Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
T

tanty

@tanty
About
Posts
13
Topics
0
Shares
0
Groups
0
Followers
0
Following
0

Posts

Recent Best Controversial

  • Amazed!!!
    T tanty

    Free-minds as the name implied, consist of multiple/many personalities with diverse view and cultural background.
    Some of folks here might try to resolve on rituality aspect or in your word 'engineering religion' although I would to add that some folks here really try to 're-engineer sunni religion'.

    But personally for me, I don't believe that the above mentioned things (rituality aspect) is important.
    As Quran also stated in chapter "Al-Hajj" / "The Festival" verse 67
    To every People We have appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow let them not then dispute with thee on the matter, but do thou invite (them) to thy Lord for thou art assuredly on the Right Way.

    Travel around the world, and you can find thousands of different rites and ceremonies performed by different cultures.
    And you can also find hundred different names of THE CREATOR, THE MAINTAINER OF THE UNIVERSE.
    But in essence / conceptual layer there are lot of similarities.

    I've come to a conclusion that Quran IS NOT a book of religion / sectarian culture.
    It is a book of guidance towards right conduct for humankind and it is very SECULAR.

    "This is the book in it guidance for sure for those who are righteous" (21)
    "Those who believe and those who are Judaism and Christians and Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (262)

    Notice there are no statement whatsoever in the Quran that says This is the book about Islam Religion or this is the book of a new religion or this is the ultimate book about religion. The objective of the Quran book is clear to provide guidance to humankind, whatever religion / sect and cultural background they are.

    And the Quran did said that "There were nothing new here that hasn't been revealed before". (4143)

    And I would agree with you that some who try to invent / derived a religion / sectarian culture based on the Quran is surely be at lost, as it will be yet another sectarian movement.

    The true task of any of those who had been inspired by the Quran is stated in 2267,

    INVITE PEOPLE TO BECAME CLOSER TO GOD

    and NOT
    INVITE PEOPLE TO JOIN YOUR RELIGION
    OR
    CONVERT PEOPLE TO YOUR RELIGION

    Salam / Peace

    I agree with you on all these points.

    Me too )

    Introduce Yourself

  • The evolution hoax (solid arguments against the ape-theory)
    T tanty

    Salaam all,

    http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF3JFCJQASg

    The great debate is over ...

    Archeology & History

  • Ramadan
    T tanty

    Salaam all,

    Just want to give another point of view about Ramadhan from Mr. Aidid Safar.
    http//www.aididsafar.com/fast.html

    Wassalam,

    Islamic Calendar & Ramadhan.

  • stay or leave???
    T tanty

    At last, someone has asked the correct question.

    Salaam salaam4usa,
    Can you answer that question?

    Marriage & Divorce

  • A REPLY TO ANDYA PRIMANDA
    T tanty

    Thank you, but no thanks.

    What is the nature of God?

  • A REPLY TO ANDYA PRIMANDA
    T tanty

    Salaam,

    I will say the same to both of you JK and Farida.

    Beware of scientists who don't believe that GOD is exist!

    What is the nature of God?

  • A REPLY TO ANDYA PRIMANDA
    T tanty

    Arguments against evolution theories

    Pierre Paul Grass? is the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the book Evolution of Living Organisms. As he writes
    Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. . . .The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.

    After setting out the impossibility of random mutations having met all the needs of the living world, Grass? goes on to say There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.

    Prof. Derek Ager, who is the former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea)
    It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student . . . have now been debunked.

    Dr. Robert Milikan is a Nobel Prize winner and renowned evolutionist
    The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.

    Dr. Lewis Thomas, the author of Lives of a Cell
    Biology needs a better word than error for the driving force in evolution. . . . I cannot make my peace with the randomness doctrine; I cannot abide the notion of purposelessness and blind chance in nature. And yet I do not know what to put in its place for the quieting of my mind.

    Jerry Coyne is of the Chicago University Evolution and Ecology Department
    We conclude?unexpectedly?that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.

    H. S. Lipson, the British physicist
    I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example).I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin?s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.

