I'm just not sure tbh... Bottom line is I don't know how into Jainism he is. He is quite into the non violence thing in regards to many things like not killing animals and such. But he said "we don't believe in a god... We don't believe in a creator, but we believe everyone can perfect their souls to become a god"... I'm like.... Right..... Roger we have a problem...

Hi Good Logic,

My dad had a cardiac arrest back in March. I quit my job and am his carer so it's been a bit stressful. Been feeling anxiety a bit and trying to just relax and deal with it one way or another.

In regards to the Jainism guy, I face a couple of problems... 1. How they don't believe in a single creator or find no need for one and 2. Reincarnation.

I'm struggling to think of how to deal with this... I understand the thought process of if God created the universe then who created God... If God is perfect then why create a universe full of suffering and adversity? I understand those questions but I have my own answers that satisfy this... So I don't know about this person...

Lust is very subjective and the same thing even for the same person may not mean the same at diffrent times. I do think that those who fall in temptation usually indulge in border lines thinking that they will not cross them but that hell why not just a bit.

It is not so much that we see nudes or this or that but what we allow ourselves or the attitude we take while those things are in front of our eyes.

Salaam

Excellent post - very true indeed.

Also, since I can't think of any good audio translations of the quran (personally I'd say reading it outloud or to yourself is the best thing to do as it'll be purely based on your own interpretation). People can read it outloud to you and even their voice or tone can subconsciously give you a completely different interpretation to one where you read it yourself - which can sometimes be a good thing but I'd say it's something you should do on your own for yourself ).

Personally, there have been some articles I've read and, having studied the Quran for quite some time, I'd recommend reading the translations that Taro quoted but side by side, as sometimes when reading the Quran, it tended to switch between translators in my head in terms of which ones were making more logical sense and which ones were subconsciously/consciously applying their own preconceived notions on it, some very useful and eye opening articles were written by Dr Ayman, who was one of the most active participants here. As I always say, don't take his or anyone else's word as "gospel" but, there is much to learn from his articles which can be verified empirically and also using archaeology knowledge.

Peace peace

Truthseeker just take a few days out or something. Sometimes I leave this place for a month and then come back to it to see if people have responded or anything interesting has come up in conversation or if I need to start battling people P with kindness of course. But like Taro, I've had my mind opened quite alot in regards to certain aspects of the Quran by yourself, wakas, and especially by Ayman (who I seriously miss on this forum....).

Anyway, I hope you don't leave for too long mate... But your post was awesome and I totally agree/respect it and I'm sure you meant no harm if you did tell Taro he is a deceiver which he is not (he might just need to not get so excited sometimes P).

Peace peace

Tp me it seems one of those well meaning writings which try to overcome the manifest disdain for women in plenty of so called islamic attitudes by explaining the Qurani text through the conditions reigning at the time of its revelation.

Depending on the context of the passage itself that may be true, but it is not true when a general statement is made. If there is such general statement and in our view it does not match true heartfelt justice, then it is sure that we are not reading properly, that we are inventing or that we are superposing on what we read the interpretations which are invented. That is the case of some the ayas examined like 2.228 or 4.34.

I know that when I sai that I will fin nobody or almost nobody agreeing with me, because truth, speacially truth coming from God Himself is very hard to swallow when it hapens that we have already found a truth that pleases us and which in fact we can sort of make acceptable to comply with todays fineries.

Another thing about equality. Females and males are not equal. We cannot make women equal to men, and the very idea of it implies that somehow women are imperfect and need to be made like men. But if anything the opposite is true. So what shoudl be strived for is that women are compensated for the extra labour that nature puts on them for the perpetuation of the species. Not punish them by limiting them but given more than men by way of freedom to start with and everything else following.

Summing up attempts to uphold women equality in islam taking the Qur'an and making excuses for it does nto work and it always looks exactly what it is excuses. The Qur'an is majestic, wise, intelligent, always ahead of our expectations, in need of no excuses but of being read without fear and without subservience to the whole load of previous arrangements so that it stays within the limits imposed by me, mostly by males or male minded minds.

Salaam

Always enjoy reading your responses Huruf - girl power! (joking ) But totally agree with you here... Too many people try twisting the Quran to suit their own views when it comes to women (PS Taro not talking about you at all here. Talking about other people i've seen).

Peace sushi1992,

Thank you for post.

I think you raise some good points in your post. And I think we agree on more than we disagree on

By the way, I have a question. Do you believe that marriage between a man and a woman is more serious and a greater commitment than a relationship (outside of marriage)? If yes, why? If no, why?

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Peace Taro,

I'm glad we agree on more than we disagree . I have quite a pure outlook to relationships a lot of the time. As I mentioned, minus the odd desires every now and then, sex to me is nothing... I actually have never involved myself in that specific act, but the point i was trying to make was the intimacy between 2 people who love each other is more special and more important than sexual intercourse (and yes I am separating intimacy and sexual intercourse as they are 2 completely different things to me).

