Lord of the universes! Rab ilAlamin !

unknownuser

Greetings Ash Shuura,

Thanks for your repeat reply?This will be the third time?

Greetings to you Apple Pie,

And people believe you just because YOU say so, right? D

Since you are unwilling (or unable) to perform any footwork whatsoever?.I have taken the liberty of showing the meaning behind the sura title?

Let me take your argument to pieces straight away. I can not know how you twist the meaning of the Qur'an! Never in a day in my life I can come up with your fanciful extrapolations. Hence, the footwork is yours...if you don't like it then you should not mind refraining from submitting statements WITHOUT FACTS!

Let?s look.

...and see the Emperor for what he is wearing?

Sura 100?. ??.. ?alAAadiyati?

Go back to the begining, your logic chain has just collapsed. Prove from the Qur'an the relationship of husbanin and AAadiyat, you've jumped from one branch of the tree to another...And, then validate!

Come on show us the link!!!

= ?al?

?al? definition

No amount of definition is gonna save you unless you back your proofs from the one consistent source, al Qur'an.

= ?adiyati?

?adiyati? definition

Feminine plural. The horsemen; i.e. the first, of the horsemen, that charge or assault, in a hostile, or predatory, incursion, especially; or horses making a hostile, or predatory, incursion. Panting; running; coursers; companies of warriors; chargers; horses of the warriors; wayfarers who run fast on their journey; swift horses, swift mares, the attacking forces/the horses. It comes from the root ?ada?, which means passed from it, namely, a thing, or an affair, to another, and left it, pass by, overlook, transgress, turn aside. He ran, or rose in his running; said of a man and of a horse; he ran vehemently; denoting a quick pace.

Lets say you come up with an argument and managed to reconnect your failed logic chain and managed to connect husbanin to aadiyat. Then the question ought to be asked show us where else in the Qur'an we can verify that "Aadiyat" is used in this manner, just to validate your interpretation. Are you going to jump to another word?

Also note I highlighted the logic operator "OR", we'll deal with that shortly...

Thus?the outward rendering of the title?

= ?al? + ?adiyati? = ?alAAadiyati? = the hostile horses/horsemen/coursers

Let?s look at the definition of the operative word ?courser?, from Merriam Webster?

Does GOD speak to you in your dreams that you are choosing the coursers?? What give you this inspiration? Use horsemen and your interpretation is FALSE!

Anyone who is following this thread should evaluate the question Is a NON coursing, horseman eliminated from the definition considering its says "OR" between the definitions?

Thus?.it is quite clear

What is clear is you are clutching at the straws lol

?from just the title of sura 100, that the authors

Every assertion of yours seems false logic, prove that it has authors and not author! You pick up too many false arguments which you can not prove.

of the Koran are going to be telling us about the following

The hostile horsemen/horses
Running swiftly
They will be coursers i.e. running a course?.which is defined as ?the act or action of moving in a path from point to point; the path over which something moves or extends; an ordered process or succession; in the expected or allotted time"

lol So basically the connection between Jinn<>Husbanin<>Aadiyat disintigrated in to oblivion! Nevermind the fact that your dictionary definition did not say it must be all the above to qualify the definition. The dictionary did not say "AND" it said "OR" remember D

So?yes?.the classic definition fits?.

Anybody can make up their OWN MIND whether or not you FAILED in proving your assertions. For my part I am buying NONE of it, it is apparent that your arguments are incoherent and lack sincerity.

Thanks

No problem you're welcome wink

unknownuser

Greetings Ash Shuura,

Thanks for your reply?

Apple Pie wrote
Greetings Ash Shuura,

Thanks for your repeat reply?This will be the third time?

Greetings to you Apple Pie,

And people believe you just because YOU say so, right?

If someone supports my position, then it is because they have taken the time necessary to study the subject matter for themselves?

I do not force anyone into my position.

Quote
Since you are unwilling (or unable) to perform any footwork whatsoever?.I have taken the liberty of showing the meaning behind the sura title?

Let me take your argument to pieces straight away. I can not know how you twist the meaning of the Qur'an!

The operative word is ?un-twist??

Never in a day in my life I can come up with your fanciful extrapolations.

Perhaps this is because you do not take the time to research and study the scriptures of your book of faith? wink

Hence, the footwork is yours...if you don't like it then you should not mind refraining from submitting statements WITHOUT FACTS!

Of course the ?footwork? is mine.

It is clear that you have not contributed anything except unreferenced opinion to this thread?

Quote
Sura 100?. ??.. ?alAAadiyati?

Go back to the begining, your logic chain has just collapsed. Prove from the Qur'an the relationship of husbanin and AAadiyat, you've jumped from one branch of the tree to another...And, then validate!
Come on show us the link!!!

Actually, from your desperate response, it is clear that I have answered your repeat query of showing ANYTHING in the Koran that runs appointed courses?

Don?t be angry with your own book of faith?

= ?al?
Quote
?al? definition

No amount of definition is gonna save you unless you back your proofs from the one consistent source, al Qur'an.

Perhaps you need to read my posts?.for the first time, then?. wink

Quote
= ?adiyati?

?adiyati? definition

Feminine plural. The horsemen; i.e. the first, of the horsemen, that charge or assault, in a hostile, or predatory, incursion, especially; or horses making a hostile, or predatory, incursion. Panting; running; coursers; companies of warriors; chargers; horses of the warriors; wayfarers who run fast on their journey; swift horses, swift mares, the attacking forces/the horses. It comes from the root ?ada?, which means passed from it, namely, a thing, or an affair, to another, and left it, pass by, overlook, transgress, turn aside. He ran, or rose in his running; said of a man and of a horse; he ran vehemently; denoting a quick pace.

Lets say you come up with an argument and managed to reconnect your failed logic chain and managed to connect husbanin to aadiyat. Then the question ought to be asked show us where else in the Qur'an we can verify that "Aadiyat" is used in this manner, just to validate your interpretation. Are you going to jump to another word?

is used in sura 100 only.

Also note I highlighted the logic operator "OR", we'll deal with that shortly...

Of course?

Quote
Thus?the outward rendering of the title?