    Gregory Alan Pesely is Professor of Philosophy
    One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology.

    Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of London?s Natural History Museum, editor of the museum?s journal and author of the book Evolution
    Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view?well, let?s callt non-evolutionary?was last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years, I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long. . . So for the last few weeks, I?ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

    The question is this ?Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true? Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?? I tried this question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago? a very prestigious body of evolutionists?and all I got there was silence for a long time. But eventually one person said, ?I do know one thing?it ought not to be taught in high school.?

    Dr. Albert Fleischman, zoologist at the University of Erlangen
    The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.

    W. R. Thompson is Head of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in - Ottawa
    This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unableto define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.

    E. O. Wiley of City University of New York?s, Ichthyology Department and the American Museum of Natural History, expresses his thoughts on Norman Macbeth?s book Darwin Retried
    Macbeth suggests that we try to look at evolution with new eyes, that we admit to the public, and, if needed, to ourselves, that we have misgivings about Darwinism, and the synthetic theory, that we open debate.

    Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine
    Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values?each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature . . . this gap is an ?embarrassment,? something to be explained away.

    Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, is a Swedish geneticist and Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden
    My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint.

    Paul Lemoine, a former Director of the National Museum of Natural History at Paris
    The theories of evolution in which our student youth was cradled constitute a dogma that all the world continues to teach. But each in his own specialty, zoologist or botanist, comes to the conclusion that none of the available explanations is adequate. . . . The result of this summary is that the theory of evolution is impossible.

    Norman Macbeth, a Harvard-trained lawyer, has made the study of Darwinian theory his avocation for many years
    Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.

    Prof. Cemal Yldrm, a Turkish evolutionist, is Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University and visiting scholar at California State University in Northridge
    No scientist, whether be Darwinist or neo-Darwinist, can suggest the notion that the theory of evolution is proven.
    That?s right, evolution theory is not proven.

    What is the nature of God?

  • The evolution hoax (solid arguments against the ape-theory)
    T tanty

    The collapse of the evolution
    http//www.harunyahya.tv/videoDetail/Lang/4/Product/1245/THE_COLLAPSE_OF_EVOLUTION

    Fossils Have Discredited Evolution
    http//www.harunyahya.tv/videoDetail/Lang/4/Product/4093/FOSSILS_HAVE_DISCREDITED_EVOLUTION

    Archeology & History

  • A REPLY TO ANDYA PRIMANDA
    T tanty

    The collapse of the evolution
    http//www.harunyahya.tv/videoDetail/Lang/4/Product/1245/THE_COLLAPSE_OF_EVOLUTION

    Fossils Have Discredited Evolution
    http//www.harunyahya.tv/videoDetail/Lang/4/Product/4093/FOSSILS_HAVE_DISCREDITED_EVOLUTION

    What is the nature of God?

  • Salaat includes kneeling and bowing
    T tanty

    Salaam,

    The last phrase in 2226 is war-rukka?is-sujud, which means those who humble themselves consenting. The religionists have mangled the meaning here and say it means to physically bow and prostrate. It embroils a regimented body movement only worthy of pagan rituals.

    Physical bowing and prostrating have become the critical components of the body movements in the Arab religion. Without these pantomimed movements their rituals will become redundant and useless. They believe the instruction of these body movements were ordained by God by virtue of 2125 and 2226.

    For many centuries, non-Arabs who have mastered the Arabic language have allowed themselves to be subjugated by the religionists without verifying simple words by reference to other verses in the Quran. Having discovered this, I feel sorry for the Muslims who perform these silly body movements without verifying the correctness of their understanding from their own Book.

    In the Quran the word sujud means to consent or to agree to something. The religionists have consistently said that in many verses of the Quran this word does not mean a physical act of prostration, but they try to make it an exception when the word is used to refer to human beings. They realise it is ridiculous to say the sun, the moon, the stars, and the trees prostrate themselves to God when the Quran uses the same word sujud.

