A Rhyme of Heaven and ‘Him’

 

paradise-waterfall-wallpaper-1440-900-6540 Lakes Of Chocolate and Milk

 Ponds Of Wine Pure

 Lustrous Clothes Of Silk

 Diamonds On Trees To Adore

 

 

 

birds-wallpaper-in-rain-5                 Bird’s Melodious tweet

Wind’s music along

Rain drops as beats

Make a symphonic song

 

 

 

paradise-garden-wallpaper1-1024x576

Fresh soft Flower petals shire

Natural beauty of fawn

No unfulfilled desire

Peace holds, worries gone

 

 

 

el-refugio

Artistic Comfortable Homes

Partners of your choice

All Luxuries Known

Contented , peaceful life

 

 

 

65c71898ce39970ed98184ef88c441d3_large

 

No Hatred No Frowns

For the people fellow

Each bad feeling gone

Harshness turned Mellow

 

 

 

paradise_view_1280x960

The ever-awaited Paradise

A choice of entire

A pleasant sublime surprise

A PERFECT Life prior

 

 

 

 

girl_swinging

Why don’t my heart feel

Tempting enough to get

Why hard enough to deal

Complexity of my mind-set

 

 

 

 

1239430_10151894768328185_1462725003_n

Why do I just need

‘His’ companionship forever

A sight of ‘Him’ , plead

‘He’ , whatsoever !

 

 

 

 

images (1)

‘His’ calm lap to sit safely

‘His’ shoulder to cry on

‘His’ feet to sleep like baby

‘His’ service till the life gone

 

 

 

 

525100_10151304027273185_816406421_n

The passionate Love

Sentiments stoutly fixed

The eternal Gratitude

Divine emotions mixed

 

 

 

 

1208507_10151888772738185_1308676002_n

 

Never mean to disrespect

My Love Divine

Every inch of my heart wet

For the Love to be mine

 

 

 

 

 

f_30-namaz_secde1

Waiting for your silence to break

For illumination of my inner sun

Take my heaven make me slave

I bow , I beg , Please don’t shun

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Leave a comment

114 Comments

  1. That is absolutely beautiful!

    Reply
  2. Life’s a beach…I’ll show you a little later what I mean I’ll only ave pictures…your poem is heaven2..I’m at the beach write now…love.. Xxx2..too..

    Reply
    • Thank you so much 🙂 Enjoy your time !

      Reply
      • Thank you so much I always have fun at the beach as I get to see ‘HIS’ face again every time I go there…I have the resources to see ‘HIM’ all the time but instead I choose to be ‘HIS’ slave your slave and everyone else slave too…

        Yesterday ‘HIS’ mission for me is to take a picture of ‘HIS’ face and show ‘IT’ to you and any one else who wants to ‘SEE IT’…

        So since I cannot link that picture here….but will link it a little later in ‘KroarK’…in my blog today later…you can see ‘IT’ ‘NOW’….if you feel like it…AS IT IS…picture #128 in my latest twitter feed…

        You see I am raised seeing his face for decades and decades….IT is always the reason I need no book to share ‘HIS’ love with you and all others too…

        Yes I do speak with great authority but ‘HE’ tells me to do that ‘NOW’… I AM ‘HIS’ slave number one before anyone else including you, my wife, my sister, and yes even my mother too….

        NOw back to your book and calling that book a silly book…as you know ‘HE’ tells me ‘HE’ is a laugh so that ‘IS’ the greatest honor for any book about ‘HIM’….

        NOw back to imposition…I never question your true will light but you question mine…so you impose much more greatly on me than I impose on you…that’s just my opinion ‘HE’ does not tell me that…

        NOW back to your book and my book too the KORAN and Repentance 9:12…I AM the LION and I AM the SWORD..there is NO BLOOD….the LION is the WoRD the SWORD is the WoRD…the wAR is the WORD…and YES HE TELLS ME THIS WRITE NOW WORD NOW2TOO

        And no that has nothing to do with me…my dear…I am no one.. @all…love you see you don’t tell me that anymore so I win the challenge dear…so far that IS..HE TELLS ME THAT TOO…like Nike says ‘just do it’…And YES INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH HE TELLS ME HE SAYS THAT TOO2and by the way I bought some NIKE SHOES AND NIKE watch with GPS so HE WILL kNOW where me IS better…HE TELLS me that TOOTWO2…IS THIS THE TWILIGHT ZONE YET? OMG HE LOVES THAT SHOW2…OH HE CAN BE SO EXHAUSTING BEING HIS TRUE SLAVE IS AN ENDEVAFOREVA….my friend..if you really want to be ‘HIS’ TRUE SLAVE TOO you are going to have to be a TRUE TIGER2…HE tells me that too…see ya later… do you understand what I mean by ALLAH GATER YET?LOVE YOU BABY TIGER.

      • These are your and only your thoughts and I would never ever agree to them…. I do respect you and your thoughts !
        I would sure read your new post !
        Love you too 🙂

      • At this point it may better that you don’t have Youtube access…

        HE TELL ME I MUST PUT THIS HEre NOW…

        I AM DOG…

        IS IT PARODY

      • ONE MORE AND I GOTTA GO1!

        BABY I LOBE YOU!

  3. Beautifully written and the pictures are wonderful.

    Reply
  4. Makes me happy!

    Reply
  5. Wonderful rhyme… Wonderful rhythm…

    And about the thoughts… Since when did our thoughts become so similar 😛

    Really it seemed to be my thoughts in your words 🙂

    (Agar time ki killat na hoti to poetic response zaroor deta… :P)

    Reply
    • Oh A poet is saying my poetry wonderful….I am honored 😉
      Thank you !
      Oh well I don’t know….. Do you think the same as I am thinking ?
      The crust of my poetry was that we Muslims always wish for heaven in the next life…. because there is heaven and hell and nothing else…. But In my heart their is no wish about getting in heaven…I just want to meet Him and see Him and want to do everything for Him what he want in the next life…. I want to be His servant…..
      Well I am amazed by this 😉
      Chalo jab time milay tab de dena 😛
      Love you bro !

      Reply
      • Yup… essentially the same…

        Majority of Hindus also believe in the concept of Heaven… Basically in desire of all the luxuries assumed to be found there.

        As you must have known by now, I am least interested in Heavens. I just want to know god in all its glory… Note however, by ‘god’ I personally mean natural laws. It is how the nature works. So personally; for me knowing the laws is of utmost importance…

        Details baad mein kabhi bataaunga… Abhi Assignments aur class tests, dono sar pe naach rahe hain… 😛

      • Note however, by ‘god’ I personally mean natural laws. It is how the nature works. So personally; for me knowing the laws is of utmost importance…

        Sounds a bit like Scientism to me Arindam – a particularly uninteresting cult religion.

        There’s no natural laws in science, just theories yet to be updated, superceded or disproved.
        Even Newton’s Laws looked pretty shabby after Einstein had kicked them around a bit.