= ?al? + ?adiyati? = ?alAAadiyati? = the hostile horses/horsemen/coursers

Let?s look at the definition of the operative word ?courser?, from Merriam Webster?

Does GOD speak to you in your dreams that you are choosing the coursers?? What give you this inspiration? Use horsemen and your interpretation is FALSE!
Anyone who is following this thread should evaluate the question Is a NON coursing, horseman eliminated from the definition considering its says "OR" between the definitions?

I use the classic Arabic lexical definitions.

In addition, you have just shown ignorance for ?

Quote
?from just the title of sura 100, that the authors

Every assertion of yours seems false logic, prove that it has authors and not author! You pick up too many false arguments which you can not prove.

The Koran is clear that it copied over the prior Jewish and Christian scriptures?.hence, it involved more than one author?

Quote
of the Koran are going to be telling us about the following

The hostile horsemen/horses
Running swiftly
They will be coursers i.e. running a course?.which is defined as ?the act or action of moving in a path from point to point; the path over which something moves or extends; an ordered process or succession; in the expected or allotted time"

So basically the connection between Jinn<>Husbanin<>Aadiyat disintigrated in to oblivion! Nevermind the fact that your dictionary definition did not say it must be all the above to qualify the definition. The dictionary did not say "AND" it said "OR" remember

Perhaps you could refresh our memory as to the definition of ??

Quote
So?yes?.the classic definition fits?.

Anybody can make up their OWN MIND whether or not you FAILED in proving your assertions. For my part I am buying NONE of it, it is apparent that your arguments are incoherent and lack sincerity.

Everyone is free to decide for themselves, correct.

This should be a straight forward task, as you cannot even put forth a concerted effort into researching your replies?

Thanks?

unknownuser

If someone supports my position, then it is because they have taken the time necessary to study the subject matter for themselves
I do not force anyone into my position.?

Greetings Apple Pie,

You well know I am refering to your playground antiques, so don't be too quick to jump on the intellectual bandwagon.

As for that statement, it is rhetorical.

But lets answer...If you do not force your opinion then why do you make assertions? If you were not doing so you would lay the FACTS and let people arrive at their CONCLUSIONS in their own emerging sense. But no you have to tell them shock

Quote
Since you are unwilling (or unable) to perform any footwork whatsoever?.I have taken the liberty of showing the meaning behind the sura title?

I answered this one before I can't see how you come up with this absurd interpretation, and since I don't carry your preconceived notions its irrational to suggest anyone who investigates will arrive at your conclusions.

Perhaps this is because you do not take the time to research and study the scriptures of your book of faith? wink

I was wondering when you were going to descend into slimey comments...

Of course the ?footwork? is mine.

It is clear that you have not contributed anything except unreferenced opinion to this thread?

Let the readers make that call...In my view I have dissected your arguments. And, I have not expressed "opinion" as far as I can recall except in the way that I don't agree with you because of the logical disconnect.

Actually, from your desperate response, it is clear that I have answered your repeat query of showing ANYTHING in the Koran that runs appointed courses?

I don't see you showing an example. You've jumped on to another word. Hence, I don't believe your answer was satisfactory for me. I was expecting an answer on "husbanin" and you jumped to "aadiyat".

Don?t be angry with your own book of faith?

This rhetorical framework does not work for me. It presupposes you are right and I am wrong. This is not a certainty.

I use the classic Arabic lexical definitions.

In addition, you have just shown ignorance for ?

You are good at coming up with false conclusions. And, your lexical definitions need to pass the criterion. Of course you know this, but you will not pass your conclusions through the Book of GOD, because you know it will fail you.

The Koran is clear that it copied over the prior Jewish and Christian scriptures?.hence, it involved more than one author?

This is one of your other conclusions derived from shady logical reasoning is it?

Perhaps you could refresh our memory as to the definition of ??

Perhaps you can answer a question in earnest, ONLY once? But no you need to be condescending...

Everyone is free to decide for themselves, correct.

At least we can agree on that, that is a relief! But somehow I doubt you mean it.

This should be a straight forward task, as you cannot even put forth a concerted effort into researching your replies?

Now that is your own perception and your own problem. I don't see it that way. You prefer that style whilst I prefer to examine the arguments for integrity.

Now, go back to square one and show us "running appointed courses=husbanin" and validate it through the Qur'an wink

unknownuser

Greetings Ash Shuura,

Thanks for sharing your opinion?

Quote
Actually, from your desperate response, it is clear that I have answered your repeat query of showing ANYTHING in the Koran that runs appointed courses?

I don't see you showing an example. You've jumped on to another word. Hence, I don't believe your answer was satisfactory for me. I was expecting an answer on "husbanin" and you jumped to "aadiyat".

Apparently, you have already forgotten about your previous ?challenge??.

Let?s refresh your memory?

Peace Apple Pie,

Thank you for NOT answering my question.

If you change your mind here it is, be my guest

Demonstrate the usage of running appointed and scheduled courses in the quran in examples that applies to locusts, bees, cattle or whatever animal you want based on your assertion.

Hence?.I have shown you the example from sura 100?

The ball is in your court to refute my response?

Thanks..

shuaib

salam folks, i'm finally back. looks like things have been pretty active on this thread.

apple pie,

i'm a bit disappointed that your elders/religion haven't taught you how to apologize after being extremely rude bordering on racist. I take it from your change of tone, however, that you have at least realized your follies.

In my prior post, I mentioned that your argument was flawed for 2 primary reasons.

You employ inaccurate (apocryphal) sources.

You keep referring to QD, when I keep telling you that I do not respect QD as a reliable source.

As far as your references to Lane, I would like to see direct word for word quotes from LANE'S (not from QD)... I find it hard to believe Lane would be so far off from the sources he claims to use.

I didn't realize you were so hung up on page numbers... When I tell someone a definition from Webster's dictionary, I dont think it's necessary to know the page number. You simply LOOK UP THE WORD! Same goes for Arabic lexicons! But in case you were curious,

Jinn, primary meaning is something hidden.. Lisaan-ul-Arab vol 2, p385-392. Absolutely no mention of locusts!

