almalaika # aljinn
-
And on the Day when He gathers them all, He will say to the malaika Was it you that these people used to give ibadah ?
They will Say Be You glorified. You are our Lord, not them. No, most of them were giving ibadah the jinn; most were believers to them.To understand this verse, we have to understand 3 keywords ibadah , malaika , and jinn.
- ibadah
To give ibadah to Sth = to submit to sth, to serve sth, to worship sth
Cf http//www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/M_four_term/t4_ibadah.htm
Cf http//www.quranicteachings.co.uk/ibada.htm- malaika
In the general meaning, malaika are entities who possess power.
Cf http//www.quranicteachings.co.uk/malaika.htmSince the pagans used to attribute power to Allaat, Manaat and Al-`Uzzah, these idols are sometimes called malaika.
See the usage of malaika in the following verses.
Have you considered Allaat and Al-`Uzzah?
And Manaat, the third one?
Do you have the males, while He has the females?
What a strange distribution!
These are but names that you made up, you and your forefathers. God never authorized such. They only follow conjecture, and personal desire, while the guidance has come to them from their Lord.
Or shall the human being have what he wishes?
To God belongs the Hereafter, and the world.
And there are many malaika in heaven, who have no power to intercede, except after God gives permission for whom He wishes and is satisfied with him.
Those who disbelieve in the Hereafter have given the malaika feminine names.
While they had no knowledge about this; they only followed conjecture. And conjecture is no substitute for the truth.Has your Lord preferred for you the males, while He takes the females as malaika ! You are indeed saying a great thing!
So ask them Are the daughters for your Lord, while the sons are for them?
Or did We create the malaika as females while they witnessed?
Indeed, it is out of their falsehood that they Say
The son of God. And they are liars.
Has He chosen the daughters over the sons?
What is wrong with you, how do you judge?
Will you not remember?
Or do you have a clear proof?
Bring forth your scripture, if you are truthful.
And they invented a kinship between Him and the Jinn. But the Jinn know that they will be gathered.And they have made the malaika, who are servants of the Almighty, into females! Have they witnessed their creation? We will record their testimony, and they will be asked.
- Jinn
At many times in the Quran, God uses the word jinn to designate the leaders who have led ordinary people to give ibadah to idols in place of God.
And they made partners with God from among the Jinn, while He had created them. And they invented for Him sons and daughters without them having any knowledge! Be He glorified and far above what they describe.
In this verse, the jinn are said to have invented daughters (the 3 idols) to God. is referring to (see above).
So, in this verse, the jinn are nothing but those religious leaders who have led astray the ordinary people by inventing false gods, false beliefs, and false values.
Cf http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=63992#63992
- Back to
And on the Day when He gathers them all, He will say to the malaika (who were falsely called with the feminine names Allaat, Manaat and Al-`Uzzah) Was it you that these people used to serve / worship ?
They will Say Be You glorified. You are our Lord, not them. No, most of them were serving / worshipping the religious leaders ; most were believers to them.The lesson of this verse is that, when people are led astray in false beliefs, they are actually serving the interests of the religious leaders who are deceiving them.
Hope it will help,
Peace
- ibadah
-
Peace AB,
Of course I know the word used is ?Alamtana?, sorry for using the English word, you know that is always expected with translation, but don?t hold it against me, what is between me and you is the Arabic words of the Quran
Fair enough. However, for the sake of clarity and since this discussion is in English, try to use the English meaning slosest possible to the Arabic.
there is no such thing, and you need to prove it, I see what you say is nothing but conjecture
Is what they described in 230 not the future?
I?m trying, but I was a top Nahaw student would that not be enough?
Obviously it is not enough. Nahw itself has many errors in its rules and has become mostly useless. Thus, Modern Standard Arabic has largely done away with Nahw.
It is a well known fact that the Tashkil (vocalization marks) were added to the great reading over 300 years after its revelation and this is empirically verified in its extant manuscripts. In fact, even the non-marked text of the great reading does not follow the Nahw invented by the Persian Sibaweh. For example in 569 "sabi'una" should be "sabi'ina" according to Nahw. Another is "moqimin" should be "moqimun" in 4162. In 2177 "sabirin" should be "sabirun". Also. according to Nahw, "yakun" in 359 is in the wrong tense.
