the basics of Islamic Visioning

[Shadow1]

.

8. Kafir [unbeliever -- i.e., non-Muslims]

I thought to be a beleiver, it's not necessary to be a muslim, a beleive is who beleive in one and only God (and لم يلد ولم يولد ) so he's apparently not "mushrik", also a jew can enter a mosque btw, I mean, they're not "najis" (effcorse inless the other hygen rules and etc... are not applied), right?

 

[cleese]

for shadow1

there are always the lingual definition and the religious definition .
what you have mentioned is the lingual one, but according to islam, that most comprehensive and logic religion, there is one meaning of being believer... to be a muslim .
thanks

 

[Shadow1]

not every beleive is a muslim, a person who don't fast in ramadhan, don't donate to poor people (zakaat), don't pray, and don't go to hajj if he could, is not a muslim, while if he beleive in God, only and one, beleive in angels and in the prophets and messengers (and others) then he's just a beleiver.
Jews can be considered beleivers, while christians, i'm not sure of that, idk, since they beleive in "three" gods or something like that..jews are in fact, closer to muslims (in the matter of relegion) than christians, knowing that they lived together for centuries, intill europe started the colonisation of the world and then most jews went to the colony of "israel"

idk, what do you think?

 

[GeoffP]

Fail

not every beleive is a muslim, a person who don't fast in ramadhan, don't donate to poor people (zakaat), don't pray, and don't go to hajj if he could, is not a muslim, while if he beleive in God, only and one, beleive in angels and in the prophets and messengers (and others) then he's just a beleiver.
Jews can be considered beleivers, while christians, i'm not sure of that, idk, since they beleive in "three" gods or something like that

No, they do not.

Perhaps it would be best if you limited your comments to "idk" from now on.

 

[Shadow1]

No, they do not.

This is sciforums, and that is not an answer.

Perhaps it would be best if you limited your comments to "idk" from now on.

No.

 

[GeoffP]

This is sciforums, and that is not an answer.

Yes, it is, and yes, it is. Unless the preceding was not a statement? Ahh, you will come to wisdom.

No.

It's spelled "know". That's a homonym.

 

[Shadow1]

.

Yes, it is, and yes, it is. Unless the preceding was not a statement? Ahh, you will come to wisdom.

Ahh, inless you considered that an argument.

It's spelled "know". That's a homonym.

I said "No", it's spelled "N" "O", no, an indication to a negative rejecting answer.
In other languages, it is represented as: non; nein; لا; いいえ

 

[Crunchy Cat]

if it is an axiom that thought is only sharpened and revised by thought, it is also an axiom that the wider your comparison between different thoughts is, the deeper and closer to the truth you are .

Truth is when a thought in your mind matches actual reality. Widening your comparison between different thoughts doesn't bring you closer to matching actual reality. Comparing your thoughts to actual reality is what ultimately does that. I also disagree with your if-then axiom statement; however, since the conclusion is simply incorrect on it's own it can slide for now.

why Koran seems strange and difficult to discern to many people ?

Many of us realize that the koran is a work of fiction like all religious books. It is neither strange nor difficult, it's simply not true.

why in the same time some thinkers claim the opposite about the same book?

The book has little basis in actual reality so there is little to compare it against. If there are two or more interpretations of some text and nothing objective in reality to compare them to then there is no way to discern which interpretation is correct (all possible interpretations can also be incorrect consequently).

is the quranic look to the Human being is inferior ? where it lies compared to other dogmas ?

Those are interesting questions.

many questions are answered in multiple parts essay, about the pillars of islamic visioning, and how they differ from the other religion's . here :
http://www.mediafire.com/?jttav4wrv2kf4af
thanks for your time , and wishing for your feedback .

Rather than read an essay, I would be interested in your personal answer to the questions: "is the quranic look to the Human being is inferior ? where it lies compared to other dogmas ?"

 

[GeoffP]

Ahh, inless you considered that an argument

Well, when you put it like that, no, your comment about Christians wasn't much of an argument. :shrug: Is this what you wanted to hear?

