Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
3 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2012 - 1:07PM #1
sallum
Posts: 551

the HOLY QURAN and Man.  


The holy Quran has honored the sons of Adam from the day one, while the historians put son of Adam (man) in the inferior lower-grade among creatures.  


They described him like ""An Animal "" with dirty allover, body with hair and barking like wild dog.. ETC while, The Holy Quran says -from the day one- Man does speaks and dose understand also does cure and repugnant and does show objectionable against impure and unclean filthy things.


The Historians says man was totally or partly naked, while the holy Quran says he was dressed decently and had covered his nakedness.


Historians say man was  Speechless  (mute) while the Holy Quran says Man was good speaker and does know "whole " names and knows how to state an apologize and he felt guilty and confirmed his sin,… and been deceived .


Historian talks about apes from remains and some other detecting, still they do not connect them to the man and they did not figure if apes could talk or not,…..


The point here that man in fact would never talks unless he was physically prepared and anciently taught the names.


In other hand, man would never find names from his own fragment and would never spell the words without the talk's physical tools, that’s mean there IS who found him the way he is and taught him "Names", and that is the fact which does  Quran says. And natural progress has nothing to do with this.


the proof  is live: any none British new born baby would live and raised with British family he would speaks perfect English no doubt, and "if" he raised with mute parents in a jungle he would never spell a word.


So,  it is shame on the "historians "  as they burden the detecting about Man that ugly miserable way, if they would concede to consider the Holy Quran's lightings with this Issue, they would see that Beginning Man was moderate more than they thought, and the unknowing Man (Naïve) those came after  and traveled far from the Relegiuos spot,and  till today time @ the jungles there are people without understanding.


Don't you see that Historians are making a BIG mistake?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2012 - 5:48PM #2
Ibn
Posts: 4,827

Mar 11, 2012 -- 1:07PM, sallum wrote:


the HOLY QURAN and Man.  


The holy Quran has honored the sons of Adam from the day one, while the historians put son of Adam (man) in the inferior lower-grade among creatures.  


They described him like ""An Animal "" with dirty allover, body with hair and barking like wild dog.. ETC while, The Holy Quran says -from the day one- Man does speaks and dose understand also does cure and repugnant and does show objectionable against impure and unclean filthy things.


The Historians says man was totally or partly naked, while the holy Quran says he was dressed decently and had covered his nakedness.


Historians say man was  Speechless  (mute) while the Holy Quran says Man was good speaker and does know "whole " names and knows how to state an apologize and he felt guilty and confirmed his sin,… and been deceived .


Historian talks about apes from remains and some other detecting, still they do not connect them to the man and they did not figure if apes could talk or not,…..


The point here that man in fact would never talks unless he was physically prepared and anciently taught the names.


In other hand, man would never find names from his own fragment and would never spell the words without the talk's physical tools, that’s mean there IS who found him the way he is and taught him "Names", and that is the fact which does  Quran says. And natural progress has nothing to do with this.


the proof  is live: any none British new born baby would live and raised with British family he would speaks perfect English no doubt, and "if" he raised with mute parents in a jungle he would never spell a word.


So,  it is shame on the "historians "  as they burden the detecting about Man that ugly miserable way, if they would concede to consider the Holy Quran's lightings with this Issue, they would see that Beginning Man was moderate more than they thought, and the unknowing Man (Naïve) those came after  and traveled far from the Relegiuos spot,and  till today time @ the jungles there are people without understanding.


Don't you see that Historians are making a BIG mistake?


They can't make mistake; if they were there with the first man. The only mistake they are making is that of man evolving from ape when it must have happened the other way round.

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 13, 2012 - 6:22AM #3
Dostojevsky
Posts: 7,413

Man was naked, he was dumb, dirty, body hair....


I think the mistake here is calling this creation a 'man'.


Man is not a 'man' from face and body, but from ability to think and do.


From the above i assume Quran is saying that Adam was created in an instant to appearance and ability?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 13, 2012 - 4:16PM #4
sallum
Posts: 551

Mar 13, 2012 -- 6:22AM, Dostojevsky wrote:

Man was naked, he was dumb, dirty, body hair....


I think the mistake here is calling this creation a 'man'.


Man is not a 'man' from face and body, but from ability to think and do.


From the above i assume Quran is saying that Adam was created in an instant to appearance and ability?


 


Yes of course Man been created in an instant to appearance and ability "to Talk"


Talk is the main single issue of Man's progress and it is the evaluation of doing.


Talk is the remarkable issue to Man and did bring the lettering as it is the reveal of writing and writing is the amazing issue of Man born out of Talking..  


Man is the king on earth no doubt, and has no competitor, that because He Can Talk.


