Question for the people with knowledge
-
And don't listen to noon waalqami he doesn't know arabic. claiming that min can mean some in that sentence... bravo brickwall
What do you mean? I check his reply and i don't see some, i see min as of in his response. Check here.
peace, see thread https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8438.msg413877#msg413877
2164 and disperse therein min/of (type) kulli/every (individual) dabbatin/creature
2445 and the god creation kulla/every (individual) dabbatin/creature from water
1649-50 and to god yasjudu what in the heavens and what in the land min/of (type) dbbatin/creature (includes human type) wal-malikatu/and the controllers (various types) and they not arrogant being fearing lord theirs from above them and fulfilling what yu'marna/commanded being
P.S Noon knowlegde on Classical Arabic is good in my view. Look at his post on the Birmingham Quran manuscript https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607061.0
-
2-You can disagree that iblis is a malaka but then you'll have to disagree with 234.
But why in 1850 does it say Iblis was of the Jinn?
-
Here we can go deeper, does my body refers to me, so when it says creatures and Malaikah it refers to those all physical things.. and rest are our minds and the Jinn(invisible ones) , so here my body does prostrates to his commands true, same does all Malaikahs.. but the minds of some human and the Jinn does not always.
-
Peace Ju5.
Iblees being a Malaika is irrelevant. Stay on topic and discuss the contradiction you claim or are you trying to get out of the hole you are digging for yourself?
Then you say it is not your problem if Qoran is saying what you understand it to be saying. Of course it is your problem if you have the wrong understanding of Qoran.
If you do not care about anything else written in Qoran that is explaining to you your misunderstanding ,why on earth have you brought out this thread to claim you want to discuss with people of knowledge?
I consider this illogical and unfair from your part. You are sticking to your agenda and bias against what Qoran is saying in context.
I am therefore wasting my time with you since you have a bias towards digging deep for the truth.
GOD bless you.
Peace.Peace All.
I summarise the issue with brother Ju5 for the readers
I have shown him that 1649 deals with living creatures and Malaika submitting to GOD s plan and purpose including the humans who have free will, and compared with verse 1315,yet he singles out Malaika and assumes they do not have free will because he has an issue with Iblees disobeying.
Yet he says in his last post that he does not know whether Malaika have free will or not.
His is own lack of knowledge about the verse 1649 and about Malaika is creating the contradiction for him.I have also shown him the alternative which he claims as his understanding to be faulty by not considering the wording of "Min Dabbatin WA Malaika..."
What I find really sad is this statement from Ju5I don't know if malaika have free will or not in the qur'an as it is contradictory because in 1649 they obey and iblis disobeys in 234; I don't care about anything written anywhere else in the qur'an, in 234 allah commands MALAIKA and they obey EXCEPT iblis. You can disagree with me, the qur'an and your god if you want to. I don't need to single malaika from 1649. Maybe moving creatures means only animals. Or maybe Allah contradicts himself. in both cases he does. If you say malaika don't do what they are commanded, you contradict the qur'an as it is written in it.
This tells me the brother does not really want to discuss Qoran and what it is saying in context, he does not care about anything else written in Qoran!!!!
GOD bless.
Peace. -
Peace Ju5.
Iblees being a Malaika is irrelevant. Stay on topic and discuss the contradiction you claim or are you trying to get out of the hole you are digging for yourself?
Then you say it is not your problem if Qoran is saying what you understand it to be saying. Of course it is your problem if you have the wrong understanding of Qoran.
If you do not care about anything else written in Qoran that is explaining to you your misunderstanding ,why on earth have you brought out this thread to claim you want to discuss with people of knowledge?
I consider this illogical and unfair from your part. You are sticking to your agenda and bias against what Qoran is saying in context.
I am therefore wasting my time with you since you have a bias towards digging deep for the truth.
GOD bless you.
Peace.Peace All.
I summarise the issue with brother Ju5 for the readers
I have shown him that 1649 deals with living creatures and Malaika submitting to GOD s plan and purpose including the humans who have free will, and compared with verse 1315,yet he singles out Malaika and assumes they do not have free will because he has an issue with Iblees disobeying.
Yet he says in his last post that he does not know whether Malaika have free will or not.
His is own lack of knowledge about the verse 1649 and about Malaika is creating the contradiction for him.I have also shown him the alternative which he claims as his understanding to be faulty by not considering the wording of "Min Dabbatin WA Malaika..."
What I find really sad is this statement from Ju5I don't know if malaika have free will or not in the qur'an as it is contradictory because in 1649 they obey and iblis disobeys in 234; I don't care about anything written anywhere else in the qur'an, in 234 allah commands MALAIKA and they obey EXCEPT iblis. You can disagree with me, the qur'an and your god if you want to. I don't need to single malaika from 1649. Maybe moving creatures means only animals. Or maybe Allah contradicts himself. in both cases he does. If you say malaika don't do what they are commanded, you contradict the qur'an as it is written in it.
This tells me the brother does not really want to discuss Qoran and what it is saying in context, he does not care about anything else written in Qoran!!!!
GOD bless.
Peace.He even mocked brother Noon for not knowing Arabic which i honestly find it unfair.
-
As of right now, i have not seen a verse that says Jinn & Malaika are the same.
peace, see thread...
From PRL on JNN "Spiritual beings that conceal themselves from the senses (including angels)". As can be seen, jinn is a subset of malaika, in Classical Arabic dictionaries. What I have said is nothing new.
And don't listen to noon waalqami he doesn't know arabic. claiming that min can mean some in that sentence...
https//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%86
Preposition
? (min)of
some of
from, away from, out of
pertaining to1649-50 pertains to those who yasjudu
2218 did not see that the god yasjudu to him ...
and much (i.e. not all) mina/of l-nsi/the humankind2445 and the god creation kulla/every dabbatin min/of water
2725 all/that not yasjud to god ...
2960 and how many (i.e. not all) min/of dbbatin3110 and disperse therein min/of kulli/every dbbatin
8421 and when recited upon them the qur?an/recitation not yasjudnaWaiting for answer or did you not understand the question?
A simple YES/NO would suffice to determine brain function?Here's a simple logic test perhaps you'll finally see do these sentences contradict?
- People min/of Mexican heritage in America are humble and they obey the law
- Pablo (a Mexican immigrant living in America) is arrogant and disobeyed the law
-
1649-50 pertains to those who yasjudu
another defender of "allah doesn't speak of all malaika" do you have other magic tricks in your hat? allah insists that all things prostrate on earth and heaven, and you come "only those who", no there is no "only those"... only your desires and wishes
2218 did not see that the god yasjudu to him ...
and much (i.e. not all) mina/of l-nsi/the humankindfrom /among, refers to a limited number of humans... but this is indicated by "wakathrun"( many) before min, which is a quantitative indicator.... theres is no such indicator in 1649, you can't use min as "some" if there is no word indicating a quantity, in fact the min in 1649 refers to the fact that they are from what is in the earth and the heavens, hence "of"/"from".
You are right that it can mean among but there would have to be other words that it refers to a part of a group, again there is no such words in 1649.
noon waqalami is either fooling himself thinkinghe can guess arabic or is playing with the people -
noon waqalami is either fooling himself thinkinghe can guess arabic or is playing with the people
Final note on this " min/of" NEVER means " kulli/every" ...
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=kll#(24453)
-
noon waqalami is either fooling himself thinkinghe can guess arabic or is playing with the people
If you think that he is fooling people by guessing arabic (no idea what that means) or playing with us then please show us linguistic evidence of his "corruption"
-
@good logic
This tells me the brother does not really want to discuss Qoran and what it is saying in context, he does not care about anything else written in Qoran!!!!good logic, two statements contradict each other and you say let's look elsewhere in the qur'an to nullifiy this contradiction but to do this you <would need an explanation that would contradict one of the two statments, or either that shows that allah is very humanlike and doesn't really mean his words...
furthermore you didn't find anything that nullified these contradictory statements, you just have your own fantaisies...Iblees being a Malaika is irrelevant.
in fact it is a central matter in the contradiction
,yet he singles out Malaika and assumes they do not have free will because he has an issue with Iblees disobeying.
1-i did not single out anything, i am taking the qur'an as is
2-i don't assumle they dont have free will because i have an issue, i assume this because the qur'an says so1649 And to Allah prostrates whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth of creatures, and the angels , and they are not arrogant.
