Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/20/2017 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Gaius I. Caesar

    Tough Guys Wear Pink

    Quit your hysterical crying, McCarthy and feast your eyes upon this: Meet the Pink Mosque.^
  2. 4 points

    Anti-Iraq sentiment on these boards

    Do die before you die means to kill your sense of ego before your actual death. To kill the self servant and so that your only a servant of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and to act only fi sabilillah. It means to kill you pride, your care for status among people, to clean your heart of anything other than Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, to kill your love for dunya. To live only fi sabilillah. To rid yourself of any other identity than muslim, to understand that you were muslim before you became a member of your nation, before you became a male, before you became a human and that you strive to be a muslim the day you are resurrected when all the other identities which you clang on to during your life will mean nothing. The holy Prophet(S) said: "If you wish to see a dead man walking on this earth, a man whose resurrection has happened already, then look at Ali."
  3. 4 points
    Gaius I. Caesar

    Tough Guys Wear Pink

    Computer graphics? Sorry I am not that tech savvy, besides these are some pretty old "computer graphics" from Iran. Created 130 years ago, I don't think that computers were a thing then.
  4. 3 points

    The teachings of Islam in summary

    The teachings of Islam: Believe in God and the Prophet and obey them. Believe in divine justice and judgment after death and model your life so that you can survive the judgment satisfactorily. Honour, respect, help and obey your parents, even if they do not fulfil their obligations to you. But do not obey them if they ask you to commit a wrong. Help those in need financially and otherwise but without a motive and as far as possible, on the quiet. Do not let your generosity be commonly known. Have special consideration for disadvantaged groups, such as orphans, women, old people, strangers in town etc. Don’t deceive anyone in a private or in a trade transaction. Stick to patience in all adversities. If someone arouses your anger, forgive that person. Try and forgo your right to retaliate. Don’t treat a woman in distress as your heritage. Do not take advantage of women or of anyone weaker than you. Do not charge interest on a sum of money you lend someone. If a debtor finds it difficult to pay back the loan on the due date, reschedule the debt so that he has more time. And if you write the debt off completely, it is even better. Never let your courage fail you. Be brave. You live only once. If you have slaves, treat them as family. It will be better to let them go. And if they want to go, you must not stop them. But if they wish to stay, share your wealth equally with them. Be firm. Do not allow yourself to be unduly influenced. Behave in a manner where your behaviour is described as graceful, even if someone tries to bully you or acts unjustly to you. Judge justly. If you know that your son has committed an offence, speak against him in court, if you are asked to give evidence. Do not allow your love for your relatives to lead you to injustice. Always speak kindly, even if you wish to avoid a person, who wishes to mislead you or is otherwise a pest or a nuisance. Place your trust entirely in God and no one else. Do not bear false witness. Do not gamble. Do not consume intoxicating drinks. Reflect deeply into the mysteries of life. If you have committed a sin, ask for God’s forgiveness. If you have sinned against a human being, ask the person to forgive you before you seek divine forgiveness. And repent, that is, promise never to repeat the sin again Respect your guests and neighbours even if they are atheists or agnostics or belong to another religion. Be the first to greet people. In other words, when you meet someone on the street or elsewhere, greet him first, that is, before he tries to greet you. Repel evil with good. In other words, if someone does evil to you, do not respond to him with evil, rather with good. Do not engage with those who mock your religion. Leave them alone but depart from them gracefully. When your eyes fall upon a person of the other sex, lower your gaze or at least turn your eyes to something else. Sex outside a legal relationship is not permitted. Homosexuality is a very grave sin. Don’t be scared to go to battle in self-defence. Do not attack anyone except in self-defence. Always seek a peaceful solution to your problems. Do not resort to violence until your adversary does so. Give the other person the privilege of a first strike. Live simply. The Prophet’s own simple life is confirmed by the following scholars: Barnaby Rogerson, The Prophet Muhammad, 2003, p. 73: (1) Muhammad made no use of Khadijah’s wealth (other than to give alms to the poor) and maintained his same simple existence and his life as a merchant. Karen Armstrong, Muhammad – A Biography of the Prophet, 1993: (2) Muhammad gave a large proportion of the family income to the poor and made his own family live very frugally. (p. 81) (3) Muhammad himself always lived a simple and frugal life, even when he became the most powerful sayyid in Arabia. He hated luxury and there was often nothing to eat in his household. He never had more than one set of clothes at a time and when some of his Companions urged him to wear a richer ceremonial dress, he always refused, preferring the thick, coarse cloth worn by most of the people. [Sayyid means leader] (p. 93) (4) He hated to be addressed with pompous, honorific titles, and was often seen sitting unaffectedly on the ground in the mosque, frequently choosing to sit with the poorest members of the community. (Page 230) Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ix, taken from the digitised version of Google Books, p. 324: (5) The good sense of Mahomet despised the pomp of royalty; the apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire, swept the floor, milked the ewes, and mended with his own hands his shoes and his woollen garment (6) Many weeks would elapse without a fire being kindled on the hearth of the prophet. Washington Irving, Mohammed, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2007, p. 94: (7) The style of living of the prophet himself was not superior to that of his disciple . . . He swept his chamber, lit his fire, mended his clothes, and was, in fact, his own servant. Syed Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam, Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1923 (1997): (8) Mohammed was extremely simple in his habits. His mode of life, his dress and his belongings, retained to the very last a character of patriarchal simplicity. Many a time . . . had the Prophet to go without a meal. Dates and water frequently formed his only nourishment. (p. 120-121) (9) Modesty and kindness, patience, self-denial, and generosity pervaded his conduct, and riveted the affections of all around him. With the bereaved and afflicted he sympathized tenderly . . . He shared his food even in times of scarcity with others, and was sedulously solicitous for the personal comfort of everyone about him. He would stop in the streets listening to the sorrows of the humblest. He would go to the houses of the lowliest to console the afflicted and to comfort the heartbroken. The meanest slaves would take hold of his hand and drag him to their masters to obtain redress for ill-treatment or release from bondage . . . At night he slept little, spending most of the hours in devotion. He loved the poor and respected them, and many who had no home or shelter of their own slept at night in the mosque contiguous to his house. Each evening it was his custom to invite some of them to partake of his humble fare. (p. 120)
  5. 3 points
    If a man and woman are compatible, and each is willing to deal with all the "issues" of the other (existing children, relative immaturity, whatever) they should marry, no problem. No man who feels unprepared to take on the responsibility of a widow (who might be wiser than him) and her children (which will bring their own unique set of problems) should marry a widow with children, and no widow with children should marry a previously unmarried man if she has any doubts about his ability to become a beneficial part of her existing family.
  6. 3 points
    I think the point that the brother was trying to make about necrophelia / incest etc. is that. According to gay advocates, if relationship is consensual and there is no immediate, observable harm to either of the two persons involved, then any kind of sex is ok between those people. I didn't include pedophelia in this because most secular people also say that it must be between two adults, because children are not able to consent. The problem with this premise (no immediate, observable harm) is that they count only physical and emotional harm done to the individual. Because they believe society is only random collection of individuals and we have no soul. If you accept those premises (that society itself doesn't really exist but it is only a random collection of individuals and we have no soul or spirit), then their assertion that the above acts are ok are logical, based on their premises. But if you accept those premises, then you also have to accept incest between two consenting adults that does not result in pregnancy(because that meets their definition) and necrophilia because a corpse is not alive and has no soul, thus just a slab of meat (again based on their premises). Islam does not accept those premises. Islam says that society itself has rights over the individual (just as individual has rights over society) and human being have a soul, which is the eternal part of you. Your soul or Ruh is the real 'you', not your body. Your body is just a vehicle you use while you are on this earth. The soul operates by certain rules and can be healthy or sick, just like the physical body. The consequences for having a sick soul are much greater than the consequences for having a sick body. So to tie it back to my first point, about the effects of homosexuality on the family and social structure, homosexuality (consensual between two adults) is a crime against society, because it breaks down the social bonds that hold families and communities together, and a crime against the soul of the person (since Allah(s.w.a) has forbidden homosexuality).
  7. 3 points
    Son of Placid

