Kurdish disaster

[ذو الفقار]

it's probably a move to become independent/separated from Arabs and Arabic influence. Zoroastrianism is probably seen as some similar religion to Islam, but without the Arab-centrism. I can see why it makes it more appealing, if you can keep similar values and beliefs, but have the addition of an ethno-cultural connection. In Islam, the main prophet is Arab. in Judaism/Christianity, the main prophets are Israelites/Jews. ethno-cultural link makes religions very appealing to people.

The obvious pitfall with this is that religion is simply being reduced to its civilizational utility and stripped of its purpose of bringing people to the objective truth. This reminds me of Dr. Ambedkar’s movement to encourage the Dalits to embrace Buddhism which, unlike Hinduism, rejects the caste system. He was previously considering a conversion movement to either Christianity or Islam, but decided on Buddhism ultimately for the reason that the former two are “foreign religions”, whereas Buddhism is indigenous to India, and shares a lot in common with Hinduism, so would be easier to facilitate a Hindu to Buddhist conversion among people who were previously steeped in Hinduism and Hindu culture. Then of course Ambedkar had to invent his own form of Buddhism distinct from the traditional schools of Therevada and Mahayana in order to jive with his other modern, political thoughts. Here is the description of this ‘neo-Buddhism’ called ‘Navayana’:
“According to Ambedkar, several of the core beliefs and doctrines of traditional Buddhist traditions such as Four Noble Truths and Anatta were flawed and pessimistic, may have been inserted into the Buddhist scriptures by wrong headed Buddhist monks of a later era. These should not be considered as Buddha's teachings in Ambedkar's view. Other foundational concepts of Buddhism such as Karma and Rebirth were considered by Ambedkar as superstitions. Navayana as formulated by Ambedkar and at the root of Dalit Buddhist movement abandons mainstream traditional Buddhist practices and precepts such as the institution of monk after renunciation, ideas such as karma, rebirth in afterlife, samsara, meditation, nirvana and Four Noble Truths. Ambedkar’s new sect of Buddhism rejected these ideas and re-interpreted the Buddha’s religion in terms of class struggle and social equality.”

It is so transparent when people decide to re-interpret a Religion so fundamentally different from its universally acknowledged original precepts. Reshaping and remolding Religion because you recognize its utility in organizing and controlling society and don’t want to dispense with it altogether. But then you end up stripping Religion of its dynamism and substance so that it ultimately becomes meaningless. If there is a similar movement to return to Zoroastrianism out of a feeling of reinvigorating ethnic identity and self-respect, it too will fail.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[to validate the theology of Mu’tazilites that Hawaadith (events) do not take place in God’s Essence.
By arguing that “we are all just thoughts in God’s mind”, therefore having no real existence of our own, he has conveniently forgotten the classic Mu’tazilite doctrine that man is the creator of his own actions, independent of God’s will, power and control.

There's no conflict there since if you think about what you're saying about "will" versus knowledge and consciousness. authoring a decision versus authoring the choice to do a a decision. It all becomes clear.

Now coming to the idea of La Wujud illa Allah, this idea, as conceptualized by Ghazzali and other mystic thinkers, is not meant to be an argument against the occurrence of Hawaadith within God’s Essence

That's not what the Mystic rendering is; the mystic rendering is that Only God truly exists. ....otherwise The original Kalimah would have sufficed in expressing what you described. This is a statement explaning the Ontology of Reality, Only God is Real.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="HardTimesW01-Roman"]The obvious pitfall with this is that religion is simply being reduced to its civilizational utility and stripped of its purpose of bringing people to the objective truth.

It's not that, but there are aspects of religion meant specifically for utility, not to be treated as a sacrament in and of themselves. The inheritance issue is a key example. Penal code are other examples. They are not "objective" truths in and of themselves, the principles that Govern them are objective truths, and that's where the spirituality plays a role in the practice. You're extoling dictum as the spiritual and as opposed to the datum, which it's the other way around. So static ideas can't really work with a dynamic universe.

[ذو الفقار]

Because you're talking about things that happen in creation, which are finite, for these events to happen they have to occur in an arena, a space, hence spatial.

You deny that the Divine can intersect with the finite world? Your theology is 100% Hellenic-based and apart from Arabic terminology and Arabic phrases, it bears absolutely no resemblance to the Quraanic theology.