HUSBAAN, in fact the exact verse in question 555 is discussed in Lisaan-ul-Arab in vol 3 p 164... where it is explained that husbaan means along a fixed measured path. NO MENTION OF LOCUSTS!

So again, you not only quote inaccurate sources, you are giving definitions for words completely against the CLASSICAL lexicons.

You use faulty logic in your exegesis.

Again, you are making the mistake of randomly linking words without reason!

Yes, I agree, the dual person being referred to is men and jinn... but JUST because of verse 513 where the 2 are being addressed, you CANNOT just randomly link any word you please to mean jinn! Context IS important, but just because the context is men and jinn, does not mean you randomly link whatever word you please to mean jinn.... why not have the sun and moon mean jinn? Why not have the earth and trees and stars mean jinn? These are also mentioned in the surah.

The school was closed. The weather was warm, and the sun shined bright. So the two boys were thankful as they played soccer.

Is it possible to link the last sentence to the first?? Sure, in a way they are related... but you cannot take soccer or boys and directly relate their linguistic meaning to school or closing! Yet that is what you INSIST on doing. Though men and jinn are being addressed, there is NO reason to believe that 555 means anything more than "the sun and the moon follow fixed orbits." To take the word orbit and relate that to jinn is absurd to say the least.

AND LASTLY, you ought to at LEAST admit that Lane's is not directly saying that jinn are demonic locusts. It is obvious that it is your own interpretation using surah 55... all you did was quote some source that husbaan meant locusts... your sources (even the faulty QD) DO NOT directly list locusts as a meaning of jinn. Just admit that you're deriving this meaning yourself, that's all. There's no need to hide that simple fact.

Lastly?.

I?m glad to see that you only had to edit your post four times?

It should show you how much I re-read everything I write and try to make it as perfect as I can. Perhaps you ought to do the same, and eliminate wise-cracks and rude behavior. It would also save you from making silly mistakes like defining jinn as free from smoke and in the same breath saying jinn are from smoke! OOPS!

unknownuser

Greetings Apple Pie,

Your example does not work because you need to find the same word in arabic or prove the link between two arabic words. The word was "husbanin" since we're into refreshing each others memories. The burden of proof is with the one who is making assertions. YOU!

Meanwhile, keep doing what you are doing, people read your snide comments and figure you out. By making unprovable assertions you are just making yourself look silly.

So, will you answer the question or dodge it as usual?

unknownuser

Greetings shuaib,

Thanks for your reply?

You employ inaccurate (apocryphal) sources.

You keep referring to QD, when I keep telling you that I do not respect QD as a reliable source.

Omar?s Dictionary integrates a plethora of high quality lexicography?.one of which, you even want to ?quote? from, in order to ?support? your position? roll

As far as your references to Lane, I would like to see direct word for word quotes from LANE'S (not from QD)... I find it hard to believe Lane would be so far off from the sources he claims to use.

I already did this before; however, here is an expanded version for your viewing pleasure?

= ?husbanin?

?husbanin? definition

Verb. Noun. Plural. Calamity; Punishment; an affliction with which a man is tried; Evil; Mischief; Locusts; Dust; Smoke; Fire; definite reckoning; appointed courses; Numbering; Revolving firmament; computation, account, Running appointed and scheduled courses; Affliction; Thunderbolts; it is also used as a collective noun meaning darts or lightning. Small arrows, or short arrows, which are shot from Persian bows; or arrows which a man shoots in the hollow of a reed, or cane; drawing the bow, he discharges twenty of them at once, and they pass by nothing without wounding it, whether it be an armed man or another object; they come forth like rain, and scatter among the people; or small arrows, with slender heads, in the hollow of a reed, or cane, which, when discharged, come forth like a shower of rain, and scatter, and pass by nothing without wounding it; or iron-headed arrows, like large needles, slender, but somewhat long, and without edges (to the heads). It is also said to signify the circumference of a mill-stone. It comes from the root ?hasiba?, which means he numbered, counted, reckoned, calculated, or computed it; namely, property; to think; consider; suppose, imagine, be of opinion, to reckon, calculate.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume two, pp. 564 - 567
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 122 - 123
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 34

= ?bi?

?bi? definition

An inseparable preposition With the help of; During; For; By; On account of; According to; In; From. It also denotes the object of a transitive verb and supports the subject that is termed ?zaidah? (additional). It is also used as a corroborative to confirm and to make more certain.

Reference

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 40 - 41

= ?bi? + ?husbanin? = ?bihusbanin? = on account of the locusts

I didn't realize you were so hung up on page numbers... When I tell someone a definition from Webster's dictionary, I dont think it's necessary to know the page number. You simply LOOK UP THE WORD! Same goes for Arabic lexicons!

Apparently no one has ever called your bluff before? wink

But in case you were curious,

Jinn, primary meaning is something hidden.. Lisaan-ul-Arab vol 2, p385-392. Absolutely no mention of locusts!

HUSBAAN, in fact the exact verse in question 555 is discussed in Lisaan-ul-Arab in vol 3 p 164... where it is explained that husbaan means along a fixed measured path. NO MENTION OF LOCUSTS!

So again, you not only quote inaccurate sources, you are giving definitions for words completely against the CLASSICAL lexicons.

Now?.this is most interesting?

Lisan al-Arab is an Arabic publication.

You already admitted that you don?t know Arabic?.and here you are attempting to quote from it??!

You use faulty logic in your exegesis.

Again, you are making the mistake of randomly linking words without reason!

Yes, I agree, the dual person being referred to is men and jinn... but JUST because of verse 513 where the 2 are being addressed, you CANNOT just randomly link any word you please to mean jinn! Context IS important, but just because the context is men and jinn, does not mean you randomly link whatever word you please to mean jinn....

Perhaps you need to educate yourself regarding the concomitance markers ?wa? and the sequence markers ?fa?, before you draw an uninformed conclusion.

why not have the sun and moon mean jinn? Why not have the earth and trees and stars mean jinn? These are also mentioned in the surah.

The sun and the moon are not the Jinn themselves, however, they are related to the Jinn, hence the juxtaposition of the words?

The school was closed. The weather was warm, and the sun shined bright. So the two boys were thankful as they played soccer.

