Hi,

Sorry for the late reply. I know we had some issues with the mailserver, which have been fixed now.
So I am wondering if this problem still persists. Please let me know, and I'll look into it.

Regards,

Nadeem

Hi,

Yeah, that is a good idea, however the plugin only works for SMF 2.0, which is not stable yet. We are using 1.1.11 here. When 2.0 is stable, I'll upgrade to it and install this plugin. Thanks for the tip.

Nadeem,

Writing from Cape Town, South Africa -)

Most likely thermochromic ink. Google it.

Peace all,

@ Wakas

I am surprised you found no evidence for my interpretation. 4153 is pretty clear to me for example. Simply put, if AQ did not resonate with who we are and what we experience, it wouldn't make much sense.

Then I must've misunderstood you. Perhaps you are talking about the alledged universal, and timeless appeal of the Quran, which the verses do speak of. Previously I thought you were referring to the theory of the "evolving Quran" in which the meanings of the verses adapt to the ever changing circumstances. I am sceptical to this theory. There is no denying that the Quran does evolve, but this is our own doing, and not some inherent quality in the quran, nor do I think its author intended it to be so, at least not completely.

The verses speak of a change in us that will make the Quran more acceptable. However, what is happening now is a changing of the Quran, not us, to be make it more acceptable. Sure, we are not tinkering with the ink, but we are transforming it through interpretation. It it is the same thing, basically. Free-Minds is exhibit A.

In the times when women were of no political import, there was no demand for a women friendly Quran. Now that we have changed, we are demanding a quran that gives women rights, and we have got it. Hence, we are changing the Quran towards us, and not changing ourselves to the Quran. That is why I am asking what the limits of belief are. How much are you ready to change in the name of the Quran, and what do you require from the Quran?

Many people are not aware of their limits, and what this implies. You believe in the divinity of the Quran, but you have projected so much of yourself on the Quran that in fact you have made yourself holy.
God is like a blank canvas. It is pure, untainted, fresh, innocent. These are the qualitites that the color white symbolizes, and white is a balanced combination of all colors.
Then you come along and emphasize one color and reject the other, and all of a sudden you have a caricature of yourself which you do not recognize. And that caricature you confuse with god. You are only worshipping yourself.

This is not ill-intended criticism of you, Wakas. But do you think this applies to you?

Are you alluding to 'confirmation bias'?

I was not, but I see will have to later in this post.

This is what I was saying Some take the word of the Quran as final. If this someone is having difficulties with his wife, and is engaged in a literary debate about the word Idrib, then what will happen is that linguistics decides whether the wife gets a divorce or a beating. Do you see my point? I recall reading one forum member saying that if the meaning was to shoot his wife, he would do that too. That scared me a bit, since that very same forum member did not believe idrib meant beat. He had allowed dictionaries to decide, and luckily for his wife, the dictionaries just happened to save her. What do you think of this? Is this any way to go about such important issues?

Good question. I try to be, but it is very difficult.

You said this when I asked you about your indifference to the outcome, but then you say later Personally, I think AQ is the Word of God, that is my working hypothesis, and I am in an ongoing verification process.

Don't you see a conflict between the two? How can you remain indifferent to the word of God?

And it is somewhat ironic that you wrote that sentence right after mentioning confirmation bias, when that sentence is a classic example of such bias.
What made you chose your current working hypothesis? Also have you tried changing your working hypothesis?

The greatest battle is the battle within.

And the battle is pointless. Why are you fighting yourself? That only fuels the fire.

Yes, you are imperfect, but you are not incomplete. True, there will be bias, there will be all kinds of limits, but this is how it must be when you have the courage to be involved.
Love your foolishness, it is required, it is mandatory. When you get involved, when you jump in the ocean, you will get wet. You cannot avoid it.
You need not drown though, simply be aware of the water. Similarly, you need not let your foolishness fool you, just be aware of it. If you are unaware, then even your sincerity will be insincere!
In the ocean, you cannot avoid to get wet. You can cheat, you can put on swimsuits, wetsuits and all kinds of suits, but then you are not involved. It merely appears so.
Similarly, people appear involved in Islam, with their suits on. Their traditional, ali baba clothing. Their beards, their curly toe shoes, their hijabs, their ups and downs in prayer.
Even when they are fasting they are merely feeding their ego "Look how devoted I am, I have fasted every day, how many days have you fasted?".

