in this Case, the truth is "The Quran is Gaurded by God"