a HOT Question, Please I need every body help in a SOUL Question?
-
Peace "soof",
JK- As humans it is natural that we get harsh or offensive in speech. This is why one needs to learn to tolerate and not become violent because any statement you may find not the least bit offensive, a sunni/shia will. Like saying "i dont believe Muhammad was the last prophet or messenger" can be more offensive to a sunni/shia than saying "your a f***ing idiot". It is very important to realize this relativity.
Enough. Contradictive statement, how can you be offensive in speech when I gave you verses from the Qur'an, against this? Insults is a sign of lack of ability to express points. If you are strongly rooted in your points, you should be able to convey clearly what you are saying without saying someone else is chatting BS or saying they are religious fanatics.
JK- When a person cannot deliver in bed anymore they may still love each other as humans, YES, but it wont be beneficial for them to act as a couple anymore IMO. BUT you forget if a person has a brain damage he can even stop feeling love or be without certain emotions so the bond with other humans will break unless that person finds someone like him/herself or gets medically cured. The point is SEXual LOVE is a type of LOVE and theres no way around this. There are many types of love and each is controlled by different hormones together with other complex processes in the brain.
I wasn't referring to brain damage, where does this point become valid in our debate? We are specifically talking about sex and its importance in relationships. Not brain damage that turns you into a sociopath, that is something completely different. Uh Huh, no sexual love is something you've defined. Sex is an act of love. Sex without love is simple fornication/pleasure seeking. There are different types of love such as the love for a mother and the love for your spouse are different. But sexual attraction is something much more primitive than an advanced emotion such as love. Fair enough if you think they won't be beneficial as a couple, I beg to differ.
JK- Whether woman can be just as heartless as men im not too sure about but arrogant and manipulative i can agree. Regarding men they are FAMOUS for dehumanizing women. Look at the patriarchal mindset all over especially in the form of religion.
I already said men are infamous for this. So I'm not disagreeing. But I am speaking from what I know and understand women can do. It is not an attack on women, I am just trying to remove the skewed view on men. It is more common for men to be heartless, this is truth. But my point is women do it as well.
JK- Why do you insist it's first and foremost for procreation? As i said there couldve been asexual reproduction or parthogenesis. There was no need for GOD to introduce male and female if it were just for procreation.
JK- I said there is something more wonderful than sex i.e. the direct connection with GOD. Did you miss that part? GOD Bless!
I insist because I know we are creatures of the God in nature. What comes first in nature is survival of the fittest and preservation of the species. In ALL creatures. Therefore as human beings the first things that matter to us
food, water, multiplying, surviving.
Sex is our ONLY means of multiplying (naturally), therefore sex by law of nature - not by OUR wants or desires, something very different - is for procreation. You said there could've been this or that and I say their could have been this or that anything. But God said he made us in pairs so we could come to know each other and enjoy each other in peace and tranquility. But He also says this
(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle by this means does He multiply you there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).
4211So yes, there is more to us than procreation and multiplying obviously. But by nature, by necessity for every species on earth, it is primarily to multiply. And because we are created in pairs there are additional benefits to it. This is a gift from God out of his Mercy, because indeed He could have made us Asexual, but He chose not to!
Peace
-
Salaam
I have no idea how come this thread has been diverted towards equality between the sexes and the role of sex particular to humans . Not only humans have sex and reproduce; animals too enjoy sex and plants too reproduce in a similar manner so, to take this thread in a different direction suggests that some 're trying to show off their modern approch to sexuality.Peace,
Thank you farida for your comments.
For sure this thread main point is being highjacked.I understand your point brother Belal and see not a hint of discrimination towards women. In fact you have, in my opinion, been trying to emphasise how the survival of man and of woman is interdependen of each other in the final world and this is my understanding too. Men trying to demean women would ultimately lose out and vice versa.
A Femal is an equal Soul as Male, but trapped in a Female body.
A Single Soul (Male Soul+ Female Soul) is what our original creation was.
And now, A Male Soul or a Female Soul alone is not as perfect as the original Soul.
Peace peace
-
in this verse, God says that believers and their spouses will enter Heaven. But, How humans, male and female, will be like in heaven is not revealed. What was revealed is the reward of "In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched (55-56)", which is a reward that is not for Females but Males; and that is what puzzel me!