    The teachings of Islam in summary

    The true teaching of Christianity is pretty scarred up too. At this point the public has gone from mild criticism to mild activism against all things Christian. Somewhere down in the US a baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. He said it went against his Christian beliefs. Last I saw they were starting some legal action against the baker. Every year now atheists bring up scores of old pagan traditions and tie them to modern Christian tradition, relevant or not. Atheists do posters for buses now. "Christian morals" has been socially degraded to laughable. The social world is about to ban the word sin. If it's any consolation, Canada passed a bill against Islamophobia.
  8. 2 points
    Salaam Aleikum, There is an discussion between the people of paradise asking of what they did on Earth to archive the position in paradise and thus saved from the fire. They mention two qualities that it is mentioned so many times in Qur'an; They will exchange with one another a cup [of wine] wherein [results] no ill speech or commission of sin. There will circulate among them [servant] boys [especially] for them, as if they were pearls well-protected. And they will approach one another, inquiring of each other. They will say, "Indeed, we were previously among our people fearful [of displeasing Allah ]. So Allah conferred favor upon us and protected us from the punishment of the Scorching Fire. Indeed, we used to supplicate Him before. Indeed, it is He who is the Beneficent, the Merciful." Quran 52:23-28 Fearful means Taqwa to not disobey Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, thus causing Him displeasing towards us. Supplication is a guidance and protection that help us to keep us in right path that cause Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى pleasing. O you who have believed, fear Allah. And let every soul look to what it has put forth for tomorrow - and fear Allah . Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.(59:18) Their sides draw away from their beds; they call upon their Lord in fear and in hope. (32:16) They used to hasten, one with another, in deeds of goodness and to call upon Us, hoping and fearing. (21:90)
  9. 2 points

    Learn how to do wutho!

    Salam brother, what you said is the view of some of our maraji' but there are other maraji' that have a different view regarding Wudu. Here is a fatwa by Imam Khamenei that allows Wudu for any salah without the niyah of Qurbatan ilallah. Q: May one perform the ẓuhr prayer by means of the same wuḍū’ which had been made for (purposes of) the preceding fajr prayer?A: Whenever a wuḍū’ has been made correctly – be it for prayer purposes, reading the Qur’an or just to attain a state of ritual purity – one may continue to perform any ritual or action which conditionally requires a wuḍū’ as long as one’s wuḍū’ hasn’t become void. Even if one doubts as to whether one’s wuḍū’ has become void or not, one may neglect and not pay heed to such doubts and presume the wuḍū’ has not become void.
  10. 2 points

    Issues with Islam

    Well get used to it man. Not everyone is going to agree with you. So man up and take it like a man.
  11. 2 points
    Anything against nature is harmful.
  12. 2 points

    They are NOT treated equally!

    Brother please do not make up a false ruling like this, no one becomes najis or equal to najis. You already made 2 people believe they are najis.
  13. 2 points
    Thank you, and we also agreed on this as well, and i was wrong again.
  14. 2 points

    They are NOT treated equally!

    Issue 903: * For women, it is better to pray at such places where they are best protected from Na Mahram, regardless of whether that place is her home, a mosque or anywhere else. https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-ali-al-husayni-al-sistani/rules-salat-part-ii-iii#mustahab-places-offering-prayers
  15. 2 points
    "gentile Christians"... geeze.. Christian Zionists are probably the most clueless people on earth.. to put it nicely
  16. 2 points


    You and I know, the events of Saqifah is well documented. So, if you want to start cherry picking the historical accounts of Saqifah then go ahead. And as for whether it is a "Sin" to reject history of Abu Bakrs Caliphate, then you are also raising doubts on all "Rightly guided Caliphs" Once you start questioning the veracity of history from "Sunni perspective" then i would confidently say you don't belong to Sunni School of thought. It is Sunni consensus that all companions were on Haq. Then for you to come along and raise doubts about the historical account of the companions is a sin from a Sunni point of view.
  17. 2 points
    With all due respect, you are acting like a kid by judging a person for asking questions on sexual orientation. Be thankful for not facing such doubts nor such desires. Seriously, the lack of empathy and ignorance you find here at times is overwhelming...
  18. 2 points

    Tough Guys Wear Pink

  19. 2 points
    And you will find a discussion in chapter 74 where Ashaab Al-Yameen asking about the guilty ones: What has brought you into hell? They shall say: We were not of those who prayed; And we used not to feed the poor; And we used to enter into vain discourse with those who entered into vain discourses; And we used to call the day of judgement a lie; Till death overtook us (74:42-47) One can understand what the people of paradise would have done in their lives!
  20. 2 points
    Wow, may Allah protect that baker. I've also heard the religion of Buddha have been corrupted and changed to please man's desires. Religion in a few more years may be something people will look down at you upon. 60 years ago or so homosexuality in many places was thought to be a disease, and now if you speak up against a homosexual you've committed a grave crime and can be punished. May Allah protect and preserve the teachings of His noble prophets and messengers.
  21. 2 points
    Because in west (Non-Muslim country) the Muslims are weird sometimes, hard to approach and easy to complain and say mind your own business.
  22. 2 points

    The Aqsa Mosque

    There is a debate amongst us Shi'a whether Bayt Al-Maqdis (the one in Jerusalem) is the Al-Aqsa that is mentioned, or is it a Mosque in the Heavens, and even if it is the same Al-Aqsa... for us Shi'a, Bayt Al-Maqdis, or what is usually called Al-Aqsa Mosque, is not as holy for us as it is for the Sunnis, who class it as number 3 after the two holy Mosques, even though it is still holy. In fact, even Masjid Al-Kufa might be holier than it. The reason for Muslim anger against Trump's decision is because Muslims believe that entire land is usurped, and that Jerusalem should be the capital of the state of Palestine.
  23. 2 points
    Abu Hadi