    Qor-laqol-insan a?lama-hul bayan ash-shamsu wal-qomaror bil-husban wal-najmu wal-sajaru yasjudan was-sama?a ro-fa?aha wa-watho?a mi-zan. (553-7)

    He created the human. He teaches him clearly. The sun and the moon with calculated movements, and the stars and the trees are all consenting (yasjudan) and the skies, which He raised with a just balance. (553-7)

    God created human beings and He teaches them clearly that the movements of the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky are on their own consent (yasjudan). This word is derived from the root word sajada, which means to give consent or to agree to something or to admit something is true. Perhaps the religionists and their Arabic scholars may want to describe how the sun and the moon prostrate to God before they insist that everyone should prostrate physically to the Lord of the Universe.

    In the Arab religion they say the word ruk?u means bowing. Again, this is another misconception propagated by the religionists.

    The word ruk?u means to humble oneself, to lower oneself in humility. There is absolutely no verse in the Quran which says a committed man must bow down physically at specific times of the day.

    Woe on that day to those who lied. And when they are told to be humble (irka?au) they do not humble themselves (laa yar ka?uun) (7747-4

    Both irka?au and yar ka?uun derive from the root ruk?u. A person?s sincerity is judged by his humbleness not through his actions of bowing up and down.

    The Quran narrates the history of Mary who was about to receive news from God. God transformed the energy to appear as a perfect man telling her to give her consent and to humble herself with those who humble themselves in accepting the news, she was told

    O Mary, Surely God has chosen you and He purified you (tho-hara) and He raised you above all the women in the world. O Mary, obey God and give your consent (sujudi) and humble (ruk?u) yourself with those who humble (ruk?u) themselves.? (342-43)

    She humbled herself to accept the news. But it was strange to her that she could possibly conceive a son as a chaste girl. So she questioned the human-looked energy

    She said, ?How could I have a son, when no man has touched me?? Then she was told, ?God creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it, ?Be? and it is?. (346)

    Mary is not being asked to ritually or physically bow and prostrate with anyone whilst listening to the news.

    http//mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/ruk%E2%80%99u-does-not-mean-physical-bowing/

    http//mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/sujud-does-not-mean-physical-prostration/

    Salat & Zakat

  • My story
    T tanty

    When i get richer, God willing, i'll build you a mosque myself, God willing.

    The religionists and their priests are not aware that the word masjid is used in the Reading to refer to the people who existed long before the time of the Last Prophet and that it does not refer to mosques or buildings of any kind. They totally ignore the significance of the history of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus in the Reading (all of whom consented to God) as though these people were not worthy of recognition in Islam. Before the Arabs became Muslims, there were many others who consented themselves to God?s decrees. However, there are equally many of them who abused these decrees.

    wallazi taqqozu masjidan dhiro-ror wakuf-ran watab-riqan bainal mu?minin-na wa-irsodan liman ha-robal-lah wa-rosulahu min-qoblu (9107)

    And there are those who accept their consent to cause detrimental and disbelief, and they created dissent among those who believed, while accommodating those who fought God and His messengers from before. (9107)

    The phrase min-qobla indicates an event that took place in the past (literally from before). In other words, before the time of the Last Prophet the masjidan1 or ?their consented? decision in upholding God?s decree was corrupted to create problems and disbelief.

    The word masjid is a common term used in the Reading to refer to the consent between God and His servants and this word was used for other people long before the time of Muhammad.

    Furthermore, there is no historical evidence to support the existence of any physical mosque patronised by Muslims before the Reading was revealed. The Jews and the Christians call their houses of worship synagogues and churches. According to the religionists, Islam was introduced to the world only after the Reading was revealed to the Last Prophet (when in fact the Reading states that the true Islam was initiated by Abraham, i.e. long before Moses).

    The Arab masters further boast that the first mosque is one built - allegedly by the Prophet - at a special site chosen by his pet camel in Medina twelve years after he received the revelation. On the other hand, they render 2144 of the Reading to mean that the Last Prophet was commanded by God to change the direction of the ritual prayers from Jerusalem to the sacred mosque in Mecca when in fact by their own admission there was no physical mosque in Mecca at that time. Perhaps, only the religionists are able to explain such contradictions.