PeaceRead an extract from an Sunni Scholar named Zakir Naik.
"And many of the translations have translated the word Hur as beautiful maiden! If the word Hur means a beautiful maiden, then what will the woman get in the paradise. Actually the word Hur is a plural for ahwaar - which is applicable to the man and hawar - which is applicable to the woman and it signifies the characteristic of hawar which means big, white, beautiful eye and describes especially the whiteness of the eye.
... .....
So Hur actually means a companion or a spouse. It has no gender. Further a man will get a good lady with big beautiful eyes and for a woman she will get a good man with big beautiful eyes."
i don know if the word hur is plural?????
-
So Hur actually means a companion or a spouse. It has no gender. Further a man will get a good lady with big beautiful eyes and for a woman she will get a good man with big beautiful eyes."
i don know if the word hur is plural?????
Peace,
The word " has touched", at the end of 55-56, is a translation to the arabic word "Yatmthohon".
Yatmthohon = Yatmtho + hon;
My friend, "hon" can only be used for Female; thus, the Hoor are Females.Every body has been puzzeled by the reward of Females; many opinions have been said because humans like to debate
And We have explained to man, in this Qur'an, every kind of similitude yet the grater part of men refuse (to receive it) except with ingratitude! (17-89)
We have explained in detail in this Qur'an, for the benefit of mankind, every kind of similitude but man is, in most things contentious. (18-54)
The Reward is
"In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched (55-56)
Why do we have to twist the meaning? why can we accept it as is and trust that God will reward the believers equally?
Moreover, the word hur is NOT plural for ahwaar, BUT for "Horia" (beautiful Female).
Peace -
peace Samia,
Thanks. The entry has been updated to
Peace Wakas
Your update is WRONGDal-Siin-Siin = To hide, bury, conceal, insinuate, thrust, corrupt.
dassa vb. (1) impf. act. 1659
dassa vb. (2) perf. act. 9110
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 3, page 44
The right word is
Dal-Siin
Ask any arabic speaker if you do not trust me.
Peace
-
Peace Wakas
Your update is WRONGAsk any arabic speaker if you do not trust me.
Peace
Salaam belal
Wakas is right. The verb is Das-sa two S's are assimilated in one, and the sign of this integration is the "shadda". This happens when two similar letters follow each other with a sukuun on the first of them To prove this further, conjugate the verb to the first person singular (I) in the past, and you will see the two seens split apart dasastu (I buried..), or put it in the passive participle masdsuus (hidden). Or go directly to this link of classical Arabic dictionaries and try to surch for both Dal seen (س and (س, and see which one comes uphttp//www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=
There is hardly any two-letter-rooted word in Arabic. -
Peace "soof",
Enough. Contradictive statement, how can you be offensive in speech when I gave you verses from the Qur'an, against this? Insults is a sign of lack of ability to express points. If you are strongly rooted in your points, you should be able to convey clearly what you are saying without saying someone else is chatting BS or saying they are religious fanatics.
JK- I DID. I never merely hurl insults without clearly presenting my points as to why this is so. Your still not willing to accept the relativity of what is considered offensive speech.
I wasn't referring to brain damage, where does this point become valid in our debate? We are specifically talking about sex and its importance in relationships. Not brain damage that turns you into a sociopath, that is something completely different. Uh Huh, no sexual love is something you've defined. Sex is an act of love. Sex without love is simple fornication/pleasure seeking. There are different types of love such as the love for a mother and the love for your spouse are different. But sexual attraction is something much more primitive than an advanced emotion such as love. Fair enough if you think they won't be beneficial as a couple, I beg to differ.
JK- MAN from amongst the advanced emotion of love there is a love which combined with the sexual hormones to produce the very kind of love we talk about between men and women. Hence theres 1) normal love which doesnt inolve sexual emotions and 2) sexual induced love. I was not talking about mere dry bang bang sex. GET IT NOW?
I already said men are infamous for this. So I'm not disagreeing. But I am speaking from what I know and understand women can do. It is not an attack on women, I am just trying to remove the skewed view on men. It is more common for men to be heartless, this is truth. But my point is women do it as well.