        Don’t forget what Karl Popper taught us.

      • Scientism… Okay if you call it so…

        True, they are theories… but when a theory is able to explain all that is observable, the theory is called a ‘natural law’ (well not a scientifically standard term).

        Theories are proved and disproved… And that is the most amazing part of science. Newton’s laws were considered laws until we did not observe some exotic things like ‘time dilation’, ‘elongation of decay times of neutrinos’ etc…

        Then Einstein’s Special relativity came and explained these exotic phenomena AS WELL AS the ‘normal’ daily life phenomena.

        Then we observed more crazy things like ‘Photoelectric Effect’, ‘Electron Diffraction’ etc and Relativity couldn’t explain it… so came Quantum Theory (by Heisenberg, Bohr etc).

        Then again we noted that the classical Quantum Theory did not agree with Relativistic mechanics. We also observed more exotic particles (Higgs, W and Z Bosons etc). Then came Dirac and combined Relativity and Quantum and hence arose Quantum Field Theory…

        So you see, this game of science is always challenged by newer observations; and it only increases the thrill. The theories will become more and more holistic and closer to the natural law… the unknown; ultimate truth 🙂

        You may read a more illustrative description of the view in one of my posts…

        http://whenintrovertspeaks.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/the-great-game-of-chess/

      • The theories will become more and more holistic and closer to the natural law… the unknown; ultimate truth

        Funny the way you mentioned quantum physics in one para then came up with that statement.

        How about this?

        The closer we get to the fundamental workings of the universe the more the ‘laws’ break down and we have to come up with ever more exotic, complex and intricate formulae with even less grounding in experimental evidence to try to account for what we observe.

        If anything we have been getting further and further from a Grand Unified Theory since at least the 1960s.

        It was all much simpler back in the 19th Century when science was nearly complete and the only serious outstanding problem was black body radiation.

        Maybe the problem is that science can only deal with deterministic phenomena that can be objectified.
        What if the ultimate truth is non-deterministic and subjective (as Schrodinger and Heisenberg may have hinted)?

      • Or if you take the Popperian line:
        A theory is only scientific if it is (theoretically) falsifiable.

        Any ‘ultimate law’ would be impossible to falsify and therefore would not be scientific.
        It would be indistinguishable from faith.

      • Okaaay 😛
        Well the end result may seem like the same but views are somehow different…..
        I can’t say I am least interested in heaven….. If I am not it means I am interested in hell and that is what I would never wish for…
        I want to be in heaven…but The things described to be in heaven don’t tempt me except the fact that then I would be able to meet Him….
        My friends and other Muslims here have so many wishes regarding Heaven…. They kill their wishes here in this world to get the ones in heaven….
        I kill my wishes too…But I never wish to have them there….
        The only wish that comes to my mind and it is quite intense that I want to be with Him in a way I described in the poem….
        Chal best of luck for the assignments and Tests 😉
        You will do great 🙂

      • Thanks for your views… I agree to them…

        And thanks for the wishes…. But abhi to yahan jang chhir gayi hai… 😛

        cabrogal aur mere beech…. woh bhi on a topic very close to my heart… kya karoon? Maidan chhor dun?

      • Maidaan nae chortay kabi b…. Unless it is causing any problem….
        And I am enjoying the conversation more than anything….
        Please continue !
        You are giving insight to other people too wwith your thoughts…
        Haan ager study effect ho rae hai tu you can reply when you get time 🙂

  6. Why wait for His silence to break?
    When two are one there is no need for words.

    Words are what we use to define the borders between us.

    It is only between those who share love that silence is all that is needed.

    Reply
    • Silence is not always broken by WORDS…….
      I was talking about the feeling I am having these days….seems like I am stuck at a step while going up the stairs and I can not take another step even If I am trying hard….. I was saying Him to break this misery and hold my hand and take me up…I need Him with me every second of my life….. Feeling Him always like the way I feel ‘SOME’times is the breaking of silence…

      Reply
      • I should have realised that from the context.

        I’ve never been sure whether it was despair keeping me from What Is or my inability to be one with What Is that caused my despair, but when it finally lifted I was closer to What Is than ever before.

        I think maybe we are purified in pain.

        You’ve seen the Light at the end of the tunnel.
        Even if you can’t see It now, you know for certain It is there.
        That will bring you through.

        There’s no guarantees about how much more pain it will take – just that you can take it.
        The bits that can’t take it aren’t really you.

      • You are lucky you are closer ! I think the same… but I never ;let despair drown me…. I always have a ray …. sometimes stronger and sometimes weaker… Oh hope.
        Yes we are purified in pain…..
        Yes I have seen light and I hope I get to the destination… I am struggling hard !
        This is the point where I am wishing for pain…. Pain was the thing who was taking me up and It has stopped for some weeks now… I don’t know the reason why….

      • Pain might be good for growth, but I can’t imagine wishing for it.

        Are you into leather bondage gear too? 😉

        But seriously, are you numbed now?
        Maybe you need rest more than anything else.

        How to rest properly is hard to learn.
        It takes a lot of practice – even for lazy people like me.

      • Then I am the odd one here 😛
        I never knew what it was…just Googled it…and yes now may be I am 😀
        I guess the same…. May be I need rest or may be I need to do something I have never done…. I am confused really confused.

  7. I recently read Quran duringt the month of Ramadan and this was the part I esp. enjoyed. I think I ended up listening about Jannah for over two hours from this good friend of mine who was guiding me through the holy book. and even then I was like – tell me more, I want to hear more..please tell me more 🙂 beautiful post, I absolutely love how it flows. I know where those thoughts were flowing from..we share a similar madness 🙂 ♥

    Reply
    • Oh yes the beauty of heaven told in Quran is really amazing…..The words the phrases are marvelous ! I become spell bound too while reading it every time…. Specially in ‘Suran Rehman’ !
      I am so glad to know about your excitement 🙂 Love you…
      And thank you so much for the beautiful appreciation…. You are more than wonderful poet and you know how to play with words….I am just learning from you people….And your admiration means a lot to me !
      Haha yes may be we both are equally mad 😉
      Love you…Hugs ! xx

      Reply
  8. Hey Cabrogal!… that is the most insightful four lines of insight on this blog anywhere…do you write poetry…if not you should start…I think..if you will…

    I shared God with a Seagull today.. it was the best love I’ve had all year…yeah the seagull was the best lover…It didn’t say a thing…not even a tweet.

    They are much wiser than humans…been around since the dinosaurs of course…in closer form to their shape now.

    Reply
  9. And yeah SAha! I thought she was thinking my thoughts too as I was having these exact same thoughts with my seagull on the beach before I ate at the restaurant and saw this poem and Mani’s interesting response to the gay saga thing in the other post…

    But of course I can prove it too….got pictures of the seagull and me coming soon to a blog post called KroarK…if I can modify my habit here now…haha! have a nice day…friend…off to write some more ‘crazy’ things on my blog and put the picture of “Charles Atlas” up… got the whole weight of the world on my shoulders and all of that…Haha!