This is because believers are unaware, and awareness is what I'm trying to raise. People believe in the Quran, but they have never known the fabric of their belief.
Be aware and love your flaws. Muhammed did so. In the Quran we find many of his flaws. They were so dear, so important that he mentioned them in the Quran!
And here we are, trying to forget our flaws. Suppressing them, avoiding them. The most foolish battle is the battle within.
But people love it! We love those who fight themselves. We revere them, honor them!
The celibate is honored, the virgin is honored, the one who fasts is honored, and everyone of them is doing nothing but fighting themselves.
Fighting sexuality, and they become the most sexual people, all their dreams are just about sex. Fighting hunger all they can think of is eating.
If you fight your foolishness, you will become the greatest fool ever!

I watched that video, and I understood it to mean that in each person's own frame of reference each is correct, which I agree with. However, if they were to compare and weigh the evidence, there is only one truth, and that is it was a simultaneous double lightning strike. This would be worked out if the train passenger took into account the speed of the train heading towards the front strike, and away from the back strike, resulting in seeing the front strike first.

Or at least, that is my understanding.

What you refer to as evidence is simply a set of assumptions. Speed, who is moving, and who is not, cannot be determined. Try it. Motion is relative.

I said they were simultaneous because the video seemed to imply the stationary person on the platform was equidistant between the strikes and he saw them the same time.

This is also an assumption, the distance need not be equidistant at all. It is also an assumption in the video that the lightning did hit simultaneously. It might as well have hit first on the back of the train, and then on the front. This way the train passenger would have seen the lights hit simultaneously, and the observer on the platform seen one before the other. Also, the case is further made more complex because you cannot determine the nature of you frame of reference when you are inside it. Cosider the fact that if you are inside a train with no windows, you cannot decide whether or not it is moving if it does not accelerate.

Interestingly, that video seems to show that only the person who has all the info knows the truth. Read in conjunction with 37, in this case, that would be God.

This seems reasonable.

@everyone else

I'm off to see Transformers on the cinema. Will reply to you ASAP.

Nadeem

Peace,

However, the thing I wanted to point out that there is no chopping off hands of criminals and no wife-beating ordained in the Quran so the question is irrelevant in PRACTICE.

I said in my previous that I must stress that this topic is not about the divinity of the Quran, nor its content.

It is possible for two people to witness the same event, and come to logically sound and mutually exclusive conclusions that are equally correct.
Impossible? Check out Relativity http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM

Hence, I can read the Quran and see a divorce where someone else sees a stick, and we can both be equally right.
That is why I point out the unimportance of the content in this context. What is important is to know that you see what are you are seeing, because it is you who are seeing.
A banana is not yellow, it is yellow in your eyes. Turn on some UV light, and it becomes blue.
Likewise, the Quran seems non-violent to you, but it may seem violent to others. And the mystery, the paradox, the beauty and the very genius of this existence is that you may both be right.

And I must ask, perhaps somewhat offtopic What does it mean when you say that god is most wise? What does god need wisdom for? He already knows the answers. Wisdom, I thought was a tool for us fools, as a cane is for the blind. We need to figure things out, and we can chose to go about it with wisdom or with ignorance. But god doesn't need to figure anything out. What does it matter if he is wise or ignorant? Again, this question has nothing to do with god. It is about you. Do you understand? Remember what I said earlier Humans tend to project their own qualities onto objects.

Nadeem

Dear Progressive1993,

On one hand, you seem prepared to disobey the Quran, while on the other you maintain its divinity. Does that mean that you are prepared to disobey god should he command you to do something you find objectionable?

I must stress that this topic is not about the divinity of the Quran, nor its content. For a long time I have been peering into my own abyss and tried to see my beliefs for what they are. In this thread I simply wish to learn from others who have done the same.