JK- Ok then i agree ofcourse.
I insist because I know we are creatures of the God in nature. What comes first in nature is survival of the fittest and preservation of the species. In ALL creatures. Therefore as human beings the first things that matter to us
food, water, multiplying, surviving.
Sex is our ONLY means of multiplying (naturally), therefore sex by law of nature - not by OUR wants or desires, something very different - is for procreation. You said there could've been this or that and I say their could have been this or that anything. But God said he made us in pairs so we could come to know each other and enjoy each other in peace and tranquility. But He also says this
(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle by this means does He multiply you there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).
4211So yes, there is more to us than procreation and multiplying obviously. But by nature, by necessity for every species on earth, it is primarily to multiply. And because we are created in pairs there are additional benefits to it. This is a gift from God out of his Mercy, because indeed He could have made us Asexual, but He chose not to!
Peace
JK- WHERE does any verse in the Quran say that the PRIMARY function of sex is to multiply? This is exactly my point of disagreement with you and the verse you quoted only shows that PAST of this process is for us to procreate NOT that it is the primary function. I consider the coming to know each other and be in tranquility the most important and primary part. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "soof",
JK- I DID. I never merely hurl insults without clearly presenting my points as to why this is so. Your still not willing to accept the relativity of what is considered offensive speech.
My main squabble with you was the prejudice, that was in fact baseless. But that's in the past.
JK- MAN from amongst the advanced emotion of love there is a love which combined with the sexual hormones to produce the very kind of love we talk about between men and women. Hence theres 1) normal love which doesnt inolve sexual emotions and 2) sexual induced love. I was not talking about mere dry bang bang sex. GET IT NOW?
I always knew what you are saying but I disagree. My point has already been stated in previous posts.
JK- WHERE does any verse in the Quran say that the PRIMARY function of sex is to multiply? This is exactly my point of disagreement with you and the verse you quoted only shows that PAST of this process is for us to procreate NOT that it is the primary function. I consider the coming to know each other and be in tranquility the most important and primary part. GOD Bless!
Where does it say in the Qur'an that coming to know each other and be in tranquility is the most important and primary part? Null point. I am judging from what I observe in nature and what I know we are. You are judging from possible experience and your knowledge and there is nothing wrong in that. Once again I have stated my point as to why I think so in previous posts. You don't have to agree, just understand why I say it, and that its not what you thought it was previously - words of a member of a religious dogma oppressing women. You have an issue that I say procreation (with someone you love) is the primary goal. I don't have an issue with what you said. Because they are both in the Qur'an. Like I said God could have chose us to be asexual if He wished, but He didn't. So obviously there are other purposes in sex. But he made us in pairs so we can multiply.
Peace
-
My main squabble with you was the prejudice, that was in fact baseless. But that's in the past.
I always knew what you are saying but I disagree. My point has already been stated in previous posts.
Where does it say in the Qur'an that coming to know each other and be in tranquility is the most important and primary part? Null point. I am judging from what I observe in nature and what I know we are. You are judging from possible experience and your knowledge and there is nothing wrong in that. Once again I have stated my point as to why I think so in previous posts. You don't have to agree, just understand why I say it, and that its not what you thought it was previously - words of a member of a religious dogma oppressing women. You have an issue that I say procreation (with someone you love) is the primary goal. I don't have an issue with what you said. Because they are both in the Qur'an. Like I said God could have chose us to be asexual if He wished, but He didn't. So obviously there are other purposes in sex. But he made us in pairs so we can multiply.
Peace
Peace "soof",
JK- I DID. I never merely hurl insults without clearly presenting my points as to why this is so. Your still not willing to accept the relativity of what is considered offensive speech.
JK- MAN from amongst the advanced emotion of love there is a love which combined with the sexual hormones to produce the very kind of love we talk about between men and women. Hence theres 1) normal love which doesnt inolve sexual emotions and 2) sexual induced love. I was not talking about mere dry bang bang sex. GET IT NOW?
JK- Ok then i agree ofcourse.
