WHY IBLIS CANNOT BE AN ANGEL...
-
Peace be upon you Priest,
Quote
Yes, aren't you also from the "dabbatan"? Certainly if the skies and earth can CHOOSE, so can a zebraYes and no. Yes, we are of the dabbatan, in that, we too are moving creatures, if the ayat is translated to mean moving creatures, however, humans show pride and we disobey. The dabbatan in the above ayats do neither, hence, no, we are not dabbatan.
What reason would you have NOT to translate "dabbatan" as all creatures?
(2445) And Allah has created every animal from water of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things.
When I use choose, you, apparently, misunderstand what Quran and I am stating. Certainly, dabbatan can choose to, for example, attack or not attack, eat or not eat , drink or not drink, however, they do not make MORAL choices and that is the key. If dabbatan could make moral choices, then, some of them must be evil. Are you saying that some of the dabbatan i.e. zebras, snails, lobsters, ameobas, cockroaches etc., are evil and or can choose to behave in an evil manner ? Is this really your position, Idol? If the dabbatan could make moral choices, then, Allah, would have had to have sent messengers to the dabbatan in order for them to correct their behavior as He did with humankind. Has Allah, mentioned any messengers being sent to the dabbatan or malaika...I can't seem to find any such ayat...perhaps you know of one?
Neither you nor I can answer the question "are there evil animals?" What we can answer is that animals CAN choose. I do not expect to find a verse regarding animal messangers in a message intended for humans.
(3372) We displayed/presented the trust on the skies and the Earth, and the mountains , so they refused/hated that (E) they bear/endure it , and they were cautious/afraid from it, and the human/mankind bore/endured it , that he truly was/is often unjust and oppressive, lowly/ignorant .
It is my understanding that, this is an analogy emphazing to man the great responsibility which is placed on him by Allah and that he would undoubtedly behave in an unjust manner.
I agree, but notice that it was not only humans that were given the CHOICE.
Quote
WHat is an "angel"? You should start properly translating the word "malaika" and then this will make more sense to you. The earth is the physical realm, malaika are in a higher realm, the realm of thought, that is why they are the controllers(malaika). The God is telling us that since we are at this level, He has sent the message to our level, that of the physical being
.Come on, Idol, that is nothing but conjecture on your part and you know it. Would you please go to Al-Quran and post the ayat which supports what you just asserted, thanks.
This thread is discussing one of those verses, but you have to understand the symbolisms, like Yusef was taught.
Quote
Yes, arrogance leads us to have rejecting thoughts(shaytaan the rejected) If we sumbit, our thoughts will be controlled (malaika m-l-k)The dabbatan and malaika do not have arrogance in the first place!
None of them except the ones who fulfill the characteristics of "iblis".
Quote
That is why we are informed about the maliaka that did not obey, he fell due to ARROGANCE. That is the point you are missing. That is what this is about. Can't you see this all around you in the world?Arrogance/pride, is the result of disbelief/being dissatisfied with the truth and it leads to disobedience, thus, how can any malaika or dabbatan fall into it, given the fact that, they do not have have any arrogance in them to fall into in the first place nor do they disobey?! According to the facts of Al-Quran, Iblis, was of the/mina
No, none of them have arrogance because once they do, they no longer are called "malaika". Simple.
-
UNBELIEVERS 234 And when We said to the angels Make obeisance to Adam they did obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He refused and he was proud, and he was one of the unbelievers/kafireena.
-
JINN 1850 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.
Nay! they wonder that there has come to them a warner from among themselves, so the unbelievers say This is a wonderful thing
8042 These are they who are unbelievers, the wicked.
Now, are you prepared to assert the dabbatan and malaika are created of a scorching wind/fire and can be of the kafirun and fasiq?
What?
I ask this, because the nature of the Jinn and men is known and both types of human make moral choices, show arrogance, disobey Allah , and have had messengers sent to them. Can the dabbatan be kafirun? Are you saying these same things apply to dabbatan and malaika? Given that, the dabbatan and malaika are mentioned together, do the malaika have the capacity to be kafirun and fasiq and the dabbatan do not? Are these your positions, friend?
I do not understand what you are asking me. Please translate all words to english so I can respond.
-
-
PEACE IDOL
Yes and no. Yes, we are of the dabbatan, in that, we too are moving creatures, if the ayat is translated to mean moving creatures, however, humans show pride and we disobey. The dabbatan in the above ayats do neither, hence, no, we are not dabbatan.
What reason would you have NOT to translate "dabbatan" as all creatures?
