Iblis?
-
For those who deny the exitance of the Malaika as creatures with wings, I can say that your ignorance is laughable, forget the Bible, here it is from the Quran,
Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs) He adds to Creation as He pleases for Allah has power over all things
(1)
351
what else we can have as an evidence?
I seek Allah's help to help those who believe in that flawed understanding about the Malaika
and I have to say, well done Satan. you know very well what to do to flaw the believers, you never fail to impress me, well if you flawed all the jews and all the christians, what will make the muslims untouchable to your mighty deception? i guess they all ara human and will not escape your deception
-
Peace,
This might be off topic, but there are such things as 'messenger particles' in pairs...
I seek Allah's help to help those who believe in that flawed understanding about the Malaika
This is very strange. After reading AB's posts, I'll just say one thing...you can't teach someone logic.
-
Salam brother Ayman,
If you read all verses which speak about the God and His malaika, you can see that those from human (messenger, prophet, kings..) who were given almulk are not at the same level than the God's malaika.
All what I can say those who were given almulk are not the God's malaika according the context of the whole occurence of malaika in the Reading. Neither Pharaon nor Abraham nor Joseph were the God's malaika because of their mulk.
I think our divergence comes from the definition you attribute to malak. All detail are given in the Reading, the control which is given to the malaika is specific and different than the control given to the human.
I have a question for you, we are asked to believe in the God's malaika, Does it mean that we should believe on each one who is given the mulk?
Do you think that The God cannot take the "mlk" away from any of the "malaika" if He decides to? I certainly hope not.
Both Iblis and Adam were driven out aljannat , neither Iblis nor Adam lost their status (jinn and human being/successor respectively) before and after their disobedience. In the light of the Reading, both they lost the paradise. If you consider the paradise as their mulk, then we agree )
This is my own undestanding at this stage.
Salam
-
Peace,
This might be off topic, but there are such things as 'messenger particles' in pairs...
I seek Allah's help to help those who believe in that flawed understanding about the Malaika
This is very strange. After reading AB's posts, I'll just say one thing...you can't teach someone logic.
Peace
can you elaborate in relation to reading AB's posts please
thanks
-
Peace AB,
For those who deny the exitance of the Malaika as creatures with wings, I can say that your ignorance is laughable, forget the Bible, here it is from the Quran,
Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs) He adds to Creation as He pleases for Allah has power over all things
(1)351
what else we can have as an evidence?Try to look for evidence in 1724, 1588, 26215, etc. where the word "gina7" (single wing) is used in relation to humans. Perhaps you will now claim that humans have wings like those of birds ) .
I am certain that the "wings" of the controllers are nothing like the wings of birds or airplanes. If humans can invent rockets and lavitating super magnets and theorize about anti-gravity then I am sure that the controllers have a much more effective way than flying and flapping around. If you believe that the controllers have wings like birds that they use for flying around then you might as well believe in Santa Claus and his flying deers.
1795 makes it clear that had the earth been inhabited by controllers/"malaika", then they would WALK. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. It is clear that those wings of the controllers are NOTHING like the physical wings of birds that we know of. It is simply an example that The God gives us.
Notice that when it comes to wings, humans are always described as having only ONE wing. On the other hand, the controllers start with a minimum of two. So they have one wing like us plus another one at the least. Try to understand what it is that you should lower for your parents and you will understand what a "wing" is.
I seek Allah's help to help those who believe in that flawed understanding about the Malaika
and I have to say, well done Satan. you know very well what to do to flaw the believers, you never fail to impress me, well if you flawed all the jews and all the christians, what will make the muslims untouchable to your mighty deception? i guess they all ara human and will not escape your deceptionIblis has no power on those who serve The God, THE TRUTH alone. As for those who serve Biblical fairy tales they inherited from their forefathers, well you are right.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Ayman
look mate, if the word means something else in the other verses, that means we have two possibilities for the word Janah
why it has to be the other one you chose?
well based on a hadith by the prophet that I believe in firmly, Gebril has handreds of wings
now you can call me an idiot and following conjuecture
thanks
-
Peace sister Marie,
If you read all verses which speak about the God and His malaika, you can see that those from human (messenger, prophet, kings..) who were given almulk are not at the same level than the God's malaika.