    Trump's Jerusalem decision

    From Wikipedia, not sure if all of this is correct, but I can't find anything glaringly wrong with it The covered mosque building was originally a small prayer house erected by Umar, the second caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate, but was rebuilt and expanded by the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE. The mosque was completely destroyed by an earthquake in 746 and rebuilt by the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur in 754. His successor al-Mahdi rebuilt it again in 780. Another earthquake destroyed most of al-Aqsa in 1033, but two years later the Fatimid caliph Ali az-Zahir built another mosque which in broad lined stands to the present day. During the periodic renovations undertaken, the various ruling dynasties of the Islamic Caliphate constructed additions to the mosque and its precincts, such as its dome, facade, its minbar, minarets and the interior structure. When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they used the mosque as a palace and the Dome of the Rock as a church, but its function as a mosque was restored after its recapture by Saladin in 1187. More renovations, repairs and additions were undertaken in the later centuries by the Ayyubids, Mamluks, Ottomans, the Supreme Muslim Council, and Jordan. Today, the Old City is under Israeli control, but the mosque remains under the administration of the Jordanian/Palestinian-led Islamic Waqf. For your second, I think, question, Christians have hundreds of holy sites, can't muslims have three ? Your statement about muslims 'having it in their hearts' to let Jewish people have a holy site being rare, this is weird argument and makes me think you have been influenced by some sort of heavy propaganda. First, muslims are not a collective entity, like the Borg on Star Trek (not sure if you got that reference). They have different thoughts, opinions, and ideas. If you were around many you would probably know that. They don't have the ability, at this point in history, to 'not allow' Jewish people to have a holy site, that is supposing they even want to do that (as a collective ?). If the government of what is currently referred to as the 'State of Israel' wanted to resurrect the Temple of Soloman, they could do it. I think you are ignoring the point I made earlier. The people who are in charge of the so called 'State of Israel' are secular, not religious. They don't care too much about Holy Sites. Now if they decided to do this Temple project and tear down Masjid Al Aqsa in the process, there would definitely be a backlash from Muslims in Palestine and around the world. How big and how serious would this be, it's hard to tell. I don't think it would be insignificant. Muslims, in general, are not attached to buildings, as some Jews are (i.e. the Temple of Soloman as a building). The place where Al Aqsa mosque now sits will always be a sacred place, not because of the dome or the structure of the building, but because of what took place there, i.e. the event of Miraj, which is mentioned in the Holy Quran. As you see above, the actual Mosque building has been torn down and rebuilt many times throughout history. The most Holy Site in Islam, the Kaaba, has been torn down several times, destroyed, etc. It was rebuilt again. It is not the structure that is sacred, but what the structure represents. They can destroy the building of Al Aqsa(although I don't think they will do this, I could be wrong though) but they can't destroy what the site represents. If the situation were reversed and there was another Holy Site standing on top of Al Aqsa today, and in order to rebuild the mosque structure, it would involve destroying what was there and this would cause a chaos and backlash in which people would die, then I would not be in favor of rebuilding the Al Aqsa mosque. Human life (any human life) is more valuable than a building, IMHO. It is what the building represents that is sacred, not the building itself. But why Muslims would be upset if the Al Aqsa mosque was torn down is because this is an act of injustice, in a long string of Injustices perpetrated by the so called 'State of Israel' against the Palestinian people, stretching back almost 100 years.
  24. 2 points
    The closest that it would be in Arabic would be AL-Hayyu. YHWH is actually Aramaic and not Hebrew; the Aramaic was used in the Hebrew Text to prevent confusion as the Hebrew YHYH is used throughout the Hebrew Text. HYH is not an Aramaic verb and is not used in the Aramaic Text; what one will find is that YHWH never appeared in the Aramaic Texts of the Bible in reference to the Deity- this is simply because the Aramaic HWH is used exactly the way the Hebrew HYH is used. To prevent the Aramaic YHWH from being confused for Deity in the Aramaic Texts of the Bible, the scribes changed the normal Yod prefix to a Lam- LHWH instead of YHWH. Doing this, the reader understood that the verb was not meat for the YHWH of the Hebrew Text. Below is an article I wrote on the subject few years ago. The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] has been hotly debated for the last two centuries. Many linguists, scholars, and theologians have tackled this topic with less than unanimous agreement on the pronunciation. For the most part, these great men have promoted pronunciations that were based upon, what they deemed, Theophoric name present in the Bible, upon the historical evidence of earlier scholars and theologians who were witnesses living closer in time to the ancient Israelite peoples of Canaan, or upon perceived scribal errors contained in the Masoretic Text─ even upon claims of revealed knowledge. None had, till now, attempted a purely grammatical approach to the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. There are several factors which can be used to deduce the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. There is textual evidence in the Bible which can be used to gain insights into the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. There is the fact that the verb root of the Tetragrammaton is an Aramaic verb and not a Hebrew verb. The use of the Tetragrammaton is restricted to the Hebrew portions and does not appear in any of the Aramaic portions of scripture. The use of the Lamed prefix in the book of Daniel is exclusively for the verb HaWaH הוה and can show the actual conjugation of the verb root of the Tetragrammaton as a Pa’al 3rd masculine singular of havah (הוה). Finally, there are inscriptions of the Tetragrammaton which can demonstrate the mist ancient spelling of the Divine Name of the Israelites. The Tetragrammaton is the name used in reference to the four letters used to write the name of God in the Hebrew text of the Bible. In the Hebrew Text, these letters were written as (יהוה), which would be rendered YHWH in English letters. This name was utilized some 6,823 times in the Hebrew text of the Bible (Brown-Driver-Briggs 217). The Tetragrammaton was pronounced by the Hebrew people in all areas of religious devotion, social contracts, greetings and possibly curses, from the High Priest to the humble servant. The pronunciation began to decline after the ban was ordered by Antiochus IV Epiphanes around 168 BCE (Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 18b). Finally, this pronunciation ceased due to the permanent ban by Abba Saul c. 150 CE (Nehemia Gordon, pg. 4). As a result of this ban, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is presumed to be lost. The true pronunciation has always been considered of prime importance. As early as the fourth century CE, this Tetragrammaton was being pondered by the Greek Church. In his commentary on Exodus, Theodoret of Cyrus purported that the correct pronunciation was forbidden among the Jews who subsequently “pronounced it as IAO, but the Samaritans pronounced the name as IABE” (Theodoret, Questions on Exodus, XV). This has given rise to many interpretations surrounding the Tetragammaton’s pronunciation: the two most prevalent follows. The Anglicized Jehovah is considered to be an 1100 CE invention based upon earlier texts of magical incantations (The Harvard Theological Review 318). This pronunciation was used in many Latin publications between 1200 and 1300 CE (Sir Godfrey Driver paragraph 7). In 1516, Peter Galatin, suggested the Tetragrammaton was often pronounced by Pope Leo X, to whom he was a penitentiary. According to Galatin, the Pope approved the pronunciation as JeHoVaH (De Arcanus Catholicae Veritatis, folio XLII). This was then promoted by Gilbert Genebrard (c. 1537-97 CE), a French Benedictine exegete and also the professor of Hebrew at the College Royal in Paris (Lang 207). By 1530, the Tetragrammaton passed into the English Bible translations as Iehouah, which was first used by William Tyndale (Tyndale, 1530, Tyndale Bible, Gen. 15:2). Today, this version of the Tetragrammaton is being hailed as the true and correct pronunciation by many Karaites, howbeit, corrected to be more Hebrew sounding- for instance Yehowah/Yehovah (Melech ben Ya’aqov, 2010). The influence of Karaites, such as Nehemia Gordon, has also led to the proclamation of Yehovah as the true pronunciation among the Christian movements (Johnson, 2010). One of the most famous pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton is Yahweh. This name was promoted at large by Wilhelm Gesenius (Gesenius 337). Gesenius is regarded as one of the most influential Hebrew scholars of the 19th century; he published this opinion in his Lexicon which was widely used in Universities at the time and even late into the 20th century. Oddly, in his entry for YHWH (יהוה), he explained that he based his Yahweh pronunciation on the works of early