Meteors chase things?
-
The meteorites happen to hit the unbelieving jinn in certain times of the year. Is this more clear?
-
The meteorites happen to hit the unbelieving jinn in certain times of the year. Is this more clear?
Except those that snatch a hearing by stealth, and they are pursued by a clear flame, brightly burning. Meteorites aren't directed towards anything. Should I post Ibn Kathir tafsir that says that Angels throw these things as well as saying they never miss?
-
Except those that snatch a hearing by stealth, and they are pursued by a clear flame,
So you are saying that certain meteorites can hit the jinnin thier course? I am sorry but can elaborate further.
Meteorites aren't directed towards anything.
Could be true but on thier course they smash unseen creatures. No contradiction here.
Should I post Ibn Kathir tafsir that says that Angels throw these things as well as saying they never miss?
There is no priesthood in Islam. I do not have to listen to what someone said hundreds of years ago.
-
So you are saying that certain meteorites can hit the jinnin thier course? I am sorry but can elaborate further
Could be true but on thier course they smash unseen creatures. No contradiction here.There is no priesthood in Islam. I do not have to listen to what someone said hundreds of years ago.
What does pursue or follow mean? What do missiles do? Aren't they fired at things? Aren't projectiles thrown at things? Read the verses and you will clearly see these things there. And clearly, it did look like these things were shooting across the sky. That's where the old, inaccurate name of "shooting stars" came from. So it would have made perfect sense for Muhammad to have seen these things as chasing or pursuing something or being thrown at something.
-
What does pursue or follow mean? What do missiles do? Aren't they fired at things? Aren't projectiles thrown at things? Read the verses and you will clearly see these things there. And clearly, it did look like these things were shooting across the sky. That's where the old, inaccurate name of "shooting stars" came from. So it would have made perfect sense for Muhammad to have seen these things as chasing or pursuing something or being thrown at something.
Meteorites hit Jinn in thier due course. I honestly see no problem with that.
-
Like poles repel, opposing poles attract.
"Jinn" are described as smokeless fire, so if a dumb object was "pursuing" them, it can mean
A) A dumb object literally running after a "jinn" => Your silly POV
B) Jinn are ionised, the burning plume is also ionised with the opposite charge, meaning that if the "jinn" made of smokeless fire gets too close, the burning plume will automatically attract.
C) The "jinn" can travel through space but fail to calculate every meteor's trajectory, and hence, collide.
-
Like poles repel, opposing poles attract.
"Jinn" are described as smokeless fire, so if a dumb object was "pursuing" them, it can mean
A) A dumb object literally running after a "jinn" => Your silly POV
That's not what my silly POV is, that's what the word pursue or follow means. Nice try.
B) Jinn are ionised,
Where did you get that from?
the burning plume is also ionised with the opposite charge
Where did you get that from?
meaning that if the "jinn" made of smokeless fire gets too close, the burning plume will automatically attract.
Wow!! How creative. It's a shame that you have absolutely zero basis for this. i can make up creative, imaginary ideas too.
C) The "jinn" can travel through space but fail to calculate every meteor's trajectory, and hence, collide.
That doesn't reconcile the usage of follow, pursue, (151 or the reference to projectiles being thrown at them by angels. What you also don't realize is that most meteorites are actually not hard, solid objects but are instead streaks of dust. But it sure looked like they were missiles flying across the sky (675)
-
That's not what my silly POV is, that's what the word pursue or follow means. Nice try.
Where did you get that from?
Where did you get that from?
Wow!! How creative. It's a shame that you have absolutely zero basis for this. i can make up creative, imaginary ideas too.
That doesn't reconcile the usage of follow, pursue, (151 or the reference to projectiles being thrown at them by angels. What you also don't realize is that most meteorites are actually not hard, solid objects but are instead streaks of dust. But it sure looked like they were missiles flying across the sky (675)
The word "pursue" or "follow" can also be used in reference to A being attracted to B. Strange language? Yes. Is it out of line? No. The north pole of a magnet will always attempt to pursue the south pole of a magnet. Personification does not mean that the entity in reference is a person.
Where did you get that from?