    Get your google out folks…?

    Reply
  10. Now I like this one very much..It feels Pure and divine and I am happy because there is no sad lines in it.. 🙂

    Reply
  11. Wow!
    🙂
    Little sister that was so incredibly beautiful. That photo of the flowers? Just stunning!!
    You have a way with words my beautiful White Pearl. I fell in love with the writings and felt at peace. Stay beautiful in your heart and soul and don’t let anyone every change them. Enjoy your weekend. You have a great day. Hugs your, Big Sis. xxxxxxx

    Reply
    • Oh listening to these beautiful words from the mouth of my big sis feels so good 🙂
      Thank you so much 🙂
      I am so glad you can’t even imagine knowing that my words are effecting you in a positive way 🙂
      Don’t worry no one will change them 🙂
      Love you and stay with me !
      Hugs to you big sis ! You too have a fab day 🙂

      Reply
  12. Love it! Beautiful masha’Allah 😀

    Reply
  13. Precious

     /  August 30, 2013

    I felt like you described, A life in paradise. It was truly touching and beautiful :’)

    Reply
  14. Test comment

    Reply
  15. Was any of my comments spammed?

    Reply
  16. Annoyed! One specific comment of mine is not appearing here! Others are!

    Reply
  17. Sorry bro… but as a physics masters student, I find a huge amount of ‘popular misleading science in the arguments…

    First of all on Heisenberg and quantum mechanics… what quantum mechanics (QM) says is mostly over interpreted. Yes QM talks of uncertainties… but uncertainty of what? EVERYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE IS NOT UNCERTAIN. The wave function of a particle is certain. Its interpretation as observables is uncertain. NO LAWS OF QM ARE UNCERTAIN…

    ————————————————————————————
    “even less grounding in experimental evidence to try to account for what we observe.”
    ————————————————————————————

    I beg to differ. The experimental evidences are increasing day by day. What do you think? QM can only describe subatomic phenomena? No… QM explains the daily life phenomena too… (In fact this is the first test, any so called exotic theory has to pass)

    ——————————————————————————
    “If anything we have been getting further and further from a Grand Unified Theory since at least the 1960s
    ——————————————————————————

    🙂 Nope Relativistic QM and QFT were developed after 1960’s and they are the building blocks of the Standard Model (which took us quite close to grand unification.

    ——————————————————————————–
    It was all much simpler back in the 19th Century when science was nearly complete and the only serious outstanding problem was black body radiation.
    ——————————————————————————–

    It ‘seemed’ to be the only problem (along with Photoelectric Effect) but that’s because we didn’t know of XRD, Electron Diffraction, Stern Gerlack Experiment, CMBR etc… If we didn’t know of these problems, how would we have known about the loopholes in the then prevalent theory?

    Yes from the outside, the current theories seem to be complicated but that’s because we are still not habituated to them. Think how ‘complicated’ was the heliocentric model, when it was first proposed against the ‘geocentric model’?

    And yes it might be true that ALL these theories are completely false. But till now there is no better theory… so… this is the best we could have…

    Reply
    • EVERYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE IS NOT UNCERTAIN. The wave function of a particle is certain. Its interpretation as observables is uncertain. NO LAWS OF QM ARE UNCERTAIN…

      I’m wasn’t talking about the laws themselves – though I would certainly argue that QM is far from a ‘complete’ science (if such a thing can exist) so it’s laws are still very much uncertain – but the ability of it’s laws to actually predict events. e.g. What QM law now or in the forseeable future will be able to predict with certainty – as opposed to probabilistically – when a particular radioactive particle will decay. That looks like it’s going to be non-deterministic and not subject known laws of cause and effect for a long time yet, if not forever.

      But the main point I was making with Schrodinger and Heisenberg relates to the necessity of an observer (whatever that means) to collapse a quantum waveform. Looks like you may have hit the limits of objectivity there.

      The experimental evidences are increasing day by day.

      And most of it results in increasing rather than decreasing the complexity of viable GUTs. By the time you’ve got enough dimensions to stretch your superstrings into you can pretty much escape any experimental evidence that could falsify them.

      The need for evidence to confirm or deny the increasing complexity of the theories is still outstripping the rate at which such evidence is being gathered – especially given the exponential costs of gathering such evidence.

      I’ve been out of the loop since I stopped studying physics in the early 1980s, but tell me, have the number of proposed GUTs actually started to converge – or are they still proliferating like topsy in all directions?

      It ‘seemed’ to be the only problem (along with Photoelectric Effect) but that’s because we didn’t know of XRD, Electron Diffraction, Stern Gerlack Experiment, CMBR etc… If we didn’t know of these problems, how would we have known about the loopholes in the then prevalent theory?

      Yep, forgot the PE effect.

      But tell me, looking at 19th Century physics and what happened when a new series of experiments suddenly ‘increased the complexity’ of the universe many fold, on exactly what grounds do you think it is not about to happen again, then again, then again …?

      Reply
      • It seems that you are highly upset by the fact that ‘complexity’ of the system has increased…

        So let me clarify… The science has become ‘abstract’ but not ‘complex’. It has less no. of laws… There was a time when there were 4 fundamental forces. Now there are 2 (basically). So in that formalism, science has simplified… There are many more examples… But to present in a nutshell… Just because the laws do not seem ‘natural’ they must not be considered ‘complex’. For example, it doesn’t feel unnatural to us (physics students) to view electron as a wave. Why? We have SEEN that electrons diffract and interfere. So its just a question of habituating to the ‘unnatural’ (I would re-emphasise on the Galileo and heliocentricity case).

        Yeah, there may be revolutions in science, they will occur, they are bound to occur, and the cycle would continue… maybe forever… And each time our theories will explain larger domains of observations.

        But don’t you see the beauty? In this journey, haven’t we looked at amazingly many forms of nature? In how many ways have we appreciated the immense beauty of nature? Just imagine how much of the rich structure of nature can be revealed by a handful assumptions. The same bosons which lead to superconductivity at near 0 Kelvin are responsible for stability of sun. The Iodine in our thyroid comes from a supernova…

        Had we not developed QM, could we appreciate this amazing fact?

        It is precisely this beauty that we adore… this is our worship… to admire how simple yet profound is the structure of nature…

        And my dear friend… Science is a faith… Faith in assumptions… Faith in logic…

        And Faith in the purest form is nothing but science.

        All the confusions and misunderstandings arise only when we separate these two views.

      • Hey Arindam I am not anti-science.
        Quite the contrary.
        I too think it is beautiful.

        Where we seem to differ is that you seem to think that science is bringing us closer to some sort of final resolution of the truth of the universe. I think it is a mirage – the closer we get the further it recedes. That doesn’t mean the journey is not worth it for its own sake.

