thanks for that, Anwar.  interesting.

>What you see there is common among muslims in their understanding of the
Qur'an.

if it's even common among muslims, then it is a dangerous
document, of little positive use.




Anwar J Goins <[log in to unmask]>@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> on 10/10/2001
06:29:12 PM

Please respond to Raw Food Diet Support List
      <[log in to unmask]>

Sent by:  Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>


To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:
Subject:  Re: Love Conquers All


Have you ever seen when a book is totally pulled out of context? This is
what you see here. Moreover, you see alot of unintelligent Islamic
translation of the Qur'an. The Qura'n is in Arabic, not English.  I can
take all those verses and give you what they really say. The words like
'unbelievers' and 'pagans' are misconstrued words. Their
pre-Islamic/non-Islamic meanings are totally different. A kaafir(un) is
not a person following another religion other than Islam it is literally
'one who
denies/one who is ungrateful' You see how you have been given no real
context? Get the context and understand what the real words are saying
not just what the popular Islamic interpretations are. I'll tell you that
What you see there is common among muslims in their understanding of the
Qur'an. BUt once you understand that even native Arabic speakers don't
speak Classical Arabic(it is no ones native language thought it still is
taught and understood because their are abundant resources) and that they
stick Islamic meanings into the Quran where this has no place you will
understand how limited their understanding is and why it is so biased.
Get context and put into proper context and you get the proper meaning of
something. What is on that site is just a replication of the wrong
understanding of Muslims + a bit more out of context to get you thinking
what they are thinking. Muslims do it too to get other Muslims
thinking what they think. None of them have the sense to put the QUr'an
into
it's proper context(pre-Islamic) and try to understand all that the book
can be saying not what they are telling the book. Also, what is an
unbeliever, what is a pagan(as the Quran describes it)? The Arabic words
being used in their pre-Islamic and non-Islamic meanings have nothing to do
with
'pagan' or the like. The Qur'an specifically defines these but since no
one takes the time out to really intelligently think on the origins of the
Qur'an(atleast Muslims and these people)
or go past standard islamic doctrine to understand that the Qur'an is
pre-Islamic none of them realize what it is saying. The Qur'an is,
granted, a book that encourages those who believe in God and finality and
gives advice to them and views them as superior in this belief (but a
belief based on intelligence, discernment and prudence) but it guarantees
freedom of religion for all others that do not share this belief.

"Truly, the believers, among the Jews, Christians and those who deviate
from
these are whoever has believed in God and the final time and would work
good and honestly. For them is a reward with God. There is to be no
fear on them and they will not be sad."

You see from the Quranic point of view one can be a believer and not be
Muslim. The Quran doesn't even mention being Muslim. Because it is based
on believing in God and finality. But Muslims don't
think and study the Qur'an or question the whys and hows. They just
accept it as Islamic and stick Islamic meanings on passages which gives
them disastrous understandings. This is similar with many
Christians and the Bible. Remember my example about 'tracks, trains and
conductors'? These words could be used in any fashion, but if the fact
that these words are not talking about anything even remotely related to
locomotives in a work from the 15th century but there is someone trying
to use these words with their modern implications . . . Need I continue.
Not to mention if they are not looking at things out of context.

jiziya has another Arabic meaning. I cannot remember the root exactly.
THough I remember going through it before. The jiziya meaning poll-tax is
an
Islamic thing
and the word used before this word is not 'pay'. Furthermore disregard all
things
in parenthesis. IF you cannot check it or are not sure about your source
do not accept them. They are an attempt to help(influence) your
understanding in the right way or the wrong way. Furthermore what is a
'pagan' or an 'infidel' or an 'unbeliever' in the context of the Quran?
How does the Quran define it? I can tell you but they give you the wrong,
Islamic, point of view? The Quran is pre-Islamic. "Establish worship and
pay the poor due' are rigid Islamic understandings of 'iqaamatu sawlawaatu'
and
' eetaa'u zzakawaatu'. I defined these in earlier posts. In this context
they
are ' establishing/keeping to promotions of good and well being' and
'compliance with justice.' You will be able to see all of the meanings on
my resurrected website. I will not apologize in anyway for the Hell
verses, the real problem is understanding who it(the Quran) is saying is
really going to hell from an un-islamic arabic language point of view.
Jihaad does not mean holy war in pre-Islamic and non-islamic Arabic it
means 'struggle'. I hate having to see these interpretations being spread
and people using them for their own purposes. Even with the word 'friend'
this is not the meaning of the word in Arabic. The word is 'waleeyun' it
means 'owner, patron, supporter' and remember what I put up earlier in
this post from the Quran: a
believer can be encountered among Christian, Jews and even Hindus! And
the Qur'an is addressing humanity with a particular interest for those
within its concept of 'believer', stated earlier. So
what is that passage about not taking 'awliyaa'u(plural of waleeyun)
among Jews and Christians really saying? All I can say is that
Muslims get
what they deserve when spreading and believing in such interpretations.
I just hate to see the Qur'an catching all the hell when that is not what
it is saying, AND on top of that the passages have been taken out of
context.

Godbless,
Anwar

Gary Orlando wrote:
>
> apparently it promotes a lot more than what you say below...
>
> http://www.hinduunity.org/
>
>
>
>
> Anwar J Goins <[log in to unmask]>@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> on
10/09/2001
> 04:20:26 PM
>
> Please respond to Raw Food Diet Support List
>       <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent by:  Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: Love Conquers All
>
>
> No. They are totally different. Muslims say that they believe in the
> Qur'an but in truth they don't follow it(they really follow Hadeeth and
> traditions). The main point which separates
> the Qur'an(Koran) from Islam is that it came during Pre-Islamic times and
> never
> intitiated any religion called Islam. In fact the words Islam(properly
> al-islaamu) and muslim(properly muslimun) have pre-islamic arabic
> meanings and the Qur'an never changed them or added anything to them,
> someone else added another meaning onto them. They(muslims) and
> others don't understand the Qur'an or that the Qu'ran does not promote
> Islam because they don't put it into proper context. It is like reading a
> work from 1500 A.D. in England that talks about 'tracks, conductors and
> trains' and thinking it is talking about locomotives. That is not
> intelligent or prudent. You have to put
> things into context(atleast as best you can). When you put the Qur'an
into
> it's proper context, a
> pre-Islamic one, then you see that it does not promote Islam, though
> Islam blindly promotes the Quran, like Christianity blindly promotes the
> Bible. I would send you to my website if it wasn't temporarily down. It
> should be up by next week though. THen I'll give everyone the address.
> What does the Qur'an promote? Islaamun lillaahi or Submission to and for
> God. It says in 3:19 'Adeenu &andillaahil-Islaamu': The order with God is
> to
> be submission.'
>
> Godbless,
> Anwar
>
> Liza May wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not talking about Islam. Islam and the Quran are not the same
> > don't
> > > get it twisted.
> >
> > I thought they were. What is the difference?
> >
>