Is it possible to link the last sentence to the first?? Sure, in a way they are related... but you cannot take soccer or boys and directly relate their linguistic meaning to school or closing! Yet that is what you INSIST on doing. Though men and jinn are being addressed, there is NO reason to believe that 555 means anything more than "the sun and the moon follow fixed orbits." To take the word orbit and relate that to jinn is absurd to say the least.

If ?orbits? of the sun and the moon was the intent of this ayah, then it would have followed the trend previously established in the Koran as seen here

Allahu allathee rafaAAa alssamawati bighayri AAamadin tarawnaha thumma istawa AAala alAAarshi wasakhkhara alshshamsa waalqamara kullun yajree li-ajalin musamman yudabbiru al-amra yufassilu al-ayati laAAallakum biliqa-i rabbikum tooqinoona (13.2)

Alam tara anna Allaha yooliju allayla fee alnnahari wayooliju alnnahara fee allayli wasakhkhara alshshamsa waalqamara kullun yajree ila ajalin musamman waanna Allaha bima taAAmaloona khabeerun (31.29)

Yooliju allayla fee alnnahari wayooliju alnnahara fee allayli wasakhkhara alshshamsa waalqamara kullun yajree li-ajalin musamman thalikumu Allahu rabbukum lahu almulku waallatheena tadAAoona min doonihi ma yamlikoona min qitmeerin (35.13)

Khalaqa alssamawati waal-arda bialhaqqi yukawwiru allayla AAala alnnahari wayukawwiru alnnahara AAala allayli wasakhkhara alshshamsa waalqamara kullun yajree li-ajalin musamman ala huwa alAAazeezu alghaffaru (39.5)

The sun and the moon are described by

= ?yajree?

?yajree? definition

Masculine singular. Pursues its course. It comes from the root ?jara?, which means to flow, run, happen, hasten, be current. Said of water and the like; it ran or passed along quickly; originally said of water; it flowed. Said of a horse and the like; and of a ship; and of the sun and a star. It acts as, or in a similar manner to it; acts in his stead; a commissioned agent; a factor; a deputy because he runs in the affairs of him who appoints him, or acts in his stead; the eel.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume two, pp. 415 - 416
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 96 -97

Hence?.you can see for yourself that 55.5 is describing another phenomenon?.

Thanks?

shuaib

apple pie,

It's interesting how you pick and choose what to respond to... still no apology? tsk tsk... what would jesus say. anyway,

Omar?s Dictionary integrates a plethora of high quality lexicography?.one of which, you even want to ?quote? from, in order to ?support? your position?

I have no clue what you are implying. I've stated I find that book to be inaccurate, and I've stated my reasons. End of story. Use other sources.

I already did this before; however, here is an expanded version for your viewing pleasure?

I guess you misunderstood... in my last post, I said regarding those quotes that "I find it hard to believe Lane would be so far off from the sources he claims to use."

Lane claims to use lisaan and taaj as his primary sources, so to give me a quote which is SO far off base compared to those primary sources leads me to believe that you ARE NOT quoting word for word from Lane's. Of course, to prove this I need an outside viewer who has access to Lane's. In any case, Lisaan and Taaj hold a higher standing and hold more weight.

Now?.this is most interesting?

Lisan al-Arab is an Arabic publication.

You already admitted that you don?t know Arabic?.and here you are attempting to quote from it??!

What's even more interesting is how careless you are in your posts, and presumptuous. I previously stated I was not an Arab. HOWEVER, I DO speak/read classical Arabic.

So try not to confuse the matter.. I just quoted classical lexicon definitions which have totally destroyed your argument. Any questions?

Perhaps you need to educate yourself regarding the concomitance markers ?wa? and the sequence markers ?fa?, before you draw an uninformed conclusion.

Those are linking words indeed, but can be often thought of as the English word AND. Let me show you your logical folly.

The boy went to the store. AND there he bought some bread.

According to your logic, the boy is a kind of bread! Fa can sometimes be thought of as the English word so, and a similar example can be given to show how flawed your logic is.

The boy had no money. So he could not buy the candy.

According to your logic, since candy is composed of sugar, therefore, money is also composed of sugar. Do you realize the absurdity of your arguments yet?

The sun and the moon are not the Jinn themselves, however, they are related to the Jinn, hence the juxtaposition of the words?

Yes, you have stated time and time again that in your world, the mere juxtapositioning of words is good enough to make them related in linguistic meaning. Time and time again I have tried to explain how ridiculous this is. Shall we continue to go in circles??

If ?orbits? of the sun and the moon was the intent of this ayah, then it would have followed the trend previously established in the Koran as seen here (you then go on to quote verses using the word yajree

Again, you show that your only purpose to read the Quran is to find cannon fodder for your crusade... Do you believe it possible that God describe the sun and moon with different descriptions?? Of course, these are moving bodies, and that is what yajree implies. But husbaan ADDS to that meaning by explaining that their motions are 'ala hisaab, checked, counted, etc. The same thing can be described by Allah with different words with different shades of meaning.

Again, this is not MY opinion, I have already quoted directly from Lisaan, and that page in lisaan discussed the EXACT verse in question!

So to summarize, you are wrong because

You use inaccurate sources (and also ignore quotes from accurate sources)
You use faulty logic.

Finally, let me restate

AND LASTLY, you ought to at LEAST admit that Lane's is not directly saying that jinn are demonic locusts. It is obvious that it is your own interpretation using surah 55... all you did was quote some source that husbaan meant locusts... your sources (even the faulty QD) DO NOT directly list locusts as a meaning of jinn. Just admit that you're deriving this meaning yourself, that's all. There's no need to hide that simple fact.

unknownuser

Greetings shuaib,

Thanks for your reply?

Quote
Omar?s Dictionary integrates a plethora of high quality lexicography?.one of which, you even want to ?quote? from, in order to ?support? your position?

I have no clue what you are implying. I've stated I find that book to be inaccurate, and I've stated my reasons. End of story. Use other sources.

Omar?s work is built around Lisan al-Arab?

Thus, if you want to lambaste Omar, then you are also lambasting the very source that you are quoting for your ?position??

End of story.

Quote
I already did this before; however, here is an expanded version for your viewing pleasure?