JK- WHERE does any verse in the Quran say that the PRIMARY function of sex is to multiply? This is exactly my point of disagreement with you and the verse you quoted only shows that PAST of this process is for us to procreate NOT that it is the primary function. I consider the coming to know each other and be in tranquility the most important and primary part. GOD Bless!
Peace'
Please you are off topic; if further discussion needed, please estaplish a new thread.
Thanks -
Salaam belal
Wakas is right. The verb is Das-sa two S's are assimilated in one, and the sign of this integration is the "shadda". This happens when two similar letters follow each other with a sukuun on the first of them To prove this further, conjugate the verb to the first person singular (I) in the past, and you will see the two seens split apart dasastu (I buried..), or put it in the passive participle masdsuus (hidden). Or go directly to this link of classical Arabic dictionaries and try to surch for both Dal seen (س and (س, and see which one comes uphttp//www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=
There is hardly any two-letter-rooted word in Arabic.Peace,
The occurrences of the word Dassa in Quran show one Siin, and never two Siin.
If Wahas trying to link his project to Quran, he should refers to what in the Quran (One Siin).(
in 16-59, it is "Yadosoh" and not "Yadsosho" (One Siin and not two).(
in 91-10, it is "Dasaha (or dassaha)" and not "dasasaha" (one Siin and not two)But any way, it is your project and not mine.
Peace -
Peace Belal,
I think the discussion on behavior theories should be left to some other time. Perhaps you can simply provide the references and people can look up the theory if and when they have time since you are only quoting an incomplete part and you are not doing a comparative or critical analysis and explaining why a particular theory is better than others.
Since I last checked this thread, it seems to have gone out of control and digressed into different issues. I am not going to repeat what I said and I will simply address some of the errors in your theory to help you correct them.
Where is your proof to this statement from Quran.
6918, etc.
Sultan if devided to Sult + an, Sult does not become a name, thus, it is not as Ins + an. The rull is when the "an" is sperated, the name would have to have a meaning. (the same for hiyawan).
How about "GhaDBAN" (angry), is it the "two angries" since GhaDB (anger) is a name by itself? Of course not! How about "mayl" (tilt) and "mayalan" (tiltness). How about "sayl" (fluidity) and "saylan" (flowing down)? There are too many examples to list where the part before the "+an" is a name that as a meaning and yet the "+an" is not for the dual. So you are making up imaginary rules that simply don't apply to the Arabic language.
Also, you completely ignore the fact that two "insan" is "insanayn" as two "hiyawan" is "hiyawanayn", etc.
Falsehood is when our choice is oppsite of Good's guidence.
Thus, if we program our Brain based on God's Guidence, we are purfying our Souls; and we will have relaxtion when obying and Stress when disobying.
(this is the other part of the theory that I want to convy)But every religion in the world does everything according to what they say is "god's guidance". Christians say that God's guidance told them to worship Jesus. So if you do the opposite of a Christian and don't worship Jesus, he can say that what you are doing is false based on the exact same thing as you said "falsehood is when our choice is opposite of God's guidence". So how do you know the true "God's guidance" from the false "God's guidance" and what created this "false God's guidance" in the first place?
Yes, they will be Four Apple; thus, you paired each two halfs (two Souls) into one apple (one Soul).
But it would still be a pair of half an apple together. Otherwise, what is the difference between pair and merge or join?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Belal,
The occurrences of the word Dassa in Quran show one Siin, and never two Siin.
If Wahas trying to link his project to Quran, he should refers to what in the Quran (One Siin).
(
in 16-59, it is "Yadosoh" and not "Yadsosho" (One Siin and not two).
(
in 91-10, it is "Dasaha (or dassaha)" and not "dasasaha" (one Siin and not two)So what is the meaning of this one Siin "dasa" according to Classical Arabic dictionaries?
Also, since you agree that the two passages have the same word, then how does the first one confirm the meaning of "stress" or "corrupt" when it doesn't make any sense there?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace,
The occurrences of the word Dassa in Quran show one Siin, and never two Siin.
If Wahas trying to link his project to Quran, he should refers to what in the Quran (One Siin).(
in 16-59, it is "Yadosoh" and not "Yadsosho" (One Siin and not two).(
in 91-10, it is "Dasaha (or dassaha)" and not "dasasaha" (one Siin and not two)But any way, it is your project and not mine.