(2445) And Allah has created every animal from water of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things.
And...
Neither you nor I can answer the question "are there evil animals?" What we can answer is that animals CAN choose. I do not expect to find a verse regarding animal messangers in a message intended for humans.
That animals can choose isn't the issue. The issue is, can they make a moral choice? If they could make a moral choice, that is, to consciously obey or disobey Allah, then some animals would have to be evil and some good, just as with the Jinn...they take divergent paths some to the right and others to the contrary. Now, has Allah said that of the dabbatan? Simply saying they can choose is an arguement.
It is my understanding that, this is an analogy emphazing to man the great responsibility which is placed on him by Allah and that he would undoubtedly behave in an unjust manner.
I agree, but notice that it was not only humans that were given the CHOICE.
If it is an analogy, then, the inanimate things mentioned do not literally have a choice. You will take notice that, the dabbatan and angels are not mentioned in that ayat. Why do you think that is?
This thread is discussing one of those verses, but you have to understand the symbolisms, like Yusef was taught.
Thus far, anyway, I can distinguish between the literal and the figurative and between allusion and fact. You, however, continue to have difficulty in these areas.
None of them except the ones who fulfill the characteristics of "iblis". No, none of them have arrogance because once they do, they no longer are called "malaika". Simple
And none of them can have those characteristics, because they lack the capacity to make a moral decision. Can you show us one dabbatan, in the history of the world that, behaved like Iblis? If you cannot, then the maliaka, once again, cannot either, because Allah has put them in the same category with the dabbatan, that is, they do not disobey or show pride.
PREIST BOKMEI Nay! they wonder that there has come to them a warner from among themselves, so the unbelievers say This is a wonderful thing
8042 These are they who are unbelievers, the wicked.
Now, are you prepared to assert the dabbatan and malaika are created of a scorching wind/fire and can be of the kafirun and fasiq? ]
What?
I'm asking you, can the dabbatan be unbelievers, wicked individuals, hypocrites? Yes or no? The dabbatan and malaika are both in the same category, in that, neither disobey Allah or show pride, hence, once again, if you cannot show where one dabbatan, in the history of the world, was an unbeliever, a wicked individual , a hypocrite, then neither can the malaika be such.
I ask this, because the nature of the Jinn and men is known and both types of human make moral choices, show arrogance, disobey Allah , and have had messengers sent to them. Can the dabbatan be kafirun? Are you saying these same things apply to dabbatan and malaika? Given that, the dabbatan and malaika are mentioned together, do the malaika have the capacity to be unbelievers and wicked individuals and the dabbatan do not? Are these your positions, friend?
I do not understand what you are asking me. Please translate all words to english so I can respond.
I translated the words to English. Looking forward to your reply.
Peace,
-
Peace be upon you Priest,
quote What reason would you have NOT to translate "dabbatan" as all creatures?
(2445) And Allah has created every animal from water of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things.
Because the God has described the dabbatan as having different numbers of legs, you say that is a reason not to translate "dabbatan" as all creatures (unles you have an exception stated, which we don't)
Quote
Neither you nor I can answer the question "are there evil animals?" What we can answer is that animals CAN choose. I do not expect to find a verse regarding animal messangers in a message intended for humans.That animals can choose isn't the issue. The issue is, can they make a moral choice? If they could make a moral choice, that is, to consciously obey or disobey Allah, then some animals would have to be evil and some good, just as with the Jinn...they take divergent paths some to the right and others to the contrary.
Brother, unless you speak dog language or cat language, how will you be able to answer this? I can tell you from experience that there are some dogs of the same breed that you can pet without fear, and others that will tear your arm off if you try to pet them.
Now, has Allah said that of the dabbatan? Simply saying they can choose is an arguement.
It is an observable fact that "dabbatan" can choose. I am not sure what you are saying here.
PB It is my understanding that, this is an analogy emphazing to man the great responsibility which is placed on him by Allah and that he would undoubtedly behave in an unjust manner.
Quote
I agree, but notice that it was not only humans that were given the CHOICE.PB If it is an analogy, then, the inanimate things mentioned do not literally have a choice. You will take notice that, the dabbatan and angels are not mentioned in that ayat. Why do you think that is?
There was no need to mention them.
Quote
None of them except the ones who fulfill the characteristics of "iblis". No, none of them have arrogance because once they do, they no longer are called "malaika". SimpleAnd none of them can have those characteristics, because they lack the capacity to make a moral decision. Can you show us one dabbatan, in the history of the world that, behaved like Iblis?