commentators such as Theodoret rather than any sound rules of grammar. Nevertheless, this pronunciation was soon preferred and adopted by university elites worldwide. The fact of the matter is the Yahweh pronunciation, which is so prominent among the academic elites, was but a guess which requires a re-examination from a more reliable source: namely, the Masoretic Text itself. One of the greatest hurdles which one must confront is whether or not the Tetragrammaton is a verb or a noun. This is not so easy to solve. On the one hand, the Tetragrammaton is derived from a pa'al 1st and 3rd imperfect conjugation (Exodus 3, 14-15). On the other hand, the Tetragrammaton was used in construct forms and appeared with inseparable prepositions and very much resembles a noun. There are places where the YHWH is preceded by the emphatic 1st personal pronoun, Anoki, which seems a bit strange, because, if the Tetragrammaton were a verb, it would mean "I am He Is/Shall Be". However, the usage of the emphatic personal pronoun along with a 3rd imperfect verb is also found in the early Semitic languages, such as Ugaritic, for monarchs. Looking at some of the constructions, such as Anoki YHWH eloheikha “I am He Is/Shall Be Your Deity” (Exodus 20, 2), the Tetragrammaton seems easily understandable as I am He Who Shall Be Your Deity. However, there are places where the emphatic personal pronoun Anoki was used with verbs, mainly participles, for instance in Exodus 34, 10, Anoki Kareith berith “I am cutting a covenant;” this pronoun was never used with a 3rd imperfect form, but with participles and 1st perfect forms. To this day, the oldest known vocalized Aramaic text is found in the Masoretic Text of the Bible. Research of the Aramaic portions of the Masoretic Text has shown that the proper inflection for the 3rd imperfect conjugation of HWH was recorded in the books of Ezra and Daniel; YeHeWeA/H [יֶהֱוֵא] was how the 3rd imperfect was conjugated by the Masorete scribes in the pointing of this verb in the books of Ezra and Daniel (see Daniel 2,20 and 4, 22; Ezra 4, 12). In addition, further research on the Masoretic Text has demonstrated that when a name was formed upon a 3rd imperfect verb conjugation, the only change (from a verb to a noun) was in the final syllable. The final syllable, especially in the Lamed-He verbs, received a Qamets as opposed to the Seghol-He which was common for the final syllable in Lamed-He verbs for example, the verb yishweh was changed to Yishwah in 1 Chronicles 7, 30 and the verb yishpeh was changed to Yishpah in 1 Chronicles 8, 16. Even in the Lamed-Guttural verbs, the normal Pathach was changed to a Qamets when forming a noun from the 3rd imperfect as was the case for the verb yiftach (with Pathach) in Deuteronomy 28, 12 which was changed to Yiftach (with Qamets) when it was used as a noun in Judges 11, 3. This demonstrates that if the Tetragrammaton were a noun, as opposed to a verb, then the final syllable would of necessity have a Qamets which is the norm for every other noun form based upon the 3rd imperfect in the Masoretic Text. Now the question arises, "What about the other vowels in the Tetragrammaton if it were a noun built upon the 3rd imperfect?" If it is to be assumed that the Tetragrammaton was a noun based upon the 3rd imperfect form, then the next question should be, "How should the preceding syllables be inflected?" As explained above, if the Tetragrammaton was a noun, then the only changes should be in the final syllable as was demonstrated by other nouns derived from an imperfect 3rd. The syllabification of Hebrew nouns, as used by the Masoretic Tradition, is as follows: A) Short vowels prefer an open accented or a closed unaccented syllable, B) Long vowels, changeable or unchangeable, prefer closed accented, or open pre-tonic syllables, C) Hateph vowels prefer the pro-pre-tonic syllables containing the gutturals, D) Vocal Shewa prefers the pro-pre-tonic syllables containing consonants other than gutturals. There is, however, another matter to consider; the presence of the gutturals Alef (א), He (ה), Chet (ח), Ayin (ע), and Resh (ר), as one of the stem radicals (the letters of the root), forces a change in the inflection that a syllable should take and also the vowels which should be used in the syllable containing the guttural. The rule to Pe-Gutturals states that pa'al imperfect verbs which end in a Holem, begin with a Pathach or Qamets, while Pe-Gutturals which end in a Pathach begin with a Seghol (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, Kennedy, page 146; Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, section 62-65); the verb ya’amod יַעֲמֹד follows this rule, but this isn’t the case for HaWaH. According to Gesenius and Kennedy, all Pe-Aspirants/Lamed-He verbs will also begin with Seghol. This is why, even though Gesenius suggested the YaHWeH pronunciation (due to the Greek witnesses), he admited that the actual conjugation of HWH, in the imperfect 3rd, was YeHeWeH [יֶהֱוֶה] (Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon page 247). An over-simplification of these rules are: 1) Gutturals prefer an "a" class vowel before and after, 2) Pa'al Imperfect Dynamic verbs prefer an "a" class vowel in the imperfect preformative prefix instead of the normal Hireq of the imperfect preformative prefix (yi), 3) Pa'al Imperfect verbs prefer a Seghol in the imperfect preformative prefix instead of the normal Hireq of the imperfect preformative prefix (yi), 4) The Hebrew verbs HYH (היה) and CHYH (חיה) were exceptions to these rules where the (yi) prefix was retained in the imperfect and the Pe-Guttural initial stem radical retained the silent Shewa. Based on these rules, the 3rd imperfect verb HWH (הוה) becomes YeHeWeH (יֶהֱוֶה) when conjugated. This was demonstrated to be the case in the Aramaic conjugation of the 3rd imperfect of HWH (הוה) found in Daniel and Ezra. If, as explained above, the only difference between the 3rd imperfect verb and nouns which are built upon them was the change in the final syllable, then the Tetragrammaton should be inflected as a noun built upon the 3rd imperfect of HWH (הוה)- which should be YeHeWaH (יֶהֱוָה) as all the evidence of the Masoretic pointing demonstrated. The conjugation of the Hebrew HWH (הוה), then, as a verb in the 3rd imperfect is YeHeWeH (יֶהֱוֶה), while the inflection as a noun would be YeHeWaH (יֶהֱוָה). It has been suggested by some etymologists, that the Tetragrammaton may have the vowels which are found in names such as [יְרֹהָם] Yeroham (1 Samuel 1,1). Yeroham was built upon the noun form of a pu'al conjugation: yeruham (יְרֻחַם). The evident changes in the pu'al derived noun were the Holem and Qamets as opposed to the Qibbuts-Pathach in the verb. This inflection should seem very strange for the Tetragrammaton because this conjugation is passive and would give the meaning of YeHoWaH as (He Was Made to Be); this would demand that the deity of Israel had a beginning. The vowels of YHWH, which were utilized in the Bible, were specifically used to represent that the Tetragrammaton was to be pronounced as either Adonai or Elohim. When YHWH stood alone, the vowels of Adonai were transposed upon the Tetragrammaton. When, however, the Tetragrammaton preceded or followed Adonai, the vowels of Elohim were transposed upon the Tetragrammaton. This is proven by the different vowels which are found upon the Tetragrammaton, as well as the usage of these vowels in relation to how near YHWH was to Adonai. In the Bible, the following vowels were used in connection with YHWH: יְהֹוָה (Y'howah) used a total of 29 times, יֱהוִה (Yehwih) used a total of 304 times; יֱהֹוִה (Yehowih) used only once in Judges 16:28; יְהֹוִה (Y'howih) used a total of 23 times, יְהוִה (Y'hwih) used a total of 207 times, and יְהוָה (Y'hwah) used a total of 6, 268 times In a search performed of the Bible, for words which had a He-Waw-Hireq combination, it was found that- in the entire Bible- the only word which used the He-Waw-Hireq (הוִ) was the Tetragrammaton YHWH. In every instance, the Tetragrammaton was either preceded by or followed by Adonai. There was one instance which proved extremely interesting; in Psalm 68, 21, the Tetragrammaton had not only a conjunction, but an inseparable preposition and is written weleiHWiH (וְלֵיוִה). This is interesting because, in this instance, the Tetragrammaton preceded Adonai. Naturally, this should mean that YHWH should carry the vowels of Elohim. The presence of the inseparable preposition L' (לְ) with the Tsere demonstrated that this was the case. In Hebrew grammar, there is a special rule for prefixing inseparable prepositions to Elohim; instead of the normal vocal Shewa, which the prepositions normally take, when they are prefixed to Elohim, the preposition takes a Tsere and the Aleph is quiescent. The similar is the case when prefixing a preposition to Adonai only, in that case, the preposition normally takes a Pathach as opposed to the vocal Shewa. When, however, the inseparable prepositions M (מְ), SH (שְׁ), and the article H (הָ) are used, the Aleph of Adonai is not quiescent, but is audible-that is, the aleph is pronounced. This was demonstrated in every case that a preposition is prefixed to YHWH when the Tetragrammaton stands alone; the preposition always takes a Pathach with the Yodh having no pointing which indicated the quiescent nature of the Aleph- except in those places where the M (מְ), SH (שְׁ), and the H (הָ) were used (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar § 102) . In those cases, the Yodh of YHWH took a vocal shewa which indicated the vocal nature of the Aleph in Adonai. Places in the Bible where this was demonstrated are: Genesis 47, 18 where it read MeiAdonai (מֵֽאֲדֹנִ֔י) and Genesis 18, 