        And I certainly have no problems with the fact that science produces counter-intuitive results – I enjoy it massively – but I would never use ‘natural’ in the context of science.

        Simply because fundamental forces have been reduced in number recently is IMHO no reason to believe that they will ultimately resolve into one and stay that way. I would be inclined to predict that if the four – now two – ever were resolved into one that would immediately reveal others as yet unsuspected. That’s because I think the problem is being looked at the wrong way.

        Greg Egan is an Australian astrophysicist who writes sci-fi.
        In his novel ‘Distress’ a scientist finally discovers the GUT of the fundamental forces now recognised and that immediately reveals another ‘fundamental force’ behind the observer effect – that being the irreducible subjectivity of every observer.

        While I doubt that particular ‘fundamental force’ will ever be discovered I think there is a good likelihood that a GUT will strongly suggest basic ‘laws’ underpinning many event we now dismiss as ‘random’ or ‘inexplicable’ – the universe will suddenly expand again and lo and behold, the same thing that happened to physics at the end of the nineteenth century will repeat. Or a particular attempt at GUT might fail in a way that reveals the forces we now take for granted are no more valid than phlogiston theory – they seemed to work for a while because all the data is not yet in and never will be. In either case we will be no closer to the ‘final laws’ than we ever were.

        That is if we ever reach a GUT. The belief that all forces can be resolved into one simply because apparently disparate forces in the past have been is an act of faith.

        What’s more I think there are many things ‘fundamental’ to human experience that will never be explained by science – such as the actual nature of consciousness or being.

        If there is actually such a thing as free will – for example – then it must be possible to make decisions that lie outside the realm of cause and effect. Therefore a moral decision becomes a ‘first cause’ that simply cannot be defined by science but will still result in measurable effects in the universe – as the decay of a radioactive particle is now.

        Scientism is the faith preached by Richard Dawkins that science can (and probably will) explain everything. Science should never be about faith in anything except the scientific method itself and that should not be assumed to be a hammer for every possible nail. Even ‘logic’ had to be revised in the light of QM (though not perhaps in India, where the ‘law’ of the excluded middle was never elevated onto the pedestal Aristotle put it on).

        And the notion there are actually ‘laws’ to be discovered – as opposed to better approximations of ways to describe observable events – is definitely an act of faith, not science.

      • Yes seemingly we differ on the ‘ultimate truth’ aspect. Whether GUT is a final theory or not is a question that can always be debated. There is always a possibility for ANY theory to break down by a new observation. So GUT is no exception. But the reason why I feel that it would take us closer to reality, is that the formalism has passed many stern tests. (From my experience, I can say the tests are REALLY accurate).

        So given that it has been able to unify 3 of the 4 forces and has stood the tests till date gives hope that it would unify gravity as well.

        Now, I know there may be a day, when a new observation is made… Then the theory will be re-modified. And that’s totally fine…

        But saying that such an exotic observation will bring us back to the starting point is wrong because even then GUT will explain many more things than say Newtonian Mechanics. So it may not be the ultimate step but is definitely a step forward.

        Whether an ultimate step exists or not is a highly vague issue. As far as I am able to explain all what I see by a theory, the theory for me is the ultimate law. Because explanation of the observations is the only thing that matters.

        That such a law (that explains all the observations) is definitely a faith (or in more scientific terms, an axiom or a postulate). And all science based on this faith. Science and faith are not exclusive. Seen from another angle, the aim of science is to reduce the no. of axioms. The no. axioms may be reduced but can never be reduced to zero (because the fact that the nature exists in the form that we see it is itself a postulate). So this aspect of faith has and will always be in science.

        On the question of free will… The term cannot be defined scientifically. So for science; answering questions on free will is absurd. Conscious on the other hand is not free will. The behaviour of an individual can be incorporated in the theory. We can THEORETICALLY say that given enough information about the universe, we can predict the behaviour completely. The PRACTICAL problem is that I never have the complete information (wave function) of the universe. So a prediction on human behaviour is extremely difficult to make (given that this system is highly chaotic; the trajectories in the phase space diverge exponentially fast. So the entropy of the system is high; so the information contained in the system reduces drastically with time. And hence reconstruction of past or prediction of future is highly difficult). But again… the prediction is theoretically possible. So the theory is rescued.

        And just to add on the last para of your comment. Approximation is made on a theory. And theories are aimed to be laws. So without the assumption that there is a law, approximations are not even defined.

      • But saying that such an exotic observation will bring us back to the starting point is wrong because even then GUT will explain many more things than say Newtonian Mechanics. So it may not be the ultimate step but is definitely a step forward.

        But a step ‘forward’ to what?
        I can take as many steps as I like towards a rainbow and as atmospheric conditions change it will sometimes appear nearer, sometimes further. It doesn’t mean I’m getting closer though.

        On the question of free will… The term cannot be defined scientifically. So for science; answering questions on free will is absurd. Conscious on the other hand is not free will. The behaviour of an individual can be incorporated in the theory. We can THEORETICALLY say that given enough information about the universe, we can predict the behaviour completely.

        I must have missed something here.
        You say that science cannot define free will but then you define it away by suggesting that we ‘theoretically’ live in a deterministic universe with no room for free will (i.e. behaviour can be predicted completely).

        Do you believe that behaviour of individual quantum particles can be ever be predicted completely (as opposed to probabilistically)?
        Do you believe even that quantum quantities can ever be measured completely (i.e. complementary variables)?
        Do you concede that discrete quantum events can cause macroscopic effects?
        What grounds do you have for believing in a deterministic or determinable universe?

        And just to add on the last para of your comment. Approximation is made on a theory. And theories are aimed to be laws. So without the assumption that there is a law, approximations are not even defined.

        I can use measuring devices of increasing sophistication to reach an ever closer approximation of the length and shape of the Australian coastline.

        Does that mean there must be a ‘law’ out there somewhere defining the precise shape of Australia?

      • A step forward to understand the universe better. A step to explaining why are things the way they are…

        I never said that we live in a deterministic world… in that sense. Let us make this point very clear: Observing the universe and The true nature of the universe are different things. QM says that the nature of the universe is determined. (There is no theoretical ambiguity in defining the wave function of a system). The ambiguity comes only when an observation is made.

        When I said free will in the general sense, I mean the thoughts and actions of humans (or animals). Now that in general corresponds to macroscopic world. And hence for all practical purposes it is a deterministic concept.

        On the last point…

        What is a law or a theory? It is nothing but a unifying concept. You can measure coastline of Australia and ask why is it the way its? Similarly I can do the same thing for India and ask the same thing.

        Now if I say that there is no law underlying it, I cannot say anything about the coastline of Pakistan (say).

        However if I claim that there is a law governing the formation of coastlines from which I can explain why India and Australia have such and such coasts PLUS can predict coastlines of not only Pakistan but also other countries, then I have definitely gained a better understanding than the previous ‘no theory’ case. That in real terms is a law – A single principle to explain and predict the state of nature.

