Meaingless words in the Koran

[Drunk On Love]

What do they mean to you?

I haven't been enlightened as to their hidden meanings. The Shi'ite Imams all were though. Those who do know generally do not share their understandings with the uninitiated however. Their meanings are not meant to be known by everyone. Just as the date and hour isn't supposed to be known in the Christian tradition. Unlike that the group to which it is known is a little larger though obviously.

 

[Avelina777]

I haven't been enlightened to their hidden meanings. The Shi'ite Imams all were though. Those who do know generally do not share their understanding with the uninitiated however. Their meanings are not meant to be known by everyone.

So you believe something you cannot understand?

 

[Drunk On Love]

So you believe something you cannot understand?

Is God so small and finite that he can be fit perfectly into your understanding? If not does that mean you don't believe in Him?

As to the letters I do believe that they have meanings I just don't claim to know exactly what those meanings are. Even the people who did know were very reticent about bringing the subject up. I think there is some providential reason for keeping the meanings hidden from the masses. God reveals them to the few who need that information and can make the best use of it.

 

[Avelina777]

Is God so small and finite that he can be fit perfectly into your understanding? If not does that mean you don't believe in Him?

As to the letters I do believe that they have meanings I just don't claim to know exactly what those meanings are. Even the people who did know were very reticent about bringing the subject up. I think there is some providential reason for keeping the meanings hidden from the masses. God reveals them to the few who need that information and can make the best use of it.

But shouldnt you be able to know your holy book? Our God is not the author of confusion.

 

[Montalban]

I haven't been enlightened as to their hidden meanings. The Shi'ite Imams all were though. Those who do know generally do not share their understandings with the uninitiated however. Their meanings are not meant to be known by everyone. Just as the date and hour isn't supposed to be known in the Christian tradition. Unlike that the group to which it is known is a little larger though obviously.

From an outsider's view this is not a good answer - as it looks circular - that only those who are trained to 'understand' would 'understand'.

It also still negates the 'clarity' of the Koran.

However I'll say no more on it for now

 

[Montalban]

So you believe something you cannot understand?

Here I would agree with him because we can never fully understand God without being God. And Jesus says blessed are those that come to him like children.

However I noted above that I am not satisfied with the rest of the answer

 

[Avelina777]

Here I would agree with him because we can never fully understand God without being God. And Jesus says blessed are those that come to him like children.

However I noted above that I am not satisfied with the rest of the answer

Its ok , you have your opinion

 

[TG123]

The letters are only understandable to those who are divinely guided in their reading of them.

I find it interesting. Is this view held also by Sunni Muslims?

Are you saying some letters in the Quran are untranslatable? Which surahs are they in? Aren't they translated into English?


Who are the divinely guided? Did they share their knowledge with other Muslims?



The Bible does say only God knows when the end of the world will be, but that is written in the text, there aren't any letters or words that are untranslatable.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I find it interesting. Is this view held also by Sunni Muslims?

Are you saying some letters in the Quran are untranslatable? Which surahs are they in? Aren't they translated into English?


Who are the divinely guided? Did they share their knowledge with other Muslims?



The Bible does say only God knows when the end of the world will be, but that is written in the text, there aren't any letters or words that are untranslatable.

But there are some words that are mistranslated, in the Bible.

 

[Montalban]

But there are some words that are mistranslated, in the Bible.

I asked you for specifics before.

I noted it was easy to make a generalist attack of no substance.

I suggested it was off-topic.

You've repeated this same off-topic evidence-less post

 

[Drunk On Love]

I find it interesting. Is this view held also by Sunni Muslims?

I think you can find differing views on the letters there. Some of the great Sunni Sufi saints claimed to have knowledge of their meaning but you will also find other people who deny that anyone other than God knows what they mean.

Who are the divinely guided? Did they share their knowledge with other Muslims?