    In the Arab religion they do not cite any history of any physical building called a mosque, or the mosques of God or the ?sacred mosque? during the time of Noah, Abraham, Moses or Jesus.

    Let us quote the remaining portion of the passage in 9107

    Wala-yahlifun-na ain-arodna il-laa husna. Wal-lah-yashadu, in-nahum la-kazibun.

    And they swear, ?It is not our intention except to do good.? And God bears witness that indeed they are liars.

    Whilst it would be illogical to assume that the people were lying about the mosques we can safely say that they were lying about what they have consented to in observing God?s consented decrees - or the masa-jidal-lah.

    The people in the verse claim that their intentions are honourable. But God says He bears witness that they were lying about their intentions. It is hard to imagine how someone could abuse a physical mosque. The section continues

    La-taqum fihi abadan, lamasjidan usisa ?ala-taqwa min-aw-wali yau-mi ahaq-qu an-taqum-ma fihi. Fihi rijalun yuhib-bun aiya-tha-thoh-haru. Wal-lah yuhib-bul mu-dhoh-hirin (910

    Do not sustain in it forever. Indeed, consenting based upon observation from the first day of the truth is secure for you to partake in it. There are men who wish to cleanse themselves. And God is pleased with those who cleanse themselves. (910

    The objective of consenting oneself to the consented decree or masjid in 9108 becomes clear. It is to cleanse people. If the religionists insist their mosques can cleanse people, what is wrong in saying the temples, synagogues and churches can do the same thing?

    It is also important to look at 9108 which says, la masjidan usisa ala taqwa minal-aw-wali yaumi aHaqu

    la masjidan Indeed, consenting

    usisa based

    alataqwa upon observations

    minal from

    aw-wali the first

    yaumi day

    aHaqu of the truth

    The word ?minal aw-wali yau-mi aHaqu? means ?from the first day of the truth?. This is something even the religionists cannot explain. Does the word from the ?first day of the truth? refer to the engagement of the architects and the contractors to put up a building correctly or does it mean to agree or to to give our consent to the truth upon observations of the Quran? Nobody finds any truth in the houses of worship?

    The fact is these verses stress the importance of not abusing God?s consented decrees after it was established with the truth. The decrees encompass personal commitments in the doing of the good deeds in our routine life in society, to parents, families, relatives, close associates, orphans, the poor, the needy and to fulfil the promises we make, and to continue to maintain our obligations and keep them pure. We must remain steadfast in the face of adversity, hardship and war.

    The fundamentals of God?s consented decrees are

    • belief in the One unseen God
    • belief in the life after death
    • Do good deeds while living in this world

    That is all it says in 262 of the Quran. Anybody can do this without any mosques or houses of worship. In the same verse it assures those who observe them ?Have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve?.

    There is no need for anyone to go to a physical building to search for religious ?experts? to learn the methodology on how to believe in the One God, the Hereafter or how and what to do in discharging their duty doing good deeds.

    Taken from this book Mental Bondage In The Name Of God

    Introduce Yourself

  • Salaat includes kneeling and bowing
    T tanty

    The Arab ritual prayer

    These simplified instructions will enable anyone to complete the dance of the Arab prayer ritual. Born to a Muslim family, the author personally performed this ritual countless times throughout his life before he called it a day many years ago. I must remind the reader, it is vital that every utterance in the Arab prayer ritual be in Arabic. The
    English-speaking Muslims may not even say a simple phrase like, ?Praise be to You my Lord? in English.