      • When I said free will in the general sense, I mean the thoughts and actions of humans (or animals). Now that in general corresponds to macroscopic world. And hence for all practical purposes it is a deterministic concept.

        I’m having a lot of trouble parsing what you are saying.

        Are you saying that free will, in that it corresponds to thoughts and actions, is a macroscopic effect and is therefore deterministic?

        Huh?

        And again I ask if you concede that some quantum events are inherently probabilistic and not deterministic at all?

        I would concede that if you could supercompute all the variables involved it would probably be possible to calculate the outcome of any one dice throw but according to my understanding you would still not be able to predict when an electron would drop an orbital energy level and spit a photon or when an atom of a radionuclide would decay.

        You can measure coastline of Australia and ask why is it the way its?

        You have misunderstood my metaphor. I am not talking about how a coastline gets to be how it is but how you could might find a ‘law’ that would define it’s shape.

        To make it clearer, let’s call it a squiggly hand drawn line on paper.

        You can use various methods around the concept of limits to approximate the various sections that make it up, but the closer you get to a ‘precise’ description of it the more contrived and complex your formulae must become.
        Ultimately the only precise description of your line would be one that defines the position of every molecule of graphite on the paper. An incredibly complex description perhaps, but nothing remotely resembling an underlying ‘law’ of the line.

        I would suggest that the physical universe is like that line.

        If we are happy with very rough approximations we can come up with what seem to be ‘laws’ that might more-or-less describe separate sections that are roughly straight, parabolic, sine-wave shaped, etc but the closer you look the less the sections fit your simple ‘laws’ and the greater number and more complex the rules needed to define it.
        In the end you must define each point individually and the notion of overarching laws disappears completely.

        And by what I can feel about your notions of free will, it exists according to your definition.

        I have no idea whether free will exists.
        I believe I act on the assumption it does but that assumption along with everything else I think and do may well be deterministic.

        What I am trying to say is that if free will exists the most important part of the macroscopic universe from the point of view of people is unable to be captured by deterministic science. Science will never be able to explain it.

        If it does not, the ‘progress’ of science itself is deterministic and cannot be said to be a human endeavor anymore than the fall of an apple from a tree is. In fact there would be no such thing as human endeavor, just the pre-programmed jerkings of meat puppets.

      • I too am unable to understand your statements.

        Could you please define your perception of free will? Because without that the discussion seems to be going nowhere

      • Free will is the notion that an individual is able to make decisions which are not entirely dictated by outside influences.

        So a slave may lack the ability to exercise free will over where he goes and what he does but presumably has free will over his own thoughts. A fully hypnotised person would lack the ability to exercise free will but would be under the control of the hypnotist.

        In the context of the age old philosophical dichotomy of free will versus determinism, determinism states that everything in the universe is conditioned by cause and effect (karma-vipaka). If it is possible to know all of the conditions extant at any one instant in the universe and all the laws governing existence it would be possible to extrapolate everything that had ever happened and will ever happen from that single instant.

        So according to determinism I am entirely the product of my environment (genetic and developmental). All acts I could ever undertake were fated from before I was even born and my life is a script I am unable to diverge from in even the slightest way.

        Free will on the other hand insists that sentient beings are able – at least in part – to make decisions which are not pre-determined entirely by what has happened in the past. That is, it insists that sentience implies morality – the ability to choose between right and wrong thought and action.

        By exercising free will a sentience begins a new chain of causality, one that has had no precedent in the universe and could not have been predicted by scientific or magical means before the relevant decision was made.

      • Hmm…

        Let us see how a law or a theory works… Given the initial state of the universe, the laws (even QM) can in a deterministic way give you the state of the system at the current time. Now due to the non linear nature of the dynamics (and hence the entropy) of the universe, the reverse process is not possible (even theoretically).

        So… that ultimate unpredictability about the initial conditions exists. This unpredictability may be seen as free will.

        But this unpredictability is in built in the formulation.If you can’t give the theory enough inputs, the theory won’t give you enough outputs… simple.

        The question that we are handling in science is how create the machine (law). Not how to incorporate the above said unpredictability (or free will) because even science says we can’t provide the initial conditions beyond a point (we are losing information continuously).

      • So… that ultimate unpredictability about the initial conditions exists. This unpredictability may be seen as free will.

        Not in the context of the philosophical dichotomy I spoke of, though perhaps in the context of creation as the ultimate first cause of all – including free will – that some deists would believe.

        I emphasise again that in the traditional philosophical dichotomy the question is whether free will resides within sentient beings whenever they exist, not at the beginning of time.

        It is of course possible that neither free will nor determinism are true. That sentient beings are fully governed by causality external to themselves but that other things – such as the decay of an atom of a radionuclide – are not deterministic but completely random. It would be pretty humbling to think that an electron has more ‘freedom’ of action than we do.

        Some pop pseudo-scientists suggest that free will manifests via quantum events within the neurons but I think this is logically incoherent unless you believe that free will is actually inherent in all matter via quantum events. I’m not sure how a rock would express it’s free will but I sometimes suspect the malicious ones of jumping in front of my toe ;).

        However if you subscribe to the laws of classical logic it is not possible that both individual free will and determinism are true. Either we are puppets entirely controlled by external events or we are moral entities capable of choosing between options.

      • The Gita suggests the universe is deterministic – Krishna told Arjuna that nothing happens – including Arjuna’s decisions – but that it is His will. That still suggests Krishna himself has free will but perhaps that is manifest outside space/time and was inherent in the creation of the universe.

        The Abrahamic religions insist that once Adam and Eve tasted the fruit of knowledge they became moral beings capable of acting outside the will of God – thereby sinning. So it allows free will and therefore rewards or punishments for moral decisions.

        Obviously if you have no choice about how you act it would be meaningless to talk of being rewarded or punished for it (“you have the right to action but not to the fruit of your action” – nor the choice of which action to take).

      • So the view of free will as presented by me, implies the one stated by Gita. The free will existed at the initial conditions. But not now.

        The world is deterministic (and this is not in contradiction to QM).

        QM is also deterministic in describing the universe. As per the postulates of QM, the state of the system is completely and exactly defined by the wave function. And the wave function is known in QM.

        The non deterministic part comes in the process of observation. It is like seeing the same reality in different ways. In more concrete terms, to know the state of a system we need not (or cannot) know both position and momentum. Only one of them contains all information of the state. It is now our choice whether to see it as position or momentum.

        And I completely agree with you on the statement that QM is not responsible for free will.

        There is nothing ‘free’ in ‘free will’. The universe is deterministic. Observations are not.

      • It is interesting to note the course which this discussion took. Never thought that we would go that deep into ‘defining’ truth. 😉

        If you think about it, the concept of free will cannot arise in science. The reason being that science hates exceptions. And giving free will to living beings implies making them exceptional. Isn’t it?

      • If you think about it, the concept of free will cannot arise in science. The reason being that science hates exceptions. And giving free will to living beings implies making them exceptional. Isn’t it?