In answer to your question, it's quite difficult for me to answer that considering my view of what marriage is IS the same as a relationship (it IS a relationship after all, is it not ?).

But for me, if I am in a relationship with someone, I am essentially married to that person. That has always been my understanding. My parents think it's "extreme", and some of my mates think that too. But when I am committed to someone, I am committed to them and them alone. We share each other and each other alone. To me, that bond, that commitment, that long-term loyalty, graffitied over walls saying we are together or a simple text message saying "i love you my partner" or whatever it is, either way, the connection between 2 people who wish to be together for as long as they can foresee is all that matters to me. "Getting married" in the traditional sense is easy. Hey i could grab a random dude, sign a piece of paper in the registry office, have sex, find him boring, and "divorce" (God forbid I'd never do such a thing!). What is that compared to a love that goes deep into the souls of 2 people, where their hearts have signed a contract already to God, their words and souls are the oath - God as their witness, people as their witness.

I probably sound like some crazy romanticist and yes, i know the Quran is but a guide and we can only follow it as well as we can do and as best to our interpretation as possible. But really, this is how I see it and this is how I feel is right for me (other people of course is another story). That's why in places like the UK, it can be difficult for someone like me to find someone. Someone who has the same mentality. I can't even bring myself to kiss someone when I'm not "actually" seeing a future with them at all because I have too much self respect and I do not feel it is really right. One thing I have learnt over the years and with experience, is to not rush, to not rush into someones house or bedroom and leave yourself vulnerable or open to a bit of a situation, even if it is with someone you love. I believe it's best to take time with these things. Spiritually connect with them and grow to love them. I bang on about patience but someones it can be quite quick to really fall for someone, but I also believe that can sometimes depend on our mental state. Either way, someone who is in a long-term relationship or sees themselves being in a long-term relationship with this person, who shares their life in terms of what they do, buying dinner together, going places together, being in eachothers company, offering protection and comfort equally to eachother - that to me is a marriage.

I hope I answered as well as possible .

Peace,
Sushi

Peace everyone,

I agree with sushi1992 to some degree. I don't believe that a woman needs a ring on her finger in order to be married. It seems that marriage today has become institutionalized. And it seems that many couples focus more on formalities instead of making a heart-commitment to each other, in these days. I think that that if the heart of a man and woman is not united (tied to each other), then the marriage contract is not worth much. It seems that it is only possible to create a strong bond in a relationship, if the bond is connected to the heart of a man and a woman. In other words, it seems that the bond between a man and a woman has to be mental/spiritual. In my view, similar/identical beliefs (which is mental/spiritual) is the only thing which can unite the heart of a man and a woman (see verses 3103, 863 and 5914).

I think that the only true/honest/sincere commitment is a heart-commitment. That being said, I still believe that a "marriage contract" is important/useful. Because in verse 2433, the Quran suggests that one should document ones commitment with an engaged partner. And I believe that there is a purpose/wisdom behind this Quranic guideline. Without a heart-commitment to someone, a marriage contract does not seem to have any value at all. But it seems that if a man and a woman have a heart-commitment to eachother, then a marriage contract can solidify their commitment and make it stronger.

In verse 2433, the Quran suggests that a couple should document their marriage (i.e. have a marriage contract).

English transcription
Quran 2433 WalyastaAAfifi allatheena layajidoona nikahan hatta yughniyahumu Allahumin fadlihi waallatheena yabtaghoona alkitabamimma malakat aymanukum fakatiboohum inAAalimtum feehim khayran waatoohum min mali Allahiallathee atakum wala tukrihoo fatayatikumAAala albigha-i in aradna tahassunanlitabtaghoo AAarada alhayati alddunyawaman yukrihhunna fa-inna Allaha min baAAdi ikrahihinnaghafoorun raheemun

Quran 2433 And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those who are maintained by your oaths seek to consummate the marriage, then document it with them if you find that they are ready, and give them from the wealth of God which He has bestowed upon you. And do not force your young women to need if they have desired to be independent, in order that you may make a gain in the goods of this worldly life. And if anyone has compelled them, then for their compulsion, God is Forgiving, Merciful.

According to verse 2433 above, those maintained by your oaths (i.e. Ma Malakat aymanukum) should document their marriage if they want to consummate/fulfill their marriage. In my view, the word mma (Ma malakat aymanukum) means different things according different contexts in different verses of the Quran. In verse 2433 "those those maintained by your oaths" (i.e. Ma Malakat aymanukum) seems to mean "engaged partners." And it seems that "those maintained by your oaths" will only fulfill/consummate their marriage after documenting their marriage. In other words, it seems that they have to sign a "marriage contract" in order to fullfill/consummate it. If they don't sign a marriage contract, it seems that they will not be recognized as husband and wife according to the Quran. Does this suggest that a man and a woman must sign a marriage contract in order to fullfill/consummate their marriage? Please ponder on this question.

