Greetings, Mr. Watley...
In order for me to continue with you on this, the following questions will need to be answered directly:
============
1) If God is NOT a "HE", then to use "HE" in reference to God is logically and Mathematically INCORRECT. This is simple reasoning. If you are not a "fish", then to use the word "fish" to describe you would be INCORRECT.
Yet, you say that the Bible and Qur'an use the word "HE" for the purpose of "clarity of conversation". I ask you, again, Mr. Watley...
"How does using INCORRECT LANGUAGE produce 'clarity of conversation'?"
=============
2) When you say YOUR concept of God "Lines up with the Qur'an's concept of God", and the Qur'an uses "HE" and "HIM" and "HIS"...gender references...God is referring to HIMSELF in terms of Gender...are you saying that you know better than GOD how to refer to Him?
=============
3) EVERY PROPHET or MESSENGER that Allah(God) ever chose, according to Scripture (with the possible exception of Jonah), immediately began to proclaim their Messengership to the Public, in an attempt to make their presence known, and make God's Will known.
What is YOUR "messenger" waiting on? If he's anointed by God, why doesn't he show himself? With the world in such turmoil and darkness, why doesn't he show his "light" to the world? What's he waiting for? If he is a "messenger", when are we going to hear his "message"?
=============
Greetings Mr. Reuben,
"How does using INCORRECT LANGUAGE produce 'clarity of conversation'?"
Your first question infers that the Bible and the Quran is using incorrect language when masculine pronouns are use to refer to God.
Firstly, Mr. Reuben you ought to understand, it is correct language usage to refer to God in the masculine pronouns. God does not have a proper name. In other words, God does not have a name like Adam, Eve or Elijah. The label [God] is understood to be a title. For instance, an entity would have a title, and God is a special title, it is above the title of a king or president. In the Bible when one party speaking to another party refers to God or speaking of God period, the pronouns are capitalize that the reader would know that the pronoun is referring to God and not a person.
I believe it is a type of written vernacular. Thus, it is correct language usage. For example, if you were talking about an ordinary person using pronouns. The recipient would understand, and not be confused by what is being said by the other person. However, if you are going to refer to God, the pronouns are capitalize as a type of code that the recipient would automatically tune in that the capitalized pronoun is referring to God and not just person. Again, it is a type of written vernacular.
When you say YOUR concept of God "Lines up with the Qur'an's concept of God", and the Qur'an uses "HE" and "HIM" and "HIS"...gender references...God is referring to HIMSELF in terms of Gender...are you saying that you know better than GOD how to refer to Him?
When I said my concept of God, lines up with the Quran’s concept, I am saying that the way or how the Quran expresses the essence of God’s being is quite acceptable to me. In other words, the pronouns have nothing to do with the definition of God, as expressed by the Quran. Therefore, I understand the vernacular usage of the pronouns, but on the other hand, I am only agreeing with the Quran’s concept that Allah is not a human man.
Thus, this question does not configure with in what you really want.
However, I know what you mean and what you are asking me. First, let us understand that God does not talk at all. I do not believe that God has a tongue. Therefore, God cannot refer to himself. Again, this is a type of vernacular between one person and the next person. God does not speak a language as Mr. Fard Muhammad spoke several different languages. Since God mentally communicates directly into the mind of the Messenger or Prophet, speaking is not necessary.
Hence, I do not know better than God does, but I do know better than man does.
EVERY PROPHET or MESSENGER that Allah(God) ever chose, according to Scripture (with the possible exception of Jonah), immediately began to proclaim their Messengership to the Public, in an attempt to make their presence known, and make God's Will known.
Let me explain something to you about genuine Prophets or Messenger concerning their message or task. I will use myself as an example; let us say that God chose me concerning this sovereignty deal for Black Americans. God would inspire me with the concept of sovereignty. It would then be mentally explained to me that there is no other alternative and why.
However, to answer your question directly, it would be up to me (the messenger) how the message of sovereignty is convey. Bear in mind that God is constantly inspiring the messenger. If I should not understand, something that well, God will inspire that answer in my mind and I will then reveal it. Thus, my short answer is that it is up to the Messenger how he comes out to the public with his message. But let me tell you this, the public is not fooled about these particular people. The things they say, their wisdom and understanding are a give away from the start. Their own people usually categorized them from the very beginning, as crazy. However, Messengers go right to the head of the problems God raised them to overcome.
What is YOUR "messenger" waiting on? If he's anointed by God, why doesn't he show himself? With the world in such turmoil and darkness, why doesn't he show his "light" to the world? What's he waiting for? If he is a "messenger", when are we going to hear his "message"?
Well, I have always maintained that my message is the sovereignty of Black Americans on a portion of this continent we can call our own country with borders. You asked why not this messenger shows himself. Perhaps, you can see. I noticed that you use the world as the Messenger, responsibility to correct. Messengers or Prophets does not come to the world. They come to the people of their own race. The world is too big for a prophet to handle. In other words, the world is God’s responsibility. Thus, the short answer is that sovereignty is the message.
Sovereignty was never a part of the Nation of Islam’s agenda for Black Americans. I know that sovereignty is our only permanent solution on a portion of this continent that would make us a real people. Neither Minister Farrakhan, nor Elijah are anointed and inspired to bring sovereignty to the surface for Black Americans.
What say you?
Greetings, Mr. Watley:
You said that my first question "infers that the Bible and the Qur'an is using incorrect language when masculine pronouns are use to refer to God".
Sir, you obviously misunderstood the question. Here it is, again, in full:
"If God is NOT a "HE", then to use "HE" in reference to God is logically and Mathematically INCORRECT. This is simple reasoning. If you are not a "fish", then to use the word "fish" to describe you would be INCORRECT.