        Science does not ‘hate’ anything. It must allow exceptions where they are necessary to fit the data.

        The Copenhagen interpretation of QM already makes exceptions for the sentient observer via the necessity of collapsing the wave function. If the wave function is not collapsed it leads to implications such as ‘many universes’ – an ultimately infinite proliferation of complexity.

        What science discourages (via William of Occam) is unnecessary theoretical complexity.

        It states we must not allow the proliferation of axioms.

        By claiming that science eliminates free will or moves us towards fundamental ‘laws’ that explain everything you are making precisely the same sort of faith based statement Intelligent Design proponents do when they destroy the beautiful simplicity of natural selection by claiming there is an omniscient intelligence behind it.

        Another faith based statement is the one made by Richard Dawkins and other proponents of Scientism that the steady accumulation of knowledge – some of which explains things that were previously explained by recourse to God – is steadily reducing the scope for God. It is whittling away the ‘God of the Gaps’ by closing the gaps.

        If you believe that God is infinite it matters not how much is ‘whittled away’ – He will remain infinite, the gaps will never close.

        Ditto for free will.

        Because science can only make deterministic statements it can never eliminate that which lies outside the realm of determinism. Though it may be able to impose determinism on things we previously thought to be non-deterministic (such as the choice of Coke or Pepsi) there will always remain a ‘mystery’ outside the realm of science. An infinite mystery in fact. And within that infinite mystery resides God, free will and the true nature of Self. (If you like to believe that observations also lie outside the deterministic universe of science, go ahead. I don’t observe that myself 😉 ).

        Yes, the ‘scientific universe’ is deterministic, but it is certainly not the entire universe.

        I would go further and suggest that while science may conceivably reach its own end by exhausting the utility of the scientific method it can never reach fundamental laws that will define the entire universe because not everything in the universe is subject to analysis via the scientific method. The gaps will always be there. (Actually I suspect there is no end to the scientific method and that in fact it will continue to open gaps at a faster rate than it closes them – as it did when it began collecting experimental evidence on black body radiation and the PE effect).

        By claiming that science can attain a complete description of the universe you are making a statement that by definition cannot be falsified by science. You have violated the axiom of Karl Popper and are no longer in the realm of science at all. You are in the realm of faith. An exclusivist faith that denies all other faiths, including faith in God, free will and ultimate mystery. The faith of Scientism.

        Science does not hate. It is infinitely open minded. It is simply ‘the study of …’.

        Scientism hates however. It hates all faiths incompatible with its own. It is a jealous God and will allow its followers no others.

        A relative of mine (who happened to win the 1904 Nobel prize for physics) once famously said “I may say that in my opinion true Science and true Religion neither are nor could be opposed”.

        He also said “A young author who believes himself capable of great things would usually do well to secure the favourable recognition of the scientific world by work whose scope is limited and whose value is easily judged, before embarking upon higher flights”.

      • The concept of observer is a idealised concept. There is no observer in the real sense. Do you think we are observers? No! We are just wave functions. We don’t observe anything.

        QM requires that a wave function should collapse when it is observed. Does it do so as we see an electron? Why should it? After all they are just photons interacting with other matter (eyes), The wave function must interact and not collapse.

        For us the interactions are complex because after photons interacting with eye cells, they in turn set up a large number of interactions which ultimately lead to a reaction. The resultant wave function may be a highly peaked function but we have no reason to believe that it becomes a Dirac Delta.

        Science states we must not allow proliferation of axioms. True. And that’s precisely why it hates exceptions. Because each exception is an axiom.

        Okay what I meant by hate exception is that it tries not to have exception.

        That is why the scientific universe is deterministic. The real universe may be deterministic. But I don’t care about the real universe if all that I can observe are explained by the scientific universe.

        True, it may be an endless race. All gaps may never be closed. But we must try… Because with each trial, we learn something new.

        Even if the science attains the complete description of universe, the Karl Popper’s axiom is not violated as I can still question “Why is the universe not the other way round?”. The journey would end as and when we want it to end. The point where we stop questioning, (being satisfied with the description) the journey of science would end (at least till we don’t find a flaw in our formalism… i.e. the experiment agree).

      • I’m glad you concede that science may never be able to completely describe the universe, much less reduce such descriptions to ‘laws’ as that was my main objection to your original statement.

        However I’m a bit concerned that you are propagating the viewpoint that – (1) the wave function is objectively true (as opposed to a model or description) and (2) it doesn’t really collapse – as if they were settled facts in QM.

        Of the half a dozen or so interpretations of QM I am aware of my understanding is that the only one that matches both (1) and (2) is the many universes model which to my view is about as thoroughly contrary to the application of Occam’s razor as you can get. Even imagining an omnipotent creator god manipulating every particle in the universe individually would be more conservative, I’d reckon.

        Naturally I’m in no position to take a firm position on any of the interpretations of QM I am vaguely aware of and while I realise that the universe does not poll scientists to determine which interpretation to apply, my understanding is that the many universe model has never held sway with even half of quantum physicists, so your suggestion that it is established fact is rather partisan to say the least.

        I find your assertion that the observer is idealised yet the wave function real to be even more extraordinary. Presumably there is a recent QM interpretation I have never heard of that you are drawing on here but I can’t imagine what it could be.

        Surely the double-slit experiment in which a minimally interfering detector is placed on one slit is fairly strong proof that the observer is both real and collapses the WF. Unless you hold that the observation of the interference pattern is also ‘idealised’.

        If the observer is merely an ideal, the scientific method itself is surely equally unreal as reproducible experimental results would never be able to be objectively confirmed. Thus QM itself is unreal.

        I’m very happy to accept counter-intuitive scientific theories if there is at least a scrap of supporting evidence but I can’t imagine what supporting evidence could ever be mustered that could suggest the observer of such evidence is idealised. Even pure solipsism has at least one anchor point in phenomenological reality.

        Regarding Popper.

        His axiom (a philosophical not scientific one) is that for a theory to be scientific there must be a theoretical way to prove the null hypothesis.

        So, say I propose the scientific theory that the world always sucks.
        I could take a lead sinker to the top of Everest, the bottom of the Marianas Trench and every point in between and if I release it and it moves towards the world it would support, but not prove, my theory that the world always sucks.
        But if someone was to release a hydrogen balloon and it moves away from the world I would be forced to concede my theory is wrong. The world sometimes blows.
        Because there is at least a theoretical experiment which could falsify my theory it is a scientific theory – even if not a true or particularly elegant one.

        The theory that science could achieve a complete description of the universe is not scientific because it cannot be falsified. No matter how much data and how many theories fail to achieve it, no single experiment I can imagine could disprove it because such an experiment would have to point at something outside science – thereby bringing it into science.

        I can imagine a mathematical proof of the falsity of the assertion – along the lines of Godels incompleteness theorem using sets of actual and potential scientific data and theories – but the possibility of mathematical disproof does not meet Popper’s axiom, only experimental.