14 where it read MeiYeHWaH (מֵיְהוָ֖ה); Psalm 144, 15 where it read SheYaHWaH (שֶׁיֲהוָ֥ה); and Psalm 136, 3 where the article was used and it read HaAdonim (הָאֲדֹנִ֑ים). Another rule for inseparable prepositions, as well as the conjunction Waw, concerns the prefixing of these propositions to a word which had a vocal Shewa as the first radical, for instance, Yehudah. When, in these cases, an inseparable preposition was prefixed to these words, the prefix took a Hireq and the Yodh was assimilated to the Hireq. This means that the vocal Shewa was never pronounced. When a preposition was prefixed to Yehudah, for instance L' (לְ), it became LiHudah and not LiYehudah. This was never the case with YHWH; in every instance, the preposition took a Pathach. This provides proof positive that the vowels used by the Masoretic Text on YHWH were the vowels of Adonai and Elohim transposed upon the YHWH and that these vowels do not, in any way, represent any possible pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as it appears in the Masoretic Text. This shows that the Masoretes were simply abiding by the rabbinical ordinance in an attempt to prevent the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton by anyone reading the Bible. What this really demonstrated was that the vowels of YHWH, as is presently found in the Masoretic Text, cannot represent the Tetragrammaton as a noun which would conform to the Hebrew rules of noun syllabification. The reason that the Tetragrammaton appeared in construct forms and with prepositions, and etc. is because the Tetragrammaton represented the words Adonai and Elohim. In those places where YHWH was used in the construct, for instance, YHWH Tsevaoth, YHWH always took a Qamets in the final syllable; this clarified, to the reader, that YHWH was to be pronounced as Adonai and so the reader would read Adonei Tseva'oth (אֲדֹנֵי צְבָאֹות). A great example of this is found in 1 Samuel 1,3 where the phrase was prefixed with a preposition; true to the Masoretic Text tradition of the use of inseparable prefixes with YHWH, there is a Pathach on the proposition which identified the YHWH was indeed to be read as Adonai. The result was that, in this place, the phrase was to be read as Ladonei Tsevaoth (לַאדֹנֵי צְבָאֹות); the Pathach naturally caused the Aleph to become quiescent. Based upon this information, it is entirely plausible that the phrase originally could have been YeHeWaH Elohei Tsevaoth (יֶהֱוָה אֱלֹהֵי צְבָאֹות) as it was found in places such as Psalm 89, 9. The Tetragrammaton first appears in the Biblical text in Genesis 2:4; from this point, the Tetragrammaton was given various vowels─all of which seem, at first glance, to be random. As explained above, the various vowel patterns, as they are currently found in the Westminster Leningrad Codex and the number of occurrences, are: יֱהֹוִה (1), יֱהוִה (2), יְהֹוִה (29), יְהֹוָה (39), יְהוִה (266), and יְהוָה (5,253) totaling 5,590 occurrences of the Tetragrammaton with 5 vowels and 6 vowel patterns (Leningrad Codex). The only answer for the variation of these vowel patterns is that the vowels, as listed in the Hebrew Text, are not the original vowels for the Tetragrammaton. According to the Rabbis, though the Tetragrammaton was written as YHWH (יהוה), it was to be read as Adonai אדני (Babylonian Talmud, Chapter 3, page 50). It has already been demonstrated that the Tetragrammaton is indeed supplied with the vowels of Adonai in those places it stands alone or is not is a close position to another Adonai in the text. In those places where the Tetragrammaton followed Adonai in the text, or was in close proximity to Adonai, it was supplied with the vowels of Elohim (אלהים). In all cases, the holem was the constant, as this vowel appears in both Adonai and Elohim in the second syllable. It could reasonably be argued that the Tetragrammaton does not contain the vowels of Adonai or Elohim, because the first vowel is, in the majority of cases, a vocal shewa. This is easily overcome by the fact that in Adonai and Elohim the first letter is an Alef (א). According to convention, the gutturals in the propretonic position take a hatef vowel and the non-guttural letters in the propretonic position take a vocal shewa (Pratico, Pelt, 2001). The meaning of the Tetragrammaton is explained in the Hebrew text as EHYeH asher EHYeH אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (Bible, Exodus 3,14). This is not the name of God, but the meaning of His name. In the next clause, He commands Moses to tell the Israelites “EHYeH אֶהְיֶה sent me” (ibid.). That EHYeH is the 1st imperfect singular of the verb HaYaH הָיָה , there is no doubt. The real problem to the pronunciation comes with the following verse. In this place, the 1st imperfect verb אֶהְיֶה is changed to יהוה (ibid. 3,15). This is beyond doubt an imperfect verb. The initial Yodhh, then, is the prefix for the imperfect 3rd. The final seghol He is a vowel letter and is not part of the root. What is left is HW הו , which clearly identifies the root as HaWaH הָוָה . HaWaH is the Aramaic verb and is used in much the same way as the HaYaH is used in Hebrew. That HaWaH is not essentially Hebrew is made clear by the limited occurrences in the Hebrew text. In the pa’al 3rd imperfect, this verb is used exclusively for the Tetragrammaton of the Israelite’s deity, the only exception being Ecclesiastes 11,3. On the other hand, this verb is never used for the deity of Israel in any of the Aramaic portions of the Bible. The inseparable prepositions, which are attached to the Tetragrammaton, are a tell-tale sign that the vowels upon the Tetragrammaton are not the original vowels; they indicate very precisely the opposite. In all cases in which the Tetragrammaton carries an inseparable preposition, the vowel patterns are for the pronunciation of either Adonai or Elohim. If YeHoWaH were the true pronunciation, which would be based upon only one vowel pattern found for the Tetragammaton, the prepositions would always take a hireq─ in every case; the hireq is used with these prepositions when preceding a Yodhh with a vocal shewa. The Leningrad Codex demonstrates that this was never the case, such as the following example found in Deuteronomy 29,28: הַ֨נִּסְתָּרֹ֔ת לַיהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵ֑ינוּ hanistaroth laYHWaH eloheinu. This makes it clear that the scribes trans-positioned the vowels of Adonai onto the Tetragrammaton. In this passage the Lamed was prefix with the Patach; this would only happen if the Tetragrammaton was to be pronounced as Adonai─ which was the rule when the Tetragrammaton was in close proximity to Elohim. If it were to be pronounced with a vocal shewa, then the Lamed prefix would take a hireq. However, it was to be pronounced as patach before a hateph patach (the vowel which is upon the Aleph in Adonai), so the Lamed naturally takes the patach. A great example of how the Lamed prefixed to Adonai takes a patach vowel is Genesis 18, 30 which reads: וַ֠יֹּאמֶר אַל־ןָ֞א יִ֤חַר לַֽאדֹנָי֙ wayomer al-na yihar lAdonai. Another example is found in Deuteronomy 33,7 of the Leningrad Codex how a Lamed prefix upon a word containing a vocal shewa in the Yodh of the first syllable. In this case, it is Yehudah. The verse reads: וְזֹ֣את לִֽיהוּדָה֮ wezoth lihudah ; here the Lamed has a hireq while the Yodh quiesces. This would be the same case for the Tetragrammaton if it had a vocal shewa upon the Yodh in the first syllable. However, the Lamed prefixing the Tetragrammaton in the Text never carries a hireq, which shows the Yodh was never pronounced, with vocal shewa or otherwise. The next example is Psalm 68,20 וְלֵיהוִ֥ה אֲדֹנָ֑י weleYHWiH Adonai. In this verse, the Lamed prefix of the Tetragrammaton takes a tsere, which is the case when the Tetragrammaton was to be pronounced as Elohim. It is so in this case because the Tetragrammaton is in close proximity to Adonai in the Text. Normally, the Lamed prefix would take a seghol when it precedes a hateph seghol (the vowel which is used on the Aleph of Elohim), however, there is a special rule when Lamed is prefixed to Elohim─ in this case, it would always take a tsere and not a seghol. It should be noticed, in addition, that the vowels of the Tetragrammaton have the vowels of Elohim. When Elohim was prefixed with Lamed, as the Tetragrammaton is, then Elohim would be vocalized with Lamed tsere, holem, and hireq which is evidenced by Genesis 17,7 לִהְיֹ֤ות לְךָ֙ לֵֽאלֹהִ֔ים lihyoth lekha leilohim. All these examples clearly show how the scribes interpolated the vowels of Adonai and Elohim upon the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Text. There were five vowels used in 6 vowel patterns by the scribes; none were meant to be the true vowels of the Tetragrammaton, but were interpolated vowels. Anytime the vowel pattern demonstrated a qamets in the final syllable it was to be pronounced Adonai; while anytime it demonstrated a hireq in the final syllable it was to be pronounced Elohim. It was for this reason that using any vocalization of the Tetragrammaton based upon the current vowel patterns found in the Masoretic Text is incorrect. These vocalizations are false patterns which were used only to aid the reader as to which way the Tetragrammaton was to be pronounced. Based upon the meaning given to the Tetragrammaton by God in Exodus 3:14, the Tetragrammaton is a verb. Knowing the root of the Tetragrammaton, it is clear to see that there is no difference in meaning or function from HaYaH. Both are verbs in the imperfect conjugation. In acknowledgment of this, the conjugation of HaWaH in the 3rd imperfect should naturally be valid. When a guttural closes an unstressed syllable, the preceding vowel will be seghol in place of the