Hitler, Bush, Ku Klux Klan, etc.
If you cannot, then the maliaka, once again, cannot either, because Allah has put them in the same category with the dabbatan, that is, they do not disobey or show pride.
Well I did show more than one example.
-
Peace be upon you Dhul,
Think of it this way,
jinn are those beings that are covered. Thoughts are covered. Righteous thoughts can never disobey the God, they are under control. Unrighteous thoughts reject the God. Both groups are covered.
-
There is an Arabic grammatical rule that states, if the majority does something then the majority must do it as well. I believe this is called tagleeb.
The conjecture called Tagleeb that you got from none other than Hadithists desperately trying to justify their preconceived fantasies that "malaika" are mythical creatures (instead of a God-given status) is really the entire basis of your argument to reject the clear meaning of the logically precise sign in 234.
If not, and this rule hasn't been imagined by sectarians for the sole purpose of forcing their preconceptions on 234, then please show us where this highly illogical rule of Tagleeb can be applied in the great reading to other passages not talking about this particular incident.
Salam everybody,
Very interesting thread !
Has someone more news about Taghleeb ?
Does this rule (and this word) really exist ?
I would be interested in knowing more about that.Thanks !
PS on the same topic, you can read an interesting debate here
http//forums.delphiforums.com/Islamic1/messages?msg=3182.55 -
PEACE IDOL
(2445) And Allah has created every animal from water of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things.
Because the God has described the dabbatan as having different numbers of legs, you say that is a reason not to translate "dabbatan" as all creatures (unles you have an exception stated, which we don't)
I don't know what you are talking about, Idol. I stated that, the dabbatan don't include the humans , because as 1649 says...the dabbatan do not disobey Allah's command. Now, there is no qualifier either before or after that statement from Allah, hence, the dabbatan never disobey. Now, given that the dabbatan and maliaka are both lumped together, the malaika as well never disobey Allah either.
Brother, unless you speak dog language or cat language, how will you be able to answer this?
If the dabbatan could make a moral choice, that is, have the capacity/ability to consciously disobey Allah, then why hasn't Allah sent messengers with good news and warning to the dabbatan?
I can tell you from experience that there are some dogs of the same breed that you can pet without fear, and others that will tear your arm off if you try to pet them.
So, that makes them evil, is this really what you are supporting? Well then, if a school of piranhas attacks a group of little children, I suppose, according to your logic, the piranhas are also evil, because they will devour them right down to their bones... is this really what you are supporting?
It is an observable fact that "dabbatan" can choose. I am not sure what you are saying here.
What I'm saying is, the dabbatan cannot make a moral choice, that is, to consciously obey or disobey Allah.
Quote
PB It is my understanding that, this is an analogy emphazing to man the great responsibility which is placed on him by Allah and that he would undoubtedly behave in an unjust manner.PB If it is an analogy, then, the inanimate things mentioned do not literally have a choice. You will take notice that, the dabbatan and angels are not mentioned in that ayat. Why do you think that is?
There was no need to mention them.
No, Idol, the dabbatan are not mentioned, because they can make non-moral choices, hence, to include them in that ayat, would be create a contradiction, that is, the skies and earth do not make choices of any kind, hence, the analogy. However, because the dabbatan can make non-moral choices, they cannot be mentioned with the earth and skies.
Hitler, Bush, Ku Klux Klan, etc.
The above, while moving creatures/dabbatan phylum speaking, are not included in the dabbatan mentioned in 1649. Why? because the dabbatan do not disobey Allah's commands. The humans, Jinn and men, quite frequently disobey Allah, hence, the human beings cannot be the dabbatam mentioned in 1649.
Well I did show more than one example.
Sorry, but, no, you didn't.
-
Peace be upon you Dhul,
I leave you in peace on this. Let me know when you find out what maliaka, jinn, and shayteen are.
-
PEACE IDOL
I leave you in peace on this. Let me know when you find out what maliaka, jinn, and shayteen are.
Regarding what the jinn, maliaka, dabbatan and shaitan are, well, I am way ahead of you on this and, I think you know that. Let go of your pride/ego and stop looking past/reading into those ayats. You are probably too close to this discussion right now to see what I mean, however, in due course, I think you will re-think your position, insha-Allah. Peace to you as well, Idol, I really enjoyed our discussion.
-
Peace all..
Priest Bokmei wrote
If the dabbatan could make a moral choice, that is, have the capacity/ability to consciously disobey Allah, then why hasn't Allah sent messengers with good news and warning to the dabbatan?
