Iblis?
-
Peace sister Marie, all,
Since I have any evidence from the Reading that the malaika are also jinn, and whatever the meaning attributed to the word illa (except, but...), my understanding at this stage about the satute of Iblis didn't change. Neither Adam nor Iblis lost their statutes (human being and jinn respectively) before and after they were driven out aljannat. 1850 is clear and didn't need any interpretation, imho.
I don't think that anyone here addressed the clear statement in 326 that "mlk" is a status that can be given to ANYONE and taken away from ANYONE by The God.
The controllers are not seperate "creatures" no more than messengers are seperate non-human "creatures" and we are asked to have faith in both. Messengership is a status given by The God to whom He wills in the same way that "mlk"/control is a status given by The God to whom He wills.
I hope this helps to clarify the issues.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
peace
you need to know what is the difference between "Molk" ans "Malak"
that is what is causing your confusion
Salam
-
Peace brother Ayman, all,
I don't think that anyone here addressed the clear statement in 326 that "mlk" is a status that can be given to ANYONE and taken away from ANYONE by The God.
Indeed the God grants almulk to whom He pleases and revokes it from whom HE pleases (326).
The descendants of Abraham were given a great mulk (454), Joseph was given a mulk (12101), Egypt was the mulk of Pharaoh (4351), that doesn't make them malaika in the light of the Reading. THose who are given the mulk on this earth and the God's malaika/malak are not the same thing.For me malak, messenger ..are a status not almulk.
I think the control given to the malaika has no thing with the mulk given to the human, the God's messengers and prophets. For example, malak of death (3211).
- Say If the Earth had Angels (mala-ikatun) walking about in security, We would have sent down to them from heaven an Angel (malakan) as a messenger.
Salam
-
Peace Ahmed,
no I'm sorry bro, it will not help my belief in any way, I'm also abiding by 5101-102, but be my guest to understand the quran the way you want it
Yes, you are free to believe in whatever you want, but don't parade your false Christian beliefs in angels flying around with white robes and halos on top of their heads and expect people here not to expose your falsehood.
Also, read 5101-102 carefully. 5101 clearly says that when the great reading is revealed the matters you ask about will become apparent. If you really beleive in 5101-102 then instead of your empty lip service, start to look for the clear answers in the great reading NOT in biblical mythology. Where did you get the following from?
- That "malaika"/controllers are the mythical biblical creatures called angels?
- That the trust/"amana" is free will?
THIS IS ALL FROM BIBLICAL MYTHOLOGY. Are you a disguised Christian pretending to believe in the great reading? ) I hope not.
well the knwledge I needed to make belief was acquired, now I don't need to open the doors for Satan to flaw my belief, but you are welcome to do it, I'm aviding with 5101-102
I can see that unlike 20114, you are happy with not progressing your knowledge. I think that this may sound great on a Sunni forum. However, here this will only make you lose credibility further.
no bro, you logic does not makie any sense to me, let me explain
you have freewill
the malaika don't
who is higher then?, well my 14 years old daughter answerd the question as the Humans are surely higherSince you claim to believe in the great reading, then please inform your daughter and everyone here where you got that the trust/"amana" is free will from. Please give the chapter and verse number from the great reading. We don't want to hear lame false excuses like according to 5101-102 we shouldn't gain knowledge.
I don't get what you say, but it is ok, I gained the knowledge to know God and I don;t need further knowledge about the secrets of the heaven and earth, I'm glad to wait till the judgment day to know
hell no what it will do to me if I know it now, lolWe are told to have faith in the controllers/"malaika". Instead of having faith in the real controllers/"malaika" described in the great reading, you have faith in enchanted mythical creatures called angels based on the man-made false Bible. Again, you can wait until judgment day to see if your fairy tales come true but until then don't parade your Biblical fairy tales around here and expect people to believe them and not object to such falsehood.
