Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ponderingmind

Pages: [1]
General Issues / Questions / Online Conferences or Chat sessions
« on: May 17, 2020, 07:38:52 AM »
Team - Just wanted to know if there are online Conferences or chat sessions organized by FM or some members of FM.  I prefer to hear people speak about the things that are posted here etc.  Are there links or contacts I must be aware of.

Break an idle element!

General Issues / Questions / Re: New Chat Room
« on: September 16, 2006, 04:22:41 PM »
I tried couple of times but none was available.  I think it will take some time for people to get acquainted in scheduling their visits to the room.  Would try being whensoever possible.


Nural Amin said:  Would it be logical to say that a 'translation' of the Quran from its original Arabic to English is inaccurate and corrupted because the translated version obviously loses the essence of the scripture?

I would probably resort to what Shabbir Ahmed and Tamanna Emadi have to say on this topic.  The latter of the two is an open-minded historian who considered his self to be a Quran Aloner.  As per these authors, there was one common enemy that took over the political strata of the Quranic society diverting it back to the roads of mythology.  Tamanna Emadi in his book "Ijazul Quran wa Ikhilaaf Qiraat" did a wonderful job of categorizing the various departments wherein the enemy camp had introduced the Alien mythology.  He agreed that the literature had to go through the Alien mythical tortures and sooner or later the words and their derivatives slowly took a different meaning.

If it be the intensity of the feeling, rhythmic ecstasy which one sees in Quran through Arabic, then probably, it?s true that Quran with all these flavors cannot be translated.  But, a decent translation is not impossible.  If many haven't done this, then it?s because they never understood Quran in the light of Quran alone.  The rest such as Parvez, and Shabbir Ahmed have interpreted Quran rather than translating it and they are all the more happy with that.  If there is something lacking and if you feel it just as I do, then it?s because our research on Arabic Language is still not structured and its sweetness as it existed at that time hasn't been exposed efficiently.  Perfection is just not possible and neither probably required, all we need is a sincere team work wherein the seekers gathers to understand Quran and with all differences learn to tolerate, respect and work towards creating an unanimity as closest possible.

Saladin said:  does the Quran say that they added stuff to the injeel ? can u quote any verse please?

Forget about Injeel, I doubt if there is a verse that claims the literal protection of Quran.  Much of what is quoted in favor of Quran or against Injeel is a part of our so-called traditional antiques and is still open for anyone to question it even today.  In other words, Quran didn't guarantee its protection and when I mean by protection I am referring to each and every word and sentences we read in it.  So is the case of Injeel too.  If such be the case, then raising a positive or negative remark about Quran or Injeel is unproved.  If you have to prove a remark on these two or the rest that are quoted within Quran then you might have to check with the other authorized sources or options, if any.

Pondering Mind.

You said:  Events as the Big-bang are macro-level observations and not micro-observations.  The principle has to do with the micro-level observations on position and measurement of a molecule, not on the higher macro-level observations.

Absolutely Baseless! Talking about Big-Bang as per some data analysts, it was the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre who was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom.  His proposition was based on relativity; a factor that is directly or inversely proportional to dimension, speed and direction.  The whole equation involves the energy transfer that has been measured not but through radiation?s wherein the chances of uncertainty creeps in.  Even Edwin Hubble?s fundamental speed-distance relationship was nothing but a far-assumptive radiation based analysis.

As per Neurological Encyclopedia, the term Radiation includes a variety of different physical phenomena. However, in essence, all these phenomena can be divided into two classes: phenomena connected with nuclear radioactive processes are one class, the so-called radioactive radiation (RR); electromagnetic radiation (EMR) may be considered as the second class. Now, tell me which of this is not Micro!

These where the reasons why NASA's sister supportive organization believes:

"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." (Updated at sister supportive organization on December 2, 1997)

Almost all the basic manipulative formulae applied within had to go with what they measured as radiation from a distant source and had elements that pushed it back to Uncertainity something specifically which Neil Bohr warned and Einstein feared.

Hope this helps,

Pondering Mind.

Peace Arnold,

You said:  Heisenberg's principle is about measurements and only refers to the quanta-level.  You further said "So Heisenberg's principle has nothing to do with the large observations that coincide with Quranic verses"

Quanta?s being a bundle of Energy isn?t just limited to photons.  It was us who have limited Energy in different categories for not having identified the similarities between the measurements such as frequency, intensity, etc.  If this wasn't the case, then one shouldn?t be surprised when we correlate energy working within the mitochondria with the quanta of a Photon.  We have presented the energy in different terms it isn?t necessarily that it exists that way and just as Neil Bohr's observation it is we who have the inherent defect of precipitating the terms that correlate to one aspect be that Energy or Power and not that they exist that way.  If this be true, then the principle of Uncertainty is just not limited to Photons but to every living cell and the energy involved within it just that the uncertainty and its element as we have distinguished is different but not disconnected.  Whether Quran talks about it or not, but science has lost its way differentiating between the two.