P.Bokmei , There is no mention in the Quran of any messenger being sent to the Jinn community either...
Since Prophet Suleman was the only Prophet who interacted with the Jinn as well as the animals, so he might be the messenger who was sent to these communities...
What do you think?
regards
Rahila
-
Peace sister Rahila
Peace all..
Priest Bokmei wrote
If the dabbatan could make a moral choice, that is, have the capacity/ability to consciously disobey Allah, then why hasn't Allah sent messengers with good news and warning to the dabbatan?
P.Bokmei , There is no mention in the Quran of any messenger being sent to the Jinn community either...
- "O you tribes of Jinn and humans, did not messengers come to you from amongst you and relate to you My revelations, and warn you of the meeting of this Day?? They said ?Yes, we bear witness upon ourselves;? and the worldly life deceived them, and they bore witness on themselves that they were rejecters.
Marie
-
Peace Marie...
Ooops.. missed that one.. ops
I guess the following verses were in my mind..
-
And before thee also the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration if ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message.
-
And nothing prevented men from believing when the guidance came to them, except that they said "Has All?h sent a man as (His) Messenger?"
-
And We sent not before you (O Muhammad SAW) but men to whom We inspired, so ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.
-
And We did not create them (the Messengers, with) bodies that ate not food, nor were they immortals.
regards
Rahila
-
-
PEACE RAHILA
Are you now satisfied with my analysis?
-
Peace Priest Bokmei / all
No, I am not satisfied with your analysis although I was wrong about messengers being sent to the Jinn community..
You are ignoring the verses 234 , 1850 which clearly imply the Iblis was among the Malaika ordered to prostate to Adam.
We as muslims are ordered to believe in the whole of Quraan and not the verses of our choice. We should be looking of ways to reconcile our understanding of both 234 and 1649 , not citing them one against the other.. I strongly tend towards the explanation put forward by Savage Carrot that Malaika is a "Designation" which can be withdrawn.
- Say ?O The God, controller/owner of control/ownership; you grant control/ownership to whom You will, and revoke control/ownership from whom You will, and value/honor whom You will, and humiliate whom You will; in Your hand is goodness, indeed You are capable of all things.
Your argument is based on 1649. You conclude from 1649, that Daabatin and Malaika do not disobey ALLAH.. so Iblis cannot be one of the Malaika .
You conclude that Daabatin are animals and do not include humans. You ignore verse 822
822 Verily! The worst of "Dawwab" with All?h are the deaf and the dumb, those who understand not (i.e. the disbelievers).
Here humans are clearly the audience and included in the Daabatin.. So 1649 would mean to include all creation on earth ( Daabatin) and all creation in the heavens ( Malaika)
Ponder on 855 too
855 Verily, The worst of "Daabatin" before All?h are those who disbelieve, - so they shall not believe.
Anyway, whether Iblis was or was not angel is not on my list of priority.
Priest Bokmei... To you, your understanding and to me, mine... Its all about choices in the end.
peace
Rahila
-
Peace be upon you Rahila,
Well said, I wish I would have done that earlier
-
PEACE RAHILA
You are ignoring the verses 234 , 1850 which clearly imply the Iblis was among the Malaika ordered to prostate to Adam.
I'm pleased you used the term "imply", because imply means to suggest/allude to, but falls short of fact/actuality...do you agree?
Allah, in reference to His ayats says
37 He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are alike and consistent in meaning...
-
And behold, We said to the angels "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis he refused and was haughty He was of kafiroona.
-
Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam" They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrong-doers!
Now, in ayats 234 and 1850, what is fact/acutal ?
-
In 234, Iblis, is defined as one of the unbelievers.
-
In 1850, Iblis, is defined as one of the Jinn.
Now, these two things are decisive descriptions of about Iblis and not allusions. There is no ayat which decisively describes him as malaika.
We as muslims are ordered to believe in the whole of Quraan and not the verses of our choice. We should be looking of ways to reconcile our understanding of both 234 and 1649 , not citing them one against the other.. I strongly tend towards the explanation put forward by Savage Carrot that Malaika is a "Designation" which can be withdrawn.
I have not pitted the ayats against each other, on the contrary, I illustrated how they compliment each other. You and Nadia, can strongly suggest whatever you wish, that is between you and Allah, however, I strongly suggest that both of you fully embrace the following ayats, before you talk about "withdrawing things"
-
Say the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority; and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.
-
Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.
You, see, Rahila, "implying" is not decisive/convincing proof, do you see this?