Yet, you say that the Bible and Qur'an use the word "HE" for the purpose of "clarity of conversation". I ask you, again, Mr. Watley...
"How does using INCORRECT LANGUAGE produce 'clarity of conversation'?"
It is YOU that is saying God IS NOT a "HE". Therefore, I am entertaining YOUR suggestion and using that as the base for my question.
I started off by saying "IF God is NOT a 'HE', then to use 'HE' in reference to God is logically and Mathematically INCORRECT."
Your earlier statement supports this principle:
"When the Quran refers to Allah as He, His and Him it is just for clarity of understanding and language. If you have noticed when I refer to God, I do not use any gender."
So, again, you say YOU do not use any gender. Yet, you say your concept of God lines up with the Qur'an's concept of God...and the Qur'an uses "HE".
You further state that "...it is correct language usage to refer to God in the masculine pronouns."
This is what I have been saying all along, because remember, I BELIEVE GOD IS MAN! Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me to use "HE" in reference to God; because I believe God IS a "HE"...a Man!
It is YOU that is saying God is NOT a "HE"...that God is not "Man". The problem is, you claim God is NOT Man, yet you say it is correct to use Language in reference to God that DESCRIBES a Man -- "HE".
So, again, I asked you a logical question, in "IF, THEN" format:
"IF" God is NOT Man (Masculine Gender),
"AND" The word "HE" describes Man (Masculine Gender),
"THEN" It is INCORRECT to use "HE" in reference to God. It is INCORRECT to attribute "masculine gender" to THAT WHICH has "no gender".
HOW, Mr. Watley, does using INCORRECT LANGUAGE bring about "clarity of understanding"?
The term used to describe "entities" with "no gender" is ..."IT". So, if YOU insist that God has "no gender", then YOU must say "IT"...and not "HE"; which also means, that You CANNOT say that your concept of God "Lines up with the Qur'an's concept of God, because you describe a "genderless" God, while the Holy Qur'an describes a "masculine" God.
You further stated:
"When I said my concept of God, lines up with the Quran’s concept, I am saying that the way or how the Quran expresses the essence of God’s being is quite acceptable to me."
Sir, if that is true, then you would use the word "HE", because the Qur'an uses the word "HE". But, again, you stated that you prefer to use "no gender". So how can the Qur'an's expression be "quite acceptable" to you, yet you refuse to use that expression yourself? ...Another contradiction.
The fact remains that ALLAH chose the Language "HE" to refer to Himself. Are you suggesting that ALLAH -- the Sustainer of All Existence by Exact Mathematical Laws -- is given to "loose expression" when offering Guidance to the People? Is that what you are saying, sir?
You cannot prove such an absurd notion.
Next, you state:
"Since God mentally communicates directly into the mind of the Messenger or Prophet, speaking is not necessary."
Sir, Both the Bible and Qur'an, which you have acknowledge are from God, they refute your notion that God does not "speak" a Language. Whom, then, do you expect me to believe...God? Or you, who can't seem to stay out of the pit of contradiction?
God's Word is consistent, when properly understood.
Your word, however, is not only inconsistent, but contradictory of itself. The record of these exchanges shows this clearly.
Lastly, you stated:
"Sovereignty was never a part of the Nation of Islam’s agenda for Black Americans."
Sir, You again are contradicting yourself. Here's what you said earlier:
"We are on the same sides, supposedly we both want the same thing and that is sovereignty for our people on a portion of this continent we can call our own country with borders."
So, first, you AGREE that the Nation of Islam and yourself are "on the same side", with regard to "sovereignty", then, you flip and say that "Sovereignty was never a part of the Nation of Islam’s agenda for Black Americans."
Consider the words of the Hon. Elijah Muhammad which have been in print since BEFORE 1965.
What The Muslims Want
4. We want our people in America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be allowed to establish a separate state or territory of their own -- either on this continent or elsewhere. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to provide such land and that the area must be fertile and minerally rich. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to maintain and supply our needs in this separate territory for the next 20 to 25 years--until we are able to produce and supply our own needs.
Since we cannot get along with them in peace and equality, after giving them 400 years of our sweat and blood and receiving in return some of the worst treatment human beings have ever experienced, we believe our contributions to this land and the suffering forced upon us by white America, justifies our demand for complete separation in a state or territory of our own.
What the Muslims Believe
9. WE BELIEVE that the offer of integration is hypocritical and is made by those who are trying to deceive the black peoples into believing that their 400-year-old open enemies of freedom, justice and equality are, all of a sudden, their "friends." Furthermore, we believe that such deception is intended to prevent black people from realizing that the time in history has arrived for the separation from the whites of this nation.
If the white people are truthful about their professed friendship toward the so-called Negro, they can prove it by dividing up America with their slaves. We do not believe that America will ever be able to furnish enough jobs for her own millions of unemployed, in addition to jobs for the 20,000,000 black people as well.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm
Again, Mr. Watley, you have been SHOWN to be INCORRECT in your assumptions.
It is more than apparent that you are not willing to submit to the clear and obvious Truths that negate your assertions. I am not saying you have to agree with the Hon. Elijah Muhammad and His Position. What I am saying is that the Basis of your disagreement has nothing to do with Truth. It is apparently based on your vain desire to be recognized as a "leader" or "messenger".
Mr. Watley, I have appreciated these exchanges...but they are beginning to be redundant. If you have nothing more to present other than what has already been presented...and defeated...then I will thank you for your endulgence and wish you God's Mercy and Peace.
Salaam.
Bro. Reuben Muhammad
Nation Of Islam
No comments:
Post a Comment