Also, in verse 2431, the Quran suggests that believing females (mumins) must lower their gaze and guard their private parts, and that they should not show off their attraction except what is apparant, and that they should cast their clothes over their bossoms. And then it says that they should not show their attraction (i.e. nakedness) to any other than their husband (in regards to a relationship). If husband is synonomous with a partner/boyfriend, then this verse seems to suggest that a woman can be naked in front of her partner/boyfriend. But if, however, a man only can be considered a Husband after he has signed a marriage contract, then verse 2431 in the Quran, seems to suggest that believing females (mumins) are not allowed to show off their attraction (i.e. nakedness) to any other than their husbands. In order to have sexual relations with the opposite sex, a woman must first be naked. Right? But if the Quran does not allow a woman to be naked in front of any other than her husband (in regards to a relationship), then how can she be naked in front of other than her husband (in regards to a relationship? If a believing woman is only allowed to be naked in front of her husband, then how can she be naked in front of a partner/boyfriend (which is not her husband)? And if a woman is only allowed to have sexual relations with her husband, then how can she have sexual relations with a partner/boyfriend (which is not her husband)? Does that sound logical? Does that sound possible? Let me explain this through an example. Let's say that an employee works for a company. One day there is both chocolate and cookies in the kitchen of that company. The boss tells the employee (worker) that she is only allowed to eat chocolate. The boss tells the employee that she is not allowed to eat cookies. If the boss tells the employee that she is only allowed to eat the chocolate, does this mean that she can eat cookies too? No, that would make no sense. Because she is only allowed to eat chocolate. As mentioned earlier, the Quran suggests that believing females (mumins) are not allowed to show off their attraction (i.e. nakedness) to any other than their husband. If a believing woman is only allowed to be naked in front of her husband, then how can she also be naked in front of a partner/boyfriend (which is not her husband)? Does that sound logical? Does that sound possible? Please ponder on these questions.

Peace Taro & All,

I'll repeat what I said previously. I do not agree with people referring to their other half as "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". Ever since I was young I really didn't like that connotation. If i ever was to have a man, which I have done, they will be my partner. In my head I might refer to them as my husband. Only reason I wouldn't say husband to everyone else is because others might not understand how I think. My parents for one would probably lose the plot if they knew I for example fell in love with someone after a month and he was my "husband" - hence why I say partner.

But anyway, aside from that, I'm seeing a lot of "illicit sex" and "secret lover" references getting thrown about. I'm sorry but, if 2 people are in love and happy being together, who in the right mind would want to keep them a secret? As much as i don't like "bf" and "gf" references, bear in mind these are ONLY LABELS! These labels or words have no weight on them unless we evaluate the actions of someone. Do you call someone "muslim" if they kill people and bomb places and kill christians? Does that name "muslim" actually have any weight on them? No... it doesn't.

I severely have an issue with what defines marriage. What difference does it make if i referred to my lover as a partner or a husband? What about people who are pissed out of their heads, barely know each other, go to Las Vegas, get "married" in the presence of a priest after 5 minutes, and have sex. Is that marriage? Sorry, to me that is NOT marriage. And what exactly is a "marriage contract" anyway? "Document it". How so? How should it be documented? What constitutes documentation? A text between one another? A declaration of your love to the whole of the social network via Facebook? I know one day i'll probably HAVE to sign the register in the UK to declare myself as "married", but I really don't put alot of weight into that "requirement" to be "married". One and only "one" benefit I can see is when it comes to financial dealings - sharing property or assets that are owned by the couple. If "shit hits the fan" (lets be blunt), and the guy wanted to be a right arsehole, he could say right, thanks for the awesome relationship but i don't want to be with you anymore. Yes, it's heartbreak, yes it's painful. BUT, if you were a "married" couple (using my personal definition of marriage) and you DIDN'T own a house or have any shared ownership of anything financially, how is that different to the normal male/female couples you see out there?

People don't get into a relationship to have sex. People get into a relationship because they love each other. They feel they can be with this person for as long as possible. They might have their own idea of marriage in the sense that a marriage is between the man, the woman and God. A marriage is NOT kept secret. You declare each others love and a set of parents know about it. The person(s)'s friends know about it. They know you are taken and he is taken. The relationship status is "documented" in digital formats, not necessarily going to a registry office and signing your name on some piece of paper just because the "law" would deem you married. What about people who used to write on a piece of paper back in the 18ths that said "i am forever yours and you are forever mine. My life partner". What is a life partner? Is a life partner not a wife/husband? Which is more a marriage? An arranged marriage between 2 people who don't know eachother and do not LOVE eachother, yet they are just present in front of some imam and said "yeah we are married" with their parents around. OR, is a marriage when 2 people LOVE eachother, there are many witnesses/people/parents who know/acknowledge that these 2 people are TOGETHER for as long as they hopefully can be, and that it can be found "documented" in multiple places.