Your argument is based on 1649. You conclude from 1649, that Daabatin and Malaika do not disobey ALLAH.. so Iblis cannot be one of the Malaika .
Correct.
You conclude that Daabatin are animals and do not include humans. You ignore verse 822
Incorrect. The following was my reply to Idol, when he asked did the dabbatan include humans/jinns
Posted Wed Sep 15, 2004 509 pm Post subject
PEACE IDOL
Yes and no. Yes, we are of the dabbatan, in that, we too are moving creatures, if the ayat is translated to mean moving creatures, however, humans show pride and we disobey. The dabbatan in the above ayats do neither, hence, no, we are not dabbatan in that sense.
822 Verily! The worst of "Dawwab" with All?h are the deaf and the dumb, those who understand not (i.e. the disbelievers).
Here humans are clearly the audience and included in the Daabatin.. So 1649 would mean to include all creation on earth ( Daabatin) and all creation in the heavens ( Malaika)
Ponder on 855 too 855 Verily, The worst of "Daabatin" before All?h are those who disbelieve, - so they shall not believe.
While humans, are certainly of the dabbatan, in that, they are moving creatures, they are not the dabbatan which are being defined in ayats 1649-50. The dabbatan in those ayats show no pride nor do they disobey, hence, as I tried in vain to explain to Idol, they precluded by their natures from making a moral choice.
Rahila, take a moment and think about what you are saying here. If you conclude the dabbatan, as mentioned in ayats 1649-50, include humans, well, then you set up a huge contradiction, in that, Allah, says of the dabbatan and malaika in those aysts that, they do not disobey or show pride. Now, with that in mind then, how can humans/jinns, be included in that ayat, given the fact that, humans/jinns, disobey and show pride?? How do you reconcile your contradiction? Please construct a coherent/non-allusory explanation for that.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
PEACE IDOL
Well said, I wish I would have done that earlier
I'm curious...exactly what did she do that you didn't?
-
Peace P.Bokmei / All
Talking of implications and allusions, can you point to me any decisive verse where it is stated that Iblis was NOT an angel. You are also "INFERING" your conclusion from verse 1649.
In 711 , ALLAH orders the Malaika to prostrate to Adam ( AH) and when Iblis refuses, ALLAh asks Iblis , "What prevented you that you didnt prostrate when I commanded YOU?" 712... This seems pretty decisive to me. ALLAH orders the Malaika to prostrate, then ALLAH specifically mentions that HE commanded Iblis to prostate and that why didnt IBLIS obey the command given earlier ( which was given to HIM).
It really cannot get any simpler and Coherent than that.
Lets summarize the debate
-
ALLAH orders the Malaika to prostrate , IBLIS doesnt.. 234, 711, 1850
-
ALLAH specifically asks Iblis why didnt you obey when I commanded YOU? 712
-
ALLAH states that Iblis was arrogant and of the Kafiroon. 234
-
ALLah states that all Malaika and Daabatin "SUBMIT" to ALLAH and are not "Arrogant" and they do what they are commanded to do. 1649, 1650
-
ALLAH states some of the Daabatin are Kafiroon 855
-
ALLAH states that some Humans and Jinn are Kafiroon and Arrogant. Numerous verses
If Daabatin do not include humans, then there is contradiction between 855 and 1649..
Rahila, take a moment and think about what you are saying here. If you conclude the dabbatan, as mentioned in ayats 1649-50, include humans, well, then you set up a huge contradiction
I agree BUT 1649 clearly states that WHATEVER is on the earth of the DAABATIN submits to ALLAH. There is no exception in 1649 .
Your reply that the Daabatin of 1649 do not include humans and the Daabatin of 855 includes human is contradictory , not complimentary at all and it is based on INFERENCE.
How do you explain this contradiction with a decisive verse?
regards
Rahila
-
-
PEACE RAHILA
NOT an angel. You are also "INFERING" your conclusion from verse 1649.
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.
No, I'm not inferring anything nor am I using 1649-50 exclusively to prove that. My comclusive proof is 1850, where Allah says that Iblis was of the Jinn, beings, created from a scorching wind/fire. To assume that, Iblis is of the malaika creation is to then conjecture that the malaika, are also created of a scorching wind. As Allah, does not give the basic composition of the malaika, it is forbidden for us to conjecture as to their actual basic nature.
