WHY IBLIS CANNOT BE AN ANGEL...

[vincentia]

quote PRIEST_BOKMEI (dhul)

1649. And to Allah doth obeisance all that is in the heavens and on earth, whether moving (living) creatures or the angels for none are arrogant (before their Lord).

1650. They all revere their Lord, high above them, and they do all that they are commanded.

According to these ayats you are mistaken. The moving creatures and the malaika are specific classes of beings and are apart from humans . The moving creatures and malaika, according to ayat 1650, do not disobey, that is, they do all that they are commanded. All means all.

So according to you 1649 EXCLUDES humans and jinns. Even though it says ALL THAT IS (Whatever is) . A very basic mistake and one you cant justify. There is NO exclusion clause in 1649 and ALL THAT IS means ALL THAT IS with no exclusion.

Apparatently with your lack of knowledge of the quran and the Arabic language you have never seen or studied verse 1315

walillahi yasjudu man f assamwti wal?ari a`an wakarhan wailaluhum bilhuduwwi wal?ali
Whatever beings there are in the heavens and the earth do prostrate/obey themselves to God,- with good-will or in spite of themselves so do their shadows in the morning and evenings.

Now conpare 1649 with 1315......

walillahi yasjudu ma f assamwti wama f al?ari
walillahi yasjudu man f assamwti wal?ari

This is basically the same as 1649 but with one important different. In 1649 it is referring to ALL THAT IS or Whatever is by the use of the arabic word ma which includes everything including all life forms

But in 1315 it uses the personal pronoun man which is used to refer to intelligent beings such as humans, jinns and angels.

man has all the same meanings as ma but because its a personal pronoun then instead of reading All THAT is, it now becomes All BEINGS, or instead of reading Whatever is it now becomes Whoever is

So it?s saying All Beings in heaven (angels etc) and All Beings on Earth (humans, jinns etc) obey God.

Given the meaning of 1315, it is impossible to add an exclusion clause EXCEPT HUMANS and JINNS...

So 1315 says HUMANS AND JINNS do obey God by the use of the arabic word yasujud the same as in 1649.

Anyone with intelligence can see that both 1649 AND 1315 is refferring to obeying Gods WILL which is something we ALL do both willingly or un-willingly. This would have a different meaning then obeying his WORD which is something we can obey or disobey.

Im sure you will try your hardest to twist and distort 1315 the way you twist and distord other verses in the quran. So give it you best shot and lets see what lengths you will goto dhul.

[unknownuser]

Apparatently with your lack of knowledge of the quran and the Arabic language you have never seen or studied verse 1315

You really shouldn't come to such...conjectural conclusions, you will only be disappointed in the end...

So according to you 1649 EXCLUDES humans and jinns. Even though it says ALL THAT IS (Whatever is) . A very basic mistake and one you cant justify. There is NO exclusion clause in 1649 and ALL THAT IS means ALL THAT IS with no exclusion.

1649. And to Allah doth obeisance all that is in the heavens and on earth, whether moving (living) creatures or the angels for none are arrogant (before their Lord).

1650. They all revere their Lord, high above them, and they do all that they are commanded.

All, obviously, cannot include human beings , because humans do disobey Allah's commands, hence, this is why Allah, specifically, refers to daabatan and malaika in 1649-50 and not jinn/men, so as, to not contradict Himself. If your assertion were correct, then there would exist a contradiction/discrepancy in Al-Quran, for Allah, cannot say ALL things obey Him, knowing full well that...jinn and men do disobey, whereas, the daabatan and maliaka..do not.

Now conpare 1649 with 1315......

1650. They all revere their Lord, high above them, and they do all that they are commanded.

walillahi yasjudu ma f assamwti wama f al?ari
walillahi yasjudu man f assamwti wal?ari

This is basically the same as 1649 but with one important different. In 1649 it is referring to ALL THAT IS or Whatever is by the use of the arabic word ma which includes everything including all life forms

But in 1315 it uses the personal pronoun man which is used to refer to intelligent beings such as humans, jinns and angels.

man has all the same meanings as ma but because its a personal pronoun then instead of reading All THAT is, it now becomes All BEINGS, or instead of reading Whatever is it now becomes Whoever is

So it?s saying All Beings in heaven (angels etc) and All Beings on Earth (humans, jinns etc) obey God.

Given the meaning of 1315, it is impossible to add an exclusion clause EXCEPT HUMANS and JINNS...

So 1315 says HUMANS AND JINNS do obey God by the use of the arabic word yasujud the same as in 1649.