The Twelve Imams would certainly be divinely guided. It was their job to show the inner or esoteric meaning of the Quranic revelation to those who were qualified and also to issue judgments regarding the proper practice and beliefs of Islam. They didn't share the meaning of the letters in question with everyone though. There may very well be a secret tradition passed down orally from them but I've certainly never been initiated into it if there is. There is also always the possibility of meeting the 12th Imam in the world of the soul and conversing with him directly in a mystical way too. In that way this teaching could be revived even if the historical chain was broken.

The Bible does say only God knows when the end of the world will be, but that is written in the text, there aren't any letters or words that are untranslatable.

That's true.

It's not so much a translation issue because they are not words to begin with. They are just letters. It's their symbolic meaning that isn't revealed to everyone.

 

[Fuzzy]

Apparently Islam can't be examined without reference to Chrisitanity

This is true, why is this?

Because the later two Abrahamic faiths have to, by necessity, reference the earlier work(s).

There's no New Testament without an Old Testament. There's no Final Prophet without Previous Prophets.

It's the same general principle as a revised edition of a book can't exist without an original edition.

 

[Montalban]

Because the later two Abrahamic faiths have to, by necessity, reference the earlier work(s).

That's not true.

I can read about the Christian understanding of the Trinity without reading the Jewish one.

But if you know the Jewish understanding of it based on OT scriptures I'd like to have a look. I find this need to defend illogic illogical.

There's no New Testament without an Old Testament. There's no Final Prophet without Previous Prophets.

It's the same general principle as a revised edition of a book can't exist without an original edition.

Actually people can read a revised edition without reading the original.

When at school, and at uni, if I quoted a history text I didn't have to search for the reference of a point in previous editions.

I don't know where you got that one from, aside from the fact it's a false analogy anyway.

 

[Fuzzy]

That's not true.

I can read about the Christian understanding of the Trinity without reading the Jewish one.

Without the OT scriptures, there's no Covenant for Jesus to fulfill. Without the OT prophecies, there's no fulfillment of those prophecies in the NT. Without Abraham, there's no Isaac or Ishmael, or their descendants.

Actually people can read a revised edition without reading the original.

But you can't revise the original work, or supplement the original work, without the original work.

When at school, and at uni, if I quoted a history text I didn't have to search for the reference of a point in previous editions.

Because the history text is accepted as a source, since others have vetted the book well before you wrote those papers for your classes.

 

[Montalban]

Without the OT scriptures, there's no Covenant for Jesus to fulfill. Without the OT prophecies, there's no fulfillment of those prophecies in the NT. Without Abraham, there's no Isaac or Ishmael, or their descendants.

Absolutely. I've never argued that there's no reference to the past. You argue that there always must be (that I can't examine Islam without reference to previous revelations) - that any look at one must involve a reference to the other so I ask you again for any Jewish understanding on the Trinity that I must be engaged in in order to examine the Christian understanding of the Trinity.

After-all, according to you I'm not getting the full picture!

But you can't revise the original work, or supplement the original work, without the original work.

Show me the Trinitarian evidence, then.

Because the history text is accepted as a source, since others have vetted the book well before you wrote those papers for your classes.

That's what 'revision' is. However you said that I must do this. So now you have exceptions wherein I can have a discussion using an historical source without referencing all previous editions... which is in fact my objection to the continual reliance on tu quoque in relation to Islam.

I can examine claims about Islam without any reference to Judaism or Christianity. You say I can't.

Secondly Christianity isn't a 'revision' of Judaism. Christians didn't go through the OT and say "Okay that's what Judaism believed, but now we're revising this text to mean something else".

Certainly they have gone through the OT and understood OT verses in the light of Christian understanding and certainly Christianity is a 'continuation' of Judaism, but it's not a revision of it... which is why your analogy is doubly flawed.

We can of course occasionally look back but we don't always have to do this. Islam has no bearing on the OT or the NT. They might believe so, but there is no connection. Not only did God not promise Muhammed in the NT, but his promise to Israel wasn't foresaken that he goes "Okay, I've sent a continuous line of prophets to one people, I'm giving up on them and I'm going to try another people now".

(Unless you can show me OT or NT understanding that God changed his promise). THEN I would like to see a reference back because the claim would be based on this.