In 711 , ALLAH orders the Malaika to prostrate to Adam ( AH) and when Iblis refuses, ALLAh asks Iblis , "What prevented you that you didnt prostrate when I commanded YOU?" 712... This seems pretty decisive to me. ALLAH orders the Malaika to prostrate, then ALLAH specifically mentions that HE commanded Iblis to prostate and that why didnt IBLIS obey the command given earlier ( which was given to HIM).
It really cannot get any simpler and Coherent than that.
Sorry, but your explanation here is not definitive.
Lets summarize the debate
- ALLAH orders the Malaika to prostrate , IBLIS doesnt.. 234, 711, 1850
Allah, has not defined Iblis as a malaika at this point, it is only an assumption.
- ALLAH specifically asks Iblis why didnt you obey when I commanded YOU? 712
Again, Allah, has not defined Iblis as a malaika at this point, it is only an assumption.
- ALLAH states that Iblis was arrogant and of the Kafiroon. 234
Allah, nows gives two definitive characteristics of Iblis...arrogant and kafir. Allah, has not given a definitive characteristic of the malaika yet.
- ALLah states that all Malaika and Daabatin "SUBMIT" to ALLAH and are not "Arrogant" and they do what they are commanded to do. 1649, 1650
Allah, now gives a two definitive characteristics of the dabbatin and the malaika...they obey Allah and are not proud.
- ALLAH states some of the Daabatin are Kafiroon 855
Now, here's where you problem of contradiction begins. If the dabbatin only obey Allah and and are not proud then, how can they also be disbelievers? Disbelievers disobey and are proud, that is, are dissatisfied with the truth.
- ALLAH states that some Humans and Jinn are Kafiroon and Arrogant. Numerous verses
Given that, human/jinn humans are disobedient, arrogant, and disbelieve, they CANNOT be the SAME dabbatin as mentioned in 1649-50 OR a huge contradiction ensues. Please re-read what I wrote to Idol, which clears up this situation
IDOL "are humans dabbatin" ?
PREIST BOK MEI Yes and no. Yes, we are of the dabbatan, in that, we too are moving creatures, if the ayat is translated to mean moving creatures, however, humans show pride and we disobey. The dabbatan in the above ayats do neither, hence, no, we are not dabbatan in that sense.
PREIST BOK MEI Rahila, take a moment and think about what you are saying here. If you conclude the dabbatan, as mentioned in ayats 1649-50, include humans, well, then you set up a huge contradiction
I agree BUT 1649 clearly states that WHATEVER is on the earth of the DAABATIN submits to ALLAH. There is no exception in 1649 .
Your reply that the Daabatin of 1649 do not include humans and the Daabatin of 855 includes human is contradictory , not complimentary at all and it is based on INFERENCE.
Well, if there is no exception, then how do you explain the behavior of Jinn and men, because they disobey and show pride?
1649 And whatever creature that is in the heavens and that is in the earth makes obeisance to Allah (only), and the angels (too) and they do not show pride.
1650 They fear their Lord above them and do what they are commanded.
Rahila, just think for a moment...how can Allah say in one breath that..."whatever is on the earth of the dabbatin obeys ALLAH and doesn't show pride and then in the next breath describe some dabbatin as, disbelivers, disobediant, prideful? Certainly, you can see the obvious problem with your position; it is major contradiction. You cannot have it both ways.
So, how do you explain this contradiction with a decisive verse?
Anyway, consider the following
Certainly, dabbatan can choose to, for example, attack or not attack, eat or not eat , drink or not drink, however, they do not make MORAL choices and that is the key. If dabbatan could make moral choices, then, some of them must be evil. Are you saying that some of the dabbatan i.e. zebras, snails, lobsters, ameobas, cockroaches etc., are evil and or can choose to behave in an evil manner ? Is this really your position, Rahila? If the dabbatan could make moral choices, then, Allah, would have had to have sent messengers to the dabbatan in order for them to correct their behavior as He did with humankind. Has Allah, mentioned any messengers being sent to the dabbatan or malaika...I can't seem to find any such ayat...perhaps you know of one?
You have no case, Rahila.
-
Peace be upon you Rahila,
There comes a time when we should turn away. Ihope you do not get caught up in this as long as I have been. The brother does not wish to see the clear truth.
Priest said
I'm curious...exactly what did she do that you didn't?Leave you alone with your contradictions.
-
PEACE IDOL
There comes a time when we should turn away. I hope you do not get caught up in this as long as I have been. The brother does not wish to see the clear truth. Leave you alone with your contradictions.
I only hope that, if someone whom you trust and respect, comes to you and explains to you my position and you grasp it then, that you will have the honor to come here and admit your error. I will do the same.
Peace-