Salam

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 4:32PM #5
visio
Posts: 3,296

Assalamualaikum wrhmtllh, br. Sallum, long time no see, yes?  Hope you are in good health, with ALLAHswt's blessings.


Interesting thought you put up.   Thought I would make some comments to expand a thinking.


Mar 11, 2012 -- 1:07PM, sallum wrote:


the HOLY QURAN and Man.  


The holy Quran has honored the sons of Adam from the day one, while the historians put son of Adam (man) in the inferior lower-grade among creatures.



The last time I read the Al-Quran, it wasn't the historian who inferiorised bani-Adam (son of Adam).   It was bani-Israel (son of Israel), the offsprings of jinn in the heavenly kingdom.   There is no such thing as day one in the Al-Quran.   There is only a generic continous an dperpetual First Creation, as pairs of Adam or Eve.


They described him like ""An Animal "" with dirty allover, body with hair and barking like wild dog.. ETC while, The Holy Quran says -from the day one- Man does speaks and dose understand also does cure and repugnant and does show objectionable against impure and unclean filthy things.



Yes, the offsprings of the jinn were proud of thermselves being created out of the smokeless (flame) of the fire - body and spirit which are closer to the Kingdom of ALLAHswt.   As they knew and said the offsprings of Adam/Eve bodily regenerated and evolved out of the earth dust and enspirited with a matrix aggregate of the (astral) spirit of dead animal kinds (Az-Zumar 39 : 6).  However, to none of them, upon their death,   ALLAHswt would reveal and/or be made witness to the creation of the Universe and of their own selves,  except the chosen few [Al-Kahf 18 : 51   I (ALLAH) made them (Iblis and his offsprings) not to witness the creation of the heavens and not (even) their own creation, nor was I (ALLAH) to take the misleaders as helpers].  And the chosen few of the bani-Israeli to whom ALLAHswt granted His Favour and Preference of the past [Al-Baqarah 2 : 122   O Children of Israel!   Remember My Favour which I bestowed upon you and that I preferred you to the Alamin (mankind and jinn)] they would be ensouled to become offsprings of Adam (Man) and upon and after their First Death, like any other "proper" offsprings of Eve (bani-Adam), they be made a human prophet, and would be taught of all the Names - in other words they would be be made witness to ALLAHswt's Existence, the creation of the Universe and above all the creation of their own selves.  This is the Honour that ALLAHswt's has given to all offsprings of Adam/Eve.   However to be offsprings of Adam/Eve means to be forgetful, lack of will-power and impatient [Ta-Ha 20 : 115,  Al-Ma'arij 70 : 19]  So what happened is that there were still among generations of offsprings of Adam/Eve that originated from the heavenly jinn kingdom have forgotten that their forefathers in their heavenly kingdom (Israel) were Adams/Eves [Reference:   Muhammadsaw's Isra' & Mi'raj account - Adamic 1st. Heaven] and ascribe so much purity upon themselves as to make them the untouchables [An-Najm 53 : 32].   Purification of the body, spirit/mind and soul were part and parcel of the package that Man (irrespective of whether they are of bani-Adam or bani-Israel) have covenanted with ALLAHswt during their First Meeting of their (soul) First Resurrection.      


The Historians says man was totally or partly naked, while the holy Quran says he was dressed decently and had covered his nakedness.



Must be anti-Quran historians.


Historians say man was  Speechless  (mute) while the Holy Quran says Man was good speaker and does know "whole " names and knows how to state an apologize and he felt guilty and confirmed his sin,… and been deceived.



To many of these historians either to them were not revealed their own creation or they have completely forgotten when it was revealed to them.   In the Al-Quran we are told - and only after we have been taught all the names of all creation (thus making us all adamic prophets after our First Death, all of our sins in the First Existence were forgiven and unpunished i.e. given a clean slate to start with.


Historian talks about apes from remains and some other detecting, still they do not connect them to the man and they did not figure if apes could talk or not,…..


The point here that man in fact would never talks unless he was physically prepared and anciently taught the names.


In other hand, man would never find names from his own fragment and would never spell the words without the talk's physical tools, that’s mean there IS who found him the way he is and taught him "Names", and that is the fact which does  Quran says. And natural progress has nothing to do with this.


the proof  is live: any none British new born baby would live and raised with British family he would speaks perfect English no doubt, and "if" he raised with mute parents in a jungle he would never spell a word.


So,  it is shame on the "historians "  as they burden the detecting about Man that ugly miserable way, if they would concede to consider the Holy Quran's lightings with this Issue, they would see that Beginning Man was moderate more than they thought, and the unknowing Man (Naïve) those came after  and traveled far from the Relegiuos spot,and  till today time @ the jungles there are people without understanding.


Don't you see that Historians are making a BIG mistake?


 




I won't blame historians, even some religionists still got confused with the trinity of Man (body + spirit/mind and soul).