Of course, the above is rarely presented in Nahw classes where generally the emphasis is mostly on mindless memorization as opposed to intelligent critical thinking.
that is what I mean exactly from the same root in arabic we can exctract many words in different forms that even can oppose each other, this way of driving from the root called ?Wazn?
so both Malaika and Mamlook are coming from the same root ?Ma La Ka?,
the Wazn for Mamlook is ?Ma F?Ool?, commonly known
The Wazn of Malaika is ? Fa Aa Lika?, not commonly known which indicate is a pure name given to a creature
How could you have been a top Nahw student and make such error? Even my beginning students do not make such errors.
The form (Wazn) of "malaika" CANNOT be "Fa Aa Lika" because the Kaf is part of the root MLK and thus cannot be added to the Wazn. This is emlementary and, like I said, even my beginning second level Arabic students know this.
For your information and for the sake of correcting the falsehood that you are propagating on this forum, the Wazn of "malaika" is "fa3A'ILa" (F 3 A 'I L (t)) NOT "Fa Aa Lika". Notice that in the correct Wazn, the Kaf is gone.
This form (Wazn) is common and one can easily see many examples of it. For instance, the word "tara'ib" in 867 (Wazn fa3A'IL), has the same exact form except it is in the masculine. The feminine adds intensification but doesn't change the meaning.
So your example actually confirms that the meaning of "mlk"/"malk" as controller/owner since its "mf3ul" form means "one who is controlled/owned" (a slave).
what you say is total misleading, the root of both is Ma La Ka, NOT ?Mlk/Malk?
you are wrong
now let me hear your answer to this
the Quran told us that the angel master of hell is named ?Malik?, how can you explain that?Everyone who has properly read even the first chapter of the great reading (Al-Fatiha) knows that the word "malik" is not the proper name of the controller of hell but it is a description. Thus it is used to describe other than the controller of hell. For example, it is used to describe The God in 14 and 326.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Peace MQ,
Hmm, but they don't know anything except as you quoted 'alamtana' (what you have taught us). Are you saying Allah knows the future and taught them thus?
The God doesn't just know the future. He knows all possible futures. He knows the future that will happen had you chose not to write this message and the future that will now happen because you did.
Ok, i cant deduce that yet, but very well spotted indeed. Faaradna is proof that this guy wasnt acting alone. Cheers for that.
Thank you for your kindness brother. I think that more important than spotting something is to try to understand the lesson that The God gives us by it. This is the more difficult part and it takes time.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Kyle,
So your example actually confirms that the meaning of "mlk"/"malk" as controller/owner since its "mf3ul" form means "one who is controlled/owned" (a slave).
Excellent. I already had the position of malaika as controller, but this really seals the deal.
We can both thank Ahmed Bahgat for that )
Also, good spot on the plural in the story of Musa and the teacher.
I think that the lesson learned from this passage is more important. I would be interested in learning your insights about it.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace AB,
Peace
Of course I know the word used is Alamtana, sorry for using the English word, you know that is always expected with translation, but dont hold it against me, what is between me and you is the Arabic words of the Quran
Fair enough. However, for the sake of clarity and since this discussion is in English, try to use the English meaning slosest possible to the Arabic.
I can't promise really, I'm gettin old you know
there is no such thing, and you need to prove it, I see what you say is nothing but conjecture
Is what they described in 230 not the future?
no, because the verse nevers said they know the "Ghaib" and also verse 232 clealy says that they know nothing but what Allah already told them and surely Allah shut them up
Im trying, but I was a top Nahaw student would that not be enough?
Obviously it is not enough. Nahw itself has many errors in its rules and has become mostly useless. Thus, Modern Standard Arabic has largely done away with Nahw.
now you are starting to talk crap, well, it is your opinion I guess
It is a well known fact that the Tashkil (vocalization marks) were added to the great reading over 300 years after its revelation and this is empirically verified in its extant manuscripts. In fact, even the non-marked text of the great reading does not follow the Nahw invented by the Persian Sibaweh. For example in 569 "sabi'una" should be "sabi'ina" according to Nahw. Another is "moqimin" should be "moqimun" in 4162. In 2177 "sabirin" should be "sabirun". Also. according to Nahw, "yakun" in 359 is in the wrong tense.
obviously you are the one that knows nothing abouot Nahaw, all what you mentioned above has been refuted and is 100% gramatically correct according to the Nahaw that you call full of errors, but sorry I don't have time to prove it to you, I did for myself and I'm statisfied with what i found
Of course, the above is rarely presented in Nahw classes where generally the emphasis is mostly on mindless memorization as opposed to intelligent critical thinking.