I think care needs to be taken into "how" a "marriage" can be documented, because I see multiple ways. Strip out the pagan crap, strip out giving a ring, having a white dress, saying vows and singing with the choir. Take that all out and what are you left with. There should NEVER be any secrecy in love UNLESS you fear for your life/well-being (parents might hate you/want to kill you/tear you apart), but even then, there will be other people in the world who will know your relationship status. If someone asks me why I didn't go to the registry office each time (i've had 3 partners in my 23 years of my life) I committed myself to a man, it would SIMPLY be because of how my parents and perhaps other people in society (who believe in just normal boyfriend/girlfriend crap) would perceive it. Also, perhaps the man might also not think that signing the registry is a declaration of marriage and maybe they had the same mentality as me. Maybe the important thing to both the man and female was that others knew what they were... and most importantly, God knew what they were and what was in their hearts.

As Huruf mentioned earlier and as I have mentioned above, the "marriage contract" in the sense of, for example, the UK where you sign a book, would be beneficial, is that the man can't screw you over with financial assets you share.

Let's not be a little close minded and not see how these things can be interpreted differently. A relationship or a marriage is not about sex or intimacy. It can be a part of it. It's not necessary either! But it is a small part of it, but not at all the most important.

Sorry if i side-tracked...

Peace,
Sushi

Okay Peace Taro, you know the quran doesn't tell us to have a big ceremony or anything or somekind of witness,right? and in god explains there's another way of marriage without dowry and that is commitment by oath, and i didn't dismiss wakas or your suggestions on some quranic verse i've read them all before i even started the thread!

The quran said there are wives that are lawful by dowry and oath, dowry seems to be another way to get married with your money and by a certain oath committed(without dowry) you can fall into the same category as married too

And how could ye take it when ye have gone in unto each other, and they have Taken from you a solemn covenant?

Plus a marriage should not be determined with papers, and marriage issues should be solved by the couple without lawyers or a law involved to reduce hardships in a certain divorce

And once again i did not reject the quranic verse that you and @wakas brought me, but i'm trying to say that the quran provides a way for a couple to be categorized as married without dowry and that is by oath which a couple does before entering in a relationship.

Please hold your suspicion how i follow my greedy desire and @Wakas suspicions about how i ignore the quran and how insencere i am, i'm only here to have a healthy non-emotional discussion

O you who have believed, avoid much assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin.

The reason i believe a gf/bf relationship is that i believe that the quran was supposed to evolve as time passes by and i believe that god uses flexible words to allow time and place to fit that person's situation.like in;

2431 "They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary."

god didn't told us what is necessary is but at some part of a certain country you need to be a little revealing if you want to fit in as time goes by this verse evolve, like wearing a hijab in the us, bad idea

and in O you who believe, intoxicants, and gambling, and altars, and arrows of chance are tools of affliction used by the devil. You shall avoid him so that you may be successful.

as time evolve

al-khamr(intoxicants) can mean drugs or any pharmaceutical ones that humans develop that can be a tool by the devil not just liquors

Al-Maisir(gamblin/games of chance) as time evolve it can be understood that it's just not gambling but any kind of game that involve luck and chance, for instance i got so hooked up in csgo that i forgot to salat, and in 591 al khamr and al-maisir are used to prevent believers from remebering god and contact prayer in todays world video games seems to be in the same cateogry as liquors because players have forgotten about salat after getting so

Al-Ansab(shrines) can mean any kind of place of worship not just altars but any kinds of place that involve a certain religious practice which by today used to manipulate their believers into doing evil things like spreading anti-semitism and such which probably all of us can relate

"Al-Azlam"(arrows of chance)in today's society, if they're in a tight situation they flip a coin to determined what they'll do next or any kind of decision making that uses luck even without arrows.

Now this is the reason why the quran was supposed to evolve, after i realized this my beliefs got stronger on how the quran was briliantly written and how god was such an amazing artist! But if these tools of devils can evolve after a lifetime then so can the definition of what marriage is, this is the reason why i believe a bf/gf= husband/wife according to the quran.

And i've realized also that to prevent diseases like AIDS to spread we cannot teach our kids that sex with your gf is sin or forbidden or go to hell because they'll just forget from time to time, but what we need is to teach them about loyalty, whether it's in a gf/bf relationship or legal marriage it's the loyalty, trust, and compassion that needs to be taught to to a kid, and with this technique when they're a fully grown mature adult they've already learned to respect the partner that has given her whole body and soul to and i guarantee STD's and any other disease will dicrease every year as long as we see pass out of our traditional views on what marriage is.

And i think that's about it, that's my reason on how the quran evolves after a centuries and so as the definition of marriage from time to time

Btw nice Keizer soze quote! love kevin spacey! and the movie(watched it 2 times and loved every bryan singers movie)

I have to say I agree with both you and Taro to some degree.