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 16, 2012 - 12:04PM #6
sallum
Posts: 551

Mar 15, 2012 -- 4:32PM, visio wrote:


Assalamualaikum wrhmtllh, br. Sallum, long time no see, yes?  Hope you are in good health, with ALLAHswt's blessings.


Interesting thought you put up.   Thought I would make some comments to expand a thinking.


[


wa-alaikum assalamo w,r,ALLAHi w,b. Br. Visio


Actually I felt shy with my English writing comparing to the acting debater's language, specially yours, and I am too old for issuing a development.


I am getting knowledge from these debates.


One point I could not figure it out here,… how some people do not see the sun and its their day time!!? That’s makes me insist to "fight"  I may get them something.


quote author=33930049 post=517409141]


the HOLY QURAN and Man.  


The holy Quran has honored the sons of Adam from the day one, while the historians put son of Adam (man) in the inferior lower-grade among creatures.



The last time I read the Al-Quran, it wasn't the historian who inferiorised bani-Adam (son of Adam).   It was bani-Israel (son of Israel), the offsprings of jinn in the heavenly kingdom.   There is no such thing as day one in the Al-Quran.   There is only a generic continous an dperpetual First Creation, as pairs of Adam or Eve.



You have got what I mean here,… Our Holy Quran Has more than thousands clear lights should be MORE than enough  to totally trust Al- Quran as word of LORD, ALLAH swt, so they would know the true words of the Holy Torah and the false one,.. and that works to Bible as well.



They described him like ""An Animal "" with dirty allover, body with hair and barking like wild dog.. ETC while, The Holy Quran says -from the day one- Man does speaks and dose understand also does cure and repugnant and does show objectionable against impure and unclean filthy things.[


/quote


Yes, the offsprings of the jinn were proud of thermselves being created out of the smokeless (flame) of the fire - body and spirit which are closer to the Kingdom of ALLAHswt.   As they knew and said the offsprings of Adam/Eve bodily regenerated and evolved out of the earth dust and enspirited with a matrix aggregate of the (astral) spirit of dead animal kinds (Az-Zumar 39 : 6). 



Iblis is Jinn and he was proud of himself being created out of fire, wrongly he counts fire better than dust, this made him far from the clew of creations,…. He failed to understand that flowers, fruits, and energies comes out from dust, his hate made him see only the filth of the dust,  Unjustly Ignoring its good face, and went easy and simple with the command.  ;;;;;;; and he promise to proof that Man is belong to this filth but he admit that only few will be exceptional  by their loyalty to Allah swt,..  this made him not to comply to bow down, and  been called Shaitan ever since and not Iblis,… and he has followers from Jinn and Man, and not of all off springs either Jinn nor Man,… 


Those are followers are (Al- Ghaweena) of Shaitans ( from Jinn be called Al-Shaiteen,and not all Jinn ) and some of Mankind,…  Al-Hijr [15:42] both are with (in the wrong, straying in evil, and went astray) those are targeted by Shaitan, the one with these acts and the one joint him by his call with their free well and own desire  he will makes them more with astray dragging them to (Najas) filth, trying to proof his point against Man..


 


This would explain part of the Verse you with,… 18:51



However, to none of them, upon their death,   ALLAHswt would reveal and/or be made witness to the creation of the Universe and of their own selves,  except the chosen few [Al-Kahf 18 : 51   I (ALLAH) made them (Iblis and his offsprings) not to witness the creation of the heavens and not (even) their own creation, nor was I (ALLAH) to take the misleaders as helpers].  


     Iblis  however doesn't  know every  creation as he wrongly thought.   GHAWA,.. and he went astray Al-Hijr [15:42 in the wrong,.. straying in Evil


The Historians says man was totally or partly naked, while the holy Quran says he was dressed decently and had covered his nakedness.



Must be anti-Quran historians.


They are anti-self and others benefits.


uote]Historians say man was  Speechless  (mute) while the Holy Quran says Man was good speaker and does know "whole " names and knows how to state an apologize and he felt guilty and confirmed his sin,… and been deceived.



To many of these historians either to them were not revealed their own creation or they have completely forgotten when it was revealed to them.   In the Al-Quran we are told - and only after we have been taught all the names of all creation (thus making us all adamic prophets after our First Death, all of our sins in the First Existence were forgiven and unpunished i.e. given a clean slate to start with.



Sorry, I couldn't  follow your point…



[ Don't you see that Historians are making a BIG mistake?


 




I won't blame historians, even some religionists still got confused with the trinity of Man (body + spirit/mind and soul).


[


the matter is they want Religion by natural, BUT the with easy way they can have


/quote]

salam

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 1:10PM #7
sallum
Posts: 551

 


I need help,..