You said:  His principle can only be used on molecular level which the Quran doesn?t discuss in those terms so the principle should be applied.

Whether Quran discusses it or not is one issue, whether science has successfully tackled the molecular presentation of living cell is another.  After all, you use the former to prove the latter to be the word of God.  So, it would be important you first check if your tool is efficient and if its observations are reliable, if yes then what is the limit?  Forget  not the warning of Neil Bohr that the more you try touching the topic of molecular  harmony and the way they exist as a structural source of energy the more you are bound  to be confused and lost.  To reiterate, it is Science that is lost for not having successfully correlated the terms that prop out of Energy be that of a living cell or a technical non-living thing.  Thus, using an ineffective tool to prove a thing to be a word of God doesn?t make any sense to me. For more information, go through the correspondences between Neil Bohr and Einstein on this topic.

You said:  Also a mathematical pattern cannot have any philosophical disputes as these are objective observations that stand on their own.

Be that objective or subjective, the basics should be strong.  So check if the basics are still strong, for your reference, let me refer you to the book "From Certainty to Uncertainty" written by "F. David Peat".

You said:  The facts mentioned in the Quran describe major happenings as the Big-bang, forming of stars, Iron not part of earth's normal structure, evolution, barriere between different bodies of waters and so on.

I doubt. Most of these verses can be interpreted in another way. In case, you blame me that I already have made my point to interpret it another way then so be the case with you.   Probably, in case we get a time to discuss these verses individually I would be in a better position to explain them one by one.

You said:  These observations lead to three conclusions, or the people who wrote it had the means of calculating such patterns and keep a consistency in the text, or we bring in aliens, or we bring in God.

You missed one more.  There had been a debate on how human mind works in psychological terms.  Amidst many opinions, there are times we decide our action or decision first and justify it later.  So, the last probability you missed was, "an interpreter pushed it inside Quran".  This isn't the first time things have happened this way, right  from the time of Mutazilah - a rationalist team as per the so-called Islamic historical  data - Quran was pushed to prove much of what an interpreter wishes the best example  would be the justification of Greek philosophy through Quran.  But, then this is the case with everything isn't it? Be that of the one who proposes or the one who rejects.  I agree it?s just that you don't need to be hard on the one who rejects or the one who proposes.   That's exactly what I am trying to do now or did before.

Pondering Mind.

Peace Prashant,

You said:  If I fail to provide any acceptable historical account  sufficiently proving the trustworthiness of Muhammad and the  authenticity in collecting the verves, it may seem, specially to the  opponents of the Quran, as a desperate attempt to adhere to the Quran,   which is similar to an attempt of a drowning man to survive with getting   hold of a straw.

You said "it may seem, specially to the opponents of the Quran, as a   desperate attempt to adhere to the Quran" if this is not what you think,   then I have no problem.  But if you think that not having proved   technically, you are in like of that "drowning man to survive with   getting hold of a straw" then you are terribly mistaken.  If not all then   much of the religions I have learnt don't even care to discuss the issue of   protection for example, Jews and Hindus and still we see them talking  so  much about God on the basis of their unprotected scriptures.  They  are  all the more positive about their scriptures and loose no time  explaining  what wise things they have learnt out of it.  It may sound  self-deceiving  for a theorist, but then God and his definitions are not  but a positive  theory; something which if on one side had for centuries  given man an  healthy cultural and spiritual enrichment then on the  other had lead to  wars and internal anarchy.  Be that your  self-innovated ideas, nothing  will go wrong, unless you strongly believe  that you are human and not  God and seek nothing but Justice;  imbalance is a part of ones life  but not the whole and it is all for Good  that you learn and see the best.  I  said it before to a friend and I say it  again, we live in a present of visual  data capturing and still you see that  all these photos and cameras if are  presented as proof there are many  who refute it comfortably. When such  is the case of the present, what  would one have to strongly prove of our  so-called historical data?  He  does all this and tries hard and still has no  technical reason that Quran  is from God.  Some resort to Mathematics  without understanding the  basic philosophical disputes within it and  the rest to Science without  understanding Heisenberg's Uncertainty  Principle and its wide  disputes.  Last but not the least, forget not to go  through the differences  which the so-called doctors of Ahadith apply  while authenticating a  narration or a continuous tradition.  If all of  what I have said is taken  in the right sense and after right examination,  then I believe things  should sound better.  If not, then we both atleast for  now have all the  rights to believe that we both pity each other for being a  "drowning  man to survive with getting hold of a straw".