Do you personally think that God said that we should beat our wives?

He may have, he might not have. The question is Does it matter?
Try to reflect on this question, try to see what I'm getting at. It is not a question about god. It has nothing to do with god, but it has everything to do with you.

Nadeem

Dear all,

@ Rev. John

Not really. I just think it is wrong to cause anyone pain or discomfort. It just seems like a fundamental, deep down belief for me. Maybe in self defence, but that is all.

That seems reasonable, and at the same time it is a consensus between nearly everyone on earth.
A very rare combination! So many people who believe in non-violence, yet so much violence!
Something is up.

@progressive1993

Same here, I wouldnt beat my girlfriend/wife even it is a possibble option laid down in the Quran.

But you believe the Quran to be from God, so how do you justify your disobedience?

Luckily, aggression is forbidden by God in the Quran - he is the Most Wise.

Aggression too, as is violence, a very fluid concept. What is aggression in one country, is law in another. If god is the most wise, then what room is there for our intelligence?
Don't misunderstand. The question is neither about wisdom, nor about god. Its about borrowing his authority by playing the "he is most wise"-card.
"God said this, and he is smarter than you, so why don't you shut your pie hole and start driving some planes into buildings?" Just to demonstrate my point.

@Allen

I read The Quran over and over again to find an answer, pray to God to increase my Knolwedge.

How many times do you read it before you stop, and then what happens?
Do you read until you can find something that justifies a notion you already had, or do you come to accept that "This is what is says, and I'm gonna do it because I believe in god" ?

@ Wakas

First, nice to see you post again.

Yes. I've missed it much since I enjoyed it. I've changed quite a bit since last time, and there is a chance I've become too different for FM. But I'll let the sunrise shed some light on that.

It would appear that certain views or interpretations rely on grammar/dictionaries etc but quite often, it is the internal logic/consistancy of AQ that is the deciding factor

There is no internal logic without the words that express it, and there are no words without the dictionaries that give them meaning. Ultimately, the Quran too has to rely on some external factor. Don't you think?

It is put forward by AQ itself that it has been built in such a way that it will resonate with who we are and what we experience . Thus, if you come across something that does not look right, does not sound right, does not feel right, then maybe it isn't right, even if everyone thinks it is. As long as one's intentions are sincere (i.e. they sincerely wish to do the right thing, sincerely seek the truth etc) then there is no blame, as far as I'm aware, if one does not follow what they disagree with. The minimum criteria, the benchmark is monotheism, anything else is a bonus, in my opinion.

I did not find in the verses any support for your interpretation, but it does not matter. Your statement is correct anyways. People project their own qualities, sentiments, thoughts, feelings and expextations on every object they see. The Quran is not immune. Hence, someone read the Quran and blew himself up, while someone else read it too but instead spoke kindly to his enemies.

Intent may give solace, but no solution. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Wakas, we both know many people who have harmed others in total sincerity. Are they not to blame? I don't really care too much about blame, really, but is sincerity such a moral panacea?

Could be a few reasons. For me, it is usually because I want to know what it truly says, whatever the outcome.

Are you indifferent to the outcome?

I would not object to the focus if the debate was restricted to linguistic curiosity, but the issue is more often than not confused with real life.
Last time I checked, most of us here believe the Quran to be the literal word of god, beyond doubt.
In this context, you are forced to chose semantics over sensitivity, and linguistics over love.

Regards,

Nadeem

As I was brought up to believe violence is bad, I would leave that religion. But if I was brought up to believe violence is good - who knows!

But have you ever come to question the very source that told you what violence is in the first place?

Hi Rev. John.

Thanks for the reply, but you missed my question.

What if all religions considered violence as good? Then where do you stand?

Also, when the religions themselves define what is violence (or just "though love/Gods will&quot, it doesn't matter whether they consider it bad or good. It will be the same either way.

Nadeem

Peace,

There is nothing wrong with asking, but they are not asking, but begging. Beggars can't be choosers, nor can the secterian have any choice but to obey once the answer has been given.
The Quran says ask. It says listen. It says reflect. It doesn't say beg.