The idea of the Divine intersecting with the finite world is beautifully expressed in the story of Moses when God manifested His Glory, Tajallee, upon the mountain. You basically deny the Immanence of God and the concept of Tajallee.

This explains why your approach to God is so impersonal and dry because you conceive of God as some far off and removed Entity that is stripped of all emotion and personality.

If you want to get into mysticism you have got to abandon these Mutazilite, Hellenic-based concepts. Mysticism is all about emphasizing the Immanent aspects of God.

Merciful is the trait to describe the nature of someone as they behave with other creatures. It makes no sense or it's more tongue in cheek to say he's merciful to the air or merciful to a TV set. So in absence of creation there was no manifesttaion of his attribute of being Merciful because those things are not his dhat.

You equate manifestation with nature. You are simply repeating your earlier refuted argument. One does not necessarily have to manifest his quality of mercy in order to be described as merciful by nature. You already admitted it is possible to have knowledge (information) of the non-existent. Why then is it impossible to have feelings of love or hatred for the non-existent too? You are not being consistent.

How can something other than Allah(swt) exist as an eternal abstraction, are you saying Qur'an is God? LIke the Sikhs think Guru Granth Sahib is God? LOL ...So now you accept co-eternality and have become Sikh.

I'm not the one who believes the Quran is co-eternal with God. I already made my position clear on that. But you accused other groups generally considered orthodox of polytheism for believe the Quraan was eternally present with God as his 'Internal Speech'.

You say knowledge can exist as an eternal abstraction. But you say knowledge itself is synonymous with God's Essence and that God is pure consciousness, so why can't speech also be synonymous with God's Essence, and God be pure speech?

No, Atheism is denying a God exists. it has nothing do with the personship of God. ,,,,saying God is a person is saying you identify God as a Creature and has a body, which are traits of the makhlouq.

How does it follow that if someone is a Person He must be a "creature" with a body? Anyone that is self-aware and conscious, not to mention intelligent, possessing will and the ability to act and create according to that Will, is certainly a Person. You acknowledge these things too (unless you want to once again dramatically change your narrative once you are ensnared in your own trap)

Atheism denies God as a self-aware, conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, Living Person Who created the world.

If you redefine God as a mere impersonal abstraction, no atheist will argue with that, apart from saying you are redefining the standard conception of God that is also rooted in human language.

If you say "God is knowledge", no atheist will deny "God", because no atheist denies the existence of knowledge, though he might question your use of the word God as redundant.

SUre it can, think of an infinite dimensional field with no sequence, sequences can happen but the field itself is not made up of sequences. All information about events are happening at the same time and this is by nature eternal since it's infinite .....so both can co-exist.

Ah see, I never said he's "experiencing" the events though ....your key failure here I said "all events are simultaneous TO Allah(swt)", the events are finite.

[/QUOTE]

Basically you are talking from God's point of view. Everything is simultaneous to Him, but from our point of view Events occur in sequence. The problem is you deny the intersection of the Divine into our created world of time and space, because you say it means events are occurring in God's essence. But you could have easily solved this problem from your own paradigm by saying the intersection of the Divine into time and space is from our point of view but is simultaneous from His point of view. That would have been better than to start denying that God actually spoke to Moses at a specific time and place.

[ذو الفقار]

There's no conflict there since if you think about what you're saying about "will" versus knowledge and consciousness. authoring a decision versus authoring the choice to do a a decision. It all becomes clear.

How can someone who doesn't have a real existence have choice? Choice would have to be an illusion. You still believe man creates his deeds independent of God's will, power and control, so as to be accountable for those deeds according to the Mutazilite principle of justice. Simply saying that God is the One Who has invested man with this independence doesn't reconcile with the idea that God is the Only Real Existent, and all else has no real existence. That is the purpose of the Tawhid of Wujud, to deny the creation any kind of independence whatsoever. By making an exception for man's actions you make an exception to this conception of Tawhid, and any Tawhid that has an exception is by default no longer Tawhid.

Only God truly exists

If only God truly exists, then man's actions do not truly exist. And according to Mu'tazilite logic, if man's actions do not truly exist, he cannot be held accountable for that which doesn't truly exist

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="FatTimesW01-Bold"]

You deny that the Divine can intersect with the finite world? Your theology is 100% Hellenic-based and apart from Arabic terminology and Arabic phrases, it bears absolutely no resemblance to the Quraanic theology.