I agree "mlk"/control/ownership is limited. In this low life the control we are given is very little compared to what The God has to offer. The controllers are not limited by this low life.
All what I can say those who were given almulk are not the God's malaika according the context of the whole occurence of malaika in the Reading. Neither Pharaon nor Abraham nor Joseph were the God's malaika because of their mulk.
Yes they were not The God's controllers. They were given some control in the low life. The control that is at The God is a much higher level of control.
Let me give you an example. We know from 230 that the controllers know how to see the future. Since everything they know, they were taught by The God, then this is a kind of control that He gave them.
Similarly, Joseph was given a limited ability to know about the future through dreams. This is also a kind of control and he used this to prevent famine and thus saved many lives.
Now if you were given this control/"mlk" of being able to know the future, what would you do with it?
a. Play the lottery and win every time and become the richest woman in the world.
b. Find a future cure for cancer and all deseases today and save millions of lives.
c. Get rid of all future tyrants before they grow up and wreck havoc.
d. Do nothing.If you choose (a), well you are controling the future to serve your self interest.
If you choose (b), well it sounds great but then perhaps the people you saved will now live longer and healthier and they will forget about death and be made arrogant by this low life. As a result many more of them will go to hell.
If you choose (c), you would be doing like 1880-81.
If you choose (d), the most important future event we should know about is what happens after death. However, the difference is that now that you can see the future your heart would be tearing apart over fellow humans and especially your loved ones who may be going to hell. So would you go yelling to people and tell them to have faith in The God and reject all the partners that they set up and perhaps try to destroy the Kaaba. Of course, they would probably think your crazy and put you in an institution. So you would be warning people as you do now. In other words, nothing changes.
I think our divergence comes from the definition you attribute to malak. All detail are given in the Reading, the control which is given to the malaika is specific and different than the control given to the human.
Yes, I agree it is a different level of control. We only have one wing.
Please tell us how you translate "malak" so that I know how you are diverting from my definition and see if we can reconcile it.
I have a question for you, we are asked to believe in the God's malaika, Does it mean that we should believe on each one who is given the mulk?
No. As you said, they are The God's controllers. Bukhari is in a way a messenger. He took some words from people and passed them to us. The God gave him the ability to speak and write down this message. However, he is not The God's messenger. So we are not to have faith in him or his message. Similarly, The God gives people control. However, they are not The God's controllers. They mostly use the control that He gave them to amass wealth and serve their own benefit.
Do you think that The God cannot take the "mlk" away from any of the "malaika" if He decides to? I certainly hope not.
Both Iblis and Adam were driven out aljannat , neither Iblis nor Adam lost their status (jinn and human being/successor respectively) before and after their disobedience. In the light of the Reading, both they lost the paradise. If you consider the paradise as their mulk, then we agree
This is my own undestanding at this stage.
Thank you sister. I think that you are making me look at many new angles that I haven't thought of previously. In the paradise that Adam was in, he could only control his hunger, thirst, and temperature. That was the extent of his control. As for "iblis", we are only told that he was kicked out of "it". But we don't hear specifics about what kind of control he had. However, we know that he had knowledge of the future (717) and he can whisper to billions of people.
Thank you for your excellent and enriching debate and I look forward to more of your insights.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace,
why it has to be the other one you chose?
Why does it have to be the one you chose?
I'm not sure how knowledgeable you are in regards to the function of janah so I would like to hear your view in light of the quran.