Tell me, what are the possible connotations of "smokeless fire"? What fire exists without any form of smoke? 5515. Regardless, that is one of several possibilities. My word isn't the Quranic word, that is my present understanding, not THE Quran's understanding.
Where did you get that from?
We are talking about objects neither you or I have even seen or had contact with. The description is vague.
Wow!! How creative. It's a shame that you have absolutely zero basis for this. i can make up creative, imaginary ideas too.
Have fun, refuting 3rd grade physics is a worthwhile hobby. Positive attracts negative. Another creative, imaginary idea, is that the Quran refers exclusively to your preconception alone.
That doesn't reconcile the usage of follow, pursue, (151 or the reference to projectiles being thrown at them by angels. What you also don't realize is that most meteorites are actually not hard, solid objects but are instead streaks of dust. But it sure looked like they were missiles flying across the sky (675)
Meteorites are actually hard, solid objects. "Streaks of dust" are called "comets", but this is not unexpected from the one who attempts to refute basic physics.
Likewise, please show where "angels" throw projectiles at jinn, and likewise, define "angels", then post the Arabic word for "angels" and show how it means your conception. Good luck. 675 depends on your erroneous understanding of "samawat" as "sky".
-
The word "pursue" or "follow" can also be used in reference to A being attracted to B. Strange language? Yes.
Yes indeed, and this is where the creativity starts. First an answer is attempted, and when it doesn't work, here comes the unbridled creativity. This should be good.
Is it out of line? No. The north pole of a magnet will always attempt to pursue the south pole of a magnet. Personification does not mean that the entity in reference is a person.
Where does it say that meteorites have a polarity or charge, and jinns have a charge too? you're just making up any wild story you can think of with zero basis. Hey, maybe it's due to Klingons circling Uranus too. That invention has as much basis as what you are saying.
Tell me, what are the possible connotations of "smokeless fire"? What fire exists without any form of smoke? 5515.
Don't we have to first ascertain the existence of the jinn first before we can answer this? Heh, for all we know, smokeless flame was a neat concept for Muhammad to invent.
Regardless, that is one of several possibilities. My word isn't the Quranic word, that is my present understanding, not THE Quran's understanding.
I don't even think it's a possibility, or even if it is a remote one, it's one with no basis behind it whatsoever except for someone's creative imagination. Heck, maybe you should be a science fiction writer.
We are talking about objects neither you or I have even seen or had contact with. The description is vague.
Nice try at the refocus, but we are not talking about objects that you or I can't see. We are talking about objects that we CAN see. Meteorites, and we know what they really are.and they not only don't chase invisible jinn, they don't chase anything. Not the jinn, not space shuttles, not satellites. Nothing. So this excuse or diversion doesn't work.
Have fun, refuting 3rd grade physics is a worthwhile hobby. Positive attracts negative.
Why is smokeless flame immediately a positive and regular flame is a negative? Would you care to explain that specific example from a scientific angle? Of course not, because you are merely making this all up to hide the error
Another creative, imaginary idea, is that the Quran refers exclusively to your preconception alone.
Yeah, it can mean anything in ther universe. In fact, any problematic verse can mean anything in the universe. In fact, we can't ever really tell what the quran means, right? Bull.
Meteorites are actually hard, solid objects. "Streaks of dust" are called "comets", but this is not unexpected from the one who attempts to refute basic physics.
No dodo. Meteorite showers happen when the earth bumps into a streak of dust left by a comet that is also circling the earth. So the comet and the dust streak are not one and the same. Check your facts. But this is not unexpected from the one who attempts to refute basic astronomy. And, I haven't attempt to refute one single thing from physics. I just refute your errant notions, like I just did here.
Likewise, please show where "angels" throw projectiles at jinn, and likewise, define "angels", then post the Arabic word for "angels" and show how it means your conception. Good luck. 675 depends on your erroneous understanding of "samawat" as "sky".
Do you respect IBN Kathir? Let me know before I go and look for it. His tafsir is supposed to be highly respected. Anyway, sky or lowest heaven. Take your pick. The problem is still there.
-
Yes indeed, and this is where the creativity starts. First an answer is attempted, and when it doesn't work, here comes the unbridled creativity. This should be good.