hireq, and the vowel after the guttural would take a hateph in the place where a non-guttural would take a shewa. Since the vowel preceding the guttural would be seghol, in place of hireq, then the hateph must be hateph seghol. Hence you would have YeHeWeH יֶהֱוֶה instead of YiHWeH יִהְוֶה . (Muraoka, 2011, pg. 79), also the verbs prefer seghol/hateph-seghol, while the dynamic verbs prefer pathach/hateph-pathach (Cook, Holmstedt, 2007, pg. 113). In the case of HaYaH היה and ChaYaH חיה , these verbs have an irregular pattern as compared to other I-Guttural verbs, therefore, the hireq is retained (Bickell, 1877, page 92 section 123). There is also the word of Gesenius- who influenced so many with his proposition of YaHWeH. He writes in his lexicon, under the entry for the Hebrew הָוָה , as well as that of the Aramaic/Chaldee HaWaH הֲוָה, that the imperfect form would be YeHeWeH יֶהֱוֶה (Gesenius, 1846, pg. 219). Yet he rejects the sound rules of grammar for a pronunciation which is never attested in any of the Semitic languages in which HaWaH is employed and where YHWH was not held as a divine Tetragrammaton (Beitzel, 1980, pg. 18). Aside from the lexicographers and grammarians of Biblical Hebrew, there is the Biblical text itself, which is a witness delivered to us by the Masoretic scribes. When the Aramaic portions of the Bible were being recorded, the lack of another verb presented a problem for them. The scribes knew there was a ban upon the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton─evidently the pe’al 3rd imperfect of HaWaH (הֲוָה) ─which grammatically would conjugate as YeHeWeiA יֶהֱוֵא in the Aramaic. This pronunciation is almost indistinguishable from the Hebrew conjugation YeHeWeH יֶהֱוֶה . The spelling variation itself poses no real difference in meaning as the final Tsere-Alef in Aramaic is a vowel letter much like the Seghol-He in the Hebrew. In the only place in the Hebrew text where the pa’al 3rd imperfect of HaWaH is employed, the verb is apocopated from YeHeWeH יֶהֱוֶה and spelled YeHuA יְהוּא (Gesenius, 1865, pg. 219). The solution the Masoretic scribes settled upon was to invent a new pe’al 3rd imperfect prefix for the verb HaWaH הֲוָה . In the place of the pre-formative Yodh, which is normally employed in the 3rd imperfect, the scribes substituted a Lamed seghol; the normal YeHeWeiA יֶהֱוֵא then becomes LeHeWeiA לֶהֱוֵא (Bible, Daniel 4:45). This Lamed prefix is an invention specifically for the HaWaH verb in the 3rd imperfect (Gesenius, 1865, pg. 219; Greenspahn, 2007, pgs. 79, 119). Though the Lamed prefix is attested in Rabbinic Aramaic, as well as later dialects such as Syriac and Mandaic, in Biblical Aramaic, it was exclusive for the verb HaWaH (Greenspahn, 2007, pg. 119). The Masoretic scribes knew that the verb HaWaH, as used in Daniel, would need to be pronounced because, in these places, the verb did not represent the Tetragrammaton. The verb would have been vocalized by many readers of the Aramaic portion which would cause them to violate the ban by default. As a solution, they needed to change only the prefix which gave the verb a different inflection, thereby, preventing anyone from violating the ban on the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. In the Hebrew portions, it was sufficient to use the Aramaic YHWH in place of the Hebrew YHYH, as HWH is not a Hebrew verb and is rarely seen in the Hebrew text. However, the verb HYH does not exist in the Biblical Aramaic, so the scribes were forced to invent the Lamed prefix. In Soleb, Egypt, there is a temple which was constructed by Amenhotep III around 1400-1360 BCE. In this temple, he had names of enemies inscribed upon the base of the temple's pillars. On one of these pillars- on the northern side- was an inscription which read tꜣ. shꜣ su. YHwꜣ- literally, the land [tꜣ] of the nomads [shꜣsu] of [YHwꜣ]. The final compliment in the inscription is considered a toponym. It is of interest to note that the YHwꜣ in the inscription was spelled with the phonetic signs which indicated the phonetic signs for Y [ ], H [ ], and the biliteral phonetic sign wꜣ which represented two phonetic sound- W [ ] and the glottal stop [ ], which is known as the Semitic Alef [א]. This, in fact, represented the Aramaic conjugation of the name YHWH- יהוא. This is significant in the fact that Hebrew, as a distinct dialect of Cana'anite, did not begin to emerge until the time of the early kings of Israel- between 1200 and 500 BCE. Abraham migrated to Cana'an from Mesopotamia- the land of the Aramaeans; Jacob spent more than 20 years with his uncle Laban, the Aramaean before returning to Cana'an; all of his children- except Benjamin- were born in Aramaea. For this reason, during the ceremony of the first fruits, the Israelites were commanded to recite, "My father was a perishing Aramaean, so he went to Egypt with a few men and there he became a great many" (Deuteronomy 26:5). The inscription of Amenhotep III represented a time when the Israelites were still Aramaeans and spoke Aramaic. This inscription predated the Mesha Stele by about 500 years. The great Hebrew scholars Gesenius, Muraoka, Bickell and their associates show with sound reason the rules which govern the conjugation of HaWaH as YeHeWeH. The great lexicographers have followed suite (Davies, 1879, pg. 160; Harkavy, 1914, pg. 119; Lee, 1840, pg. 151; Riggs, 1858, pg. 129). The Aramaic text of Daniel shows unequivocally that the conjugation of the verb HaWaH is YeHeWeA/H (יֶהֱוֵא/ה) the Hebrew equivalent being YeHeWeH (יֶהֱוֶה). The earliest inscription of the Tetragrammaton also demonstrated the Aramaic spelling. The grammatical rules are the only solution to what the possibilities are in regard the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. It has been clearly demonstrated that the current vowels upon the Tetragrammaton are not the proper vowels for it, but are transposed form Adonai and Elohim. Further, it has been explained how Biblical names which were built upon a 3rd imperfect pa’al changed inflection only in the last syllable, this is especially clear of the Lamed-He verbs. According to the inflections provided by the Masoretes, there are two possibilities for the Tetragrammaton; one possibility is the Tetragrammaton is a noun, the other possibility is that it is a verb. As a noun, following the pattern of nouns found in the Masoretic Text, the Tetragrammaton would be YeHeWaH (יֶהֱוָה); as a verb, it will be conjugated according to the pattern found in the Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel as YeHeWeA/H (יֶהֱוֵא/ה). In light of this research, it is the opinion of the author that the pronunciation of YHWH has never been lost, only discouraged and prohibited. Works Cited Bickell, Curtis. Outlines of Hebrew Grammar. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhause, 1877 Beitzel, Barry J. “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Tetragrammaton: A Case of Biblical Paranomasia”. Trinity Journal, 1 NS, 1980, 5-20, page 18. Ben Ya’aqov, Melech. “The Tetragrammaton of Elohim (God): Yehowah or Yehovah?”, Karaite Insights Brown-Driver-Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., September, 2005. Cook, Holmstedt. Ancient Hebrew A Student Grammar. Wilmore, Kentucky: Cook-Holmestedt, November, 15, 2007. Davidson, Samuel. A Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. Leipzig: Williams & Norgate, 1885. Davies, Benjamin. A Compendious and Complete Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. Andober: Waren F. Draper, 1879. Driver, Sir Godfrey. Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Galatin, Peter. De Arcanus Catholicae Veritatis (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth). 1518. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. London: Bagster and Sons, 1846. Gordon, Nehemia. “The Ban on the Divine Tetragrammaton”, The Karaite Korner, http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/ban.html Greenspahn, Frederick E. An Introduction to Aramaic. Atlanta: The Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Harkavy, Alexander. Students’ Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary to the Old Testament. New York: The Hebrew Publishing Company, 1914. Johnson, Keith. His Hallowed Tetragrammaton Revealed Again. Biblical Foundations Press, November, 1, 2009. Jouon, Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. Lang, Bernhard. The Hebrew God A Portrait of an Ancient Deity. London: Yale University Press, 2002. Lee, Samuel. A Lexicon, Hebrew, Chaldee, and English. London: Duncan and Malcolm, 1840. Leningrad Codex, Firkovich B19A, Russian National Library, 1008 CE. Pratico, Van Pelt. Basics of Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapid: Zondervan, 2007. Riggs, Elias. A Manual of the Chaldee Language. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Co., 1858. Rodkinson, Michael L. Babylonian Talmud. Boston: The Talmud Society, 1918. Theodoret of Cyrus. The Questions on the Octateuch. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007. The Harvard Theological Review, 1995, vol. 88, No. 3, page 318. A New Hebrew Course, Bowman page 433 Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon page 219 Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon page 219 Palestinian Aramaic, Stevenson page 49 The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel, Tsaree Li page 126 The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel, Tsaree Li page 127
  25. 2 points
    Well, actually then as much as from a personalviewpoint, it is disgusting because i could never even think of a distant cousin in that way. However, i agree with you now. I admit i have been wrong about incest and homosexuality,thanks to you finally making sense.
  26. 2 points