Islam is not unique in this. Hong Xiuquan also made claims that he was a continuation of the NT - he thought he was Jesus' younger brother.

Any evidence to any of these things and I'd be happy to consider it, despite it being off-topic, and novel.

Islam's claims to war against all can be judged on their own merits.

 

[Fuzzy]

Absolutely. I've never argued that there's no reference to the past. You argue that there always must be (that I can't examine Islam without reference to previous revelations) - that any look at one must involve a reference to the other so I ask you again for any Jewish understanding on the Trinity that I must be engaged in in order to examine the Christian understanding of the Trinity.

I respectfully posit you're reading very deeply into what I wrote, and that I did not catch the nuance of your earlier comment of Islam referencing Christianity. You seem to be using "reference" in terms of proving validity, while I'm using "reference" as ideological antecedent.


We're in agreement that there's going to be a reference to the past. That's my point. Not the validity, or any logical fallacies that supporters may be engaged in.

Let's try this using your word choices.

You can't "continue" an earlier work, without that earlier work existing as a starting point, because otherwise there would be nothing to continue from.

With regards to Hong Xiuquan, I was unaware of his spiritual side. Thank you.

 

[Delphiki]

There is a contradiction in Islamic ideas regarding the Koran.

Moslems say that the Koran is 'clear' and can be understood BUT there are meaningless words in the Koran and that their god al-Lah has reserved the meaning of these words to himself.

How can it be both clear and unclear?

In the same way that you might pray to God for someones well-being, yet God has an ultimate plan. Religion in general is chock full of logical contradictions.

 

[Montalban]

I respectfully posit you're reading very deeply into what I wrote, and that I did not catch the nuance of your earlier comment of Islam referencing Christianity. You seem to be using "reference" in terms of proving validity, while I'm using "reference" as ideological antecedent.

Doesn't matter. One does not need to examine Christianity on an issue about Islam to see any 'ideological antecedent' either.

What is in Islam should be measured on it's own.

We're in agreement that there's going to be a reference to the past.

No. We're going to be in agreement that there is SOMETIMES a reference to the past. I don't believe that there is always, hence I don't see why Islam always has to be examined alongside Christianity

That's my point. Not the validity, or any logical fallacies that supporters may be engaged in.

It's irrelevant.

Let's try this using your word choices.

You can't "continue" an earlier work, without that earlier work existing as a starting point, because otherwise there would be nothing to continue from.

That's a false analogy. Not everything in Islam has a basis in Christianity. And I don't even need to examine if it does.

There is for instance no legalism in Christianity as there is in Islam. Islam goes so far that people will ask for advice about whether it's okay to urinate standing up.
Islam Question and Answer - Ruling on urinating standing up
and
Islam Question and Answer - Is it haraam to urinate standing up?

In the first place if I wanted to examine this it would be irrelevant whether Christianity had this rule or if Christianity were as legalistic. It either is a valid proposition within Islam, or not.

To use your analogy of revisions. Christianity is not a revision of Judaism. It is more akin to a sequel. In that vein take the Lord of the Rings trilogy (I'll refer to the movies). Some reference was made to earlier events (which will be in The Hobbit) such as how the ring came to being; that's what happens with sequels. But an event like the trees herders going to war was based on the attack by Saruman on their forest. It was of itself within the Lord of the Rings and need not be compared to any other attacks made by anyone at any other time.

That's the illogic of tu quoque. To examine one thing I don't need to examine claims of it being done elsewhere.

With regards to Hong Xiuquan, I was unaware of his spiritual side. Thank you.

If he presented a teaching "All red-haired people need to be executed" I don't need to examine Christianity to argue against his dictum

 

[Montalban]

In the same way that you might pray to God for someones well-being, yet God has an ultimate plan. Religion in general is chock full of logical contradictions.

I'd prefer
a) to stay on the topic
and
b) let Moslems give an explanation

 

[Avelina777]

I'd prefer
a) to stay on the topic
and
b) let Moslems give an explanation

Agreed