1650 They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded.
your claim is basically "this verse is metaphorical about the fact that everyone submits to the plan of allah" but the qur'an says obviously otherwise which is why i am arguing with you
They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded.
yeaaa.... child rapists are doing what allahs commands them according to good logic ... what can i say... good logic ! it was all a metaphor ! lets me type this in bold You have no ground to claim that this verse is metaphorical. 1315 is another verse, it looks similar because it speaks about heaven, earth and shadows, and it still doesn't mean 1650 is metaphorical, and 1650 does speak about malaika, i don't single out anything, it can also speak about moving creatures, but it does also speak about malaika. Saying otherwise would be a blatant lie. There is nothing metaphorical about a group of beings, being fearful, not arrogant and doing what they are commanded.I have already said those things, but you LOOK at my posts, you don't READ them.
Yet he says in his last post that he does not know whether Malaika have free will or not.
Of course i don't know since this is the contradiction. Do i have to pick 234, or 1650 ? Or should i fabricate according to my desires like you? -
your claim is basically "this verse is metaphorical about the fact that everyone submits to the plan of allah"
I don't remember him saying that.
-
becaus he says min can mean some in 1649 which is ovbiously not the case
Actually it does check his second last reply
peace, see thread...
https//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%86
Preposition
? (min)of
some of
from, away from, out of
pertaining to1649-50 pertains to those who yasjudu
2218 did not see that the god yasjudu to him ...
and much (i.e. not all) mina/of l-nsi/the humankind2445 and the god creation kulla/every dabbatin min/of water
2725 all/that not yasjud to god ...
2960 and how many (i.e. not all) min/of dbbatin3110 and disperse therein min/of kulli/every dbbatin
8421 and when recited upon them the qur?an/recitation not yasjudnaWaiting for answer or did you not understand the question?
A simple YES/NO would suffice to determine brain function? -
Quote from Ju5 on Today at 123025 PM
noon waqalami is either fooling himself thinkinghe can guess arabic or is playing with the peopleQuote from Noon waalqalami on Today at 122203 PM
Final note on this " min/of" NEVER means " kulli/every" ...http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=kll#(24453)
why do you want min to mean every?
And to Allah prostrates whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth of creatures, and the angels , and they are not arrogant.
you don't know arabic yet you keep pushing its pathetic
-
why do you want min to mean every?
And to Allah prostrates whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth of creatures, and the angels , and they are not arrogant.
you don't know arabic yet you keep pushing its pathetic
Wait hold on i'm looking at that reply and i don't see him saying min means every, he said " min/of" NEVER means " kulli/every"
-
you don't know arabic yet you keep pushing its pathetic
Come on Ju5 lay off with the insult, it will make this worse.
-
the sardar
Actually it does check his second last reply
ARE YOU EVEN BOTHERING to read my posts? brickwall brickwall brickwall
from /among, refers to a limited number of humans... but this is indicated by "wakathrun"( many) before min, which is a quantitative indicator.... theres is no such indicator in 1649, you can't use min as "some" if there is no word indicating a quantity, in fact the min in 1649 refers to the fact that they are from what is in the earth and the heavens, hence "of"/"from".
You are right that it can mean among but there would have to be other words that it refers to a part of a group, again there is no such words in 1649.
noon waqalami is either fooling himself thinkinghe can guess arabic or is playing with the peoplemin CAN NOT mean some in 16 49 why do you believe this guy??? you claim truthfulness but you believe anything without checking !
-
Wait hold on i'm looking at that reply and i don't see him saying min means every, he said " min/of" NEVER means " kulli/every"
dobn't pretend to be more dumb than you are he says it doesn't mean every just to save the qur'an from contradiction, in fact i never claimed that min meant every so why does he say that huh? think about it the sardar
-
the sardar
ARE YOU EVEN BOTHERING to read my posts? brickwall brickwall brickwall
min CAN NOT mean some in 16 49 why do you believe this guy??? you claim truthfulness but you believe anything without checking !
Dude calm down i checked the link that he provided and honestly he did show some good evidence. There is no for anger and if i have misread your posts then i apologize.