Well if you mean intersect as the finite is just a subset of the infnite, means that th finite is self intersection. But intersect as two mutually exclusive things crossing, then no.

This is Christian logic, They believe Jesus is God's incarnate into the temporal realm. Tajassoum

The idea of the Divine intersecting with the finite world is beautifully expressed in the story of Moses when God manifested His Glory, Tajallee, upon the mountain. You basically deny the Immanence of God and the concept of Tajallee.

I wouldn't call that "intersecting".

This explains why your approach to God is so impersonal and dry because you conceive of God as some far off and removed Entity that is stripped of all emotion and personality.

"Impersonal" and "dry" ....Objective truth is not based on such emotional appeals. First you were arguing against the notion of trying to impose on God things that doesn't suit one's taste, now you're appealing to taste.

This flip flop just reveals the desperation your brand (which I have concluded isn't actually Orthodox, just ignorance) is under, when you can't debate logically, use emotions.

If you want to get into mysticism you have got to abandon these Mutazilite, Hellenic-based concepts. Mysticism is all about emphasizing the Immanent aspects of God.

This isn't true, It was through reason I came to know mysticism. the attainment of Reason is something that evolves with greater understanding. It was by breaking through the tangible that I appreciate the intangible.

If anything, your advocacy of tajassoum is more in line with Hellenism than mine is. Mu'tazilah were inspired by the Greek methods of Reason, but they used reason to critique the Greek beliefs. You on the other hand bad mouth Logic, but you unwittingly adopt Greek Metaphysics. It was Hellenism that introduced corpeality into Christian Theology which you seem to abide by. The need for a "personal" and "emotional" way of viewing God. Emotion and personal awakening is important in suluk, not in Ontology or Metaphysics. You're obfuscating them together

You equate manifestation with nature. You are simply repeating your earlier refuted argument. One does not necessarily have to manifest his quality of mercy in order to be described as merciful by nature. You already admitted it is possible to have knowledge (information) of the non-existent. Why then is it impossible to have feelings of love or hatred for the non-existent too? You are not being consistent.

Where was the refutation? As far as I recall you proposed statements and restated things I said ...and just got emotionally distraught. I don't think this counts as refutation. Being appalled at something isn't refutation.

Merciful is a quality that does in fact have to be relational since it's related to how you behave with creatures. There's no further abstraction for mercy. If you mean that God's nature allows him to be merciful, then fine, but this isn't the same that God's essence is the Merciful. Knowledge however is as you said "Simply knowing" it exists in its own state. It's just simply awareness, and if we consider God as absolute, absolute awareness, and absolute means it's self affirming.

ou've compared apples to oranges. There's no inconsistency here, it just seems you are not intellectually developed and haven't achieved the sophistication to discern these subtleties.



I'm not the one who believes the Quran is co-eternal with God. I already made my position clear on that. But you accused other groups generally considered orthodox of polytheism for believe the Quraan was eternally present with God as his 'Internal Speech'.

You say knowledge can exist as an eternal abstraction. But you say knowledge itself is synonymous with God's Essence and that God is pure consciousness, so why can't speech also be synonymous with God's Essence, and God be pure speech?

Because speech is a created thing. You really are a Pagan.

How does it follow that if someone is a Person He must be a "creature" with a body? Anyone that is self-aware and conscious, not to mention intelligent, possessing will and the ability to act and create according to that Will, is certainly a Person. You acknowledge these things too (unless you want to once again dramatically change your narrative once you are ensnared in your own trap)

Atheism denies God as a self-aware, conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, Living Person Who created the world.

Look up the definition of Atheism and tell us what it says here ...verbatim, no editing.

If you redefine God as a mere impersonal abstraction, no atheist will argue with that, apart from saying you are redefining the standard conception of God that is also rooted in human language.

You're wrong, but even if that were the case, that wouldn't make it Atheism there are very specific definitions for these things. Furthermore it's It's a converse "No True Scotsman" fallacy . i.e. "Only an Atheist would deny God as a person".