PeaceSalaam belal
Why, then, is the shadda on the seen? How do you pronounce it? Is there any difference in pronouncing this word once with a shadda and another without a shadda? What's the function of the shadda?
-
But it would still be a pair of half an apple together. Otherwise, what is the difference between pair and merge or join?
Peace,
Ayman
Salaam,
Instead of an apple, how about taking an egg as an example? you can easily separate it's yolk and its white, and both parts of the egg have their own distinctive nutritive value and can be used as food on its own but, unless these two sections of eggs are combined it cannot reproduce.
Once both egg yolk and egg white are wisked together for you have one original Egg transformed into an Omelette eat
peace
-
Peace all
Peace Belal,
I think the discussion on behavior theories should be left to some other time. Perhaps you can simply provide the references and people can look up the theory if and when they have time since you are only quoting an incomplete part and you are not doing a comparative or critical analysis and explaining why a particular theory is better than others.
Agree, but you requested to define Soul (Nafs) before debating the joining of Nafs. Let me know when ready
I am not going to repeat what I said and I will simply address some of the errors in your theory to help you correct them.
Which Theory? Is it the Nafs Joining or Human Behavior (both are mine)?
6918, etc.
That Day shall ye be brought to Judgment not an act of yours that ye hide will be hidden. (1
Where does it say that understanding Humans behavior will not be revealed to someone in this life?
How about "GhaDBAN" (angry), is it the "two angries" since GhaDB (anger) is a name by itself? Of course not!
Ghadb + AN= Adjective + "An" which makes it "Continuous Adjective".
(69-1How about "mayl" (tilt) and "mayalan" (tiltness).
I only can recall such a word from an Egyptian Singer, and not from Quran.
How about "sayl" (fluidity) and "saylan" (flowing down)?
Not that one either exist in Quran.
But, it would be like the example above.
Adjective + "An" which makes it "Continuous Adjective".There are too many examples to list where the part before the "+an" is a name that as a meaning and yet the "+an" is not for the dual. So you are making up imaginary rules that simply don't apply to the Arabic language.
It can be for Dual or "Continuous Adjective", when added to a meaningful Name or Adjective.
Do you agree that when God adress us by Insan, He is Adressing Male + Female?
Ayman, debating will increase our knowldge if we accept that we can be wrong sometimes, otherwise, it will not only decrease our knowledge but will lead us to be Arrogant. Thus, I will agree with you if you give me an example from Quran, and not from Arabic Song.
Also, you completely ignore the fact that two "insan" is "insanayn"
I do not; but God, in the Quran, never used such word "Insanayn" when addressing Male + Female (as far as I Know).
But every religion in the world does everything according to what they say is "god's guidance". Christians say that God's guidance told them to worship Jesus. So if you do the opposite of a Christian and don't worship Jesus, he can say that what you are doing is false based on the exact same thing as you said "falsehood is when our choice is opposite of God's guidence". So how do you know the true "God's guidance" from the false "God's guidance" and what created this "false God's guidance" in the first place?
Your qustion is the same as Code 19ers Question? confused
Truth is in the Book, and Falshood is NOT.
How do I know that the Book is God's Book? I believe you answered this Question when debating the Code 19 Question.But it would still be a pair of half an apple together. Otherwise, what is the difference between pair and merge or join?
And that is how the Two Souls will be, a Pair in a Single Body, as they were when creating ADAM. The Soul will be comfrtable as when were created.
Now, can each Soul (Male and Female) in the one Body feels that they were rewarded due to their Good Deeds? Yes.
But How? How can Ayman Nafs and Sara Nafs, if you were to be joined by a Female Nafs that were named Sara, enjoy or suffere in Heaven or Hellfire, in one Body? I can tell you that both will like, if in heaven, HOOR Eleain and the Jolman (The Kids). And in Hellfire, both will suffer the Fire.!
Salaam belal
Why, then, is the shadda on the seen? How do you pronounce it? Is there any difference in pronouncing this word once with a shadda and another without a shadda? What's the function of the shadda?
Samia, the main point is how should we write the word DESSA and not how to pronounce it.