With me, I have had sexual relations with my "boyfriends", but i do not call them boyfriends. They are my partner, a partner who I hope I will be with for a very long time. To me, when I get to know a man, and our relationship turns from friendship to something more, I ask if he is willing to commit himself to me and me alone - God be our witness. To me, this is an oath that is taken out between us - is that no essentially what a marriage is? What can be deemed as a dowry? What is deemed as a marriage? I am quite against the whole idea that in order for you to be married you need a ring on your finger and signing some book. As Man Of Faith once said to me, a marriage is between you, the other person and God. AND, you must not be promiscuous or trying to keep your feelings/relationship hidden from anyone else i.e. family etc. If you are true to yourself and know your intentions, there shouldn't be a need to "fit" the quran into your understanding. It is simply a guide - one that you can choose to follow or not, and the consequences of following and not following it are obvious because of how life will manifest itself.

This is a part of a discussion me and MoF were having together a while back

"God does actually say that an oath taken verbally is valid but that a formal "marriage contact" is for the benefit of both. One does not even need any other witness than God for the verbal one. Although in some communities it may look negative because people simply cannot comprehend that a marriage oath can be taken straight with God. God recommends following the laws to keep the respect, even if God accepts it as it is. A marriage ceremony is not required, simply writing a marriage contract by law is sufficient. Many women, perhaps also men, appreciate something romantic though and a memory."

God knows what is in our hearts... If we do not wish to be with someone for a long period of time or for the foreseeable future, then I would say it is not correct/good for the soul to do such a thing. I, myself, have done that once in my life where I didn't know the person for very long and they took advantage. But I had no enjoyment out of it and i was a bit scared to say no or run... but i wouldn't say that's following ones desires (there were none...). The desire to be with someone i.e. be held, cuddled, talked to, and understood is a much more powerful feeling to believers and ones who wish to live a moral decent life than those who wish to take advantage and release their sexual desires on others. I always tell people "if your urge is that bloody high, you have your hands to sort yourself out if need be... atleast it will tame your feelings and prevent you from giving yourself away to someone you don't even love/want to be with long-term". Sorry to be graphic about it, but that's literally how i see it... And love should rise above lust.... but with love, does come the need to sometimes be intimate with a loved one, and God outlines how you should be dealing with the situation and what your thoughts/actions should be. Everyone gets desires, but we must control them because of the effect it can have on ourselves and others.

Peace,
Sushi

I've eaten lots of octopus, so it must be ok.

Very funny... Be sarcastic elsewhere but not on my thread. Or don't be an arse. Try that.

peace,

I think 596 is clear, and states no qualification. I dont know much about how to kill various catch of the sea, but I imagine that a knife through the brain of an octopus is one of the quickest/painless ways to do it. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to read it.

e.g. source

Peace Wakas,

Good information as usual. I'm glad that freezing is seen as the best option or shooting a spear through the brain also seems to make sense. Hate it when people boil lobsters alive..... The sound emitted disturbs me.

Much appreciated and thanks also to noon waalqalami for spotting the other verses I missed .

Thanks peace

Hi there,

Thanks for that. But I am do not have faith in that "Torah" and I have a different opinion on what the Torah actually is. I was hoping of more of an opinion taken directly from the Quran using the verses necessary to do so.

Thanks.

Just to interject. The Qur'an doesn't talk about the bible. "Injeel" (literal translation is Good News) is not the bible. I've read a lot of the bible and tbh it just doesn't make sense .... I mean there are some parts that seem fair but some parts are just so far off righteousness and logic and are just filled with paganism and personification of God its insane...

Peace

Thank you for typing it out while in that situation. I am basically having a similar discussion about words in my Qur'an thread which you should join in on, we're stuck on the first line "In the Name of Allah" and I am making commentary basically that is related to what you are saying.

"worship (n.) Look up worship at Dictionary.com
Old English wor?scip, wur?scip (Anglian), weor?scipe (West Saxon) "condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown," from weor? "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful "honorable" (c.1300).

serve (v.) Look up serve at Dictionary.com
late 12c., "to render habitual obedience to," also "minister, give aid, give help," from Old French servir "to do duty toward, show devotion to; set table, serve at table; offer, provide with," from Latin servire "be a servant, be in service, be enslaved;" figuratively "be devoted; be governed by; comply with; conform; flatter," originally "be a slave," related to servus "slave," perhaps from Etruscan (compare Etruscan proper names Servi, Serve, Latinized as Servius).

By c.1200 also as "to be in the service of, perform a service for; attend upon, be personal servant to; be a slave; owe allegiance to; officiate at Mass or other religious rites;" from early 13c. as "set food at table;" mid-14c. as "to wait on (customers)." From late 14c. as "treat (someone or something) in some fashion." To serve (someone) right "to treat as he deserves" is recorded from 1580s.
He no schuld neuer wond
To seruen him fro fot to hond

Sense of "be useful, be beneficial, be suitable for a purpose or function" is from early 14c.; that of "take the place or meet the needs of, be equal to the task" is from late 14c.; that of "suffice" is from mid-15c. Meaning "render active military service" is from 1510s. Sporting sense, in tennis, badminton, etc., first recorded 1580s. Legal sense "present" (a writ, warrant,etc.), "give legal notice of" is from early 15c."