Anyone with intelligence can see that both 1649 AND 1315 is refferring to obeying Gods WILL which is something we ALL do both willingly or un-willingly. This would have a different meaning then obeying his WORD which is something we can obey or disobey.

O.K., let's compare 1315 and 1649-50. 1650, is a fuller explanation of 1350.

1315. Whatever beings there are in the heavens and the earth do prostrate themselves to Allah (Acknowledging subjection),- with good-will or in spite of themselves so do their shadows in the morning and evenings.

1316. And to Allah doth obeisance all that is in the heavens and on earth, whether moving (living) creatures or the angels for none are arrogant (before their Lord).

1350 states that, there are two types of beings relative to choice

a. those who can submit willingly, that is, can make the moral choice to do so--humans ..

b. those who cannot submit willingly as they do not possess the ability to make a moral choice--daabtan and malaika].

1650, goes on to reinforce that, the daabatan and malaika, cannot disobey Allah's commands.

Main Entry WILLING inclined or favorably disposed in mind done, borne, or accepted by choice or without reluctance of or relating to the will or power of choosing VOLITIONAL

Main Entry VOLITION an act of making a choice or decision; also a choice or decision made the power of choosing or determining WILL.

Main Entry WILL used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal to determine by an act of choice.

Now, given these above definitions in conjuction with 1649-50, they preclude the daabatan and malaika, as they have no will to disobey a command of Allah.

Now, as I said ayat 1350, is speaking of both types of beings--a. those who have a will to make a moral choice and, b. those who do not, however, both types, in their respective ways, acknowledge that they must ultimately submit to the being, Allah, who, created them. Even Iblis, the Jinn who, refuse to submit to Allah's command to submit to Adam, noenetheless, asked Allah's permission to respite him until the Day of Judgement to work out his plan, hence, acknowledging his submission to Allah, in that, he had to request Allah's permission.

So, 1350 and 1649-50, only further make my case and not yours, sorry.

So give it you best shot and lets see what lengths you will goto dhul.

Why do you think I'm dhul?

[YankeeDoodle]

PB,

Priest wrote to Vincentia
You really shouldn't come to such...conjectural conclusions, you will only be disappointed in the end...

Why do you think I'm dhul?

There was once a Good debater who posted very bold and frank views of what he thought was right.In so doing he made a couple of people here have nightmares till he was exiled at the very end.His name was DhulQarnain.Although the ghost of Dhulqarnain still haunts them such that any debater who comes with very positive note and views to present his case here, they will exhibit paranoia and would like to comfort themselves by making sure they are not arguing to Ghosts.

I use to have a bad eyesight before when Dhul was around but now after the operations the spelling and style of Priest_bokmei cannot be the same as Dhulqarnain.The only person that could correct this misconception would be Layth because only he would be able to view the IP numbers, which apparently he did not ,so I hope those who wish to hallucinate please refrain yourselves especially when the Quran does not allow us to indulge in Ghosts,Conjectures and Fantasy.

Priest_Bokmei if I missed welcoming you before,Heres to you for coming up with a few Fine posts.
cheers.

[unknownuser]

PEACE YD

Thank you for the warm reception. Dhul, sounds like a kindred spirit...a pity that he is gone. I have read some of his posts and will continue to read more. I hope I can stimulate learning and discussion as he did.

Btw, I have I satisfied your questions regarding the Jinn, that is, that they are human beings?

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you Priest Bokemi,

I have a very simple question for you.

Are all humans at loss?

[unknownuser]

PEACE IDOL

Are all humans at loss?

No.

[unknownuser]

PEACE IDOL

What was the point of your last question to me?

[Someone]

Peace,

I would say that some, if not most, of humans are driven by their hidden thoughts, the thoughts that they never share with others, their vainglorious egotism. They seems like driven by some jinns.

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you Priest B,

Quote
Are all humans at loss?

No.

What was the point of your last question to me?

I asked you if all humans are at loss, you answered no. But this reading(quran) indicates otherwise in the following verse;

(1032) That truly the human/mankind (is) in loss.

So why did you answer "no"?

[unknownuser]

PEACE IDOL

I asked you if all humans are at loss, you answered no. But this reading(quran) indicates otherwise in the following verse;

(1032) That truly the human/mankind (is) in loss.

So why did you answer "no"?

Because, Allah says..."except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy".

What is your point?

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you Priest B,

Quote
I asked you if all humans are at loss, you answered no. But this reading(quran) indicates otherwise in the following verse;

(1032) That truly the human/mankind (is) in loss.