Do you agree that the Quran never used Two Siin but One, when it was written.
If we rewrite the letter that have Shadda to two letters, then you need to change the entire Quran.
Arabic is different than English when writting and pronouncing.Salaam,
Instead of an apple, how about taking an egg as an example? you can easily separate it's yolk and its white, and both parts of the egg have their own distinctive nutritive value and can be used as food on its own but, unless these two sections of eggs are combined it cannot reproduce.
Once both egg yolk and egg white are wisked together for you have one original Egg transformed into an Omelette eat
peace
Yummy! rotfl
Peace(HAPPY RAMADAN TO ALL sun)
-
Samia, the main point is how should we write the word DESSA and not how to pronounce it.
Do you agree that the Quran never used Two Siin but One, when it was written.
If we rewrite the letter that have Shadda to two letters, then you need to change the entire Quran.
Arabic is different than English when writting and pronouncing.Salaam belal
I hate to ask this question, but Do you speak Arabic? If not, have you ever heard of the "shadda"?
Where did I say it should be written with two seens? The way it is written in the quraan is the same way any Arab would write it today and is the correct way. And of course, the way you pronounce it is very important, because how you pronounce a letter with a shedda on it shows you pronounce two letters of the same nature, and is different from how a single one would be ponounced. The shadda is an arabic characteristic, anglophones cannot pronounce it and do not hear it either. Just notice how they pronounce Saddam and Qaddafi as Sadam and Qadafi (only arabic speakers can notice that). I also mentioned how they are pronounced because the sign of shadda above the seen is introduced later and is not, intself, a proof that it should be so. Please do not confuse others with wrong information and misquotation. -
The way it is written in the quraan is the same way any Arab would write it today and is the correct way.
Agree
And of course, the way you pronounce it is very important, because how you pronounce a letter with a shedda on it shows you pronounce two letters of the same nature, and is different from how a single one would be ponounced.
Agree
Happy Ramadan!
-
Peace Belal,
Ayman, debating will increase our knowldge if we accept that we can be wrong sometimes, otherwise, it will not only decrease our knowledge but will lead us to be Arrogant. Thus, I will agree with you if you give me an example from Quran, and not from Arabic Song.
I gave you the example of "GhaDBAN" from the great reading and there are many others but you can't increase your knowledge if you imagine some new grammar rule called "Continuous Adjective" to justify your clear error.
I do not; but God, in the Quran, never used such word "Insanayn" when addressing Male + Female (as far as I Know).
The god doesn't use many Arabic words in the great reading so according to you those words don't exist in the Arabic language. Also, a dual noun would be associated with a dual or plural verb and "insan" is always associated with a singular verb in the great reading. There is just too much evidence so you really have to present a strong case and not a half baked one as you did before anyone wastes anymore time on debating this.
Your qustion is the same as Code 19ers Question? confused
Truth is in the Book, and Falshood is NOT.
How do I know that the Book is God's Book? I believe you answered this Question when debating the Code 19 Question.It is not the same question. I didn't ask you where truth comes from or how do you know it. I asked you where falsehood comes from. The fact that the book of the god is true is irrelevant to this question. For example, Sunnis use the true book of the god to justify the falsehood of following Hadiths. 19ers use the book of the god to justify following the attractive temptation of counting 19. So the fact that the book of the god is true doesn't have any bearing on where falsehood comes from.
And that is how the Two Souls will be, a Pair in a Single Body, as they were when creating ADAM. The Soul will be comfrtable as when were created.
Now, can each Soul (Male and Female) in the one Body feels that they were rewarded due to their Good Deeds? Yes.
But How? How can Ayman Nafs and Sara Nafs, if you were to be joined by a Female Nafs that were named Sara, enjoy or suffere in Heaven or Hellfire, in one Body? I can tell you that both will like, if in heaven, HOOR Eleain and the Jolman (The Kids). And in Hellfire, both will suffer the Fire.Male and female is not the essense of who we are. They are merely superficial physical aspects in this low life that will be completely irrelevant in the ending. You are again focusing too much on gender to the point of being obsessed with it and this is causing you to miss the big picture.
Peace,
Ayman