---

slave (v.) Look up slave at Dictionary.com
1550s, "to enslave," from slave (n.). The meaning "work like a slave" is first recorded 1719. Related Slaved; slaving.
slave (n.) Look up slave at Dictionary.com
late 13c., "person who is the chattel or property of another," from Old French esclave (13c.), from Medieval Latin Sclavus "slave" (source also of Italian schiavo, French esclave, Spanish esclavo), originally "Slav" (see Slav); so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.
This sense development arose in the consequence of the wars waged by Otto the Great and his successors against the Slavs, a great number of whom they took captive and sold into slavery.
Meaning "one who has lost the power of resistance to some habit or vice" is from 1550s. Applied to devices from 1904, especially those which are controlled by others (compare slave jib in sailing, similarly of locomotives, flash bulbs, amplifiers). Slave-driver is attested from 1807; extended sense of "cruel or exacting task-master" is by 1854. Slate state in U.S. history is from 1812. Slave-trade is attested from 1734.

Old English Wealh "Briton" also began to be used in the sense of "serf, slave" c.850; and Sanskrit dasa-, which can mean "slave," apparently is connected to dasyu- "pre-Aryan inhabitant of India." Grose's dictionary (1785) has under Negroe "A black-a-moor; figuratively used for a slave," without regard to race. More common Old English words for slave were ?eow (related to ?eowian "to serve&quot and ?r?l (see thrall). The Slavic words for "slave" (Russian rab, Serbo-Croatian rob, Old Church Slavonic rabu) are from Old Slavic *orbu, from the PIE root *orbh- (also source of orphan), the ground sense of which seems to be "thing that changes allegiance" (in the case of the slave, from himself to his master). The Slavic word is also the source of robot.

---

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibadah

"The Arabic word ibadah (&#1577 or ibada (usually translated "worship&quot is connected with related words literally meaning "slavery", and has connotations of obedience, submission, and humility. The word linguistically means "obedience with submission"."

"In terms of Islam, ibadah is the obedience, submission, and devotion to Allah (God) along with the ultimate love for Him. Muslims believe that ibadah is the reason for the existence of all humanity. That is, Muslims believe that all people exist only to submit to Allah."

---

I think the modern sense of "serve" can be highly misleading for modern audiences, since it really invokes a different sense in readers or listeners today, where they imagine something is being "serviced" or "given stuff".

We are a slave are we not? It's a bit like when people in England say "we are a slave to the system!". They mean that we are controlled by it and are following its laws because we cannot escape (bit like tax evasion).

This is how I mean serve as a slave. Guess you could use worship but I always think it refers to reverence of a deity... Does the creator need to be reverenced? Think not.

It isn't inherently pointless to me, because guess what! I am learning from you (adapting). So it may be pointless to you, if you're getting nothing out of it, but I'm getting LOTS out of this, I mean LOTS, and I am so grateful for that.

So if you're annoyed with what you may deem my provocation in the form of posts which make your eyes bleed, lets turn the tables, I come to you as a humble student now, and I wish for you, Good (Pokemon) Master, Sifu, to inform me of some things, by your great wisdom which you have thus acquired of the Qur'an from "having studied it for a few years".

How do you "serve" what has no needs? Oh mighty one, full of knowledge and many filled (Pokemon) balls. Is it perhaps, oh daring one of great choice, that you might be getting arbitrarily hung up on words? What does, Oh tremendous shaker of (Pokemon) balls, "worship" and "serve" mean to you? In my ignorance, oh decider between Squirtle and abra, I deemed that such would mean surrender, and the other would similarly mean the activities of a slave who does whatever the master commands, bound and fettered to the will of the master, pulled up when the master commands. Do you deem it instead, oh vast pocketed one, that you somehow give something to the one who is free of needs?

Educate me please! I would love to know about your deen, and I am learning, even if you are not learning, oh Judger of Balls (with Pokemon inside)!

Lol you love pokemon don't you! It's been
a while I've had that pic.

When I say serve

Definition of serve
perform duties or services for (another person or an organization).

When I say serve I mean we perform duties for the creator. These duties only benefit OURSELVES (<- take not on emphasis) not the creator. It needs absolutely nothing from us, it self sustains...

Reason I believe worship is the wrong word to use is because it is usually used towards a deity of some sort. It is also seen a lot when people perform rituals to their deity I.e. worship Mr A by walking round a black "cube" 7 times... You know? P.

(Charizard was my favourite xD)

And it educates me in the sense that it keeps me on my toes.

Apologies for any typos in advance. I write this wearing gloves squeezed between tonnes of people..

Peace

I don't care too much what the Qur'an says, as I've been saying, that is why the translations don't matter to me much, because if the translations said "You have power, God is powerless and sits back while you are free and create your own thoughts and will" I would reject them, and if the Qur'an didn't confirm the truth that I already was informed of, I would reject it, meaning I am only using the Qur'an to back me up as I can use the other scriptures, but what I am saying remains the same.

