I wish four wives (polygyny) & 20 children. First, I need to find the girls with a high affinity-for-marrying-me.
Affinity, as if tuning for me -- the FM way, sounding finest if a frequency is right.
I have a framework of four (for categorizing people & phenomena). I'm mostly thinking this, around how I'm, and for inferring who may marry me, and how we may relate. I rate the role-model for any of the four personalities.
for a müslim ... After the point that, Quran is the master-text of all existence (with full information, including fate/history), we may notice a resembling pattern here or there, from the Kainat (universes, through all time, & fate possibilities) as the other book written by Allah, the Creator. For example, a physicist, a gynecologist, an astronomer, etc, may find in Quran, what may relate to his/her field, and that is amply exemplified.
The Quran is an invitation to awe, for how the Kainat, and the Quran were crafted. To think/find that does not hurt -- as far as the Islamic-religious-aspect is not violated. The expert with verified information about the religious-issues-interpretation was the prophet, Muhammed (s.a.s.).
I'm the foremost expert who is most informed, in the special field about me (how I'm, what I have thought/lived).
Therefore, (biiznillah) I may infer a metaphor (from the Quran, and from what I have met-afore) -- as literally resembling stories, or structure-of-phenomena around me [with wide-applicability].
Note 1: Thus, if I have found a yet-another miraculous pattern (from fate as happened, that was there in Quran, millenia afore), I may list that. I do not think that is a religious-need, though. Therefore, I need not tell the public, if I think any of what I find, is a private matter of any people.
Note 2: If you are also interested, or just happen to notice, patterns in the Quran (or, the Kainat, or both-together), I do suggest you to sift that thoroughly. Beware, the satans being too-much interested in dumping wickedly stupid (baseless, ugly, hostile, etc.) hypotheses into your thoughts, to waste your time (& mental capacity), and/or to urge you to try to change the facts (or, trying to change the text of a holy book, as so often occurred in history, when people wished the text would suit their agenda, to get various advantages, such as suiting the national pagan lore).
The four is from Enam(6):143-144, how I have thought that as a framework (categorizing people/phenomena).
I do not interpret that term/idiom in Enam(6):143-144, as what a "womb" is holding (that is, w.r.t. pregnancy). Although, after we marry, we may have our children, the statement may relate to also other issues, applicable today. For example, I may interpret that, as their-relatives -- good/bad.
The choice, four-of-eight ((2&2)@143 and (2&2)@144), was fitting the architecture of the Quranic statement, affinely. Although the goat exited, two of them remain, and I keep the fancy, as a hypothesis. Inferring,
Reflecting on the historical development of this document, the role-model list, as well as the commentary I have published while discussing, the list may happen to contain only mentally-sheep, who differ in their feeling styles.
I am a moderate, non-moody, extremely fast-shifting type. That is, do not even attempt to "guess" me, to manage/manipulate me. Your case would determine the response I render, not what I otherwise "would" think.
e.g: Contrast that to children who try to tell bad news to their father, when he is in good mood. Or those people, who try to find bad/relaxed time to poke. I may change-and-respond immediately.
That would resemble a case I was in, when a professor told the class "How would you draw a vertical line in this (tilted) rectangle?" That was "field-dependence v. field-independence" question, as he explained, little later. The point was, though, when he questioned that, I thought the counter-question: "Vertical to what? The rectangle? Or, the board?" Am I meta-thinking?
Another point is fitting most, though (and without that irregularity). If I infer that right from a few phenomena I have noticed, there is a periodicity (like astrology, so far, seems most likely to start at the first day of Roman timing, around March 21). I was born in March 1969, the last fourth (that is, the cow-fourth) in a camel term (1968-69).
Fitting me, if rather than exclusive, cow&camel both are active with [rivalry &] different wisdom.
For example, I improvise efficiently within contraints -- with wildly different cow&camel strategies.
A camel-mind husband, four sheep-mind wives? So, is this somehow the formula for optimizing? Well, although I am able to think how to optimize this, presumably, there is no such thing as "a priori optimal" groupings.
We have to optimize our potential, that Allah is decorating us with. That is the "invisible hand," Allah, in the free-market issues, too. People differ in wish, as well as potential. Think optimizing yourself -- as well as, could help to those who would reflect on your comment/quote to optimize their lives. Forget about (national-level) social-engineering garbage.
All times & people have some category. There would be no sense of thinking "the superior."
But now that I seem to list all-sheep in thought, one optimistic point is that, the wives may be harmoniously thinking? Well, if I'm their primary mental subscription, that is. I hope in-house issues will be exclusively this way. But, if they would heed their relatives in other issues/sports, sheep could have [minor] boundaries in the family, too -- or, we could act as a cozy hub for all.