If you say "God is knowledge", no atheist will deny "God", because no atheist denies the existence of knowledge, though he might question your use of the word God as redundant.

You're committing what's called an Equivocational Fallacy, where, you're using the conventional way we speak of knowledge in our day to day language, which obviously an Atheist would more likely agree exists, versus the idea of identity between information , knowledge and consciousness., which they may more likely challenge.

[/QUOTE]

Basically you are talking from God's point of view. Everything is simultaneous to Him, but from our point of view Events occur in sequence.

Right

The problem is you deny the intersection of the Divine into our created world of time and space, because you say it means events are occurring in God's essence. But you could have easily solved this problem from your own paradigm by saying the intersection of the Divine into time and space is from our point of view but is simultaneous from His point of view.

I already had the answer, the trick was bringing you to this conclusion. There's also another solution. that the intersection of infinite with temporal events is finite , so it's not the infinite.

That would have been better than to start denying that God actually spoke to Moses at a specific time and place

Well it's not necessarily to even invoke either way.

[maneatinglizard]

Now coming to the idea of La Wujud illa Allah, this idea, as conceptualized by Ghazzali and other mystic thinkers, is not meant to be an argument against the occurrence of Hawaadith within God’s Essence.

Imam Ghazali (why are you adding a second 'z' in his name? There's no shadda on the za) was a proper Ashari who explicitly rejected the occurrence of hawadith. It took me just a few minutes to find him clearly stating such:

وأنه بائن عن خلقه بصفاته ليس في ذاته سواه ولا في سواه ذاته وأنه مقدس عن التغير والانتقال لا تحله الحوادث ولا تعتريه العوارض بل لا يزال في نعوت جلاله منزهاً عن الزوال وفي صفات كماله مستغنياً عن زيادة الاستكمال

He is distinct from His creatures through His attributes. There is not in His essence any other besides Him, nor in any other besides Him, His essence. He is far removed from change of state or of location. Events have no place in Him and mishaps do not befall Him. No, He does not cease, in the epithets of His Majesty, to be far removed from decay, and in the attributes of His perfection He has no need of an increase in perfection.

إحياء علوم الدين
Ihya' `Uloom ad-Deen

The fact that you didn't know this shows just how ignorant you are, and how unqualified you are to speak about matters of `Aqeeda. You should be learning about the basics of Islamic belief, like how there are no prophets after Rasulullah (sallah Allahu alayhi wa salam), literally or in the form of "buruz," instead of arguing with Mu`tazilis on complex doctrinal matters.

Not only is this forum not the place for anyone to be discussing these things, but you have only proved yourself extremely ignorant every time you've opened your mouth. Even a Qadiani (or Panjpiri if you still want to pretend that's what you are) will tell you that you do not the have prerequisite knowledge to discuss `Aqeeda beyond the simple facts.

If you continue to discuss matters you have no knowledge of, I will report you to the mods. Islam is not a joke, nor something to discuss casually with little knowledge. You want to discuss the Attributes of Allah (subhana wa taala), take it to an Islamic forum with people who are knowledgeable and have the patience to educate you. Go discuss this stuff on Forums - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth or Home | Ahlus Sunnah Forum. This board isn't the place for someone ignorant of the basics like you are.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

How can someone who doesn't have a real existence have choice? Choice would have to be an illusion. You still believe man creates his deeds independent of God's will, power and control, so as to be accountable for those deeds according to the Mutazilite principle of justice. Simply saying that God is the One Who has invested man with this independence doesn't reconcile with the idea that God is the Only Real Existent, and all else has no real existence. That is the purpose of the Tawhid of Wujud, to deny the creation any kind of independence whatsoever. By making an exception for man's actions you make an exception to this conception of Tawhid, and any Tawhid that has an exception is by default no longer Tawhid.



If only God truly exists, then man's actions do not truly exist. And according to Mu'tazilite logic, if man's actions do not truly exist, he cannot be held accountable for that which doesn't truly exist

Well the construct of choice is something authored by God, so can we choose to have the ability of choice? No. So we're speaking of choice consistent from our vantage point. That we're in the field of being able to choose. The existence of which is fully contingent on God. There's no denial of creation, the idea that creation doesn't have its own independent existence. It exists purely as a consequence of God projecting it. Like a projector on a screen. So man is still fully accountable ...and still doesn't truly exist .......TADAAAA

[maneatinglizard]

I just noticed that Dhul-Fiqar has made 11.2 posts a day here since joining. His posts are often long rants too, not short one or two liners.