    Here, is a summary of the basic procedure for those who have never performed an Arab prayer ritual

    ? First, wash out your mouth with water, blow your nose, wash your face, your hands, your forehead, your ears, your neck, and your legs and then speak to God in Arabic and tell Him you are going to ritually pray to Him.
    ? Find a spot and make sure you face the stone idol in Mecca. If you are in Japan the direction is westwards, but if you are in Europe the direction is the eastwards, obviously.
    ? Then, stand properly with the hands folded on your belly. Various sects have their own specific ways of
    placing the hands, and the tutored eye can tell a lot about your doctrine just by looking at the way you hold this position, though variations abound throughout the mosques of the world.
    ? Then pronounce ?Allah hu akbar?. The word akbar means bigger. So it is ?God is bigger?. (Interestingly, the phrase Allah hu akbar is not found anywhere in the Reading). Then recite some Arabic verses (which you may or may not
    comprehend).

    The prayer starts with a recitation of a set of speech formulated -The recitations differ from one sect to another. The opening passages of the prayer do not come from the Qur?an except when they utter part of 679, 6161-162. Abraham and Muhammad uttered these verses to the people but the Arabs address them to God- by the religionists before beginning the compulsory recital of Al Fatiha (the first surah, consisting of seven verses). Typically, this will be followed by a short surah from toward the end of the Reading. Surahs 111, 112, 113 and 114 are particular favourites as they are very short and generally considered the minimum (along with Al Fatiha) that a Muslim should be expected to memorise -When people are willing to memorise without understanding it is a sign of their willingness to be shackled without thinking. If we train a parrot to say 'good morning', it will say good morning to people even during the night- The religionists say they are praying to God. Yet each of these last surahs begins with an instruction to the Prophet ?Qul!? or ?Say!? followed by exactly what it was he was required to say. However these verses which begin with a direct instruction are habitually addressed to God in the Arab prayer ritual. For example

    Say! He is God, the only one. The absolute God. He never begets, nor was He ever begotten. There is none equal to Him. (surah 111)

    There are many verses in the Reading that start with an imperative addressing a second person commanding him to recite to a third person or persons. That is the nature of the Revelation. However, the religionists teach their followers to recite these orders back to God in their prayer ritual. In one of their favourite surahs for this purpose, they tell God

    Say! O you disbelievers, I do not serve what you serve, nor are you serving what I am serving. I will never serve what you are serving, nor will you ever serve what I am serving. To you is your own way, and to me is my own way. (surah 109)

    However, if they choose to recite surah 108 in their prayer, they will tell God

    We have given you many bounties. In appreciation, you shall serve your Lord and be charitable. Your enemy will henceforth be the loser. (surah 10

    Obviously, not all non-Arabs know what they are saying to God in their ritual prayers. Maybe there is some excuse.
    But even native Arabic-speaking Arabs including religionists and Arabic scholars say these things to God every day!

    Having finished the liturgy of (frequently inappropriate) verses, you should raise both hands and say ?allah-hu-akbar? or ?God is bigger? again.

    Then you bow forward for a few seconds before standing erect and calling out ?God is bigger? again. Then you prostrate ? placing your forehead on the floor ? and recite more Arabic words. Then you should sit up and then prostrate again before rising to the standing position. This procedure represents one unit of prayer. The number of units and whether what you say will be aloud or quiet will depend on a number of factors devised by the religionists such as time of day and ?type? of prayer. Generally, (although there are variations depending on whether you perform the ?extra? night prayers) a Muslim is required to bow seventeen times and prostrate thirty-four times in a twenty-four hour period.

    At the end of any one particular set of units, you are to sit and send greetings to Prophet Abraham and Muhammad
    and their families (no need to wait for them to reply, however), then greet the ?two angels sitting on both of your shoulders? (again, no reply is expected).

    Reading clearly says

    You cannot be heard by those in the graves. (3522)

    Yet, the followers of the Arab religion the world over are greeting only the dead prophet Muhammad and their families five times a day! We are not supposed to make any distinction between the prophets -As for those who believe in God and His messengers, they make no distinction among any of them. God will recompense them. God is Forgiver and merciful. (4152)- but Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, David, Solomon, Moses, Aaron, Zachariah, John (Yahya), and Jesus were somehow left out of this private club. How very rude.