        (BTW, you may have blinked and missed it but this comment has actually attained the GUT. There are only three forces – I have eliminated the inconvenient fourth one. There is no gravity – everything sucks. If you like I will name you as a collaborator on my paper and we can share the Nobel. Part of my acceptance speech will go “Without my colleague Professor Saha I would not have realised that inconvenient problems such as observers and gravity could be eliminated simply by insisting they are not real but ideals”).

      • I never claimed at the first place that science would be able to describe the nature completely. It may or may not… Sorry if you felt so…

        I am neither referring to the many universe theory neither do I claim that QM describes objective reality.

        I would refer you to

        http://nsti.org/publications/Nanotech/2003/pdf/T2402.pdf

        for greater details of what I mean by observer and observations.

        Now that your basic objection has been removed. I would like to thank you for the discussion we had. It definitely provided more insights and further affirmed my hope of reaching natural laws (it’s just a hope… not a claim) 🙂

        What I also realised from the discussion is that my writing capabilities are limited in the sense that I could not make you understand completely what my view was.

        I sincerely hope that we would meet in real life some day and have a full fledged discussion on the issue.

        Thank you for your time and views. I hope the discussion was helpful for you too.

      • Just to reiterate.
        The scientific method at it’s core depends on reproducibility.
        For something to be reproducible it must follow the ‘laws’ of causality.

        Many quantum events do not seem to follow such laws (effect without cause).
        The singularity of the event horizon also seems to breach those laws (causes that cease to have effect).

        If there is such a thing as free will there are ‘first causes’ being brought into the universe every time it is exercised (i.e. decisions that are not completely determined by prior events).
        By definition such decisions could not be predicted scientifically no matter how much data was gathered.

        If there is no such thing as free will it is meaningless to speak of laws because what we say and think – right or wrong – has nothing to do with whether those laws exist. They are determined entirely by previous events. The notions of truth, knowledge, progress and science itself would be empty.

      • If there is such a thing as free will there are ‘first causes’ being brought into the universe every time it is exercised

        You have to assume an initial condition to apply the law. The law is only a law of propagation. The initial conditions have to be assumed say anything on free will. Now as the system is chaotic, it is very hard to find an initial condition to match the current state of the system. Hence the free will thing becomes difficult to predict practically; although the theory is save.

        And by what I can feel about your notions of free will, it exists according to your definition. So the second point of non existence of free will does not arise.

  18. Wow! Cabaragal and SAha Y’all are reALLy on It1!
    You continue to make my little mission easier and easier…my little mission noKnow our little mission…if you will…anyway this is all about rhymes and stuff…so believe it or not the meaning of ALL of this is in this video too…WUT!? yeah that stufff too…
    NOte the K in front in the B and end of BezerK..Hmm..kindalikeKroarK…

    Hmmmmm….yeah…..probablycensorshipmakesthismissioneasierhuh?@leastfornow….

    Reply
  19. Please stop sharing Music videos here ! You can provide a link If it is important and it relates but Please don’t Embed videos here…They are taking much space and other readers are annoyed ! Thanks 🙂 I hope you don’t mind.

    Reply
    • Do not mind at all thank you so much for telling me so..also you are still winning the challenge that is good….ALL too..LovexxHAha1!…but yes those videos are directly related to what AM saying too IS okay if you do not understand that too…of course and thanks again for disagreeing with me now in a respectful manner too….

      Reply
      • They may be if you say so… You can provide the links to these videos for sure 🙂
        Love you 🙂
        And as I told you disagreement is the first step to learn 😉

      • Hey White Pearl! Actually I did not embed the youtube links.. the software you have automatically converts them to embedded youtube videos when the basic link is provided…

        It is no problem at all if the links are bothering anyone I should not link them here anyway…lovexx…

        If you look at my Twitter feed at the beach photos please understand that almost everything I am using there is in metaphor in words and not meant to be taken at literal face value…

        SImiliar as I do here…

        IT IS always to generate disagreement and discussion to do as you say learn more…smiles..friend…

        I am one ultimate devil’s advocate! HAha!

        Everyone needs a good devil’s advocate but some people do not understand devil’s advocates as they take them literally at face value…

        ‘The devil is always smiling’…friend HE IS….

  20. May your the divine ink flow through you…

    Reply
  21. I can’t believe you are a struggling writer. You are OSM dear.

    Bless you.

    Reply
    • haha well I am struggling and will struggle for the rest of my life 🙂 You are so sweet to say this 🙂 Thanks ! xx

      Reply
  22. This is lovely! And what perfect pictures you found to illustrate your poem. My favorite is the hummingbird.

    Reply
    • Aww I love that one too 🙂 I am so glad you liked it all ! It was quite tiring searching for the pictures 😉 Love you , hugs ! xx

      Reply
  23. Amazing poem. You have a gift, mashallah.

    Reply
  24. Yes seemingly we differ on the ‘ultimate truth’ aspect. Whether GUT is a final theory or not is a question that can always be debated. There is always a possibility for ANY theory to break down by a new observation. So GUT is no exception. But the reason why I feel that it would take us closer to reality, is that the formalism has passed many stern tests. (From my experience, I can say the tests are REALLY accurate).

    So given that it has been able to unify 3 of the 4 forces and has stood the tests till date gives hope that it would unify gravity as well.

    Now, I know there may be a day, when a new observation is made… Then the theory will be re-modified. And that’s totally fine…

    But saying that such an exotic observation will bring us back to the starting point is wrong because even then GUT will explain many more things than say Newtonian Mechanics. So it may not be the ultimate step but is definitely a step forward.

    Whether an ultimate step exists or not is a highly vague issue. As far as I am able to explain all what I see by a theory, the theory for me is the ultimate law. Because explanation of the observations is the only thing that matters.

    That such a law (that explains all the observations) is definitely a faith (or in more scientific terms, an axiom or a postulate). And all science based on this faith. Science and faith are not exclusive. Seen from another angle, the aim of science is to reduce the no. of axioms. The no. axioms may be reduced but can never be reduced to zero (because the fact that the nature exists in the form that we see it is itself a postulate). So this aspect of faith has and will always be in science.

    On the question of free will… The term cannot be defined scientifically. So for science; answering questions on free will is absurd. Conscious on the other hand is not free will. The behaviour of an individual can be incorporated in the theory. We can THEORETICALLY say that given enough information about the universe, we can predict the behaviour completely. The PRACTICAL problem is that I never have the complete information (wave function) of the universe. So a prediction on human behaviour is extremely difficult to make (given that this system is highly chaotic; the trajectories in the phase space diverge exponentially fast. So the entropy of the system is high; so the information contained in the system reduces drastically with time. And hence reconstruction of past or prediction of future is highly difficult). But again… the prediction is theoretically possible. So the theory is rescued.