One unacceptable sheeply issue is the "kuma" (koo-muh) culture (in Turkey), that the wives are like rival/enemy groups. That is totally unacceptable for me. That is, goatly/cowly mostly, but as that is a culture, sheep may gather as "the norm," too. As the resident felt-cow, I crush that out. The sheep of our home, need to abhor such "normal" enmosity. Our normal is a cozy, mother set.
One point toward the low-cow as I'm, I may relate this to the love pattern I had thought for a long long time. Needless to tell, Allah is the first (ya muwakhkhir), as well as we know that the prophet Muhammed (s.a.s.) is the following love for a muslim (that is, loving him (s.a.s.) before oneself/yourself). For home, I may not specify "before herself" but otherwise, I would like the third (after Allah & the prophet) lovable status. I had thought this as the first-among-the-equal, that is, the wives would not conspire in opposing me. Well, that is sounding as a (feeling) cow fancy?
I want the most good-looking females of the other-world [as far as I'm entitled for], both in this- & the other-world.
If the married are müslim/Islamic, and the wife does not marry after the husband dies, they are married in the other-world (forever), too. A valuable gift from Allah, for a loving couple/family.
Although immediately, the question is "who?," that is not for a mere-mortal to tell. Therefore, I need to request from Allah, for making that affine for me -- if not to request that needed information openly, with a miracle.
affinity (or, qismet with yuqeen), resembling how a camel is able to find his/her home, from afar.
The affinity (as rated by me) is the tool, for having no-bad-surprise. Surely, Allah may also point at a girl (that I would otherwise block away), with a miracle. But unfortunately, there exist patented technologies about various thought/sensation-manipulations (that is, witch trouble vs. istihare), and illusions/effects that may suggest awe to an ignorant people (e.g: weather engineering). So, I cannot take any "big thing" as a conclusive "message" from Allah. Therefore, I pray for affinity.
The request from Allah (praying, for affinity to suffice), acknowledges that the help of Allah is needed for
First rule: I need to find and marry those who have chosen me ([as if] a khouri), while yet, we live in this world.
reserved for me. Resembling how a married, chaste female would respond -- although we are yet to marry, in this world. After having first noticed me, she refuses any other. Not dating, and not accepting any görücü-visit (that is, who want to visit to talk about marrying her).She does not point at any other man as marriable-with-her [even as a joke]. Allocated, by Allah, for me, after all.
Note: To go at the edge of an abyss, to test whether you would jump, is not a good thing to do. No need to try to test whether you're reserved, or not. The satan (if not also the wicked antichrist crew) do test people, to obsess/hurt -- step-by-step. Block-out (& black-list) any evil suggestions.
I have wishes and repulse all the time. No abridgment.
with tesettur. I marry girls with (the Islamic female) tesettur (her body, limbs, & hair, all hidden). The "catch" is that, I do not want to suggest/negotiate that while marrying. If not with tesettur afore, then thinking that after getting the information that I demand tesettur, is too late.
To have chosen tesettur after anything I have told/published, is all right! Link-to-marrying is not. Tesettur is for Allah. Tesettur-after-marrying, would suggest, as if that were for me. Why would I care, if that were not for Allah?!? Therefore, tesettur had to exist irrespective of marrying me.
Tesettur is for perfection (w.r.t. how Allah, & I define that). Perfection is necessary, although not sufficient.
From hadith-literature, it is well known that, our prophet, Muhammed (s.a.s.) was not all-the-time answering a broad question, the way he answered at another time. People differ (different capabilities, and different people interacting with those people). Therefore, "help your ill/old mother" or "fight in army" were fitting different cases.
for a question such as "How would I get most sawab (point/token/status for heaven)?"
To have affinity for (& with) me, to resemble any role-model on this page, is not needed.
That is the case, even for sheep. The World is big, and categories exist even within countries.
If different, to have differed right, is needed. The way I'm rating. Your common-sense, along with your choice-making, your wit, your firm attitude (guided by your wisdom), is needed.
There, you cannot ask a third person about how to act/behave, toward me. If you do that, you are admitting being a loser, any way -- as you admit your lack of affinity, that would flourish from your own instinct/choice/love/like about the issue in question. That also violates perfection. Rule13 of the perfection list, bans conspiring with other people, to manipulate-her-spouse with tricks [&lies].
If you do not like me, even imitating exactly me, should probably count as trickery.
In contrast, to appreciate what I publish, and to make use of that for/with your need/style, is good.
To form the fabulous family that I'll inshaellah have, I work through information. When with no information (no specific known role model for that type), inferring through fantasy (to find, & hypothesis-testing), is the method.
The word "fab" when/if a fabulous example is not known, may stand for a "fabricated" example.