my fault I guess, sorry I meant his name not his nick name, and for God, i reckon He can so what He wants
It is not his name either. It is a description. This description as "shaitan" is common and is given to other than "iblis" as well.
well if it is, i reckon it is less conjecture that this flawed concept you want to convince me with, forget it as no way I will believe that flawed concept
Again, no one wants to convince you of anything. You are free to believe in any nonsense you want but then don't present it here and claim it to be "true" and expect rational folks not to shred your biblical falsehood to pieces.
don't show me anyth9ing but the Quran please, I donlt accept anything but the Quran, now according to the Quran context, it means literally to fool, and I will insist on this understanding
If you really believe in what you said and you are not a hypocrite then please show me where in the great reading it says that the trust/"amana" is free will. What context gives the meaning of fooling? Does it seem to you that The God is fooling around? You can insist on ignoring the clear Arabic meaning, which fits in the context since it is in line with ALL the other instances in the great reading where The God says that He guides and misguides whom He wills, but don't expect others to do the same.
3372 is clear. It is indisputable that one must have freedom of choice BEFORE he can accept or refuse something.
absolutely wrong, sorry but you have your freewill to understand it the way you want
In other words, you don't understand 3372. If you do then please explain how they were able to CHOOSE to accept or reject the trust without freedom of choice.
Again, faced with 3372 exposes your false Christian and sectarian idea that the trust is free will and there is nothing you can do about it.
well I'm not talking when God created the heavenm and earth I mean now, we donlt know tyhe past don't we?,
what you say is also a guessI am merely quoting 3372. 3372 is not a guess. It is the best information we have on what really happened. Perhaps if you stopped being happy with the Biblical falsehood that you call knowledge, you would start to positively contribute to the discussion of 3372 instead of brushing it aside as irrelevant history.
I reject the word controller to refer to the angels, sorry, but you can insist on using it, but please when you dialogie with me, using it confusee me as I don't know what you are talking about when you sau controllers
I am not writing for you. I am writing for the readers of this forum. It is not my problem that you can't translate Arabic words and seem unable to look them up in a dictionary.
I did not meant freewill only
the trust is to obey God while having a freewill
got it?OK so now when you are cornered you finally acknowledge that the trust cannot be "free will". Again, show everyone where in the great reading it says that the trust is to "obey The God while having free will".
you are a confuse, I said the trust is to obey God while having a freewill
Again, show everyone where in the great reading it says that the trust is to "obey The God while having free will".
no I?m not contradicting myself, it seems it is abit hard for your brain to process it
here it is again
let?s just talk about the earth
we know that the arth refused the Amana, which I guess to stay on course without freewill
now when the order come to execute, Allah is warning the earth that due to the fact it refused the Amanah (to have freewill and abide by God laws) , to stay on course willingly, or if it does not then it will be forced to stay on course unwillingly, because the earth has no freewill, the earth realized this freewill issue and submitted to Allah and declared that it will stay on course willinglyHow can the earth choose between "willingly OR unwillingly" if it doesn't have freedom of choice?
Please show us any passage from the great reading where it says that Allah's warning is due to the fact the earth refused the Amanah.
I?m sorry you are confused, humans can?t obey god and they will still live their life, so to classify humans that they will come to God unwillingly is misleading
We do come to The God and obey Him willingly or unwillingly. We can do it willingly now and if we don't then we will sure do it unwillingly in a few years when our time comes. What is a few years compared to the billions of years that the earth has been here? Relatively, it is less than a millisecond. So if you don't come willingly and obey, less than a millisecond later you will be forced to do it unwillingly and you will suffer a great deal in the process.
sorry, what is the relation of Iblis given the respite and him known the future
what a confusion, if that non sense is true, then why he didn?t know what will happen to him ?to prostrate??Who said that he didn't. All the controllers/"malaika" know that they must obey The God in order to be controllers/"malaika".
I reckon Iblis is confused, he is saying it to embarrass the humans, Iblis does not fear God, Allah never said that Iblis feared him, it is Iblis who he is saying it and sure Iblis is a clear cut liar
- And when the one who exceeded the limits decorated for them their works, and he said "There are no defeaters from the people for you today and I am a savior for you." So when the two groups saw each other, he returned on his two heels, and he said "I am innocent from you, I SEE/UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DO NOT SEE/UNDERSTAND, I fear The God, and THE GOD IS SEVERE IN PUNISHMENT."
Is it a lie that God is to be feared and that HE IS SEVERE IN PUNISHMENT? I don't think so. it doesn't matter who said it. This information is more true than any of your biblical fairy tales about pretty angels flying around in white robes.
So according to you someone who has freewill can't obey The God and only mindless mechanical things without ability to choose can obey Him. This is logically false.
well your logic is also false
Well at least you admit that your logic is false.
what I mean that with the freewill some humans will choose to obey God and some will choose not to obey God
is that hard to understand or what?This doesn't negate that other creatures don't have freedom of choice. It simply says that they CHOOSE to obey The God all the time.
well Allah only created the Humans and The Jinn for the Ibada (belief while having freewill)
sorry I did not see the angels or any other creature included with these twoThe word "3ibada" simply means serving. Where did you get that it means "while having free will" from? Please give that appropriate chapter and verse number from the great reading.
No, it doesn't make sense. There is nothing in the great reading that says that the controllers are mindless mechanical objects that have no freedom of choice.
I did not say that, but in the great reading, it only said Humans and Jinns were created to Belief in Allah using the freewill
By confusing "iman" (belief/faith) with "3ibada" (serving) you are only demonstrating your ignorance of the Arabic language and the fact that The God doesn't use such words haphazardly and hence they cannot be exchanged for one another.
This is based on your OWN IMAGINATION that The God also offered the "jinn" the trust. You then make more conjecture and claim that the trust/"amana" is free will without giving any reference from the great reading.
Non sense, sorry it does not mean that they raise a question that they have freewill, unless you understand it as they are not allowed to talk either
Well one does have to be free to choose to talk if he was not ordered to do so. The God clearly did not tell them "question His decision". So they must have chosen to do it by their own free will. This is common sense, which of course can't be expected from those who believe in Biblical fairy tales.
you are wrong, they didn?t hide themselves, it only means they discussed the matter between them thinking or possibly God read their minds
In 233, the word "katam" in Arabic means to conceal and this is reality that is supported by the context of the use of this word all over the great reading (242, 272, 2283,371, etc.). Only in your fantasy world it means "to discuss".
They CHOSE to act on their own and kill an innocent boy in 1880-81.
you are confused the verse does not talk about the angels, rather a righteous man whom Moses accompanied him
You are only demonstrating that you don't read the great reading properly. In 1880-81, people who can read carefully (especially those who can read Arabic) will immediately see the sudden shift to the plural so it was definitely not "the righteous man" but he and others. From the passage, it is clear that he was collaborating with others who knew the future. The only other entity that seems to know the future are the controllers in 230.
Malaika do not obey Adam, where you got this nonsense from?
From the fact that they did "sujud" for him. The word "sujud" primary meaning is obedience NOT wiping the floor with the forehead.
Well the above verse sayd if the earth is inhibited by Malaika, then Allah would have sent a Malak messeger to them, this is a response from Allah to the fool humans who though that Allah will send the angels as messengers
As you say, the passage says "if the earth is inhibited by Malaika" NOT "if the Malaika didn't have freedom of choice". Clearly, one would need a messenger to deliver guidance from The God only if he had free choice. So this is also a response by The God to the foolish humans who think that the controllers are some mechanical creatures without freedom of choice dressed in white and flying around with halos on their heads. The God can accomplish many things with few powerful words.
To be able to "question", you have to choose to question. Thus, you MUST have freedom of choice. From your statement, you seem to understand that our ability to question results from our freedom of choice but you fail to apply the same logic to the controllers. Thus, your statement above sounds contradictory.
again I insist on my understanding because rasing a question is allowed when it comes to the All Fair and Just Allah, but that does not mean they have freewill
How do they decide whether to ask a question or not? They must make a choice. Thus, they must have freedom of choice. This is indisputable so either bring a logical argument or stop wasting everyone's time.
Yafaloon Ma Yo?maroon? i.e they do what Allah ordered them to do
They do it because they choose to. They know that if they don't, they will not be controllers anymore.
Now I?m not sure if Allah allowed them to raise a question, but at least I know He did not prevent them from asking any question.
Either way, they had to CHOOSE to ask the question.
another Arabic ignorance comment,
well Molk does not means Malaika, it means you own something, like to be a KING, like KING FAHD
do you consider KING Fahd or the Queen of England, Malaika?
Mate you are a real confuserI clearly said that the Arabic word "malaika" means controllers NOT king. But hey, if you can't read the great reading properly then I shouldn't expect you to read my words properly.
no I didn?t fail, but it seems you failed to understand what the verse is talking about
a hint, King Fahd, and Queen Elizabeth, how about this hint ?Saddam Hussain?I clearly said "mlk" not "mlik". Or do you think that the "mlk" in 3211 a king will take the dead?!
Linguistically both words come from the root "M L K". In one instance, it means controller/owner, while in the other it means king (i.e. one who controls/owns the country). So although the two meanings are related, the meanings are slightly different and this can be seen from the context. However, the concept of "mlk"/control/ownership is the same.
Angels are mythical biblical creatures flying around in white robes and halos and I am sorry, but unlike you, I don't believe in biblical fairy tales.
well I do to a degree
You admit to believe in those Biblical fairy tales, yet here is what you said above, and I quote "Don't show me anything but the Quran please, I don't accept anything but the Quran." Of course, everyone can see the hypocrisy.
I would suggest that you try to understand that ?Molk? has nothing to do with ?Malak?
I would suggest that you look up the meaning of those words in Classical Arabic dictionaries before parading your ignorance on this forum and see that their meanings are given as controller/owner.
Also, please see passages such as 4377 where one of the controllers of hell is addressed as "ya malik" (O you who controls). So this leaves absolutely no doubt as to the meaning.
You are free to ignore the clear Arabic meaning and the indisputable evidence from the great reading but don't come here making baseless ignorant claims and expect no one to easily demolish them.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Peace sister Marie, all,
Indeed the God grants almulk to whom He pleases and revokes it from whom HE pleases (326).
The descendants of Abraham were given a great mulk (454), Joseph was given a mulk (12101), Egypt was the mulk of Pharaoh (4351), that doesn't make them malaika in the light of the Reading. THose who are given the mulk on this earth and the God's malaika/malak are not the same thing.For me malak, messenger ..are a status not almulk.
I think the control given to the malaika has no thing with the mulk given to the human, the God's messengers and prophets. For example, malak of death (3211).
Of course "mlk"/control/ownership is relative. Someone who controls one dollar is not the same as one who controls a million dollars, a country, death, or the forces of nature. This difference in degrees doesn't make the concept of "control" itself different.
There is no indication in 326 that The God only gives and takes "mlk"/control to and from humans. Do you think that The God cannot take the "mlk" away from any of the "malaika" if He decides to? I certainly hope not.
Sister, please translate "malak" and "almulk" for us so that we know what you mean.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Ayman
I read your comment and I don't have time to watse with you
sure I believe in the uncorrupted parts of the previous scripts, EXCATLY AS THE QURAN TOLD ME
and its value for me is exctly equel to the whole Quran, aren't all suppose to be from the same God, mister know it all?
I will show numerous verses from the Quran that expoases your hypocricy when you dent the previous scripture
how we can know the uncorrupted parts?, by comparring it woth the uncorrupted Quran
now no more discussion with ya, regarding the malaika, but with others my discussion wiol continue
peace
-
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