Why are you getting offended by any of this? I am not intending on frustrating you or insulting you in any way, so what are you appearing to get all flustered about? If you agree what everything I am saying then that is great, no problem, and I am only showing these things and saying more for whoever might read it.

Did I say I know who is a believer or not? Allah knows what he creates, I don't know anything except what Allah tells me, and that can be things that make me look like a fool too, so I didn't mean to seem to say everyone is a disbeliever or whatever you are accusing me of.

Why do you insist on saying "free choice" "but not free will", nothing you have is "free", you can't "choose" anything ultimately, nor have you ever except as God chose for you, and made for you, but that is the higher truth, the immediate appearance is obviously like you are saying, that we appear to choose and do as we desire. So if we are not disagreeing, why are you getting angry at me? Just because I am repeating and you think I wouldn't repeat if I agreed with you? If we have no disagreement then that is fine.

You and I both are "messengers" in the sense that all information is coming from the same source, even if it is wrong action or information, and we are proven by each other and our interactions and conduct as to what we are.

Why do you say that I have no knowledge or understanding if you are also claiming to agree with what I am saying? Why are you making a fuss about translations if my point was only to demonstrate it is saying what I am presenting as well?

You can freely ignore the things in brackets, aren't you aware that the things in brackets are not actually in the verses? They are usually imposed by the translators and are like a commentary inside.

I got my quotes from www.islamawakened.com/quran and I really don't care about the translations, and especially not about the things in brackets they put, so why are you freaking out about it so much? I just quoted it how they had it on that website, you can ignore the brackets always, they are in brackets because they are not actually in the verse, so why are you acting like they are saying it is in the verse? They put it in brackets for that reason, and who even cares? I was quoting numerous examples from the Qur'an, do you disagree with absolutely everything I quoted yet claim you are saying the same thing as well and know what I am saying and agree and also claim that I know nothing and have no understanding either?

Why are you getting angry and don't want to talk to me? What have I said that is wrong at all? Please relax and feel free to talk to me, I am not your enemy.

Mateeee no-one is getting angry mannn!!! I'm not angry, however your posts do make my eyes bleed. Paragraphing and bitesize chunks is always recommended D.

I agree with you up to a certain degree but I'm referring to your lack of knowledge in regards to the Qur'an, not your general understanding - your knowledge on the actual meanings of the Qur'an (in my opinion which is an opinion) is poor, partly because I've studied it for a few years and I know half the verses you say and half of what you write yourself (I.e. worshipping Allah when really you should be serving a creator... The creator is not a deity to worship).

No one is getting angry dude... Trust me it takes much more than that to get me angry. I was saying our discussion is inherently pointless as you don't understand what I'm saying.

If you really want to know what I'm on about, give this article a read if you have some spare time which it looks like you do...

Perhaps you may understand my point of view after this.

http//www.free-minds.org/free-choice

Peace.

How did I speak as if I know you? I quoted a real quote of you, and I said "may be deluded into thinking" not that you ARE, I "may be deluded" too! If you've been reading what I've been writing, I said I'm in this same boat as you.

What is wrong with what I am saying? Who attaches the "guilt" to you? Who invented the "guilt"? Who is doing all of it from the start? That is Allah. How silly is it that people think they produced anything at all. It is Allah who has made you the way you are and the way anyone is, and it is Allah who makes you guilty or innocent. Are you the one capable of attaching anything to yourself? You can't do it, Allah creates whatever Allah wants to create. How many examples from the Qur'an have I shown that make that so clear? If the concept can not penetrate, then it is only the miracle of Allah that this is made so hard to understand.

I know that on the immediate level, the level of appearance, the level of limited information exclusive to us, it appears that we are doing everything, we are deciding, and all that. With that understanding and appearance, we should do whatever good we can do and worship Allah and ask for help and all that stuff. Yet I was just showing you a deeper thing in the Qur'an, if you can not handle such a deeper reality of total Surrender then it doesn't matter, nothing changes with what I'm saying, you and I still appear to have decision making ability and should use it as best we can. It is a normal and generally silly reaction to what I say for people to think I'm suggesting somehow that they just do nothing, I am not suggesting that at all, I am only informing you of something, and if you can not handle it, then don't worry about it, because if you knew it or you don't know it, it doesn't change your impression of making decisions and having to do the right thing for your own sake, it would just give a person a more peaceful and clear understanding of Surrender and reality, where it isn't chance at all, but Allah doing everything. That is a comfort to the believers, and a discomfort for everyone else, apparently.

Hahaha if i can't handle it? Mate, i'm done. You do not comprehend simple English that I am writing. The NUMBER of times i have said that i know everything comes from God and we only control what we feel we can control within our realm which is WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID! Jeez whatever man... go and study the quran and instead of grabbing translations and plonking them everywhere and trying to work from them why don't you try and verfiy those translations are correct in the first place? Or is it you who can't be bothered?