I have not flirted -- and I had not told any girl, any interest/intention of mine (about her), until 2002, through e-mail.
The rating/ratifying framework I'm referring to, is what I have thought/noticed, when talking with her, or when around her (in regular/normal/daily social encounters). Fitting for a repulseful camel. I think/weigh, and if I find the girl not affine for marrying me, I rate her in other status (friend, friendly-talk, not-friend, potential-enemy, etc).
There is also the sisterly-friend status. I have not rated any sisterly-friend. Time-to-time, I have labeled all of the girls in a class as "sisterly" (except the evil ones, that is). I do not hope Allah to list any sisterly, as marriable. Islam does not value such a title as "sisterly." I request keeping off.
I may also list negative examples, but no need to (carefully) sub-classify that type of people, not fitting me.
The rm_sheep is not a resident girl, where I live. While I was talking with her (no topic about marrying or date, at all), I thought she was a fine example of (the category) I was thinking of marrying, and I would like to watch her, to have information. (I was authentic. What I've talked was of inherent-value.) But she got lost within a week.
Rating her with her categories is right, as sheep are mostly that. They are fitting in, so knowing (& rating) her choice there (job, resident@country, class, etc.), is most informative (fruitful, & ethic).
For a sheep to gather information, the face-to-face encounter is well, for sensing overall, the impression. Other than social norms, no amount of checklisting would inform a sheep like that.
Interestingly, when I saw her, I was 25, and she was 40. That interest in her, as a fine model, may resemble the marrying age of our prophet, Muhammed (s.a.s.) and her first wife, Hatijah (r.a.), 25 & 40. I found that information about her, in 2005. (By the way, hajij is a fast-running bird.)
I do not know any role-model goat. Therefore, I fabricate the role-model, rm_goat, from the list of perfection (that I wish), and with information about other goat people that I have noticed, in the World.
if rm_goat is gathering information, checklisting is probably optimal (if the context is not altogether novel), as a goat would like to find her list to fit -- listing & asserting the intricacies.
when afrmz is gathering rm_goat information, checklisting is again fitting, although the list may differ. Although a goat may happily live-and-work at a bad environment if only the protocol with her is taming that in her favor, a camel (I feel) would rather not stay, in company of bad people
goat_1. The goat_1 was an old friend, that I was finding sympathetic (an equivalent term is lovely). Not chosen, though. Although probably perfect within herself, I rate her, without any affinity for me. I was not able to find a shared interest, that would start any second sentence, although fine-talking socially with her.
Unknown to goat_1, I told rm_camel, that I was "interested in" (if not that, I told "I love"d) goat_1. Honestly, I did tell rm_camel that I had not told goat_1 about that. (Then, rm_camel called that "Platonic," although I think I may rather term that as alienation. The lovely goat_1 was only a perfect@proximity. No sense of thinking her, when afar. A perfect girl is not so hard to find.)
goat_2. I had thought (and had referred to) goat_2, after her 20.02.2002 e-mail, around the little information (& wishful thinking of the rest) about how she is. After May 2006, I have revised that, in need of another.
The need-to-revise was hinted on that page -- shifting the highlight/choice (again) to the content of our mail-exchange, that is, what I had first suggested to her, as a valuable topic to publish.
Just as goat_1 was a refreshingly lovely girl, as opposed to the "girls!!" around, the goat_2 20.02.2002 was refreshing that she was sensible. That was her "luck" that Allah highlighted her. Before even I noticed 20.02.2002 timing. That is, up until goat_2, as well as mostly after her, all the people of internet seem stupid, when they respond to my e-mails [except within family, or tech-support]. She was just normal. Thought, & responded. In retrospect, though, that luck was probably because the e-mail had been unaddressable previously, next, on Feb.17 I sent that [again], the day when presumably, the bugs who stupefy people were too busy, because I was sending a public e-mail to a few user groups, as well as corporations. That is, inferring from the drive-doubts theory, she was free to think & tell, while bugs were busy all around, trying to stupify the recipients of the other e-mail to the reptile level. -- as she was seen less important.
20.02.2002 is fanciful, for me. Notice the double-double winged architecture, fitting me, nick zElQarneyn. For example, as about this-worldly (human psychology & computer programming), & the other-worldly (fiqih/rule & felt/reflected) achievement/fantasy/respect, with a harmony of all of them -- as with R-world thinking. Also, the 20.02.2002 is resembling the Quranic statement of Enam(6):143-144, (2&2)&(2&2). Also, w.r.t. finding a top-choice-girl, the 2nd surah, el-baqara (the cow), in Quran, is referred to as the master/acme surah (in a hadith). The 2 is double-fitting, for timing (20.02.2002 was in a baqara term) w.r.t. 2nd surah, while about that author (a goat), in the Quranic order of four (1.sheep 2.goat 3.camel 4.cow), and 20.02.2002 is also the palindromic most 2'ful day, yet (22.02.2022 will have a more 2'ful listing, although not as nice).