there is no grammar error in the Quran, I'm 100% positive, but I will classify you that you chose to follow discord, now ikt is not my job to prove that the Quran has no grammar error, it is your job for yourself and you concluded it has, so good luck when you give account
that is what I mean exactly from the same root in arabic we can exctract many words in different forms that even can oppose each other, this way of driving from the root called Wazn
so both Malaika and Mamlook are coming from the same root Ma La Ka,
100%
the Wazn for Mamlook is Ma FOol, commonly known
The Wazn of Malaika is Fa Aa Lika, not commonly known which indicate is a pure name given to a creature
How could you have been a top Nahw student and make such error? Even my beginning students do not make such errors.
well, I'm not immune to errors and when I was a top nahaw student , that was 20 years ago, possibly you were not born then, now I donlt work with Nahaw I work with comuters, bridges, building, tunnels, things that may sound very hard to you
The form (Wazn) of "malaika" CANNOT be "Fa Aa Lika" because the Kaf is part of the root MLK and thus cannot be added to the Wazn. This is emlementary and, like I said, even my beginning second level Arabic students know this.
ok, I accept the mistake and it should be "Fa La I'Aa"
you know I'm getting older, but what is your point?
they both have the same root and I insist on that
For your information and for the sake of correcting the falsehood that you are propagating on this forum, the Wazn of "malaika" is "fa3A'ILa" (F 3 A 'I L (t)) NOT "Fa Aa Lika". Notice that in the correct Wazn, the Kaf is gone.
it seems you are a jerk and not worth talking to prick like you
at least I admit my mistake.
now you have been black listed and the rest of your crap will be ignored
This form (Wazn) is common and one can easily see many examples of it. For instance, the word "tara'ib" in 867 (Wazn fa3A'IL), has the same exact form except it is in the masculine. The feminine adds intensification but doesn't change the meaning.
So your example actually confirms that the meaning of "mlk"/"malk" as controller/owner since its "mf3ul" form means "one who is controlled/owned" (a slave).
what you say is total misleading, the root of both is Ma La Ka, NOT Mlk/Malk
you are wrong
now let me hear your answer to this
the Quran told us that the angel master of hell is named Malik, how can you explain that?Everyone who has properly read even the first chapter of the great reading (Al-Fatiha) knows that the word "malik" is not the proper name of the controller of hell but it is a description. Thus it is used to describe other than the controller of hell. For example, it is used to describe The God in 14 and 326.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
Ignored
what a prick you are
-
Salaam Ahmed,
Can you recommed me a book for the Nahw of Classical Arabic ? Im eager to see the non-conformity of al-quraan in some places.
Ok bro I will contact my brother and sisters in Egypt and ask them to buy me a good one then I can work it out with you, I'm not sure if I will be able to find an english one but I can help in translating/explaining the arabic one
peace
-
Ok bro I will contact my brother and sisters in Egypt and ask them to buy me a good one then I can work it out with you, I'm not sure if I will be able to find an english one but I can help in translating/explaining the arabic one
Oh man, you don't have to go through that kind of trouble. If you just quote the title for us, that'd be fine. I can get it here from a local bookshop.
-
Ok bro I will contact my brother and sisters in Egypt and ask them to buy me a good one then I can work it out with you, I'm not sure if I will be able to find an english one but I can help in translating/explaining the arabic one
Oh man, you don't have to go through that kind of trouble. If you just quote the title for us, that'd be fine. I can get it here from a local bookshop.
No trouble bro, I thank you for giving me the idea, I would love to revive my nahaw again and I'm one of those very determined humans, it is going to happen bro and I will get one of the top books in Nahaw inshaaallah and we can study it together
peace bro
-
No trouble bro, I thank you for giving me the idea, I would love to revive my nahaw again and I'm one of those very determined humans, it is going to happen bro and I will get one of the top books in Nahaw inshaaallah and we can study it together
Ah excellent, thanks. I read chapter 46 yesterday and foundAnd before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy And this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right.
The thing is, there's no 'in' or 'fee' there. Its just 'wa haadha kitaab musaddiqan lisaanan arabiyan'. So this book confirms the Arabic language.
This means a lot to me in terms of my approach to tafseer.
-
No trouble bro, I thank you for giving me the idea, I would love to revive my nahaw again and I'm one of those very determined humans, it is going to happen bro and I will get one of the top books in Nahaw inshaaallah and we can study it together
Ah excellent, thanks. I read chapter 46 yesterday and foundAnd before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy And this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right.
The thing is, there's no 'in' or 'fee' there. Its just 'wa haadha kitaab musaddiqan lisaanan arabiyan'. So this book confirms the Arabic language.
This means a lot to me in terms of my approach to tafseer.
Bro, I'm excited I just hanged up with my step mother in Cairo and explained to her what I need exactly and she will look for it from today
regarding the language bro, as far as I know that The Quran made the arabic famous not the other way around, it also fixed a lot of flaw in the language, i.e. plenty of nahaw was based on the Quran
Allah is our arabic teacher bro
peace be with you
-
Peace all,
obviously you are the one that knows nothing abouot Nahaw, all what you mentioned above has been refuted and is 100% gramatically correct according to the Nahaw that you call full of errors, but sorry I don't have time to prove it to you, I did for myself and I'm statisfied with what i found
The great reading is not wrong but it is the later invented Nahw that is wrong. Many people who are far more knowledgeable than him have tried to refute this and failed so his claim that the Nahw errors have been refuted is another empty boast (like "top Nahw student" ) and hence he gives a lazy excuse for not proving it. This is typical of those who like to arrogantly boast and talk but are lacking when it comes to substance and actions (26226). Now he can easily prove me wrong to the readers of the forum by bringing such proof but I doubt he will.
it seems you are a jerk and not worth talking to prick like you
at least I admit my mistake.
now you have been black listed and the rest of your crap will be ignoredAB is obviously all mad that he was forced to admit his ignorant Nahw mistake that my "crap" exposed . Certainly, a mature person who really admits his mistake doesn't go into such a childish kicking and screaming tantrum when his clear mistake is pointed out.
AB, there is no need for you to be a cry baby. As I said, I write not for you but for the benefit of the readers of this forum to expose whatever falsehood anyone tries to promote. It is nothing personal. So unless you can add value by bringing any proof, then please just ignore my posts.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Peace all,
obviously you are the one that knows nothing abouot Nahaw, all what you mentioned above has been refuted and is 100% gramatically correct according to the Nahaw that you call full of errors, but sorry I don't have time to prove it to you, I did for myself and I'm statisfied with what i found
The great reading is not wrong but it is the later invented Nahw that is wrong. Many people who are far more knowledgeable than him have tried to refute this and failed so his claim that the Nahw errors have been refuted is another empty boast (like "top Nahw student" ) ) and hence he gives a lazy excuse for not proving it. This is typical of those who like to arrogantly boast and talk but are lacking when it comes to substance and actions (26226). Now he can easily prove me wrong to the readers of the forum by bringing such proof but I doubt he will.
it seems you are a jerk and not worth talking to prick like you
at least I admit my mistake.
now you have been black listed and the rest of your crap will be ignoredAB is obviously all mad that he was forced to admit his ignorant Nahw mistake that my "crap" exposed ). Certainly, a mature person who really admits his mistake doesn't go into such a childish kicking and screaming tantrum when his clear mistake is pointed out.
AB, there is no need for you to be a cry baby. As I said, I write not for you but for the benefit of the readers of this forum to expose whatever falsehood anyone tries to promote. It is nothing personal. So unless you can add value by bringing any proof, then please just ignore my posts.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
Ignored
-
Peace bro Ayman,
Completely agree with you, there is no problem in bringing proof and discussing substance. The lack thereof is very revealing. There is additionally no need to use such blatantly abusive language in any discussion.
-
Peace be upon you Ahmed,
As a moderator, I must ask you to please watch the language you use here. Also, if you plan to ignore any posts, please do so without copying the entire post you plan to ignore.
-
Peace be upon you Ahmed,
As a moderator, I must ask you to please watch the language you use here. Also, if you plan to ignore any posts, please do so without copying the entire post you plan to ignore.
bro this guy was informed that he will be igored due to his arrogance and rudness, and he still does not want to let it go
he makes me laugh actually lol
also bro I didn't use any language after the matter was taken care by Marie, I think it was moved to the trash by marie, however he bloody called me mad and I didn't respond
or MAD is ok to say, because it should be fine with me to call him crazy
or do you think MAD is acceptable and crazy is not?
peace bro
-
Peace bro Ayman,
Completely agree with you, there is no problem in bringing proof and discussing substance. The lack thereof is very revealing. There is additionally no need to use such blatantly abusive language in any discussion.
Peace
what do you mean?
do you agree about his insulting crap that I'm mad?
I really would like to know, my blacklist only have one person and I would like to fill it please
peace
-
Peace,
I really would like to know, my blacklist only have one person and I would like to fill it please
I now find lists appalling, I used to think they were symbolic but 'round here they arn't apparently.
-
Peace,
I really would like to know, my blacklist only have one person and I would like to fill it please
I now find lists appalling, I used to think they were symbolic but 'round here they arn't apparently.
ok, thanks for answering my question clearly
peace