The actual root definition of the word (t-b-ayn) does not mean either passive or activeness, it simply denotes A going to/towards B. Minus brownie points for your bark being larger than your bite. There is no creativity, but your silliness in confusing the English word for the Arabic. Even in English, those words don't always denote activeness.
Where does it say that meteorites have a polarity or charge, and jinns have a charge too? you're just making up any wild story you can think of with zero basis. Hey, maybe it's due to Klingons circling Uranus too. That invention has as much basis as what you are saying.
It is an example that is plausible in reality and can fit into the information provided by the Quran. In reality, I simply don't care about whether those verses mean what. Some people have diseased hearts and minds and they look for meanings in them, however.
Don't we have to first ascertain the existence of the jinn first before we can answer this? Heh, for all we know, smokeless flame was a neat concept for Muhammad to invent.
Smokeless flames have existed since the dawn of time. As for "jinn", if you care to define the meaning of the word, we can ascertain their existence.
I don't even think it's a possibility, or even if it is a remote one, it's one with no basis behind it whatsoever except for someone's creative imagination. Heck, maybe you should be a science fiction writer.
Of course, it is impossible, or has a remote possibility, which is why Roy C. Sullivan was struck by something that never existed - an amazing feat, given that it occurred to him seven times.
Nice try at the refocus, but we are not talking about objects that you or I can't see. We are talking about objects that we CAN see. Meteorites, and we know what they really are.and they not only don't chase invisible jinn, they don't chase anything. Not the jinn, not space shuttles, not satellites. Nothing. So this excuse or diversion doesn't work.
And please show where you have proven the original Arabic to refer exclusively to meteors. I don't need silly translations, I want the original text, highlighted, and defined, with authentic references.
Why is smokeless flame immediately a positive and regular flame is a negative? Would you care to explain that specific example from a scientific angle? Of course not, because you are merely making this all up to hide the error
There are two issues - a, your reading comprehension, or the lack of it, and b, the simplicity of what a "smokeless flame" can be. I'll give you a clue, this "smokeless flame" exists in a fire, without the smoke. For reference, the Quran refers to fire as coming from the green tree, not any tree, but the GREEN tree, in 3680, so we will use that as our benchmark. Tell me the components of a fire from a green tree, and you will find your painfully obvious answer.
No dodo. Meteorite showers happen when the earth bumps into a streak of dust left by a comet that is also circling the earth. So the comet and the dust streak are not one and the same. Check your facts. But this is not unexpected from the one who attempts to refute basic astronomy. And, I haven't attempt to refute one single thing from physics. I just refute your errant notions, like I just did here.
Some very large dust particles. rotfl
Do you respect IBN Kathir? Let me know before I go and look for it. His tafsir is supposed to be highly respected. Anyway, sky or lowest heaven. Take your pick. The problem is still there.
rotfl
-
1517-18
366-10
675
728-9hadiths and ibn kathir commentary from Qhatada
These verses can refer to angels not meteorites.
-
The actual root definition of the word (t-b-ayn) does not mean either passive or activeness, it simply denotes A going to/towards B. Minus brownie points for your bark being larger than your bite. There is no creativity, but your silliness in confusing the English word for the Arabic. Even in English, those words don't always denote activeness.
I never even raised the point of active or passive. You did. I'm just answering it.
It is an example that is plausible in reality and can fit into the information provided by the Quran. In reality, I simply don't care about whether those verses mean what. Some people have diseased hearts and minds and they look for meanings in them, however.
This is exactly why the Quran has no errors in it. Because it's followers are so dogmatically brainwashed, that no matter what is shown to them, they simply are not capable of accepting it. vBut it's funny that when Muslims look at other religious scriptures, suddenly they have a decent ability for objective thought and analysis. Isn't that interesting? Why yes it is.
Smokeless flames have existed since the dawn of time.
Please link it and show me it's electrical charge.
As for "jinn", if you care to define the meaning of the word, we can ascertain their existence.
jinn means to conceal or to hide which refers to their ability to make themselves invisible if they so desire. The word has absolutely nothing to do with smokeless flame, although I accept the smokeless flame description because it's just as pointless to argue about as an invisible being. But my point is, where did you get the electrical charge notion about the jinn and meteorites. You still haven't told me that yet.