    And just to add on the last para of your comment. Approximation is made on a theory. And theories are aimed to be laws. So without the assumption that there is a law, approximations are not even defined.

    Reply
  25. wonderfully written , pretty rhyme made an echo on the words 🙂 , keep the great job

    Reply
  26. Thanks for this beautiful poetry

    Reply
  27. A quote from Albert Einstein who ‘wasis’ definitely at least on the Broader Autism Phenotype..this is exactly my philosophy too…’iswasis’

    “A human being is part of the whole called by us universe… We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.”

    Reply
  28. Fist of All … What an astounding peice of Art … Beautifully structured, the words the rhymes … OWESUM … 😀
    And where do you find these pictures … you have to tell me this secret of yours ….!!!

    Sorry for being late .. you know I only read your posts when i have ample time to throughly enjoy them … About your question regarding not wishing heaven and wishing for the “Qurb” of Allah Pak … I can understand that … This is a part of Ishq of Allah Pak … amoung its first steps … a phase that should not be taken lightly …. fir it is both a blessing and an Aazmaish (test) … Blessiig because it marks the real begining of your TRUE journey … where you hold your Love of Allah Pak above all else … even the Jannat (Heaven) … his blessing for the believers … The lesson to learn here is that to become content with what we get … and be greatfull for it … with humility allow me to quote my own two verses,

    Kyun Udaas Haid Ae Dil Jashan Mana
    Ye Gham Bhi Usi Ki Sogaat Hai

    I am sure you mite have read poetry where the poets feel honoured to get a palce to sit in the gathering of belovet … even if its where people take off their shoes … or to be even allowed to sit on the side walk of the road which the beolovet frequents … there are numerous examples of it … my point being … One should learn to be truly Humble, greartful and content with as much as we get and keep on living Allah Pak … only then he/she will be able to take the next step … this is the test here…!!!

    Another thing here is that Jannat (heaven) and what you wish for … are one and the same …!!!

    You may not realize it but what you are asking for is … “Janat-ul-Firdous” … the highest level of Jannat … above which is the “Arsh-e-Muallah” … It is said that Allah Pak will reveal himslef to the residents of Firdous … EVERYDAY … and will greet them at the begining of each day … that is the epitome … of Qurb we beleivers can acheieve…!!!

    Also … Mairaaj is the miracle of our Prophet (May Allah grant peace and honor on him and his family) … and that is unique … no other Prophets (peace be upon them) have been granted the honour … But we as a Muslim have been given the gift of Namaaz (Prayer) … and have been told that this is the Mairaaj of evey Muslim … If one want to speak with Allah Pak he should offer Prayer … the problem is that although we know of all these Ahadees … ye hamrey halaq se utarti nahi hain … aur hamarey dil tak nahi pohonchti …. they dont reach our hearts … The day that it does … when we would offer our prayers as is the right … which from time to time some of us do experience … but not regularly … we will indeed feel and bask in the presence of Allah Pak … for he is closer to us than our life line (Shahrag) …!!!

    I hope this helps to clear up you confusions … !!!

    Stay blessed … Love.. xx xx xx x xxx x x x 😀

    Reply
    • Also just repied to your mail … do remember to check it out …!!!

      Reply
    • One huge problem of mine i always forget to re-read the comment before posting … this annoys me greatly,

      :@

      “One should learn to be truly Humble, greartful and content with as much as we get and keep on ***thanking*** Allah Pak … only then he/she will be able to take the next step … this is the test here…!!!”

      Reply
    • Hey ! I already read your mail and the reply here….But I never had time to reply to them till now. Sorry for being so late…. I was out of station for some personal stuff !
      And sorry I couldn’t tell you before going there 🙂
      And I am fine.
      Thank you so much for all the appreciation 🙂 Dil khush ker dia 😉
      And the big secret is….. “GOOGLE :D” and sometimes face book 😛
      And you must know a thing… You have clarified my confusion so efficiently ! Excellent 🙂
      I think of it now according to what you have told me….every word gave me peace.
      I hope it is not an azmaesh for me…. I hope this condition remains like this always….
      I was so happy to hear that jannat ul firdous concept…. I never related this thing to what I use to think….
      Dil tak pohanchti hain ager sahi se meaning samaj me aa jay…..
      Allah keray hamesha dil me utarnay lag jaen !
      I love you for clearing all my confusion !
      Love xx 🙂 😉

      Reply
    • Seriously ager aaj tera reply naa aata to mai to akhbaar mai ishtihaar dene laga that …. TLAASH-E-GUMSHDA … Aik adad larki jo baat baat per roney lag jati hai !!! 😀

      Mai sooch raha tha kahi Taalbaan to tuje utha k nahi le gye…!!!

      Like I said don’t pull such stunts again … nahi to … AAAHO …. banda atlest bata kar to gaib hota hai … !!!

      Its a real relief to know that you are OK…!!!

      Sub he google karte hain … but you have a talent for this thing …!!!

      Meaning samajhne se sirf asar nahi hota … translation to gair muslim bhi perhte hain … Un baatoon per yaqeen karna aur kami Imaan lana … ye har aik k bas ki baat nahi…!!!

      Stay Blessed… love xxx

      Reply
      • hahaha baray ganday ho 😛 😛
        Aenda ghaeb hun tu Ishtehaar na dena …. Please 😛 Aa jaun gi wapis. I was not here yaar kaam tha aik wo ker rahi thi.
        Lol Talibaan ki tu aisi ki tesi 😉
        Ok aur kisi ko na sehi tume tu bata k e jaun gi ab 😛
        Well Thank you 😉 Pehli baar tareef suni hai tumharay mun se apne liye 😛
        Yes you are right….Ye her aik k bas ki baat nae…woe ker sakta hai jiko Allah taufeeq de.
        And Thanks 😛 For missing me 😛

  29. Chandni Lahoti

     /  September 4, 2013

    The surrender to Him is the biggest victory of life. Love the way your poem expresses the feeling! Love 🙂

    Reply
  30. Chandni Lahoti

     /  September 6, 2013

    I have nominated you for a bunch of awards! Enjoy – http://chandnilahoti.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/awards/

    Reply
  31. Another lovely gem!

    Reply

I Would Love To Hear From You !

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Womenous

Recipe - Beauty - Hairstyle - Wedding - Decoration Ideas

Halbe&Gaudin

From Bhuj to Belavala

Emotions Overflowing

“Everything you can imagine is real.”

hareemlutfi's Blog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Talking Crap Blog

Just another WordPress.com site

Diary of a quirky girl

Filling your world randomly with sunshine

Ramblings of a Dilettante

"You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on." – Beckett

All Those Small Things

Something New, Every Day

Ironic-Dimensions

I say, I save - I think, I ink

Scribes of Seldomville

Cheechun KI Malliyan Ki Raaniyan.

fragments of life

Love and Meaning In Spite of Living

Caffeine Poisoning

A shot in the morning will keep you on your feet; too much, and you start rambling like me.

%d bloggers like this: