Question for the people with knowledge

Ju5

because if you don't know a language you should not try to translate it as you will make a lot of mistakes

Noon_waalqalami

because it doesn't mention a group

Quote from Ju5 on Yesterday at 052125 PM
anyhow it is nominative so its about all of them

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=34784

1649 written with damma above last letter of word (i.e. nominative case which simply indicates the subject)

351 the praise to god originator the heavens and the land made l-malikati/the controllers

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=55907

written with kasra (-) below last letter of word (genitive indicates possession) and obviously also pertains to "all" or the group of controllers; hence what you wrote is baseless nothing to do with "all" nor were markings present/required in old manuscripts -- simply use context!

its just" the controllers are not arrogant and fearful"

no read in context and even so it does not help your case.

1648-50 do they not seeth they of (e.g. observe earthly shadows of entities plants, people, etc.) to what creation the god from thing inclined of shadows its to the right and the left sujjadan to god and/while they (i.e. entities which cast shadows) dkhirna/ignominy being and to god yasjudu what in the heavens and what in the land min/of (type) dbbatin/moving creature (includes human type) and the controllers (types) and they not arrogant being fearing lord theirs from above them and fulfilling what commanded being

Why would arabs change the meanings of words

Perhaps ask them (Copts or Arabic language teachers, etc.) about kalala or amount to give a sister (1/6 or 1/2?) or two sisters (1/3 or 2/3?) then you'll see how clueless they are and meanings were changed/stories made up to defraud.

The_Sardar

because if you don't know a language you should not try to translate it as you will make a lot of mistakes

So why do you think many of those who are trying to study arabic words in this forum are crooks? They are attempting to study without traditional bias, you even once said in the beginning of this forum that many of the skeptic anointed quran "contradictions are debatable/about bad translations/interpretations/blatantly false.

The_Sardar

Quote from Ju5 on Yesterday at 052125 PM
Perhaps ask them (Copts or Arabic language teachers, etc.) about kalala or amount to give a sister (1/6 or 1/2?) or two sisters (1/3 or 2/3?) then you'll see how clueless they are and meanings were changed/stories made up to defraud.

This i am sure you are referring to this post you made https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.0

Novice

Salaam huruf

And also anybody can verify without being a genius, simply by verifying, that all languages change meanings of words over time. Not of all words of course but at least of some, be it through usage, adaptation, fashion, contrivance...

If not so then Quran is not a universal message for the mankind.

In the case of the Qur'an, this can be seen without much difficulty simply by using plain common sense.

Quran is plain common sense but those who have sickness in heart are looking for problems with it.

226
(........

He let go astray with it a multitude and he guides with it a multitude and he does not let go astray but the "fasiqoon" (who do not want to live by God's law.)

If Ju5 think that we are wrong then

3425
(

You will not be questioned about our wrongs and we will not be questioned about what you do.

Novice

yet 234 and 1649 contradict themselves and there is nothing you can do but invoking metaphors or false arabic, too bad

and you say the old meanings were changed, yet you use often modern arabic to support your claims, when you don't blatantly use false meanings because you don't even use proper arabic as you have no real knowledge of this language

Sister Ju5

you seems to know others very well and also seem to have a claim to have real knowledge of Arabic.

there is no property rights on language

Still you think that non Arabs cannot know Arabic.

but you are not legitimate to give other meanings to words based on dictionaries as you have no solid arabic knowledge and do gross mistakes yet "parade" ( huruf ) about your newfound interpretations which saves the quran from contradiction and violence

See this is how meanings of Quran were changed my dear sister Ju5. Powerful people had been exercising their power to claim they had legitimacy to explain Quran as per their terms. Who make people legitimate to judge others?

The_Sardar

Sister Ju5

Still you think that non Arabs cannot know Arabic.

Actually i'm going have to correct you here, i haven't seen Ju5 saying that sentence that you are saying, he said this

In this forum non arabic speakers who think they can translate better than arabs themselves for 1400 years glorious.

The_Sardar

Sister Ju5

you seems to know others very well and also seem to have a claim to have real knowledge of Arabic.

Still you think that non Arabs cannot know Arabic.

See this is how meanings of Quran were changed my dear sister Ju5. Powerful people had been exercising their power to claim they had legitimacy to explain Quran as per their terms. Who make people legitimate to judge others?

Also i haven't seen Ju5 conforming his/her gender.

Noon_waalqalami

Sister Ju5

you seems to know others very well and also seem to have a claim to have real knowledge of Arabic.

Then brings up irrelevant stuff like kasra, fatha, damma (nominative case means "all of them&quot ? tempt

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=531

234 wa-idh/and when said we of lil'malikati/to the controllers (genitive) us'jud to adam

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=34784

1649 min/of dbbatin/moving creature wal-malikatu/and the controllers (nominative)

http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=58123

37150 or creation we of l-malikata/the controllers (accusative) females of and they witnessing

huruf

Sorry, wrong thread.

Ju5

@Noon waalqalami what i mean is malaika accomplish the verb if they are nominative, they can only accomplish the verb "prostrate/sjd" since after there is "and they are not arrogant", it would otherwise be bad grammar to say " some angels and they are not arrogant" the verb can't be "are" , it must be "sjd/prostrate". Since they prostrate/sjd it would make no sense to say "prostrate what is in earth and what is on heaven some creatures and the angels and they are not arrogant."

also, creatures are already on earth, so it would be redundant/or contradictory to say "what that is on earth/heaven prostrate, some creatures and the angels." because what is on earth would mean everything on earth. why then add some creatures and the malaika if everything on earth already prostrate. if you mean "whats is on earth" doesn't speak about everything on earth, then you have to specify what prostrate from the earth, so to link the sentence, min must mean "of/from". "prostrate what is in earth/heavens, some creatures" doesn't make sense or is redundant. the only way to make sense is to say, "prostrate what is on earth/heaven of creatures and the angels". min can't mean of and some at the same time since the indicator is not " a group of malaika, a part of malaika, the righteous malaika". The indicator is simply " creatures and angels/malaika"

So since creatures and malaika accomplish the verb sjd (they are nominative and accomplish the verb)
-if min means "some/a part of" creatures and the malaikas, it doesn't link with earlier "what is on earth and heaven". the sentence would need to be constructed to say something like "From earth and heaven a part of creatures/malaikas prostrate" / "a part of creatures /malaiika from earth/heaven prostrate to allah" / "To allah prostrate a part of creatures/malaika from earth heaven" "To allah prostrate what is on earth/heaven from some creatures/malaika".
The second part can't begin by "...the earth, a part of creatures and malaikas", because that would mean "what is on earth" speaks about everything on earth,because what is on earth wouldn't be specified to be a specific group, it would only be "what is on earth" , which would be contradictory. I remind that he creatures live on the earth.

So you want the little preposition "min" to mean "of some/ from some", but it can't mean these two things at the same time. some isn't specified. in the sentence min s job is to link the verb with the subject, subject being creatures and malaika of what is in earth/heaven, verb being sjd. According to this sentence, not everything in earth/heaven is fearful/not arrogant and do what is commanded the subject is "creatures and malaikas of what is in earth in heaven", the "min" must be used necessarily as of/from/among. The among wouldn't mean" among malaikas". It would mean among what is on earth/heaven. It can't mean both. And meaning "among malaika" would make the sentence make no sense.

The_Sardar

So you want the little preposition "min" to mean "of some/ from some", but it can't mean these two things at the same time. some isn't specified. in the sentence min s job is to link the verb with the subject, subject being creatures and malaika of what is in earth/heaven, verb being sjd. According to this sentence, not everything in earth/heaven is fearful/not arrogant and do what is commanded the subject is "creatures and malaikas of what is in earth in heaven", the "min" must be used necessarily as of/from/among. The among wouldn't mean" among malaikas". It would mean among what is on earth/heaven. It can't mean both. And meaning "among malaika" would make the sentence make no sense.

Forgive me but i don't remembering Noon saying min means some and from some at the same time.

The_Sardar

Also my knowledge on grammar is poor. I have no idea what nominative, genitive and accusative means.

good_logic

Peace All.

I am coming back one more time to explain clearly my take on 1649 ,because I have reread the posts and I have found that an explanation of this verse in detail is needed to put the matter to bed.

First the verse as I understand it
1649 To GOD "Yasjudu"( This is not getting on your knees /chin kind of prostration, this is submitting to GOD s overall control of everything) everything in the heavens (Ma Fi Al Samawat) and everything on earth (Ma fi Al Ard) from every different creature and the Malaika(Min Dabbattin Wa Malaika) This means every creature- including the human being-(single feminine) and the Malaika.. Without "Yastakbirun"(This is not free will arrogance, this is cannot choose other circumstances/other gods/have big heads over the matter...) They reverence/awareness of GOD s power....and they follow What GOD commands when He creates(GOD s overall laws(Physical laws...etc) and plan).

Notice how in 1315 GOD said ...Ysjudu to GOD everything on earth and everything in the havens...Willingly or unwillingly. This is exactly the same conditions i.e some willingly and some unwillingly.
Notice how in this surah GOD separated some of the willingly creations in 1648
Have they not seen all the things created by God? Their shadows surround them right and left, in total submission to God, and willingly.
Then you got the willingly and unwillingly living creatures and Malaika in 1649.
This is exactly the same subject and contest of 1315.
GOD s plan and purpose cannot be changed. GOD has already said be and it is.
This verse 1649 has nothing to do with our free will or Malaika s free will(Whether they have any or not...) or 234 or Iblees choosing his destiny.
This verse is about GOD s plan and purpose of all His creations.
.
I felt more detail was needed to clarify my view.
GOD bless.
Peace.

The_Sardar

Peace All.

I am coming back one more time to explain clearly my take on 1649 ,because I have reread the posts and I have found that an explanation of this verse in detail is needed to put the matter to bed.

First the verse as I understand it
1649 To GOD "Yasjudu"( This is not getting on your knees /chin kind of prostration, this is submitting to GOD s overall control of everything) everything in the heavens (Ma Fi Al Samawat) and everything on earth (Ma fi Al Ard) from every different creature and the Malaika(Min Dabbattin Wa Malaika) This means every creature- including the human being-(single feminine) and the Malaika.. Without "Yastakbirun"(This is not free will arrogance, this is cannot choose other circumstances/other gods/have big heads over the matter...) They reverence/awareness of GOD s power....and they follow What GOD commands when He creates(GOD s overall laws(Physical laws...etc) and plan).

Notice how in 1315 GOD said ...Ysjudu to GOD everything on earth and everything in the havens...Willingly or unwillingly. This is exactly the same conditions i.e some willingly and some unwillingly.
Notice how in this surah GOD separated some of the willingly creations in 1648
Have they not seen all the things created by God? Their shadows surround them right and left, in total submission to God, and willingly.
Then you got the willingly and unwillingly living creatures and Malaika in 1649.
This is exactly the same subject and contest of 1315.
GOD s plan and purpose cannot be changed. GOD has already said be and it is.
This verse 1649 has nothing to do with our free will or Malaika s free will(Whether they have any or not...) or 234 or Iblees choosing his destiny.
This verse is about GOD s plan and purpose of all His creations.
.
I felt more detail was needed to clarify my view.
GOD bless.
Peace.

What does single feminine means?

good_logic

Peace The Sardar.
Dabbatin is a single feminine word. In the verse it is highlights every single dabba -Every creature form all the different creatures.-In my opinion.
GOD bless you.
Peace

The_Sardar

Peace The Sardar.
Dabbatin is a single feminine word. In the verse it is highlights every single dabba -Every creature form all the different creatures.-In my opinion.
GOD bless you.
Peace

Well i check in http//quranix.org/16#49, d?bbatin is in feminine genitive definite INDEF noun, sadly i don't what does grammar terms are. Maybe someone who has classical arabic grammar knowledge know what it means.

good_logic

Peace The Sardar..
Sometimes the whole sentence gives the meaning ,in the case of 1649 ,the meaning comes from "everything in the heavens and everything on earth Min Dabbatin and the ,Malaika."
This whole sentence ,in my opinion, means -Every creature-Dabba--and the malaika.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

huruf

As I understand it and appears in at least some translation,

those who postrate to God are

everything that is on earth and heavens that moves,

al mala'ika

The mala'ka are not arrogant.

Salaam

huruf

Peace The Sardar..
Sometimes the whole sentence gives the meaning ,in the case of 1649 ,the meaning comes from "everything in the heavens and everything on earth Min Dabbatin and the ,Malaika."
This whole sentence ,in my opinion, means -Every creature-Dabba--and the malaika.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

to me the mala'ka are not included in the min dabbatin. Whether they are on earth or heaven or somehwere else or nowhere, is beside the point, but they are treated outside that clause.

It is a very interesting question in fact. Movement is a feature of matter. How do we consider mala'ika? As yet I have not made any specific consideration of angels and therefore have not arrived at anything final either. May be I am still under the "shaping" of the catholic teachings on them.

Hope more light is brought on this.

Salaam