    Tough Guys Wear Pink

    I use pink toothpaste. When one realises everything is just color. That is all it is. Color.
  27. 2 points
    To quote a couple hadiths on the subject of Allah's names, our belief is that His names are created, and therefore not inherent to His divine essence: علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن النضر بن سويد، عن هشام بن الحكم أنه سأل أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن أسماء الله واشتقاقها: الله مما هو مشتق؟ قال: فقال لي: يا هشام الله مشتق من إله والاله يقتضي مألوها والاسم غير المسمى، فمن عبد الاسم دون المعنى فقد كفر ولم يعبد شيئا، ومن عبد الاسم والمعنى فقد كفر وعبد اثنين، ومن عبد المعنى دون الاسم فذاك التوحيد أفهمت يا هشام؟ قال: فقلت: زدني قال: إن لله تسعة وتسعين اسما فلو كان الاسم هو المسمى لكان كل اسم منها إلها ولكن الله معنى يدل عليه بهذه الاسماء وكلها غيره، يا هشام الخبز اسم للمأكول والماء اسم للمشروب والثوب اسم للملبوس والنار اسم للمحرق أفهمت يا هشام فهما تدفع به وتناضل به أعداء نا والمتخذين مع الله عزوجل غيره؟ قلت: نعم، قال: فقال: نفعك الله به وثبتك يا هشام، قال هشام فوالله ما قهرني أحد في التوحيد حتى قمت مقامي هذا. `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from an-Nadr b. Suwayd from Hisham b. al-Hakam. He asked Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام about the names of Allah and their derivations: Where is “Allah” derived from? He said: So he said to me: O Hisham, “Allah” is derived from “god” (ilah) and “the god” (al-ilah), that which has a servant (yaqtadi ma’looha). And a name is different from what is described; for whoever worships the name without the meaning has disbelieved and has worshiped nothing. And whoever worships the name and the meaning has disbelieved and has worshiped two things. Whoever worships the meaning without the name – that is monotheism (tawhid). Have you understood, O Hisham? He said: So I said: [Explain] further for me. He said: For Allah there are ninety-nine names; so if each name were a described thing, then each name from it would be a deity. However, Allah is the meaning that these names are indicative to, and they are all something other than Him. O Hisham, “bread” is the name of an edible, “water” is the name of a beverage, “cloth” is the name of what is worn, and “fire” is the name of what burns. Have you understood, O Hisham, with a comprehension that, by which, you can defend [our cause], and struggle against our enemies and those who have taken up [a deity] besides Allah عزوجل? So I said: Yes. He said: So he said: May Allah avail you by it and make you steadfast, O Hisham. Hisham said: By Allah, no one has overcome me in monotheism (tawhid) till this position I stand at (i.e. till this day). (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 230)
  28. 1 point
    [OFF-TOPIC posts have been removed. Moderators decided to keep the topic locked. Thanks for your participation.] [Note from Mod: This topic has been temporarily closed for review by a moderator pending one of the following actions: 1) Cleanup: Topic will be reviewed, inappropriate posts will be deleted followed by warnings/bans being implemented and then reopened. 2) Topic will be permanently deleted or sent to the lounge. 3) Topic will remain permanently closed. Please allow up to 48 hours for one of the above actions to take place. Contact the appropriate moderator for any further explanations The ShiaChat.com rules can be found at: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/12120-faq-shiachatcom-rules-and-policy/ [Auto]
  29. 1 point
    @notme @Hameedeh can we put this topic to rest? it is annoying to see only this topic in the activity page.
  30. 1 point
    I think everyone is smart enough to know you are mocking Islam. The truth of the matter is, and for the record this is my last response to you. We have non muslims who hated Islam and later converted to this beautiful religion, and we have people who were born in this religion and leave and despise it. You were presented with many responses and yet you continue with this behavior. I find you are enjoying this attention and I will no longer give you that thrill. Goodnight Saniyeh, I will recite fatiha on your parents, I actually feel sorry for them for what their daughter has become.
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
    Bismehe Ta3ala, Assalam Alikum I'm starting to agree with @Islandsandmirrors Eight pages and I don't know if anything has been established. The moral compass has broken. We have a cc version of Irshad Manji on SC. La howla wa la quwata 2illa bil Allah al 3lee al 3dthem M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah
  33. 1 point
    Shah Khan