    Sol-laa (commitments) is not ritual prayer

    When looking at other words which have had their meanings twisted in the Qur?anic context, we can usually get back to the true meaning by looking at extant words in modern Arabic surrounding the root. Zakaa is a good example. All the root meanings of zakaa refer to purity and sincerity. This can be verified by looking at any good dictionary. As we shall see ? the Arab religion has created the un-Qur?anic tax and ascribed this to the word zakaa. The deception is relatively easy to spot since the key meanings of the word zakaa have remained intact.

    Sol-laa is no different. Before we continue let me clarify why I use the word Sol-laa instead of the common term Salaat. Firstly, when we read the Reading in Arabic it is always pronounced as ?Aqimus-Sol-laa- taa-wa-aatuz-Zakaa? ? nobody says ?Aqimus-Salaat-taa-wa-aatuz-Zakat?. This is evident even during the call of prayer. All over the world - the person who announces the prayer will shout on top of his voice with ?Hai-ya-?alas-Sol-laa? ? never as ?Hai-ya-?alas-Salaat?. Muslims know this word is pronounced the way it is spelt in the Reading - Arabs or not.

    This is only to demonstrate that - there is a difference between God?s Arabic in the Reading and the Arabic language spoken by the Arabs, and for this study I have chosen to use the former i.e. God?s Arabic

    When we look up the word in a dictionary we find a word that is mispronounced by the Muslim world ? Salaat ? under the root S-l-w. It is worth noting that this root has no other meaning directly ascribed to it other than the ?ritual prayer?. There is nothing else.

    Whereas almost any key Qur?anic term has related terms which balance and integrate it into the waft and web of the
    language (and by means of which we can sense deceptions as and when they occur) this important ? some would say
    central ? Qur?anic concept has no ?context? in the language by which to verify the claims made for it by the Arab religionists other than the one created for it by those self-same religionists.

    There are no related meanings that one can point to and say Sol-laa must mean what such-and-such because it integrates into the language on the basis of the sense we derive from the word. This is not possible because the word
    simply has no semantic context in the religion of the Arabs as we know.

    Now, it could be argued that the reason for this is that this word has only one meaning ? unconnected to anything else in the vast and interconnected web of Arabic semantics ? and that the meaning the Arab religionists ascribe to it is, in fact, the correct one. In this case, we would respond by pointing out that since the ritual prayer or Salaat (by the religionists? own measure and admission) is not in the Reading, their own definition of it is of no special value.

    The situation we find ourselves in is there is a word ? ?Sol-laa? ? that exists in a semantic vacuum, and the leaders of the religious system say it means X based on their non-Qur?anic writings (the Hadith). Since their non-Qur?anic writings say some patently ludicrous things, and given that the religious elite promotes these non-Qur?anic sources to achieve ends which are usually advantageous only to the religious elite, a thinking person is left wondering what possible use their definition of this word can be to anyone except them.

    Just to clear up the point of roots. The root of Sol-laa is S-L. It is a two-root word. They are many such words in the
    Reading. Examples of other two-root words found in the Reading are haq (truth, root h-q), abu (father, root a-b) or
    yad (hand, root y-d) or Qama (the keep vigil or attentive, root q-m).

    For complete information please read the book on-line below
    http//aididsafar.com/mental.html

    Wassalam

    Salat & Zakat

  • Hi everyone
    T tanty

    Salaam all,

    Islam has been misinterpreted many times over - eversince time immemorial. This is evident in the Quran (Ali-Imran (3), verse 19).

    Yes, they do say 'Islam' is peace, but what many do not realise is the obscurity surrounding this word has fooled the people for ages and successfully turned it into a brand name for a religion (not ordained by the God).

    "They have taken their priests and rabbis as lords besides the God, as well as Christ the son of Mary. They were commanded not to serve, but the one God; there is no god except He, much too glorious to have partners". Q931

    The above verse does not utter religion, but only to serve the God.

    So to me Islam is not a religion because religion is man-made. Islam is a deen, a way of life. So, I have no religion. I'm a muslim and Islam is my way of life.

    Wassalam

    Introduce Yourself
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users