I guess you misunderstood... in my last post, I said regarding those quotes that "I find it hard to believe Lane would be so far off from the sources he claims to use."

Lane claims to use lisaan and taaj as his primary sources, so to give me a quote which is SO far off base compared to those primary sources leads me to believe that you ARE NOT quoting word for word from Lane's.

Wrong.

Lanes tells us that he utilized the Ta?j el-?Aroos as his main medium.

Of course, to prove this I need an outside viewer who has access to Lane's.

Then ask brother Wakas? wink

In any case, Lisaan and Taaj hold a higher standing and hold more weight.

You have just dead-ended your very own lame claim.

Quote
Now?.this is most interesting?

Lisan al-Arab is an Arabic publication.

You already admitted that you don?t know Arabic?.and here you are attempting to quote from it??!

What's even more interesting is how careless you are in your posts, and presumptuous. I previously stated I was not an Arab. HOWEVER, I DO speak/read classical Arabic.

Your story changes every day?

So try not to confuse the matter.. I just quoted classical lexicon definitions which have totally destroyed your argument. Any questions?

Yeah?.

Where was this??

Quote
Perhaps you need to educate yourself regarding the concomitance markers ?wa? and the sequence markers ?fa?, before you draw an uninformed conclusion.

Those are linking words indeed, but can be often thought of as the English word AND. Let me show you your logical folly.

The boy went to the store. AND there he bought some bread.

According to your logic, the boy is a kind of bread!

Let?s review your ignorance?

= ?wa?

?wa? definition

An inseparable prefixed conjunction; and; also; but; whilst, at; together; with; together with. It is used as a conjunction, unrestricted conjunction, and is expressive of concomitance, particle used for swearing (by God).

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 3049
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 599
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 156
Arabic English Dictionary, J.G. Hava, p. 845 - 846

Conjunction

An uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, clauses, phrases, or words

The act or an instance of conjoining the state of being conjoined; to join together (as separate entities) for a common purpose; Combination.

Occurrence together in time or space Concurrence; the simultaneous occurrence of events or circumstances.

Concomitance

Accompaniment; an addition intended to give completeness or symmetry; compliment; an accompanying situation or occurrence.

Thus?.your boy is not a ?kind of bread? that you want to make him out to be.

Your example would have the boy in the store at the SAME TIME as he was buying the bread.

Understand?.?

Fa can sometimes be thought of as the English word so, and a similar example can be given to show how flawed your logic is.

The boy had no money. So he could not buy the candy.

According to your logic, since candy is composed of sugar, therefore, money is also composed of sugar. Do you realize the absurdity of your arguments yet?

Let?s review more of your ignorance?

= ?fa?

?fa? definition

A prefixed conjunction particle having conjunctive power. It implies a close connection between the sentences before and after it. This connection may be either definite cause and effect or a natural sequence of events signifying; And, Then; For; Therefore; So that; So; In order that; In that case; In consequence; Afterwards; At least; Lest; Because; For fear of; Truly, After, By; But; Thus; Consequently; In order to. It is also expletive, and a prefix to other particles.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, pp. 2321 - 2323
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 414

Thus?.the CONSEQUENCE of your boy having no money, he is unable to buy the candy.

Understand?.?

Put some effort into your replies? wink

Quote
The sun and the moon are not the Jinn themselves, however, they are related to the Jinn, hence the juxtaposition of the words?

Yes, you have stated time and time again that in your world, the mere juxtapositioning of words is good enough to make them related in linguistic meaning. Time and time again I have tried to explain how ridiculous this is. Shall we continue to go in circles??

Perhaps you could back up your empty assertions?.for once?.

Quote
If ?orbits? of the sun and the moon was the intent of this ayah, then it would have followed the trend previously established in the Koran as seen here (you then go on to quote verses using the word yajree

Again, you show that your only purpose to read the Quran is to find cannon fodder for your crusade...

Call your book of faith whatever you want?.

Do you believe it possible that God describe the sun and moon with different descriptions??

First of all, since you are referring to the Koran, then it would be ?god??lower case, g?.unless, of course, you acknowledge Jesus as your Lord and Savior such as the authors who penned the original Koranic text, did.

Secondly, if you believe this ayah to mean something else, then where are your examples to back up your hollow assertion?..?

Of course, these are moving bodies, and that is what yajree implies.

Show us?.

But husbaan ADDS to that meaning by explaining that their motions are 'ala hisaab, checked, counted, etc.

Wrong.

= ?bi?

?bi? definition

An inseparable preposition With the help of; During; For; By; On account of; According to; In; From. It also denotes the object of a transitive verb and supports the subject that is termed ?zaidah? (additional). It is also used as a corroborative to confirm and to make more certain.

Reference

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 40 - 41

= ?bi? + ?husbanin? = ?bihusbanin? = on account of the locusts

Looks like you need more study time?

The same thing can be described by Allah with different words with different shades of meaning.

If you believe this, then where are your examples to back up your hollow assertion??

Again, this is not MY opinion, I have already quoted directly from Lisaan, and that page in lisaan discussed the EXACT verse in question!

Now that you have satisfied yourself?.run along?.

Thanks?

shuaib

apple pie,

What a shame. It's clear from your last post that you have no interest in pursuing an intellectual discussion regarding this matter. But then I dont blame you; you've reached a dead-end and have nothing better to say now.

Thus, if you want to lambaste Omar, then you are also lambasting the very source that you are quoting for your ?position??

No actually, I've read Lisaan and I have no problem with it. I've also read some of QD however, like the examples I quoted, which has grave MISTAKES. It is NOT FAITHFULLY representing Lisaan or other lexicons, and its author appears to be ignorant of basic Arabic grammar.

Lanes tells us that he utilized the Ta?j el-?Aroos as his main medium.

This displays the depth of your ignorance, Let me ask you, do you think Lane ENTIRELY ignored Lisaan as a PRIMARY source? One can use MULTIPLE primary sources. I am well aware though that of his primary sources, he stuck to Taaj.

HOWEVER, were you aware that Taaj has large derivations/quotes from Lisaan? So it's impossible that Lane did not at least indirectly rely on Lisaan.

But as they say, like a drowning man you are clutching at straws. Allow me to pull the last straws from your hand

JINN, primary meaning something hidden, TAAJ-UL-AROOS vol 9 page 163-166

HUSBAAN, again the EXACT same verse 555 cited in TAAJ-UL-AROOS claiming that it refers to a fixed/counted path/accounted for, vol 1 page 210.

So now, I have quoted references from both Lisaan and Taaj that contradict your definitions, HENCE destroy your argument. Any questions NOW?

CHALLENGE! riddle me this! Why, pray tell, are these 2 words which are close in alphabet (jeem vs ha), so far apart in this 10 volume set? I doubt you would know, which would further display how little true experience you have of the language.

Your story changes every day?

Wow... as if you hadn't created a bad enough impression upon Christianity already... would you now resort to lying as well?? Show me where I said I didn't speak Arabic, if you tell the truth. If you can't show that then you must agree that you are a liar.

Tsk tsk tsk, what is Jesus going to do with you hmm? How about paying more attention to your Bible, rather than attacking the Quran.

As far as your replies to "fa" and "wa," it is HARDLY worthy of a response. It's clear you do not understand Arabic grammar. Could you even begin to understand that waw exists in 3 grammatical forms, waw al-m3iyya, waw al-haal, and waw harf 3tf? Do you know WHICH waw is used in which scenario?

Your example would have the boy in the store at the SAME TIME as he was buying the bread.

Can you even begin to fathom your ignorance, since only one type of waw indicates concomitance?

Now let's look at your ENGLISH grammar.

Let?s review more of your ignorance?

= ?fa?

?fa? definition

A prefixed conjunction particle having conjunctive power. It implies a close connection between the sentences before and after it. This connection may be either definite cause and effect or a natural sequence of events signifying; And, Then; For; Therefore; So that; So; In order that; In that case; In consequence; Afterwards; At least; Lest; Because; For fear of; Truly, After, By; But; Thus; Consequently; In order to. It is also expletive, and a prefix to other particles.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, pp. 2321 - 2323
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 414

Thus?.the CONSEQUENCE of your boy having no money, he is unable to buy the candy.

Let's review your ignorance of English grammar. My example used the English word SO.

Webster's dictionary says

1 a in a manner or way indicated or suggested <do you really think so> -- often used as a substitute for a preceding clause <are you ready? I think so> b in the same manner or way ALSO <worked hard and so did she> c THUS <for so the Lord said -- Isaiah 184 (Authorized Version)> d THEN, SUBSEQUENTLY <and so home and to bed>
2 a to an indicated or suggested extent or degree <had never been so happy> b to a great extent or degree VERY, EXTREMELY <loves her so> c to a definite but unspecified extent or degree <can only do so much in a day> d most certainly INDEED <you did so do it>
3 THEREFORE, CONSEQUENTLY <the witness is biased and so unreliable>

This is a good example of how it's not enough to just have access to dictionaries/lexicons. You have to have the brains to use them too, otherwise you wouldn't say such silly things. Not only are you entirely ignorant of Arabic grammar, you appear to lack skill in English grammar as well now.

SO, I believe this concludes our most interesting discourse. There's nothing more needed to say because it's clear you refuse to accept Lisaan and Taaj lexicon meanings...

You use inaccurate sources (and also ignore quotes from accurate sources)

and have very little understanding of both Arabic and English grammar, which negatively impacts your ability to make logical statements.

You use faulty logic.

Nice talking to you, and I may respond in the future if you have something new and worthwhile to say.

unknownuser

Greetings shuaib,

Let?s look at your exit post?

Quote
Thus, if you want to lambaste Omar, then you are also lambasting the very source that you are quoting for your ?position??

No actually, I've read Lisaan and I have no problem with it. I've also read some of QD however, like the examples I quoted, which has grave MISTAKES. It is NOT FAITHFULLY representing Lisaan or other lexicons, and its author appears to be ignorant of basic Arabic grammar.

Apparently, you don?t realize that Omar?s Dictionary is an integration of classic Arabic lexicography, same as Lane?s Lexicon?

Again, of you want to denounce Omar, then you are also denouncing Lisan al-Arab?

Quote
Lanes tells us that he utilized the Ta?j el-?Aroos as his main medium.

This displays the depth of your ignorance, Let me ask you, do you think Lane ENTIRELY ignored Lisaan as a PRIMARY source? One can use MULTIPLE primary sources. I am well aware though that of his primary sources, he stuck to Taaj.

First of all, thanks for acknowledging that Lane used the Ta?j el-?Aroos as a primary source. wink

Hence, you have NO leg to stand on, as you already gave your ?blessing? upon the Ta?j el-?Aroos.

Lane, like Omar, utilized numerous sources, including Lisan?

HOWEVER, were you aware that Taaj has large derivations/quotes from Lisaan? So it's impossible that Lane did not at least indirectly rely on Lisaan.

Who ever said that he didn?t?..?

But as they say, like a drowning man you are clutching at straws. Allow me to pull the last straws from your hand

JINN, primary meaning something hidden, TAAJ-UL-AROOS vol 9 page 163-166

HUSBAAN, again the EXACT same verse 555 cited in TAAJ-UL-AROOS claiming that it refers to a fixed/counted path/accounted for, vol 1 page 210.

So now, I have quoted references from both Lisaan and Taaj that contradict your definitions, HENCE destroy your argument. Any questions NOW?

Observe the word of God, the Holy Bible?

Rev 9.3

kai ek tou kapnou exhlqon akrides eis thn ghn kai edoqh autais exousia ws ecousin exousian oi skorpioi ths ghs

And out of the smoke came forth locusts to the earth, and was given to them authority, as have authority the scorpions of the earth.

= ?skorpios? (skor-pee'-os)

?skorpios? definition

Strong?s #4651. Probably from an obsolete skerpo (perhaps strengthened from the base of - skopos 4649 and meaning to pierce); a "scorpion" (from its sting)--scorpion.

Strong?s #4649. From skeptomai (to peer about ("skeptic"); perhaps akin to - skapto 4626 through the idea of concealment; compare 4629); a watch (sentry or scout), i.e. (by implication) a goal--mark.

Strong?s #4626. Apparently a primary verb; to dig--dig.

Strong?s #4629. skepasma skep'-as-mah from a derivative of skepas (a covering; perhaps akin to the base of - skopos 4649 through the idea of noticeableness); clothing--raiment.

Observe the imitation, the Koran...

= ?janna?

?janna? definition

Singular. Masculine. Overshadowed; Covered, to be dark, cover, wrap, conceal, be mad, dark, be hidden to, be excited, veiling, or concealing from the sense, intelligent invisible bodies predominantly of the fiery or of the aerial quality, diabolical or demonical; a great serpent.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume two, pp. 462 - 464
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 104 - 105

Observe that the Biblical demonic locusts and the Jinn share these same attributes

Concealment
Covered

Obviously, the definition of the jinn meaning hidden/concealed/covered, from the Ta?j el-?Aroos, is a valid one....indeed!

Quote
Your story changes every day?

Wow... as if you hadn't created a bad enough impression upon Christianity already... would you now resort to lying as well?? Show me where I said I didn't speak Arabic, if you tell the truth. If you can't show that then you must agree that you are a liar.

Pleasure?

Posted Mon May 09, 2005 227 am

Jokes on you friend, for assuming I speak colloquial Arabic. I am not an arab. But why don?t you enlighten us on how colloquial, modern and classical Arabic differ in the terms ya?teekum and minkum. (this is obviously a rhetorical question, they don?t differ on those particular terms). My point was that asking someone to exegete a sentence like "the boy went to the store," makes you seem rather foolish. The meaning of that verse was OBVIOUS, no reading in between the lines is needed.

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45371#45371

Tsk tsk tsk, what is Jesus going to do with you hmm? How about paying more attention to your Bible, rather than attacking the Quran.

Looks like you are on the defensive now?

Please tell us how exposing the truth behind the classic Arabic is somehow an ?attack? on your book of faith? wink

Time to put aside the Islamic propaganda and see what your book of faith states on the matter?

Something that you have never done before?.and are reluctant to do now?

As far as your replies to "fa" and "wa," it is HARDLY worthy of a response. It's clear you do not understand Arabic grammar. Could you even begin to understand that waw exists in 3 grammatical forms, waw al-m3iyya, waw al-haal, and waw harf 3tf? Do you know WHICH waw is used in which scenario?

Apparently I do, as you could not even give us an Arabic example to back up your assertion.

Now?..you are running away?

Quote
Your example would have the boy in the store at the SAME TIME as he was buying the bread.

Can you even begin to fathom your ignorance, since only one type of waw indicates concomitance?

Bring forth your referenced position?

Now let's look at your ENGLISH grammar.

Quote
Let?s review more of your ignorance?

= ?fa?

?fa? definition

A prefixed conjunction particle having conjunctive power. It implies a close connection between the sentences before and after it. This connection may be either definite cause and effect or a natural sequence of events signifying; And, Then; For; Therefore; So that; So; In order that; In that case; In consequence; Afterwards; At least; Lest; Because; For fear of; Truly, After, By; But; Thus; Consequently; In order to. It is also expletive, and a prefix to other particles.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, pp. 2321 - 2323
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 414

Thus?.the CONSEQUENCE of your boy having no money, he is unable to buy the candy.

Let's review your ignorance of English grammar. My example used the English word SO.

Webster's dictionary says
Quote
1 a in a manner or way indicated or suggested <do you really think so> -- often used as a substitute for a preceding clause <are you ready? I think so> b in the same manner or way ALSO <worked hard and so did she> c THUS <for so the Lord said -- Isaiah 184 (Authorized Version)> d THEN, SUBSEQUENTLY <and so home and to bed>
2 a to an indicated or suggested extent or degree <had never been so happy> b to a great extent or degree VERY, EXTREMELY <loves her so> c to a definite but unspecified extent or degree <can only do so much in a day> d most certainly INDEED <you did so do it>
3 THEREFORE, CONSEQUENTLY <the witness is biased and so unreliable>

This is a good example of how it's not enough to just have access to dictionaries/lexicons. You have to have the brains to use them too, otherwise you wouldn't say such silly things. Not only are you entirely ignorant of Arabic grammar, you appear to lack skill in English grammar as well now.

Take a nice, long, hard look at the definition that you posted as it states the very same thing that I posted?

Perhaps your rage has affected your eyesight.

lol

SO, I believe this concludes our most interesting discourse. There's nothing more needed to say because it's clear you refuse to accept Lisaan and Taaj lexicon meanings...

Who ever said that I do not accept these as valid sources?.?

You use inaccurate sources (and also ignore quotes from accurate sources)

So now Lisan and Ta?j el-?Aroos are ?inaccurate??..?

and have very little understanding of both Arabic and English grammar, which negatively impacts your ability to make logical statements.

Where is your evidence of this?.?

You use faulty logic.

Do you even know what logic is?.?

Thanks?

shuaib

apple pie,

well i lied, despite the fact that you had nothing new or of value to say, i will just say some more last words just to illustrate to you why i am losing interest in this discussion with you.

You have poor reading skills

you quoted me saying this

Jokes on you friend, for assuming I speak colloquial Arabic. I am not an arab. But why don?t you enlighten us on how colloquial, modern and classical Arabic differ in the terms ya?teekum and minkum. (this is obviously a rhetorical question, they don?t differ on those particular terms). My point was that asking someone to exegete a sentence like "the boy went to the store," makes you seem rather foolish. The meaning of that verse was OBVIOUS, no reading in between the lines is needed.

Did I say I don't speak Arabic? No.. and I went on to explain that classical modern and colloquial don't differ on SOME simple terms... which to any REASONABLE person would indicate i DO speak Arabic, but scholastically learned (modern or classical), just not colloquial.

You say things without thought.

Before, you posted about jinn being from smoke and in the same sentence claiming they are free from smoke.

NOW, your original COMPLAINT about my English examples was that the ENGLISH word SO is not equivalent to the Arabic word FA.

You proposed that instead, the sentence should be thus

Thus?.the CONSEQUENCE of your boy having no money, he is unable to buy the candy.

I posted your definition, and the definition of the English word SO. Lo and behold, in BOTH definitions, subsequence and consequence are mentioned... MEANING, "fa" and "so" can be thought of as equivalent since they BOTH can mean CONSEQUENCE.

Was that a bit too complex for you?

I'm beginning to think you play stupid simply to degenerate the discussion when it's not going your way, another reason I have lost interest.

Apparently I do, as you could not even give us an Arabic example to back up your assertion.

What good is it to give an Arabic example to someone who has not even a simple understanding of grammar? I won't waste my time teaching you... you can go and learn it yourself if you are serious. The books are out there!

The fact that you could not respond to my challenge, NOR do you have the slightest idea about the grammar of "wa," just reveals to any observer that you simply have no real knowledge. Do you think ANY muslim observing our discussion would take you seriously now?

So now Lisan and Ta?j el-?Aroos are ?inaccurate??..?

No, my brlliant friend. As was abundantly clear from my previous posts... the ONLY source I have said was inaccurate, is QD by Omar.

Lisaan and TAAJ, however, MAKE NO MENTION OF LOCUSTS. Erase the concept of locusts from your "exegesis," since you have NO RELIABLE support for it. In the past 4 posts, after being shown DIRECT PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE to contradict your claims... all you've been able to do is repeat youself... AHEM... dead-end??

It's an interesting trait, really... that Christians have developed. They seem to continue their diatribes without missing a beat, regardless of the number of blatant contradictions you point out. You seem to have mastered this feat quite well yourself.

But again, I see that you're probably playing dumb to just make the discussion go in circles.

And, of course, the final reason is that your posts are filled with wise-cracks and you clearly have no intention of EVER admitting fault, even after blatantly disobeying your own religion in terms of manners. Your extreme arrogance to the point of refusing to apologize after making practically racist statements should reveal your own soul to you.

What's the point in ANYONE carrying a discussion with someone like that?

unknownuser

Greeting shuaib,

Back so soon?..?

apple pie,

well i lied, despite the fact that you had nothing new or of value to say, i will just say some more last words just to illustrate to you why i am losing interest in this discussion with you.

Who would have guessed?? roll

Before, you posted about jinn being from smoke and in the same sentence claiming they are free from smoke.

NOW, your original COMPLAINT about my English examples was that the ENGLISH word SO is not equivalent to the Arabic word FA.

You proposed that instead, the sentence should be thus
Quote
Thus?.the CONSEQUENCE of your boy having no money, he is unable to buy the candy.

I posted your definition, and the definition of the English word SO. Lo and behold, in BOTH definitions, subsequence and consequence are mentioned... MEANING, "fa" and "so" can be thought of as equivalent since they BOTH can mean CONSEQUENCE.

Was that a bit too complex for you?

I'm beginning to think you play stupid simply to degenerate the discussion when it's not going your way, another reason I have lost interest.

Perhaps you need to calm down, get a grip, and re-read my point?

My clarification is regarding the incorrect illustration of your English ?boy? examples?

Quote
Apparently I do, as you could not even give us an Arabic example to back up your assertion.

What good is it to give an Arabic example to someone who has not even a simple understanding of grammar? I won't waste my time teaching you... you can go and learn it yourself if you are serious. The books are out there!

Once again?.you don?t have the time to adequately demonstrate your position?signifying its inherent weakness? wink

The fact that you could not respond to my challenge, NOR do you have the slightest idea about the grammar of "wa," just reveals to any observer that you simply have no real knowledge. Do you think ANY muslim observing our discussion would take you seriously now?

We are awaiting your Koranic examples?.

Quote
So now Lisan and Ta?j el-?Aroos are ?inaccurate??..?

No, my brlliant friend. As was abundantly clear from my previous posts... the ONLY source I have said was inaccurate, is QD by Omar.

And your assessment is based upon what criteria?.that you have a personal bias against the man?and you don?t think that he is a Muslim?..?

Give us a break?

Lisaan and TAAJ, however, MAKE NO MENTION OF LOCUSTS.

Erase the concept of locusts from your "exegesis," since you have NO RELIABLE support for it. In the past 4 posts, after being shown DIRECT PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE to contradict your claims... all you've been able to do is repeat youself... AHEM... dead-end??

Lane lists the following three independent sources that support Locusts for the definition

Aboo-Ziya?d
The ?Siha?h?
The ?Ka?moos?

It?s not looking too good for you?

It's an interesting trait, really... that Christians have developed. They seem to continue their diatribes without missing a beat, regardless of the number of blatant contradictions you point out. You seem to have mastered this feat quite well yourself.

But again, I see that you're probably playing dumb to just make the discussion go in circles.

And, of course, the final reason is that your posts are filled with wise-cracks and you clearly have no intention of EVER admitting fault, even after blatantly disobeying your own religion in terms of manners. Your extreme arrogance to the point of refusing to apologize after making practically racist statements should reveal your own soul to you.

What's the point in ANYONE carrying a discussion with someone like that?

We can see that you keep slavishly coming back for more, time and again?

What?s up with that?.?

Thanks?

shuaib

salams br wakas,

you were certainly right about not reading apple pie's posts. i think i will join your ranks.. i previously thought well i'll now just respond if he says something new... but i think given his demeanor, it's best just to ignore and carry on fruitful discussions amongst ourselves. As you said before, simply checking his references is enough to disprove his points. I recommend the same course of action to others here, lest you find you have spent all this energy and in the end get nowhere.

getting back to the original point of this thread, I too have to disagree with noor's comments on the term "rab al-alameen."

In Arabic, it is not uncommon for some words to have BOTH jam3 takseer AND jam3 salim forms. So her comment about the grammar of 3aalameen is incorrent. Also, the meaning of rabb also as "superlative," is also incorrect if you check any lexicon.

I'll mention this as well, to perhaps give sister noor an explanation for WHY 3aalameen comes mostly in the plural form in the Quran. It is, IMHO, from what I have studied about linguistic techniques, a method of emphasis. Compared to "Rab-al-3alam," rab-al-3aalameen is a more powerful statement, with the effect that there is truly nothing that Allah is not the RABB of.

unknownuser

worlds and universes are two different words. to be in "your own world" is one thing and to be in "your own universe" is something very undefined