    Ufo sightings

    Can't say Anything, but I believe UFOs are real.
  34. 1 point
    Son of Placid

    Bible prophecy & Trump

    "In depth" is an expression used to put you at ease when they go out of context.
  35. 1 point
    Maybe you only can when see Imam Ali (AS) in a lower level then he is, while bringing Muawiyah or others like him to a higher level then they really are. These people just do not know the importance and role and holiness and more of Amir Al Mu'mineen Imam Ali (ASWS)
  36. 1 point
    Haji 2003

    Poor Jokes [OFFICIAL THREAD]

    True story. We were packing to go to Iran on ziarat. My wife asks me, "should I pack some air freshener?". I look at her dumbfounded. "Air freshener. Air freshener? What do you need that for? We're going to Iran. And you're from Pakistan".
  37. 1 point

    Thoughts 2017

    Bismehe Ta3ala, Assalam Alikum Sister Star & Light of SC, You brought a smile to my face reading your post. I hope you and your children are fine and in good health. How are you dear? We miss you sister. God bless you and continue to give you health, prosperity, and increasing Iman. M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    Music is haraam is said because of Karbala. See the most important reason is this only. In karbala after the martydom of Imam Husain (a.s.),all the women who were the relatives of 72 shaheed-e-karbala were deprived of covering their heads and while Imam Husain's body was lying on the ground meanwhile in the Yazid's army there was a lot of dance and songs going on which very badly hurted the family of Imam Husain. And so the thing which hurts Imam Husain's family is obviously haraam. Also according to Prophet,songs and music are haraam at that extent that Rasool Allah said that those even marriges in which music and dance is present will always be haraam for me and Allah. So now I think you must have got the answer of your question... Thanks
  40. 1 point
    I see we are Back at it with the holier than thou attitude again. who on God’a earth do you think you are. Of course, the sister has asked an arguably stupid question. But she is simply asking a question about her faith with reasoning, something islam encourages us to do. second of all, on what basis are you judging her? Do you know about her faith and how dusty her quran is? Do you know how she was raised? Do you know her circumstance? The answer is no. So if you aren’t going to answer her question in a respectful and decent manner, maybe you should just keep your arrogance to yourself.
  41. 1 point
    Abu Nur

    Music and Why It's Haram *please read

    Shi'at of Al Husain (as) never listen Music that Yazid (la) enjoyed to listen everyday.
  42. 1 point

    Confused about my Beliefs.

    Guess you have not heard Noam chomsky?. Tell us what freedom that YOU are searching for?. Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics in USA - https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence Freedom = Do what you like, as long as you do not go against the state or the rich elite. This is the same in all places on earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States If I understood, you are claiming the judeo-western ethics are superior to Islamic ones?. Not sure how you came to that conclusion, all religions have practically similar ethics and laws.
  43. 1 point

    (ولادة رسول الله (ص

    عِطرُهُ في الأكوانِ فاحَ مُذْ جبريلُ في السماءِ صاحَ ألا قد وُلِدَ المصطفى محمد ✏بقلمي مباركٌ عليكم مولد الرسول الاكرم محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وحفيده الامام جعفر الصادق عليه السلام اللهم صلّ على محمد وآل محمد
  44. 1 point
    God didn't write His name down for anyone. God doesn't bother to speak Hebrew, Greek, or English. Anything recorded was in a language meant for men. If we are not able to speak His name why give it? We have what the Prophets called Him. Here's a vague summary of some of my studies, and questions, because it's still confusing. Jehovah is a Latinized word for starters. Through oral translation YHWH and JHVH could just be a difference in how it was received one generation to another. There were no vowels in Hebrew so make of it what you like, pronounce it how you like. Once you add a few vowels pronounce it YAHWEH or JEHOVAH, or as some pronounce it, YEHOVAH, or make up your own. Obviously you wouldn't be the first. Elohim has a different description than Jehovah in the Hebrew. While Jehovah is described as the One True God, Elohim means a whole bunch of things. Singular, plural, possibly female...basically anything spiritual that wasn't identified. How many were identified I haven't counted, but start with the Archangels, the Lord of Hosts, The Spirit of the Lord, The Word of the Lord, it goes on. Interesting to note the differences, as well as the tasks. Of course they could all fall under the same title one time or another. Not sure how many may go by different names, or which ones are unique, nor how Moses knew which was which. I'm not so sure the early Bibles were "corrupted" as much as altered through years of translation. The Oral scriptures were kept in the hearts of the Prophets, taught to men, recited to the youth, until the youth found a decent way to write it down. From Hebrew and Greek into Latin, then into English, then everybody wanted to sell a Bible, so how many translations now? (Imo NIV is the worst). From the Masoretic text, (basis for many translations), all references to anything spiritual ended up translated as "God", probably because the Israelites were into polygamy every chance they could. So why would God say; "Thou shalt have no other gods, (Elohim) before me? If Elohim was Jehovah. Who was at the burning bush? Actually I should ask, how many were at the burning bush? The burning bush was on the mountain of Elohim, now known as Mount Sinai. The Angel of the Lord first, Then Moses, then Jehovah, then Elohim who speaks first, then Jehovah speaks, then Moses, then Jehovah explains the plan to get His people out of Egypt. All called God, or Lord, meant to mean one in the same in the Baptist theology. The NIV takes the privilege of adding, "and God said" where it's not in the Masoretic, nor the KJV. We have this idea that one God does it all. If that is the case, why did God send Gabriel to Mary, or Muhammad? Would one God send Himself as a cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night? Why would He do what one angel could do? How arrogant would we be, to think God would spend 40 years of His time as a pillar of smoke or fire? None, be it The Lord, of, the Angel of, nor the Word of, are mentioned in a context of parts nor partners. All work for one God. At least that's what the Bible says, not exactly what the Baptists say.
  45. 1 point

    Can Anyone Explain This!

    Salaam Alaikum Brother Mohammad. Allah is Al-Haqq. The Self Evident Truth The Manifest. His creation is the sign the hadith talks about. He S.W.T. was Al-Haqq before He created anything, hence the saying of the hadith without a sign. That is because He S.W.T. is The Self Evident Truth, not in need of testimony or approval. The second point is the clearing of all attributes of the creation we might think about Him S.W.T. through what is known ie His Attributes of Perfection. The third the realization that He S.W.T. can't be known through His Essence and the acceptance of the fact that He S.W.T. has no equal or similtude. Hence the mystery in the hadith. The fourth He is the attraction of all humans and jinn, in that they search to find Him S.W.T. in one way or the other, and He is found only through what is known about Him S.W.T. ie His Perfect Attributes. The fifth is in relation to the first point. He S.W.T. is Eternal Self Evident Absolute Manifest Truth vs Subjective truth ie the quantitative quality that humans can asscribe. And Allah Knows Best.
  46. 1 point
    assalamualaikum, happy Tuesday for everyone, inshallah!
  • Create New...