So why did you answer "no"?

Priest B
Because, Allah says..."except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy".

What is your point?

My point is this, you give us the following reasoning regarding "malaika"

1650. They all revere their Lord, high above them, and they do all that they are commanded.

And you try to limit the reasoning to the one verse, just as I did regarding humans, but as with my example, there is an exception to verse 1032, which you correctly gave.

So why can't you use THE VERY SAME REASONING when it comes to "malaika"? The God says "they ALL prostrated EXCEPT iblis".
THAT is the exception.

[unknownuser]

PEACE IDOL

My point is this, you give us the following reasoning regarding "malaika"

1650. They all revere their Lord, high above them, and they do all that they are commanded.

And you try to limit the reasoning to the one verse, just as I did regarding humans, but as with my example, there is an exception to verse 1032, which you correctly gave.

So why can't you use THE VERY SAME REASONING when it comes to "malaika"? The God says "they ALL prostrated EXCEPT iblis".
THAT is the exception.

Sura 103 ASR

1. By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
2. Verily Man is in loss,
3. Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.

You will notice in Sura 103, there is no mention of "all" of man being in loss...except, it just says "man is in loss" and then Allah goes on to qualify what He means by that. If Allah had said..."all" of man is in loss, except, then, that would constitute a contradiction, because all means all without exception.

16.49 And whatever dabbatan that is in the heavens and that is in the earth makes obeisance to Allah (only), and the malaika (too) and they do not show pride.

1650. They all revere their Lord, high above them, and they do all that they are commanded.

It may be a function of this translation, but, once again, "all" is used in regard to the absloute obediance of the dabbatan and malaika and there is no qualifier such as..."except" in those ayats. Even if "all" isn't in the Arabic, the same result follows, that is, there is no..."except" in those ayats, hence, they dabbatan and malaika never disobey Allah.

Ayat 1850 tafseers ayats 234, 1649 and 1650, meaning, Iblis refused to obey Allah's command not because he was a malaika, but because he was a Jinn and had the power of choice.

And when We said to the angels Make obeisance to Adam; they made obeisance but Iblis (did it not). He was of the jinn, so he transgressed the commandment of his Lord. What! would you then take him and his offspring for friends rather than Me, and they are your enemies? Evil is (this) change for the unjust.

I hope this answers your question.

Looking forward to your reply.

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you,

Sura 103 ASR

1. By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
2. Verily Man is in loss,
3. Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.

You will notice in Sura 103, there is no mention of "all" of man being in loss...except, it just says "man is in loss" and then Allah goes on to qualify what He means by that. If Allah had said..."all" of man is in loss, except, then, that would constitute a contradiction, because all means all without exception.

Yes, all means without exception UNLESS THE EXCEPTION IS GIVEN IN THE VERY SAME VERSE!! If I say to you'

"All" of the people on this forum are posting "Except" Layth, what does that mean to you? Have you never used this type of speaking before? Have you never heard this before?

16.49 And whatever dabbatan that is in the heavens and that is in the earth makes obeisance to Allah (only), and the malaika (too) and they do not show pride.

1650. They all revere their Lord, high above them, and they do all that they are commanded.

It may be a function of this translation, but, once again, "all" is used in regard to the absloute obediance of the dabbatan and malaika and there is no qualifier such as..."except" in those ayats. Even if "all" isn't in the Arabic, the same result follows, that is, there is no..."except" in those ayats, hence, they dabbatan and malaika never disobey Allah.

Ayat 1850 tafseers ayats 234, 1649 and 1650, meaning, Iblis refused to obey Allah's command not because he was a malaika, but because he was a Jinn and had the power of choice.

And when We said to the angels Make obeisance to Adam; they made obeisance but Iblis (did it not). He was of the jinn, so he transgressed the commandment of his Lord. What! would you then take him and his offspring for friends rather than Me, and they are your enemies? Evil is (this) change for the unjust.

Tell me this, who was commanded to prostrate? And next, does the God punish innocent bystanders?

[YankeeDoodle]

Sura 103 ASR

1. By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
2. Verily Man is in loss,
3. Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.

You will notice in Sura 103, there is no mention of "all" of man being in loss...except, it just says "man is in loss" and then Allah goes on to qualify what He means by that. If Allah had said..."all" of man is in loss, except, then, that would constitute a contradiction, because all means all without exception.