I was late. I found 2005 information, on May20,2006 (internet-search). Not necessarily about what she has said, or done -- except her work-associations. What I would keep away. I'm supposed to list another role model, fitting me, not working in companies I have black-listed. (I assume there is no duplicity/multiplicity with her name, with about the same job-category that she had in 2002.)
To summarize, for rm_goat (I dub, J.A.), I return to fantasy -- the name (nor existence) not known even to me. I keep the wish-list (that I had written down, and mailed, in response to 20.02.2002) -- and a few more to look for.
For the "J" of J.A., the name of the "J document" (for making up the "Book of Exodus") inspired me. That is not from Quran, and not after Muhammed (s.a.s.), either. That is a type of hadith-scholarship stages/documentation (about Moses (a.s.), etc.), and the Quran-tefsir people refer to such old-Israeli texts, too, when discussing issues. The J-document is 10th century (B.C.) While E-document is 8th or 9th (B.C.). Around the ring (of four), 10 is equivalent to 2, and 8-to-4, the Quranic for goat, and cow, respectively. I certainly do notice that "J" is standing for name, while E is standing for surname (of Nancy E-wing), but in both cases (when the last time, about cow-type, I needed a surname-cue, and this time, I needed a name-cue), the need-a-letter case is the constant, for both fabricated role-models. (The non-fabricated, D & P, fitting the way I refer them.)
The surname-'E' (not name, as with the other three) looking "as if" irregularizing a pattern?
The fun was that, I have a 1982 edition of Encyclopedia Americana, and I first smiled, when I noticed in the index volume, that, the term "E document" referred to "elohistic document" as there were no popular "electronic document" jargon, in 1982. Next, while gobbling up the article, I found (& founded) all that. No surprise that I love finding that kind of fitting, too. After all, the Kainat is also crafted by Allah. Just the way I may find a pattern in the Quran, I may also find (biiznillah) a pattern in what (&when) [a huge list of] people did/wrote/kept/named (a phenomenon/document).
w.r.t. the term I had set, in the e-mail I had sent (afore 20.02.2002), 'e' is acronym for dynasty. (Saintly or evil dynasty, both would fit that. Surely, I want the saintly-gathering, enemy of evil.)
I am not necessarily fastened, at this time, as only Allah may know the future. Indeed, I have walked away from other fanciful patterns, when the choice was wrong, and next I've found the finest, yet, case-after-case. Whether any J.A., or Nancy Ewing will marry me, only Allah knows.
In April 2006, when I revised the bio page (afrmz), I mentioned what we had talked, although at what age I'm. We had talked that, age 15 was optimal for marrying. Now that, I was shifting to another girl, as the role-model goat, I thought of specifying what age she is, too. Yes, 15. With this role-model list, the oldest is more than three times older than the youngest, in that case -- representing mid-fifties, mid-teens, mid-thirties, and mid-twenties (to mid-teens?), in the sheep2cow order. With raw arithmetic, indeed, J.A. would fit age 5 (need to wait 10 more), but I may take that as the special age 15, and fitting the ordering of centuries, not exactly arithmetic.
Well, then again, although I published the foregoing as was, that "15" was "optimal" because of the law setting that lower-limit of marital age. That was what rm_camel specifically referred to, why she would marry at 15. From how I have chosen her as the role-model camel, one may tell that she was choosable for marrying, well while 10 (all before her 11th birthday, if I guess right).
I was delighted by the gift of Allah, having talked with rm_camel at her age of 10, upon noticing that people try to label our prophet Muhammed (s.a.s.) "pedophilic" because he (s.a.s.) married Aisha (r.a.) in her 9. Well, if Aisha (r.a.) was half as thoughtful as rm_camel, to make her (r.a.) postpone marrying him (s.a.s.) further, is a waste (or, wase) of time. That is, although I may keep this "15" as the optimal age, let me have told that, that is only the legal limit -- as rm_camel was telling for herself. The J-document century, inspiring the single-digit age for rm_goat is not what I would conscientiously object. I affirm rm_camel in her feminine instinct, as well as celebrate Muhammed (s.a.s.) for having married Aisha (r.a.) at the optimal age of tuning her personality.
All three of these goat girls fit the pattern of first-met order. In the goat_1 case, she found me, before 1980 rm_camel. In the other two cases, they are the last, after 1994 rm_sheep.
For affinity, rm_goat would need to have favored as her rule-base, what I have, or what I find acceptable/neutral.