Joe
Peace,
first of all, not just me who said the angels has wings, 95% at least of the Muslims for the last 1425 years starting from Mohammad stated as such, and sure that was based on the clear Arabic Quran, now from the Arabic I learnt Janah is literally wing, now I know it can be used in a metaphor style like 1724, but that is about it, and very rare indeed and must be singular if used as a metaphor
Janah means wing, and apply to birds, aeroplanes, or anything that has wings like a fly
the plural of "" is " " and sure if it was a metaphor then it should not be plural as we see in 351
(1)
Conclusion
It has to be wings because it is plural and Allah never specified the contrary as well the prophet confirmed that, now the prophet must have known for sure, didn't The Arch Angel meet him personally zillions of times?
Peace
-
Peace AB, all,
first of all, not just me who said the angels has wings, 95% at least of the Muslims for the last 1425 years starting from Mohammad stated as such
This only proves that you like to use logical fallacies such as appeal to popularity.
and sure that was based on the clear Arabic Quran, now from the Arabic I learnt Janah is literally wing, now I know it can be used in a metaphor style like 1724, but that is about it, and very rare indeed and must be singular if used as a metaphor
Janah means wing, and apply to birds, aeroplanes, or anything that has wings like a fly
the plural of "" is " " and sure if it was a metaphor then it should not be plural as we see in 351
(1)The passage clearly says two, THREE and four wings. You indicate above that those wings are actual non-metaphoric wings that are like the wings of birds and airplanes. Obviously, unlike your claim on another thread, you don't know anything about engineering. One doesn't even need to be an engineer to see the fact that in order to fly, there has to be symmetry in the wings. This is plain old common sense. This is why there are no birds or airplanes with THREE wings. So the wings in 351 must be metaphorical just like in 1724, 1588, 26215, etc.
Conclusion
It has to be wings because it is plural and Allah never specified the contrary as well the prophet confirmed that, now the prophet must have known for sure, didn't The Arch Angel meet him personally zillions of times?The prophet certainly didn't confirm your fairytales about mythical angels that have hundreds of actual wings, unless of course you take Bukhari and the like as your prophet.
You are free to believe in whatever nonsense you want to believe in, whether it is Bukhari or Biblical fairy tales, it doesn't matter. However, don't spew such nonsense on public forums and then when you are exposed get angry as you did on ALL the other threads where this has happened.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Peace AB, all,
first of all, not just me who said the angels has wings, 95% at least of the Muslims for the last 1425 years starting from Mohammad stated as such
This only proves that you like to use logical fallacies such as appeal to popularity.
and sure that was based on the clear Arabic Quran, now from the Arabic I learnt Janah is literally wing, now I know it can be used in a metaphor style like 1724, but that is about it, and very rare indeed and must be singular if used as a metaphor
Janah means wing, and apply to birds, aeroplanes, or anything that has wings like a fly
the plural of "" is " " and sure if it was a metaphor then it should not be plural as we see in 351
(1)The passage clearly says two, THREE and four wings. You indicate above that those wings are actual non-metaphoric wings that are like the wings of birds and airplanes. Obviously, unlike your claim on another thread, you don't know anything about engineering. One doesn't even need to be an engineer to see the fact that in order to fly, there has to be symmetry in the wings. This is plain old common sense. This is why there are no birds or airplanes with THREE wings. So the wings in 351 must be metaphorical just like in 1724, 1588, 26215, etc.
Conclusion
It has to be wings because it is plural and Allah never specified the contrary as well the prophet confirmed that, now the prophet must have known for sure, didn't The Arch Angel meet him personally zillions of times?The prophet certainly didn't confirm your fairytales about mythical angels that have hundreds of actual wings, unless of course you take Bukhari and the like as your prophet.
You are free to believe in whatever nonsense you want to believe in, whether it is Bukhari or Biblical fairy tales, it doesn't matter. However, don't spew such nonsense on public forums and then when you are exposed get angry as you did on ALL the other threads where this has happened.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
Ignored