Yes, all means without exception UNLESS THE EXCEPTION IS GIVEN IN THE VERY SAME VERSE!! If I say to you'

"All" of the people on this forum are posting "Except" Layth, what does that mean to you? Have you never used this type of speaking before? Have you never heard this before?

Hmm lets see other translations.

103.001
YUSUFALI By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
PICKTHAL By the declining day,
SHAKIR I swear by the time,
KHALIFA By the afternoon.

103.002
YUSUFALI Verily Man is in loss,
PICKTHAL Lo! man is a state of loss,
SHAKIR Most surely man is in loss,
KHALIFA The human being is utterly lost.

103.003
YUSUFALI Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.
PICKTHAL Save those who believe and do good works, and exhort one another to truth and exhort one another to endurance.
SHAKIR Except those who believe and do good, and enjoin on each other truth, and enjoin on each other patience.
KHALIFA Except those who believe and lead a righteous life, and exhort one another to uphold the truth, and exhort one another to be steadfast

I cannot fully agree with you Idolfree because there must be a reason for man's loss of something and this is aswered in the next verse which are loss of faith,righteous deeds ,truth,patience and conistency.

cheers.

[unknownuser]

Peace be upoin you Yankee,

I am not asking you to agree with me that all men are in loss. I was proving a point. There is an exception to all mean being in loss. The same way there is an exception to the maliaka all doing as they are commanded.

[unknownuser]

PEACE IDOL

Yes, all means without exception UNLESS THE EXCEPTION IS GIVEN IN THE VERY SAME VERSE!! If I say to you' "All" of the people on this forum are posting "Except" Layth, what does that mean to you? Have you never used this type of speaking before? Have you never heard this before?

1. By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
2. Verily Man is in loss,
3. Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.

Yes, I have used this language before and it is incorrect usage, and exactly why Allah doesn't use it. Think about it, Allah cannot say ALL and then say except, because all means all, hence, to follow all with except, is to create a discrepancy/contradiction. This is why He didn't say

Verily, all of man is in loss, except...

Yes, all means without exception UNLESS THE EXCEPTION IS GIVEN IN THE VERY SAME VERSE!!

1649. And to Allah doth obeisance all that is in the heavens and on earth, whether moving (living) creatures or the angels for none are arrogant (before their Lord).

1650. They all revere their Lord, high above them, and they do all that they are commanded.

You can see that...no "except" or other qualifier, follows these ayats.

Also, He makes it clear in Sura Asr that, man can disobey Him, however, in ayats 1649-50 He makes it clear that the dabbatan and malaika do not disobey Him. Given that, man can disobey Him, man, then, cannot be included with the dabbatan-beasts of the earth.

http//www.submission.info/servlet/qtbrowse

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you Priest Bokmei,

Yes, I have used this language before and it is incorrect usage, and exactly why Allah doesn't use it. Think about it, Allah cannot say ALL and then say except, because all means all, hence, to follow all with except, is to create a discrepancy/contradiction. This is why He didn't say

Verily, all of man is in loss, except...

So how do you explain the following phrase that is repeated throught this reading(quran)?

(2255) The God, no God except He...

The first instance we have "all" + the exception, this verse we have "none(no)" + exception. This is both ends of the spectrum. How do you reconcile this contradiction in your reasoning?

[unknownuser]

PEACE IDOL

So how do you explain the following phrase that is repeated throught this reading(quran)? (2255) The God, no God except He... The first instance we have "all" + the exception, this verse we have "none(no)" + exception. This is both ends of the spectrum. How do you reconcile this contradiction in your reasoning?

Three things. 1. I checked out five translations and none of them use therm "except", now, this may be important or it may not. 2. I don't understand your example/why you feel there is a contradiction in my reasoning. Your example is not relevent to 234 or Sura 103; they are different things.

2.255 Allah is He besides Whom there is no god...

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you Priest,

"They ALL prostrated Except iblis"

"There is no god but(except) The God"

How can you disagree with one but not the other?

I leave you in peace

[unknownuser]

PEACE IDOL

They ALL prostrated Except iblis"

"There is no god but(except) The God"

How can you disagree with one but not the other?

I'm sorry, Idol, but I cannot see how these two statements are alike.

Dhul's first post on this thread really explains things well; he covered all of the bases regarding this discussion.

1. Iblis, cannot be a malaika, because what they are composed of is an unknown, however, Iblis, was created of fire. We cannot, therefore, extrapolate that the malaika were composed of fire as well; that would only be conjecturing and not knowledge.

2. 234 , is further clarified by 1649-50 and 1850.