You said:  A very logical, unbiased and cautious person will ask for the   following questions/accounts when he comes to know about the Quran   "Who received these revelations?"

There are so many books that had inspired me and still I know not who   the author is.  I apply their given remedy and can see the results they   promised but I still know not who the person is.  If alone the book is   clear and explains things pretty clearly, then questioning the name of   author is purely a technical issue of record keeping or any extended   application of technical development.  Possibly at some places, a better   understanding of author's background would help us understand some   intricate aspects of the book.  But, this is not necessarily an essential   component that might effect one's connection with the book.

You said:  Was he a trustworthy person?

Howsoever good you be, you have enemies and friends. Imagine a fresh   American who knew nothing about Muhammad starts reading his   biography.  If he sees pro's in the writings of Safi-ur-Rahman   Mubarakpuri, Shibli Nomani, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Masoodul Hasan,   etc then what does he learn from Arberry, Margolioth, William Muir.    How long do you think he will continue reading the rebuttals of the   former team while the latter regenerates them?  And let?s say, months   after reading the rebuttals, if he did reach a conclusion, then is it what   one defines strongly as "Crystal clear Fact".  So, either say fact doesn't   exist, or agree that it is a belief or an opinion, whichever you chose it?s   just the way you take it that matters.  This in words and letter is all I   have gone through in my 9 years of learning curve while trying to   explore Islam. I still am with it to be proud of what I understand and   define myself as a Muslim.

You said:  Give me an account of the process of the preservation of the   Quran.  Give me an account of how it has been relayed to the present   time from the time of the recipient of the revelations.

Good question. So much is being said within Sunnis and shias.    Tamanna Emadi in his "Ijazul Quran and Ikhtilaaf Qiraat" has a   different way of presenting things and probably Moiz Amjad shares   something similar with him atleast in the part of describing the process   in which Quran was preserved.  However, I still doubt if all this can still   give us a confirmatory result on the protective nature of Quran.  If this   doesn't, then all the other scriptures are almost gone for a toss.    Probably, because we are expecting too much of them.  There is so   much one can talk about Tawatur qualities too but this probably isn't  the  right time.

You said:  If we believe that the Quran is from God, it shall be a   responsibility for us to convey the message from God to the people.

Whether I have to do it or not is one question and so is the point that   those in the past did it or not, but even if I and the others have failed to   do then still it doesn't mean that God would keep the new comers   ignorant of his duties; after all, it is us he should punish not them,   right?  So, keep in mind, we may be the secondary tools to inform the   truth not the primary.

Your option:  Sorry brother, your demands have no intrinsic merit at all.

If I have to rephrase it, " My friend, you are expecting too much out of   this prevailing religious scriptures. Best of luck."

You said:  Sorry brother, our predecessors unfortunately were all   irresponsible. They made all attempts to corrupt the message of the   Quran. For that purpose, they piled all unreliable and concocted stories   in the name of history.

If you can stop questioning me for their actions, then I don't think why I   should blame them.  If questioning me is the requirement of the present   subject, then I have no other options.  After all, why should I be   ashamed, if they did say things insensible and I am pushed to believe   them just because they believed it.  Remember all this is not said without   proofs all the time, if the imams of the free-minds do not have a good   pamphlet that doesn't mean none have it.  Then again, you are in the   tougher side of proving things 100% and all I need is 10% doubt to   disprove you and the job is done.  If these words symbolize my   dishonesty, then forgive me such is not the case, neither do I entertain   such intentions nor do I observe such a line of action.  Its just that I wish   to live a sensible and peaceful life, if your predecessors can give me that,   then I am all the more faithful, if not, then I don't know why I should  be  ashamed to believe that there used be human predecessors who had  an  evil mind.  Do you think it?s hard to believe?

Pondering Mind.

Pilgrimage (Hajj) / Need an explanation
« on: April 02, 2006, 04:55:54 PM »
I can understand now what was meant by the translation.  Thank you Wakas.


Questions/Comments on the Quran / Chapter 2 (verses 151-200)
« on: April 02, 2006, 04:53:19 PM »
Peace MZ,

I would appreciate if you can quote the root words you have applied while presenting the expression.  Have you applied the same Sad-Fa-Waw and Meem-Ra-Waw? if yes, please provide your references as to what had lead you to this conclusion.  A brief explanation on how you have extended the root-meanings would he belpful.


Pilgrimage (Hajj) / Need an explanation
« on: April 02, 2006, 12:51:49 PM »

I would appreciate if one can explain me the translation of 2:158 as rendered by "Free-Minds":

The camel and goat heavy with milk are amongst God's decrees. So whosoever makes Pilgrimage to the sanctuary, or is merely passing through, commits no error that he should partake of them. And whoever donates for goodness, then God is Appreciative, Knowledgeable.


Pages: [1]