Nadeem

Brother Wakas, try changing the extension to .html or .dhtml

Peace,

Nadeem

Peace,

I think there are two key phrases in this verse "Waqatiloohum (and kill/fight them) hatta la takoona fitnatun wayakoona alddeenu kulluhu lillahi fa-ini intahaw fa-inna Allaha bima yaAAmaloona baseerun"

First out is the command to "kill or fight them". Even without looking at surrounding verses, it is clear from the purpose the reading gives (until there is no more oppression) that the "them" refers to tyrants and their militia. The question of oppressing innocent "non-muslims" doesn't even arise because oppression in its totality is what the reading is ordering us to fight against in the first place!

Secondly, the phrase "alddeenu kulluhu lillahi" which has been translated by Yusuf Ali as "faith in Allah altogether and everywhere". This translation contradicts the first part of the verse quite clearly, and translations like this one are responsible for the confusion. The particle "Li" in "Lillahi" denotes ownership and possession. This phrase should therefore be translated something like "faith completely is up to god". Meaning that matters of faith will be settled and judged by god alone, and in the meantime we should wait for the judgement and not take matters into our own hands. This fits perfectly with what the reading says in other verses. Take for example 787 which says "... so be patient until God judges/rules between us ...".

We should also remember that "Allah" was a neutral term at the time of Muhammed. "Allah" simply meant "the god" and wasn't Muhammed's personal favorite which he was trying to promote. The term "deen is completely up to allah" should therefore not be taken to mean that the deen belongs a deity that is represented here on earth by a superior arabic clan which enjoys special rights and privileges.

Peace,

Nadeem

Don't we know of people who are, at least, agonistics, but are very good, honest and fair? I personally know two such people at least, and knew two more.

Peace Samia,

That was exactly what I thought when I came to question the established definition of kafir. I think people really need to reflect upon the difference between "declaration of faith" and "practice of faith". One must appreciate how the former is of less significance than the latter, and that it makes no sense that violation of either should be punished equally (or punished at all when it comes to the former).

Peace,

Nadeem

peace,

All four are related and there is overlap. There would be no difference in outcome when the attribute of kafir is done with/to God, but in other cases there would be practical differences, e.g. tiller of the soil is kafir which is nothing to do with religion as such.

I agree completely.

Peace all,

I've improved my understanding since writing that article some 2 or 3 years ago. Once I update the Norwegian version, I will translate to English. Until then, if someone wants to translate it, then that would be great. I've have corrected the broken link in the post on ReflekterSelv.

Wakas, is there a practical difference between the four points you listed? To me they seem to overlap a lot.

Peace,

Nadeem

Peace Farida,

Somehow I feel that your post was directed more at the Free-Minds crew than anyone else. Is this the way you intended it?

Peace,

Nadeem

Peace Progod,

Thanks for the help! I'd love it if you could give me some examples for each of them, also perhaps examples of wrong usage. That way I'll be 100% sure that I've got it.

Have a great day, bro.

Peace,

Nadeem

Peace Mr. Humble,

truth is, Islam is the Religion of Allah, if islam is so "middle easternized" than why are there millions of arab christians living in the "Middle-east"

Most likely because what you refer to as Islam is a younger form of Judeo-Christianity. http//free-minds.org/books/journey.htm

You never answered my question, even if you think you did. I'll rephrase Do you find yourself to be a part of the sunni-community?

And, why is westernization a bad thing? Please give some concrete examples.

Nadeem

Peace Mr. Humble,

I'f you do not mind me asking, are you a sunni? If so, why do you prefer middle-easternized Islam over the westernized one?

Peace,

Nadeem

Peace Samia, Progod, all

Thank you for explaining the participle. I've read a lot, and I feel like I have some grip of it now.

Now I have another question What is the difference between these three

1. Iz
2. Izaa
3. Lammaa

Supposedly, they all mean "when", but are there some subtle differences that I need to be aware of?

Peace,

Nadeem