If 15 (not 5), her elohistic-doc-century-fit is the sheep, that is 9th. I had written that, a sheep-mount-group is goatly, toward other groups. If, as I want, her rule-base is what I favor, full harmony with me, rm_goat and I fitting the sheep-group pattern, too, as a family. (Is that camelish, too?)
After having published the preceding comment, as well as the sheep&camel case of rm_camel, I inferred that, the role-model list may differ-in-feeling, not thinking. Thus, forget "if 15."
rm_camel was a close friend (the confidante that I told about goat_1), that I liked & loved most (after all, a good friend). Affine for a camel-choice (both face-to-face look&feel, & also the intricacies all right). Differing right.
I told her about goat_1 (interested/loved/"Platonic"), I guess, after rm_camel had asked me that.
After mom told me that, from the fatherland (of mom), they offered a girl for marrying-me (as she was 12 or so, mom said, that was the local custom to first inform/offer to valued families, to marry their daughter), I told this to rm_camel (as a joke?, or information?), she immediately suggested me to marry that girl. (I do not remember whether I had mentioned goat_1, or the offer-girl, first).
That is, unlike what some people thought (and I corrected that), this was not a flirt
Indeed, the single important bitterness was when she was irate, after I told a girl that rm_camel had a fiance. The irony is that, that was to defend, respecting her name & "actual" relationship, when that other girl talked as if we were dating. She was carrying that ring, and I would never guess of a fiance as private information (even if the girl I told that was/is a nemesis of her/us).
I find that, Baqara(2):35 is fitting us -- although quite different than the Adam (a.s.) & Eve case. That is normal, when interpreting (tefsir) the Quran. Verify letter-by-letter that I interpret the story, right. First, the key:
In the case of father Adam (a.s.) and mother Eve, they were, first, the human-couple, different than all of the other (Allah, angels, genies, & animals), as well as husband-and-wife. In the case of afrmz (I'm) and rm_camel, we were the deskmate-couple, and lunchmate -- a camel-trio, together with another girl, that was her friend.
That other lunchmate, the next year, was also a deskmate of mine, because the class-teacher transferred me to the window-side, from the wall-side, after the deskmate boy & I quarrelled.
Notice that, here we are interpreting w.r.t. our case. The duality/ambivalence of the word zawj, may or may not suggest that I had a choice to actually marry her. (1) If we did have that choice, our choices have determined whether we have chosen to remain (only) friend, or marry. (2) If we were not actually having the choice to marry (with any fate road, cf. qader vs. qaza), that is left there, for application in other stories, that existed for another couple, or zillions, out there. (3) And the third alternative is that, the zawj does stand for spouse, and we were allocated by Allah.
In that case, was that "fiance" case not true? I thought this last case, first in 2002, after I found this Quranic text, and re-thought, why she was so furious. Also, in 2006, MSN published an article that a girl made-up (@ ring store) her false-story of (prospective-)engagement, unplanned at first.
Lie-telling does not count positive toward rm_camel status. The bad case, would exemplify the foul inertia of the camel-type, though, following a told lie (in this case, after a fancy-story as children tell when playing a family). The fiance-hiding alternative may fit a camel type, too, as a camel has a lot to think (the most concernful type, valuing all the detail to fit). She might have not thought of (or, totally opposed to) sharing her story (true or fiction) with a girl she does not like. In any case, that was unexpected for her. To summarize, what the "nemesis" started, and also the defense I told, seemed cow-like (poking/probing the opponent), to her, and she repulsed that.
A fine point, is that our framework was about marrying (a fiance, & the timing of marrying), not flirt-related. I do not recall any talk about "personal hot things," like kissing, touching, nor feeling this/that (fiction, or not) about "the loved" other, that we told of (whether existing, or not).
Indeed, when I was talking with her (at rock/steps), I remember, I did think that rm_camel (not goat_1) was the actual choice. (Did I think that upon a question about goat_1?) I did not bother to tell/compliment her, with that actual-choice case, though, as she [had] told me she had a fiance.
If there was no fiance, and the fate had a way for us, this story final (until today), may resemble "Romeo & Juliet," too. :-) The story-ended, upon the told lie (that the girl was not living/available).
Normally, I do not value such "instance-I-thought" cases, because in that high-school, I know witch-beings existed, and we were talking in the middle of the steps, seen both from the shore, and the garden. Some "puppet master" noticed us? Suggested any sentences to our thoughts? Thinking critically, may help to nullify such intruders -- assuming that the scenario of the witch-beings may not be perfect. The rm_camel case is different, though. (1) If she knew what I was thinking, and even manipulated, why would she not collect her spoils, while I was won? (2) I value rm_camel with-or-without any such moment of (choice/love-telling) thought. That is, the role model is fine, even if that is/were not valid as a (transient) "love story." (I value friendship-based love, any way. Not transient spikes.) To differ right, is not trivial. (If trying to differ, they first need to know how to differ -- not to be a caricature. Look like what?!?) A witch may grab/copy, not improvise. I had said (in that page, about witch-beings & the satan) that, witchcraft is limited with (the lack of) imagination. To "write up" the character she had, and to improvise around that, is the substance. (Not all the details she told would matter, although those I'm favoring, did favor her.) (3) In high school, after she was away, I was cozy about the tree, when passing by that tree.