 

[Shadow1]

.

Well, when you put it like that, no, your comment about Christians wasn't much of an argument. :shrug: Is this what you wanted to hear?

I did say they may be considered "mushrik" since they worship 3 gods, or 3 in 1, some worship jesus as god or the son of god, etc..

 

[cleese]

for chrunchy cat
you said :
Rather than read an essay, I would be interested in your personal answer to the questions: "is the quranic look to the Human being is inferior ? where it lies compared to other dogmas ?"
my answer : in view of what you started your comment with, you should study it your self to find the answer . but simply, let me give you just few hints .
1- all the heavens including all stars and and planets , are all created and subjected to the use of the human beings .(kindly review chapter 45, verse 13)
2 -quran says that there are another 6 planets, that are exactly a replica of our Earth, and they are enclosed within the other heavens that are all subjected to human's use and benefit. so if the natural resources here are depleted , there are another six planets all created as a reserve for the human beings . kindly review (65-12) . so , is it possible for you now to know the answer ?. how about an honorable creature that the whole existence is made and subjected for him ?. what esteem he has in such a religion ?. further .......:
3 - unlike all other religions which have been corrupted , God... the Creator in islam, did not define his self the theological or christological way judaism or christianity did. but he did define his self as the following "he is who gave every thing his form, then instructed it" (20-50) . also he defined his self as the following "the Creator, the Giver of the functionality, the Giver of the form" (59-24) . so , who created the virus, then instructed it, after giving it its form that suits its functionality, is the God according to quran . apply the same to the whole existence . so , the scientist's life in the lab, is holy in quran just like the life of the prayer in the mosque. for that, islam is a religion of peace of mind and balance. where no contradiction between the ideal and the practical , or between life and faith.
there are a long road of studying ahead of you , and much more modesty, to acquire. before you give simple ... let me say politely, naive statements like those you gave here. (including reading the original essay posted here)
study first . good luck

 

[Shadow1]

.

2 -quran says that there are another 6 planets, that are exactly a replica of our Earth, and they are enclosed within the other heavens that are all subjected to human's use and benefit. so if the natural resources here are depleted , there are another six planets all created as a reserve for the human beings . kindly review (65-12) . so , is it possible for you now to know the answer ?. how about an honorable creature that the whole existence is made and subjected for him ?. what esteem he has in such a religion ?. further .......:

Some others explain it as 6 more replica earthes in parallel universes
Some others explain it, (the known universe, is the first "سماوات ؛جمع سماء "/"sky"/"heavens"), and the rest, are the next "layers" of the univerce or something like that, and the 7 earthes "أراضي " are in those difference universes.

study first . good luck

You're right about that too, I should read quran more often too.

 

[cleese]

for shadow1

as to the six layers of the same planet (Earth) . i apologize for not being able to accept that view. and i find it very weird and deficient.
the text says " and he created 7 heavens , and of the earth he created7 alike"
where did the text mention the vocab "layer" ?
another point , the talking about religion, or religions . the view that doesnt consider the uniqueness of each religion or can not distinguish between each two of them , is worthless .
alike is to say , religions are false and fabricated .
thanks for all readers and commenters

 

[Shadow1]

.

as to the six layers of the same planet (Earth) . i apologize for not being able to accept that view. and i find it very weird and deficient.
the text says " and he created 7 heavens , and of the earth he created7 alike"
where did the text mention the vocab "layer" ?
another point , the talking about religion, or religions . the view that doesnt consider the uniqueness of each religion or can not distinguish between each two of them , is worthless .
alike is to say , religions are false and fabricated .
thanks for all readers and commenters

Well it's my view, but how many people, or scholars went to explain it, about the layers thing, it doesnt sound right, kinda.
About the "view" when it's based on explenation and quranic study, or such, it shouldn't be completly false, it may be correct, may be not.

 

[GeoffP]

I did say they may be considered "mushrik" since they worship 3 gods, or 3 in 1, some worship jesus as god or the son of god, etc..