It's pretty clear that wasting time on forums is some kind of addiction for him, just like it was for Karachi before him. For his own sake, I think it's time to let him go. He'll probably end up spamming some other forum that's vaguely associated with Islam, but maybe he'll eventually get banned from enough Muslim forums that he'll finally realize how much time he's wasting.

[ذو الفقار]

Imam Ghazali (why are you adding a second 'z' in his name? There's no shadda on the za) was a proper Ashari who explicitly rejected the occurrence of hawadith.

I’m sure he did, but his and other mystics’ saying of La Wujud illa Allah isn’t relevant to the issue of Hawadith in the Dhat of Allah, that was the point I was making to Iblis Efreetzai.

The fact that you didn't know this shows just how ignorant you are, and how unqualified you are to speak about matters of `Aqeeda.

Why do you assume I didn't know Ghazali was an Ashari? I've known it all along. It's simply irrelevant. I didn't mention Ghazali with the aim of proving he affirmed Hawadith in the Essence of God. Iblis is a Mutazilite so think logically why would I quote an Ashari and appeal to a non-Mutazilite as an authority against someone who would dismiss that out of hand.

Read the context of our discussion. Iblis is the one who brought up the formula of La Wujud illa Allah with the aim of making it seem as though that idea is an intellectual assault on the idea that Hawadith occurs in the Essence of God. I merely pointed out that this idea was never formulated for that aim.

You should be learning about the basics of Islamic belief, like how there are no prophets after Rasulullah (sallah Allahu alayhi wa salam), literally or in the form of "buruz," instead of arguing with Mu`tazilis on complex doctrinal matters.

I don't believe in any prophets after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam). As for Buruz, this is a Sufi concept that is valid part of our tradition. The idea of Buruzi Nubuwwat isn't against Khatam-un-Nubuwwah.

Recently I updated my blog with a reference from none less a figure than Shaikh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (rahimahullah) who said: “Prophethood in its outward sense has gone, but in terms of its essence it will continue till the Day of Judgment. Otherwise, why should there always be forty saints [Abdaals] on the earth? Aspects of prophethood are to be found in some of them, whose hearts are like those of prophets. From among them are khalifas of God and of His messengers.”

رَبَّ جِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَائِيلَ وَإِسْرَافِيلَ أَعِذْنِي مِنْ حَرِّ النَّارِ وَعَذَابِ الْقَبْرِ: Sh. Abdul Qadir Jilani (RA): "Essence of Prophethood Remains Till Judgment Day"

If you continue to discuss matters you have no knowledge of, I will report you to the mods. Islam is not a joke,

Feel free to do so. I suspect your pleas will fall on deaf ears. After all "this guy is discussing something I disagree with" doesn't seem like a very compelling reason for a ban. But hey I could be wrong.

[ذو الفقار]

This is Christian logic, They believe Jesus is God's incarnate into the temporal realm. Tajassoum

The word you’re looking for is Tajseem, not “Tajassoum”. We don’t say God is corporal, but we don’t negate corporality for Him either. We simply don’t know the reality of His Essence. Ibn al-Haysam, a Karramite theologian, belonging to a sect which openly believe God is a Jism. But Ibn al-Haysam simply explained God being a ‘Body’ to mean He is al-Qa’imu bi Nafsihi, meaning, self-Established. Therefore, I see no problem in saying God is a Jism in the sense of Him being Self-Established, which is also the meaning of God’s Name as-Samad.

We reject the Christian doctrines of divine incarnation and hypostatic union not because it is an example of the Divine intersecting into the finite, created world, but because we reject the idea that God is a mortal human being or that He incarnates Himself into humanity. We believe that Prophet Moses literally heard the Sound of God as God spoke to him from the ‘burning bush’. The Sound of God’s Holy Voice penetrated into our fininte ‘corporal’ dimension, and Moses was able to perceive God’s Voice not only with his heart but with the faculty of his two ears. This form of revelation known as Min Waraai Hijaabin where the Voice is heard but no Image is seen. (Sura 42: 51), an example of the Divine intersecting into the created world.

