Nearness and Guidance -> Knowledge and Wisdom = Peace and Prosperity
-
A jinn is a person who cannot think beyond their beastly perception and do not excel spiritually (nas). The root and following words are thus very literally "down to Earth" so to say.
721-3 How do you understand these verses? To me they show the opposite of what you are claiming here. Furthermore the jinn were created from smokeless fire not from clay like man. This contradicts your understanding of jinn meaning flesh.
7179 tells us many of the jinn and mankind will end up in Hell. Not all. This means they are entirely capable of submitting to God if they chose to.
5156 And I (All?h) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship Me (Alone).
Does God ask the jinn to worship God alone knowing they are incapable of it? Your understanding of jinn renders almost every verse about them to contradiction. 7214 explicitly states jinn claiming some of them to be Muslims.
What entitles you to ignore the aramaic word where the arabic word jinn is etymologically derived from means "cover/hidden"?
Peace
-
Salaam,
Jinn is not a supernatural and strange being. Jinn refers to the instinctive/fleshly/beastly drive.
If the jinn is an invisible ethereal being how are they supposed to interact in the context? Have you thought about such things?
How about the jinn in Solomon's court who suggests a very worldly idea of how to conquer the dominion of the queen while a man with distinctive knowledge came up with a much better idea hinting that he was not a jinn because he could think outside of the box.
The passages which involve creation of the Jann are rather talking about the creation of the flesh, and naar is Quran's substitute for energy which is a word for light in Arabic. It refers to the nature of the universe where the visual part of it is actually made of energy. If you cleave a nucleus of an atom you will have a huge energy discharge. And there is no mention about any smokelessness, this is just an inference.
Naas is the human spirituality as according to the image GOD created it in. It is the kind of spiritual affinity we are struggling towards if we realize ourselves.
And we do that by NOT succumbing to the visual reality which is rather an illusive reality and that is by not allowing ourselves to be like animals giving in to our primitive instincts (shaytaan). It is easy to seek pleasure in the flesh and indulge and accept it blindly.
Everyone is capable of coming towards GOD as long as they realize themselves. Mostly the reference to jinn in Quran is whenever a person is thinking worldly on a beast level with such limitations. It is a path you take in your ignorance because no one would intentionally take such path unless being deluded.
It would be that when jinn and nas are mentioned together in the Arabic the text refers to spirit and flesh. If spirit and flesh combined are going to Naar then it marks a permanent binding to the flesh like a curse. You who understand would seek dissolution from the flesh and not more of it.
Jinn is beastly desires (shaytaan) if its source is from thence and if naas is addressed then it is a spiritual affinity. We should learn not to listen to much to the jinn.
Regarding 721-3 which you gave reference to, the common translations are lackluster. They are escaping from their Al-Jinn. I cannot sit and translate every passage right now, but jinn here does not relate to a separate being but one and the same except the spirit and the flesh.
In 5156 is the same. It speaks of body and soul. Not different types of race. The human is 1. A soul 2. A body. The soul is attached to that body (beast). Jinn is the flesh = the beast/body.
Same is you can find a Jannateh on Earth because it is also something that covers it, i.e. a garden. Both use the same root, for the same reason.
Gehennom refers to the permanence of the flesh which you saw that GOD would send naas and jinn into naar. It also uses the same root even if it may not look like it. It is the grammatical formula which causes the confusion. It is not always possible to narrow-mindedly behold the nature of roots in Arabic.
The in refers to attachment and the refers to "thereof" as in applied attribute. A similar formula is used for the Arabic word for day nahaar, the shows attachment (of light). Naar is the root for light/energy. See how Arabic grammar works? Gehennom and Nahaar have similar formula in their structures.
So you see these words I said are derived from the root which refers to flesh (something that envelopes something).
Not that I think my elaboration will help you for you are probably so stubborn on your supernatural beings that you cannot appreciate it. Perhaps someone else will read and comprehend for this is suitable for everyone.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
Jinn is not a supernatural and strange being. Jinn refers to the instinctive/fleshly/beastly drive.
If the jinn is an invisible ethereal being how are they supposed to interact in the context? Have you thought about such things?
Glad you asked. Yes! Eg massless particles are all around us and interacting with our reality all the time. Invisible and supernatural are not synonyms, let's get that sorted out first.
How about the jinn in Solomon's court who suggests a very worldly idea of how to conquer the dominion of the queen while a man with distinctive knowledge came up with a much better idea hinting that he was not a jinn because he could think outside of the box.
The passages which involve creation of the Jann are rather talking about the creation of the flesh, and naar is Quran's substitute for energy which is a word for light in Arabic. It refers to the nature of the universe where the visual part of it is actually made of energy. If you cleave a nucleus of an atom you will have a huge energy discharge. And there is no mention about any smokelessness, this is just an inference.
Naas is the human spirituality as according to the image GOD created it in. It is the kind of spiritual affinity we are struggling towards if we realize ourselves.
And we do that by NOT succumbing to the visual reality which is rather an illusive reality and that is by not allowing ourselves to be like animals giving in to our primitive instincts (shaytaan). It is easy to seek pleasure in the flesh and indulge and accept it blindly.
Everyone is capable of coming towards GOD as long as they realize themselves. Mostly the reference to jinn in Quran is whenever a person is thinking worldly on a beast level with such limitations. It is a path you take in your ignorance because no one would intentionally take such path unless being deluded.
It would be that when jinn and nas are mentioned together in the Arabic the text refers to spirit and flesh. If spirit and flesh combined are going to Naar then it marks a permanent binding to the flesh like a curse. You who understand would seek dissolution from the flesh and not more of it.
Jinn is beastly desires (shaytaan) if its source is from thence and if naas is addressed then it is a spiritual affinity. We should learn not to listen to much to the jinn.
You keep reiterating this refusing to show any linguistic nor quranic evidence for what you say. Even ignoring the etymological roots of the words.
Regarding 721-3 which you gave reference to, the common translations are lackluster. They are escaping from their Al-Jinn. I cannot sit and translate every passage right now, but jinn here does not relate to a separate being but one and the same except the spirit and the flesh.
Then why does Quran many times mention Jinn next to humans. In whole Quran they are described in a parallel structure from their creation to their end. When your translation is ready I'd like to see it because as I understand your interpreation right now there are countless problems with it. Most prominently, how can body/beast claim to be muslim if it's a seperate entity from the spirit as you profess? Are bodies chasing their seperated human minds? It's just too irrational.
In 5156 is the same. It speaks of body and soul. Not different types of race. The human is 1. A soul 2. A body. The soul is attached to that body (beast). Jinn is the flesh = the beast/body.
So beasts can be muslims as they state in surah 72. But at the same they cant? Do you still understand what you are saying yourself?
Same is you can find a Jannateh on Earth because it is also something that covers it, i.e. a garden. Both use the same root, for the same reason.
Gehennom refers to the permanence of the flesh which you saw that GOD would send naas and jinn into naar. It also uses the same root even if it may not look like it. It is the grammatical formula which causes the confusion. It is not always possible to narrow-mindedly behold the nature of roots in Arabic.
The in refers to attachment and the refers to "thereof" as in applied attribute. A similar formula is used for the Arabic word for day nahaar, the shows attachment (of light). Naar is the root for light/energy. See how Arabic grammar works? Gehennom and Nahaar have similar formula in their structures.
The reason why they all share the same root is simple. They are all hidden. We can't perceive paradise yet, nor hell. Neither can we perceive the intelligent creation of Jinn.
So you see these words I said are derived from the root which refers to flesh (something that envelopes something).
Not that I think my elaboration will help you for you are probably so stubborn on your supernatural beings that you cannot appreciate it. Perhaps someone else will read and comprehend for this is suitable for everyone.
Salaam
For reference
janna
be mad
janna
cover, conceal Aze cennet, Ful aljanna, Hau aljanna, Hin jannat, Per jannat, Tur cennet, Uzbdzhannat borrowed from AraAll you did was swap the root word's meaning from cover, conceal to flesh. If that were true we would see it confirmed in the related occurences in other languages. The opposite is true. They all mean covering/concealing everywhere. Nowhere do they mean flesh. The meaning of shield, something one conceals behind to defend oneself should reveal to you what it means. Unless you think shields are made of flesh of course.
Peace
-
Salaam,
No. I am not ignoring to show any historical references. You can look up the root in a lexicon and how it is applicable for something that covers something else. It can be skin or it can be a garden covering the ground. The cover of a body is even definitions in the Lane's.
So no, you falsely accuse me of not providing any reference besides my own analysis of the word itself.
It is interpreters somewhere thousand years ago who came up with some conjecture concerning the word because it looked to them like there were a differentiation between a naas and a jinn. They were not thinking it might have to do with flesh and soul. And in traditional Abrahamic faith you have to be wary of your fleshly impulses.
There may also be a reason why in Latin the word Gens was used for a worldly person and later Gentile in English. Or perhaps a mere coincidence that there is a word that means exactly the same and is phonologically very similar?
You have such an easy time accepting sectarian superstition and yet rebuke Sunnism. Jinn is just an inference from an age people were very superstitious due to lack of education and interpreters have failed to interpret Quran as intended by the author.
What do you mean perceive paradise yet? Jannateh is a visible garden and not paradise exclusively and is used for any garden, even here now on Earth. That is just a deceptive argument you have swallowed without enough reflection. You can cross check in Quran that Jannateh indeed is used for any garden.
The word jannateh uses the root because it is something which covers a surface. It is an object reference.
does not mean hidden. There are other Arabic words for that. It is just a made up definition. The word means that covers something. Please check a dictionary instead of sitting here arguing traditional conjecture with no basis.
refers to what covers something. The root would refer to cover. Even in English you can use the word body of something, a shell. Stop being evasive and read up in a dictionary and learn something instead of listening blindly to people who have failed to comprehend and come up with conjecture.
Otherwise stop circular reasoning in this thread. I have heard your argument and it is noted. And I have another explanation than your superstitious invisible beings.
Even Lane's refers to as "greater part of mankind" because of its connotation with worldliness.
But if you have nothing new to say I will refrain from answering your post. No circular reasoning. Please check a dictionary and come up with a counter argument that is solid and not just repetition of the same invisible nonsense of tradition. I am a researcher and I avoid being biased.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
To continue on that list I started compiling.
ketaab - Decree/knowledge - I am a bit undecided on the term usage here albeit I do not consider the word to mean book whatsoever. That is a false inference and a too strong generalization and materialization of the word. This also solves the nonsensical "People of the Book" reference. It is merely those who adhere to knowledge this 'ahl al-kitab'.is the root of the above mentioned word and it means to decree something as in give information/knowledge. If someone has been decreed something then they have knowledge involved of the instruction. I would literally say though that kutub means "to make knowledgeable (with substance)" much like instruct.
Ketaab was one of the first words I learned about and that it means decree has been my knowledge for between 1-2 years now. It is one of those words I am 100% sure about. I did not accept that the word means book because it is not applicable where traditional interpreters have used it in Quran. It is incoherent, plus it brings fixation and near idolatrous relationship with that recitation (Quran). The word is meant explicitly to be ambiguous considered the substance or abstract because knowledge may look different in different minds even if they follow certain common principles (see the 'Commandments'.
The second chapter's first sentence starts with this word and the first phrase says "this is the knowledge...".
- iman/amen - This word surely requires a lot of attention being as misinterpreted as it is. First of all, you can scrap everything about belief (guessing/uncertainty) because that is completely off. The word is actually from the root just as which means 'of' (attribute-giver/agent). It can be said to be a benefactor (you can see Lane's for a verification) or detriment based on positive or negative attribute. consists of an alif plus the from the root and together they means 'be (there)of' literally. I tend to translate it coherently as 'to realize (oneself)'. If we go down on letter level ('the Innate Letter Meaning' method) it is " Be - Thereof Integrity" which I consider on morpheme level to verify my argument. Of course most appear not to accept my controversial method so I work hard to verify it through traditional means as well. It goes hand in hand with the immersion nature of GOD's realm.
By other words, mere belief will not take one anywhere but one has to realize themselves in what they have discovered and come to their senses about. Just to believe in good seems to be enough truly because who is not good but GOD? It is mostly about affinity and conceptualization, and there is not exactly any true religion (Paganism) out there but to be of soundness (Muslim). Muslim is not a religious/sectarian label but an attribute (the meem can be said to be the absolute minimum morpheme of as a prefix). The Arabic would not even use such prefixes AL or Meem if the word was meant as a proper noun (a name).
esm (from root و - traditionally interpreted and translated as "name" does translate very poorly as such. It is an attribute reference like identification (you can check Lane's for verification). Its usage in a passage with Abraham and "naming you Muslims" has led to a reinforcement of the misconception about Muslim as a label and name. Middle-Eastern (semitic) tradition put much emphasis on the meaning of names and names always have an abstract and spiritual meaning rather than concrete labels. It is like a spirit tag. 'Esm' is hence not a word for name in Arabic and in the passage with Abraham (ref 227 the language says "consciousness thereof (be) you ".
Same applies to anywhere the language uses esm like "Bismillah" (in/with the consciousness/spirit of Allah). If you are esm Ishmael you have a consciousness of the tag given there etc. So in 2278 Abraham did not name people Muslims. First of all, AL - M SALIM is incompatible to be a name, particularly by the meem attribute reference prefix. The passage says that people should consciously be OF ATTRIBUTE al-salam (sound). It is the same logic as the (b'ism Allah). The passage 17 says that people should have a conscious awareness of ALLAH, i.e. be Allah. And Allah is not a proper noun either and is usually treated as plural by the grammar, for a reason. You can say Allah is a collective for those who join.
- ALLAH - (ه Another word of misconception. This one is a phenomenal word because it interestingly says "is related who is". It has a long service history and is likely at least 4000 years old and has probably as many errors attributed to it as it is old. The important thing is that this is not an individual name of the Rabb (ب but a clarifying collective defining noun often followed by relevant attributes (the basmala contains م and they actually give main attributes of how a man should be since we are talking about an assimilation/immersion rather than separation of what is the GOD phenomenon.
This teaching is very difficult for people to accept and many people would surely call it heretical and a blasphemy, and know that Jesus was persecuted and even executed for an identical teaching.
The word Allah/Elohim (م has a reference from when Moses inquired of GOD concerning the nature as to which GOD replied "I am who am I" and so was the GOD phenomenon called "is that it is" (ELAH) in third person. God also told Moses to go to the 'Children of Israel' and say "'I AM' has sent me". You probably see what is the nature (dynamics) of ALLAH/GOD.
Every righteous person who addresses GOD in Quran uses Rabb or Ya Rabb and not Ya Allah, for a reason. It is similar to originator or even Father (albeit not biological). Jesus probably used Father as a substitute for Rabb.However to say Ya Allah would make no sense since without any external reference (attribute) it has no real meaning or you can say you address multiple entities involved under the plural nature of Allah and no single consciousness (separate "node" in the platform Allah - refer to the functionality of the Borg in Star Trek if you are familiar with that fiction).
Rabb - Needs no real introduction I suppose. This is the personal address for your originator. It has more the meaning of sustainer (lit. Constitution With/in), but substitutes such as teacher, master or even Father could probably be used in English, depending on what kind of relationship you have with The Rabb. I would define The Rabb as my (foster) Father, so beyond sustainer I also let this phenomenon foster/teach/rear me, without any relationship on a fleshly biological level. That is a sort of sustenance and it is my relationship to The Rabb.
I would say like Jesus "I am in the Father (Rabb) and the Father (Rabb) is in me". We are not separate. There is only One, absolute Oneness.
Understand that this is how the immersion and assimilation actually works. The phenomenon is hard for a jinn (beast) mind to understand and you need to separate yourself from it and find the spirit so that you can comprehend the symbiotic relationship you should have with The Rabb. GOD is not a separate entity and no separation should be made. The sectarian (Pagan) doctrines are a hoax. You can only worship (honor) The Rabb by attaining the same image (attributes).
To be continued, if GOD permits.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
To clarify; means to cover something, but not like conceal but like an outer layer of something. Flesh is my generalization of the word even if it is not far away and "body" ("something that embodies or gives concrete reality to a thing; also a sensible object in physical space" - Merriam Webster Dictionary) can be said is the more literal translation of jinn, but flesh is a more metaphorical description particularly when nothing in truth is more or less alive even if being a stone or an animate body, since everything of the 'jann' is made of naar (light/energy - Arabic seems to put little difference between the two).
It is actually so that our bodies to the main part is made of stone because compressed decomposed material will over time turn into stone (it is true, read up on science!).
Fundamentally, when you eat food you eat something formed out of stone by the Ruh Quds (traditionally the Holy Spirit). Deeper philosophies would reveal that man is not formed out of clay but of stone. However, Quran does not say the physical body (jinn) is made of clay but of naar which is in fact true. The soul (nas) is made of an excellent image and has potential, but not if it listens to the body's (jinn) instincts (shaytaan). Yes, this is how the original story is supposed to sound like if distortion in interpretation is accounted for, in Quran.
If you have a jinn (possession) it is the body which has a defect and not some supernatural invisible invasion. This possession ideas they had in the past was because they did not have knowledge of psychological disorders.
I am not ruling out that there are evil spirits, but they are not separate from the "flesh" (jinn) itself but is it. Diseases; viruses, bacteria, genetical defects, these are your jinn anomalies which are spoken of as if the language says "possession" when the root is used, usually , the same as garden because a garden is also a body. Such evil is not GOD because GOD is not evil but all good. Diseases affects also the good and also those who would never have their faith affected by calamity, so the GOD is testing argument is weak. We should not make GOD responsible for this. On the other hand, strong faith and soundness of the soul may reduce the negative impact of them.
I know this sounds like the ancient Gnosticism, but there is something in it and Quran tells it this way as well, i.e the flesh is evil. There is a reason why religious tradition, even Islam, Judaism, tells people to abstain from beastly desires. Sadly, due to the extreme misinterpretation of Quran it may look like Quran promotes fleshly instincts which it actually does not.
The Transition, Al-Akhar - traditionally Hereafter, uses the root and the root means "move from one condition to another", i.e. change/turn (you can verify this in a lexicon like Lane's) and will basically mean a dissolution from the flesh, a separation. The Naas (soul/senses) will leave the Jinn (body), but appears that if you fail the ascension you will be given a new body and experience Gehennom , a permanency of the "flesh". My knowledge is still limited on the dynamics of this and whether this is eternal or it will be like in East Asian faiths where it is until they manage, if they ever do, to separate the spirit from the flesh (jinn). And the interesting is that it is Quran which teaches this.
The eternal flesh fate could be because the more you reincarnate the more broken your soul becomes until it is a soul which is a "robot" to the bodily instincts (shaytaan).
The phenomenon called GOD puts no one in Hell except puts your soul in a new jinn (body). Hell is Earth, it seems, there is no Hell to be created. However, because the planet Earth seems to eventually be destroyed, there may be only a number of attempts. Now we come into the 'Karma' system of Hinduism and Buddhism, but there is something in it.
Of all people on Earth, I find that Buddhists keep the original prophetic integrity intact of the true information, but not without error. These people have also fallen victim to the image making by a worship of Buddha, the classical fleshly delusion of materialization of what is deemed the divine.If we move back to , I have problems understanding why people interpret it as "hidden". It is a great misconception because the word tells about what is the body of something, "a covering". And the body of something is generally quite visible. Not always (oxygen and other gasses), but they can be measured and are not supernatural.
And, has the connotation as garden, even here on Earth and it is very visible. It does not make it less clear when you consider that a garden is a body of land, and is a covering. The human also has a body, and it is a cover, and this is the jinn.So when the body says nas and jinn it says soul and body, as simple as that. No mysterious invisible paranormal being.
The person in Solomon's court was someone who was thinking in a worldly (beastly - jinn) way and could yield a result of similar quality. The idea to conquer the Queen by brute force was his, while the one marked ('alem) by knowledge (ketaab) suggested diplomacy.
means that the person had a jinn disposition. 'min' works much like 'of' in English. By other words, he let himself be controlled by the beast body. You can check a dictionary for a definition of ayn-fa-ra.
Eventually I hope I can make someone overwhelmed that they can comprehend that I am telling the truth and what I research on in Quran is the real interpretation. Personally I find I am already saying more than enough for people to be able to be convinced.Not sure when the misconception about jinn came about, but I am only strengthening my faith that Quran was in the hand of people who could barely read it less understand it.
Interestingly, it feels like Jewish clerics and scholars or Persian (Pharisee) clerics or scholars used their blinded Aramaic/Hebrew insight to decipher it and with their sectarian bias. The jinn traditional argument is so tainted by superstition. The funny thing is that jinn usually means the straight opposite of hidden, a covering that can usually be beheld quite literally. It should be obvious when Arabic seems to have so many words for hidden, but my suggestion is that ghayb is the real hidden word meaning what cannot be perceived with the eye, the common jinn senses, and that is true, you cannot use the classical five senses (jinn) to perceive GOD but you need the "sixth sense" which you can only enable when you suppress or control the ordinary senses.
I will continue later, if GOD permits (and the moderators do not ban me for heresy).
Salaam
-
"...except Iblis. He was one of the jinn..."
Iblis, a malaika (234), being in 'beast-mode' - as you define jinn - utterly contradicts the definition of malaika in Quran. Malaika praise God (2120, 413. Nothing is closer to God on a spiritual level than mailaika. On top of that Iblis predates the creation of any physical body that is required for the animal instinct which you equate jinn with to even exist. When Iblis was created from fire, there was no fleshly body yet. This was only created with the creation of Adam, made from clay.
@MoF, have you overlooked this? You are creating countless contradictions in Quran by your interpretation of Jinn. Add to this the etymological evidence majnn 'mad' (literally, 'one whose intellect is hidden', junn 'madness', and jann 'embryo, fetus' ('hidden inside the womb' - all sharing the same root, all referring to something hidden. I think your understanding of Jinn is utterly flawed. I wouldn't call it heretic but a rather catholic/mistaken perspective on things while ignoring the etymology of the root word.
Peace
-
Salaam zebra,
It is the common interpretation that is flawed. Jinn does not refer to something hidden but a body.
Madness is written with the same form as garden, i.e. jannateh and it could be said to be something that covers someone/something. A mental disorder covers your soul and body from letting it work properly. refers to a (standalone) object.
If I create some kind of contradiction is because the traditional interpretation is in contradiction with he truth.
Besides, please do not lecture me about the etymology of without studying the phenomenon first. You seem to have just sold yourself out for a cheap interpretation and first-hand dictionary reference, particularly based on a word with thousands of years of history including sectarian bias. But if you like your hidden supernatural beings keep them, but you have to bring better arguments around here.
You cannot use jannateh to refer to a not yet seen paradise because the word is used in everyday Classical Arabic to refer to a garden as visible as it can be and it is a BODY OF LAND, covering something (al-ardh/the earth).
If the word is used for fetus/embryo is because it is a simplification of to say to have a body inside, a fetus.
And I have said it before, this is etymology taken from such as Lane's Lexicon. And I am not sure what kind of Catholic perspective you are talking about.
Gehennom refers to the same, it is a permanent attachment the body. Even the very flawed traditional interpretation gives mention of that people in Hell are given new bodies. Want linguistic parallels I can say the reason why day in Arabic is is because means light. Compare that to (gehennom) which uses the root and not because of any hidden connotation but because of an "attachment to body attribute".
Come on. Drop your sectarian delusion. You have claimed to have left traditional Islam behind and you fall for cheap traps like these induced by the same people you claim to reject. Either that or bring proper scientific studies over how the language can refer to some kind of superstitious supernatural being. It is so illogical and yet you propagate it using sectarian translations which have no basis with reality but teach just a (Pagan) sect/religion.
If something is hidden then a nas is that for it is your spirit/soul. A'nas is "to sense " referring to the senses. Nafs is your person, all combined as you appear on Earth.
But if you have nothing else to say but criticism without a foundation then please refrain from posting here because it is not for circular reasoning in here. I think I asked before, so could please you be courteous. I have made progress with somewhat scientific or at least logical and rational research methods but you are at square one with no independent research mirroring the sectarian bias of the crazy clergymen you claim you reject. I even brought information despite the risk of bias from lexicons due to criticism and they just confirm what I say. Get over it and quit being proud, you have been fooled. We all have to one extent or another.
Salaam
-
I think you have never seen an arabic garden. If you did you'd realize the hidden aspect of them.
Now please try to explain to me how someone can be malaika and jinn at the same time with your interpretation of jinn. How can anything be of beastly nature when it does not have body?
ps I was never a sectarian and never belonged to any sect
-
Salaam,
Of course a Maleika is close to GOD, it is from the root and means to be in control. It means a person has authority in the realm of GOD.
Can you give me anywhere in 234 where it says a malekateh is Ibless. There are linguistic issues here as well. One is that (ila) does not mean not/except.
And please do not mess around with words. There is no "hidden aspect", but a can be just any fruit garden around. Even in traditional etymology the word symbolizes a garden and it is because this lot covers some land. You have a good elaboration in Lane's about the word marking what covers something. What do you argue against? The sectarian interpretation that you know what they have done to it with all hadithic influence and conjecture? is a physical body of something.
But you lose to the sectarian agenda in your inability to see how you are biased by such doctrine.
And first of all you should know what "Shaytaan" is. It is instincts/temptation. You can look up its etymology if you are seriously interested. Just like with GOD people have objectified this phenomenon. That is jinn because it is beastly desire. There is a lot of sectarian disinformation. Nothing says that the jann in the Hebrew folklore is an angel.
Thanks for bringing it up though so I can address your points even if it seems you have swallowed the sectarian version deeply and not about to change, despite logical input concerning that also DOES NOT go against lexicons.
Salaam
-
-
Quran is pretty clear in this. Even if you dispute what the meaning of ila is (which I dont) - Iblis is one of the malaika. Iblis was one who did not want to sujud to Adam. God asked the malaika to do sujud to Adam eg 3875. Therefor Iblis is malaika.
-
It is not referring to just any garden. It is an enclosed garden by walls just like paradise in Quran has walls. Therefor it has the same root word. It hides the garden to the outside world.
The root word means hidden, etymologically it always did in the phoenician word for shield, in aramaic it also means hidden. The use of the root to refer to a garden, specifically denotes an enclosed garden (hidden from the outside). You fail to understand the root of this word is older than Quran and never meant anything different than concealed/hidden. Are you saying sectarian islamic doctrine has influenced the phoenician/aramaic roots of this word even if there was no islam at that time?
This is not knowledge I got from sectarian doctrine but it's simply linguistic understanding which you seem to lack.
Please stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a sectarian. It's a bit ridiculous to do so, especially realizing I never was sunni or shia.
Peace
-
-
Some references
Historian of religions Javier Teixidor
http//i.imgur.com/pRmNcfX.png
W.F. Albright
http//i.imgur.com/BTkdyCF.png
http//i.imgur.com/4we0QV9.png -
Salaam,
Albeit nothing says a maleika could not be cursed to the flesh, so it is still not impossible. It could explain the personal aspect of Shaytaan. The word shaytaan itself means temptation/desire.
The word Ebliss does not need to be a name and the root Ba-Lam-Seen suggests someone is broken, despair, mournful. Would you give anyone this name to any person to be called? I doubt it. The word A'bliss is part of a linguistic formula in the sentence. Of course the delusion that (ila) means not/except could help create the false impression that you speak of a person here, but Abless is hardly a given name to any being and it causes inconsistency. It is highly likely to have been used because ancient interpreters in their folly saw no other solution due to their ignorance and Ebless was fabricated. No where does it say Ebless changed name to Shaytaan which would be an obvious element of any coherent text.
Additionally, sujud does not mean prostrate for the spirits were hardly told to prostrate but to be of assistance strengthened by the fact it says a'sujuda l'Adam. "So assist of which to be the broken/despairing father", i.e. Adam (part of 234 "fasujuda ila abless aba". It makes it just clear to why the Malakateh are assisting because it will be a despairing man and his offspring including you and me. Astakbar does likely not hold a negative meaning in the phrase afterwards either because it is not necessarily negative but it can mean to make someone grown up.
Even kafiriin suggests being part of talk about Adam but the MIN in "kaan min alkafariin" implies selectivity with attribution only to those it is true for. The malaikateh are thus supposed to assist everyone, even those who do wrong (obviously not to do criminal activity, but to keep the tie to the command).
In the Genesis is it quite absent about a Shaytaan either but it was a jan (snake) that tricked Adam.
It is unbelievable that you are so stubborn on this about jinn and the official record on the sectarian version when you know how deceptive the clergy always have been and also the prophets warned about the tongues of men.
"Therefore Ibliss is Malaika" - Very narrow-minded argument. Ibliss is likely not even a name.
No for GOD sake, janan does not mean hidden it means covered. You can check, as I said several times, the etymology of the word and you see that it is something that envelopes something. There is nothing hidden about janan. It is a false definition in the lexicons. A lexicon would not let it give example of clothes, armor etc that envelops a person if it was not meant as covering. I have studied this more than you have or you would have known this. You just listen to what people say with their mouths or references to bogus history. Same for jannateh, it is a garden because it is something that COVERS THE GROUND. Do you say that Adam and his wife were having walls around them in 235 too?
The walls in the Middle-East (I live there) are in one way territorial and to protect from wildlife and bandits, but it nowadays often has to do with the sectarian obsession that women cannot be watched. It does however by no means make the land hidden because you can still observe the ground from somewhere elevated. It is NOT invisible.
Jannateh has nothing to do with walled gardens but it is just garden. In a narrative about the two men with gardens do you suggest they built walls even despite a river crossed between their lands.
I am not calling you sectarian. I was saying you swallowed the sectarian deception and let it delude you. You just defend this ridiculous hidden argument into death.
Further definitions for jannateh is place of agriculture, herbage. There is no indication in an Arabic lexicon I watched that it is a hidden piece of land. The enclosed is a misconception. It is supposed to mean what I already said that the garden covers the land, but obviously it can be on the height too if you have bushes and trees covering insight.
Anyone in their right mind would outright see the sense in this.
Anyway, please stop this circular reasoning now because it is the same argument each time about hidden. Enclosed is in a way right, because it is a body of land and what envelopes it, but that does not make it hidden. It is not invisible in any way and you are just desperately defending this view by interpretation acrobatics to save your hidden obsession and strange supernatural beings.
For reference, jan is used in the Hebrew (same semitic root) to signify snake in Genesis in the Biblical Scriptures. Do you claim Adam does not see it?
Do not the people in Solomon's court see the one who suggests a scheme to bring down the rule of the Queen?
And please consider who lacks linguistic insight. Ignorant scholars? You? Do you think I study hard to lack linguistic insight? I have probably read more historical documents on than you have and I make rational reflection instead of cheap buying.
It is contradictory that it would mean hidden when the jinn are very present in the narratives.
The Quranic Arabic is just twisted to make unaware readers think jinn is something else.
You probably do not believe in my 'Innate Letter Meaning' method but it also confirms the covering argument. = "Low Integrity", it can be seen the same that it is that is a shelling, outer layer of something like the garden is or your clothes or your skin or the body is your external visible representation here.means the body of something.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
Albeit nothing says a maleika could not be cursed to the flesh, so it is still not impossible. It could explain the personal aspect of Shaytaan. The word shaytaan itself means temptation/desire.
The word Ebliss does not need to be a name and the root Ba-Lam-Seen suggests someone is broken, despair, mournful. Would you give anyone this name to any person to be called? I doubt it. The word A'bliss is part of a linguistic formula in the sentence. Of course the delusion that (ila) means not/except could help create the false impression that you speak of a person here, but Abless is hardly a given name to any being and it causes inconsistency. It is highly likely to have been used because ancient interpreters in their folly saw no other solution due to their ignorance and Ebless was fabricated. No where does it say Ebless changed name to Shaytaan which would be an obvious element of any coherent text.
The Angels were asked to do sujud for Adam. Iblis is among them. Wether you dispute the meaning of ila, this does not change. In other verses, God asks Iblis why he refused this command to do sujud. Therefor the identification of Iblis as malaika is not even depending on the ila in that verse.
Additionally, sujud does not mean prostrate for the spirits were hardly told to prostrate but to be of assistance strengthened by the fact it says a'sujuda l'Adam. "So assist of which to be the broken/despairing father", i.e. Adam (part of 234 "fasujuda ila abless aba". It makes it just clear to why the Malakateh are assisting because it will be a despairing man and his offspring including you and me. Astakbar does likely not hold a negative meaning in the phrase afterwards either because it is not necessarily negative but it can mean to make someone grown up.
I never claimed sujud means prostate. I never used prostate, I explicitly used the arabic sujud. Still you react like I used the verb prostate in my arguments.
Even kafiriin suggests being part of talk about Adam but the MIN in "kaan min alkafariin" implies selectivity with attribution only to those it is true for. The malaikateh are thus supposed to assist everyone, even those who do wrong (obviously not to do criminal activity, but to keep the tie to the command).
I don't see how this is relevant to the meaning of jinn whatsoever. You keep reiterating your interpretation of shaytan, Iblis etc which is negating linguistic evidence.
In the Genesis is it quite absent about a Shaytaan either but it was a jan (snake) that tricked Adam.
Jan is not the hebrew word for snake. Jan has the same aramaic root meaning hidden. These are borrowed words from aramaic. There is no doubt about the meaning of the root word in aramaic as it's found on inscriptions in eg Palmyra. They always referred to hidden entities. Without body. This hidden aspect is among one of the reasons people started worshipping statues of these jinn. They dont have a physical body like we do.
It is unbelievable that you are so stubborn on this about jinn and the official record on the sectarian version when you know how deceptive the clergy always have been and also the prophets warned about the tongues of men.
The aramaic roots of the word are way older than any islamic sectarian influence. But it's true, in this matter the sectarians have a more truthful understanding of the word jinn than you are showing right now. At least their understanding is compatible with etymological and linguistic evidence.
"Therefore Ibliss is Malaika" - Very narrow-minded argument. Ibliss is likely not even a name.
It is a proper name by all means.
No for GOD sake, janan does not mean hidden it means covered. You can check, as I said several times, the etymology of the word and you see that it is something that envelopes something. There is nothing hidden about janan. It is a false definition in the lexicons. A lexicon would not let it give example of clothes, armor etc that envelops a person if it was not meant as covering. I have studied this more than you have or you would have known this. You just listen to what people say with their mouths or references to bogus history. Same for jannateh, it is a garden because it is something that COVERS THE GROUND. Do you say that Adam and his wife were having walls around them in 235 too?
So it's a giant conspiracy? The sectarians modified all the hebrew, aramaic and phoenician lexicons and changed the meaning of the shared root word from "beastly" to "hidden"? You need a reality check. What you are saying is just laughable. Look up the word jinn was borrowed from in aramaic. You will find the same meaning everywhere. Same thing for any hebrew meaning of jan.
The walls in the Middle-East (I live there) are in one way territorial and to protect from wildlife and bandits, but it nowadays often has to do with the sectarian obsession that women cannot be watched. It does however by no means make the land hidden because you can still observe the ground from somewhere elevated. It is NOT invisible.
Compared to many european gardens they are hidden gems.
Jannateh has nothing to do with walled gardens but it is just garden. In a narrative about the two men with gardens do you suggest they built walls even despite a river crossed between their lands.
More than likely they did. But to realize this you need to understand the root word first. Which you dont.
I am not calling you sectarian. I was saying you swallowed the sectarian deception and let it delude you. You just defend this ridiculous hidden argument into death.
My understanding of the root word comes from aramaic, hebrew and arab lexicons. How does this make me blinded by sectarian deception? You are not making sense.
Further definitions for jannateh is place of agriculture, herbage. There is no indication in an Arabic lexicon I watched that it is a hidden piece of land. The enclosed is a misconception. It is supposed to mean what I already said that the garden covers the land, but obviously it can be on the height too if you have bushes and trees covering insight.
Anyone in their right mind would outright see the sense in this.
Anyway, please stop this circular reasoning now because it is the same argument each time about hidden. Enclosed is in a way right, because it is a body of land and what envelopes it, but that does not make it hidden. It is not invisible in any way and you are just desperately defending this view by interpretation acrobatics to save your hidden obsession and strange supernatural beings.
I've noticed this misunderstanding with you before. You think something invisible means supernatural. Which is simpleminded. All of quantum mechanics is invisible to human perception. There is nothing supernatural about it. I'm not obsessed with anything. I'm not even defending my point of view but confronting you with a thesis that does not withstand any linguistic scrutiny. I understand where you come from though. You consider yourself to be a rational thinking person, you consider the traditional understanding of jinn to imply supernatural beings (which I showed you isn't necessarily true) - so you react allergic to it and start reinventing meaning of words that have had the same meaning of hundreds of years.
For reference, jan is used in the Hebrew (same semitic root) to signify snake in Genesis in the Biblical Scriptures. Do you claim Adam does not see it?
Jan is not the hebrew word for snake. If you read jan it meant hidden.
Do not the people in Solomon's court see the one who suggests a scheme to bring down the rule of the Queen?
It's not uncommon for hidden things to be able to manifest themselves physically. Some malaika can do this as well especially when they are performing a task of messengership.
And please consider who lacks linguistic insight. Ignorant scholars? You? Do you think I study hard to lack linguistic insight? I have probably read more historical documents on than you have and I make rational reflection instead of cheap buying.
I'm not judging your level of expertise, all I can conclude from what you are posting here is showing me you never reached to an aramaic lexicon to crosscheck the meaning of the root word that was borrowed later in both hebrew and arabic.
It is contradictory that it would mean hidden when the jinn are very present in the narratives.
See above answer. No it isn't.
The Quranic Arabic is just twisted to make unaware readers think jinn is something else.
You probably do not believe in my 'Innate Letter Meaning' method but it also confirms the covering argument. = "Low Integrity", it can be seen the same that it is that is a shelling, outer layer of something like the garden is or your clothes or your skin or the body is your external visible representation here.Your innate letter meaning is just inventing your own meaning for words while ignoring their ancient, documented meaning throughout history. See the palmyra inscriptures. They never meant low integrity.
-
Jan means cover not hidden. Do you have problems with comprehension?
If you study lexicons you see clearly the word's meaning is what covers something. What kind of lexicon are you staring at?
Please refrain from posting any more here.
Regarding snake you are right. I was biased by a sectarian source and a translation of 2831 where is translated as snake. However, the staff was not turned into a traditional jinn but a body of something. Just gives you more evidence of the visibility of what is a jinn. Why would he be afraid if it was invisible and why would the people in Mesr be afraid if it was invisible. It is contradictory logic.
Just face it. Jinns are visible. Only sectarian superstitious jinns are invisible for they have invented labels for the word.
And I did not say beastly for the word. I said THE BODY/COVER OF SOMETHING. That is confirmed by Edward William Lane's Arabic lexicon. And the reason Jannateh (garden) is called that is because IT IS A COVER OVER SOMETHING.
Again, unless you have something that outdoes what I have presented, refrain from posting something else of circular reasoning for this thread is supposed to expand the knowledge of Quran's right interpretation and not stay in the dark. I have already proved jinn's physical meaning.
Salaam
-
Ibless does not have to be a proper name. Ibless, the word, can also be interpreted as a word with the grammatical prefix alef in front. is a root and have several definitions such as broken.
In Arabic it is hard sometimes to know what is a name or not because people are called descriptive words such as hassan which is also a very common word.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
To continue on individual Arabic words and the list I made an article on previously
(nur) - used as (naar) to symbolize fire, but there is ambiguity in Lane's Lexicon, a lexicon compiled by Edward Lane in the 19th century which is not exactly an independent work but Lane gathered multiple ancient mono-lingual Arabic lexicons and made his own interpretation into English based on his understanding and research on etymology.
Nur can also mean heat and light according to available definitions and probably the radiation of energy which is probably a relatively modern word in this context and may not have existed when Quran was written but the Arabic may have used this root instead.
It is worth noting that (nahaar) is the Arabic word for day (attached light) and is a modification of the root with an added (ha). The Sun's radiation also generates heat when absorbed by various materials. It is fairly easy to infer that nahaar is form of naar with a modifier letter in it.
I will bring a live sample from Quran to explain the point.
Surah Al-Qasas, Verse 29
And as Moses had fulfilled his term and was wandering with his family he sensed a/n energy/heat/light from the nearby mountain; he said to his family...
(I did not translate the whole passage because it is irrelevant in this)
Another important aspect of this passage is that is used to symbolize senses/perception. I am strongly claiming that the passages which talk about and do not speak of jinns and humans but of body and senses. A different kind of supernatural/invisible race called Jinn is merely part of human and sectarian superstition. This phrasing occurs multiple times in Quran. Note that the same word (س is also used to convey sense/perception in the above passage I copy-pasted. It is a blatant lie about both nas and jinn. Jinn I have already propagated about recently and I say it means "the body of something" or reference to someone who is earthly/bodily in their perception such as in the Jinn narrative where the Jinn makes a suggestion to Solomon about the strategical approach towards the Queen's realm.
When Quran addresses Al-Nas directly it speaks to "of those sensible", sensible ones.
Arabic has the minimum amount of available different definitions for each word so several definitions in available ancient dictionaries are mere lies and particularly an Arabic root does not have several completely different meanings but all mean something along the lines of one. Arabic is a very clear language with little ambiguity, but sectarian clerics and scholars have fabricated additional ones.
Those who argue against me on the account of jinn must study old Arabic lexicons very carefully and consider the Quranic usage. Among available definitions is the layer/covering of something and not what is inside of that cover but the actual cover of that object. If is used to symbolize affliction/madness it is because abstractly this affection is an agent/body that covers the body in some way, lunacy or standard physical disease. (jannateh) causes the (jann) root to attain external object meaning to say another thing covers something such as an may be a garden that covers the (al-ardh, the Earth) but it can also be an agent which causes madness in an individual, a clouding of the mind, i.e cover.
Invisible is thus only a possible indirect meaning of the root because the entity covers something, but as for invisible per direct definition you need another root such as or similar (unseen/unknown/secret/invisible/out of perception).
You probably understand that the Quran needs a complete revamp in terms of reinterpretation. It is as if people never mastered Arabic who tried to comprehend it or they had their own agenda.
(la) is one of the biggest blatant lies unveiled during my research. It does not mean 'not' but 'which be' and changes a substantial part of Quran completely. Famously it is used in the phrase "la Elah ila Allah", but with the proper interpretation it means something different than traditionally conceived. The sectarian clerics and scholars could probably not take that the phrase said what it said and decided to force 'la' to mean something else to suit their agenda. The late Mr. Jesus/Isa had already said though that people should be in the Creator and the Creator in them, but this the interpreters seem to have cared little about. The idol ALLAH is/was important to them.
Salaam
-
Hail to you all,
I have been studying chapter 36 traditionally referred to as Ya-Siin and made a full reinterpretation over a few days and made astonishing discoveries. First of all, the traditional translations are not even close to what the real interpretation says. It is not fair to the original Arabic text even remotely. I have a very literal translation made at this time which I will refine and publish extracts from.
The chapter covers
Several parables which are present in the Bible
The name of Isaiah in 3620
A famous saying of Isaiah about that if one sins they will face of adversity to the equal magnitude of the sin
That we are part of a "sifting" process
That we are in symbiosis with the Sustainer (Rabb) if we become perfected
Similar teachings that Jesus uttered
That we currently are in the progress of fulfilling an old prophecy by Isaiah when "The Compilation" (as GOD puts it) will be orderly perserved.Be well
-
Peace Man Of Faith.
The word " " is a verb in 3620 .It is not a name?
There is a similar word in 2820
It is not "Isaiah".
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
It is a name. Isaiah is spelled like that in Arabic. Semitic tradition names can both be standard words of the language and names, hence why it may be difficult to recognize if it is a proper name or a normal word, if you are unfamiliar or unskilled at deciphering the passages.
If you use diacritical markers to recognize if it is a name I have to disappoint you that those are not native with the original manuscript.
Isaiah's name is hidden in the context of an extremely poorly interpreted text which makes me disappointed with how deluded people are.
Straight after the word is mentioned a famous quote of Isaiah is written out talking about sins and that the consequence is exposure to something of the same proportion.
Obviously you miss out on that if you read it with the mainstream knowledge and perception of Arabic. Are you going to argue about such then you can have your perception and I have mine.
Even if theoretically was not Isaiah's name it is pronounced the same way as in Semitic ancestry which is quite peculiar.
The word is mentioned six times in Quran.
It is also strange that the famous and important figure Isaiah was not to be mentioned in Quran considered he prophesied the coming of multiple prophets including Jesus, John, and an unknown prophet. Well, now you have the answer, if your mind is receptive enough to absorb it.