Of course, it is impossible, or has a remote possibility, which is why Roy C. Sullivan was struck by something that never existed - an amazing feat, given that it occurred to him seven times.
And please show where you have proven the original Arabic to refer exclusively to meteors. I don't need silly translations, I want the original text, highlighted, and defined, with authentic references.
Well, OK, so a little change in direction here, eh? If one angle doesn't work, try another. In fact, keep trying any angle you can think of, as the truth doesn't really matter, answering the question with anything you can think of to make it go away is what matters. So if NOW, the story is that it doeswn't refer to meteroites, then what else can we see in the sky that is a bright flame and appears to fly across the sky as if it is pursuing something or chasing something? I'm open to suggests (if they're good)
There are two issues - a, your reading comprehension, or the lack of it, and b, the simplicity of what a "smokeless flame" can be. I'll give you a clue, this "smokeless flame" exists in a fire, without the smoke. For reference, the Quran refers to fire as coming from the green tree, not any tree, but the GREEN tree, in 3680, so we will use that as our benchmark. Tell me the components of a fire from a green tree, and you will find your painfully obvious answer.
Why don't you just post the scientific article? No need for hints or clues as you are wasting time.
Some very large dust particles. rotfl
rotflActually, while you're rolling on the floor, you may want to realize that most shooting stars are made up of particles as small as a pebble or even smaller. So what's so funny? Go do the research before you laugh.
-
Well, according to Ibn Kathir and the hadiths, it is the angels that throw these things, not the angels themselves. Boy, you're really trying anything that you can possibly imagine.
Again, there is no priesthood in Islam. They definitely can refer to the angels.
-
I never even raised the point of active or passive. You did. I'm just answering it.
This is exactly why the Quran has no errors in it. Because it's followers are so dogmatically brainwashed, that no matter what is shown to them, they simply are not capable of accepting it. vBut it's funny that when Muslims look at other religious scriptures, suddenly they have a decent ability for objective thought and analysis. Isn't that interesting? Why yes it is.
Please link it and show me it's electrical charge.
jinn means to conceal or to hide which refers to their ability to make themselves invisible if they so desire. The word has absolutely nothing to do with smokeless flame, although I accept the smokeless flame description because it's just as pointless to argue about as an invisible being. But my point is, where did you get the electrical charge notion about the jinn and meteorites. You still haven't told me that yet.
Well, OK, so a little change in direction here, eh? If one angle doesn't work, try another. In fact, keep trying any angle you can think of, as the truth doesn't really matter, answering the question with anything you can think of to make it go away is what matters. So if NOW, the story is that it doeswn't refer to meteroites, then what else can we see in the sky that is a bright flame and appears to fly across the sky as if it is pursuing something or chasing something? I'm open to suggests (if they're good)
Why don't you just post the scientific article? No need for hints or clues as you are wasting time.
Actually, while you're rolling on the floor, you may want to realize that most shooting stars are made up of particles as small as a pebble or even smaller. So what's so funny? Go do the research before you laugh.
Actually, you stated
That's not what my silly POV is, that's what the word pursue or follow means. Nice try.
Which automatically raises the issue of activeness or passiveness. Here, you are stating that follow or pursue denotes activeness. "Pursue" denotes activeness, "follow" doesn't.
This is exactly why the Quran has no errors in it. Because it's followers are so dogmatically brainwashed, that no matter what is shown to them, they simply are not capable of accepting it. vBut it's funny that when Muslims look at other religious scriptures, suddenly they have a decent ability for objective thought and analysis. Isn't that interesting? Why yes it is.
Too bad I'm not "Muslims" or "it's followers are so dogmatically brain...". I don't look at any other book except the Quran, at least for now. As for "objective thought and analysis", you must be a "Muslim" because that is lacking significantly on your part. That one sentence doesn't allow you to cop out of answering the simple questions asked earlier.
Please link it and show me it's electrical charge.
LOL. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
jinn means to conceal or to hide which refers to their ability to make themselves invisible if they so desire. The word has absolutely nothing to do with smokeless flame, although I accept the smokeless flame description because it's just as pointless to argue about as an invisible being. But my point is, where did you get the electrical charge notion about the jinn and meteorites. You still haven't told me that yet.