If anything, your advocacy of tajassoum is more in line with Hellenism than mine is. Mu'tazilah were inspired by the Greek methods of Reason, but they used reason to critique the Greek beliefs. You on the other hand bad mouth Logic, but you unwittingly adopt Greek Metaphysics. It was Hellenism that introduced corpeality into Christian Theology which you seem to abide by.

Judaism and Christianity actually followed closely the theology of the Mu’tazilites. Judaism as represented by Maimonides and Christianity as represented by Thomas Aquainas. They also adapted apophatic theology. ‘Corporalism’ as you understand it is likewise considered a grave heresy in mainstream Christianity and Judaism.

Because speech is a created thing. You really are a Pagan.

Life is created too. But you believe that God is Living, Alive (Hayy).

You're committing what's called an Equivocational Fallacy, where, you're using the conventional way we speak of knowledge in our day to day language, which obviously an Atheist would more likely agree exists, versus the idea of identity between information , knowledge and consciousness., which they may more likely challenge.

Yes, now you have indirectly admitted that your theology goes against both common sense but also human language. That was my whole point all along.

You have to change the universal meaning of words in human language like "knowledge" in order to maintain your speculative theology.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The word you’re looking for is Tajseem, not “Tajassoum”.

Tajseem means physical, tajassoum means to make embodied


Unlike you, I'm not getting my info from Asharis.com. Your rant about Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas is irrelevant to statement, the fact is YOU have done Tajassoum of God, whether you overtly admit it or not, so talking about what some treatise says is inconsequential to what YOU said. You're a corporealist, which is Pagan ...you're officially a Pagan and not a Muslim, you're not even a Qadiani, you're simply NOT a Muslim.

Life is created too. But you believe that God is Living, Alive (Hayy).

Yes mortal life is created, speech is used by mortal beings that rely on the physical laws of the universe to communicate.

God is not mortal ...false equivalence?

Yes, now you have indirectly admitted that your theology goes against both common sense but also human language. That was my whole point all along.

You were playing around with the word muhdath , which also has a common meaning, don't back peddle now. We're not having a common language-debate, we're having a debate about metaphysics. Trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator is intellectual cowardice.

[ذو الفقار]

Tajseem means physical, tajassoum means to make embodied

Wrong as usual, just as you were wrong about the Maccabees revolt being against Rome.

Unlike you, I'm not getting my info from Asharis.com. Your rant about Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas is irrelevant to statement, the fact is YOU have done Tajassoum of God, whether you overtly admit it or not, so talking about what some treatise says is inconsequential to what YOU said. You're a corporealist, which is Pagan ...you're officially a Pagan and not a Muslim, you're not even a Qadiani, you're simply NOT a Muslim.

Personal attack

Yes mortal life is created, speech is used by mortal beings that rely on the physical laws of the universe to communicate.

God is not mortal ...false equivalence?

Mortal life is created, but God's Life is uncreated.

Human speech is created, but God's Divine Speech is uncreated.

The same word when applied to God and mortals has the same meaning, but obviously different modality.

You were playing around with the word muhdath , which also has a common meaning, don't back peddle now. We're not having a common language-debate, we're having a debate about metaphysics. Trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator is intellectual cowardice.

Muhdath means "fresh" (Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur'anic Usage, p.194)

I am going by the common language definition, not a metaphysical one.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="HardTimesW01-Roman"]

Wrong as usual, just as you were wrong about the Maccabees revolt being against Rome.

That's not how it works

Personal attack

No that spiel was irrelevant and inconsequential to you being an Corpoealist Pagan

Mortal life is created, but God's Life is uncreated.

Human speech is created, but God's Divine Speech is uncreated.[/QUOTE]

False equivalence, speech is a consequence of physical reality. God is not. Mortal life exists in physical reality , God doesn't live in physical reality.

The same word when applied to God and mortals has the same meaning, but obviously different modality.

Then they're your reference to God's speech is simply an allegorical tool. That's fine then, if that's all you mean.

Muhdath means "fresh" (Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur'anic Usage, p.194)

You're saying you meant "fresh" , that the Qur'an was fresh? llol .....goodness ....lol

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[MENTION=19985]maneatinglizard[/MENTION] he;'s not even a Qadiani, but a corporealist Pagan.