So basically you are condemning everything to be an unbeliever since you insist that it is a comfort to the believers and discomfort to everyone else? Who the heck are you to judge if someone is a believer or not? Last time i checked you weren't God... unless you want to make yourself out to be, or do you wish to be a prophet of some sort? Read my posts - I understand God controls everything HOWEVER we IN OUR REALM feel that we have freedom of choice. If you even bothered to read properly you would have noticed a few pages back where i was talking about having free choice but not free will - do you not comprehend?

This discussion between you and I is pointless though and I don't wish to continue speaking to someone about the quran when they clearly have NO knowledge of proper translations to start with! You quote 2149, hah! "". You steal that translation and preach it as if it is correct. Show me ANYWHERE in that verse where it says "in prayer"? You can't - so perhaps go take a closer look at the verses, do your research, figure out what is actually being said (or atleast NEAR enough to it) then come back to me. Good luck.

Peace

You speak as if you know me and have some kind of right to judge. Hah...

One word - interpolation - go figure. I'm done answering. I shall discuss with whoever else wishes to talk.

Peace.

Essentially I'm in agreement.

I would think it is disastrous to remove the guilt from oneself over deeds that are not so good and instead say that God is responsible for them, mostly for one's own spiritual struggle to improve oneself.

Salaam

Perhaps its not guilt that should be felt though mof as it could potentially harm yourself (or suffering with guilt to an unhealthy stage is what I mean). Maybe awareness in what you do and urgency to improve oneself is required. I and always will disagree with those who say to everything "God did this" or "God did that". It's like someone going to mcdonalds n they come back n you say "where did you get the food from?" N they respond with "from God"...= it's like yeah ok kinda stating the unnecessarily obvious here... We know everything comes from one source, should we become obsessive with its use in every sentence? Yes, if God does not will it then it won't happen, but we are responsible for ourselves and our own actions... We don't dump it all on God. It is an escape route and an excuse to give others to get away with murder.

"I killed a man but actually God killed that man". There's a fine line that has to be distinguished and its just common sense to not be so nonsensical in our logic.

The Monotheist Group (The Quran A Monotheist Translation)
5105 O you who believe, you are responsible for yourselves; none who are misguided can harm you if you are guided. To God is your return, all of you, and then He will inform you of what you have done.

Indeed, it is a spiritual struggle to better oneself. We shouldn't just "leave it to God" as people word it and he in the dark expecting for God to better ourselves. Obviously if we do not try to better ourselves then we are clearly not giving thought to life, and of course God has willed it because God knows all things, but God can also will that we improve - the option is there... God is in control / seer of all... People need to not get so dragged down on how it's all down to God when ultimately it is but we are always given a free choice in what to do... Or we from our perspective see it as freedom of choice bearing in mind God is aware and knower of all starting points, ending points and the paths in between.

Peace peace

2868
Thy Lord bringeth to pass what He willeth and chooseth. They have never any choice. Glorified be Allah and Exalted above all that they associate!

7630
But you cannot will it unless God wills for, behold, God is indeed all-seeing, wise.

8129
But ye shall not will it except as God wills,- the Cherisher of the Worlds.

3936
Is not Allah sufficient for His servant? And they seek to frighten you with those besides Him; and whomsoever Allah makes err, there is no guide for him. (Not your "logic" not your "reason" Allah can completely fool you, and is fooling you even now, and me too)
And whomever God guides, there is not for him anyone who leads astray. Is not God Almighty, The Possessor of Requital?
(Do you think that someone can come and lead you astray besides Allah alone? Nor can any guide you, save Allah alone)

You have no power, is this what you find hard to accept? You have no power. How can you Surrender if you deem yourself a little god who makes decisions and Allah follows after your decisions and you make Allah do things, you make Allah send you to hell, you make Allah send you to paradise, you make Allah by the deeds you will yourself to do, this or that? You decide where you want to walk? You decide where you want to sleep? If you want to kill someone, it is in your power to kill them?

1049
Say I have no power to hurt or benefit myself, save that which Allah willeth. For every nation there is an appointed time. When their time cometh, then they cannot put it off an hour, nor hasten (it).

7188
Say "It is not within my power to bring benefit to, or avert harm from, myself, except as God may please. And if I knew that which is beyond the reach of human perception, abundant good fortune-would surely have fallen to my lot, and no evil would ever have touched me. I am nothing but a warner, and a herald of glad tidings unto people who will believe."

Right.....

You fail to understand me freedomstands. In fact, you have demed everyone here people that partner God. You are too wrapped up in the whole "God wills and you don't" that you fail time and time again to see my point, you don't even take my constructive feedback into account about your translations.

We choose our own Destiny and path otherwise this life wouldn't be a test, but I can confirm it is. And we only choose our path where God has willed it, God let's us do what we wish. When God says "you cannot be guided unless Allah wills" or "you can't eat that unless God wills".

You can put "God has willed me to..." At the start of each sentence as you see fit that I write... If it makes you happy. I know what's in my mind so I dint have to keep saying God has made me do and God has made m do that... That's wrong.