As I said, it is a simple possibility and nothing more, within the scope of this thread. As for your definition of jinn, can you give a tangible entity or is it just conceptual?
Well, OK, so a little change in direction here, eh? If one angle doesn't work, try another. In fact, keep trying any angle you can think of, as the truth doesn't really matter, answering the question with anything you can think of to make it go away is what matters. So if NOW, the story is that it doeswn't refer to meteroites, then what else can we see in the sky that is a bright flame and appears to fly across the sky as if it is pursuing something or chasing something? I'm open to suggests (if they're good)
We are not talking about the "sky", we are talking about "samawat". Pay attention. As I said, it can refer to plasma, which is very common in the lower "samawat" decked with planets - http//plasmascience.net/tpu/plasma_space.html.
Regardless, the original Arabic DOES NOT REFER SPECIFICALLY TO METEORS, period. This is something you cannot deny, and something you skirted around.
Why don't you just post the scientific article? No need for hints or clues as you are wasting time.
It is forbidden that you think rotfl. Regardless, see above.
Actually, while you're rolling on the floor, you may want to realize that most shooting stars are made up of particles as small as a pebble or even smaller. So what's so funny? Go do the research before you laugh.
I was laughing at your laughable definition of "meteorite". Even then, as the Arabic of the verse goes, this is an unrelated diversion.
Well, according to Ibn Kathir and the hadiths, it is the angels that throw these things, not the angels themselves. Boy, you're really trying anything that you can possibly imagine.
rotfl
-
Again, there is no priesthood in Islam. They definitely can refer to the angels.
Right on the first, wrong on the second. Keep looking.
-
Right on the first, wrong on the second. Keep looking.
I will, thanks for the advice.
-
Actually, you stated
Which automatically raises the issue of activeness or passiveness. Here, you are stating that follow or pursue denotes activeness. "Pursue" denotes activeness, "follow" doesn't.
Follow denotes activeness as well. Would you like me to show you where Ibn Kathir says that Angels throw these things? Would that help clear it up for you? Isn't that a more respected interpretor for the meanings of the Quran than you are?
Too bad I'm not "Muslims" or "it's followers are so dogmatically brain...". I don't look at any other book except the Quran, at least for now.
Which is a sign of subjective, self fulfilling brainwashing
As for "objective thought and analysis", you must be a "Muslim" because that is lacking significantly on your part. That one sentence doesn't allow you to cop out of answering the simple questions asked earlier.
Which exact question did I miss? Be specific.
LOL. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
Well, it says that plasmas can be lightning and a bunch of other stuff. So I'm not so sure how much this qualifies as smokeless flame. Anyway, so the jinn are made of plasma? So how does a flame chase away or hurt or burn plasma? Boy, you're really digging yourself deep.
As I said, it is a simple possibility and nothing more, within the scope of this thread. As for your definition of jinn, can you give a tangible entity or is it just conceptual?
Either way, the jinn has nothing to do with na clear error about meterorites. THAT's the issue, not the jinn. But you keep wanting to make it about the jinn as a diversion.
We are not talking about the "sky", we are talking about "samawat".
I've already had Muslims correct me by saying that samawat does not refer to the lowest heaven, but rather to the sky. so you disagree with them.
Pay attention. As I said, it can refer to plasma, which is very common in the lower "samawat" decked with planets - http//plasmascience.net/tpu/plasma_space.html.
Oh, so the jinn are plasma in the lower samawat? So what are they when they are hanging out in graveyards and garbage dumps eating bones? This is really getting very far out. My how your imagination is working overtime to solve this problem.
Regardless, the original Arabic DOES NOT REFER SPECIFICALLY TO METEORS, period. This is something you cannot deny, and something you skirted around.
Then what is in the sky, that is bright to see, that appears to chase things or fly across the sky? I'm open to any good alternatives, as long as it doesn't have holes in it. interpreting those verses as speaking as meteorites has no holes in it.
I was laughing at your laughable definition of "meteorite". Even then, as the Arabic of the verse goes, this is an unrelated diversion.
No no no. I was laughing at your incorrect notion of comets. Don't try to hide it, it won't work. My definition of meteorites is perfectly accurate and i can substantiate it any time you please. Here.
http//starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question12.html
What's the problem?