Most people who know me, if they tried to offer me some food favor (like while snacking, or their lunch), know that, I have all the time had a cause, to refuse that. In high-school, mostly, I had the classic-joke "No. We have that at home." That is not vice versa, though. I give out snacks, and even known to pass yoghurt at class-hour, etc. That class-hour legacy was one liberating high from rm_camel, too. (Was she the 1776, or close?)
That is about casual, person-to-person food offer. Not about the systematic/culture non-exceptions such as home-to-home gifts, brunches (where people all contribute food, while getting, too), or a fruit/soft-drink offered when visiting an office/home.I have reflected about my attitude a lot, and the striking contrast (rm_camel different, than all the other) was highlighted with this piece from the Quran -- "ve küla minha," the "ha" referring to not the garden/tree, as they were not fruitful, any way. The feminine-pronoun "ha" is fitting rm_camel. (Warning that, I'm NOT inventing a bidat/"principle" out of the Quran, to guide me what to do. What I'm telling is, that I have reflected on this, a posteriori, reviewing what I have felt & done, through a lifetime.)
Well, yes, memories may fail. But, while I have not thought/recalled others, that I vividly recall having had nostalgia after rm_camel at times, when at a snacks shop, is a point. Time-to-time, I bought igde (russan olive) the snack she had offered me in her fond memory. Thus, that memory was set fondly highlighted, kept through a long term. I may reflect that w.r.t. the statement "Allah ordered ..." That is highlighting sth, as I have no certain memory of having got nibbles from no other lunch/snacks-time/etc. favor, and believing that I have (most likely) taken nothing.
The "haysü shi'tuma" may extra fit, when food-from-her is the central theme. Her mouth was busy at the class hour, and I recall I got at the class, not the garden (the garden portion is fuzzy w.r.t. food, whether we shared any food in the garden). That is, our lunch-time (& place) was liberal.
A fantastic thing, for me, is that, the fruit "Russian olive" ("igde" in Turkish), is called "a type of olive" in Arabic (type of "zeyTun"), and that is exactly the food/fruit that is at the start of the surah that I was loving most (in 199x, until around 2002, when kehf, zilzal, hadid, and other surah-list entered the list, mostly after 20.02.2002). That is, the Tin(95), and exactly the cause I loved that, is also fitting a cause I like rm_camel, the extrema. I felt Tin, as pointing at extrema, all crafted by Allah, and the waving (highest&lowest) w.r.t. the rule , in the surah. (Resembling zilzal, too, in a way.) Her affinely-different, not evil, not lax, style. If reflecting on the evilness pointers of the Tin, that may fit to some of the others, there -- the esfelisafilin who try to bug. We, distant from that.
(Next to the building I lived (full of children around my age), there was a garden, too. That was fruitful. That could trace another story, with friendship, & (inter-building-)warfare, of the children.)
The word ragaden, if alone (single-word-sentence), is interpretable as "Free-time for lunch!" That is how a herd (normally, animals, although, students in classes, let for free lunch-time, is totally fitting.) The way we talked cozily (about what we find comfortable, like/dislike, is fitting other senses of the word ragaden (for people), too.
Yes. We had a lovely tree. The cause I interpret the "la" as tekid-la, is that, we have not committed any sin with that, and that tree was extremely cozy/lovely for me, whenever I walked there, all through the high-school.
I remember that she said "when I'm climbing, you look away." That forewarning was appropriate, although I was not looking up (& not under the tree), any way. (Anti-sin, safe-margin, fitting Islam.)
The "No, get close to that tree." is the affine wording, right after the ragaden. The ragaden was for freely walking and locating at whim, while the next, is offering (actually, commanding) the specific. We did both, at different times -- sitting at the shore, at the rocks/steps, & that tree.
The location of the tree was resembling Adam(a.s)&Eve tree, too? The shore was out of the school-garden, and students were getting out of the school-garden, to sit at the shore, as we did, too. The tree was not in the garden, although too close (if not attached) to the wall of the garden.
The "feteküna mineZZalimin" piece is open to interpretation. First, what is the main concern/theme?