Is there English word can meet the meaning of the Arabic word ; Qur'an or Koran( the holy book)?


And  also, if possible the words: Ehsan, muneeb, and awwab: احسان، منيب ، أوّاب


Thanks in-anticipation


salam


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 6:23PM #8
Ibn
Posts: 4,827

Salaam,


This is what I can make of these words in my limited understanding of Arabic:


Qur’an:   75:17 or 17:78   Recital or Recitation


Awwab:   50:32  who turned 


Ehsan:    12:100, 41:33, 39:55       Good, better or best


Muneeb:            who turns (to Allah, in repentance)


Please be warned, I am neither an Arab nor very good in understanding Arabic. An Arab brother or sister may be able to do better.


Salaam


Ibn 

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 8:10PM #9
visio
Posts: 3,296

Mar 24, 2012 -- 6:23PM, Ibn wrote:


Salaam,


This is what I can make of these words in my limited understanding of Arabic:


Qur’an:   75:17 or 17:78   Recital or Recitation


Awwab:   50:32  who turned 


Ehsan:    12:100, 41:33, 39:55       Good, better or best


Muneeb:            who turns (to Allah, in repentance)


Please be warned, I am neither an Arab nor very good in understanding Arabic. An Arab brother or sister may be able to do better.


Salaam


Ibn 





You are not alone br. Ibn.   Mee too.   As I have mentioned quite a few times before I always have a couple of Malay/Indonesian-Arabic translation/interpretation of the Al-Quran which are structured word by/to word, done by scholars well trained in Arabic either in their home countries or in such Arabic countries as KSA, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria.  These translators is quite aware of and understand the nuances of not only the variance Arabic sound but also of the Arabic alphabets.  We have an ustadz in our local mosque trained in the Arabic tajwid (grammar & pronounciation) who told us in Arabic, a fundmental root sound could have several intonation resulting in form variation of the root alphabets to be used.   Subsequently, when a variance of these alphabet forms are written, it would change the connotation of a word/sentence to indicate an opposite meanings.


Wish I was younger when I could have spent more time into this.   But, I am comfortable with the approach I am taking.   There are some of those specialists around from who I can get some free consultation.   But, believe me, interpretation of the Al-Quran is not wholly about grammars and dictionarry. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2012 - 2:31PM #10
sallum
Posts: 551

Mar 24, 2012 -- 8:10PM, visio wrote:

Mar 24, 2012 -- 6:23PM, Ibn wrote:


Salaam,


This is what I can make of these words in my limited understanding of Arabic:


Qur’an:   75:17 or 17:78   Recital or Recitation


Awwab:   50:32  who turned 


Ehsan:    12:100, 41:33, 39:55       Good, better or best


Muneeb:            who turns (to Allah, in repentance)


Please be warned, I am neither an Arab nor very good in understanding Arabic. An Arab brother or sister may be able to do better.


Salaam


Ibn 





You are not alone br. Ibn.   Mee too.   As I have mentioned quite a few times before I always have a couple of Malay/Indonesian-Arabic translation/interpretation of the Al-Quran which are structured word by/to word, done by scholars well trained in Arabic either in their home countries or in such Arabic countries as KSA, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria.  These translators is quite aware of and understand the nuances of not only the variance Arabic sound but also of the Arabic alphabets.  We have an ustadz in our local mosque trained in the Arabic tajwid (grammar & pronounciation) who told us in Arabic, a fundmental root sound could have several intonation resulting in form variation of the root alphabets to be used.   Subsequently, when a variance of these alphabet forms are written, it would change the connotation of a word/sentence to indicate an opposite meanings.


Wish I was younger when I could have spent more time into this.   But, I am comfortable with the approach I am taking.   There are some of those specialists around from who I can get some free consultation.   But, believe me, interpretation of the Al-Quran is not wholly about grammars and dictionarry. 


 


Thanks,..


I am with  ( الفرقان و القرأن)  Al-Qur'an  &  Al- FURQAN


Al-Furqano is one of the names of Al-Qur'an /


  Al-Furqan [25:1]                        


I guess no translation to the word Qur'an and it should mentioned in all languages as sound as the Arabic, Al Quran,… same as The Word  Of The Name Of Almighty  and Glorious   : ALLAH.


The common with these two NAMES, that both have several names to be named with.


ALLAH HAS 99different NAMES.


QUR"AN HAS also NAMES;   AL FURGAN, KITABON, ZIKERON, TANZEELON, ALHUDAH,


 56:77 That this is indeed a Qur'an Most Honourable,

  


Also bring these to the NAME MOHAMMAD saw there are names like : AHMAD, MAHMOOD,.. AlAMIN,  ALSADIQ,……. Many other Names.


The question is  : do you know such other " Idol person" has plenty names!? , other than nickname.?


  salam

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook