Nearness and Guidance -> Knowledge and Wisdom = Peace and Prosperity
-
-
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.
-
Peace Man Of Faith.
Are you serious?
And you want us to read your threads and benefit from your research?
I was trying to help you see your error.
I give up.Carry on then with your own made up,wrong translation.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
I am serious and it is you and the rest of deluded who are wrong and I cannot but pitying you for not perceiving it. You cannot get me discouraged and stop my work you know, but I feel sorry for you living in an interpretation that deluded people alluded totally. And you say you want to help me. Help yourself.
You are living the Pagan delusion.
is Isaiah and the qoute straight after is his saying.
Perhaps you do not benefit from my research, but perhaps someone with a receptive mind will. Anyway I deem that my work will be more convincing now that I am getting versed with the real Arabic language of Quran.
-
I am serious and it is you and the rest of deluded who are wrong and I cannot but pitying you for not perceiving it. You cannot get me discouraged and stop my work you know, but I feel sorry for you living in an interpretation that deluded people alluded totally. And you say you want to help me. Help yourself.
You are living the Pagan delusion.
is Isaiah and the qoute straight after is his saying.
Perhaps you do not benefit from my research, but perhaps someone with a receptive mind will. Anyway I deem that my work will be more convincing now that I am getting versed with the real Arabic language of Quran.
I wouldn't want you to stop your work, I think it will make a really great contribution.
-
Freedomstands,
If you only knew.
Quran was revealed by an unknown prophet who wrote it and it has not been properly deciphered until now except that a bunch of deluded sectarians have tried, not caring for more than "validating" their deluded doctrine in an innocent context inventing phenomena such as salat as a ritual prayer etc for it was already in use by the sects so it had to be forced to confirm it.
Deciphering it properly is a tedious work but not impossible (nothing is impossible except for the weak-minded) and the correct definitions are already in ancient Arabic definitions albeit corrupted to signify that Arabic words have multiple meanings while an Arabic word has only one general meaning due to that it speaks out from its combination of letters.
Salat, for example, means to consciously follow something and in ancient lexicons there are examples with horse races and this is exactly what the word means, i.e. to follow.
Be well
-
Peace Man Of Faith.
Look brother if you are saying " "in 3620 means Isaiah, then "" in 2820 also means Isaiah.
This is not possible anyway since 2820 is dealing with Moses, Isaiah did not exist then?!!!.
But I am fine with you accepting whatever you wish. Why would I want to stop you anyway.
Brother ,carry on,but use the same reasoning with yourself as you would want others to use for you.
Would you want us to accept the truth,but you are exempt?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
His work will be interesting though, correct or not. To every person's mind, his own thinking is correct. I say it will be interesting because we will have another piece of work that can be compared to existing work, and then we should follow the best of them~.
-
Peace AW.
I agree.
Everyone contributes .
We learn from one another.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
I will go to that passage in time and look at it, but the same phrase is used saying Al-madinateh Jes'aia marking "The community of Isaiha" as far as I have been able to decipher the language. It is likely a reference that they utter like those said in the community of Isaiah.
The answer could be simple because Moses never slayed a man since qat-ta-lam does not mean slay or kill but to master/defeat which does not in itself mean kill l but more that you subdued the one you contest with and it can be both verbal and physical. Q-t-l can thus mean you are in a verbal conflict with someone and master this debate and persuade them thus defeating them in debate or simply defeating their arguments so that the crowds will walk your line.
It is only the account of the Bible and the worthless interpretation of Quran that says Moses kill a man. Josepheus, a prehistoric historian, mentions a completely different story to the event. And my ability to decipher the Arabic text has revealed that Moses tried to defeat his opponents arguments when they conspired against him and his claimed prophethood. Moses was then forced on the run due to persecution, met the two women at the well, married one of then, worked for the father-in-law for several years, and when he was free he met with the light of GOD who taught him things and strengthened his self-estem and because Aaron (Harun) was skilled with his tongue and influential in their community GOD also made Aaron enlightened with the same as Moses knew.
When he returned he could convince the Bani Israel that he indeed was a prophet and avert the plot against his life. After gaining support he opposed Pharaoh.
To retell more of the true account I need to get into those passages of Quran on my reinterpretation project.
I understand your objection since Isaiah did not live before Moses so it sounds strange, but the text could also make a parallel to Isaiah since Quran is a teaching book with many parables. It also appears that Quran takes it that the community of Isaiah were great sinners, but not as much as in this era.
However in 3620 it is very clear that it refers to the famous prophet Isaiah as per my interpretation work.