That is, if Arabic would let me interpret the "min" as "away from, other from" We kept away from bullies [and witch-beings, if there were there], when we walked to the edge, to the tree. Not at the middle, as the rocks & shore were. The "fe" is "for." "For keeping away from cruel people."
(For exemplifying this type of "min," cf. from the Quran "wallahu ye'lemü müfside minel müsliHi.")
As I have pointed out about witch-beings, they seem to be people, you would keep away, if not kick, when/if they would try to impose their ugly personalities, face-to-face. At the class, you may not so trivially list all of the evil, though, as they may not have the opportunity to walk away, once they assault. Allah knows, though, who is ultimately evil, vs. good. Kept us away, for a good talk?
The free-mind-development case (for me, or both) is fitting, too. For example, when we were talking of future (for example, marrying), that was without respect to the blindfold of life@school. A fresh spirit, outlooking. Forget about [mere] protesting. We were thinking of our way.
Now, I have formaze vs. big-bad-education system. In high school, I was interested in a herd of magazine/encyclopedia stuff, including puzzle-solving, not school. I have seen a lot of lazy students (not "like me"), and ill-tempered protesting sorts/leftists, too. Who have persisted? I did.
To protest the wrongs may not guarantee later goodness. They may yell all, but obey the worst. Contrast our kind of talk, to the slogans of school-obsessed people (e.g: in T.C., where schooling has a bunch of extra cruelties, some people also seeing school as sort of a/the "god-substitute").
I have written this tefsir of Baqara(2):35. Let the 36, 37, 38, remain as chapter questions (there're hints, around). (I may try to interpret 30-34, too, but that would mostly fit guesswork, or story-inspiration, not necessarily actual case. Hint: (1) e.g: about this page. (2) "sajda" is also "deference," not only physical kneeling/etc.)
I have forgotten the birthday of rm_camel! If I may infer, from her camel type, from around Sept.21 to Dec.21. (A hypothesis only. I do not plan to revise her category, even if she was/were not born in a camel term/fourth.) If timing is fitting, 5*7=35, nice for a sheep&camel, to find centrally defined at 35th of Baqara, the master surah.
Reflecting, I may infer that the (wife) role-model list of mine, may all have the sheep-style thought. That is, as I expect rm_goat to have sheepness, as well as rm_camel is likely sheep&camel. If rm_sheep is sheep&sheep, then rm_cow is inferrable, sheep&cow. Sheep for most-harmony?
That makes the story totally before her 11th birthday. After that, I recall having talked with her only a minute, or two, at age of 12/13, after the day that I had a deep cut in my right thumb. Nothing glorious for me, nor extra info about her, except noticing her firmly considerate response to my foul-nasty attitude of showing her the scar. The rest of the story, all about the rm_camel story (surprisingly?), is about a 10-year old girl. After reflecting this, toward the issue of our prophet (s.a.s.) marrying Aisha (r.a.) at 9, I noticed how having known rm_camel was valuable, in her missing, too. If I had been seeing her afterward, my memory would not have so acutely allow reflecting about the stupid charges against our prophet (s.a.s.). Having received this gift, I thank Allah for having talked with her then, as well as surely, I would like to know how she went on living.
That is, if Allah had placed this gift onto our path, through freezing the content in that time-frame, that not seeing her kept the memory intact, then as I have collected this gift, maybe I'll see her.
For the fourth wife, the rm_cow, I may only infer the attribute-list. I dub her the Nancy E-wing (as E is B+C in the American/English alphabet, and I have a reason for that arithmetic, and another reason around Turkish, too).
I infer the attribute-list, after her cow personality.
Normally, that would tell little. All cows are not equivalent. There are sheep vs. sheep (plural vs. plural), around the World. There is cow vs. cow, too, when/if individuality is not suppressed.
However, after I dubbed the name, I was motivated to look up from www, whether any "Nancy Ewing" is fittingly a cow (so far as I have/had thought, and further thinking about the word/type, "baqara"/"cow" of Arabic), and with any of what I had thought I would wish to find rm_cow as.
I do not tell any result, yet. (That is why I had not chosen the surname Eisenhower, although I had first thought that, and remembered the surname Ewing, later. I had noticed a single girl in the list of search, and it would seem as if I was pointing to that name. (I did not even search "Nancy Eysenck". I do not think there are a lot.) I do not plan to point at any name, until marrying/married.)
By the way, when the name is so popular, if I get any mail from any NancyEwing (or, other popular name), I may ask her the web-pages, she (not other, similar-name) is mentioned/listed, or writing.
Hint: If you have your "international" (non-internet-friendly) name, let your page contain that with various spellings, to facilitate search through Yahoo!/Google, very especially so, if the "internet"ified name is similar to a more popular, more widely found, name/surname. For example, if that were Näncy, write both Näncy (with umlaut, on top of "a"), as well as Nancy. (The non-USA char-set of Apple computers generally may not fit the Windows, unless caution is taken to internet'ify such, with "&...;" Have you fallen out of findability, because of getting an Apple?)