Then the definition of mushrik is mushy, since Christians do not worship three gods, nor 'three gods in one'; the latter supposition exists only in the distant sense of applying a convenient label. Those applying the term mushrik to Christianity are therefore spurred either by hatred or stupidity, if we accept your distinctions. You may choose either of those; it matters nothing to me.

 

[Shadow1]

.

Then the definition of mushrik is mushy, since Christians do not worship three gods, nor 'three gods in one'; the latter supposition exists only in the distant sense of applying a convenient label. Those applying the term mushrik to Christianity are therefore spurred either by hatred or stupidity, if we accept your distinctions. You may choose either of those; it matters nothing to me.

Eh, what's mushy?
& what are you talking about?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

for chrunchy cat
you said :
Rather than read an essay, I would be interested in your personal answer to the questions: "is the quranic look to the Human being is inferior ? where it lies compared to other dogmas ?"
my answer : in view of what you started your comment with, you should study it your self to find the answer . but simply, let me give you just few hints .
1- all the heavens including all stars and and planets , are all created and subjected to the use of the human beings .(kindly review chapter 45, verse 13)
2 -quran says that there are another 6 planets, that are exactly a replica of our Earth, and they are enclosed within the other heavens that are all subjected to human's use and benefit. so if the natural resources here are depleted , there are another six planets all created as a reserve for the human beings . kindly review (65-12) . so , is it possible for you now to know the answer ?. how about an honorable creature that the whole existence is made and subjected for him ?. what esteem he has in such a religion ?. further .......:
3 - unlike all other religions which have been corrupted , God... the Creator in islam, did not define his self the theological or christological way judaism or christianity did. but he did define his self as the following "he is who gave every thing his form, then instructed it" (20-50) . also he defined his self as the following "the Creator, the Giver of the functionality, the Giver of the form" (59-24) . so , who created the virus, then instructed it, after giving it its form that suits its functionality, is the God according to quran . apply the same to the whole existence . so , the scientist's life in the lab, is holy in quran just like the life of the prayer in the mosque. for that, islam is a religion of peace of mind and balance. where no contradiction between the ideal and the practical , or between life and faith.
there are a long road of studying ahead of you , and much more modesty, to acquire. before you give simple ... let me say politely, naive statements like those you gave here. (including reading the original essay posted here)
study first . good luck

None of what you stated addresses the questions of:

"is the quranic look to the Human being is inferior ? where it lies compared to other dogmas ?"

Your "answer" (and I use that word loosely) addresses some random question that was never asked. I really could care less about Islam; however, the question quoted above would be interesting if there was an actual study performed where groups of people read different religious mythologies and rated them across different criteria.

You are on a science site in a comparative religion subforum. If you want to compare and contrast religions and how they are subjectively viewed by people then by all means do so. If you want to preach Islam then you have found the wrong site.

 

[GeoffP]

Eh, what's mushy?
& what are you talking about?

Mushrik. As a definition. It's mushy.

mush·y (msh, msh)
adj. mush·i·er, mush·i·est
1. Resembling mush in consistency; soft.
2. Informal
a. Excessively sentimental. See Synonyms at sentimental.
b. Given to or displaying mawkish affection or amorousness.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mushy

Mushy. Unfixed. Without strong or rigid boundaries. Malleable. That's what I mean.

In other words, the definition is being applied as the speaker or user seems to like. How do I know? Because it's sometimes applied to Christians. Although it could be the speaker who's mushy, rather than the term. Anyway, the usage of mushrik is clearly mushy, whether term or speaker.

 

[Shadow1]

Mushrik. As a definition. It's mushy.



Mushy. Unfixed. Without strong or rigid boundaries. Malleable. That's what I mean.

In other words, the definition is being applied as the speaker or user seems to like. How do I know? Because it's sometimes applied to Christians. Although it could be the speaker who's mushy, rather than the term. Anyway, the usage of mushrik is clearly mushy, whether term or speaker.

There's no "mushy" in arabic... :bugeye:

 

[GeoffP]

There appears to be, in its usage. That's an English thing. Consider and report back.