Peace all,@ Wakas:
I am surprised you found no evidence for my interpretation. 41:53 is pretty clear to me for example. Simply put, if AQ did not resonate with who we are and what we experience, it wouldn't make much sense.
Then I must've misunderstood you. Perhaps you are talking about the alledged universal, and timeless appeal of the Quran, which the verses do speak of. Previously I thought you were referring to the theory of the "evolving Quran" in which the meanings of the verses adapt to the ever changing circumstances. I am sceptical to this theory. There is no denying that the Quran does evolve, but this is our own doing, and not some inherent quality in the quran, nor do I think its author intended it to be so, at least not completely.
The verses speak of a change in us
that will make the Quran more acceptable. However, what is happening now is a changing of the Quran, not us, to be make it more acceptable. Sure, we are not tinkering with the ink, but we are transforming it through interpretation. It it is the same thing, basically. Free-Minds is exhibit A.
In the times when women were of no political import, there was no demand for a women friendly Quran. Now that we have changed, we are demanding a quran that gives women rights, and we have got it. Hence, we are changing the Quran towards us, and not changing ourselves to the Quran. That is why I am asking what the limits of belief are. How much are you ready to change in the name of the Quran, and what do you require from the Quran?
Many people are not aware of their limits, and what this implies. You believe in the divinity of the Quran, but you have projected so much of yourself on the Quran that in fact you have made yourself holy.
God is like a blank canvas. It is pure, untainted, fresh, innocent. These are the qualitites that the color white symbolizes, and white is a balanced combination of all colors.
Then you come along and emphasize one color and reject the other, and all of a sudden you have a caricature of yourself which you do not recognize. And that caricature you confuse with god. You are only worshipping yourself.
This is not ill-intended criticism of you, Wakas. But do you think this applies to you?
Are you alluding to 'confirmation bias'?
I was not, but I see will have to later in this post.
This is what I was saying: Some take the word of the Quran as final. If this someone is having difficulties with his wife, and is engaged in a literary debate about the word Idrib, then what will happen is that linguistics decides whether the wife gets a divorce or a beating. Do you see my point? I recall reading one forum member saying that if the meaning was to shoot his wife, he would do that too. That scared me a bit, since that very same forum member did not believe idrib meant beat. He had allowed dictionaries to decide, and luckily for his wife, the dictionaries just happened to save her. What do you think of this? Is this any way to go about such important issues?
Good question. I try to be, but it is very difficult.
You said this when I asked you about your indifference to the outcome, but then you say later: Personally, I think AQ is the Word of God, that is my working hypothesis, and I am in an ongoing verification process.
Don't you see a conflict between the two? How can you remain indifferent to the word of God?
And it is somewhat ironic that you wrote that sentence right after mentioning confirmation bias, when that sentence is a classic example of such bias.
What made you chose your current working hypothesis? Also have you tried changing your working hypothesis?
The greatest battle is the battle within.
And the battle is pointless. Why are you fighting yourself? That only fuels the fire.
Yes, you are imperfect, but you are not incomplete. True, there will be bias, there will be all kinds of limits, but this is how it must be when you have the courage to be involved.
Love your foolishness, it is required, it is mandatory. When you get involved, when you jump in the ocean, you will get wet. You cannot avoid it.
You need not drown though, simply be aware of the water. Similarly, you need not let your foolishness fool you, just be aware of it. If you are unaware, then even your sincerity will be insincere!
In the ocean, you cannot avoid to get wet. You can cheat, you can put on swimsuits, wetsuits and all kinds of suits, but then you are not involved. It merely appears so.
Similarly, people appear involved in Islam, with their suits on. Their traditional, ali baba clothing. Their beards, their curly toe shoes, their hijabs, their ups and downs in prayer.
Even when they are fasting they are merely feeding their ego: "Look how devoted I am, I have fasted every day, how many days have you fasted?".
This is because believers are unaware, and awareness is what I'm trying to raise. People believe in the Quran, but they have never known the fabric of their belief.
Be aware and love your flaws. Muhammed did so. In the Quran we find many of his flaws. They were so dear, so important that he mentioned them in the Quran!
And here we are, trying to forget our flaws. Suppressing them, avoiding them. The most foolish battle is the battle within.
But people love it! We love those who fight themselves. We revere them, honor them!
The celibate is honored, the virgin is honored, the one who fasts is honored, and everyone of them is doing nothing but fighting themselves.
Fighting sexuality, and they become the most sexual people, all their dreams are just about sex. Fighting hunger all they can think of is eating.
If you fight your foolishness, you will become the greatest fool ever!
I watched that video, and I understood it to mean that in each person's own frame of reference each is correct, which I agree with. However, if they were to compare and weigh the evidence, there is only one truth, and that is it was a simultaneous double lightning strike. This would be worked out if the train passenger took into account the speed of the train heading towards the front strike, and away from the back strike, resulting in seeing the front strike first.
Or at least, that is my understanding.
What you refer to as evidence is simply a set of assumptions. Speed, who is moving, and who is not, cannot be determined. Try it. Motion is relative.
I said they were simultaneous because the video seemed to imply the stationary person on the platform was equidistant between the strikes and he saw them the same time.
This is also an assumption, the distance need not be equidistant at all. It is also an assumption in the video that the lightning did hit simultaneously. It might as well have hit first on the back of the train, and then on the front. This way the train passenger would have seen the lights hit simultaneously, and the observer on the platform seen one before the other. Also, the case is further made more complex because you cannot determine the nature of you frame of reference when you are inside it. Cosider the fact that if you are inside a train with no windows, you cannot decide whether or not it is moving if it does not accelerate.
Interestingly, that video seems to show that only the person who has all the info knows the truth. Read in conjunction with 3:7, in this case, that would be God.
This seems reasonable.@everyone else:
I'm off to see Transformers on the cinema. Will reply to you ASAP.