I may try inferring, & telling through a FAN (fancy about nancy), reflecting how I'm thinking.
What love is complete, without wrath? The wrath is not toward the loved, or the good. The wrath is toward those who try to hurt. Even Allah, who is the most merciful, is the most wrathful, too. Indeed, the way I understand, the mercy would entail the wrath, when the case is such. In a context, with not-enough information, most wrath, need to request the force, and the mediation from Allah -- the art of (rightful & merciful) wrath, for help, by cursing.
For example, although I have not told any name (whom I love/regard highly) on this page, my enemies, [may] have learned this/that/all, through e-mail (or, search) history, thought-reading, etc.
I curse impostors, charlatans, and the other (wicked) abusers. I curse the witch-beings, etc. (In what category would we consider the wicked queen, the step-mother of "Snow White" (who gave her the poisonous apple)? If that were not only a story, she would be cursed, too.)
I do not "only curse." e.g: I also talk, and publish, to fight the evil/outrageous. For example,
Privacy is good for a married couple, too. Think of first, the normal Fair-Play for Sex, and after that, think also how that would get so horrifying to think, if some thought-manipulator is sharing your intimacy, along with you.
The married couple may not even necessarily notice that there may be other people, suggesting.
When suggestions being inappropriate (toward unmarried people, and/or ugly assaults), people sense the obsessions/compulsions, if not also obey as puppets, assaulting (other) victim people.
For a private-thinking, you may need all of the next (hopefully, not more than that)
Unfortunately, a lot of charlatans exist, being the cancer of the society, corrupting people through the hope/trust/need/sensibilities of people. The original sin, of Adam (a.s.) & Eve, was involving a hope to improve, too!Keep wise, and do not commit to any sinful/corrupt behavior, that Islam would not approve of.
To burn genies, ayetel-kürsi, and a hadith-suggested prayer ("auzü bi kelimetillahitammati ....") are probably the most popular. Against [the classical] witchcraft, the muavizat (ihlas(112), felaq(113), nas(114)) from Quran, as hadith-suggested, a favorite list. (Notice electro-witchcraft, too.)
The wall built by Zulqarneyn (a.s.), Kehf(18):93-98, is a Faraday-cage (built of metal). I wonder, whether we my find some point, there, in the Quran, with a wall of Zulqarneyn (a.s.) vs. Gog & Magog to stop scalar-assaults, too? (Otherwise, claimed to stop at no shelter, if I got that physics-state-of-the-art claims, right). Hints?
No. If you reflect about that, you see that, the World is messed up, with herds of satans (in the shapes of humans, and genies). Even if I knew/know your name, and even if I were able to find your internet-mail- or, the regular-address, or your telephone, there is/was no guaantee that you would attend to what I'm telling, right.
I find the most strategic (& with tawakkool) is to first publish what I'm telling, through this page (& a few around), while requesting from Allah to optimize our affinities. I walk, firm, wise, & laT.
I do not have direct access to any of them. I may invoke this or that intermediary (cf. detectives investigating through bartenders :-)) ). May go through a company, university, or old friend, but....
To find me, is trivial. (I publish these @ www, after all.) Typing Ferzen Midyat for a Yahoo! (or, other) search, is enough. Therefore I do not have to run around, I think. I walk at the pace, and with the strategies, I find wise.
Authorizing that you have found me, is an important problem. For ensuring that your mail-traffic is to/from me, think about, e.g: internet-mail theft/spoof, and face-similarity of impostors (esp. if they have spied-data). Road-safety (cf. the Kerbela incident), is important, too. I offer strategies.
As a rule-of-thumb, if living in an evil territory where the police/military/government is not trustable (outlaws as the state), get to a safer. (I am not sugesting where I live.) After that safety is there, there is probably no reason for not communicating with me -- unless, if you think your location is not known, and if that were known, you would not have the sheltering to hide yourself. Otherwise, if with full privacy-guarantee (high-tech, etc.), or no privacy (or, known location), probably establishing a communication path with me, is the safest, as I have open strategies for fighting.
DO NOT send any "last letter." Mail again, if I have not responded. I may respond to a question. (Mostly, no chatting with random people. However, if that is a friend I had talked face-to-face, I may chat personally, too.)
So far, nobody has sent me mail about this marrying issue. That is, I have not received.
If a person (like some Nancy Ewing who had seen me in 1980-1994), has sent me mail, the point of "not responding" is that I have not gotten that mail, at all. This is critical information, in the case of evaluating which info-channel is working, while others may be not trustable, lossy.